Against Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Pawn Power]

Vegetarianism/Veganism, at least the 'animal rights' variety, stresses that the non-consumption of animals or animal products is not only a moral imperative but strategically vital in obtaining better lives for our animal compatriots. However, a piece I recently read by perhaps the leading authority on animal welfare appears to have shut the door on the guilt-based arguments and moralizing of vegetarianism/veganism (even if it was written some four years ago).

Temple Grandin, Ph.D in animal science from the University of Illinois, might very well know how animal feel and think better then anyone else. She is widely accredited for having revolutionized animal movement systems as well as creating the Grandin Livestock Systems, a novel system which increases the quality of life for livestock, and has helped initiate 'pressure therapies' for autistic people which are used all over the world. PETA awarded her the 'Proggy' award under the 'visionary' category (what ever that means).

In her book "Animals in Translation" she states:



If I had my druthers humans would have evolved to be plant eaters, so we wouldn't have to kill other animals for food. But we didn't, and I don't see the human race converting to vegetarianism anytime soon. I've tried to eat vegetarian myself, and I haven't been able to manage it physically. I get the same feeling you get with hypoglycemia; I get dizzy and light-headed, and I can't think straight. My mother is exactly the same way, and a lot of people with processing problems have told me they have this reaction, too, so I've always wondered if there's a connection. If there's something different about your sensory processing, is there something different about your metabolism, too?

There could be. It's possible that a brain difference could also involve a metabolic difference, because the same genes can do different things in different parts of the body... So until someone proves otherwise I'm operating from the hypothesis that at least some people are genetically built so that they have to have meat to function. Even if that's not so, the fact that humans evolved as both plant and meat eaters means that the vast majority of human beings are going to continue to eat both. Humans are animals, too, and we do what our animal natures tell us to do.

That means we're going to continue to have feedlots and slaughterhouses, so the question is: what should a human feedlot and slaughterhouse look like?
I am now also operating under that assumption- that some people have to have meat. But I think her later point is also important: that we humans are also animals and have needs. This she very much understands which at the sametime considering the lives of animals.

So vegans/vegatarians, stop bothering me. I don't care about your consumption habits and they don't reflect your morality or mine (I know a lot of ass holes that happended to be vegatarians. But maybe that was a contributing factor?) In fact, I have to eat meet so piss off. I don't care if you don't eat meet just don't tell me I shouldn't either. Go on with your eating habits by yourself or with those that are interested. I care about animals but I also want to/have to eat them- and some of them me! We can make the lives of animals better, even those that we will eventually eat, and this doesn't happen through consumption.
Hope this will end these 'debates' around dietary consumption habits so we can talk about more important issues.



*** Just a note; despite the lenght of this post I don't really care what y'all eat, unless it is tasty and you have some for me. ***

[Oneironaut]

Let me first start by saying that yes I eat meat and I don't plan on stopping. That wasn't the case for me always though; I went two years in high school without eating meat. My decision to stop eating meat was not backed by a moral principle at all. I simply wanted to see if I could live without meat. It was actually quite a bit easier than I expected. But here I am today, eating meat.

That being said, I am looking for a counter-argument to the environmental aspect of raising livestock for meat consumption. I understand that meat can be produced in ways that affect the environment quite a bit less. I was debating with a kid who was arguing that humans becoming vegetarians is inevitable at some time in history and not because of any moral backing but because it is much more environmentally sustainable. I don't necessarily agree with the kid but I was wondering if anyone who may know a little bit more about the environment then myself had a counter argument.

[JimmyJazz]

I have several vegan and/or biker friends and I have never met these mythical "pushy vegans/bikers". I pull up eating a double cheeseburger in a Jeep and have never felt horribly, horribly shunned afterward. I frankly don't give a crap if anyone approves of my reactionary diet and transportation choices, and once they know I don't, it doesn't enter into the friendship after that.

Also, whatever you are missing from meat that makes you dizzy could surely be gotten by some combo of vitamins and soy or other non-meat-derived protein. The dizziness is probably an iron deficiency, so you could eat spinach or take supplements.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/vegetarianism-and-genetics.htm
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue04_animals.lost.in.translation_dr.coral.hull. shtml

Grandin did not undertake scientific mechanisms to test her hypothesis. In fact, I've never heard of a case where someone "can't" adopt a vegetarian diet based on any credible scientific evidence. I'll give credit where it's due if an argument is decent, but there is no evidence for her claim. She doesn't state her diet during the time she was vegetarian or the evidence, above, that suggests vegetarianism causes those issues "because" your body is naturally adjusting to a healthier diet. When I stopped drinking caffeine, before, does the symptoms of caffeine withdrawl mean I can't stop drinking caffeine? Certainly not. I've heard of "no" case where and individual undergoes a legitimate test to support that hypothesis. A hypothesis with no evidence is assumed false for most practical purposes.

Then you have inconvenience. If stopping caffeine, or eating meat, is harmful to yourself, you abstain from it. The idea here isnt' selfishness. If you already grant, like Grandin does, that animals deserve consideration, you put yourself in a difficult position. We don't actively harm living things, animals or people, just because it will benefit us.

The defense then is that "we already do X" so stopping a traditional behavior is harmful to us. Firstly, this is Edmund Burke's argument for conservatism. We should not throw away traditions, even with good reasons to do so, because we have "no idea" why they originated or what their removal will do. Even if you dismiss Burke, you can consider the argument with respect to self-interest. We already do something "we enjoy" so we can continue doing it, even if it's fundamentally unethical, because we've adjusted to this lifestyle and removing it constitutes "harm" to us. It's inconvenience, not harm, for one. Furthermore, slavery likely benefited many people. If removing it for "justice" is illegitimate because, given the circumstances, you can continue owning slaves because of tradition.

I will "grant" that inconvenience is relevant to moral decisions. The ends must justify the means. If the means are worse than the ends, for you, perhaps you won't eat meat. However, many people think you are simply mistaken in evaluating your options - like someone who smokes is, perhaps. Additionally, "inconvenience" isn't exactly the greatest of ethical standpoints. It's enough to avoid coercion to stop the activity, but it doesn't exactly maximize your self esteem. For instance, I don't help starving children in Africa because it's inconvenient, but it doesn't maximize my sense of "moral goodness." I simply, rightly or wrong, value not being inconvenienced over being moral.

What is "too much inconvenience," under this view, would still apply to animals and people (slavery). That is why I consider capitalist sympathies similar to vegetarianism. There are individuals who believe in eating animals because of propangada and tradition, and there are those who actually benefit from it.

The acceptability of exploiting individuals, economically or through slavery, stems from the systematic distribution of power in that society. Fundamentally, our ethical systems have a commitment to fairness with respect to people and animals. Practically, we'll sacrifice the "fair" society in exchange for self-benefit.

