Stephon: "From what I hear, dog-fighting is a sport"

[rafy]

<div class="quote_poster">The One & Only Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The millions of rodents ground up by grain-harvesting machines per year, would disagree with your assessment of the benefits of being a vegetarian.

Also, hunting, from my understanding, is a cheap population control method. A herbivore without a predator breeds uncontrolled until it depletes its food source and they all die. Hunting, believe it or not, is a more humane way of putting an animal 'down.' Would you rather let it starve?</div>


1. The death of rodents and other small animals is unavoidable through agricultural harvesting. Simply because of the massive population of humans the earth holds. We need that machinery to effectively feed the people. Therefore, it is completely ethical and cannot be compared to the exponentially more deaths caused by the meat industry. The meat industry is a steroid pumping, conscious slaughter of millions upon millions upon millions of selectively bred animals.

2. The deer won't die out because they deplete all their food resources. The carrying capacity in an ecosystem can only hold a certain amount of deer. If that carrying capacity is exceeded, the population of deer will drop either marginally or substantially, depending on many variables; but they won't completely die out. After this drop off, the deer will then continue to reproduce, until they exceed the carrying capacity and the process repeats itself.

3. Nature does not need a population control. It got on just fine before humans came around and started changing the ecosystem and habitats of practically all land animals. I'd much rather die a natural death then get hunted, shot, and eaten or have my head on a wall. If I took you to the Jurassic era, would you rather die of a natural death, or get hunted and shot by a dinosaur with a shotgun? Even though you yourself are in perfect health. Crude example obviously, but it still applies.

Nature is nature, and you cannot use "population control" as an excuse to screw around with it even more. If more animals die of natural causes, let it be. Natural selection will play itself out if we, the human race, stop messing about and dicking around with everything for no good reason. So, this is addressed to The One & Only, morally speaking it would be much better to let them die a natural death.

The only problem with that is we've destroyed so much habitat of theirs through urban sprawl, that their blood is still on our hands one way or another.

3. Humans are omnivorous. Obviously. But we've reproduced so much that it's totally thrown the food chain off. Since we have such evolved minds, and are obviously the dominant species. It should really be our responsibility to conserve nature, and not to mess around with it. It would be perfectly economically efficient to become herbivores, even more so than omnivores.

Anyway, back on topic:

I think Marbury's comments are perfectly acceptable. He's just using freedom of speech, and calling it as he sees it. I personally agree with him. I think though, that a lot of his meaning got lost in translation; so to speak, which is why so many people are hounding him. I think he meant to state how horrible it is that so many people are involved in animal abuse, and that so many people participate in cock fights, dog fights, hell I've even heard of pigeon fights. He's obviously not supporting it. I just think he's come to the realization that there is a lot of animal abuse going on.

 

[M Two One]

As if Marbury couldn't get any dumber.

 

[Iron Shiek]

The federal government must do a better job of protecting all animals from inhumane treatment.

Marbury definitely seemed extremely ignorant in his defense of Michael Vick, but if one positive can come from this it should be that inhumane treatments of all animals should be something that the federal government should outlaw. How do you make the distinction of protecting one animal over another? If Vick were torturing cats or parrots would he be villified or persecuted any worse? I doubt it.

I don't understand why animal lovers aren't fighting as vigorously for the prosecution of poachers than they are for the persecution of Michael Vick. No matter what charges Michael Vick pleads guilty of his actions, in my opinion, are no worse than anyone who commits a type one felony against another human being.

Dogs should be treated like pets. Hunters are not making the world a better place for animals. They are killing animals for their own benefit. There is a better way of controlling the population than killing them off. Different diseases, in particular sexual transmitted diseases, were created in order to control the human population. Guns and drugs are distributed in order to do the same things. I don't recall any manditory sentences being reduced for any felony convictions. It is much easier to control the population when high risk individuals are being sent to prison at alarming rates.

So I don't buy the argument that the killing of animals during hunting season does wonders for the evolution of our society. The strategic population control of humans is evidence that influencing and controlling the population of all mammals really does more harm than good. Things will work themselves out of their own.

Michael Vick deserves his punishment. Illegal hunters deserve similar punishments -- with the exception of the gambling charges, unless of course they apply -- and all unregistered weapons and consumption/distribution of narcotics charges or any other felony charges against another human being by celebrities should be covered with the same or more disdain than that of Michael Vick case. The indirect or direct controlling of the human population should always take precedence over actions against the animal population.

