"Animal Rights"

[Idealism]

If this thread is in the wrong place, sorry, I didn't know where to put this.

What are the arguments that meat-eating is morally right?
I mean by this vegans/vegetarians seem to have a philosophical
basis in their belief that animals have inherent worth and thus it is wrong to hurt/exploit them. But I have never heard an argument showing that meat eating is ethically correct other than "meat tastes good" and "it's natural" - which are not elaborated on or well constructed. Because of such I would-as a vegan- like to hear the other side of the ethical argument. I don't so much care about which is more "healthy" as much as the moral argument.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I don't believe animals have rights, however, if you do the only course of action that is not morally reprehensible is veganism.

[FreeFocus]

I find animal abuse (including beating animals, sport hunting, and factory farming) to be reprehensible. I'm not a vegan because that's a difficult lifestyle for me to undertake at the moment, but in the future I'll try to ween myself off of supermarket meat. First off I think it's garbage. Second, I'd prefer to go hunting or fishing.

So in that sense, I support animal rights. Most animals can feel pain and it's not legitimate to inflict pain for no reason. Moreover, they are also living things, and I take that into account because I value life.

[deLarge]

I do not value life, nor do I value humanity. I value intelligence; a brain-dead human has no more value than a squirrel, and I see no reason why either one should be endowed rights by default.

That said, the line between /sentient/ and /non sentient/ is a blurred one, so my system here falls apart, say, when analyzing the value of the great apes and mentally-deficit humans and the like.

[*Red*Alert]

While I don't care about and support animal rights, I can't help but feel energy should be first and foremost directed at ending the exploitation of human by human, the same system which perpetrates cruelty and exploitation of animals, perpetrates the same against fellow man.

The only hope for animal rights is to destroy the exploitative system on which current society is built. If men can't show respect for the lives of other men, what hope is there for animals??

[Coggeh]

I find animal abuse (including beating animals, sport hunting, and factory farming) to be reprehensible. I'm not a vegan because that's a difficult lifestyle for me to undertake at the moment, but in the future I'll try to ween myself off of supermarket meat. First off I think it's garbage. Second, I'd prefer to go hunting or fishing.

So in that sense, I support animal rights. Most animals can feel pain and it's not legitimate to inflict pain for no reason. Moreover, they are also living things, and I take that into account because I value life.
Contradiction ?


Anyway , my view is that while meat eating should not be discouraged or anything but the conditions of animals and the cruelity to them is something that can be addressed ,In Ireland the socialist party have fought for a ban on animal circus's that don't have the proper necessary conditions for animals . (No surprise most don't ) which is why their isn't that many animal circus's around much lately bar a few , sorry lads ...

[FreeFocus]

Contradiction ?

Anyway , my view is that while meat eating should not be discouraged or anything but the conditions of animals and the cruelity to them is something that can be addressed ,In Ireland the socialist party have fought for a ban on animal circus's that don't have the proper necessary conditions for animals . (No surprise most don't ) which is why their isn't that many animal circus's around much lately bar a few , sorry lads ...

It's hardly a contradiction. One shot, one kill, in the case of (skilled) hunting. As little pain as possible, and it's not for no reason. It's to provide me with food. It's not like I trapped the animal with one of those nasty spiked traps and then proceeded to repeatedly stab it or something.

There's no context for animal rights within a capitalist society, obviously, capitalists have no regard for human workers, so the brutality they inflict on animals and the conditions they force them to live under is horrendous. Nonetheless, smashing capitalism doesn't ensure the fair treatment and respect of animals and life, as many people on RevLeft want to carry on practices like mass factory farming (as we see under capitalism) and habitat destruction to pave way for "development."

[RedCommieBear]

I say this with the knowledge that I have close friends who are vegetarian, and I don't mean this as offensive to any vegetarian, vegan, or whatever. I don't mean this to personal whatsoever.

It takes some serious audacity to claim that the innate dietary sensibilities of humans is somehow wrong or immoral. I mean, it seems to me that the omnivorous diet of humans is pretty natural. And a big hungry bear would probably eat me if it had the chance..

And once again to stress, I have no personal qualm with vegetarians, and actually have a serious amount of respect for them, it must take a lot of self-dicipline. However, I think people who try to link animal rights with leftism are doing disservice to both. People have every right to believe and advocate for animal rights, but for the left, the issue is and should be class and capitalism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If this thread is in the wrong place, sorry, I didn't know where to put this.

What are the arguments that meat-eating is morally right?
I mean by this vegans/vegetarians seem to have a philosophical
basis in their belief that animals have inherent worth and thus it is wrong to hurt/exploit them. But I have never heard an argument showing that meat eating is ethically correct other than "meat tastes good" and "it's natural" - which are not elaborated on or well constructed. Because of such I would-as a vegan- like to hear the other side of the ethical argument. I don't so much care about which is more "healthy" as much as the moral argument.

I don't really go for morals or morality, but historically eating meat and having an omnivorous diet allowed proto-humans to develop an edge over other primates. It allowed proto-humans to become better problem solvers and escape being locked into certain locations due to closeness to a certain kind of food supply. Carnivorous proto-humans could now migrate with game and have a much larger and wide-spread range.

Now, it is a luxury to eat all vegitarian or an all vegan diet - so if people want to do that, it's ok by me and they can basically get the natural nutrients they need. But I also think it is pretty hypocritical to blame meat-eaters for problems in the world when generally capitalism still treats humans pretty bad - like cattle even - and most of the biggest ills of the meat industry have little to do with eating meat and more to do with making profits from meat. Most people would like to eat healthy food, but under capitalism, it's more profitable to make a bunch of fat unhealthy animals to use as food.

Besides, veganism and vegitarianism usually involve a consumerist perspective which is just shit and can lead to elietism.

[Hit The North]

I do not value life, nor do I value humanity. I value intelligence; You should stop being so pompous. Some of the best people I've met have been none to bright; some have been brilliant, though. It's a mixed bag this humanity thing and even though you might not like all the centres, life is like a box of chocolates and dahdedahdeda.


a brain-dead human has no more value than a squirrelIt has considerably less value. You try selling them both down Castle Market. You could get a fiver for the squirrel. For the brain-dead human, you'd probably only get arrested.


That said, the line between /sentient/ and /non sentient/ is a blurred one,So too is the line between /conscious/ and /unconszzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


so my system here falls apart, say, when analyzing the value of the great apes and mentally-deficit humans and the like.I've told yer, mate. Tenner for the monkey and NOWT for the mentally deficit humans.

[deLarge]

You should stop being so pompous. Some of the best people I've met have been none to bright;
That's not what I meant. By intelligence I meant sentience; being "none too bright" is much different than being brain-dead or having the mental capacity of a squirrel.

[Manifesto]

Animals have just as many rights as humans have (in the sense that they to have feelings and should not be tortured or experimented on). But I find no reason why humans should not eat meat since its nature that animals eat other animals and just because we can live without them does not mean we should.

[FreeFocus]

Animals have just as many rights as humans have (in the sense that they to have feelings and should not be tortured or experimented on). But I find no reason why humans should not eat meat since its nature that animals eat other animals and just because we can live without them does not mean we should.

Well, I'm not quite sure that animals have feelings - certainly some of them do, notably other primates, as evidenced by the experiment in which monkeys (I believe it was monkeys) were separated from their birth mothers and experienced severe emotional distress.

The left is far too nihilistic, for someone to utter shit like "I do not value life, nor do I value humanity." I mean, wow. No wonder why we don't get anywhere in the real fucking world.

[jake williams]

I'm kind of uncomfortable with the language of "rights" but I really haven't the time for any very deep moral philosophizing. So to oversimplify a bit: I think animals should have some rights, but less than people. I think we should be concerned about animal welfare, but less concerned about it than we are about human welfare. I think for environmental reasons alone we should at least reduce meat consumption if not eliminate it, and I think we should improve the living conditions of animals raised by humans. I really have no moral concerns about eating eggs or dairy products, provided the animals are treated reasonably and not tortured (as admittedly they often are).

But in terms of it being a big priority, this isn't one of mine, for what I think is the pretty sensible reason that as far as we can tell non-human animals have less developed consciousness than we do.

[Manifesto]

Well, I'm not quite sure that animals have feelings - certainly some of them do, notably other primates, as evidenced by the experiment in which monkeys (I believe it was monkeys) were separated from their birth mothers and experienced severe emotional distress.

The left is far too nihilistic, for someone to utter shit like "I do not value life, nor do I value humanity." I mean, wow. No wonder why we don't get anywhere in the real fucking world.
Well most of them do like even cows and most pets. I am not talking about insects or anything.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have never seen animal rights as a huge issue. Sure it's never good to see animals be downright abused and neglected, but I just happen to see humans as a distinct species. It was humans who have contributed to absolutely every advance forward in society. What have animals contributed? Nothing really. Thus proving animals and humans are in fact distinct species. Not to mention it would be physically impossible for a human to breed with an animal. However, I do know animals can have emotions, but many not to the same extent as humans. This is an argument against not abusing them. That's about as far as I'm willing to go with the whole animal rights thing. Maybe when humans obtain full freedom we can worry about animals.

[FreeFocus]

I have never seen animal rights as a huge issue. Sure it's never good to see animals be downright abused and neglected, but I just happen to see humans as a distinct species. It was humans who have contributed to absolutely every advance forward in society. What have animals contributed? Nothing really. Thus proving animals and humans are in fact distinct species. Not to mention it would be physically impossible for a human to breed with an animal. However, I do know animals can have emotions, but many not to the same extent as humans. This is an argument against not abusing them. That's about as far as I'm willing to go with the whole animal rights thing. Maybe when humans obtain full freedom we can worry about animals.

No one is saying to focus on animal welfare as a separate, distinct, and prominent issue. It should be part of a larger program of liberation and justice that the left pursues. In other words, it should just be a plank.

And the bold is kind of like saying "Maybe when we smash racism we can worry about sexism." We target them at the same time because both are contributed to by capitalism. Likewise, animal abuse is an effect of capitalism. We should acknowledge that and incorporate it into our critique.

[An archist]

Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert.
So if animals try to escape, they are entitled to freedom? If you try to kill them and they resist, they have the right not to be killed?
Congratulations on becoming a vegetarian.

[TC]

I don't eat meat, dairy or eggs not because I think that 'animals have rights' but because I can live without directly and voluntarily participating in a cruel industry for no reason other than my own entertainment and creature comfort.

Rights are in my opinion fundamentally indeterminate. The reality is though that, 'natural' or not (and appeals to nature are bullshit) humans do not require animal products to survive and deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on any thinking thing violates our moral intuitions and I'd prefer to avoid it when possible. I'm not a pacifist and I don't oppose killing when necessary to prevent greater harm, whether in wars of revolution or resistance or in drug therapy animal testing...but it strikes me as profoundly sad to lack the self control and personal discipline to refrain from unnecessary cruelty for entertainment, whether in bullfights or hamburgers.

[An archist]

"Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert."
Animals are different from people, you do realise that? They can't speak, and the communicate in a different way.
For example, if an animal wants to go somewhere, it won't say 'I want to go there', but it will simply try to go there. That's the way they formulate things.
An animal can make it perfectly clear that it doesn't want to be killed, without formulating it like humans do.

[Led Zeppelin]

An animal can make it perfectly clear that it doesn't want to be killed, without formulating it like humans do.

So you think an animal can comprehend the concept of death?

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

[SubcomandanteJames]

My personal feeling is that I follow a philosophy of interspecies liberty. I will not inflict pain upon a sentient being which has a desire to live, or to not experience that pain, if I do not have reason. As the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and many other physicians have shown, humans live longer and healthier without meat. It saves our resources, and feeds many more people to sustain a population on vegetation rather than meat. I look at everything individually, and just I would not unnecessarily harm a three year old, nor will I unnecessarily harm a pig that scores higher on an intelligence test than said three year old. Of course, an animal that does not fear pain, or does not feel it, I have no moral qualms in regards to "harming the creature" unless the creature itself does not wish to be "harmed". For instance, I don't eat scallops, butthey are not at the top of my liberation instance. Singer's philosophy in many ways, for me. It's not can they reason, but can they suffer?

[deLarge]

The left is far too nihilistic
I am a moral nihilist. Sue me. I simply can't imagine how such a vast, unintelligable, utterly absurd universe could care enough abut one particular, violent brand of primate to create an objective moral order. And even if it did, how would we discover this moral order? It would be functionally irrelevant to human affairs.


for someone to utter shit like "I do not value life, nor do I value humanity." I mean, wow. No wonder why we don't get anywhere in the real fucking world.Why should we assume life is by default endowed with some objective right to live? You do not think twice of washing your hands--which kills many thousands of living organisms--nor probably of crushing a fly, or hitting a grasshopper in your car.

