Do you eat meat?Poll#4

[F9]

This is the 4th poll on this, you can find the past ones here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t20091/index.html)for the first, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t54001/index.html)for the second and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t71026/index26.html)for the third.
Discuss, and continue the ongoing discussions on the last one.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I voted the first option. I have no problems with eating meat. It's yummy. ^_^

[Invincible Summer]

Vegan, although not that strict. For example, some non-dairy cheeses have casein/rennet (animal enzymes) in them, but IMO to go to the micro level like that is a bit much.. plus I haven't found any decent non-dairy cheeses that are 100% vegan and don't cost a ridiculous amount of money.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Vegan and vegetarian diets tend to be way more expensive anyway. I have a friend who used to be vegetarian.

[Invincible Summer]

Vegan and vegetarian diets tend to be way more expensive anyway. I have a friend who used to be vegetarian.


If you don't buy that expensive cheese and stuff like that (imitation meats, etc which are high in sodium and usually taste odd anyway) then it's not that expensive at all.

A majority of my diet consists of either beans/lentils/rice and tofu and whatever vegetables I feel like eating. For drinks, I just drink water or soy/almond/rice milk.. usually soy cuz it's cheaper.

I haven't really compared a meat-eating grocery bill to a vegan/vegetarian though, so I can't say for sure which is cheaper, but I know that my diet is not expensive.

Oh and an interesting article on food growing subsidies: http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071101/why_eating_healthy_costs_more_than_eating_unhealth ily

[LOLseph Stalin]

Well I guess if you know how to get the right products it wouldn't be bad, but from my experience it always seemed like vegan/vegetarian products were more.

[Invincible Summer]

Well I guess if you know how to get the right products it wouldn't be bad, but from my experience it always seemed like vegan/vegetarian products were more.


Yeah, products marketed as "vegan/vegetarian alternatives" are indeed expensive. Seriously... $15 for a vegan cheesecake that's like 6" in diameter

But I usually just buy staples: brown rice, lentils, beans, chickpea, tofu, tempeh, veggies, various sauces, etc.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yeah, products marketed as "vegan/vegetarian alternatives" are indeed expensive. Seriously... $15 for a vegan cheesecake that's like 6" in diameter

But I usually just buy staples: brown rice, lentils, beans, chickpea, tofu, tempeh, veggies, various sauces, etc.

Yea, it was those foods such as the cheesecake I was referring too. Definitely not cheap.

[Vincent P.]

The only meat product I eat is fish. Much more healthy...

[Jazzratt]

Because I don't particularly care about how healthy my diet is and I certainly couldn't give a fuck for animal rights if you paid me, I eat meat.

[F9]

Meat, the best thing ever, if i ever got in a vegetarians home, i would die from starving.:lol:

Fuserg9:star:

[Yazman]

Because I don't particularly care about how healthy my diet is and I certainly couldn't give a fuck for animal rights if you paid me, I eat meat.

Anybody who says a diet including meat is unhealthy is fucking delusional anyway.

**Edit 28 November, 2011** ^^^Damn dude that's way too harsh and kind of over the top to say. I actually disagree with this statement, it's more accurate to say a diet including meat can be plenty healthy, it's really just a concern of a) food quality and b) regulation of how much you eat.

[Pawn Power]

Anybody who says a diet including meat is unhealthy is fucking delusional anyway.

I think 'delusional' is too strong a word. These ideas arn't completely unfounded. Recently a major study concluded that red meat increases mortality risk (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_he_me/med_diet_meat_mortality).

I eat meat and think that its protein is important, particularly that in fish.

[JohannGE]

I hope people will excuse my responding here to the following questions from Yazman caried over from the previous thread.


There were a few others I noticed you seem to have dodged, but these are the more important ones. You basically avoided responding to these comments he made:

First of all I can assure you that I felt no inclination to "dodge" or "avoid" any points refferenced to me in the thread. If I ever do, I will say so. There are many reasons not to respond.

As you asked though I will gladly clarify on these particular ones.



Quote:
Control and domination are not coterminous with abuse and destruction.
Do you disagree with this statement? Control and domination of nature do not mean abuse and destruction. I don't know why you would think it does.

No I don't disagree with that statement, that would be ridiculous and I am suprised you would ask. I don't know why you would think I would.

It could, and it could be argued that it likely would, mean abuse and destruction, but I don't believe it is neccissarily so.




Quote:
Oh dear, the idea of putting humans first... how quaintly "Victorian"!
You have yet to respond to why anthropocentrism is negative or detrimental, as well.

Nor do I believe that anthropocentrism is neccisarily negetive or detrimental. Again to do so would be ridiculous and I don't think you have any reason to believe I would say so.

Anthropocentrism like the more nebulous "abuse and destruction" mentioned above could be negative or detrimental depending on how it is defined and/or implemented.

In my opinion, it would be immposible to impliment the principles of anthropcenterism in a way that was not negative or detrimental, without taking full account of current scientific evidence. Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs would not be at all anthropocentric.

[Invincible Summer]

Anybody who says a diet including meat is unhealthy is fucking delusional anyway.

Meat in itself isn't unhealthy, but people tend to over-consume red meat and buy fattier meats and that is what is unhealthy.

[RedAnarchist]

I have no problem eating meat. I despise cruelty towards animals, but the animals we eat as meat products were born for that purpose, and as far as I know are killed humanely.

I don't care what other people eat and why they do or do not eat certain foods. It's their body, their choice.

[Pawn Power]

I have no problem eating meat. I despise cruelty towards animals, but the animals we eat as meat products were born for that purpose, and as far as I know are killed humanely.

They can't be killed 'humanely' because they are not human. But if by humane you me 'kindly' or 'compassionately' you thought wrong. Slaughterhouses are mechanical and callous-- the opposite of 'humane.'

[Invincible Summer]

They can't be killed 'humanely' because they are not human. But if by humane you me 'kindly' or 'compassionately' you thought wrong. Slaughterhouses are mechanical and callous-- the opposite of 'humane.'

What really gets me is that some slaughterhouse workers start swearing and verbally harassing the animals while they beat them so they move into a pen or something. It's sadistic.

[synthesis]

They can't be killed 'humanely' because they are not human. Main Entry:hu·manePronunciation: \hyü-ˈmān, yü-\ Function:adjective Etymology:Middle English humainDate:circa 1500 1 : marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals


But if by humane you me 'kindly' or 'compassionately' you thought wrong. Slaughterhouses are mechanical and callous-- the opposite of 'humane.'

When it comes to a slaughterhouse, humaneness is relative. It's hard to kill anything "with compassion" unless it is already in tremendous pain.

[Invincible Summer]

When it comes to a slaughterhouse, humaneness is relative. It's hard to kill anything "with compassion" unless it is already in tremendous pain.

Well, we could at least find a better way to make their deaths painless and swift. Captive bolt guns are the best we have right now, but even then they're not 100%. I think I read they only cause instant death in 75% of the animals or smth cuz you have to ensure the animal isn't moving too much to hit the right spot of the brain.

But there is not really any demand for it because the average consumer of meat is so disassociated from their food that all they care about is when they'll get their rib eye. They don't connect the steak to the living, breathing cow.

[Pawn Power]

What really gets me is that some slaughterhouse workers start swearing and verbally harassing the animals while they beat them so they move into a pen or something. It's sadistic.

Slaughterhouses are mechanical and callous for workers as well.

[black magick hustla]

the other day some vegan girl gave a 15 mins about how eating bacon was bad. she told me pigs are really smart. i told her they are delicious

[Leo]

Eating meat is the meaning of my life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

she told me pigs are really smart. i told her they are delicious

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Humans are Omnivores, so no I have no problem with eating meat, do you think spiders have a problem eating flies?

I don't have a farm or spend tons on meat so I do tend to buy store bought meat, but the thought of the places where our meat is mass produced is sickening.

[Pogue]

My personal belief is that eating meat is uneccesary and it is not justifiable to kill an animal for your own personal pleasure, even worse to get someone else to do it for you.

I have no problem with free range eggs or milk.

[Picky Bugger]

the other day some vegan girl gave a 15 mins about how eating bacon was bad. she told me pigs are really smart. i told her they are delicious

I love you :D

[Invincible Summer]

Eating meat is the meaning of my life.

What's a life of hard arteries like? :lol:


Humans are Omnivores, so no I have no problem with eating meat, do you think spiders have a problem eating flies?

Yes, humans are omnivores (and I personally don't quite buy into the whole "BUT OUR TEETH PROVE WE'RE HERBIVORES!!!" argument like some vegans do) but, unlike spiders, we have the ability to choose what we eat and survive.

I choose to be a vegan - it's not vital, but I personally feel more comfortable not eating meat or using animal products.



My personal belief is that eating meat is uneccesary and it is not justifiable to kill an animal for your own personal pleasure, even worse to get someone else to do it for you.

I have no problem with free range eggs or milk.

I generally agree with you - I'd like to add that sport hunting seems really unnecessary. It's like "GRAHH I'm a man! Watch how I dominate nature by shooting it!! I'm rich and privileged enough to be able to hunt for leisure while people in the badlands of Nepal do this to survive!"

"Free range" sometimes means nothing though. If you've actually visited the farm where the eggs/milk comes from and verified that it's truly free range, then that's cool. However, most of the time, "free range" falls under two possibilities:
1) The animals only gets maybe half a foot of extra cage space which does little to nothing
2) The animals have access to open space, but because they've been kept in cages for so long, they don't "know" how to go outside or smth like that.

[Pawn Power]

I generally agree with you - I'd like to add that sport hunting seems really unnecessary. It's like "GRAHH I'm a man! Watch how I dominate nature by shooting it!! I'm rich and privileged enough to be able to hunt for leisure while people in the badlands of Nepal do this to survive!"


One really doesn't need to be really 'privileged' to hunt. Guns are sold at wallmart.

[Voice_of_Reason]

but, unlike spiders, we have the ability to choose what we eat and survive. They can eat flies mosquitoes all sorts of wonderful things.


I generally agree with you - I'd like to add that sport hunting seems really unnecessary. It's like "GRAHH I'm a man! Watch how I dominate nature by shooting it!! I'm rich and privileged enough to be able to hunt for leisure while people in the badlands of Nepal do this to survive!"

GRAHH watch how I'm a man I sit down only eat vegetables my whole life and live very unhealthy. I don't care if Vegetables are good for you or not, meat is good for you as well. Eating only one or the other is bad either way. And as for people in the badlands of Nepal, If they had themselves a McDonalds they would be all over that shit too.

[Invincible Summer]

One really doesn't need to be really 'privileged' to hunt. Guns are sold at wallmart.

Fair enough. I guess I mean relative to people who need to hunt for survival.


They can eat flies mosquitoes all sorts of wonderful things.

But they're not omnivorous, and they pretty much eat whatever comes along, whereas we can be picky.



GRAHH watch how I'm a man I sit down only eat vegetables my whole life and live very unhealthy.
How is it unhealthy? Most vegans/vegetarians take the proper supplements and ensure their diet is balanced.

I don't care if Vegetables are good for you or not, meat is good for you as well.
I never said meat was inherently unhealthy - it's the amount and quality that people eat, as I mentioned on the 1st page.


Eating only one or the other is bad either way.
There's no conclusive evidence that vegan/vegetarians, if taking the proper supplements, are more susceptible to illness and such. However, there is evidence that a high-meat intake diet leads to cardiac problems.


And as for people in the badlands of Nepal, If they had themselves a McDonalds they would be all over that shit too.
I don't see what that has to do with hunting for survival

[swirling_vortex]

While I eat meat myself, I certainly don't overindulge on it. A moral argument could be made against it, but a large majority of people consume meat and we still need animals to develop different drugs (at least until computers get good enough to simulate everything).

In terms of animal treatment, I don't believe in animal rights simply because they don't have the same cognitive ability as people do. However, I do believe in animal welfare and the sick practice of factory farming in the US or skinning animals alive in China is clearly a capitalist invention in order to satisfy profit and overproduction. We know better than that, so we should look to minimize suffering as much as possible and not stuff animals into tiny cages.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Meat is a literal triple threat; bad for the animals, bad for your health, and bad for the environment. Gross crap.

[Jack]

Vegan, but I'm too cheap to get the special condoms.

[Leo]

What's a life of hard arteries like?

So good that it would blow your mind.

[Pirate Utopian]

Meat, meat and some more meat.
I cant live without spareribs.:drool:

I'd give up fruits and vegtables a trillion times before I'd give up meat.

[Yazman]

Meat in itself isn't unhealthy, but people tend to over-consume red meat and buy fattier meats and that is what is unhealthy.

To borrow some technical terms, that is a client-side problem and not a server-side one. Seriously, this is not an argument against meat. People buying shitty low quality food is unhealthy in general and doesn't just apply to meat, it can apply to all food of all kinds. Its not an argument at all.


I think 'delusional' is too strong a word. These ideas arn't completely unfounded. Recently a major study concluded that red meat increases mortality risk.

Yes but another major study recently concluded that drinking hot tea increases mortality risk via increased chance of cancer. Are we to use this to state that tea is unhealthy and should not be consumed? Meat is quite healthy; that some dumbasses don't do any research and end up living on mcdonalds and KFC is hardly an argument against meat.


My personal belief is that eating meat is uneccesary and it is not justifiable to kill an animal for your own personal pleasure, even worse to get someone else to do it for you.

Why isn't it justifiable? As long its not an endangered species and its regulated, whats wrong with it?


There's no conclusive evidence that vegan/vegetarians, if taking the proper supplements, are more susceptible to illness and such. However, there is evidence that a high-meat intake diet leads to cardiac problems.

Yes but you have to take the proper supplements to do it. I must also make mention that very high protein diets are fairly common in some indigenous cultures without these cardiac problems occurring.

[swirling_vortex]

Meat is a literal triple threat; bad for the animals, bad for your health, and bad for the environment. Gross crap.
If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat? :)

[Invincible Summer]

I'll just respond to the ones directed towards me, as I don't want to speak for the other posters.


To borrow some technical terms, that is a client-side problem and not a server-side one. Seriously, this is not an argument against meat. People buying shitty low quality food is unhealthy in general and doesn't just apply to meat, it can apply to all food of all kinds. Its not an argument at all.

You're right - it can apply to foods of any kind. But we were talking about the health concerns surrounding meat, yes? And of course the server-side has nothing to do with that.


Yes but you have to take the proper supplements to do it. I must also make mention that very high protein diets are fairly common in some indigenous cultures without these cardiac problems occurring.

The "proper supplements" are usually only a B12 and D pill, or a multi vitamin. A vegan/vegetarian diet without supplements is possible, but it's just slightly more difficult to get B12 and D. The vegans/vegetarians who get sick all the time are the ones who just don't eat meat, but stick to eating shitty food all the time, and don't make any attempt to balance their diet.

Even people who eat meat have to/should take supplements if they're not eating a balanced diet.

Again, I am not trying to "convert" anyone to be a vegan/vegetarian, so don't take my responses as "MEAT IS EVILLLLLLL!!!!! KILL THE HUMANS FOR KILLING THE COWS!!" because I don't feel that way. Veganism/vegetarianism is a personal choice and I'm just trying to sort of "educate" people as to why *I* (and I suppose some other vegs too) don't eat meat.

I just know that I feel healthier now than when I ate meat, and I'm not comfortable eating meat anyway (at least, not in an it's obviously cut straight from an animal way, like drumsticks or ribs... patties and stuff could be tolerable if I decided to eat meat again) because I find it morbid.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I never understood the whole no meat thing. We have evolved to eat anything so why don't we? Not only that but those who don't eat meat usualy do not have a proper amount of complex protiens and thus could have phsyical or mental diffcencies, and I don't want to be weak when the first shots get fired.

Now I don't think killing an animal for pleasure is right but I can guarentee you that every time I go hunting and kill a deer and cut its throat and take it to the butcher shop and fill the fridge with veneson that I feel bad. I eat what I kill, and yes, meat is murder, sweet delicious murder.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

For some reason, I have no problem with eating meat whatsoever. Okay, I draw the line at human meat, but that's about it.

[Invincible Summer]

I never understood the whole no meat thing. We have evolved to eat anything so why don't we? Not only that but those who don't eat meat usualy do not have a proper amount of complex protiens and thus could have phsyical or mental diffcencies, and I don't want to be weak when the first shots get fired.

You can get complete proteins from making a PBJ sandwich...

[Onecom]

Meat is good so why not eat it.Not sure aboyr Veal though that seems to much IMO.

[Yazman]

I'll just respond to the ones directed towards me, as I don't want to speak for the other posters.



You're right - it can apply to foods of any kind. But we were talking about the health concerns surrounding meat, yes? And of course the server-side has nothing to do with that.



The "proper supplements" are usually only a B12 and D pill, or a multi vitamin. A vegan/vegetarian diet without supplements is possible, but it's just slightly more difficult to get B12 and D. The vegans/vegetarians who get sick all the time are the ones who just don't eat meat, but stick to eating shitty food all the time, and don't make any attempt to balance their diet.

Even people who eat meat have to/should take supplements if they're not eating a balanced diet.

Again, I am not trying to "convert" anyone to be a vegan/vegetarian, so don't take my responses as "MEAT IS EVILLLLLLL!!!!! KILL THE HUMANS FOR KILLING THE COWS!!" because I don't feel that way. Veganism/vegetarianism is a personal choice and I'm just trying to sort of "educate" people as to why *I* (and I suppose some other vegs too) don't eat meat.

Well, I'm pretty much ok with your stance then. I like that you don't want to force your dietary choices on everybody :)


I just know that I feel healthier now than when I ate meat, and I'm not comfortable eating meat anyway (at least, not in an it's obviously cut straight from an animal way, like drumsticks or ribs... patties and stuff could be tolerable if I decided to eat meat again) because I find it morbid.

You say you feel healthier - but what we seem to both be coming to is that its not specifically the food in question, more the quality of the food thats in question. You say you feel healthier now - could this be because you are much more conscious of what you're eating, your own eating habits, and the quality of what you're eating? I feel exceedingly healthy and I generally only eat food that is of a high quality when I have the option, whether its vegetable, fruit, or meat.

Also I want to ask another question - why does it seem morbid to you? I can't understand this viewpoint.

[Invincible Summer]

You say you feel healthier - but what we seem to both be coming to is that its not specifically the food in question, more the quality of the food thats in question. You say you feel healthier now - could this be because you are much more conscious of what you're eating, your own eating habits, and the quality of what you're eating? I feel exceedingly healthy and I generally only eat food that is of a high quality when I have the option, whether its vegetable, fruit, or meat.

Yes, it's true, the quality of all foods should be examined. But I think that veganism/vegetarianism has so many facets that we can't just take one part of it (in this case, health which is, as you've rightly noted, is usually due to the quality of food) and try to understand veganism/vegetarianism as a whole from that single issue.


Also I want to ask another question - why does it seem morbid to you? I can't understand this viewpoint.

It's hard for me to disassociate meat with the animal - especially if it's something like ribs or a drumstick. Beef/bison patties don't look like they've been directly ripped off an animal so I guess I'd have an easier time with that if I had to eat meat... plus bison burgers are tasty.

Yes, I'm a vegan and I admit that meat is tasty.

I think some people have to understand (even vegans and vegetarians) that it's okay to talk about meat being tasty and stuff if you're a veg. It's not like it's some dogma that forbids me from eating the stuff - I used to eat meat before and I know how it tastes, but I just don't like eating it any more for various reasons (as expressed in various threads on this topic).

But yes, back to the morbidity issue - it's just a psychological thing for me I guess. It's obviously quite "normal" to eat meat, but just the idea of eating another ex-living being's flesh doesn't appeal to me.

So yeah, if they could bio-engineer like.. test-tube steaks (that wouldn't cause health problems or involve me ingesting strange bacteria or something, as seems to be the case for some bio-engineered foods) and that were always medium rare I'd be up for eating that. I'd have to get used to the fact that an animal wasn't killed for it, but it'd be tasty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But yes, back to the morbidity issue - it's just a psychological thing for me I guess. It's obviously quite "normal" to eat meat, but just the idea of eating another ex-living being's flesh doesn't appeal to me.

