Animal rights

[Kleng]

Just wondering if anyone here supports animal rights. And if so, why?

[Black Dagger]

To facilitate discussion, could you please define 'animal rights'?

[Vargha Poralli]

Animals don't have rights.Nor does Humans.

If you are talking about animal liberation I think that too is somewhat idiotic in current times. There are people who needs liberation first and those liberated people shall decide whether or not to liberate animals.

A past discussion which has some good arguments on both sides. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58284&hl=Animal+Rights)

[RedAnarchist]

I support animals rights in certain ways, that I oppose unnecessary hunting of animals and vivisection.


edit - originally in this post I did say i was supportive of some forms of vivisection, but I'm not because they do test on animals for medical research but these are usualy useless

[Vanguard1917]

Animal testing is 'usually useless'? I don't know where you got that from. The truth is that without testing on animals, medicine as we know it simply would not exist.

This very good website (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_PageID=94&i_ToolbarID=8) contains a lot facts that show how important animal testing is for medical progress.

As it points out:

'Antibiotics, anaesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukaemia and high blood pressure... these are just some of the major medical advances that have depended on the use of animals in medical research and testing.'

[Janus]

Just wondering if anyone here supports animal rights. And if so, why?
We've discussed this quite a bit. Please do a search in the future:
animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66585&hl=+animal++rights)
animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58284&hl=+animal++rights)
animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51383&hl=+animal++rights)
animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66630&hl=+animal++rights)
animal testing (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59290&hl=+animal++rights)
animal rights (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58481&hl=+animal++rights)


Animals don't have rights.Nor does Humans.
Animals don't have human rights in human society.

[Dr Mindbender]

I recall once I got into a drunken debate in a Manchester pub with some militant anarchist vegans who argued that 'as victims of capitalism, animals should also benefit from the freedom of class liberation' basically insinuating that carnivorism=class opression against animals! :blink: wtf?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I recall once I got into a drunken debate in a Manchester pub with some militant anarchist vegans who argued that 'as victims of capitalism, animals should also benefit from the freedom of class liberation' basically insinuating that carnivorism=class opression against animals! blink.gif wtf?

:lol:

You know by debating them in public your making their views seem legitimate. Just avoid those kind of life-stylists if i were you.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:26 pm



Animals don't have rights.Nor does Humans.
Animals don't have rights in human society.
A lot of people don't have rights in human society!

[socialistfuture]

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:18 am
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/
Just as I would discredit a pro-feminist organisation chaired and staffed exclusively by men, or a pro-worker organisation staffed and chaired exclusively by capitalists, I must denounce that organisation as a facade for oppressive humans pretending to fraternise with animal suffering.

When you have a panda as chair<s>person</s>critter, try again.

Luís Henrique

[Cult of Reason]

The animals can have their rights after they have their revolution&#33; A fair day&#39;s pay for a fair day&#39;s work&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:

[chimx]

Animals don&#39;t have rights in human society.

Beat a dog to death with a baseball bat in front of a cop and see what happens then.

[Janus]

A lot of people don&#39;t have rights in human society&#33;
Yeah, and your point is that we should give them human rights? Rights are a human creation after all and that is what I meant by my original statement.


Beat a dog to death with a baseball bat in front of a cop and see what happens then.
What&#39;s your point in presenting such a sensational hypothetical event? That because something like that could theoretically happen, then we should bestow animals with full rights? No one here is supporting zoosadism but animals aren&#39;t human and thus cannot be treated as humans in human society.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:56 am

Animals don&#39;t have rights.Nor does Humans.
Animals don&#39;t have human rights in human society.
Well what I meant was many people at the current situation have any type of rights in the CURRENT HUMAN SOCIETY.

Those people have to be liberated. Those liberated people who have won their rights shall decide whether to liberate animals and give them rights.

What I mean is fighting for animal liberation/ animal rights is not going to help both Humans and Animals.

[Janus]

Well what I meant was many people at the current situation have any type of rights in the CURRENT HUMAN SOCIETY.

Those people have to be liberated.
I agree. We as a society need to focus on protecting our own members; members who are actually capable of actually participating in said society and responsibly utilizing and understanding those rights.

[socialistfuture]

animal rights and human rights is my stance

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:44 pm

A lot of people don&#39;t have rights in human society&#33;
Yeah, and your point is that we should give them human rights? Rights are a human creation after all and that is what I meant by my original statement.


