Is it Genocide?

Question

Kind of follow on question to the previus one I asked. Is this policy of reducing the number of animals in the community not the equivalent to the genocide performed by the Nazi's on the Jew's? I think it is.

Answer 1

NO, don't be silly!!

Answer 2

The Nazi's and Jews might as well have been a civil war because it was a society conflict based of discrimination much like the genocides in Africa not science based off natural selection. I don't think we should kill any animals however I do understand there are many preditors out there who would balance the prey population. It's not cruel like the Nazi's it's nature. I think it's genocide if someone slaugters an animal because man was not meant nor desigend to consume and digest meat. Peopel can argue the whole teeth thing all they want but I doubt they would do the research to find out what those teeth are really used for. It's been explained many times on here but people never read closed questions. Oh, and Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. His doctor placed him on a vegetarian diet towards the last few years of his life but he did occasionally eat meat. Genisis 9:1 was after god punished man for his disobedience by declared that man could only eat those animals which where already dead and only those declared as clean animals. He never ever gave man permission to kill animals.



EDIT: The sad thing about what Rebecca said is it's true that animals have no concience. They don't need it because they abide by natures will. They don't try to corupt it but rather keep it pure. They don't need to think what the difference between right and wrong is because it's already embedded into their brain what is right and they never have the option of what is wrong. Yes, they have emotions such as fear, happiness, sorrow, and excitement but they don't have anger, hate, or jealousy and that is what puts them above us.

Answer 3

It is totally wrong to kill animals for food. No-one has the right to live at the expense of other animals. In primitive times when we had little choice perhaps but not now when we have so many alternatives. People will never have respect for animals if they see them as a source of food. Put yourself in their place! There are no longer sheep or cattle in the wild in Europe because they were domesticated for human use. It would be nice if they could be let loose and their numbers allowed to fall naturally to a survival level. That would not be genocide. We are effectively committing genocide now by wiping out breeds that do not provide enough meat for example, breeding cattle with udders so large they can barely walk, turkeys so heavy their legs break, and get cows in calf with babies so big they cannot give birth to them without help, all for the benefit of human consumption. I feel this is even worse than treatment in concentration camps. People could fight back, had something to hope for or the company of others to talk to for comfort. All many of the animals know is misery from birth to death. Manipulation and exploitation is a worse treatment than genocide for these poor creatures.

Answer 4

It's a view shared by many, although most people immediately dismiss it as stupid because they believe people are far superior to animals therefore deserve better treatment. Also, if you've had family who suffered or died in the holocaust, it may seem a bit offencive to have them compared to chickens.



I've just bought a book called 'eternal treblinka' which discusses the link between our abuse of animals and the holocaust.



It gets on my nerves when people quote the bible when defending our right to eat animals. For every 'rule' in the bible there is another contradicting it. If you follow what a bunch of blokes wrote years and years ago rather that your own heart and conscience then you need your head examining.

Answer 5

I think most non-vegetarians are ambivalent about vegans. If you don’t want to eat meat, don’t eat meat. Don’t want to drink milk; don’t drink milk.



But if you are looking for a source for what hospitality does exist. You are the reason.



I have noticed that many vegetarians/vegans go ballistic if one calls themselves a Pescatarian. “Because that is redefining vegetarianism”.



However, you have no problem redefining genocide. Which is the systematic murder of HUMAN BEINGS.



Vegan/vegetarians love the quote, “one can judge a society by the way it treats its animals.”



Look up the Nazi Germany’s laws against animal cruelty. What you will find is in fact no Western Nation in the last 100 year had more extensive laws against abusing animals and their treatment. Kicking a dog was punishable by death. And the laws were enforced by their vegetarian Fuehrer, Hitler. Their human right record is also well documented.



You make me sick. And it is opinions like this and the activities of the terrorist organization PETA, which gives the majority of vegetarians a bad name.



Your comparison between the Holocaust and farming doesn’t make you a vegan it makes you an anti-Semite. Caring about animals and not caring about humans is Nazism, and that is exactly what your question displays.

Answer 6

ABSOLUTELY NOT!



I am NOT condoning the abhorrent treatment of animals in modern society in anyway, but there is a significant difference.



The Nazi genocide performed during WWII was based on hatred and bigotry and resulted in the murder of over 6 million human beings. Although I DO believe that animals should be treated with respect and consideration, but no matter how friendly, cute or intelligent an animal is, it is not a human being and humans killing humans is ALWAYS far more horrific then the killing of animals. The Nazi's killed out of cowardice, anger, bigotry and ignorance. On the other hand, the killing of animals to reduce population levels is based on survival.



There is no doubt that what the Nazis did was EVIL!!! Whether you define evil from a religious perspective or a more secular philosophical based perspective, bigotry is a sure fire no-no. On the other hand, MOST people, even the majority of animal rights advocates put the welfare of human beings above those of non-human animals.