All those poor fruits, veggies, grains and pulses that are so heartlessly ripped out of the ground, chopped into little bits and shoveled onto a plate before being torn to pieces by those horrid, crushing molars of yours and digested were once living things, too. ;)


So yeah, if they could bio-engineer like.. test-tube steaks (that wouldn't cause health problems or involve me ingesting strange bacteria or something, as seems to be the case for some bio-engineered foods)What's wrong with bacteria? Haven't you ever had yoghurt?

Speaking of which, microorganisms lend themselves well to extreme mass production of food, which could turn out to be very useful if populations exceed the capacity of conventional farming methods. Plankton can be harvested from the sea by great trawlers while algae, yeast and other edible microorganisms could be grown in vast tanks. Such tanks could also be carried on spacecraft for large quantities of long-term supplies of fresh food.

As for producing meat, I think rather than trying to grow a steak without the cow, it might be easier at first to genetically engineer fungal cultures to produce mycoproteins indistinguishable in taste and texture from the real thing. It'd probably be cheaper in terms of energy and nutrients too.

[Unclebananahead]

The factory farm system of mass meat production in the industrialized world is pretty grotesque here in the US, and probably even worse in the third world. I think anybody with even an ounce of compassion would be for abolishing, or at least minimalizing it. I'm not certain if anybody else bears this in mind, but we're discussing thinking, feeling creatures here. Creatures who are, for the most part, mammals like ourselves, who give live birth, nurse and care for their young, and show other signs of emotional depth and complexity. It's really a tragedy IMO when we, the left, who are supposedly the most progressive sector of humanity, can show such callous disregard in favor of our tastebuds, yes, tastebuds, when it comes to the roughly nine and a half billion animals killed every year because we think that they are tasty.

As always, the devoted carnos trot out the old inane argument that any and all alternative diets to the same ol' standard ones that feature as their chief defining characteristic the frequent and regular consumption of meat, are insufficiently nutritive and lacking in protein. I'm afraid that such claims are very much at variance with the facts. Soy, amaranth, lupin, quinoa, buckwheat, hempseed, and chia seed all contain "significant amounts of all eight types of essential amino acids." The notion that sufficient protein cannot be obtained from plant sources is patently absurd. So what then, is the real reason the meat devotees are so dedicated? The real reason of course is taste. We here in the industrialized world (and perhaps a few other places) have become accustomed to the idea of planning meals around meat (a meat-centric diet), as though it's the most delicious, nutritive source of sustenace there ever was, and ever could be. I call this the mythology of meat, which also includes certain gendered overtones.

Here in the west, meat is not only considered by the predominating culture to be delicious and healthy (it isn't), but also masculine. One is reminded of the episode of Seinfeld wherein the eponymous main character tries to hide the fact that he isn't eating his meat so as to avoid looking like a 'wimp' in the eyes of his date. Eating meat here in the US, and presumably elsewhere carries a number of 'macho' connotations: being tough, rugged, manly, virile, a confirmation of one's masculinity, and maybe even a suggestion that one is 'John Wayne like' in disposition. Meat is thought to be a food that will, 'put some hair on your chest.' To eschew meat is generally taken to indicate effeminacy and weakness, and a general lack of 'manly virtue.' I'm not suggesting that all meat eating is done with masculinity affirming intentions in mind, but it certainly is a factor in meat's predominance in our culture's palate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Protein

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The factory farm system of mass meat production in the industrialized world is pretty grotesque here in the US, and probably even worse in the third world. I think anybody with even an ounce of compassion would be for abolishing, or at least minimalizing it. I'm not certain if anybody else bears this in mind, but we're discussing thinking, feeling creatures here. Creatures who are, for the most part, mammals like ourselves, who give live birth, nurse and care for their young, and show other signs of emotional depth and complexity.

Caring for one's young is not a sign of emotional depth and complexity. It's an instinct brought about by evolution. Try getting back to me when they develop civilisation.


It's really a tragedy IMO when we, the left, who are supposedly the most progressive sector of humanity, can show such callous disregard in favor of our tastebuds, yes, tastebuds, when it comes to the roughly nine and a half billion animals killed every year because we think that they are tasty.Some practices are cruel and unnecessary and so should be abolished, but I'm fond of my pork and think every other human in the world should have the chance to enjoy it too. I care more for human comfort than that of pigs.


As always, the devoted carnos trot out the old inane argument that any and all alternative diets to the same ol' standard ones that feature as their chief defining characteristic the frequent and regular consumption of meat, are insufficiently nutritive and lacking in protein. I'm afraid that such claims are very much at variance with the facts. Soy, amaranth, lupin, quinoa, buckwheat, hempseed, and chia seed all contain "significant amounts of all eight types of essential amino acids."Those trendy bullshit foods you mentioned are fucking expensive. Must have something to do with having to be shipped half-way across the world... As well as cashing in on naive idiots (A bit like organic foods in that respect, apart from with organic foods the (real) extra expense comes from the fact that organic methods are less efficient).


The notion that sufficient protein cannot be obtained from plant sources is patently absurd. So what then, is the real reason the meat devotees are so dedicated? The real reason of course is taste. We here in the industrialized world (and perhaps a few other places) have become accustomed to the idea of planning meals around meat (a meat-centric diet), as though it's the most delicious, nutritive source of sustenace there ever was, and ever could be. I call this the mythology of meat, which also includes certain gendered overtones. Here comes the bullshit...


Here in the west, meat is not only considered by the predominating culture to be delicious and healthy (it isn't), but also masculine. One is reminded of the episode of Seinfeld wherein the eponymous main character tries to hide the fact that he isn't eating his meat so as to avoid looking like a 'wimp.' Eating meat here in the US, and presumably elsewhere carries a number of 'macho' connotations: being tough, rugged, manly, a confirmation of one's masculinity, and maybe even a suggestion that one is 'John Wayne like' in disposition. To eschew meat is generally taken to indicate effeminancy and weakness, and a general lack of 'manly virtue.' I'm not suggesting that all meat eating is done with masculinity affirming intentions in mind, but it certainly is a factor in meat's predominance in our culture's palate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#ProteinAlright, I'll just tell every woman who eats meat that by doing so they're being masculine, and I'll come back and tell you how many of them didn't laugh in my face.

[Invincible Summer]

All those poor fruits, veggies, grains and pulses that are so heartlessly ripped out of the ground, chopped into little bits and shoveled onto a plate before being torn to pieces by those horrid, crushing molars of yours and digested were once living things, too. ;)

Damnit you know what I mean :lol:


What's wrong with bacteria? Haven't you ever had yoghurt?

I mean bacterias or other microorganisms that aren't "supposed" to be in food - e.g. for some GE foods they bind the desired gene to E.coli in order to get the gene to adhere to the cell or something like that.

I know I might be buying into the whole "GE scare" but it just doesn't seem like E.coli should be in my food.


Speaking of which, microorganisms lend themselves well to extreme mass production of food, which could turn out to be very useful if populations exceed the capacity of conventional farming methods. Plankton can be harvested from the sea by great trawlers while algae, yeast and other edible microorganisms could be grown in vast tanks. Such tanks could also be carried on spacecraft for large quantities of long-term supplies of fresh food. Yeah, that's very true. Like I said above, I meant microorganisms that could potentially be harmful being put into our food.


As for producing meat, I think rather than trying to grow a steak without the cow, it might be easier at first to genetically engineer fungal cultures to produce mycoproteins indistinguishable in taste and texture from the real thing. It'd probably be cheaper in terms of energy and nutrients too.

Very interesting. Is there any like... research/theories on this?



Some practices are cruel and unnecessary and so should be abolished, but I'm fond of my pork and think every other human in the world should have the chance to enjoy it too. I care more for human comfort than that of pigs.
I partially agree with you - everyone should have access to a variety of foods and have the right/ability to choose what they eat. It's not fair that we have like.. chocolate dipped potato chips and bacon-wrapped steaks and stuff but some poor person in Kazikistan or something can only eat boiled goat.

However, I think that many of the practices in the meat industry have to be re-worked and cruelty should be minimized as much as possible (I don't say abolished only because I know that someone is going to say that X is cruel whereas it's a necessary evil or something). I don't have a model to propose, but it may result in dismantling the factory farm system in favor of another system... reconciling distribution and production of meat and reducing cruelty will have to be thoroughly researched and planned.


Alright, I'll just tell every woman who eats meat that by doing so they're being masculine, and I'll come back and tell you how many of them didn't laugh in my face.
I think he meant that for men, it's supposed to be "masculine" to eat meat, but for women it's just "normal."

Some of my gf's cousins laughed at me when I told them I was vegan and they were like "You're a guy aren't you supposed to eat meat?" and put forward all sorts of ridiculous gender roles/norms.

[Unclebananahead]

Emotion in animals:

Animal researchers are virtually unanimous in believing the more complex, mammalian animals to possess a range of emotions and engage in various cognitive processes. The fact that they have not as of yet built any bridges or skyscrapers does not invalidate this.

Crops:

Under a planned economy, the "trendy bullshit" crops I mentioned could readily be produced in abundance. The fact that the capitalist un-planned economy focuses on meat production and not the foregoing is not by any means suggestive that massive meat production is somehow the final, or ultimate arrangement of food production, out of all possible arrangements or schemes.

Gender attitudes towards meat:

Yes, women eat meat, and do so out of the predominant cultural attitude that it's delicious and healthy, but men consume it with the additional dimension that I mentioned. I don't think that you or anybody can deny that our culture associates the regular consumption of meat, particularly red meat, with masculinity. You make it seem as though I'm suggesting that a woman who eats too much meat will grow a penis! LOL. Women who go veg aren't typically smeared with claims that they are gender deviants, like male vegetarians/vegans sometimes are.

[Yazman]

The factory farm system of mass meat production in the industrialized world is pretty grotesque here in the US, and probably even worse in the third world. I think anybody with even an ounce of compassion would be for abolishing, or at least minimalizing it.

Why? I don't see anything wrong with factory farming. Its highly efficient, and none of the animals that are factory farmed are endangered. I only oppose meat production/consumption when the meat comes from an endangered species. Otherwise, its all good :)


I'm not certain if anybody else bears this in mind, but we're discussing thinking, feeling creatures here. Creatures who are, for the most part, mammals like ourselves, who give live birth, nurse and care for their young, and show other signs of emotional depth and complexity.

This is an emotional appeal and thus has no place in a rational argument.

They are nothing like us. They are not cultural and they are not sapient and because of this, the point you are making is essentially irrelevant. I don't care if something is "cute." I love animals too, but I do not see anything wrong with exploiting them for our gain, as long as they are not endangered, or would not be made endangered by doing so.


It's really a tragedy IMO when we, the left, who are supposedly the most progressive sector of humanity, can show such callous disregard in favor of our tastebuds, yes, tastebuds, when it comes to the roughly nine and a half billion animals killed every year because we think that they are tasty.

Yet another emotional appeal. Callous disregard? They're ANIMALS! The only time I would ever be opposed to exploiting another species for our gain would be if they were sapient - and we are the only sapient species on the planet.


Animal researchers are virtually unanimous in believing the more complex, mammalian animals to possess a range of emotions and engage in various cognitive processes. The fact that they have not as of yet built any bridges or skyscrapers does not invalidate this.

They are, however, not sapient. Nor are they cultural.


I have to say, destructicon500 and Unclebananahead really do show a contrast. I'm totally cool with your views, destructicon. But on the other hand, Unclebananahead- you seem to think that your dietary choices should be mandatory or something. Being a vegetarian is a dietary choice, and I'm cool with that, but it pisses me off when some of you seem to think everybody else should adopt your idea of what healthy is.. If you don't want to eat meat, then just don't eat it. Thats cool with me. I don't go around promoting beef and pork, telling everybody to eat it and they're bad heartless people if they don't.. just eat whatever you want to eat and don't push it on other people. Nobody should be forced to eat a certain way because some might not like it.

[Pogue]

Why? I don't see anything wrong with factory farming. Its highly efficient, and none of the animals that are factory farmed are endangered. I only oppose meat production/consumption when the meat comes from an endangered species. Otherwise, its all good :)



This is an emotional appeal and thus has no place in a rational argument.

They are nothing like us. They are not cultural and they are not sapient and because of this, the point you are making is essentially irrelevant. I don't care if something is "cute." I love animals too, but I do not see anything wrong with exploiting them for our gain, as long as they are not endangered, or would not be made endangered by doing so.



Yet another emotional appeal. Callous disregard? They're ANIMALS! The only time I would ever be opposed to exploiting another species for our gain would be if they were sapient - and we are the only sapient species on the planet.



They are, however, not sapient. Nor are they cultural.

Yet they experience pain and fear.

[Yazman]

Yet they experience pain and fear.

That doesn't make them sapient. Some species of crows can make and use tools - that doesn't mean they are cultural.

[Sean]

As always, the devoted carnos trot out the old inane argument...
Anybody else find it hilarious that "devoted carnos" is a derogatory term used by this guy? Your diet is something you have devoted yourself to, I, along with the rest of the world who haven't changed their diet because of a recent movement are the default position. That's like sneering at everyone who doesn't hop around on one leg because your friends started doing it and calling them a "devoted walkie". In fact, I could probably give you just as many reasons why hopping on one leg is better for the world than walking as you could for everyone eating seeds. You'd burn off more calories, you'd exactly half the production in Nike sweatshops worldwide by only wearing one shoe and it would give you more empathy with disabled people, just off the top of my head.

Here in the west, meat is not only considered by the predominating culture to be delicious and healthy (it isn't)......that's a matter of opinion both sides can give you findings that go either way, but I'm going to side with nature on this one, you don't see many lions on the serenghetti suffering from obesity or heart complaints...

but also masculine. One is reminded of the episode of Seinfeld wherein the eponymous main character tries to hide the fact that he isn't eating his meat so as to avoid looking like a 'wimp' in the eyes of his date. Eating meat here in the US, and presumably elsewhere carries a number of 'macho' connotations: being tough, rugged, manly, virile, a confirmation of one's masculinity, and maybe even a suggestion that one is 'John Wayne like' in disposition. Meat is thought to be a food that will, 'put some hair on your chest.' To eschew meat is generally taken to indicate effeminacy and weakness, and a general lack of 'manly virtue.'
Basically the image you are conjuring up of people who don't change their diet to yours:

http://s.bebo.com/app-image/7925699906/5411656627/PROFILE/i.quizzaz.com/img/q/u/08/04/28/Steve_Stifler_1.jpg

You make people with normal diets sound like jocks who haze initiates to their fraternaties by paddling their asses with joints of beef while twisting nipple clamps on baby otters. I've never once been pressured by burly men into chugging a pint of gravy to prove my manliness funnily enough.

I'm not suggesting that all meat eating is done with masculinity affirming intentions in mind, but it certainly is a factor in meat's predominance in our culture's palate.Yes you are, thats what you just did.

It's really a tragedy IMO when we, the left, who are supposedly the most progressive sector of humanity, can show such callous disregard in favor of our tastebuds, yes, tastebuds, when it comes to the roughly nine and a half billion animals killed every year because we think that they are tasty.
Animal rights protestors, militant vegans, wiccans, spiritual healers, and registered American Democrats are all part of what I like to call the "fluffy left" as opposed to the political left. Just because your quirks are abominations to right wingers doesn't therefore mean that they are in any way integral to left wing political ideologies, no matter how hard you squint at Marx's writing.
The bottom line is: Your diet is a lifestyle choice. If the biggest thing you can think of changing in society is whats on the menu in your favourite restaurant then I'm happy that you've found a hobby, however you're talking out of your ass with your whole meat is for jocks theory.

[renegade_Storey]

Most of my family is vegan because my grandmother has diabetes and she went vegan because she was on medication that was basically treating the side effects of other medication, and she went to this convention thing that told her to try being vegan. My grandfather did it with her so it would be less difficult for her to get used to it. long story short, my grandmother virtually does not have diabetes, is now within her age and height weight range for health, and same to all with my grandfather. my grandmother takes no medication now, and is perfectly healthy. My Mothers side of the family is now mostly vegan and everyone is healthier than ever. my mother tries to follow it but finds it more difficult because her boyfriend is an asshole and wont eat vegan food, or even try it.

I personally love vegan food. For one, I am border-line lactose-intollerant, which means I can only have certain dairy products. I can't have milk, and have forgotten the taste of real ice cream, but I can eat cheese and butter. I think it has something to do with the liquid form of the milk. My dad ate steak like all the time, and I loved it. But then I tried my grandmother's food and found I felt better than when I ate alot of meat, specifically the different forms of steak.

Now don't get me wrong, if I have a chance to eat a large steak, and I am in the mood for it (most likely during football season) I will be all over it like it was my last meal. (Edit: I also hate vegan cheese. I really think it taste like a soy bean and not cheese. I will not eat vegan sour cream either, along with various other crappy tasting parts of the foods, but I do like soy milk and rice milk.)I only have pork like ham on sandwiches and bacon on cheeseburgers, foul is only for sandwiches. I usually only eat chicken and turkey, not really any other meat. I don't think I have had a steak since like july of '08. Of course that was when I was living with my dad. And I haven't had a burger since perhaps August. since then it has always been no meat or only chicken or turkey. I am healthy. close to under weight but that is because I am 17, still growing, have a high metabolism, and play football for my highschool + skateboard. those aren't excuses either, I have actually gained more weight since I stopped eating so much meat, and most of it has been muscle (or appears to be such). I played football for 1.5 years before cutting down on meat.

So really I think cutting down on meat is better than not having it at all. We should probably eat it sparingly like we do fats and oils. That is what I do, and I feel great.

[renegade_Storey]

Yet they experience pain and fear.

What is pain to the animals. Its not like for humans, fragile beings we are now, pain being viewed as one of the worst possible consequences of any situation. I had a pet dog that would get into my old razors I would put in the garbage and she would chew them. She wouldn't notice that she was bleeding or being cut in her mouth and on her lips and cheeks.

Fear I agree with. You can scare any animal on the planet, but their reactions are different. A full grown adult gorilla is more likely tear your fucking head off than run, where as a cat will run away as fast as possible until cornered, in which case it would most likely scratch at you as much as possible. I am not even sure it could really be catagorized as fear. It is all part of the 'Fight-or-Flight' reaction part of the minds of any beings. You have that same programming in your mind as well.

Though yes, I do believe that there should be some reverence for the animal. I mean we can have reverence for a murderer by giving him a calm death, whereas animals and held upside down by their rear ankles and beaten at the skull if they don't lose enough blood from the slit in their throat at a quick enough pace. I don't find most animals are perfectly equal to humans. Chimps are what I would sonsider as close as it gets. We can make things with complicated functions, or even no function at all, whereas other animals that make tools make them for obvious, simple reasons. If we are going to hold ourselves above the animals like you all know you do (any pet owner has to accept that they do) then lets actually act like we are and not kill them like any common animal would.

[midnight marauder]

No milk, no meat, no masters. I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle.

[Jazzratt]

No milk, no meat, no masters. I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle.

:lol: Are you trying to parody yourself?

[an apple]

I believe that eating meat is ethically fine, however the ways in which the animal is treated and slaughtered are another thing.

[Yazman]

I still don't get that view. I don't understand it.

I do agree that meat production should be reformed, but this is because I think that the entire food production system including fruits and vegetables needs to be reformed because the food we are given is often of a very low quality.

I don't give a fuck about livestock though. Animals in the wild are different - we do need to make sure that we don't reduce and endanger their species, but they are not livestock so thats an entirely different matter. Particularly as we aren't handling them anyway so their "welfare" is not one of our concerns (in that we tend not to have much contact with them in some areas).

But yeah, livestock. I don't care about them, honestly. They exist for our purposes. Beef cattle could maybe survive without us, but dairy cattle certainly could not, nor could chickens or many pigs (although some pigs certainly could). Livestock rely on us hugely and they exist only because we have bred them to provide us with resources.


No milk, no meat, no masters. I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle

Is this post a joke or are you actually serious? I'm not kidding, I can't even tell.

[S.O.I]

ill eat just about anything except pork

that stuff will kill you!

[S.O.I]

But yeah, livestock. I don't care about them, honestly. They exist for our purposes. Beef cattle could maybe survive without us, but dairy cattle certainly could not, nor could chickens or many pigs (although some pigs certainly could). Livestock rely on us hugely and they exist only because we have bred them to provide us with resources.

and by your logic this means we should give a shit about em? :thumbup1:

you know slaves exist for theyre masters purposes too?

[Jazzratt]

ill eat just about anything except pork

that stuff will kill you!

