Should animals have "rights"?

[Vanguard1917]

Should there be such a thing as an "animal right", especially if that right conflicts with progress for human beings (e.g. in medical science, construction or production)? I personally reject any so-called "animal right", but i'm curious to see what others may think. For example, should scientists be allowed to do scientific research on ALL primates? What about the building of a large factory which may threaten a local species of bird (for instance) but will also provide thousands of local people with work?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:36 PM
Look Here (http://www.peta.org/) This might change your view on 'animal rights' especially the videos!! If it don't then you are one heartless bastard!! I am in a transitional stage at the mo between canivore and veganism!
Hey same here. Unfortunately its rather difficult for me as my family always cooks with animal products.

But animals deserve rights as well as anyone else. I'm not against pets at all, provided you treat them right.

I find it interesting too that in the US, Britain, and Canada, Animal Rights predated children's rights.

Two things about eating meat:
1. If you have to cook it it's obviously not a natural thing to be doing if human's can't handle meat raw.
2. It's more energy efficient to eat strictly plants (according to the energy pyramid).

[rice349]

the fact of the matter is, nobody has rights. Rights are completely subjective to one's own interpretation to what they feel they are in right to, or how free they are.

With that in mind, animals do not have any fucking rights. Except of course the right to be served with a side of steamed vegetables :D

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:54 AM
the fact of the matter is, nobody has rights. Rights are completely subjective to one's own interpretation to what they feel they are in right to, or how free they are.

With that in mind, animals do not have any fucking rights. Except of course the right to be served with a side of steamed vegetables :D
How Stalinistic. I mean no insult to that, I am just making an observation.

Animals should have rights. I dont believe anything deserves to die a slow, horrible death as many creatures do in slaughterhouses. I do not believe that any animal should be penned in with its own excrement in a cage barely big enough to fit it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Animals do not deserve rights any more than minerals or plants deserve rights.
As non-sentient entities they are resources, and of course all resources need careful management, but not rights.

There is a clear line between animals and sentients. Sentients have culture, evolving memes, and an ability to question the universe in which they inhabit.

The only way to give animals rights is to give them sentience; to provolve them: To give them the ultimate gift of sentience, which raises them above their brutish existance of born-growup-mate-die.

The day that the first animal is provolved is the day I will weep; I will weep for joy because yet another species has been saved from an interminable existance of mating and death and will be able to truly appreciate their existance. They will truly be able to experience for the first time, the feeling of joy.

[KC]

Read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
and My Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.
and Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps you could be a bit more conrtibutory to the discussion than a dry selection selection of suggested reading materials, fuckhead.

[Palmares]

Indeed NoXion, but calling him a fuckhead is hardly called for.

I agree with NovelGentry on the whole. Great initial post.

Humans are morally responsible for their actions. Animals are not.

And in reference to drinking cow's, or any non-human milk, who is to say what we can, or can't, or are supposed, or not supposed to drink? Surely it is a matter of evolution, as our organs are not yet evolved to the enzimes in the milk, but we will adapt. Hell, our teeth are very much evolved for eating such things that have bones in these, does that neccessitate we must then eat meat? It's more the fact that we can eat meat.

The only concession I give to such similar movements to this is that I am against the agricultural system, the way animals are harvested is atrocious. But I have no problem with the eating of meat in itself.

[ComradeChris]

Ok, we have someone mentioning rights are subjective, and someone saying they only apply to sentient beings. I say we hit NoXion on the head until he is no longer capable of sentient thought, then we can use him as a resource...it's what he would have wanted. God...I was looking forward to conversing with leftists after revolutionaryleft was down for awhile (as I spent all my posting time debating right-wing nit-wits), but I've quickly lost that enthusiasm.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah, course, the liberal idiot with his of course absolutely devastating arguments returns :rolleyes: Despite the fact that he consistently ignores reality at every turn, including the fact that I would fucking knock out the pussy if he even dared to fucking touch me IRL.

Never mind the fact that the modern 'left' has been polluted with PETA maniacs and trendies, all wusses who would melt away at the first sign of a real proletarian revolution, because after the cappies and the nazis the first ones to be hung would be THEM!

Fuck it. DEATH to fake revolutionary leftists!

Chthenthar, it would be better if he provided the outline argument that the books provided rather than posting the titles so that the bourgeouis socialist author could get even fatter off my money!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While we may not all feel any moral obligation to stop animal exploitation, the simple fact remains that raising animals for food is really fucking inefficient, and more than a little damaging to our rather necessary environment (not to mention the health damage done to humans who live near CAFOs and consume their products - blech!).
So, you might not love the animals like some of us do, but - fuck the philosophical jibber-jabber! What matter are the practical questions - and practically speaking, we should oppose the uber-exploititive (The Jungle has changed disturbingly little since 1905) meat industry which is poisoning us and our environment.

[Vanguard1917]

Thanks for the replies. I'm actually quite suprised to see that the majority of the posts are pro-"animal rights". Since when did the "emancipation" of animals become a cause for the left? Afterall, the more time we spend on "liberating" animals, the less we spend on liberating the people. To elevate the position of animals is actually to degrade that of humanity.

But it goes further than that. The elevation of the animal species is a syptom of a much greater alienation and degradation of the human subject. It arises from an increasing lack of belief in human beings and human potential. I think it's worthwhile looking at Marx's criticism of Oriental despotism and the Hindu religion in India, which:

"subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never-changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow."

As Marx points out, humanity is the sovereign of nature. In my view, natural goods (the land, the oceans, the plants and the animal species) are (as someone above already said) resources for humanity - they do not have a value in and of themselves. If we seek to preserve them, it should be a resourceful preservation, not as some sort of empty moral obligation. Moralising about "animal rights" degrades human productive potential - especially in places where it is most needed. But i'm sure others may disagree...

