Interesting quote - what do you think about this?

I was an environmentalist back before the movement got taken over by idiots who put animal welfare above human welfare.

Jay Scott Raymond


If by human welfare he meant ability to destroy animal habitats for one more hamburger, allow hunting and more pollution, then he’s wrong.

Not sure I like being called an idiot! :wink: If you look at the guy’s website, he certainly seems to like shooting… :astonished:

There a quite a few meat-eating environmentalists round here. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (a local celebrity chef) recently spoke at a public meeting alongside Friends of the Earth, calling on the government to control the environmental and social damage caused by the large supermarkets. He advocates home cooking, using local produce. He has his own small-holding, and a TV cookery show where he features the places he buys food from, often going fishing, shooting birds or scavenging for mushrooms himself.

There seems to be a growing movement in the UK, whereby eating meat is considered OK if it’s organic and local, or you catch it yourself. Whilst it’s probably a lesser of evils, I think we need to challenge this :blackeye:

The implication of what you wrote in your post is that humans should always be above animals. Anyone agreeing with that should probably have a look at the argument from marginal cases and do the tiniest bit of research into the philosophy behind animal rights and animal interest based arguments.

I think we should put human welfare and animal welfare on the same degree… Both have rights and feelings… The only difference is that human can talk and can say what we really have to say… :slight_smile:

Not every human can, and animals do communicate about basic things.

What RIGHTS do you think animals should have?
And if like many people you’re not sure about the word, please look it up before replying, so are you talking about legal rights, or saying that animals have ‘natural’ rights?
Or was that the wrong word to use.

I am sorry if I have used the wrong words… All I am just after is giving animals the right to live and fell free to do things they want to do… :wink:

What about when what two animals want conflict with each other, like when animals hunt?

How much of a right to live? Should every injured animal be given medical treatment?

I don’t think we can do something when two animals conflict… It’s their nature.We can’t just stop them, we might hurt ourselves. Maybe we can just help when we see an injured animal. :slight_smile:

So there’s no right to live then?

Still there is. :smiley:

That doesn’t make sense.
You’re saying that they’re protected and can live for as long as we can allow but at the same time they can just die.

It’s like saying:
Statement 1
whilst at the same time
Not statement 1

It doesn’t make any sense.

If you’re interested in animal rights start off by reading some of Thomas Regan’s work, and then look at the criticisms, try to prove yourself wrong about veganism.
Always be cautious of friends when you’re in debates, arguments, and philosophy.

What I am trying to say is we can protect animals as long as they are with us. We can protect them as long as they want to stay with us. That’s all and nothing more:D I am not debating. I was just sharing my point of view.

If a point of view isn’t able to be scrutinised then is that view really worth having?

And that says nothing about animals in the wild, so does that mean they’re open for being treated how ever…

Just wanted to add that on the issue of animals fighting each other in the wild…they do it for survival. No animal I’ve heard of will kill more creatures than it has to then eat them all at once, get really fat, create a culture of over-consumption within it’s group, struggle with associated health problems and then die prematurely.

Apart from humans. :laughing:

But back to the original quote…I think human rights and animal rights are very closely linked and that when we act to protect animals, the environment or whatever, we are protecting ourselves too. We may be acting to try and save rainforests from being destroyed to clear ground for raising cattle and producing burgers, but we’re also trying to save our own ecosystem so that we can continue to live here. And less burgers would be good for humans too. It’s all mixed in together somehow, for me.

I just believe that there will be no peace in the world till the time people make peace with animal nations.
So the animal welfare is a priority as well as the welfare of the all living organism. Our possibility to thrive depends whether the world stay green and breathing!

only a dull minded witless savant would say such a hopelessly stoopid thing. geeze.

Animal Rights in my opinion is simple. Animals and Humans both inhabit Earth and we should have the equal amount of right to be here as the other. Animals have the right to live their lives without us interfering with them. I wouldn’t interfere with a lion hunting a gazelle for this reason: I’m not the boss of the lion, and I’m not the boss of the gazelle, they are the boss of themselves, and as such they coexist together. The Circle of Life and all that jazz. Humans just mess this cycle up. Jay Scott Raymond clearly doesn’t see it this way unfortunately. :frowning:

Furthuremore, he must have not got the memo that those that put human welfare above animal welfare and continue to factory farm animals without thinking twice, is destroying the environment, therefore he’s a terrible environmentalist. Just saying.