When did my comment say I wanted everybody to be veggie? Sure, in my opinion that WOULD be the ideal, but I know it is unfeasible and there's no point trying to achieve it. In the Western world I think as many people as possible SHOULD become vegetarians because it is possible to do so using meat substitutes without sacrificing nutrition, so that argument is defunct. Gone are the days when vegetarian = exclusive vegetable-eater. In much poorer counties, I accept that it is impractical for most people to become vegetarians.
I don't accept that all animal culls are necessary. I'd go as far as to say that most are not necessary, and only go ahead to increase human convenience. Again, I can only speak for how culling works in my country, I have no idea how it works in the United States. I also doubt that in most cases the meat is donated to charity, but if so, good for them! I don't want to force people to become vegetarians if it would mean they starved to death! I'm not THAT crazy!
I've just debunked the argument that because it is natural to eat meat it is also morally justifiable... what is your point saying it is natural? Why does natural = morally justified?
As I said above, I don't think it is possible for the whole world to be vegetarians, and it would be impractical and counter-productive to the cause to force them to be so.
Sorry, but animal culls are absolutely necessary. Do the research. You probably live in an urban area, I live in a rural area, and it's definitely necessary, definitely.
And you are ABSOLUTELY wrong that a great amount of meat is donated to charity. A HUGE amount. Look it up. (some) People hunt for sport only and don't want the meat. People who hit a deer, elk, moose, bear...whatever...in their car, the meat is picked up for charity. Accidental or self-defense shootings of animals are also donated, as it's illegal to keep the meat. Please, look it up.
Sorry about the typo in my first response, I have no clue how that happened...prob a cut and paste error. Anyway...
The main reasons for animal culling is overpopulation (animal, not human!!) and nuisance. It's necessary so that the animals don't starve to death or cause trouble by attacking, or invading, people's property looking for food. They also cause a lot of accidents on the roads.
Nuisance meaning it ISN'T necessary to cull animals, only convenient to. I agree SOME are necessary as over-population does exist in some communities of animals, but SOME are also not, and are only because the animals are a "nuisance", as you put it yourself.
We're drifting from the topic by the way, and you have sort of not proved me wrong about the point I made in my original comment, which I presume was the purpose of your response :P
Well, it CAN mean necessary. For example, in farming. That's more what I meant by saying that, you probably thought I meant animals 'intruding' on people's space (and, no, I don't believe animals are intruding, we are actually intruding on their space really).
Everyone depends on farmers to provide food. If animals interfere with food production, then it's a nuisance that needs to be addressed. This can apply to predators that eat or just kill farm animals, and herbivores who just steal veggies or destroy crops. Also, spreading disease is an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I read that it's legal for farmers in England to own firearms to control nuisance animals. So....since no one else in England can own a gun, then it seems like it's a valid concern that farmers need to be able to take care of nuisance animals. Again, I may be wrong about the law, so my apologies if I am wrong, and please let me know if I am wrong about this law.
At the moment, there is a serious proposal to cull badgers in my corner of England. The reason given for this is that the badgers spread Bovine Tuberculosis, which kills cattle and screws up farming. However, most science says this is bullshit, badgers can't carry Bovine TB, and culling them would not stop the spread of the disease. Despite this, the cull will go ahead because the farming industry has such a large say in government here. Hence my suspicion of culling in general.
I agree that it is sometimes necessary for individual farmers to kill individual animals which pose a threat. But culls aren't that; they are the mass, organised killing of a set quota of a species in a region. Culls in the UK need to be passed by Parliament (the UK equivalent of Congress, which I'm sure you knew already), farmers can't take it upon themselves to kill animals unless there is an obvious reason which they can demonstrate as to why it was necessary to do so. Only if an bill is passed through Parliament which allows it can farmers kill animals of a protected species (which'll be most animals likely to pose a threat anyway) which do not individually pose an immediate threat.
I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of these sort of laws in England, regarding guns and shooting etc., but that is as I believe it to be, how the law stands.
Again, I point of that this line of discussion really hasn't got much to do with the actual question at all.