No it won't. Of the meats I regularly encounter chicken is the most dangerous.

[Yazman]

and by your logic this means we should give a shit about em?

Only so far as it affects production of resources that we extract from them. I don't give a shit if a chicken "suffers", as long as the meat produced is of a high quality.


you know slaves exist for theyre masters purposes too?

This is a very poor analogy; Humans are sapient. Livestock animals are not. Its a terrible comparison.

[Unclebananahead]

First of all I would like to apologize for my late response. I haven't signed on in a little while due to RL concerns. I'll try to give a brief response to some of my critics.

Sapiency:
So, it would seem that Yazman and perhaps a few others have discovered a standard for considering a being 'worthy' of exemption from being owned, brutalized, exploited, and killed, and the term given to this is 'sapiency,' which simply means, "having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." Well, I could perhaps think of a few humans who this does not apply to! Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and a few others come to mind. Limbaugh burger anyone? All jests aside, suppose I were to suggest that we could start eating mentally deficient people, that is to say the mentally retarded, autistic, comatose, etc. All those not demonstrating a particular level of, 'sapiency' or 'sapient-ness,' because after all, people need to eat, and thus we must set our priorities in favor of the sapient at the expense/detriment of the non-sapient. It will be argued, "well, but they're people!" So what? They might bear some degree of physical resemblance to us, but the principal or chief distinguishing factor, as suggested by Yazman and his likeminded compatriots, between us and them, is the possession of demonstrable sapiency -- which a considerable number of them lack. We don't need to concern ourselves with such trifling details as pain, misery, or suffering that we may incidentally cause to those we use, as we *have* to set our priorities in favor of the sapient over the non-sapient. How noble indeed to have such cavalier attitudes.

Manliness:
The predominant culture is rife with examples of people associating manliness, masculinity, virility, and machismo with the frequent, habitual consumption of meat. You know, numerous instances of men in popular culture stating resolutely that they are, 'meat and potato guys'? I never stated that all meat eaters are 'American Pie style jocks.' Just that our culture tends to make certain associations between the two. I don't think that you can deny that.

'Lifestylism':
It has been argued that us vegans are philosphically, 'lifestylists' which is to say that we approach social problems as being best addressed and resolved by the adoption of changes in our personal lifestyle choices. Comparisons might be made between veganism and the fair trade movement. Well, I can't speak for all vegans, but I regard the only issue that can potentially find resolution in a 'lifestylist approach' to be the specific issue, let me repeat that, THE SPECIFIC ISSUE of factory farming and heavy meat consumption, and all that that encompasses. The reason being that consumers have *some* input as to what sort of products are offered -- not how, or under what circumstances they are produced. I do not regard 'lifestylism' to be an adequate strategy for resolving the problems inherent in the capitalist system, and I have been committed to a revolutionary workers' emancipatory struggle as the appropriate course of action for several years now. That said, I think informed consumers can lessen or minimalize the use of animals in the industrialized food production process.

[Hoxhaist]

I dont eat chicken, steak, or lamb. I eat fish and pork

[Picky Bugger]

I dont eat chicken, steak, or lamb. I eat fish and pork

I think you mean Beef... :rolleyes:

[Hoxhaist]

I think you mean Beef... :rolleyes:
whatever it is, i just know i dont eat either :D

[MarxSchmarx]

It has been argued that us vegans are philosphically, 'lifestylists' which is to say that we approach social problems as being best addressed and resolved by the adoption of changes in our personal lifestyle choices. Comparisons might be made between veganism and the fair trade movement. Well, I can't speak for all vegans, but I regard the only issue that can potentially find resolution in a 'lifestylist approach' to be the specific issue, let me repeat that, THE SPECIFIC ISSUE of factory farming and heavy meat consumption, and all that that encompasses. The reason being that consumers have *some* input as to what sort of products are offered -- not how, or under what circumstances they are produced. I do not regard 'lifestylism' to be an adequate strategy for resolving the problems inherent in the capitalist system, and I have been committed to a revolutionary workers' emancipatory struggle as the appropriate course of action for several years now. That said, I think informed consumers can lessen or minimalize the use of animals in the industrialized food production process.

The point is well taken that consumers can have a strong effect on certain industries.

What remains unclear, though, is whether the vegan movement has (1) worthwhile goals, esp. viz the use of animals in industrialized food production, and (2) managed to affect any serious changes.

As to (1) I remain unconvinced, but this is admittedly a matter of personal preference and I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

But it is about the second point, of whether a "vegan lifestyle" has and even can affect material change in capitalist culture, that I remain deeply skeptical.

The main problem is empirical - that is, industrial production of meat and animal products continues basically unabated despite vegan consumers being out there. Of course if one believes that veganism is the way to go then one better walk the walk. But personal decisions about what to eat or not to eat have done very little in terms of changing the market for industrialized products. Ultimately, it seems more reminiscent of religious groups boycotting Disney or something. Even "buying union" is a noble decision to some extent, but one has to wonder whether it is worth the trouble when the time and money spent buying a union-made television set can, for example, be spent organizing a union or contributing to the printing cost of leaflets.

[RHIZOMES]

Yes I do eat meat but not much since my mum is a vegetarian and she makes the food.

[Unclebananahead]

But personal decisions about what to eat or not to eat have done very little in terms of changing the market for industrialized products. Ultimately, it seems more reminiscent of religious groups boycotting Disney or something.

I'm not certain that I agree with you here. A mere 15 years ago, there was nowhere near the degree of variety and availability of meat and dairy alternatives at major supermarkets here in the industrialized west. The fact that such products are available in greater abundance suggests that there is some measure of progress. And moreover, at least here in Southern California, there are plenty of us vegans/vegetarians. It's a trend I can personally imagine gaining more and more steam as time goes by. The internet allows for the rapid dissemination of information, as pertains to the extreme circumstances of intensive, industrialized animal agriculture, as well as the adverse effects the habitual intake of meat can cause. So, I'm happy to say that we're a growing group.

[Hoxhaist]

The reason I dont eat meat is not really philosophical. its because i was vegetarian for 3 weeks and my body got used to no meat and now certain meats make me ill

[Picky Bugger]

After 3 weeks, I doubt that very much. Your body wouldn't have even noticed. I could possibly understand after 5 years and even then I'd think you're talking crap.

Seems more likely it's psychological and to do with your attitude towards meat especially since you eat pork...

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm not certain that I agree with you here. A mere 15 years ago, there was nowhere near the degree of variety and availability of meat and dairy alternatives at major supermarkets here in the industrialized west. The fact that such products are available in greater abundance suggests that there is some measure of progress. And moreover, at least here in Southern California, there are plenty of us vegans/vegetarians. It's a trend I can personally imagine gaining more and more steam as time goes by. The internet allows for the rapid dissemination of information, as pertains to the extreme circumstances of intensive, industrialized animal agriculture, as well as the adverse effects the habitual intake of meat can cause. So, I'm happy to say that we're a growing group.Good point.

I agree in some markets there is definitely more of a variety. What I am not sure is how much this can be attributed to, say, a "vegan" culture.


I simply do not know whether improvements in the production process of, say, non-meat alternatives has made them affordable on a bulk scale, or whether it really is a reflection of substantial changes in consumer demand. However, absent a major marketing push (like the no-carb movement or the promegranate crap) I am not so sure we can't attribute the increased presence to (1) improved distribution channels and (2) the need for capitalist grocers to diversify. I don't know too much about the Southern California market specifically, but for that particular market (as well as a few others) there may indeed be such a demand. I have a hard time, however, picturing the success would be replicated in, say, Dnepetrovsk.

[Yazman]

So, it would seem that Yazman and perhaps a few others have discovered a standard for considering a being 'worthy' of exemption from being owned, brutalized, exploited, and killed, and the term given to this is 'sapiency,' which simply means, "having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment." Well, I could perhaps think of a few humans who this does not apply to! Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and a few others come to mind. Limbaugh burger anyone?

Where did you pull that from? A dictionary? You know that dictionaries are written by lexicographers and not by scientists right? Sapience is the quality of being able to make reasoned judgments and actions; humans are the only beings on the planet that are able to do this. The way you've responded to this, you make it sound as if its something "that we just made up." It is just another term for the high level of intelligence that humans have that is significantly different to all other creatures on the planet. You seem to dispute that we are of a higher intelligence than everything else on the planet, an intelligence that is significantly different to all other beings we know of.


All jests aside, suppose I were to suggest that we could start eating mentally deficient people, that is to say the mentally retarded, autistic, comatose, etc. All those not demonstrating a particular level of, 'sapiency' or 'sapient-ness,' because after all, people need to eat, and thus we must set our priorities in favor of the sapient at the expense/detriment of the non-sapient. It will be argued, "well, but they're people!" So what? They might bear some degree of physical resemblance to us, but the principal or chief distinguishing factor, as suggested by Yazman and his likeminded compatriots, between us and them, is the possession of demonstrable sapiency -- which a considerable number of them lack. We don't need to concern ourselves with such trifling details as pain, misery, or suffering that we may incidentally cause to those we use, as we *have* to set our priorities in favor of the sapient over the non-sapient. How noble indeed to have such cavalier attitudes.

Again, this is perhaps one of the most stupid emotive arguments I have seen you make, and its quite irrelevant. The problem with eating other humans is that its cannibalism. Cannibalism has many common side-effects and can result in quick spread of diseases and defects that are otherwise easily avoided by not eating ones own species. The sort of widespread cannibalism that you jokingly suggest would be detrimental to the health of our species, and although in some rare instances ritual cannibalism has been practiced, it has never been a dietary practice of our species and likely will never be - as it is detrimental to the health of our species.
It should also be noted that retarded, autistic, and comatose people having such conditions doesn't mean they "aren't sapient." So this analogy once again fails to establish the point that you are trying to make.

You still haven't addressed my arguments. Why do you care about the suffering of species than exist because we created them to supply us with resources (meat, fur, etc)? What is your criteria for caring about this suffering? What about micro-organisms and plants?

I will care about the suffering of a livestock species if it can be conclusively shown that it has intelligence on par with humans - that it can meaningfully contribute to human society. When a pig or a cow can stand trial, write and record a music album, direct a movie, write a poem, cook a meal. If they can be said to have the sort of intelligence (sapience) that allows us to HAVE culture and a "society" - then I will support personhood and "rights" for them. But as I have said, the onlychance for another species to have this status in human society is only likely if we come into contact with extraterrestrial life, or by genetic engineering of existing life on earth.

[Unclebananahead]

Yazman, I view your response as being more or less, 'if it isn't demonstrably smart according to my definition of the term, lock it up, kill it, eat it.' But some humans don't meet the standard, and are incapable of, "stand[ing] trial, writ[ing] and record[ing] a music album, direct[ing] a movie, writ[ing] a poem, [or] cook[ing] a meal" My point is that we don't use these standards in considering whether or not a human should be given consideration. You objected to the use of humans as food on the grounds that it could perhaps potentially cause disease. Well, suppose I were to suggest using the aforementioned mentally deficient group of people for vivisection, asserting that experiments on actual humans would yield far more useful research data than experiments on non-human animals.

None of the people I suggest being used in this manner have ever built any bridges, or skyscrapers, or done any of the things that you've mentioned. Why not use them in this way? It's consistent with your logic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The mentally deficient and severely autistic are exceptions to the rule. Just because a distinct minority of humans have been dealt a crappy hand by nature does not mean we can ignore the fact that they are still human.

[JohannGE]

The mentally deficient and severely autistic are exceptions to the rule. Just because a distinct minority of humans have been dealt a crappy hand by nature does not mean we can ignore the fact that they are still human.

Whose "rule" would that be?

Just because a distinct proportion of higher life forms are not human (or even sapient :) doesn't mean that we can ignore the fact that they are higher life forms and deserving of more than contempt, and torture and wanton destruction. Not a "rule" btw, just an opinion.

[Hoxhaist]

I do believe there is no real way to "humanely" kill an animal. All life should be respected. Although we can eat meat and require some of the vitamins that meat offers, there are alternative ways to those nutrients. No living being ought to brought into the world solely to be killed.

[DancingLarry]

Most of my cooking is done based on ideas from Asian cuisines. Meat is frequently a part of the dishes, but it is used in much smaller proportion to the meal than in the usual American/western diet. I can tell you for a fact that it definitely reduces your grocery bill when over half of what you're eating is rice and noodles. Interestingly, cooking in that fashion leads almost without effort to closely following the "nutrition pyramid".

I have 20-lb sacks of Himalayan basmati rice delivered from an online outfit every 4-6 months, very high-quality rice, but even with the delivery charge, buying it that way it comes in for under $2.00 a pound. Another big savings, and more kitchen adventure, is getting away from the prepared products and learning to make sauces, curry pastes and so on from scratch. Buying a prepared curry paste, like the Patak products or something like that, will cost 10 times as much as making it yourself, and it isn't really that hard. Plus you get to experiment, find different flavors and balances that appeal to your personal taste. Same thing with packaged Chinese and Thai sauces. Lemon sauce, garlic-ginger sauce, padang I can do all of those from scratch. Things I can't make myself, like bean pastes, fish sauce, sesame oil, things like that I hit an Asian grocer for. There's a Korean market that's about two blocks from my job, and they carry a pretty wide range of general Asian products. The next thing up for me to learn to make are the dumpling-type foods, gyozas, samozas and so on.

[Picky Bugger]

Do I eat meat? Yes, of course. And you know what? It was probably killed in a manner I do not approve of. But if I just decided to stop eating meat? I would vegetables, fruits, and fungi.

And you know what happened to a vegatable, fruit, or fungi that you buy? It was killed, it was brutally murdered, pulled from it's roots. Granted, plants apparently don't have nerves, but is it right to kill a human that was somehow born without nerves and/or was numb, and you say: "He couldn't feel anything when I cruelly murdered him/her," as a fatal attempt to escape prison? No.

I support the most ethnic and painless killing of animals and whatever we eat. I respect Vegans and Vegetarians' decisions to not eat animals and/or what comes out of them, but I find their ideology insane.(I have a close friend who's vegan) Most, if not, all, things that we eat includes something in it that was killed, whether it be animals, vegetables, fruits, or fungi, or a combination of them. What I'm saying is:

You can't avoid not eating something that was not alive at one point in time. I'll eat whatever contently knowing this. All food is made out of the dead, even if it's something as small as a leaf of barsley tossed in a dish.

Also, Hitler was a vegetarian. And he didn't do drugs either. ;)

I hope you are being facetious with all of this because you are sprouting more crap in one stint than George Bush ever did. Your comparison between vegetables and nerveless humans is laughable so I really hope you are joking, if not i'm quite scared for you...

[Yazman]

Yazman, I view your response as being more or less, 'if it isn't demonstrably smart according to my definition of the term, lock it up, kill it, eat it.' But some humans don't meet the standard, and are incapable of, "stand[ing] trial, writ[ing] and record[ing] a music album, direct[ing] a movie, writ[ing] a poem, [or] cook[ing] a meal" My point is that we don't use these standards in considering whether or not a human should be given consideration. You objected to the use of humans as food on the grounds that it could perhaps potentially cause disease. Well, suppose I were to suggest using the aforementioned mentally deficient group of people for vivisection, asserting that experiments on actual humans would yield far more useful research data than experiments on non-human animals.

None of the people I suggest being used in this manner have ever built any bridges, or skyscrapers, or done any of the things that you've mentioned. Why not use them in this way? It's consistent with your logic.

Again, you're effectively evading everything I've said with this silly diversion about humans. It is not "consistent with my logic" at all. They are still genetically human and that some of these rare mutations and defects occur is by no fault of our own. The solution to this problem is not through some idiotic suggestions you have just made, but by simple usage of genetic engineering in utero, or by screening out of foetuses with such conditions.

[Jazzratt]

Do I eat meat? Yes, of course. And you know what? It was probably killed in a manner I do not approve of. But if I just decided to stop eating meat? I would vegetables, fruits, and fungi.

And you know what happened to a vegatable, fruit, or fungi that you buy? It was killed, it was brutally murdered, pulled from it's roots. Granted, plants apparently don't have nerves, but is it right to kill a human that was somehow born without nerves and/or was numb, and you say: "He couldn't feel anything when I cruelly murdered him/her," as a fatal attempt to escape prison? No.

I support the most ethnic and painless killing of animals and whatever we eat. I respect Vegans and Vegetarians' decisions to not eat animals and/or what comes out of them, but I find their ideology insane.(I have a close friend who's vegan) Most, if not, all, things that we eat includes something in it that was killed, whether it be animals, vegetables, fruits, or fungi, or a combination of them. What I'm saying is:

You can't avoid not eating something that was not alive at one point in time. I'll eat whatever contently knowing this. All food is made out of the dead, even if it's something as small as a leaf of barsley tossed in a dish.

Also, Hitler was a vegetarian. And he didn't do drugs either. ;)

The vegetarians have PETA. We have you.

I care about humans because I am a human. I'm not a cow, I couldn't give a shit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whose "rule" would that be?

As a rule, humans are sapient creatures. Sometimes chance and misfortune conspire to rob humans of this property (the exceptions I mentioned), but otherwise it is generally true.

[Unclebananahead]

Do I eat meat? Yes, of course. And you know what? It was probably killed in a manner I do not approve of. But if I just decided to stop eating meat? I would vegetables, fruits, and fungi.

I'm sorry to hear that


And you know what happened to a vegatable, fruit, or fungi that you buy? It was killed, it was brutally murdered, pulled from it's roots. Granted, plants apparently don't have nerves, but is it right to kill a human that was somehow born without nerves and/or was numb, and you say: "He couldn't feel anything when I cruelly murdered him/her," as a fatal attempt to escape prison? No.I would much rather eat a brutally killed plant than a brutally killed animal. Plants lack a centralized nervous system, and would profit little from having one, being non-ambulatory. Normally pain functions as a negative stimulus/sensory experience to aid in survival, by inducing ambulatory creatures to move away from sources of injury/harm. What could a plant do in response to a negative or unpleasant sensory experience?


You can't avoid not eating something that was not alive at one point in time. I'll eat whatever contently knowing this. All food is made out of the dead, even if it's something as small as a leaf of barsley tossed in a dish. Yes, I am aware that ' ambulatory life feeds on life.' No ambulatory life, as far as I am aware, is capable of photosynthesizing it's own sustenance by producing its own food 'in house'. Humans, being rather advanced technologically and culturally, as pointed out by user Yazman, are capable of contriving a considerable range of dietary options. Omitting animal derived foods is now a feasible option. Protein -- with sufficient amounts of all eight amino acids -- can be found in hempseed, lupin, chia seed, soy, amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat.


Also, Hitler was a vegetarian. And he didn't do drugs either. ;)I would like to put to rest once and for all the fictitious notion that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was known to regularly eat sausage, and squab. Unless you somehow stretch the definition of vegetarianism to include the foregoing, he was in no way, shape, or form, a vegetarian. It seems that in virtually any discussion about plant oriented diets, the 'vegetarian Hitler' mythology is trotted out to smear vegetarians as being somehow in the same boat as Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism

[Unclebananahead]

They are still genetically human and that some of these rare mutations and defects occur is by no fault of our own. The solution to this problem is not through some idiotic suggestions you have just made, but by simple usage of genetic engineering in utero, or by screening out of foetuses with such conditions.

Maybe the science of genetic engineering will get there at some point, but it isn't there now, and besides, the introduction of this technique will only prevent more people from developing these kinds of conditions. Well, what about the populace of individuals already afflicted? Why not vivisect on them? Is it simply because they bear some physical resemblance to us? Surely you're not that sentimental, Yazman. You can't be bothered with whether or not a non-sapient thing lives in complete agony or not. Well, I'm presenting you with yet another possibility for sapient humans to advance themselves at the expense of the non-sapients, as per your logic. Non-sapients, in your view don't merit any consideration whatsoever. Complete agonizing pain, total excruciating misery is not to enter into the equation -- rather, the relevant question is whether or not it advances the interests (whatever Yazman and similar minded folks decide them to be) of sapient humans.

