Vegetarianism, animal "rights" and anthropomorphism

[Lyev]

Recently on the board we have had a fair few discussions about what it is to eat meat, the implications of vegetarianism and why people are actually vegetarian. I have been vegetarian for roughly 6 months, but I have found myself seriously questioning my position recently.

First off, I think it's wrong to try and defend or justify animals having "rights". Animals don't know what rights are. These are just certain rules that human being have made up. To say animals have "rights", per se, implies that humans and animals are intellectually and biologically equal. It's most obvious that we're not. By the way, I hate the sort of vegetarianism that tries to justify itself with: "oh well I saw the Disney Bambi, so now I don't like killing animals for food" or some shit like that. I.e, the kind of vegetarian that is avoids meat just because they're squeamish about blood.

This leads me on to my second musing, which, for me, underlies this whole meat vs. vegetarian debate. It's the question of: do animals have, if any, sort of consciousness? It's definitely tricky to ascribe to animals intelligence and emotions. I think there are definitely some animals more intelligent than others, (dolphins, apes, some birds) but this is all obfuscated by the anthropomorphizing of animals. Like this:
http://www.thepet-boutique.com/images/DogClothes/SmallDog/CherriesHarnessDogDress_small1.jpg

which is then somehow linked to something like this:
http://www.animalwritings.com/images/cfwi-slaughter-02.JPG

and it's as if we're suddenly looking at a human being slaughtered. However, although it's sometimes distressing to look at a picture like this, we don't know if this seal (or whatever it is, it's hard to tell) knows whats happening. It could be totally incidental that it looks like its in pain. But I do think animal cruelty is different from simply killing animals for food. I have been thinking about when humans try to ascribe human feelings to animals.

And I'm not sure I like humanity being lowered to the same level as whatever animals feel, if that makes sense. It's clear that humans are more important than animals. We are clearly more intelligent. That's obvious; I fully support animal testing when it's researching cures for cancer. And I detest it when animal rights activists put animal slaughter on the same level as humans being killed. With this move, it's almost as if animals have suddenly become more important than humans. It's totally tasteless to compare the death of an animal to that of a human.

So I suppose this thread should serve as a discussion on the intelligence of animals. To what extent do they feel emotions? And to what extent do they know what's going on when they're being abused, or if they're being slaughtered for food? I find it hard to think of animals' thought beyond a series of chemical impulses. Human are fueled by emotion and animals are fueled by instinct. Basically, what I want get across is that, whatever animals do, it's hard to know why they are doing: when a dog grabs a squeaky toy and bring it to it's owner is it doing this because it wants to "play" and because it wants to be it's owners "friend"? If so, this feeling of friendship is obviously not as deep and meaningful as human friendship. Or is the dog grabbing the toy simply because its instinct is telling it to? A lot of what animals do is over-anthropomorphized by humans. Discuss.

[Quail]

I'm not personally very big on animal "rights" exactly but I disagree with causing unnecessary suffering. Animals can and do suffer if they are treated badly. For example, animals at rescue shelters might have difficulty being around humans because of past abuse, I suppose in a similar way that a human that had been abused might find certain situations distressing. I have a problem with the way animals are farmed as much, if not more, than I do with the fact that they are killed. Before I became vegetarian I tried not to buy factory-farmed meat. Factory-farmed animals are kept in awful conditions and basically spend a lot of their life in pain which is totally unnecessary for our survival. It's cruelty to make animals live a life of suffering just so we can enjoy a chicken sandwich or whatever. I also don't think that the act of killing something can be considered humane. There are better methods of killing, but I don't really consider it to be "humane".

The main reason I went vegetarian was actually because meat is environmentally unfriendly and a waste of resources, but I am also sympathetic to animal suffering.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's clear that humans are more important than animals. We are clearly more intelligent.This is only 'clear' if one bases importance in a moral sense on intelligence. To be fair, this is less imbecilic than vegetarian groups that wish to present vegetarianism as the only 'consistent' or 'rational' approach because animals can feel pain.


By the way, I hate the sort of vegetarianism that tries to justify itself with: "oh well I saw the Disney Bambi, so now I don't like killing animals for food" or some shit like that. I.e, the kind of vegetarian that is avoids meat just because they're squeamish about blood.To be honest, this sort generally seems to justify itself with silliness like, "Well, what if you had to kill the animals?", rather than references to Bambi.


First off, I think it's wrong to try and defend or justify animals having "rights". Animals don't know what rights are. These are just certain rules that human being have made up. To say animals have "rights", per se, implies that humans and animals are intellectually and biologically equal.I don't think that this follows. Animals cannot be moral agents, sure, but this does not preclude them from being moral consumers. I do not see any contradiction is saying that animals should have rights despite not understanding the concept. A rights theorist would probably support babies having a right to life, despite the fact that they do not understand the concept. It would only be a contradiction if one held that understanding the concept of rights is necessary to have rights, which AR people evidently do not. On the other hand, as these rights pertain to human conduct towards the animals (a lion or spider killing the animal would not quite be sent to prison, but the same generally applies to lions or spiders who kill humans), there is no inconsistency here; the rights simply dictate that humans should not violate them, and make no intellectual demands of the animals. They are indeed made up by humans, but, as they only pertain to how humans are to act here, I do not see that this leads to anthropomorphism.

[Steve_j]

Ok so looking at your whole argument, whilst i did go through lots of your points i think i can sum up my disagreement with your position in a much simplified way.

Generally your views appear to be that we are more advanced and capable than other species in relation to conciousness, interlect and what we regard as emotional responses ect. Well whilst i agree this is true in regards to a wider generalisation of humanity...... what about the extreem minority of humans that fall bellow the average interlect and emotional responses or capabilities in social interaction or deveolping relationships that are held by a monkey? Do they not have rights because they dont fit the prerequisites you just defined?

[Stand Your Ground]

Ok so looking at your whole argument, whilst i did go through lots of your points i think i can sum up my disagreement with your position in a much simplified way.

Generally your views appear to be that we are more advanced and capable than other species in relation to conciousness, interlect and what we regard as emotional responses ect. Well whilst i agree this is true in regards to a wider generalisation of humanity...... what about the extreem minority of humans that fall bellow the average interlect and emotional responses or capabilities in social interaction or deveolping relationships that are held by a monkey? Do they not have rights because they dont fit the prerequisites you just defined?
Hmm...I think I'll eat some down syndrome kids today. :lol: But seriously judging living beings on their intelligence is just unjust. Hitler killed all the mentally handicapped people, so we can kill animals for the same reason?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

All that is significant is that animals can feel pain and pleasure. Intelligence is relevant to moral worth, perhaps, but not whether an agent deserves moral consideration. A person or animal can be unintelligent, but they still have "rights." I'm not sure I believe in rights, but the idea can be substituted for "things you shouldn't do to them."

Our tendency to attach "feelings" to animals is complicated, and it should be separated from scientific inquiry. Science inquires how things "operate," but it turns emotions and human interactions into dull mechanisms that are only fascinating from a scientific perspective. An animal loves you as long as that's your view, as far as I'm concerned. Even if it doesn't have the biological mechanisms, you shouldn't let science wholly determine your viewpoints. Now when it comes to difficult situations like "I believe the dog is upset" when biologically, it can't be bothered by that, you need to reform your views. However, I ultimately think it's alright to put science in a "box" when it comes to emotions. Take it out when common sense dictates, but don't believe your everyday relationships are meaningless simply because science describes them in terms of chemicals and systems.

The issue with animal testing isn't always framed in terms of rights. Singer and others consider the pros and cons. Most animal testing is arguably a waste of time - as Singer points out in "Animal Liberation." Many people suffering from cancer would be happy to be experimental subjects, and changing our "subject" from animal to human can potentially save lives. Additionally, data collected from animals is often not applicable to humans. Is a bad methodology. Singer provides some advances in testing methods, which I can't recall. However, he makes an interesting point that if we weren't wasting our time testing on animals, we might have more efficient methods by now. After all, the best way to make animal testing more efficient is to make the animals more human (apes, introducing certain genetic alterations, etc). Might as well work towards a creature-free form of testing, if possible.

I oppose animal testing because the vast majority of it is suspect. The classic comment is "testing saved my daughter" or something. This is quite rare, first of all. Secondly, it doesn't mean the testing was necessary. That's like saying "Johnny was molested, and it motivated him to become an advocate for doctor" means "child molestation helps children become doctors. Nonsense. And I find it hard to believe that in all this time, there haven't been failed tests. Things check out with the animal testing, and the human gets tested and dies. Who says the testing is so great then?

As for the last claim, I am inclined to consider the idea that human lives are more valuable than those of animals. I live my live with that view, though I am not strongly committed to it. The issue is being unbiased with regards to species. I don't think that intelligent people have "happier lives" because poetry is more sophisticated pleasure, as Mill believes. However, I do think intelligence and other skills can allow people to be more beneficial to society.

Unfortunate, the same traits can make people more harmful. I don't agree with the "eliminate the human species" minority, but I do recognize that many people aren't making society better off. Arguably, the average person makes the state of affairs in the world worse. Contrastingly, animals often perform certain beneficial roles based on their evolutionary traits and instinctual behaviors.

If someone said "we're going to take a billion dollars from the rich and you get to decide how we spend it" I'd have difficult choices. If they made me choose between "using the money to help preserve the lives and happiness of animals around the world" or "doing the same for people" I'd be hesitant to side with humans. At least the predatory animals tend to work in harmony with the environment, in most cases.

When people compare animal death to humans, I don't see the issue, personally. In both cases, a creature that can feel pleasure and pain died. Statistically, the human might be more important in the majority of cases, but it's not legitimate to stereotype. And if an animal had an average lifespan of 500 years, might it dying at 12 be equally tragic as a 80 year old hermit passing away?

I'll bring up an interesting problem for the descriptions I've given, however. I tried to be open to the option of letting humans be more important based on "how much they contribute." Even though racism and injustice is the cause, this reasoning would arguably apply to minorities in many areas as well as impoverished nations. Theoretically, that might be an accurate view, but I don't like it. So either my consequence-based view needs more development, or there are even more problems. If each life is equal regardless of what it contributes, for instance, we have to justify making animal lives "not equal" in a manner that doesn't make it equally applicable to a significant portion of humanity (or most people would desire that, anyway).

I just try not to inflict pain when it's avoidable, personally. The philosophizing is out of interest, mostly. I can't carefully evaluate every decision I make in such a manner.

[ZeroNowhere]

If each life is equal regardless of what it contributes, for instance, we have to justify making animal lives "not equal" in a manner that doesn't make it equally applicable to a significant portion of humanity (or most people would desire that, anyway).That would seem fairly simple; non-human animals are not humans.

[Lyev]

Hmm...I think I'll eat some down syndrome kids today. :lol: But seriously judging living beings on their intelligence is just unjust. Hitler killed all the mentally handicapped people, so we can kill animals for the same reason?I find this comparison quite distasteful actually. Don't do it again. It's a lazy exchange for an argument, just for the sake of shocking people so that they might come around to your point of view. I find it offensive because (a) my brother has William's syndrome, a disability similar to Downs syndrome and (b) because my dad and grandparents are Jewish. But that's besides the point; the Holocaust was unprecedented, and whilst genocide can and has happened since, nothing has been the same as the Holocaust. This one event stands alone in history. You shouldn't dull it's meaning with cheap comparisons. It was an ideologically driven, systematic extermination. It's not right to compare it to the killing of animals.

But then again, thanks for Zero's, Steve's and Dooga's post. They were very informative and thought-provoking. Intelligence shouldn't play as a big a role as I thought it should. The bottom line is: animals have emotions and can suffer. Whether their thought processes are complex enough to know what's happening when they're being slaughtered is a different matter. I think I was trying to examine the issue too objectively, perhaps, or too scientifically.

[mollymae]

I believe that it's easy for us to place a higher value on human life than animal life because humans usually have a much greater effect on the world than any other animal, therefore human lives are of more consequence to us. Plus, where do we draw the line? Are we going to have a small funeral for every bug we accidentally squish?

That being said, I do think that every animal has one right: the right to dignity. I do eat meat, and I have no moral problems with it because I think it's natual. However, I avoid farms that I know of that have cruel pracitices, becuase I am against unnecessary cruelty.

[Steve_j]

I do eat meat, and I have no moral problems with it because I think it's natual.


I am against unnecessary cruelty.

Do you see the contradiction there?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am still forming an opinion on the animal rights/vegetarianism issue. Probably most of my friends now are either vegans or animal rights advocates.

A number of people I know have somewhat odd atitudes. I once knew someone who was on a strict raw food diet-she ate only uncooked vegetables or grain. This diet had to be strictly followed for at least a year for it to have a beneficial effect. At the same time this person never washed off her vegetables.She said she was pessimistic about her health.She was in her 50s. "Well, I probably don't have too many years left' she would say. If she didn't care about her health, why the raw food diet?

I knew someone else who had a book on animal rights called "Permanent Auschwitz". The cover showed a German soldier from behind carrying a chicken. He was obviously about to butcher the chicken. The book title and cover photo implied that eating meat was the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust. This is (I think) would be very offensive to anyone who experienced the Holocaust.

Slavoj Zizek has an interesting critique of Peter Singer. I haven't read Singer myself but supposedly he advocates infanticide. I am leery of liberal/sentimental equating of humans with animals.

Until recently I has pretty much of a Noam Chomsky black box humanist. We don't know what the human mind is but whatever it is its radically different than anything that's gone before. There's the Marx quote from Capital, "The worst of carpenters is better than the best of bees".

Having said this many animals are in the sensorimotor stage-they have an intelligence level close to a 2 year old human. Other animals-whales, dolphins, elephants, pigs, may have an even higher level. Animals perhaps don't have "rights" but should be honored and protected. I am moving more towards an animal protection, if not animal rights position.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Of course, whether or not vegetarianism is considered an ethical imperative, the US corporate factory farm system is a dangerous, cruel absurdity.The Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan makes a brilliant case for vegetarianism on health grounds alone. Although Pollan's politics are a but confused, his dietary science and agronomy research are spot on.

[Steve_j]

Slavoj Zizek has an interesting critique of Peter Singer. I haven't read Singer myself but supposedly he advocates infanticide. I am leery of liberal/sentimental equating of humans with animals.

Singer doesnt equate humans with animals, infact i believe he even eats shellfish and supports vivisection to an extent.

