Hunting Act 2004 Comes Into Force At 12am

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Mar 2 2005, 10:56 PM
Dom, you say "how dare anybody force me to be vegetarian?". Would you give cannibalism the same defence or would it not apply to that because you could end up on the menu?
Click to expand...
Tom, you can hardly compare cannibalism to omnivorism - after all, humans were evolved to eat meat; in fact it would be questionable whether or not the human race would have survived to the extent it has were the early humans all herbivores.

You say you are not taking a moral high ground - in stating that you believe that humans should not be eating meat you appear to be occupying some fairly high ground to me! Out of interest, you didn't answer the question regarding whether or not you wear leather & whether you are a vegan? With the views you hold on the subject, I would fully expect you to be vegan!

Maybe this is a pointless thread; if every pointless thread was deleted then there would be precious little that would be discussed! It's easy to say "face it, you've lost" but my point would be (as already posted on this thread) that I'm not of the viewpoint that we have lost - hunting will go on in a manner very similar to the way it did before with a couple of small changes. I think that it is a good compromise if it can carry on like this & think it has turned out quite well so far - time will tell how it sorts itself out but I think that this has turned out to be a middle way that could work quite well.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Mar 3 2005, 10:09 AM
you can hardly compare cannibalism to omnivorism
Click to expand...
Yes you can, just because cannibalism is socially unacceptable in our society, doesn't mean that you're not eating meat.

Although on the subject, how many prides of lions do you think are currently debating whether or not they should tear that gazelle apart and scoff heartily upon it's bloody remains or just have some of those leaves a bit like the elephants. You can picture it now...

"It'll make us more civilised if we eat leaves, we don't want to be at the same level as a mere leopard, we are kings of the jungle don't you know."
"Bollocks, I can almost taste the rump of that one, look at it, so succulent and tasty and young and unable to run as fast as me"
"Don't you tell me I'm talking bollocks, that's so offensive, I want you to take that back right now"
"Shan't, and I'm going to rip that fucker to pieces right now, anybody with me?"
"Right, that's it, I'm going to complain about you"
 
It's an interesting question as to whether human beings are natural carnivores or not - certainly our teeth and claws (nails) don't appear to be designed for tearing flesh.

As far as cannibalism is concerned, I find that at times I have only gone a slight way towards that...
 
I have many issues with how animals are used for our benefit when there are alternatives and one of them is how geese are force fed to produce larger livers to provide mainly the French food industry with Pate de fois gras,

The EU has said that it will let it continue for another 15 years to allow the French to find an alternative !

There have been approx 30,000 small farms set up in Hungary to produce the livers mainly to supply the French.

To say there are no alternatives is a bloody joke seeing as the French is reakoned to be the gastronomic mecca in the world.

Please don't give me echoes of 'it is their heritage'
 
As I say, it's an interesting discussion.

"The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short, pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding. The canines are greatly elongated and dagger-like for stabbing, tearing and killing prey. The molars (carnassials) are flattened and triangular with jagged edges such that they function like serrated-edged blades."

The above certainly doesn't describe human dental arrangements. More of a fairly persuasive argument here:

Carnivore, Omnivore or Herbivore?
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Mar 3 2005, 12:09 PM
after all, humans were evolved to eat meat; in fact it would be questionable whether or not the human race would have survived to the extent it has were the early humans all herbivores.
Click to expand...
Dom, with that kind of thinking we'll surely evolve no further. The fact is we have the intelligence to rise above innate tendancies and anyone can survive healthily on a meat free diet.



Out of interest, you didn't answer the question regarding whether or not you wear leather & whether you are a vegan? With the views you hold on the subject, I would fully expect you to be vegan!
Click to expand...

As far as eating goes I'm vegan but I already admitted in an earlier post that I was ashamed to say I still wore leather. All leather does not imply murder (e.g. American horsehide is such that you're guaranteed the horse died of natural causes) but I'd agree it's a cop out anyway. Does that render everything I've said wrong? Does that make me the same as you? If I had an argument with a jew would that make me a member of the SS?
 
No, it doesn't render everything you've said wrong, I just find it interesting that anyone who is vehement that we (as humans) should not eat meat for moral reasons does still utilise leather. Don't forget that I am forever labelled as a blood thirsty sadist by many just because I am pro-hunting - it doesn't mean I think that all animals should have the crap beaten out of them, or that I agree with bear baiting or similar.

I'm not sure I follow your thinking of evolving further either, really. Is it necessary for us to change our ways so that we don't eat meat? I don't think so, you obviously have a different opinion, so we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Once you get into a subject like that, it throws so many other issues wide open - should we stop driving as the fumes are deadly to flora, fauna & wildlife, or because of the massive amount of animals that are killed by vehicles very day, or because we are destroying their habitats when building new roads?

