Should we eat meat? [Archive]

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 02:37

Should we eat meat?

Or should we abstain from it? Do animals hold any rights? Or are they simply fodder for food and clothing products? If we eat meat or abstain from meat, it is here that we make our fundamental choice in whether or not we regard animals as moral agents, equal of moral treatment. Of course, I have yet to question the validity of the rights of non-humans.

If humans have rights, then certainly animals do. Racism is an institution that is nearly universally detested. This is not to say that there are no Racists. It is simply to declare that Racism, often considered to be judging on the color of one's skin (although there are other physical traits that vary depending on race), is wrong. This is declared insomuch that humanity is held as the highest of virtue and integrity. But why? If it is wrong to judge on race, then it must be certainly wrong to judge someone one the quantity of legs, especially if you withhold the right to their life solely on physical characteristics.

Of course, at this point before apologetics are proposed for relentless slaughter of denial of an objective morality, there are substantial claims that there is a difference between humanity and the rest of animals who dwell outside the scope of civilization. It is important to note, however, that a difference between humanity and non-humanity must be relevant. Just as the difference between a white man and a black man is skin color, this is not a relevantly important difference that would grant anyone the right to deny one rights or grant one privileges specifically on that physical trait.

There are many claimed differences between humans and animals. Humans have opposable thumbs, which grant us the ability to wield and create tools. We also have a thriving civilization of buildings and trades. Along with that, we communicate a large amount in our daily lives. The most important trait of humanity that pushed us to the global scale that we have now is that we have settled the land and farmed along with the important side-characteristic that our farmers overproduce more than they can feed themselves, thus opening positions for non-farmer tradesmen that can eat the farmers' produce, but grant a unique tool or trade to the community. Although there are many exceptions to these, such as the primates that can communicate with hand language and much of the upper mammalia have been noted to use tools such as bludgeons, it is not imperative that I bring such cases to point, thus showing minor - albeit passable - contradictions in the theory of human supremacy. The error of these distinctions between man and the rest of creation is that they assume these distinctions grant moral value. Non-human animals deserve the right to life and liberty not because of some privilege due to birth, but because they are sentient creatures. (Since much dispute can arise from the usage of the word "sentient," I will define it now as sensile, or capable of sensing one's environment.) A doctor may not slaughter someone of a lower profession, simply because he has the capability of healing people. Consequently, man may not slaughter (in terms of ethics) a non-human simply because he is superior in some manner of tool, civilization, or communication. As the logical and reasonable conclusion stands, man possesses no innate trait or characteristic that grants him moral worth over animalia (unless animalia would prove not to be sentient). A Racist is wrong for the making of judgments on skin color. A Sexist is wrong for the making of judgments of gender. A Speciesist is one who judges on species. The pattern is identical in all cases.

Since man and animal are now all within the realm of moral consideration of interests and no distinctive difference can be seen betwixt the two, there are certain apologetics for the slaughter of non-humans. Some may be quick to point out that animals eat each other, but it is important to notice that animals do many things, including rape (as a noted mating style of some of the smaller Galapagos lizards), cannibalism (as a necessary food source for fly larvae as well as 1/4 of the diet of salamanders), and theft (as noted among certain primates). If a lion killing and consuming a zebra justifies humanity killing and consuming a zebra, then - from the observation of the other workings in nature - may humans also rape, cannibalize, and steal from each other. One may point out that flesh has a desirable taste, but certainly, the taste of flesh cannot justify murder anymore than an orgasm can justify rape. There is certainly the call that if we do not consume animals, we consume plantae, but plants are not sentient beings, and therefore they do not fall into the realm of consideration. This is the case where one may assert that animals are not smart, but as demonstrated in the previous paragraph, intellect is not something required for moral consideration (and there is strong evidence to support that animals are intelligent beings that deserve more consideration than the status of puppets they are given now, although I will not present the detailed evidence as it is not necessary to the debate).

The only objection left to deny animals rights is the outright denial of an Objective Morality. Certainly, I suppose if we take into consideration our attitudes of animals that perhaps what we base our ethics on comes into consideration (or at least, to some, it is rather defined than considered). Although the topic of this subject is Animal Rights, I suppose it is necessary to some extent to digress into the foundations of our ethics, or our Meta-Ethics. Allow me to say that Subjective Moralities are not all-encompassing. In that, I mean if you declare your own ethics on some Existentialist point is useless as they are not objective in any sense, and therefore they are not universally applicable to all. The Objective Morality I propose is based on a universal consideration of interests. One may be quick to point out, "But this is 'your' Objective Morality." And the point is clearly made. However, I must denote that whether or not everyone agrees with a morality, it does not make it any more or any less objective. Just as science is objective, whether or not everyone agrees or disagrees with it. The opinions of the masses may waver all that they wish, but that does not make science any more or less objective. The Objective Morality I propose is based on the consideration of sentience (previously defined). I seriously doubt that any Jewish person in a concentration camp would admit that there existed no Objective Morality. If anyone suffers (not necessarily directly linked to pain, although linked in certain cases), they will know that suffering committed upon them is immoral. And from this suffering we derive a knowledge that it is immoral and in this observable and demonstrable method, it is objective. I hope all of the readers will excuse the poor defense given in the right of Objective Morality, but it is one of several (and perhaps the most important) objections to granting animals the right to life and liberty. For more on Objective Morality, please see here...

http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html

commie kg

16th January 2003, 02:46

I'll always eat meat, It's just the natural order of things. There is a food chain, and humans happen to be pretty damn near the top. If something bigger ate me, (assuming I could think, of course ;)) I'd be pissed, but hey- that's the way the world works.
I don't have a problem with vegetarians or vegans, that's their lifestyle choice, so It's cool with me. :cool:

(Edited by commie kg at 6:47 pm on Jan. 15, 2003)

I Bow 4 Che

16th January 2003, 03:01

LOL..arm the homeless!! sorry that was funny...anyway:

I don't eat red meet but not because of the animals themselves...I just don't like the taste and tecture. However I have a huge problem with vegans.

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 03:04

You logic towards animals justifies humans eating humans because I’m bigger, stronger, and more intellectually advanced than my 5 month old nephew
therefore I'm able to eat him.

I love human flesh!

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 03:07

I’ve been Vegan for almost a year and was curious to why you have a problem with my lifestyle.