As for the Zizek critique can you point me in the direction? I would be very interested in reading it, as for the advocating infantcide (singer), his postion is often misrepresented. Essentially he advocated euthenasia for children as an options to be mutually decided between the parents and their doctor in extreem circumstances, if you like i can have a look for some relevent text on that particular issue.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is from "A Plea for Leninist Intolerance", an interesting take on liberalism and post-modernism. (11th para) I don't know if his view of Singer is correct, Zizek tries to be provocative and is often deliberately over the top.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/a-plea-for-leninist-intolerance/


"The two philosophers of today's global capitalism are the two great left-liberal progressives, Richard Rorty and Peter Singer, both honest in their consequent stances. Rorty defines the basic coordinates: the fundamental dimension of a human being is the ability to suffer, to experience pain and humiliation. Consequently, because humans are symbolic animals, the fundamental right is the right to narrate one's experience of suffering and humiliation.5 Singer then provides the Darwinian background.6
Singer, a social Darwinist with a collectivist socialist face, starts innocently enough, trying to argue that people will be happier if they lead lives committed to ethics, for a life spent trying to help others and reduce suffering is really the most moral and fulfilling one. He radicalizes and actualizes Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism: the ultimate ethical criterion is not the dignity (rationality, soul) of man but the ability to suffer, to experience pain, which man shares with animals. With inexorable radicality, Singer levels the animal/human divide. Better to kill an old suffering woman than healthy animals. Look an orangutan straight in the eye and what do you see? A none-too-distant cousin, a creature worthy of all the legal rights and privileges that humans enjoy. One should thus extend aspects of equality, including the right to life, the protection of individual liberties, the prohibition of torture, at least to the nonhuman great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas).
Singer argues that "speciesism" (privileging the human species) is no different from racism; our perception of a difference between humans and (other) animals is no less illogical and unethical than our one-time perception of an ethical difference between, say, men and women, or blacks and whites. Intelligence is no basis for determining ethical stature. The lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they display more intelligence (if intelligence were a standard of judgment, Singer points out, we could perform medical experiments on the mentally retarded with moral impunity). Ultimately, all things being equal, an animal has as much interest in living as a human. Therefore, all things being equal, medical experimentation on animals is immoral. Those who advocate such experiments claim that sacrificing the lives of twenty animals will save millions of human lives. However, what about sacrificing twenty humans to save millions of animals? As Singer's critics like to point out, the horrifying extention of this principle is that the interests of twenty people outweigh the interests of one, which gives the green light to all sorts of human rights abuses.
Consequently, Singer argues that we can no longer rely on traditional ethics for answers to the dilemmas that our constellation imposes on ourselves; he proposes a new ethics meant to protect the quality, not the sanctity, of human life. As sharp boundaries disappear between life and death, between humans and animals, this new ethics casts doubt on the morality of animal research while offering a sympathetic assessment of infanticide. When a baby is born with severe defects of the sort that always used to kill babies, are doctors and parents now morally obligated to use the latest technologies, regardless of cost? No. When a pregnant woman loses all brain function, should doctors use new procedures to keep her body living until the baby can be born? No. Can a doctor ethically help terminally ill patients to kill themselves? Yes.
One cannot dismiss Singer as a monstrous exaggeration. What Adorno said about psychoanalysis (its truth resides in its very exaggerations) fully holds for Singer: he is so traumatic and intolerable because his scandalous "exaggerations" directly renders visible the truth of the so-called postmodern ethics.' Is the ultimate horizon of the postmodern "identity politics" effectively not Darwinian, defending the right of some particular species of humankind within the panoply of their proliferating multitude (for example, gays with AIDS, black single mothers)? The very opposition between conservative and progressive politics can be conceived in Darwinian terms. Ultimately, conservatives defend the right of those with might (their very success proves that they won in the struggle for survival) while progressives advocate the protection of endangered human species, that is, of those losing the struggle for survival."

[Steve_j]

When a baby is born with severe defects of the sort that always used to kill babies, are doctors and parents now morally obligated to use the latest technologies, regardless of cost? No.

Its close, but from my understanding of singer its not a question of cost (maybe he did mention it somewhere and zeizek has chosen to highlight it) but as to what can be gained from the life. If the child may be kept alive but in a manner in which it is unable to experience pleasure (and in some cases of which i think he focuses, the life is a painful existance) and so on and the burden on the parents (maybe this is where the cost factor was picked up by zeizek) is at such that they can experience little or no joy from the life of this child, then he would advocate they have the right to make an informed decision as to if the life of the child should be maintained or not.

I think he covered it in this interview (its a long one) but im not sure, but if your interested its a pretty good one to get an understanding of his position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

EDIT: He touches on it at the very begining but doesnt really go much into the argument.

[mollymae]

Do you see the contradiction there?

Nope.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I am not against killing animals for the meat or other resources, but I am against torturing them before they are killed, or neglecting them, or letting them live unhappy lives. I also think their way of death should be quick and painless.

[Steve_j]

So its a position of whilst you reject inflicting pain on them you feel your own personal satisfaction warrents depriving the animal of any potential future happiness?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its close, but from my understanding of singer its not a question of cost (maybe he did mention it somewhere and zeizek has chosen to highlight it) but as to what can be gained from the life. If the child may be kept alive but in a manner in which it is unable to experience pleasure (and in some cases of which i think he focuses, the life is a painful existance) and so on and the burden on the parents (maybe this is where the cost factor was picked up by zeizek) is at such that they can experience little or no joy from the life of this child, then he would advocate they have the right to make an informed decision as to if the life of the child should be maintained or not.

I think he covered it in this interview (its a long one) but im not sure, but if your interested its a pretty good one to get an understanding of his position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

EDIT: He touches on it at the very begining but doesnt really go much into the argument.

Thank you.

[mollymae]

Yes. Just as some sort of other predator would eat me in a second (given the opportunity), I as a human am a predator to other animals, and I don't feel any need to apply any sort of moral question to something so natural.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The problem with Zizek's critique is it's missing an argument. He says "Singer believes this and that, therefore he is mistaken. He's just appealing to common intuitions and moral judgments. Arguing based on ethical matters is more complicated than mere sentiments.

I actually hold some of the views Singer has, of which Zizek fairly accurately reported. He didn't accurately report the "reasons" Singer holds those perspectives. He seems to believe Singer wants to help gays to save the rest of us from aids, help blacks to stop social problems from arising, and kill the disabled because they are merely inconvenient. Singer is considering the interests of "everyone," not merely himself or the mainstream elite.

That hardly does justice to the sophistication of Singer's perspective, and he is hardly a postmodern thinker, if that's what is being implied. Postmodernism rejects objective truth. Utilitarianism accepts objective truth. Not compatible, as such. Singer's ethical perspectives are incredibly clear and precise. They are analytic and follow from one to the other rather efficiently.

As for the shellfish, I wasn't aware of that. His view has wavered, apparently, but he thinks it is acceptable if shellfish can't feel pain, I suspect. He's also not vegan, which is somewhat inconsistent with his views. I am very similar to Singer in having a pragmatic perspective. Singer knows nobody is perfect. He sets the target, so to speak. He doesn't expect everyone to instantly become a saint. Compared to many ethicists - or people in general - Singer lives his philosophy. I believe he donates 33% of his income to charity, which isn't "that impressive" but I suspect it's much more than most.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do you see the contradiction there?
There is no contradiction there, unless the person quoted sees eating meat as cruelty, which is a moral judgement.


Yes. Just as some sort of other predator would eat me in a second (given the opportunity), I as a human am a predator to other animals, and I don't feel any need to apply any sort of moral question to something so natural.There is nothing essentially predatory about humans; we could certainly survive as vegetarians in modern times, and meat eating would seem more of a social construct than a product of some inner natural cravings for meat.

[Steve_j]

As for the shellfish, I wasn't aware of that. His view has wavered, apparently, but he thinks it is acceptable if shellfish can't feel pain, I suspect. He's also not vegan, which is somewhat inconsistent with his views.

Yeah im pretty sure he's not vegan, with the shell fish, if i recall correctly his understanding of species like oysters is that because they lack a central nervous system, their ability to experience something we could regard as pain to be redundent and more like that of a plants response to physical stimuli, if he does infact eat them im not sure, perhaps he was highlighting that species as a more "justafiable" species to eat. And as for lacto ovo products or wool ect i think he see's us as being capable of entering a mutually beneficial relationship of exchange or somthing like that, obiously not under the many current farming methods.

Alot of people in the AR movement really detest singer for these views.


Edit: Must admit i havent read any of singers work in many years, must go buy some books.


There is no contradiction there, unless the person quoted sees eating meat as cruelty, which is a moral judgement.

It wasnt the eating meat part i was seeing a cruel but more contributing to the act of ending a life, which mollymae cleared up he/she does not think is cruel, but yes you are right i was imposing my own position on that equation.

[Stand Your Ground]

I find this comparison quite distasteful actually. Don't do it again. It's a lazy exchange for an argument, just for the sake of shocking people so that they might come around to your point of view. I find it offensive because (a) my brother has William's syndrome, a disability similar to Downs syndrome and (b) because my dad and grandparents are Jewish. But that's besides the point; the Holocaust was unprecedented, and whilst genocide can and has happened since, nothing has been the same as the Holocaust. This one event stands alone in history. You shouldn't dull it's meaning with cheap comparisons. It was an ideologically driven, systematic extermination. It's not right to compare it to the killing of animals.

But then again, thanks for Zero's, Steve's and Dooga's post. They were very informative and thought-provoking. Intelligence shouldn't play as a big a role as I thought it should. The bottom line is: animals have emotions and can suffer. Whether their thought processes are complex enough to know what's happening when they're being slaughtered is a different matter. I think I was trying to examine the issue too objectively, perhaps, or too scientifically.
I apologize I wasn't trying to offend anyone or bring people around to my view, I was trying to show that judging living beings based on intelligence is just that, distasteful.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I apologize I wasn't trying to offend anyone or bring people around to my view, I was trying to show that judging living beings based on intelligence is just that, distasteful.

Then respect the plants already. What have they done to you to deserve you eating them?

[mollymae]

There is nothing essentially predatory about humans; we could certainly survive as vegetarians in modern times, and meat eating would seem more of a social construct than a product of some inner natural cravings for meat.

It is certainly true that in modern Western society, eating meat is not necessary. But my point of view is that we have a natural inclination for it because for thousands of years, meat partially sustained our ancestors, and it still partially sustains people in less fortunate countries.

I saw a similar point brought up in a similar thread on OI. I believe it was Helios+. He was saying that it's Eurocentric to think that killing animals for meat (even peacefully) is wrong, because most of the world has literally no choice but to consume animal products in one way or another just to survive.

[NGNM85]

I apologize I wasn't trying to offend anyone or bring people around to my view, I was trying to show that judging living beings based on intelligence is just that, distasteful.

I apologize if I'm being presumptuous, but, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Human beings are not simply 'smarter' than guinea pigs, or cocker spaniels. Intelligence is a software issue. Animals don't even have the hardware. It's not about smart vs. stupid, it's about sentient vs. non-sentient.

[Stand Your Ground]

Then respect the plants already. What have they done to you to deserve you eating them?
Well we have to eat something. No one should starve under any circumstances, but if I have the choice to eat without hurting, I will do so.


I apologize if I'm being presumptuous, but, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Human beings are not simply 'smarter' than guinea pigs, or cocker spaniels. Intelligence is a software issue. Animals don't even have the hardware. It's not about smart vs. stupid, it's about sentient vs. non-sentient.
Well that's where sentience bullshit doesn't make sense. Humans do things that we don't HAVE to do to survive. All animals want to do is live and do what they have to to survive. Even if animals COULD write poems they don't HAVE to. We do it because we can, not because it's needed for survival.

[NGNM85]

Well that's where sentience bullshit doesn't make sense. Humans do things that we don't HAVE to do to survive. All animals want to do is live and do what they have to to survive. Even if animals COULD write poems they don't HAVE to. We do it because we can, not because it's needed for survival.

I'm unsure of what point you think you're making.

[ZeroNowhere]

It is certainly true that in modern Western society, eating meat is not necessary. But my point of view is that we have a natural inclination for it because for thousands of years, meat partially sustained our ancestors, and it still partially sustains people in less fortunate countries.It is not entirely clear how you would prove that people in general had a natural inclination for meat, or indeed that you had an inclination for meat which was 'natural'. I am more inclined to think that pedophiles have a natural inclination to have sex with children than that everybody has a natural inclination towards meat.


I saw a similar point brought up in a similar thread on OI. I believe it was Helios+. He was saying that it's Eurocentric to think that killing animals for meat (even peacefully) is wrong, because most of the world has literally no choice but to consume animal products in one way or another just to survive.
One could just as well claim that where it is unnecessary, it is wrong, and this would not be Eurocentric at all. ARF's view that all life is equal is, I believe, a marginal one among people vegetarian for ethical reasons. In this case, the aim would be to make it so that all people may eat vegetarian things, which is certainly possible with current productive capabilities.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Okay, what are rights to you people? Voting rights? Speaking rights? Those aren't rights! Those are our way of showing ourselves. Rights are the right to have food, shelter, health, freedom, etc. These rights are equal to all living beings, & yes, that means animals too! I'm a vegan because I refuse to be a consumer to living suffering. I know I may still partake in some kind of harm to someone or something, but that doesn't give me any right to just say "fuck it".

[ZeroNowhere]

Okay, what are rights to you people? Voting rights? Speaking rights? Those aren't rights! Those are our way of showing ourselves. Rights are the right to have food, shelter, health, freedom, etc. These rights are equal to all living beings, & yes, that means animals too!.
I'm fairly sure that rights are not by their nature equal for all living beings, in which case all that you are doing is saying that you want all living beings (including, one would presume, nematodes, plants and ants) to have equal rights. Rhetorically, it may sound impressive, if not to me, but all that it is saying is that you support rights being equal for all living beings. Indeed, many rights are generally to be restricted to only some humans, such as the right to freedom of movement, which would be suspended for criminals. It is still a right, however. It is also not entirely clear what the division between 'right' and 'way of showing yourself' is here, given that a right to vote does not seem particularly implausible, inasmuch as this means that nobody else may prevent you from voting.

[SammXVX]

Firstly, that's a picture of a dog.
Second, It's unnecessary suffering, and it's a form of oppression.

[mollymae]

It is not entirely clear how you would prove that people in general had a natural inclination for meat, or indeed that you had an inclination for meat which was 'natural'. I am more inclined to think that pedophiles have a natural inclination to have sex with children than that everybody has a natural inclination towards meat.

Why would it be hard to prove that humans evolved to be omnivores? We have canine teeth, don't we? Granted, we couldn't take down a gazelle with those teeth--watching someone attempt to do so would be quite funny. :) But that, along with the fact that we are able to digest meat, shows that evolution "gave" us the "equipment" to have a diet that consists partially of meat, if we opted to have that sort of diet. Pedophilia, on the other hand, serves no evolutionary purpose.


One could just as well claim that where it is unnecessary, it is wrong, and this would not be Eurocentric at all. ARF's view that all life is equal is, I believe, a marginal one among people vegetarian for ethical reasons. In this case, the aim would be to make it so that all people may eat vegetarian things, which is certainly possible with current productive capabilities.

I don't see how one's entire moral code can change based on location or specific situations. If you claim that animals have equal rights as humans, there should be no exceptions to that rule. In a situation where a group has very few options for food, eating an animal should be morally equal to necessary cannibalism, yes? If you agree then your ideas are consistent.

Question- is it speciesism when a bear eats me for dinner? Even if he's not considering it as an ethical question like we are, he still obviously puts his own needs in front of mine.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm fairly sure that rights are not by their nature equal for all living beings, in which case all that you are doing is saying that you want all living beings (including, one would presume, nematodes, plants and ants) to have equal rights. Rhetorically, it may sound impressive, if not to me, but all that it is saying is that you support rights being equal for all living beings. Indeed, many rights are generally to be restricted to only some humans, such as the right to freedom of movement, which would be suspended for criminals. It is still a right, however. It is also not entirely clear what the division between 'right' and 'way of showing yourself' is here, given that a right to vote does not seem particularly implausible, inasmuch as this means that nobody else may prevent you from voting.