[Redmau5]

Yes they should have rights. People often use the "humans have reason" argument to justify superiority. In that case, we should experiment on humans who are mentally disabled to the point were they are unable to use reason. Because many primates are more sentient than brain-damaged humans. So why not test on humans who aren't rational ?

[More Fire for the People]

Animals do indeed deserve rights that equally tie with their conscienceness.
Thus, an ape would be free to live it's own life with no human intervention under penalty of law while a fish can be fried in crisco.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

This has always been a though one for me. On one side, I enjoy meat, milk and other animal products. Thus I support the industrial processing of animals. I wonderd then, if you support locking up beeings their entire life, only to be slaughterd, purely to sattisfy your need. Wouldn't it be incredibly hypocrit to simultaneously claim them rights?

To compare it with humans. Wouldn't it be hypocrit to abuse humans, lock them up, slaughter them for your need and still claim them to have rights?

And what would really seperate those who have rights with those who haven't? And who am I then to decide on the entire lifesequence of billions of beeings.

Still meat, milk, eggs etc form an important part of the my diet. To not to eat them, would be denying myself of some seriously needed vitamins, minerals and I really really like them.

But still, with all this. I can't stand to see animals be harmed pointlessly. A very hypocritical position.

Maybe this generation of revolutionaries is too inclined in the tradition of meateating and that the next generations, can find themselves better in a animal-product free world. Nobody that I have met seems to have a really good answer on it.

[T_SP]

Look Here (http://www.peta.org/) This might change your view on 'animal rights' especially the videos!! If it don't then you are one heartless bastard!! I am in a transitional stage at the mo between canivore and veganism!

[RedLenin]

Animals should be treated with respect like anything else. We do not need to kill and enslave them. However, I dont think compulsorary veganism is a good idea. Animals should have some rights. It should be illegal to treat the animals badly and abuses should not be tolerated. But it is the choise of the people wheather or not to consume animal products. But then again, who determines that we are so superior to animals? To tell you the truth, I am kind of stuck on this one.

[NovelGentry]

Hello Mr. Steer, you have the right to be marinated, and the right to be tastey!

Seriously though, no. I draw the line between human animal comparisons for multiple reasons.

For starters... very simply put. Not all animals are humans. Humans may be animals, but it doesn't work in reverse for anything but animals that already are human. Do I think we can treat animals better? yes. Do I think it is our imperitive to stop using them for food, drug testing, etc... no.

Reason does play a role. And I fully support endng life support for those who have no chance of recovering or learning to the point that they can become functioning members of human society. These are, however, medical decisions which I can not make. Take Terry (yeah, we all know Terry now) for example... I think she shouldn't of just had her feeding to turbe removed. I think any healthy organs should have been put up for donation the minute she died. She's dead... she doesn't need them... etc.

Animals with low levels of reasoning are in the same bin of use, but even to a further extent. Regardless of what you've seen in cartoons, chickens, rabbits, cows, and the likes do not dress up in cute aprons and have kids and convene on farms and in rabbit holes to discuss the state of their popluation. They eat, shit, and breed. Do they have social relationships? Yes... extremely primitive ones. Even well trained monkeys throw fesces every now and then -- at the best, they act like human children. Well enough to accept command and be influenced, but every now and then they just do crazy shit regardless of what the hell you'd like. My dog is the same way too. I think all creatures have a right to a seemingly natural and comfortablle habitat, but just like the lion can catch the deer and eat it, we can catch the cow, or the chicken, etc... and eat it. Or we can catch it and inject it with something and see what kind of results the tests have.

Food and such tests are both functions that prolong the life of our species and develop our ability to sustain our species. It's the circle of life man!!! Hasn't the Lion King taught you anything.

Anyway, how long until PETA starts protecting Vegetables rights? And what's the argument there? "they can't think and feel" -- well our argument is very similar, we just draw the line at a higher level of thought process. Both plants and animals have lower thought processes than humans, one to the level that it's not even considered thought. But hey, Persistent Vegetative State is called Vegetative for a reason -- they're still alive... but alive alone doesn't really count, does it?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 05:04 AM
Ah, course, the liberal idiot with his of course absolutely devastating arguments returns :rolleyes: Despite the fact that he consistently ignores reality at every turn, including the fact that I would fucking knock out the pussy if he even dared to fucking touch me IRL.

Never mind the fact that the modern 'left' has been polluted with PETA maniacs and trendies, all wusses who would melt away at the first sign of a real proletarian revolution, because after the cappies and the nazis the first ones to be hung would be THEM!

Fuck it. DEATH to fake revolutionary leftists!

Chthenthar, it would be better if he provided the outline argument that the books provided rather than posting the titles so that the bourgeouis socialist author could get even fatter off my money!
Wow...you posted something completely off topic. I was making your ideology look moronic, as it is. And I'm supposed to be afraid of you? I'm more afraid you you making an appropriate intelligent argument, rather than complete biassed bullshit.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:33 PM
Hello Mr. Steer, you have the right to be marinated, and the right to be tastey!

Seriously though, no. I draw the line between human animal comparisons for multiple reasons.

For starters... very simply put. Not all animals are humans. Humans may be animals, but it doesn't work in reverse for anything but animals that already are human. Do I think we can treat animals better? yes. Do I think it is our imperitive to stop using them for food, drug testing, etc... no.

Reason does play a role. And I fully support endng life support for those who have no chance of recovering or learning to the point that they can become functioning members of human society. These are, however, medical decisions which I can not make. Take Terry (yeah, we all know Terry now) for example... I think she shouldn't of just had her feeding to turbe removed. I think any healthy organs should have been put up for donation the minute she died. She's dead... she doesn't need them... etc.