That said, although most vegetarians and vegans try to disagree, scientifically, human beings are omnivores. Humans are designed by nature to eat both animals and plants. Unless you have a medical reason for omitting animal products from your diet, your decision is illogical and UNNATURAL. If you choose to eat this way, then that is your choice and you have to live with it, it's not my choice to make for you and it doesn't affect me or adversely affect humanity as a whole so do what you like. In that same vain, you could choose to smoke, do drugs, have unprotected promiscuous sexual encounters or perform any number of other illogical activities that I disagree with and that's entirely up to you. MOST people eat meat because it is what humans are suppose to do. Lions eat meat because they need to and so do I. Likewise, if a lion needs to kill an animal to survive, it does so. If an over population of deer would lead to in increase in disease in the area, defoliation due to over feeding and eventually to a long slow death of many deer and other herbivores due to starvation, then the killing of the deer in that area vie hunting parties, where the deer are killed quickly (in comparison to long, slow starvation) is a reasonable answer.



COULD we come up with a better solution. Maybe.

SHOULD we try. YES! Emphatically!

SHOULD we wait until we have a new, better solution or the situation gets out of hand? ABSOLUTELY NOT!



Remember, one of the major reasons for animal overpopulations are humans beings intruding on the natural habitat of these animals. The population of mountain lions, wolves, bears, badgers and other predatory and scavenging animals are reduced and the numbers of the prey animals increase until there is an ecological disaster. This IS bad.



Should we find a way to live in harmony with nature. YES! (Of course, this would include us HUNTING for our food, but we all have to make sacrifices.)



But the problems that we have today need to be fixed now.



On the other side of the coin, soon, like in the next few hundred years, humanity is going to be faced with a NEW issue, that is if we haven’t killed most of ourselves off with a massive war by then. What will we do when the resources of this world can’t sustain our population growth any more. Will we start 'hunting' humans. Hmm. It should be interesting. I am just glad I wont be here to see it.



I hope this helps.

Answer 7

Inasmuch as we have historically done to wild animals in the US, I would unequivocally (absolutely) refer to that as genocide. Bison, bears, and wolves come to mind right away. The latter 2 were labeled as "dangerous" to humans when in fact they rarely are (they're afraid of us) as motivation to drive them close to extinction.



Now I would agree that the deer population needs to be kept in check (though it could be done in a more civil way than hunting), but that's our own damn fault. We ravaged the populations of almost all of their natural predators. If we assist these predators to increase their numbers, we could undo some of the incredible damage we've done to our ecosystems.



Someone will inevitably come in here thinking, "but they are predators, and can pose a threat to humans sometimes!" Counterpoint: if such a tiny tiny frequency of attacks justifies a reprisal on the whole species, then why is tobacco legal? Why is smoking tobacco around other people (who don't want to inhale the smoke) legal? Tobacco smoke DOES weaken your immune system, harden your circulatory system, and impose early deaths and tax burdens. Wolves and bears each kill a person once every 5-10 years. Think about it.



PS: Your thumbs-down give me STRENGTH!

Answer 8

Genocide happens every day, every hour in billions of abbatoirs all over the world. Surely reducing the amount of animals by them not being born is less horrible than giving them a taste of life then killing them for meat!

Answer 9

No



See? Meat-eaters failed to understand your last question and some are failing to understand this one.



I think you might be onto something here - you are doing a great job showing that some meat-eaters cannot read.



This question has nothing to do with vegetarian and vegan food - this is the "food and drink" section



Why on earth would i want to engage in debate with you when you present such daft comparisons and have already said you are biased.



What would be the point of that ?



Ok, let me humour you....



Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.



So, the answer is still "no"



THURSDAY EDIT: Its fairly obvious you know knothing about keepng animals. Why would i involve the RSPCA ?? This is a farm you know, DEFRA is my point of contact and they last inspected ( vis the animal welfare part of trading standards in the local council ) my property and husbandry in August 2007.



Jerseys, Guernsey and Black Welsh - cattle

Suffolk, Long horn Jacob, Dartmoor and Devon - sheep

Rhoade Island Red, Buff Sussex, Buff Orpington, Silkie, New hampshire, Aracarna, Ancona, Morans, Welsummer - chickens



Are you any the wiser, how did that information help you determine if commercial animal population reduction is akin to Genocide ?



as for debate...statements like "You unfortunatley need to eat meat that is a biological fact " make me beleive there is no point in engaging in debate with someone who clearly beleives false propoganda - what would be the point in discussing it with you, its nothing to do with thinking my arguement is flawed, its to do with doing something more useful with my time.



Your actions are very typically troll-like - you present a flawed nonsense illogical statement and then try to reverse the situation when you don't get sensible replies.



