Do you eat meat? Poll #3

[Sentinel]

This is the third 'official' RevLeft dietary choice poll -- see poll #1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t20091/index.html) (2004-2006) and poll #2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t54001/index.html) (2006-2008) for previous discussions on the subject. Vote for your personal preference and explain the reasoning behind it! Also, feel free to continue any interrupted discussions from the old threads in this new one.

I have closed and unstuck the last poll on this issue, as the software conversion from IPB to Vbulletin enabled members to vote for a second time, and it had run for over a year already. The results -- which unfortunately aren't entirely accurate -- were as follows:



Yes, I have no problems with eating meat: 273 (63.93%)
Yes, but only if it's free (freeganism) 15 (3.51%)
Yes, but only certain types (specify) 37 (8.67%)
No, but I use milk products and eggs (lacto-ovo-veg.) 46 (10.77%)
No, I'm a vegetarian 30(7.03%)
No, I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle 26 (6.09%)

Voters: 427.


PS. Sorry for doing this before hearing back from you, NoXion -- I PM'd you about this about a month ago but got no reply. :(
The same should be done with the other polls in this forum, as the results no longer are accurate.
.

[RedAnarchist]

Yes, I do. I see it as perfectly natural. I don't not care if people eat meat or not, as that is their own choice. It is not a choice of good or bad, it is a choice of what foods you wish to eat.

[AGITprop]

Meat, 4 , Veggie, 0

[Kropotesta]

I'm vegan.

[apathy maybe]

Once more there is obvious problems with the various poll options.

* Yes, I have no problems with eating meat
OK, this option is fine...
* Yes, but only if it's free (freeganism)
Incorrect definition of freeganism.
* Yes, but only certain types (specify)
I only eat pork and shell fish.
* No, but I use milk products and eggs (lacto-ovo-veg.)
This is vegetarianism, thus the following option is redundant.
* No, I'm a vegetarian
There are various sorts of vegetarianism, but the previous is all that is really needed.
* No, I follow the vegan philosophy and lifestyle
Should be consistent and just have "vegan" (not all vegans have a philosophy as such)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I love meat. Especially pig products such as ham, bacon, pork scratchings, sausages, Spam, bockwursts, hotdogs, pepperoni and black puddings, as well as other meat treats such as burgers, corned beef, steak, scotch eggs, mixed kebabs and fried chicken.

I could never be a vegan. Life without eggs, cheese, milk chocolate, butter, cream and lard? Sheer madness. Especially when you consider how many of the previously listed items form the principal ingredients of yummy treats.


PS. Sorry for doing this before hearing back from you, NoXion -- I PM'd you about this about a month ago but got no reply. :(
The same should be done with the other polls in this forum, as the results no longer are accurate.Sorry, I must have missed it. I've stopped getting pop-up alerts when I recieve new PMs for some reason.

[Jazzratt]

I eat meat, I am about to eat meat and every meal I've had today bar breakfast had meat in it.

I also want to start chanting "6-1 to the meat eaters!" like I'm on a football terrace.

[Cult of Reason]

I eat meat, have always regularly eaten meat (lucky me) and will continue to do so as so far the opposing camp have not come up with any convincing arguments not to.

[Kropotesta]

I find it quite shocked that so many lefties so far ain't posted to being veg. not just cos of the lack of concern for the animals but also ignoring the enviromental and economic problems the meat and diary industry produce.

[bellyscratch]

Viva is good veggie and vegan website that explains why going veggie is good for your diet, good for animals, good for the environment and good for less fortunate humans too

i tried to post a link to the website but it wouldnt let me so ill do it like this

www dot viva dot org dot uk

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I find it quite shocked that so many lefties so far ain't posted to being veg. not just cos of the lack of concern for the animals

Because having one's throat torn out by wild predators is so much nicer than a bolt to the brain. Oh wait.:rolleyes:


but also ignoring the enviromental and economic problems the meat and diary industry produce.Why highlight the problems of the meat and dairy industry when there are far more damaging industries in existance?

Not only that, but if in the unlikely event that everyone were to stop eating meat today, capitalism would simply ensure that non-meat food production would be expanded. This means bulldozing hedgerows that host all kinds of wildlife in favour of vast, monocultural plains of corn/maize/soya/whatever to make the job easier for combine harvesters.

The problem is ultimately capitalism, not people's dietary choices.


Viva is good veggie and vegan website that explains why going veggie is good for your diet,

It is perfectly possible to eat a healthy diet that includes meat. In fact, it is possible to eat a diet that is mostly meat and still be healthy - lean meat is highly nutritious.


good for animals,False. If people who really care about the welfare of animals stop eating meat, then the only people who will eat meat are those who do not care about animal welfare - they will eat the cheapest and tastiest meat, regardless of cruelty.

It is a far better idea to encourage people to buy meat that has been reared in good conditions - a well treated stock animal has a much more pleasant existance than any wild animal.


good for the environmentThat is entirely dependent on good practices, not whether one rears animals or grows crops. How are huge, monotonous belts of monoculture crop fields better than a mixed farming approach? Growing crops can be just as polluting and disruptive as raising stock.


and good for less fortunate humans too"less fortunate humans" don't get enough to eat because of inherent inequalities in the capitalist economy, not because of the kebab I had last Sunday.

[Led Zeppelin]

The animals in question are bred for the purpose of us eating them, hence vegetarianism is absurd.

[Kropotesta]

Because having one's throat torn out by wild predators is so much nicer than a bolt to the brain. Oh wait.:rolleyes:

Why highlight the problems of the meat and dairy industry when there are far more damaging industries in existance?

Not only that, but if in the unlikely event that everyone were to stop eating meat today, capitalism would simply ensure that non-meat food production would be expanded. This means bulldozing hedgerows that host all kinds of wildlife in favour of vast, monocultural plains of corn/maize/soya/whatever to make the job easier for combine harvesters.

The problem is ultimately capitalism, not people's dietary choices.

What the fuck? I don't believe in the occupation of humans nor animals. do you have any fucking idea what captivity is like for animals? at least with wild predators they can develop straergies to avoid being eaten instead of being cradle to grave by humans.

the meat and diary industry produces the most CO2 emissions pretty much. like 30% if not more whereas planes which everyone bangs on about around 8%.....and your ideas that non meat production would then fill this gap is laughable as that is not where the emmissions come from.
also if we used the land we use for rearing animals for growing crops we could feed the world 3 times over.

[Kropotesta]

The animals in question are bred for the purpose of us eating them, hence vegetarianism is absurd.
no life is determined by the owner, grower, birther.

[Kropotesta]

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/animal-liberation-as-a-tool-against-capitalism

interesting thread on libcom

[bellyscratch]

Because having one's throat torn out by wild predators is so much nicer than a bolt to the brain. Oh wait.:rolleyes:

Why highlight the problems of the meat and dairy industry when there are far more damaging industries in existance?

Not only that, but if in the unlikely event that everyone were to stop eating meat today, capitalism would simply ensure that non-meat food production would be expanded. This means bulldozing hedgerows that host all kinds of wildlife in favour of vast, monocultural plains of corn/maize/soya/whatever to make the job easier for combine harvesters.

The problem is ultimately capitalism, not people's dietary choices.



It is perfectly possible to eat a healthy diet that includes meat. In fact, it is possible to eat a diet that is mostly meat and still be healthy - lean meat is highly nutritious.

False. If people who really care about the welfare of animals stop eating meat, then the only people who will eat meat are those who do not care about animal welfare - they will eat the cheapest and tastiest meat, regardless of cruelty.

It is a far better idea to encourage people to buy meat that has been reared in good conditions - a well treated stock animal has a much more pleasant existance than any wild animal.

That is entirely dependent on good practices, not whether one rears animals or grows crops. How are huge, monotonous belts of monoculture crop fields better than a mixed farming approach? Growing crops can be just as polluting and disruptive as raising stock.

"less fortunate humans" don't get enough to eat because of inherent inequalities in the capitalist economy, not because of the kebab I had last Sunday.

i do agree with what your saying, but limiting all problems to the fault of capitalism is just naive and even in a socialist society problems will still arise. Once capitalism is finally eradicated, i agree that conditions should be improved, but more needs to be done to make of them of a satisfactory standard. Im not saying im an expert and know all the solutions.

