The debate "We shouldn't kill animals." was started by
September 10, 2018, 3:03 pm.
115 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 76 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument, SMNR posted 1 argument, magicess posted 1 argument, Brynn posted 2 arguments, Kanwal posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Fowling posted 2 arguments, Debatedaddy posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, Debate_Master1011 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
fatin, Kanwal, freakgirl, SMNR, Crystals, Brynn, gordon040111, crazybirdlady, magicess, crispsandchips, Daisythecat, A_communist94, jemiju, BlackPetals, TJ, Rijavana, FuckTheSnowflakes, shahriaralzubayer1, Soph25161818, mondelay and 95 visitors agree.
Fowling, TheNewHuman, abhimanyu, wth64828, Matthew354, NitinTher, goodlo, Seejay, JDAWG9693, WiseWords, Debatedaddy, TJefferson, dazzasanta420, Ural, Debate_Master1011, Argument_fightme and 60 visitors disagree.
Animals were created for us to use as needed. We are justified in using them for food and, in early people's case, for clothing, shelter, water canteens, tools, weapons, and other crucial items for survival. This, however, does not mean poaching or killing for sport is ok.
What about if animals attack on someone's cows, ships or farm? what about Australia where rabbits were eating everything( vegetables) and people could not stop it by humanitarian tools?
I believe that there is no moral reason not to kill animals for any reason, except maybe if they are another person's property. Other than that, it is perfectly okay, morally, to kill near any animal for nearly any reason
Me saying we shouldn't kill animals is like me saying we shouldn't kill people, yea we shouldn't but guess what we can't stop people from doing it
short term, the best we can do is build them a refuge and protect their lands
but long term, I don't see a future for most animals on this planet. humans will expand, the earth will not. a handful of zoos and safaris.
Okay so the main point for this argument was for some animals like dogs..As in some countries the people (country men or the government) because of the number of dogs there in their society use to kill them just because they are harmful (they use to kill them saying that they are wild animals and they can harm us like biting and all)
I actually want you guys to recommend or think for the solution that what should we do to these dogs or some animals like the ones who are harmful and used to live freely their in some areas or societies in some countries (As their habitat) (Where should we keep them)
I dont believe I ever said farming animals is good for the environment, that is objectively wrong.
and yes, if we slowly stop farming animals those animals will slowly die out, and if we quickly stop eating animals, those animals will quickly die out. I dont see a bright future for any animals on this planet, farmed or wild, but farmed animals wont survive a single generation without our caretaking.
also, I agree one should be able to kill an animal personally if one wishes to eat them. not everytime, but as a trial at least (kinda hard for city dwellers to do that regularly). I'm not sure about mandating this, but I felt it was a personal requirement.
also, if your gonna kill the animal, actually eat that animal. dont kill for fun. I would actually go farther and say that one should kill the animal butcher style and carve it at least once. shooting a deer from far away and then walking away feeling victorious does not qualify. it also leaves shrapnel in the meat and no farmer would do that to food. it's up close and gory.
Also Nemiroff I've seen you say this multiple times that if we stopped eating meat the animals wouldn't have any place to go. In the most general way. First, if everyone slowly became at least only fish eaters the farms wouldn't have cows with no where to go they'd just slowly breed less cows with lower demand and their farms would shrink. Also you seem to hint that it's good for the environment to have these farms stay as they are. Again I don't know if this is a perfect interpretation but one of the big contributors to deforestation at least in South America is the growth of the cattle industry. So in that sense it's hurting the environment. Also the run off from cow and pig farms in America run off into the Mississippi River into the ocean and create dead zones. So I do not know what environment you're talking about.
Personally if you couldn't kill the animal yourself you shouldn't participate in consuming it's meat. That's what I do and therefore I am a vegetarian.
In all honesty no. Why should we go to jail for killing hummans, why don't we get anything for killing poor, helpless animals. It's not right. We are so cuel to them when they have and can't do anything to us, so they shouldn't bs treated this way.
We are on our way to a future where we have the ability to continue to consume meat without killing a single animal, but that's not really a viable future. The environment relies on the culling of animal populations, which is something we track and act upon. So (hopefully) relatively soon, most of the meat on store shelves with be "synthetic", but no matter what, we have to kill animals. And of course we can and should kill them humanely.
I also do agree, grown meat will eventually be the gold standard as it will be cheaper and superior... eventually.
but I don't think that will result in anything humane happening to the animals because of it. they wont he surviving as species, and noone will support them all forever for no reason. maybe a few examples in some zoos.
we should absolutely try to treat the (not insect or rodent) animals with respect, but long term view, I dont see how we will be able to share this planet. its not even that far away really.
To sum up I agree completely that the way the meat industry treats animals is savage and inhumane, I think it's wrong and should be stopped... But I disagree with the head statement because I don't think that's really the solution, killing for consumption is not a human invention, it existed before we did and will continue to exist after we're extinct if the eco system stays rich and vivid (if this planet is lucky enough)
Ethically and morally speaking there is a part to the human that experiences great love and sympathy towards animals. The other part of our nature is intrinsic and more predatory.
One day science will create supplemental meals, meals identical to the genetic make up of meat. They will either begin to clone animals, genetically engineer meats or something else of the technological sort.
If that happens then there will be no point for animals to suffer by our hand. Whoever leads this should win the Nobel Peace prize.
We shouldn't kill animals but we do. It's wrong by most empathetic human ethics but a current necessary component to our survival.
what predators? most predators are extinct or on the way to it. heck most prey that we dont use is losing ground fast. being useful to humans is a huge evolutionary advantage.
even without predators, these animals are unlikely to survive long (as a species). just like we bred dogs to be our friends, partners, and security gaurds, we bred food to be food. fat, slow, stupid.
we should treat them more humanely, but ditching meat wont bode well for the animals we eat. a few examples in some zoos will be their best fate.
Animals viciously hunt and consume each other naturally, I'd say that we can be much more merciful than a lion or a hyena when we kill animals for consumption because we're not wild animals, we can make sure the animals are well treated and healthy during their lives, and we can make sure they don't feel any pain... We don't sink our teeth into the raw flesh of living animals, so let's be reasonable... let's say we stopped killing animals, will we then protect them from their natural predators too? Isn't it a lot of pain and suffering for an animal to be eaten alive by another animal aswell? Where will this idealistic action lead us? Can we really expect and limit the damage that such a huge step will have on the planet's eco system? I think there are too many factors that aren't really thought through.