Animals with low levels of reasoning are in the same bin of use, but even to a further extent. Regardless of what you've seen in cartoons, chickens, rabbits, cows, and the likes do not dress up in cute aprons and have kids and convene on farms and in rabbit holes to discuss the state of their popluation. They eat, shit, and breed. Do they have social relationships? Yes... extremely primitive ones. Even well trained monkeys throw fesces every now and then -- at the best, they act like human children. Well enough to accept command and be influenced, but every now and then they just do crazy shit regardless of what the hell you'd like. My dog is the same way too. I think all creatures have a right to a seemingly natural and comfortablle habitat, but just like the lion can catch the deer and eat it, we can catch the cow, or the chicken, etc... and eat it. Or we can catch it and inject it with something and see what kind of results the tests have.

Food and such tests are both functions that prolong the life of our species and develop our ability to sustain our species. It's the circle of life man!!! Hasn't the Lion King taught you anything.

Anyway, how long until PETA starts protecting Vegetables rights? And what's the argument there? "they can't think and feel" -- well our argument is very similar, we just draw the line at a higher level of thought process. Both plants and animals have lower thought processes than humans, one to the level that it's not even considered thought. But hey, Persistent Vegetative State is called Vegetative for a reason -- they're still alive... but alive alone doesn't really count, does it?
It's not even about that Gent. It's about the fact that eating animals and their by products are no good for humans period! Why is it we are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another? We're supposed to be the intelligent ones! Milk is designed for the calf not human beings, am I right? Or am I right? Animals are high in fat and cholesteral, they give us unecessary nutrients etc that our bodies don't need, can't handle and actually harm us! I could go on, but I'm getting off topic here.

[Redmau5]

Preach Chris, preach.......... :D

As for the "liberal idiot" remark. I support animal rights but i want the death penalty reinstated and i would support terror in any post-revolutionary society. Does that make me "liberal" ?

[robob8706]

As a vegan I believe that humans should never benefit off of the unnesessary killing and suffering of animals, except in cases of survival and/or massive increases into quality of life, such as cures for debilitating diseases. Anything besides those two categories should be considered animal torture. No conscious life should be taken without consent or absolute necessity.

[OleMarxco]

Agreeing on one issue does not make a man agree on the whole issue. After the revolution of liberating man, then perhaps we could turn to liberate the animals FROM man?

....And we'd all eat lettuces ;)
Until we all decide to "liberate the plants".
Ugh. Then it get's ugly....I wonder what Terry Schiavo
Would've said for this if she could've had been speakin'.

[NovelGentry]

It's not even about that Gent. It's about the fact that eating animals and their by products are no good for humans period! Why is it we are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another? We're supposed to be the intelligent ones! Milk is designed for the calf not human beings, am I right? Or am I right? Animals are high in fat and cholesteral, they give us unecessary nutrients etc that our bodies don't need, can't handle and actually harm us! I could go on, but I'm getting off topic here.

And that's why the vegans I meet are all taking supplements to ensure balanced nutrients. It is why my cousin is now treated for anemia due to lack of iron.

Let's be serious for a minute here. While the milk may be more obscure, something of a perversion -- eating meat alone, is not.

Lastly, this is not the standard argument put forward, and even if it was, it is a personal decision. Just like the decision to smoke. If it's not good for you, but you decide to do it anyway, that is your decision. I don't see why we need activists who push for "animal rights" because it's our decision to be unhealthy. Although, even as I have pointed out to you, the alternative isn't healthy either.

The fact is you need balance. And whether or not that balance is achieved through animal products, it remains a completely useless argument for justifying their "rights."

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 09:16 PM
Until we all decide to "liberate the plants".
Eating plants is a necessity, and when carried out properly/coherently, plant-based agriculture is distinctly less damaging and much more effecient than animal agriculture.

I think the morons who bring up this point should be treated as vegetables, and made into some sort of stew.

I'm going to quote myself, seeing as none of the meatheads have responded yet:


While we may not all feel any moral obligation to stop animal exploitation, the simple fact remains that raising animals for food is really fucking inefficient, and more than a little damaging to our rather necessary environment (not to mention the health damage done to humans who live near CAFOs and consume their products - blech!).
So, you might not love the animals like some of us do, but - fuck the philosophical jibber-jabber! What matter are the practical questions - and practically speaking, we should oppose the uber-exploititive (The Jungle has changed disturbingly little since 1905) meat industry which is poisoning us and our environment.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 18 2005, 07:02 PM
I'm going to quote myself, seeing as none of the meatheads have responded yet:


While we may not all feel any moral obligation to stop animal exploitation, the simple fact remains that raising animals for food is really fucking inefficient, and more than a little damaging to our rather necessary environment (not to mention the health damage done to humans who live near CAFOs and consume their products - blech!).
So, you might not love the animals like some of us do, but - fuck the philosophical jibber-jabber! What matter are the practical questions - and practically speaking, we should oppose the uber-exploititive (The Jungle has changed disturbingly little since 1905) meat industry which is poisoning us and our environment.
I didn't reply because I completely agree. If anyone has the primary school understanding of the energy pyramid they would know that it's inefficient. I had the approximate percentages at one point, but a large percentage of vegetable crops are distributed to feed livestock, which in turn, feeds far less of the population than the vegetables themselves would have fed.

Also if it were natural to eat meat we should always be able to eat it raw without getting illnesses and infections. Not to mention with Mad Cow Desease, E. Coli, etc., it's almost a safer bet to stick to plants.

[MKS]

Do lions consider the antelope they eat? Do bears think of the fish they eat? Why should humans consider the "rights" of an animal. Animals exist in part to provide food for bigger animals. Humans who now have no natural enemy, must hunt or kill in order to survive. Unless we are to be sustain by chemicaly processed food.

My opinion is that the most natural way of life is usally the best way of life in order to maintain the ecological balance of the planet. That means humnas, as omnivores, must eat both meat and plants, as well as cheeses, etc to survive.