I know there are more important issues than animal welfare from a human perspective but, i feel these issues still need to be taken into consideration from moral point of view.

[Vanguard1917]

I eat meat, and i feel lucky that i'm able to add meat to my daily diet. Hundreds of millions of people around the world, due to their poverty, unfortunately still cannot.

[Kropotesta]

it's ridculous how revolutionists are all for overthrowing their oppressors but then are all for oppression of other living beings.

[Colonello Buendia]

I eat pretty much anything that once lived.

[black magick hustla]

I find it quite shocked that so many lefties so far ain't posted to being veg. not just cos of the lack of concern for the animals but also ignoring the enviromental and economic problems the meat and diary industry produce.

i finished eating two delicious hot dogs mmmmmmm later i had cookies (which prolly had butter) with two delicious cups of chocolate milk

poor little moomoos that are now in my stomach :(:(:(

[black magick hustla]

if there aint booze, fats and sugars i dont want your revolution

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What the fuck? I don't believe in the occupation of humans nor animals.

How does one "occupy" a person or animal? Most animals raised for slaughter have been bred that way for centuries if not millennia, and would never survive in the wild.


do you have any fucking idea what captivity is like for animals?As a matter of fact, I do. Farm stock live a life of pampered luxury compared to a wild existence - humans protect them from predators, give them vaccines and medical treatment, and provide them with a steady supply of food. All without having to compete with members of their own species. They don't even get to die of old age - they are slaughtered well before they get too weak to fend for themselves.

Of course, it's not all a bed of roses, and cruel practices exist. But that is an argument for farming reform, not vegetarianism.


at least with wild predators they can develop straergies to avoid being eaten instead of being cradle to grave by humans.As farm animals, they don't even have to go to that effort.


the meat and diary industry produces the most CO2 emissions pretty much. like 30% if not more whereas planes which everyone bangs on about around 8%.....Interesting figures. Did you pull them out of your arse? And in any case, I see no evidence for the meat and dairy industries actually adding CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn't there in the first place, unlike burning fossil fuels which adds CO2 to the atmosphere that would otherwise be locked up in the Earth's crust.


and your ideas that non meat production would then fill this gap is laughable as that is not where the emmissions come from. There's more to environmental damage than CO2 emissions. Crop farming uses lots of petroleum based fertilisers, erodes soil, reduces biodiversity, destroys rainforests (especially soya), uses a hell of a lot of water, and pollutes rivers and streams. You also forget that the land that used to feed animals would then be used to feed humans instead - plants are generally a less expensive and energy dense food source than meat, and the newly released crop harvests would have to make up the shortfall, both nutritional and economic.


also if we used the land we use for rearing animals for growing crops we could feed the world 3 times over.Nonsense. Not all farmland is suitable for crop growing - try growing vegetables on the Brecon Beacons. Yet you would have us do away with lamb. Also, mixed stock-and-crop farming methods are much more effecient and environmentally friendly than crop methods alone - the problem, once again, is not dietary but economic. In both stock farming and crop growing under capitalism, long-term sustainability is sacrificed for short-term gain. A synergy of crop growing and stock raising would be far more sustainable and environmentally friendly, but that synergy does not exist. It should be encouraged. It doesn't help that there are too many damn people on this planet. Dramatic reductions in birthrates are needed.

Also, I'd be interested in where you got that "three times over" figure from.


it's ridculous how revolutionists are all for overthrowing their oppressors but then are all for oppression of other living beings.How can you "oppress" something that can't even meaningfully communicate with human beings, let alone elaborate on such abstract concepts as "oppression"?


i do agree with what your saying, but limiting all problems to the fault of capitalism is just naive and even in a socialist society problems will still arise.

I would say it is even more naive to blame the world's problems on a dietary choices rather than the worldwide economic system that governs how resources are used and allocated, and does so in an unequal and oppressive way.

[Kropotesta]

you are just a cruel ****. One reason I hate alot of scienctists.
people how been exploited and enslaved by the state and capitalism for ages aswell, yet it's ok to exploit animals in a way you object to?
just cos they can't necessarily communicate with humans then why does that make them any less of a being? so if you raised a person without learning to speak, then they can't be oppressed as they can't speak against it? haha
face it humans are nasty bastards running the world in the ground through greed.
just cos you disagree with the figures don't make then untrue you fucking freak.

[Vanguard1917]

also if we used the land we use for rearing animals for growing crops we could feed the world 3 times over.


An extremely silly statement. We can already feed the world with the amount that we can produce. The problem of world hunger is not caused by any absolute failure to produce enough food; it's caused by flawed capitalist distribution.

According to your logic, the solution to world hunger is not the overthrow of capitalism, but merely everyone turning vegetarian.

I'm sure you're capable of seeing just how ridiculous such a formulation is.

[Kropotesta]

An extremely silly statement. We can already feed the world with the amount that we can produce. The problem of world hunger is not caused by any absolute failure to produce food; it's caused by flawed capitalist distribution.

According to your logic, the solution to world hunger is not the overthrow of capitalism, but merely everyone turning vegetarian.

I'm sure you're capable of seeing just how ridiculous such a formulation is.
fool.
since when did i say anything not about otherthrowing capitalism? and vegetarianism? no. veganism as it liberates all animals. they are not here to work for us unlike some sick freaks here think they.
the only reason the is so high amount of meat and diary is because it's easy and brings alot of dough in.

[Vanguard1917]

Please don't troll the forum.

You said that we can end world hunger by ending meat production. This assumes that world hunger is being caused by an absolute failure to produce enough food. That is, of course, bullshit: we already produce enough food to feed the world.

The problem is capitalist distribution, and the only solution is socialist revolution. According to your dunderheaded 'logic', however, we just need everyone to turn vegan.

[Sentinel]

I find it quite shocked that so many lefties so far ain't posted to being veg.

Me too! Personally I'm a fruitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism) of the type who only eat self-fallen fruit, in order to not cause the plants suffering. :)

Not really. :lol:

I eat meat, it's healthy and nutritious. Humans are omnivores, best off eating a mixed diet -- meat eating is rational. Being anthropocentric to the core, I lack any kind of moral objections to meat eating as well.


Once more there is obvious problems with the various poll options.

I'm sorry, I should have refreshed my memory of the complaints in the old thread andtaken them into account, but got in a hurry.

I agree that the definition of freeganism is simplistic, but don't see how it would be outright incorrect though..? I have chaged it into yes, but I won't buy it now, is that better?

Lacto-ovo-vegetarians imo deserve an option of their own, as they include animal products but not the animals themselves in theior diet.


Sorry, I must have missed it. I've stopped getting pop-up alerts when I recieve new PMs for some reason.

You need to enable that function through the User CP. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you are just a cruel ****.

Oh yes, I support farming methods that ensure the welfare of the animals before slaughter. How cruel of me. :rolleyes:


One reason I hate alot of scienctists.I think you will find that most scientists believe that they are working for the betterment of humanity. If the sum total of human happiness is increased by vivisecting/testing an animal now and then, or by rearing animals for slaughter, then so be it. I value the human species above all else.


people how been exploited and enslaved by the state and capitalism for ages aswell, yet it's ok to exploit animals in a way you object to?Animals don't experience economic inequality, nor is their freedom of speech limited. Animals are not oppressed, period. Animals are sometimes tortured for the pleasure of human beings, but I am against such practices. Killing animals for food, clothing or any other good reason (such as culling etc) should be as quick and painless as possible.


just cos they can't necessarily communicate with humans then why does that make them any less of a being?Without any meaningful communication, the only way we can gauge an animal's intelligence is by it's actions. And by all accounts most animals raised for slaughter do not display anywhere near the intelligence levels of say, a dolphin or chimpanzee. And in any case, animal needs and desires are secondary to ours.


so if you raised a person without learning to speak, then they can't be oppressed as they can't speak against it? hahaThe problem with your cute little analogy is that we know that human beings are capable of speech and rational thought. So far no cow, rabbit, sheep, pig or chicken has demonstrated either of these abilities.


face it humans are nasty bastards running the world in the ground through greed.Just like any other species in our position would. No species achieves such mastery of their environment like humans have by doing anything but putting their own interests and survival first.

