CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:9
Arguments:9
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Animal Welfare (7)

Debate Creator

ekprince(5) pic



Animal Welfare

Students of Animal Science 101 are you ready to debate animal welfare?
RULES:
1. NEVER use inappropriate, harmful, or offensive language. 
2. Don't use opinions. Stick with the facts.
3. Have fun with it!
Add New Argument
2 points

Cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, kangaroos, ostriches, and bison should all be treated gently, fed well, kept in clean and comfortable habitats, slaughtered humanely, and served with complementary side dishes.

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

Cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, kangaroos, ostriches, and bison

Why only this specific list of animals? Also, what's your opinion on the welfare of animals outside of this list?

treated gently

Slaughter isn't gentle.

fed well, kept in clean and comfortable habitats

There are many, many instances of this not occuring, despite numerous regulations. How do you propose this be solved?

slaughtered humanely

To be humane is to show compassion; is captivity followed by death compassionate?

marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

Why only this specific list of animals?

Those are most of the animals raised by people specifically for food.

They (or their analog ancestors) are also prey animals in the wild.

Slaughter isn't gentle.

Death in the natural world tends to be far more brutal than what happens in a slaughterhouse. (Refer to my post on this thread about the lions killing a zebra.)

There are many, many instances of this not occuring, despite numerous regulations. How do you propose this be solved?

Frankly, I have only two such proposals. The most direct solution for food animals is free range cattle, poultry, etc.. I disapprove of what happens in factory farms, especially the mechanized poultry farms, but as you say, regulations are ineffective.

It is unrealistic for people to eat only wild game because of population pressure and habitat encroachment. As it is the animals are starving and suffering additional pain and hardship because of that pressure. That is the result of there being almost seven billion excess people.

The better solution to the problem of animal suffering is to stop vaccinating children or distributing medicines, stop extending the human lifespan or curing cancer, stop feeding starving people in famine-ravaged regions, stop lowering infant mortality rates, stop all programs that help people who cannot or do not support themselves.

If we reduce the human population low enough, the animals can live where they like before being brutally killed and eaten by natural predators or humanely killed and eaten by people.

is captivity followed by death compassionate?

It depends on the captivity and the manner of death. If captivity entails a couple years in a pasture, followed by six months in a stall, then a pneumatic bolt through the forehead, then that clearly is far more compassionate than letting it live free and terrified until finally being taken down by wolves and ripped apart while still alive.

.

I have to emphasize, the lions, tigers, wolves, etc. and I all agree that the most relevant factor is that animals are delicious. They WILL be killed for food, so my original post is the best case scenario for the prey animals.

1 point

This is not an attack. But are you suggesting that we all become vegans?

LogicItself(28) Disputed
0 points

"Slaughtered humanely"

This is how delusional humans are, they think you can slaughter something "humanely" and they name the very word "humane" after their own species. There are plenty of animals that prey on other animals, but only humans can create giant factories of death and pollution and be so delusional as to think they are the very definition of compassion and ethical standards.

Killing is a part of living, but don't be so retarded that you convince yourself you are "righteous" while causing more death than any other species. Humans even kill each other more often than other species, never mind killing other species. The word "humane" is a lie, it's like naming a word that is supposed to infer pacifism after a serial killer.

AlofRI(3294) Clarified
2 points

Obviously, "things" can be slaughtered "inhumanely" and THAT'S no lie.

marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

LI,

Killing is a part of living, but don't be so retarded that you convince yourself you are "righteous" while causing more death than any other species.

Nobody that I know of is claiming "righteousness," merely that animals are delicious. Certainly, I think that there is no excuse for animals to suffer by living in filthy conditions in factory farms, or for poultry to be mutilated so they cannot peck each other, etc., etc.. That is not a righteous view, but a minimally humane one.

This is how delusional humans are, they think you can slaughter something "humanely" and they name the very word "humane" after their own species. ...and be so delusional as to think they are the very definition of compassion and ethical standards.

Your statement certainly seems sound on its surface, but it definitely depends on an absence of context.

Consider, I once saw footage of a pride of lions killing a zebra. At the end of the chase, the lions all hung on the still standing zebra.

One lioness hung over the shoulders of the zebra, her entire weight hanging on her claws digging into the shoulder and side as the zebra continued to stagger forward.

One lioness was dangling under the neck of the zebra by her forelegs, which wrapped around the back of the zebra's neck, dug her claws in, showing visible stripes as they tore skin open under the lion's weight. Meanwhile her jaws clamped on the zebra's throat, tearing at the skin and muscle.

The third lioness, was draped over the rear of the zebra, her claws ripping the flesh of the zebra's back as the exhausted zebra finally lost the ability to struggle forward. When the hindmost lion tore a mouthful of flesh from the zebra's haunch, the zebra strained its neck and bared its teeth in a scream that extended for nearly a half minute before it finally collapsed under the weight of the lions.

As these lions began ripping flesh off the still living zebra, other lions joined, ripping open the belly of the zebra, pulling out its entrails. As the pride crowded around and began feeding, they had to avoid the kicks of the thrashing zebra while they ate their still living dinner. The zebra continued to make ever weaker running movements for at least five minutes after it stopped thrashing. It was at least ten minutes from the moment the first bite was torn from its ass to when the legs finally stilled.

I am fairly sure that had that zebra been aware of such a thing, it would have longed for the humanely quick death of a pneumatic bolt being shot through its skull into its brain so it could die in a few seconds in a nice comfortable slaughterhouse.