Animal Rights

[Red Menace]

I was wondering what your guys view on Animal Rights were. I guess I kind of know, but I haven't seen this topic discussed. *not saying it hasn't, i just haven't seen it*

[Cult of Reason]

Animal rights? Ridiculous. My view is that if it benefits humanity to have something nasty happen to an animal, it should happen. Meat, medical research, all fine by me.

Besides, where would you stop? Where would you draw the line?

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:15 PM
Animal rights? Ridiculous. My view is that if it benefits humanity to have something nasty happen to an animal, it should happen. Meat, medical research, all fine by me.

Besides, where would you stop? Where would you draw the line?
I agree.

Animals are of no concern to me.

Animal rights activist often place animals before humans, and I simply cannot accept this.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm a vegetarian. Animal rights can be placed below human concerns when it is beneficial to humanity to do so. However, the consumption of meat is pointless and unnecessary, and it hinders the progress of humanity - especially in the areas of agriculture and improving human health.

[Lord Testicles]

I was brought up a vegetarian and I still am. I think that people can eat meat if they want to and I also think that we should use animals when necessary but if we can do something without needlessly torturing animals I think we should do that but I always put people first.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:15 PM
Animal rights? Ridiculous. My view is that if it benefits humanity to have something nasty happen to an animal, it should happen. Meat, medical research, all fine by me.

Besides, where would you stop? Where would you draw the line?
However, humanity slaughter animals at an alarming rate, and often needlessly.

The amount of meat consumed in the west, is of a much higher percentage than we actually need. And as we all fiercely oppose the supply and demand economy, we should strongly oppose the mass slaughter of animals to appease the free market.

That's not to say I disagree with you, I completely agree, animals should be used for experimenting and food. It's just upsetting that far more are killed that need to be, and far less people are fed than should be. sigh.

[Livetrueordie]

i would like to be vegan. raising animals just to kill them, while their is an alternative, is pretty messed up to me. But i don't think i could surivive without meat. i already can't eat poultry, seafood, fruit, dairy, most vegetable(soy), and rice. I pretty much just eat beef and potatoes and bread.

[Livetrueordie]

i agree with you skinz

[rioters bloc]

what bloodlust there is in this thread <_<

i am all for animal rights, although human rights will always come first. i completely agree with AF, except for the experimenting part. i think that experimentation is fine, to an extent. but keep your lipsticks the fuck away. really.

the thing is, while i agree that if it benefits humanity to kill animals it&#39;s alright, i also think that we need to really fucking think about what is actually progressive and helpful and what is simply stuff that we&#39;d kinda like so why not. for instance, i don&#39;t support killing animals just so someone can get a bit of fur on their coat or to get "real ivory&#33;&#33;&#33;" billiard balls. so instead of just slaughtering animals left right and centre &#39;because we can&#39; we really have to first look at what we&#39;re using them for and whether there are less murderous alternatives available.

[rioters bloc]

also, defy: i can&#39;t find them right now but i believe there are a few threads in &#39;sciences and environment&#39; about vegetarianism and most of them talk about animal rights :)

[LSD]

I was wondering what your guys view on Animal Rights were. I guess I kind of know, but I haven&#39;t seen this topic discussed.

Then you haven&#39;t looked.

ELF-ALF (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36532)
PETA (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38285)
veganism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39814)
Words cannot express my feelings about this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44463)
Vivisection (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46178)
vivisection (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48125)
practical vegetarianism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49249)


Originally posted by me

To say that animal rights activists are reactionary is the silliest thing ever.

Animal rights activists as a group are not intrinsically reactionary. Clearly there is a lot of nescessary work to be done in the field of animal treatment.

TAL advocates (Total Animal Liberation), however, are reactionary because their ideology is fundamentally anti-humanist, regressive, primitavist, and supertstitious.

Look, no one here supports needless animal cruelty. No one wants to go around beating dogs and strangling cats. But animals are not human and we cannot treat them as such. We are omnivores, we eat animals. That&#39;s about as natural an act as there is. Preventing people from eating meat is an act of oppression. It reduces freedom of action for nebulous reasons in support of a nebulous goal.

The animal fanatics want to give animals the rights of people with none of the responsibilities. I suppose that means that we should all financially support them so that they don&#39;t starve&#33; I can&#39;t imagine what they forsee animals giving back to society however...

The simple truth is that animals are not sentient and as such unable to be a part of our society. They are inferior to us and pretending that that isn&#39;t true doesn&#39;t change it. The simple truth is that we are superior to mice&#33;

Animals are not a part of human society and so do not enjoy the rights given by that society. The very idea of rights is a human invention and applies only to humans. Society must protect rights because it is in the best interest of that society that it do so, that&#39;s it.

There is no "higher being" enforcing rights, they are as much a societal creation as anything. Sosicety exists to bennefit the members of said society, therefore it is the obligation of society to afford all liberties and basic rights to members of society so long as said liberties to not infringe on the same rights and liberties of other member of society.

Human society has no obligation to those species which are intrinsically biologically incapable of participating in such society.

Our human obligations are such because that is the nature of our relationship. Our relationship with other animals is in the context of their relationhip with themselves and with other animals. Animals eat animals&#33; Therefore, from a philosophical sense, the eating of meat is within their moral framework. The primary relationship in nature between animal and animal, mammal and mammal is that of hunter and prey, therefore, in terms of our natural responsibility, we are merely participating in preexisting supersocial acts.

That&#39;s philosophy, now here&#39;s reason: Rights are a societal creation. We are only obligated to provide rights for those who are part of human society. We have no obligation, nor logical reason, to provide rights for those who are not only not a part of said society, but of a species which is fundamentally incapable of even convieving of rights.

Specially incapable. There may be members of human society (infants, the infirmed) who are not capable of concieving of much, but the capacity and the excersizing of said capacity are two seperate things. Humans are genetically capable of concieving of complex abstract ideas, other animals are not.

It is that fucking simple.

[Tree_Hugger]

Honestly, I think that people as a species totally suck. We destroy the enviornment, blow things (and eachother) up all the time, constantly fight, and we use animals in many cruel and inhumane ways (animal testing, factory farming, fur farms). I think that hurting another creature is not justified by merely saying "uh, well, it benefits humanity so it&#39;s ok", and I believe that animals should be treated with the same care and respect as people.

[Ander]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 17 2006, 12:11 PM
the consumption of meat is pointless
How the hell do you figure that?

[Connolly]

I am all for animal rights.

New developments of "cultivating" animal flesh in a laboratory from stem cells will hopefully some day remove the need to kill any animals at all.

These advances will be funded as long as there is a market for it.

That means people must detest the killing of animals and turn away from such a barbaric act.

Fighting for animal rights is advancing the mode of production

Saying, "ah, sure as long as humans need to kill them, I wont oppose it" is short minded and defeatist - it wont achieve jack all, we may as well be eating berries off a bush.

We can change the nature of our food and where exactly it comes from, we make our own history.

Fighting for animal rights is just and progressive.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:25 AM
Honestly, I think that people as a species totally suck. We destroy the enviornment, blow things (and eachother) up all the time, constantly fight, and we use animals in many cruel and inhumane ways (animal testing, factory farming, fur farms). I think that hurting another creature is not justified by merely saying "uh, well, it benefits humanity so it&#39;s ok", and I believe that animals should be treated with the same care and respect as people.
Animals hurt other animals every day, when they eat them alive.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by kurt+Jun 17 2006, 07:04 PM--> (kurt @ Jun 17 2006, 07:04 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 09:25 AM
Honestly, I think that people as a species totally suck. We destroy the enviornment, blow things (and eachother) up all the time, constantly fight, and we use animals in many cruel and inhumane ways (animal testing, factory farming, fur farms). I think that hurting another creature is not justified by merely saying "uh, well, it benefits humanity so it&#39;s ok", and I believe that animals should be treated with the same care and respect as people.
Animals hurt other animals every day, when they eat them alive. [/b]
yeah but thats nature. Im pretty sure we have the upper advantage. and we should act like we do.

To be honest I am suprised. alot of these responses I would expect out of the right. like the far right. I think we have a responsibility. Sure in most ways they are weaker compared to us. The can be defenseless. But regardless they still feel pain. Just like us. I&#39;m not saying their priority is above ours, I&#39;m saying it should be right below ours. Do they not deserve liberation from their oppressors? Do they not deserve a revolution too?

[Ali.Cat]

the thing is, while i agree that if it benefits humanity to kill animals it&#39;s alright, i also think that we need to really fucking think about what is actually progressive and helpful and what is simply stuff that we&#39;d kinda like so why not. for instance, i don&#39;t support killing animals just so someone can get a bit of fur on their coat or to get "real ivory&#33;&#33;&#33;" billiard balls. so instead of just slaughtering animals left right and centre &#39;because we can&#39; we really have to first look at what we&#39;re using them for and whether there are less murderous alternatives available.


I couldn&#39;t have said it any better. It&#39;s all about giving a little and taking a little. Use your resources wisely and don&#39;t be greedy just because you have the opportunity to be.

[LSD]

Honestly, I think that people as a species totally suck.

Well, you certainly have the right to that opinion, but in terms of policy implications, it&#39;s entirely inane.

It doesn&#39;t matter whether people proverbially "suck" or "rule". All that matter is that, insofar as human society is concerned, they&#39;re all that count.

You see the question that you need to be asking yourself is not why is it wrong to kill animals, but why is it wrong to kill humans and does that reason transcend special barriors. The answer to the latter question is, of course, no; but the answer to the first is probably not what you&#39;re expecting.

People like to talk about a "sanctity of life" and such, but it&#39;s all complete nonsense. Rather, human life must be protected by society because of the nature of society.

Tht is, society exists as a collection of independent moral actors who collectively agree to abide by a set of correlational guidelines. These guidelines, however, are not extended to nonmembers.

So a wolf, for example, is not bound by human laws and while humans will defend themselves from wolves, they not expect that a wolf will restrain himself because "murder is wrong".

The world exists in a non-societal state. It is an externalistic organism and, as such, operates at a different level relative to humanity. Similarly, a cow, does not have the ability to comprehend human societal reltions and so cannot be a part of them.

Accordingly, like the wolf, the cow interacts with human society at a non-member level and since society has no externalistic obligations, society&#39;s sole interest at this level is to serve its membership.

If that means experimenting on it, so be it, if it means eating it, so be it as well.

And if you wish to claim otherwise, if you wish to contend that externalistic obligations do exist within human society, then it is up to you to prove it.


We can change the nature of our food and where exactly it comes from, we make our own history.

Progress does not come out of boycotts, it comes out of material incentive; and artificially "grown" foods are still a long ways off, no matter what "market" forces become involved.

Look, if you want to improve the treatment of animals, that&#39;s fine, but you personally not eating meat isn&#39;t going to change a thing.

The whole "not participating" argument is and alwyas has been complete bullshit. It&#39;s an excuse for out of mind thinking. You want to change something? Change it&#33;

...but not through veganism. You see, even if you do manage to inspire a massive boycott, you know "voting withy your dollars", you&#39;re just transfering the problem, not solving it. If you force farmers to spend more on animal treatment, they&#39;ll find a way to cut costs somewhere else, most probably with "human resources". That means making the lives of their underpaid often illegal employees even more miserable then they already are.

If you make it impossible for farmers to be cruel to animals, they will be cruel to someone else. It&#39;s the capitalist way. If you seriously want to change the way a capitalist industry operates you need to change capitalism. Petty sub-reformism doesn&#39;t cut it.

Not to mention even that this entire argument is built upon a faulty premise. Namely that all slaughtering techniques are "cruel". While a good deal of the meat industry is indeed terrible to animals (thanks, again, to capitalism), it&#39;s still a grossly incorrect generalization.

If your goal is to eliminate "cruelty" to animals, why not encourage the eating of "free range" meats? At least that way you provide farmers with a viable alternative other than getting out of the whole business and killing their stock.


Do they not deserve liberation from their oppressors? Do they not deserve a revolution too?

No.

Revolution is an entirely human concept and cannot be artificially grafted onto a non-human lifeform.

What individual humans chose to do with individual animals is their own busness (within certain reasonbly limits, of course), but in terms of human society in general, it has absolutely no externalistic obligations.

The only thing that animals "deserve" from us is that we be quick and painless in our extraction of our needs.

There is no call for sadistic cruelty; but to treat animals "as if they were human" is absolute folly.

[R_P_A_S]

I&#39;m not for killin animals to make piano keys, belts, boats, coats, or whatever type of expensive clothing out of them. I fucking hate those bastards who beat seals to death. that some sick fucking people there for you. I do eat meat and chicken. i love it but even though i dont agree with slaugher houses. yeah im real hypocrate there arent i? <_<

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Animal rights? Ridiculous. My view is that if it benefits humanity to have something nasty happen to an animal, it should happen. Meat, medical research, all fine by me.

Besides, where would you stop? Where would you draw the line?

Whoa there&#33;

They are living forms of life&#33; We must treat them with basic respect. I&#39;m in no way against meat, but I am against the horrid way animals are treated. The chicken you eat for example, are locked up and stacked upon one another in cages, or placed by the thousands in small barns where they shit all over themselves and get their wings tangled together. It&#39;s disgusting, and people wonder where Bird flu came from <_<

I definatly agree that human rights become before animal rights but for gods sakes life is not a commodity&#33; Animals deserve to be raised on open farms, not in cages&#33;

[Cult of Reason]

They are living forms of life&#33;

As opposed to dead forms of life?


We must treat them with basic respect.

Why? A series of chemical reactions, nothing more.


The chicken you eat for example, are locked up and stacked upon one another in cages, or placed by the thousands in small barns where they shit all over themselves and get their wings tangled together.

If that is the most efficient available method of getting large quantities of produce then it is totally justified.


It&#39;s disgusting, and people wonder where Bird flu came from

I am quite certain that there were types of avian flu before domestication took place.


life is not a commodity&#33;

Why not?


Animals deserve to be raised on open farms, not in cages&#33;

Deserve?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

As opposed to dead forms of life?

As opposed to plants



Why? A series of chemical reactions, nothing more.

So, we&#39;re the same. They&#39;re just simpler forms of organizism




If that is the most efficient available method of getting large quantities of produce then it is totally justified.

It&#39;s the cheapest, most profitable, and most unhealthy.



I am quite certain that there were types of avian flu before domestication took place.

But I&#39;m almost sure that the way we treat them is a cause for diesease.



Why not?

Because it is precious and should be valued and respected.

[Cult of Reason]

As opposed to plants

Plants are living. True, animals are genetically closer to us, but plants are still "living forms of life." To say "cruelty" to plants is OK, but not for animals is just as much favouritism as saying cruelty to humans is bad but not for other forms of life. Indeed, it is even less justified than favouritism towards humans, as favouritism towards the animal kingdom is arbitrary, while favouritism towards humans is a form of individual and collective self interest at least.


So, we&#39;re the same. They&#39;re just simpler forms of organizism

And?


It&#39;s the cheapest, most profitable, and most unhealthy.

Cheapest? Why is it cheapest? Is it cheapest inherently as a result of the process itself (less feed? Easier gathering of produce?), or is it cheapest due to lower rents and land costs? As in, would it still be the cheapest use of resources for this product in Communism?

Unhealthy? For who? The chickens? Obviously, but who cares? They are going to be killed and eaten after all. For us? If so, why?



But I&#39;m almost sure that the way we treat them is a cause for diesease.

It can facilitate the spread of disease. If organisms are close together disease does spread.

So, you do have a point, and in the future such methods&#39; benefits and disadvantages will have to be considered. However, no moralism is necessary.


Because it is precious and should be valued and respected.

