Zoo's good or bad?

big soft moose said:
probably doesnt take into account people cutting down rainforest to grow soya..
Click to expand...

I KNOW I shouldn't but I can't resist. Why are you obsessed with soya? My girlfriend and I are both vegan and barely ever have soya. Vegans don't live off monocultures you know, we have a very varried diet.
 
htid said:
I KNOW I shouldn't but I can't resist. Why are you obsessed with soya? My girlfriend and I are both vegan and barely ever have soya. Vegans don't live off monocultures you know, we have a very varried diet.
Click to expand...

how else are you going to replace the meat protein that your body needs ... theres very little protein in many vegetables which is why soya is a popular substitute for those concerned about not killing things - admittedly its not the only one, but many of the others take a lot of space.

bottom line is that the idea that meat is inefficient and therefore veganism is better overlooks that a lot of meat is raised on land that can't be ploughed - meaning that for mass consumption those area that can be ploughed would need to produce high protein crops .. hence soya
 
GeeJay57 said:
Yes interesting, but highly unlikely that there will be a widespread switch to veganism in my view. As for saving more human lives, I think a huge part of the problem is that there are already too many humans on the planet as it is. Not a very nice thought, but there it is.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Utopia?
 
Also let me point out that 85%-98% of all soya produced right now is animal feed. So who are the ones contributing to rainforest destruction?
 
big soft moose said:
how else are you going to replace the meat protein that your body needs ... theres very little protein in many vegetables which is why soya is a popular substitute for those concerned about not killing things - admittedly its not the only one, but many of the others take a lot of space.

bottom line is that the idea that meat is inefficient and therefore veganism is better overlooks that a lot of meat is raised on land that can't be ploughed - meaning that for mass consumption those area that can be ploughed would need to produce high protein crops .. hence soya
Click to expand...

Oh god. If you're going to talk about protein I'm out of here again. Educate yourself. I had this argument the other day and by 4pm I worked out that I'd had my RDA of protein. It's a myth that we need massive amounts.
 
Do you know what really annoys me about your stance on animals having the same right to life as humans? I'd be dead, along with my Dad, as we are both diabetics.

And millions of other people would be dead too because of all the advances in modern medicine made possible through research involving animals.

And to make it worse, you have this holier than thou attitude whilst having a lifestyle that results in animals dying. I bet you don't turn down medical treatment despite it being progressed through animal research? No?

Hypocrite doesn't even come close.
 
Look up trophic levels efficiency and how much protein people really need before it gets peed out (and damaging their kidneys if its that excessive)
 
inkiboo said:
Do you know what really annoys me about your stance on animals having the same right to life as humans? I'd be dead, along with my Dad, as we are both diabetics.

And millions of other people would be dead too because of all the advances in modern medicine made possible through research involving animals.

And to make it worse, you have this holier than thou attitude whilst having a lifestyle that results in animals dying. I bet you don't turn down medical treatment despite it being progressed through animal research? No?

Hypocrite doesn't even come close.
Click to expand...

Look, I've never said I'm the perfect example, all I've said is that morally and ethically in my view I am 'more advanced' I guess, that non vegans. This doesn't mean I'm an example of perfection and I'm perfectly happy for somebody who takes veganism further than me to think of themselves as more ethical than me. The more rights that are afforded, the more ethical you become as far as I see it. You don't accept the anthropomorphism argument, I get that, but imagine you saw mass killing of people going on daily, if you ruled the world wouldn't you want to stop it at the expense of the rights of the murderers? I can't help it or control that I feel animals are equal to us, the same as you feel human life is equal to other human life. But how can you judge me for being against something I inherently hate when you'd be against something you inherently hate such as human murder?

As for medicine, well, I don't take any that contains animal ingredients and I wouldn't even if I needed them. But as for animal testing, of course I use medicine that has been tested, but this comes up time and again. What would be the point in me refusing them when animal experiments have already occurred? That would be a waste of life. I just don't agree with any future experiments regardless of what they could cure. So I don't see it as being hypocritical.
 
htid said:
Look, I've never said I'm the perfect example, all I've said is that morally and ethically in my view I am 'more advanced' I guess, that non vegans. This doesn't mean I'm an example of perfection and I'm perfectly happy for somebody who takes veganism further than me to think of themselves as more ethical than me. The more rights that are afforded, the more ethical you become as far as I see it. You don't accept the anthropomorphism argument, I get that, but imagine you saw mass killing of people going on daily, if you ruled the world wouldn't you want to stop it at the expense of the rights of the murderers? I can't help it or control that I feel animals are equal to us, the same as you feel human life is equal to other human life. But how can you judge me for being against something I inherently hate when you'd be against something you inherently hate such as human murder?

