But a pig confined to a pin so small it cannot even lay down, with a floor covered ankle high in feces, and so on as is typical of industrial farming, is an animal who's conscious experience of life is being disregarded by the keeper. The keeper's practice is therefore morally wrong.

But isn't the ultimate disregard for the animal's conscious experience the killing of the animal?

I'm just trying to understand why a person would think that killing an animal isn't as, if not more, morally wrong, as making the animal live in horrible conditions.

Zetherin wrote:



Killing to obtain food is a main structural part of natures process on this planet since billion of years /since the beginning of life here and certainly the ingenious creator of the natural rules has taken care that there is no lasting agony connected with that (with tools like shock etc).

Zetherin wrote:



Killing to obtain food is a main structural part of natures process on this planet since billion of years /since the beginning of life here and certainly the ingenious creator of the natural rules has taken care that there is no lasting agony connected with that (with tools like shock etc).

All animals in the free nature without exception will experience the danger to fall a prey during their life. To be killed means to die, and this is something every living thing will experience anyway.

So, every living thing has to die, but also all creatures have got the natural right to live the interesting, exiting and amazing life in the way they have created themselves. (Their physically body is designed to fit like a stone into a puzzle and that allows the amazing and exiting free life-experience)

Contrary to that holding a living thing in captivity under cruel circumstances for its entire life is not allowed under natures laws, and there are tools installed in the natures rules to prevent such a development in the free nature (see above explanations).

Sorry to say it directly, but I am 100% convinced that those of you arduously trying to find excuses for your dirty deeds (buying and consuming products of creatures that spend their entire live in cruel captivity), do only fight to avoid admitting what a horror you are creating (with full responsibility). You are not willing to accept any renunciations to live in the right (respectful) way regarding the weaker creatures, but instead your only goal is to live out complete and unbridled arrogance to satisfy your egoistical needs.

You are stronger and much more powerful than these poor animals (due to our leaving of the frame of free nature). But absolutely guaranteed there is not a cold computer in the background of the physical existence but something with extremely deep sense for justice and beauty. Ignoring the weaker living things and the natural rules will be connected with paying a very high price.

___________________________
www.basicrule.info

Thinking ahead, planning, plotting etc... is probably the one thing that has made humanity so successful. It would be against our nature not to plan ahead. It is a structural part of our natural process. Hunter gatherers do it (seasonal rounds), slash and burn agriculturalists do it, pastoralists do it, agriculturalists do it. Functionally ranching is no different than farming and neither is any different than food storage. Humans have just found a more efficient way to pre-store food. Live food cannot rot. Non-humans store food for the future. Alligators stuff it away in cutbanks, Squirrels store nuts in trees, Bears store fat in their own bodies. Ranchers store food in corals. Farmers store food in barns, Orchard owners store it on trees.

Oh.

So this was about God after all. I thought for a moment you were going to present a carefully reasoned argument.

This is me: :run:

We are discussing cruel captivity for creatures that have developed to live a free live, not about food-storage. Sorry but it is clear you just try to flee from the reality and it seems you already understand (just not accepting)

Certainly the arguments are carefully reasoned otherwise you would have been able to counter them.

We are talking about food storage, for that is the reason that the animals are held 'in captivity'. If the function was keeping them in captivity for entertainment purposes we might be having another conversation.

I'm sorry but it seems that you are trying to flee from reality and it seems that you don't understand that we are by nature a species that maximizes its success by manipulating other species, just like any other species does. We just happen to be better at it.

How am I supposed to counter the, "ingenious creator of the natural rules"?

All you've told us is that God doesn't want us holding animals captive, and if we do, we'll "pay a very high price".

I still don't even know what natural rules you're speaking of. Bother to clarify? I asked for a pamphlet. Thanks.

But you can try counter my arguments instead of fleeing. For example when I say you are responsible for the cruelties toward the animals thats products you are consuming.

If you have read my posts in this thread you would have had some information already

Are you sure that is all I have told you? Maby you have read only three phrases of more than a hundred that I have presented.

Certainly there has never been any captivity before we have created it.

Something has taken care that there can never be any kind of real captivity inside the system of the free nature, the tool to ensure that is a simple logic: A creature concentrating on stealing the freedom of another to arrange a durable food source, would automatically run into a blind ally. All creatures without exception, have created themselves by finding niches in each other's existence and all major characteristics of every living thing is constructed to fit like a very complex stone, into the much more complex puzzle of free nature. An animal that would use forcibly captivity for its own surviving would put energy into something that will automatically vanish pretty soon by degenerating or changing, just like sand will run through your fingers.