Well, no… my point was not that we should give “them” “human rights.”

What delineates “human rights” does not necessarily relate to who currently has them, because, as we all probably agree, many humans don’t have “human rights.” Other non-human animals do not compel “human rights” because they are presently without them.

Indeed, “rights” are a human creation and thus can be apportioned to almost anything- perhaps rocks. This does not mean that they should, or that such a thing is even “logical.” What it does mean is that “rights,” if they are to be attained by a "multitude," cannot be given out, but must be taken.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:41 am
animal rights and human rights is my stance
They can have them once they have organised themselves to fight for them. :P

Oh, wait. :lol: They are animals, silly me.

[RedStarOverChina]

Unless they are ready to prosecute cats for preying on mice, the animal right activists are being very incoherent.

Beating animals to death for no reason what-so-ever is ridiculous and does not happen often at all in our society...Those who would do such a thing should be viewed with suspicion, and sent to the mental institution if necessary, but not criminally prosecuted.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:12 pm

Animals don&#39;t have rights in human society.

Beat a dog to death with a baseball bat in front of a cop and see what happens then.
He will be arrested, for infringing the right people have to not see sadistic scenes.

Denounce the vet around the corner for regularly "murdering" dogs and cats, and see if you get anything besides funny looks...

Luís Henrique

[socialistfuture]

PETA has been slammed for doing what vets do.

heres a reason to not eat meat (tho dun have much trust in the UK govt usually)

Go vegan to help climate, says Government
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 30/05/2007



It would help tackle the problem of climate change if people ate less meat, according to a Government agency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...0/eavegan30.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/05/30/eavegan30.xml)

suffering of pigs in aotearoa:

Dry sow stall
Dry sow stalls are metal crates designed to confine pregnant sows. Stalls measure 60 centimetres wide by 2 metres long.
The sow cannot walk or turn around. All she can do is stand up and lie down. The stall floor is usually made of concrete with a slatted area at the rear. The sow is not provided with any bedding, and often lies in her own excrement. Stalled sows can suffer foot injuries, lameness and urinary infections. They also have weakened bones and muscles. Sows are confined in stalls for part of, or their entire 16-week pregnancy period. Sows in stalls commonly exhibit repetitive actions such as bar biting. Experts regard this stereotypic behaviour as a sign of severe stress and suffering.
After initial attempts to escape, most sows become abnormally inactive and unresponsive and may well be clinically depressed. To make matters worse, the sow is in effect, starved. Her restricted diet, whilst providing for her nutritional requirements, lacks the necessary bulk and roughage to prevent her from feeling constantly hungry. Over 20,000 pigs in New Zealand suffer in dry sow stalls if that was humans i&#39;d be guantanamo bay


Beating animals to death for no reason what-so-ever is ridiculous and does not happen often at all in our society...Those who would do such a thing should be viewed with suspicion, and sent to the mental institution if necessary, but not criminally prosecuted.
The SPCA (society for prevention of cruelty to animals) puts a list out everyyear of abbuses to animals; some include dragging a goat tied to a rope behind a car, microwaving of cats and so on (its doesnt include viviasection experiments- it is everyday ppl not companies on the list). I could start going into details if you want and provide links to images.

there is illegal dog fighting in new zealand, rooster fighting is normal in some countries ( i saw the blood of a match that had finished by accident going down a backstreet in Indonedia), bullfighting in spain-could get figures on amount of bulls that get injured or die as a result. In russia fat americans pay to shoot tame bears at short range. could go into very unethical zoos, with tiny cages and poor hygience and lack of stimulations for thr streesed animals.

if you think not many animals suffer you have not looked into it, anyone seen a film called EARTHLINGS?

if you dont think animals have feelings what is it that you cat or dog displays when it sees its &#39;owner&#39;, everytime i see my brothers puppy it runs at me and starts jumping and licks me. if it gets ignored it looks sad and acts different. if i killed it to eat it wouldnt that be fucked? if that puppy was sold to a lab to have cigarettes pumped into its lungs would i be a bastard in ure minds? but it would be research to help people (sic)..
look at animal cruely and abuse in a wider context than ure pre concieved views. and back it up (not many animals are abused..) where is the evidence? it points to the reverse conclusion.