Also if it were natural to eat meat we should always be able to eat it raw without getting illnesses and infections. Not to mention with Mad Cow Desease, E. Coli, etc., it's almost a safer bet to stick to plants

Unfourtunatley years of evolution and scientific "engineering" or perversion have created a weakened digestive system. Also plants can be subject to cause of disease, by the use of pesticides and the like.

Of course everything in moderation but western man in his infinite "wisdom" and seemingly compulsion to destroy, has displayed yet again in their greed the destrcution of many of the food chains and ecosytems that thrived for thousands or even millions of years.

[KC]

Do lions consider the antelope they eat? Do bears think of the fish they eat? Why should humans consider the "rights" of an animal. Animals exist in part to provide food for bigger animals. Humans who now have no natural enemy, must hunt or kill in order to survive. Unless we are to be sustain by chemicaly processed food.

My opinion is that the most natural way of life is usally the best way of life in order to maintain the ecological balance of the planet. That means humnas, as omnivores, must eat both meat and plants, as well as cheeses, etc to survive.

The difference between humans, lions and bears is pretty obvious. Factory farming. The fact is that in our current state the ecosystem is completely off balance because of factory farming; when bears or lions eat meat they aren't affecting the ecosystem anywhere near as much as humans do with factory farming. Humans, after "rising to the top" of the food chain, we no longer have a place in the food chain. Which means that we have basically destroyed our "natural way of life". Since humans have no place in the food chain anymore, the world could survive perfectly without us. Of course, we're still here. Which gives us the option of whether or not to eat meat, regardless of the natural way of life. I think not eating it is better, and I think that that's pretty obvious. Less pollution, healthier on the whole. Also, if enough people stopped eating meat then all the fuckheads that own factory farms (prominent symbols of capitalism) would go out of business. That's my two cents.

Oh and yeah I got lazy about that last post with the book titles. You don't have to be such a dumbshit about it.

[MKS]

I think not eating it is better, and I think that that's pretty obvious

Better, how? Healthier?

I disagree, its not healthier to not eat meat, I think true health is a balnced diet of both meat, veggies, etc.


"rising to the top" of the food chain, we no longer have a place in the food chain

Isn't our place on the top of the food chain? We have made it this way. however sometimes without our technology we fall prey to other animals, do you think they care?

How is there less pollution by not eating meat? I could kill a cow with very little waste. In fact the native americans ate meat all the time, andcould never be considered either unhealthy or polluters.

I think our life, socities should be based on their example, a balnced participation in the natural systems already established.

[redstar2000]

Why do factory farms (for both edible crops and edible animals) exist?

Capitalist villainy? Promethean hubris?

They exist because within the overall social system in which we live, they are cheaper and more efficient than any other practical way to feed six billion people. (Even if they don't feel half of them very well at all.)

I'd be as glad as anyone else to replace them with something better either now or after the revolution.

But every prior form of food production that we can look at produces less food that costs more!

Which results in things like...um, famine.

Or, in less extreme cases, being short and not very bright.

Someday, it may well be technologically possible to make food "in vats" -- add raw chemicals, combine them appropriately, and out comes a steak or a potato that is indistinguishable from "the real thing".

Those would be real "factory farms"...completely independent of weather/climate, pesticides, etc.

But that's a long way into the future.

As a practical matter, we are "stuck" with what we have...unless we're willing to condemn two-thirds (or more?) of the world's population to immediate death by starvation.

Any volunteers?

What could and should be done is to improve sharply the working conditions of agricultural laborers and workers in the meat-packing industry...which range from pretty bad to truly awful.

And here capitalism is the real enemy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeChris]

Do lions consider the antelope they eat? Do bears think of the fish they eat? Why should humans consider the "rights" of an animal. Animals exist in part to provide food for bigger animals. Humans who now have no natural enemy, must hunt or kill in order to survive. Unless we are to be sustain by chemicaly processed food.

They are born predators and have the biological requirements to do so. As I said, humans couldn't eat a lot of meat without cooking it. It's obviously not a natural thing.


Unfourtunatley years of evolution and scientific "engineering" or perversion have created a weakened digestive system. Also plants can be subject to cause of disease, by the use of pesticides and the like.

Yeah humans caused the harmful side effects of pesticides, like some other deseases that were caused by us feeding the same species to itself. Humans are the ones messing ecosystems up.


Of course everything in moderation but western man in his infinite "wisdom" and seemingly compulsion to destroy, has displayed yet again in their greed the destrcution of many of the food chains and ecosytems that thrived for thousands or even millions of years.

It seems as though many of the communists here aren't for really correcting the destuctive practices wrought on by the capitalists. Some people here seem to have even less compassion than some capitalists for the ecosystem. It disturbs me greatly.


Which results in things like...um, famine.

Actually, if we gave our plants right to humans (instead of feeding animals) there would be a lot less famine. It's a simple energy pyramid fact.

[robob8706]

Raising livestock is very inneffecient and expensive. 70 percent of the US's corn goes to feeding livestock. With the money, time and resources put into raising livestock, we could feed the world.

[Zingu]

Animals should be treated as far as human interests go.

Example:
"Inhuman" practices that decreases the health of the livestock should be stopped to stop the health risk to humans.

Animals are a reasource; I mean, do you know where the strawberry yogurt comes from? :ph34r:


Or when you take a shower your washing out thousands of innocent microbes that live peacefully in your eyebrows?

[KC]

Better, how? Healthier?

I disagree, its not healthier to not eat meat, I think true health is a balnced diet of both meat, veggies, etc.

Actually, there is nothing in meat that you can't get in non-meat products. It used to be a common conception that Vitamin B12 was found only in meat. However, it was discovered that bacteria produced the vitamin. Also, many different forms of food are being fortified with Vitamin B12.