Only because we've seen these living beings as less dominant & have been conditioned to such an extent that we perceive the death of such beings as an ethical stance, when in fact, when compared to its qualities, & how man can become such as well, our idea of killing an innocent person, it would then perceive itself as a unethical stance.

And when it comes to plants, as a Vegan, I know that I'm eating other life. And just because it can't feel anything doesn't mean it's any more right than killing a living being that can feel. But, as this argument is used against me plenty of times, I merely say "we are to plants, as our ancestors were to meat". Meaning, our ancestors, the Native Americans, hunted for food because they had no other choice but to eat such to stay alive. Under these conditions, even as a Vegan, I realize it's justifiable to eat such to survive. And so, as fast forward today, we are within a time of vast array of choices we can make, where meat is no longer a needed choice. But, when it comes to plants, unfortunately, we are still in a position where we have to have plants, just like our ancestors had to have meat.

[NGNM85]

Only because we've seen these living beings as less dominant & have been conditioned to such an extent that we perceive the death of such beings as an ethical stance, when in fact, when compared to its qualities, & how man can become such as well, our idea of killing an innocent person, it would then perceive itself as a unethical stance.

The difference is animals aren't human, or sentient.


And when it comes to plants, as a Vegan, I know that I'm eating other life. And just because it can't feel anything doesn't mean it's any more right than killing a living being that can feel. But, as this argument is used against me plenty of times, I merely say "we are to plants, as our ancestors were to meat". Meaning, our ancestors, the Native Americans, hunted for food because they had no other choice but to eat such to stay alive. Under these conditions, even as a Vegan, I realize it's justifiable to eat such to survive. And so, as fast forward today, we are within a time of vast array of choices we can make, where meat is no longer a needed choice. But, when it comes to plants, unfortunately, we are still in a position where we have to have plants, just like our ancestors had to have meat.

This is one of the major failures of this ideology. Right now you're saying it's alright to eat plants, and that it isn't about the sanctity of life, it's about pain and suffering. Utilitarian, as opposed to deontological. If that were true, then we could have a discussion about free range, not using hormones or antibiotics, killing the animals more humanely, etc. Except when that subject gets raised, suddenly they become deontologists. This extremist animal rights ideology is like a rhetorical shell game, employing whatever justification works for that moment, then discarding it when it's no longer sufficient.

[counterblast]

First off, I think it's wrong to try and defend or justify animals having "rights". Animals don't know what rights are. These are just certain rules that human being have made up. To say animals have "rights", per se, implies that humans and animals are intellectually and biologically equal..


How is that implied? Many people who have rights are biologically or intellectually unequal. If there is a biological or intellectual uniformity or prerequisite; then why is it children are afforded rights?




And I'm not sure I like humanity being lowered to the same level as whatever animals feel, if that makes sense. It's clear that humans are more important than animals.

How is this clear? Do you mean we're more important in some "grand scheme of things"?





We are clearly more intelligent. That's obvious; I fully support animal testing when it's researching cures for cancer. And I detest it when animal rights activists put animal slaughter on the same level as humans being killed. With this move, it's almost as if animals have suddenly become more important than humans. It's totally tasteless to compare the death of an animal to that of a human.

Can you back this up with anything scientific or is this just opinion?

How do animals become "more important" than humans if they're put on the same level? Isn't this a logical fallacy?




I find it hard to think of animals' thought beyond a series of chemical impulses.

Scientifically speaking; this is what ALL thought consists of, human or animal.



Basically, what I want get across is that, whatever animals do, it's hard to know why they are doing: when a dog grabs a squeaky toy and bring it to it's owner is it doing this because it wants to "play" and because it wants to be it's owners "friend"? If so, this feeling of friendship is obviously not as deep and meaningful as human friendship.

How can you tell that friendship isn't "as deep and meaningful"? Because animals articulate things in a non-verbal way? If so, does this mean that cultures that use non-verbal forms of communication are less emotional? Isn't putting such a value on verbal articulation, in many ways Euro-centric?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The difference is animals aren't human, or sentient.



This is one of the major failures of this ideology. Right now you're saying it's alright to eat plants, and that it isn't about the sanctity of life, it's about pain and suffering. Utilitarian, as opposed to deontological. If that were true, then we could have a discussion about free range, not using hormones or antibiotics, killing the animals more humanely, etc. Except when that subject gets raised, suddenly they become deontologists. This extremist animal rights ideology is like a rhetorical shell game, employing whatever justification works for that moment, then discarding it when it's no longer sufficient.

First off, humans are only another type of specie of animal. All in all, we're all animals. Whether you want to agree with this scientific fact is up to you.

Second of all, I'm not saying it's alright or not alright to eat living beings, whether they're animals or plants. I'm saying that we're put in a position where we really have no other choice but to at least eat plants. But we are in a position to where we can choose not to eat meat & remain in a very healthy lifestyle. And when did I ever say that I'm against the humane killing of animals for those that do eat meat. Yes, I'm a vegan, but I don't think the entire world will be. And so, for those who do eat meat, I'd rather see them get their food from a much more healthier contributer, whereas humane methods are used to kill the animals. I just choose to live a much more healthier lifestyle. And if you have a problem with that then you can stop responding, because there'd be no point in you to do so.

[Klaatu]

I would submit that animals have an active conscienceness, a life animation. They have emotions, but possess a very limited intellectual capacity. For example, a colleague of mine had suggested that the dolphin, the most intelligent of non-human species, have the intellectual capacity of a three-year old human child.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would submit that animals have an active conscienceness, a life animation. They have emotions, but possess a very limited intellectual capacity. For example, a colleague of mine had suggested that the dolphin, the most intelligent of non-human species, have the intellectual capacity of a three-year old human child.

So do some humans, point?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm vegetarian for the shear fucking pleasure of it.

Well since I went vegetarian when I was 10 years old, there was one three month period when I was 19 where I tried to actually go back and I got an icky feeling each time in those three months and I stopped eating meat. It wasn't blood. I just really don't like meat as I like soy and soy makes me feel better in a way I don't completely understand.

Sometimes people just pick something because it feels good. To me, soy feels good and most vegetables feel good. Also to me, meat just doesn't feel right.

The initial reason at age 10 was the realization that an animal was killed for meat and I had a way of putting myself in others perspectives and I developed an internalized parallel to my own feelings of dying inside. Most people will never understand as much as I explain, but that's why it's personal to me. Because I don't have to justify it.

Now these days vegetarianism is a habbit. It's more that meat has no real function in my life. It would only serve to come back up where it entered.

I think with feelings and emotions.

[ZeroNowhere]

Only because we've seen these living beings as less dominant & have been conditioned to such an extent that we perceive the death of such beings as an ethical stance, when in fact, when compared to its qualities, & how man can become such as well, our idea of killing an innocent person, it would then perceive itself as a unethical stance.

And when it comes to plants, as a Vegan, I know that I'm eating other life. And just because it can't feel anything doesn't mean it's any more right than killing a living being that can feel. But, as this argument is used against me plenty of times, I merely say "we are to plants, as our ancestors were to meat". Meaning, our ancestors, the Native Americans, hunted for food because they had no other choice but to eat such to stay alive. Under these conditions, even as a Vegan, I realize it's justifiable to eat such to survive. And so, as fast forward today, we are within a time of vast array of choices we can make, where meat is no longer a needed choice. But, when it comes to plants, unfortunately, we are still in a position where we have to have plants, just like our ancestors had to have meat.
Rights do not work like that. If all living beings have rights, then roundworms and plants have rights as much as anything else, and these may not be violated. However, you seem to be arguing that it is unethical for humans to kill living beings unless absolutely necessary, and thus giving humans an ethical privilege over other animals. This is hardly any more or less 'creationist' than any other view on the matter, given that the theory of evolution is descriptive and not prescriptive.

[Meridian]

What is a right?
"You have the right to remain silent."
"She has the right to voice her opinion."

It seems to me that the term is often used regarding human laws. Basically, "there is a law (of some form) that states that you can do so and so, or can not do so and so, without fear of punishment."

So, rights should be viewed in this light. Whatever right we might attribute to animals is of human invention, and must be made official through a law (of some form) corresponding to it. A 'right' without any real implication would be meaningless.

However, given that our ability to dictate animal behavior is slim, 'animal rights' would primarily concern itself with human behavior regarding animals.

So, we see, it is not a question of what rights we can attribute to what animals, but what rights we should attribute to humans when it comes to dealing with certain animals. Or, put more bluntly, what laws (guidelines, theory, practice) should be needed in order to govern the livelihood of animals.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Rights do not work like that. If all living beings have rights, then roundworms and plants have rights as much as anything else, and these may not be violated. However, you seem to be arguing that it is unethical for humans to kill living beings unless absolutely necessary, and thus giving humans an ethical privilege over other animals. This is hardly any more or less 'creationist' than any other view on the matter, given that the theory of evolution is descriptive and not prescriptive.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that ethics is bullshit, & rather is just a piece of human conditioning. Both humans & animals kill as a sense of survival. It's not who's more privileged over the other, but rather what it takes to survive.

[NGNM85]

I would submit that animals have an active conscienceness, a life animation. They have emotions, but possess a very limited intellectual capacity. For example, a colleague of mine had suggested that the dolphin, the most intelligent of non-human species, have the intellectual capacity of a three-year old human child.

The same has been said of chimpanzees. I would actually support extending greater legal protections for animals with greater cognitive abilities. Of course, this is based on facts, not some flawed attempt to create a new system of ethics.

[NGNM85]

First off, humans are only another type of specie of animal. All in all, we're all animals. Whether you want to agree with this scientific fact is up to you.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Of course humans are mammals, but we are the only mammals (Or lifeforms of any kind.) that are human, or sentient. (So far.)

[Stand Your Ground]

I'm unsure of what point you think you're making.
It's hard to convay. I'm saying that us humans do things that aren't essential to survival, such as art, poetry, etc. So even if animals are less intelligent and don't do these things, to me that doesn't make their lives less important. They do what they need to to survive and they don't worry about anything else, because they don't need to. This is gonna sound insane but bear with just the for the sake of argument. Humans could do the same. We could make just the basic essentials to survival and that's it. We do more because we CAN not cause we NEED to.

[Stand Your Ground]

What is a right?
"You have the right to remain silent."
"She has the right to voice her opinion."

It seems to me that the term is often used regarding human laws. Basically, "there is a law (of some form) that states that you can do so and so, or can not do so and so, without fear of punishment."

So, rights should be viewed in this light. Whatever right we might attribute to animals is of human invention, and must be made official through a law (of some form) corresponding to it. A 'right' without any real implication would be meaningless.

However, given that our ability to dictate animal behavior is slim, 'animal rights' would primarily concern itself with human behavior regarding animals.

So, we see, it is not a question of what rights we can attribute to what animals, but what rights we should attribute to humans when it comes to dealing with certain animals. Or, put more bluntly, what laws (guidelines, theory, practice) should be needed in order to govern the livelihood of animals.
Rights shouldn't have to stated or applied by humans. I believe in what I call 'natural rights' (I don't know what else they would be called). Rights that belong to all living beings. Rights that are justified using common sense and compassion.

[Stand Your Ground]

Rights do not work like that. If all living beings have rights, then roundworms and plants have rights as much as anything else, and these may not be violated. However, you seem to be arguing that it is unethical for humans to kill living beings unless absolutely necessary, and thus giving humans an ethical privilege over other animals. This is hardly any more or less 'creationist' than any other view on the matter, given that the theory of evolution is descriptive and not prescriptive.
I'd rather be ethically priviledged than morally inferior.

[NGNM85]

It's hard to convay. I'm saying that us humans do things that aren't essential to survival, such as art, poetry, etc. ...Humans could do the same. We could make just the basic essentials to survival and that's it. We do more because we CAN not cause we NEED to.

In the immediate, hunter-gatherer sense, no. However, I think creativity, and the desire for knowledge are fundamental human traits, part of human nature. I think these things give our lives meaning, and, personally, I wouldn't want to live without them. Such an existence isn't much more appealing than death.


So even if animals are less intelligent and don't do these things, to me that doesn't make their lives less important. They do what they need to to survive and they don't worry about anything else, because they don't need to.

It isn't just intelligence, though. Sentience is more than simply the sum of x amount of knowledge, it's a level of cognitive capability and awareness as well. Intelligence is a software issue, animals don't even have the hardware. Even if you could speak a dog's language, to the extent they have one, you could never get him to understand existentialism.

Sentience matters because sentient beings aren't only alive, they represent a unique consciousness, with all the infinite possibilities that represents. To be a 'judge of the universe.' It also leaves one susceptible to different forms of pain and suffering. This is why dogs don't have freedom of speech, it's not oppression, it's simply logical. I don't think death is any more pleasant for a human or a gazelle, but when a human life is extinguished a sentient mind is destroyed, and that is a greater loss.

[Stand Your Ground]

In the immediate, hunter-gatherer sense, no. However, I think creativity, and the desire for knowledge are fundamental human traits, part of human nature. I think these things give our lives meaning, and, personally, I wouldn't want to live without them. Such an existence isn't much more appealing than death.



It isn't just intelligence, though. Sentience is more than simply the sum of x amount of knowledge, it's a level of cognitive capability and awareness as well. Intelligence is a software issue, animals don't even have the hardware. Even if you could speak a dog's language, to the extent they have one, you could never get him to understand existentialism.

Sentience matters because sentient beings aren't only alive, they represent a unique consciousness, with all the infinite possibilities that represents. To be a 'judge of the universe.' It also leaves one susceptible to different forms of pain and suffering. This is why dogs don't have freedom of speech, it's not oppression, it's simply logical. I don't think death is any more pleasant for a human or a gazelle, but when a human life is extinguished a sentient mind is destroyed, and that is a greater loss.
Why is it that you think non-humans don't want to know more? How can you tell they don't? My boss was telling me just the other day, a few years ago he was doing some tree removal, dirt moving stuff and a wild turkey wandered over by the equipment he was using. He was annoyed and he kept trying to scare him away but he kept coming back to watch what he was doing. He tried telling me that the turkey was stupid for getting in his way, I think the turkey was intrigued and wondering what it was that he using and doing with it. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. I don't have any reason to believe he wasn't thinking that. Anyway, my boss was trying to get him for dinner and just as he was about to crush him, he ran away. Animals aren't dumb, they know what's going on.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It isn't just intelligence, though. Sentience is more than simply the sum of x amount of knowledge, it's a level of cognitive capability and awareness as well. Intelligence is a software issue, animals don't even have the hardware. Even if you could speak a dog's language, to the extent they have one, you could never get him to understand existentialism.

There are human beings who you can never get to understand existenialism.
Unless you actually talk to the dogs and you speak their language, for all you know they may already know the meaning of life which for all we know we could have lost with all of our complexities. I really don't know. I am really just saying this for argument's sake, because I don't know how to speak canine.