Why?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Jello+Jun 17 2006, 07:47 PM--> (Jello @ Jun 17 2006, 07:47 PM)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 17 2006, 12:11 PM
the consumption of meat is pointless
How the hell do you figure that? [/b]
Meat isn&#39;t needed to live healthy. If anything, it&#39;s better not to eat meat. Furthermore, if you accept the above, there is only one other reason to eat meat: taste. However, there are other foods that taste good, and, if we don&#39;t raise people on meat, they have no reason to desire it. Slowly phasing it out is the way to go, I think.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 18 2006, 08:48 PM
Meat isn&#39;t needed to live healthy. If anything, it&#39;s better not to eat meat. Furthermore, if you accept the above, there is only one other reason to eat meat: taste. However, there are other foods that taste good, and, if we don&#39;t raise people on meat, they have no reason to desire it. Slowly phasing it out is the way to go, I think.
People should have a right to eat meat whether it’s healthier or not.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 18 2006, 07:48 PM
Meat isn&#39;t needed to live healthy. If anything, it&#39;s better not to eat meat. Furthermore, if you accept the above, there is only one other reason to eat meat: taste. However, there are other foods that taste good, and, if we don&#39;t raise people on meat, they have no reason to desire it. Slowly phasing it out is the way to go, I think.
Screw that. I like meat.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:11 PM

As opposed to plants

Plants are living. True, animals are genetically closer to us, but plants are still "living forms of life." To say "cruelty" to plants is OK, but not for animals is just as much favouritism as saying cruelty to humans is bad but not for other forms of life. Indeed, it is even less justified than favouritism towards humans, as favouritism towards the animal kingdom is arbitrary, while favouritism towards humans is a form of individual and collective self interest at least.


As far as we know plants do not feel any pain. Animals we can prove do, plus we can prove they have intelligent thought. So...ya know.. there&#39;s a tad difference there. But anyway, I think Skinz said it best. ;)

[chimx]

animal liberation has fuck all to do with my communism. they&#39;re mutually exclusive. i will however take any opportunity in a post-capitalist society to bash the heads in of perpetrators of animal cruelty and blow the brains out of transhumanist vivisectors with my shotgun.

[Cult of Reason]

Define pain.

[emma_goldman]

They hurt. :huh: I don&#39;t know, what do you want? :P

[Cult of Reason]

Biological definition or some similar.

[emma_goldman]

1 a : a state of physical, emotional, or mental lack of well-being or physical, emotional, or mental uneasiness that ranges from mild discomfort or dull distress to acute often unbearable agony, may be generalized or localized, and is the consequence of being injured or hurt physically or mentally or of some derangement of or lack of equilibrium in the physical or mental functions (as through disease), and that usually produces a reaction of wanting to avoid, escape, or destroy the causative factor and its effects <was in constant pain> b : a basic bodily sensation that is induced by a noxious stimulus, is received by naked nerve endings, is characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leads to evasive action

[RevMARKSman]

Responding to the first post: Animals are sentient and we must be aware of that and give them some basic rights. (sentient: Having senses, such as sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) HOWEVER, animals are NOT self-aware and therefore do not deserve nearly as many rights as humans do. If another species comes up that has the same cognitive/intellectual capacity as humans, then they would deserve human rights--I don&#39;t give a fuck about genetic code in terms of rights unless it has something to do with cognition. But for now, a species like that hasn&#39;t been found. We should act in our own interests and remember that animals do have senses, that we are not just mutilating a "thing": in fact when we do these things we are causing great pain. Keep the unnecessary torture to a minimum but don&#39;t get too worried about it--after all we do need to survive.

[chimx]

primates and dolphins are self-aware.

of course, self-awareness only comes about mid-childhood. plenty of humans are faced with cognitive problems that don&#39;t allow them to reach this stage. i suppose by your logic it would be acceptable to deny these humans these rights. we could play retard pinata with them.

fuck, if self-awareness is your deciding factor, then i suppose you wouldn&#39;t mind if i steal your baby and stick my penis into its eye sockets. it isn&#39;t self-aware yet and doesn&#39;t deserve rights, correct?

[RevMARKSman]

we could play retard pinata with them.
fuck, if self-awareness is your deciding factor, then i suppose you wouldn&#39;t mind if i steal your baby and stick my penis into its eye sockets. it isn&#39;t self-aware yet and doesn&#39;t deserve rights, correct?
Those actions don&#39;t benefit society as a whole, and I said animals do have some rights...Remember, I SAID to keep down unnecessary torture...try reading my entire post.

[chimx]

the meat industry is unnecessary. people could be getting their protein and amino acids from beans and rice. animal husbandry is a luxury item.

but if we are just trying to avoid senseless acts of violence against creatures with lesser cognitive skills, then instead of playing retard pinata, perhaps we could just dine on their be meaty chins. i&#39;ve always prefered the taste of retard to that of pork.

you&#39;re sliding on a slippery slope when you try to define rights around cognition. anyway you slice it, you can find animals with higher cognitive skills than humans with certain birth defects or at an earlier developmental stage.

[LSD]

the meat industry is unnecessary. people could be getting their protein and amino acids from beans and rice.

Perhaps, but by that logic we should eliminate all foods that contain redundant nutrition. After all, if our only purpose in eating is "health", variety in our diets is "unnescessary".

The reality, of course, is that eating is not only nescessary, it&#39;s also fun. And limiting ourselves to "nescessity" alone verges on the masochistic.

Absent a compelling reason to abstain from meat, any "nescessity" argument for prohibition is pure neo-puritanistism and demands absolutely no respect from progressive leftists.


but if we are just trying to avoid senseless acts of violence against creatures with lesser cognitive skills, then instead of playing retard pinata, perhaps we could just dine on their be meaty chins. i&#39;ve always prefered the taste of retard to that of pork.

you&#39;re sliding on a slippery slope when you try to define rights around cognition. anyway you slice it, you can find animals with higher cognitive skills than humans with certain birth defects or at an earlier developmental stage.

Oh, the argument from marginal cases.

Just to run through it quickly, again, the mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human and as such are members of a community which is composed of rational actors; secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity; and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

The point is that there is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.

And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is.

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights; they are rather afforded protections.

That is their humanity and relationship with the community makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.

[Ander]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Jun 18 2006, 04:48 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Jun 18 2006, 04:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:47 PM

Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 17 2006, 12:11 PM
the consumption of meat is pointless
How the hell do you figure that?
Meat isn&#39;t needed to live healthy. If anything, it&#39;s better not to eat meat. Furthermore, if you accept the above, there is only one other reason to eat meat: taste. However, there are other foods that taste good, and, if we don&#39;t raise people on meat, they have no reason to desire it. Slowly phasing it out is the way to go, I think. [/b]
It may not be entirely necessary, but it cannot be considered pointless.

Seeing as a large percent of animals also eat meat, I don&#39;t see a whole lot wrong with it. I do believe that the meat industry should be more humane though, cause all that slaughter and packing animals in crates is fucking sick.

[chimx]

the meat industry is unnecessary. people could be getting their protein and amino acids from beans and rice.

Perhaps, but by that logic we should eliminate all foods that contain redundant nutrition. After all, if our only purpose in eating is "health", variety in our diets is "unnescessary".

The reality, of course, is that eating is not only nescessary, it&#39;s also fun. And limiting ourselves to "nescessity" alone verges on the masochistic.

Absent a compelling reason to abstain from meat, any "nescessity" argument for prohibition is pure neo-puritanistism and demands absolutely no respect from progressive leftists.

I wasn&#39;t the one that brought up the issue of necessity, just acknowledging that we should call animal husbandry for what it is. and that something is not based exclusively on survival.


Oh, the argument from marginal cases.

. . . firstly, they are still human and as such are members of a community which is composed of rational actors

themselves not being such an actor. i don&#39;t understand what this has to do with monica&#39;s argument for cognitive distinctions.


secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity

if they are biologically incapable, i don&#39;t see how they are capable of being potential rational actors


and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

why is it important? your assumption that "spillover" would exist is just that, an assumption.

[LSD]

themselves not being such an actor

Which is why they are not entitled to full participation in human society or complete human rights.

Certain protections need to be put in place, and those protections must be broader than those applied to animals because, incapacitated or not, these people are still human and as such are still part of a moral community.

To ensure that society is as protectes as possible and that no actual or potential rational moral agent is harmed, it is nescessary to cast a "wide net" and to generalize human special traits to all members of the species.


if they are biologically incapable, i don&#39;t see how they are capable of being potential rational actors

Because their basic special capacity is for rational cognitive abiltiy. A condition which prevents them from utilizing this capacity does not eliminate that this capacity exists or that it may become possible to eliminate the debilitating condition in question.


i don&#39;t understand what this has to do with monica&#39;s argument for cognitive distinctions.

I&#39;m not familiar with "monica&#39;s argument", I was merely responding to your contention that defining human exceptionalism based on cognitive capacity is a "slippery slope".

From that statement, I concluded that you were opposing a humanist approach to rights. In looking back at your previous posts in this thread, however, it appears that you do not support "animal rights". And as such, I must say that I am even more confused than before.

What for you then, may I ask, is the defining feature of "human" in terms of participation in moral society? If not cognitive capacity to partake in said society ...what?

[chimx]

protections/rights, whatever. nobody wants to give chimps the right to vote. your idea of protections (i assume) is probably quite similar to others thoughts on animal rights.

as far as your question, i find no defining characteristics of "human" i suppose. of course that has been a problem for scientists throughout the ages as well. perhaps you could explain your rationale for defining "human", particularly along cognition lines. personally, my moral participation in society rests upon self-preservation. self-preservation in a social community requires a degree of empathy and acknowledgement of the other actors participating within this social contract. i&#39;m incapable of empathizing solely along make-believe species boundaries. it strikes me as unnatural.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:17 PM
the meat industry is unnecessary. people could be getting their protein and amino acids from beans and rice. animal husbandry is a luxury item.
I don&#39;t really want to get involved in this thread, as I feel it&#39;s a non-issue, but I thought I should point something out here.

Most meat protein&#39;s BV is immensely higher than protein from say, soy beans. Meat has a different amino acid makeup than beans, so don&#39;t try to offer this as an argument.

[Fawkes]

Heraldur, how cruel and cold-hearted can you be. When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad, they deserve respect just as much as humans do. They are alive, they are not ours to kill, they were hear before us, we don&#39;t have the right to do what we please with them. Youll probably respond to that by saying "who says", well, if humans have such a high intelligence and are empathetic, they should know that it isnt our right to treat animals however we please.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 2006+ 10:35 PM--> (Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 2006 &#064; 10:35 PM)Heraldur, how cruel and cold-hearted can you be.[/b]

You have no idea how cruel he is you should hear what he does with hamsters. :P


Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 [email protected] 10:35 PM
When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad, they deserve respect just as much as humans do.

What are we supposed to do? Hold a funeral?


Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 [email protected] 10:35 PM
They are alive,

Correct


Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 [email protected] 10:35 PM
they are not ours to kill

Why not? Although I don’t agree with killing an animal just because you want to kill it, but if killing it has a progressive reason or you kill it for food what is the problem?


Originally posted by Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 [email protected] 10:35 PM
they were hear before us

As a species maybe but not as individual animals.


Freedom for all...ALL Posted on Jun 20 [email protected] 10:35 PM
we don&#39;t have the right to do what we please with them

I agree we shouldn’t do with them as we please, but if it serves a progressive reason I have no objections.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jun 18 2006, 08:17 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jun 18 2006, 08:17 PM)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 18 2006, 07:48 PM
Meat isn&#39;t needed to live healthy. If anything, it&#39;s better not to eat meat. Furthermore, if you accept the above, there is only one other reason to eat meat: taste. However, there are other foods that taste good, and, if we don&#39;t raise people on meat, they have no reason to desire it. Slowly phasing it out is the way to go, I think.
Screw that. I like meat. [/b]
Thanks for your mature and enlightening response. I especially enjoyed the implication that I am suggesting you be forced to be vegetarian, which I am not.

Furthermore, meat can be considered pointless on a philosophical level. It does little or nothing to improve the quality of life for humanity and/or the individual that cannot be accomplished by more efficient means. Vegetarianism, and even veganism (which I do not partake in), are excellent ways to improve individual well-being and global sustainability. Authoritarianism just isn&#39;t the way to encourage such lifestyles (though I doubt many leftists advocate mandatory vegetarianism/veganism). Regardless, I certainly understand why they might be tempted to support such policies.

[Fawkes]

Skinz: when i said that about the ducks mother being killed, that was aimed at the people who seem to think that animals are not capable of feelings and that they&#39;re just things who can smell, touch, hear, taste, and see.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I think animal rights is really important.

[FinnMacCool]

I&#39;m not a big fan of the whole animals rights thing. People have been eating meat and meat for years and years and thats just the way it works. Besides, it just detracts from class issues. Most animal rights activists tend to focus away from the class struggle and thats not good in my opinion.

[Cult of Reason]

Heraldur, how cruel and cold-hearted can you be.

Easy. Take a random animal, imagine it has the head of Hitler, and then off you go&#33;

:P :P :P


When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad,

Yes? It is a programmed reaction.


they deserve respect just as much as humans do.

Why? Do they have something amazingly important to contribute?


They are alive

Yep, and some are quite tasty when dead.


they are not ours to kill,

Possession is usually claimed after the animal has been killed. I really do not see how possession related to this.

However, in case I am being too pedantic: It is the ending of some chemical reactions. True, the rate of the increase in disorder of the universe might temporarily drop a little, but not for any significant period of time.


they were hear before us,

That makes a difference how?


we don&#39;t have the right to do what we please with them.

Why not? After all, lions do pretty much what they please with zebras (ecept when the zebra kicks the lion in the face, but I digress), so I do not see the problem.


Youll probably respond to that by saying "who says",

Yep. You are wanting a change, so justify it.


well, if humans have such a high intelligence and are empathetic, they should know that it isnt our right to treat animals however we please.

That really makes no sense at all. High intelligence compared to what? And what you you mean by empathetic? And why would those two qualities lead to your conclusion?

[Leo]

I think animal rights should be limited to &#39;merciful&#39; treatment of animals. Meaning: no hunting and wasting, no hunting for fur or ivory or whatever and no torturing animals. There isn&#39;t anything other then that really. Those were the rights given to animals by the laws of nature, and taken away by us. Other then that, there is nothing we should do. Human species can not &#39;reject&#39; an enormous food source. Killing animals for food and eating them is not wrong, they would do the same thing to us if they had the chance&#33; Everything alive gets eaten, at one point or another, there is really nothing we can or should do about this. Of course, if someone refuses to eat animals, there is nothing anyone can say about this, but it is not a superior stand or something like that.

As for &#39;Animal Rights&#39; groups, I wouldn&#39;t say they are necessarily reactionary unless they are anti-humanist, but they are mostly nothing more then extreme reformists who would settle with every aspect of capitalism if animals were treated better. I would think &#39;merciful&#39; treatment of animals would naturally come as a result of the revolution because the communist society will be a mentally healthy society, but animal rights are hardly something that would make human workers start a revolution.

[Fawkes]

Heraldur, you&#39;re obviously to immature to have a constructive debate, you instead just respond with things like "yep, and quite tasty when dead" which proves to me that you have nothing important to say to defend your opinion, and you instead just try to get others all worked up and just sit back laughing at it.

[An archist]

I say: if you want to eat meat, you should be able to kill it yourself.
Since I don&#39;t want to kill animals, I don&#39;t eat meat. I also don&#39;t want other to kill animals)
Humans don&#39;t need meat to survive, in fact meat-eating is not quite healthy, lots or heart and artery problems come from meat eating. Veggies and vegans don&#39;t have that problem. (though vegans have a problem with B12 (I think it&#39;s B12), if you&#39;re a vegan: check out vegan websites to find out how to solve that ;) .)

EDIT: look, if people wnat to eat meat, that&#39;s fine, I&#39;m not going to stop them, but saying things like &#39;we have been doing this for thousands of years&#39; is just stupid, we have been opressing women for thousands of years, we have had forms of government/power for thousands of years, that doesn&#39;t justify it.
But of course, I care about humans more then I do about animals, because it&#39;s hard to get the same sort of relationship to animals as to humans.
About the fact that it distracts about class issues: true.

[LSD]

protections/rights, whatever.

There is a critical difference between rights and protections. Rights exist as the primary social unit and must be served at all times by any social policy; protections, by contrast, stem from social policy and must themselves serve the greater social interest.

Whereas rights apply to any individual rational member of society, protections only apply to whom and what society deems nescessary to secure its general interests.

In terms of the "marginal cases" that animal activists love to mention so often, the affording of protections to them offers


perhaps you could explain your rationale for defining "human", particularly along cognition lines.

It&#39;s not so much about "defining human" as it is about determing human societal membership. The biology, after all, is only secondary. What really matters is one&#39;s ability to participate in society or the lack therof.

Humans, overwhelmingly, are moral beings and live in complex societal interrelationships. The granting of rights by society directly accompanies the according of responsibilities. No animal can fulfill these responsiblites and therefore no animal can even be relied upon to obey even the most basic prohibitions of human society.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal rights and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility, and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone. Those creatures which are not part of society are, by definition, not members of it.

