India : Food for thought.

[Secret Chief]

Can you understand that many meat eaters see a need to lower animal cruelty?

Yes, certainly.

It is far less cruel to die in a slaughterhouse than to be eaten by a carnivore in the wild.

It's not just the end point though. The life before that is likely one of abuse (even in the dairy industry) and a shorter life expectancy. I try to avoid speaking on behalf of others, let alone other species, but I personally would prefer to live a natural life and then die a natural death from a carnivore rather than have the life of an animal on a farm.

Plus the vast majority of those animals would not have been alive in the first place if not for being a source of meat.

We might as well kill them, now that we've bred them? Perhaps stop breeding them then?

 

[Secret Chief]

consider animal we eat as rightful

Clearly I disagree. I consider the right to life of non-human animals to outweigh any misplaced notion of a right of humans to breed, kill and eat them.

essential source of food humans have always eaten

Meat is not an essential in a human diet. What we may have always done is of course no reason on its own to continue doing.

. What is the moral justification for a democratic government to impose a certain view about food onto all it's citizens?

I consider there is an obvious moral justification to end unnecessary killing. It clearly won't happen though. However, of course governments are involved in shaping human consumption as they see fit eg labelling laws around things such as fat content, salt content, calories, restricting alcohol and tobacco sales because of age, label warnings about alcohol and tobacco health effects, banning of ingredients etc etc. Most recently in the UK it has been made law that all restaurants that employ more than 250 nationally have to put the calories next to each menu item. This democratic government is in effect imposing a view about weight - it has said as much. "You should consume fewer calories - obesity is a growing problem" is the view being "imposed."

 

[sayak83]

Clearly I disagree. I consider the right to life of non-human animals to outweigh any misplaced notion of a right of humans to breed, kill and eat them.



Meat is not an essential in a human diet. What we may have always done is of course no reason on its own to continue doing.



I consider there is an obvious moral justification to end unnecessary killing. It clearly won't happen though. However, of course governments are involved in shaping human consumption as they see fit eg labelling laws around things such as fat content, salt content, calories, restricting alcohol and tobacco sales because of age, label warnings about alcohol and tobacco health effects, banning of ingredients etc etc. Most recently in the UK it has been made law that all restaurants that employ more than 250 nationally have to put the calories next to each menu item. This democratic government is in effect imposing a view about weight - it has said as much. "You should consume fewer calories - obesity is a growing problem" is the view being "imposed."

Govt is however not banning the food items that have high calories. They simply label them. That is the difference. Informing the people and forcing the people are two different things. It's the same thing with alcohol or cigarette. The govt has no business banning them, but can label them. I have no objection if a govt labels meat as "coming from killing an animal that feels pain". But banning them is oversteppping of their authority.

 

[Secret Chief]

Govt is however not banning the food items that have high calories. They simply label them. That is the difference. Informing the people and forcing the people are two different things. It's the same thing with alcohol or cigarette. The govt has no business banning them, but can label them. I have no objection if a govt labels meat as "coming from killing an animal that feels pain". But banning them is oversteppping of their authority.

I don't expect it to happen, it was just wishful thinking. Governments do have the power to ban products as they see fit. Based on health concerns alone, of the two, alcohol causes more problems than marijuna yet the former is only banned for younger people (and brings in a lot of tax revenue).

 

[sayak83]

I don't expect it to happen, it was just wishful thinking. Governments do have the power to ban products as they see fit. Based on health concerns alone, of the two, alcohol causes more problems than marijuna yet the former is only banned for younger people (and brings in a lot of tax revenue).

The basic point I am making is that the government is wrong to ban things that are not lethal or harms other people. It imfringes on freedom choice.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Simple answer no as there is no animal welfare issue. However, I do consider it a waste of resources (since meat is not nutritionally essential) and is likely to maintain the "taste" for the "real thing" - which will probably be sold as a premium luxury good.

Personally, I would not want to eat it. Pleasure in taste is of course psychological and subject to change. Till the age of 24 I loved meat, fish and poultry. Now....I'd gag. Plus, I wouldn't trust the provider to be honest. When McD launched plant burgers in the UK there were multiple persistent cases of the outlets running out and selling meat burgers instead to customers who thought they were being given plant burgers.

Actually your wrong. Animals are essential for human health.

But that's for another time another thread.

 

[Secret Chief]

The basic point I am making is that the government is wrong to ban things that are not lethal or harms other people. It imfringes on freedom choice.

Meat harms people! (Cancers).

 

[sayak83]

Meat harms people! (Cancers).

Not other people. Basic and important difference.

 

[Secret Chief]

Actually your wrong. Animals are essential for human health.

But that's for another time another thread.

Yes I was wondering when you'd contribute that. I'm 62, never spent a night in hospital and take part in half marathons. My neighbour is a vegan, bulked up like Schwarzenegger and lives at the gym. (Just a couple of statistical freaks though). Vegetarians tend to have healthier life styles too.

