P
I'll try again then.
Please excuse my ignorance, but where does the meat come from.
J
joinerjohn
Probably from some farm somewhere. The horse or cow has been bred specially for the pet food factory, then died from natural causes. Then treated with due consideration, before being cut up with a sharp knife etc. Anything that can't be used is given a decent Christian burial.
I'll try again then.
Please excuse my ignorance, but where does the meat come from.
Nice and ethical n'all .
J
joinerjohn
Side stepping the question again peaps?? Come on man, look the word up in the dictionary if you don't know what violence is.
P
peaps
Probably from some farm somewhere. The horse or cow has been bred specially for the pet food factory, then died from natural causes. Then treated with due consideration, before being cut up with a sharp knife etc. Anything that can't be used is given a decent Christian burial.
I'll try again then.
Please excuse my ignorance, but where does the meat come from.
Nice and ethical n'all .
Local farm.
P
peaps
People have a strange idea of violence, I've said that I don't condone violence against a person to make a point. Are you going to reply to my other post?
Peaps clearly the animal rights philosophy is flawed as even yourself cannot live your life as if animals have rights.
You own cats and dogs as property, and you buy meat from a farm which owns cattle as property.
You own cats and dogs as property, and you buy meat from a farm which owns cattle as property.
P
peaps
I fail to see how you come to that conclusion.
Put your glasses on then. 
J
joinerjohn
cajar,,,, peaps obviously doesn't see his pets as animals that he owns. The farmer he buys the meat from doesn't see his animals as things that he owns. Nahh they both see them as animals that just happen to share their lives with us humans. The farmer probably shares his home with a few cows and sheep, whilst peaps is happy to share all of his belongings with his cats and dogs. They both probably have long meaningful conversations with them too.
Well if animals had the right not to be ribeye steaks, your lifestyle would change. Come back when you are practicing what you preach. And I'm not even talking about your use of medical treatment that was was brought about by ethical animal research. I'll save that scorn for people like Mary Beth Sweetland, the vice president of PETA, an organisation that hold your same view of animal rights. Ms Sweetland was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and chose to use insulin which was derived from animal testing. Defending her actions she said "well I don't think I am a hypocrite, I need my life to fight for animal rights". The animal rights lobby are campaigning for something that they themselves do not even actually want, they are just too blind to realise it.
P
peaps
Interesting to see you know so much about my life and how I live it
I rescue animals I don't legally own any of the animals in my care. I work with a few orgs who rescue dogs, we keep room for 10 dogs. Mainly around Christmas time we are full. We don't pay for their food or medical bills, we just offer a home until they are found a full time home. all the dogs I take on have either medical or social problem due to the ill treatment they suffered. These rescues get full very quickly and one has had to resort to paying expensive kennel fees to house them, the alternative would be to leave them in the council run "shelters" where they would be put down after two weeks if not claimed. We take the ones who's time is run out. In the past 8 years the council kennel has not had to put a dogs down because we take them on and re-home them.
Similar situation for the hens. the cat's are feral and they moved into our old oak barn, 5 of them, after their colony was broken up by the RSPCA. We only intervene when they need medical care.
PETA are not classed as an animal rights based group, they have a kill policy....... They can be best described as an animal welfare org
I would at least expected you to have known the difference..?
It's nice that you are looking after the dogs noone else wants, it shows you have a good heart, however that is not the question that was put to you.
You use products obtained by the ownership of animals while holding the view that animals are not our property. That is hypocrisy and proof of the failure of that philosophy.
And PETA are the animal rights organization, certainly not welfare. Just look at peta's about page. Their president Ingrid Newkirk wants to ban people having animals as pets, among other things. She holds exactly the same abolishionist view that you posted earlier in the thread. The difference between you and her is that you use meat obtained by farming and ownership of animals to feed the dogs in your care. Clearly if animal rights of this sort were a possiblity then most of those in favour of it would be able to put it into practice.
You use products obtained by the ownership of animals while holding the view that animals are not our property. That is hypocrisy and proof of the failure of that philosophy.
And PETA are the animal rights organization, certainly not welfare. Just look at peta's about page. Their president Ingrid Newkirk wants to ban people having animals as pets, among other things. She holds exactly the same abolishionist view that you posted earlier in the thread. The difference between you and her is that you use meat obtained by farming and ownership of animals to feed the dogs in your care. Clearly if animal rights of this sort were a possiblity then most of those in favour of it would be able to put it into practice.
P
peaps
You may want to read this before we continue down this line..?
"There are several philosophical approaches to the issue of animal ethics. The utilitarian approach is exemplified by Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University. The deontological approach is represented by theorists such as Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, Mark Rowlands and Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. The capabilities approach is represented by Martha Nussbaum. The egalitarian approach has been examined by Ingmar Persson and Peter Vallentyne. The virtue ethics approach has been studied by Rosalind Hursthouse. Finally, a pluralistic approach has been considered by Stephen R. L. Clark."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal...litzEmail&utm_content=534601&utm_campaign=Web
Similar threads
- Johnmelad502
- General Discussion