[socialistfuture]

and thats leaving out other factory farming methods and BATTERY HENS.

[RedStarOverChina]

Nobody said animals "can&#39;t feel"...But we are saying that we just don&#39;t care... In most cases, anyway.

Animals get eaten in the jungle all the time...Is is a "crime" for animals to eat each other? Are you going to go after all the cats, dogs, tigers and wolves?

Animals are supposed to eat each other and be eaten. They do not have "rights", or else you are going to have to go after all the carnivores and then some for "infrenging on the rights" of another animal.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:20 pm
Animals get eaten in the jungle all the time...Is is a "crime" for animals to eat each other? Are you going to go after all the cats, dogs, tigers and wolves?
Yes, in fact criminal animals will be read their "rights", because you know, "they have the right to remain silent" and so on :lol:

I still wonder how would "animal rights" "work". Most people who support this crap use such emotionally-appealing arguments as comparing animals to retards (&#33;) or accusing anybody who disagrees of being a "speciesist who is as bad as a racist and an evil nazi&#33;" (there&#39;s an occasional "vegetarianism will save the environment" argument though), but I never got to read a serious explanation for this nonsense. How would "animal rights" work?

[chimx]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 09, 2007 07:10 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 09, 2007 07:10 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 06:12 pm

Animals don&#39;t have rights in human society.

Beat a dog to death with a baseball bat in front of a cop and see what happens then.
He will be arrested, for infringing the right people have to not see sadistic scenes.

Denounce the vet around the corner for regularly "murdering" dogs and cats, and see if you get anything besides funny looks...

Luís Henrique [/b]
spare me. The issue difference has nothing to do with visibility. It is an issue of cruelty, which is why we created laws protecting animals from sadistic behavior. If you are caught abusing an animal, regardless if it is a public spectacle or not, you will most likely be prosecuted because our society has chosen to provide animals the right to not be subjected to unnecessary sadism.

That of course is just the united states. I believe in Germany a while back they actually amended the constitution to specifically touch on the rights of animals in that country, while still allowing for animal testing and husbandry.

Either way you slice it, most industrialized countries have some low level of rights given to animals because we as humans have decided it to be in our (emotive?) interests. Denying the preexistence of these laws borders on the dellusional.

[socialistfuture]

i get the impression no political parties would touch on the issues coz they think it would be unpopulor. Batter hens are unpopulor here but cheaper than free range so people buy freerange (a) for moral reasons and (b) if they can afford it. the goverment won&#39;t act and ban battery cage farming because of economic and political reasons. It is cheap to have endless chickens pumped on goo and under lights in a small space indoors if the chickens grow fast and make lots of eggs (same with cramped industrial farming; sow cages for pigs..etc).

The greens wont have strong policy because they would be associated with vegans and they want to be more &#39;mainstream&#39; (ie get more votes).

there is nothing progressive about condoning animal cruelty. animal rights is not about telling animals what to do and arresting them (applying human laws to non human species). it is about allowing them to live decent lives and have viable population numbers for their species to continue.

A lot of animal rights supporters arent against all animal death, they are strongly against industrial factory farming and its cruel and expolitive practices that are made to get a vast profit. Keeping diet aside for a moment, animal rights is about respecting them as a living species. you wouldnt kick a baby, why kick a kitten?

you wouldnt cut a baby for kicks, why stab a bull?

[socialistfuture]

Nobody said animals "can&#39;t feel"...But we are saying that we just don&#39;t care... In most cases, anyway.

Animals get eaten in the jungle all the time...Is is a "crime" for animals to eat each other? Are you going to go after all the cats, dogs, tigers and wolves?

Animals are supposed to eat each other and be eaten. They do not have "rights", or else you are going to have to go after all the carnivores and then some for "infrenging on the rights" of another animal.

do most people not care about their pets? do most people not care about whales or dolphins when they see them or other animals?

there is no animal eating other animals in the jungle when humans destroy a whole rainforest. its about more than one animal does this.. they eat each other so therefore it is ok to keep dolphins in cages and drill into the brains of apes and put solvients in mice&#39;s eyes and cut open a lives cows stomach and put a see thru bit of plastic over the wound.
if an animal kills another it is usually to eat it, not cause it considers it fun, or it gets kicks out of torturing another species.

but humans can maim animals because we &#39;are superior&#39; and animals die in the wild? some humans kill others, so it is ok for humans to kill each other? some animals kill other animals, some dont. might be worth going into literature on human sadism and how animals work.

would anyone who doesnt support animal rights be ok with somone frying a cat alive? or a dog or a mouse?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Socialistfuture

You see, you totally lose any credibility that your argument might have when you say stuff like that.

