Coming to the Reliant Astrodome: The Houston Animal Cruelty Festival

I don't really think its semantics. If you're decision is based on the fact that its considered 'barbaric' in your opinion, then you could justify restricting many other activities on the same basis. Actually finding the quotes is an afterthought. Keeping in mind that we are talking about animals, and what inherent value to place on them, if any. So save the murder, rape, etc etc.

Well, part of the problem is that I'm not really sure what a rodeo advocate would say about this whole abuse issue. While rural America is generally uneducated in the institutional sense, I'd be willing to say a rancher knows more about ranching than city folks, and that a farmer knows more about farming than city folks. Education is relative.

Well wouldn't that assume that animals have inherent rights? And if so why do you get to cattle prod them onto the slaughter trail? My point is simply that you readily overlay your ethical criteria over one issue, without applying it over other relevant issues. Otherwise you'd be like Jeff and not eat meat, not wear or use animal products. I'm not ready to do that. Neither, apparently, are you.

Mmmmm, maybe. I believe the problem I have is that different culturals will make different 'ethical' conclusions. So while you assume your 'ethical' criteria is universal, I don't. And I'm not ready to take that leap unless the issue is so grave that action must be taken, like human sacrifice, or slavery. I don't assign the same rights and values to animals as I do to humans (which is of course anthropocentric but as you pointed out that is not unique). If I did I wouldn't be involved in any animal exploitation. If you were consistent than neither would you. Does that make sense?

This goes to the point that your ethics are not universal, so WHOSE ethical standards you use IS important. Generally, ethical standards are set by the majority, although to progress the boundaries can be pushed by the minority (and this may be such a case)...

It only begs the question if you are the universal arbiter of ethics.

Really, Haven, I'm on record as saying those opposed can move to reform the rodeo, removing the most heinous aspects (if they're judged that way), so I don't think its fair for you to paint my position as something other than it is. BUT what I am saying is that using your ethical formula, all other manner of activities would be restricted, which is itself a Pandora's box that I am not ready to open.

 

I really don't understand Hayes and his threshold. He says female genital mutilation crosses the line? Why? What about castration? And how is genital mutalation a step worse than keeping a newborn female calf from it's natural born right to drink mother's milk, see the light of day, get excercise, eat a normal cow diet, and grow. Why eat it straight from the womb? I'm sorry, my wife just gave birth a month ago and I think veal is disgusting. And, what? The value of preserving local culture outweighs the rights of animals. Again, I'm sorry, but 150 years ago our local culture included chains and whips and human bondage. Over time ignorant people learned that the rights of human beings outweighed the value of preserving our local culture. Respect.

 

Its simple. I don't apply the same inherent value to animals as I do to people. I wouldn't eat your newborn (maybe Tyson would??). Of course I'm assuming your newborn is not a calf.

 

Hayes:

I think we've probably reached the limit of what we can argue here .

Your ultimate position seems to be that I don't have the right to set myself up as an arbiter of ethics. I don't claim to have any such authority. My claims sort of run like this:

1. You acknowledge that you're not a complete relativist.

2. This means that if I can establish that rodeos are unethical in their treatment of animals, then they should be altered.

3. Appeals to a critical point of mass perception and social mores are now irrelevant, since we're debating an individual ethical point.

4. The critical issue is whether or not humans are justified in engaging in entertainment that directly harms living creatures.

There is one issue that I do want to address that you just raised.

Actually, no. I've actually always been bothered by vegetarianism for ethical reasons. Why? Because it runs counter to natural consumption dynamics. When you really get down to it, the most basic need in life is to consume enough calories to reproduce. Consuming flesh, and wearing leather, etc... allows one to continue sustain such basic biological imperatives. Animals themselves eat flesh. Animals, however, do not keep other animals imprisoned in miserable conditions for the purpose of mass entertainment.

Now, can one accomplish these goals by alternate means? Yep. One can be a vegan. But the objective itself is still utility. Biological imperatives are much more important than mere entertainment. Especially entertainment that's based on a way of life that's gone the way of the dinosaur in actuality.

