We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#2I'm not sure how far we should go with the definition of "cruelty to animals". The issues he identified in the article does exist but it's probably too far if we are to abolish any real meat from the market (which the author doesn't suggest but I feel is going to be). I'd definitely go against such a proposition, especially if it is an agenda that benefit the plant-based meat producers (and the capitalists behind them) most.
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#3I'm not sure how far we should go with the definition of "cruelty to animals". The issues he identified in the article does exist but it's probably too far if we are to abolish any real meat from the market (which the author doesn't suggest but I feel is going to be). I'd definitely go against such a proposition, especially if it is an agenda that benefit the plant-based meat producers (and the capitalists behind the…
How far is too far, do you think? In terms of labeling something "animal cruelty"?
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#4Hey NY Times, if you want to do some more good here, lose login wall!
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#5I'm not sure how far we should go with the definition of "cruelty to animals". The issues he identified in the article does exist but it's probably too far if we are to abolish any real meat from the market (which the author doesn't suggest but I feel is going to be). I'd definitely go against such a proposition, especially if it is an agenda that benefit the plant-based meat producers (and the capitalists behind the…
We should go as far with the definition of cruelty to animals as we do with the definition of cruelty to humans. Any less is ignorant anthropocentrism.
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#6I'm not sure how far we should go with the definition of "cruelty to animals". The issues he identified in the article does exist but it's probably too far if we are to abolish any real meat from the market (which the author doesn't suggest but I feel is going to be). I'd definitely go against such a proposition, especially if it is an agenda that benefit the plant-based meat producers (and the capitalists behind the…
We should go as far with the definition of cruelty to animals as we do with the definition of cruelty to humans. Any less is ignorant anthropocentrism.
Well you have to kill them for food. I guess that's pretty cruel...
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#7I'm not sure how far we should go with the definition of "cruelty to animals". The issues he identified in the article does exist but it's probably too far if we are to abolish any real meat from the market (which the author doesn't suggest but I feel is going to be). I'd definitely go against such a proposition, especially if it is an agenda that benefit the plant-based meat producers (and the capitalists behind the…
How far is too far, do you think? In terms of labeling something "animal cruelty"?
I think that's what a vote of all citizens in a certain country can decide. Different countries/cultures have different opinions for sure.
Re: We Will Look Back on This Age of Cruelty to Animals in Horror
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should go as far with the definition of cruelty to animals as we do with the definition of cruelty to humans. Any less is ignorant anthropocentrism.
Well you have to kill them for food. I guess that's pretty cruel...
No you don't. If you're in that position, you're a farmer, and your realistic alternative is to not raise them in the first place.
Your choice is to give them life and then slaughter them, or not let them live in the first place. Which of those is cruel, in your opinion? This isn't a trivial question.