These are all living things, and yet we do not endow them with 'rights'. So, then, the question becomes: Why are we against killing some animals in particular? Cats, dogs, even rabbits and squirrels? Is cuteness a defend-able benchmark to determine which animals deserve rights? What then of ugly humans?

Why is it that humans are deserving of rights, and other (most others in my position) aren't? What is the most important difference between us and the cows that we kill and eat? I would say that it is sentience, self-awareness, or what have you. This trait is not limited merely to carbon-based biological lifeforms (i.e. life as we know it), such as the case with theoretical artificial intelligence, nor to humanity (indeed, I would prescribe some 'rights' to some primates as well).

And tell me, what are 'rights' anyway? A 'right' is something that one is /entitled/ to, that cannot morally be taken away. But in the absence of morality, whre does that leave rights? The 'rights' afforded to citizens change from civilization to civilization, from reign to reign, and even from year to year--thus, they can be hardly called as such. The only 'rights' that we have are the ones that we secure for ourselves and our fellow humans; merely debating that we have 'rights' is meaningless when they are not recognized by anyone.

It also strikes me as silly that we humans care so much about lesser (in terms of intelligence) animals. Do you think that the lion cries for it's kill? Do cats debate the ethics of playing with mice to death? Did the dinosaurs form organizations to protect the condition of their prey, or pressure each other into providing clean, pain-free death? Humans are, after all, just another animal--sure, we may be more intelligent, but I don't see why we need care more for our fellow animals than they care for theirs. Earth's history is that of the progressive destruction of species, a brutal and futile struggle between creatures in a attempt to perpetuate their genes, and ultimately their species. The evolutionary progress of life on our rock is incredibly bloody, violent, and counter-intuitively creative. Animals kill fast and instinctively, without regret; morality only applies to inter-human affairs, nothing more.

[pastradamus]

Humans are Omnivores. Its our genetic Pre-Conditioning to be such, its why our teeth are shaped in such a way and its what we have evolved to become. Now if someone wants to become a vegetarian than fair play. Thats a personal choice though and im not arguing against it.

On the issue of Cruelty to animals, than I believe that we must work hard to prevent any form of envoirmental or human cruelty towards ANY animal. My only stumbling block on this issue is Factory Farming. Im a big fan of factory farming. About 30 years ago here in Ireland a family could only afford meat once a month. Now its an every day thing which is great IMO and I believe a removal of factory farming will have unprecedented results on the third world. Also I would like to add that Factory Farming accounts for 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs and also its not like animal cruelty didnt exist pre-factory. I've seen factory farms and I agree they are awful but the owners should put in place measures to improve the conditions of the animals as its incredibly easy to do. On this issue I am however 100% against the stock farming practices we see in france which I find as a disgraceful lack of respect to animals without any real reason or economic gain to do so.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Humans are Omnivores. Its our genetic Pre-Conditioning to be such, its why our teeth are shaped in such a way and its what we have evolved to become. Now if someone wants to become a vegetarian than fair play. Thats a personal choice though and im not arguing against it.

Yet we have to sanitize/cook our meat, we have an expanded angle jaw like herbivorous animals, our stomach acidity is that of herbivorous animals, our facial muscles are that of herbivorous animals, we live longer without meat by 6-10 years, animal proteins have been connected to cancer in humans unlike other meat eating animals, our complex colon is that of an herbivore, our style of canines have been seen in other herbivorous animals for use as defense and tools, but are much too small for a meat eating animal, our mouth opening compared to head size is that of an herbivorous animal, the amount of times we have to chew food is that of an herbivorous animal, our nails are flattened a historic sign of herbivorous animals, our incisors are not seen in any omnivore or carnivore but common in herbivores, our saliva has carbohydrate digesting enzymes seen only in herbivores, we cannot detoxify vitamin A like all meat eating animals can, but herbivores can't, our major jaw muscles are consecutive with vegetarian animals, and we failed as hunters before the neolithic revolution.

I would hardly say that we are naturally meat eaters, seeing as it is a luxury as appose to necessity, and, as you can see from above, we are not like meat eating animals at all. ;)

In my opinion, I don't want to feel pain. Another animal that can feel pain similarly to me does not want to feel pain. I do not have to cause that animal pain, thus I will not cause it pain. :thumbup1:

[Led Zeppelin]

we live longer without meat by 6-10 years

Do you have any evidence for this?

I would be more understanding of vegetarianism if this were the case, not as much to become one myself, but then they'd have a good argument in being one.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Do you have any evidence for this?

I would be more understanding of vegetarianism if this were the case, not as much to become one myself, but then they'd have a good argument in being one.

I can't post links yet due to my membership being new,
but check the Huffington Post, CNN online, and nutraingredients online and they all have the studies published.

Also PCRM (physicians committee for responsible medicine) also talks about alot of the stuff I published above.


and if you can find a copy of "Number One Priority: Your Health, the natural Guide" by a Dr. Ruth Rojo, she talks about the studies w/ the 6-10 year quote. :thumbup:

[deLarge]

x
Yet we have to sanitize/cook our meat

It depends on the meat. Many insects, for example, can be eaten raw (http://www.manataka.org/page160.html)(many primates (http://books.google.com/books?id=HDGW14HSqyoC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=primate+eating+bugs&source=bl&ots=urRqXZ5ncc&sig=-Ca3q46SRFaRed106SXghHcZmio&hl=en&ei=pXBzSviaOZLasQOUxbDHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false), and indeed many human cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_tvinsectfood.html) do this). Actually, many types of meat can be eaten as long as it is very fresh. Certainly we developed ways of eating animals that we wouldn't have originally considered food (i.e. animals that can't be torn apart with our bare hands and teeth), but that doesn't make meat eating itself unnatural. The reason that we cook our food is largely that we are the only animals that store food for prolonged periods of time; lions don't store their prey, they eat it on the spot. Humans, as is fairly common knowledge (or at least to anyone with discovery channel), can eat things like raw snakes (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/reptiles/conserve.html), and raw meat from saltwater (http://history.howstuffworks.com/native-american-history/eskimo.htm).



we have an expanded angle jaw like herbivorous animals, our stomach acidity is that of herbivorous animals, our facial muscles are that of herbivorous animalsAre you seriously going to argue that humans are herbivorous? Seriously? Need I point out that we cannot digest cellulose (http://science.jrank.org/pages/1335/Cellulose-Cellulose-digestion.html)? Or that our digestive system (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature) more closely resembles that of other carnivorous/omnivorous animals?


we live longer without meat by 6-10 yearsEvidence, please? Certainly we eat too much red meat (http://www.drmercola.biz/2009/03/dangers-of-too-much-red-meat.html), but things like fish and chicken don't detract from our lifespan at all.


animal proteins have been connected to cancer in humans unlike other meat eating animalsAgain, evidence, please? Red meat is largely bad for you, but the proteins (not to mention oils) that you get from, say, fish, is indeed good for you (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/protein/index.html). And it's not as if a vegetarian diet doesn't have it's problems; without a ready supply of very specific vegetables (which many early people probably didn't understand), humans can easily run low on B12 (https://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/vitamin_b12_deficiency), as well as other minerals like iron. Soy products may decrease sperm count (http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Infertility/10254) (which from an evolutionary perspective is a bad thing). There are several other things that are very easy to get low on (namely Calcium and essential fatty acids), and while it is true that you can get around this by carefully planning meals and taking supplemented food, this is just as 'unnatural' as cutting open animals using rocks and heating them (or not, if it is salt-water fish/animal or snake or insect, etc).



our style of canines have been seen in other herbivorous animals for use as defense and tools, but are much too small for a meat eating animalWhen it comes to jaws, we resemble most closely pigs, which are omnivores (http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm). The fact that we have four pairs of pre-molars (http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/959372412.Ot.r.html) (which are used by carnivores) along with molars (herbivores) only goes to back up this claim.


our saliva has carbohydrate digesting enzymes seen only in herbivoresMaybe so, but humans also lack the enzyme needed to digest cellulose (http://science.jrank.org/pages/1335/Cellulose-Cellulose-digestion.html), and our digestive system is too short--and lacking in other alternative methods like re-digesting vomit or food-storing pouches--to digest such plant matter without it.


... our major jaw muscles are consecutive with vegetarian animalsSaying that we are omnivorous does not mean that we are not designed to digest plant matter. On the contrary, it means that we ARE designed to digest plant matter--and meat too (albeit in smaller portions than we are used to in America).



and we failed as hunters before the neolithic revolution.You might find this paper (http://www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html) an interesting read.

I guess the bottom line here is that while we eat far too much meat (especially red meat) in places like America, meat itself can be, alongside plants, a nutritional part of the diet, and indeed it has been since earliest man, and in some forms (e.g., insects) exists in the diets of other primates.

[Vanguard1917]

Animals have no rights and they have no value in and of themselves; their only worth is that to human beings, to be utilised by us, whether for food, clothing and travel (the latter now largely defunct, of course, or at least should be, what with motorcars and that) or research, study, entertainment and companionship (e.g. going for a walk in the park with a pet dog).

And all those going on about how factory farming is 'cruel'... Tell that to the hundreds of millions of human beings who struggle daily so that they can earn enough money to, among other things, add more meat to their and their families' diets. Factory farming is a great human achievements, and no philistine and irrational notions like 'animal rights' should ever be allowed to obstruct its further development.

[black magick hustla]

I don't eat meat, dairy or eggs not because I think that 'animals have rights' but because I can live without directly and voluntarily participating in a cruel industry for no reason other than my own entertainment and creature comfort.

Rights are in my opinion fundamentally indeterminate. The reality is though that, 'natural' or not (and appeals to nature are bullshit) humans do not require animal products to survive and deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on any thinking thing violates our moral intuitions and I'd prefer to avoid it when possible. I'm not a pacifist and I don't oppose killing when necessary to prevent greater harm, whether in wars of revolution or resistance or in drug therapy animal testing...but it strikes me as profoundly sad to lack the self control and personal discipline to refrain from unnecessary cruelty for entertainment, whether in bullfights or hamburgers.

I don´t think it necessarily violates our moral intuitions. Because all normative statements and statement of values are senseless, I think that for someone to find wrong "cruelty against animals" the issue needs to be self evident. I for example, do not have any sort of moral regret for eating animal products and I do not empathize nor I find it ethically self evident that I should not use them for entertaintment, etc.

[deLarge]

Animals have no rights and they have no value in and of themselves; their only worth is that to human beings, to be utilised by us, whether for food, clothing and travel (the latter now largely defunct, of course, or at least should be, what with motorcars and that) or research, study, entertainment and companionship (e.g. going for a walk in the park with a pet dog).

And all those going on about how factory farming is 'cruel'... Tell that to the hundreds of millions of human beings who struggle daily so that they can earn enough money to, among other things, add more meat to their and their families' diets. Factory farming is a great human achievements, and no philistine and irrational notions like 'animal rights' should ever be allowed to obstruct its further development.

:wub:

[Axle]

I don't support animal rights. Animals don't have the capacity to fight for, utilize or even so much as recognize that they have rights in the first place.

I do feel that animals should be protected from cruelty, but that's about it

As far as the animal rights movement goes...I think its all about feeling morally superior than someone else. I mean, we haven't hammered out human rights yet. Why the hell should we be moving on to animals?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yet we have to sanitize/cook our meat,

We don't "have to", it's just a good idea.


we have an expanded angle jaw like herbivorous animals,Irrelevant considering the amount of pressure the average human jaw can apply.


our stomach acidity is that of herbivorous animals,Then why can't we digest cellulose, which is commonly found in plant matter?


our facial muscles are that of herbivorous animals,What?! Our closest physical relatives, chimpanzees, are opportunistic omnivores.


we live longer without meat by 6-10 years,[citation needed]


animal proteins have been connected to cancer in humans unlike other meat eating animals,Again, sounds like veggie propaganda.


our complex colon is that of an herbivore,BWAHAHA! No. The digestive tracts of herbivores are considerably longer than that of humans. Also, we only have one stomach and don't chew cud or anything like that, so it's obvious that we're neither obligate herbivores nor obligate carnivores.


our style of canines have been seen in other herbivorous animals for use as defense and tools,And what possible "defence" or "tool" do human canines serve?


but are much too small for a meat eating animal,That's because you're comparing our canines to those of more or less obligate carnivores. We're omnivores. Omnivores that use our brains and toolmaking abilities to overcome our physical limitations.


our mouth opening compared to head size is that of an herbivorous animal,Someone's never seen a hippopotamus yawn.


the amount of times we have to chew food is that of an herbivorous animal,Nonsense. The amount of times we have to chew food depends on the food. Beef jerky requires more chewing than a thick broth.


our nails are flattened a historic sign of herbivorous animals,Or a sign that we don't use our nails to hunt with.


our incisors are not seen in any omnivore or carnivore but common in herbivores,Wrong. Primates have incisors and are, surprise surprise, omnivorous.


our saliva has carbohydrate digesting enzymes seen only in herbivores,It's a good thing meat isn't digested primarily in the mouth then, isn't it?


we cannot detoxify vitamin A like all meat eating animals can, but herbivores can't,That just means we're not carnivores, which we know already.


our major jaw muscles are consecutive with vegetarian animals,They seem to chew meat just fine.


and we failed as hunters before the neolithic revolution.Yeah, we failed so badly we hunted several species to extinction. :rolleyes: And the neolithic revolution was when we stopped hunting (and gathering) and started agriculture and settlements.