Civilisation, though, has the potential to transform us, because nothing quite like it exists in nature. Maybe someday we'll be able to arrange things so that every living thing lives in a state of perpetual bliss, but until that point, it's humans first!


just cos you disagree with the figures don't make then untrue you fucking freak.I never disputed your claims, I asked you to back them up, which you have refused to do. This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you're a lying sack of shit.

[Kropotesta]

I eat meat, it's healthy and nutritious. Humans are omnivores, best off eating a mixed diet -- meat eating is rational. Being anthropocentric to the core, I lack any kind of moral objections to meat eating as well.

i hope you don't red meat then as human digestive system isn't set up or designed for it.
all you can eat healthy and nutritiously without causing harm to other beings. also red meat and diary isn't actually good for you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i hope you don't red meat then as human digestive system isn't set up or designed for it.

That's wierd, because my digestive system deals with red meat just fine. In fact, one of the best meals I ever ate included a steak.


all you can eat healthy and nutritiously without causing harm to other beings.Really? Please think of the poor carrots and potatos that were cruelly ripped out of the ground to feed you next time you have a vegetable curry.

Not to mention the hundreds of small animals horribly mangled by the combine harvester that harvested the wheat for the bread you're eating.


also red meat and diary isn't actually good for you.This is rather funny, since the body needs protein and fat, and red meat and dairy are good sources for both nutrients respectively.

[Kropotesta]

Oh yes, I support farming methods that ensure the welfare of the animals before slaughter. How cruel of me. :rolleyes:

I think you will find that most scientists believe that they are working for the betterment of humanity. If the sum total of human happiness is increased by vivisecting/testing an animal now and then, or by rearing animals for slaughter, then so be it. I value the human species above all else.

Animals don't experience economic inequality, nor is their freedom of speech limited. Animals are not oppressed, period. Animals are sometimes tortured for the pleasure of human beings, but I am against such practices. Killing animals for food, clothing or any other good reason (such as culling etc) should be as quick and painless as possible.

Without any meaningful communication, the only way we can gauge an animal's intelligence is by it's actions. And by all accounts most animals raised for slaughter do not display anywhere near the intelligence levels of say, a dolphin or chimpanzee. And in any case, animal needs and desires are secondary to ours.

The problem with your cute little analogy is that we know that human beings are capable of speech and rational thought. So far no cow, rabbit, sheep, pig or chicken has demonstrated either of these abilities.

Just like any other species in our position would. No species achieves such mastery of their environment like humans have by doing anything but putting their own interests and survival first.

yes supporting slaughter does make you a cruel ****.

less than 10% of information gained via vivisection is useful as surprisingly animals have a different genetic make up to humans.....

so killing something against it's own will isn't oppressive? mate you're a fucking joke.

that's very authoritive to so that you come before another. is this really the right site for you?

no rational thought from pigs? erm pigs are considered the four or third smartest creatures around. but hey you obviously already knew that.....

nice naziesque views to the enviroment there.

[Kropotesta]

That's wierd, because my digestive system deals with red meat just fine. In fact, one of the best meals I ever ate included a steak.

Really? Please think of the poor carrots and potatos that were cruelly ripped out of the ground to feed you next time you have a vegetable curry.

Not to mention the hundreds of small animals horribly mangled by the combine harvester that harvested the wheat for the bread you're eating.

This is rather funny, since the body needs protein and fat, and red meat and dairy are good sources for both nutrients respectively.
you obviously have no basic grasp of simple biology.

Red meat and cow's milk are unhealthy for human consumption for several reasons, most notably because cows are raised in an extremely unhealthy environment by the ranching industry. They're pumped full of illegal hormones, they are actually fed chicken litter and ground up diseased animals as part of their daily meals, and they are raised on feed that's typically laced with heavy metals (cadmium and lead) as well as pesticide residues. When you eat beef (http://www.naturalnews.com/beef.html), you're eating all this, second-hand style. The cow ate it first, stored it in its tissues, and then you ate it. Many of these chemicals, by the way, tend to concentrate in animal fat tissues, so the juicier your hamburger, the more toxic substances it's likely to contain.

here's also a link
http://www.naturalnews.com/000983.html

[Kropotesta]

ANIMAL PRODUCTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT


Throughout the 20th century growing populations and ever-increasing industrialisation have had devastating effects on our environment. Global warming, widespread pollution, deforestation, land degradation and species extinction are just some of the problems we now face. The full consequences of such large-scale environmental degradation are impossible to judge, but what we do know is that the impacts on humanity will be most devastating in the developing world. With hundreds of millions of people already not obtaining enough food to meet their basic needs and billions of people lacking access to safe water supplies, it is imperative that we find sustainable methods of food production that do not further degrade planetary health.
"Removing the causes of environmental degradation is often more effective than seeking to control the symptoms."
Cornelis de Haan, Livestock Adviser to the World Bank [1] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/environmentRef.php)
Agriculture in general is one of the most resource-intensive and environmentally damaging aspects of industrialised living. What this means for us as individuals is that if we are trying to reduce our car use, limit the amount of water we waste, become more 'energy-efficient' and generally lessen our environmental impact, then we should also examine our eating habits.
People are increasingly becoming aware of the direct correlation between what they eat every day and the health of the planet. Environmentally conscious consumers are concerned not only with food miles, over-packaging, pesticide use and GM foods, but also question the environmental sustainability of modern animal husbandry. Farmers used to be seen as 'custodian's of the countryside,' but the overriding image of modern industrial farming is one of destruction and waste.
World meat production has quadrupled in the past 50 years and livestock now outnumber people by more than 3 to 1. [2] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/environmentRef.php) In other words, the livestock population is expanding at a faster rate than the human population. This trend contributes to all of the environmental problems already outlined. A report commissioned by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank concluded that factory farming, "acts directly on land, water, air and biodiversity through the emission of animal waste, use of fossil fuels and substitution of animal genetic resources. In addition, it affects the global land base indirectly through its effect on the arable land needed to satisfy its feed concentrate requirements. Ammonia emissions from manure storage and application lead to localized acid rain and ailing forests." [3] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/environmentRef.php)

ENERGY


WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?


We are always being told that we need to be more energy efficient. Be it through faulty boilers, inefficient light bulbs, over-filled kettles or driving to the paper shop, most of us are guilty of wasting energy in one way or another.
Over-consumption of energy is a major problem because the vast majority of the energy we use still comes from fossil fuels. The burning of oil, coal and gas result in the emission of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, and is the main contributor to human-induced climate change (see Global Warming).
While this is undoubtedly the most important implication of energy consumption, it is not the only problem. Other environmental consequences of the burning of fossil fuels include air pollution from toxic gases, acidification of land and water, contamination of ocean environments through oil spills and destruction of habitats through mining and drilling. [1] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php) Exploitation of fossil fuels all too often has serious implications for indigenous people, whose land rights are frequently ignored and lifestyles destroyed by the construction of mines and pipelines.
With little serious investment in alternative renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar power, the onus has been shifted to the consumer to try to cut individual energy use. We can switch our power supply to companies that deal in renewable energy sources and we can choose to minimise our 'fossil footprint' through reducing the amount of energy we consume. One of the most energy-intensive aspects of modern life is industrial agriculture, and small changes in the food we eat every day can have a significant impact on the amount of energy we use throughout our lives.
Environmentally conscious consumers are becoming more and more aware of the benefits of buying locally produced food to cut down on 'food miles'(the distance travelled - usually by lorry - by our food before it reaches our plates) and eating seasonally to reduce the energy used to create artificial climates in greenhouses. But the impacts of the type of food eaten are often overlooked by environmental pressure groups. THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION

"The industrial system is a poor converter of fossil energy. Fossil energy is a major input of intensive livestock production systems, mainly indirectly for the production of feed." [2] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php)
A study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture concluded that their results "pointedly reveal the high level of dependency of the US beef cattle industry on fossil fuels. These findings in turn bring into question the ecological and economic risks associated with the current technology driving North American agriculture." [3] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php)
This same technology is being adopted as a model for industrial livestock production throughout the world. The study's review of energy inputs versus energy outputs in food calories showed that while corn and barley produce about five times as much food energy as the energy used in production, beef production uses about three times as much energy as the food energy produced. This means that corn and barley production is around 15 times more efficient in terms of fossil fuel input than beef production.
Studies conducted in The Netherlands suggest that, inefficient as it is, beef production is less of a waste of fossil fuels than some other types of meat production. Brand & Melman calculate that 1kg of beef requires a fossil energy input of 15.5 Megajoules (MJ), poultry meat 18.1 MJ/kg, pork 18.9 MJ/kg, and veal production a massive 46.8 MJ/kg. [4] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php) These figures are calculated for liveweight rather than edible protein, so the real energy input per kg of meat will be quite a bit higher. Similar studies conducted in Canada found even higher energy inputs. [5] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php)
The vast majority of this energy is used in producing, transporting and processing feed. Little wonder, then, that the WorldWatch Institute has stated that "American feed (for livestock) takes so much energy to grow that it might as well be a petroleum byproduct." [6] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php)
Pimentel and Goodland argue that aquaculture (fish-farming) is even more feed and energy intensive than terrestrial agriculture. Cultured fish have to be fed grain (as well as animal waste) and large amounts of energy are used in aquaculture to pump water. According to their calculations, it takes about 34 kcal of fossil energy to produce 1 kcal of catfish protein. [7] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/energyRef.php) Contrast this with estimations that corn and barley produce about 5 times as much food energy as they use in terms of fossil energy. A plant-based vegan diet uses substantially less energy than a diet based on animal products. This energy is virtually all derived from fossil fuels, making meat and dairy consumption a contributing factor in air pollution, acidification, oil spills, habitat destruction and global warming.

LAND


FEEDING THE WORLD


"The world must create five billions vegans in the next several decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land."
Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues . [1] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php)
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that around 840 million people are undernourished. That's roughly 14% of the human population. On average, around 25,000 people die every day from hunger-related causes. Each year 6 million children under the age of 5 die as a result of hunger and malnutrition - this is roughly equivalent to all the under-5s in France and Italy combined. [2] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php) With the world's population expected to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050, one of the most urgent questions we now face is how we, as a species, will feed ourselves in the 21st century.
Land availability is one of the main constraints on food production. The earth has only a limited area of viable agricultural land, so how this land is used is central to our ability to feed the world. At the moment, the problem is not lack of food - it is widely agreed that enough food is produced worldwide to feed a global population of 8-10 billion people - but lack of availability. Poverty, powerlessness, war, corruption and greed all conspire to prevent equal access to food, and there are no simple solutions to the problem. However, Western lifestyles - and diet in particular - can play a large part in depriving the world's poor of much needed food.
"In this era of global abundance, why does the word continue to tolerate the daily hunger and deprivation of more than 800 million people?"
Jacques Diouf, Director-General, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. [3] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php)
THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION
World livestock production exceeds 21 billion animals each year. The earth's livestock population is more then three and a half times its human population. [4] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php)
In all, the raising of livestock takes up more than two-thirds of agricultural land, and one third of the total land area. [5] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php) This is apparently justifiable because by eating the foods that humans can't digest and by processing these into meat, milk and eggs, farmed animals provide us with an extra, much-needed food source. Or so the livestock industry would like you to believe. In fact, livestock are increasingly being fed with grains and cereals that could have been directly consumed by humans or were grown on land that could have been used to grow food rather than feed. The developing world's undernourished millions are now in direct competition with the developed world's livestock - and they are losing.
In 1900 just over 10% of the total grain grown worldwide was fed to animals; by 1950 this figure had risen to over 20%; by the late 1990s it stood at around 45%. Over 60% of US grain is fed to livestock. [6] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php)
This use of the world's grain harvest would be acceptable in terms of world food production if it were not for the fact that meat and dairy production is a notoriously inefficient use of energy. All animals use the energy they get from food to move around, keep warm and perform their day to day bodily functions. This means that only a percentage of the energy that farmed animals obtain from plant foods is converted into meat or dairy products. Estimates of efficiency levels vary, but in a recent study [7] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php), Professor Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba, Canada, calculated that beef cattle raised on feedlots may convert as little as 2.5% of their gross feed energy into food for human consumption. Estimated conversion of protein was only a little more efficient, with less than 5% of the protein in feed being converted to edible animal protein. These figures are especially damning since the diet of cattle at the feedlot consists largely of human-edible grains.
Feedlot-raised beef is an extreme example, being the least feed-efficient animal product, but even the most efficient - milk - represents a waste of precious agricultural land. Prof Smil calculates that the most efficient dairy cows convert between 55 and 67% of their gross feed energy into milk food energy.
Efficiency can also be measured in terms of the land required per calorie of food obtained. When Gerbens-Leenes et al. [8] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php) examined land use for all food eaten in the Netherlands, they found that beef required the most land per kilogram and vegetables required the least. The figures they obtained can be easily converted to land required for one person's energy needs for a year by multiplying 3000 kcal (a day's energy) by 365 days to obtain annual calorie needs (1,095,000 kcal) and dividing this by the calories per kilogram. The figures obtained are summarised in table 1:

Food Land per kg (m2) Calories per kilogram Land per person per year (m2)Beef 20.9 2800 8173Pork 8.9 3760 2592Eggs 3.5 1600 2395Milk 1.2 640 2053Fruit 0.5 400 1369Vegetables 0.3 250 1314Potatoes 0.2 800 274
On the basis of these figures, a vegan diet can meet calorie and protein needs from just 300 square metres using mainly potatoes. A more varied diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, grains and legumes would take about 700 square metres. Replacing a third of the calories in this diet with calories from milk and eggs would double the land requirements and a typical European omnivorous diet would require five times the amount of land required for a varied vegan diet.
In looking at land use for animal products this research makes the very favourable assumption that by-products of plant food production used in animal agriculture do not require any land. For example, soybean land is assigned 100% to human soy oil consumption with no land use attributed to the oil cakes used for meat and dairy production. This stacks the odds in favour of animal foods, so the figures in this paper are all the more compelling as to the higher land demands of animal farming.
GHOST ACRES
Most of the land wasted on growing feed for livestock is in developing countries, where food is most scarce. Europe, for example, imports 70% of its protein for animal feed, causing a European Parliament report to state that 'Eurpoe can feed its people but not its [farm] animals.' [9] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php) Friends of the Earth have calculated that the UK imported 4.1 million hectares of other people's land in 1996 [10] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php).
"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres' belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of the Centre for Food Policy. [11] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/landRef.php)
This land contributes to developing world malnutrition by driving impoverished populations to grow cash crops for animal feed, rather than food for themselves. Intensive monoculture crop production causes soils to suffer nutrient depletion and thus pushes economically vulnerable populations further away from sustainable agricultural systems. All so that the world's wealthy can indulge their unhealthy taste for animal flesh.
PUT OUT TO PASTURE
Although grain-dependent industrial agriculture is the fastest growing type of animal production, not all farmed animals are raised in this way. Much of the world's livestock is still raised on pasture. Worldwide, livestock use roughly 3.4 billion hectares of grazing land.
Proponents of animal agriculture point out that most pastureland is wholly unsuitable for growing grain to feed for humans. They argue that by converting grass, and other plants that are indigestible to humans, into energy and protein for human consumption, livestock provide a valuable addition to our food resources. The reality is that land currently used to graze cattle and other ruminants is almost invariably suitable for growing trees - such a use would not only provide a good source of land-efficient, health-giving fruit and nuts, but would also have many environmental benefits.
Quite simply, we do not have enough land to feed everyone on an animal-based diet. So while 840 million people do not have enough food to live normal lives, we continue to waste two-thirds of agricultural land by obtaining only a small fraction of its potential calorific value. Obviously access to food is an extremely complex issue and there are no easy answers. However, the fact remains that the world's population is increasing and viable agricultural land is diminishing. If we are to avoid future global food scarcity we must find sustainable ways of using our natural resource base. Industrial livestock production is unsustainable and unjustifiable.