Quick online search, first link:

"The report found that low meat consumption decreases risk of death and increases life expectancy. In fact, research shows that reducing meat consumption can increase your life span by 3.6 years. The same report showed that societies with plant-based diets are more likely to live past 70 years of age."

- Life Expectancy of Vegetarians Vs. Meat Eaters | Livestrong.com

 

[Secret Chief]

Not other people. Basic and important difference.

Eh? Any people including "other" people get cancers.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes I was wondering when you'd contribute that. I'm 62, never spent a night in hospital and take part in half marathons. My neighbour is a vegan, bulked up like Schwarzenegger and lives at the gym. Just a couple of statistical freaks though.

I'm positive there are animal products involved if not directly, but indirectly.

Still, I get what your saying, and I'm 100% for culture meats where the only sacrifice from the animal is its cells and not its life.

 

[sayak83]

Eh? Any people including "other" people get cancers.

If person X eats processed meat, person X increases his chance of having cancer, but another person Y is unaffected. So the harm is to the consumer only, not a third party. That is the point.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm positive there are animal products involved if not directly, but indirectly.

Still, I get what your saying, and I'm 100% for culture meats where the only sacrifice from the animal is its cells and not its life.

Fair enough, just to say I edited my post.

 

[ajay0]

Some Politicians in Delhi want closure of meat shops during Navaratri.

It is not just the Hindus but the Jains too seek the closure of meat shops and killing of animals/birds during their festivals.

The killing and consumption of pigs is banned in Israel and Islamic countries.

Considering this fact, I don't think there should be much of an issue about the closure of meat shops and killing of animals/birds during Hindu and Jain religious festivals, especially since Mahatma Gandhi himself advocated nonviolence towards animals and birds.

This also emphasizes the teaching of non-violence or ahimsa and compassion , which is very vital in today's world where conflicts and wars are on the rise.

 

[sayak83]

It is not just the Hindus but the Jains too seek the closure of meat shops and killing of animals/birds during their festivals.

The killing and consumption of pigs is banned in Israel and Islamic countries.

Considering this fact, I don't think there should be much of an issue about the closure of meat shops and killing of animals/birds during Hindu and Jain religious festivals, especially since Mahatma Gandhi himself advocated nonviolence towards animals and birds.

This also emphasizes the teaching of non-violence or ahimsa and compassion , which is very vital in today's world where conflicts and wars are on the rise.

I am against the banning of pork in Islam majority countries...

 

[ajay0]

I am against the banning of pork in Islam majority countries...

If Israel and Islamic countries allow the slaughter and consumption of pork, then India can allow slaughter of animal/birds in its religious festivals.

Both India and Nepal have created legislations banning animal and bird slaughter in certain Hindu religious festivals of a primitive, tribal nature. Hindu scriptures consider Himsa or violence as bad karma.

 

[sayak83]

If Israel and Islamic countries allow the slaughter and consumption of pork, then India can allow slaughter of animal/birds in its religious festivals.

Both India and Nepal have created legislations banning animal and bird slaughter in certain Hindu religious festivals of a primitive, tribal nature. Hindu scriptures consider Himsa or violence as bad karma.

Once again the question is not what countries do but what they should do. Is restriction freedom of choice with regards to food for its citizens something that a government has a right to impose or not, and under what circumstances. As far as I am concerned I argue that the govt has no business restricting the private practice or choice of any citizen or community unless a persuasive case can be made that that practice or choice directly harms other citizens in a serious manner. This involves everything from food, alcohol, cigarettes, even soft drugs, legalized prostitution etc. It's is not govt. job to legislate private morality. A govt task is simply to maintain order and peace and look after the administrative infrastructure of public services.

 

[ajay0]

Once again the question is not what countries do but what they should do. Is restriction freedom of choice with regards to food for its citizens something that a government has a right to impose or not, and under what circumstances. As far as I am concerned I argue that the govt has no business restricting the private practice or choice of any citizen or community unless a persuasive case can be made that that practice or choice directly harms other citizens in a serious manner. This involves everything from food, alcohol, cigarettes, even soft drugs, legalized prostitution etc. It's is not govt. job to legislate private morality. A govt task is simply to maintain order and peace and look after the administrative infrastructure of public services.

But there are laws forbidding cruelty to animals and birds in India and around the civilized world along with punishments. India has also banned animal and bird sacrficies in some of its Hindu religious traditions of a primitive nature .

As per your governmental parameters, it should not be doing thus.

 

[sayak83]

But there are laws forbidding cruelty to animals and birds in India and around the civilized world along with punishments. India has also banned animal and bird sacrficies in some of its Hindu religious traditions of a primitive nature .

As per your governmental parameters, it should not be doing thus.

Pets have protection as they are considered partial members of society. So does wildlife through common rights and importance of wildlife and forests to society as a whole.
But beyond that you are correct, justifications are needed regarding a coherent definition of animal rights. It cannot be that a stray dog has rights while a stray mouse does not.