Not many people intentionally harm pets or wild animals. We even spend money buying food they like and taking them to the animal doctors.

But there is a massive difference between me liking stroking my cat, and because i have a pet, thinking i don&#39;t want research on other animals.

Like, frankly, why should i care about researching on a animal if science guys (which they claim, even if you don&#39;t agree) learn something from the research.

There is no comparison between having pets and animal research.

And, i don&#39;t know if you have ever been to another country, but in Spain, they kill cats all the time. Because cats are like a menace and they are basically seen as a rat type problem and they dont want them bugging the tourists.



would anyone who doesnt support animal rights be ok with someone frying a cat alive? or a dog or a mouse?

You know i don&#39;t really think animals do or should really have rights, but i would not be okay with frying a cat alive because its just serves no purpose, you might as well kill it first.

But, apart from my own cat, i don&#39;t think i would really care if i killed a cat, like ran it over in a car, i might feel bad for the owner, but tbh, i couldn&#39;t give a fuck about the cat. Whereas if i hit (in my car) a person an killed them i would be fucking suicidal or something.

[Cult of Reason]

I am in favour of sow stalls, farrowing pens and battery hens, on the assumption that they increase efficiency. The animals be damned.

[Dimentio]

Everyone above the level of a duck could feel, but rights are not something natural or inherent. Granted rights are "privilegies". True rights are something people (and animals) must fight for. That is the right for survival.

Neither animal or human rights are inherent or unalienable, since they are physically alienable. It is possible to kill, maim and harass living beings. That does not mean that we all should behave as cavemen, but that we should realise that the discussion about "born rights to life" is a bourgeoisie definition.

:P

[chimx]

but that we should realise that the discussion about "born rights to life" is a bourgeoisie definition.

No effin&#39; kidding&#33;

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:33 pm
I am in favour of sow stalls, farrowing pens and battery hens, on the assumption that they increase efficiency. The animals be damned.
That&#39;s awful. And if it does increase efficiency, it&#39;s only for the capitalists so they can better their profit.

[RevMARKSman]

That&#39;s awful. And if it does increase efficiency, it&#39;s only for the capitalists so they can better their profit.

So we should eliminate automated labour because under capitalism it&#39;s "only for the capitalists"?? Eliminate time-saving technology, machines, tools just because capitalists use them? Why the hell are you using an internet service, it benefits teh capitalists&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111one&#33;111&#33;1&#33;11&#33;&#33;&#33;(e^(pi*i)+2)&#33;&#33;&#33;1&#33; 111

Re: "That&#39;s awful" - Great. Who cares?

[socialistfuture]

save time... what for?
what are you trying to save all your time up for?

the industrial revolution didnt end up saving us all time in the end. we still slave, now in cities rather than in the fields.

why do u want the factories to work faster?

[RevMARKSman]

save time... what for?
what are you trying to save all your time up for?

the industrial revolution didnt end up saving us all time in the end. we still slave, now in cities rather than in the fields.

why do u want the factories to work faster?
For free time, of course. <headdesk> No, I&#39;d prefer to spend more time in the factories doing work and less time having fun.

Industrial revolution saved most of us time. sure, we still work all day, but we get more stuff for it. Now, for a day&#39;s work, you can clear x acres of fields instead of x/10, or make 100 machines instead of 1. And since machines are cheaper to make from the Industrial Revolution, now the standard of living is higher than ever. You can spend less time making food and more time eating it, less time making something and more time enjoying it, less time making tools and more time making image macros.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/378/durrrcx8.jpg

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:42 am
save time... what for?
what are you trying to save all your time up for?

the industrial revolution didnt end up saving us all time in the end. we still slave, now in cities rather than in the fields.

why do u want the factories to work faster?
What is most important?

Equality or prosperity?

I mean, as fast as our general production capacity has increased, we have actually got a society that is a little less "starvation for all". Of course, we have huge problems with the environment, but that is the responsibility of the price system (and growh-oriented capitalism), rather than technology.