 

[The One & Only]

<div class="quote_poster">rafy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">1. The death of rodents and other small animals is unavoidable through agricultural harvesting. Simply because of the massive population of humans the earth holds. We need that machinery to effectively feed the people. Therefore, it is completely ethical and cannot be compared to the exponentially more deaths caused by the meat industry. The meat industry is a steroid pumping, conscious slaughter of millions upon millions upon millions of selectively bred animals.</div>

What you just said completely contradicted your entire argument. Also, define conscious. Because it is known that plenty of those animals, and rodents die each year. If anything, it would be better from a moral stand point from the meat industry as they selectively breed animals to slaughter to actually use as a food source, not killing random field animals by accident(while they already know this method kills them).

Secondly, saying we need that machinery, whatever the cost, is hypocritical in nature if you're going to go on to point a finger at meat industries. A dead animal, is a dead animal. The only way I'd take your argument to heart, would be if you planted and picked your own vegetables, fruits, and other crops.

The number of animal deaths is also irrelevant. A murderer who kills 10 people, is no better off than a murderer who kills 20, if the murder is avoidable.

Someone named Maddox made an interesting article, with semi-humorous comics about the subject:

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">Nature is nature, and you cannot use "population control" as an excuse to screw around with it even more. If more animals die of natural causes, let it be. Natural selection will play itself out if we, the human race, stop messing about and dicking around with everything for no good reason. So, this is addressed to The One & Only, morally speaking it would be much better to let them die a natural death. </div>

I don't know where you're coming from with this. Legal hunting doesn't allow hunters to just randomly kill any animal they want. There is specific times, if and when the population grows too high, or too uncontrollable for the natural predators to handle.

Some overpopulated animals that are considered 'pests' threaten wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops/plantations. The same crops that vegans eat. This would lead to soaring prices, and less food because those animals came onto human owned land looking for food.

One thing I will agree with, however, is hunting as a sport being a stupid idea. There is no sport in killing an animal that can't defend itself.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">3. Humans are omnivorous. Obviously. But we've reproduced so much that it's totally thrown the food chain off. Since we have such evolved minds, and are obviously the dominant species. It should really be our responsibility to conserve nature, and not to mess around with it. It would be perfectly economically efficient to become herbivores, even more so than omnivores.</div>

Economically efficient, yes, but not healthy. Certain meats are plentiful in a vitamin in particular called B-12, which can't be found elsewhere in that quantity. While you can get b12 from milk, cheese, yoghurt and on it only exists in extremely small amounts in those foodstuffs. Vitamin B-12 is extremely prone to digestion deficiency, so the small intake from those other foodstuff doesn't help it's case.

Going back to MrJ's arguement if you drink milk, eat cheese, or wear clothing made from wool, you are equally as guilty of ignorance towards the living conditions of the animal. Dairy cows aren't exactly treated as royalty either btw.

Carnivores have small intestines to stop meat rotting, herbivores have huge intestines to get the nutrients they need. We are somewhere in the middle; we have not evolved yet to the point where we can survive solely on vegetables, and its only our technology that allows us to healthily do so by eating supplements.

Also, not everyone's digestive system is the same. Certain vitamin supplements can pass right through to your urine, without even extracting the necessary nutrients.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting rafy:</div><div class="quote_post">I think Marbury's comments are perfectly acceptable. He's just using freedom of speech, and calling it as he sees it. I personally agree with him. I think though, that a lot of his meaning got lost in translation; so to speak, which is why so many people are hounding him. I think he meant to state how horrible it is that so many people are involved in animal abuse, and that so many people participate in cock fights, dog fights, hell I've even heard of pigeon fights. He's obviously not supporting it. I just think he's come to the realization that there is a lot of animal abuse going on.</div>

What Marbury said isn't very acceptable. He called someone who abuses animals "a good guy in a bad situation." If you look through his words, and listen to his message of "there is a lot of animal abuse going on," yeah I'm sure we can agree. But it's immediately diminished by the fact that he just defended a guy who abused animals.

I also agree with Shiek:

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Iron Shiek:</div><div class="quote_post">The federal government must do a better job of protecting all animals from inhumane treatment.