The more you give someone something, and the more they like it, the more willing they are to continue that behavior. It's not there fault. In some cases, they're in self-denial. They'd be better off vegetarian. I think, given how we treat less capable humans, there is evidence to suggest we have a higher capacity for empathy than some would like to believe.

If the majority of society decided a particular behavior, such as animal abuse, is unacceptable, it's a legitimately binding decision within an social framework. All societies have the historical and moral precedent to make restrictions against "unprovoked physical harm to others."

I'm not so convinced that I'd sign anything to force you to a vegetarian diet if vegetarians were the majority. I'm also morally lazy. However, if you tried to take an axe to a dog, chicken, or cow, in front of me, I'd beat the shit out of you the same as if it were a person. Well, I might not given that you wield an axe. :P

There's also a notion of prioritiarianism, here. Animals are natural resources shared by the community. Even if you want to eat them, what does everyone else want? If you want to fish, and you can do so without disturbing the ecosystem, society lets you do so. However, if people value that fish, in and of itself, and you want to eat it, who wins out?

Why don't vegetarians prevent other species from eating meat? Theoretically, they might if it did not disadvantage those species. Natural predators should not suffer, necessarily, because that is their inclination. A death of a predator is no worse than the death of the prey. That being said, that is only if the conception is "lack of alternative." We have an alternative. If someone is naturally a murderer, it's not unethical for them to murder us. If they lacked the ability to live, without murder, we would pursue our own ends, there, and regard the death as an unfortunate tragedy. Non-human species, to bring in some discrimination, don't necessarily get the same considerations with respect to the predator/prey distinction. In those cases, imposes our human conceptions of morality is not appropriate.

Given unlimited resources, I suspect vegetarians "might" eliminate predatory relationships and simply control the feeding of predators based on the natural death of prey, but we also have an appreciate for natural order, just or unjust, that makes a lion killing an antelope seem pretty badass.

I'll grant you the conceivability of a defense. Normally, I won't place conceivability as significant enough to justify allowing harm to continue. Why I grant it here, perhaps, is simply an unwillingness to put myself in the highly criticized position of the "value inforcing stereotypicaly vegetarian." Realistically, I think human empathy "may" be malleable rather than distinct. For instance, some Nazis "actually" didn't feel bad about killing Jews. It also didn't "harm" them in any way. There was no subconcious guilt or an illogical inconsistency in their conclusions. The epoch provided biological pressures to change the individual conceptions, thus perpetuating their interests. I don't like the "idea" of this argument, but that enough to dismiss it. If it is enough to dismiss it, our social epoch could conceivably "justify" its way towards empathy for animals. The more things a person appreciates, evolutionarily, the more reasons the have for existence. Either way, this "fixed" notion could also result in a dimissal of empathy as having value, among other things. I have to consider it more thoroughly.

To conclude, do what you want is my current philosophy on this. Eat meat in front of me. I never bring up vegetarianism outside a debate, to begin with, so I won't bother you. If you're going hunting, have an acceptable degree of consideration for the tastes of individuals in the room, simply. If I know you dislike trade unions, for whatever reason, I probably wouldn't purposely move the conversation towards that topic. I also wouldn't regularly invite you to union meetings or insist "your missing out" unless I actively though you were. If you do think I'm missing out on meat, and you want to discuss it, or you think I'm missing out on religion, fine. I appreciate the debate if your intention is to make my life "better." If you are simply mocking me, which is typically the case, it's annoying.

The only circumstance, which would be rare, where our interests truly conflict is if I actively see you harming an animal. Even that, has limits. I've never saw them kill lobsters at the grocery store, or a restaurant, but if I witnessed it, I wouldn't go ballistic. I have prejudices towards cuter animals, like most people.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Let me first start by saying that yes I eat meat and I don't plan on stopping. That wasn't the case for me always though; I went two years in high school without eating meat. My decision to stop eating meat was not backed by a moral principle at all. I simply wanted to see if I could live without meat. It was actually quite a bit easier than I expected. But here I am today, eating meat.

That being said, I am looking for a counter-argument to the environmental aspect of raising livestock for meat consumption. I understand that meat can be produced in ways that affect the environment quite a bit less. I was debating with a kid who was arguing that humans becoming vegetarians is inevitable at some time in history and not because of any moral backing but because it is much more environmentally sustainable. I don't necessarily agree with the kid but I was wondering if anyone who may know a little bit more about the environment then myself had a counter argument.

His is utilizing the underlying assumption that environmental sustainability being necessary for all time periods and "even" our time period. Evidence for our time period probably exists, depending on our interpretation. Furthermore, he is implying that "all" unsustainable processes will need to become sustainable. Sometimes, we value a product more than the environmental damage it creates. Environmental sustainability is a cumulative balance of "all values" against the environment. It doesn't necessitate that all unsustainable processes are harmful. Furthermore, the argument that "meat eating" is less valuable, and less sustainable, than other removable processes isn't necessarily true. Factories that produce certain fuels are probably less necessary than eating meat, and less sustainable.

Sustainability involves utilizing resources at a rate slower or equal to the natural accumulation of those resources. Given scientific advancements, the requires for producing animals is not "unsustainable" but simply "more sustainable." This means the resources that would've gone to feeding livestock, then, can be utilized somewhere else. There is no evidence that the demand for these resources is enough to justify eliminating meat production. The common citation is that the amount of food grown, to feed cows, could feel the world's population. We could already feed the world's population by increasing production, with more sustainable farming techniques, perhaps, instead of changing the end goal of our farming mechanism. Additionally, the argument with respect to space is not true given the population of the world or the possibility of artificial climate stacking, which is practiced and has a term name I do not recall.

Furthermore, the pollution of cows is cited as "irreversible" because of methane cases. Although pollution is expensive to reverse, it is possible. What is an acceptable value to place on meat consumption is up to society to decide when it comes to pollution issues. Properly legislated procedures for carbon offsets could address this issue. There is no reason meat is not sustainable. If most people value meat enough, and they value sustainability enough, it will continue to exist.

Additionally, it is estimated that there are innumerably more species that have been extinct than those existing today. Given the apocalyptic warnings of most environmentalists, and the considerable lack of political change, why presume society will become "sustainable" simply because it has to do so. Environmental problems aren't bears where, if you don't defend yourself, you'll die. You clearly see the threat there.

Conceptualize a bomb that, as water rising in a lake, it will explode and greatly harm our civilization. We are incredibly confident the water will rise, but we aren't worried. Many of us are "taught" it won't be a problem. People didn't believe the Earth went around the sun when the theory emerged. Good reasons to believe X is not sufficient for society adapting to that change.