Dairy is still rape. :)

I Bow 4 Che

16th January 2003, 03:18

So you believe in screwing up the food chain because you think it's sad for the poor animals...?

canikickit

16th January 2003, 04:33

I am in favour of shooting cows in the head. I don't care about cows or chickens, I love to eat them, they taste great and are also quite good for my diet.

I didn't read the article, Jesus. But I intend to. I do not eat meat to show dominance over other animals. I am against eating 5 month old nephews.

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 04:36

LOL. I'm really “screwing up” the food chain by not having milk in my cereal or steak with my corn. Do you have any other phony ideas you would like to share with us tonight?

And on the 8th day God created morons...

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 04:52

Quote: from canikickit on 4:33 am on Jan. 16, 2003
I am in favour of shooting cows in the head. I don't care about cows or chickens, I love to eat them, they taste great and are also quite good for my diet

When I was a child my dad and I would both go hunting in the streets of New York looking for humans to shoot because we thought human flesh was tasty and good for our diet....

If you honestly think eating meat is a healthy diet than you have been misinformed. If you read below I have compiled a list of statistics that scientifically prove meat is unhealthy in our diet. (Special thanks to Ben for compiling this information)

When meat is eaten, it sits heavily in our stomachs, blocking our digestive processes until, days later, we struggle to excrete it. [Resource: In The Lancet (December 30, 1972), the "mean transit time" of food through the digestive systems of a sample group of nonvegetarians on a Western type of diet was between seventy-six and eighty-three hours; for vegetarians forty two hours. The authors suggest a connection between the length of time the stool remains in the colon and the incidence of cancer of the colon and related disease which have increased rapidly in nations whose consumption of meat has increased but are almost unknown among rural Africans who, like vegetarians, have a diet low in meat and high in roughage.]

Studies have found a strong connection between breast cancer and meat intake, and also between eating meat, especially beef, and cancer of the large bowel. The American Heart Association has also been recommending, for many years, that Americans reduce their meat intake. [Resource: The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Appleby et al. 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 525S:
A 16-year study of 6000 vegetarians and 5000 non-vegetarians in the UK found that the vegetarians generally had lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower death rates for each of the mortality endpoints studied.

Kushi et al. 1995, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 1416S:
Evidence strongly suggests that a high intake of plant-based foods, and a low intake of animal products contributes to the excellent health of Mediterranean populations. The high consumption of red meat in Western diets is associated with increased risks of heart disease, some cancers, and urinary calcium losses likely to contribute to osteoporosis.

Meyer et al. 1997, American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 117:
The dietary habits of 19,752 Norwegian women and 20,035 Norwegian men were followed for an average of 11.4 years. An elevated risk of fracture was found in women with a high intake of protein from nondairy animal sources (meat, fish, and eggs) when calcium intake was low.

Singh & Fraser 1998, American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 761:
A six-year study of 32,051 members of the Adventist Health Study identified both red meat and white meat consumption as important dietary risk factors for colon cancer.
Mann et al. 1997, Heart, 78, 450:
The physical condition and diets of nearly 11,000 health-conscious men and women, both vegetarian and non-vegetarian, were followed for an average of 13.3 years to investigate dietary determinants of ischaemic heart disease. It was found that saturated animal fat and cholesterol are the primary contributors to ischaemic heart disease.

Marsh et al. 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 837:
A study of 1600 lactoovovegetarian and non-vegetarian post-menopausal women confirms the theory that the amount and type of protein consumed affects bone mineral loss after menopause. By 80 years of age, the non-vegetarians had approximately twice the reduction of bone mineral density compared to the vegetarians.

I Bow 4 Che

16th January 2003, 04:52

No! heh that's not what I meant-

I guess it's important first if you wish for ALL not to eat meat...

canikickit

16th January 2003, 05:00

When I was a child my dad and I would both go hunting in the streets of New York looking for humans to shoot because we thought human flesh was tasty and good for our diet....

If you honestly think eating meat is a healthy diet than you have been misinformed. If you read below I have compiled a list of statistics that scientifically prove meat is unhealthy in our diet. (Special thanks to Ben for compiling this information)

I don't think that comparison is remotely valid. I think perhaps you should change tack if you wish to make headway against the winds of sanity.

I don't particularily think that meat is a vital part of a healthy diet. I was reffering to myself particularily. There's not that much food which I enjoy eating, this makes getting the neccessary nutrition every day quite the chore, as I'm sure you can imagine. I find some parts of certain dead animals to be quite appetising.

I forgot to say in my first post that I am against the likes of battery hens (whichever ones are done in the factory-like enviornment), and other such unneccessarily cruel treatment of animals in their conversion to food.

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 05:03

It’s very important that everyone stops consuming animal products because it can save animals including humans. I have compiled a list of information that will support my theory.

An acre of oats or broccoli produces at least six times more proteins than a field that used animal feed to produce pork, milk, poultry, or beef. The acre of broccoli yields nearly three times as much as pork. Oats produce nearly 25 times as many calories as beef. An acre of broccoli produces 24 times the amount of iron produced by an acre used for beef and an acre of oats produces 16 times the amount of iron as an acre for beef. And an acre used for broccoli produces 5 times more calcium than an acre of land used for milk cows. [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), pp. 90-91. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

In 1974, Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council estimated that if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption -- enough to feed 60 million people. Don Paarlberg, a former U.S. assistant secretary of agriculture, has said that merely reducing the U.S. livestock population by half would make available enough food to make up the calorie deficit of the nonsocialist, underdevelepod nations nearly four times over. [Resource: Boyce Rensberger, "Curb on U.S. Waste Urged to Help World's Hungry," The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Alan Durning, a researcher at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington D.C., has calculated that one pound of steak from steers raised in feedlots costs five pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 35 pounds of eroded topsoil. More than a third of North America is taken up with grazing, more than half of U.S. croplands are planted with livestock feed, and more than half of all water consumed in the United States goes to livestock. [Resource: Science News, March 5, 1988, p.153, citing Worldwatch, January/February 1988.]

A pound of meat requires 50 times as much water as an equivalent of wheat. [Resource: Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Source Book," p.100, based on D. Pimental and M. Pimental, "Food, Energy, and Society" (New York: Wiley, 1979), pp. 56, 59, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1975).] Newsweek has described the loss of water in feeding animals when it said, "The water that goes into a 1000 pound steer would float a destroyer." [Resource: "The Browning of America," Newsweek, February 22, 1981, p. 26; quoted by John Robbins, "Diet for a New America" (Walpole, N.H.: Stillpoint, 1987), p. 367.]