As for medicine, well, I don't take any that contains animal ingredients and I wouldn't even if I needed them. But as for animal testing, of course I use medicine that has been tested, but this comes up time and again. What would be the point in me refusing them when animal experiments have already occurred? That would be a waste of life. I just don't agree with any future experiments regardless of what they could cure. So I don't see it as being hypocritical.
Click to expand...

You're more morally advanced? Get over yourself.
 
htid said:
Look up trophic levels efficiency and how much protein people really need before it gets peed out (and damaging their kidneys if its that excessive)
Click to expand...

I know this stuff already thanks , and I know you need decent but not excessive levels of protein especially if you are living an active life style ... the idea that you don't goes back to what i was saying before about vegans damaging their health by not eating like humans evolved to eat

the average adult needs between 0.5 and 1.5 g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight , i'm about 15 stone so taking a median figure of 1g , that means i need at least 210g of protein per day - and thats the ammount needed to avoid muscle loss, so for anyone of my build putting on muscle or growing, or repairing an injury the ammount is greater. The issuie of kidney damage is a red herring unless your diet is only high in protein but low in other nutrients , or unless you have kidney problems from other causes

I tend to agree that a lot of people eat too much protein and that a lot of what they eat is poor quality over proccessed and probably had low welfare standards, but i'd still say that ruling out meat,dairy and eggs as a protein source would create issues if applied on a mass scale

Of course you'll be able to quote pro vegan websites saying this isnt so , but on the whole again lets not bother - agreing to disagree would probably be more fruitful. - as i said before i have no issue with you or anyone choosing a vegan lifestyle, my issue is only with wanting to make everyone else do it too
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I know this stuff already thanks , and I know you need decent but not excessive levels of protein especially if you are living an active life style ... the idea that you don't goes back to what i was saying before about vegans damaging their health by not eating like humans evolved to eat

the average adult needs between 0.5 and 1.5 g of protein per day per pound of bodyweight , i'm about 15 stone so taking a median figure of 1g , that means i need at least 210g of protein per day - and thats the ammount needed to avoid muscle loss, so for anyone of my build putting on muscle or growing, or repairing an injury the ammount is greater. The issuie of kidney damage is a red herring unless your diet is only high in protein but low in other nutrients , or unless you have kidney problems from other causes

of course you'll be able to quote pro vegan websites saying this isnt so , but on the whole its not an argument worth bothering with
Click to expand...

Fair enough let's agree to disagree on that point. I doubt either of us are biologists who have personally done research so we're both trusting sources that may have a bias.
 
GeeJay57 said:
You're more morally advanced? Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

hes more morrally advanced in his view - which is fine everyone is entitled to their opinion , but morals are a complicated beast - like for example is is more morally acceptable to not test medicine on animals if by doing so you could create say a malaria vacine and save thousands if not millions of lives ... who decides whether the life of a lab rat is less important, more important or equally import as that of a human.

Everyone has a moral compass and arguing about whos is better is as fruitless as my dads bigger than your dad
 
big soft moose said:
hes more morrally advanced in his view - which is fine everyone is entitled to their opinion , but morals are a complicated beast - like for example is is more morally acceptable to not test medicine on animals if by doing so you could create say a malaria vacine and save thousands if not millions of lives ... who decides whether the life of a lab rat is less important, more important or equally import as that of a human.

Everyone has a moral compass and arguing about whos is better is as fruitless as my dads bigger than your dad
Click to expand...

Very well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
 
big soft moose said:
who decides whether the life of a lab rat is less important, more important or equally import as that of a human.
Click to expand...
The ALF of course, you only have to look at what happened at HLS, cars / houses fire bombed / paint stripper thrown over cars / acid thrown at people, lab animals released into the wild, that had no hope of survival, it all seemed a good idea at the time. :rolleyes:
So yes in some warped parallel universe the anti Viv's thought that an animals life was worth far more than a humans!
 
htid said:
How am I not?
Click to expand...
Well to start with, by making the statements about your advanced morality you are by definition looking down your nose at at everyone that doesn't align themselves with your views. That's a pretty arrogant position for someone with such high morals IMHO.
 
inkiboo said:
The human race has; we are top of the chain.
Click to expand...

Ah but the question is, does that give us the right? If we are the only species able to make more ethical decisions, why shouldn't we? Of course the counter argument is why should we?
 
I'm not engaging with you anymore after your latest rant. It's impossible to debate with someone who is self righteous about protecting animals but will happily accept the advances of medicine that has been achieved through animal research.

You are the worst type of hypocrite.
 
GeeJay57 said:
Well to start with, by making the statements about your advanced morality you are by definition looking down your nose at at everyone that doesn't align themselves with your views. That's a pretty arrogant position for someone with such high morals IMHO.
Click to expand...