I would hardly say that we are naturally meat eaters, seeing as it is a luxury as appose to necessity,So? Luxuries are what make life worth living.


and, as you can see from above, we are not like meat eating animals at all. ;)Of course not, we're omnivores.


In my opinion, I don't want to feel pain. Another animal that can feel pain similarly to me does not want to feel pain. I do not have to cause that animal pain, thus I will not cause it pain. :thumbup1:The meat I get is already dead. I'm not going to bring any pigs back to life by swearing off bacon.

[Lynx]

I don't support animal rights. Animals don't have the capacity to fight for, utilize or even so much as recognize that they have rights in the first place.

I do feel that animals should be protected from cruelty, but that's about it
If animal cruelty laws are enacted and enforced, then you've given animals 'rights'. How else would you describe such an action?

[deLarge]

If animal cruelty laws are enacted and enforced, then you've given animals 'rights'. How else would you describe such an action?


Rights are that which are considered 'innate', or that something/someone is deserving of in-itself. I would describe animal cruelty laws as more privileges than anything. I am, however, a proponent of some "animal rights", namely the Great Ape Project (http://www.greatapeproject.org/).

[Idealism]

Animals have no rights and they have no value in and of themselves; their only worth is that to human beings, to be utilised by us, whether for food, clothing and travel (the latter now largely defunct, of course, or at least should be, what with motorcars and that) or research, study, entertainment and companionship (e.g. going for a walk in the park with a pet dog).

And all those going on about how factory farming is 'cruel'... Tell that to the hundreds of millions of human beings who struggle daily so that they can earn enough money to, among other things, add more meat to their and their families' diets. Factory farming is a great human achievements, and no philistine and irrational notions like 'animal rights' should ever be allowed to obstruct its further development.

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans anymore than black people were made for whites or women for men." - Alice Walker

And with the second paragraph, the factory farming system is misguided and needs to be fixed in several ways that the so-called "further development" that has been implemented up until now has not. I can't go into full detail due to lack of time, but essentially what happens is capitalists want to maximize output to maximize profit, capitalists make fundamentally flawed system with lack of concern for future consequences, consequences appear due to the flaws, capitalists add on to the flawed system instead of realizing the true nature of any problem. You'd continue that system except replacing capitalists with workers. That's vague I know but like I said, not enough
time. As for the starving people who need to work to have enough money to buy things such as meat, why do you think we are in that situation? it's capitalism fault of course, and this mean not that implementing a flawed capitalist institution could or should solve it, but that there should be socialism.

Anyway like I said, you can disagree with animal rights, that's fine, but to say the current state of food production is good, is just wrong.

[deLarge]

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans anymore than black people were made for whites or women for men." - Alice Walker
But why assign them objective rights or values? Certainly it makes no sense to grant animals 'right', when the animals themselves don't grant other animals rights, either. And if a species--any species--loses any natural predators, it does the same damned thing that we do. I suppose what I'm trying to say here is that the quote is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral or ethical to kill animals, because merely existing or even being alive does not grant rights--or else you are responsible for mass murder via immune system.


And with the second paragraph, the factory farming system is misguided and needs to be fixed in several ways
How, exactly, would you feed six and a half billion people without industrializing the food system?


is capitalists want to maximize output to maximize profit, capitalists make fundamentally flawed system with lack of concern for future consequences, consequences appear due to the flaws, capitalists add on to the flawed system instead of realizing the true nature of any problem.
"The industrialized food system is bad because... OH LOOK CAPITALISTS"



You'd continue that system except replacing capitalists with workers.
So in other words it has nothing to do with factory farming itself, but who /owns/ the factories? Would you be fine with a factory farming co-op?


As for the starving people who need to work to have enough money to buy things such as meat, why do you think we are in that situation?
For a variety of reasons, but eliminating a cheap and relatively land-efficient source of nutrition won't help anyone. Petit-bourgeoisie fuckers who lament the evils of factor farming and animal cruelty while eating overpriced "organic" food piss me off more than anything else.


it's capitalism fault of course, and this mean not that implementing a flawed capitalist institution could or should solve it, but that there should be socialism.
There really ought to be a name for this form of argument. Really. And I thought you said it would be fine if the workers controlled the factory? And if that's the only problem, then the industrial farming system would be no worse off than any other capitalist industry.


Anyway like I said, you can disagree with animal rights, that's fine, but to say the current state of food production is good, is just wrong.
Certainly better than grazing cattle on randomly-selected lands and then selling the stuff at several times the current cost, for the sake of being "green" or what have you. Notice that such talk is almost exclusively the domain of people who /could afford/ the products of such a system.

[Lynx]

Rights are that which are considered 'innate', or that something/someone is deserving of in-itself. I would describe animal cruelty laws as more privileges than anything. I am, however, a proponent of some "animal rights", namely the Great Ape Project (http://www.greatapeproject.org/).
Privileges are temporary and are revoked when its beneficiaries are no longer deemed 'deserving'. It is safe to assume that animal cruelty laws and the Great Ape Project are meant to be permanent. Animals possessing a CNS are deserving of protection from cruelty, and the great apes are deserving of additional protective measures.

[Idealism]

How, exactly, would you feed six and a half billion people without industrializing the food system?


I'm not against the industrialization of the food industry, I'm against the hormone-antibiotic inhumane inefficient system that leaves little concern for either animal or human health we have today, but that is not the only form of industrialization.




"The industrialized food system is bad because... OH LOOK CAPITALISTS"


The capitalists made a fundamentally flawed system, in terms of its costs in meat safety, human life and health, places of work that are not safe for workers, environmental destruction, and among other things that were just plain stupid like feeding cows corn instead of grass-which leads to problems such as increased chance of e coli. Instead of changing the system itself, the capitalists just "fixed" the problems that arose. The fixing can in turn cause further problem. They did this because the changing of the system itself is unprofitable.



So in other words it has nothing to do with factory farming itself, but who /owns/ the factories? Would you be fine with a factory farming co-op?
I think under socialism/communism, workers should not just take the the flawed system into their hands , they should change the system fundamentally such that the flaws are corrected while maintaing the process of industrialization. Something capitalists would not do because it is unprofitable.



For a variety of reasons, but eliminating a cheap and relatively land-efficient source of nutrition won't help anyone. Petit-bourgeoisie fuckers who lament the evils of factor farming and animal cruelty while eating overpriced "organic" food piss me off more than anything else.

Of course it wouldn't, which is why it should be industrialized in a different manner. I don't want a return to the former even more so inefficient system.

I think I answered the other two things above.

[deLarge]

I'm not against the industrialization of the food industry, I'm against the hormone-antibiotic
What's wrong with hormones and antibiotics?


inhumane
Any system that involves the systematic killing, butchering, and distributing of living beings is inhumane. That's beside the point--they're not raising humans, they're raising chickens.


inefficient system
Inefficient how? The entire system is designed to make large quantities of food cheaply, and in a way that can be done over and over ad ifinitum. What's not sustainable is having a farmer guide his flock from one area to another, grazing the land clean, and moving on. And even if it could be made sustainable, it wouldn't be cheap.


that leaves little concern for either animal
Why would you care for the health of something that you plan on killing anyway?


or human health
How has the industrialization of farming decreased the net-health of what people eat?


The capitalists made a fundamentally flawed system
Why not just say "They made a fundamentally flawed system" or "It is a fundamentally flawed system"? If the system is flawed, it is flawed by it's own merits--you're excersizing a type of ad hominem attack here.


in terms of its costs
How does it cost more? Again, the model of a farmer grazing from land-to-land is simply not practical on such a world scale.


in meat safety
By all means, enact more stringent standards to protect again E Coli and the like, but calling for a complete paradigm change in the food industry is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


places of work that are not safe for workers



environmental destruction
If we could grow, feed, and kill cows within a 5' x 5' x 5' box, that would have much less of an environmental impact than plowing through forests to make grazing grounds.


and among other things that were just plain stupid like feeding cows corn instead of grass
It's cheaper and more efficient.


which leads to problems such as increased chance of e coli.
Switching the cows to grass a few days before slaughter negates this (Rumen Microbiology and Its Role in Ruminant Nutrition).


Instead of changing the system itself, the capitalists just "fixed" the problems that arose.
What's wrong with fixing problems? The system itself is not inherently flawed--mass produced, space-efficient, genetically-engineered, cheap to produce food is the way that things are going to have to go, whether you like it or not. And those that like it are the ones that can only afford the products of such a system, those who appose it are the ones who could afford a more "green" or "organic" approach.


The fixing can in turn cause further problem.
Then it wouldn't really be fixed, would it? And claiming that fixing problems always leads to more problems is an argument from assertion--back it up.


I think under socialism/communism, workers should not just take the the flawed system into their hands , they should change the system fundamentally such that the flaws are corrected while maintaing the process of industrialization. Something capitalists would not do because it is unprofitable.
How, exactly, would you overhaul the system? How would you end up changing the system fundamentally, and yet still produce cheap food on a large scale?


Of course it wouldn't, which is why it should be industrialized in a different manner.
If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Since there seems to be a huge misconception of what I'm trying to say, let me point out some things. I never said, we aren't omnivores, my point was that we have alot of parts in our body that do better with processing vegetables rather than meat. My reason for saying "not natural meat eaters" because yes, as omnivores we are opportunistic meat eaters. But unlike many other opportunistic meat eaters, we do it out of luxury, AND we can feed 10 times the amount of people per acre than on a meat diet. And as for "citation needed" I cited it above. Vegetarian humans live longer on average, and it's not veggie propaganda regarding the cancer research. Again see above sources.

But beyond all this, it still comes down to ethics, which are too subjective to go into so whatever. Personal choice, for the good of the earth, my health, and other suffering beings, I don't eat meat.


As for the "meat I eat is already dead" comment. Of course, supply and demand is the point. It is estimated that for each vegetarian 96 animals are not bred for the purpose of slaughter.

I don't think any minds will be changed by this thread.

[Misanthrope]

Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert.

As in?

[deLarge]

"not natural meat eaters" because yes, as omnivores we are opportunistic meat eaters. But unlike many other opportunistic meat eaters, we do it out of luxury
Without careful diet planning, a vegetarian diet can be dangerous or at least unwise, especially for pregnant women. Do you think primitive man understood what plants to eat to regain iron when red meat wasn't available?


AND we can feed 10 times the amount of people per acre than on a meat diet.
That, if true, would indeed be a valid point. That said, it's not a problem with meat or meat-eating in itself, but rather that we've become too dependent on it.


And as for "citation needed" I cited it above. Vegetarian humans live longer on average
Without seeing the research I can;t say for certain, but I think that other factors may be to blame. Most people on a voluntary vegetarian diet carefully pick what to eat and when, as opposed to the average person who eats fast food weekly. If all meat eaters were to carefully plan their diet and intake of each type of food, I'm sure the stats would be evened out.



, and it's not veggie propaganda regarding the cancer research.
I think you might be confused. Eating a lot of red meat HAS been linked t increased cancer risk, but healthier meat (as I mentioned, fish and poultry) is indeed good for you.

[chimx]

"Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert."

Animals have rights already, without ever having the ability to formulate or assert them, as do other human social groups, such as people with down syndrome. Clearly your reasoning if flawed.

If you believe in the social contract theory of Hobbes or Rousseau, we as a community of humans surrender certain rights to the state for our own well being and protection. I am not free to murder other people because murdering another human being leads to the possibility that another could murder me.

Why then do we have animal abuse laws? I am not free to beat my dog lest I risk fines or even incarceration. We afford animals the right to be free from abuse because we as a society feel it is essential for our communities well being and protection.

We as a community feel that sadism towards animals can directly lead towards violence against humans, or is in some way antithetical to our cultural morals. I agree with this sentiment and loathe sadism, be it directed towards humans or animals. What I find inconsistent is modern animal husbandry's treatment of animals. Why do we believe that sadism when directed towards a pet is criminal, but when it is done for the greater purpose of meat production, acceptable? It strikes me as being a moral contradiction that I have yet to hear a convincing explanation or justification for.

[Vanguard1917]

Anyway like I said, you can disagree with animal rights, that's fine, but to say the current state of food production is good, is just wrong.

'Good' is an absolute term. Factory farming might not be 'good' in every sense, but it's better than what existed before it. It has allowed us to massively increase food output, which has made meat less costly and has thus made it possible for millions of working class people who want to add more meat to their diets to do so. That's progress.