WATER


WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?


The UN Water Assessment Programme states: "At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Earth, with its diverse and abundant life forms, including over six billion humans, is facing a serious water crisis." [1] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
We all know that ours is a Blue Planet, mostly made up of water, so it can be difficult to believe that this most precious of natural resources could ever become so scarce as to endanger future food production and general planetary health. However, only 2.53% of the earth's water is fresh and most of this is inaccessible - some two-thirds being captured in glaciers and permanent snow. [2] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) The remaining fresh water is almost entirely made up of groundwater.
According to Sandra Postel, Director of the Global Water Policy Project, the world overdraws 200 km3 of its global groundwater 'bank account' every year. [3] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) This over-exploitation has serious consequences for future food production and global health. In fact, the WorldWatch Institute rates aquifer depletion, alongside HIV and shrinking cropland area per person, as one of the three most potentially devastating problems facing our species. [4] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
Water pollution serves to compound the problem, with global wastewater estimated to be in the region of 1,500 km3. The UN suggests that 1 litre of wastewater pollutes, on average, 8 litres of freshwater, which would result in a freshwater pollution burden of around 12,000 km3 worldwide. [5] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
Estimates suggest that climate change could cause a 20% increase in global water scarcity. [6] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
In their 'Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000' UNICEF and the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimate that at present 1.1 billion people have no access to safe water supplies. 2.4 billion people have no access to any form of improved sanitation.
"As a consequence, 2.2 million people in developing countries, most of them children, die every year from diseases associated with lack of safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene" - Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director-General, WHO and Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, UNICEF. [7] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
The situation is predicted to worsen as population expands and consumption per capita increases as more and more people adopt resource-intensive Western-style lifestyles.
The UN's 2003 Water Development Report predicts that "by the middle of this century, at worst 7 billion people in sixty countries will be water-scarce, at best 2 billion people in forty-eight countries." [8] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) In fact, the problem is so serious that many environmental and political commentators predict that the resource wars of the future will be fought over water rather than oil.
To ensure our basic needs, we all need 20 to 50 litres of water free from harmful contaminants each day. [9] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) THE LIVESTOCK CONNECTION


Worldwide, agriculture uses up 70% of fresh water resources. [10] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) This is largely because a lot of cropland has to be irrigated to make it agriculturally viable and to increase and improve crop yields.
As has been shown, much of this land is entirely wasted by being used to grow feed crops for livestock rather than food for people. The water used on this land - as well as that consumed directly by livestock - represents yet another wasted resource.
There has been much disagreement over precisely how much water is squandered in this way. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University's Ecology Department has calculated that it takes 500 litres of water to produce 1kg of potatoes, 900 litres per kg of wheat, 3,500 litres per kg of digestible chicken flesh and a massive 100,000 litres for 1kg of beef. [11] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php)
A more conservative estimate comes from Beckett and Oltjen of the University of California's Department of Animal Science. [12] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) In a study partly financed by the California Beef Council, they concluded that wheat production requires 120 litres per kg and beef 3,700 litres per kg. It is interesting to look a little more closely at these figures as they show that, even by the most conservative of estimates, beef production still represents a scandalous misuse of one of our most precious natural resources.
1 kg of meat yields about 2800 kcal and 174 g of protein. [13] (http://www.vegansociety.com/html/references/waterRef.php) 1 kg of wheat yields 3300 kcal and 110 g of protein (100g after adjustment for digestibility). According to Beckett and Oltjen, the kilogram of beef requires 3,700 litres of water and the kilogram of wheat requires 120 litres of water. If we put all of these figures together, we find that whilst wheat provides us with an average 27.5 kcal for each litre of water used, beef provides only 0.76 kcal per litre. This means that - based on the data presented to show that other figures were "overstated" - beef still requires 36 times as much water per calorie as wheat. When the same calculations are done for digestible protein, wheat comes out as 18 times more water efficient than beef. These figures are summarised in table 2.
Calories Digestible protein Water Calories per litreProtein per litreWheat 3300 100 120 27.50 0.833Beef 2800 174 3700 0.76 0.047Wheat/Beef 36 18Table 2: Comparison of water use in beef and wheat production; Source: Beckett & Oltjen, 1993; USDA nutritional database.
By these figures, one kilogram of beef uses as much water as:
40 baths
300 toilet flushes
100 times the clean water needed by an individual according to UNESCO Since a large percentage of the crops we feed to our farmed animals are grown on 'ghost acres' in developing countries, this wasted water is coming not just from our own reserves but from the very countries where drinking water is most scarce.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yes supporting slaughter does make you a cruel ****.

Do you have anything to offer other than unsupported statements?


less than 10% of information gained via vivisection is useful as surprisingly animals have a different genetic make up to humans.....Substantiate this blanket assertion. How do I know that you didn't just pull that number out of your rectal cavity like all your other figures?


so killing something against it's own will isn't oppressive? mate you're a fucking joke.Of course it isn't. To be oppressed, one has to realise that one is being oppressed. Animals have not demonstrated any kind of understanding of oppression. They react to painful stimuli, but that is not the same as oppression. That is simply pain.


that's very authoritive to so that you come before another. is this really the right site for you?I'm having trouble understanding the first sentence in this quote. Perhaps you could rephrase, and take care to preview your posts for legibility before submitting them?


no rational thought from pigs? erm pigs are considered the four or third smartest creatures around. but hey you obviously already knew that.....Pigs are so smart, they have started demanding rights. Wait, they haven't. Whoopsie. Looks likes somebody is still having problems distinguishing between cruelty and oppression. Oppression (I'm beginning to hate having to type that word out!) may be cruel, but not all cruelty is oppression. have I made myself quite clear yet? Am I getting through to you?


nice naziesque views to the enviroment there.Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum). You have invoked Godwin's Law. Well done for being a complete and utter failure at debating.

[black magick hustla]

i bet conflicting interests is a silly suburbanite that has tenous links with nature at best. people that live in rural areas, and that have contact with wildlife dont really give a shit about animals dying and ending in their pretty bellies. the only people who care that much about animals are people who rarely have contact with wildlife, like college student.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Red meat and cow's milk are unhealthy for human consumption for several reasons, most notably because cows are raised in an extremely unhealthy environment by the ranching industry.
They're pumped full of illegal hormones, they are actually fed chicken litter and ground up diseased animals as part of their daily meals, and they are raised on feed that's typically laced with heavy metals (cadmium and lead) as well as pesticide residues. When you eat beef (http://www.naturalnews.com/beef.html), you're eating all this, second-hand style. The cow ate it first, stored it in its tissues, and then you ate it. Many of these chemicals, by the way, tend to concentrate in animal fat tissues, so the juicier your hamburger, the more toxic substances it's likely to contain.Well that's OK, because I eat British beef, and in the British beef industry (as well as in many European countries) many practices common in America are banned. In any case, that is once again merely an argument for farming reform - beef and milk are not inherently bad for you. If you eat a salad infected with E.Coli or contaminated with heavy metals, does that mean that all salad is bad for you?

PS: If you can't summarise the salient points from an article and reference the sources, instead of cut & pasting a huge block of text from a vegan advocacy site (a neutral source I'm sure, *snicker*), refrain from posting rather than showing the whole world you don't do your own thinking.

[Kropotesta]

i bet conflicting interests is a silly suburbanite that has tenous links with nature at best. people that live in rural areas, and that have contact with wildlife dont really give a shit about animals dying and ending in their pretty bellies. the only people who care that much about animals are people who rarely have contact with wildlife, like college student.
sorry but your assumptions are wrong. i do live relatively rurally.

[Kropotesta]

Well that's OK, because I eat British beef, and in the British beef industry (as well as in many European countries) many practices common in America are banned. In any case, that is once again merely an argument for farming reform - beef and milk are not inherently bad for you. If you eat a salad infected with E.Coli or contaminated with heavy metals, does that mean that all salad is bad for you?

