Animals..friend or food? Perhaps both!

AssassinsMace said:

Yeah. Hence why I said the Chinese are not as hypocritical than those outside that point the finger in denial of how they treat animals for food. And do you realise that everyone outside of China thinks they're not Chinese? Just like how the Western media thinks they're the ones that brought attention in China of the little girl run over by two cars and no one did nothing. There was already domestic outrage before the Western media picked it up. But they made it like Chinese people are heartless and absolutely no one did anything until the Western media brought attention to it.

Click to expand...

Western hypocrisy does exist but not everything has to be seen in that context.
I for one am glad the Chinese government is not treating the issue of animal rights as one of them vs the west.
Not only by allowing these dog rescues to continue but also with another animal rights issue of bear bile farming.
Despite being a so-called 'traditional' and 'cultural' thing, China seems to see the cruelty involved and is not
approving new farms while allowing even foreign animals activists to work in China to end existing farms
thru campaigns and rescues even if they haven't actively set out to close all farming.
Compare this with the xenophobic and defensive attitude of Japan with whaling where diplomatic resources are spent to buy international support for its whaling activities to defend national 'honour' against 'hypocritical' foreigners eventhough only a tiny number of Japanese eat whale meat.

Schumacher said:

Western hypocrisy does exist but not everything has to be seen in that context.
I for one am glad the Chinese government is not treating the issue of animal rights as one of them vs the west.
Not only by allowing these dog rescues to continue but also with another animal rights issue of bear bile farming.
Despite being a so-called 'traditional' and 'cultural' thing, China seems to see the cruelty involved and is not
approving new farms while allowing even foreign animals activists to work in China to end existing farms
thru campaigns and rescues even if they haven't actively set out to close all farming.
Compare this with the xenophobic and defensive attitude of Japan with whaling where diplomatic resources are spent to buy international support for its whaling activities to defend national 'honour' against 'hypocritical' foreigners eventhough only a tiny number of Japanese eat whale meat.

Click to expand...

So according to your argument can China or any other country form an animal rights group to protest against bull riding, bull fighting, and bestiality with animals here in the US? Oh and don't forget about the sea food, they're animals too. So do raw oysters get a say about being pry open of its shell and eaten alive? Just because a shrimp and crabs doesn't scream doesn't mean they feel pain. Your self defeatist arguments skips out the entire picture of common practices in every nations culture and norms. So c'mon, WHO GETS TO DRAW THE LINE as far as animal rights? My answer is simple: NOBODY!

Equation said:

So according to your argument can China or any other country form an animal rights group to protest against bull riding, bull fighting, and bestiality with animals here in the US? Oh and don't forget about the sea food, they're animals too. So do raw oysters get a say about being pry open of its shell and eaten alive? Just because a shrimp and crabs doesn't scream doesn't mean they feel pain. Your self defeatist arguments skips out the entire picture of common practices in every nations culture and norms. So c'mon, WHO GETS TO DRAW THE LINE as far as animal rights? My answer is simple: NOBODY!

Click to expand...

Of course they can. Bull fighting happens to be one of the most criticized instances of animal cruelty by animal rights groups. Not long ago, some tried to bring in bull fighting as part of some Spanish trade/tourism campaign in China. They were heavily criticized and I believe they scrapped the plan.
Besides, I hardly think it's a good idea for China or anyone else to let some idiots in Spain who think it's good fun to watch other idiots butcher bulls affect their path forward in animal rights reforms.

Having a law that covers all animals may indeed pose many practical difficulties but again that's hardly a reason not to have any law or not to work towards one at all.
Many nations ban certain weapons and firearms to protect the innocents from criminals. But it's impractical to ban all possible weapons like kitchen knives. Fortunately, that doesn't mean we don't have any laws on weapons at all just because we don't want to be 'unfair' to say firearms owners.
In a sinking ship, we don't say since there're only room for 80 on the lifeboat out of the 100 people onboard therefore all should go down with the ship because we don't want to be 'unfair' to the remaining 20.
There are examples like this all around us. Fortunately, we don't live in a world where lawmakers only consider issues where ideal, 100% solutions exist otherwise nothing will get done.
So please, voice your objection to say animal rights laws if you must but don't use excuses like the one above with seafood.
I'd hope we have better arguments than those.

Schumacher said:

Of course they can. Bull fighting happens to be one of the most criticized instances of animal cruelty by animal rights groups. Not long ago, some tried to bring in bull fighting as part of some Spanish trade/tourism campaign in China. They were heavily criticized and I believe they scrapped the plan.
Besides, I hardly think it's a good idea for China or anyone else to let some idiots in Spain who think it's good fun to watch other idiots butcher bulls affect their path forward in animal rights reforms.