Sensible questions = sensible replies.



THURDAY PM: Did i say livestock farm ? I own an arable farm of 186 acres + attached rented, of which i give space to support the rescue animals mentioned above. Free to roam in 10 times more space/ less density than the recommended land for commercial animals..

Answer 10

No.



There's no debate to the question, the answer simply is No.



Added:

Do you know why no one is arguing/debating? cos it's a 1 word answer question & waste of time to add anymore.



Michael H has been very kind to humour you, I will be a lot less patient and point out a couple + 1 facts.



A. reduction does not equal sytematic elimination.

B. breeding for food does not equal genocide

C. stop trying to be smart, you aren't.

Answer 11

Only if you think the cows in the field near my house are your aunts, and the rats in the sewers are your close cousins. If you can't tell the difference between animals and humans, you shouldn't be using a computer! But no answer is going to change your badly made up mind, is it?

Answer 12

No, the animals have been domesticated and are overbred, often by artificial means and kept and fed often unnaturally. Stopping or reducing breeding is positive for the animals and for our environment.

Answer 13

Its only genocide if you kill loads of people. people have rights because other people fought and died for those rights. animals do not have a right to life.



I don't meant the phrase 'right to life' I mean an actual legal right written in law.

Answer 14

No. Genocide is a term used to describe a human situation.

Perhaps what you find disturbing is the modification of animals purely for human consumption? If that is the case then morals dictate that plant modifications are equally disturbing.



Animals are not humans. If you believe animals have rights, then you have to accept that humans have given animals those rights. Animals do not determine their own rights, they have no function or ability to make that determination. If you believe that we determined the rights for animals, then you have to argue that we, as humans, can determine what those rights are.



"Animal rights" "Human rights" and all other rights are the responsibilities of humans as we have custodianship of Earth. We determine what those are through a process of ethics, need, desire, legal obligations and concience. There is no mediator for human decisions, other than ourselves. As humans do not agree, we are constantly in a state of flux regarding what is right, wrong or ethical. As we are basing our decisions purely on the decisions of others who have gone before us, only our consciences guide us, and we all know how easy it is to alter the conscience of a nation - look at the American conscience regarding Vietnam.



Animals have no conscience, they exist based on their needs. We know they feel pain, so we, as humans, have determined that they have rights to assuage our consciences. We have not excluded them from our diet, as yet, because we have put our desires before our consciences - for now. Whether that will change in the future, only time will tell. Ethical Vegetarians/Vegans have made a decision to put their conciences before their desires.



As you are a butcher, I doubt you really believe animals have any rights and you are just trying to stir up trouble.

Answer 15

No, it's nature that animals will eat other animals... do you accuse lions of the genocide of antelopes?



Animals need to eat and although there are other things we can eat, meat is part of a healthy diet...



I do agree that these animals should be treated humanely but it's nature that they will get eaten and it can't be equated to genocide!



The reason why genocide is so terrible whether it be of jews or any other persecuted group is that it shows no logic. People are killed because of their beliefs, they are tortured and murdered... there is no sense or reason to it.



There IS however a reason to kill animals... they provide sustinance for humans... we continue to live BECAUSE we eat them... that hardly puts us on a level with Hitler because we kill them!

Answer 16

It is an interesting point you raise but i think the relationship is more like that between the slaves and their masters.

Answer 17

Are you suggesting that the Jewish people are animals? How can you even think there is a similarity. Are you on drugs? You are a sick human being. The answer is a resounding NO!!!

Answer 18

your damb right, the main reason i dont eat meat isnt because i thinkits unnatural, there is no certain argument either way for this, but one thing is for sure, it isnt natural to keep animals in inhumane condisions for their entire lives, this is similar to what hitler did but with chickens instead of jews, whats the difference (im not calling jews chickens im asking whats the difference between humans and the animals you eat?)

Answer 19

oh my god...i gotta tell my friends about this question...and i thought i was the one who posts stupid questions on Y/A...

you love animals though. and you have a good heart.

Answer 20

Gen. 9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth. 2 All the wild animals, large and small, and all the birds and fish will be afraid of you. I have placed them in your power. 3 I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.

Answer 21

No.



I care about humans. I don't care about animals.



Are other carnivours genocidal animals? Why are we different?



You will never stop the vast majority of the western world eating and enjoying meat and patehtic questions like this only damages your reputation and makes the rest of us more convinved we should continue.

Answer 22

Yes, it is. When people are involved the powers-that-be have a very different attitude.

Answer 23

Are you an animal?

Answer 24

the perpetrators were hung - not sufficiently punished? should we dig up the bodies so u can kick em in the nuts or what?

Answer 25

compare this HUMANS V ANIMALS

Answer 26

it is!