Of course we should, just like with anything else, always strive to improve factory farming -- make it cleaner, more efficient, of a higher quality, etc. But that's not what the middle class anti-mass production snobs want. The real reason they hate mass production is because it allows more people to enjoy the goods which previously only they themselves could afford to enjoy. One of those is meat.

Btw, excellent posts, deLarge.

[chimx]

The real reason they hate mass production is because it allows more people to enjoy the goods which previously only they themselves could afford to enjoy.

lol. yeah. Middle class Americans sit at home every Friday night and dwell on how much they hate it that their working class neighbors the Johnsons are able to eat hamburger helper.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not sure if they do, but the stereotype of the Western working class as fat and addicted to fast food is quite prevalent.

[TC]

"Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert."

So...how about babies, developmentally disabled, senile, foreigners who don't speak your language(s), deaf-blind people, critical legal studies followers of Duncan Kennedy...

None of those can formulate rights...

The reality is that any entitlements we recognize among others are just those we rather arbitrarily extend to them as a political decision given our preferences; there is no consistent, coherent logic behind these preferences.

[RedCommieBear]

But unlike many other opportunistic meat eaters, we do it out of luxury, AND we can feed 10 times the amount of people per acre than on a meat diet.

With this statistic, I'm just curious if your taking in mind that fact that a lot of pasture land is land that you can't really farm very well (hilly areas erode quickly and are in general just a pain in the ass).

And even if the above statistic is true, isn't it un-necessary to eliminate meat from our diets, because we can feed everybody on our omnivorous diet. People aren't starving because of self-ish meat eaters, they are because the capitalism.


So...how about babies, developmentally disabled, senile, foreigners who don't speak your language(s), deaf-blind people, critical legal studies followers of Duncan Kennedy...

None of those can formulate rights...

But humans as a whole have, I think that's the point trying to be made.

[Hit The North]

But humans as a whole have, I think that's the point trying to be made.

No, the point is that 'rights' are always conferred. They don't exist as an inherent quality of being this (a person) or that (a non-person). What we therefore choose to confer rights upon, or to argue as deserving rights, whether an animal or plant or building or whatever - is a cultural and/or political decision, as TC points out.


Originally posted by TC
The reality is that any entitlements we recognize among others are just those we rather arbitrarily extend to them as a political decision given our preferences; there is no consistent, coherent logic behind these preferences.

But I think you're wrong here. Because rights can only be conferred by social agents, the sentiment to confer rights must be mobilised through various claims which, whilst historically and culturally relative, provide coherent and logical motivation - even if it's the self-serving rationale of an elite conferring certain rights to their subalterns in the hope of off-setting rebellion.

[RedCommieBear]

No, the point is that 'rights' are always conferred. They don't exist as an inherent quality of being this (a person) or that (a non-person). What we therefore choose to confer rights upon, or to argue as deserving rights, whether an animal or plant or building or whatever - is a cultural and/or political decision.

I don't see where we disagree exactly. Rights aren't inherent or from divine providence. The rights humans have are the ones we made up (with good reason) and asserted.

[Hit The North]

Maybe we don't. I was just objecting to the inference I took from your statement that because only humans can conceptualise and grant rights, that only humans can be 'given' rights.

[NecroCommie]

I do not think that killing is ever either wrong or right. Killing always happens within a context and has a goal and a method. I find it wrong to torture animals despite the context, and killing animals can be justified if it is done quickly and within the natural food chain (no killing for sport as FreeFocus ponted out).

If meat is eaten to enhance some vague sence of manhood (as sometimes within the western world) that meat is not eaten out of necessity and is not justified. If a certain kind of meat is hunted and eaten because it is seen as "glamorous" it is not out of necessity and must be condemned. The meat industry holds a huge portion of one or the other of the aforementioned two, and I see meat industry as excessive killing. In addition, some meat industries can be considered torture because of the environment in which the animals live. I have personal experience of depressed cows and more so of depressed pets. Both very sad cases and not acceptable.

As for the "rights" people like to think of: Rights are man made things. They are not "real", and therefore more or less matters of oppinion. My oppinion is this, and if I can get the majority to agree with me then that is a democratic desicion and must be obeyed.

[Luís Henrique]

What does all this have to do with the working class? Or is it an insinuation that our class is cattle, and should be treated accordingly?

Luís Henrique

[NecroCommie]

What does all this have to do with the working class? Or is it an insinuation that our class is cattle, and should be treated accordingly?

Luís Henrique
It is a critical mistake to make working class a value in itself. Working class should be valued because it contains the vast majority of humanity (-->democracy), and because working class is the primary contributor to world history and human civilization.

This question lies in the philosophical field of ethics which is theoretically indifferent to phenomenae of society.

[Luís Henrique]

It is a critical mistake to make working class a value in itself. Working class should be valued because it contains the vast majority of humanity (-->democracy), and because working class is the primary contributor to world history and human civilization.

I value the working class, first of all, because it is the class to which I belong. Second, because it is the class that has the potential to change society and put an end to capitalism.

Animals are not my class, nor do they have the potential to change society.


This question lies in the philosophical field of ethics which is theoretically indifferent to phenomenae of society.Yes, exactly. That's the point: it has nothing to do with the working class, with revolution, with politics, with the Left, with communism, etc.

Luís Henrique

[Pogue]

I agree. Animal liberation is a seperate issue from revolutionary politics. I don't think that devalues it, though.

[Luís Henrique]

I agree. Animal liberation is a seperate issue from revolutionary politics. I don't think that devalues it, though.

There are many things that are separate from revolutionary politics, and some can even be discussed in a revolutionary message board. They should be kept on the apolitical foruns, though.

What is irritating about "animal liberation" is, above all, the mimetisation of leftist language (animal liberation, animal rights, speciesism - an ill thought parody of racism - etc). The language and scope of these questions are those of the old fashioned "humane societies", not this awful pastiche of anti-racist or national liberation organisation and speech.

Luís Henrique

[Pol Pot]

HITLER didnt want to eat mean cuz he loved the cute animals more than he loved cute Jews. I am opposed to vegetarianism because od that. If you aint gonna eat that cute lil cow than why should you eat that cute little carrot!!!

WTF?!? EQUALITY FOR ALL OR EQALITY FOR NUN


vegeatbles rights group anyone?

[pastradamus]

Yet we have to sanitize/cook our meat, we have an expanded angle jaw like herbivorous animals, our stomach acidity is that of herbivorous animals, our facial muscles are that of herbivorous animals, we live longer without meat by 6-10 years, animal proteins have been connected to cancer in humans unlike other meat eating animals, our complex colon is that of an herbivore, our style of canines have been seen in other herbivorous animals for use as defense and tools, but are much too small for a meat eating animal, our mouth opening compared to head size is that of an herbivorous animal, the amount of times we have to chew food is that of an herbivorous animal, our nails are flattened a historic sign of herbivorous animals, our incisors are not seen in any omnivore or carnivore but common in herbivores, our saliva has carbohydrate digesting enzymes seen only in herbivores, we cannot detoxify vitamin A like all meat eating animals can, but herbivores can't, our major jaw muscles are consecutive with vegetarian animals, and we failed as hunters before the neolithic revolution.

I would hardly say that we are naturally meat eaters, seeing as it is a luxury as appose to necessity, and, as you can see from above, we are not like meat eating animals at all. ;)

In my opinion, I don't want to feel pain. Another animal that can feel pain similarly to me does not want to feel pain. I do not have to cause that animal pain, thus I will not cause it pain. :thumbup1:

Oh christ, Theres always one! But In HUGE respect of what you've said I was just making reference to the canine teeth. Though a very scientific and well presented opinion! But on that issue.....its called evolution and it takes thousands of years. Its simular to the milk argument!

But I'll deal with this when im sober. I shall return!

[NecroCommie]

I value the working class, first of all, because it is the class to which I belong. Second, because it is the class that has the potential to change society and put an end to capitalism.
Fine reason too


Animals are not my class, nor do they have the potential to change society.
Chance to change society comes from humans themselves and is not a quality in itself. Small infants have no more impact on society than animals in a social vacuum, yet because we humans choose to tend to them (and good that we do) they impact the society around them.

Similarly while animals with their own actions have little impact on society, we can choose, and have already chosen to take them as part of our culture. The very fact that we have meat industry makes animals important to the working class too, and thus we have a moral responsibility towards them.


Yes, exactly. That's the point: it has nothing to do with the working class, with revolution, with politics, with the Left, with communism, etc.
Thats right. Cows dont produce art and they dont write political articles. So no, they cant start a revolution as we do. However anyone who simply acknowledges the existence of human morality will understand that this question is valid indeed. I would have to disagree with you that the working class does not have morality.

[Steve_j]

That, if true, would indeed be a valid point. That said, it's not a problem with meat or meat-eating in itself, but rather that we've become too dependent on it.

We have not become too dependent on meat eating, infact quite the opposite. We are no longer dependent on eating meat, we simply do it out of convinence and habit. Not enough to legitimise the practice in my book.


'Good' is an absolute term. Factory farming might not be 'good' in every sense, but it's better than what existed before it. It has allowed us to massively increase food output, which has made meat less costly and has thus made it possible for millions of working class people who want to add more meat to their diets to do so. That's progress.

I disagree in the sense that advances in logistics and agriculture have resulted in the massive increase in food output and availability, factory farming has benifited in this respect because of the huge amounts of grain we are now able to aquire, much of that grain is then used in factory farming which is actually very inefficent and counter productive. You feed livestock many times over the amount of calories that you get out after their slaughter and consumption. Infact in most western nations the meat industry is proped up by the government.


Of course we should, just like with anything else, always strive to improve factory farming -- make it cleaner, more efficient, of a higher quality, etc.

But by laws of physics factory farming can never be efficent. So whats the point of continuing it let alone improving it?


With this statistic, I'm just curious if your taking in mind that fact that a lot of pasture land is land that you can't really farm very well (hilly areas erode quickly and are in general just a pain in the ass).

They erode even quicker with cattle. Look at one of the major causes of the deforestisation of the amozon. Forests are cleared, cows put in to graze, their hoofs break up the soil leading to the washing away of top soil making it imposible to graze after a time, so the repeat the cycle leaving a wake of once flourishing now barren land.

Atleast with responisble agriculture the topsoil would be held in place by the root systems of the produces being cultivated making it sustainable.


And even if the above statistic is true, isn't it un-necessary to eliminate meat from our diets, because we can feed everybody on our omnivorous diet. People aren't starving because of self-ish meat eaters, they are because the capitalism.

Good point! But ignoring the ethical question for now, what about the extensive enviromental issues associated with it, and further more at this rate we probably will get to a point when food scarcity is due to avalibilty so why not start encouraging the practice now.


What does all this have to do with the working class?

Very little, but of a post revoultionary society, one would hope that we are striving to always bring into question our practices and ethics. Just because we are not there yet does not mean issues like vegitarianism, efficent and sustainable farming practices and the environment are not relevant now as these will ultimately benifit man kind.

As for the original question of the moral justification for eating meat.

For some people due to lack of resources eating meat is still required for their health and survival. In that respect i could see a legitmate moral argument for them. How ever im sure this does not apply for most people (or anyone on this board).

[Vanguard1917]

Thats right. Cows dont produce art and they dont write political articles. So no, they cant start a revolution as we do. However anyone who simply acknowledges the existence of human morality will understand that this question is valid indeed. I would have to disagree with you that the working class does not have morality.

And our morality needs to be a human-centred one. For humanity to progress and improve the conditions of its existence, it has had to subjugate nature -- including cows -- in accordance with its own interests.

To quote the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, whether something is justified or not depends on whether it 'leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.' (Their Morals and Ours (http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm))

That's the only 'morality' that i recognise as legitimate, because it puts humanity and human progress at its centre.

[Vanguard1917]

I disagree in the sense that advances in logistics and agriculture have resulted in the massive increase in food output and availability, factory farming has benifited in this respect because of the huge amounts of grain we are now able to aquire, much of that grain is then used in factory farming which is actually very inefficent and counter productive. You feed livestock many times over the amount of calories that you get out after their slaughter and consumption.


Factory farming converts products which are either not suitable or not desirable for human consumption, into food that is. Perhaps it's not the case for you, but the majority of the world's human population does not want to live solely on grain and cow feed. People want meat in their diets.



But by laws of physics factory farming can never be efficent.


What does that mean? Factory farming is very efficient compared to all other forms of meat farming which preceded it. The point for us is to take this progress even further.



We have not become too dependent on meat eating, infact quite the opposite. We are no longer dependent on eating meat, we simply do it out of convinence and habit. Not enough to legitimise the practice in my book.