PS: If you can't summarise the salient points from an article and reference the sources, instead of cut & pasting a huge block of text from a vegan advocacy site (a neutral source I'm sure, *snicker*), refrain from posting rather than showing the whole world you don't do your own thinking.
no I'm not going to go through pick select things as i can't be bothered.

I do my own thinking, you are just a cruel person who thrives on the misery and death of others even though it is not necessary. Wow we certainly are the must intelligently compassionate dcreatures on the health ain't we.

[Kropotesta]

Do you have anything to offer other than unsupported statements?

Substantiate this blanket assertion. How do I know that you didn't just pull that number out of your rectal cavity like all your other figures?

http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/vivisection.htm

[Saorsa]

There's really no point in arguing with this person, his/her silly beliefs are not going to be destroyed through logical argument, as they have no basis in logic in the first place.

The basic fallacy of veganism, as I see it (apart from it being pointlessly self-limiting with regard to one's diet) is the fact that it comes from a bourgeois-liberal condemnation of the idea of killing. It's basically saying that it is inherently wrong to kill, whether that be to get food for oneself, to overthrow the capitalist class and it's thugs and lackeys, or at the extreme, even to defend oneself.

Hate to break it to you mate, but the time will come (if you're serious about getting rid of capitalism and bringing in socialism) when it'll be kill or be killed, when you'll either have to pick up that rifle and blast that soldier, or he's going to blast you.

Unless you're willing to kill in order to advance your cause, you are unable to advance your cause to victory. There has never in all of history been a peaceful transition between two socio-economic systems, and there never will be.

So veganism is actually a reactionary viewpoint, because it propagates the idea that killing is inherently wrong, and as without killing there can be no revolutionary progress, veganism is opposed to revolutionary progress, thus making it reactionary.

Unless you think that its ok to kill human class enemies, but it's not ok to kill a pig, cook it's flesh and consume it. :confused::scared::ohmy:

[Nakidana]

I don't eat pork.

[apathy maybe]

What's wrong with pork? (Assuming you are going to eat any meat.)

[Nakidana]

What's wrong with pork? (Assuming you are going to eat any meat.)

I'm a Muslim. :)

[apathy maybe]

Umm...

[Nakidana]

Umm...

Oops. :scared:

[RedAnarchist]

Don't we have a couple of Muslim members on this board?

I personally don't understand why eating a certain animal is dirty. Maybe if it had mad cow disease or something, but its not like eating a pig will hurt you.

[apathy maybe]

Well, my understanding of the reasoning is that pigs can have rather nasty diseases or something.

But now a days it is simply irrational.

(A couple of websites http://islamic-world.net/sister/h1.htm & http://www.webziner.com/islam/whypork.htm have some further information.)

[Nakidana]

Don't we have a couple of Muslim members on this board?

I personally don't understand why eating a certain animal is dirty. Maybe if it had mad cow disease or something, but its not like eating a pig will hurt you.

Pigs are known to carry some helminths that can be transmitted to humans. I'm sure this isn't a problem though as long as you cook the pork correctly. They don't have any functional sweat glands so they roll around in the mud to keep cool. This has probably contributed to the "unclean" image. Also the fact that they eat a lot of shit and garbage.

That said, Muslims are allowed to eat pork if forced to do so, e.g. starvation or whatever. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no I'm not going to go through pick select things as i can't be bothered.

I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to put down the most salient points you remember, having read the article. All your actions suggest you don't read properly the literature you gladly cut and paste into webforums without the owner's permission - at most you seem to just skim them for interesting figures to throw at people without citation.

To be frank, this make you look like a thoughtless ideologue, rather than someone who has actually thought about their position.


I do my own thinking,

All your posts suggest otherwise.


you are just a cruel person who thrives on the misery and death of others even though it is not necessary.

I hate to break it to you, but death is not inherently cruel and is in fact a necessary part of life. All the animals we don't eat or turn into clothing are going to die anyway, so we might as well make some use out of them - without undue cruelty of course. Comfortable living conditions and a quick death are preferable to a life of struggle followed by a painful death by predator, disease, etc.


Wow we certainly are the must intelligently compassionate dcreatures on the health ain't we.

Yes we are. We invented compassion, something that other animals have inexplicably failed to do. Can you work out why?


http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/vivisection.htm

An opinion piece doesn't eliminate the fact that real gains have been made thanks to vivisection and animal testing.

[Kropotesta]

how is taking other ideas and forumulating me own not thinking for myself?
by your logic you obviously don't think for yourself cos you're just running with the pack after being socialised into eating meat. good one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

how is taking other ideas and forumulating me own not thinking for myself?

That's not what you're doing. Copying and pasting articles is, at best, sheer laziness. It shows you are incapable of reading an article, absorbing and understanding the information contained therein, and incapable of reformulating that information in your own words in a much more concise manner.

"Thinking for yourself" also does not mean spewing out uncited statistics.


by your logic you obviously don't think for yourself cos you're just running with the pack after being socialised into eating meat. good one.

I eat meat because it tastes nice. Nothing more, nothing less. If I didn't like meat, I wouldn't eat it.

[Kropotesta]

so agreeing with articles means you can't form your own opinion? idoicy.
you asked for references and i gave you some, why are you complaining? the internet is littered with opinions so it is ignorantly naive assume that you won't be able to find on that relatively reflects yours. Plus they are research/ed articles.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

so agreeing with articles means you can't form your own opinion? idoicy.

That's not what I said at all, you strawmanning piece of shit. Go back and actually read what I wrote. You display very poor reading comprehension - reading what you seem to want to hear as opposed to what is actually written.


you asked for references and i gave you some, why are you complaining?Because you did not substantiate the claims I asked you to substantiate. Instead you cut and pasted an obviously pro-vegan article which does include real data, but fallaciously draws vegan conclusions from that data.

For example:

A plant-based vegan diet uses substantially less energy than a diet based on animal products. This energy is virtually all derived from fossil fuels, making meat and dairy consumption a contributing factor in air pollution, acidification, oil spills, habitat destruction and global warming.

This ignores the fact that crop growing is just as damaging as livestock rearing, and also handily forgets the fact that oil spills, air pollution and all that other jazz happens regardless of the existance of meat eating.

Those vast fields of beef in south america that were formerly rainforests would, in the event of the cessation of meat eating, would simply be turned into fields of cash crops, as would the fields of crops that formerly fed the beef.

The problem is that empty land is not profitable under capitalism, and so gets used. Another problem is the profit-driven approach to all agriculture, which favours massive short-term productivity to the detriment of long-term sustainability.

The problem's name is capitalism.


the internet is littered with opinions so it is ignorantly naive assume that you won't be able to find on that relatively reflects yours.Not all opinions are created equal. Some are more valid than others. the vegan opinion is invalid because of the biased, illogical conclusions it draws from data that in fact forms the basis of a strong argument for a change in agricultural methods.

Vegan websites such as the ones you have linked to are not interested in raising the quality of life of the human species. They are promoting an eco-mystic lifestyle that has an ultimately anthropomorphic view of animals.


Plus they are research/ed articles.Citing sources is only a small part of research.

[Kropotesta]

:drool:i tire of your arrogance

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

:drool:i tire of your arrogance

Concession accepted.

[proleterian fist]

well mostly I eat milk products and I eat fish.Because meat is not a cheap thing at all I'm afraid.

[victim77]

I only eat meat from animals that lived a normal life and hunted naturally such as moose and stuff.

[Sankofa]

Yes, I eat meat. I avoid pork for reasons already mentioned, but have no problems with other meat.

That being said, I do enjoy vegetarian food.

[Lector Malibu]

I eat meat and have no problems with it ethically. Matter a fact I like to start my day off with frying up some pork and bacon sausage a couple of eggs some tomatoes and mushrooms and toast. Delicious ! :cool:

[ecoanarchist]

I don't eat it because of how many people could be fed with the amount of food that is instead given to simply raise animals for food.

I know me specifically won't make a difference, but its a difference nonetheless to refuse participation.

Plus their are health benefits, and we smell better =]

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/8/747

[Vanguard1917]

I don't eat it because of how many people could be fed with the amount of food that is instead given to simply raise animals for food.