Sure but as I've said don't you see yourself as more moral than someone who doesn't share your views such as somebody in Saudi Arabia that believes girls of 13 should marry men of 40 and that women shouldn't be seen? How can you control who you feel more moral than? It's not something you can control, is it?
 
inkiboo said:
I'm not engaging with you anymore after your latest rant. It's impossible to debate with someone who is self righteous about protecting animals but will happily accept the advances of medicine that has been achieved through animal research.

You are the worst type of hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I explained my position and it is perfectly valid. If you don't agree, no problem, we don't have to discuss it.
 
Well, I'm done with this now. Hopefully we can discuss photography sometime...
 
htid said:
Sure but as I've said don't you see yourself as more moral than someone who doesn't share your views such as somebody in Saudi Arabia that believes girls of 13 should marry men of 40 and that women shouldn't be seen? How can you control who you feel more moral than? It's not something you can control, is it?
Click to expand...

Of course you can control it.
"Morals" are entirely a personal choice of principles.
As is sanctimony.
 
viv1969 said:
Of course you can control it.
"Morals" are entirely a personal choice of principles.
As is sanctimony.
Click to expand...

This is getting into a whole new debate now but do you really believe what each person values as moral is a choice? Morailty is in essence right vs wrong. We don't chose what we feel is right and wrong, it's just in built in us. I couldn't just make a conscious decision to no longer care about animals being killed the same as you couldn't do so about humans, I assume.

Sanctimony isn't a choice either. That's for you to decide if I'm sanctimonious or not since IMO my morailty is superior, but it's not a choice on the part of the individual.
 
Last edited:
htid said:
This is getting into a whole new debate now but do you really believe what each person values as moral is a choice? Morailty is in essence right vs wrong. We don't chose what we feel is right and wrong, it's just in built in us. I couldn't just make a conscious decision to no longer care about animals being killed the same as you couldn't do so about humans, I assume.

Sanctimony isn't a choice either. That's for you to decide if I'm sanctimonious or not since IMO my morailty is superior, but it's not a choice on the part of the individual.
Click to expand...

Yes...choices all.
And IMO you are superior to me in not one single way.
I can respect a persons views wholeheartedly, but not when their desire is to force (your word) their ideals and so called morality on me or in your case, everyone.
I'll give you one thing though,.... Your entertainment value is priceless.
 
viv1969 said:
Yes...choices all.
And IMO you are superior to me in not one single way.
I can respect a persons views wholeheartedly, but not when their desire is to force (your word) their ideals and so called morality on me or in your case, everyone.
I'll give you one thing though,.... Your entertainment value is priceless.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Maybe I should charge. If you think they are choices, you must have more control over your mind than pretty much everybody else then.

I asked somebody else, same question to you: the way some of the Arab world treats children and women. I'm sure you'd like to 'force' your views on them by stopping stoning of women for adultry or stopping 40 year old men marrying children. Why should you be allowed to want to force your views (that this is wrong) on them but I can't want to force my views on people?
 
htid said:
Thanks. Maybe I should charge. If you think they are choices, you must have more control over your mind than pretty much everybody else then.

I asked somebody else, same question to you: the way some of the Arab world treats children and women. I'm sure you'd like to 'force' your views on them by stopping stoning of women for adultry or stopping 40 year old men marrying children. Why should you be allowed to want to force your views (that this is wrong) on them but I can't want to force my views on people?
Click to expand...

You incorrectly assume a lot about me, whilst knowing nothing.
There's that sanctimony again.
And yes, I take responsibility for my choices. I don't need to blame on instinct, upbringing or biology.
But hey....whatever helps you get through the day.
 
Cobra said:
So yes in some warped parallel universe the anti Viv's thought that an animals life was worth far more than a humans!
Click to expand...

I knew when you mentioned Viv's name there would be trouble

(I always call Ruth Viv!!!)

beautiful morning out here - I'm off to sit in the garden and take a few birdie shots - I got a new "tent" for Xmas that I need to try out
 
Last edited:
If I assume wrongly that you object to stoning women for adultry, I apologise (and feel even more morally superior to you...alas I'm sure you're just saying that to argue your point and I actually don't incorrectly assume a lot).

But do you CHOOSE your choices and what you believe? I think most people would agree that what they see as right and wrong is built into them and not really a choice.

@Cobra not sure if you're a mod or not but maybe this thread should be closed now? It's gone way off track from where it originally started....is morality a choice isn't quite the same as zoo's good or bad ;) What do you think? We're just going to go round in circles forever here.
 
htid said:
But do you CHOOSE your choices and what you believe?.
Click to expand...

Yes

htid said:
I think most people would agree that what they see as right and wrong is built into them and not really a choice.
.
Click to expand...