That's right -- your book. For most others -- i.e. billions of people -- meat consumption is desired and needed. The point of socialism is to find ways of better meeting the needs and desires of people, not to dictate to them your personal dietary practices.

[Steve_j]

And our morality needs to be a human-centred one. For humanity to progress and improve the conditions of its existence, it has had to subjugate nature -- including cows -- in accordance with its own interests.

But eating meat does not improve the conditions of your existance, for some it might which makes your argument valid for them, but for us who have an alternative your argument is invalid, especially if we factor in the detriment of the meat industry is having on our existance.

[Vanguard1917]

But eating meat does not improve the conditions of your existance

Yes, it does. Ask the millions of people living in poverty in the developing world whether being able to eat more meat would not make their lives better. Ask your grandparent's generation whether they enjoyed only being able to feed their families meat once or twice a month, if that.


especially if we factor in the detriment of the meat industry is having on our existance.

Mass meat production is not having a detrimental impact, but is, on the contrary, allowing millions of working class people to be able to add more meat to their diets. If we got rid of mass meat production tomorrow, meat would once again become a luxury item which only the world's rich could afford to consume on a regular basis.

[Steve_j]

Factory farming converts products which are either not suitable or not desirable for human consumption, into food that is.

Yes but much of that grain is grown specifically for the livestock. And in most cases an alternative that is desirable for human consumption can be grown in its place. This is particularly relevant to factory farming. In the US Cattle are predominantly fed huge amounts of soya.


Perhaps it's not the case for you, but the majority of the world's human population does not want to live solely on grain and cow feed. People want meat in their diets.

Im well aware of that. The majority want, they no not need. An alternative can easily be made avalible.


What does that mean? Factory farming is very efficient compared to all other forms of meat farming which preceded it. The point for us is to take this progress even further.

Yes but compared to agriculture it isnt. That was my point. Most forms of livestock farming are simply a waste of resources.




That's right -- your book. For most others -- i.e. billions of people -- meat consumption is desired and needed. The point of socialism is to find ways of better meeting the needs and desires of people, not to dictate to them your personal dietary practices.

For a huge amount yes it is needed. And yes the point of socialism is about finding better ways of meeting those needs. That better and more efficent way is by providing a more productive use of resources, ie a vegan/vegitarian diet.


Yes, it does. Ask the millions of people living in poverty in the developing world whether being able to eat more meat would not make their lives better.

I agree, did you read my posts properly. What im saying is replaceing the meat industry with a more efficent alternative. What have you got against that?


Ask your grandparent's generation (assuming they lived in the West) whether they enjoyed only being able to feed their families meat once or twice a month, if that.

And they did not have a viable alternative. We do now and we should be promoting it.


Mass meat production is not having a detrimental impact

I dont know where to start with that. Directly how about obesity, heart disease and cancer, swine flu, bird flu ect

Indirectly how about green house gases, the destruction of potential agricultural land, polluted waterways ect.

[Luís Henrique]

Chance to change society comes from humans themselves and is not a quality in itself. Small infants have no more impact on society than animals in a social vacuum, yet because we humans choose to tend to them (and good that we do) they impact the society around them.

The possibility of changing society is the most important quality from a Marxist point of view.

Children normally grow up to become adults, so whatever their impact (or lack thereof) on society as little children, we can expect them to be full participants in human society as they mature. Animals do not become human with time.


Similarly while animals with their own actions have little impact on society, we can choose, and have already chosen to take them as part of our culture. The very fact that we have meat industry makes animals important to the working class too, and thus we have a moral responsibility towards them.

We have also an auto industry, but I would deny that we have moral responsibilities towards cars. We have moral responsibilities towards other humans, and that responsibility includes some ecological duties; but animals are not moral beings any more than they are political beings.


Thats right. Cows dont produce art and they dont write political articles. So no, they cant start a revolution as we do. However anyone who simply acknowledges the existence of human morality will understand that this question is valid indeed.

I would deny this. Human morality is human morality; beyond simple manifestations of nasty psychological tendencies (such as torturing animals for pleasure), animals are not included here.

On the contrary, I would say that trying to include animals in morality (not to talk about politics - and politics, not morality, is what is implied in terms such as "rights" or "liberation") is in itself extremely immoral - a slap on the face of opressed men and women.


I would have to disagree with you that the working class does not have morality.

Did I say that? Where?

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Yes but much of that grain is grown specifically for the livestock. And in most cases an alternative that is desirable for human consumption can be grown in its place.

Yes, which is meat -- it is desired by the overwhelming majority of the world's human population. Yet you feel that you have the right to tell them that they should not desire it, simply because you don't.



Most forms of livestock farming are simply a waste of resources.


How can it 'simply' be a 'waste' when it meets human desires and needs?



That better and more efficent way is by providing a more productive use of resources, ie a vegan/vegitarian diet.



So you want to force people to become vegans and vegetarians by shutting down the meat industry?

That's not socialism, it's minority dictatorship.


I agree, did you read my posts properly. What im saying is replaceing the meat industry with a more efficent alternative. What have you got against that?

And i said that people do not simply want to eat grains and veg -- they also want to consume meat.


And they did not have a viable alternative. We do now and we should be promoting it.


They did not have vegetables and bread a hundred years ago? I think you'll find that they did and that such products dominated, due to poverty, and to a far greater extent than today, people's everyday diets. But people still broke their backs so that they could provide themselves and their families with more meat.


I dont know where to start with that. Directly how about obesity, heart disease and cancer, swine flu, bird flu ect

Indirectly how about green house gases, the destruction of potential agricultural land, polluted waterways ect.

If there are drawbacks to something, the point is to work towards making improvements. Factory farming does need to be made to be cleaner and more efficient, so that the whole of humanity -- the overwhelming majority of which wants to be able to eat meat -- can reap its benefits, while at the same time being able to limit as much as possible its side-effects.

All major human innovations throughout history have had their problems. But humans progressed by finding ways of solving them, not by abandoning innovation and returning to old, backward ways of living.

[Steve_j]

Yes, which is meat -- it is desired by the overwhelming majority of the world's human population. Yet you feel that you have the right to tell them that they should not desire it, simply because you don't.

So you want to force people to become vegans and vegetarians by shutting down the meat industry?

That's not socialism, it's minority dictatorship.

Straw man arguments. Try harder next time.



They did not have vegetables and bread a hundred years ago? I think you'll find that they did and that such products dominated, due to poverty and to a far greater extent than today,Most did not have access to the diverist of products that we now have to enable us year round to live a healthy meat free lifestyle.


If there are drawbacks to something, the point is to work towards making improvements. That only applies when there isnt a better alternative.

There are drawbacks to capitalism, should we work towards making improvements or should we adopt a better alternative?

I have givien you numerous reasons as to why we have a better alternative and why we should promote it but you are just behaving in a reactionary way and conjuring up straw man arguments.


All major human innovations throughout history have had their problems. But humans progressed by finding ways of solving them, not by abandoning innovation and returning to old, backward ways of living.When did i promote an old backwards way of living?

[Vanguard1917]

Straw man arguments. Try harder next time.

What's strawman about it? Do you not want to abolish mass meat production and thus effectively ban meat consumption, enforcing your own values on to the overwhelming majority of the world's population which outright rejects them?

[Steve_j]

Do you not want to abolish mass meat production and thus effectively ban meat consumptionNo i simply am promoting a better alternative, i never said to abolish or ban anything. I certainly hope that society will reject this practice because of the various reasons i listed.


What's strawman about it?......

Yet you feel that you have the right to tell them that they should not desire it, simply because you don't.No, i have argued that there is a better alternative, i gave various reasons as to what and why, not because i simply dont desire to eat meat.


So you want to force people to become vegans and vegetarians by shutting down the meat industry?

That's not socialism, it's minority dictatorship. Again no, i did not say i want to force anything onto anyone, you misinterpret/misrepresent my position in order to attack it as opposed to refuting what i have said. Then summarise by claiming my views are dictatorial.

If you look at all my arguments there are none (i think) in there about my ethical views i have tried to keep that out for various reasons.

The one post i did put an ethical view regading the slaughter of animals was in my first post which was as the op asked, an ethical justification for eating meat.


For some people due to lack of resources eating meat is still required for their health and survival. In that respect i could see a legitmate moral argument for them

[Vanguard1917]

No i simply am promoting a better alternative, i never said to abolish or ban anything. I certainly hope that society will reject this practice because of the various reasons i listed.


OK, i'll have to take your word for it. I am, however, wary, since i am more than aware that the anti-meat brigade do in general call for authoritarian measures to enforce their policies, such as calling upon the state to shut down factory farming.

[NecroCommie]

And our morality needs to be a human-centred one. For humanity to progress and improve the conditions of its existence, it has had to subjugate nature -- including cows -- in accordance with its own interests.

To quote the Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, whether something is justified or not depends on whether it 'leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.' (Their Morals and Ours (http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1938/morals/morals.htm))

That's the only 'morality' that i recognise as legitimate, because it puts humanity and human progress at its centre.
Ah, but do you not notice that in doing so you place value on humans, that would not exist without you doing so. I just happen to place that similar value on all feeling things. After all, what is the use of subjucating matter if it is done for its own sake? The hoarding and manipulating of matter is done spesifically to ease our own existence. We have the power, and I claim even the responsibility to extent that power unto all thinking creatures.

[Steve_j]

If it were a case like in the uk where they banned bloodsports then yes i would welcome it. But first we need to change public opinion in order to get the majority support. And i think exposing the practices of factory farming and promoting a better alternative is the place to start, direct action also has its time and place.

If you think that i am authoritarian for that, then so be it.

[Axle]

If animal cruelty laws are enacted and enforced, then you've given animals 'rights'. How else would you describe such an action?

Wrong. I was never talking about laws. I meant it as a general point of decency.

[Stand Your Ground]

I support animal rights but I have no problem with eating meat. I just disagree with the slaughtering methods they use. I absolutely hate people that abuse animals for no reason, or for their fur which is fucking stupid.

See if you can watch these videos.
http://www.webtvhub.com/disturbing-cruel-animal-abuse-video-helpless-cats-used-as-shark-bait/
http://www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp

[Luís Henrique]

If animal cruelty laws are enacted and enforced, then you've given animals 'rights'. How else would you describe such an action?

And if there are laws forbidding setting the woods afire, we have given the woods rights?

Nope. Those are rights that correspond to "diffuse interests"; rights of the human collectivity. The reason there are animal cruelty laws is not that animals have rights, but that humans have a right not to see, hear, or otherwise take notice of animals being abused. Which is evidenced in any legal case of the kind: it will be The County of Somecity against John Doe, or The Humane Society against John Doe; but never Rex against John Doe.

Luís Henrique

[Lynx]

Wrong. I was never talking about laws. I meant it as a general point of decency.
Imploring humans towards decency is generally ineffective.

And if there are laws forbidding setting the woods afire, we have given the woods rights?
We have given them a special status.

Nope. Those are rights that correspond to "diffuse interests"; rights of the human collectivity. The reason there are animal cruelty laws is not that animals have rights, but that humans have a right not to see, hear, or otherwise take notice of animals being abused. Which is evidenced in any legal case of the kind: it will be The County of Somecity against John Doe, or The Humane Society against John Doe; but never Rex against John Doe.
The state acts on behalf of the victim in criminal matters. It wouldn't matter if Rex were human - he cannot act as prosecutor.

Following your logic, "the German Aryan People have a right not to see, hear or otherwise take notice of vermin (Jews) being abused."

[SubcomandanteJames]

I support animal rights but I have no problem with eating meat. I just disagree with the slaughtering methods they use. I absolutely hate people that abuse animals for no reason, or for their fur which is fucking stupid.

First, let me say this is not an attack on you, and I appreciate your view, a progressive welfarist one :thumbup1:, as appose to my liberation view.

However, what I bolded is personally the same reason why I don't consume meat. Just as most humans can survive healthfully without meat, even better without it, to me, meat is to food, as fur is to clothes. An unecessarily luxurious version that harms living beings of something that we inherently need.

Again, I follow the Singer philosophy. I will never regard an animal as a human, however, I will refuse to judge an entire species by its differences while disregarding similarities. I will never regard an animal as a human, but the things that it feels in a humanistic way I will regard in a humanistic way. I will never want to give an animal a right to vote, because that holds no purpose for that animal. But if an animal feels pain or a humanistic set of emotions that I can relate to, just as I would avoid feeling those emotions, I will never intentionally and unecessarily impose them upon another animal, nor will I hold them to the same moral code as mine. And if an animal ever attacks me, I will return to the mode of survivalism, and defend myself.