... Just feline... :lol:

[NGNM85]

Why is it that you think non-humans don't want to know more? How can you tell they don't? My boss was telling me just the other day, a few years ago he was doing some tree removal, dirt moving stuff and a wild turkey wandered over by the equipment he was using. He was annoyed and he kept trying to scare him away but he kept coming back to watch what he was doing. He tried telling me that the turkey was stupid for getting in his way, I think the turkey was intrigued and wondering what it was that he using and doing with it. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. I don't have any reason to believe he wasn't thinking that. Anyway, my boss was trying to get him for dinner and just as he was about to crush him, he ran away. Animals aren't dumb, they know what's going on.

Stupidity implies the capacity for greater intelligence. As I've said, they don't have the equipment. Animals may be curious, but the impulse isn't the same, nor do they have the capacity to understand.

[Revy]

Why is it that you think non-humans don't want to know more? How can you tell they don't? My boss was telling me just the other day, a few years ago he was doing some tree removal, dirt moving stuff and a wild turkey wandered over by the equipment he was using. He was annoyed and he kept trying to scare him away but he kept coming back to watch what he was doing. He tried telling me that the turkey was stupid for getting in his way, I think the turkey was intrigued and wondering what it was that he using and doing with it. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. I don't have any reason to believe he wasn't thinking that. Anyway, my boss was trying to get him for dinner and just as he was about to crush him, he ran away. Animals aren't dumb, they know what's going on.

Wild turkeys are aggressive, vicious creatures. They have been known to attack (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6504117) humans unprovoked.

[NGNM85]

There are human beings who you can never get to understand existenialism.

Humans who are mentally impaired, someone with Down's syndrome, certainly. (I think even a really stupid person would understand it if you explained it sufficiently.) However, they're still human.

Unless you actually talk to the dogs and you speak their language, for all you know they may already know the meaning of life which for all we know we could have lost with all of our complexities. I really don't know. I am really just saying this for argument's sake, because I don't know how to speak canine.

... Just feline... :lol:

Well, we know this is so by observation, and through studying biology.

We can judge just by observing reactions. For example, if we were to encounter an alien lifeform, even if it's speech was totally incomprehensible, we could still determine if it was sentient through observations. We would observe rythmic patterns that are characteristic to intelligent communication, modulation, we could get it to respond to simple stimuli, use a signal, or tone, of a short sequence of prime numbers, etc. Based on this we could discern key words or phrases, a sort of Rosetta stone, then syntax, grammar etc.

Second, we can study brain structure. Most of our higher processing occurs in the prefrontal cortex. By studying brain structure, we can differentiate different levels of cognitive ability. Just by looking at brain structure it should be clear whether or not we're dealing with a higher order of intelligence.

[Steve_j]

Wild turkeys are aggressive, vicious creatures. They have been known to attack (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6504117) humans unprovoked.

Other (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10229105.stm) animals are know to do that too.

[Klaatu]

So do some humans, point?

I guess that is why we avoid eating them, and only eat species which are considered to be much less intelligent (but then pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, perhaps more so, and we eat pork)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Well, we know this is so by observation, and through studying biology.

We can judge just by observing reactions. For example, if we were to encounter an alien lifeform, even if it's speech was totally incomprehensible, we could still determine if it was sentient through observations. We would observe rythmic patterns that are characteristic to intelligent communication, modulation, we could get it to respond to simple stimuli, use a signal, or tone, of a short sequence of prime numbers, etc. Based on this we could discern key words or phrases, a sort of Rosetta stone, then syntax, grammar etc.

Second, we can study brain structure. Most of our higher processing occurs in the prefrontal cortex. By studying brain structure, we can differentiate different levels of cognitive ability. Just by looking at brain structure it should be clear whether or not we're dealing with a higher order of intelligence.

Whikle I'm nojmt clai ming such a thing ,I need to aask : how do we know tghey arent just boredd. I'm needingh sleep ciao.

[Invincible Summer]

So if people ethically have no moral qualms about killing and eating another animal (humans are animals too) which is clearly less intelligent and sentient than us, what forces us to draw the line between non-human animals and humans with severe mental disabilities? People eat pigs - they are very smart animals, possibly smarter than some severely disabled people. Other than human hubris, what prevents us from going "that far" to justify killing/eating one of our own species?

This is not an affront to omnivores. It is a serious ethical/philosophical question.

[Meridian]

Rights shouldn't have to stated or applied by humans. I believe in what I call 'natural rights' (I don't know what else they would be called). Rights that belong to all living beings. Rights that are justified using common sense and compassion.
You are a human, and you are stating these 'natural rights'. To the degree these exist, they exist because you (or other humans) think them up.

And they must be applied by/to human beings, otherwise there would be no implication of them whatsoever and we would be talking about dust in the air.

[Stand Your Ground]

Stupidity implies the capacity for greater intelligence. As I've said, they don't have the equipment. Animals may be curious, but the impulse isn't the same, nor do they have the capacity to understand.
How can you tell? How do you know this for absolute certainty? Because from what you have said we can't understand them, and they can't understand us, so what makes you come to that conclusion?

[Stand Your Ground]

Wild turkeys are aggressive, vicious creatures. They have been known to attack (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6504117) humans unprovoked.
And the cats that are kidnapped off the street and skinned alive for coats are attacked unprevoked as well. I'd say humans are the most vicious creatures on the earth.

[Stand Your Ground]

You are a human, and you are stating these 'natural rights'. To the degree these exist, they exist because you (or other humans) think them up.

And they must be applied by/to human beings, otherwise there would be no implication of them whatsoever and we would be talking about dust in the air.
Living beings shouldn't have to say they don't want to slaves for it to be so. Using common sense and decency people should say to themselves it is unjust. Rights shouldn't have to stated out loud to be so. If animals tried to say no don't lock me in this cage, it's my right not be, we couldn't understand them. But that's no excuse. If two humans don't speak the same language it's gives neither the right to oppress the other. So why does oppression occur because we don't speak the same?

And IF rights simply have to be stated to be so, people have argued for animals rights for a long time, so the rights should have been applied, yet the oppression continues, so someone stating a right doesn't always make it happen, which is why I say rights shouldn't have to be stated.

[Vanguard1917]

If two humans don't speak the same language it's gives neither the right to oppress the other.

Even if two humans do not speak the same language, they can still understand one another's thoughts through the help of a translator. I don't read Russian and or enough German, but i can still read in English what Lenin and Marx had to say.

That's not the same with animals, who have no thoughts to translate in the first place. It is you (a human being) who is attributing human thoughts (about 'oppression', 'torture', etc.) to the animal. That's called anthropomorphism.

To compare the conscious struggles of human beings against things like slavery, with the physical reflex reactions of animals, is a grave insult to humanity. It turns to those great historic struggles into mere bestial responses.

[NGNM85]

How can you tell? How do you know this for absolute certainty? Because from what you have said we can't understand them, and they can't understand us, so what makes you come to that conclusion?

Like I said; "Well, we know this is so by observation, and through studying biology.

We can judge just by observing reactions. For example, if we were to encounter an alien lifeform, even if it's speech was totally incomprehensible, we could still determine if it was sentient through observations. We would observe rythmic patterns that are characteristic to intelligent communication, modulation, we could get it to respond to simple stimuli, use a signal, or tone, of a short sequence of prime numbers, etc. Based on this we could discern key words or phrases, a sort of Rosetta stone, then syntax, grammar etc.

Second, we can study brain structure. Most of our higher processing occurs in the prefrontal cortex. By studying brain structure, we can differentiate different levels of cognitive ability. Just by looking at brain structure it should be clear whether or not we're dealing with a higher order of intelligence."

[bcbm]

That's not the same with animals, who have no thoughts to translate in the first place. It is you (a human being) who is attributing human thoughts (about 'oppression', 'torture', etc.) to the animal. That's called anthropomorphism.

animals certainly have thoughts, they just think in a different way than humans. just because they don't think of things as torture or oppression doesn't mean they have no conception that being trapped in a cage that is rubbing your skin off is bad, or experience extreme displeasure upon being separated from a calf, or any number of other common place occurrences in the animal industries. the author of the book "animals in translation" makes a comparison between the way autistics and animals think, and has used her ideas to design more humane facilities.

[Stand Your Ground]

Even if two humans do not speak the same language, they can still understand one another's thoughts through the help of a translator. I don't read Russian and or enough German, but i can still read in English what Lenin and Marx had to say.

That's not the same with animals, who have no thoughts to translate in the first place. It is you (a human being) who is attributing human thoughts (about 'oppression', 'torture', etc.) to the animal. That's called anthropomorphism.

To compare the conscious struggles of human beings against things like slavery, with the physical reflex reactions of animals, is a grave insult to humanity. It turns to those great historic struggles into mere bestial responses.
So who's to say we can't translate for them? Who's to say they have no thoughts?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Like I said; "Well, we know this is so by observation, and through studying biology.

We can judge just by observing reactions. For example, if we were to encounter an alien lifeform, even if it's speech was totally incomprehensible, we could still determine if it was sentient through observations. We would observe rythmic patterns that are characteristic to intelligent communication, modulation, we could get it to respond to simple stimuli, use a signal, or tone, of a short sequence of prime numbers, etc. Based on this we could discern key words or phrases, a sort of Rosetta stone, then syntax, grammar etc.

Second, we can study brain structure. Most of our higher processing occurs in the prefrontal cortex. By studying brain structure, we can differentiate different levels of cognitive ability. Just by looking at brain structure it should be clear whether or not we're dealing with a higher order of intelligence."

Using pseudo"science" to justify some claim of supremacy? Haven't heard that one before....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Using pseudo"science" to justify some claim of supremacy? Haven't heard that one before....

Racist/sexist pseudoscience was used in the teeth of evidence telling otherwise, what evidence have you got that most animals act anywhere near an adult human level?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Racist/sexist pseudoscience was used in the teeth of evidence telling otherwise, what evidence have you got that most animals act anywhere near an adult human level?

Good point but even if there's no major evidence against it, with no real evidence to back it up either it can't really be (non-psuedo) science. Because by viewing animals we still have no idea what they are thinking. Unless we can read their minds we have no idea what is actually going through their minds.

Plus maybe in our complex human world we lost sight of what life is really about. Maybe it's about letting the world be and just living and being happy. Afterall which species pollutes to the point speeding towards our own death, poisoning our own water, putting fumes in the air and Nuclear detonations and accidents? It must be those damn seagulls who spilled all the nuclear waste. I knew it was them. If any species lacks logic to the point of serious detriment it's us humans as we poison the very water we drink.

I can't be in to psuedo science because I don't claim most my statements to be science, and I'm starting to talk in a more analytical manner than I'm comfortable with so I'm going to shut up and go back to doing what I do best: art

Ciao! :cool:

[black magick hustla]

my problem with a defense for animal eating is that meat eaters always try to sound reasonable and ultra objective about it. i am an unapologetic meat eater. i dont sympathisize with animals. i dont care about them. i dont mind their exploitation for things we human beings might find advantegeous. i do not want to justify it because i have no justification, in the same way i dont have justification for liking big boobs and hatin on easy listening music.

[Revy]

Sorry about the turkey comment. Yeah it was kind of odd to focus so much on turkeys. I just remember hearing about how aggressive they are in the wild.

Anyway, I think a lot of animals are very intelligent. Certainly we have the capability to evolve ethically in our relationship to them.


Even if two humans do not speak the same language, they can still understand one another's thoughts through the help of a translator. I don't read Russian and or enough German, but i can still read in English what Lenin and Marx had to say.
Humans are not the only highly intelligent animal on Earth. Apes can be taught sign language so we can communicate with them. Dolphins also have an advanced system of communication. But you could go further down, to the dog. I don't converse with my dog, but I can still communicate with her in some basic ways, like saying her name or telling her to sit. She's not like a inanimate thoughtless machine, no animal is.



That's not the same with animals, who have no thoughts to translate in the first place. It is you (a human being) who is attributing human thoughts (about 'oppression', 'torture', etc.) to the animal. That's called anthropomorphism.
Yes, animal rights activists often use anthropomorphic ideas to get their point across. However, animals have brains and they obviously use them. To deny that animals think shows how really detached you are from science. Animals don't talk like we do, but they certainly use their brain to analyze the world around them.



To compare the conscious struggles of human beings against things like slavery, with the physical reflex reactions of animals, is a grave insult to humanity. It turns to those great historic struggles into mere bestial responses.I agree. Humans first. But it turns out what's good for animals is good for humans, more humane treatment, less confinement, means the animal products will be healthier to eat. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd rather eat meat, dairy or eggs from an animal that got to go outside in the sun or at least move around with some freedom, then one that got cramped in a cage and could not move. Moreover, these things affect our human sensibilities, against cruelty to living beings. It is necessary to remove this kind of cruelty, because it is wrong to do that to something that is clearly a sentient being.

Only humans have "rights" and certainly eating meat (food) is not the same as eating a human (murder), but that does not mean our ethics should end with the human species. Feeling something when one sees cows being punched in the face and beaten and prodded with crowbars (this happened recently at a place called Conklin dairy farms) does not mean one is equivocating our species with theirs. This is why I don't see why there are some people posting things like "I don't give a shit about animals". So, is it right to be cruel and sadistic to an animal, right?:rolleyes: A cow might not be able to spell "torture" but they can certainly feel pain when they are actually being tortured.

[NGNM85]

Using pseudo"science" to justify some claim of supremacy? Haven't heard that one before....

No, that's just science. That's how science works, analyzing things, expirimenting, and then developing conclusions. What you're implicitly referencing, the Nazi 'science' of eugenics was anything but scientific. First of all, in science you base conclusions on evidence, the Nazi scientists started by taking their premise as absolute truth and then fudging the evidence to fit that conclusion. There were very serious methodological (As well as moral, obviously.) problems with how they conducted themselves. There is no comparison, whatsoever.

[NGNM85]

Anyway, I think a lot of animals are very intelligent. Certainly we have the capability to evolve ethically in our relationship to them.

That's very reasonable, and it's happening, albiet slowly. In Descartes day, there was no distinction between a cat and a rock. It is changing, and that makes sense.


Humans are not the only highly intelligent animal on Earth.

Intelligence is just part of it. Sentience is much more than rote memorization of X amount of data. So far, we are the only sentient life on Earth.


Apes can be taught sign language so we can communicate with them. Dolphins also have an advanced system of communication. But you could go further down, to the dog. I don't converse with my dog, but I can still communicate with her in some basic ways, like saying her name or telling her to sit. She's not like a inanimate thoughtless machine, no animal is.

I don't think anybody believes animals can't feel or perceive sounds, respond to verbal cues, etc. That's obvious.

I've also mentioned I personally support, at least in spirit, attempts to create greater legal protections for animals with greater cognitive abilities.


Yes, animal rights activists often use anthropomorphic ideas to get their point across. However, animals have brains and they obviously use them. To deny that animals think shows how really detached you are from science. Animals don't talk like we do, but they certainly use their brain to analyze the world around them.

Well, it depends on how you define 'think.' However, again, I don't think a lot of this is really disputed.


I agree. Humans first. But it turns out what's good for animals is good for humans, more humane treatment, less confinement, means the animal products will be healthier to eat. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd rather eat meat, dairy or eggs from an animal that got to go outside in the sun or at least move around with some freedom, then one that got cramped in a cage and could not move.

Absolutely. I completely agree. However, the animal rights radicals are dead-set against it, they are right iin line with big agribusiness on this, which is kind of amusing. They deliberately try to make that conversation impossible.


Moreover, these things affect our human sensibilities, against cruelty to living beings.