Individuals have a strong reluctance to legislate environmental policy, which will only work in a capitalist system if maintained in law. Public opinion polls, at least in Canada, regularly reflect a desire for more action on the issue of global warming, but action is rarely taken. The short term losses of business innovation are seen as outweighing the long term goals. We often sacrifice long term for short term benefit simply because "we have to live sometime." If we keep pushing our future ahead, "I'll have fun when I'm done school, I'll have fun when I'm done work, I'll have fun when I retire," we live unfulfilled lives, which our natural inclinations work again.

Corporations own industries that contribute the majority of pollution. The "everyone does their job" idea is a myth. Yes, all people need to be more sustainable, but the bulk of our problem stems from mass production, which consumer demand fuels.

Can individuals undergo inconveniences, sacrifices, even price increases, for sustainability? Some claim they can and "will" because they realize the necessity. I will be idealistic and assume the "average person" will realize the necessity. To ensure a standard is set, there would need to be mass boycotting. Historically, this has limitations. Given boycotting, the costs of sustainability may have a company prefer selling to few customers than the costs of restructuring. The limits of individuals to influence the market simply by their "interests" has been revealed flawed for years. Just because demand exists for sustainable product doesn't mean the procedures will utilize that market or provide fair pricing.

The average person wants global warming to stop without them having to do much. The Middle Class will make the necessary sacrifices, but the rich will have the resource power to overcome global warming issues. Those with less are exponentially harmed more by disasters because of an inability to protect their assets. This creates more wealth disparity and political leverage.

There is little to no incentive for the rich to stop global warming. Their political framework relies solely on making money. In some cases, sustainable processes can be economically beneficial. Demand for this facilitates cost-effective methods for sustainability, maybe. However, politics is not as simple as "supply and demand."

I sympathize with the idea that vegetarianism is inevitable or, at least, we end up with scientifically grown meat, but I'm not sure this inevitability stems from any "supply-->demand" relation between resources and sustainability.

Depending on how stubborn they are, you might want to know more about supply and demand, and economics, than I do. Some people are really idealist about their markets.

[Jack]

Meat consumption is a waste of resources. In Communism meat production is likely to decrease because of the waste of resources, and the increased working hours that are a product of that. Like it or not, without Capitalism there's going to be less meat.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Meat consumption is a waste of resources. In Communism meat production is likely to decrease because of the waste of resources, and the increased working hours that are a product of that. Like it or not, without Capitalism there's going to be less meat.

I really respect vegs who do so with this as there basis as opposed to the hippy enviroloons.

Not that we have a production deficiency at the moment, as I firmly believe that it's completely a distribution problem, but the fact remains that the population is exploding and an acre of soy beans, for example, produces incredibly more than an acre used for open-range livestock feeding.

[MarxSchmarx]

That being said, I am looking for a counter-argument to the environmental aspect of raising livestock for meat consumption. I understand that meat can be produced in ways that affect the environment quite a bit less. I was debating with a kid who was arguing that humans becoming vegetarians is inevitable at some time in history and not because of any moral backing but because it is much more environmentally sustainable. I don't necessarily agree with the kid but I was wondering if anyone who may know a little bit more about the environment then myself had a counter argument.The trivial counter-argument is that the current approach of focusing on eating meat that is inefficient but that is historically contingent and has nothing to do with our preference for herbivores. For examle, if we ate tilapia instead of cows for our protein, for every 100g of plant matter invested we would get more calories, iron, vitamins etc... from eating tilapia. The ratio is even better for ground grasshoppers. So eating herbivores isn't the problem, it's just htat cows were for a whole host of reasons easier to domesticate and hence more readily avaibale as food that made them viable herbivores for our diet instead of tilapia.

[Lynx]

In wanting to reduce my intake of saturated fats and cholesterol, I reduce my meat consumption. It's a health choice.
I believe most people eat meat because they like the taste and the texture. Some also eat meat because in their culture it is a sign of wealth or status. I believe someday we will have synthetic alternatives that will taste the same without the health risks, or with consequences to animals and the environment.

[GX.]

So vegans/vegatarians, stop bothering me. I don't care about your consumption habits It seems you've put a lot of time and thought into not caring :p

[Pawn Power]

Let me first start by saying that yes I eat meat and I don't plan on stopping. That wasn't the case for me always though; I went two years in high school without eating meat. My decision to stop eating meat was not backed by a moral principle at all. I simply wanted to see if I could live without meat. It was actually quite a bit easier than I expected. But here I am today, eating meat.

Like I said, I don't care about what you, as an individual eat- not really the topic of discussion.



That being said, I am looking for a counter-argument to the environmental aspect of raising livestock for meat consumption. I understand that meat can be produced in ways that affect the environment quite a bit less. I was debating with a kid who was arguing that humans becoming vegetarians is inevitable at some time in history and not because of any moral backing but because it is much more environmentally sustainable. I don't necessarily agree with the kid but I was wondering if anyone who may know a little bit more about the environment then myself had a counter argument.

There are a lot of things that would be 'more' environmentally sustainable. We could stop the production of books and air travel, however, these things are highly desirable for many people. Sure it would save some trees if we all read all our favorite novels digitally on a computer screen but physical books are nice to have. I am all for developing methods and strategies which are more environmentally stable in this regard.



Also, whatever you are missing from meat that makes you dizzy could surely be gotten by some combo of vitamins and soy or other non-meat-derived protein. The dizziness is probably an iron deficiency, so you could eat spinach or take supplements.


Your missing the second and essential point- humans evolved as omnivores and many people like to eat meat.


I really respect vegs who do so with this as there basis as opposed to the hippy enviroloons.

Not that we have a production deficiency at the moment, as I firmly believe that it's completely a distribution problem, but the fact remains that the population is exploding and an acre of soy beans, for example, produces incredibly more than an acre used for open-range livestock feeding.

Strategically, I don't think changing one's consumption habits is anyway to change international and state environmental policy- for that we need mass organization and working class power. So, no I do 'respect' their consumption choices.

I better solution to overpopulation is for people to stop having so many children. And the best form of birth control is education.


In wanting to reduce my intake of saturated fats and cholesterol, I reduce my meat consumption. It's a health choice.
I believe most people eat meat because they like the taste and the texture. Some also eat meat because in their culture it is a sign of wealth or status. I believe someday we will have synthetic alternatives that will taste the same without the health risks, or with consequences to animals and the environment.

Again- don't care about what you eat or why.

I don't know why people feel the need to defend their consumption preferences. Some also eat meat because it taste good.


There is nothing wrong in eating meat if its part of one's culture or if there is no alternative. However, there are plenty of scientific and economic, not to mention moral, arguments for vegetarians.

Also, some middle class wankers see meat as a "proletarian" thing, along with things like misogyny, homophobia etc, and try to adopt stereotypes of so-called working class things. Such attempts are very counter-productive and infantile IMO.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat period- except for the obvious health problems associated with it (particularly read meat). But we shouldn't stigmatize people for not being health nuts and eat chocolate, ice cream, etc.