Most estimates conclude that plant foods yield about 10 times as much protein per acre as meat does, and the ratio sometimes goes as high as plant foods yielding 20 times more protein per acre than meat! [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), chapter 10. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

I Bow 4 Che

16th January 2003, 05:07

apologies I should read before I post

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 5:08 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 05:11

Quote: from canikickit on 5:00 am on Jan. 16, 2003

When I was a child my dad and I would both go hunting in the streets of New York looking for humans to shoot because we thought human flesh was tasty and good for our diet....

If you honestly think eating meat is a healthy diet than you have been misinformed. If you read below I have compiled a list of statistics that scientifically prove meat is unhealthy in our diet. (Special thanks to Ben for compiling this information)

I don't think that comparison is remotely valid. I think perhaps you should change tack if you wish to make headway against the winds of sanity.

I don't particularily think that meat is a vital part of a healthy diet. I was reffering to myself particularily. There's not that much food which I enjoy eating, this makes getting the neccessary nutrition every day quite the chore, as I'm sure you can imagine. I find some parts of certain dead animals to be quite appetising.

You can be a picky eater and be live a vegetarian lifestlye. I was a picky eater for many years and I still maintained a healthy diet through vegetarianism. I eat tofu and it taste exactly like meat. If your truly concerned seek a nutrionist.

If a person eats just wheat, rice, and/or potatoes, the only way they will not get enough protein is if they are starving. [Resource: In the first edition of "Diet for a Small Planet" (1971), Frances Moore Lappé emphasized protein complementarity to show that a vegetarian diet can provide enough protein. In the revised edition (New York: Ballantine, 1982) this emphasis has disappeared, replaced by a demonstration that a healthy vegetarian diet is bound to contain enough protein even without complementarity. For another account of the adequacy of plant foods as far as protein is concerned, see Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Sourcebook," Chapter 2. Original Resources are United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).]

The protein intake of the average American excreeds the generous level recommended by the National Academy of Sciences by 45 percent. Other estimates say that most Americans consume between two and four times as much meat as the body can use. Excess protein cannot be stored. Some of it is excreted, and some may be converted by the body to carbohydrate, which is an expensive way to increase one's crabohydrate intake. [Resource: Francis Moore Lappé, "Diet for a Small Planet," pp. 28-29; see also "The New York Times," October 25, 1974; "Medical World News," November 8, 1974, p. 106.]

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 5:27 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 05:14

Quote: from I Bow 4 Che on 5:07 am on Jan. 16, 2003
apologies I should read before I post

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 5:08 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

It's okay.... I still admire the fact you hate Martha Stewart. :)

I Bow 4 Che

16th January 2003, 05:22

LOL

Kill Martha! Let's eat her for our new meat source!!!

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 5:23 am on Jan. 16, 2003)

PlasticJesus

16th January 2003, 05:25

I'll eat Martha Stweart as a source of food.

I can't stand that *****. :)

Panamarisen

17th January 2003, 20:28

I remember beign a vegetarian back in Panama: I gained weight. While being a vegetarian here in Spain I lost a lot of weight! Guess it got to do with the kind of vegetables -specially starches- that people usually eat in Latin America, which include more choices than in Europe. Don´t know, anyway...

I agree with the quotes PlasticJesus has given us. They are scientifically accurate, besides well tested. I´m sure beign a vegetarian is really better for our health, but only if we know how to do it properly, I mean, without lacking the minimal/necessary daily amounts of proteins, carbohydrates, etc., so as to rely on a well-equilibrated diet.

Nowdays, I try to eat some kind of meat -including the white ones and fish- just once in a while. I enjoy red meat, but voluntarely try always to avoid it. For sure, saturated fats -such as the ones contained in red meat- are, aside from unnecessary, really dangerous: it´s one of the principal sources of colon cancer and heart attacks.

Also, I agree with canikickit with the fact that battery hens and such is just an unhuman and avoidable practice -except for raising profits, of course.

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

MJM

18th January 2003, 03:21

You raise good points PJ. Farming animals is totally inefficient.
However I like meat and will continue to eat it, although not as much as I once did.
I have no problem killing things to eat, if you can't kill it you should be eating it IMO.
Some of my friends are vegan, mostly because they don't like to kill. They always bring up the farming stuff, but it's not their real motivation for veganism.

Iepilei

18th January 2003, 04:31

as long as my teeth are sharp and pointy in the front, and flat in the back I'll continue to eat both meat and vegetable.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th January 2003, 06:35

I've always thought that being a vegetarian was really foolish. I thought that eating meat was important and instictual. Lately I've been questioning these beliefs, not for my health, but for the rights of animals.

Considering that animals are not part of our society, perhaps they should not live under the same standards as us humans. The misstreatment of animals is clearly barbaric and should end, but once they're living healthy, productive lives, why can't we eat them? What is the matter with going outside finding a chicken, killing it and eating it? Nothing. What if you build some fences and raise some chickens? Is that infringing on the Chicken's right to be free? You couldn't just open your fence and release the chicken into the wild. Chickens are domestic creatures and do not live in the wild anywhere. They just don't!! I believe that chickens concealed within a fenced area are living to their fullest potential. This is probably applicable to any animal domesticated today.

Animals in the wild should be eaten in moderation in order to control the numbers, yet not overconsume the animal to the point where it becomes endangered.

Smoking Frog II

18th January 2003, 15:31

Is there any proof that Che was a vegetarian? I think not. [don't quote me on this...]

If you wanna be a vegetarian, go ahead. No one's forcing you to eat meat, no one to not eat meat.

Smoking Frog II

18th January 2003, 15:32

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 3:31 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
don't quote me on this...

Lol.

(Edited by Smoking Frog II at 3:33 pm on Jan. 18, 2003)

Conghaileach

18th January 2003, 15:59

Plants are just as alive as animals. I guess some people would prefer that we all just starve ourselves.

Moskitto

18th January 2003, 17:38

if we give animals rights, let's give cheesecakes rights, and vegetables.

look, come on people, if you believe humans are just like animals then you have to admit that we should be allowed to eat animals, afterall, animals eat other animals while they're still alive for crying out loud, and we're physiologically omnivores, why do we have front teeth if we're not meant to eat meat?

if you think that humans are somehow more special then as a higher level of species then there is nothing wrong with us eating lower down species, afterall we eat vegetables for crying out loud, if we're somehow special what is wrong with eating animals?