[pastradamus]

Yet we have to sanitize/cook our meat,

We dont. Many kinds of meat can be eaten raw. The idea behind cooking something is A ) to improve taste and B) to kill harmfull bacteria. The same goes for cooked vegetables. You can get botulism off both Meat and Vegetables.


we have an expanded angle jaw like herbivorous animals,our stomach acidity is that of herbivorous animals,

Our Stomach activity is suited to both meat and Vegetables. If it was not then our body would reject meat - it dosent.


we live longer without meat by 6-10 years, animal proteins have been connected to cancer in humans unlike other meat eating animals, our complex colon is that of an herbivore, our style of canines have been seen in other herbivorous animals for use as defense and tools, but are much too small for a meat eating animal,

No we dont. There is absolutely no genuine scientific proof of this ludicrous PETA claim. Cancer is connected to a whole host of different things from something as simple as Salt to Nuclear waste, radon gas, Sugar and a whole host of others. The only thing people can say on the cancer/meat issue is that an over excessive amount of red meat can help cancer spead - thats why a balenced diet is nessecary.


our mouth opening compared to head size is that of an herbivorous animal, the amount of times we have to chew food is that of an herbivorous animal, our nails are flattened a historic sign of herbivorous animals, our incisors are not seen in any omnivore or carnivore but common in herbivores, our saliva has carbohydrate digesting enzymes seen only in herbivores,

Panda's have a set of teeth suited to the consumption of meat. They eat bamboos and plant matter almost excluisively. Chimpanzees are omnivores with a set of teeth simular to ours and have flat nails. Turtles usually dont have sharp teeth but are omnivorous and also pigs. All of which have to chew food multiple times in order to aid enzymotic digestion.


we cannot detoxify vitamin A like all meat eating animals can, but herbivores can't, our major jaw muscles are consecutive with vegetarian animals, and we failed as hunters before the neolithic revolution.


Pea's, Sweet Potato, Pumpkins, Papaya, Collards, Carrots and Spinach all contain Vitimin A. A lack of Vitimin A and you go blind, Simple as that.


I would hardly say that we are naturally meat eaters, seeing as it is a luxury as appose to necessity, and, as you can see from above, we are not like meat eating animals at all. ;)

We are Omnivores. We are not Tigers or Lions, We are not Cows or Horses. We are part of a different groups of animals which eats both Meat and Plant matter. We have evolved differently to suit our diet. We have had thousands of years to change into what we became and what we are today. We dont need sharp claws because we have also evolved to use tools with the aid of our digits and opposable thumbs. We did not need to grow razor sharp fangs or grow sharp claws because it wasnt nessecary to do so as our bodies adapted in every which way possible.


In my opinion, I don't want to feel pain. Another animal that can feel pain similarly to me does not want to feel pain. I do not have to cause that animal pain, thus I will not cause it pain. :thumbup1:

Then go veggie! Theres nothing wrong with it. Its a personal choice as I say, albeit a personal choice Im not willing to take.

[Module]

However, what I bolded is personally the same reason why I don't consume meat. Just as most humans can survive healthfully without meat, even better without it, to me, meat is to food, as fur is to clothes. An unecessarily luxurious version that harms living beings of something that we inherently need.With all due respect, that's simply not true. We don't need fur coats because there are better fabrics out there which do the job just as well or better. There are even, if you want it, fake fur coats.
Fake meat simply has not reached that level where it is as convincing or as nutritious. Animal products are the best source of protein, iron and calcium, and living on a diet of beans and green leafy vegetables just doesn't give you the same level.
As somebody who, somewhat embarrassingly now, opted out of animal products for something like 2+ years until I rationalised myself back into the meat world, there is simply no contest. I tried seriously hard to make sure my diet was healthy and nutritious (and as somebody who has known quite a few other non-animal-products folk, most people don't and consequently have genuinely shit diets, as without genuine effort one doesn't tend to eat well on such a diet) and I still had to take iron tablets because of my lack of red meat. Vege-food-tech needs to advance a shit load further before the argument that non-meat alternatives are 'just as good' actually becomes true.
Of course I am absolutely sure that Westerners eat too much meat. Besides the 'cruel' industry it is true that having meat as the center of every meal is unhealthy. Perhaps human beings like meat so much because 'back in the day' :lol: we had to hunt, ourselves, and so we had to like meat to keep going to the effort of hunting it - less we became anaemic and died! Just a theory.
Regardless of the fact that we may eat too much meat, that does not mean that eating meat is not healthy - any vegetarian or vegan seriously looking at the nutritional impacts of their diet knows that to achieve a healthy alternative they have to plan it well. They can't just launch into the peas every night.
For vegetarians (not vegans) who do plan their diets well, however, I have read that it is healthier, and so I respect them for that - I have been tempted myself simply for that reason. Bacon, however, usually wins the mental battle.

[yuon]

(Is there anyway of taking back a mistaken "positive reputation", such as with a "thanks"? I meant to give Vanguard1917 a negative rep point for a post, and instead gave a positive one. Whoops. :))


And our morality needs to be a human-centred one. For humanity to progress and improve the conditions of its existence, it has had to subjugate nature -- including cows -- in accordance with its own interests.
I meant to leave this quote "Well done on failing to give non-human animals any consideration. Would you also say that intelligent aliens could take the same attitude to humans?" to one of Vanguard1917's earlier posts, but it applies equally to this one.

The point being, is it OK for aliens to treat humans as cattle, the same way that humans treat cattle as cattle? If humans are unable to articulate in the alien language their objections to the treatment dished out to them, is that treatment justified?

Yes, humans are probably the most intelligent species on Earth (except, perhaps, the mice and the dolphins). Yet, it is well known that other apes are able to be taught sign language, and can understand over 400 words.

(Oh, and I agree with TC, I think her analysis is quite good.)

On the issue of animals rights, do animals have rights, should animals have rights, why do humans have rights? Because we are given them, by ourselves, in recognition of our sentience. Why can't we recognise that certain non-human animals are sentient to a greater extent than certain humans, and give them rights? Babies have rights, though not responsibilities, why can't great apes have rights on long the same line?

[SubcomandanteJames]

Pastradamus, this bulletin has been responded to multiple times :lol:, and I have responded to its responses because of the consistent amount of misconceptions of what I am trying to communicate. But I will respond yet again, and then, afterwards, repost my other posts that seem to have just skipped over:



We dont. Many kinds of meat can be eaten raw. The idea behind cooking something is A ) to improve taste and B) to kill harmfull bacteria. The same goes for cooked vegetables. You can get botulism off both Meat and Vegetables.

Yes, its the bacteria of which I speak that shows a stronger insensitivity to meat than many other meat eating animals. It's not a "we can't eat meat" theory. I never say we are not omnivores, I just say as OPPORTUNISTIC food eaters, meat is not a default or necessity for humans. (more detail below)






Our Stomach activity is suited to both meat and Vegetables. If it was not then our body would reject meat - it dosent.
No, but for some reasons in humans meat has been connected to diseases such a cancer, heart disease, and generally shortens a persons life... see next response.
[/quote]





No we dont. There is absolutely no genuine scientific proof of this ludicrous PETA claim. Cancer is connected to a whole host of different things from something as simple as Salt to Nuclear waste, radon gas, Sugar and a whole host of others. The only thing people can say on the cancer/meat issue is that an over excessive amount of red meat can help cancer spead - thats why a balenced diet is nessecary.
From http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php:

"When cancer researchers started to search for links between diet and cancer, one of the most noticeable findings was that people who avoided meat were much less likely to develop the disease. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters. (THEN SPEAKING ABOUT LITTLE vs. NO MEAT) ... about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes MODEST amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who AVOIDED meat."The site has dozens of citations on the page. It's not PETA propaganda. :glare:





Panda's have a set of teeth suited to the consumption of meat. They eat bamboos and plant matter almost excluisively. Chimpanzees are omnivores with a set of teeth simular to ours and have flat nails. Turtles usually dont have sharp teeth but are omnivorous and also pigs. All of which have to chew food multiple times in order to aid enzymotic digestion.
Again, if you had read my response you would have realized I wasn't saying herbivore vs. omnivore, but talking about OPPORTUNISTIC vegetarianism. :D




Pea's, Sweet Potato, Pumpkins, Papaya, Collards, Carrots and Spinach all contain Vitimin A. A lack of Vitimin A and you go blind, Simple as that. And...




We are Omnivores. Already agreed and noted several times before.


We are not Tigers or Lions, We are not Cows or Horses. We are part of a different groups of animals which eats both Meat and Plant matter. We have evolved differently to suit our diet. We have had thousands of years to change into what we became and what we are today. We dont need sharp claws because we have also evolved to use tools with the aid of our digits and opposable thumbs. Kind of how we've evolved to live longer without meat, and survive without farming mass amounts of animals?


We did not need to grow razor sharp fangs or grow sharp claws because it wasnt nessecary
... especially when its not necessary to have meat in our diet...


to do so as our bodies adapted in every which way possible.
So if our body lives longer without meat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_awsi_01.htm
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Vegetarians-live-longer-says-study
OH LOOK ANOTHER CANCER LINK:lol::
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html

Wouldn't that mean that "to do as our bodies adapted in every which way possible" points to a meat-free diet?



Then go veggie! Theres nothing wrong with it. Its a personal choice as I say, albeit a personal choice Im not willing to take.Now that we've handled that:

POSTED EARLIER:

BY ME: Since there seems to be a huge misconception of what I'm trying to say, let me point out some things. I never said, we aren't omnivores, my point was that we have alot of parts in our body that do better with processing vegetables rather than meat. My reason for saying "not natural meat eaters" because yes, as omnivores we are opportunistic meat eaters. But unlike many other opportunistic meat eaters, we do it out of luxury, AND we can feed 10 times the amount of people per acre than on a meat diet. And as for "citation needed" I cited it above. Vegetarian humans live longer on average, and it's not veggie propaganda regarding the cancer research. Again see above sources.

...for the good of the earth, my health, and other suffering beings, I don't eat meat.


As for the "meat I eat is already dead" comment. Of course, supply and demand is the point. It is estimated that for each vegetarian 96 animals are not bred for the purpose of slaughter. AND MOST RECENTLY:

Just as most humans can survive healthfully without meat, even better without it, to me, meat is to food, as fur is to clothes. An unecessarily luxurious version that harms living beings of something that we inherently need.

Again, I follow the Singer philosophy. I will never regard an animal as a human, however, I will refuse to judge an entire species by its differences while disregarding similarities. I will never regard an animal as a human, but the things that it feels in a humanistic way I will regard in a humanistic way. I will never want to give an animal a right to vote, because that holds no purpose for that animal. But if an animal feels pain or a humanistic set of emotions that I can relate to, just as I would avoid feeling those emotions, I will never intentionally and unecessarily impose them upon another animal, nor will I hold them to the same moral code as mine. And if an animal ever attacks me, I will return to the mode of survivalism, and defend myself. :thumbup1:

[Luís Henrique]

The state acts on behalf of the victim in criminal matters. It wouldn't matter if Rex were human - he cannot act as prosecutor.

Yes, you are technically right here.


Following your logic, "the German Aryan People have a right not to see, hear or otherwise take notice of vermin (Jews) being abused."
That's a shame. You are doing exactly what I despise in the animal rights movement: equating human beings (in this case, Jews) to irrational animals.

But what else can be expected from a movement that deliberately wants to blurr the differences between human and non-human?

Luís Henrique

[SubcomandanteJames]

That's a shame. You are doing exactly what I despise in the animal rights movement: equating human beings (in this case, Jews) to irrational animals.

But what else can be expected from a movement that deliberately wants to blurr the differences between human and non-human?

Luís Henrique

But wait a second-- of course their are definite differences, but the matter is they feel pain and suffering in a similar way to humans. So even if you don't regard the animal as human, as you shouldn't, you cannot disregard the humanistic way it feels pain, no matter what amount of "ignorance" or "irrationality" that it is coupled within the animal. What the animal is irrational of I will take no consideration of, what the animal does feel and understand, I will be considerate of. We follow similar thought processes in humans that are mentally diseased, and even children. But it's not out of the inherent fact that they are human, its a unique evaluation of each situation. Human preciousness is not a given, but what we assert as important factors in how we treat humans, if they are evident in animals, then we ignore them why? Just as you claim that the movement wants to blur the differences, too many times the counter movement enjoys ignoring the similarities altogether. :rolleyes:

[Module]

On the issue of animals rights, do animals have rights, should animals have rights, why do humans have rights? Because we are given them, by ourselves, in recognition of our sentience. Why can't we recognise that certain non-human animals are sentient to a greater extent than certain humans, and give them rights? Babies have rights, though not responsibilities, why can't great apes have rights on long the same line?Is has nothing to do with "sentience". If anything it would have something to do with "sapience", something due to which human beings can make moral judgements on behaviour such as the formation of social 'rights'. Human societies create social rights for the purpose of making social interaction 'easier', and are only relevant (or should be) to those who can meaningfully comprehend them and apply them to how they function as a member of society. In regards to TC's question of how rights relate to babies, senile people, mentally disabled people (foreigners who don't speak your language and deaf and blind people are different in that they can meaningfully interact with other people as part of a society, certainly on a level which babies, disabled people etc. simply cannot, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to conflate all these categories of people as one 'example' group), as terrible as it sounds I don't necessarily think that babies are always going to/should be entitled to the same rights as adult human beings, simply when and because they don't have a sense of social responsibility, it's not expected of them because they have little or no comprehension of it.
If a cat scratches your sofa you can't say it's vandalised it because it doesn't comprehend the fact that the sofa belongs to you or perhaps that scratching it is considered damaging.
So, there's equally no reason why you shouldn't saw off the top of their scratching post if you so felt like it - it's not going to consider that 'vandalism', either.
I'm aware how bizzare that scenario was but I couldn't think of a better one.
In regards to animal rights, if you don't think it's suitable for a cat to be sent to prison if it got into a fight with another cat and killed it, then for what reason would you consider that cat to have a right to life? It has no idea what it means. Like I said, human societies create social rights because they're meaningful and relevant to social interaction. If it's not recognised by both sides of an interaction then how can you possibly apply them meaningfully? Where it's not relevant it's just superfluous human guilt and nothing more.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Is has nothing to do with "sentience". If anything it would have something to do with "sapience", something due to which human beings can make moral judgements on behaviour such as the formation of social 'rights'.