As for the 'working class' comment that is kind of silly- though the general image you portray does exist by some on the left. However, rich people eat a ton of meat as well, just better more healthy meat like pheasant, Cornish hen, and fillet Mignon.

[Pawn Power]

Just another point. The whole gist of this thread was against vegans/vegetarians who use moralizing arguments with regards to the welfare of animals. Hence my referencing of a leading animal scientist and PETA award winner.

I understand other arguments for vegetarianism exist. I also understand that many of you eat different things for different reason- that is not what I really care about though. The point was to shut the door the moralizing arguments espoused by vegetarians.

[Bitter Ashes]

My last two ex's were vegetarians actualy, thier take on the whole thing was basicly "I just think it's a bit too gross for me to want to put a chopped up animal in my mouth". While I have enountered the militant type described by the OP, like those from People Eating Tasty Animals, I do think they're the minority. Unfortuantly, they're a vocal minority.

PETA's whole arguement is basicly to say that if we cant raise livestock as humanely as they would like, then we shouldnt be raising livestock at all, thereby not eating meat.

[Lynx]

PETA's whole arguement is basicly to say that if we cant raise livestock as humanely as they would like, then we shouldnt be raising livestock at all, thereby not eating meat.
They could just say that.

~

"You give me vegetables, I give you the cold shoulder." - Hubert (the cat)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

PETA's whole arguement is basicly to say that if we cant raise livestock as humanely as they would like, then we shouldnt be raising livestock at all, thereby not eating meat.

I firmly believe that Meat is Murder.

Tasty, tasty murder.

[danny bohy]

I have respect for vegetarians but the whole human race will never become vego's. humans have evolved to eat it, it is good for you and the fact of existance is you have to kill to eat. also animals have been domesticated for eating. what happens to these domesticated animals if we all go vego?

[Sam_b]

"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, i'm a vegetarian because I hate plants"

[Invincible Summer]

I'll admit that part of the reason why I'm psuedo-vegan/mainly vegetarian is due to moral reasoning, but it's a personal thing and nothing that I condemn others for.

I find the slaughtering and consumption of a sentient creature to be pretty damn morbid, not to mention the conditions the animals are usually raised in. I just can't bring myself to be a part of that, so I don't eat meat. But at the same time, I'm not going to go into a McDonald's and grab all the beef patties and throw them away as a protest against meat or something ridiculous.

Vegetarianism/veganism can only be a personal choice, as everyone's idea of what is 'wrong' to do to an animal is different; even amongst vegans/vegetarians there is a divide - vegetarians generally find it okay to eat eggs or drink cow's milk, eat cheese whereas vegans do not.

[Yazman]

Fuck anybody who wants to politicise their dietary choices.

[Rascolnikova]

Just another point. The whole gist of this thread was against vegans/vegetarians who use moralizing arguments with regards to the welfare of animals. Hence my referencing of a leading animal scientist and PETA award winner.

I understand other arguments for vegetarianism exist. I also understand that many of you eat different things for different reason- that is not what I really care about though. The point was to shut the door the moralizing arguments espoused by vegetarians.

Having just read that book, I really don't see how you can draw the conclusion that she's actually against vegetarianism. She explicitly states that she wishes she could make a vegetarian diet work for her.

What you are against, it appears, is the militant politicizing of dietary choices regardless of personal body chemistry and circumstance. I can agree with you there, but there's no need make yourself wrong by matching (or coming anywhere close to) their militancy. Treating all vegetarians as if they are militant is a very poor human relations strategy.


By the way, iron can be found in plenty of other dietary sources--especially if one cooks with cast iron. I almost never eat meat, and my iron count has been excellent at every check. Dizzyness is as likely to come from issues with blood sugar regulation, or with B vitamins (the only nutrient completely unavailable in a true vegan diet is. . . B12, I think? Which is important for absorption of other vital nutrients, and for stress management).

[Revy]

here's some info:



Killing for a Living: How the Meat Industry Exploits Workers

http://www.goveg.com/photos/240-worker1.jpgKilling animals is inherently dangerous work, but the fast line speeds, dirty killing floors, and lack of training make animal-processing plants some of the most dangerous places to work in America today. According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one in three slaughterhouse workers suffers from illness or injury every year, compared to one in 10 workers in other manufacturing jobs.1 The rate of repetitive stress injury for slaughterhouse employees is 35 times higher than it is for those with other manufacturing jobs.2
The industry has refused to do what would be necessary to create safe working conditions for its employees, such as slowing down the lines or buying appropriate safety gear, because these changes could cut into companies’ bottom lines. In its 175-page exposé on worker exploitation by the farmed-animal industry titled “Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/01/24/blood-sweat-and-fear),” Human Rights Watch explains, “These are not occasional lapses by employers paying insufficient attention to modern human resources management policies. These are systematic human rights violations embedded in meat and poultry industry employment.”3
http://www.goveg.com/images/quote-Workers1.gifEmployees who are injured at work—and most will be—are often fired if they take time off or try to file a health insurance or workers’ compensation claim. Human Rights Watch cites one slaughterhouse worker who reports: “They love you if you’re healthy and you work like a dog, but if you get hurt, you are trash. If you get hurt, watch out. They will look for a way to get rid of you before they report it. They will find a reason to fire you or put you on a worse job like the cold room, or change your shift so you quit. So a lot of people don’t report their injuries. They just work with the pain.”4 Another worker in a factory farm agrees, confessing: “I worry every day that I will break my hand or get hurt, but I never say anything for fear I’ll lose my job. No American would do this job. This is a shit job, for shit money.”5
http://www.goveg.com/images/quote-Workers2.gifThe farmed-animal industry often lures immigrants far away from their homes with false promises of good jobs—one meat company even bussed workers from the Mexican border to a homeless shelter in Minnesota!6 In some slaughterhouses, two-thirds of the workers are immigrants who cannot speak English, and according to the former safety director for ConAgra, “n some plants, maybe a third of the people cannot read or write in any language.”7 Factory farms and slaughterhouses set up shop in the poorest regions of the United States because they know that they can use poor and uneducated people in these areas to do their dirty work for low wages. The farmed-animal industry has also been condemned for exploiting children—kids in their early teens have even died while working in animal-processing plants, and [I]Multinational Monitor magazine called Tyson Foods one of the world’s “Ten Worst Corporations” because it hires people in the U.S. who are too young to work legally.8
In addition to exploiting poor people, immigrants, and children and doing little to protect workers from workplace hazards, the farmed-animal industry has also been charged with union busting. When workers try to unionize, the industry uses illegal intimidation and harassment tactics to ensure that pro-union employees are silenced. According to Human Rights Watch, “Many workers who try to form trade unions and bargain collectively are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized for their exercise of the right to freedom of association.”9
One factory farm worker sums up his job this way: “We’re disposable to them. We’re like a machine. I don’t think they see us as real people. I need this job. I feed my family with this job, but it’s not right.”10 Read more (http://www.goveg.com/workerRights_dangerous.asp) about how the farmed-animal industry hurts workers.
1 Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation (New York: Houghton Mifflin Books, 2001) 172.
2 Schlosser 173.
3 Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/01/24/blood-sweat-and-fear) “Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants,” 12.
4 Human Rights Watch 63.
5 Rebecca Clarren, “Got Guilt?” Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/27/dairy_farms/index.html), 27 Aug. 2004: 1.
6 Timothy Gardner, “Working Conditions in American Slaughterhouses: Worse Than You Thought,” Reuters (http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm), 13 Feb. 2001.
7 Schlosser 160-1.
8 Russell Mokhiber, “The Ten Worst Corporations of 1999,” Multinational Monitor (http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm1999/mm9912.05.html#tyson) 20.21 (1999).
9 Human Rights Watch 13.
10 Clarren 3.