It stetches credulity to even imagine that a squirrel can be relied upon to equally participate in society. They simply can&#39;t. And any attempt to reconstitute rights to crowbar their inclusion can only harm society in general.


personally, my moral participation in society rests upon self-preservation. self-preservation in a social community requires a degree of empathy and acknowledgement of the other actors participating within this social contract.

Something that animals can never posses.

So in your own way, whether you&#39;re aware of it or not, you two are making judgements on societal membershpi based on cognition or capcity for cognition.

Animals are simply not capable of existing within the moral web of repiprocal rights that makes up human society.


they were hear before us

So were bacteria.

I don&#39;t see you crying over anti-malaria efforts, however.

You see, while some of the "similarities" between humans and animals are superficially significant, in reality they only relevent as biological curiousities.

So while we may share some attributes with animals that we routinely use for food and testing, we fail to share any of the relevent ones.

It doesn&#39;t matter whether they can "love" or are capable of rudimentaty communication, we&#39;re talking about society here, not fucking Bambi. In order to be protected by rights invented by society, one must be a member of society, that&#39;s why rights exist.

Those beings which are not capable of even concieving of said rights, therefore, cannot be afforded the protections of them. And, honestly, how could you? Animals are simply not able to understand the responsibilities that come with membership in human society. Can you really relly upon a wolfe to recognize the "human rights" of a deer? Can you really expect a mosquito to acknowlege your "right to privacy"? :lol:

The simple truth is, despite your Disney fantasy world, animals are not human and do not have anything approaching a human understanding of the world. They cannot be participating members in human society, because the lack even the rudimentary ability to recognize that that society even exists.

If you want to extend human rights to non-human life forms, you need to provide rational justification. You need to explain why "rights" created solely to protect members of society should encompass those who are by definition not part of society.

Rights have no "independent" life, they are not "greater" than us, we invented them. And we did so so that we are all secure and cared for, rights carry the implict understanding that we must respect the rights of others, otherwise they do not exist. And, accordingly, rights only extend, as a group, to those who are able to participate as moral actors in recognizing the rights of others.

Animals can never do this&#33;


They are alive

No one is disputing this. The only issue in contention is what&#39;s the significance of this fact?

Look, I am not claming that animals do not deserve some degree of basic protections. If only due to natural human sympathy and the neotanous nature of many animals, there are pressing human justifications to refrain from torture or excessive cruelty.

The degree to which these protections apply, however, must be entirely subject to the interests of human society. As with all societal prohibitions, the needs and wants of the membership must come before any externalistic or tertiary concerns.

Nobody likes to see animals harmed, but when it is in our interests, it&#39;s just something that we have to live with.


they deserve respect just as much as humans do.

Realy? How much "respect" are we talking about here? As much as a human? Half as much? A third?

Here, let me make this simple for you; I take it that in your perfect idealized "total animal liberation" utopia, people would be punnished for "abusing" or "exploiting" animals.

Well, how about other animals?

That is, could we kill a lion that&#39;s about to attack a elk?

If so, then you, effectively, kill all lions and seriously disrupt the ecosystem. If not, then you are permitting the "capture and abuse of animals", the use of animals for food.

And what happens if the lion doesn&#39;t finish eating the elk? A coyote will probably come along eventually and eat the rest. What if a human comes by first? Can he cook it and eat it? I mean, if it&#39;s already dead....

Look, what you&#39;re doing is trying to give animals human protections without any of the responsibilities that come with them. All humans must refrain from killing any living being, but this same prohibition does not apply to the living beings we&#39;re refraining from killing&#33;

You&#39;re trying to create a two-tiered society in which humans, as the upper tier, are responsible self-actors with societal rights accompanying those rather hefty obligations, and animals, as the lower tier, with no ogligations but identical social protections.

Firstly, such a system dramatically cheapens rights by seperating them from their social context; but secondly, such a systm does something very similar to the present system, namely it concedes that humans are socially and morally suprerior.

You&#39;re proposing a model in which not only is more required of humans than other animals (which classifies them as higher moral agents), but in which the killing of a human by an animal is considered a much more serious crime than the killing of another animals by an animal.

Now, all of this makes sense&#33; It makes sense because humans are intelligent moral actors capable of participating in society and making independent rational determinations within society. Hence their killing is more serious to society than the death of a chipmunk. Furthermore more must be required of humans, since we are the only ones capable of fulfilling such responsibilities.

Let&#39;s be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you&#39;re just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don&#39;t think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I&#33;

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 21 2006, 08:37 PM
Heraldur, you&#39;re obviously to immature to have a constructive debate, you instead just respond with things like "yep, and quite tasty when dead" which proves to me that you have nothing important to say to defend your opinion, and you instead just try to get others all worked up and just sit back laughing at it.
No, you are the one making stupid comments. "They are alive" is not an argument, and so it totally deserved my response for its idiocy.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 21 2006, 08:37 PM
Heraldur, you&#39;re obviously to immature to have a constructive debate, you instead just respond with things like "yep, and quite tasty when dead" which proves to me that you have nothing important to say to defend your opinion, and you instead just try to get others all worked up and just sit back laughing at it.
No, you are the one making stupid comments. "They are alive" is not an argument, and so it totally deserved my response for its idiocy.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 21 2006, 08:37 PM
Heraldur, you&#39;re obviously to immature to have a constructive debate, you instead just respond with things like "yep, and quite tasty when dead" which proves to me that you have nothing important to say to defend your opinion, and you instead just try to get others all worked up and just sit back laughing at it.
No, you are the one making stupid comments. "They are alive" is not an argument, and so it totally deserved my response for its idiocy.

[Orange Juche]

I am a vegetarian, and a strong believer in animal rights.

But, when using an animal is of sufficient benefit to humans, I have no problem with their usage. While cosmetics research is (in my opinion) immoral and absurd, using pigs for insulin to keep diabetics alive I find completely acceptable.

Meat eating is unneccisary, and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly). I don&#39;t judge meat eaters at all, I&#39;m just saying this in that the eating of flesh is no longer neccissary, and to be against it isn&#39;t absurd or anything.

I&#39;d also like to state that PETA has its points of extremism, and should not be viewed as representing the entire animal rights community.

[Orange Juche]

I am a vegetarian, and a strong believer in animal rights.

But, when using an animal is of sufficient benefit to humans, I have no problem with their usage. While cosmetics research is (in my opinion) immoral and absurd, using pigs for insulin to keep diabetics alive I find completely acceptable.

Meat eating is unneccisary, and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly). I don&#39;t judge meat eaters at all, I&#39;m just saying this in that the eating of flesh is no longer neccissary, and to be against it isn&#39;t absurd or anything.

I&#39;d also like to state that PETA has its points of extremism, and should not be viewed as representing the entire animal rights community.

[Orange Juche]

I am a vegetarian, and a strong believer in animal rights.

But, when using an animal is of sufficient benefit to humans, I have no problem with their usage. While cosmetics research is (in my opinion) immoral and absurd, using pigs for insulin to keep diabetics alive I find completely acceptable.

Meat eating is unneccisary, and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly). I don&#39;t judge meat eaters at all, I&#39;m just saying this in that the eating of flesh is no longer neccissary, and to be against it isn&#39;t absurd or anything.

I&#39;d also like to state that PETA has its points of extremism, and should not be viewed as representing the entire animal rights community.

[LSD]

Meat eating is unneccisary

So&#39;s drinking alchohol.

Doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m going to stop doing it any time soon. ;)


and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly).

If I gave up sex, I&#39;d probably be healthier too. Certainly a vastly decreased risk of contracting STDs, and many studies have shown that castration lenghtens lives ...but that&#39;s never going to happen.

Why would I want a longer life, if I&#39;m not enojoying it? I would much rather have 60 years that I love than 80 that I suffer through.

So I drink, I smoke, I fuck, I do drugs, I eat meat.

Puritanism may be healthier, but it&#39;s a whole lot less fun.

[LSD]

Meat eating is unneccisary

So&#39;s drinking alchohol.

Doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m going to stop doing it any time soon. ;)


and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly).

If I gave up sex, I&#39;d probably be healthier too. Certainly a vastly decreased risk of contracting STDs, and many studies have shown that castration lenghtens lives ...but that&#39;s never going to happen.

Why would I want a longer life, if I&#39;m not enojoying it? I would much rather have 60 years that I love than 80 that I suffer through.

So I drink, I smoke, I fuck, I do drugs, I eat meat.

Puritanism may be healthier, but it&#39;s a whole lot less fun.

[LSD]

Meat eating is unneccisary

So&#39;s drinking alchohol.

Doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m going to stop doing it any time soon. ;)


and it has been proven that veganism is the most healthy diet (if you follow the diet correctly).

If I gave up sex, I&#39;d probably be healthier too. Certainly a vastly decreased risk of contracting STDs, and many studies have shown that castration lenghtens lives ...but that&#39;s never going to happen.

Why would I want a longer life, if I&#39;m not enojoying it? I would much rather have 60 years that I love than 80 that I suffer through.

So I drink, I smoke, I fuck, I do drugs, I eat meat.

Puritanism may be healthier, but it&#39;s a whole lot less fun.

[The Feral Underclass]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from. Animals certainly don&#39;t have any rights.

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

[The Feral Underclass]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from. Animals certainly don&#39;t have any rights.

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

[The Feral Underclass]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from. Animals certainly don&#39;t have any rights.

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

[LSD]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal freedoms and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility, and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone.

Rights are simply social instruments utilized to secure that these liberties and responsibilities are duly met.

So where do rights "come from"? They "come" from society and exist only within the context of human social relationships. Outside of human society, they have absolutely no reality, and accordingly, no creature outside of the human reciprocal social web is bound by them.

That&#39;s why a bear cannot "commit murder". As he was never bound by the human social contract, he cannot break it.

By the same token, however, we cannot "murder" a bear either. Indeed, we cannot "murder" any animal that does not participate in human society.

We can place certain protections on certain creatures, if it can be demonstrated that doing so is in the general interest of humanity. But animals have absolutely no inherent rights or obligatoins insofar as human society is concerneed.

A society can only deal with its own membership. Anything else is hyperexternalistic idealism and can only lead to social collapse.


As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.

Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.


and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

We were talking about health, TAT, not morality. :rolleyes:


You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnescessary" if it&#39;s nescessary to make meat?

And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being. Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human ...but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

[LSD]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal freedoms and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility, and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone.

Rights are simply social instruments utilized to secure that these liberties and responsibilities are duly met.

So where do rights "come from"? They "come" from society and exist only within the context of human social relationships. Outside of human society, they have absolutely no reality, and accordingly, no creature outside of the human reciprocal social web is bound by them.

That&#39;s why a bear cannot "commit murder". As he was never bound by the human social contract, he cannot break it.

By the same token, however, we cannot "murder" a bear either. Indeed, we cannot "murder" any animal that does not participate in human society.

We can place certain protections on certain creatures, if it can be demonstrated that doing so is in the general interest of humanity. But animals have absolutely no inherent rights or obligatoins insofar as human society is concerneed.

A society can only deal with its own membership. Anything else is hyperexternalistic idealism and can only lead to social collapse.


As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.

Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.


and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

We were talking about health, TAT, not morality. :rolleyes:


You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnescessary" if it&#39;s nescessary to make meat?

And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being. Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human ...but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

[LSD]

The entire concept of rights is absurd. What are "rights" and where the hell did they come from.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal freedoms and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility, and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone.

Rights are simply social instruments utilized to secure that these liberties and responsibilities are duly met.

So where do rights "come from"? They "come" from society and exist only within the context of human social relationships. Outside of human society, they have absolutely no reality, and accordingly, no creature outside of the human reciprocal social web is bound by them.

That&#39;s why a bear cannot "commit murder". As he was never bound by the human social contract, he cannot break it.

By the same token, however, we cannot "murder" a bear either. Indeed, we cannot "murder" any animal that does not participate in human society.

We can place certain protections on certain creatures, if it can be demonstrated that doing so is in the general interest of humanity. But animals have absolutely no inherent rights or obligatoins insofar as human society is concerneed.

A society can only deal with its own membership. Anything else is hyperexternalistic idealism and can only lead to social collapse.


As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.

Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.


and the comparison between eating the flesh of a living emotive animal and driving alcohol and having sex is bogus.

We were talking about health, TAT, not morality. :rolleyes:


You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnescessary" if it&#39;s nescessary to make meat?

And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being. Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human ...but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:59 PM

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.
No it isn&#39;t.


Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Why?



You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnecessary" if it&#39;s necessary to make meat?

That&#39;s patently untrue. It&#39;s not at all necessary.


And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...


No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being.

I agree, but it isn&#39;t necessary to eat meat.


Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?


So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human

I&#39;ve never claimed that there is.

Highlight my own.

I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.

Furthermore, I have no emotional attachment I simply do not see any rational or ethical justification for its slaughter, simply because you want to eat its flesh.

Anything which inflicts pain and misery on emotive and intelligent creatures has to, to some extent, warrant serious consideration. I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s at all unreasonable?


but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible, unfortunately you live too far away so my response in words to your ceaseless and effortless arrogance will have to suffice.

It has nothing to do with how big cows eyes are or how sad they look and any attempt to assert otherwise clearly shows a lack of ability to understand the idea behind the ethical treatment of animals. In fact, it&#39;s a sweeping prejudiced and patronising generalisation and should be completely ignored.

Needless to say, my political beliefs against the killing of animals goes somewhat beyond the cuteness of them; surely you’re intelligent enough to see that?


Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:59 PM

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.
No it isn&#39;t.


Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Why?



You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnecessary" if it&#39;s necessary to make meat?

That&#39;s patently untrue. It&#39;s not at all necessary.


And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...


No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being.

I agree, but it isn&#39;t necessary to eat meat.


Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?


So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human

I&#39;ve never claimed that there is.

Highlight my own.

I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.

Furthermore, I have no emotional attachment I simply do not see any rational or ethical justification for its slaughter, simply because you want to eat its flesh.

Anything which inflicts pain and misery on emotive and intelligent creatures has to, to some extent, warrant serious consideration. I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s at all unreasonable?


but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible, unfortunately you live too far away so my response in words to your ceaseless and effortless arrogance will have to suffice.

It has nothing to do with how big cows eyes are or how sad they look and any attempt to assert otherwise clearly shows a lack of ability to understand the idea behind the ethical treatment of animals. In fact, it&#39;s a sweeping prejudiced and patronising generalisation and should be completely ignored.

Needless to say, my political beliefs against the killing of animals goes somewhat beyond the cuteness of them; surely you’re intelligent enough to see that?


Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:59 PM

As for eating meat, it&#39;s an unjustifiable practice

Except that it&#39;s not my responsibility to "justify" eating meat, it&#39;s your responsibility to justify any prohibition.
No it isn&#39;t.


Actions which do not harm any other member so society are assumed to be personal and sacrosanct unless evidence can be presented to the alternative.

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Why?



You are making the individual choice to drink and have sex, eating meat includes the unnecessary slaughter of an emotive, intelligent creature.

How is animal slaughter "unnecessary" if it&#39;s necessary to make meat?

That&#39;s patently untrue. It&#39;s not at all necessary.


And, by the way, drinkning beer includes the "unnescessrar" slaughter of hops, a "living creature" if there ever was one. Additionaly sex using a condom leads to the death of massive numbers of sperms;creatures which could be constituted as "living".

Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...


No to mention that human survival to any degree nescessitatest the killing of some living being.

I agree, but it isn&#39;t necessary to eat meat.


Our life is built upon the deaths of lesser beings.

And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?


So basically, this comes down to emotionalism. There is no logical reason why the interest of a cow should take precedence over the dietary wants of a human

I&#39;ve never claimed that there is.

Highlight my own.

I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.

Furthermore, I have no emotional attachment I simply do not see any rational or ethical justification for its slaughter, simply because you want to eat its flesh.

Anything which inflicts pain and misery on emotive and intelligent creatures has to, to some extent, warrant serious consideration. I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s at all unreasonable?


but cows just "look so sad" with their "big brown eyes".

I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible, unfortunately you live too far away so my response in words to your ceaseless and effortless arrogance will have to suffice.

It has nothing to do with how big cows eyes are or how sad they look and any attempt to assert otherwise clearly shows a lack of ability to understand the idea behind the ethical treatment of animals. In fact, it&#39;s a sweeping prejudiced and patronising generalisation and should be completely ignored.