1. The food that is typically fed to farm animals is neither suitable nor desirable for human consumption. In reality, animal farming coverts food which is inedible by humams into food that is fit to be eaten by people.

2. Your first reasoning for not eating meat assumes that people are going hungry in the world as a result of an absolute failure to produce enough food. This is actually not true. We can already produce more than enough food today to feed the world. The problem is capitalist distribution.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, as I have said before, I wills top eating animals when they stop tasting so nice, and so far they haven't upheld their part of the bargain.

[F9]

Yes, i mainly eat meat.Im not a vegetable fan!

Fuserg9:star:

[ecoanarchist]

Oh I meant that you would of course have to change the type of food, not actually giving the food intended for animals to the people, but instead the volume itself.

And your second point is absolutely correct. I just also back it up by being a vegetarian, in protest of the misappropriation of food use.

How that makes sense, I don't know, it just felt right.

[pave_the_planet]

i eat meat. i think its natural that people eat meat. but the meat industry in the US is terrible and the level of meat consumption in the US is unhealthy.


im trying to get to a point where i can eat only free range meats and even then rarely

[Pirate Utopian]

Vegtables are yucky. Viva la spareribs!

[farleft]

Yes, I have no problems with eating meat.

[Lead Headache]

Meat is the man.

My sister was vegetarian for a while, but not strictly, and we would make really good dinners that consisted of lots of meat and she would have to make herself a salad. was funny.

[Miss Mindfuck.]

and we smell better =]


You know, I really haven't met many stinky ones. =P

[Maybe-not]

I am a vegetarian. Why?

meat. org/ That's why.

[Jazzratt]

I am a vegetarian. Why?
That's why.

Critical thinking hurt your head or something? I wouldn't make a dietary choice based on the opinions of some nutters with a website, but that's just me - maybe independent desicions are just a little further than you're willing to stretch your (limited) mental capacity.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I my opinion and also the opinion of everyone I've ever met with more that two braincells in the last six generation of their family whose opinion matters a damn to me the profound belief is that vegans are carrot munching cretins and have no more right to protest the eating of meat than a camel has for air conditioning of his workplace.

Veganism in the long term can actually damage the person's ability to digest meat as the body adapts to it's sudden change In status to herbivore from omnivore, a state we developed to enable us to survive healthily on practically anything we could stuff into our mouths. There is also the point of how much food must be consumed by a vegan to maintain a healthy weight build muscles and repair damage.

Also the process of digestion of vegtable matter produces larger amounts of methane than meat. Which damages the enviroment. (Just thought I'd slip that in for the eco-warriors out there.)

[EricTheRed]

I eat beef, but I try to only eat it from areas I know where it's coming from - that is, local and free-range. Partly for health issues, the other part moral, though I struggle with this because there's nothing really moral to keep an animal in captivity for the sole reason of killing it.

I also eat deer that my grandfather has shot and packaged on his own. Same with pork. I really don't eat chicken - too stringy. I don't eat fish because the smell and taste make me gag.

All in all, I find very little immoral about actually eating the flesh of another animal. When it gets right down to brass tacks, it's the food chain. If you take an animal out of the chain - whether it be human or non-human - it fucks everything up.

[EricTheRed]

I am a vegetarian. Why?
That's why.

I can understand why you would morally oppose eating meat. That's fine, but why base it on this? You can still protest the industry and eat meat and it's not conflicting. Just don't purchase their products and, smartly, engage in direct action.

[chimx]

I have been vegan for 8 years and I've done a lot of work with animal welfare groups: Farm Sanctuary, Buffalo Field Campaign, the Great American Meatout, etc.

[Redmau5]

I eat meat, and most of the time I do not have a problem with it. Now and then I think about the conditions the animals are kept in and it does trouble me sometimes, however irrational many of you think that may be. I would honestly prefer that the animals were kept in better conditions, but never to the point that it would deny someone food because of the price. I would also imagine that an animal grown naturally would be healthier for the body than one pumped full of drugs to increase growth at an abnormal rate, but I haven't done much research into so I can't really speak for sure.


There is also the point of how much food must be consumed by a vegan to maintain a healthy weight build muscles and repair damage.

I've heard this point before, yet the vegetarians/vegans I know never seem to have any such health problems. Much more health problems are related to our over-reliance on meat.

[lombas]

I only eat:

- some types of poultry
- cow, pork
- horse
- some types of fish (no marine invertebrates)

Not more than two times a week at most. I was a vegetarian for two and a half years until last summer.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I eat meat. Mostly fish and venison.

[AlleyKat]

I love eating meat and have no problems in doing so, however I am somewhat against the en masse systematic slaughter of so many animals.

[olia]

I'm a vegetarian, but eventually I would like to go vegan. I'm not going to pressure anyone into not eating meat, however, a lot of posts ago someone made the argument that farm animals are pampered. This simply isn't true....and while I'm not going to rag on someone for eating meat (unless they do so to me which I get a lot) I do have a problem with how the animals are treated. Not only that but the meat industry wastes so much food that could be used on humans, a lot of tress are cut down to make room for grazing, ....Hopefully this will all eventually change, yet even then I don't think I'd eat meat.

[Cubensis]

Vegetarian -- no dairy, no eggs.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Love meat, hate vegetables.

[RedAnarchist]

Really? You hate vegetables? I love meat as much as anyone, but I don't see why anyone would hate vegetables.

[crimsonzephyr]

Right now i don't eat meat but do eat eggs(on occasion) and drink milk. I eventually seek to become vegan, i just cant afford it right now and i don't think my parents will agree with it. Anyone who is ranges from meat mongers to already-veggies should read "The Meat You Eat". It takes a political stance on meat and discusses all key points; not just health. It is healthy of course;)

[Dean]

I recognize the right to live for all beings which have a significantly active central cortex and complex nervous system.

[piet11111]

i recognise the right of every animal to be slow roasted and served with hot sauce :drool:

[Vallegrande]

Should we really break up grasslands with 1 inch topsoil, and grow vegetables on it?? Let the cows roam on the fertile grass.

[Unicorn]

I think meat production should be increased. The cost is so high that proletarian families often can't afford buying meat.

[Raúl Duke]

I have no problem eating meat...although maybe I should eat more leaner (poultry, lamb, pork, fish, etc) meat and less red meat (red meat, cow, has higher sat fat I think than other meats.).

Noxion made some sensible points there

[Pro-Bami]

I think it's really hypocritical of some of you who call themselves anarchists that they eat meat. Anarchism means that no-one is better qualified to determine what one's life will be like than one self. Anarchism means that you're against oppression, hierarchy, racism, fascism. With all those things it's the POWER over someone else that you despise.

With animals it's no different than that. These innocent creatures are born in custady, raised in cages and killed long before their bodies have reached the age at which it would die from itself. Nor do they get a chance to save themselves from their fucked-up situation or their inevidable death. This is 'FACIST' people!! Totalitarian behavior from so-called anarchists overhere!

When animals are living free they all live with their natural instinct to survive, feed, breed and whatnot. All options are open. Sure there's a chance that some will become preys to predators, and some carnivores will starve to death without one, but at least we didn't intervene with it. It's what would happen if we wouldn't exist at all.

What man has been doing for tens of thousands of years is to enslave animals, even people to them. Fortunately human slavery has come to an end, but animals have little to no rights protecting them from capitalist egocentric mankind. There is nothing natural about the way you get your meat every day now. You didn't even get out of your lazy chair to actually catch a wild cow or something and killing it. It's all been done for you. You're just paying money for it. Supporting capitalism. Keeping the farmers able to import the soy and wheat from third world countries where the locals starve to death.

Think about what you call yourself, specicism is not an anarchist thought.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I love meat. :lol:

(But according to the above, that makes me a fascist. :crying:)

[Kropotesta]

you are

[sovereign]

Yes, it tastes good.

[Comrade Rage]

Yes. I rarely eat veggies, aside from potatoes.

[Cult of Reason]

Pro-Bami: I suppose, then, that Makhno, Durruti, Kropotkin and Bakunin, to whom I have never heard "anti-speciesist" views attributed to, were not in fact Anarchists, but Fascists?

You, sir, are a caricature.