[JimmyJazz]

Tasty, tasty murder.

redundant

[Pawn Power]

here's some info:

All industry exploits workers-- that what makes us 'workers' the whole exploitation under capitalism thing.

Obviously some jobs are worse then others, meat packing, waste management, etc. But that fact that some jobs are inherently worse doesn't repudiate that fact that all workers are exploited by definition.

[apathy maybe]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, I consider arguments for/against vegetarianism and veganism to be a bit boring now. I truly think that everyone should be a vegetarian (the basic argument is along the same lines as used by Peter Singer), though I think veganism is silly.

But, I just wanted to respond to this quote:

Fuck anybody who wants to politicise their dietary choices.
I think I should be able to eat meat, of any sort! In fact, I just got back from the butcher, with my nice leg of child. A tender young three year old. Walking, talking, butchered.

You wouldn't want to outlaw my dietary choice would you?


Or, maybe I want to dig into a tiger steak? A panda BBQ? A bald-eagle drum-stick?

Mind you, it wouldn't be me politicising my dietary choice, until someone told me to stop that is.

[brigadista]

what you eat is a personal choice - just be thankful you have a choice

[Invincible Summer]

what you eat is a personal choice - just be thankful you have a choice

What is that supposed to mean? You sound like those people who say the same thing, but in reference to "communist" regimes and implying how capitalism is better due to this "choice."

[couch13]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, I consider arguments for/against vegetarianism and veganism to be a bit boring now. I truly think that everyone should be a vegetarian (the basic argument is along the same lines as used by Peter Singer), though I think veganism is silly.

But, I just wanted to respond to this quote:

I think I should be able to eat meat, of any sort! In fact, I just got back from the butcher, with my nice leg of child. A tender young three year old. Walking, talking, butchered.

You wouldn't want to outlaw my dietary choice would you?


Or, maybe I want to dig into a tiger steak? A panda BBQ? A bald-eagle drum-stick?

Mind you, it wouldn't be me politicising my dietary choice, until someone told me to stop that is.

Man, your supposed to do the child last so that its the big shocker. The way you write it, it sounds like bald eagles are more important than three year olds.

My teeth were designed to eat my. My biology says to eat meat. I'm an animal, part of the ecosystem, who's job is to consume meat and plants. I will fulfill my obligation to mother earth.

[counterblast]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, I consider arguments for/against vegetarianism and veganism to be a bit boring now. I truly think that everyone should be a vegetarian (the basic argument is along the same lines as used by Peter Singer), though I think veganism is silly.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

The dairy industry (specifically the cheese industry) is more murderous than the beef industry.

The dairy in most cheeses (Swiss is an exception) are fermented with rennet which comes from calf stomach and, the dairy industry as a whole is intrinsically linked to the veal industry. Also, cows are generally slaughtered after they "peak" in milk production, because supporting them without profiting from them is unsustainable.

The beef industry, on the other hand impacts less animals overall. One adult cow can yield far more products than one chicken can.

So, if you are concerned with animal suffering, and unwilling to become vegan; it seems more reasonable to eat red meat and avoid poultry, fish, pork, and dairy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

The dairy industry (specifically the cheese industry) is more murderous than the beef industry.

The dairy in most cheeses (Swiss is an exception) are fermented with rennet which comes from calf stomach and, the dairy industry as a whole is intrinsically linked to the veal industry. Also, cows are generally slaughtered after they "peak" in milk production, because supporting them without profiting from them is unsustainable.

The beef industry, on the other hand impacts less animals overall. One adult cow can yield far more products than one chicken can.

So, if you are concerned with animal suffering, and unwilling to become vegan; it seems more reasonable to eat red meat and avoid poultry, fish, pork, and dairy.

You're probably right, but I'll play Devil's Advocate. The rennet is wasted otherwise. If the meat industry became disproportional to dairy industry, meaning you needed to kill cows specifically for the dairy industry, this might be an issue. Furthermore, this isn't true of all cheese, to my knowledge.

The profits of the dairy industry and meat industry being linked isn't necessarily a worry by the same reasons as above. I think the meat industry is funding the dairy industry, partially. If this became disproportional, it would be an issue. Essentially, people eating meat are making dairy products ethically legitimate, under this view.

Meat might be justifiable if you wait for the animal to die naturally and treat it well, too. Given this, the dairy industry has a lot to answer for in terms of treatment. The cows dieing isn't the dairy industry unless they just killed them and left them to die. I suspect they would if the meat industry didn't exist, but that's not the case at the moment. They're not dieing because of the dairy industry, necessarily.

This comes down to a kind of sweatshop type argument. Funding sweatshops increases development and provides more jobs. However, increasing funding provides more cows. The question is. Are the cows better off alive because of the dairy industry? In the meat case, the fact that they're better off doesn't justify killing them.

In the dairy case, we could essentially leave them in fields after their done producing. I've seen cows on farms that have a legitimate environment, but I grew up on a small area. I suspect the cows from major producers are treated brutally. In that case, I'd suggest we shouldn't encourage the existence of more of those cows.

Given that more funding isn't going to go to "better cow treatment," but rather "more cows treated badly" it's different from sweat shops. Those actually help people, somewhat, who are already alive and not purposefully birthed (there may be exceptions there).

It's tough. Boycotting isn't very useful, but you can buy more legitimately acquired dairy products. Legitimately acquired meat products are rare or nonexistent. Free range doesn't satisfy this because they still actively kill the animal.

Once you would say "that cow is better off alive in those conditions than having never been born," there is probably enough justification for buying the products, I would suggest. Death is a higher level evil because it is necessarily reversible.