PlasticJesus

18th January 2003, 18:40

Quote: from CiaranB on 3:59 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Plants are just as alive as animals. I guess some people would prefer that we all just starve ourselves.

We have concluded that the important attribute that makes it immoral to kill a human or an animal is consciousness. Plants do not hold this trait of consciousness. Consciousness, the capability of feeling pain, suffering, joy, desire, and happiness, is produced by the brain or think organ. These plants, even though some may appear complex such as coral and the Venus Fly Trap, do not have a brain and they certainly do not have a consciousness. Thus, the reasons why it is immoral to kill a human or a non-human animal, do not apply. However, if there was an animal without a brain, an thus without a consciousness, then it would not be immoral to kill such an animal as long as you owned that particular animal.

And even so, let us assume that plants have consciousness. What would this determine? What would this mean? It would mean that there is nothing on this planet that you can fully sustain yourself on without killing a conscious being. By saying that plants are conscious beings, is to justify killing other human beings. Fortunately, however, plants are not conscious beings. And were they conscious, then cannibalism would be justified.

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 6:47 pm on Jan. 18, 2003)

canikickit

18th January 2003, 20:08

We have concluded that the important attribute that makes it immoral to kill a human or an animal is consciousness.

Luckily your morals don't apply to me.

So is it okay to kill ants and eat them?

Your reasoning suggests it is okay to eat humans who are clinically braindead.

Socialist Pig

18th January 2003, 20:38

After reading fast food nation, I've limited the amount of meat I eat. Purely for health reasons however.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

18th January 2003, 20:38

This is something that quite bothers me lately. Is it fair to eat meat?

On one side, animals have feelings just like us. Infact we are animals too. We are only the "superior class", because we cooperate wich each other and don't lett us lead by instinct.

We, humans. Can live just as well on plant food as we can on meat. It's for us not necessary to eat meat. Other animals who do eat meat, are forced, because it's the only typ of food that they can digust.

We are neither forced to eat meat, because there isn't a shortage on plant food. Meat isn't even that healthy.

The food world stock could even be enlarged if we didn't all eat meat. Because one cow eats 30 kilos of plants to gain 1 kilo. Think of that. 30 Kilos switched for 1 Kilo.

It could even solve a foodshortage, if we all didn't eat meat. It would stop the suffering of the billions of animals in the bio industrie.

And are cows just born to disapear in our mouths?

Don't they deserve something more?

On the other side, I can't think of any good arguments. I know all these things, but I still eat meat. Does that mean something?

canikickit

18th January 2003, 20:50

And are cows just born to disapear in our mouths?

Don't they deserve something more?

Yes.
No.

Fuck them, they're sad.

legot

18th January 2003, 22:15

i've been a vegitarien for a number of years and i have no problems finding foods to eat and maintain a balanced diet, meat texture and taste is'nt nice at all anyway. i began for that reason but after this post i do see the reasoning to eat meat destroyed,i see you've done your homework

chamo

18th January 2003, 23:14

I have no beef with people who are vegetarians, they have their reasons. But I still think that eating meat is acceptable. The food chain is a natural occurance, it should not be tampered with. Animals are born on farms now only for consumption and therefore do not have any reason to not be eaten. The world was made this way so that life can be sustained through eating animals below us in the food chain. Its called the "circle of life", anyone? Animals are breed, born and die to be eaten. If you think about it what do animals have to offer the world than for us to shoot them, cut them up, tenderise their flesh, cook and season with a little pinch of herbs and butter, put them in our mouths, chew slowly into a mush, swallow and digest.

legot

18th January 2003, 23:17

so happyguy because the cows were born on a farm to be eaten its ok?
if i were put out to stud on a people farm where the children where born to be eaten it would be morally fine as that was there purpose?

chamo

18th January 2003, 23:29

Yes if animals are born on a farm they are bred for human consumption and I will see it fit that they are eaten.

Of course it is immoral and unethical to eat children bred to be eaten. The food chain is designed so that humans eat those below them, what would you feed the children to fatten them up? I guess it would have to be meat unless they wanted to end up as thin as you.

I wouldn't stand for meat to be wasted though. Like with Foot & Mouth the animals could have been eaten not burnt and wasted. This is worse than eating animals. Also wild animals should not be eaten to conserve species. If animals are bred to be eaten, then the stocks will always be conservable.

legot

18th January 2003, 23:32

Quote: I guess it would have to be meat unless they wanted to end up as thin as you.

.

who said i was thin ?

Blibblob

18th January 2003, 23:32

Screw morally fine, whats moral to one person, is not going to be moral to someone else. Just like the entire race believes that what Hitler did was completely immoral, but did he think that?

chamo

18th January 2003, 23:35

Quote: from legot on 11:32 pm on Jan. 18, 2003

Quote: I guess it would have to be meat unless they wanted to end up as thin as you.

.

who said i was thin ?

only everyone.

Blibblob you are right in that people have different views that aren't changeable. I just argue my point and I said I have no beef with vegies.

legot

18th January 2003, 23:41

i did'nt mean to generalize i meant morally acceptable to the larger percentage or people
i.e most people would'nt condone planned murder

and happyguy not EVERYONE calls me thin ,most d but two call me fatty

(Edited by legot at 7:19 pm on Jan. 19, 2003)

Blibblob

18th January 2003, 23:56

hehe

canikickit

19th January 2003, 00:20

i.e most people would condone planned murder

Yeah, I know I would!

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 00:28

Quote: from canikickit on 7:20 pm on Jan. 18, 2003

i.e most people would condone planned murder

Yeah, I know I would!
[/quote]

hmm, but what if the planned murder was of George W. Bush?

canikickit

19th January 2003, 00:49

I'd be against it. He doesn't deserve it.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 00:56

he doesnt deserve it.

actually, maybe that right, we must look past the puppet, and to the puppetter, i kinda looked past that point.

PlasticJesus

19th January 2003, 01:43

Quote: from happyguy on 11:29 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Yes if animals are born on a farm they are bred for human consumption and I will see it fit that they are eaten.

Of course it is immoral and unethical to eat children bred to be eaten. The food chain is designed so that humans eat those below them, what would you feed the children to fatten them up? I guess it would have to be meat unless they wanted to end up as thin as you.

I wouldn't stand for meat to be wasted though. Like with Foot & Mouth the animals could have been eaten not burnt and wasted. This is worse than eating animals. Also wild animals should not be eaten to conserve species. If animals are bred to be eaten, then the stocks will always be conservable.

Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear.

