comparing eating meat to paedophiles and child abusers!

[Rhiannon]

The lady in YouTube thinks that animals are sentient beings and shouldn't be killed for food. She likens it to child abuse. She in entitled to this opinion.

Rose thinks the lady is talking nonsense and eating animals is fine. She is entitled to this opinion.

The vegan lady is entitled to put a video expressing herself on YouTube.

Rose is entitled to ignore the vegan lady on YouTube.

The solution is for Rose not to look on the Internet at vegan people that she finds annoying.

Unfortunately they don't just exist on YouTube.

The RSPCA, whos leadership seems to have an agenda which differs to those of people just interested in helping animals, saw a drop in donations of 7 million pounds last year alone.

This is because they are supporting political agendas removed from many of their supporters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rspca-donations-drop-by-7m-as-campaigns-fail-to-find-support-9571417.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673694/Donations-fall-7m-RSPCA-gets-political-Charity-accused-betraying-core-support.html

The people in charge of it now are real nutters IMO, just like the woman in the video.

Which is why it is losing support.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141855/RSPCA-faces-grilling-MPs-animal-rights-fanatics-compare-farming-holocaust-want-people-test-getting-pet-hijack-key-posts.html

Yes they are entitled to their opinion, but to spend vast sums of their supporters money on things which they haven't chosen to support?

They are using good hearted people's money to support their own agendas.

People will withhold their money then.

When it comes to money the RSPCA are just as likely to destroy the habitat of wild animals as any large corporation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136714/Nature-lover-leaves-wildlife-haven-RSPCA--sell-bulldozed-built-on.html

I wouldn't  give them a penny, they are not to be trusted IMO.

If they cared they wouldn't have destroyed that's mans haven.

I think that's disgusting!

And I think people need to stand up and withdraw support.

This is disapproval of actions, not opinions.

[Udayana]

When you use a photo of a practice that ended decades ago and tell the EU that is what the sealers are doing, it is a lie. When the EU buys into the lie and bans Europeans from buying seal products from Canada, you are attempting to destroy a culture and livelihood. You are telling the Inuit that their way of life is inferior to yours. By forcing the people of Europe not to buy seal products, you are telling the sealers that what they are doing is wrong. No, how about you let the individual European decide that. The EU stands in judgement against the sealers culture and livelihood. Take away their income and force them to do your will. Thank God for the Japanese they are stepping in and buying seal product. The EU can decide now how they should compensate the Inuit of Greenland for years of damage they have done to their livelihood and because of the seal pop explosion, they better make right the damage they have done to Greenland's fish stocks.

It is possible that propaganda based on such photographs could fool an uneducated public, but EU officials would be well aware of the actual facts.

In fact it is your rhetoric on the effects on the Inuit that is the lie. The Inuit are responsible for only a small proportion of the hunt, and this was explicitly excluded from the EU ban. Even Inuit whale hunting is excluded from the otherwise almost worldwide ban.

There are many reasons for the decline of the traditional Inuit lifestyle, which has been much studied, but mostly come down to the arrival and interference of the supposedly civilized white man. Currently climate change is a major factor along with further exploitation of arctic resources, as before, without consultation or agreement of the Inuit.

[Sriram]

Good grief!

http://youtu.be/yAEqcsvuHYI


They are not prepared to respect your choices of food and your right to make your own choices.

What a nut case! 

I feel sorry for victims of child abuse, that their suffering is being  trivialised by such people.
 

What say you?

Anyone can be a 'nutcase' if we don't live like them or even agree with them.  Till recently, women wearing burkha or a naqab were seen as nutcases by westerners.

Its all a question of what we consider as moral. Killing animals can be seen as immoral just as much as child abuse. Literally millions of animals are slaughtered every day to feed people. A day may come when this could be seen as barbaric. 

Just because you are used to it does not make it moral.  In some tribal societies having sex with children could be normal...and they may not see it as immoral.

Is there any objective morality based on which we can judge these things?!  I am not sure.

[Sriram]

Rose,

Yes..we all don't like others forcing their opinions or lifestyles on us. I accept that. But often morality  evolves only through such influences.

For example...if you try to stop some tribals from having sex with children..they may get upset. So...would you be wrong in trying to stop it?  Or in some tribes, offering their daughters to guests for the night, was considered a duty. Your efforts to stop this practice would upset them. So, would you be wrong to stop this practice? 