There has never been any species that has adapted to stay in captivity and there will never be one in this universe. Mankind's arrogant self-delusions in this matter are based on the fact that, for example, large mammal species become easier to handle when some important behavioural patterns have been reared away, which indeed is possible in a relatively short time. These misconceptions are also based on the inability to distinguish between free nature's main structures of symbiosis and parasitism on the one hand, and humans' invention of captivity on the other. Dogs might have adapted into a state of symbiosis with humans, and there are billion variations in the nature, mostly invisible for us.

However, the belief that cattle or pigs are already adapted to the state of captivity into which we have forced them is just an illusion. These species are already in a process of severe degeneration since our regarding activities began only a few thousand years ago. And this process is vastly accelerating, now that the natural races have almost completely vanished during the last centuries

As for the symbiosis between aphids and ants, the classical point of discussion when trying to find captivity in the free nature, the parties are contrary since many decades. One side is sure that the aphids are the winners of this connection, as they would need very little energy to keep armies of very strong bodyguards, while other scientists (often those with connections to the agricultural industry) will do everything to find a disadvantage on the side of the aphids.
The last phrase of the article quoted by GoshisDead is typical example:
Quote:
[QUOTE]
Professor Vincent Jansen of Royal Holloway's School of Biological Sciences, concludes: "Although both parties benefit from the interaction, this research shows is that all is not well in the world of aphids and ants. The aphids are manipulated to their disadvantage: for aphids the ants are a dangerous liaison.

I am a believer in animal rights against torture and cruelty, but I am an advocate of consuming animal products from food to clothing. I don't consider humanity cruel for domesticating and keeping livestock, but maybe that's because I have a different measure of cruelty than you.

Steffen, if your realization about these things came from a lengthy solo wilderness trip, is it surprising that people who haven't done such things are unconvinced by your opinion? Generally, the more time people spend in the outdoors, the more important it is to them for it to be conserved.

Certainly the arguments are carefully reasoned otherwise you would have been able to counter them.

Nearly everyone here has pointed out logical inconsistencies in your sentiments.

can't speak for everyone else, but your attempt to make me feel guilty for supporting (by consumption) industrial farming has failed. To some degree I do feel sorry for animals that live in those conditions. I just don't feel sorry enough to object to it. Blame it on my appetite.

My opinion is absolute clear, I am sure that the things that we are doing with the weaker animals in brutal and cruel captivity is a major sin and pure horror, that this is only possible to create when having left the frame of free nature and that it is impossible to do such things without fatal consequences. And I am absolute sure about the fact that everybody consuming this tortured creatures is in fact the keeper.

If you (I mean all who think different) are absolute certain about your standpoints and if you can live with what you are doing, who knows, maybe then it is ok for you to stay on at this level.

But isn't the ultimate disregard for the animal's conscious experience the killing of the animal?

I'm just trying to understand why a person would think that killing an animal isn't as, if not more, morally wrong, as making the animal live in horrible conditions.

I really have no idea how people can hold such a position.

I mean that it seems to me there are many meat-eaters who have a big problem with how animals are kept. In other words, it appears they have no problem with the animal dying for food, as long as the animal is able to live a clean, free life. Isn't that right?

It just seems strange to me that they have no qualms about the death of the animal in and of itself. The qualms come into play in regards to the conditions the animal is kept prior to death.

Are there any conditions for which it would be morally right to keep them in these conditions? For example, would it be morally permissible if our nutritional requirements demanded it?

hue-man wrote:


Guarantied there can never be a necessity to treat animals that arrogant and ignorant as it is done in these days and therefor it is certainly not "morally permissible"

Anyway, let's take the following situation: I am lost, no communication tool and alone with four little kids. We are hiding in a cave, dangerous predators around and the winter close at hand. It seems there will be no valuable food available and no chance to leave the cave for month. I see a colony of rabbits and I would know they will not be available for hunting in the wintertime. Without any doubt I would catch as many of the rabbits as possible to keep them in the cave.

But now, in this situation as a reflecting human being, and responsible for the kids, I would also do everything possible to give the rabbits the most comfort that I can create. And I would take advantage of the situation to teach the kids that it is very important to treat these animals as respectful as possible. I would even try to convince them to accept renunciations, for example take a not so comfortable place to sleep in order to provide a good place for the rabbits. When spring arrives, we would free the remaining animals and the kids will have learned the most valuable thing possible.

So now, let's go up to reality: We are not sitting in a cave with four little kids, we are sitting on a couch with our fat ass while billions of animals suffering in the hell that we have created because of borderless greed and ignorance.

Mankind has not found the most valuable thing and is now almost completely bestialized (without understanding this). Not having found respect toward the weaker living things despite our extreme power (connected with having left the frame of free nature) is the root cause for complete self-destruction very soon (physical for our species and spiritual for you as individual.). As said, this is based on pure logic.

___________________________
www.basicrule.info