This is commonly stated by the extreme animal rights proponants as if it's bible law, but I don't see much in the way of a connection. Exposing, say a child to animal torture might be desensitizing after awhile, it could also lead to psychological problems. (I would consider this child abuse.) There is a strong link between torturing animals and homicide, however, the issue is an underlying violent sociopathy, a personal pathology. To suggest that war, or racism, or religious violence would go away if we all switched to broccoli is absurd.


It is necessary to remove this kind of cruelty, because it is wrong to do that to something that is clearly a sentient being.

It would be wrong to deliberately harm sentient beings, but that isn't disputed, either, I don't think.


Only humans have "rights" and certainly eating meat (food) is not the same as eating a human (murder),

According to animal rights extremism it absolutely is. It's a deeply bogus conclusion, but that is the gospel they preach.


but that does not mean our ethics should end with the human species. Feeling something when one sees cows being punched in the face and beaten and prodded with crowbars (this happened recently at a place called Conklin dairy farms) does not mean one is equivocating our species with theirs. This is why I don't see why there are some people posting things like "I don't give a shit about animals". So, is it right to be cruel and sadistic to an animal, right?:rolleyes: A cow might not be able to spell "torture" but they can certainly feel pain when they are actually being tortured.

Again, I totally agree with this. I think most of the meat eaters agree with this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good point but even if there's no major evidence against it, with no real evidence to back it up either it can't really be (non-psuedo) science.

No, science doesn't work that way. Animal rights types want to grant animals rights that, as far as we know, they simply cannot comprehend. Skin colour and sex have no effect on the ability to make a moral judgement, but species does.


Because by viewing animals we still have no idea what they are thinking. Unless we can read their minds we have no idea what is actually going through their minds.

Mind-reading is not required. I can't tell what another human is thinking just by looking at them either. Actions are a more useful yardstick.


Plus maybe in our complex human world we lost sight of what life is really about. Maybe it's about letting the world be and just living and being happy.

What makes you think life is "really about" anything?


Afterall which species pollutes to the point speeding towards our own death, poisoning our own water, putting fumes in the air and Nuclear detonations and accidents? It must be those damn seagulls who spilled all the nuclear waste. I knew it was them. If any species lacks logic to the point of serious detriment it's us humans as we poison the very water we drink.

Actually, despite environmental degradation we are in some ways one of the most successful species on the planet. There are considerable numbers of us for an animal of our size, and we have conquered all the continents including barren Antarctica.

Not as successful as microorganisms or insects, I'll grant you, but I can't help but notice that animal rights types don't give a shit about them either.


I can't be in to psuedo science because I don't claim most my statements to be science, and I'm starting to talk in a more analytical manner than I'm comfortable with so I'm going to shut up and go back to doing what I do best: art

Ciao! :cool:

I don't know whether my statements are scientific or not; I don't think I can objectively judge such a thing. Nevertheless, I try to make my statements in line with the evidence available to me.

[Stand Your Ground]

No, science doesn't work that way. Animal rights types want to grant animals rights that, as far as we know, they simply cannot comprehend. Skin colour and sex have no effect on the ability to make a moral judgement, but species does.



Mind-reading is not required. I can't tell what another human is thinking just by looking at them either. Actions are a more useful yardstick.



What makes you think life is "really about" anything?



Actually, despite environmental degradation we are in some ways one of the most successful species on the planet. There are considerable numbers of us for an animal of our size, and we have conquered all the continents including barren Antarctica.

Not as successful as microorganisms or insects, I'll grant you, but I can't help but notice that animal rights types don't give a shit about them either.



I don't know whether my statements are scientific or not; I don't think I can objectively judge such a thing. Nevertheless, I try to make my statements in line with the evidence available to me.
That is exactly what speciesism is. If we can't understand them, how do we know they aren't trying to state their rights to us?

I can almost be for certain you can't tell what EVERY human is thinking by looking at them. That just sounds rediculous.

I guess it's all a matter of opinion what life is about.

I happen to care about insects very much. They seem to be the creatures most overlooked. That doesn't mean I stare at the ground when I walk to not step on an ant, but I don't target them either.

[Stand Your Ground]

No, that's just science. That's how science works, analyzing things, expirimenting, and then developing conclusions. What you're implicitly referencing, the Nazi 'science' of eugenics was anything but scientific. First of all, in science you base conclusions on evidence, the Nazi scientists started by taking their premise as absolute truth and then fudging the evidence to fit that conclusion. There were very serious methodological (As well as moral, obviously.) problems with how they conducted themselves. There is no comparison, whatsoever.
I don't always trust science, either. But that's just my opinion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That is exactly what speciesism is. If we can't understand them, how do we know they aren't trying to state their rights to us?

I can almost be for certain you can't tell what EVERY human is thinking by looking at them. That just sounds rediculous.

We can't. Which is why I think it if one is going to compare humans with other animals, one must make the comparison using what is observable, including behaviour.

It is plainly obvious when you observe the behaviour of human beings, and compare that with the behaviour of even the "smartest" mammalian vertebrates, that humans are capable of making far more complex and considered moral judgements than any other animal.

Discrimination based on sex and race are wrong because the facts do not support a difference in moral refinement based on those attributes. That's why racism and sexism are wrong, but speciesism isn't.


I happen to care about insects very much. They seem to be the creatures most overlooked. That doesn't mean I stare at the ground when I walk to not step on an ant, but I don't target them either.

But you nevertheless reveal yourself to be a hypocrite in your speciesist treatment of different creatures differently.


I don't always trust science, either. But that's just my opinion.

Science, as either a body of knowledge or a set of methods for obtaining that knowledge, can be trusted. The same cannot be said for inidividual scientists.

[Stand Your Ground]

We can't. Which is why I think it if one is going to compare humans with other animals, one must make the comparison using what is observable, including behaviour.

It is plainly obvious when you observe the behaviour of human beings, and compare that with the behaviour of even the "smartest" mammalian vertebrates, that humans are capable of making far more complex and considered moral judgements than any other animal.

Discrimination based on sex and race are wrong because the facts do not support a difference in moral refinement based on those attributes. That's why racism and sexism are wrong, but speciesism isn't.



But you nevertheless reveal yourself to be a hypocrite in your speciesist treatment of different creatures differently.



Science, as either a body of knowledge or a set of methods for obtaining that knowledge, can be trusted. The same cannot be said for inidividual scientists.
And that's why speciesism is a problem, because you try to find differences to justify your disreguard of other living beings. And you don't see that as a problem.

When did I ever say anything speciesist?

I don't put my trust in science.

[Klaatu]

So if people ethically have no moral qualms about killing and eating another animal (humans are animals too) which is clearly less intelligent and sentient than us, what forces us to draw the line between non-human animals and humans with severe mental disabilities? People eat pigs - they are very smart animals, possibly smarter than some severely disabled people. Other than human hubris, what prevents us from going "that far" to justify killing/eating one of our own species?

This is not an affront to omnivores. It is a serious ethical/philosophical question.

I don't know of any species in nature that eats it's own kind, but I could be wrong...

[Invincible Summer]

I don't know of any species in nature that eats it's own kind, but I could be wrong...

So you're saying it's evolutionary? That makes sense.

But I'm pretty sure I read something about rodents and pigs practicing cannibalism, albeit only when in dire straits

[Ocean Seal]

You know I remember reading one essay where it read that animal rights advocates went about seeking animal rights in the wrong fashion. I believe that the essayist said something about animal rights advocates looking to decrease suffering rather than maximize happiness. I feel as if this holds true for a lot of other struggles. What you you guys think?

[NGNM85]

So you're saying it's evolutionary? That makes sense.

But I'm pretty sure I read something about rodents and pigs practicing cannibalism, albeit only when in dire straits

Great white sharks engage in intrauterine cannibalism, the stronger pups eat the smaller ones inside the womb. Once they're born they swim away quick, so their mother doesn't eat them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And that's why speciesism is a problem, because you try to find differences to justify your disreguard of other living beings. And you don't see that as a problem.

You are confusing my reluctance to grant animals rights they are not capable of comprehending with a percieved disregard for animal welfare. I'm all for the prevention of cruelty for cruelty's sake towards animals, but the constant parallels towards abolitionism and feminism that animal rightists constantly make are wrong and insulting.


When did I ever say anything speciesist?

It's not about your words, it's about your conduct. On what basis do you treat insects with less regard than mammals?


I don't put my trust in science.

Well, why don't you fuck off back to the dark ages? By using modern technology you are implicitly putting your trust in the science used to develop it.

[Ele'ill]

And I'm not sure I like humanity being lowered to the same level as whatever animals feel, if that makes sense.

What's the harm?




It's clear that humans are more important than animals. We are clearly more intelligent. That's obvious;Intelligence doesn't equate to importance.





And I detest it when animal rights activists put animal slaughter on the same level as humans being killed. With this move, it's almost as if animals have suddenly become more important than humans. It's totally tasteless to compare the death of an animal to that of a human.

This statement is generalized as I suppose it would depend on the type of industry and the particular activist you'd talk to. Humans touting that they're more important than anything else is pretty amusing and I guess it's maybe because I don't disagree. Every creature on this planet thinks its more important than the living world around it and this is called survival. The difference is that humans have the level of intelligence to avoid inhumane treatment to create alternative means of survival and in my opinion there is simply no excuse for a creature with the highest level of intelligence on the planet to be the most destructive.

[NGNM85]

What's the harm?

First of all, because this radical animal rights philosphy, espoused by the ALF and others, is, first and foremost, bogus in the sense it contains very obvious fallacies and inherent contradictions. Moreover, if one proposes to apply this philosophy, in the words of Judge Posner, we open up "bizarre vistas of social engineering."


Intelligence doesn't equate to importance.

No, but sentience does. As for weighing the value between two sentient beings, that's a more complicated sort of moral calculus.


This statement is generalized as I suppose it would depend on the type of industry and the particular activist you'd talk to. Humans touting that they're more important than anything else is pretty amusing and I guess it's maybe because I don't disagree. Every creature on this planet thinks its more important than the living world around it and this is called survival.

This is the basic, Darwinian imperative I was talking about earlier. Most certainly. However, because we are the only sentient species (So far.) I would think that would give us a greater claim, than, say, aardvarks.


The difference is that humans have the level of intelligence to avoid inhumane treatment to create alternative means of survival and in my opinion there is simply no excuse for a creature with the highest level of intelligence on the planet to be the most destructive.

We definitely need tio take better care of the planet. Like Stephen Hawking said; if this is how we're going to to treat this planet we should be investing serious resources into finding another one. This is also the most sensible and logical argument for vegetarianism, it's also the least often employed.

As for 'inhumanity', well... Again, I'd say the issue is the objective and the utility. It should serve a necessary purpose, raising livestock for food, or, more importantly, medical research are legitimate exercises. To the degree that we are reasonabbly able, we should endeavor to make these processes as humane as possible.

[Ele'ill]

First of all, because this radical animal rights philosphy, espoused by the ALF and others, is, first and foremost, bogus in the sense it contains very obvious fallacies and inherent contradictions. Moreover, if one proposes to apply this philosophy, in the words of Judge Posner, we open up "bizarre vistas of social engineering."

This doesn't explain what the harm would be. Be specific.




No, but sentience does. As for weighing the value between two sentient beings, that's a more complicated sort of moral calculus.

Do you really think there's that much of a difference in perception between humans and other living things?




This is the basic, Darwinian imperative I was talking about earlier. Most certainly. However, because we are the only sentient species (So far.) I would think that would give us a greater claim, than, say, aardvarks.

You mean we're the only species that is self aware of has a self perception etc.. ? I'll answer to this later if that's the case.




We definitely need tio take better care of the planet. Like Stephen Hawking said; if this is how we're going to to treat this planet we should be investing serious resources into finding another one. This is also the most sensible and logical argument for vegetarianism, it's also the least often employed.

It isn't that there needs to be a reasoning FOR vegetarianism as much as there needs to be and is lacking a reasoning for destroying the planet- mass meat- useless fur and skin industries. Those are the actions that need explaining first.


As for 'inhumanity', well... Again, I'd say the issue is the objective and the utility. It should serve a necessary purpose, raising livestock for food, or, more importantly, medical research are legitimate exercises. To the degree that we are reasonabbly able, we should endeavor to make these processes as humane as possible.

We dont' need the type of meat industry that we have. We don't need fur factories. Etc..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It isn't that there needs to be a reasoning FOR vegetarianism as much as there needs to be and is lacking a reasoning for destroying the planet- mass meat- useless fur and skin industries. Those are the actions that need explaining first.

It's sheer hyperbole to claim that meat and fur industries are "destroying the planet". In my estimation it's this ludicrously over the top language that serves to hurt the cause of those who want to reduce animal suffering and environmental damage, because people hear the overblown rhetoric, look around and see the world isn't collapsing in on itself, and then make the reasonable conclusion that such people don't know what the hell they are talking about.


We dont' need the type of meat industry that we have. We don't need fur factories. Etc..

There's a whole bunch of shit we don't "need", but the world would be a very fucking boring place if only things that were absolutely necessary were allowed.

I like eating meat and wearing leather. I've yet to see an argument against such practices which could not just as easily serve as an argument for improving them.

[Ele'ill]

It's sheer hyperbole to claim that meat and fur industries are "destroying the planet". In my estimation it's this ludicrously over the top language that serves to hurt the cause of those who want to reduce animal suffering and environmental damage, because people hear the overblown rhetoric, look around and see the world isn't collapsing in on itself, and then make the reasonable conclusion that such people don't know what the hell they are talking about.


I like eating meat and wearing leather. I've yet to see an argument against such practices which could not just as easily serve as an argument for improving them.

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/soy121903.cfm
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production
http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/community-tips/meat-industry-eat-lower-food-chain_
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

The trend seems to involve overconsumption.




There's a whole bunch of shit we don't "need", but the world would be a very fucking boring place if only things that were absolutely necessary were allowed.

If there are elements of industry that aren't necessary and they also happen to be extremely harmful on various levels we should cut them.

[Stand Your Ground]

You are confusing my reluctance to grant animals rights they are not capable of comprehending with a percieved disregard for animal welfare. I'm all for the prevention of cruelty for cruelty's sake towards animals, but the constant parallels towards abolitionism and feminism that animal rightists constantly make are wrong and insulting.

It's not about your words, it's about your conduct. On what basis do you treat insects with less regard than mammals?

Well, why don't you fuck off back to the dark ages? By using modern technology you are implicitly putting your trust in the science used to develop it.
All oppression has parallels. To say otherwise is insulting. I'm sure you must know how cattle are 'branded', did you know slaves used to be branded in the same way? The parallels are not hard to see.

I don't.

Oh if only we had time travel. :rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

All oppression has parallels. To say otherwise is insulting. I'm sure you must know how cattle are 'branded', did you know slaves used to be branded in the same way? The parallels are not hard to see.

I don't.

Oh if only we had time travel. :rolleyes:

...And Tom Selleck has facial hair, as did Hitler, therefore; Magnum P.I. is a Nazi. This is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the failure in your thinking should be clear. Just because two things share features doesn't mean they're comperable. Moreover, one thing you seem to miss, and I just want to give credit to judge Posner, because I'm essentially paraphrasing, but slavery wasn't ended because they invented some new, flawed, system of morality, it was because of the fact that African slaves were no more or less human than anyone else.