Having a law that covers all animals may indeed pose many practical difficulties but again that's hardly a reason not to have any law or not to work towards one at all.
Many nations ban certain weapons and firearms to protect the innocents from criminals. But it's impractical to ban all possible weapons like kitchen knives. Fortunately, that doesn't mean we don't have any laws on weapons at all just because we don't want to be 'unfair' to say firearms owners.
In a sinking ship, we don't say since there're only room for 80 on the lifeboat out of the 100 people onboard therefore all should go down with the ship because we don't want to be 'unfair' to the remaining 20.
There are examples like this all around us. Fortunately, we don't live in a world where lawmakers only consider issues where ideal, 100% solutions exist otherwise nothing will get done.
So please, voice your objection to say animal rights laws if you must but don't use excuses like the one above with seafood.
I'd hope we have better arguments than those.

Click to expand...

Objectionable arguments? So seafood is not an animal? If you can't debate, don't debate at all. You are basing all the "animal rights" laws on your feelings towards the animals of your choice. Meaning only the cute ones get to be protected by the law. Nonsense, I don't like a law based on popular ultra liberal agendas, they don't even speak for all 80% of the people. Why is it that the Inuit Natives are allowed to conduct their once a year hunt of whales, meanwhile Japan and some EU nations (Norway and Denmark) can't? You even say that since whale meat are not consume by the majority of the Japanese people, therefore unpopular? If the demands are small and the hunts doesn't hurt the Pilot whales overall population, then why not let them continue? It's the supply and demand that will determine the outcome of whale hunting just like in the late 19th century when oil lamp made of whale blubber was replaced by a more efficient fossil fuel, therefore it was economically advantages to continue the hunting in such large numbers.

As for bullfighting, I don't object to Spain's traditions and culture, that's their lifestyle and it's up to the majority of the Spaniards what they want to do with it. Here in Texas, we have a group against bull riding (where a rope is strapped onto the bull's balls in order for it to buck and kick when the rider is on top), but turn out they didn't succeed on their quest, because the majority of Texans wants to continue that Tex-Mex (Texas and Mexico) culture going because it relays history and a time where hard working cattle ranch folks does for a living.

The reason I don't want a universal animal rights law because it's puts too much power on the group of people who wasn't even elected for that position (NOT very democratic isn't it?). Having a law base solely on good feelings for animals is not practical and it served no purpose but to enhance the propaganda's groups agendas and power.

Equation said:

Objectionable arguments? So seafood is not an animal? If you can't debate, don't debate at all. You are basing all the "animal rights" laws on your feelings towards the animals of your choice. Meaning only the cute ones get to be protected by the law. Nonsense, I don't like a law based on popular ultra liberal agendas, they don't even speak for all 80% of the people. Why is it that the Inuit Natives are allowed to conduct their once a year hunt of whales, meanwhile Japan and some EU nations (Norway and Denmark) can't? You even say that since whale meat are not consume by the majority of the Japanese people, therefore unpopular? If the demands are small and the hunts doesn't hurt the Pilot whales overall population, then why not let them continue? It's the supply and demand that will determine the outcome of whale hunting just like in the late 19th century when oil lamp made of whale blubber was replaced by a more efficient fossil fuel, therefore it was economically advantages to continue the hunting in such large numbers.
.......................

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. If you're a Nemo lover, by all means, fight for seafood's inclusion in any protection law and you'll be respected. But if you care nothing about Nemo and is only talking about it to derail discussions on animal rights law, that's a different matter.
Again simple example, if you're a gun owner angry with restrictions on guns, by all means talk of how most gun owners are responsible and what you can do to prevent crimes with guns etc. Not argue for all kitchen knives to be banned along with guns just so you can feel better at not being treated 'unfairly' eventhough guns are still banned. That's not how the world works.

Clubbing baby seals and whaling are widely protested forms of animals cruelty worldwide.
And notice again animals protection laws exist in those countries alongside of whaling and clubbing baby seals.
So again, it's not hard to understand. Just because we can't find an ideal 100% solution to a problem doesn't mean we do nothing at all be it with this issue or any other in the world.

Schumacher said:

You still don't get it. If you're a Nemo lover, by all means, fight for seafood's inclusion in any protection law and you'll be respected. But if you care nothing about Nemo and is only talking about it to derail discussions on animal rights law, that's a different matter.
Again simple example, if you're a gun owner angry with restrictions on guns, by all means talk of how most gun owners are responsible and what you can do to prevent crimes with guns etc. Not argue for all kitchen knives to be banned along with guns just so you can feel better at not being treated 'unfairly' eventhough guns are still banned. That's not how the world works.

Clubbing baby seals and whaling are widely protested forms of animals cruelty worldwide.
And notice again animals protection laws exist in those countries alongside of whaling and clubbing baby seals.
So again, it's not hard to understand. Just because we can't find an ideal 100% solution to a problem doesn't mean we do nothing at all be it with this issue or any other in the world.

Click to expand...

You still don't see my point of view do ya? I said before NOBODY has the right to tell ANYONE else how they should "treat" animals. It's all up to individual, or as stated before, that nations own devices to deal with it.

"That's not how the world works..." really? I wasn't aware there was one size government that fits all? Didn't Hitler tried to do something similar like that before? No you are too stubborn to see that the world is ever more changing by the decades. The post WWII liberal view is no longer in command, therefore a rising new view will be in place, whether you like it or not. Yes, WE DO NOTHING as far as "animal rights" UNTIL the human beings are taken care of first. That's always will be a priority in a civilized society because it's human nature in all us to make sure man kind doesn't tried to extinct themselves.

