Beauty & Style Is it Wrong to Kill Animals for fashion etc

[BarneyBent]

[youtube]Cj1wcs7SZj0[/youtube]

The irony of this scene is that Ace Ventura appears to be wearing a leather belt.

On topic, if they're endangered, or even just wild, then that's a no-no. If they're bred, raised and farmed for their fur, skin, meat or whatever, then I've got no problem. If it weren't for their fur, skin, meat or whatever, they wouldn't have been brought into existence anyway. So long as their living conditions are reasonable, it's fine.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

The irony of this scene is that Ace Ventura appears to be wearing a leather belt.

On topic, if they're endangered, or even just wild, then that's a no-no. If they're bred, raised and farmed for their fur, skin, meat or whatever, then I've got no problem. If it weren't for their fur, skin, meat or whatever, they wouldn't have been brought into existence anyway. So long as their living conditions are reasonable, it's fine.

Yeah, but he's Ace Ventura so it is ok.

 

[Schulzenfest]

In a way its ethical that, if you're going to kill something, may as well use all the body you can.

But killing animals purely for fashion (bears, foxes etc), that wrong.

Agree with this.

Is it wrong to eat eggs from battery hens?

Also with this.

To be honest I'm morally against eating meat in general, but I also very much enjoy eating meat, to the point where I'm not going to avoid doing it for the very small impact on the world it would have if I chose to go vego. But if me going vego would send a million other people vego, I'd consider it.

 

[woopedazz]

To be honest I'm morally against eating meat in general, but I also very much enjoy eating meat, to the point where I'm not going to avoid doing it for the very small impact on the world it would have if I chose to go vego. But if me going vego would send a million other people vego, I'd consider it.

I thought you were cool. You disappoint me.

 

[Schulzenfest]

It's weird, in general I'm just about as far away from a greenie as you can get. I just like animals.

 

[Wish Wellingtons]

Depends how nice the item of clothing is, I have a really nice jacket that could be made out of the clits of african children for all i care, it is a ****ing nice jacket.

Those cane toads however, died in vain.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Depends how nice the item of clothing is, I have a really nice jacket that could be made out of the clits of african children for all i care, it is a ****ing nice jacket.

Those cane toads however, died in vain.

Wtf.....

 

[kaysee]

I've posted similar here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676797

And IMO... since we're the animalistic rulers of this Earth... we can do as we wish.

IMPORTANTLY... however... we shouldn't complain about the ramifications of our actions.

So if parts of humanity feel like: eating caged eggs, killing whales for meat, killing foxes/seals for fur... then go for it.

Just do it within your own boundaries and don't complaing about the consequences.

 

[woopedazz]

I've posted similar here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676797

And IMO... since we're the animalistic rulers of this Earth... we can do as we wish.

IMPORTANTLY... however... we shouldn't complain about the ramifications of our actions.

So if parts of humanity feel like: eating caged eggs, killing whales for meat, killing foxes/seals for fur... then go for it.

Just do it within your own boundaries and don't complaing about the consequences.

What if I feel like raping and cannibalising 30 baby animals? Or humans?

 

[Caesar]

We're omnivorous creatures. I have no problem with eating animals (or using them for other stuff) as long as it's done in a sustainable and relatively ethical manner.

But, thread needs more Mitchell & Webb.

[youtube]GKTsWjbjQ8E[/youtube]

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Thread needs more Zizek.

[YOUTUBE]_TqyKsnQD38[/YOUTUBE]

 

[krusden]

What if I feel like raping and cannibalising 30 baby animals? Or humans?

that's the big question.

If as Kaysee says we're the animalistic rulers, does that make us able to not just kill animals for food but other humans if as you say we "feel like it"?

 

[grizzlym]

that's the big question.

If as Kaysee says we're the animalistic rulers, does that make us able to not just kill animals for food but other humans if as you say we "feel like it"?

More so, if we're the animalistic rulers, why does that automatically give us a moral right to dominate another species? Instead of say, a diametrically opposed one that, asserted as animalistic rulers, we had a moral right to protect and nurture those weaker and dependent on ourselves.

 

[kaysee]

What if I feel like raping and cannibalising 30 baby animals? Or humans?

If they break the society laws of where the acts are committed then you face those consequences (remembering different world societies have different laws).

If not it is as I said... do as you wish.

Krusden: there still are pockets of human societies in the world that still practice and accept cannibalistic behaviour.

Our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving (as part of our evolution)... it is no coincidence that the 'safer' the society the more "morale" our laws become (across our species and others).

A) Say in our "caveman" days with short lives, low survival rates and more threats... humans couldn't give a rats about "morality" towards other species or even humans. They HAD to survive... else it was pointless.