We have to be somewhat practical. Western workers are treated poorly and are essentially wage slaves. If we boycotted all those products, the world would be a better place, but is boycotting practical? When that worker loses his job instead and there is no revolution, what happens next? We need to reevaluate our strategies. Boycotting can work, in theory.

It's a classic game theory dilemma. Given that if everyone does X, we get the ideal result, you'd want everyone to do X. Given that we've seen everyone do Y, should we do X? Supposedly, we shouldn't.

At the same time, we can easily blame everyone else for being stupid and attach the moral fault to them, but is this justified ethically? Morals are ideals. Ethics are more practical, generally. Political theory suggests we just develop laws. Anarchism suggests that once a climate of trust emerges, once everyone gets sick of just doing Y, things happen.

If everyone is sick of Y, is one person doing X an act of inherent justice that encourages others or is it simply stupid. I don't have the answer.

[R_P_A_S]

I love how meat eaters get all bend out of shape when presented with a much healthier alternative or even something that will save resources and produce more food for everyone instead of wasting land and water on cattle to be slaughter. It's just fucking food and your diet. chiiiillllll;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

*sigh*

How about this: No matter what I do or do not eat, it won't make a damn bit of difference, so I might as well eat what I enjoy.

[Revy]

An interesting comparison...

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meat-council-poster-totally-looks-like-ww2-nazi-propaganda.jpg

[Vincent]

I used to eat lots of meat. Then I read Peter Singer, met Peter Singer, learned from his Apostles at the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash, got poor, got fat, got high blood pressure, and fell in love with a dog - whom I constantly promise I won't eat just because she isn't a human being.

Oh, and apparently I can save the world from the apocalypse by being vegetarian. Did I say apocalypse? I meant global warming... My bad.

But anyway, meat is expensive, bad for my heart, makes me grow boobs and makes it hard to see my feet - when I want to look at them without bending over, I love animals more than I love human people, Peter Singer loves animals, Peter Singer is a Monash export and therefore I must love him as I am Monash philosophy-child, and I generally can't find anything BAD about being vegetarian ...even if I am just adopting the diet rather than any ideology.

I LIKE vegetables, lentils, beans, fruit, and plant-stuffs in general, they are cheaper, they are better for me, they don't love me and I don't love them, and Peter Singer can't see anything wrong with eating vegetables - even if they are human vegetables in hospital or vegetable-like things such as fetus', newborn babies and the elderly with late stage demntia. But, we shouldn't eat them, people, for lots of other different reasons that have nothing to do with diet. I have lost weight and saved money since converting religions and I admire my feet more often when I am naked. I am healthier, and my smugness-level has increased. I do worry about my level of smug, sometimes, as it contributes to the pollution of the air - but, I digress.

I must admit, sometimes I get drunk and eat a cheeseburger or two, but please don't tell Peter. It would make him sad. And I digress, again.

This is not an argument FOR vegetarianism or against meat-eaterism. It is what is best for me. It MIGHT be good for you, too. But it might not ... I'm staring at you, you iron-deficient young revolutionaries!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I used to eat lots of meat. Then I read Peter Singer, met Peter Singer, learned from his Apostles at the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash, got poor, got fat, got high blood pressure, and fell in love with a dog - whom I constantly promise I won't eat just because she isn't a human being.

If things are desperate enough that you're considering eating your dog, I'd say you've got bigger problems on your hands than your diet.

[JohnnyC]

Meat consumption is a waste of resources. In Communism meat production is likely to decrease because of the waste of resources, and the increased working hours that are a product of that. Like it or not, without Capitalism there's going to be less meat.
If humans have the desire to eat meat they will they will make the necessary effort, if possible, to acquire it.Since socialism wont change human desire for meat the only difference, most likely, is only going to be more efficient production of meat and better treatment of animals.

[bcbm]

I'm an animal, part of the ecosystem

How do you get the internet in the woods?

[Vincent]

If things are desperate enough that you're considering eating your dog, I'd say you've got bigger problems on your hands than your diet.

Good point. And I say 'what is the difference between my dog at home and that cow in the paddock?' If I find it abhorrent to chew on a leg-of-dog marinated in BBQ sauce, why should I feel any different about a cow?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good point. And I say 'what is the difference between my dog at home and that cow in the paddock?' If I find it abhorrent to chew on a leg-of-dog marinated in BBQ sauce, why should I feel any different about a cow?

Because dogs, in the West at least, are generally kept as pets or working animals, not reared as livestock.

Personally I would have no problems trying out dog, since I know the distinction between pet and livestock animal is mostly cultural. Although I hear dog meat can be a bit stringy.

[Vincent]

Because dogs, in the West at least, are generally kept as pets or working animals, not reared as livestock.

Personally I would have no problems trying out dog, since I know the distinction between pet and livestock animal is mostly cultural. Although I hear dog meat can be a bit stringy.

Hmmm. I don't know that cultural distinctions are that important or 'real' in this discussion. If dogs were reared only for their utility (which they often are, as sheep-dogs for example) and cows were kept as pets, would that constitute a morally significant difference? Women are treated with inequality in some societies, but that doesn't mean that women, qua women, in those societies are different in a morally relevent way to those in societies which treat them on equal terms with men.

Now, given that you would have no problem eating the dog because you know that the difference is largely cultural, what would you say about eating a newborn baby or a person in a persistant vegetative state? They are, psychologicaly speaking, probably in many cases 'lower' on the 'person-scale' than dogs and cows. Why wouldn't you eat them? (Or would you?) Because they are a member of the human species? Why do we think the human species is not to be eaten - its just meat of a dumb animal, really - ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hmmm. I don't know that cultural distinctions are that important or 'real' in this discussion. If dogs were reared only for their utility (which they often are, as sheep-dogs for example) and cows were kept as pets, would that constitute a morally significant difference?

Not really. I was thinking in terms of utility rather than morals. A dog bred and raised for food would make as good a pet as cows that are currently bred and raised for food would be.


Women are treated with inequality in some societies, but that doesn't mean that women, qua women, in those societies are different in a morally relevent way to those in societies which treat them on equal terms with men.Women are human beings, and thus have a utility based on that. The fact that some societies treat women as something less than fully human does nothing to change that intrinsic utility (unlike animals which have been bred for the purposes they fulfil). This is borne out by the fact that societies that treat women in such a manner are generally less than desirable places to live, compared to societies that treat women in a more equal manner.


Now, given that you would have no problem eating the dog because you know that the difference is largely cultural, what would you say about eating a newborn baby or a person in a persistant vegetative state? They are, psychologicaly speaking, probably in many cases 'lower' on the 'person-scale' than dogs and cows. Why wouldn't you eat them? (Or would you?) Because they are a member of the human species? Why do we think the human species is not to be eaten - its just meat of a dumb animal, really - ?Babies and people in persistent vegetative states generally have relatives that would object, so as a rule don't make good food items. Also babies, unlike farm animals, have the potential to become productive members of human society, so eating them strikes me as counterproductive.

