Fighting for animal rights but eat animal (Class Debate)?

K

kevin n

New member
Okay, we are having a class debate in our government class. The topic is that constructions are going to destroy the forest to build home. Each group is given a topic to defend and ours was Animal Activist. Everything was going well until the question: You fight for animals, and yet you eat them.

I can't think of a defending or counter argument except that we don't eat forest animals, only farm animals.
Help?
 
Well, I don't eat animals and I am opposed to the culture that says that it's okay to hunt and kill them for pleasure. However, the reasons I don't eat animals are that eating meat is unhealthful for the humans who do it and diverting protein foods from human consumption to animal consumption deprives the underclass of humans of food so that the upper classes can have meat to eat.

In my opinion, the best argument for you to use is that you are arguing for the *humane treatment* of all animals. While they are living, farm animals should be treated well; provided feed, water, shelter, and clean living quarters; and transported from place to place in a humane manner. The means of killing farm animals for food should likewise be humane (and often it is not), avoiding creating fear or pain, and not wounding (rather than quickly and cleanly killing) an animal in the process.

As far as woodland and other wild animals, if hunting is permitted, it should be done within the parameters of the law and "good sportsmanship." Again, avoid wounding an animal and leaving it to experience pain and a slow death.
 
ok, some hints:

"you fight for animals" means, or should mean, that you fight for animal rights to prevent people from unnecessarily hurt them or exploit them. The word "unnecessarily" is important because sacrificing animals for food is not considered as hurting or exploiting them as long as they are sacrificed in a "human" and "expedite" way to minimize suffering.

People need to eat and people need to eat animal meat (beef, lamb, pork) so people sacrifice animals for food. In most places they sacrifice the animals by shooting them with a special kind of gun which actually kills them instantly thus preventing suffering and unnecessary mistreatment. It would be very different if you kill animals for fun, like they do in some countries (Spain, Mexico and other LatinAmerican countries) where bulls for example are played with by the "matadores" (matadores is Spanish for "killers") and then killed by sticking a spade which in many cases doesn't kill the bulls immediately but actually make them bleed internally and suffer until they die. Also, in other countries, like in China, they kill dogs for food but they way they kill them is not considerate or human, they slaughter the dogs alive and hang them to death while they are still moving....

Killing an animal is not disapproved by animal activist as long as the killing is justified (that is, it is necessary) for food and so long as it is done in a human way to minimize animal suffering.

I hope this helps.
 
Building homes isn't a necessity of survival, eating is. Animals eating other animals is just part of the food chain; it's part of nature. Construction is causing damage to nature...
 
Building homes isn't a necessity of survival, eating is. Animals eating other animals is just part of the food chain; it's part of nature. Construction is causing damage to nature...
 
Building homes isn't a necessity of survival, eating is. Animals eating other animals is just part of the food chain; it's part of nature. Construction is causing damage to nature...
 
Building homes isn't a necessity of survival, eating is. Animals eating other animals is just part of the food chain; it's part of nature. Construction is causing damage to nature...
 
Back
Top