Marbury definitely seemed extremely ignorant in his defense of Michael Vick, but if one positive can come from this it should be that inhumane treatments of all animals should be something that the federal government should outlaw. How do you make the distinction of protecting one animal over another? If Vick were torturing cats or parrots would he be villified or persecuted any worse? I doubt it.</div>

 

[rafy]

Oh my.

<div class="quote_poster">The One & Only Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What you just said completely contradicted your entire argument. Also, define conscious. Because it is known that plenty of those animals, and rodents die each year. If anything, it would be better from a moral stand point from the meat industry as they selectively breed animals to slaughter to actually use as a food source, not killing random field animals by accident(while they already know this method kills them).
</div>

I don't see where I contradicted myself. The death of those small animals and rodents is unavoidable. Society is structured in a way that we rely on the system. People in urban areas have no means to support themselves from their own garden, people in apartment buildings have no land to grow food. So, we rely on mass agriculture.

And when I say conscious, I mean that through agriculture, there is no intention to kill animals. It's entirely accidental, and very unfortunate. But since there are so many humans, it's vital. There is no alternative as I can see it, so if you could provide me with one that would save the lives of animals, I'd be thrilled.

The loss of those animals is necessary. Breeding animals, for the sole purpose of killing them is not. I don't see how I'm being hypocritical in the slightest. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit more.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Secondly, saying we need that machinery, whatever the cost, is hypocritical in nature if you're going to go on to point a finger at meat industries. A dead animal, is a dead animal. The only way I'd take your argument to heart, would be if you planted and picked your own vegetables, fruits, and other crops.

The number of animal deaths is also irrelevant. A murderer who kills 10 people, is no better off than a murderer who kills 20, if the murder is avoidable.</div>

Again, there is a total difference between the deaths in agriculture and the deaths in the meat industry.

Massive scaled agriculture is necessary, unavoidable, and therefore completely ethical. Humans could theoretically get on just fine without meat. I can't see how you can compare the two. If I was being chased by any sort of predator like a bear, and the only chance of be surviving would be to shoot it. I would feel no remorse in shooting it. It was my life or the bears. It was necessary, therefore completely ethical. Just like murder in self defense is acceptable if your life was being threatened. Since there billions of humans all across the world, and that number is always increasing, modern agriculture is necessary for our survival. Therefore it is completely ethical.

Which, you can't say that the meat industry is necessary by any means of the word.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I could argue that plant life is also alive, and we feel better about killing it because what, it doesn't match our definition? It's not similar enough to ourselves to feel guilty about it? Its not like they're picking up a rock, this is a being that grows towards the light, breeds and develops natural defenses to being eaten such as poisons, thorns or smells.

Since I feel all life has value, and I must eat to live, I do not give any one group preferential treatment.</div>

I'm not sure if this was meant to be taken seriously. But it's the internet and I can't really tell. So, I just won't say anything.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Like I said before, Humans have been a predator since the beginning of their existence, regardless of their position on the food chain. Also, animals can reproduce at a rate faster than they can die out. It's much more humane to kill overpopulation and make use of them, than letting them starve out because of poor living conditions.
</div>

Yes, they always have been on the food chain. And if you go back, hunting made sense. But in this day and age, where humans could quite easily to destroy the entire world, and practically all the life on it. The rules of nature pretty have much been broken. It's natural selection to a whole different. One species has the entire world in it's palm. It would be impossible to continue justifying our actions towards other species just because we're on the top of the food chain. We're blessed with a far superior "intelligence". We should use to preserve life, not kill it.

So, you're saying that it's more human to shoot a deer so it doesn't "suffer" instead of letting it live and naturally die off? I see.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You're basically saying, "oh it's okay to let the deer population drop off marginally/substantially due to starvation because they depleted their food source."

In my opinion, that's a more inhumane thing to say than someone actually hunting. </div>

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. Letting nature take it's course is drastically more humane than shooting them, and using population control as a pretense. Even if you do believe in that pretense.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Also, don't help third world countries, they won't die out. Their numbers will just change "marginally/substatially." </div>

...Again, I can't tell if your serious. Those are two entirely different scenarios.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know where you're coming from with this. Legal hunting doesn't allow hunters to just randomly kill any animal they want. There is specific times, if and when the population grows too high, or too uncontrollable for the natural predators to handle.