Needless to say, my political beliefs against the killing of animals goes somewhat beyond the cuteness of them; surely you’re intelligent enough to see that?


Well, if killing animals or leading to the deaths of animals pains you, feel free to go on not eating meat. But if you want to convince others or influence social policy, you&#39;re going to have to actually come up with some objectively rational argumentation.

It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

[Delta]

I don&#39;t care too much about animal rights, especially at this point in time. Human rights are by far the more pressing matter. Once that is accomplished, then I&#39;d be willing to have a debate on animal rights, and in some ways I think I would be fairly sympathetic with their arguments.

[Delta]

I don&#39;t care too much about animal rights, especially at this point in time. Human rights are by far the more pressing matter. Once that is accomplished, then I&#39;d be willing to have a debate on animal rights, and in some ways I think I would be fairly sympathetic with their arguments.

[Delta]

I don&#39;t care too much about animal rights, especially at this point in time. Human rights are by far the more pressing matter. Once that is accomplished, then I&#39;d be willing to have a debate on animal rights, and in some ways I think I would be fairly sympathetic with their arguments.

[LSD]

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Yes.


Why?

Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.


Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...

You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree. Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Humans are bennefitted by a healthy ecosystem, they are also bennefited by minimizing animal suffering as it tends to distress us. But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.


And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?

It&#39;s a practice which is unavoiable.

Humans simply cannot live unless we consume some living creature. Our bodies are just not designed to absorb inorganic energies. That means that whether it&#39;t plants, fungi, or animals; something living must die for our survival.

Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.


I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

Society, after all, is nothing more than a collection of individuals who agree to abide by a set of collective rules in exchange for the benefits of collective participation. Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

Individual choice, obviously, is a beneficial possesion. The freedom to direct ones own course is a basic part of fullfilled living. Therefore society must minimize its interference in indiivduals&#39; lives to only the degree nescessary to ensure that one&#39;s choices do not harm others in society.

Animal slaughter, vivisective research, etc... are all valid expressions of individual choice which satisfy reasonble human wants and do not infringe on the rights of any other member of society.


It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.


I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.


Originally posted by me
Let&#39;s be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you&#39;re just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don&#39;t think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I&#33;

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[LSD]

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Yes.


Why?

Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.


Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...

You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree. Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Humans are bennefitted by a healthy ecosystem, they are also bennefited by minimizing animal suffering as it tends to distress us. But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.


And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?

It&#39;s a practice which is unavoiable.

Humans simply cannot live unless we consume some living creature. Our bodies are just not designed to absorb inorganic energies. That means that whether it&#39;t plants, fungi, or animals; something living must die for our survival.

Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.


I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

Society, after all, is nothing more than a collection of individuals who agree to abide by a set of collective rules in exchange for the benefits of collective participation. Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

Individual choice, obviously, is a beneficial possesion. The freedom to direct ones own course is a basic part of fullfilled living. Therefore society must minimize its interference in indiivduals&#39; lives to only the degree nescessary to ensure that one&#39;s choices do not harm others in society.

Animal slaughter, vivisective research, etc... are all valid expressions of individual choice which satisfy reasonble human wants and do not infringe on the rights of any other member of society.


It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.


I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.


Originally posted by me
Let&#39;s be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you&#39;re just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don&#39;t think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I&#33;

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[LSD]

So you agree that killing an emotive, intelligent animal to eat its flesh is only justifiable if that animal is not a human?

Yes.


Why?

Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.


Neither of those examples of "creatures" are emotive or intelligent and in fact don&#39;t even have a nervous system...

You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree. Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Humans are bennefitted by a healthy ecosystem, they are also bennefited by minimizing animal suffering as it tends to distress us. But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.


And this is a practice you wish to perpetuate?

It&#39;s a practice which is unavoiable.

Humans simply cannot live unless we consume some living creature. Our bodies are just not designed to absorb inorganic energies. That means that whether it&#39;t plants, fungi, or animals; something living must die for our survival.

Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.


I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

Society, after all, is nothing more than a collection of individuals who agree to abide by a set of collective rules in exchange for the benefits of collective participation. Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

Individual choice, obviously, is a beneficial possesion. The freedom to direct ones own course is a basic part of fullfilled living. Therefore society must minimize its interference in indiivduals&#39; lives to only the degree nescessary to ensure that one&#39;s choices do not harm others in society.

Animal slaughter, vivisective research, etc... are all valid expressions of individual choice which satisfy reasonble human wants and do not infringe on the rights of any other member of society.


It doesn&#39;t pain me, I just don&#39;t see any rational justification for the use of violence against emotive, intelligent animals. Apart from you "wanting" but what you want is hardly justification for anything, let alone violence.

If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.


I would agree that if the word was need, then the industrial slaughter of animals would be justified, but creating such a cruel and violent system because of "want" is and has never been the basis of any action regarded as ethical.


Originally posted by me
Let&#39;s be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you&#39;re just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don&#39;t think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I&#33;

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:56 PM
Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.
Why?


You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Being emotive means that one can react with feeling towards situations. Being emotive means that you can express affection, desire, want, misery and pain. Being intelligent sometimes means that these animals have their own language, society and culture.

Whether you believe it or not, I try very hard to negate "morals" from my daily life and how I judge certain situations. Unfortunately that is not always possible and sometimes not even desirable.

There are and probably will always be times in which an "ethic" or a standard to which I believe humans should behave rears its ugly head. In this respect I try very hard to be as objective as possible. How to achieve that or to come as close to it as possible is to look at ethical behaviour as something which is a) necessary for the survival of humanity, b) necessary for the happiness and "joy" of humanity, c) negates all which is unnecessarily cruel and violent and d) which is consistent.

If I am to set a standard, I will use the word "ethical" and this word will apply to a behaviour which consists of one or perhaps more of those things.

Human beings generally have an understanding about how to treat other human beings. Meaning that we believe it to be "unethical" to be violent and cruel i.e. we would not hang a human upside down, slit its throat and eat its flesh because we wanted to as this would cause misery, pain, bereavement and distress. Creating these "emotions" or situations is "unethical" by any standard. Would you not agree?

When it comes to non-human animals, however, this standard suddenly becomes irrelevant. Now, you may assert that ethics don&#39;t even exist in this context and this is justifiable because the animal is not a human or that it is "lesser" than a human, which is yet another ethic abandonment that would not apply to humans. I would say that in your argument it creates a contradiction of ethics

My assertion to you is the fact that animals are a) non-human and b) incapable of harbouring the same brain power as humans is wholly arbitrary and simply displays a distinction and perhaps nothing more than an aesthetic observation.

These two facts do not at all convince me that there is a justification to abandon our ethics towards the use of violence which it creates misery etc against non-human animals simply on the basis that they are non-human. We accept that creating unnecessaary misery, pain and distress is unethical and in that sense I see no reason to be inconsistent with it.


Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

A tree and a cow cannot comprehend a structure of ethics, but a cow, unlike a tree, can comprehend misery, pain, bereavement and distress. For this reason it is unethical to use violence.


Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

That&#39;s not at all what I&#39;m saying.


Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree.

No, I am declaring that a cow should deserve "special treatment" because it possesses the same characteristics which are defended by ethics in human beings and that it is your distinction which is arbitrary.


Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Actually, it could quite easily be argued that no individual has any obligation to serve anyone in society at all in fact most capitalist assert it all the time. Of course as communists we have developed a sense of "ethical behaviour" which asserts the opposite as beneficial to humanity.

I don&#39;t see why it should be any different for the treatment of animals. It&#39;s not in the same context, but it proves that human beings can apply themselves to "ethical obligations"


But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

The argument for the continuation of vivisection is wholly different to the one of meat eating. You don&#39;t need to eat meat, you simply want to.

Whereas animal testing actually helps progress and protect the survival of humanity and is therefore classed as a necessity. There could be an argument against that, but I&#39;m not quite sure what it could be. I also don’t know where I stand on vivisection.


Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.

Then display some.


Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.

It&#39;s unethical.



I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

I don&#39;t at all understand your comparison?


The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

And...?


Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

In that case it could be argued that someone with severe brain damage or mental disabilities should also not be afforded the protection of society because they are an animal incapable of grasping such concepts.

I think that any creature that can feel pain and misery and can understand bereavement and distress etc should be defended by ethics. Why? Because it&#39;s cruel and violent and cruelty and violence are antithetical to a productive, progressive society.


If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

I wouldn&#39;t call it a moral, but I suspect that could be an argument for semantics.

Regardless I don&#39;t mean to project, I&#39;m simply engaging in a political discussion on a political discussion message board about the ethical treatment of animals.


Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

I find that very hard to believe, especially when a pig and a cow can understand bereavement and be effected by misery, be aware when it is being led to its death and then feel pain if it is treated violently.

In fact, I think this clearly shows that the animals we are talking about are in fact more developed that most 8 month old babies. So indeed, if it is "wrong" to use violence against a chiken or a pig, isn&#39;t similar violence against an 8 month old baby equally unjustified?


That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

I don&#39;t understand fully or believe in the concept of "rights" and I am certainly not apart of any animal rights movement.


Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.

I agree, but all I am asserting is that it is unethical to eat animals.


The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

You are right, society does not have the "right" to stop the eating of meat, but it remains unethical nevertheless.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:56 PM
Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.
Why?


You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Being emotive means that one can react with feeling towards situations. Being emotive means that you can express affection, desire, want, misery and pain. Being intelligent sometimes means that these animals have their own language, society and culture.

Whether you believe it or not, I try very hard to negate "morals" from my daily life and how I judge certain situations. Unfortunately that is not always possible and sometimes not even desirable.

There are and probably will always be times in which an "ethic" or a standard to which I believe humans should behave rears its ugly head. In this respect I try very hard to be as objective as possible. How to achieve that or to come as close to it as possible is to look at ethical behaviour as something which is a) necessary for the survival of humanity, b) necessary for the happiness and "joy" of humanity, c) negates all which is unnecessarily cruel and violent and d) which is consistent.

If I am to set a standard, I will use the word "ethical" and this word will apply to a behaviour which consists of one or perhaps more of those things.

Human beings generally have an understanding about how to treat other human beings. Meaning that we believe it to be "unethical" to be violent and cruel i.e. we would not hang a human upside down, slit its throat and eat its flesh because we wanted to as this would cause misery, pain, bereavement and distress. Creating these "emotions" or situations is "unethical" by any standard. Would you not agree?

When it comes to non-human animals, however, this standard suddenly becomes irrelevant. Now, you may assert that ethics don&#39;t even exist in this context and this is justifiable because the animal is not a human or that it is "lesser" than a human, which is yet another ethic abandonment that would not apply to humans. I would say that in your argument it creates a contradiction of ethics

My assertion to you is the fact that animals are a) non-human and b) incapable of harbouring the same brain power as humans is wholly arbitrary and simply displays a distinction and perhaps nothing more than an aesthetic observation.

These two facts do not at all convince me that there is a justification to abandon our ethics towards the use of violence which it creates misery etc against non-human animals simply on the basis that they are non-human. We accept that creating unnecessaary misery, pain and distress is unethical and in that sense I see no reason to be inconsistent with it.


Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

A tree and a cow cannot comprehend a structure of ethics, but a cow, unlike a tree, can comprehend misery, pain, bereavement and distress. For this reason it is unethical to use violence.


Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

That&#39;s not at all what I&#39;m saying.


Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree.

No, I am declaring that a cow should deserve "special treatment" because it possesses the same characteristics which are defended by ethics in human beings and that it is your distinction which is arbitrary.


Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Actually, it could quite easily be argued that no individual has any obligation to serve anyone in society at all in fact most capitalist assert it all the time. Of course as communists we have developed a sense of "ethical behaviour" which asserts the opposite as beneficial to humanity.

I don&#39;t see why it should be any different for the treatment of animals. It&#39;s not in the same context, but it proves that human beings can apply themselves to "ethical obligations"


But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

The argument for the continuation of vivisection is wholly different to the one of meat eating. You don&#39;t need to eat meat, you simply want to.

Whereas animal testing actually helps progress and protect the survival of humanity and is therefore classed as a necessity. There could be an argument against that, but I&#39;m not quite sure what it could be. I also don’t know where I stand on vivisection.


Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.

Then display some.


Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.

It&#39;s unethical.



I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

I don&#39;t at all understand your comparison?


The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

And...?


Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

In that case it could be argued that someone with severe brain damage or mental disabilities should also not be afforded the protection of society because they are an animal incapable of grasping such concepts.

I think that any creature that can feel pain and misery and can understand bereavement and distress etc should be defended by ethics. Why? Because it&#39;s cruel and violent and cruelty and violence are antithetical to a productive, progressive society.


If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

I wouldn&#39;t call it a moral, but I suspect that could be an argument for semantics.

Regardless I don&#39;t mean to project, I&#39;m simply engaging in a political discussion on a political discussion message board about the ethical treatment of animals.


Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

I find that very hard to believe, especially when a pig and a cow can understand bereavement and be effected by misery, be aware when it is being led to its death and then feel pain if it is treated violently.

In fact, I think this clearly shows that the animals we are talking about are in fact more developed that most 8 month old babies. So indeed, if it is "wrong" to use violence against a chiken or a pig, isn&#39;t similar violence against an 8 month old baby equally unjustified?


That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

I don&#39;t understand fully or believe in the concept of "rights" and I am certainly not apart of any animal rights movement.


Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.

I agree, but all I am asserting is that it is unethical to eat animals.


The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

You are right, society does not have the "right" to stop the eating of meat, but it remains unethical nevertheless.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:56 PM
Because only humans are a part of human society and as such deserving of the societal protections against killing.
Why?


You have still not established why "emotiveness" or "intelligence" (a term which you have also failed to define in this context) are the key properties here.

Being emotive means that one can react with feeling towards situations. Being emotive means that you can express affection, desire, want, misery and pain. Being intelligent sometimes means that these animals have their own language, society and culture.

Whether you believe it or not, I try very hard to negate "morals" from my daily life and how I judge certain situations. Unfortunately that is not always possible and sometimes not even desirable.

There are and probably will always be times in which an "ethic" or a standard to which I believe humans should behave rears its ugly head. In this respect I try very hard to be as objective as possible. How to achieve that or to come as close to it as possible is to look at ethical behaviour as something which is a) necessary for the survival of humanity, b) necessary for the happiness and "joy" of humanity, c) negates all which is unnecessarily cruel and violent and d) which is consistent.

If I am to set a standard, I will use the word "ethical" and this word will apply to a behaviour which consists of one or perhaps more of those things.

Human beings generally have an understanding about how to treat other human beings. Meaning that we believe it to be "unethical" to be violent and cruel i.e. we would not hang a human upside down, slit its throat and eat its flesh because we wanted to as this would cause misery, pain, bereavement and distress. Creating these "emotions" or situations is "unethical" by any standard. Would you not agree?

When it comes to non-human animals, however, this standard suddenly becomes irrelevant. Now, you may assert that ethics don&#39;t even exist in this context and this is justifiable because the animal is not a human or that it is "lesser" than a human, which is yet another ethic abandonment that would not apply to humans. I would say that in your argument it creates a contradiction of ethics

My assertion to you is the fact that animals are a) non-human and b) incapable of harbouring the same brain power as humans is wholly arbitrary and simply displays a distinction and perhaps nothing more than an aesthetic observation.

These two facts do not at all convince me that there is a justification to abandon our ethics towards the use of violence which it creates misery etc against non-human animals simply on the basis that they are non-human. We accept that creating unnecessaary misery, pain and distress is unethical and in that sense I see no reason to be inconsistent with it.


Obviously you are not supporting human rights for trees, but you have failed to make the logical case why, say, cows are so much more deserving than trees when it comes to a conceptual framework that neither are capable of comprehending.

A tree and a cow cannot comprehend a structure of ethics, but a cow, unlike a tree, can comprehend misery, pain, bereavement and distress. For this reason it is unethical to use violence.


Look, you are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of, ultimately, solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

That&#39;s not at all what I&#39;m saying.


Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree.

No, I am declaring that a cow should deserve "special treatment" because it possesses the same characteristics which are defended by ethics in human beings and that it is your distinction which is arbitrary.


Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Actually, it could quite easily be argued that no individual has any obligation to serve anyone in society at all in fact most capitalist assert it all the time. Of course as communists we have developed a sense of "ethical behaviour" which asserts the opposite as beneficial to humanity.