[Yazman]

Maybe the science of genetic engineering will get there at some point, but it isn't there now, and besides, the introduction of this technique will only prevent more people from developing these kinds of conditions. Well, what about the populace of individuals already afflicted? Why not vivisect on them? Is it simply because they bear some physical resemblance to us? Surely you're not that sentimental, Yazman. You can't be bothered with whether or not a non-sapient thing lives in complete agony or not. Well, I'm presenting you with yet another possibility for sapient humans to advance themselves at the expense of the non-sapients, as per your logic. Non-sapients, in your view don't merit any consideration whatsoever. Complete agonizing pain, total excruciating misery is not to enter into the equation -- rather, the relevant question is whether or not it advances the interests (whatever Yazman and similar minded folks decide them to be) of sapient humans.

They aren't suddenly "non-sapient" or "non-human" because they may be mentally retarded.

Again, you're ignoring everything I've said with this stupid as hell red herring about humans.

Do you actually believe that there is nothing unique about human intelligence?

[Unclebananahead]

Do you actually believe that there is nothing unique about human intelligence?
The point is that many non-human animals are at a similar level of mental functionality as many mentally deficient humans, and perhaps are even more mentally aware than comatose humans. When did I suggest that mentally functional humans were not intelligent? I didn't suggest fattening and killing you for instance. What's relevant is that you suggest that if a being doesn't exhibit a certain level of intelligence, then it is acceptable to subject it to the most horrific brutalization, inflicting considerable misery and agonizing pain upon it, all in the supposed name of human interests.

Suppose capitalists began experimenting with genetic engineering and manage to create a 'super race' of extremely, astoundingly intelligent people. Suppose these people manage to seize society thorough some means, and soon thereafter, begin to conduct vivisection upon 'normal' humans, and justify it using a reasoning comparable to yours. Though the scenario is a bit fantastic, I think it's consistent with your attitude.

You think that since non-human animals don't build bridges, or skyscrapers, and haven't written any poems, that they don't merit any consideration whatsoever. That they think and feel is of no concern or relevance to you. I'm afraid this kind of attitude is inconceivable to me -- I can't wrap my head around it. Pain is still pain, misery is misery. The principle I'm going by is that the foregoing should be avoided and minimalized whenever possible. Anything else is cavalier.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Suppose capitalists began experimenting with genetic engineering and manage to create a 'super race' of extremely, astoundingly intelligent people. Suppose these people manage to seize society thorough some means, and soon thereafter, begin to conduct vivisection upon 'normal' humans, and justify it using a reasoning comparable to yours. Though the scenario is a bit fantastic, I think it's consistent with your attitude.

Of course, someone might just accept that as irrelevant. We don't consider the possible of "alien domination" because it's not realistic. It's like how we don't consider God "watching down on us" as a moral motivation. It's not realistic, and it doesn't necessarily facilitate better moral behavior.

I still like the example, though. It points out the main problem with disregarding animals. There isn't a sufficient criteria that separates animals and humans which, upon analyze, gives us a "reason" to make moral distinctions. I could separate people based on color, but it doesn't give me a reason to make that distinction. Advantage might, but we like to think our morality is not so crude as that.

I'm vegetarian, but I'd say the following:

1. Individuals can create arbitrary moral distinctions if they're beneficial.
2. Individuals have a natural capacity for empathy. The similarity to the individual increases the intensity of such empathy. When moral distinctions based on similarity, such as color, are removed, they become categorized as unethical. We disregard characteristics that have no relevance to our moral considerations. Empathy is based on similarities that are arbitrarily valued (race) as well as those that are intrinsically valued (ability to feel pain). Since arbitrary distinctions are difficult to determine, we need to constantly evaluate our society to test if our views are justified.
3. We desire logical consistency in our viewpoints so it seems undesirable that we discriminate against animals given how we treat less capable humans. We have certain values we act upon, and, given the circumstances, we should act upon them towards animals.
4. Logical consistency opposes are arbitrary moral distinction, which is beneficial. Happiness is more important than logical consistency so we have no "moral" obligation to necessarily consider animals. In fact, happiness, creates logical consistency. If believing a contradiction creates happiness, this is legitimate.
5. People who believe in contradictions generally harm themselves. It's better to realize you aren't immune to bullets than believe "you're invincible." Contradictions in morality don't typically exist. They are simply qualified with "kill people except when X" to avoid problems." Contradictions in morality only exist when they are disadvantageous - the only moral axiom people hold is self-advantage.
6. If someone benefits from eating meat, they can do so. However, there are health considerations, economic considerations, and environmental considerations that make most people mistaken. They actually would be better off being vegetarian.

Animal Issues:

1. Some people still seem to be better of eating meat. However, humans have a natural capacity for empathy. If people intrinsically suffer when you harm animals, these people deserve no moral consideration because offenses are not moral/legal issues. They are only offended, not directly harmed. This is false. Empathy is a direct harm. Being forced to watch a baby, puppy, or a fish mutilated as a vegetarian is not a matter of values. People intrinsically have such sympathies and are only socialized to ignore them because, in the past, killing was necessary for survival. If you disagree, raise a child in a machine, show them such cruelty, and record the results. If you are unwilling to undergo such procedures, because of ethics already established, and cannot prove otherwise, you need to succeed the alternative position because of your restriction on our ability to prove our claim or refute it.

Not sure about #1. I also don't entirely understand the idea of contradictions being avoided by arbitrary qualifications. However, it seems to have some escape on the behalf of the meat eater. The vegetarian argument, though, would entail law only if vegetarians were the majority, which they clearly are not. Like any minority, they attempt to utilize power to obtain their agenda. The success and failure of such efforts will be discovered in the future. I suspect many successes because, even if some people are less inclined to care for animals, based on empathy, I think empathy is an evolutionarily favored trait that will result in more vegetarians.

My terrible claim would be this. If you took the majority of vegetarians who were not raised vegetarian but are vegetarian for animal rights reasons, I would suspect a trend. These individuals would be more inclined towards self-sacrificial behavior, short-term loss for long-term gain, and cooperation. I wouldn't claim such vegetarians are morally superior. In fact, someone incredibly empathetic with faulty reasoning can cause a lot of disasters (curing homosexuals). I'd simply suggest such vegetarians have a trait which is evolutionarily favored if accompanied by rationality. If not accompanied by rationality, it's probably disastrous. They are the type of people we admire because their actions translate into benefits for ourselves.

1. A robotic man would be vegetarian because it makes more sense economically, environmentally, etc.
2. An empathic dunce would be vegetarian because he loves animals. He would stop lions from eating in the wild because he's an idiot.
3. The average man is a combination. If he lacks empathy towards animals, or he loves meat to a degree that it overwhelms his empathy, he hasn't done anything wrong. That's just the nature of such an individual.

I think the vegetarian is favored because loving animals translates into not eating meat, which is beneficial, appreciating nature, which is beneficial, and appreciating life, which is also beneficial. All of these things are possible without vegetarianism, but I would suggest they are to a lesser degree.

[Yazman]

Suppose capitalists began experimenting with genetic engineering and manage to create a 'super race' of extremely, astoundingly intelligent people. Suppose these people manage to seize society thorough some means, and soon thereafter, begin to conduct vivisection upon 'normal' humans, and justify it using a reasoning comparable to yours. Though the scenario is a bit fantastic, I think it's consistent with your attitude.

Again, this is a ridiculous scenario that is even more silly than the others.. and not consistent with what I've said at all. I see sapience as necessary in order for "rights" to exist. Simply being more intelligent doesn't make you "more sapient." It doesn't matter how different your "super race" is; your "normal" humans are sapient and thus are of equal status. If you read more carefully you would have already known this however, as I stipulated multiple times that sapient extraterrestrials or "biological uplifts" would certainly be our equals and thus deserving of being treated equally.


You think that since non-human animals don't build bridges, or skyscrapers, and haven't written any poems, that they don't merit any consideration whatsoever.

Actually, I stipulated that livestock animals only deserve this consideration so far as such consideration affects the quality of the goods we receive from them. Animals in the wild that are not livestock are entirely different however and need to be protected when they are endangered.


That they think and feel is of no concern or relevance to you. I'm afraid this kind of attitude is inconceivable to me -- I can't wrap my head around it. Pain is still pain, misery is misery. The principle I'm going by is that the foregoing should be avoided and minimalized whenever possible. Anything else is cavalier.

They do not think and feel in the sense that we think and feel. They do not "think" in the abstract sense of the term. They have no ability to conceive of abstract concepts or systems, or to contemplate as we do. You are simply anthropomorphising them here.

The pain of a cow, which exists only to provide us with goods - this is so because we created the species - is totally irrelevant. Unless of course if excessive pain actually degrades the quality of the products, in which case it should certainly be taken into consideration and necessary reforms made. However, this does not seem to be the case.

[Unclebananahead]

On anthropocentrism:
I must state that I am not in favor of de-prioritizing humans in favor of animals. The primacy of the human species is something that I, as well as most rational folks, are in favor of maintaining. I am opposed to the so-called philosophy of 'deep ecology' in which it is believed that all life is of equal importance and value to man. I am for human interests above all other interests, contrary to what Yazman and likeminded people may believe. I reject deep ecology and similar attitudes as incompatible with the advancement of the human species.

I simply argue for a more empathetic and less rapacious attitude towards non-human animals. I'm not suggesting that we should regard non-human animal interests as being on a par with our own. There will invariably be occasions in which human activities will cause pain, detriment, or at the very least inconvenience to non-human animal life, such as when an animal is chewed up in a combine harvester or an animal's habitat destroyed in developing land. Such things are a necessity for human welfare. That notwithstanding, the manner in which animals are currently used is very much above and beyond any such necessity, particularly in industrialized animal agriculture.

[Yazman]

Suppose capitalists began experimenting with genetic engineering and manage to create a 'super race' of extremely, astoundingly intelligent people. Suppose these people manage to seize society thorough some means, and soon thereafter, begin to conduct vivisection upon 'normal' humans, and justify it using a reasoning comparable to yours. Though the scenario is a bit fantastic, I think it's consistent with your attitude.

Again, this is a ridiculous scenario that is even more silly than the others.. and not consistent with what I've said at all. I see sapience as necessary in order for "rights" to exist. Simply being more intelligent doesn't make you "more sapient." It doesn't matter how different your "super race" is; your "normal" humans are sapient and thus are of equal status. If you read more carefully you would have already known this however, as I stipulated multiple times that sapient extraterrestrials or "biological uplifts" would certainly be our equals and thus deserving of being treated equally.


You think that since non-human animals don't build bridges, or skyscrapers, and haven't written any poems, that they don't merit any consideration whatsoever.

Actually, I stipulated that livestock animals only deserve this consideration so far as such consideration affects the quality of the goods we receive from them. Animals in the wild that are not livestock are entirely different however and need to be protected when they are endangered. Animals that are not really exploited in the way that livestock are should certainly be protected and considered in much different terms, particularly where they are endangered.


That they think and feel is of no concern or relevance to you. I'm afraid this kind of attitude is inconceivable to me -- I can't wrap my head around it. Pain is still pain, misery is misery. The principle I'm going by is that the foregoing should be avoided and minimalized whenever possible. Anything else is cavalier.

They do not think and feel in the sense that we think and feel. They do not "think" in the abstract sense of the term. They have no ability to conceive of abstract concepts or systems, or to contemplate as we do. You are simply anthropomorphising them here.

The pain of a cow, which exists only to provide us with goods - this is so because we created the species - is totally irrelevant. Unless of course if excessive pain actually degrades the quality of the products, in which case it should certainly be taken into consideration and necessary reforms made. However, this does not seem to be the case.

[Unclebananahead]

Again, this is a ridiculous scenario that is even more silly than the others.. and not consistent with what I've said at all. I see sapience as necessary in order for "rights" to exist.

Animals don't need rights for us to abstain from brutalizing them. A mentally deficient person or a child don't really have rights, at least in the sense that most adult members of society do.


Simply being more intelligent doesn't make you "more sapient." It doesn't matter how different your "super race" is; your "normal" humans are sapient and thus are of equal status. If you read more carefully you would have already known this however, as I stipulated multiple times that sapient extraterrestrials or "biological uplifts" would certainly be our equals and thus deserving of being treated equally.Point taken, but that doesn't justify what we (meaning humans collectively) are doing to thinking feeling creatures on a massive scale in favor of our taste buds.


Actually, I stipulated that livestock animals only deserve this consideration so far as such consideration affects the quality of the goods we receive from them.How noble indeed.


They do not think and feel in the sense that we think and feel. They do not "think" in the abstract sense of the term. They have no ability to conceive of abstract concepts or systems, or to contemplate as we do. You are simply anthropomorphising them here.How can you be so certain that they don't think? Just because they aren't likely to 'think' in exactly the same manner that we do, doesn't suggest a total absence of cognition. Ask anybody who's spent years living with dogs or cats, whether or not their animal companions are capable of thought, and they'll immediately tell you how absurd they think this premise of yours is.

Why do animals scream or give other similar indicators when injured or harmed? Is it a purely instinctual response, like a computer programmed to state, "ouch" when a certain key is pressed?


The pain of a cow, which exists only to provide us with goods - this is so because we created the speciesWait, we created cows? What, we're gods now and can create an entirely new species, LOL? I think what you mean is that the cows currently used in food production are the product of selective breeding. I don't see how this justifies their brutalization.

[Yazman]

Point taken, but that doesn't justify what we (meaning humans collectively) are doing to thinking feeling creatures on a massive scale in favor of our taste buds.

They aren't "thinking feeling creatures." They don't "think" or "feel" in the way that sapient creatures do. You should really stop anthropomorphising them. If the cows themselves can tell us reasons, then I will agree with you.


How can you be so certain that they don't think? Just because they aren't likely to 'think' in exactly the same manner that we do, doesn't suggest a total absence of cognition. Ask anybody who's spent years living with dogs or cats, whether or not their animal companions are capable of thought, and they'll immediately tell you how absurd they think this premise of yours is.

Why do animals scream or give other similar indicators when injured or harmed? Is it a purely instinctual response, like a computer programmed to state, "ouch" when a certain key is pressed?

Of course it is. Animal "thought" is nothing like human thought. I think its insane that you think there's nothing unique about our intelligence - how can you honestly believe this? It is self-evident.


Wait, we created cows? What, we're gods now and can create an entirely new species, LOL? I think what you mean is that the cows currently used in food production are the product of selective breeding. I don't see how this justifies their brutalization.

Most livestock cattle are a subspecies that we created - a subspecies that would never have existed were humans not around. "Created" doesn't mean we pieced it together atom-by-atom you idiot.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Of course it is. Animal "thought" is nothing like human thought. I think its insane that you think there's nothing unique about our intelligence - how can you honestly believe this? It is self-evident.

Appeals to self-evidence should be avoided at all costs. Also, it's demonstrable. There is a lack of opposition (no observable negation) or a lack of falsity (the opposite can be proven contradictory). For instance:

A ^ B
~A v ~B
Contradiction given that you observed A ^ B. Observations are true by definition.

~A^A = logically impossible. It's false because the argument itself reaches a contradiction.

Induction is the process of making generalizations of observation based on the absence of alternatives. I'll agree with you that there is something different about "human thought," but I'm not convinced it's relevant to ethical treatment. We're also all made up of atoms, but we don't apply ethical considerations to lifeless matter.

Human thought behaves more effectively or differently than animal thought? While there may be evidence that "why" we are smarter is the result of structural differences, different parts entirely, I think our parts are more efficient. We simply do "better" with what we have. Whether you categorize them as "better" or "different" is just a matter of person choice. Once a car gets a new motor, you can call it a different car, if that is the convention you adopt.

Back to the real issue. Why animals deserve ethics despite differences in humans and animals:

1. Pain is relevant to ethical considerations, and animals feel pain.
2. Qualities F(n), where n is an enumerable number, have been proposed to justify alternative treatment towards animals.
3. Qualities F(n) are all refutable or unprovable.
4. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, animals should be treated ethically given the available information.

I'll give some weight to the argument that "self-interest" suggests we don't treat them as well. However, that applies to people. I don't like believing contradictions or discriminating arbitrarily, but that might be all morality is. I'll think about it. Given that I wouldn't make eating meat illegal, if I could, I need to justify that opinion. It seems rather silly that most of us vegetarians claim you're doing some "evil thing" yet we let you keep doing it.

[EqualityandFreedom]

If the technology existed to grow meat and milk (something I remember reading about a while back) I would stop, but what can I say it tastes too good to stop.:blushing:

[Yazman]

Appeals to self-evidence should be avoided at all costs. Also, it's demonstrable. There is a lack of opposition (no observable negation) or a lack of falsity (the opposite can be proven contradictory). For instance:

A ^ B
~A v ~B
Contradiction given that you observed A ^ B. Observations are true by definition.

~A^A = logically impossible. It's false because the argument itself reaches a contradiction.

Induction is the process of making generalizations of observation based on the absence of alternatives. I'll agree with you that there is something different about "human thought," but I'm not convinced it's relevant to ethical treatment. We're also all made up of atoms, but we don't apply ethical considerations to lifeless matter.

Human thought behaves more effectively or differently than animal thought? While there may be evidence that "why" we are smarter is the result of structural differences, different parts entirely, I think our parts are more efficient. We simply do "better" with what we have. Whether you categorize them as "better" or "different" is just a matter of person choice. Once a car gets a new motor, you can call it a different car, if that is the convention you adopt.

Back to the real issue. Why animals deserve ethics despite differences in humans and animals:

1. Pain is relevant to ethical considerations, and animals feel pain.
2. Qualities F(n), where n is an enumerable number, have been proposed to justify alternative treatment towards animals.
3. Qualities F(n) are all refutable or unprovable.
4. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, animals should be treated ethically given the available information.

I'll give some weight to the argument that "self-interest" suggests we don't treat them as well. However, that applies to people. I don't like believing contradictions or discriminating arbitrarily, but that might be all morality is. I'll think about it. Given that I wouldn't make eating meat illegal, if I could, I need to justify that opinion. It seems rather silly that most of us vegetarians claim you're doing some "evil thing" yet we let you keep doing it.

Your reliance on pure logic to support your point is laughable at best, particularly as pure logic can be utilised to demonstrate nearly anything one wants. You're making the same arguments that Unclebananahead has made, simply retreading the ground that has already been done in this thread.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Pure logic conveys arguments. If an argument is true for all interpretations, it's valid. You're essentially saying that "If we've never seen a case where fire isn't painful, we should assume fire isn't painful."

The assumption that ground has been made presumes your argument is legitimate at providing a "counterexample" to the argument that animals deserve rights. Let's consider what you've claimed.

Emotional appeals don't matter. This isn't true of ethics. You believe "emotional appeals to animals" do not matter. This has to be established by an argument to suggest "why" we can apply arguments to humans and not animals.

Exploitation is legitimate "for personal gain" against animals. If it's pointless or arbitrary, I assume it's legitimate? What about destroying unused oil arbitrarily. Certainly, we need "justified reasons" for the destruction of shared resources. I presume that is why you say "endangered" makes a difference. As long as they aren't threatening the interests of others, it's legitimate.

Consider this, though. You enjoy meat by your nature. Our tastes vary based on our views and our genetics. If I like hearing a bird outside the window sing, and you dislike hearing it, who wins? What if I like hearing birds, and you like smashing them? Your prioritization of "your ideals" is not founded any more than (assuming you disagree) the prioritization of "vegetarian ideals." Is there some reason why our love of meat necessarily trumps my love of seeing animals continue to exist?

Either choice necessarily disadvantages the other individual. Both choices are based on aesthetics. We would then suggest, perhaps, "what causes more harm." Ideally, you have a morally obligation, perhaps, to hide your meat consumption just like someone who dislikes hearing birds might have an obligation to wear headphones.

Issues of aesthetic conflict are decided by the majority, generally, if they cannot be resolved. Are you suggesting our aesthetic value of animals, if that is all it is, is illegitimate? Why then is one aesthetic legitimate and the other not? Theoretically, a vegetarian majority that significantly values "all animals existing" aesthetically might be justified in stopping meat consumption. Or is this not the case?

I like the idea of all trains "intrinsically" being in spot X. If you want to move one, and the majority favors me, who says I am not using the train? I get pleasure merely because the train is there (maybe not), but I do get displeasure if you move it. My liberty does not give me metaphysical happiness orbs when I make a decision, they consequences give me happiness. When you infringe on my liberty, which is just a bunch of trains sitting still, it harms me. Not sure about "this" argument, but I'll think about it later.

As for the sapience. You haven't considered why "sapience" gives someone freedom from exploitation or harm. People vary in degree of sapience, but you don't agree with that type of discrimination. However, what point X determines when sapience actually occurs, for one, and what makes this relevant.