People in a PVS state regularly have their life support cut off, but we generally don't eat their remains. I would also be wary of eating them for health reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29). Healthy humans would make better food, but have greater utility as members of society rather than livestock.

[Ongedierte]

The fact that some societies treat women as something less than fully human does nothing to change that intrinsic utility (unlike animals which have been bred for the purposes they fulfil). So if I were to breed women to serve as my slaves, that would be totally ok? Good thing to know!

The choice to eat meat is a choice which causes another individual to suffer. Animals are living creatures who can feel pain, endure stress and fear. It´s ridiculous to treat them as equal to a human, but it´s equally ridiculous to treat them as inanimate objects which are bred for our consumption.

Those who say that a dietary choice isn´t gonna to bring a revolution are right. On an individual level, chosing to treat women with respect isn´t going to bring an end to sexism. Does that mean that I, as an individual, shouldn´t treat women with respect? Because what the hell, as if my behaviour is gonna change the world...

Such choices are based on morality. And my revolution is a revolution in which is based on morality. I believe in a world in which all life, whether human or non-human, is to be treated with respect. And you can´t be a revolutionary without (trying!) to live up to the standards you would like to see this world (r)evolve to!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So if I were to breed women to serve as my slaves, that would be totally ok? Good thing to know!

No, it wouldn't be, because that requires that you force people to breed against their will. I'm sure women have no interest in becoming mindless drones.


The choice to eat meat is a choice which causes another individual to suffer. Animals are living creatures who can feel pain, endure stress and fear. It´s ridiculous to treat them as equal to a human, but it´s equally ridiculous to treat them as inanimate objects which are bred for our consumption.Which is why animal welfare legislation exists. It's not evenly enforced, for sure, but the precedent is certainly there.


Those who say that a dietary choice isn´t gonna to bring a revolution are right. On an individual level, chosing to treat women with respect isn´t going to bring an end to sexism. Does that mean that I, as an individual, shouldn´t treat women with respect? Because what the hell, as if my behaviour is gonna change the world... There are plenty of other perfectly good reasons for treating women with respect. One of them being that it is good to not be seen as a gigantic asshole.

[Pawn Power]

The organic labeling standards do nothing to denote how farms treat their workers. Is your organic food a humanitarian nightmare? (http://www.alternet.org/environment/140001/the_ugly_truth_behind_organic_food/)

[An archist]

The organic labeling standards do nothing to denote how farms treat their workers. Is your organic food a humanitarian nightmare? (http://www.alternet.org/environment/140001/the_ugly_truth_behind_organic_food/)
What does this have to do with vegetarianism or veganism?

[Pawn Power]

What does this have to do with vegetarianism or veganism?

Your a smart fellow, I think you can figure it out.

[apathy maybe]

OK people. How about we assume that we are all growing our own food on our own farms, and the only humans being exploited are ourselves, by ourselves.

That makes it a lot easier to say, yes, my organic food is fine.

(I.e. just because some organic food is produced in a bad way, doesn't mean that all organic food is then morally suspect.)

@counterblast, to continue the line of argumentation started above... Cheese made with animal rennet is not vegetarian anyway.

What if I had my own farm, with free range hens that are treated really, really well (not an absurd idea, I've seen it happen)? If I eat the eggs from those hens, I'm automatically not a vegan, big deal, no harm is coming to those hens.

Thus, yes, if you eat food produced by capitalist farms, then it is possible, even with vegetarian food, that you will eat food that come about because of the pain of animals.

However, that does not automatically mean that all non-vegan food is morally suspect.

Thus, veganism is silly.

Oh, and here's an argument against certain types of attitude. You know, the people who eat packaged vegan sausages. Eating food that has three layers of packaging is not going to help the animals. (I could go on, but I hope the idea is obvious.)

Edit: oh, and bees. Yeah, those poor bees are being exploited!

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Then you have inconvenience. If stopping caffeine, or eating meat, is harmful to yourself, you abstain from it. The idea here isnt' selfishness. If you already grant, like Grandin does, that animals deserve consideration, you put yourself in a difficult position. We don't actively harm living things, animals or people, just because it will benefit us.

And plants? Are they not living things deserving of consideration?
Life is sustained by devouring other matter, the very existence of life accelerates the heat death of the universe by increasing entropy. Were going to kill shit for our benefit no matter what.


I firmly believe that Meat is Murder.


No it's not. We've established a social contract with domesticated animals that allows us to slaughter them for our consumption. Arguing for improved conditions for our meals is appropriate however, as our side of the agreement is good living conditions for them.


I love animals more than I love human people,

.......................
:(


Why wouldn't you eat them? (Or would you?) Because they are a member of the human species? Why do we think the human species is not to be eaten - its just meat of a dumb animal, really - ?

Because humans don't normally practice cannibalism. It's that simple.
Though i do not begrudge cannibals who don't murder there dinner.

[swampfox]

Although I resepct groups like A.L.F., P.E.T.A., and other pro-animal rights groups, I believe that animals are here on this Earth under the charge of human beings. If you're Christian than I can say God put them here for us. If you are a pro-evolutionist, I can say we are genetically superior and therefore have greater rights over animals and other species.

If I want to go to the local BBQ place and chow down on a good ole steak I will. If I want to eat a chicken sandwich, I will. If a vegetarian wishes to not eat meat, let them.

[apathy maybe]

If you are a pro-evolutionist, I can say we are genetically superior and therefore have greater rights over animals and other species.
Yeah, except that's a real shit argument.

I'm genetically superior to you, and therefore have the right to kill you. OK?

Not only that, any serious scientific minded person doesn't think of humans as "superior". How long can you hold your breath? How deep into the sea can you swim? Can you fly?

Evolution merely says that life changes. Darwinism says that life changes to best suit it's environment.

So, as a person who thinks that the evidence is out there for evolution, I certainly don't think that humans are genetically superior to (for example) whales or birds.

Humans merely got lucky and managed to create methods of communicating and recording information. (Wikipedia tells me that writing or proto-writing has only been around for about 9000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing )

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

And plants? Are they not living things deserving of consideration?

No it's not. We've established a social contract with domesticated animals that allows us to slaughter them for our consumption. Arguing for improved conditions for our meals is appropriate however, as our side of the agreement is good living conditions for them.

Moral consideration is given on the basis of the ability to feel pleasure and pain. I mean pain-feeling things.

A social contract implies that animals would've signed the social contract if given the choice between it and "the state of nature." We treat animals terribly. No animal would choose our conditions over the state of nature.