Equation said:

You still don't see my point of view do ya? I said before NOBODY has the right to tell ANYONE else how they should "treat" animals. It's all up to individual, or as stated before, that nations own devices to deal with it.

"That's not how the world works..." really? I wasn't aware there was one size government that fits all? Didn't Hitler tried to do something similar like that before? No you are too stubborn to see that the world is ever more changing by the decades. The post WWII liberal view is no longer in command, therefore a rising new view will be in place, whether you like it or not. Yes, WE DO NOTHING as far as "animal rights" UNTIL the human beings are taken care of first. That's always will be a priority in a civilized society because it's human nature in all us to make sure man kind doesn't tried to extinct themselves.

Click to expand...

Wrong, in places with animals protection laws, obviously it's more than just anyone telling anyone else how to treat animals. The relevant laws will need to be obeyed.
In places like China with no clear related laws, we'll have to see the behavior of the authorities. What we see with the dogs rescue story is encouraging. For now, the authorities seems to acknowledge some of the concerns of some of the protect animals groups and the down side of siding too close with groups with nothing but profits on their minds who can't even bother to invest the minimum on the welfare the animals they handle.
No nations will ever be able to take care of all 'human beings' with all of their needs so to say animal rights should come after that, you might as well say it's not needed at all.
Fortunately, that's not the case as we see many places with various forms of animal protections despite not taking care of all human beings needs which is not surprising because animal rights advocated by many animal rights groups and human rights are not mutually exclusive in most instances.
It's merely a poor excuse used by those who don't want any form rights for animals.

IMO animal cruelty and eating animals are two different things. All animals should be (theoretically) treated equally, just like how all humans should be treated equally, regardless if it's a pig or a dog. They should not be abused, and should have adequate living conditions. If they are raised for food, then they should be killed in the least painful way. However, what people eat are entirely dependent on the culture, and no one should impose one's culture upon another. pigs and cows should not be left out if one were to argue that animals should not be food, simply because they don't look cute or appear to be dumber. That is discriminative IMO, in a similar way to how ugly/fat/mentally disabled people are often discriminated against in the society.

Schumacher said:

Wrong, in places with animals protection laws, obviously it's more than just anyone telling anyone else how to treat animals. The relevant laws will need to be obeyed.
In places like China with no clear related laws, we'll have to see the behavior of the authorities. What we see with the dogs rescue story is encouraging. For now, the authorities seems to acknowledge some of the concerns of some of the protect animals groups and the down side of siding too close with groups with nothing but profits on their minds who can't even bother to invest the minimum on the welfare the animals they handle.
No nations will ever be able to take care of all 'human beings' with all of their needs so to say animal rights should come after that, you might as well say it's not needed at all.
Fortunately, that's not the case as we see many places with various forms of animal protections despite not taking care of all human beings needs which is not surprising because animal rights advocated by many animal rights groups and human rights are not mutually exclusive in most instances.
It's merely a poor excuse used by those who don't want any form rights for animals.

Click to expand...

Uh that' a negative. Who gets to decide what law is "relevant" and what is not? Ultra liberals using animal rights as an excuse to enforce their views upon others just because they couldn't handle the realities of life. They would degrade the culture and thinking of others like some barbaric idiots that needed correction from the better humans. You can't protect EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURES (yes that includes the roaches) on earth, BUT you can protect every living HUMAN BEINGS as best you can. Having no animal rights laws doesn't make one backwards or not up to date.

Apparently you've never been told or make fun of because of your culture. Last week my friend's step daughter (Asian) were told by her dentist (he's white) that she shouldn't eat shark fin soup, because it's bad for the shark population. She is only 12 years old. Who the F*@! does this fool think he is? That's why I'm very careful about watch dogs and rights groups media. The problem about it, is they don't like it when somebody else is watching them making sure they're not being corrupt in anyway. Western media and bias making a big deal out of this group of Chinese somehow has "mordernised" by rescuing those dogs. Uhh, there are far bigger news about China's miracle, than one thinks. Such as the rebuilding of the earthquake disaster in Sichuan in 2008 that took only THREE YEARS to complete (name one single modern day democratic country that could do that?). Where were all western media regarding that miracle?



Now if I were you, I would be careful about how you conduct yourself in regards to respecting others people's practice and norms. If you don't like it, then leave it. On another note doesn't the west has other more important things take care of first? You know, like the economy and unemployment and so forth. People need to survive just like animals do, but WHO needs it first? You decide.

Equation said:

You still don't see my point of view do ya? I said before NOBODY has the right to tell ANYONE else how they should "treat" animals.

Click to expand...

What about mistreatment of animals not for food but just for cruelty itself? Wanton harming of animals through violence? There was a girl in China who filmed herself stepping on kittens and crushing them with high heels. Surely these kind of people should be held responsible?

What if the girl claimed that it is just her way of killing the kittens and that she eats them afterwards? Does that counts as slaughtering for food? Where do we draw the line between killing animals for food vs torturing them? Is abusing animals acceptable if we eat them afterwards?