Vegans have a 26% less chance of heart disease and 30% less chance of stroke as compered with regular meat eaters.
Vegetarians that eat fish have a 34% less chance of heart disease.
Other studies have concluded the incidence of heart disease to be 57% lower in vegans.
Vegans have the lowest total and LDL cholesterol levels of all dietary groups.
Worldwide, the lowest frequency of Type 2 diabetes is with poluations eating near-vegan diets.
All of this is from the book Becoming Vegan, which I happened to have sitting in front of me.


Isn't our place on the top of the food chain? We have made it this way. however sometimes without our technology we fall prey to other animals, do you think they care?

I wouldn't say that we're at the "top" of the food chain; more like outside of it. We have no natural prey under us, therefore we can't be at the top. Of course, one could argue that cows or chickens are natural prey under us, but the fact is that humans eat all animals; not just their natural prey. In my view this puts us outside of the food chain completely.


How is there less pollution by not eating meat? I could kill a cow with very little waste. In fact the native americans ate meat all the time, andcould never be considered either unhealthy or polluters.

Of course you could kill a cow with little waste. You're thinking about family farms now, though. Today 150,000 commercial farms produce almost three-fourths of the nation’s agricultural output. Family farms are almost extinct. So that analogy doesn't work. Yes, you could kill a cow, but for a factory farm to be effective they have to kill hundreds (probably thousands) of cows every day. They have to be skinned, processed and shipped out. Not to mention the fact that they have to be grown to the correct age when they can be sent to slaughter. Like robob said, 70% of US corn goes towards feeding livestock. This is turned into shit. There is so much shit that factory farmers have to build "holding tanks", which I've discussed before (not sure if it was in this post or in another), which are prone to leaking. They cause water pollution, damage the eco system, and you can smell them literally from 2 miles away. This is 70% of the nation's grain going to waste, turning into pollutant. But then, of course, the cow has to be slaughtered. In the factory farm environment cows are put on conveyor belts. Conveyor belts must be powered. This causes pollution. The cows are killed different ways, depending on what the factory chooses. The problem with this is that some cows don't die. They are boiled and skinned alive. I read a report of a factory worker discovering the cow was still alive as he was disemboweling it. The meat is then processed, which I don't really knwo the process but it has to be powered which causes more pollution. The rest of the cow is discarded as waste. I read somewhere that the meat processing industry is one of the most polluting industries in the US. Wouldn't it be a LOT less pollutant if we just ate what we fed the cows (no not cow food, the grain! :blink: ). It is just as healthy (usually more), a lot better for the environment, and deals a big blow to a capitalist icon. Not to mention it saves the animals a lot of grief, but you don't have to care about that.



They exist because within the overall social system in which we live, they are cheaper and more efficient than any other practical way to feed six billion people. (Even if they don't feel half of them very well at all.)
Yes! That's what I'm saying. It's all about more for less.


As a practical matter, we are "stuck" with what we have...unless we're willing to condemn two-thirds (or more?) of the world's population to immediate death by starvation.
Haha I'm down! All you'd have to do is close all the fast food chains, nobody knows how to cook anymore! :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris+--> (ComradeChris)Actually, if we gave our plants right to humans (instead of feeding animals) there would be a lot less famine.[/b]

Before there were factory farms, people ate a diet much higher in plant food...and yet there were more famines (under feudalism and classical despotism) than there are now.

Where famine takes place now (parts of Africa), the diet is almost entirely vegetarian...when there's anything to eat at all.

To be sure, there are other factors -- such as growing cash crops for export -- that can result in food shortages. But the real problem in Africa is that they don't have factory farms, refrigerated transport and storage, effective pesticides and fertilizers, etc.


Originally posted by [email protected]
With the money, time and resources put into raising livestock, we could feed the world.

Daily Menu for the rest of your life

Breakfast: corn

Lunch: corn

Dinner: corn

I don't think you're going to get many votes for that one.


Lazar
Actually, there is nothing in meat that you can't get in non-meat products.

Except taste.

Whenever humans have the chance to change from a plant-rich diet to a meat-rich diet, they do so with alacrity. Deliberate vegetarianism has always been the province of fringe religious groups -- it was seen as a way to "mortify the flesh" and "withdraw from earthly concerns". By renouncing the "indulgence" of meat, one "gained virtue" and made oneself "more worthy" of "Heaven" or "Enlightenment".

It looks to me like modern veganism stems from a secular version of the same motivation. If you become a "vegan", you are more environmentally "virtuous" than the sinful, vulgar meat-eaters. You have demonstrated your "moral superiority" over those carnivorous eco-cidal barbarians.

Not to mention the perceived gains for your health. As we all know (or should know) by now, "HEALTH" is the modern version of "SALVATION". The contemporary "wages of sin" are disease and disability and death.

If you get sick and die, it's because you didn't eat "right" or exercise or engaged in risky sexual or chemical practices. It's your own damn fault, SINNER!

This is a remarkably medieval view of things, when you get right down to it. The constellation of causes for each person's life-time health is incredibly complex and differs, sometimes radically, from every other person.

The quest for "perfect health" is like the medieval quest for salvation in another respect as well: it is totally futile. Just as there is no such thing as salvation, the fact is that no matter what you do, you are still mortal.

You will get old. You will get sick. And you will DIE.

And, most likely, the worst will happen sometime between the ages of 70 and 80.

Neither prayer nor veganism is going to change that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 12:36 PM

To be sure, there are other factors -- such as growing cash crops for export -- that can result in food shortages. But the real problem in Africa is that they don't have factory farms, refrigerated transport and storage, effective pesticides and fertilizers, etc.

Actually the biggest single cause of famine in africa is the tsetse fly which passes diseases to cattle meaning people cannot use them to farm land in the way that the west did before industrialization there is currently a sterilization programme in Mexico which aims to erradicate this problem and hopefully will boost african farming and health.