Actually, time travel should be acheiveable. However, you'd need a budget comperable to the Pentagon to make it happen. NoXion knows more about this than I do, but I think a Nuclear-Pulse Rocket, which would have to be designed and constructed very carefully, probably in outer space, again, at astronomical cost, would be sufficient. See, if you were able to fly away from the earth at around 75% of lightspeed, for about a hundred years, millennia could have passed, here on earth. As I understand it, such a rocket could only go about a third of lightspeed, but, if you flew for a long enough time, you could essentially propel yourself into the future, in a sense. It's not like the DeLorean, but it's technically time travel. However, you'd better like what you find because it's a one-way trip. You also want to keep it under 15-20 billion years, because that's about when our universe is projected to end, as I understand it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/soy121903.cfm
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production
http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/community-tips/meat-industry-eat-lower-food-chain_
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

The trend seems to involve overconsumption.

One of the problems is the destruction of rainforests for growing feed, which can be addressed with better agricultural practices. Another issue, that of animal waste, can be dealt with by utilising it as a resource, especially as a source of methane.

It's stupid to assume that current, profit-focused methods are the only way to mass-produce meat.


If there are elements of industry that aren't necessary and they also happen to be extremely harmful on various levels we should cut them.

Or you could use your imagination and do things differently, as I propose.


All oppression has parallels. To say otherwise is insulting. I'm sure you must know how cattle are 'branded', did you know slaves used to be branded in the same way? The parallels are not hard to see.

The slaves were human beings, not cows. That is the essential difference which you are not grasping.


I don't.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Do you know how many insects and small mammals died so you could live in a house and eat?


Oh if only we had time travel. :rolleyes:

No need. Just turn off your electricity, gas, and running water, throw out most of the contents of your house including books/magazines, kitchen appliances, electronic goods and any manufactured items, rip up your carpets, stop using toilet paper, getting the hint yet?

[Ele'ill]

One of the problems is the destruction of rainforests for growing feed, which can be addressed with better agricultural practices. Another issue, that of animal waste, can be dealt with by utilising it as a resource, especially as a source of methane.

It's stupid to assume that current, profit-focused methods are the only way to mass-produce meat.


I agree with you here. Almost everything can be done differently with minimal impact to the environment. Capitalism is causing these issues.

I don't think we need to consume meat the way we are and I think it's very possible that we don't need meat at all. Assuming the global north is the number one consumer of meat- we have access to other sources of protein.




Or you could use your imagination and do things differently, as I propose.

Yes, exactly. Like food other than meat and synthetic materials instead of fur which is mainly used for fashion items.

[this is an invasion]

I sock rabbits while eating veal.



But seriously, it's stupid to equate eating meat with animal abuse.

[CommunityBeliever]

I hate the sort of vegetarianism that tries to justify itself with

WTF? Since when did vegetarians have to justify themselves? It is the meat eaters that are taking some specific morally objection action, the onus is on the meat eaters to justify themselves.

Even if you completely hate animals, at least consider the humans that have a sense of respect for animals and their bodies and that have a sympathy and feel the suffering of these non-human victims. Besides that consider the practical inefficiencies of livestock.


It's definitely tricky to ascribe to animals intelligence and emotions.

Get off of the computer for once and actually see a non-human animal, I don't think there is any question that they have emotions, some level of intelligence, and a responsiveness to their environment.

Animals are not mindless machines, and I don't know anyone who actually believes that, or that they do not feel emotions.


we don't know if this seal (or whatever it is, it's hard to tell) knows whats happening.

I think the proper term is knew, he is dead by now. If he was conscious when that happened to him I don't there is any question that he would've been aware of it and he would've suffered considerably.


I find it hard to think of animals' thought beyond a series of chemical impulses.

With this you are obviously using the definition of animals that includes humans, as humans thought process is not that different from other animals...

Consider Chimpanzees and other apes, they are so similar to us, they're brains are not very different to ours...


It's not about your words, it's about your conduct. On what basis do you treat insects with less regard than mammals?

I am tired of hearing this comparison to bacteria and insects, those types of organisms do not have the same responsiveness to their environment and capacity for suffering.

That is the important point, the capacity for suffering, these animals suffer.


One of the problems is the destruction of rainforests for growing feed, which can be addressed with better agricultural practices. Another issue, that of animal waste, can be dealt with by utilising it as a resource, especially as a source of methane.

The development that inevitably have to occur is that meat replacements are improved to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from the meat, so people will just become vegans and use those replacements instead.

There won't be any need for livestock, there will be something rather like the replicators in Star Trek that let us manufacture the same tastes w/o any livestock, just by the arrangement of materials.

Looking further in the future, humans may completely abolish eating and look for alternative sources of energy... :cool:

Either way, right now in modern times, there is an adequate number of meat alternative products out there that you can use to be a vegan today and still have some of those tastes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree with you here. Almost everything can be done differently with minimal impact to the environment. Capitalism is causing these issues.

I don't think we need to consume meat the way we are and I think it's very possible that we don't need meat at all. Assuming the global north is the number one consumer of meat- we have access to other sources of protein.

I believe I have already pointed out the folly of making arguments based on naive interpetations of what is necessary. Using your exact same reasoning, there is no reason for anyone to drink anything other than water.

But that would be boring, for a start.


Yes, exactly. Like food other than meat and synthetic materials instead of fur which is mainly used for fashion items.

Fur and meat can be reared in a humane and environmentally sound manner.


I am tired of hearing this comparison to bacteria and insects, those types of organisms do not have the same responsiveness to their environment and capacity for suffering.

That is the important point, the capacity for suffering, these animals suffer.

Yes, certain animals have an enhanced capacity to suffer. But that is an argument for animal welfare, not animal rights.


The development that inevitably have to occur is that meat replacements are improved to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from the meat, so people will just become vegans and use those replacements instead.

I'll believe it when I see it.


There won't be any need for livestock, there will be something rather like the replicators in Star Trek that let us manufacture the same tastes w/o any livestock, just by the arrangement of materials.

Perhaps vat-grown meat will prove to be more productive and less damaging than rearing whole animals, but that remains to be seen.


Looking further in the future, humans may completely abolish eating and look for alternative sources of energy... :cool:

Some may choose to go down that path, but I think you will find that other people are innately conservative and will wish to hold on to their type of bodies.


Either way, right now in modern times, there is an adequate number of meat alternative products out there that you can use to be a vegan today and still have some of those tastes.

No there isn't. While there are some meat alternatives that I actually like (such as Quorn), I eat them on the basis of their own merits, not on the basis of a meat replacement.

[Stand Your Ground]

...And Tom Selleck has facial hair, as did Hitler, therefore; Magnum P.I. is a Nazi. This is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the failure in your thinking should be clear. Just because two things share features doesn't mean they're comperable. Moreover, one thing you seem to miss, and I just want to give credit to judge Posner, because I'm essentially paraphrasing, but slavery wasn't ended because they invented some new, flawed, system of morality, it was because of the fact that African slaves were no more or less human than anyone else.

Actually, time travel should be acheiveable. However, you'd need a budget comperable to the Pentagon to make it happen. NoXion knows more about this than I do, but I think a Nuclear-Pulse Rocket, which would have to be designed and constructed very carefully, probably in outer space, again, at astronomical cost, would be sufficient. See, if you were able to fly away from the earth at around 75% of lightspeed, for about a hundred years, millennia could have passed, here on earth. As I understand it, such a rocket could only go about a third of lightspeed, but, if you flew for a long enough time, you could essentially propel yourself into the future, in a sense. It's not like the DeLorean, but it's technically time travel. However, you'd better like what you find because it's a one-way trip. You also want to keep it under 15-20 billion years, because that's about when our universe is projected to end, as I understand it.
Ok and animals are no less alive than us, so humans treatment of them is anything but justified.

Rediculous.

[Stand Your Ground]

The slaves were human beings, not cows. That is the essential difference which you are not grasping.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Do you know how many insects and small mammals died so you could live in a house and eat?

No need. Just turn off your electricity, gas, and running water, throw out most of the contents of your house including books/magazines, kitchen appliances, electronic goods and any manufactured items, rip up your carpets, stop using toilet paper, getting the hint yet?
The difference does not justify the action.

Technically, I didn't kill them. Someone else did, a very long time ago. And you can't try to pin that on me. The capitalist system causes casualties. Until it is gone there's not much I can do to stop it.

I guess you didn't see the sarcasm.

[Ele'ill]

I believe I have already pointed out the folly of making arguments based on naive interpetations of what is necessary. Using your exact same reasoning, there is no reason for anyone to drink anything other than water.

But that would be boring, for a start.

I don't think you've explained why they're naive. It's argued that we don't need to drink as much water as we do. Sometimes the less exciting route is the more appropriate route to take.




Fur and meat can be reared in a humane and environmentally sound manner.

Killing a creature for fashion is in no way humane- and the fur industry is completely unecessary as there are many other alternatives to wearing animal pelts.There is no reason to eat meat.

Both industries are useless. The fur industry can be shut down immediately and the meat industry can be eventually made obsolete-

[Ele'ill]

I sock rabbits while eating veal.



But seriously, it's stupid to equate eating meat with animal abuse.

Except for the abusive living conditions and treatment of the animals before they're killed in light of other less expensive and ecologically sound alternatives. :rolleyes:

[this is an invasion]

Except for the abusive living conditions and treatment of the animals before they're killed in light of other less expensive and ecologically sound alternatives. :rolleyes:

Yeah, too bad I never said I supported that shit. Honestly, in the whole history of humans eating meat, the factory farm is a recent development.

I would much rather there be no factory farms at all, and I definitely try to buy/"get" free range meats when I can. But at the end of the day, me becoming vegetarian isn't going to change the fact that the majority of people in my country, if not the world, want to eat meat. And because we live in a market society that is based upon getting the highest profit, there are going to continue to be factory farms.

[Ele'ill]

Yeah, too bad I never said I supported that shit. Honestly, in the whole history of humans eating meat, the factory farm is a recent development.

I would much rather there be no factory farms at all, and I definitely try to buy/"get" free range meats when I can. But at the end of the day, me becoming vegetarian isn't going to change the fact that the majority of people in my country, if not the world, want to eat meat.


It isn't that they want to eat meat its that they've been told meat is essential and the industry needs to remain in tact so they can consume copious amounts of it (and dairy).

Education is key and educating people about the harmful effects of that industry is no different than educating them about why sweatshops, grossly unbalanced corporate - worker power etc is important and why capitalism, ultimately, is destroying our planet and it's inhabitants.





And because we live in a market society that is based upon getting the highest profit, there are going to continue to be factory farms.

And there will be sweat shops, ecological disasters, grossly unbalanced wages, etc until people decide to start organizing. Let's make sure it's better post revolution.

[this is an invasion]

I don't disagree.


Although I do believe that post-revolution, people are still going to eat meat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The difference does not justify the action.

It does, actually. Human slaves can articulate their desire for freedom. Farm animals don't even understand the concept.


Technically, I didn't kill them. Someone else did, a very long time ago. And you can't try to pin that on me. The capitalist system causes casualties. Until it is gone there's not much I can do to stop it.

Well then, in that case I might as well argue that the meat is being produced anyway, why not eat it? It would make no difference to the bigger picture whether I eat meat or not, it would be purely of personal impact.


I guess you didn't see the sarcasm.

Well, that just makes you a hypocrite now, doesn't it? You say you don't "trust science" yet you are perfectly happy to use goods and services developed with scientific knowledge and methods.


I don't think you've explained why they're naive. It's argued that we don't need to drink as much water as we do. Sometimes the less exciting route is the more appropriate route to take.

It depends how badly you want your austerity measures to be enforced.


Killing a creature for fashion is in no way humane- and the fur industry is completely unecessary as there are many other alternatives to wearing animal pelts.There is no reason to eat meat.

It doesn't make any difference to the animal why its being killed. What matters to it is the means. I'm sure we can do better than ripping out throats.

As for animal pelts, they make good items of clothing. I'm pretty sure if my boots had been made from hemp or polyester instead of leather, they would have fallen apart years ago.

The tastiness of meat is reason enough to eat it.


Both industries are useless. The fur industry can be shut down immediately and the meat industry can be eventually made obsolete-

How do you think this should be enforced?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

No, science doesn't work that way. Animal rights types want to grant animals rights that, as far as we know, they simply cannot comprehend. Skin colour and sex have no effect on the ability to make a moral judgement, but species does.
Have fun with your moral judgements...



Actually, despite environmental degradation we are in some ways one of the most successful species on the planet. There are considerable numbers of us for an animal of our size, and we have conquered all the continents including barren Antarctica.
Over population you mean?


Not as successful as microorganisms or insects, I'll grant you, but I can't help but notice that animal rights types don't give a shit about them either.
How do you know whether I care about insects or not. If I see one I scream and have someone move it but I wouldn't kill it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have fun with your moral judgements...

It's not a moral judgement. It's an objectively observable fact.


Over population you mean?

Overpopulated by what measure?


How do you know whether I care about insects or not. If I see one I scream and have someone move it but I wouldn't kill it.

I was speaking in general terms. Don't tell me that animal rights types adorn their websites and literature with pictures of anything other than cute furry animals.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It's not a moral judgement. It's an objectively observable fact.

read closer:

No, science doesn't work that way. Animal rights types want to grant animals rights that, as far as we know, they simply cannot comprehend. Skin colour and sex have no effect on the ability to make a moral judgement, but species does.
You're the human making that claim are you not.



Overpopulated by what measure?
Well to the point where we have starvation and destroy the very plannet we live on.




I was speaking in general terms. Don't tell me that animal rights types adorn their websites and literature with pictures of anything other than cute furry animals.

... That moral judgement.
I'm not a type or a make. It's really not nice to lump entire groups of people into one catagory. Also do you know every one of us in the entire world? I can bet not because you don't know me personally.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're the human making that claim are you not.

When was the last time you saw a pig condemning slavery?


Well to the point where we have starvation and destroy the very plannet we live on.

We have starvation for organisational/economic reasons, not because we have a lack of food. And we're not destroying the planet, that's hyperbole.


... That moral judgement.
I'm not a type or a make. It's really not nice to lump entire groups of people into one catagory. Also do you know every one of us in the entire world? I can bet not because you don't know me personally.

So what? I don't have to know you personally to make an observation about people who believe in animal rights. I can see for myself that they have certain consistencies.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So what? I don't have to know you personally to make an observation about people who believe in animal rights. I can see for myself that they have certain consistencies.

Well you're wrong by that claim of consistencies. I for one wouldn't want to hurt an insect. But since I'm a bad example (due to the fact my views on this are personal not political) I'll point out that the Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) believe all beings, including insects have souls and are potentially divine. While that is not my reasoning or logic, I figured I should point that out. Also, PETA criticized Obama for killing a fly on TV during an interview.

In all actuality, I'm arguing because it's in my nature, vegetarianism in my case is a personal choice and not a matter of activism or politics. I'm pretty much vegetarian just because I don't like how meat makes me feel and I love how soy makes me feel.

[Ele'ill]

It depends how badly you want your austerity measures to be enforced.