If you’re a vegetarian it has nothing to do with your body size. I know people who nearly weigh 200 pounds and maintain a vegetarian diet. Your comment was made out of stupidity.

PlasticJesus

19th January 2003, 01:50

Quote: from Iepilei on 4:31 am on Jan. 18, 2003
as long as my teeth are sharp and pointy in the front, and flat in the back I'll continue to eat both meat and vegetable.

When we look at the creation man, we find the anatomy of man was not designed to consume flesh foods. Carnivores (meat eaters) have teeth and claws designed to rip and tear animal flesh. The human body has teeth designed for grinding, not tearing. Our jaws move up and down as well as side to side, which a flesh-eater's jaw cannot do.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 01:53

Maybe thats why we invented knifes and tenderization of meat. So we wouldnt need sharp carnavores teeth. Because cow tastes so good, mmmmm. Veal is better though.

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:53 pm on Jan. 18, 2003)

PlasticJesus

19th January 2003, 02:01

Quote: from Blibblob on 1:53 am on Jan. 19, 2003
cow tastes so good, mmmmm. Veal is better though.

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:53 pm on Jan. 18, 2003)

Clearly, the taste of flesh does not justify killing an animal. One could say the same about human flesh; that it tastes good and therefore justifies killing a human to get it. The pleasure of the flesh from an animal does not justify eating meat any more than the orgasm from sex justifies raping.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 02:05

hey, those dont relate. sex and eating meat? well in one way, both good.

well, survival of the fittest, if human tasted good, id eat it too, other than the fact that id get arested and tried for murder, which doesnt happen with eating other meat like cow. I guess it falls under: humans are superior to animals.

But we are animals too, through the definition of an animal (im too lazy to look it up, something about being barbaric in one part), maybe humans are even more so animalistic.

and once again, meat tastes good. pork, very nice, PORK FAT RULES!!

PlasticJesus

19th January 2003, 02:10

[quote]Quote: from Blibblob on 2:05 am on Jan. 19, 2003
I guess it falls under: humans are superior to animalsquote]

What makes you think humans are superior to other animals?

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 02:14

hmm, i thought i made it clear in the next paragraph that I didnt think humans were superior to animals, i guess i didnt.

That is just the common belief, no one will admit it, but its there, we are just so god damn selfish.

PlasticJesus

19th January 2003, 02:19

Your paragraph (or anything you say) hardly justifies eating meat nor does it clearly state why humans are superior over other animals.

Blibblob

19th January 2003, 02:23

THATS CAUSE I DONT AGREE WITH HUMANS BEING SUPPERIOR.

And nothing justifies death, we just live with it.

legot

19th January 2003, 19:26

Quote: from Blibblob on 2:05 am on Jan. 19, 2003
if human tasted good, id eat it too

how exactly do you know humans do not taste good?

chamo

19th January 2003, 19:36

Quote: from legot on 7:26 pm on Jan. 19, 2003

Quote: from Blibblob on 2:05 am on Jan. 19, 2003
if human tasted good, id eat it too

how exactly do you know humans do not taste good?

I can tell you that I don't recommend eating humans, very tough.:D
I've eaten horse though, which is fine because they were bred for one purpose, to be eaten

Fulham11

19th January 2003, 21:26

Wat is wrong with eating meat, people have always ate meat, it is the natural order of the world and it always will be, wat is the difference between a human eating meat and an animal

chamo

19th January 2003, 21:30

That's right it is human and any animal instinction. The fact it is taboo to some is because it is part of business and trade because some are squemish and wouldn't hunt and kill their own prey. How would our ancestors have survived if there had not been meat available to them. The sad fact it that today most meat tastes like and contains shit ie McDonald$

Iepilei

19th January 2003, 22:44

dear god people... it's a choice of opinion in matters of personal lifestyles - let it be.

I personally have nothing against those who chose to live their lives in certain fashions - more power to you. However, I do not agree that eating meat is truly wrong. I believe it is possible to become bonded to a creature of higher intelligence, but the vast majority of animals killed for food are not of the brightest stature.

They graze, they roam, and they multiply. Their purpose is, like all creatures, to give balance to the ecosystem. The reason herbivores maintain growth/regrowth rates of plants, carnivores maintain population levels. We have the anatomy to do either - and the ability to digest both. Therefor we must use our own judgement. Are you going to eat plants / animals only? Or both?

In all truth it doesn't really matter. Nature is nature. Things die, pain occures. It's a sad tale but it's life, kids. You cannot shelter everything from pain of sorts.

chamo

19th January 2003, 22:47

I know we should let it be. But people like to debate their thoughts and it's not like we're here to force our dietry views on people.

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 00:38

Quote: from Fulham11 on 9:26 pm on Jan. 19, 2003
Wat is wrong with eating meat, people have always ate meat, it is the natural order of the world and it always will be, wat is the difference between a human eating meat and an animal

The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 12:48 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 00:56

dear god people... it's a choice of opinion in matters of personal lifestyles - let it be.

From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice.

I believe it is possible to become bonded to a creature of higher intelligence, but the vast majority of animals killed for food are not of the brightest stature.

The problem with this argument is that it is founded on the assertion that animals are dumb. There is no concrete evidence, or evidence at all, to suggest that animals are stupid. Elephants are praised for having an excellent memory and dolphins have a brain the size equal to that of a human and are assumed, by many Ecologists and Biologists, to have small societies that communicate through eco-sounds. The only thing presumed by humans today is that animals are uncivilized and still, being civilized or not is not what gives someone or something the right to life and liberty. When a human child is stranded in the woods, it becomes uncivilized. This would grant, on the same grounds that this child, who is a human, be the flesh between the bread of your sandwich simply for not being able to handle a spoon correctly and being "uncivilized", the contradiction being that she would kill for food, whereas "civilized" humanity kills for pleasure. The fact of the matter is that animals may be very intelligent, however they are not nurtured in a civilized environment and, as such, do not grow up intelligent.
Let us assume that this distinction is correct, however, and that all animals, despite showing signs of Altruism, cooperation, and even constructing buildings (as some birds have done), are indeed stupid. As demonstrated before, this intelligence is no prequisite for deserving a right to life and liberty. A consciousness is. However, to say that intelligence is a requirement for life and liberty is to say that the senile, infants, the mentally retarded, and anyone intellectually inferior have no right to life. Then it would be justified for someone to eat their infant shortly after giving birth. However, few will agree that it is perfectly fine to eat any of these beings based on the grounds of intelligence.

