I’m all for people eating tasty animals. I’m O.K. with fur if it’s farm-raised and the carcasses aren’t just wasted, and the poor critters are killed humanely. Hunting for food is fine as long as it doesn’t endanger the species. Running lab tests on animals seems necessary in many instances, although I find it quite mean. Cock fighting, dog fighting, and the like are despicable. Trophy hunting with no intention of eating the kill is cruel and wasteful.
There have been vegetarians for thousands of years.
Vegans, however, didn’t really get started until the 1940s.
It’s certainly a dilemma. I have heard of two sushi dishes served in Japan where the animals are cut and served while still alive, octopi and lobsters. I ate eel in South Korea that was still squirming after being cut up. Once in a while, I eat balut, where chicks are boiled while still in the egg. Hunters usually carry two guns, a rifle to bring down an animal from a distance and a handgun to shoot it in the head if it’s still moving.
I agree that there should be “a line,” but I have no idea where to put it.
Stop the presses, check the temp in hell, I am in agreement with RTFirefly. :eek:
I don’t consider the raising and slaughtering of animals to be particularly cruel in and of itself. Everybody dies, and there are worse ways to do than a quick and humane death. Everybody experiences some limits and discomforts in life, and humane animal husbandry would certainly be more comfortable than growing up in the wild.
I’m willing to concede that we can differ over how to define humane and that some agricultural practices won’t meet that humane standard, but I simply cannot wrap my head around a world view in which the raising and killing of animals is inhumane in and of itself. Death is a part of life and pretending otherwise is a fantasy.
(And, in fact, I’d suggest that what many people to do extend the life of elderly/sick pets is probably inhumane as well. There’s a point when putting them to sleep is the humane thing to do.)
So, anyway, that should make it pretty clear how I’d define my position on other animal-related activities. There is no reason for anything to suffer unnecessarily, and I’m willing to compromise on what we as a society accept as definitions of “suffer” and “unnecessarily.”
For me, I draw the line at cruelty for cruelty’s sake. I have no problem with eating meat, and I’m not terribly fussy about whether or not my meat had a happy life before it was killed. (Yes, it’s nice to let animals live free-range or whatever, but this also makes meat less affordable; I’m not willing to insist that the only moral meat is that which the middle-class or wealthy can afford). Nor do I have any objection to animal testing for pharmaceuticals/product safety/etc, where animal models are either the best available, or replacing animals would substantially increase the price of medication or consumer goods. Even hunting gets a pass from me - if it’s acceptable to kill an animal so I can have the pleasure of eating it, I can’t see a principled argument against killing an animal for the pleasure of the challenge it poses.
The only place I draw the line is where the animal’s pain is itself the desired product, or indistinguishable from it. If testing anaesthetics or other drugs requires that animals endure tremendous pain, so be it - but the pain isn’t the point, just a by-product. Hunting often causes fear and pain, but it’s a rare hunter who would not sincerely prefer an instant, painless kill, and most hunting organizations/clubs will encourage and train for this.
Things like dog-fighting are a bit different - yes, one can argue that the point is to observe whether one’s training/dietary/exercise regimen is more effective than the competition’s, but this seems a quibble. One watches dogs inflict hideous suffering upon one another for minutes at a time, and one would be hard-pressed to argue that the suffering itself is not the entertainment. By a similar token, bull-fighting has a number of elements designed explicitly to prolong a fight, and thus increase an animal’s suffering. This is not acceptable.
In other words: I don’t care a great deal for animal rights, and I’m indifferent to essentially unlimited amounts of torment inflicted upon animals, so long as some goal beyond torment is in play. But pure sadism is an ugly, dangerous impulse, and one we’re right to discourage whether it is directed against humans or animals. So, I’d call sadism the dividing line.
I don’t kill animals. Even for food. I eat the hell out of some meat though. Its not a moral choice. I just don’t want to do it. I also have someone fix my car when its broke because I don’t want to do that. Morally I draw the line at cruelty.
Full disclosure I have euthanized several animals over the years that were hit by cars. Deer mostly. Part of the job. I wouldn’t have done it if I didn’t have to.
I’m looking in a mirror. I could have written that post almost verbatim, including the disclosure. (The suffering animals weren’t deer, but other critters.)
It’s probably not necessary to add that I agree completely.
My lines are clear-cut and straightforward. Assuming the animals in question are not an endangered species, I have exactly zero problem with animals dying for our use.
And I have exactly zero tolerance for animals suffering for our use.
Death and suffering are separate and distinct things, and it is a big peeve of mine that resources are ridiculously pissed away because people can’t differentiate the two. Accept that death is inevitable and focus on preventing suffering. (Most recent irritation was the FB post from one of the private dog rescuers, frantically seeking pledges and help to bail out a 15 year old chihuahua facing euthanasia at a shelter. Really? You’re going to divert money, time, and focus to a dog that has lived past the average canine lifespan already when there is a truly endless supply of dogs with potentially that same number of years of life still available to them? Hw in hell do you justify that? Drives me absolutely nuts because it is a completely irrational approach that ultimately hurts more than it helps, it arises from a narcissistic projection of personal fears of death, and it is disrespectful to the dogs themselves, who are deserving of so much better than that. End rant.)
Here’s a cold compress, Gus, you’ll get over it shortly. 
I am actively happy to see a dead stiff mouse with a snapped spine in one of my traps in the garage. Little fuckers shit on everything in sight. However, I buy, set, and dispose of my own spring traps, because the exterminator uses glue traps and when I found a mouse caught in one, still alive after what was clearly hours of terrified struggle and pain, I felt like the biggest monster humanity every produced.
I’ve come to terms with the fact that we have to kill in order to live. Microbes, insects, crop pests, random animals caught in the crossfire of civilization, etc. Livestock raised and slaughtered in a way to minimize suffering doesn’t bother me. I do try to buy eggs from non-battery cage sources. I often shop for meat raised in heightened awareness of easing suffering and preserving the environment for human benefit. But not a big problem with the whole idea of raising and killing animals for meat.
I recently read an article by a quasi-vegan arguing for oysters to be on the menu. Because they’re evidently incredibly sustainable, and really, do you think there’s an appreciable difference between the subjective experiences of a carrot and an oyster?
That’s not an argument.