Tsetse fly small fly big problem (http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no1/171agri3.htm)

[MKS]

It is a proven natural "law" that humans, decended from apes, are omnivores which means they engineered to comsume both meat and vegtables, like bears.


I wouldn't say that we're at the "top" of the food chain; more like outside of it. We have no natural prey under us, therefore we can't be at the top. Of course, one could argue that cows or chickens are natural prey under us, but the fact is that humans eat all animals; not just their natural prey. In my view this puts us outside of the food chain completely.

We have natural prey, however our adaptation and relocation to different climates has allowed us to expand our food base. Which means we eat what we can kill, and what is more benefical, in terms of protien, fat etc. Also our technology has propelled us to the top of the food chain, but sometimes when man is left without technology we can see that in only a second we become prey of other animals. Lions, tigers and bears all eat people, and would continue to if we did not have guns and other weapons.

I dont think communists would do much to change the farm system, other than the labour situation, and that is a sad commentary on the arrgoance of humans and thier insitence (sp) on living outside the food chain, or ecosystem which dominate the environment.


Actually, there is nothing in meat that you can't get in non-meat products. It used to be a common conception that Vitamin B12 was found only in meat. However, it was discovered that bacteria produced the vitamin. Also, many different forms of food are being fortified with Vitamin B12.

Vegans have a 26% less chance of heart disease and 30% less chance of stroke as compered with regular meat eaters.
Vegetarians that eat fish have a 34% less chance of heart disease.
Other studies have concluded the incidence of heart disease to be 57% lower in vegans.
Vegans have the lowest total and LDL cholesterol levels of all dietary groups.
Worldwide, the lowest frequency of Type 2 diabetes is with poluations eating near-vegan diets.
All of this is from the book Becoming Vegan, which I happened to have sitting in front of me.


I think Vegans overall take a healthier approach to diet, however you cannot deny that there plenty of meat eaters that also live very healthy lives, due to balance and excecise etc. Japan which has one of the lowest heart disease instances and cancer cases, promotes in its culinary traditions, the healthy balance of meat, fish, vegtables ect.

To the original issue of animal rights; I think animals should be used only when needed, for food, clothing, transportation etc.

Another questions does come to mind when thinking about animal rights. Why do humans deserve rights? An athiest who belives in no spirit, diety or whatever could argue that humans are just another animal, with no spirit or soul and therfore has no right to liberty, justice or humane treatment. A person cannot believe in human rights without beliveing in a moral and even spirtual essence of the human. Is this assumption incorrect?

[Vanguard1917]

As we all know (or should know) by now, "HEALTH" is the modern version of "SALVATION". The contemporary "wages of sin" are disease and disability and death.

If you get sick and die, it's because you didn't eat "right" or exercise or engaged in risky sexual or chemical practices. It's your own damn fault, SINNER!

This is a remarkably medieval view of things, when you get right down to it.

I agree 100%. 'Health and Safety' has become the new moralism. For example, no self-respecting teenager is gonna listen to a church official anymore when it comes to the virtues of abstaining from sex; but when it comes to an health and safety official armed with leaflets about 'safer sex' and STIs, every student is in sweats over their sins of unprotected sex. The same thing with the latest mental health scares over cannabis use. It used to be the preserve of religious conservatives to denounce the 'evil weed' - now its health and safety officials and men and women in white coats. At a time when religious institutions no longer have a grip on the public consciousness, health and safety officials have emerged to fill the gap. And their 'facts' are almost as bogus.

[ComradeChris]

Daily Menu for the rest of your life

Breakfast: corn

Lunch: corn

Dinner: corn

I don't think you're going to get many votes for that one.

There are countless other vegetables that can be grown in large quantities. Stop making it look worse than it would be.


Before there were factory farms, people ate a diet much higher in plant food...and yet there were more famines (under feudalism and classical despotism) than there are now.

Yeah...unfortunately European farming wasn't as good as the rest of the world. They didn't have the selection other countries had. China for instance was able to produce large food storage centers. Also weather is a problem in all times. But if you're spending 70% of your plant resources to feed animals, there's MUCH less food to be distributed.


Where famine takes place now (parts of Africa), the diet is almost entirely vegetarian...when there's anything to eat at all.

It's kind of hard to grow much of anything in certain arid areas there. The counties are also wrought with civil strife too..are you even looking at background factors??


To be sure, there are other factors -- such as growing cash crops for export -- that can result in food shortages. But the real problem in Africa is that they don't have factory farms, refrigerated transport and storage, effective pesticides and fertilizers, etc.

A large portion of the population (larger than any other continent) has aids. Is that linking to their lack of factory farms too :rolleyes: ?


Or when you take a shower your washing out thousands of innocent microbes that live peacefully in your eyebrows?

That's a completely absurd comment! I mean who showers! :lol:
But seriously, most of those bacterium are helpful by eating dirt and oils on our body. It's a symbiotic relationship. It's completely oppostite for livestock animals. I'm sure if they were given the choice they wouldn't want to go to slaughter houses. I don' know if you were trying to make an analogy or what but it didn't make sense.


Whenever humans have the chance to change from a plant-rich diet to a meat-rich diet, they do so with alacrity. Deliberate vegetarianism has always been the province of fringe religious groups -- it was seen as a way to "mortify the flesh" and "withdraw from earthly concerns". By renouncing the "indulgence" of meat, one "gained virtue" and made oneself "more worthy" of "Heaven" or "Enlightenment".

Actually, places like India, where their religion condemns eating meat, they view it as a barbarous act, which it is. And I think you're confusing the religions that believe it's not ideal to eat meat with Christianity. I mean the biggest vegitarian religion I think of is Hinduism (probably because it is). So when you say heaven, which youre obviously referring to Christianity, Judaism, I'm not sure abotu Muslim but most likely them as well, you're referring to religions that believe it's okay to eat meat. I seriously recommend you rewording your argument and eliminating your uneducated biasses.