Brian, I will have a look at the site you have posted when I can. From the education I received I would say that humans were certainly evolved to be omnivores & I would also question how successful homo sapiens would have been as a species if they were herbivores - from the studying I did in Biology & Archaeology I would suggest that the species would possibly not exist in the way it does today if that were the case. Evolution is a competitve field - would humans have survived until the present day if they were denied the opportunity to eat meat? Certainly in the very early stages of man I, personally, do not think that the species couldhave survived on vegatation alone. I agree, it certainly makes for an interesting subject.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Mar 3 2005, 01:51 PM
From the education I received I would say that humans were certainly evolved to be omnivores & I would also question how successful homo sapiens would have been as a species if they were herbivores - from the studying I did in Biology & Archaeology I would suggest that the species would possibly not exist in the way it does today if that were the case. Evolution is a competitve field - would humans have survived until the present day if they were denied the opportunity to eat meat? Certainly in the very early stages of man I, personally, do not think that the species couldhave survived on vegatation alone. I agree, it certainly makes for an interesting subject.
Click to expand...
Dom, what's that got to do with anything? I'm not suggesting that the morals of vegitarianism are 'backdateable'. Are you saying that if some disease wiped all non-human, non-plant life off the face of the earth then you'd commit suicide because you'd either starve or be unable to reach your full potential?
 
Which is rather like suggesting that a person with an IQ of 150 is more worthy of life than one with an IQ of 110, is it not?

The way I see that particular point is that it comes down to humans deciding that they are so superior that they can choose which organisms live or die. Some decide that they are only superior enough just to kill plant based organisms, others, like me, decide that I am superior enough to kill the lot of them that taste any good. Until that lion from my earlier post works out that I don't have a gun ,can't run as fast as it and my butt looks quite tasty in these 501's. :D
 
It is impossible to fully address the moral implications of eating meat without thinking about the significance of life and death. Otherwise one is in danger of hypocrisy, stemming from our separation from the fact of death behind each piece of meat we eat. The physical and social distance from slaughterhouse to dinner table insulates us from the fear and pain the animals feel as they are led to the slaughter, and turns a dead animal into just "a piece of meat." Such distance is a luxury our ancestors did not have: in ancient hunting and farming societies, killing was up close and personal, and it was impossible to ignore the fact that this was recently a living, breathing animal.
 
and the difference that this eloquent speech makes to the plain fact of what I am doing? That I don't have to clean up the mess? It doesn't alter the fact that I can, if I so desire, choose to eat anything, animal or plant, which I, or anyone else has killed. Or not, as my feeling of superiority over the rest of the world dictates.
 
The cruelty is appalling, but no less so than the environmental effects. Meat animals are fed anywhere from five to fifteen pounds of vegetable protein for each pound of meat produced—an unconscionable practice in a world where many go hungry. Whereas one-sixth an acre of land can feed a vegetarian for a year, over three acres are required to provide the grain needed to raise a year's worth of meat for the average meat-eater.
 
Now that's a much better argument. Not going to make me change my mind on the subject. but at least it's got some purpose to it. I admit that I'm not a hundred percent on this bit, but I would dispute the 1/6 of an acre stat though. 1/3 of an acre is not sufficient to keep a family of five in veg beside their meat (as witnessed by me), so it would seem to me that 1/6 just wouldn't do the job for 1 person for a year.
 
Which is rather like suggesting that a person with an IQ of 150 is more worthy of life than one with an IQ of 110, is it not?
Click to expand...

Are the winning distances involved not much greater?

The way I see that particular point is that it comes down to humans deciding that they are so superior that they can choose which organisms live or die. Some decide that they are only superior enough just to kill plant based organisms, others, like me, decide that I am superior enough to kill the lot of them that taste any good.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that takes you back to the cannibalism point. I suppose most people who fancied that would desist on the basis it would make them abhorrent to others (although that begs the question - why do people eat garlic?).
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Mar 3 2005, 02:00 PM
Are the winning distances involved not much greater?
Click to expand...
I daresay, but you see my point.

Most people probably desist (from cannibalism) on the basis that they'll get banged up. That and years of reinforcement of social conditioning that it is a bad thing (and before you grab hold of that one, social conditioning because people don't like to think that their neighbour is going to munch them).

I eat garlic because I love the way it makes my, erm, excess gases somewhat more lethal than mustard gas. Oh and it tastes nice too.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Mar 3 2005, 04:06 PM
Most people probably desist (from cannibalism) on the basis that they'll get banged up. That and years of reinforcement of social conditioning that it is a bad thing (and before you grab hold of that one, social conditioning because people don't like to think that their neighbour is going to munch them).
Click to expand...
Does this mean that your morals are based on doing as you're told and/or that which will endear you to the majority in your environment.
 
Planet Earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision not to eat meat.
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Mar 3 2005, 02:46 PM
Does this mean that your morals are based on doing as you're told and/or that which will endear you to the majority in your environment.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that it probably does. Just like the rest of society. Although I would suggest that I am a damn sight more willing to resist doing something "because it's always been done that way" than the majority of people. If the option is eat someone, who may or may not be tasty, or willing, and endure buggery in Bar-L for the next 25 years or do what I'm told and maintain my endearment to the upholders of the law by chomping down on some lamb kebabs skewered on rosemary and smothered in chilli flakes, with some tzatziki and pitta bread on the side, then I know which one I'll be choosing.
 
Rival, I've seen/read many pieces of evidence of planet earth's suffering. None of them mention this as a factor. Can you direct me to some non-biased evidence of this?
 
Back
Top