Are you a vegetarian? For what reason?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
When did my comment say I wanted everybody to be veggie? Sure, in my opinion that WOULD be the ideal, but I know it is unfeasible and there's no point trying to achieve it. In the Western world I think as many people as possible SHOULD become vegetarians because it is possible to do so using meat substitutes without sacrificing nutrition, so that argument is defunct. Gone are the days when vegetarian = exclusive vegetable-eater. In much poorer counties, I accept that it is impractical for most people to become vegetarians.
I don't accept that all animal culls are necessary. I'd go as far as to say that most are not necessary, and only go ahead to increase human convenience. Again, I can only speak for how culling works in my country, I have no idea how it works in the United States. I also doubt that in most cases the meat is donated to charity, but if so, good for them! I don't want to force people to become vegetarians if it would mean they starved to death! I'm not THAT crazy!
I've just debunked the argument that because it is natural to eat meat it is also morally justifiable... what is your point saying it is natural? Why does natural = morally justified?
As I said above, I don't think it is possible for the whole world to be vegetarians, and it would be impractical and counter-productive to the cause to force them to be so.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sorry, but animal culls are absolutely necessary. Do the research. You probably live in an urban area, I live in a rural area, and it's definitely necessary, definitely.
And you are ABSOLUTELY wrong that a great amount of meat is donated to charity. A HUGE amount. Look it up. (some) People hunt for sport only and don't want the meat. People who hit a deer, elk, moose, bear...whatever...in their car, the meat is picked up for charity. Accidental or self-defense shootings of animals are also donated, as it's illegal to keep the meat. Please, look it up.
Sorry about the typo in my first response, I have no clue how that happened...prob a cut and paste error. Anyway...
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Not all of them are. I'll admit some are, but not all. And I live in a rural area.
If that is the case, maybe I am wrong, but it doesn't change my central point.
Haha, doesn't matter! I'm not gonna troll you are a spelling error... I didn't even spot it! :P
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The main reasons for animal culling is overpopulation (animal, not human!!) and nuisance. It's necessary so that the animals don't starve to death or cause trouble by attacking, or invading, people's property looking for food. They also cause a lot of accidents on the roads.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"and nuisance"
Nuisance meaning it ISN'T necessary to cull animals, only convenient to. I agree SOME are necessary as over-population does exist in some communities of animals, but SOME are also not, and are only because the animals are a "nuisance", as you put it yourself.
We're drifting from the topic by the way, and you have sort of not proved me wrong about the point I made in my original comment, which I presume was the purpose of your response :P
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, it CAN mean necessary. For example, in farming. That's more what I meant by saying that, you probably thought I meant animals 'intruding' on people's space (and, no, I don't believe animals are intruding, we are actually intruding on their space really).
Everyone depends on farmers to provide food. If animals interfere with food production, then it's a nuisance that needs to be addressed. This can apply to predators that eat or just kill farm animals, and herbivores who just steal veggies or destroy crops. Also, spreading disease is an issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I read that it's legal for farmers in England to own firearms to control nuisance animals. So....since no one else in England can own a gun, then it seems like it's a valid concern that farmers need to be able to take care of nuisance animals. Again, I may be wrong about the law, so my apologies if I am wrong, and please let me know if I am wrong about this law.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
At the moment, there is a serious proposal to cull badgers in my corner of England. The reason given for this is that the badgers spread Bovine Tuberculosis, which kills cattle and screws up farming. However, most science says this is bullshit, badgers can't carry Bovine TB, and culling them would not stop the spread of the disease. Despite this, the cull will go ahead because the farming industry has such a large say in government here. Hence my suspicion of culling in general.
I agree that it is sometimes necessary for individual farmers to kill individual animals which pose a threat. But culls aren't that; they are the mass, organised killing of a set quota of a species in a region. Culls in the UK need to be passed by Parliament (the UK equivalent of Congress, which I'm sure you knew already), farmers can't take it upon themselves to kill animals unless there is an obvious reason which they can demonstrate as to why it was necessary to do so. Only if an bill is passed through Parliament which allows it can farmers kill animals of a protected species (which'll be most animals likely to pose a threat anyway) which do not individually pose an immediate threat.
I confess to not knowing the ins and outs of these sort of laws in England, regarding guns and shooting etc., but that is as I believe it to be, how the law stands.
Again, I point of that this line of discussion really hasn't got much to do with the actual question at all.