B) Fast forward to say the middle ages when the black/bubonic plague was running riot... humans didn't care about moral treatment of say rats... because they were a threat to our survival.

C) Now... with almost zero threat to our survival ESPECIALLY in developed countries (except war)... we continually develop deeper "morale" laws towards other species... such as how rodents are killed. NOTE: other less developed societies who still face threats to their survival don't have these high moral laws.

Guarantee this though... if the shit ever hits the fan and our survival is threatened... humans will place their own survival over morality.

 

[woopedazz]

If they break the society laws of where the acts are committed then you face those consequences (remembering different world societies have different laws).

If not it is as I said... do as you wish.

Krusden: there still are pockets of human societies in the world that still practice and accept cannibalistic behaviour.

Our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving (as part of our evolution)... it is no coincidence that the 'safer' the society the more "morale" our laws become (across our species and others).

A) Say in our "caveman" days with short lives, low survival rates and more threats... humans couldn't give a rats about "morality" towards other species or even humans. They HAD to survive... else it was pointless.

B) Fast forward to say the middle ages when the black/bubonic plague was running riot... humans didn't care about moral treatment of say rats... because they were a threat to our survival.

C) Now... with almost zero threat to our survival ESPECIALLY in developed countries (except war)... we continually develop deeper "morale" laws towards other species... such as how rodents are killed. NOTE: other less developed societies who still face threats to their survival don't have these high moral laws.

Guarantee this though... if the shit ever hits the fan and our survival is threatened... humans will place their own survival over morality.

I don't think you fully understand evolution

 

[kaysee]

I don't think you fully understand evolution

Which is?

 

[woopedazz]

In the context you used the word... Wrong.

 

[kaysee]

In the context you used the word... Wrong.

How so?

Perhaps try explaining your reasoning instead of simply making a statement.

 

[woopedazz]

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that; "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

-talkorigins

Hence your comment "our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving" is completely true. However you then went on to describe it as part of our evolution, which is inherently false as neither the individuals nor the population as a whole have undergone any genetic changes via inheritance or otherwise. There has been no genome shift, only use of previously present personality traits to better deal with environmental pressures. Over extended periods of time it could lead to natural selection and, in turn, evolution (for instance A-B/C), but not from B-C.

/6 upmyselfs.

 

[kaysee]

Evolution relates to more than biological natural selection or genetic drift.

My references to our evolving society and laws relates to the following definition:

–verb (used with object)
1.
to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
–verb (used without object)
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology . to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

Please don't be as narrow minded to limit evolution to biology only. God forbid a journalist/commentator who makes a comment like "Melbourne are an evolving team this year"

 

[woopedazz]

Oh I get it now. Clearly I misread what you said. You didn't say:

Our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving (as part of our evolution)...

You actually said:

Our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving (as part of our society and our ethical laws are continually evolving)...

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Interesting question.

Ethically, i'm opposed to killing animals for any reason regardless of whether it's for food or things like this:

... but having said that, the Cane toad is an introduced species to Australia and has a huge ecological effect, ****ing up other animals and wildlife in the process.

So go wear your hat, I'm fine with it, but I won't be buying one myself

 

[kaysee]

Interesting question.

Ethically, i'm opposed to killing animals for any reason regardless of whether it's for food or things like this:

... but having said that, the Cane toad is an introduced species to Australia and has a huge ecological effect, ****ing up other animals and wildlife in the process.

So go wear your hat, I'm fine with it, but I won't be buying one myself

A more interesting question is

Does a species population or effects on other species determine how we should morally treat that species?

My thoughts are that us humans are more and more trying to "keep" the world in balance. Whether it be keep a species alive, keep gases and environment balanced etc... when the fact is many species and the world are constant going through balance shifts (over the course of millions of years).

 

[grizzlym]

My thoughts are that us humans are more and more trying to "keep" the world in balance. Whether it be keep a species alive, keep gases and environment balanced etc... when the fact is many species and the world are constant going through balance shifts (over the course of millions of years).

So we're trying to keep a world in balance while we frack it up? Do you think we're having much success?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

What does keep the world in balance mean?

In regards to extinct species and our treatment of endangered species, I'd say we're seriously failing at keeping the world in balance.

Humans as a whole are the worst thing that could have happened if we're talking about maintaining the natural structure/balance of this planet. We do a lot of good and of course I am thankful that we exist because for the most part it's a pretty enjoyable existence, but anything that is exotic and beautiful must be slain because we simply must taste it or wear it to impress high society (or try to fit in with high society).

The world is our oyster and we pick at it as we please, sure many fascinating and rare species are disappearing before our eyes but there are still plenty more, right?