Contract theory is also difficult to justify sometimes. People agree to contracts involving poor wages because a structurally imposed environment makes it illogical to do otherwise. That is the thought, anyway.

If an animal is given a choice between the state of nature and governance, the governance actually has to be desirable, first. Then there is an obligation to make the governance just. Marx didn't hate capitalism because it was unsuccessful. He admired the successes, rightly so, of capitalism. The point is it isn't the best. We want the best. So do animals.

You can take into account the practical limitations of the animal, but if we actively breed them to be evolutionary dependent on us, we have a moral obligation to care for them properly. If I specifically genetically engineered a child, and had him born, to have no limbs and a poor intellect, I'd have an obligation to provide him a decent life.

[swampfox]

Yeah, except that's a real shit argument.

I'm genetically superior to you, and therefore have the right to kill you. OK?

Not only that, any serious scientific minded person doesn't think of humans as "superior". How long can you hold your breath? How deep into the sea can you swim? Can you fly?

Evolution merely says that life changes. Darwinism says that life changes to best suit it's environment.

So, as a person who thinks that the evidence is out there for evolution, I certainly don't think that humans are genetically superior to (for example) whales or birds.

Humans merely got lucky and managed to create methods of communicating and recording information. (Wikipedia tells me that writing or proto-writing has only been around for about 9000 years. )

I consider humans being superior for several reason:

1. We are on top of the food chain predator-wise. Seeing as how we've wiped out quite a few species in our day, I think we're powerful enough to stand up against other animals in the kingdom.

2. We are both technologically and socially superior than the other species on earth. No one else has vehicles, weapons, advanced cities or "nations" like ours.

3. This relates to both points above. Humans are by far the MOST adaptable species on the planet - that are not insects. We can live in extreme environments through means of our own mechanical knowledge. We may not have fur but we do have the means to warm ourselves up, and we have the ingenuity to design advanced tools to meet our goals.

That is how I think humans are superior to other species on the planet.

I don't think that just because we are superior to other species that we should automatically kill them. I believe we have the duty to protect them and use them at the same time, if that makes sense to you.

[apathy maybe]

@swampfox, except that none of those things mean that humans are "superior" (the term you used).

1) Top of the food chain, so that's why sharks and tigers and even wild dogs (including dingos heh heh) eat people sometimes?
2) Having weapons and nations makes us "superior"? I disagree, those things aren't good.
3) Most adaptable due to technology, not due to genetics. Can you dive with a whale to catch a giant squid? Not without technology, which means your genetics aren't superior to the whales (for that purpose). Can you fly above Mount Everest? You can't fly at all without technology, but a goose can.


Superior is too often used as a moral judgement, such as you have done above.

(This has been discussed before, I'll try and find that discussion.)

[Bilan]

An interesting comparison...

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meat-council-poster-totally-looks-like-ww2-nazi-propaganda.jpg

That's not an interesting comparison. They just look similar. If you're comparing the meat industry to the Holocaust you are treading on very, very thin ice.

[swampfox]

@swampfox, except that none of those things mean that humans are "superior" (the term you used).

1) Top of the food chain, so that's why sharks and tigers and even wild dogs (including dingos heh heh) eat people sometimes?
2) Having weapons and nations makes us "superior"? I disagree, those things aren't good.
3) Most adaptable due to technology, not due to genetics. Can you dive with a whale to catch a giant squid? Not without technology, which means your genetics aren't superior to the whales (for that purpose). Can you fly above Mount Everest? You can't fly at all without technology, but a goose can.


Superior is too often used as a moral judgement, such as you have done above.

(This has been discussed before, I'll try and find that discussion.)

Issue #1 relates to technology. With our ingenuity we are the most advanced species on the planet.
2. Not just having them, but the fact that we've developed them and are the only species to have done so is good.
3. We could design underwater craft to catch a giant squid. We have planes to fly over Mt. Everest. Geese can't swim with wales can they? Whales can't fly over Mt. Everest. We can.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

3) Most adaptable due to technology, not due to genetics.

But our ability to produce technology is a direct result of our large, socially-orientated brains, which are due to genetics (actually evolution).

Natural evolution involves trade-offs; an organism that is good at swimming is usually poor at flying or some other ability. Human intelligence comes at the expense of almost all our other abilities except physical endurance (while a horse can overtake a human in the short run, a fit human can run/jog all day), but unlike other abilities intelligence is incredibly flexible and can be applied to an extremely wide range of problems, giving us as a species an enormous advantage that has enabled us to colonise all but one of the continents in very large numbers for our physical size.

No matter how much dickhead misanthropists whinge and moan otherwise, the fact remains that we are a very successful species.

[apathy maybe]

Oh, I never said that humans weren't successful. Just that to use the term "superior" in the context was silly.

I just dug up a threads in which the very issue is discussed in great depth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-humans-special-t57579/). Enjoy.

[swampfox]

Oh, I never said that humans weren't successful. Just that to use the term "superior" in the context was silly.

I just dug up a threads in which the very issue is discussed in great depth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-humans-special-t57579/). Enjoy.

The link doesn't work for me.

You must admit though, the context in which I explained myself, that we are the superior species because of our ingenuity and adaptability is correct.

[apathy maybe]

The link doesn't work for me.

You must admit though, the context in which I explained myself, that we are the superior species because of our ingenuity and adaptability is correct.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-humans-special-t57579/index.html

Try that. Pay special attention to the posts made by LSD.

[Vincent]

Insofar a both humans and other animals experience pain and stress, they have desire to avoid that pain and stress. So, for the same reason I wouldn't punch you in the balls and bang your mum in front of you, I wouldn't pump a piece of random shrapnel into a cows head and skin it before it is even dead or unconscious. I would not force you to live your entire life on a piece of concrete in a cage the width and length of your body, and it's the same reason I wouldn't do the same thing to a pig.

Convince me the meat I buy at the supermarket won't have caused the suffering of a fellow animal and I'll buy it and eat it. Until then I will eat vegetables, fruits, pulses, grains and other non-meat stuffs, like chocolate and donuts. I don't need meat, and there's no compelling evidence that I'm wrong about that.

And the notion of human persons as superior is ridiculous. That's the type of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that is perfectly fine to eat mentally and physically disabled babies who will never become productive members of society. Belonging to the human race does not make us special; its the fact that we experience pain and suffering and have desires that places us in the realm of ethical consideration. If not to prevent suffering, what is morality for? Also, as far as I understand, speciesism is as yet indefensible and increasingly being considered alongside racism and sexism.

Oh, dang, this is a thread about how its stupid to 'moralize' dietary choice, right? Well, to that I say this: when my dietary choices directly cause other animals (who are quite like me insofar as they have a desire to avoid pain) to suffer immensely and die painful deaths, it's a moral issue. It's a really fucking big moral issue, and one I can actively have a hand in addressing.