Human beings can make moral judgments. Animals can't. That doesn't stop human beings from being able to make moral judgments though. What's the point of morality if it only encompasses those who can understand it? That delegitimizes morality itself, claiming it bears no truth but the truth that someone else gives it, and if you believe that, that's fine, but don't pretend to believe in morals then.



Human societies create social rights for the purpose of making social interaction 'easier', and are only relevant (or should be) to those who can meaningfully comprehend them and apply them to how they function as a member of society. In regards to TC's question of how rights relate to babies, senile people, mentally disabled people (foreigners who don't speak your language and deaf and blind people are different in that they can meaningfully interact with other people as part of a society, certainly on a level which babies, disabled people etc. simply cannot, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to conflate all these categories of people as one 'example' group), as terrible as it sounds I don't necessarily think that babies are always going to/should be entitled to the same rights as adult human beings, simply when and because they don't have a sense of social responsibility, it's not expected of them because they have little or no comprehension of it. They aren't entitled to the same rights as adult human beings. That would be stupidity at it's finest. And animal rights activists (or the sane, methodical ones) aren't seeking the same rights for animals as humans, only in regards to the parts of the animal which are humanistic in nature. Rights in regards to what they DO understand. They understand pain. We understand pain. Are we going to inflict something we understand as preferably avoidable when it is avoidable?



If a cat scratches your sofa you can't say it's vandalised it because it doesn't comprehend the fact that the sofa belongs to you or perhaps that scratching it is considered damaging.
So, there's equally no reason why you shouldn't saw off the top of their scratching post if you so felt like it - it's not going to consider that 'vandalism', either.
The cat's not wondering why you vandalized it's post, just wondering where they hell the top part of it's post went. We understand vandalism, they don't. We FEEL PAIN, and THEY DO TOO. If they attack us, go ahead use self defense. That's all in the name of survival or avoiding pain (funny how we keep coming back to that). But if no pain is being threatened upon you, then why inflict pain in another creature that feels it similarly to you? In it's most simple form its an odd case of how far are you willing to encompass living individual beings into your circle of liberty?


I'm aware how bizzare that scenario was but I couldn't think of a better one.
In regards to animal rights, if you don't think it's suitable for a cat to be sent to prison if it got into a fight with another cat and killed it, then for what reason would you consider that cat to have a right to life?

Again, I have a hard time understanding the duality of us holding ourselves to a moral code, then degrading ourselves to the (lack of) moral code of animals. If cat kills another cat, fine. Each cat didn't understand what was going on as "wrong" or "immoral", thus that relationship between the two beings wasn't "wrong" or "immoral". However, the relationship between human and cat is one of understanding, and lack of understand. And I'm not going to give up what I've come to believe in this world because another living being can't comprehend it.


It has no idea what it means. Like I said, human societies create social rights because they're meaningful and relevant to social interaction. If it's not recognised by both sides of an interaction then how can you possibly apply them meaningfully?
In any relationship with anybody you take into regard what they understand. Just because I understand that running into the middle of the road during heavy traffic, and my sadly dim friend doesn't, doesn't give me the right to lead my friend into the middle of that road, if the results are something like PAIN, which my friend does understand. And so do I.



Where it's not relevant it's just superfluous human guilt and nothing more.Why? Pain is an undesirable thing for animals. It's undesirable for us. If we don't have to inflict it, why inflict it? If they try to cause pain unto us, and we then cause pain unto them in defense, fine. Welcome to the jungle. If we realize that the actions of animals are lesser developed, yet in our relation to animals we allow ourselves to commit similar actions, then we have demoted ourselves in an unnecessary manner.

[Lynx]

That's a shame. You are doing exactly what I despise in the animal rights movement: equating human beings (in this case, Jews) to irrational animals.
The Nazis used this analogy in one of their propaganda films, to dehumanize the target group and rationalize their genocide.

But what else can be expected from a movement that deliberately wants to blurr the differences between human and non-human?
Blurring of differences can be a good thing. Blur the difference between race and you erode support for racism. Racists, sexists and elitists thrive on supposed differences. They are forever drawing lines between groups.

With regard to 'animals', most laws are about protecting non-humans from humans. Usually the issue is one of humane treatment, while at other times the issue may boil down to one of consent.

With regard to what is necessary, the status quo must always be challenged. The status quo (ie. factory farmers, capitalists, directors who award huge compensation packages, etc.) will almost always claim that what they are doing is necessary.

[Module]

The Nazis used this analogy in one of their propaganda films, to dehumanize the target group and rationalize their genocide.But they were wrong. Jews aren't irrational animals.
The fact that (non-human) animals aren't as intelligent as human beings isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, it's objective fact. Jews, non-whites, women etc. were 'dehumanised' on the basis of things that weren't true, e.g. they're not as smart, they're not as 'rational', they're inherently greedy/violent/dishonest/weak etc.
Animals are treated like animals because they are animals. The only people who are making shit up about them are the animal rights crowd.

[SubcomandanteJames]

The Nazis used this analogy in one of their propaganda films, to dehumanize the target group and rationalize their genocide.


Even more than a statement on how The Nazis viewed their targets, the fact that it was a successful tactic is a statement on how humans view other animals: That pain that is felt similarly to a human's pain (despite the inherent other differences) can be ignored to the point as to be used for genocidal-rationalization by neglecting the similarities (what an animal CAN'T understand, as appose to the elements that it CAN).


But they were wrong. Jews aren't irrational animals.
Jews aren't irrational animals, yet, strangely, they still suffer just like irrational animals do.



The fact that (non-human) animals aren't as intelligent as human beings isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, it's objective fact. And the fact that human children aren't as intelligent as human adults (typically) is also true, yet because the child feels pain, we still take that into account into how we treat them in regards to what they understand (pain), but we wouldn't give them the right to vote! We are treating them as an individual, by what they feel and understand.


Jews, non-whites, women etc. were 'dehumanised' on the basis of things that weren't true, e.g. they're not as smart, they're not as 'rational', they're inherently greedy/violent/dishonest/weak etc.Okay so the Nazis lied, what's new? Do you believe that someone being weak, greedy, dishonest is signs of being animalistic? And if it is directly harming us (as in, seperate instances of self-defence) and the Jews were truly like that, how would that justify genocide? It doesn't. So even dehumanization doesn't justify mass murder.



Animals are treated like animals because they are animals. That's pre-emptive logic, friend. Nazis are saying, "We aren't treating the Jews like animals, we are treating the Jews like Jews!". EVERYTHING IS TREATED LIKE WHAT IT IS, what we are DEBATING is the JUSTIFICATION for treatment.


The only people who are making shit up about animals are the animal rights crowd.

Like...? You should really use examples, because I'm the one posting links to research. :closedeyes:

And that really has no importance here. Generalizing the animal rights crowd does nothing for your argument.



Also: I responded more in depth in above posts, but somehow it's just been kind of looked over.

[Stand Your Ground]

First, let me say this is not an attack on you, and I appreciate your view, a progressive welfarist one :thumbup1:, as appose to my liberation view.

However, what I bolded is personally the same reason why I don't consume meat. Just as most humans can survive healthfully without meat, even better without it, to me, meat is to food, as fur is to clothes. An unecessarily luxurious version that harms living beings of something that we inherently need.

Again, I follow the Singer philosophy. I will never regard an animal as a human, however, I will refuse to judge an entire species by its differences while disregarding similarities. I will never regard an animal as a human, but the things that it feels in a humanistic way I will regard in a humanistic way. I will never want to give an animal a right to vote, because that holds no purpose for that animal. But if an animal feels pain or a humanistic set of emotions that I can relate to, just as I would avoid feeling those emotions, I will never intentionally and unecessarily impose them upon another animal, nor will I hold them to the same moral code as mine. And if an animal ever attacks me, I will return to the mode of survivalism, and defend myself.
I hate people that wear fur too cause this is how they get it:

http://www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp

I can't watch that video. :crying:

[Lynx]

But they were wrong. Jews aren't irrational animals.
The fact that (non-human) animals aren't as intelligent as human beings isn't a matter of opinion or perspective, it's objective fact. Jews, non-whites, women etc. were 'dehumanised' on the basis of things that weren't true, e.g. they're not as smart, they're not as 'rational', they're inherently greedy/violent/dishonest/weak etc.
Animals are treated like animals because they are animals. The only people who are making shit up about them are the animal rights crowd.
According to Nazi ideology Aryans were at the top of a hierarchy, followed by wolves, eagles, and pigs, with Jews and rats at the bottom. Predatory animals were viewed symbolically as 'leaders' or rulers and were thus held in high regard. Animals which lived at the margins, spreading disease and pestilence, were associated with their sub-human counterparts. (Whether this rationale was actually included in the Tierschutzgesetz I cannot say).

The Jews-as-vermin analogy was subjective. To persuade Germans that Jews were as destructive to society as say, a plague of rats, was a step towards accepting the need for radical solutions. To persuade them that Jews were 'no better' than vermin was to seal their fate in a harsh and cruel manner.

But this is as far as Nazi propaganda had to go. They did not have to persuade anyone that lower animals could be exterminated or killed inhumanely. This was accepted practice, as it was in many cultures. In areas where they wished to change the treatment of animals, laws such as the Reichstierschutzgesetz had to be introduced.

For the sake of argument, if it were an objective fact that Jews possessed the same attributes as vermin, would that have justified their murder?

Animals are treated like animals because they are animals.
Yes, although concern is directed towards what may or may not constitute mistreatment. Animals are routinely mistreated on the basis of criteria that would be arbitrary if they weren't self-serving:

We are human.
The attributes that make us human are the attributes that animals lack.
Because we have these attributes, and animals have none, we deserve all consideration while animals deserve none. *applause*
We are also white, male and fabulously wealthy.
Our wives are blonde and beautiful. Our children are our future.
From this day forward, you will service us.

Non-human or sub-human, the subjugation of one group for the benefit of another can mean different things. Extermination, stewardship, assimilation, and non-interference are choices.

[Luís Henrique]

Blurring of differences can be a good thing. Blur the difference between race and you erode support for racism.

There are no differences between the human "races".

There are differences between animal species.

The analogy is insulting, and, frankly, racist.

Luís Henrique

[Lynx]

There are no differences between the human "races".

There are differences between animal species.

The analogy is insulting, and, frankly, racist.

Luís Henrique
To be able to differentiate humans on the basis of physical appearance or other traits is not racist.

[SubcomandanteJames]

There are no differences between the human "races".

There are differences between animal species.

The analogy is insulting, and, frankly, racist.

Luís Henrique

There ARE differences between each and every individual living being in the world. However, we always analyze what we have in common as well differences to assess the the way we treat each other. However, the problem with racist ideology (in fact, most biased ideologies) is that we let differences which often are trivial to the manner in which we treat them allow for us to ignore the similarities.

The fact is the color of someone's skin should not affect the manner that I treat them. However, if they are mentally challenged then of course I am going to treat this individual differently. However, this mentally challenged person can still feel PAIN. So it will NOT affect whether or not I inflict pain upon this person, unless the condition of his mentality makes it necessary for defense. And with children, there are many ideas that they may not be able to grasp.

In fact, young children often act without understanding "the infliction of pain", though they understand feeling pain themselves. Yet, until they attack as, we never allow that fact to decide how we treat them. However, as for stuff they don't understand, such as voting, we don't allow them to vote, because it's not negatively harming them, they have no wish to vote. Strangely though, they still have the wish to not feel pain.