And just what kind of intelligence is this? Is this intelligence measured by IQ? Or is it measured by creativity? There is more than one single form of intelligence in a number of fields of knowledge. Einstein had an IQ of 160, all he is heralded as one of the leading geniuses of science. There are many who have a higher IQ than Einstein, but that does not mean they have a higher capability of transcendental thinking. There is no one single meter of intelligence that is justifiable. There are many different forms of intelligence, including memorized facts, comprehendability, creativity, transcendental thinking, deep thinking, and many others; there is no one specific area of knowledge that one can claim one is intelliegnt at. In such accordance, one cannot simply say animals are dumber than humans, this is a grossly unjust generalization. A whale certainly knows how to swim better than any human. In this one instance, the animal is smarter and more capable than the human. A hawk certainly knows how to swim better and is smarter than a human. A duck knows where to look for fish. A fly knows how to signal another fly via mating signal. A babboon knows where to look when scouring the back of another babboon in search of ticks and other parasites. These are instances where the animal is smarter than the human, and as such, the human cannot justify killing the animal, yet the animal is not able to kill the human recklessly and needlessly without punishment.

And let us just assume, for a last primal example, that this intelligence thing was justified (which it is not), that all humans are smarter than all animals (which they are not), and that the IQ based system of intelligence was the only form of intelligence (which it is not). What kind of society would this be? If everyone had a shirt on with a number that read their IQ and those with the lower IQ could not fight back, as per dictated by the legal system, what kind of society would you live in? Whenever you met someone with a higher IQ and they tried to rape you, you could not fight back. Nor could you fight back if they tried to kill you. If you had a 199 IQ and they had a 200 IQ, you would have to bow down your head and allow them to chop it off; whether the reasoning for such is to taste the flesh of your body, to laugh at you, to retrieve stress, or simply because you exist does not matter. If such a society did in fact exist, I would be more disgusted at humanity's actions than I am at humanity's actions towards non-human animals. Intelligence is certainly not something to base who deserve life and liberty and who does not. Anyone who argues from such a stance suffers from the contagious disease of ignorance and repugnance.

We have the anatomy to do either - and the ability to digest both. Therefor we must use our own judgment. Are you going to eat plants / animals only? Or both?

The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."
And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.
When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

In all truth it doesn't really matter. Nature is nature. Things die, pain occures.

Humans do, too, but that doesn’t give you the right to kill them or to cause them a lifetime of suffering.

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 12:58 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 1:01 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 1:03 am on Jan. 20, 2003)

Fires of History

20th January 2003, 14:02

Eating meat isn't wrong.

Eating meat everyday is wrong. Not only is it bad for us, it's bad for our Earth. This modern industrial complex pumping animals full of chemicals and antibiotics while living their whole life in cages, that's what is wrong.

We should eat meat about 2 to 3 times a week, if that much. And, if you even want to that much.

But most Westerners eat meat every single day, sometimes at every meal. EVOLUTION NEVER INTENDED THIS. THAT IS NOT NATURAL.

If you believe eating meat everyday is 'natural,' you are wrong.

SuicideisPainless

20th January 2003, 14:09

I am a vegetarian, dont have a problem with people who eat meat but do have a problem with those who dont understand the difference between vegans and vegetarians, and have a problem with vegans who moan that I am a vegetarian and eat dairy products

T H mjd

20th January 2003, 16:56

yes we should eat meat, animals taste nice within reason.
and anyway do u see them paying taxes? hehe
althou they do give their life fo us to eat :cool:

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 21:26

Quote: from T H mjd on 4:56 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
yes we should eat meat, animals taste nice within reason.
and anyway do u see them paying taxes? hehe
althou they do give their life fo us to eat :cool:

It's not good to eat paint chips.

mjd

20th January 2003, 22:26

There is nothing wrong with eating meat. It is the natural order of the world, animals at the top of the food chain eat those that are on the bottom of the food chain. Its the way its always been and forever will be.

legot

20th January 2003, 22:31

why not change the order of things,you know make things better instead of staying in our current hole..

chamo

20th January 2003, 22:48

although they do give their life fo us to eat
What T H mjd is saying brings us onto another topic. Animal testing. Animal testing has it's advantages, it gives us a way to create even better and more efficent medicines and we can test if they work efficently and that they do not endanger life if they are tested on animals.

We cannot endanger human life by testing new and unknown chemicals on people. It is irresponsible and against rights. Should people have the right to sell themselves for dangerous testing?

However I could not trust a private business to test on animals. They cannot take the excuse that because they are allowed to use every single new medicine that they invent. They must test within reason. Chimpanzees must definetly not be tested on because they have a brain size and emotions near enough to humans. It has been porven that employees in companies that use animal testing actually beat and abuse the animals whilst testing on them, some undercover work involved there.

So in general animal testing can be a good thing, as it helps foward medical research and save lives. However, some restriction is needed to ensure that what currently goes on in animal testing labs does not happen. The companies need to be more open about their work and more socially responsible.
It is not up to mankind to play God and have complete control over all that lives and grows on earth.

Dicuss and elaborate please, people.

(Edited by happyguy at 10:49 pm on Jan. 20, 2003)

seewot

20th January 2003, 23:02

we are all animals.. i think.. so how would you like to be eaten

chamo

20th January 2003, 23:04

I wouldn't be alive to enjoy it...

Blibblob

20th January 2003, 23:10

Ok, difference of opinions. Once a person has his/her mind set, it is very difficult to change that. Those who eat meat will most likely continue, and those who don't will probably stay that way. It is not our right to make people change. A few suggestions that do not go to the limit of insulting are enough. Even though, if the insult is unintentional.......

mjd

20th January 2003, 23:22

Animal testing is a confusing issue. On the one hand you don't want to cause undue pain to an animal, but on the other hand you need to test new medicines ect. on animals as you couldn't do so on people because of their rights. What about the animals rights though? do they not have the right that unknown potenitaly fatal chemicals to not be injected into them.
Animal testing must me done but with in reason, not for any old product like purfume ect. but for medical reasons.
People should be allowd to have drugs tested on them, I am thinking of that case a while back when there was a drug that could help people with variant CJD. A group wanted it to be tested on them but they nearly weren't allowd as it was experimental. For extreme cases like that, were there was no hope of them getting better or having a normal life, testing a drug on humans is acceptable.