Animals clearly have realize a=a. They distinguish between individuals because it is significant to their interests. If this is instinctual, what makes us different?

I am white. All non-white humans do not have this quality. I can exploit them for my interests. This trivializes your argument. However, you haven't put in the reason "why" whiteness does not justify better treatment or "why" sapience does justify better treatment.

If something is self-evident, we believe it regardless. This isn't the case. If something is analytic, it's true by definition. Sapience is relevant because it means "having this quality makes you deserve better treatment." However, we change definitions based both on "our interests" and "logical reasons." Racism may have been advantageous for some of the individuals who advocated abolishing it.

At what point do we "have sapience" and why does "sapience itself" entail moral consideration, they consideration of pain, while degrees of sapience do not?

The water is purified when it no longer causes us to be sick. When the water is purified, we drink it. Purifying the water more, though, makes no difference. It's purpose is healthy drinking, and it can't go beyond that purpose.

We have sapience when X, and this grants us moral consideration because of Y, but the moral consideration is equal because Z.

You have none of these essential explanations for your argument. I have assumed that you have a legitimate view, which I would not for the racist, most likely, but I don't have the means to understand your view.

[Tseka]

I'm a Vegetarian for many reasons:

1. According to most dietary experts, a vegetarian lifestyle has many health benefits: longer life spans, faster metabolism and a more energetic persona. Most vitamins found in meat, such as Protein, Vitamin B12, Iron and Omega 3 Acids can be found in other foods such as nuts, seeds, strawberries and mushrooms.
2. We, as humans don't contribute to our ecosystems when we eat meat because we have our own way cultivating. For example, when a lion hunts, kills and eats a zebra, the population of zebras in that ecosystem decreases, which encourages a stronger gene pool to develop within zebra populations, encourage more plant growth and the problem of zebras dying because of starvation won't occur. However, we humans do not collect meat in that sort of way, we herd animals, reproduce them and then kill them. We actually increase the animal population, which is harmful to the environment, we don't strengthen their gene pool or add anything helpful to an ecosystem.
3. Cows, fish and chicken all have brains and nervous systems, they feel pain as we kill them and suffer just as much anyone when they face a blade going down their throat.


So the question is, if eating meat isn't a necessity for living healthier, or actually decreases your health, and we as a human population harm the environment by eating meat, unlike other omnivores/carnivores, then why do we do it?

To bring down punishment on other animals just so we can enjoy an unhealthy meal that tastes good????


Think of all the lives killed and put into suffering just to satisfy one man's stomach?



A true Communist has love and empathy for all creatures on this Earth, and that is why I will automatically have more respect for any kind of vegetarian.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Animals are animals and animals have brians, we are no more then cannibals who refuse to feel the pain. (before anyone quotes me it is a song lyric)...
I was vegan for a bit, but i see no problems if your robbin it out of skips or whatever.
I rarely eat meat, and rarely drink milk and eat eggs, i think its pretty sick the amound of suffering animals have to go through for our own benefit when we dont need it to live... but i saw myself turning into one of those annoying vegan mates we all have that i always *****ing at your for having a burger... so i stopped that, but my oppinions are still there, and they ARE RIGHT, big headed yes, but its true... all blood is red (please dont give me a biology lesson tho because i no some people will)... The way i look at it, is if you had to kill a pig every time you wanted a bacon buttie, 9 times out of 10 your wouldnt bother, the pain and suffering is removed from the meat you eat.
BUT i think animal testing is much worse and that is somthing that should be stopped,

P.S Support the ALF :thumbup1:

[gorillafuck]

I don't eat meat but I have no problem with eating meat at all.

[Comrade Che]

I eat meat, quite often infact.

[Catbus]

I was a vegan for a year and a half, now I'm just vegitarian. Don't really have a reason though.

[Il Medico]

I voted the first choice. I like meat taste good. Plus we are not history's most successful species because we only grazed on plants. Also I don't get the Vegan argument that they don't eat anything that is alive, the have this tasty rock! News Flash Vegans, plants are living organism too!
When I say Hillshire, you say farm, GO MEAT! :lol:
Captain Jack

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I voted the first choice. I like meat taste good. Plus we are not history's most successful species because we only grazed on plants. Also I don't get the Vegan argument that they don't eat anything that is alive, the have this tasty rock! News Flash Vegans, plants are living organism too!
When I say Hillshire, you say farm, GO MEAT! :lol:
Captain Jack

Vegan's don't eat anything produced by or made from animals because they feel pain.

The human species evolved an omnivorous diet because of evolutionary advantages. It doesn't mean that diet is advantageous now. There is nothing about the meat that makes it "special." It's the acquiring of meat sources that makes it valuable. We could eat meat when vegetation was scarce or lay traps to catch prey and reduce labor efforts. The meat didn't give us magical powers to evolve into humans. Nutrients are nutrients regardless of what form they take.

If vegetation and animal life began to die out (and presumably we couldn't survive long-term through cannibalism or other methods), humans might go extinct. If a series of mutations occurred by sheer luck (mutations don't happen because they're convenient), some humans might evolve the ability to eat rocks.

In the future, humans eat rocks. Although our ability to "eat rocks" contributed to our survival and evolution, the "eating of the rocks" did not serve a distinct purpose that differed from eating meat or plants (presuming we synthesized rocks somehow into standard nutrients).

[swampfox]

Yes I do with the exception of pork that hasn't been cleaned.

[rosa-rl]

I would no more serve up a steak than serve up my special kitties. Anyone who has had a cat or dog knows that animals think and have feelings - and they can have their feelings hurt. I've seen a dog that was depressed over losing its owner.

I became vegitarian though originally because of health problems - not only do I have trouble digesting meat and meat products but animal protiens cause the cysts in my kidnies to grow - this is a genetic problem.

[MakeYourFuture]

Is someone freegan here? I just discovered it in this thread, and I think it's very interesting.

[SocialPhilosophy]

I Only eat Venison when i eat meat, which i hunt.

[Yazman]

Animals are animals and animals have brians, we are no more then cannibals who refuse to feel the pain. (before anyone quotes me it is a song lyric)...
I was vegan for a bit, but i see no problems if your robbin it out of skips or whatever.
I rarely eat meat, and rarely drink milk and eat eggs, i think its pretty sick the amound of suffering animals have to go through for our own benefit when we dont need it to live... but i saw myself turning into one of those annoying vegan mates we all have that i always *****ing at your for having a burger... so i stopped that, but my oppinions are still there, and they ARE RIGHT, big headed yes, but its true... all blood is red (please dont give me a biology lesson tho because i no some people will)... The way i look at it, is if you had to kill a pig every time you wanted a bacon buttie, 9 times out of 10 your wouldnt bother, the pain and suffering is removed from the meat you eat.
BUT i think animal testing is much worse and that is somthing that should be stopped,

P.S Support the ALF :thumbup1:

I'm sick of you people using this logic, that somehow something is more justifiable if you "do it yourself."

Is this some sort of corruption of the DIY culture? As if its unethical if we don't actually do something ourselves, as opposed to having somebody else do it for us? Humans are still inter-reliant and we can't just "strike out on our own" and provide everything for ourselves. It just isn't feasible for every single person to grow and raise their own food sources, whether its vegetable or animal.

[ev]

I eat meat due to the nutritional benefits of doing so, sure, i could eat nuts and what not and get my dietary requirements through these sources, but nuts are small and don't feel you up a lot. Furthermore, and my main reason, the cost of being a vegetarian in this day and age is very very expensive, unless you grow your own which people in cities and suburbia don't do. That is the main reason vegetarianism is often a fad for the rich bourgeois or their socialite children. I am a proletariat and i will eat like so.

[Misanthrope]

I have a moral objection to eating meat. I won't force this philosophy on others like I would with my politics :)

[Havet]

I believe that eating meat is ethically fine, however the ways in which the animal is treated and slaughtered are another thing.

Animals experience pain whether they end up in your mouth without being treated badly or they are tortured to death. They feel pain when they die, just like we do

Perhaps it is time to explain why I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian

I take the same approach as people who don't wear fluffly animal jackets

Why should we use those clothes that make animal suffer when there are better alternatives that don't make them suffer and keep us with clothes?

Well, same for vegetarianism: Why don't we eat food that don't make animals suffer when there are better alternatives?

After having agreed on that premisse, an important question comes to mind: we still have to feed ourselves to live. On what then?

Simple: every single vegetable on earth, cheese, butter and milk and eggs (because they do not cause animal's pain when you take their milk) and some living beings like some types of seafood (mussels, oysters), because they don't have a developed "brain" capable of experiencing pain like we humans, mammals, birds, fish and reptiles do.

"Don't plants feel as well?"

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28paranormal))

"Overall, there is little concrete, universally verified evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory, and it is therefore apt to receive a great deal of contempt among scientific circles, often disdainfully called 'the Backster Effect'. Skeptics typically criticize the fact that many experiments into 'plant perception' are not taken in controlled conditions and that therefore their results are not verifiable evidence of its existence. Many skeptics of the theory also state that, since plants lack nervous or sensory systems, they are not capable of having feelings, or perceiving human emotions or intentions, which would require a complex nervous system. [2] (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1999-November/022303.html)[3] (http://skepdic.com/plants.html) The primary emotional center in the animal brain is believed to be the limbic system which is absent in plants, just like the rest of the nervous system. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_%28paranormal%29#cite_note-Tortora_2005-1)"

The only reason i don't eat meat actually, besides the "ethical reasons", is that by not eating it, i create less demand in my house, so my parents buy less meat, the butcher sells less meat, and this goes all the way to the animals, which are killed less

Of course if i was in a desert island with a cow and nothing else to eat, i'd kill him for me to survive, since i value my life more than his. There is a difference between recognizing morality and practicing it. I would still view my action as immoral, although i would prefer to be immoral in that occasion

I don't like to "force" my views upon people because i think it's a personal choice, and one that can only be achieved by reason, not force. That said, i will always try to reason with people.

By the way, i had to obviously research the matter of whether i'd have any health issues by lack of eating meat directly. I concluded eggs, milk and those dietary products are excellent sources of proteins, so i would never have any problem. even vegans wouldnt have any problem, because you can mix vegetables and achieve the same protein "soup" required everyday by your body.

Some links to Protein information for those interested:

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he463w.htm (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/foods/he463w.htm)

http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/dietarytherapy/a/Vegetarian.htm (http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/dietarytherapy/a/Vegetarian.htm)

http://www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0677.html (http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0677.html)

[fiddlesticks]

I eat mostly chicken, turkey, fish and sometimes pork.. when it's pepperoni or ham. Meat is delicious, people have been eating it since the days of hunting & gathering. Besides, animals hunt and eat eachother so why shouldn't we?

[Misanthrope]

I eat mostly chicken, turkey, fish and sometimes pork.. when it's pepperoni or ham. Meat is delicious, people have been eating it since the days of hunting & gathering. Besides, animals hunt and eat eachother so why shouldn't we?

Do animals write, philosophize and complexly feel? No. Humans although animals have the ability to abstain from eating meat while realizing the benefits from so. "Animals do X so why should we do X" is retarded. I don't think I need to go into that though..

[CommunityBeliever]

I grew up as a Hindu Vegeterian and haven't had meat/fish/eggs my entire life. Now that I am an Atheist and have studied into it more I now lean towards Veganism and I cut out all cheese and butter but I still have milk for oatmeal because the milk alternatives are super expensive. I would be fully vegan if I could just afford soy milk but I am not bourgeoisie so oh well. :cool:

[Havet]

Do animals write, philosophize and complexly feel? No. Humans although animals have the ability to abstain from eating meat while realizing the benefits from so. "Animals do X so why should we do X" is retarded. I don't think I need to go into that though..

hmm..interesting to see an anarchist without adjectives around here. Your species is rare.

[No Capitalism]

I think I eat meat too much :)

[The Red]

I think I eat meat too much :)

Thats impossible. :thumbup1:

[Chicano Shamrock]

I eat meat because I find nothing wrong with killing animals for my survival. I also have a pair of lizard-skin boots. After all humans are free then I'll start to care about animals. After animals are free I'll care about the plants... then the rocks... the clouds etc...

[Dervish]

Whats the difference between "No, I'm a vegetarian" and "No, but I use milk products and eggs (lacto-ovo-veg.)" (considering that theres a vegan option)?

[Kyrite]

I eat meat because I find nothing wrong with killing animals for my survival. I also have a pair of lizard-skin boots. After all humans are free then I'll start to care about animals. After animals are free I'll care about the plants... then the rocks... the clouds etc...

It is ridiculous to say that you eat meat for survival. You could live fine without eating meat condiering that you live in the US. The majority of people eat meat because it is readily available and it taste nice. And why do you compare caring about animals to caring about plants, rocks and clouds? A rock cannot comprehend fear, pain and suffering nor can a cloud.

[MarxSchmarx]

Whats the difference between "No, I'm a vegetarian" and "No, but I use milk products and eggs (lacto-ovo-veg.)" (considering that theres a vegan option)?
The vegan distinction is a rather modern one; until comparatively recently most vegans identified as vegetarians, and in many respects the "ovo-lacto-veg" and the corresponding "pure vegetarian" labels still operate tho they r no longer as popular as the vegan.

[Chicano Shamrock]

It is ridiculous to say that you eat meat for survival. You could live fine without eating meat condiering that you live in the US. The majority of people eat meat because it is readily available and it taste nice. And why do you compare caring about animals to caring about plants, rocks and clouds? A rock cannot comprehend fear, pain and suffering nor can a cloud.
The cloud thing was just hyperbole.

Well I do need protein to survive. I could get it from other sources but vegan lifestyle is more costly and I personally find it useless. The only reason that I personally would go vegan is because I don't particularly like the idea of having somethings flesh in my mouth.

The feelings of an animal are just as real to me as the feelings of a bag of rocks. Nature has worked out that I am better. Those are just the breaks.

[Dervish]

The vegan distinction is a rather modern one; until comparatively recently most vegans identified as vegetarians, and in many respects the "ovo-lacto-veg" and the corresponding "pure vegetarian" labels still operate tho they r no longer as popular as the vegan.

But the "Vegan" label is synonymous with the "ovo-lacto-vegetarian" label (although some vegans abstain from honey as well). There is no point in having two synonymous options.

[Misanthrope]

I eat meat because I find nothing wrong with killing animals for my survival. I also have a pair of lizard-skin boots. After all humans are free then I'll start to care about animals. After animals are free I'll care about the plants... then the rocks... the clouds etc...

Are you referring to hunting? Because if not, you have no knowledge of the meat industry.

[Kyrite]

The feelings of an animal are just as real to me as the feelings of a bag of rocks. Nature has worked out that I am better. Those are just the breaks.

So you are saying that the suffering of an animal is like kicking a rock? :confused:

[Chicano Shamrock]

So you are saying that the suffering of an animal is like kicking a rock? :confused:
Yeah pretty much. I mean I don't want them to suffer anymore then they have to. Like I don't want the cow to be beat to death for the meat but I don't care about it's feelings when they do kill it.

[Dervish]

Yeah pretty much. I mean I don't want them to suffer anymore then they have to. Like I don't want the cow to be beat to death for the meat but I don't care about it's feelings when they do kill it.

If you "don't want them to suffer anymore than they have to" then don't eat them at all. You can be completely healthy without eating animals -- you don't "have to" make them suffer at all.

There is no real, fundamental difference between eating meat for pleasure (and most of us in the First World definitely eat meat solely for that reason) and setting dogs and cats on fire for pleasure.

[Kyrite]

Yeah pretty much. I mean I don't want them to suffer anymore then they have to. Like I don't want the cow to be beat to death for the meat but I don't care about it's feelings when they do kill it.

They wouldn't beat an animal to death for its meat because that would ruin the precious meat content in the animal. They will however let the animal be hung upside down and have its thoart slit and allow the blood to pour out til the animal is dead; this process can take up to 10 minutes.

[Jerolin]

I most certainly eat meat.

That being said I also eat just as much if not more vegetables. I grow my own veggies and even on occasion hunt for my own meat. Mainly just rabbits though, they're wayyyyyy over populated in my area and they eat all of my home grown crops.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yeah pretty much. I mean I don't want them to suffer anymore then they have to. Like I don't want the cow to be beat to death for the meat but I don't care about it's feelings when they do kill it.

You know the suffering of an animal isn't like kicking a rock. It's blatantly obvious that it's different. At the very least, it's different because you're kicking an animal - not a rock.

What you're essentially saying is suffering isn't sufficient for you to care about the interests of someone. That's a rather outdated position. I doubt very much you actually believe what you're saying when you make that claim. If so, I'll give you ten bucks to go brutally torture an animal (I won't). If you wouldn't do that, you recognize there is a difference here. If you would, there is something terribly wrong with you.

There are plenty of better positions you can take to attempt to justify eating meat. You don't need to resort to discrediting that animal suffering has any value. That's just a ridiculous claim to make. Kant made it, but he didn't have modern scientific evidence to refute him.

[Hit The North]

Until not so long ago only the wealthy ate meat with any regularity. Both the ecological and nutritional arguments for drastically cutting back our meat consumption are very persuasive. However, as long as people see meat eating as related to wealth and success, those arguments for reduction will remain peripheral to most people's concerns.

[Chicano Shamrock]

You know the suffering of an animal isn't like kicking a rock. It's blatantly obvious that it's different. At the very least, it's different because you're kicking an animal - not a rock.

What you're essentially saying is suffering isn't sufficient for you to care about the interests of someone. That's a rather outdated position. I doubt very much you actually believe what you're saying when you make that claim. If so, I'll give you ten bucks to go brutally torture an animal (I won't). If you wouldn't do that, you recognize there is a difference here. If you would, there is something terribly wrong with you.

There are plenty of better positions you can take to attempt to justify eating meat. You don't need to resort to discrediting that animal suffering has any value. That's just a ridiculous claim to make. Kant made it, but he didn't have modern scientific evidence to refute him.
Animals are "somethings" not "someones".

I just don't care that the animal suffered when it died. How could someone that eats meat care about it's feelings? You can't push your morals onto me. Now I personally find no pleasure in hurting animals but I do like to eat meat. They aren't on my level so I don't care that they have to die. It's natural. It is the way we were made. How can scientific evidence refute what my opinion is? I didn't say they can't feel anything. I am saying I don't care about what they feel.

If you are vegan that is cool. I'm down with vegans and their opinions.

[Dervish]

Animals are "somethings" not "someones".

I just don't care that the animal suffered when it died. How could someone that eats meat care about it's feelings? You can't push your morals onto me. Now I personally find no pleasure in hurting animals but I do like to eat meat. They aren't on my level so I don't care that they have to die. It's natural. It is the way we were made. How can scientific evidence refute what my opinion is? I didn't say they can't feel anything. I am saying I don't care about what they feel.

If you are vegan that is cool. I'm down with vegans and their opinions.

You obviously do care, after all, for the feelings of animals. You would probably not flay an animal alive, even if Dooga paid you 10 bucks for that.
It's very easy to eat meat that comes from torture-houses when you don't have to deal with the animals yourself.

What does 'natural' mean anyway? It's natural for me to have sex, and I do have a penis which is 'meant' to be used in such a fashion - that doesn't mean that it's "okay" for me to rape in case no one wants to have sex with me. The relevant difference between lions, for example, and humans, is that humans are able to choose not to eat meat, and be completely healthy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Animals are "somethings" not "someones".

I just don't care that the animal suffered when it died. How could someone that eats meat care about it's feelings? You can't push your morals onto me. Now I personally find no pleasure in hurting animals but I do like to eat meat. They aren't on my level so I don't care that they have to die. It's natural. It is the way we were made. How can scientific evidence refute what my opinion is? I didn't say they can't feel anything. I am saying I don't care about what they feel.

If you are vegan that is cool. I'm down with vegans and their opinions.

Do you care that someone is suffering in Africa now?
Do you care if someone is killing an animal now?

In terms of an emotional response, I'd say no to both. Would you?

Would you feel bad about killing an animal or seeing it suffer?
A person?

I would answer yes to both. Animals suffering evokes an emotional response in humans, generally. It doesn't when we are taught to suppress this response by society. Maybe it "goes away" but I suspect it is buried.

Are you making a distinction about caring based on "rationality" or do you actually have emotional reactions to only the suffering of people? I've never heard tell of the latter except when people work in industries that require they suppress their empathy towards animals.