Comparing the eradication of a dually useless and destructive industry as 'austerity measures' is the same as saying sweat shops and corporate power need to remain intact because we wouldn't want things to be 'boring, cold and restrictive' even if it's extremely useful to do so. :rolleyes:




It doesn't make any difference to the animal why its being killed.

It doesn't matter to the human why it's killed either it only cares that it is being killed. The important part of that is that the animal is still being brought into existence to be killed or simply captured and killed etc..




As for animal pelts, they make good items of clothing. I'm pretty sure if my boots had been made from hemp or polyester instead of leather, they would have fallen apart years ago.

There are plenty of other materials to make boots and clothes out of that have absolutely no animal products on/in them. They last just as long if not longer and honestly I don't think your boots lasting for years is worth however many animal's lives. We can make biodegradable shoes and boots that last quite a long time and can pretty much be throw into the forest without much of an ecological impact.





How do you think this should be enforced?

When? How hard would it be to ban fur farming/factories and consider it poaching? The meat industry would be a gradual process for sure.

[Stand Your Ground]

It does, actually. Human slaves can articulate their desire for freedom. Farm animals don't even understand the concept.

Well then, in that case I might as well argue that the meat is being produced anyway, why not eat it? It would make no difference to the bigger picture whether I eat meat or not, it would be purely of personal impact.

Well, that just makes you a hypocrite now, doesn't it? You say you don't "trust science" yet you are perfectly happy to use goods and services developed with scientific knowledge and methods.
I don't think you know them to the point of being able to say that with absolute certainty.

Going vegan or just vegetarian or whatever, can be a choice just to make you personally happy. That's the main reason I did it. Knowing that I'm not eating anything that was killed so I can eat is a good feeling, to me anyway.

Like what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well you're wrong by that claim of consistencies. I for one wouldn't want to hurt an insect. But since I'm a bad example (due to the fact my views on this are personal not political) I'll point out that the Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) believe all beings, including insects have souls and are potentially divine. While that is not my reasoning or logic, I figured I should point that out. Also, PETA criticized Obama for killing a fly on TV during an interview.

Fine, so you, Jains and PETA are consistent. Consistent, but still wrong.


In all actuality, I'm arguing because it's in my nature, vegetarianism in my case is a personal choice and not a matter of activism or politics. I'm pretty much vegetarian just because I don't like how meat makes me feel and I love how soy makes me feel.

In that case, I am perfectly entitled to argue the case for meat consumption because it is simply delicious and gives meals that bulkiness required for a decent sugar rush.


Comparing the eradication of a dually useless and destructive industry as 'austerity measures' is the same as saying sweat shops and corporate power need to remain intact because we wouldn't want things to be 'boring, cold and restrictive' even if it's extremely useful to do so. :rolleyes:

Stupid analogy. Sweatshop labour can and should be replaced with a better way of producing goods, and current farming methods can and should be replaced with something more sustainable.

But that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the complete eradication of livestock rearing. Good luck with that.


It doesn't matter to the human why it's killed either it only cares that it is being killed.

If that was true, then humans would never willingly risk their lives, but they do. This indicates that they can plan for the future, including risking their lives if they think the pay-off is worth it.


The important part of that is that the animal is still being brought into existence to be killed or simply captured and killed etc..

How is that important? In a state of nature, the vast majority of living things brought into existence are killed and/or eaten before they even fully develop. At least life as a livestock animal can be comfortable; food, shelter, protection from predators, and a quick and painless death.


There are plenty of other materials to make boots and clothes out of that have absolutely no animal products on/in them. They last just as long if not longer and honestly I don't think your boots lasting for years is worth however many animal's lives.

I think it's 1/16 of a cow or something; I reckon you can make more than one pair of boots out of a cowskin. Seems worth it to me.


We can make biodegradable shoes and boots that last quite a long time and can pretty much be throw into the forest without much of an ecological impact.

Yup. Leather boots.


When? How hard would it be to ban fur farming/factories and consider it poaching? The meat industry would be a gradual process for sure.

How are you going to enforce such bans? In order to do so without repressive state machinery, you would need popular support which you don't have.


I don't think you know them to the point of being able to say that with absolute certainty.

Nothing is absolutely certain, you neophyte. However, from what we can observe of farm animals, the balance of probability is that don't get up to anything as sophisticated as humans.


Going vegan or just vegetarian or whatever, can be a choice just to make you personally happy. That's the main reason I did it. Knowing that I'm not eating anything that was killed so I can eat is a good feeling, to me anyway.

If it's all about personal choice, why the moralising on the part of your vegetarian fellow-travellers?


Like what?

How about anything with an electric circuit, for a start. When Alessandro Volta, a scientist (you know, one of those sciencey types you don't trust) invented the first battery, electrical circuits are made possible. Since you don't trust science, I recommend you get as far away as possible from those suspicious electric circuits.

Go now!

[Ele'ill]

Stupid analogy. Sweatshop labour can and should be replaced with a better way of producing goods, and current farming methods can and should be replaced with something more sustainable.

The point is that the use of the phrase 'austerity measures' is a scare tactic and those harmful industries such as child labor, sweat shop labor etc will be eradicated as will the meat industry and fur industry as they're inhumane aspects of agriculture.



But that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the complete eradication of livestock rearing. Good luck with that.

The funny thing is that nobody in any of the four threads running at the same time has come forward with any argument for fur and meat that's much more of its 'better than synthetic' (which is complete bullshit and we all know it)- 'it tastes good' or 'I sock rabbits'.

These industries either are not needed at all or won't be needed at all once there is ample nutrition to everyone on the planet.




If that was true, then humans would never willingly risk their lives, but they do. This indicates that they can plan for the future, including risking their lives if they think the pay-off is worth it.

Animals are equipped with risk taking capabilities- don't be foolish.




In a state of nature, the vast majority of living things brought into existence are killed

Wrong. The vast majority of things are not brought into existence by human hand and then killed. (which is what I meant- fur farming etc..)


and/or eaten before they even fully develop.

The point is that they were born free and their life went towards keeping another free creature fed and an ecosystem diverse and in tact.




At least life as a livestock animal can be comfortable;

I don't think you've done much research into how livestock animals are kept and treated.



food, shelter, protection from predators, and a quick and painless death.

Often times not enough food, protection from predators but a trampling death by your friends, a quick and (according to you- a human in favor of this industry- painless) death isn't much after being reared in one of the most horrid and traumatizing environments possible.




I think it's 1/16 of a cow or something; I reckon you can make more than one pair of boots out of a cowskin. Seems worth it to me.

It isn't necessary, why do it?



How are you going to enforce such bans? In order to do so without repressive state machinery, you would need popular support which you don't have.

The same way we're going to shut down sweatshops and organizations posting loans in exchange for SAPs. Same mechanisms.

Making an industry dedicated to (very) little more than fashion- fur- explain why a roadkill overcoat is necessary is a lot easier to gain support for and eventually abolish than the police state and the banking system- just as an example.

With that said- I will not let you or anyone else turn this type of discussion into a 'those vegan animal lovers' vs 'those working class anarchists' as the division is a farce touted by elitists.


If some of the above post seems personally attacking I'm sorry- I like reading your posts and I don't regret having this internet discussion with you. :thumbup1:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Fine, so you, Jains and PETA are consistent. Consistent, but still wrong.
Well the point is you made a generalization about "Animal Rights Types" that is very untrue even in the case of the most well known Animal Rights Groups (PETA). Also, for the most part, the concept of consistency is a fictional concept because we live in an inconsistent world.

Dn'y put your hopes into consistency. You'll either be disapointed or dellusional.




In that case, I am perfectly entitled to argue the case for meat consumption because it is simply delicious and gives meals that bulkiness required for a decent sugar rush.

Yes but my case is different. My stomach can't process meat hence it comes back up.

Soy, on the other hand, is not only going to be free from inducing vomitting, it actually makes me feel a little closer to balanced.


Also, I (with my history) am qualified to say vegetarians taste better (in the cases of both male and female). But I'm going to shut my mouth (oh the irony) before I get more obscene and erotic.

[NGNM85]

Ok and animals are no less alive than us, so humans treatment of them is anything but justified.

Well, in that case, by you're own logic, you're a mass murderer. You're immune system has murdered innumerable bacteria who are 'no less alive than us.' That would also include plants. This is why this ideology is a failure. It's utilitarian up until it's inconvenient, then it's about the sactity of life, but not really. There is no philosophical foundation, there is no coherent principle.


Rediculous.

If you're referring to my statement about time-travel I was being quite serious. Again, NoXion could give you more of the specifics, but it's totally sound. It happens all the time, just to an infinitesimal degree, I believe the record is held by some cosmonaut who's all of two tenths of a second ahead of us. The universe is also projected to end in about 15-20 billion years, in an event called 'the big freeze', at which point the universe will plunge into absolute darkness, drop to absolute zero, and even the black holes will decay. However, I think we have much more immediate problems.

[Ele'ill]

Well, in that case, by you're own logic, you're a mass murderer. You're immune system has murdered innumerable bacteria who are 'no less alive than us.' That would also include plants. This is why this ideology is a failure. It's utilitarian up until it's inconvenient, then it's about the sactity of life, but not really. There is no philosophical foundation, there is no coherent principle.

I know this wasn't directed at me so don't feel the need to reply as I know this thread has gone on for a very long time-

If we as humans were under assault by bears or ocelots I would be in support of defending ourselves as creatures

We are not defending ourselves from hundreds of thousands of cows (that we keep captive)
We are not defending ourselves from mink, fox and whatever other creatures those sick fuckers use for fashion accessories. (that we farm)

These are not industries that are essential to our survival.

Our bodies killing microbes so that we don't die of infection is self defense.

[Stand Your Ground]

I'm done with all these AR threads. Some people are too ignorant to understand, or care, and they seem to get their undergarments in a wad and whine to my reputation comments lol. Plus it's just the same arguments recycled. I will never turn from my AR views and no one can change that.

I will leave with one final comment that angry internet people can rate down if they wish, as for the 'sophistication' comment, that sounds like a class thing. The high class rich people look down on poor people as lesser beings because they see them as unsophisticated. They have no pity and don't care about the people stuck on the bad side of capitalism. Animals only seem unsophisticated to your ignorant views.

[NGNM85]

I'm done with all these AR threads. Some people are too ignorant to understand, or care,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I understand perfectly. I've encountered this ideology before, I've read Singer, ALF literature, etc. Virtually all exhibit the same logical flaws and misconceptions.



and they seem to get their undergarments in a wad and whine to my reputation comments lol.

For the record, as you are no doubt aware, I have not done so.


Plus it's just the same arguments recycled. I will never turn from my AR views and no one can change that.

The problem is you don't seem to have any answers for these arguments. I also don't see how anyone else could be persuaded to believe this without answers to these questions. You're position is a radical one, and just like Anarchism, or anything else for that matter, if you state your views, especially if they are radical ideas, you're obligated to defend them. Like Abbie Hoffman said; "I'm really a defendant full-time."


Animals only seem unsophisticated to your ignorant views.

My determination of animals is based on scientific facts.

[NGNM85]

I know this wasn't directed at me so don't feel the need to reply as I know this thread has gone on for a very long time-

If we as humans were under assault by bears or ocelots I would be in support of defending ourselves as creatures

We are not defending ourselves from hundreds of thousands of cows (that we keep captive)
We are not defending ourselves from mink, fox and whatever other creatures those sick fuckers use for fashion accessories. (that we farm)

These are not industries that are essential to our survival.

Our bodies killing microbes so that we don't die of infection is self defense.

Granted, but this sort of misses the point. My point was you can't actually apply this deontological, 'sanctity of life' principle, which is bogus, incidentally. Every blade of grass, insect, or microorganism is 'just as alive as we are.' I don't think he even believes this idea. I think people just repeat this stuff without ever actually critically analyzing it.
I was trying to make the point that this ideology has no foundation. If it were utilitarian, we could talk about finding some way to kill animals painlessly. However, these people can't accept that, so then it becomes about the sanctity of life, but not really. I was trying to illustrate; 1.This is a logical shell game., 2. These ideas are impossible to apply even if they made sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The point is that the use of the phrase 'austerity measures' is a scare tactic and those harmful industries such as child labor, sweat shop labor etc will be eradicated as will the meat industry and fur industry as they're inhumane aspects of agriculture.

As I've pointed out and you've refused to acknowledge, meat and fur production does not have to be inhumane.


The funny thing is that nobody in any of the four threads running at the same time has come forward with any argument for fur and meat that's much more of its 'better than synthetic' (which is complete bullshit and we all know it)- 'it tastes good' or 'I sock rabbits'.

Meat does taste good to a significant proportion of human beings, otherwise they wouldn't eat it. I don't see why human comfort (and in the case of animal testing, human safety) has to take second place to creatures who can't even appreciate their position.


These industries either are not needed at all or won't be needed at all once there is ample nutrition to everyone on the planet.

Again, this is a stupid argument because it can be applied to lots of things. It's like arguing that oranges should be abolished because we can get vitamin C from blackberries.


Animals are equipped with risk taking capabilities- don't be foolish.

A human will weigh up the perceived costs and benefits and make a decision based on that. There's no indication that other animals do so in a manner involving more than instinct. Possibly chimps and dolphins use more than instinct, but since we don't rear them as livestock it's irrelevant.


Wrong. The vast majority of things are not brought into existence by human hand and then killed. (which is what I meant- fur farming etc..)

Pay attention. I said "in a state of nature", by which I meant outside of human machinations.


The point is that they were born free and their life went towards keeping another free creature fed and an ecosystem diverse and in tact.

Why are you arbitrarily applying a human social construct - "freedom" to beings that, as far as we can tell, cannot even conceive of it? "Freedom" is not something inherent in the universe, it is an abstract concept constructed by humans on an ad-hoc basis for their own purposes.


I don't think you've done much research into how livestock animals are kept and treated.

I'm fully aware of the horrors of profit-oriented intensive rearing; which is why I qualified my statement with the word "can".


Often times not enough food, protection from predators but a trampling death by your friends, a quick and (according to you- a human in favor of this industry- painless) death isn't much after being reared in one of the most horrid and traumatizing environments possible.

The manifest flaws in current livestock rearing practices do not rule out more humane alternatives.


It isn't necessary, why do it?

Because we want to.


The same way we're going to shut down sweatshops and organizations posting loans in exchange for SAPs. Same mechanisms.

If animal rights advocates tactics are anything to go by, then this will involve destroying peoples' livelihoods (not everyone who rears animals is part of a multinational conglomerate) via vandalism, threatening behaviour, assault, and smear tactics on the part of a ideologically-driven minority.

I cannot condone that.


Making an industry dedicated to (very) little more than fashion- fur- explain why a roadkill overcoat is necessary is a lot easier to gain support for and eventually abolish than the police state and the banking system- just as an example.

I don't think it will be as easy as you make it out to be. Animal rearing and wearing animal skins pre-dates capitalism by millennia.


With that said- I will not let you or anyone else turn this type of discussion into a 'those vegan animal lovers' vs 'those working class anarchists' as the division is a farce touted by elitists.

I should hope that will not be the case.


If some of the above post seems personally attacking I'm sorry- I like reading your posts and I don't regret having this internet discussion with you. :thumbup1:

Even if you were to flame me, I would consider it water off a duck's back.


