Ahmed hello
The death camps were not only used for the physical extermination of people, they were the scene of ill-treatment and humiliation aimed at denying (killing) the human dignity of the detainees, which seems to me a particularly aggravating circumstance of this industrialization of murder.
That's right ! the human being united in himself the best and the worst and when the worst is expressed it becomes unnamable. But, as you put it, it's a circumstance
aggravating, which in judicial terms consists in adding to a recognized offense, a plus like premeditation for example, but with or without aggravating circumstances, it is and remains an offense.
Same thing for animal murder, the desire for death and suffering on a joyful side that we find accentuated in hunting (pleasure) or bullfighting for example (or formerly circus games) which underlines that this is not the subject or the object which matters, but the spirit which animates the one who is thirsty to see blood flow (that of the others in general, it is less painful!), this morbid desire which concerns the psychoanalysis.
Likewise, the animal husbandry conditions added to the horror of their killing; not only is their life abnormally short, but the expression of their animality is prohibited because of their appalling living conditions.
Always okay
that adds, but we can only add to what already exists: therefore
the horror which already exists!
cuicui hello
Cuicui wrote:
Janic wrote:
nothing justifies these massacres on a small or large scale!
In other words: stop raising animals.
This is a recurring question among VGLs and even more so among vegans.
In reality this is a false problem. The farm animal can have as much its place as the wild animals, but not in the current proportions whose only destination is an early death, a cow normally lives 20 years, however a dairy cow has an average life expectancy of 8 at 10 years old (if she is not sick and slaughtered before)
Farm animals maintain the plant areas to which humans are accustomed and which would otherwise return to the wild. Then these animals were helpers for the peasant by their muscular power, which disappeared with the mechanical traction and they do not serve any more that with the leisures or the butchery (with, the butchery in any case besides).
While bulls are mainly intended for slaughter and rarely for reproduction, cows are most often intended to ensure the renewal of the herd or the production of milk. The cow is raised either for its milk (breeds of dairy cows), or for the production of meat (breeds for meat or "suckling"), or for both (mixed breeds).
Like all mammals, a cow can only give milk after it has given birth. Before having her first calf, the young female is called heifer.
Dairy cows at the end of life are normally fattened and sent to the slaughterhouse (cull cows). In France, they supply most of what is marketed under the name "beef". France had 18,9 million cows in 2006.
Wikipedia
Note that this is end of life
dairy when production decreases and the cow is no longer profitable because it could live at least 10 more years;
It is also the end of the Inuit way of life, which only survived by killing animals.
It's interesting to see that the arguments are always the same, but let's go anyway.
The Inuit, unlike bears, reindeer, wolves, etc ... are not in their natural environment since unlike other animals they must use devices to survive, hence their inevitable animal consumption. Only the earth is not covered with Inuit, they represent only a tiny part of the world population which is not concerned with an anti-physiological diet reducing life.
And what about the carnivores who kill herbivores so cruelly.
Re-classic! Nature does not give in sentimentality and each living being belongs to an animal category defined by its physiology (and partially its psychology) known and recognized since the works of famous anatomists or not.
Then each predator is equipped with means allowing this predation, which does not exist in humans without claws, without canines for grasping, without sharp molars, etc ... therefore humans are not naturally a predator, at most a scavenger when circumstances and need allow it.
So where we argue on sentimentality, humanism, which so many recommend but do not apply, and in this case the comparison with the exterminating camps is justified because the spirit that animates these butchers is the same; or we leave the feelings aside and in this case only the main rules of biology and physiology must be taken into account and the human omnivorous (that those who affirm this point fail to demonstrate biologically - and not culturally -) is only an untruth which human societies are customary and not only in this area of course.
That said, everyone acts according to their conscience, but in this case we should no longer complain about the harmful effects of these bad choices.
Hello bunny
Your words shock me. I think the comparisons you are making are inappropriate.
Of course it is made to shock! When you want to harvest plums, shake the plum tree or they will dry out and rot on the tree. Why do you think environmentalists put forward nuclear accidents rather than the benefits of electricity production without CO2?
Is the vegetarian full of scruples only aware of the lives he crushes under his feet when he goes to commune with nature during a walk on a beautiful Sunday afternoon?
here too this discourse is one of the classics opposed to the VG and which disturb some VG elsewhere. The hippie period has long since passed and many VG live in cities like carnists and do not commune with nature more than others. We must stop these images of Epinal for postcards!
So, in truth, these are not sentimental scruples because one must indeed take a life to maintain another life whether this one is vegetable or animal, the whole is to know what type of life is suitable for the individual concerned. Our laughs in animal nutrition put animal meal in the cattle feed and the result was catastrophic, but this could only be done because the human intervened in a natural process which these cattle would not have not adhered outside lairage. (It is the same in lab animals subjected to a "scientifically studied" diet that no guinea pig would absorb in wild conditions, which distorts the results elsewhere)
To choose between eating worms or pig, I prefer the pig.
It is a question of cultural habits not of "dietetics" or gastronomy. Tastes and colors… !!!
One last word. When I have to sacrifice one of my pigs I am sad.
It is painful to me but I must do it because this pig will feed my family for several months. But all the time that I fattened him I did everything to make him happy, I ended up attaching myself but when the fateful moment comes. I assume.
Always the same self-justification arguments that we find among fans of bullfighting "
the animal is happy, including in the arena, etc ... " the problem is that at 99,99% it is the bull that ends up in steak, not the bullfighter.
The crocodile crying over the victim he has just devoured must be sad too! You could feed your family with a better adapted food which would avoid this sadness and in addition it would avoid all the physical ills which are related to it, which confirms more and more the works on dietetics and the pathologies of which the humans complain ignoring the relationship between cause and effect because culture and culinary habits have never taken it into account until our modern era.
But fortunately the SS, the cash cow that everyone greedily treats, is it not there to face our overflows? To the delight (there are not sad them!) Labs large producers of poisons that allow to continue a lifestyle that keeps each consumer in power to use their diligent services. Where is the ecology in all this?
Finally, it is not a question of knowing who, one here, one there, can eat his pig fattened on the farm, but whether this model is applicable to the whole of wealthy society like ours and to all the more so to the rest of the world's population and the answer is no! Or, with a growing world population, we feed farm animals with wasteful forces and less humans; or we do the opposite, but not both together because we cannot have the butter and the money of the butter at the same time. So except to show navel-gazing, human society will have to make a choice! And so to answer the subject of the thread: no! producing better will not meet the ever greater demands of a growing population, a large part of which (this is "normal") aspires to the American-European model which is the model par excellence of non-quality.