It's not really a claim about the ethics. You can feel good or bad about something, and it can be good or bad ethically. Your emotions aren't everything. I just find it suspect that you claim that you don't "care" about animals and do about people.

Care is based in emotion. Most people care about animals. They are either smug/comical when animals suffer (creating a sense of personal arrogance) or sad. I've never seen someone claim they have no real reaction to the suffering of animals?

If I kicked a dog would you literally feel no different than if I kicked a rock? I am very skeptical of that claim, if it is what you are making.

[Gleb]

I eat meat and don't have any problems with the concept but I've still reduced it a lot for reasons of ethics & health. Picked the second option.

[MarxSchmarx]

But the "Vegan" label is synonymous with the "ovo-lacto-vegetarian" label (although some vegans abstain from honey as well).

Are you sure?

Nowadays you see it "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" more."Ovo-lacto-veg" usually means they eat eggs and dairy but no fish/seafood. "Vegans" started to want to distinguish themselves from those people, so they adopted the "pure vegetarian" label for awhile, and ultimately adopted "vegan", so the "pure vegetarian" label went down in flames and "vegetarian" came to include the ovo-lacto crowd as well as the honey eaters.

[Dervish]

Are you sure?

Nowadays you see it "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" more."Ovo-lacto-veg" usually means they eat eggs and dairy but no fish/seafood. "Vegans" started to want to distinguish themselves from those people, so they adopted the "pure vegetarian" label for awhile, and ultimately adopted "vegan", so the "pure vegetarian" label went down in flames and "vegetarian" came to include the ovo-lacto crowd as well as the honey eaters.

I got confused -- what I meant to say is that "ovo-lacto-vegetarian" and "vegetarian", the way I believe they are understood today, are synonymous.

Are you saying that "vegetarian" is understood as "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" nowadays?

Note: I am aware that the word vegan was invented because the word vegetarian was more and more used to describe consumers of dairy and eggs and vegans who used to call themselves vegetarians needed a word that will distinguish them from ovo-lactos -- but when we've got 3 options -- vegetarian, ovo-lacto-vegetarian and vegan it just seems like 2 of the words are synonymous (although if I understood what you said correctly -- that the vegetarian label means "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" the problem is solved)

[Colonello Buendia]

Because I don't particularly care about how healthy my diet is and I certainly couldn't give a fuck for animal rights if you paid me, I eat meat.
this with extra bacon on the side, I feckin luv my bacon

[MarxSchmarx]

Are you saying that "vegetarian" is understood as "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" nowadays?
Note: I am aware that the word vegan was invented because the word vegetarian was more and more used to describe consumers of dairy and eggs and vegans who used to call themselves vegetarians needed a word that will distinguish them from ovo-lactos -- but when we've got 3 options -- vegetarian, ovo-lacto-vegetarian and vegan it just seems like 2 of the words are synonymous (although if I understood what you said correctly -- that the vegetarian label means "ovo-lacto-pescatarian" the problem is solved)

No on the former, I agree w/ your point on the latter.

[Abc]

while i have no problem eating meat, after reading the book the jungle i eat much less meat then i used too and as for animals suffering the Humane Slaughter Act passed in 1958 says that all animals must be stunned into unconsciousness prior to their slaughter to ensure a quick, relatively painless death, the problem is the USDA inspectors more offen then not ignore violations to this law due to the fact it slows production down by a lot, and it excludes any birds. i suggest anybody who has not already read it,read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair its amazing how corrupt the meat packing industry was 100 years ago and the scary thing is alot the reforms pasted to to get rid of that corruption and insure safer food were undone by Reagan

[Manifesto]

I had to watch a video about The Jungle in class and it made me stop eating hotdogs and canned meat.

[RotStern]

I sure do eat my meat. Yummy yummy in my tummy. ^.^:)

[revolt4thewin]

I got to have my meat but I do care how the animals had lived since it affects the taste and quality of the meat. Factory farms are destroying traditional agriculture, a balance that is delicate at best.

[proudcomrade]

I eat fish and poultry, but not pork or beef.

[Искра]

I'm in P.E.T.A.'s (People for eating of tasty animals) fan club.

[chegitz guevara]

The proper answer is: I'm eating meat right now!

[GatesofLenin]

Animals exist to be eaten, doing otherwise is going against natural law. During wars, people ate cats and dogs for crying out loud.

[Luisrah]

Animals exist to be eaten, doing otherwise is going against natural law. During wars, people ate cats and dogs for crying out loud.

Yup

Besides, eating animals is good to put some brakes in global warming.
The more animals you eat, the less animals there are to use oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

If you're a vegetarian, than you are making global warming faster, since you let animals live, and you only eat plants.
We should kill these guys :laugh:

[CommunistWaffle]

I fucking love meat, man.

[gaara]

meat is more expensive and vegetaarianism rocks

[Patchd]

[double post fail]

[Patchd]

Yup

Besides, eating animals is good to put some brakes in global warming.
The more animals you eat, the less animals there are to use oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

If you're a vegetarian, than you are making global warming faster, since you let animals live, and you only eat plants.
We should kill these guys :laugh:
But then that would essentially mean that we shouldn't eat animals then, as global warming is necessary for the ozone to replenish itself, without the ozone, we all get cancer and die, joy. Anyway, I eat meat, it's delicious, and I have no problem with the killing of animals for use by humans (not just for pure pleasure of course), I have to say ... I love my leather boots, cow looks great on my feet. :lol:

[8bit]

Humans are designed to eat meat, and thus, I do so, though I do take issue with the way factory farms treat their animals- unfortunately there's rarely an inexpensive, humane substitute.

I am looking forward to IVM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat), though.

[Quail]

Oh dear, why does this kind of thread ALWAYS descend into the same old arguments?

Some people don't give a shit about how their food is treated, how it suffers through life and is then killed. They don't care about the environment, so they don't care about the amount of resources that are pumped into producing their meat or the emissions that come from that.

And then some people do care about those things, so they don't eat meat (and/or animal products) because they would rather not be part of that industry.

It seems that nobody can ever be convinced =\

I don't eat meat anymore. I was never a huge fan anyway tbh. I miss jelly sweets and marshmallows more than anything :(
I do find it strange though, that people can read about and see pictures of, for example, battery chickens that can't even walk and then eat animals that have been treated like that. Most people would be horrified at the idea of treating a puppy or a cat like that, but perhaps farm animals are different?
When I did eat meat, I always bought free range stuff because I didn't buy it often so didn't mind spending the extra money.

Being veggie is also WAY cheaper than eating meat. If you're living off veggie ready meals or commercial meat substitutes such as Quorn, then perhaps it's expensive, but as a veggie I eat a varied diet that is cheaper than a diet including meat.

[The Red Next Door]

I fucking love my motherfucking beef jerky.:D

[Bilan]

I tried to eat meat when in Europe.
I got sick.
Fuck.

[Ravachol]

I have no problem eating meat. I despise cruelty towards animals, but the animals we eat as meat products were born for that purpose, and as far as I know are killed humanely.


Being 'born for that purpose' is no more of an excuse for eating meat than a slave 'being born to be a slave' is for slavery. Mind you, I'm a meat eater and I actually like meat but I consider it a personal vice more than anything else. The logic behind animal rights and the minimalisation of objective suffering (Eg. pain, stress,etc) is fairly solid and the bio-industry which takes no care to minimize this suffering simply for profit's sake disgusts me to no end.


Animals exist to be eaten, doing otherwise is going against natural law. During wars, people ate cats and dogs for crying out loud.

'Natural Law' is bullshit. There is no such thing as 'Natural Law', especially not when a concious decision like diet is considered. The 'argumentum ad naturam' has no place in socialist discours.


Yup

Besides, eating animals is good to put some brakes in global warming.
The more animals you eat, the less animals there are to use oxygen and release carbon dioxide.

If you're a vegetarian, than you are making global warming faster, since you let animals live, and you only eat plants.
We should kill these guys :laugh:

I sure hope that was sarcastic. I'm more irritated by those 'global warming iz gunna kill uz' reformist greenie-crusties than by the most hardline of vegans really.

[OCMO]

There is a Natural Law. Even humans are eaten by thousands of insects and bacterias! And as many said, we are omnivorous, not in yours mind (being conscious beings or not isn't a valid argument) but in your digestive system and the body functions performed by us. If you look out for the most intelligent and/or developed animals they tend to be omnivorous, then carnivorous (of proper meat, not flies) and herbivorous usually are stupid animals, why do you think is the reason? Altough, in modern times, you can replace meat (and vegetables) for artificial stuff (yuk!).

I love meat, rawer the tastier (but not totally raw) and that mix of blood/sauce is excellent! And for those who say that vegans live longer, why do I want to live longer if i'm not as happy? I respect if you don't like meat (i don't like vegetables:)) but there's no need to invent arguments so you can justifie your choices or even try to dumb down the rest of us for eating meat.

[Quail]

Is factory-farming animals to eat with no regard for their pain and suffering, or the environmental impacts of doing so, natural? (Just a thought since everyone keeps saying it's natural to eat animals)

Also, being omnivores means that we can eat both plants and animals, but it's not necessary to eat animals. Our bodies don't work better if we eat animal protein instead of plant protein, as long as we get a variety of amino acids, we're fine.

Being conscious of what we're eating means that we have the ability to make responsible food choices, instead of just eating to survive. So if I eat eggs, I can choose to eat eggs that haven't been laid by chickens that were crippled from living in tiny cages, or if I buy vegetables I can choose to buy local, seasonal veg that hasn't had to be imported from halfway across the world.
I'm not saying that everyone should choose to never eat meat or anything, but since people are aware of the fact a lot of meat is produced in a cruel manner which uses up a lot of resources (water, cereal for grain, power, etc), it seems worse that people choose not to limit the cruelty and environmental issues that they are supporting by buying that produce, than if they weren't aware of that bad points of the meat industry.

[Liberateeducate]

even if you eat meat, do you have any regard to where the meat comes from? how its made? or the cost of it (ecologically of course)? who makes money off it?

A series of events led me to not eat meat, one being a doctor and nutritionist telling me that by cutting down the amount of meat and salt i intake would lower my blood pressure and reduce my risk for many diseases. After 6 months of blood tests and being vegetarian and my doctor seeing results I decided to stick with it!

I don't scrutinize who eats what (particularly because it leads to internal disruptions that hinder focusing on the larger societal problems), but for me if I can defer someone i know who is actively working in the movement from eating mcdonalds or fast food 3 times a week, into eating more healthy i would do it. Because i want anyone in this movement to live a long and healthy life however much so that can be possible, because we need revolutionaries alive not dead.

[OCMO]

even if you eat meat, do you have any regard to where the meat comes from? how its made? or the cost of it (ecologically of course)? who makes money off it?

I can ask the same about vegatables.



Also, being omnivores means that we can eat both plants and animals, but it's not necessary to eat animals. Our bodies don't work better if we eat animal protein instead of plant protein, as long as we get a variety of amino acids, we're fine.

If I eat 300g of meat per day, that alone will give me around 75g, 300g of tofu only 25g. If I drink a glass of milk I'll get 6g of proteins and 8g of carbohydrates to start a new day with high energy, tofu milk on the other hand shares the same amaunt of proteins but far less carbohydrates, meaning that or you consume more food than a regular eater throughout the day or your body functions will be weakened due to the low carbohydrates.

On the other subjects, I agree with you, it's a matter of personal choice and we shouldn't try to force others to eat what we eat. Btw, I love meat, but I don't like particulary fast food. Those things aren't tastier than a normal hamburguer or pizza.

[Liberateeducate]

I can ask the same about vegatables.


But its much easier to buy locally grown organic vegetables or simply grow your own, then it is to get meat not produced in a factory farm owned by a huge Corp. at least in most parts of america.

[danny bohy]

i do but i think it would be alot better if everyone had to kill there own meat. it would sort out the people who understand the natural order and the greedy fuckers who take meat for granted.

[cska]

But its much easier to buy locally grown organic vegetables or simply grow your own, then it is to get meat not produced in a factory farm owned by a huge Corp. at least in most parts of america.

Are you kidding me? That is the only reason I am not vegetarian. It most certainly is not easy to get organic vegetables in the U.S. with a working class salary.

[bailey_187]

But its much easier to buy locally grown organic vegetables or simply grow your own, then it is to get meat not produced in a factory farm owned by a huge Corp. at least in most parts of america.

Why the obesseson with local produce? You know it takes more energy to grow tomatoes in the UK than to just fly them over from Spain?

Why organic? There is not conclusiive data that GM crops are bad IIRC.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

even if you eat meat, do you have any regard to where the meat comes from? how its made? or the cost of it (ecologically of course)? who makes money off it?

Not really. Cost is my primary concern.


A series of events led me to not eat meat, one being a doctor and nutritionist telling me that by cutting down the amount of meat and salt i intake would lower my blood pressure and reduce my risk for many diseases. After 6 months of blood tests and being vegetarian and my doctor seeing results I decided to stick with it!

Or you could eat leaner meat that hasn't been salted.


I don't scrutinize who eats what (particularly because it leads to internal disruptions that hinder focusing on the larger societal problems), but for me if I can defer someone i know who is actively working in the movement from eating mcdonalds or fast food 3 times a week, into eating more healthy i would do it. Because i want anyone in this movement to live a long and healthy life however much so that can be possible, because we need revolutionaries alive not dead.

The time comes off the end.

[Tifosi]

I'll by-pass this whole debate:lol:

Meat is nice, there is no two ways about it. I couldn't life without it. I admire people that see eating meat as wrong as I can see many faults with it but it's so good! :cool:

[socialism for the future]

recently turned vegetarian...a couple weeks ago actually. No problem turning vegetarian...meat's nasty

[SandiNeesta]

In addition to any health concerns there's also environmental issues surrounding the consumption of meat:http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning
and also a pretty interesting show on now called Blood, Sweat and Takeaways that deals with the human costs of the first world's love of fast food and cheap animal products.

[mollymae]

I voted "only certain types" because while I have no problem eating meat, there are some meat companies that I boycott due to some disgusting practices.

[Jazzratt]

You're inconsequential - I couldn't give a fuck what you eat.

This is still relevent.

[Dean]

This is still relevent.

Fuck your opinion.

[comrade_cyanide444]

I love my meat. Even though i'm Hindu, I still eat beef occasionally. Our ancestors thrived off meat, and humans naturally should eat some form of meat, or the enzymes that break down meat will be decreased...

[Vallegrande]

We eat meat so our brains can grow BIGGER! :thumbup1:

However I cannot argue in favor of modern meat as of now, from the highly fucked fatty acid content to the abnormally high hormones. Which is why things like milk and red meat can cause cancer.

But on a traditional scale, where the cows graze in grass, and the chickens follow to kick the shit out of the dung to catch insects--that's the meat I want to eat!

It's not that expensive really. It's the government subsidies, etc, that weed out the traditional farmers, leaving the damned big wigs to fuck shit up, with all their soy and corn, taking up all our land!

Meat is both good and bad, depending on how you look at it! The same goes with vegetables!!

[Vallegrande]

Danny Bohy-- "i do but i think it would be alot better if everyone had to kill there own meat. it would sort out the people who understand the natural order and the greedy fuckers who take meat for granted."

That's what I'm talking about!

[anticap]

As I explained here (http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1724819&postcount=12) (I won't spam by repeating the advice I offered there, but I hope you'll read it), I can't vote because their aren't any responses that fit even reasonably close enough. Moreover, the responses make certain assumptions but fail to consider the opposites of those assumptions, or other alternatives.

A fitting response for me might have read: "Yes, and I do have problems with eating [certain kinds of] meat [when raised under certain conditions]."

You see, we don't all live according to our beliefs. In fact, I doubt very much that any of us do, to any great extent.

[Jazzratt]

However I cannot argue in favor of modern meat as of now, from the highly fucked fatty acid content to the abnormally high hormones.

The fatty acid content of most meat you'll eat is not really "highly fucked". As for "abnormolly high hormones" there is little evidence that those hormones have any real effect aside from making the animals larger and therefore providing more meat.


Which is why things like milk and red meat can cause cancer.

:lol: Who the hell told you that horseshit?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

If any veggies had read animal farm, they'd know why we have to eat meat. The animals will overthrow humanity.

[Revy]

I'm not vegan anymore. I eat meat. I was a vegan for ethical reasons for seven years. I think it was a process of doubt that started many months ago and culminated with me eating animal products for the first time in March, I ate meat for the first time this month. I personally feel a bit healthier. I feel like I have more vitality. I think I might have had anemia or some other deficiency when I was vegan but I didn't know.

I don't think the killing of animals is murder and can be compared to the killing of humans. This was reflected in the fact that I couldn't see people as immoral for eating meat. What I was doing was making an immense personal sacrifice that amounted to nothing more than a drop in the bucket. I think the irony is that my interest in vegetarianism was originally fueled by a desire to lose weight and be healthy, not because I was guilty over eating animals. that's how I ended up though when I officially made the decision to go vegetarian at the age of 14. I became vegan six months later. I think there was a huge difference between the two states of mind. It's easy to just avoid meat, I think. not easy if you're at a restaurant, but easy otherwise. Veganism for me was way different and involves lots of label reading and paranoia. also when I was vegetarian I only would have felt guilty if I ate meat. Dairy and eggs don't have to involve killing an animal. But I was told I had to be vegan to be consistent if I really cared about animals because of the suffering of animals in the dairy and egg industries.

I don't think animals are people. which doesn't mean they are completely braindead. just that their death doesn't have the same moral weight. but I still think there should be no cruelty toward the animals living in the farms. I could not judge meat-eaters as immoral, so why was I still vegan? I insisted that I was grossed out by animal products and that even if I stopped being vegan for ethical reasons I would be vegan for taste reasons...ha...now I eat meat, dairy and eggs and I don't mind....

[Stand Your Ground]

I didn't write this, it was just an article I found.


10 Reasons FOR Animal Rights

and Their Explanation


1.The philosophy of animal rights is rational

Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.

"To describe an animal as a physico-chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."

-- E.F.Schumacher



2.The philosophy of animal rights is scientific

Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.

"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"

-- Charles Darwin


3.The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced

Explanation: Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences.

The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.

"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one."

-- Dick Gregory

4.The philosophy of animal rights is justice

Explanation: Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"

- John Stuart Mill

5.The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate

Explanation: A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's words, "the way of a whole human being."

"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ..."

-- Victoria Moran

6.The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish

Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.

"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."

-- Iris Murdoch

7.The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling

Explanation: All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.

"Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment."

-- Henry Salt

8.The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive

Explanation: The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true interests of their citizens.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

9.The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise

Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.

"Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."

-- Jon Wynne-Tyson

10.The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving

Explanation: The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.

"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will save humankind."

-- Alice Walker


10 Reasons AGAINST

Animal Rights and Their Replies


1. You are equating animals and humans, when, in fact, humans and animals differ greatly.

Reply: We are not saying that humans and other animals are equal in every way. For example, we are not saying that dogs and cats can do calculus, or that pigs and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like humans, many other animals are psychological beings, with an experiential welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the same. In this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and they are equal.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."

-- Peter Singer


2. You are saying that every human and every other animal has the same rights, which is absurd. Chickens cannot have the right to vote, nor can pigs have a right to higher education.

Reply: We are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with respect.

"It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed."

-- Albert Schweitzer


3. If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, which is absurd.

Reply: Many animals are like us: they have a psychological
welfare of their own. Like us, therefore, these animals have a right to be treated with respect. On the other hand, we have no reason, and certainly no scientific one, to believe that carrots and tomatoes, for example, bring a psychological presence to the world. Like all other vegetables, carrots and tomatoes lack anything resembling a brain or central nervous system. Because they are deficient in these respects, there is no reason to think of vegetables as psychological beings, with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these reasons that one can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals and deny them in the case of vegetables.

"The case for animal rights depends only on the need for sentiency."

-- Andrew Linzey

4. Where do you draw the line? If primates and rodents have rights, then so do slugs and amoebas, which is absurd.

Reply: It often is not easy to know exactly where to "draw the line." For example, we cannot say exactly how old someone must be to be old, or how tall someone must be to be tall. However, we can say, with certainty, that someone who is eighty-eight is old, and that another person who is 7'1" is tall. Similarly, we cannot say exactly where to draw the line when it comes to those animals who have a psychology. But we can say with absolute certainty that, wherever one draws the line on scientific grounds, primates and rodents are on one side of it (the psychological side), whereas slugs and amoebas are on the other -- which does not mean that we may destroy them unthinkingly.