[MKS]

Actually, places like India, where their religion condemns eating meat, they view it as a barbarous act

Hinduism condems eating beef, all other types of meat i.e. poultry are acceptable. However there are extreme sects of hindusim which do admonish the consumption of all meat, because they believe the animals could be and are ancestors, and should not be consumed. A recent trip to India revealed a wider acceptance of secular beliefs, especially in urban areas, and subsequently the realization that in order to feed 1 billion+ people, one would should consider killing some sacred cows.

Wouldnt communists argue that restrciting diet due to religion is just another vesture of theistic-capitalistic oppression?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris
Yeah...unfortunately European farming wasn't as good as the rest of the world.

No, famines have been recorded everywhere. As has serious malnutrition.

Let's face it: plant foods depend on weather...and a bad year means lots and lots of people go hungry. In a really bad year, people starve or turn to cannibalism.

There's usually a bad year somewhere on the Earth's surface every year.


The counties are also wrought with civil strife too..are you even looking at background factors??

Sure. One of the things there's "civil strife" over is...plant food.


A large portion of the population (larger than any other continent) has aids. Is that linking to their lack of factory farms too?

Did I say that? Did I even hint at that?

Are you capable of a serious discussion or do you just like to play the clown when you run out of arguments?


Actually, places like India, where their religion condemns eating meat, they view it as a barbarous act, which it is.

I'm afraid that the only thing "barbarous" here is your ignorance. Hindus do eat meat -- when they can get it -- except they exclude beef from their diet for religious "reasons". Muslims and Jews likewise eat meat -- but they exclude pork from their diets for religious "reasons".

It is the exceptionally pious (or those who wish to be thought so) who give up meat altogether.


I seriously recommend you rewording your argument and eliminating your uneducated biases.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KC]

It sounds like you think only fresh foods can be eaten in a plant-based diet. Plant foods might depend on weather, but this is nowhere near as big of a concern as you make it out to be. We have canned foods, wrapped foods, etc... Not to mention the fact of international trade, meaning if one area of the world "has a bad year" the rest can supply it easily with food, considering the fact that food is shipped internationally all the time even now. Of course you might say "then why is there famine in the world?" That can easily be answered; capitalism, civil war, isolationism are all major reasons that famine exists. You might be surprised to find that half of your diet (or even more!) could be vegetarian.

And the assumption that all vegetarians/vegans do it to "save the animals" because they put the animals on the same level as people is a very bad assumption to make. Don't judge the vegetarian/vegan community on a bunch of crazy PETA members, they're fucking nuts. If you start doing this, then you're just like the people that hate communism because of North Korea. Stereotypes are a bad thing.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:26 PM

Actually, places like India, where their religion condemns eating meat, they view it as a barbarous act

Hinduism condems eating beef, all other types of meat i.e. poultry are acceptable. However there are extreme sects of hindusim which do admonish the consumption of all meat, because they believe the animals could be and are ancestors, and should not be consumed. A recent trip to India revealed a wider acceptance of secular beliefs, especially in urban areas, and subsequently the realization that in order to feed 1 billion+ people, one would should consider killing some sacred cows.

Wouldnt communists argue that restrciting diet due to religion is just another vesture of theistic-capitalistic oppression?
Extreme sects??? 30% of Hindus condemn eating meat and eat plant based diets. Even on national holidays the majority of Hindus refuse to eat meat.


No, famines have been recorded everywhere. As has serious malnutrition.

Let's face it: plant foods depend on weather...and a bad year means lots and lots of people go hungry. In a really bad year, people starve or turn to cannibalism.

There's usually a bad year somewhere on the Earth's surface every year.

Of course famines get produced everywhere, but as Lazar said, we have ways of storing vegetables better than we have of storing meat now-a-days. You keep making it look to be some atrocity, it's not.

Actually...in so-called former "socialist" countries there was greater famines than in capitalist countries. I guess capitalism is the way since it seems to have the key to preventing the horrid famines that take place everywhere. :rolleyes: Since famines seem to be a top priority for you maybe you should be a capitalist?


Sure. One of the things there's "civil strife" over is...plant food.

In most parts of Africa, civil strife is racial, so called "leftist" movements, for shit like diamonds. I'm sure there is probably struggle for food...after the other strifes have ravished the farming.



Did I say that? Did I even hint at that?

Are you capable of a serious discussion or do you just like to play the clown when you run out of arguments?

I'm just saying you have a pretty narrow minded view of the events. You're not looking at background factors, taking into account things like weather (which to any half-wit should be the most obvious factor). But once your capable of, what I guess could be called, slanderous comments, we'll talk. Once again this reminds my of the religious debates we've had where you've obviously taken things out of context.


I'm afraid that the only thing "barbarous" here is your ignorance. Hindus do eat meat -- when they can get it -- except they exclude beef from their diet for religious "reasons". Muslims and Jews likewise eat meat -- but they exclude pork from their diets for religious "reasons".

It is the exceptionally pious (or those who wish to be thought so) who give up meat altogether.

IGNORANT?? Look at my first comment. 30% of Hindu's on a regular basis don't eat meat. The majority of the rest don't eat meat on religious holidays. They avoid certain types of meat. This is something unseen in the other religions you were bringing up, and you didn't even mention any Hindu beliefs. Talk about ignorant.

And besides, to be a vegetarian all it requires is the vast majority of a diet is vegetables and non-meat foods. That would probably include more than the 30%. But like you said...I'm ignorant. :rolleyes:

Does laughing make you feel more intelligent?

[MKS]

30% of Hindus condemn eating meat and eat plant based diets

Im sure there is a percentage of christians who dont eat meat, jews that dont, muslims that dont etc. Its not because their religion condems it, its a personal choice that may be rooted in religous beliefs but ultimately is a personal decision.
Again hindusim, moderate hinduism practiced in India and other parts of the world condems only the consumtion of beef, the cow is sacred, they can eat chicken, fish, rabbit, turkey, deer etc.