Well the point is you made a generalization about "Animal Rights Types" that is very untrue even in the case of the most well known Animal Rights Groups (PETA).

I may have initially overstated my case, but you cannot deny that AR advocates focus on the more photogenic members of the animal kingdom. This is in spite of the fact that those ugly arthropods are far more numerous and far more essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems.


Also, for the most part, the concept of consistency is a fictional concept because we live in an inconsistent world.

Dn'y put your hopes into consistency. You'll either be disapointed or dellusional.

Actually, the world is consistent because it comprehensible.


Yes but my case is different. My stomach can't process meat hence it comes back up.

Soy, on the other hand, is not only going to be free from inducing vomitting, it actually makes me feel a little closer to balanced.


Also, I (with my history) am qualified to say vegetarians taste better (in the cases of both male and female). But I'm going to shut my mouth (oh the irony) before I get more obscene and erotic.

If meat does not sit well with you physiologically speaking, then I cannot criticise your position on that point.

However, my main problem is with those who advocate the abolishment of livestock rearing for moral reasons.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I may have initially overstated my case, but you cannot deny that AR advocates focus on the more photogenic members of the animal kingdom. This is in spite of the fact that those ugly arthropods are far more numerous and far more essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems.
So we agree on that? I wasn't saying you were completely wrong on that, just have too much oversight on the frequent exceptions.




Actually, the world is consistent because it comprehensible.
I know of very few rules with out exceptions.



If meat does not sit well with you physiologically speaking, then I cannot criticise your position on that point.

However, my main problem is with those who advocate the abolishment of livestock rearing for moral reasons.

I personally consider morality ironic.

Also, I don't really consider being humane to be an issue of morality. I consider it to be an issue of emotion and sensitivity. To the extent of being able to put yourself in another's perspective.

While the physiological reason is my primary reason, there is also an element of my feeling of compassion. In this case even this is not a claim of morality but a claim of a feeling rooted in emotion.

I'm going to paraphrase a movie line that I always liked in saying I don't deal in reality, I deal in something more real. I deal in dreams.



That which is concrete and based only off cold facts, with disregard for all emotion, give way to a very boring and painfully bland world in my opinion.

[Raúl Duke]

While the physiological reason is my primary reason, there is also an element of my feeling of compassion. In this case even this is not a claim of morality but a claim of a feeling rooted in emotion.

I'm going to paraphrase a movie line that I always liked in saying I don't deal in reality, I deal in something more real. I deal in dreams.



That which is concrete and based only off cold facts, with disregard for all emotion, give way to a very boring and painfully bland world in my opinion.

That's all fine and dandy for personal enjoyment but you can't base society and its rules around one person's feelings.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That's all fine and dandy for personal enjoyment but you can't base society and its rules around one person's feelings.

Well that would be all fine and dandy to keep my personal feelings out of societal affairs if society were to keep it's hierarchies and rules out of my personal life, but in my case society has infringed upon my life. Now I'm going to stop before I get too far off topic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So we agree on that? I wasn't saying you were completely wrong on that, just have too much oversight on the frequent exceptions.

The focus on photogenic animals is indicative of the emotional rather than rational basis for AR advocates' beliefs.


I know of very few rules with out exceptions.

Exceptions are not statistically significant.


I personally consider morality ironic.

Also, I don't really consider being humane to be an issue of morality. I consider it to be an issue of emotion and sensitivity. To the extent of being able to put yourself in another's perspective.

But you can't do that, since you have never been anything other than an individual human being. As a society we have to orient our ethical behaviour with observer-independant facts.


While the physiological reason is my primary reason, there is also an element of my feeling of compassion. In this case even this is not a claim of morality but a claim of a feeling rooted in emotion.

As a basis for a personal choice, I cannot fault that. But if you want society to adopt vegetarianism, there has to be a compelling reason to do so that goes beyond subjective feelings.


I'm going to paraphrase a movie line that I always liked in saying I don't deal in reality, I deal in something more real. I deal in dreams.

I've dreamt that I'm a billionaire astronaut, but that doesn't make it so.


That which is concrete and based only off cold facts, with disregard for all emotion, give way to a very boring and painfully bland world in my opinion.

I disagree. Knowledge is empowerment, and to let our emotions guide us in all things is to chain ourselves up with our own evolutionary history.

[Invincible Summer]

I thought this passage would be appropriate for this thread:

“Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions in
order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills
domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man
by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to
degenerative–and fatal–health conditions like heart disease, kidney
...disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more
animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of
other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because
food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.
Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of
man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out
cards praying for ‘Peace on Earth.’”

-Preface from Old MacDonalds Factory Farm by C. David Coates

[ZeroNowhere]

Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of
man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out
cards praying for ‘Peace on Earth.’”Apart from capitalism, the main problem with the world is that this doesn't happen quickly enough.


I personally consider morality ironic.

Also, I don't really consider being humane to be an issue of morality. I consider it to be an issue of emotion and sensitivity. To the extent of being able to put yourself in another's perspective.I'm not sure how exactly morality is 'ironic'.

Anyhow, being 'humane' is certainly a moral issue, as saying that something is 'inhumane' is a term of censure. Saying that insects are yucky is not equivalent to saying that they should be killed.


Also, I (with my history) am qualified to say vegetarians taste better (in the cases of both male and female). But I'm going to shut my mouth (oh the irony) before I get more obscene and erotic.I'm an asexual, but nonetheless I doubt that you had tested and verified this statement scientifically.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I thought this passage would be appropriate for this thread:

“Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions in
order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.

We kill animals to protect all of our crops. If we didn't, either people would starve or we would have to cause even more environmental damage by cultivating more land.


Then he kills
domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man
by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to
degenerative–and fatal–health conditions like heart disease, kidney
...disease, and cancer.

These are general problems with lifestyle and diet, none of them special to rearing or consuming meat.


So then man tortures and kills millions more
animals to look for cures for these diseases.

I'm sorry, would experimenting on humans be more ethical? :rolleyes:


Elsewhere, millions of
other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because
food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.

No, they're dying because the food they could eat is being put to waste.


Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of
man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out
cards praying for ‘Peace on Earth.’”

We call those idiots "romantics" and "magical thinkers".

I really don't know why you quoted this dunce, Helios+.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

We kill animals to protect all of our crops. If we didn't, either people would starve or we would have to cause even more environmental damage by cultivating more land.
I once read that it takes 10-20 times the amount of land to raise a meat based diet as compared to a veggie based diet. I don't remember where I read it.

[NGNM85]

I once read that it takes 10-20 times the amount of land to raise a meat based diet as compared to a veggie based diet. I don't remember where I read it.

I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but the essence of that is absolutely correct. That's a very sound, logical reson for eating less meat. I support that and it's part of the reason why I've significantly reduced meat in my diet. However, this is not what I was arguing against. What I take issue is, specifically, this logically flawed AR-extremist ideology that tries to totally rearrange human conceptions of morality.

[Invincible Summer]

I really don't know why you quoted this dunce, Helios+.
To make your blood pressure rise, evidently :lol:

Really though, I thought it'd be interesting to throw it into this thread and see what people thought. Although I am a vegetarian, I don't necessarily agree with these specific examples that the author gives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I once read that it takes 10-20 times the amount of land to raise a meat based diet as compared to a veggie based diet. I don't remember where I read it.

Even if that's true, that's an engineering issue rather than a moral issue - it is entirely possible, through various methods, to reduce land use for agriculture in general.

For instance, vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming).

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Exceptions are not statistically significant.
I'm an exception to the rule on quite a few things. Am I insignificant for that?




But you can't do that, since you have never been anything other than an individual human being. As a society we have to orient our ethical behaviour with observer-independant facts.
Well I see violence inflicted on animals and I think of the violence inflicted upon me and how I wished someone would have been there for me. That's when I get pissed. It's not your place to tell me that I "can't" associate my personal experiences of having violence inflicted upon me with the violence I see against animals.




As a basis for a personal choice, I cannot fault that. But if you want society to adopt vegetarianism, there has to be a compelling reason to do so that goes beyond subjective feelings.
Of course it's a personal choice.

Since when would I have a basis to think society would ever take me into mind with anything in anyway, let alone my feelings?







I disagree. Knowledge is empowerment, and to let our emotions guide us in all things is to chain ourselves up with our own evolutionary history.
Well someone likes to be quite Spartan and bland. In a world of cold facts and statistics, I'd rather die as cold facts don't depict pleasure, pain, passions and that which makes the world less boring.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm an asexual, but nonetheless I doubt that you had tested and verified this statement scientifically.

This is embarassing, but I give more head than an overworked guillitine. Over and over, the point is shown that all of the vegitarians had sweeter cum than the meat eaters.

... I can't believe I'm disclosing this...

[Quail]

^ A quick google search would suggest that diet can change the taste of semen, so it could be true.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm an exception to the rule on quite a few things. Am I insignificant for that?

Statistically, yes. Remember that being a statistical outlier doesn't make you less of a person - personhood isn't defined by one's distance from the average.

But my point was that "exceptions to the rule" can be easily incorporated into a coherent understanding of the universe. Also, there are some "rules" that don't have exceptions so far as we can tell; for example, the mass of the electron.


Well I see violence inflicted on animals and I think of the violence inflicted upon me and how I wished someone would have been there for me. That's when I get pissed. It's not your place to tell me that I "can't" associate my personal experiences of having violence inflicted upon me with the violence I see against animals.

Of course I cannot control your thoughts, and neither do I seek that power. But I do feel compelled to point out that your experiences of violence cannot be objectively compared to the violence that animals experience. Why? Because none of us knows what it's like to be a fish or a chicken or a pig in any circumstances, let alone violent ones.

If we accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the strong evidence that conscious experience is a product of the function of cerebral tissue, it follows that whatever it's like to be a pig, it cannot be compared to human experience. The brains of humans and other animals have been each uniquely shaped by evolution, with the added complication that humans have developed complex languages that convey abstract ideas that cannot be found in nature, such as "morality".


Of course it's a personal choice.

Since when would I have a basis to think society would ever take me into mind with anything in anyway, let alone my feelings?

Perhaps not yourself, but certainly some vegetarians I have come across see the issue of meat consumption as a moral one that needs to be addressed by society.


Well someone likes to be quite Spartan and bland. In a world of cold facts and statistics, I'd rather die as cold facts don't depict pleasure, pain, passions and that which makes the world less boring.

I think this is a prime illustration of the subjectivity of personal experience; I certainly don't feel my worldview to be "Spartan and bland" - on the contrary, having the merest inkling of the awe-inspiring emergence and complexity of the universe is something capable of leaving me breathless with wonder - I may not be very good at conveying them, but I do experience emotions.

Emotions are a "cold fact" of being human, and I think it's important we recognise them for what they are, as consequences of our unique evolutionary history, rather than mystifying them in a quasi-spiritual way. Emotions are a powerful influence, and we must recognise and respect that power, especially their power to lead us astray.


This is embarassing, but I give more head than an overworked guillitine. Over and over, the point is shown that all of the vegitarians had sweeter cum than the meat eaters.

I swallow for erotic potential, not taste.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Statistically, yes. Remember that being a statistical outlier doesn't make you less of a person - personhood isn't defined by one's distance from the average.

But my point was that "exceptions to the rule" can be easily incorporated into a coherent understanding of the universe. Also, there are some "rules" that don't have exceptions so far as we can tell; for example, the mass of the electron.
Even with the "rules that don't have exceptions as far as we can tell" has that as far as we can tell part.
My point was that as long as there are possibilities of exceptions, they should (in my opinion) not be absolutely ruled out. When exceptions are proven they shouldn't be brushed off.




Of course I cannot control your thoughts, and neither do I seek that power. But I do feel compelled to point out that your experiences of violence cannot be objectively compared to the violence that animals experience. Why? Because none of us knows what it's like to be a fish or a chicken or a pig in any circumstances, let alone violent ones.

If we accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the strong evidence that conscious experience is a product of the function of cerebral tissue, it follows that whatever it's like to be a pig, it cannot be compared to human experience. The brains of humans and other animals have been each uniquely shaped by evolution, with the added complication that humans have developed complex languages that convey abstract ideas that cannot be found in nature, such as "morality".
We are now on a subject that I have felt all my life but never have been able to fully explain. Empathy is just in my nature.




Perhaps not yourself, but certainly some vegetarians I have come across see the issue of meat consumption as a moral one that needs to be addressed by society.
Yes some do, and some meat-eaters throw meat at someone that they find out is vegetarian in a lunch room and when that vegetarian yells out 'fuck you' to them that vegetarian gets in trouble. But I don't try and portray that as all meat eaters.

Sorry, but I told you I'm very personal life experience and feelings based.




I think this is a prime illustration of the subjectivity of personal experience; I certainly don't feel my worldview to be "Spartan and bland" - on the contrary, having the merest inkling of the awe-inspiring emergence and complexity of the universe is something capable of leaving me breathless with wonder - I may not be very good at conveying them, but I do experience emotions.

Emotions are a "cold fact" of being human, and I think it's important we recognise them for what they are, as consequences of our unique evolutionary history, rather than mystifying them in a quasi-spiritual way. Emotions are a powerful influence, and we must recognise and respect that power, especially their power to lead us astray.
I was only quasi serious. Learning to laugh more does the soul some good. :)




I swallow for erotic potential, not taste.

I just can't help but to notice tastes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even with the "rules that don't have exceptions as far as we can tell" has that as far as we can tell part.
My point was that as long as there are possibilities of exceptions, they should (in my opinion) not be absolutely ruled out. When exceptions are proven they shouldn't be brushed off.

Of course we cannot rule out the possibility of exceptions, but we can't take them into account until we actually come across the exception in question. For example, it might turn out that under certain circumstances, electron mass differs from what has previously always been measured. But until that happens, we can only state with any certainty that electrons have the specific mass we observe.


We are now on a subject that I have felt all my life but never have been able to fully explain. Empathy is just in my nature.

I don't like to bring this up because it sounds like I'm making excuses, but I fear that having AS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome) may be a significant factor in my worldview.


Yes some do, and some meat-eaters throw meat at someone that they find out is vegetarian in a lunch room and when that vegetarian yells out 'fuck you' to them that vegetarian gets in trouble. But I don't try and portray that as all meat eaters.

Sorry, but I told you I'm very personal life experience and feelings based.

I must admit I find that very hard to understand.


I was only quasi serious. Learning to laugh more does the soul some good. :)

I have an idiosyncratic sense of humour and picking up that sort of thing over the internet is difficult enough at the best of times.


I just can't help but to notice tastes.

Hold your nose? :D

[Telemakus]

I generally like vegetarianism (though I'm not a strict one myself).
Some ethical reasons I can think of:
- it's much more sustainable and eco-friendly than meat eating
- if you do it right, it's healthier
- factory farming is, I presume (does any know of any scientific research to specifically support this?), essentially "unhappiness" farming.
I can only imagine being removed from the natural environment in which they evolved, and placed in such a restricting environment would result in a miserable existence
- excessive meat-eating is indicative of the failures of modern society and capitalism in general

Reasons for meat eating?
- tastes good
- convenient

This being said, I have no problem with the killing in itself, and would support very moderate meat-eating so long as it deals with the issues I outlined (and anything I missed).