The reasons why we had class societies before, during the medieval age, was not that some were evil, or that someone controlled the productive forces as in today&#39;s capitalism, but partially because people needed to focus 12 hours a day on work and therefore had to give away a part of their autonomy to a caste of warlords.

[Sentinel]

save time... what for?
what are you trying to save all your time up for?

the industrial revolution didnt end up saving us all time in the end. we still slave, now in cities rather than in the fields.


In case you had not noticed, we human beings have this desire to do stuff for our own wellbeing&#39;s and pleasure&#39;s sake. Therefore we&#39;d rather avoid working our asses off 24-7 merely to survive, as the broad masses have to under capitalism and have had to under every single system until today. We generally want everything done as easily and fast as possible so that we can concentrate on actually enjoying our lives. That is not possible for a majority of people as it is, but not because technology would have somehow failed us..

No, the situation is rather fucked up despite our high technology level, due to an outdated economic model, capitalism. The industrial revolution didn&#39;t liberate us from the slavery of work, because it happened under capitalism and the means of production, as well as most of the material benefits of technological progress, remain under the control of the capitalist class. But it gave birth to the proletarian class and accelerated technological progress, and thus brought us the conditions needed for a proletarian revolution and hightech communism, the only imaginable system which could in practice work along the premise &#39;from each according to ability, to each according to need&#39;.

And that society can only emerge as a result of a revolution, preceded by a profound technological and social development (these are intertwined, go hand in hand) under previous forms of government. See, according to historical materialism we definitely can&#39;t just destroy everything, start from the scratch, and go direct to modern communism, that&#39;s just impossible. So, as we one day have to acquire control over technology, production and distribution for ourselves as a class, to make it physically possible to build a modern communist society, we have to (critically, as always) support technological progress and industrialisation.

I am unsure, sf. Do you wish to see hightech communism? Or would you rather work against it? Please answer honestly, I would personally stand up for any positions I hold even if they would get me restricted to OI. I simply can&#39;t understand why so many primmies choose to hide their true identity. It&#39;s just a message board, if one can&#39;t be honest here, then where can one?

Are you a primitivist?

[Cult of Reason]

Not to mention that the use of battery chickens, sow stalls and farrowing pens might very well make such food cheaper, and so being against those three food production methods makes you anti-working class.

Can we restrict them now?

[chimx]

Not to mention that the use of battery chickens, sow stalls and farrowing pens might very well make such food cheaper, and so being against those three food production methods makes you anti-working class.

Lowering the minimum wage, increasing the 40 hour work week, and abolishing safety regulations also makes the food cheaper. But anti-worker?

One does not logically follow the other.

[Cult of Reason]

Animals are not proletarian humans, so the use of these practices is not anti-worker, while the things you listed all ARE.

Using sow stalls increases productivity and so lowers prices, with no inherent harm to workers, hence it is, overall, pro-worker. To oppose it is anti-worker.

[chimx]

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/ffarms.asp

[Cult of Reason]

So you throw link at me. Worse, a barely relevant one.

Sure, factory farming, as it is now, is damaging to the environment, but that is because the systems are not designed with the environment in mind. Nothing technically prevents that from being done.

Also, what would you propose instead? Free range (more land required, less meat produced, more expensive meat etc. etc. etc.)?

[socialistfuture]

you cant ban us for supporting environmentalism and being against cruelty to animals.
Are you a primitivist?
im into deep ecology and libertarian socialism. id suggest you read more derrick jensen before you talk about primitivism - i don&#39;t think you know much about it. my politics dont fit into one category (eg authoritarian marxism).

[socialistfuture]

i admire how cuba grows a lot of its food, and how sweden wants to be independent of fossi fuels by 2020 (1).
I practice permiculture and do community gardening. NZ grow endless food, most of it is for export (to among other places the US which exports stuff like oranges back which are already grown here).

also I work with the green party and various left and environmental groups here. I admire earth first&#33; rising tide and indigenous resistance groups. I have march beside meat workers on strike even tho i am pretty much vegan. We feed them with free food not bombs vegan food after their strike (the supermarket workers were on strike too...well locked out by their bosses).

The leftist groups I know are far more progressive on environmental politics in nz than many in this science and enviroment thread. and environmentalists dont get labelled primitists or hippies. dif culture i guess.