Sorry if this was poorly worded... haven't slept in about 20 hours . My sleeping patterns have become horrible, and I'm trying to get retracked!

 

Haven,

Fair enough. As I've said I'd agree to reform of rodeo practices. But not because the rodeo is outdated or stupid, or because I have a low opinion of rednecks.

 

I hereby dub thee Defender of Rednecks and Rodeos.

 

Damn, I've only been once. Shouldn't have opened my mouth...

 

The question is what inherent value do animals have? If you believe they should be torture, mutilated and experimented on at will by humans, then we have no more left to debate here.

Haven, I haven't consumed any animal flesh and I have two healthy children. Some of the largest animals on Earth are vegetarians by nature. Cows, horses, buffaloes, elephants, elk, moose, etc. don't eat other animals. Even the largest of the dinosaurs were the plant eaters or herbivores. For the record, though, I do drink a lot of cow milk and see nothing wrong with raising cows ethically. I don't even think they would survive in the wild without human stewardship. The North American wolf population continues to be decimated by cattle ranchers.
I, also, see nothing wrong with hunting animals respectfully for use as food, clothing and shelter. It has been going on for thousands of years. Only recently in our culture have we lost respect and reverance for animals and the Earth. The Indians slaughtered many a buffalo in their quest for survival, but never tortured, mutilated or hurt animals for fun and entertainment. I agree with Hayes in his preference for hunting and fishing as a source for natural, free and healthy meat as opposed to supporting dirty, often inhumane, cruel and unhealthy ranching practices and conditions of some large agribusinesses, feedlots and slaughterhouses. I would definitely prefer to go out with a bow and arrow and hunt a wild turkey or deer than to consume some of that crap, including veal.

 

I mean, most of you have to agree that some of the stuff these agribusinesses do is just sick. Do you know they actually purchase ground up euthanized pets from vet clinics to use as cattle feed at feedlots. And roadkill collected by the D.O.T. off interstate highways is also used as cattle feed. And until the mad cow scare, a lot of cows in feedlots were eating ground up cows and sheep. The cycle of life . This reminds me, has anyone ever seen that move Solyent Green?

 

Two excellent books on this topic are by John Robbins, Diet for a New America and The Food Revolution. They both amply document the cruelty to animals that takes place at giant profit-maximizing agribusiness lots. Truly horrendous.

There is also a documentary I saw called "The Witness" (see more here) ) on the same subject. It focuses on the fur industry, and graphically depicts common inhumane methods of killing the animals, including anal electrocution, being gassed and then skinned alive, and having their heads smashed by pikes. Not pretty stuff. And certainly not anything that should be called "sport" by anyone with a conscience.

 

Yeah, right1, I'd certainly agree there need to be better conditions required for live stock.

 

Damn, suddenly all of these animal whackos are coming out of the woodworks. It is just plain anti-American.

 

Actually, you are probably right, though not in the sense that I suspect you intended. The American way has always been profit first and compassion later (if at all). We're mostly too busy trying to figure out what we can get for ourselves to care about the problems of other countries, or the disadvantaged within our own country.

 

Right. Everywhere else but the US they spend all their time trying to care for the poor and disadvantaged in their country and in other countries. If it weren't for the evil American way of life the planet would be one big harmonious globe of love and food for everyone.

 

America is better than some, worse than others... imo.

Americans have an alarming tendency to think that everything we do is #1... but then, we're not that bad, either... certainly not like our detractors paint us.

 

Forcing the animals to listen to Neil Diamond...now THAT'S cruel.

Other than that, I find nothing wrong with the Rodeo.

 

Go to hell.

 

Neil Diamond fan?

 

hmmmm...time to bring back Behad's "Houston Animal Cruelty Festival" thread...I think we should make this a yearly tradition!

 

I watched the Fiesta Bowl and saw Willis McGahee blow out his knee.

- He is a living creature
- I was watching for the sole purpose of entertainment
- undoubtedly there is the risk in every game that he or any other player could be harmed

What the hell is the difference?