I don&#39;t see why it should be any different for the treatment of animals. It&#39;s not in the same context, but it proves that human beings can apply themselves to "ethical obligations"


But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

The argument for the continuation of vivisection is wholly different to the one of meat eating. You don&#39;t need to eat meat, you simply want to.

Whereas animal testing actually helps progress and protect the survival of humanity and is therefore classed as a necessity. There could be an argument against that, but I&#39;m not quite sure what it could be. I also don’t know where I stand on vivisection.


Again, this is about objective rationality, nothing more.

Then display some.


Sure, we could restrict ourselves to only eating plants and we&#39;d survive, but meat tastes better. And absent a pressing reason not to eat meat, I see no reason not to satisfy our wants as much as possible.

It&#39;s unethical.



I would like nothing more than to punch you in the face as hard as possible

Fair enough, but how about you take a step back and ask why society has prohibitions against you doing that. Why is it that society condemns physical violence by one individual against another, while at the same time not intervening when a wolf kills a deer.

I don&#39;t at all understand your comparison?


The answer, of course, is that while human society is not concerned with the actions of nonhuman creatures, it&#39;s entire reason for being is to maximize the bennefits of its members.

And...?


Any animal which is incapable of grasping this concept of participatory society or that cannot partake in the repiprocal moral framework that defines it, also cannot be afforded any protections by said society.

In that case it could be argued that someone with severe brain damage or mental disabilities should also not be afforded the protection of society because they are an animal incapable of grasping such concepts.

I think that any creature that can feel pain and misery and can understand bereavement and distress etc should be defended by ethics. Why? Because it&#39;s cruel and violent and cruelty and violence are antithetical to a productive, progressive society.


If you can&#39;t justify killing animals or eating meat, don&#39;t do either. But you cannot project that moral opinion onto anyone else.

I wouldn&#39;t call it a moral, but I suspect that could be an argument for semantics.

Regardless I don&#39;t mean to project, I&#39;m simply engaging in a political discussion on a political discussion message board about the ethical treatment of animals.


Remember, many of the animals we&#39;re talking about are far less developed than an 8 month old fetus. Accordingly if "violence" against chickens is wrong, isn&#39;t similar violence against "the unborn"?

I find that very hard to believe, especially when a pig and a cow can understand bereavement and be effected by misery, be aware when it is being led to its death and then feel pain if it is treated violently.

In fact, I think this clearly shows that the animals we are talking about are in fact more developed that most 8 month old babies. So indeed, if it is "wrong" to use violence against a chiken or a pig, isn&#39;t similar violence against an 8 month old baby equally unjustified?


That "animal rights" and anti-abortion movements are intrinsically linked, evern if many of their proponents would violently disagree. The fact is, though, that both movements aim to extend human rights and protections to groups which are, by their nature, not members of human society.

I don&#39;t understand fully or believe in the concept of "rights" and I am certainly not apart of any animal rights movement.


Accordingly, both are fundamentally corrosive and antihumanist causes which are not only wholly reactionary in ideology but also functionaly suiicidal if ever carried out.

I agree, but all I am asserting is that it is unethical to eat animals.


The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

You are right, society does not have the "right" to stop the eating of meat, but it remains unethical nevertheless.

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:42 AM


When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad,

Yes? It is a programmed reaction.
Well then you could say that about people being greedy and taking up all the resources that they want (i mean every person that makes up the human race)

Also you can produce more than 3 times asmuch food grown that you can with pigs rolling around

I dont understand, if we eat animals, why we cant eat humans? Isn&#39;t it just another piece of meat? Oh know we have rights...but they dont, because they are not as intelligent or weren&#39;t as lucky as we were when they evolved. I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:42 AM


When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad,

Yes? It is a programmed reaction.
Well then you could say that about people being greedy and taking up all the resources that they want (i mean every person that makes up the human race)

Also you can produce more than 3 times asmuch food grown that you can with pigs rolling around

I dont understand, if we eat animals, why we cant eat humans? Isn&#39;t it just another piece of meat? Oh know we have rights...but they dont, because they are not as intelligent or weren&#39;t as lucky as we were when they evolved. I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:42 AM


When a ducks mother is killed, it know&#39;s it, it mourns, it is sad,

Yes? It is a programmed reaction.
Well then you could say that about people being greedy and taking up all the resources that they want (i mean every person that makes up the human race)

Also you can produce more than 3 times asmuch food grown that you can with pigs rolling around

I dont understand, if we eat animals, why we cant eat humans? Isn&#39;t it just another piece of meat? Oh know we have rights...but they dont, because they are not as intelligent or weren&#39;t as lucky as we were when they evolved. I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots"

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots"

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM)
Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots" [/b]
Enough said....Terrible film.....

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM)
Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots" [/b]
Enough said....Terrible film.....

[Fidel Follower]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 23 2006, 05:12 PM)
Fidel [email protected] 23 2006, 04:48 PM
I am a vegi, have been all my life, i dont need meat :D I am doing just fine&#33; And please dont winge about taste...deal with it, i eat potatos, i like them...but no one gets hurt...&#33;
To quote Hugh Grant "poor carrots" [/b]
Enough said....Terrible film.....

[STN]

i support animal rights, and vegetarianism/veganism is a great thing and is spreading by the day. theres no way of stopping it.
"people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly"

[STN]

i support animal rights, and vegetarianism/veganism is a great thing and is spreading by the day. theres no way of stopping it.
"people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly"

[STN]

i support animal rights, and vegetarianism/veganism is a great thing and is spreading by the day. theres no way of stopping it.
"people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly"

[Cult of Reason]

people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly

Evidence? And define "treating animals poorly". Hitler was a Vegetarian&#33;

[Cult of Reason]

people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly

Evidence? And define "treating animals poorly". Hitler was a Vegetarian&#33;

[Cult of Reason]

people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly

Evidence? And define "treating animals poorly". Hitler was a Vegetarian&#33;

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:45 PM
So&#39;s drinking alchohol.

Doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m going to stop doing it any time soon. ;)
Yes, but alcohol doesn&#39;t give unneccissary pain to a living, breathing organism.

That argument makes no sense.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 17 2006, 04:56 PM
what bloodlust there is in this thread <_<

i am all for animal rights, although human rights will always come first. i completely agree with AF, except for the experimenting part. i think that experimentation is fine, to an extent. but keep your lipsticks the fuck away. really.

the thing is, while i agree that if it benefits humanity to kill animals it&#39;s alright, i also think that we need to really fucking think about what is actually progressive and helpful and what is simply stuff that we&#39;d kinda like so why not. for instance, i don&#39;t support killing animals just so someone can get a bit of fur on their coat or to get "real ivory&#33;&#33;&#33;" billiard balls. so instead of just slaughtering animals left right and centre &#39;because we can&#39; we really have to first look at what we&#39;re using them for and whether there are less murderous alternatives available.
Quite right, this is the only sensible and only realistic way to view the situation. I consider anyone who advicates inflicting unnecessary pain or death upon any animal to be a sick twisted fuck and quite probably a reactionary.

Oh and I think that hunting is the passtime of the reactionary and should be dispensed with.

[Fidel Follower]

I disagree, you shouldn&#39;t test on animals. Be a man, take thoose trials, let them test it on you&#33;

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 01:56 AM
Evidence? And define "treating animals poorly". Hitler was a Vegetarian&#33;
It is a proven fact that he pulled the legs of spiders when he was an infant. :P

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 12:56 AM

people who treat animals poorly, treat people poorly

Evidence? And define "treating animals poorly". Hitler was a Vegetarian&#33;
I realize the context you were using it were to refute an argument, which you did. However, I hope you weren&#39;t, at the same time, trying to imply that vegetarianism is stupid, evil, or foolish - just because Hitler believed in it.

[Cult of Reason]

However, I hope you weren&#39;t, at the same time, trying to imply that vegetarianism is stupid, evil, or foolish - just because Hitler believed in it.

I was not. After all, many (probably the vast majority) bastards from history were not vegetarians.

[RevSouth]

It seems as if Haraldur and LSD are trying to imply that because animals lack the intelligence of human beings, they have no rights at all. You guys sound like card carrying NRA members. I eat meat, because it tastes damn good, but I do not approve of the way animals are killed. I see Animal rights as directly linked to Human rights. If you do not support animal rights on the basis of the furtherment of the human race, there are many things we could do to make the human race better. Purge diseases by killing those who have them. Only allow the strong and intelligent to breed. Kill all those with mental defects (and LSD-capacity is directly limited by defects. The capacity of the species does not dictate the capacity of the individual). The difference between a cat killing a mouse for pleasure and a human killing a cat is that the human knows what he is doing to a harsh point: he knows it does noone any good. Would it matter to you all, ecological repercussions aside, if we eliminated all that useless biodiversity shit, and just left us humans, and our most useful livestock? I sincerely hope that is not a good idea in you all&#39;s minds. And Leftism does not revolve around preserving a select few, it revolves around the society as a whole. Fascism and capitalism revolve around the preservation of the strongest and most powerful. While all animals may not have the consciousness to see right from wrong, we certainly do. And we should know killing animals needlessly is wrong.

[Orange Juche]

Its a personal choice thing... it isn&#39;t constructive to say one side or the other is being silly or stupid. I feel us vegetarians have valid arguments, while those wishing to remain omnivorous have their justifyable arguments as well.

[commie anarchist rebel]

ok im not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but on the site basicaly three political philosiphys(sp?) are represented, Anarchism, Communism, Socialism. now all three of these have something in common, they all want equality, now to have true equality wouldn&#39;t we have to treat animals as equaly as we do humans, because if you get right down to it almost all living organisms with the exeption of plants are animals, so infact shouldn&#39;t we treat animals as if they were the same as us, because we are all infat animals and should all be treated equaly. im not saying that we should&#39;nt eat meat or dairy or eggs im saying that we should at least treat the animals with the same respect we would give a human. and don&#39;t give me that "well humans kill each other all the time and don&#39;t treat each other equaly" because thats complete bullshit although it does happen its carried out by fashist/right-wing bastards and will not lead the world to equality.

I hope that made sense, if not please let me know
thank you

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Communism isn&#39;t about making unequal people equal. Communism seeks to implement individual reward collectively to ensure the largest accumulation of product. It isn&#39;t based on some empathy that involves us caring for people because it noble or other idealist nonsense like that. It is about providing the material conditions all people deserve.

When it comes to the issue of animal rights, I imagine vegetarianism (and perhaps veganism) would be slowly adopted. This would provide for more farming efficiency and likely decrease medical bills. Furthermore, allowing the wild creatures to graze and develop on their own will probably help the environment.

Undoubtably, however, you will get some responses that are immature. People will talk about how they can&#39;t live without meat and it&#39;s tasty and we have sharp teeth. Although I am vegetarian, I can provide some decent arguments for the right to consume meat, but I don&#39;t want to because it is contrary to my particular agenda.

[Cult of Reason]

The old two kingdom biological classification is outdated. There are three other kingdoms: protoctista, fungi and eukaryotes. I would guess that there are more species in those three groups combined than in animals and plants.

Hopefully with the development of lab grown meat this will become less of a (non-)issue.

[Vicious_Vegan]

Yeah, this intellegence thing is pretty scary. What about retarded children? Can we kill them? If not, then you need a new jusitification for killing animals. If so, i&#39;m getting worried because pretty soon you&#39;re gonna find an equally [in]valid reason for killing me as well.
Yeah, i should probobly get my shit together about animal rights. I went vegetarian about 3 years ago, primarily because of animal abuse, and again vegan a year later. Over time, though, i&#39;ve turned to the more rational (verses emotional/ethical) reasons for veganism. Including how damn wasteful, polluting, and corrupt the meat industry is. I still mention worker and animal rights every once in a while, but that&#39;s not my forte.
Basically, my deal is live and let live, because that&#39;s the way life works.
But I&#39;m a flexible person. By this i mean that i don&#39;t really have anything that&#39;s gonna stick with me forever, which i view as a plus because everything is situational. So, just because i&#39;m vegan, doesn&#39;t mean i wouldn&#39;t act appropriatley in a situation "kill or be killed." Which i never plan to be in.
I&#39;m getting off topic. Don&#39;t mind me.

[LSD]

Yeah, this intellegence thing is pretty scary. What about retarded children? Can we kill them?

Oh, the argument from marginal cases

Just to run through it quickly, again, the mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human, and as such members of a community which is composed of rational actors, secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excercize their capacity, and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

That is, nearly all humans are capable of rational participation in human reciprocal society. Accordingly, to ensure that alll rational agents are included, it&#39;s nescessary to protect all those who reasonably could. Since no animal could ever participate, extending it rights is nonsensical.

Additionaly, when it comes to humans, the status of "marginality" is often transient or potentially transient. Again this is not true for animals. Children grow, the sick are treated, and new medical advances are made every day. There will almost certainly come a time when mental retardation will be effectively treated. There will never be a day when a chipmunk is capable of rational moral thought&#33;

And none of this even mentions the rather glaring fact that 99% of all "mentally retarted" individuals are capable of participating in society. Not to the same degree as the rest of us, no, but they are capable of rudimentary rational action nonetheless. No animal is.

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights. They are afforded protections. They are given societal protections due to their relationship with the community. That is their humanity makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.


I went vegetarian about 3 years ago, primarily because of animal abuse

Progress does not come out of boycotts, it comes out of material incentive; and artificially "grown" foods are still a long ways off, no matter what "market" forces become involved.

Look, if you want to improve the treatment of animals, that&#39;s fine, but you personally not eating meat isn&#39;t going to change a thing.

The whole "not participating" argument is and alwyas has been complete bullshit. It&#39;s an excuse for out of mind thinking. You want to change something? Change it&#33;

...but not through veganism. You see, even if you do manage to inspire a massive boycott, you know "voting withy your dollars", you&#39;re just transfering the problem, not solving it. If you force farmers to spend more on animal treatment, they&#39;ll find a way to cut costs somewhere else, most probably with "human resources". That means making the lives of their underpaid often illegal employees even more miserable then they already are.

If you make it impossible for farmers to be cruel to animals, they will be cruel to someone else. It&#39;s the capitalist way. If you seriously want to change the way a capitalist industry operates you need to change capitalism. Petty sub-reformism doesn&#39;t cut it.

Not to mention even that this entire argument is built upon a faulty premise. Namely that all slaughtering techniques are "cruel". While a good deal of the meat industry is indeed terrible to animals (thanks, again, to capitalism), it&#39;s still a grossly incorrect generalization.

If your goal is to eliminate "cruelty" to animals, why not encourage the eating of "free range" meats? At least that way you provide farmers with a viable alternative other than getting out of the whole business and killing their stock.


Including how damn wasteful, polluting, and corrupt the meat industry is.

That has a lot more to do with capitalism than meat eating.

Fighting for "animal liberation" or "going vegan" will not fix the meat industry, only eradicating capitalism and its obsession with short term quarterlly gains will do that.


now to have true equality wouldn&#39;t we have to treat animals as equaly as we do humans, because if you get right down to it almost all living organisms with the exeption of plants are animals, so infact shouldn&#39;t we treat animals as if they were the same as us, because we are all infat animals and should all be treated equaly.

The problem with that argument is that there&#39;s no logical end to it. If "all animals" should be "equal" why not all plants as well? Hell, why not all living organisms while we&#39;re at it?

The obvious answer, of course, is that human beings cannot survive without killing some sort of organism, so obviously "death free" living is out of the question.

The only relevent question becomes where do we draw the line? Do we create an arbitrary "animal only" or "pain only" or "mamal only" standard, or do we look to the origins of rights themselves and craft a franchise paradigm that is logical and consistant with a materialist understanding of society.

Look, no one here supports needless animal cruelty. No one wants to go around beating dogs and strangling cats. But animals are not human and we cannot treat them as such. We are omnivores, we eat animals. That&#39;s about as natural an act as there is. Preventing people from eating meat is an act of oppression. It reduces freedom of action for nebulous reasons in support of a nebulous goal.

The animal fanatics want to give animals the rights of people with none of the responsibilities. I suppose that means that we should all financially support them so that they don&#39;t starve&#33; I can&#39;t imagine what they forsee animals giving back to society however...

The simple truth is that animals are not sentient and as such unable to be a part of our society. They are inferior to us and pretending that that isn&#39;t true doesn&#39;t change it. The simple truth is that we are superior to mice&#33;

Animals are not a part of human society and so do not enjoy the rights given by that society. The very idea of rights is a human invention and applies only to humans. Society must protect rights because it is in the best interest of that society that it do so, that&#39;s it.