Morality is a cultural  element and it evolves with time depending on various interactions and influences.

Vegetarians were considered nut cases in the west till recent decades. I remember when I visited Europe in the 70's most people did not know what vegetarianism meant. But people in UK were a little more aware and tolerant of it because of their experience in India.  They could at least relate to it. Today vegetarianism has grown significantly world over! 

Maybe your daughter/grand daughter would find such efforts to stop animal killing (for food) as more acceptable than you do. 

[Nearly Sane]

Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny.  Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.

I'm not trying to be funny - I'm just illustrating that the approach taken by Rose is merely assertion based on her own view and that it could be used by someone who supported child abuse - hence the comment about the 7 year old was mirroring her comment about sticking to a nice steak - which for someone who views meat eating as equivalent to child abuse (see rest of thread) would be the same as my comment about a 7 year old.


I would suggest you are the one in dire need of a biscuit since both here and in the child prositution thread, you have managed to read into my comments things that are just not there.

[BashfulAnthony]

So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,

Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.

And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.

Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.

Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,

But there are artificial alternatives.

Artificial alternatives that have a bigger environmental impact and have a larger carbon footprint than furs and skins.

And what about the impact on the animals?  Not that it bothers you.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

It does bother me, but not in the same way it bothers you.

It bothers me that the carbon footprint is destroying the ecosystem so destroying habitat and ultimately the wild animals that live in it.

I don't think producing all these artificial materials from petroeleum are beneficial to the animals.

It would probably be better if we had natural materials that degrade naturally like leather instead of things like cheap plastic shoes.

When I'm concerned about the animals it is usually because of their disappearing environment rather than an individual cow which has been slaughtered for food and leather.
Why persuade someone who is living in their environment, like Johnnys Inuit , to wear plastic and artificial clothes which pollute the planet and are not environmentally friendly when they already have a environmentally version that keeps their ecosystem in balance ( ie fish stocks) and keeps them warm.?

Now the Inuit are adding to the pollution in the environment, whereas before when they wore furs they were actually more eco friendly and their fish stocks were more healthy.



 

That's a good response, Rose.  When I feel a little better I'll try to put an answer together

[Udayana]

No, that's a crap response.

Rose, why don't you try to find out facts before going into an tizz - anything to do with over-consumption of animal protein?

Growing vegetarianism would greatly help in reducing CO2 emissions.

Indeed, using natural, renewable materials is better ecologically than creating new oil based materials.

No one is stopping the Inuit from hunting in their traditional ways for food or materials. They are exempt from the EU ban on fur and other seal product imports - the trouble they have with this is that there is no longer a market for such furs in Europe since the general ban, based on the mass seal & cub slaughters, was put in place.

The fish stock argument is another red herring (sorry) - cod fish stocks collapsed in the 90s due to over fishing. Studies have shown that seal culling will have no effect on reviving stocks. Seals are being used as a scapegoat just as whales used to be.

[Udayana]

No one is suggesting vegetarianism as a panacea for global warming. It could help but, as you point out, there are many other more important factors. If you want to raise your own chickens or other livestock instead of eating food shipped around the country or planet, I would only encourage it.

From your own link, it is clear that the Inuit are facing far larger problems than the EU ban on seal products - from which their products are exempt anyway. They manged fine for thousands of years without an EU or other market for seal skins. It is only now, 6 years after the ban, that the Canadian government is even bothering to put in place branding that allows Inuit furs to be distinguished from those with other sources (mainly the east coast "hunters"). The USA is also planning to put a similar ban in place. It is nothing to do with "animal rights extremists" but just that when people see the deaths required to obtain furs and meat from non-domesticated animals etc, they lose their desire to use them.

It is unlikely that the income from being able to sell these furs to a few rich European women would save the Inuit from what are mainly the actions of their fellow Canadians and government, climate change and oceanic pollution - which makes their traditional food sources toxic with mercury, other heavy metals and PCBs.

[Rhiannon]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars

[Udayana]

Thanks Rhi,

Very interesting ... certainly agree with:

“I would strongly hope that governments stay out of people’s diet, but at the same time there are many government policies that favour of the current diet in which animals feature too prominently,” he said. “Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry and rising prices will do the rest. In that way you are having less government intervention in people’s diet and not more.”