"In the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers, with all the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely seen as yet."

-- Victor Hugo

5. But surely there are some animals who can experience pain but lack a unified psychological identity. Since these animals do not have a right to be treated with respect, the philosophy of animal rights implies that we can treat them in any way we choose.

Reply: It is true that some animals, like shrimp and clams, may be capable of experiencing pain yet lack most other psychological capacities. If this is true, then they will lack some of the rights that other animals possess. However, there can be no moral justification for causing anyone pain, if it is unnecessary to do so. And since it is not necessary that humans eat shrimp, clams, and similar animals, or utilize them in other ways, there can be no moral justification for causing them the pain that invariably accompanies such use.

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"

-- Jeremy Bentham
6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.

Reply: There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way.

What is true of cases involving infants, children, and the other humans mentioned, is no less true of cases involving other animals, Granted, these animals do not have a duty to respect our rights. But this does not erase or diminsh our obligation to respect theirs.

"The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of (other) animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings."

-- Leonardo Da Vinci

7.God gave humans dominion over other animals. This is why we can do anything to them that we wish, including eat them.

Reply: Not all religions represent humans as having "dominion" over other animals, and even among those that do, the notion of "dominion" should be understood as unselfish guardianship, not selfish power. Humans are to be as loving toward all of creation as God was in creating it. If we loved the animals today in the way humans loved them in the Garden of Eden, we would not eat them. Those who respect the rights of animals are embarked on a journey back to Eden -- a journey back to a proper love for God's creation.

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

-- Genesis 1:29

8.Only humans have immortal souls. This gives us the right to treat the other animals as we wish.

Reply: Many religions teach that all animals, not just humans, have immortal souls. However, even if only humans are immortal, this would only prove that we live forever whereas other animals do not. And this fact (if it is a fact) would increase, not decrease, our obligation to insure that this -- the only life other animals have -- be as long and as good as possible.

"There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham."

-- Anna Sewell

9. If we respect the rights of animals, and do not eat or exploit them in other ways, then what are we supposed to do with all of them? In a very short time they will be running through our streets and homes.

Reply: Somewhere between 4-5 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food every year, just in the United States. The reason for this astonishingly high number is simple: there are consumers who eat very large amounts of animal flesh. The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers.

When the philosophy of animal rights triumphs, however, and people become vegetarians, we need not fear that there will be billions of cows and pigs grazing in the middle of our cities or in our living rooms. Once the financial incentive for raising billions of these animals evaporates, there simply will no be not be millions of these animals. And the same reasoning applies in other cases -- in the case of animals bred for research, for example. When the philosophy of animal rights prevails, and this use of these animals cease, then the financial incentive for breeding millions of them will cease, too.

"The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them.That is the essence of inhumanity"

-- George Bernard Shaw

10. Even if other animals do have moral rights and should be protected, there are more important things that need our attention -- world hunger and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, and the plight of the homeless. After we take care of these problems, then we can worry about animals rights.

Reply: The animal rights movement stands as part of, not apart from, the human rights movement. The same philosophy that insists upon and defends the rights of nonhuman animals also insists upon and defends the rights of human beings.

At a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both. People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on animals in order to help children. In fact, people who do respect the rights of nonhuman animals, by not eating them, will be healthier, in which case they actually will be able to help human beings even more.

"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

-- Abraham Lincoln

[Stand Your Ground]

If any veggies had read animal farm, they'd know why we have to eat meat. The animals will overthrow humanity.
No they wouldn't. Over 'production' of animals for food, animal testing etc. causes them to overpopulate, if that ended, the man made produced population would dramatically decrease.

And for anyone who thinks meat eating isn't cruel look through the photos on this site, if you can still say it's not cruel, you have no heart.

http://only-one-solution.net/homepage.html

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I think that a single person killing and eating an animal is more "humane" than lining them up and slaughtering them heartlessly and by doing that reducing the animal to nothing more than a commercial product

[Anti-Zionist]

I love pork :)

[ZeroNowhere]

It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.
Many animals are like us: they have a psychological
welfare of their own. Like us, therefore, these animals have a right to be treated with respect. On the other hand, we have no reason, and certainly no scientific one, to believe that carrots and tomatoes, for example, bring a psychological presence to the world. Like all other vegetables, carrots and tomatoes lack anything resembling a brain or central nervous system. Because they are deficient in these respects, there is no reason to think of vegetables as psychological beings, with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these reasons that one can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals and deny them in the case of vegetables."Let's pretend that our morals are rational, and draw an arbitrary line which is not at all arbitrary!"


And for anyone who thinks meat eating isn't cruel look through the photos on this site, if you can still say it's not cruel, you have no heart.I suppose that that at least gives me a reduced probability of heart attack.

[here for the revolution]

There would have to be truly exceptional circumstances to prevent me eating a certain type of meat, however, whilst being a meat eater, I am concerned with the horrific reports of slaughtering I've read which lay the blame on the fact that the minimum wage earning slaughterer is constantly being pushed to maintain profit margins and as such has little time to follow the correct procedures to ensure a `humane` slaughter.

[Taygon]

I have no problem with eating meat: it is my primary and preferred food source, and I'm not too picky about it. If circumstances justified it and there was no alternative, I'd probably eat the long pork, and not even give it a second thought...

That doesn't mean I'd turn a blind eye to cruelty or suffering. Sadism goes against my every instinct, and is a major berserk button for me. If I see it, I will intervene to stop it, regardless of the risk to myself. When I have to kill something, I do it as quickly as possible, to minimize pain and suffering. I do not believe in hunting or killing for sport, either.

[Agnapostate]

Yes, and related to my scruples about the marginal nature of individual action or inaction. My cessation of meat-eating doesn't stop animals from being mistreated or cruelly slaughtered.

[Foldered]

I'm vegan.

[28350]

I eat meat, but I try not to be an asshole about it.

[Velkas]

I eat meat.

[Klaatu]

While I can appreciate the vegans' point of view as meat-eating is somehow immoral, I would humbly submit to them that nature itself is largely meat-eating. One look at any of the TV nature shows depicts most animals as being carnivorous. Eating meat in and of itself is not immoral, but mistreatment of food animals certainly is. It is not inherently wrong to kill animals for food, but that killing must be done in the most humane manner possible. However, hunting and killing purely for sport (not for food) is an immoral thing.

[BeerShaman]

Ah, what's the point in not eating meat? Is it about the stopping of exploitation on animals? Because, if this isn't the main factor, then avoiding eating meat is probably a bit harmful. No other type of food gives you as much body volume as meat does. And if a revolutionnary body mass is needed. Don't forget that some day there's gonna be revolution, so, let's not be butterboys...:lol:

[Foldered]

While I can appreciate the vegans' point of view as meat-eating is somehow immoral, I would humbly submit to them that nature itself is largely meat-eating.
That may be true, but by eating meat, you are supporting the industrialization of nature. Unless you are shelling out a lot of money to get "free range organic" meat, or actually killing animals yourself (which I'm skeptical of), then you are supporting a capitalist system that makes shit tonnes of money off of brutalization. It's more than just meat-eating being "immoral;" the fact that so many leftists don't seem to understand why not eating meat is an extension of political ideologies baffles me. It isn't hard to survive without eating meat, it's better for the environment, it takes less resources, and you're not supporting the capitalist exploitation of animals via factory farms. Yes, it occurs in nature frequently, but in a post-industrial society, "nature" isn't something we can really fall back on. (Unless you hunt animals on your own and actually use the meat to sustain yourself.)
We live in urban areas (and even in rural areas, I doubt there are that many people on here that grow their own food and kill their own livestock); to make the argument that meat-eating exists in nature and therefore is justifiable makes no sense.

It is not inherently wrong to kill animals for food, but that killing must be done in the most humane manner possible. This is something I would really like to have explained to me; just what is a humane way of killing? A shot through the heart, through the brain?
I think it has less to do with the killing, but more with the fact that animals are restrained in small cages, beaten, etc. for their entire beings simply to feed a bunch of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that the only complete meal is one with meat in it.

[Klaatu]

That may be true, but by eating meat, you are supporting the industrialization of nature. Unless you are shelling out a lot of money to get "free range organic" meat, or actually killing animals yourself (which I'm skeptical of), then you are supporting a capitalist system that makes shit tonnes of money off of brutalization. It's more than just meat-eating being "immoral;" the fact that so many leftists don't seem to understand why not eating meat is an extension of political ideologies baffles me. It isn't hard to survive without eating meat, it's better for the environment, it takes less resources, and you're not supporting the capitalist exploitation of animals via factory farms. Yes, it occurs in nature frequently, but in a post-industrial society, "nature" isn't something we can really fall back on. (Unless you hunt animals on your own and actually use the meat to sustain yourself.)
We live in urban areas (and even in rural areas, I doubt there are that many people on here that grow their own food and kill their own livestock); to make the argument that meat-eating exists in nature and therefore is justifiable makes no sense.

Please, let's not politicize meat. I don't like greedy capitalists either, but I think socialists would still enjoy their steaks...



This is something I would really like to have explained to me; just what is a humane way of killing? A shot through the heart, through the brain?
I think it has less to do with the killing, but more with the fact that animals are restrained in small cages, beaten, etc. for their entire beings simply to feed a bunch of people who have been brainwashed into thinking that the only complete meal is one with meat in it.

That is a very good question. I suggust a completely painless (however expensive) method (an injection of potassium chloride, or carbon monoxide, perhaps?)

Restraining in small cages, pens, beatings, starvings, etc, are horrible things.

[Foldered]

Please, let's not politicize meat. I don't like greedy capitalists either, but I think socialists would still enjoy their steaks...
I'm not "politicizing meat;" the meat industry politicized itself when capitalist factory farms came into existance, when animals began being killed not for survival, but for profit.




That is a very good question. I suggust a completely painless (however expensive) method (an injection of potassium chloride, or carbon monoxide, perhaps?)
All for the sake of providing someone with the delicacy of meat? Seems a little ridiculous to me...


Restraining in small cages, pens, beatings, starvings, etc, are horrible things.
I agree.

[son of man]

Has anyone heard the track "Beef and Broccoli" by the hiphop artist Immortal Technique?

Sums up my feelings on the issue.

I believe that all animals have a place in this world of ours - and that would be right next to the mashed potatoes.

[InuyashaKnight]

No problem, here

[Stand Your Ground]

Speciesism - the assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership, discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, esp. in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.

How can one living being be free and not another? Speciesism is largely overlooked.

[son of man]

Speciesism?

I'm the only member of the Powelliphanta Libertion Organisation. The PLO (sorry Yasser) are for the liberation of the Powelliphanta, New Zealand's own nocturnally carnivorous giant land snail. We (well I) will not rest until the Powelliphanta has been liberated from the yoke of its vile human opressors (The powelliphanta's habitat has come under pressure from corporate mining).

Meanwhile...
...in the northern districts of Uganda, 30,000 children have been abducted in the past 20 some years. Most every family in the Acholi and now Langi area has been affected. Many families have lost a child through abduction, or their village was attacked and destroyed, families burned out and/or killed, and harvests destroyed by an army of abducted children known as The Lord’s Resistance Army. The countryside is virtually empty and people have moved into safe villages that are supposed to be protected by the government, but that has often been in words but not in deed. At night the children of the north flee into towns to sleep, fearing that they might be abducted. They find safety in numbers in towns such as Gulu where even the local bishops and ministers have joined them as they seek safety from the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Who would you want to help first - The poor little snails or the children being forced into child soldiering and prostitution?

[Foldered]

Who would you want to help first - The poor little snails or the children being forced into child soldiering and prostitution?
You realize that that's a ridiculous mode of argument and that those situations are not analogous.

A company wants to cut down a huge forest to make things that increase the "quality of life" of people, but in doing so the company will destroy many ecosystems resulting in the displacement and death of many animals.

What would you support first - the betterment of humanity and quality of life, or the poor animals?


Same mode of rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[Stand Your Ground]

Speciesism?

I'm the only member of the Powelliphanta Libertion Organisation. The PLO (sorry Yasser) are for the liberation of the Powelliphanta, New Zealand's own nocturnally carnivorous giant land snail. We (well I) will not rest until the Powelliphanta has been liberated from the yoke of its vile human opressors (The powelliphanta's habitat has come under pressure from corporate mining).

Meanwhile...
...in the northern districts of Uganda, 30,000 children have been abducted in the past 20 some years. Most every family in the Acholi and now Langi area has been affected. Many families have lost a child through abduction, or their village was attacked and destroyed, families burned out and/or killed, and harvests destroyed by an army of abducted children known as The Lord’s Resistance Army. The countryside is virtually empty and people have moved into safe villages that are supposed to be protected by the government, but that has often been in words but not in deed. At night the children of the north flee into towns to sleep, fearing that they might be abducted. They find safety in numbers in towns such as Gulu where even the local bishops and ministers have joined them as they seek safety from the Lord’s Resistance Army.

Who would you want to help first - The poor little snails or the children being forced into child soldiering and prostitution?
What you have just said is exactly what speciesism is. You make it seem as if humans can suffer more than non-humans. Every living being that is suffering must be free and liberated, it goes together, not against each other. The suffering of those children, the snails, the cats & dogs being skinned alive for clothing, they are all equally important issues and must be addressed, if the snails don't seem as important to you that's just the speciesism clouding your mind.

[blackwave]

I don't want animals to suffer, but I eat meat, because I'm weak-minded, and I don't see that me stopping would make any difference. If I had the power, I would definitely make sure that the kindest possible method was used to kill these animals.

[Foldered]

I don't want animals to suffer, but I eat meat, because I'm weak-minded, and I don't see that me stopping would make any difference. If I had the power, I would definitely make sure that the kindest possible method was used to kill these animals.
You do have that power; buy free range meat or don't eat any meat at all.

If everyone did either of those, the factory farm meat industry as we know it would collapse. All it takes is being a little conscious.

[Agnapostate]

Everyone won't do that, and if everyone's actions mirrored my own, I'd be taking on far more issues than just meat consumption. But things don't work that way; individual action or inaction is marginal and irrelevant.

[Foldered]

Everyone won't do that, and if everyone's actions mirrored my own, I'd be taking on far more issues than just meat consumption. But things don't work that way; individual action or inaction is marginal and irrelevant.
Except for that through individual action/inaction there is collective action/inaction.

And I do take on far more issues than just meat consumption, which I also take on.

[leftace53]

I like the taste of meat in general, slices are the most fun - pepperoni, salami etc...
Atleast I stay away from halal meat, thats just mean what they do to animals.

[Agnapostate]

Except for that through individual action/inaction there is collective action/inaction.

Yes, and if one individual withdraws from collective action/inaction, that still generally has no effect. Obviously, broadcasting that idea to a mass audience would have an effect, though, since each individual would conceive of him or herself.

[son of man]

No one answered my question on whether you would help the snails or the Ugandan children. I do realise it is a ridiculous mode of argument but I will persist in order to try and establish a point.

In the end the snails got shifted away from the mining which cost the New Zealand Government $4,000,000. The snails still died.

The children in northern Uganda are still at the mercy of the LRA.

I don't disagree with the premise that all animals experience suffering and that the quantitative suffering of any animal cannot be measured against another's.

I just think that there is little chance for animals when humans treat their own with indifference.

How prevalent is vegetarianism/veganism, by way of choice - not necessity, in the third world?

[Agnapostate]

I don't disagree with the premise that all animals experience suffering and that the quantitative suffering of any animal cannot be measured against another's.

Oh, I think it can, actually. Severely beating a horse is openly more immoral than crushing a snail, due to advanced mammals' more developed nervous systems. Or would that be qualitative?

[Stand Your Ground]

Oh, I think it can, actually. Severely beating a horse is openly more immoral than crushing a snail, due to advanced mammals' more developed nervous systems. Or would that be qualitative?
Well some humans have more ability to withstand pain than others, but unnecessary pain should not be inflicted upon any living being.

[Stand Your Ground]

No one answered my question on whether you would help the snails or the Ugandan children.
I answered it above.

[Agnapostate]

Well some humans have more ability to withstand pain than others, but unnecessary pain should not be inflicted upon any living being.

It shouldn't. It's just that a slap is decidedly less immoral than chopping an arm off with a rusty pickax.

[Foldered]

No one answered my question on whether you would help the snails or the Ugandan children. I do realise it is a ridiculous mode of argument but I will persist in order to try and establish a point.
I would save both.


How prevalent is vegetarianism/veganism, by way of choice - not necessity, in the third world?
very prevalent, but I guarantee they're diets are not balanced vegetarian diets... I don't understand what you're trying to establish by asking that.

[32csmabu]

if we werent supposed to eat cows theyd run faster:rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

if we werent supposed to eat cows theyd run faster:rolleyes:
Who exactly placed these cows there for us to eat? Perhaps you had better watch your back as well, in fact, as I'm fairly sure that if you weren't supposed to be killed by arsenic, you would not be susceptible to it.

I don't have much of a problem with either vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, but inanity is unacceptable.

[Jazzratt]

unnecessary pain should not be inflicted upon any living being.

Why? Why any living being?

[Foldered]

I don't have much of a problem with either vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism, but inanity is unacceptable.
Definitely one of the best posts in the thread.:wub:

[Stand Your Ground]

Why? Why any living being?
Why not?

[Stand Your Ground]

if we werent supposed to eat cows theyd run faster:rolleyes:
Man does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits, so why is he lord of all the animals?

[Revy]

Man does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits, so why is he lord of all the animals?

Humans have the ability to hunt with tools because of an evolved brain, which other animals don't have.

[Foldered]

Humans have the ability to hunt with tools because of an evolved brain, which other animals don't have.
And we don't have to hunt to survive anymore. I made that point like 2 pages back.
Even in the times of hunting and gathering, it was shown that more food that was gathered was consumed than hunted.

[Stand Your Ground]

Humans have the ability to hunt with tools because of an evolved brain, which other animals don't have.
Non-humans don't need tools. They use their own characteristics to their advantage.

I don't think it's fair at all to judge non-humans by their mental capacity. Pigs don't drive cars. Cows don't drop bombs. Why should animals suffer because humans do those things? Non-humans don't need to do those things, they can survive and have since the beginning of time without having to get in the car and drive to the grocery store. I think us humans make life harder for ourselves then it really needs to be.

Why is it that we're 'smarter'? We still can't get world peace right, we still can't stop wars, we still can't stop polluting. When was the last time anyone saw a chicken throw his trash out his car window? In my opinion, I think it's humans who are more stupid then we think we are.

[Obrero Rebelde]

I eat beef, pork, chicken, duck, turkey, lamb -- usually close to well done to be "safe". I have once tasted goat and threw up. I've tried rabbit and threw up. I will not eat squirrel, monkey, dog, cat, rat or most other meats. Lobster, crab, shrimp, salmon, trout, tuna, herring -- cool. Not much into clams or oysters.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why is it that we're 'smarter'? We still can't get world peace right, we still can't stop wars, we still can't stop polluting. When was the last time anyone saw a chicken throw his trash out his car window? In my opinion, I think it's humans who are more stupid then we think we are.

Yeah, we're so stupid, we're only one of the most successful mammal species ever to evolve.

[Stand Your Ground]

Yeah, we're so stupid, we're only one of the most successful mammal species ever to evolve.
Non-humans have survived WITHOUT evolving.

[A.R.Amistad]

I like to get my meat and as much of my food as possible from CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and I encourage every comrade to get involved. I've always imagined that in the socialist future, these could be the embryos of an agricultural soviet.
http://www.localharvest.org/csa/

[NGNM85]

Non-humans don't need tools. They use their own characteristics to their advantage.

That depends on the definition of the word "need."


I don't think it's fair at all to judge non-humans by their mental capacity. Pigs don't drive cars. Cows don't drop bombs. Why should animals suffer because humans do those things? Non-humans don't need to do those things, they can survive and have since the beginning of time without having to get in the car and drive to the grocery store. I think us humans make life harder for ourselves then it really needs to be.

Why is it that we're 'smarter'? We still can't get world peace right, we still can't stop wars, we still can't stop polluting. When was the last time anyone saw a chicken throw his trash out his car window? In my opinion, I think it's humans who are more stupid then we think we are.