Some overpopulated animals that are considered 'pests' threaten wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops/plantations. The same crops that vegans eat. This would lead to soaring prices, and less food because those animals came onto human owned land looking for food.</div>

What I'm trying to say is that is that letting natural selection is much more humane then killing the animals. Legal hunting, in season hunting or not. It's a matter that requires no meddling in whatsoever, so it should be left alone. An ecosystems carrying capacity will take care of all the population issues among animals. Ecosystem could take care of themselves before humans happened to come along, and they'd much better by themselves if our species became extinct. It doesn't need us to regulate it.

I don't agree with pesticide use. Which is what I'm assuming is what you're talking about when you refer to animals threatening crops. The only way to solve that problem is to have more local farmers. Around my area atleast, you can still come across farmers who sell all natural produce.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">One thing I will agree with, however, is hunting as a sport being a stupid idea. There is no sport in killing an animal that can't defend itself.</div>

So you're saying that it would be ok to hunt humans since they have the means to defend themselves? (Obviously, I'm not being serious.)

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Economically efficient, yes, but not healthy. Certain meats are plentiful in a vitamin in particular called B-12, which can't be found elsewhere in that quantity. While you can get b12 from milk, cheese, yoghurt and on it only exists in extremely small amounts in those foodstuffs. Vitamin B-12 is extremely prone to digestion deficiency, so the small intake from those other foodstuff doesn't help it's case.</div>

You can live perfectly, and arguably more, off a vegetarian diet. And B-12 can actually quite easily be acquired. I can't speak for vegans as I never was, nor do I intend to be one.

http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/b12.html

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">
Going back to MrJ's arguement if you drink milk, eat cheese, or wear clothing made from wool, you are equally as guilty of ignorance towards the living conditions of the animal. Dairy cows aren't exactly treated as royalty either btw.</div>


I don't wear wool. I don't wear leather. (Atleast, I'm not entirely sure. I am quite ignorant to as whether my shoes are synthetic or actual leather. So, I am guilty of that in my opinion.)

I do drink milk, and I do eat cheese. The abuse of animals such as cows and chickens can be completely avoided. It's all up to those who intend to profit off of them. There are some farmers who actually treat their animals fairly, but many don't. Mainly high profile industrial farms. It really should the farmers duty, and that of the government to regulate these things. And if it cost more money to ensure the welfare of those animals, I'd be willing to pay for higher milk, cheese and egg prices.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Carnivores have small intestines to stop meat rotting, herbivores have huge intestines to get the nutrients they need. We are somewhere in the middle; we have not evolved yet to the point where we can survive solely on vegetables, and its only our technology that allows us to healthily do so by eating supplements.

Also, not everyone's digestive system is the same. Certain vitamin supplements can pass right through to your urine, without even extracting the necessary nutrients.</div>

That's completely false. In your words; <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know where you're coming from with this.</div> We can survive solely off of agriculture, and we do not need supplements. I, myself, take no forms of pills or prescriptions drugs, or nutritional supplements.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What Marbury said isn't very acceptable. He called someone who abuses animals "a good guy in a bad situation." If you look through his words, and listen to his message of "there is a lot of animal abuse going on," yeah I'm sure we can agree. But it's immediately diminished by the fact that he just defended a guy who abused animals.
</div>

It's acceptable because he said what he felt. That's almost always acceptable. Do I think that Vick is a good person? No. But it's not up to me to decide. However, I do agree with what he was trying to say about dog fighting.

However, I can say this. There are many good natured people who have fell pray to bad influences. As far as I know, this may be one of those cases. But I don't understand how someone who could do those kinds of things to a dog. Then again, I can't understand how could people hunt animals for sport, or slaughter animals for meat. So, I'm really in no position to pass judgment.

 

[CLos]

Marbury is retarded. He just needs to go overseas or something.

 

[Butter]

Hunting has been a tradition of man kind since the begining.

Executing animals who can't get you your paper hasn't.

 

[rafy]

<div class="quote_poster">Butter Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hunting has been a tradition of man kind since the begining.

Executing animals who can't get you your paper hasn't.</div>

Anthropologically speaking, we have a lot of traditions. That doesn't justify them in any way shape or form just because it's a "tradition". There have been many "traditions" which, in todays society would be considered repulsive, were the norm a few hundred years back.

 

[Iron Shiek]

<div class="quote_poster">rafy Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There have been many "traditions" which, in todays society would be considered repulsive, were the norm a few hundred years back.</div>

Slavery would be one.

 

[Master Shake]

<div class="quote_poster">Iron Shiek Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Slavery would be one.</div>


Adults beating their kids, could be one.