1) Sweden plans to break fossil fuel addiction by 2020
http://www.greenoptions.com/2007/01/06/swe...diction_by_2020 (http://www.greenoptions.com/2007/01/06/sweden_plans_to_break_fossil_fuel_addiction_by_202 0)

[RedArmyFaction]

Personally, i think it&#39;s fine for humans to kill animals for food. It&#39;s a natural process. In the animal kingdom, animals kill other animals to survive.

[socialistfuture]

that is not the arguement (althought it is one) it is wether it is ethical to do factory farming, and wether torturing animals (vivisection is ethical and beneficial to anyone besides biotech corporations).

factory farming if very cruel, polluting and the only reason to do it is to make vast profits (exploitation). it is very unpopular in new zealand and animal rights activists do liberation in the open in the day. and several groups campaign on it. but the farmers lobby is too strong and influencial on the goverment so the laws dont get enforced.

[socialistfuture]

also food prices are rising and wages are not - so the food argument is false.

mad cow disease and bird flu are likely caused by the cramped conditions of animals and feeding them on ground up animals (at times cannibalism because they feed the group up remains of one species to the same one as feed).

localising food production rather than getting the third world to do monoculture exports would reduce food cost. lessening transport by getting local food would be cheaper (cheaper yet straight from your garden - or community garden if you do not have the space). wiping out advertising and lessesning packaging would decrease costs massivly. so much of the cost of capitalist products is advertising, lawyers and so on (think coke, monsanto...etc).


factory farming is unethical and not cheap healthy food. it will be wiped out one day. the sooner the better. :)

could someone put up some factory farming images?

[Yardstick]

I became a vegetarian because there were a number of benefits.

1)Vegetarianism is a healty choice:
a)The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer” and that vegetarians are less likely than meat-eaters to be obese

b)vegetarians are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters

c)vegetarian kids grow taller and have higher IQs than their classmates, and they are at a reduced risk for heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases in the long run

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12826028&dopt=Citation)

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/43/1671_50411

Even then you could argue that it&#39;s still okay to eat a little meat, fair enough but health isnt my only reason.

2)Meat is bad for the environment:
a)"nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food"
You have to understand that while it seems like we have a ton of water on the earth a very small percentage is usable by humans.
b)"about one-third of the raw materials used in America each year is consumed by the farmed animal industry"
ONE THIRD&#33; Thats a shitload.
c) Farmed animals produce 86,000 pounds of waste a second(thats shit fyi) which pollutes our water, errodes topsoil, and contaminates air.

You really can&#39;t call yourself a environmentalist while contributing this much to damaging the environment. "Many leading environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the WorldWatch Institute, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have recognized that raising animals for food damages the environment more than just about anything else that we do"
http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/health/meat_mag.html
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/ke...ad/A0701E00.htm (http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

However one of the real bigger kickers for me is number 3

3)All those acres going to feed livestock, could be feeding the hungry:
"According to a recent report by Compassion in World Farming, "[c]rops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food." It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,864995,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,864995,00.html)

4)Workers Rights:
"statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one in three slaughterhouse workers suffers from illness or injury every year, compared to one in 10 workers in other manufacturing jobs.1 The rate of repetitive stress injury for slaughterhouse employees is 35 times higher than it is for those with other manufacturing jobs.2"

Employees who are injured at work—and most will be—are often fired if they take time off or try to file a health insurance or workers’ compensation claim

In addition to exploiting poor people, immigrants, and children and doing little to protect workers from workplace hazards, the farmed-animal industry has also been charged with union busting. When workers try to unionize, the industry uses illegal intimidation and harassment tactics to ensure that pro-union employees are silenced. According to Human Rights Watch, “Many workers who try to form trade unions and bargain collectively are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized for their exercise of the right to freedom of association.”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/usa0105.pdf
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...arms/index.html (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/08/27/dairy_farms/index.html)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm1999...2.05.html#tyson (http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm1999/mm9912.05.html#tyson)

5)This, isn&#39;t fair:


http://goveg.com/photos_chicken10.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_chicken21.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow14.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow23.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow20.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_pig07.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_pig16.asp



These points of course don&#39;t even take into account the intelligence or feelings of these animals. So if you want to ignore this stuff then great for you, I hope the cheeseburger is worth all the damage your causing.


Oh and you can find most of this info and alot of my sources through goveg.org