I think that's two different issues, I'll try to address them as succinctly as possible.

That human civilization has made some enormous blunders and continues to do so is, frankly without question. However to suggest we are not smarter than nonsentient life because we can design internal combustion engines and nuclear weapons, but don't always use these things responsibly, is like saying your dog is dumb because he wrote a novel but forgot to indent his paragraphs.

Second, while I certainly don't enjoy the idea of animals suffering, human lives carry a greater moral weight. This is in part due to a simple Darwinian imperative, which doesn't require a lot of elaborating. Second, because we are the only sentient life on earth. Sentience is a morally relevant criteria. When an animal dies and individual organism is destroyed, but when a person dies a consciousness is lost, and that's something different.

Sentience is important for several reasons. First, because it is so rare. To our knowledge, we are the only creature in the universe to posess it. I'm reminded of Arthur C. Clake's famous observation; "Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." I would have said "awesome" instead of "terrifying", but I think the point is clear. However, despite the real possibility that we are not alone, (Ex; The Drake equation.) we have no concrete evidence of this, and thus cannot be sure of this. (The Fermi paradox.) This would make the extinction of the human race an even greater tragedy, not just simply because we are humans, or the existential horror of it, but because the universe will be without consciousness. The universe will not mind, but I should think it a horrible thing for a universe to exist without consciousness to perceive it.

Second, sentience matters because of the boundless possibilities it allows. Perception, creation, and experience. Truth, beauty, and love. Art, poetry, and science. Knowledge, liberty, joy. On, and on , and on. Whether or not they are realized, every sentient mind has the possibility for these things. Like the line from "Hamlet": "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving how express and admirable? In action, how like an angel? In apprehension, how like a God?"

This is why the careless destruction of human life is so abhorrent,Not simply because it's antisocial, or because it goes against our evolutionary imperatives, but, primarily, because it reduces the sum of all these possibilities to zero.

[Taygon]

"Sentience" is the ability to feel or perceive, and is interchangeable with the meaning of "consciousness". All lifeforms with a nervous system are "sentient". It's a common Hollywood misnomer to mix this term up with...
"Sapience", which is the ability to act with appropriate subjective judgment (wisdom).


Like the line from "Hamlet": "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving how express and admirable? In action, how like an angel? In apprehension, how like a God?"
In Hamlet, this line is used with extreme irony, specifically to mock humanity's hubris.
Not the other way around, which would be the epitome of arrogance and anthropocentrism.

[NGNM85]

"Sentience" is the ability to feel or perceive, and is interchangeable with the meaning of "consciousness". All lifeforms with a nervous system are "sentient". It's a common Hollywood misnomer to mix this term up with...
"Sapience", which is the ability to act with appropriate subjective judgment (wisdom).

I find most hardcore animal rights advocates make a big deal about this. It depends where you're coming from. I normally encounter the term in scientific contexts, regarding say, Artificial Intelligence, or Transhumanism, or in science fiction, where it is used to denote an intellectual capacity of human level or beyond. Regardless, you know what I mean, and I know what I mean.



In Hamlet, this line is used with extreme irony, specifically to mock humanity's hubris.
Not the other way around, which would be the epitome of arrogance and anthropocentrism.

I'm aware that was not how it was meant, but I think it's a great phrase that really nicely summarizes what I was trying to convey.
I don't see anthropocentrism as necessarily all bad. Obviously, as human beings we have very good reason to be primarily concerned with our interests. I think we should be concerned with the destruction of the natural world and should make an effort to preserve it, to curb pollution, develop clean energy, protect endangered species, etc. However, I do think human life is more valuable. Not simply because I am one and have a natural Darwinian imperative, but because despite the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere (Drake equation) we don't have any conclusive evidence of this.

I think sentient life carries greater moral weight. For example, if a strong AI was created I would have to extend to it all the rights and freedoms I would want for myself, to destroy it would be murder, etc. I think the mind is a pretty amazing machine, allowing for an infinite range of experience and awareness. It may ultimately affect the fate of the universe.

[Jazzratt]

Non-humans have survived WITHOUT evolving.

You fucking what? Nothing has survived without evolving unless you think these non-human animals sprang fully formed from the ther or other such toss.

[coldasdeath0]

You fucking what? Nothing has survived without evolving unless you think these non-human animals sprang fully formed from the ther or other such toss.

that sir was incredible. :thumbup1:

[Red Saxon]

I've been weaning myself off of meat for a few months now, just so I don't end up hurting myself by quitting cold turkey.

I'm at the point where I'll have grilled tilapia once or twice a month, but besides that I'm not really eating meat.

[empiredestoryer]

yes i eat meat cause im lucky i live in a part of the world were i eat every day

[Stand Your Ground]

Second, while I certainly don't enjoy the idea of animals suffering, human lives carry a greater moral weight. This is in part due to a simple Darwinian imperative, which doesn't require a lot of elaborating. Second, because we are the only sentient life on earth. Sentience is a morally relevant criteria. When an animal dies and individual organism is destroyed, but when a person dies a consciousness is lost, and that's something different.

Sentience is important for several reasons. First, because it is so rare. To our knowledge, we are the only creature in the universe to posess it. I'm reminded of Arthur C. Clake's famous observation; "Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." I would have said "awesome" instead of "terrifying", but I think the point is clear. However, despite the real possibility that we are not alone, (Ex; The Drake equation.) we have no concrete evidence of this, and thus cannot be sure of this. (The Fermi paradox.) This would make the extinction of the human race an even greater tragedy, not just simply because we are humans, or the existential horror of it, but because the universe will be without consciousness. The universe will not mind, but I should think it a horrible thing for a universe to exist without consciousness to perceive it.

Second, sentience matters because of the boundless possibilities it allows. Perception, creation, and experience. Truth, beauty, and love. Art, poetry, and science. Knowledge, liberty, joy. On, and on , and on. Whether or not they are realized, every sentient mind has the possibility for these things. Like the line from "Hamlet": "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving how express and admirable? In action, how like an angel? In apprehension, how like a God?"

This is why the careless destruction of human life is so abhorrent,Not simply because it's antisocial, or because it goes against our evolutionary imperatives, but, primarily, because it reduces the sum of all these possibilities to zero.
No death should take more weight than another. Animals want to live just as much as humans. They love their children just as humans do. Simply because animals don't have the same capacities for certain things as we do, does not mean they should die for it.

[Stand Your Ground]

You fucking what? Nothing has survived without evolving unless you think these non-human animals sprang fully formed from the ther or other such toss.
Well if every being evolves, maybe some faster and differently than others, it seems unfair to judge based on this.

[ZeroNowhere]

No death should take more weight than another.
I tend to weigh the deaths of humans and birds above the deaths of microscopic nematodes, although perhaps this is morally impermissible?

[NGNM85]

No death should take more weight than another.

Because we are of the same species. It is natural and logical to value the lives of ourselves and other human beings. Human beings are superior to some animals in several ways but superior to ALL animals in the sense, as I was saying before, we are the 'judges of the universe'. We can create and understand things that no other lifeform on this planet can. There are lifeforms that have unique physical attributes, but, even if echidna and platypi are the only mammals that can lay eggs, that can't be regarded as equally valuable as art, poetry, splitting the atom, etc. That's not to say that all other species are expendable. Certainly not. First, we depend on other species, plants, animals, bacteria, etc. to survive. Even if these animals are not necessary to support our civilization directly, we should take care to protect and preserve them within reason. I'm not arguing we shouldn't give them any consideration, but I don't see any logical moral argument against eating meat if it isn't threatening the species. The best argument against eating meat is simply the argument for the environment.


Animals want to live just as much as humans.

This the "hard utilitarian" argument. (Although I've found hardcore animal right activists frequently switch between utilitarianism and deontological ethics depending on what suits their needs at the moment.) as Bentham said, "...do they suffer?" However, I'm not moved by this argument. I recognize many animal species have nervous systems that are analagous to my own. However, although the suffering may be of equal intensity, I don't think it necessarily has the same moral value.


They love their children just as humans do.

Ehhh... I'm not going to speculate on the emotional capacity of a prairie dog or yellowfin tuna. Again, this is like the nervous system thing, i just think it misses the point.


Simply because animals don't have the same capacities for certain things as we do, does not mean they should die for it.

No one is defending deliberate animal abuse. No one is suggesting kicking puppies as a pastime. What I do defend, and do support, beceasue it's defensIBLE, is vivisection for medical research, and the consumption of animals as food. You might be compelled to say; "But that is abuse." Or perhaps draw my attention to some gory PETA video. I would suggest what goes on in factory farms isn't that much more distressing than being mauled by predators in the wild.

The reason we kill our food in factories as opposed to with our hands or sharp sticks is because this is the backbone of civilization; agriculture. Without it nine tenths of our energy would be limited to keeping ourselves biologically alive and we wouldn't be able to pursue other endeavors.

If you want to argue about not using antibiotics or hormones, or free range, I'm all for it. However, radical animal rightists' usually make that kind of conversation impossible, deliberately so.

Here's one of the big points where this argument collides with itself. It insists humans are no better than any other animal, yet we are expected to show deference and care for other species, which no other creature on earth does, and only we are capable of.

As I was saying, sentience is different from the ability to lay eggs, or to change color to match the environment. It isn't just an arbitrary characteristic. Moreover, if we were to apply this principle you suggest, we open the doors to what I believe Judge Posner called 'bizarre vistas of social engineering.' In this light I would be equally justified swerving into a pedestrian to avoid hitting a squirrel. That doesn't make any kind of sense to me. I'm generally supportive of initiatives to extend greater protections to animal species with higher levels of cognitive functioning, like dolphins or chimpanzees. However, this is coming from the facts, not from new and, frankly, dubious ethical criteria. When a dog, or a cow looks up at the sun and starts to wonder what it is, or postulate about gravity, or say "Cogito Ergo Sum", then we will have to reevaluate it's place in society.

[Quail]

Obviously, as human beings we have very good reason to be primarily concerned with our interests. I think we should be concerned with the destruction of the natural world and should make an effort to preserve it, to curb pollution, develop clean energy, protect endangered species, etc.

Since eating meat takes up a lot of valuable resources and pollutes our planet, then does it not make sense to at least eat less meat?

---

In my opinion it is a contradiction to be against the unnecesary suffering of animals, and still eat meat, because we don't need meat to survive so any slaughter of an animal for food is causing unnecessary suffering. Even if you consider animal suffering to be less important than human suffering, is a factory farmed animal's suffering through its miserable life less important than a person's suffering because they're not eating meat?

[Red Saxon]

Since eating meat takes up a lot of valuable resources and pollutes our planet, then does it not make sense to at least eat less meat?Yep, as a fairly large chunk of our agricultural production goes towards feeding cattle.

If we were all vegetarians, there would actually be a surplus of food in the world right now.

[ZeroNowhere]

In Hamlet, this line is used with extreme irony, specifically to mock humanity's hubris.
Not particularly.

[Cowboy Killer]

I don't think humans will ever totally stop eating meat.You might get some to stop eating meat but not every body. I'll probably give up meat sometime soon, just because the thought of it is starting to gross me out,but I don't think I really have any problem with other people eating meat in the long run,but I just have a problem with the way it's produced and consumed. The mass production of meat is an inefficient use of our resources of our food,land and water,but its impossible stop some people from wanting it. If a community has the resources to produce its own meat then let them.

[Stand Your Ground]

Because we are of the same species. It is natural and logical to value the lives of ourselves and other human beings. Human beings are superior to some animals in several ways but superior to ALL animals in the sense, as I was saying before, we are the 'judges of the universe'. We can create and understand things that no other lifeform on this planet can. There are lifeforms that have unique physical attributes, but, even if echidna and platypi are the only mammals that can lay eggs, that can't be regarded as equally valuable as art, poetry, splitting the atom, etc. That's not to say that all other species are expendable. Certainly not. First, we depend on other species, plants, animals, bacteria, etc. to survive. Even if these animals are not necessary to support our civilization directly, we should take care to protect and preserve them within reason. I'm not arguing we shouldn't give them any consideration, but I don't see any logical moral argument against eating meat if it isn't threatening the species. The best argument against eating meat is simply the argument for the environment.



This the "hard utilitarian" argument. (Although I've found hardcore animal right activists frequently switch between utilitarianism and deontological ethics depending on what suits their needs at the moment.) as Bentham said, "...do they suffer?" However, I'm not moved by this argument. I recognize many animal species have nervous systems that are analagous to my own. However, although the suffering may be of equal intensity, I don't think it necessarily has the same moral value.



Ehhh... I'm not going to speculate on the emotional capacity of a prairie dog or yellowfin tuna. Again, this is like the nervous system thing, i just think it misses the point.



No one is defending deliberate animal abuse. No one is suggesting kicking puppies as a pastime. What I do defend, and do support, beceasue it's defensIBLE, is vivisection for medical research, and the consumption of animals as food. You might be compelled to say; "But that is abuse." Or perhaps draw my attention to some gory PETA video. I would suggest what goes on in factory farms isn't that much more distressing than being mauled by predators in the wild.

The reason we kill our food in factories as opposed to with our hands or sharp sticks is because this is the backbone of civilization; agriculture. Without it nine tenths of our energy would be limited to keeping ourselves biologically alive and we wouldn't be able to pursue other endeavors.

If you want to argue about not using antibiotics or hormones, or free range, I'm all for it. However, radical animal rightists' usually make that kind of conversation impossible, deliberately so.

Here's one of the big points where this argument collides with itself. It insists humans are no better than any other animal, yet we are expected to show deference and care for other species, which no other creature on earth does, and only we are capable of.

As I was saying, sentience is different from the ability to lay eggs, or to change color to match the environment. It isn't just an arbitrary characteristic. Moreover, if we were to apply this principle you suggest, we open the doors to what I believe Judge Posner called 'bizarre vistas of social engineering.' In this light I would be equally justified swerving into a pedestrian to avoid hitting a squirrel. That doesn't make any kind of sense to me. I'm generally supportive of initiatives to extend greater protections to animal species with higher levels of cognitive functioning, like dolphins or chimpanzees. However, this is coming from the facts, not from new and, frankly, dubious ethical criteria. When a dog, or a cow looks up at the sun and starts to wonder what it is, or postulate about gravity, or say "Cogito Ergo Sum", then we will have to reevaluate it's place in society.
Saying that one species is more surperior that the other is just as racists saying one race is more surperior than another. It's one in the same to me. Discrimination is discrimination it doesn't matter who it's against. Just because we may seem more intelligent does not justify our actions. Hitler had all the mentally handicapped people killed. Most humans have compassion for less intelligent people, but I'm guessing you would take the same species route, which is, again, where speciesism comes in. So because animals can't paint or write poems we should disreguard their lives? Rediculous.

In my opinion we don't need science to see that animals can feel pain. If you step on a cats paw he will cry out. If you brand a cow he will cry out. It's as simple as that.

I disagree, if you have a pet, most often they will show compassion to you. If animals attack you it it out of natural instinct, to see us as food or a threat. But if we can avoid unnecessasary harm to living beings, we should.

Judging animals based on intelligence or characteristics is no better than racists judging other humans on the same. Also some humans are smarter than other humans, we don't slaughter those who aren't as smart as us. Why not? That's just as if Hitler had said, maybe I won't kill these mentally handicapped people if in the next couple days they learn math. Oh, well, they still didn't learn anything so fuck em.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I support animal rights, but I have to disagree that saying one species is "superior" is the equivalent of racism. It really depends on what you mean by superior. Depending on how you define it, certain races "theoretically" may have been superior to others. It just happens things didn't turn out that way. My definition of superior would be something like "feels higher pleasures or lower pains, contributes more or less to society, etc." Basically, how utility maximizing a species is and/or has the potential to become.

And we do need science to ensure that animals can feel pain. It already has done that in a way that satisfies any reasonable person. However, if we didn't have science/reason, we might be tricked into believing characters in films or television programs feel pain.

[ZeroNowhere]

Moreover, if we were to apply this principle you suggest, we open the doors to what I believe Judge Posner called 'bizarre vistas of social engineering.' In this light I would be equally justified swerving into a pedestrian to avoid hitting a squirrel. Technically, you would be equally justified swerving into a pedestrian to avoid hitting a microscopic roundworm.

[Stand Your Ground]

I support animal rights, but I have to disagree that saying one species is "superior" is the equivalent of racism. It really depends on what you mean by superior. Depending on how you define it, certain races "theoretically" may have been superior to others. It just happens things didn't turn out that way. My definition of superior would be something like "feels higher pleasures or lower pains, contributes more or less to society, etc." Basically, how utility maximizing a species is and/or has the potential to become.

And we do need science to ensure that animals can feel pain. It already has done that in a way that satisfies any reasonable person. However, if we didn't have science/reason, we might be tricked into believing characters in films or television programs feel pain.
Back in the days of slavery, obvious harsh treatment was often used against them because the white man was indifferent to their suffering, and some thought they didn't even have feelings, see the pattern?

TV & movies don't have any real meaning, we KNOW they're acting, that's why it's called acting. A cow isn't going to pretend to feel pain to stay off your plate.

[Stand Your Ground]

Technically, you would be equally justified swerving into a pedestrian to avoid hitting a microscopic roundworm.
Swerving seems idiotic anyway, cars have brakes for a reason. If you were to accidentally hit a squirrel or a person, it's just that, an accident.

[ZeroNowhere]

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of hypothetical situations in debates on ethics. There is no third way, and the point is simply to test where a certain moral principle would lead in the given situation.

[NGNM85]

Saying that one species is more surperior that the other is just as racists saying one race is more surperior than another. It's one in the same to me. Discrimination is discrimination it doesn't matter who it's against. Just because we may seem more intelligent does not justify our actions. Hitler had all the mentally handicapped people killed. Most humans have compassion for less intelligent people, but I'm guessing you would take the same species route, which is, again, where speciesism comes in. So because animals can't paint or write poems we should disreguard their lives? Rediculous.

This is entirely wrong. The word ‘discrimination’ is inapplicable. You are connecting two disparate things. Racism involves projecting an illogical preconstructed identity onto others. Racism is also an illogical prejudice against another group of fellow humans. I’m not pre-judging animal life, I’m evaluating it as it is, and animals are (obviously) not human. There is absolutely no comparison, whatsoever.

I place a higher premium on human life because I am one, and because humans are sentient, which is a morally relevant criterion. Painting or poetry is simply the expression of a sentient consciousness. What matters is the hardware.

Just as an aside, ...this term that has been invented; 'speciesism', is just so hard for me to take seriously. It's like Xenu, or something.


In my opinion we don't need science to see that animals can feel pain. If you step on a cats paw he will cry out. If you brand a cow he will cry out. It's as simple as that.

I’ll say it again; “I fully acknowledge animals have functioning nervous systems.” This is one point on which Descartes was completely wrong. I don’t dispute that. I don’t think anyone disputes that.


I disagree, if you have a pet, most often they will show compassion to you. If animals attack you it it out of natural instinct, to see us as food or a threat. But if we can avoid unnecessasary harm to living beings, we should.

That all depends on how you define, ‘unnecessary.’ Simply by existing I inconvenience other lifeforms. If I really adopt the preservation of the natural world and protection of the biosphere as my most fundamental priority, than, if I were consistent in my ethics, I would be motivated to suicide, or mass murder. You could argue the 9/11 hijackers’ did more for the environment than Greenpeace by removing about 3,000 people from the planet, and all of their potential subsequent offspring, et cetera. (An exponentially increasing loss of life as we project into the future.) However, I’d say that’s insane, because it is. So, the issue is how we define ‘necessary.’ No doubt you and I have very different definitions. I think animal life should be preserved, ‘within reason.’ Namely; the destruction of animal life should have a legitimate objective, and a proven utility.


Judging animals based on intelligence or characteristics is no better than racists judging other humans on the same.

No, it isn’t. Nomatter what superficial difference, these individuals are still human. Moreover, it isn’t a question of more or less smart, it’s an issue of sentient and non-sentient. (As well as human, and non-human.) Animals don’t even have the hardware.



Also some humans are smarter than other humans, we don't slaughter those who aren't as smart as us. Why not? That's just as if Hitler had said, maybe I won't kill these mentally handicapped people if in the next couple days they learn math. Oh, well, they still didn't learn anything so fuck em.

See above.