There is no "higher being" enforcing rights, they are as much a societal creation as anything. Sosicety exists to bennefit the members of said society, therefore it is the obligation of society to afford all liberties and basic rights to members of society so long as said liberties to not infringe on the same rights and liberties of other member of society.

Human society has no obligation to those species which are intrinsically biologically incapable of participating in such society.

Our human obligations are such because that is the nature of our relationship. Our relationship with other animals is in the context of their relationhip with themselves and with other animals. Animals eat animals&#33; Therefore, from a philosophical sense, the eating of meat is within their moral framework. The primary relationship in nature between animal and animal, mammal and mammal is that of hunter and prey, therefore, in terms of our natural responsibility, we are merely participating in preexisting supersocial acts.

That&#39;s philosophy, now here&#39;s reason: Rights are a societal creation. We are only obligated to provide rights for those who are part of human society. We have no obligation, nor logical reason, to provide rights for those who are not only not a part of said society, but of a species which is fundamentally incapable of even convieving of rights.

Specially incapable. There may be members of human society (infants, the infirmed) who are not capable of concieving of much, but the capacity and the excersizing of said capacity are two seperate things. Humans are genetically capable of concieving of complex abstract ideas, other animals are not.

It is that fucking simple.

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:53 PM
I don&#39;t care too much about animal rights, especially at this point in time. Human rights are by far the more pressing matter.
Well, let&#39;s be coherent then. Let us just leave all female or workers&#39; rights aside for a few centuries until all human beings have enough food to eat, how about that for a "pressing matter"?. What comes first comes first.

Now seriously. I don&#39;t see any incompatibility between respecting animal rights and human rights on the whole. If there are areas where this incompatibility exists, I would try to reach a compromise, but this shouldn&#39;t invalidate the whole concept of animal rights.

[CoexisT]

...

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by F. [email protected] Dialectics of Nature - IX: The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man
The labour process begins with the making of tools. And what are the most ancient tools that we find - the most ancient judging by the heirlooms of prehistoric man that have been discovered, and by the mode of life of the earliest historical peoples and of the most primitive of contemporary savages? They are hunting and fishing implements, the former at the same time serving as weapons. But hunting and fishing presuppose the transition from an exclusively vegetable diet to the concomitant use of meat, and this is an important step in the transition to man. A meat diet contains in an almost ready state the most essential ingredients required by the organism for its metabolism. It shortened the time required, not only for digestion, but also for the other vegetative bodily processes corresponding to those of plant life, and thus gained further time, material, and energy for the active manifestation of animal life in the proper sense of the word. And the further that man in the making became removed from the plant kingdom, the higher he rose also over animals. Just as becoming accustomed to a plant diet side by side with meat has converted wild cats and dogs into the servants of man, so also adaptation to a flesh diet, side by side with a vegetable diet, has considerably contributed to giving bodily strength and independence to man in the making. The most essential effect, however, of a flesh diet was on the brain, which now received a far richer flow of the materials necessary for its nourishment and development, and which therefore could become more rapidly and perfectly developed from generation to generation.[8] With all respect to the vegetarians, it has to be recognised that man did not come into existence without a flesh diet, and if the latter, among all peoples known to us, has led to cannibalism at some time or another (the forefathers of the Berliners, the Weletabians or Wilzians, used to eat their parents as late as the tenth century), that is of no consequence to us to-day.

A meat diet led to two new advances of decisive importance: to the mastery of fire and the taming of animals. The first still further shortened the digestive process, as it provided the mouth with food already as it were semi-digested; the second made meat more copious by opening up a new, more regular source of supply in addition to hunting, and moreover provided, in milk and its products, a new article of food at least as valuable as meat in its composition. Thus, both these advances became directly new means of emancipation for man. It would lead us too far to dwell here in detail on their indirect effects notwithstanding the great importance they have had for the development of man and society.

Just as man learned to consume everything edible, he learned also to live in any climate. He spread over the whole of the habitable world, being the only animal that by its very nature had the power to do so. The other animals that have become accustomed to all climates - domestic animals and vermin- did not become so independently, but only in the wake of man. And the transition from the uniformly hot climate of the original home of man to colder regions, where the year is divided into summer and winter, created new requirements: shelter and clothing as protection against cold and damp, new spheres for labour and hence new forms of activity, which further and further separated man from the animal.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch09.htm

[Sadena Meti]

If killing and eating animals is evil, then wolves (and all predators) are evil.

So why isn&#39;t PETA out killing the predators?

Go convert a wolf to a diet of strawberries and feta cheese. Then talk to me about nature.

We are natural omnivores. That is our place in the food chain. It is our natural place. It is our evolutionary place.

Unless you plan to round up and convert all the lions and tigers and bears (oh my&#33;), then there is no logical argument that human vegetarianism (or the more neurotic veganism) is natural.

Easiest way to prove our place is to go up to a vegan, smile, then bite a chunk of flesh from their shoulder. If it wasn&#39;t our natural place, we wouldn&#39;t have teeth that could pull that off.

In a way, vegetarianism is the most anti-nature choice one can make. It denies the fact that we are part of nature, we are part of the animal kingdom. They claim to respect animals, but in reality, vegetarianism demeans animals. Go have a chat with what is left of the aboriginal peoples. They respect the animal, they respect their spirit, and they honor their spirit by hunting, killing, and eating them.

That is nature.
That is the natural order.
Life and death.
The unity of blood to blood.


Now if you&#39;ll excuse me, I need to go sharpen my canines and incisors.

[Comrade Marcel]

Before I go and eat a big bowl of Carribean style chicken soup, I thought I would share MIM&#39;s resolution on Vegetarianism and Animal Rights (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/cong/vegan.html), which basically sums up my position on the question, and I think is the most sound and logical one for Marxist-Leninists to take.

[Eleutherios]

Animal rights is a ridiculous concept. Where do you draw the line? The animal kingdom? Well then, is it wrong for me to swat a mosquito on my arm? Or do I have to brush it off? What if I unnecessarily hurt the mosquito in the process? :o

Or say my house is infested with termites. Termites are a member of the animal kingdom, so I guess we&#39;ll just have to get along peacefully since they could potentially feel a whole lot of unnecessary pain if I had to exterminate them to save the house.

Maybe there&#39;s a colony of rattlesnakes in my backyard. Oops, they have the same rights to life as humans, and I don&#39;t want to be convicted of authoritarian speciesist genocide so maybe I&#39;ll try to engage them in a fruitful dialog and convince them to move somewhere else.

Uh-oh, I have tapeworms and lice&#33; I wouldn&#39;t want to destroy these precious creatures&#39; habitats and potentially render them extinct. No, I must protect the human head and human digestive tract from the slaughter of bloodthirsty humans who want to destroy these poor poor animals&#39; way of life&#33; If such evil people succeeded once and for all in their evil plans, lice and tapeworms would be eradicated and biological diversity would suffer&#33; Oh no&#33;

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:07 AM
Where do you draw the line?
And why is it vegetarians have such a vendetta against vegetables? Here does this hatred come from?

[CoexisT]

...

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 20 2006, 02:48 PM
If killing and eating animals is evil, then wolves (and all predators) are evil.

We are natural omnivores. That is our place in the food chain. It is our natural place. It is our evolutionary place.

That is nature.
That is the natural order.

Nature is the rule of the strongest or the most vicious, I honestly don&#39;t see how you can reconcile that with being leftist. Defending the "natural order" is what dictators, opressors and abusers do.

Also, it is evil to inflict pain and suffering on others needlessly and being aware of the pain and suffering you inflict, that is not the case of the wolf, I think.

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:07 PM
Animal rights is a ridiculous concept. Where do you draw the line?

Maybe there&#39;s a colony of rattlesnakes in my backyard. Oops, they have the same rights to life as humans, and I don&#39;t want to be convicted of authoritarian speciesist genocide so maybe I&#39;ll try to engage them in a fruitful dialog and convince them to move somewhere else.
"Human rights is a ridiculous concept. Where do you draw the line? If I&#39;m mugged in the street I can&#39;t even defend myself and kick the mugger. If someone tries to murder me I must just let them do what they want, I can&#39;t cause them any harm, because that is against human rights, I would gladly die to respect the murderer&#39;s right to live."

A really nice solid argument, huh?

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 20 2006, 03:10 PM
And why is it vegetarians have such a vendetta against vegetables? Here does this hatred come from?


What hatred? Do you actually hate the animals you eat? Is that why you eat them?

And besides, you need to kill many more vegetables to feed the animals that you will eat than to be on a vegetarian diet. So if you are vegetarian you kill less animals but also less vegetables.

[Eleutherios]

There&#39;s a huge difference between muggers and rattlesnakes. Muggers are humans, which mean they can be potentially reasoned with. I draw the line between humans and other species. But where do you draw the line in the animal kingdom if you are for animal rights? If it&#39;s as unethical to kill any animal unnecessarily as it is to kill a human unnecessarily, then surely my massacre against the fruit flies in my apartment a few weeks ago must have been an atrocious genocide&#33;

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by CoexisT+Jul 20 2006, 10:52 AM--> (CoexisT @ Jul 20 2006, 10:52 AM)
rev&#045;[email protected] 20 2006, 02:48 PM
We are natural omnivores.
Try again. We have the ability to eat meat. Our intestinal tract, however, is that of a frugivore. [/b]
Lovely they way you try to slip half an argument in. The intestinal track is only half of the digestive system. Ever heard of the stomach and pancreas?

(BTW, bovine pancreas is delicious and an extremely high energy food).

The stomach and pancreas produce (among other things) enzymes that have only one role: the digestion of organic protein (and fat). These specific enzymes are unique to omnivores and carnivores, and are distinct from the enzymes used to break down plant protein.

So, if you want to claim the human digestive system isn’t omnivorous, fine, go to the hospital and have them remove your stomach and pancreas. See how you get on.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:59 AM
Also, it is evil to inflict pain and suffering on others needlessly and being aware of the pain and suffering you inflict, that is not the case of the wolf, I think.
Well, you think wrong. Have you ever watched wolves hunt and eat? Or better yet, lions?

Quite often, them begin to eat while their prey is still alive. Lions rip out the belly and begin to dine on the innards while the gazelle is still breathing.

Have you ever seen killer whales hunt seals on the shore? I once watched this amazing video, in which after the whale surged forward and snatched a seal, it took it out to sea, and then began to play with its food, punching it into the air with its snout, knocking it back and forth, then eventually getting bored and eating it.

Not every predator is a quick killer like, say, a falcon. Some take their time. Some play with their prey. Some feed on the living as they die, slowly and painfully.

Nature is not all fluffy bunnies. It’s raw, bloody, and beautiful.

Ever seen what a fox does in a chicken coop? It kills every chicken in a blood strewn massacre&#33; It doesn’t eat them all, usually only one or two. Should we all get our hounds, mount up, and wipe out all foxes?

Welcome to nature. Ain’t it grand?

[CoexisT]

...

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:18 AM
If it&#39;s as unethical to kill any animal unnecessarily as it is to kill a human unnecessarily, then surely my massacre against the fruit flies in my apartment a few weeks ago must have been an atrocious genocide&#33;
At this time I&#39;d like to enter a guilty plea for genocide by chemical warfare, as I recently wiped out several hundred (possibly thousand) ant hives within 10 meters of my condo. Body count was very likely in excess of 100,000.

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:18 PM
There&#39;s a huge difference between muggers and rattlesnakes. Muggers are humans, which mean they can be potentially reasoned with. I draw the line between humans and other species. But where do you draw the line in the animal kingdom if you are for animal rights? If it&#39;s as unethical to kill any animal unnecessarily as it is to kill a human unnecessarily, then surely my massacre against the fruit flies in my apartment a few weeks ago must have been an atrocious genocide&#33;
I know there is a huge difference between a rattlesnake and a human. I have never compared them, I simply think your argument has no base, that is why I have used exactly the same absurd argument to "prove" something both you and I disagree with: that we must put human or animal rights above our own right to life and well-being.

And for your information, I don&#39;t see the killing of a fruitfly like the killing of a man, but maybe that is only because I am human too ;-)

I honestly can&#39;t draw the line, I clearly differentiate mammals from bacteria or funghi though, but if I can&#39;t draw a line, I certainly can try to work out a hierarchy of those beings wich are more liable to suffer when maltreated or killed. My (fuzzy) rule is cause as little harm as possible and cause no harm at all if you don&#39;t need to, and yes, if I see an ant running up my arm, I don&#39;t kill it, I blow it away.

Do you need a line? Tell me, would you kill a newly-born baby? Probably not. But would you kill a 9-month old fetus? an 8-month-old fetus? a five-month old fetus? Where do you exactly draw the line?

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by rev&#045;stoic+Jul 20 2006, 04:38 PM--> (rev-stoic @ Jul 20 2006, 04:38 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 11:18 AM
If it&#39;s as unethical to kill any animal unnecessarily as it is to kill a human unnecessarily, then surely my massacre against the fruit flies in my apartment a few weeks ago must have been an atrocious genocide&#33;
At this time I&#39;d like to enter a guilty plea for genocide by chemical warfare, as I recently wiped out several hundred (possibly thousand) ant hives within 10 meters of my condo. Body count was very likely in excess of 100,000. [/b]
PETA&#39;s on their way. :ph34r:

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by rev&#045;stoic+Jul 20 2006, 04:30 PM--> (rev-stoic @ Jul 20 2006, 04:30 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 10:59 AM
Also, it is evil to inflict pain and suffering on others needlessly and being aware of the pain and suffering you inflict, that is not the case of the wolf, I think.
Well, you think wrong. Have you ever watched wolves hunt and eat? Or better yet, lions? [/b]
Read better. I am talking about morals and responsibility, you are only talking about violence and cruelty.

Tell me, would you try the same way a sane murderer as an mentally deranged one? Would you apply the same justice to a grown-up as to a kid (who have committed exactly the same crime)?

If you love nature so much, go back to the jungle, don&#39;t call the police when someone robs or attacks you, don&#39;t ask for help if you need it. Just go on and be coherent with your uncivilised tastes.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:34 AM
Does the stomach and the pancreas suffer when vegetables are ingested? No. The digestive tract, however, does. It doesn&#39;t have the same capabilities as a carnivorous animal.

When you go to the gym and lift weights, you are damaging your muscles, breaking them down in fact. "Feel the burn." The body is made to be damaged, that&#39;s why it heals.

Feel like staying in doors, avoiding sunlight, eating tofu, and repeatedly washing your hands? Fine. But you won&#39;t last as long in the real world.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:50 AM
If you love nature so much, go back to the jungle, don&#39;t call the police when someone robs or attacks you, don&#39;t ask for help if you need it. Just go on and be coherent with your uncivilised tastes.
And we return to my earlier point about vegetarians demeaning nature. You think you are not part of it. Nature isn&#39;t just in the jungle, it&#39;s in the city streets. Human civilization is a part of nature. It&#39;s another herd of animals. We may have different traits, but we are part of the animal kingdom.

Even in nature animals help fellow members. Witness pack hunting. Witness penguin adoption. Witness some canine packs killing off crazed members of their own pack (it&#39;s one of the wolf species that does this, can&#39;t remember which).

Our ability to coordinate and cooperate (on even more efficient levels than those mentioned above) is an evolutionary trait of our species. All animals have traits, this one belongs to the animal that is human.

See Darwin&#39;s rebuttal to social Darwinism for more vivid examples of said evolutionary trait.
(Just to be clear because I’m sure some will misread that, Darwin opposed the idea of social Darwinism and wrote a rebuttal to disprove it, arguing that, among other things, our trait to coordinate and cooperate lead to the dominance of the human species)


[gawd i need to get off this subject... wonder what&#39;s up under DIY...]

[Sadena Meti]

This debate probably will become pointless if they find a low-tech method of producing myco-protein. I actually tried some of this when I was at college. Tastes like chalk dust. But you can&#39;t deny the mathematical efficiency of wheat blight for producing it. Makes soya look like a lumbering inefficient Hummer.

Problem is, production of myco-protein is way too hi-tech. They need to come up with a way of making it in a crock pot, including the RNA reduction (the real problem). That, and they&#39;ll need to give it the taste and texture of beef tenderloin before I&#39;ll sign on. Something they&#39;ve failed to do with soya, legumes, or tofu. Odd too, when you consider that it is the soft, fibrous structure of tenderloin that gives it its character... you think that would be easier to fake than, say, a New York Strip Steak.