Just like animals. This means as a species we are giving inherent "sanctity" to the label "human", rather than truly assessing what an animal of another species CAN feel. Just as racists give inherent sanctity to the label of their race, rather than assessing the other individual human. :rolleyes:

My previous posts are still being ignored despite the fact that I broke down the opposing argument line by line in the hopes of in depth argument! :lol:

[Lynx]

Animals can feel pain and experience fear.
Similarities between humans and animals don't provide a rationale to treat either group differently, so we look elsewhere. Differences are 'everything' and similarities are downplayed.
When genetic analysis threatened the concept of race, racists began to use mDna to trace human migration patterns. Being able to show where your ancestors lived became supporting 'evidence'.

[pastradamus]

[QUOTE]Yes, its the bacteria of which I speak that shows a stronger insensitivity to meat than many other meat eating animals. It's not a "we can't eat meat" theory. I never say we are not omnivores, I just say as OPPORTUNISTIC food eaters, meat is not a default or necessity for humans. (more detail below)

So what if its not a nessecity? Who cares if its not a nessecity? Also eating meat is quite usefull as we get all the 9 essential amino acids we require from them, one cannot say the same for vegetables.



No, but for some reasons in humans meat has been connected to diseases such a cancer, heart disease, and generally shortens a persons life... see next response.


Thats got to do with the quality of the Meat and also a balenced diet. Its not like a person who eats meat eats it exclusively with a Balenced diet in mind. Too much of anything can kill you, like a guy who I read about who consumed 40 oranges a day and died of a heart attack due to obesity. Too much of anything can kill someone. Meat, under a balenced diet is good for you. If it wasn't doctors would be saying "stop eating meat" worldwide and enmasse.



From http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php:
The site has dozens of citations on the page. It's not PETA propaganda. :glare:


The link dosent work for me, but try this site:
http://www.caringmedical.com/media/article.asp?article_id=460

On that note, for dinner today I had Fish, Potato's (How irish of me) and pea's. Its a balenced diet and I've yet to meet a vegan who can tell me eating fish is bad for me.





Again, if you had read my response you would have realized I wasn't saying herbivore vs. omnivore, but talking about OPPORTUNISTIC vegetarianism. :D


And...


Already agreed and noted several times before.
Kind of how we've evolved to live longer without meat, and survive without farming mass amounts of animals?

... especially when its not necessary to have meat in our diet...
So if our body lives longer without meat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_awsi_01.htm
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Vegetarians-live-longer-says-study
OH LOOK ANOTHER CANCER LINK:lol::
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html

Wouldn't that mean that "to do as our bodies adapted in every which way possible" points to a meat-free diet?

Now that we've handled that:

POSTED EARLIER:
AND MOST RECENTLY:
:thumbup1:

Meat is good for us. For Every one of us human beings meat makes both a good meal and a nutritious meal. The problem with eating too much meat is that it is often processed, low quality meat, made in some horrid capitalist market place. Such as sliced corned beef which can contain Cow hoofs once processed. Once boned and rolled in a butcher shop it is of far higher quality. Workers these days consume an unproportionate amount of meat, which disobeys the laws of a balenced diet. But that is a result of the lack of choice for workers in capitalism , low quality meat is cheaper and is easier to prepare than high quality foods for wokers who have to work so often you'll notice how diet changes the lower the pay scale you go from quality meat to processed junk.

So end of the day, Meat is good in a balenced diet the same as everything else. Our bodies can handle meat, it gives us the amino acids we need as well as protein for growth and repair as well as vitimins.

[pastradamus]

Yes, But fur dosent save peoples lives in third world countries where Fishing does. Also what are the veggies take on Wool?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Animals are entitled to any and all rights they can formulate and assert.

I don't understand that statement. Using the same logic, I could argue that babies are not entitled to anything because they cannot formulate and assert their own rights. I believe in protecting those who don't have the means to assert themselves; just because something can't stand up for its rights, that doesn't mean it doesn't have any.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I'm IN BOLD below in the quote:






So what if its not a nessecity? Who cares if its not a nessecity? Also eating meat is quite usefull as we get all the 9 essential amino acids we require from them, one cannot say the same for vegetables.


JAMES: Who cares if it's not necessary? Tsk, tsk, this seems to be a case of neglecting posts again. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out in multiple posts, with many links, vegetarians live LONGER (BY YEARS) than meat eaters (in general). So these 9 essential amino acids you speak of are obviously acquired in enough amounts from vegetables to the point where it is not taking years away from our life, at all. The point of necessity, is that, as humans, we understand necessity, and pain, and often condemn the inflicting of the latter without the former in humans, and yet it is felt similarly by animals. It's not can they reason, but CAN THEY SUFFER? Same for children and the mentally diseased.



Thats got to do with the quality of the Meat and also a balenced diet. Its not like a person who eats meat eats it exclusively with a Balenced diet in mind. Too much of anything can kill you, like a guy who I read about who consumed 40 oranges a day and died of a heart attack due to obesity. Too much of anything can kill someone. Meat, under a balenced diet is good for you. If it wasn't doctors would be saying "stop eating meat" worldwide and enmasse.

It's better for you than eating nothing at all, but as I pointed out with multiple links of research we live longer without it. Even in "responsible, modest" amounts as consume by the Adventists, there will still seen the ADVANTAGE of the complete abstinence from meat.



The link dosent work for me, but try this site:
http://www.caringmedical.com/media/article.asp?article_id=460

JAMES :The conclusion of the one study you provided (I provided several) was "It's not all about the meat!" Of course not. There are many other things that can attribute to cancer, but that does not change the statistic that was found in several of the other studies I provided: That meat raises the risk of cancer approximately 40%.

On that note, for dinner today I had Fish, Potato's (How irish of me) and pea's. Its a balenced diet and I've yet to meet a vegan who can tell me eating fish is bad for me.

Really? Must not have talked to many vegans then, because even though fish can be good for you it also comes with a risk of bad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080700956.html)(<--link, other links are underlined as well).
And of course, the modern fishing industry overfishes enormously, and fish-farms have been linked to PCB's, the same substance in Lake Michigan that was connected to my own grandmother death at the age of 54. The fact remains, the dangers present in consuming fish are unprecedented in those who have abstained from meat. As the article pointed out, great benefits, often times at a great risk.





Meat is good for us. For Every one of us human beings meat makes both a good meal and a nutritious meal.

Since we live longer without meat, what is the quo for "good for us". If the norm is "not eating", than yes! Meat is GREAT for us!

The problem with eating too much meat is that it is often processed, low quality meat, made in some horrid capitalist market place. Such as sliced corned beef which can contain Cow hoofs once processed. Once boned and rolled in a butcher shop it is of far higher quality. Workers these days consume an unproportionate amount of meat, which disobeys the laws of a balenced diet. But that is a result of the lack of choice for workers in capitalism , low quality meat is cheaper and is easier to prepare than high quality foods for wokers who have to work so often you'll notice how diet changes the lower the pay scale you go from quality meat to processed junk.

Yes, I will admit, as far as physical (though definitely not ENVIRONMENTAL, or RESOURCEFUL) benefits go:
Improperly prepared meat < properly prepared meat < no meat

So end of the day, Meat is good in a balenced diet the same as everything else. Our bodies can handle meat, it gives us the amino acids we need as well as protein for growth and repair as well as vitimins.

Yes meat gives us MORE THAN ENOUGH protein. In fact, some estimates say within a lifetime, 60x the amount we need. Which is definitely not good. (http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/protein-cancer-risk.html)

And as you say, "at the end of the day", vegetarians...
still living longer, less chance of cancer. :sleep:

Not to mention, not as much use of fresh water resources, less land used, less CO2 created, less pollution of our oceans, and not to mention ETHICALLY SOUND (please view my latter posts to the one you responded too, these seem to be the ones no one has a response too :laugh:)
And though you responded to it, you must not have looked at these links. The fact is, while you can assert you can eat meat and live, the question is, if meat is necessary or healthier for us, then a large moral basis for eating meat is destroyed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_112431.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html)
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_awsi_01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/jan2006_awsi_01.htm)
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Rese...ger-says-study (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Vegetarians-live-longer-says-study)
OH LOOK ANOTHER CANCER LINKhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif:
http://www.healingcancernaturally.co...ve-longer.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html)

Now, tie in what you just learned to my ETHICS posts, and there you have it.
-J

[Revy]

Vegan Outreach's rational take on animal suffering. (http://www.veganoutreach.org/insectcog.html)

[Revy]

Those are all humans. Humans can and have formulated and asserted rights for ourselves.

No animal of any type, anywhere, has or can.

We're the only species that has that ability.

Ridiculous.
Because they can not communicate with human language they don't want to live?

Animals will struggle for their right to live and be free. They have screamed in pain as they are killed, they have in fact escaped many times from factory farms through a conscious decision.

You are understanding "animal rights" through a human-centered prism. Obviously, we are talking about ANIMALS. They need not the same kind of rights or freedoms we humans desire - although it is similar, because animals desire liberation from cruel environments, as do humans.

[bosgek]

Please don't harass me for this, but I’m one of those people that have learned to design slaughter processes for the meat industry. The question about animal rights would for me be the same question as if I am a modern day Heinrich Himmler or not.

Unlike cows and sheep, pigs know they’re about to die in slaughterhouses. Therefore, they resist and are preferably not manually killed. Instead they are confined in an air sealed cage and CO2 is pumped in until the pig loses consciousness. At that point it’s hung by the rear paws, the common carotid arteries are cut open and the animal bleeds to death. This process has been designed to minimize danger to workers and stress in pigs as that will negatively affect meat quality (and price).
The experience for the pig wouldn’t be much different from a death by lethal injection, the only suffering is that one knows they’re about to die. Most humans do not have such an easy death and they usually die as eagerly as the pigs.

I am also an organ donor. In a sense, I agreed that some of my body parts (or meat), will be consumed by other humans. Pigs don’t have a choice, but in nature they would also be eaten after death. A quick and painless death would be an improvement.
The only problem I have with meat is the life of pigs before they get to the slaughter. And the only way to change this in a capitalist society is to buy meat from pigs you know are raised good or become vegan.

These questions will end, as in 2050 there will be too many humans on the planet to continue eating meat, except for the few rich capitalists. The rest of us will be eating in vitro meat (animal flesh that has never been part of a complete, living animal), animal proteins made from GM algae or insect products. (Source: Dutch ministry of agriculture, nature and food).

[Invader Zim]

Those are all humans. Humans can and have formulated and asserted rights for ourselves.



You're ignoring the point, which is that these specific humans cannot forumulate or assert their rights, thus your logic suggests that they therefor do not have any rights. It is, of course, a fundermental misunderstanding of rights derived from the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. The notion that rights are linked to biology, evolutionary development in the case of your view, is simply nonsense. The notion of 'Rights' is purely abstract. The idea was latched onto by the growing bougeoisie in Europe during the 18th century in particular because it legitimised their struggle to wresle political power from the landed gentry. Of course the Gentry also found use for the idea as a means of legitimising their continued exploitation of the peasantry.

The reality is that rights only exist when society grants them, and the form in which they are granted. As a result, if the powers that be choose to grant rights to animals, and enforce these rights with the strong arm of the law, then animals will have 'rights',

[Revy]

There is already acknowledgement of "animal rights" from the mainstream. However, it usually applies only selectively to dogs and cats and other animals commonly held as pets. Pigs are in fact more intelligent than dogs, so not only is it hypocritical, it makes no sense.

[black magick hustla]

its not hypocritical at all. animals and cats are housepets, pigs generally are not so we dont really give a shit about them. these silly rights debates are all bankrupt because they base themselves on some sort of "platonist" notion of rights as if they should have some sort of logical, ideological, or moral consistency. you are not going to derive them from first principles. you might as well derive religion from first principles. while the material conditions that led to the concept of rights are not arbitrary themselves, the rights themselves do not hold any "meaningful judgement value". we care about mentally handicapped humans but we dont care about animals, simple as that.

[Revy]

its not hypocritical at all. animals and cats are housepets, pigs generally are not so we dont really give a shit about them. these silly rights debates are all bankrupt because they base themselves on some sort of "platonist" notion of rights as if they should have some sort of logical, ideological, or moral consistency. you are not going to derive them from first principles. you might as well derive religion from first principles. while the material conditions that led to the concept of rights are not arbitrary themselves, the rights themselves do not hold any "meaningful judgement value". we care about mentally handicapped humans but we dont care about animals, simple as that.

Um, saying it's not hypocritical usually means there should be more of an argument than just saying it's not hypocritical.

You cannot deny that it is hypocritical to say you love animals and you're horrified by cruelty towards them but only apply that to dogs and cats and other "cute" animals, and then go and eat some meat from an animal with just as much worth backed up by science and not just emotional attachments.

[RotStern]

I think eating meat is perfectly fine.
It is the choice of the individual wether or not they are willing to eat meat or not.
Animal beatings are a purely savage act.
Fur should not be used for clothes unless for survival reasons.