(Edited by mjd at 11:32 pm on Jan. 20, 2003)

Blibblob

20th January 2003, 23:37

I love cudly animals. Now im going to inject them with a never before tested tranquilizer, but i wont test it on that insignificant homeless drunk, because he has rights, and this cudly monkey that is almost intelligent as me has none.

chamo

20th January 2003, 23:40

I forgot about toliletry testing and I must say that testing toiletries is unacceptable. It should be ensured that the chemicals are not so dangerous before testing. You can't just test everything on animals, products need to be narrowed down first to ensure that there is a bigger chance of life for these animals, the reasons companies would test all that falls into their hands is because it is a cheap and quick process to do this, with animals dropping like flies all around. That said, I think all animal testing should be solely for the purposes of fowarding medicine but closely monitored.

People should not be allowed to have dangerous products tested on them, for money or voluntarily. In the CJD case however, is different because the people already have the disease and will certainly die. The government is denying them form a better quality of life and a new chance. The government are, therefore, denying the whole medical fowarding a process and hundreds more people who will get variant CJD from the same right. Those people are going to die knowing that they had a chance at a new lease of life, but it was denied from them by their own government.

SuicideisPainless

20th January 2003, 23:41

" Once a person has his/her mind set, it is very difficult to change that"

have to disagree with that opinion, I used to eat meat but am now a vegetarian, I have no problem with people who eat meat and accept that is their choice but doesnt mean I agree with it. But people can change their minds and opinions

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 23:42

Quote: from mjd on 10:26 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
There is nothing wrong with eating meat. It is the natural order

The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

Blibblob

20th January 2003, 23:43

As i said, thats why we invented knifes, and forks.

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 23:45

For information on animal testing please visit http://www.peta.com/fp/viv.html

chamo

20th January 2003, 23:48

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:37 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
I love cudly animals. Now im going to inject them with a never before tested tranquilizer, but i wont test it on that insignificant homeless drunk, because he has rights, and this cudly monkey that is almost intelligent as me has none.

I did not say that you go and inject cuddly things with something you have no idea about, some information must be learnt first about what you hold in your hand. I also said that monkeys (chimpanzees/gorillas etc) should not be tested on as they have emotions close to those of humans.

So do you think that a monkey should have more rights than a "tramp". Surely a tramp shuld have the same rights a everyone else. You should wake up and see that medicine is needed to save lives and the only way of making sure that more lives are not endangered is by animal testing. If you were on your deathbed, and I had a new marvel medicine that could save you, but need to make sure it was not dangerous, should I test it on an animal first or just pull the plug on you?

I think your post was just arrogant and you are not considering other points of view.

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 23:50

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:43 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
As i said, thats why we invented knifes, and forks.

This argument has nothing to do with the design of human teeth. The human body is mainly vegetarian therefore your fork and knife argument is dumb.

I have compiled a list of (previously posted) facts that state the human body is vegetarian.

When meat is eaten, it sits heavily in our stomachs, blocking our digestive processes until, days later, we struggle to excrete it. [Resource: In The Lancet (December 30, 1972), the "mean transit time" of food through the digestive systems of a sample group of nonvegetarians on a Western type of diet was between seventy-six and eighty-three hours; for vegetarians forty two hours. The authors suggest a connection between the length of time the stool remains in the colon and the incidence of cancer of the colon and related disease which have increased rapidly in nations whose consumption of meat has increased but are almost unknown among rural Africans who, like vegetarians, have a diet low in meat and high in roughage.]

The 1988 United States Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health cites a major study indicating that the death rate for heart attacks of vegetarians between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four is only 28 percent of the rate for Americans in general in that age group. For older vegetarians the rate of death from heart attacks was still less than half that of nonvegetarians. The same study showed that vegetarians who ate eggs and dairy products had cholesterol levels 16 percent lower than those of meat eaters, and vegans had cholesterol levels 29 percent lower. The report's main recommendations were to reduce consumption of cholesterol and fat (especially saturated fat), and increase consumption of cholesterol and whole grain foods and cereal products, vegetables (including dried beans and peas) and fruits. A recommendation to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat is, in effect, a recommendation to avoid meat (except perhaps chicken from which the skin has been removed), and cream, butter, and all except low-fat dairy products. [Resource: "The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).]

Studies have found a strong connection between breast cancer and meat intake, and also between eating meat, especially beef, and cancer of the large bowel. The American Heart Association has also been recommending, for many years, that Americans reduce their meat intake. [Resource: The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Appleby et al. 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 525S:
A 16-year study of 6000 vegetarians and 5000 non-vegetarians in the UK found that the vegetarians generally had lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower death rates for each of the mortality endpoints studied.
Segasothy & Phillips 1999, Q J Med, 92, 531:
The many health-related effects of vegetarian diets are reviewed, such as the cholesterol-lowering effects, the decreased risk for coronary heart disease, the improvement of the condition of heart patients, and the decreased risk of colon and breast cancers.
Kushi et al. 1995, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 1416S:
Evidence strongly suggests that a high intake of plant-based foods, and a low intake of animal products contributes to the excellent health of Mediterranean populations. The high consumption of red meat in Western diets is associated with increased risks of heart disease, some cancers, and urinary calcium losses likely to contribute to osteoporosis.

PlasticJesus

20th January 2003, 23:53

Credit PETA for the following information on animal testing.

http://www.peta.com/fp/viv.html

"Hasn’t every major medical advance been attributable to experiments on animals?"
Medical historians have shown that improved nutrition, sanitation, and other behavioral and environmental factors—not anything learned from animal experiments—are responsible for the decline in deaths since 1900 from the most common infectious diseases and that medicine has had little to do with increased life expectancy. Many of the most important advances in health are attributable to human studies, among them anesthesia; bacteriology; germ theory; the stethoscope; morphine; radium; penicillin; artificial respiration; antiseptics; the CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the discovery of the relationships between cholesterol and heart disease and between smoking and cancer; the development of x-rays; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. Animal testing played no role in these and many other developments.

"But many treatments we have today were developed on animals—like polio vaccines, for instance."
In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio—the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and which did not involve animals, and the subsequent animal tests, in which close to 1 million animals were killed and which the Nobel committee refused to recognize as anything more than wasteful. Also, polio died out just as quickly in areas of the world that did not use the vaccine as in the United States.

However, certainly, some medical developments were discovered through cruel animal tests. But just because animals were used doesn't mean they had to be used or that primitive techniques that were used in the 1800s are valid today. It's impossible to say where we would be if we had declined to experiment on animals, because throughout medical history, very few resources have been devoted to non-animal research methods. In fact, because animal experiments frequently give misleading results with regard to human health, we'd probably be better off if we hadn't relied on them.