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by rev&#045;[email protected] 20 2006, 05:01 PM
And we return to my earlier point about vegetarians demeaning nature. You think you are not part of it. Nature isn&#39;t just in the jungle, it&#39;s in the city streets. Human civilization is a part of nature
Well, don&#39;t change the meanings of the words you use from one post to the other, please, or this debate will become (even) more absurd. I knoooow that all of this world and the entire universe, including plastic bags and tamagochis, are a part of nature. But, I am obviously referring to the concept of nature as opposed to civilisation, which is exactly how you have been using it in your previous posts.

nature is not "moral", not "nice", not "fair", it simply "is". Human society, even if a part of nature, has developed a civilisation, which, even if a part of nature, has created its own rules which have nothing to do with what we call "natural law". If you like "civilisation", stay in it, defend it, fight for it to make it stronger and better, if you prefer "nature" and the law of the jungle, suit yourself, but let me humbly wonder why you ever decided to join the RevLeft community. :-)

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:51 PM
Well, don&#39;t change the meanings of the words you use from one post to the other, please, or this debate will become (even) more absurd.


nature is not "moral", not "nice", not "fair", it simply "is". Human society, even if a part of nature, has developed a civilisation, which, even if a part of nature, has created its own rules which have nothing to do with what we call "natural law". If you like "civilisation", stay in it, defend it, fight for it to make it stronger and better, if you prefer "nature" and the law of the jungle, suit yourself, but let me humbly wonder why you ever decided to join the RevLeft community. :-)
Every term I used has the same OED meaning throughout all my posts.

Civilization has created many ideas, and if you think they are therefore valid simply by nature of existing, then I suggest you order a straight jacket. Every idea is subject to attack, welcome to dialectics. Silly ideas have only one destination, extinction. And every rational mind has the duty to take part in the extinction of irrational ideas.

As to your final ad hominem remark, you clearly have no idea what the RevLeft community consists of.

[CoexisT]

...

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by rev&#045;stoic+Jul 20 2006, 06:41 PM--> (rev-stoic @ Jul 20 2006, 06:41 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 12:51 PM
If you like "civilisation", stay in it, defend it, fight for it to make it stronger and better

Civilization has created many ideas, and if you think they are therefore valid simply by nature of existing, then I suggest you order a straight jacket. Every idea is subject to attack, welcome to dialectics. Silly ideas have only one destination, extinction. And every rational mind has the duty to take part in the extinction of irrational ideas. [/b]
I don&#39;t think anything of what you are imagining I think, and what you say does not even relate at all to anything I have said so far in this thread.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Try again. We have the ability to eat meat. Our intestinal tract, however, is that of a frugivore. Just because we have the ability to, doesn&#39;t mean that it&#39;s the healthiest choice.

Nonsense.

The human intestinal tract is longer than that of carnivores yet not as long as herbivores. (hence why we are neither herbivore nor carnivore, we are in the middle -- omnivore)

In addition to to our pancreatic enzyme production for meat digestion, we also lack multiple stomachs and produce dilute hydrochloric acid in our single stomach; a trait not found in herbivores.

Get your facts straight.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:15 PM
Animal rights? Ridiculous. My view is that if it benefits humanity to have something nasty happen to an animal, it should happen. Meat, medical research, all fine by me.

Besides, where would you stop? Where would you draw the line?
:mellow:

Although humans certainly do come first, we should not unneccesarily harm animals. After all, are we any more than overdeveloped animals? Suffering in any form should be avoided, including that of animals.

[CoexisT]

...

[LSD]

there should be no problem wth every person going vegetarian.

Maybe not in your mind, but in the real world people are not going to stop eating meat because you or anyone else tells them that it&#39;s a "good idea".

We need to be realistic in our aims and trying to mandate vegetarianism or veganism is not pragmatic social policy. And if you try and tie dietary laws to revolutionary leftism, you&#39;re only going to discredit revolution.

If you don&#39;t want to eat meat, fine, but unless you can show definitively that eating meat harm other members of society in and of itself, you have no right to attempt to use social coercion to change others&#39; personal choices.

Obviously you can&#39;t do that.


Try again. We have the ability to eat meat. Our intestinal tract, however, is that of a frugivore.

Who cares?

This "natural" argument is ludicrous no matter which side makes it. It doesn&#39;t matter what we "would" eat "in nature", "nature" is irrelevent&#33;

This is just like those homophobes who insist that homosexuality is "wrong" because it "isn&#39;t natural". It&#39;s applying normative values to evolutionary accidents. People have the right to live their lives without external coercion. Your "morality" has absolutely nothing to do with my right to fuck a man ....or eat a steak.

Our intestinal track is better at digesting plant than animal matter ...OK. It&#39;s pretty good at digesting meat too, though. And trying to extend social policy from biological quirks is a rather dangerous undertaking.


Nature isn&#39;t just in the jungle, it&#39;s in the city streets. Human civilization is a part of nature. It&#39;s another herd of animals. We may have different traits, but we are part of the animal kingdom.

Well, that really depends on what one means by "nature".

In its broadest most biological sense, I suppose it could mean every single living organism. But the more standard use is every living organism that isn&#39;t us. That is, references to "nature" are almost always with the implicit caveat that we are not a part of it.

Otherwise people wouldn&#39;t speak of "man vs. nature" or "the destruction of nature" or the "value of nature".

Personally, I like you, sometimes grow annoyed at the tendency to arbitrarily seperate us from the rest of the ecosystem. I think that it&#39;s a cheap trick to try and assert that humanity "isn&#39;t natural" or that our actions are somehow "in conflict" with some nebulous entity "nature".

There is nothing "special" or "important" about "nature", certainly nothing so essential that human society has an obligation to "preserve" it. There is a certain level of ecological homeostasis that must be maintained for the survival of our species, but beyond that "environmentalism" is not a justification of social oppression.

Forced vegetarianism is wrong, no matter how many cute little animals it saves and organizations like PETA and the ALF are reactionary to the core because of it.

Any group that places nebulous idealism ahead of flesh and blood workers is not an ally of the revolutionary movement and cannot be supported by progressive leftists of any sort.


The fact is that vegetarianism provides a healthier alternative to eating meat and less risk (contaminated meat, cancer, etc...).

Puritanism is always healthier than indulgence. Not drinking, smoking, doing drugs, having sex, or eating unhealthy foods will doubtless lead to a longer life.

It will also lead to a miserable one.

Personally, I rather shave a few years off the end of my life then spend the rest of my days eating nothing but tofu and brussel sprouts.

[encephalon]

There are certain amino acids that are only found in meat (so far) that the human brain needs to function, especially in early development. This is in basic physiology manuals. We evolved into omnivores instead of staying herbivores precisely because our brains needed the greater amount of energy found in meat.

If humans were herbivores, btw, we wouldn&#39;t have eyes in the front of our head. This is a distinct trait of meat-eating animals. We also have canine teeth, which evolves stictly in meat-eating animals again.

Lastly, our population would not be maintained without eating meat. We developed our manner of capturing grazing mammals precisely because of this. Meat proves a much greater food resource and is more compact than vegetation. Humanity depends upon meat to function in its current state of being.

It should also be noted that there are certain lipids in almost every plant that the human body cannot digest, nor excrete. So it ends up as fat, and stays there. If we were herbivores, you would think that we&#39;d be able to digest all valuable parts of a plant, wouldn&#39;t you?

I was a vegetarian for years, and I can see where you&#39;re coming from. And yes, it&#39;s horrible that we sometimes need to take life in order to propagate our own species. It&#39;s horrible that anything whatsoever has to die. Unfortunately, it can&#39;t really be helped. Perhaps at some point, technology will allow us to survive on virtually nothing, plants or animals. In the meantime, however, we have to make do with what we can.

The fact is, a human life is more important than any other species to other humans, just like a crocodile&#39;s life is more important than any other species to that crocodiles. Human civilization would not exist today without the meat of other animals. Not to say these animals shouldn&#39;t be treated humanely; I think a human being that unecessarily hurts an animal should indeed be held responsible for the act, because all life is in the same boat. But we are not beyond the food chain; we are part of it.

[CoexisT]

...

[encephalon]

For every argument you find saying that meat was required for human evolution (brain evolution) I can find you just as many, if not more, saying our brains evolved and because of this we were able to hunt meat, not the other way around.

Tell me, then, if we didn&#39;t evolve specifically do eat meat, then why is it that we have canines while every other herbivore does not? If we didn&#39;t evolve specifically to hunt animals, then why do we have eyes in the front of our skulls like every other predator instead of eyes on the sides of our skulls like herbivores?

And by all means, give scientific evidence of your position. Meat has a much higher energy content than any vegetation, allowing for more compact food. Has it ever occurred to you why it is that almost every herbivore is quite dumb, while predators in comparison are intelligent?

We ddin&#39;t just get smart and decide to eat animals just because we suddenly could.. that isn&#39;t how evolution works. We started eating meat because it was required to keep our more complex chemistry functional. The amino acids obtained from meat, in particular, are of great use in the human body. Thus far, we&#39;ve not been able to replicate these in labs; although I assume one day we will be able to do so. Until then, humanity has to do with what it has evolved to do--and unfortunately, that includes eating meat. A single person may be able to survive (after the brain develops) on flora alone, but humanity as a whole cannot exist without the compacted energy in meat products. If all of humanity were to become vegetarian at this instant, a great many people would soon starve--many more than do so today.

[kasturbai]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:38 AM

there should be no problem wth every person going vegetarian.

Maybe not in your mind, but in the real world people are not going to stop eating meat because you or anyone else tells them that it&#39;s a "good idea".

We need to be realistic in our aims and trying to mandate vegetarianism or veganism is not pragmatic social policy. And if you try and tie dietary laws to revolutionary leftism, you&#39;re only going to discredit revolution.
Well, you could just as well argue that people are not going to stop being capitalists or exploting workers because anybody else tells them it&#39;s a "good idea".

I don&#39;t think that mandating just measures can discredit any revolution, but then it would be a matter to be decided on democratically.

Also, I don&#39;t see how standing for the weakest, the most abused and exploited, and fighting against exploiters can discredit leftism, I rather thought this is what leftism is all about. To defend what is right and humane, not to defend the rights of exploiters. I am always amazed at how ultraconservative many leftists are in relation to animals, just because they "can". I am convinced that, in the (unfortunatelyh distant) future, people who treat animals as possessions to be used for people&#39;s benefit will be seen as we now see Romans, as primitive and narrow-minded, despite all their achievements.

[encephalon]

Well, you could just as well argue that people are not going to stop being capitalists or exploting workers because anybody else tells them it&#39;s a "good idea".

I don&#39;t think that mandating just measures can discredit any revolution, but then it would be a matter to be decided on democratically.

The problem is that vegetarianism and veganism doesn&#39;t solve anything whatsoever. Even if society could exist on a purely vegetarian diet as a whole (which, currently, can&#39;t happen; we require the condensed energy in meat in order to feed our bursting population), it would still be quite impossible to not kill other life-forms. Hell, every time you take a shower, a million organism die.. including your own skin cells.

You could, of course, say that those organism don&#39;t really matter; only the ones that have that pseudo-scientific idea of mystical "feelings." So, in short, you&#39;re going to say that life-froms with any sort of nervous system should not be harmed in any way.

Well, frankly, this is absolute bullshit. You can cry about the plight of crocodiles all you want, but if a human child is being eaten by a crocodile: who would you side with? The fact is, life in-and-of-itself is not very valuable, at least in the human sense. Honestly, wolves and crocodiles and lions and bears don&#39;t give a damn about your "all life is equal" philosophy. They do give a damn about food, and they will eat you if necessary. Some things are valuable because they keep a balance in the food chain--spiders to keep the mosquito population down, for instance.. but if you ask a spider, they don&#39;t give a damn about the food chain. A spider is concerned about eating and breeding, no matter how many mosquitos there are. That makes them a lot like humans. Above all, they put the interest of their own species above that of any species.

And just because something can feel doesn&#39;t make it valuable, either. A better judgement would be to base it on the complexity of an organism.. and, seeing as how humans have a far greater complexity than any other organism, I hate to tell you: humans win. If a species dies so that humans may live, then I&#39;m all for it. Not to say that we should just kill off everything, but merely that humans should come first.

We don&#39;t want a revolution so that crocodiles may roam the earth freely. We don&#39;t want a revolution so that rabbits can breed until there&#39;s no plant-life left on earth. We don&#39;t want a revolution so that the world becomes galapagos. Leftism is not about all animals; it&#39;s about human freedom, human concerns, human liberation. If that can happen without stepping on any other animals, then great. But the dodo bird should not, at all, stand in the way of human progress.

Even after revolution, people will still exploit the earth. And so will every life-form on this planet. It&#39;s really the whole reason we exist in the first place. We are parasites of the sun and earth, technically, and to pretend that we aren&#39;t is absolute inanity.

[Marion]

Have not been paying too close attention to this thread, but, in reference to some of the arguments put forward:

1) Is anyone advocating "forced vegetarianism" (such as that LSD refers to in reference to ALF, PETA)? Haven&#39;t seen it myself, but may be wrong...

2) Is anyone actually saying that they actually think that they&#39;d put a human life at the same level as that of an animal? That they wouldn&#39;t try and save a child being eaten by a crocodile? Again, I&#39;m not entirely sure that anyone&#39;s said this...

3) Is anyone arguing that it is imperative and a complete priority to avoid any harm to animals, insects, single-celled organisms etc, or merely that you should take reasonable steps where possible to avoid doing so? Seems to me that the latter has been the main argument, but, again, I may be wrong...

On a less ethical and more practical level:

1) Meat may well be "more condensed" that other food stuff. However, the likes of beef, pork, chicken etc only becomes condensed because it is fed vast quantities of largely vegetable matter in the first place. So why is meat not "wasteful" rather than "condensed"?

2) Meat production uses vastly more amounts of water than production of vegetables. On average, it takes 1,790 litres of water to grow 1kg of wheat compared with 9,680 litres of water for 1kg of beef (figures from a Guardian report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,13...288702,00.html) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,13790,1288702,00.html)). Is this efficient?

Personally, I&#39;m vegan because, despite the fact I don&#39;t actually really feel an affinity to animals, I reckon if I can avoid them suffering its a good thing. I also reckon its very good for the environment. However, I don&#39;t see it as that big a deal and not as important by any means as other stuff I do.

[CoexisT]

...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, who recently served as editor of American Anthropologist. "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Bullshit, it has nothing to do with Judaeo-Christian ideology, it is a recognition of the fact that it is easier to hunt in a group than on your own, and smarter brains means a more productive hunt. There&#39;s nothing "evil" about a natural phenomenon such as predation.


Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

And what has that got to do with Homo Sapiens? Australopithecus is one of our oldest ancestors, of course they are going to different.


It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn&#39;t appear until two million years ago. And there wasn&#39;t good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don&#39;t think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

That hardly rules out human adaptation to eating meat (Or scavenging it beforehand), now does it? Also, so what if eating meat is a recent phenomenon? It&#39;s been a good development for the human species.


"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon."

Living in groups is hardly a gaurantee of developing intelligence. Living together as a group also makes hunting more productive - see lions for an example.


It&#39;s true that most primates are omnivorous, as us. But I would hardly go as far as putting humans and every other primate in the same class of eating habits. We eat meat at every meal, they eat meat at very few meals, if any at all (some are herbivores). It&#39;s true that most primates are omnivorous, as us. But I would hardly go as far as putting humans and every other primate in the same class of eating habits. We eat meat at every meal, they eat meat at very few meals, if any at all (some are herbivores).

It&#39;s irrelevant that other primates have different eating habits - they are different species living different lives.

It&#39;s quite obvious that there&#39;s no problem with Homo Sapiens having meet in it&#39;s diet. The Inuit seem to do fine on their mostly-meat diet.

[CoexisT]

...

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:35 PM
I was just providing evidence stating that vegetarianism is a healthier alternative....
I don&#39;t believe you.

Besides meat is cheaper, less time consuming and tastier.

[CoexisT]

...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Living in a group requires a higher level of intelligence for socialization.

Tell that to a herd of cows or an ant&#39;s nest.

[CoexisT]

...