A recent trip to India revealed a wider acceptance of secular beliefs, especially in urban areas, and subsequently the realization that in order to feed 1 billion+ people, one would should consider killing some sacred cows MKS

While in India I noticed alot of things, extreme poverty, strict castes and wonderful beauty of the land and people. i also noticed thousands of cows walking around the streets of bombay, and the cities in Kujurat (sp), it shocked me because they could just kill those cows and feed the starving people. Thier religion restricts eating beef and therfore thier reilgion promotes starvation of men over death of a cow. Thats unbalanced and wrong.

Animals "rights" should never trump mans.


Of course famines get produced everywhere, but as Lazar said, we have ways of storing vegetables better than we have of storing meat now-a-days. You keep making it look to be some atrocity, it's not
Who is "we"? We Westerners, Americans? Not every nation, especially developing nation posses the money, resources and labour needed for massive plant storage, storing plants is expensive. Plants grow are harvested and then are eaten or die. Most african nations, asian nations and some s.american nations do not have the massive industrial complex needed for storing vegtables. When famines hit due to weather their crops are destroyed, people starve and die. however storing live beef (cows), chickens, pigs etc is alot easier. Just feed them, keep them warm and protected from the elements and they'lll live for a long time, until the axe swings. If a famine does hit and your cows die you can still eat them.

[KC]

Who is "we"? We Westerners, Americans? Not every nation, especially developing nation posses the money, resources and labour needed for massive plant storage, storing plants is expensive. Plants grow are harvested and then are eaten or die. Most african nations, asian nations and some s.american nations do not have the massive industrial complex needed for storing vegtables. When famines hit due to weather their crops are destroyed, people starve and die. however storing live beef (cows), chickens, pigs etc is alot easier. Just feed them, keep them warm and protected from the elements and they'lll live for a long time, until the axe swings. If a famine does hit and your cows die you can still eat them.

The fact that these countries have famines is due to a LOT more problems than drought.

[Clarksist]

The original argument question was, "Do animals have rights?"

I say yes, because other animals are so similar to man. We all procreate, intake food, and eliminate waste. Done and done. If man is so priviledged as to have rights, what makes an animal so different?

Because we have intelligence? Well that means that the mentally retarded have no rights.

Because we need the food? I am a staunch vegetarian, and am working on to become a vegan. But if push came to shove my survival, in the so-called "laws of the jungle", trump other animals. If the only way I could survive is by beef steak, I'd be breaking out the A1. But America sould sustain itself with the amount of food we give our livestock, while poorer nations, I realize, lack that luxury... but animals don't have to be treated like dirt.

And what is with the Marx quote? A big part of the leftist movement is free thinking, and not letting others think for us (religion, state, writers, etc.).

The animal rights issue comes down to this: animals should be used for food if we need it, but in that process must we treat them like shit? We treat child molesters in jail better than some farmers treat their cattle. If we should have rights, why shouldn't animals? If there was a smarter, more developed species to humans, we'd still want rights wouldn't we?

[MKS]

The fact that these countries have famines is due to a LOT more problems than drought.

Environmental affects are a big source of drought, and famine. Obviously there are somtimes human factors, i.e warlords, consolidation of wealth. but weather does play a huge role in famine.

Animals are not entitled to rights, they are simply food, clothing, transportation sources. If animals thought they deserved rights they should assert themselves, but they cant becasue they're animals. (except for maybe monkeys and apes who can and do assert themselves) I would never mistreat an animal, i think its cruel to do so. Is it thier right, no, its my right to feel bad about people hitting puppies and kittens. People who hit animals are assholes. so i agree cruelty is wrong.

Lets first solve the problem of human rights and then try to tackle animal rights.

[Vanguard1917]

I just read a good article on animal rights and I wanna to share its conclusion:


Our moral judgement should be based on whether something takes humanity forward, or holds us back. Setting your dog on fire for fun doesn't take us forward. Wiring that dog up with electrodes to find a cure for Parkinson's does.

:P

[Le Revolutionary]

ANimals should absolutely have rights. If they didnt or dont they would be extinct. We are also animals which many people dont remember. Why should our development destroy other things? No species should ever be extinct because of our actions.

[SpeCtrE]

No

[ComradeChris]

Im sure there is a percentage of christians who dont eat meat, jews that dont, muslims that dont etc. Its not because their religion condems it, its a personal choice that may be rooted in religous beliefs but ultimately is a personal decision.
Again hindusim, moderate hinduism practiced in India and other parts of the world condems only the consumtion of beef, the cow is sacred, they can eat chicken, fish, rabbit, turkey, deer etc.

I'm sorry if you can find proof that more percentages of the other religions don't eat meat I'd gladly admit I was wrong. I've never seen percentages for the other ones, but animals for the other religions were put on Earth for human enjoyment (which includes eating) according to the other religions you listed. All I said to redstar was that he omitted probably the largest religion that promotes a meatless diet from his argument...I'm well aware there are people in other religions who don't eat meat (for whatever reason; sometimes just because they can't).


Who is "we"? We Westerners, Americans? Not every nation, especially developing nation posses the money, resources and labour needed for massive plant storage, storing plants is expensive. Plants grow are harvested and then are eaten or die. Most african nations, asian nations and some s.american nations do not have the massive industrial complex needed for storing vegtables. When famines hit due to weather their crops are destroyed, people starve and die. however storing live beef (cows), chickens, pigs etc is alot easier. Just feed them, keep them warm and protected from the elements and they'lll live for a long time, until the axe swings. If a famine does hit and your cows die you can still eat them.

Industrial nations (the ones that can support communism, Marxist style). We have the means to feed the entire world with purely vegetables...unfortately we don't.