Good grief, you really do have little bit of a god complex going on there, don't you :D

Personally, I see no reason for a thread closure.
It's been interesting, engaging and non-abusive.
The morality direction was one you chose to take by bringing it up, surely.
I don't think one get's to seek thread closure simply because it takes a direction you find uncomfortable.
You're free to cease contributing (as you've announced you're doing several times...unsuccessfully, apparently).
 
Last edited:
htid said:
This is getting into a whole new debate now but do you really believe what each person values as moral is a choice? Morailty is in essence right vs wrong. We don't chose what we feel is right and wrong, it's just in built in us.
Click to expand...

It might not be a choice but it def differs from person to person, and that depends on their upbringing, I don't think it's automatically built into some people - we wouldnt have so many sick terrible acts committed in this world if everyone we automatically born morally correct.

Even down to basic things like littering - I went for a walk yesterday and saw someone just lob their rubbish on the floor - he was obviously fine with it, I would never do that in a million years. And an extreme example - I was sitting at a traffic light and the car in front of me lobbed fast food packaging out the window - they obviously saw the horrified look on my face as shortly after, they started throwing other rubbish directly backwards at my car until the lights changed. By the next traffic light, they had made up a song about being 'litter bugs' and we're shouting it at the top of their voices. This is small potatoes but still morally wrong behaviour - somewhere these people missed that memo.

IMO We can't rely on other people 'doing the right thing'
 
@Cobra @htid í don't thibk the thread should be closed. I will be posting links about zoos, especially about the Orca debate as the sea world story progresses. The story with Morgan in Spain is still developing and I think how other zoos and marine parks react to sea world's news is important (logo parque have already indicated they do not agree about the breeding!)
 
Fair enough maybe it shouldn't be closed, I mean I'm happy for it to continue, I just thought mods might not be happy with it going so far off topic.

@viv1969 I don't have a god complex but I've just asked everybody in my office (a very small sample, I know) and everybody agrees that what they find moral/imoral is not a choice but inhernt within them. You are really telling me that you can make a consious decision right now "I'm no longer going to care about murder, because I chose to no longer see it as immoral"? Also, I'm not uncomfortable with the topic at all, I just didn't want to annoy mods.

*edit* I only lef the thread multiple times in the past when I felt we were at an impass and unable to discuss anything further constructively. Every time I've looked again (or been quoted and notified) I've come back if I feel that the topic has moved on and we can continue to discuss in a different direction.

@dan_yell You're right, I didn't really mean it was built in from birth, but just that it is part of who we are (be that in how we are brought up or however else our morals are formed). As you say it varies from person to person and country to country. But Ruth is arguing that finding something immoral is a choice, which I don't agree with.
 
Last edited:
htid said:
I don't have a god complex but I've just asked everybody in my office (a very small sample, I know) and everybody agrees that what they find moral/imoral is not a choice but inhernt within them. You are really telling me that you can make a consious decision right now "I'm no longer going to care about murder, because I chose to no longer see it as immoral"?
Click to expand...

For myself yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. That you don't agree with it is your choice, but that doesn't make me inherently wrong any more than you.
At some point in your life you made a conscious decision to become vegan, for whatever reason.
It wasn't something you were born with, and although it may have been the way you were bought up you are perfectly capable of making a similar decision to change again.
Murderers choose to kill.
Abusers choose to abuse.
etc. etc......

htid said:
You're right, I didn't really mean it was built in from birth, but just that it is part of who we are (be that in how we are brought up or however else our morals are formed). As you say it varies from person to person and country to country. But Ruth is arguing that finding something immoral is a choice, which I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

And that's the rub, you say morals are not a choice, yet you can offer no other alternative.
You can cling to your chosen moral code as tightly as you wish....fill yer boots...but please do not even consider to impose YOUR moral standards on me.
 
Looking at the initial question from a photographers perspective, where or how else are you going to take photos of animals from around the world? You can't cover everywhere world so the only alternative is to go to a zoo. As to how they are kept the for/ against arguement I will stay away from.

All I will say is having gone to several zoos I have managed to get some good photos of animals of which without a zoo I would not have got
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Looking at the initial question from a photographers perspective, where or how else are you going to take photos of animals from around the world? You can't cover everywhere world so the only alternative is to go to a zoo. As to how they are kept the for/ against arguement I will stay away from.

All I will say is having gone to several zoos I have managed to get some good photos of animals of which without a zoo I would not have got
Click to expand...

You don't. As photographers, we have no inherent right to be able to photograph animals and if you do want to, you go abroad to where they live to take them. If you can't for whatever reason, that's unfortunate but tough luck. From my POV you you can't split this from the zoos good or bad argument because as far as I'm concerned your ability to get a photo is a lot less important than an animal's right to freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top