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by CoexisT+Jul 21 2006, 05:04 PM--> (CoexisT @ Jul 21 2006, 05:04 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2006, 05:02 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 04:35 PM
I was just providing evidence stating that vegetarianism is a healthier alternative....
I don&#39;t believe you.

Besides meat is cheaper, less time consuming and tastier.
:blink:


I don&#39;t care if you believe me, but at least provide some evidence for your statements.

1. Meat is cheaper how? I&#39;d argue that growing a field of carrots is less time consuming that growing a cow from birth.

2. Less time consuming for who? The person growing? The person eating?

3. Tastier? Well, that&#39;s all a matter of opinion. I really don&#39;t like the taste of meat. [/b]
I think it actually is cheaper because it is over produced.

Less time consuming I highly doubt though. You don&#39;t have to check on vegetables daily or near daily. ;)

[CoexisT]

...

[encephalon]

I&#39;m NOT TRYING TO FOCE YOU ALL TO EAT MEAT. I repeat I AM NOT TRYING TO FORCE YOU GUYS TO EAT MEAT. I never was, and never will. I was just providing evidence stating that vegetarianism is a healthier alternative and that it provides a smaller ecological footprint. Those, combined, are a good enough reason for me to not eat meat. Are they for you? That&#39;s completely up to you.

Since you didn&#39;t answer most any of my questions, including why primates have eyes in the fronts of their skulls (nor why we have canines like every other meat-eater), I&#39;ll address this from a different angle that I already stated before.

Evolution is based solely upon reason. Giraffes have evolved longer necks because those with long necks were able to find more food than those with shorter necks. The long-necks were able to breed, while the short-necks died faster.

So the question is: why has any animal ever evolved to eat meat, and why have meat-eaters grown canine teeth? Have you ever seen a meat-eater that does not have canine teeth? Have you ever wondered why meat-eaters have eyes in the front instead of side? Have you ever wondered why wolves seem infintely smarter than, say, cows?

If meat-eating did not provide an advantage to vegetarianism, then why, in an evolutionary position, do meat-eaters exist at all? If it didn&#39;t provide an evolutionary edge, then the plain and simple fact is that meat-eating would not exist whatsoever.

And no, vegetarianism would absolutely not leave a smaller ecological footprint. What, you think humans started taming grazing animals for no reason whatsoever? Do you think we eat meat for no reason at all? Of course not. There are very good reasons why things have evolved in the way that they have. To be a materialist is to accept that things have happened the way in which they have for a very good reason. Humanity as a whole cannot live off of vegetables alone as it stands.

And yet, all vegetarians have to offer in the way of evidence is an obscure book with absolutely no reference points, in the face of rationalism and evolution. Give me a break. If you have evidence, then provide it. Don&#39;t just say that some book, somewhere, says something along the lines that you&#39;d like it to say.

In addition: great, all primates have eyes in the fronts of their skulls. Good to know that all primates come from a line of meat-eaters.

And lastly: you are putting forth an argument for vegetarianism/veganism. If you did not think that everyone should abide by your own argument, then you wouldn&#39;t be arguing it in the first place. So please, don&#39;t claim that you aren&#39;t advocating that others follow the same route. You are arguing for a smaller ecological footprint through vegetarianism, and your opposition claims that this is either false or improbable under the current material conditions. We eat meat for a very good reason, amino acids being one of many. If you&#39;re going to argue, then at least provide reasons for your argument. Don&#39;t hide behind a veil of "I don&#39;t suggest everyone do it" scarecrow.

If you advocate it, then advocate and provide reason. Otherwise, nobody is going to be convinced.

[emma_goldman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:27 AM
Evolution is based solely upon reason. Giraffes have evolved longer necks because those with long necks were able to find more food than those with shorter necks. The long-necks were able to breed, while the short-necks died faster.

I think you&#39;re talking about natural selection.. ;)

[Marion]

Couple of quick points. Vegetarianism/veganism is more ecologically friendly, given that it uses far less water (you&#39;ll find my quoted reference earlier should you wish to reply to this point) and is far more sensible than growing vegetables to feed to animals which we then eat.

In terms of amino acids, I&#39;m not absolutely sure if you can&#39;t get all the correct amino acids from vegetables (I can check this up if you like), but the necessary amino acids stay in your body for years and years and years, so if you&#39;ve eaten meat for, say, ten years there should be no problem turning vegan or vegetarian. I&#39;m not an expert on this point so I&#39;m free to stand corrected.

In addition, I think the arguments about the way we&#39;ve evolved, while interesting, are slightly irrelevant to the vegetarian/vegan argument. We can easily eat either meat or vegetables and, for the vast majority of people, they have a choice as to which they want.

Finally, just because someone is saying they are a vegan or vegetarian and putting forward certain arguments for it does not mean they are saying that all people should be vegan or vegetarian. For example, I&#39;m quite happy saying that there might be certain tribes where having a cow or goats is a far more efficient and sensible approach, due to natural conditions, than being vegan or vegetarian.

[CoexisT]

...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

10 out of the 20 can be produced in the body, the leftover 10 are called essential amino acids. GUESS WHAT&#33;?&#33;?&#33; THEY CAN ALL BE FOUND IN SOYBEANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Wow, it&#39;s interesting that we can find EVERY essential amino acid in ONE VEGETABLE.

I fucking hate soybeans. I&#39;d rather have a steak or bacon buttie, thanks.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:04 PM
I don&#39;t care if you believe me, but at least provide some evidence for your statements.


Why should I have to provide evidence? You are the one that is saying vegetarianism is healthier. Prove it.


1. Meat is cheaper how?

I can go to the store, buy a pound of ground beef/chicken/pork, a can of speghetti sauce and pasta for less than &#036;10, and this will feed 6 people, at least. Meat is cheaper if you have a big family, and it&#39;s faster. Vegetarian dishes that actually taste good take too much time to prepare and cook. They are less filling and lack in protein. Also, it will be more exspensive to buy the ingriedients.

Veganism is fine for people who live mostly by themselves or a young couple with time to cook.


I&#39;d argue that growing a field of carrots is less time consuming that growing a cow from birth.

No one can survive on just carrots. Carrots taste like shit anyways, I&#39;m not a fucking horse are you?


2. Less time consuming for who? The person growing? The person eating?

The persyn eating.


3. Tastier? Well, that&#39;s all a matter of opinion. I really don&#39;t like the taste of meat.

Then you&#39;re in a minority. Most people love the taste of meat, and many vegetarians and vegans I know will even admit that meat tastes good. Meat is fucking delicious. On the other hand, most vegetables are not. Some of them taste ok. Other vegetables taste like shit. The stuff that is good, like potatoes or white rice is super fattening. I found when I stick to a diet of mainly meat, I am skinnier and more energetic. I actually tried to go vegetarian after the new year, to see if it would be healthier for me. When I did eat vegetarian meals, I felt hungry soon after, my stoumach had digestion problems, I farted a lot more (from the beans mostly) and making meals took longer. Vegetarianism sucks.

[Vicious_Vegan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:52 PM
I fucking hate soybeans. I&#39;d rather have a steak or bacon buttie, thanks.
Take two bites, and then you can have dessert. :rolleyes:

[Comrade Marcel]

Soy can cause memory loss problems if eaten on a regular bases, and yes I can pull up the source on this if people want (this is from my science text book from the course "Reasoning in the Sciences", University of Toronto).

I like soy/tofu, and it&#39;s ok to eat on occasion. I usually get it deep fried and covered in black bean and garlic sauce, sometimes topped with a piece of fish.

(BTW, fish is a very good thing to have in your diet.)

[CoexisT]

...

[encephalon]

First of all NO. Giraffes did not evolve longer necks to find more food. YOU really need to learn to do some research before you post. Giraffes have longer necks because the males need them to fight off other males during mating season. The longer the neck you have, the more leverage you have, the harder you hit, the higher chance you have of defeating the other male.


Evidence? So if I have a longer neck than you, what you&#39;re saying is that I can beat you up? If you want to be technical, it&#39;s a shorter neck that gives one leverage. In arm wrestling, for instance, it is the one with the shortest arm that has the greater leverage; just as it would be with a shorter neck. In order for one to have a longer neck or arm, one must have a greater arm/neck muscle mass that offsets the physical depreciatin. If this is what you&#39;re arguing, then by all means do so. Then it would be unprovable either way.




AMINO ACIDS:

10 out of the 20 can be produced in the body, the leftover 10 are called essential amino acids. GUESS WHAT&#33;?&#33;?&#33; THEY CAN ALL BE FOUND IN SOYBEANS&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Wow, it&#39;s interesting that we can find EVERY essential amino acid in ONE VEGETABLE.


Care to tell me which amino acids can be found in soybeans at the given rate at which they can be ingested? Evidence? And please, don&#39;t provide wikipedia as a source. I want actual tested sources. In other words, factual evidence.

But let us say that soybeans can provide all essential amino acids. In that case, how many fields of soybeans will it take to replace the same amount of health provided by meat to humanity as a whole? And as a whole, I don&#39;t mean you. I mean every single human being on the planet.



STEROSCOPIC VISION:

Human evolution has evolved from a common ape ancestor. I&#39;m sure you and I can agree on that? Before humans ever came to be bipedal, or primates ever came to be terrestrial, we were all arboreal. Humans, with their brachiator anatomy, must have (by popular consensus in the science world) had a common ancestor that was arboreal, and that swung through trees (much like the Gibbons of today). In order to swing through trees you need stereoscopic vision, 3d vision, or else you&#39;re not going to be able to discern between depth of field.... and... well... you&#39;ll get fucked up pretty bad by a tree.


I want evidence. Is it too much to ask? I want evidence of a non-meat-eating mammal, one that doesn&#39;t descend from a meat-eating mammal, that has stereoscopic vision. If you can provide this, then you can say that stereoscopic vision does not coincide with meat-eating, right?



Also another popular theory regarding the evolution of steroscopic vision is that of prey, in general. You keep saying that predators have stereoscopic vision because they need it to see their prey, right? Well, many scientists say that humans evolved it not only because of the above reason, but because we needed it to see our predators so that we could outmaneuver them and not be eaten.


Sources? Last time I checked, prey had eyes on the sides of their heads so that they could see predators from both in front and behind. Why is it that non-meat-eaters have eyes on the side, rather than in the front? Vegan Magic??



So, you have any other questions? You keep bringing up "amino acids are one of many" argument, so what are the many? Cuz I&#39;ve only seen you bring up the "amino acids" part.


As of yet, you&#39;ve not provided any evidence. You&#39;ve not provided evidence that vegetarianism would leave a smaller ecological footprint; you&#39;ve not provided evidence that we&#39;re naturally vegetarian while we still have stereoscopic vision; you&#39;ve not provided a reason as to why we have canine teeth if we were not meant to eat meat, and you&#39;ve not provided evidence as to how vegetarianism is healthier. Why, exactly, should a single person listen to you when you fail to provide evidence? We might as well start listening to the pope; he gives reason without evidence as well.

I&#39;m also waiting for you to tell all of us ignorant meat-eaters why, exactly, it is that humanity decided to eat meat if it has no functional basis?


And yes, of course I&#39;m advocating that people switch, but I&#39;m not about to force people or say that it should be included in the socialist government rules/codes after the revolution. I&#39;m merely stating that communism/socialism is looking to make a better society for people now, and people in the future. Vegetarianism, through it&#39;s smaller ecological footprint, does the same thing.

And yet you still refuse to understand why humanity started raising grazing animals in the first place, while agriculture had been around for a while (longer the raising grazing animals, in fact), and it&#39;s much easier to take care of plants rather than animals. The question is: why? For fun? That&#39;s not a very logical answer, now is it?

We meat-eaters like evidence. Without it, we&#39;re not going to change our minds. But we aren&#39;t telling you to eat meat; we&#39;re simply telling you that there&#39;s little reason, if any, for us not to eat meat. Are lions and tigers and bears more entitled to carniverous tendencies than humans?

[chimx]

evolution has nothing to do with &#39;reason&#39;. evolution is dicated by reproductive potentiality and ONLY that.

[encephalon]

evolution has nothing to do with &#39;reason&#39;. evolution is dicated by reproductive potentiality and ONLY that.

And this is dictated by reason. There is always a reason why one gene takes precedence over another and is allowed to propagate whilst another becomes a fossil. Evolution, whether you like it or not, is a reasonable process. It is a wholly logical process. I know vegetarians don&#39;t like to think of it as such, but there&#39;s no denying it.

[CoexisT]

...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by coexist
I&#39;ve worked with Sussman on many occasions, so if you have any further questions I can redirect them to him via phone or e-mail. Since you obviously don&#39;t believe me, you should have no problem believing the most renowned primatologist in the world.


You&#39;ve never met Bob Sussman in your life, much less worked with him. If you had, rather than copy and paste crap from his widly refuted 1987 "research", you would have used your own words.

You would have also known that later in his career Bob clarified in position (presumably to quiet all the nutty "primates are frugivore" quacks that were using his research as gospel) and stated that primates are to be considered faunivore (those that require fauna, or flesh, in their diets)

He seemingly escaped critisism of his original blunder by slipping in "all non-human primates" rather than facing the inevital music that his research was outdated and easily refuted in just a couple of years.

As far as I am aware Bob doesn&#39;t even touch this issue anymore; considering what happened last time, I don&#39;t blame him.

You&#39;re way out of your league here sonny.

[tecumseh]

animal rights should obviously be second to the rights of humans when it comes to the food chain. however i think animals when they are killed for food or for fur they should be killed humanely, basically there needs to be a more appropriate way to kill animals than the current method that is practiced in this video.

<<<very gruesome, it shows animals skinned alive>>>

http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/swf/fur_farm.swf

[Sadena Meti]

You know what would be an interesting thing to see?

A list of all the vegan Olympic gold medal winners. I mean, if it is the most healthy and efficient diet...

Did some researching. Found a handful of names, but after checking, found they weren&#39;t veggies when they competed:

Carl Lewis (used steroids and stimulants when he competed, became a vegan after his career ended)
Dave Scott (retired in the late 80&#39;s, became a veggie in the 90&#39;s)
Edwin Moses (career ended 1987, went veggie mid-90&#39;s)
Leroy Burrell (one site claimed he was a veggie, read his bio on three others, no mention)

What is funny is how many pro-veggie sites talk about the first three, ignoring the fact they weren&#39;t veggies when they competed.

After about half an hour (I was bored), I finally found... one.
One out of how many thousand athletes...
Murray Rose. 1956 and 1960. Veggie but not vegan.


So, of all those that take the human body to it&#39;s maximum ability... one was veggie.


Odd there weren&#39;t any veggie marksmen, I mean it shouldn&#39;t affect that. Though I guess they wouldn&#39;t want to touch a gun...

[CoexisT]

...

[CoexisT]

...

[Vicious_Vegan]

Wasn&#39;t this thread about animal rights? Now we&#39;re talking about evolution and olymic winners? I&#39;m not trying to imply that these aren&#39;t worthy topics to discuss, but there are so many factors to debate in abstaining from animal consumption, and they don&#39;t all match up to each other. I don&#39;t refuse to buy a leather couch to avoid having a heart attack, and I don&#39;t talk about world hunger to prevent pollution. I&#39;m just pointing out that if we&#39;re talking about animal rights, changing the subject to another aspect of animal abstainance is, doing just that, changing the subject.

[encephalon]

dammit. I had written a very lengthy dissection of the anti-meat arguments presented, and as I went to submit it my browser crashed. Unfortunately, I&#39;ve other matters to attend at the moment, and I probably won&#39;t get back to this until tomorrow.

Vicious vegan: most of us agree on some basic animal rights, even us silly omnivores&#33; What we don&#39;t agree on is the rights of other animals at the expense of humanity.

[CoexisT]

...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by coexist
Removed at request of original poster.


No I really don&#39;t need "proof", that would be silly. I simply want you to post honestly.

Your current allegations lead the reader to assume that Bob&#39;s work is "mainstream knowledge" and allow them to speculate based on dishonest facts.

A more honest approach would have been to say that Bob and a few others believe that humans should be classified as frugivore rather than faunivore even in light of much larger body of evidence to the contrary given by a larger assortment of primate nerds.

You should even be a bit wary of how Bob "fiddled" with the intestinal length math in 1987 to make his classifications seem to be a "revelation".

I greatly respect Bob&#39;s accomplishments in his field and enjoy his current critisisms on the "race issue" but in this specific case he was clearly wrong.