"Scientists have the responsibility to use animals to keep looking for cures for the diseases people suffer from."
More human lives could be saved and more suffering spared by educating people on the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world. Animal tests are primitive, and besides, we have modern technology and human clinical tests.

Even if it could be proved that we have no alternative to using animals—which it can’t—as George Bernard Shaw once said, "You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behavior." After all, there are some medical problems that can probably only be cured by testing on unwilling people, but we don’t do it, because we recognize that it would be wrong.

"If we couldn’t use animals, wouldn’t we have to test new drugs on people?"
The choice isn’t between animals and people. There’s no guarantee that drugs are safe just because they’ve been tested on animals. Because of the physiological differences between humans and other animals, results from animal tests cannot be accurately extrapolated to humans, leaving us vulnerable to exposure to drugs that can cause serious side effects.

Ironically, unfavorable animal test results do not prevent a drug from being marketed for human use. So much evidence has accumulated about differences in the effects that chemicals have on animals and humans that government officials often do not act on findings from animal studies. In the last two decades, many drugs, including phenacitin, Eferol, Oraflex, Suprol, and Selacryn, were taken off the market after causing hundreds of deaths and/or injuries. In fact, more than half the drugs the Food and Drug Administration approved between 1976 and 1985 were either removed from the market or relabeled because of serious side effects. If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would have greater protection, not less.

"If we didn’t test on animals, how would we conduct medical research?"
Human clinical and epidemiological studies, cadavers, and computer simulators are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests. Ingenious scientists have developed, from human brain cells, a model "microbrain" with which to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. We can now test irritancy on egg membranes, produce vaccines from cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. As Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories (a company that uses only human tissues and computers to develop and test drugs) says, "If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?"

"Animal experimentation helps animals, too, by advancing veterinary science."
This is like saying it’s acceptable to experiment on poor children to benefit rich ones. The point is not whether animal experimentation can be useful to animals or humans; the point is that we do not have the moral right to inflict unnecessary suffering on those who are at our mercy.

(Edited by PlasticJesus at 11:56 pm on Jan. 20, 2003)

mjd

20th January 2003, 23:56

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:37 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
I love cudly animals. but i wont test it on that insignificant homeless drunk, because he has rights, and this cudly monkey that is almost intelligent as me has none.

Does this "tramp" you talk about not have the same rights as you or me. He is a victim of this money hungry world and deserves our help and sympathy.

Blibblob

21st January 2003, 00:10

Damn, nobody ever gets a fucking joke, lighten up sometimes, get a sense of humor.

It was all sarcastic. But pretty much that is what we do, except we do test it with computers and lab rats first, then the ones closer in genetics.

PlasticJesus

21st January 2003, 00:14

Emotions are sometimes hard to detect over the internet.

Blibblob

21st January 2003, 00:34

lol, yes sorry, emotions are. But how could you possibly think that all of that could have been serious.

And the tramp that needs our sympathy put himself out there. Thats why i added drunk. Here in the US, quite a few of the homeless people are there because they spent too much money on beer, drugs, and sex, lost money, jobs, and homes. They should never have started in the first place. Before spending shitloads on them, we need to see if they are changed first.

Blibblob

21st January 2003, 00:37

Here you go:

Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home looking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk where I remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure, that I have memory and understanding.

Bring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master, which has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters the house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs, from room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it loves, and which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its leaps, by its caresses.

Barbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so prodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in order to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not feel? has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this impertinent contradiction in nature.

All hail Voltaire!

chamo

21st January 2003, 08:57

Sorry about the misunderstanding Blibblob

elisabeth

21st January 2003, 12:14

Personally, I do like meat, but I don't eat it very often, and I also don't eat every kind of meat. I've never had horse meat, because I love horses and it would me make lose my appetite if I knew that the bit of meat I'm eating here is horse. It's everybody's own decision, but I still say: If your can't live without meat, eat biological. At least, you eat happy animals.
But it's still much better and healthier not to eat any meat.

legot

21st January 2003, 16:22

Quote: from elisabeth on 12:14 pm on Jan. 21, 2003
I've never had horse meat, because I love horses.

have you never seen bade:pig in the big city!

Dr. Rosenpenis

21st January 2003, 19:14

Someone here said that if we give animals rights, we must also give rights to plants.

Plants aren't sentient beings, they have no emotions, feelings, or thoughts, most animals do.

You mights be reffering to the plant's place in the eco-system, which is equally as important as an animals, but we don't eat many wild plants, though we do cut them down for lumber, which is becoming hazardous to the enviroment and should end, though that really has nothing to do with the misstreatment of domestic animals.

Guardia Bolivariano

21st January 2003, 20:59

I personaly love to eat meat and I don't feel bad about It.But I think people should have a balanced diet that means meat and vegetables.Meat in a right quantaty is very good for you especially If you have a very active life.I believe It gives you strength.In al cultures they eat some sort of meat It's very natural to do so.

CBC

21st January 2003, 21:16

i'll put it like this: i wouldn't eat meat if it wasn't so sweet tasting:/ maybe i'm a little bit of an egoist, but i'll try to get better

Weatherman

22nd January 2003, 22:36

I think the real issue hasnt even been addressed yet. Animals arent sentient. Humans are. That is why we dont feel guilty for eating them. I think they should be in the least pain as possible while there alive. I think they could live a full and happy life, while still being our food source. This is the way nature designed it. For example fruit tries to taste good, that way the roaming animal will eat them, and shit their seeds out somewhere else to start a new tree. They want to be eaten. We shouldnt feel guilty, but its a good thing we are analyzing this to make sure its not immoral.

To Plastic Jesus: Some amount of meat is healthy, just not too much. Almost all the food we eat is genetically engineered; and I dont mean high tech. I mean over hundreds of years of agriculture we have changed the composition of our food so that it cant survive without us. Corn used to be very small, but after years of constantly only planting the largest of the crop, Corn is now huge, and its stalks cant be removed without us so they cant reproduce in the wild on their own. Same thing with bannanas, and Cows. Actually all the dogs that exist now we created by breeding certain aspects we liked into them. All these messed up types of dogs never lived in the wild. Blood hounds got their awesome sense of smell through years of controled breeding (low tech genetic engineering). Pit bulls got their aggressivness from the same thing. Anyways a lot of these health problems we have our due to this change in our diet. Lions dont have Cancer.