[professorchaos]

I think it's really hypocritical of some of you who call themselves anarchists that they eat meat. Anarchism means that no-one is better qualified to determine what one's life will be like than one self. Anarchism means that you're against oppression, hierarchy, racism, fascism. With all those things it's the POWER over someone else that you despise.
Vegetables are alive, too.

[Forward Union]

Think about what you call yourself, specicism is not an anarchist thought.

Anarchism is a political proposal that says the working class should self manage the means of production in their own interests.

It has fuck all to do with eating meat or not eating meat.

[Raúl Duke]

I think it's really hypocritical of some of you who call themselves anarchists that they eat meat. Anarchism means that no-one is better qualified to determine what one's life will be like than one self. Anarchism means that you're against oppression, hierarchy, racism, fascism. With all those things it's the POWER over someone else that you despise.

With animals it's no different than that. These innocent creatures are born in custady, raised in cages and killed long before their bodies have reached the age at which it would die from itself. Nor do they get a chance to save themselves from their fucked-up situation or their inevidable death. This is 'FACIST' people!! Totalitarian behavior from so-called anarchists overhere!

When animals are living free they all live with their natural instinct to survive, feed, breed and whatnot. All options are open. Sure there's a chance that some will become preys to predators, and some carnivores will starve to death without one, but at least we didn't intervene with it. It's what would happen if we wouldn't exist at all.

What man has been doing for tens of thousands of years is to enslave animals, even people to them. Fortunately human slavery has come to an end, but animals have little to no rights protecting them from capitalist egocentric mankind. There is nothing natural about the way you get your meat every day now. You didn't even get out of your lazy chair to actually catch a wild cow or something and killing it. It's all been done for you. You're just paying money for it. Supporting capitalism. Keeping the farmers able to import the soy and wheat from third world countries where the locals starve to death.

Think about what you call yourself, specicism is not an anarchist thought.

Ha, it's you that seems to be the so called anarchist here.

Animals are not human. We don't apply human social concepts of murder, etc to them. If we did apply these concepts to them and treat them effectively like humans than by the same logic they should not be allowed to eat each other but they will.


Sure there's a chance that some will become preys to predators, and some carnivores will starve to death without one, but at least we didn't intervene with it. It's what would happen if we wouldn't exist at all.

If we allow them to "intervene" each other and not ourselves than basically we are creating a "legalistic" type of privaledge to animals: Animal killing is considered murder, which is a human concept, yet when they kill each other they aren't considered as committing murder and don't face the same penalty as a human does. In a way it can be seen as reverse speciesm since it would be animals that are freely allowed to kill each other yet humans, which are also animals, are prohibited from eating other animals. There's nothing speciest of us eating them when they eat each other all the time.

Actually, if meat is murder what happens to those who violate that rule?
I bet not something nice...

The reason why we made concepts such as murder is so to create stability in a human social grouping. (i.e. people wouldn't get together if murderers are allowed to kill freely among the group.). It's also not an absolute either.


Keeping the farmers able to import the soy and wheat from third world countries where the locals starve to death.

How about the farmers that prepare meat? We all "support" in some form capitalism anyway, unless you do everything yourself and don't use money at all.


Anarchism means that no-one is better qualified to determine what one's life will be like than one self.

:rolleyes::lol::rolleyes:

So by that are you a pacifist?
Since effectively you are saying we aren't allowed to kill our class enemies!


Think about what you call yourself, specicism is not an anarchist thought.

Neither is anti-specism (or whatever it's properly called) since that's not what anarchism is about.

[Azraelscross]

i have no problems eating meat at all. I'll catch/kill it, clean it, cook it and eat it no problem. Its tasty and good for you. that being said my actual diet is mostly vegetarian foods strangely enough

[Pro-Bami]

Anarchism is a political proposal that says the working class should self manage the means of production in their own interests.

It has fuck all to do with eating meat or not eating meat.

Anarchism means that you don't force anybody into something they don't choose to. This is why we are the opposite of fascism and the reason why we are so furious about nazis. Also the power of money makes people act in ways they normally wouldn't. It corrupts, makes us egocentric and gives power to the big companies to keep exploiting people as wage slaves and animals as genuine slaves. That is why we are anti-capitalist most of the time.
Anyway, I see no difference between the value of a human life and that of an animals. I as a human wouldn't like it very much to be a slave for all my (shortened) life because others pay money for parts of my body. I would find a situation like that very similar to the way nazis put all the Jews in ghettos and locking them in, transporting them, mocking them, laughing as they watch them slowly starve to death, executing them in public, whatever horrible things happened in those days. It happened because the nazis wanted it to. They had the power over others lives. They decided wether one would work, or was shot at the spot, or if they would get food or not. In the meatindustry there are a lot of similarities. Animal lives are worthless to people who work there. Animals = money. The more you breed, the more you slaughter. The more animals, the more food they need. The more food you import, the more rainforest they chop down. The more they chop down, the more people lose their villages and living space. Animals that are living in and among the trees are chased away. A lot of chemicals are used to make sure there aren't any weeds or bugs to ruin the harvest. The environment gets polluted. Water becomes undrinkable. Children die because of this. The whole fucking world is involved here! Not only animals, but human beings in countries that are being kept poor because of our capitalism you help support by eating meat, are dying. I'm sure that must ring some sort of a bell, seen that animals don't really matter to you, but humans do.



Ha, it's you that seems to be the so called anarchist here.

Animals are not human. We don't apply human social concepts of murder, etc to them. If we did apply these concepts to them and treat them effectively like humans than by the same logic they should not be allowed to eat each other but they will.

If we allow them to "intervene" each other and not ourselves than basically we are creating a "legalistic" type of privaledge to animals: Animal killing is considered murder, which is a human concept, yet when they kill each other they aren't considered as committing murder and don't face the same penalty as a human does. In a way it can be seen as reverse speciesm since it would be animals that are freely allowed to kill each other yet humans, which are also animals, are prohibited from eating other animals. There's nothing speciest of us eating them when they eat each other all the time.


Sure they will always be eating each other, for they are hunting instinctively. Humans can think about what they're doing and how they're gonna do it. It's not necessary to kill other human beings, as it is not necessary to kill individuals from other species. Humans can survive on purely vegetal food, so why not stop the suffering. You think animals don't feel anything? You think they don't need to play when they're young? If you try to catch one running wild, does it not run away because it doesn't want to be caught? Animals are innocent. They'd never intentionally harm another being just because it can. Humans are the only species capable of that. Harming others just because they want to. Because they 'can'. Us humans should take a little responsibility for the creatures with whom we are supposed to live in harmony with. As long as they need their instinct to feed, flee and breed and all, we can use our brain to stay away from interfering with that magical world that has existed milions of years before we were just evolving from it. What humans are doing to the animals is killing nature. Seas are being fished empty, thousands of species have not survived our hunger for money because of their fur, teeth, whatever. Fuck, don't you see? We have the power to let things be. Why don't we show everybody that we can!



Actually, if meat is murder what happens to those who violate that rule?
I bet not something nice...

The reason why we made concepts such as murder is so to create stability in a human social grouping. (i.e. people wouldn't get together if murderers are allowed to kill freely among the group.). It's also not an absolute either.

We made concepts such as murder because it sucks when you get killed. It also sucks when someone you deeply care about gets killed. As does it suck when you're not safe. So it's pretty obvious that there's a common aversy against murder. Yet still, it's not up to us to protect the animals from the ones who hunt them, for that's interfering with the instincts of both the hunter as the hunted. But for humans, especially the anarchist ones, it would appear as very normal to me that you say to yourself: 'Well I don't need meat to survive, so I don't think it's necessary to decide wether this creature lives or dies.'



How about the farmers that prepare meat? We all "support" in some form capitalism anyway, unless you do everything yourself and don't use money at all.

It's important to think about what you actually need. If people would merely buy what they and their family needed than there wouldn't be such things as greed, selfcenteredness, status and all. In this world of ours there are too many things thrown away, though they are still ok and working. If we would share those items with one another more there would be less and less reason to keep buying stuff in stores. Take food for example. Supermarkets structurally buy too many from everything they have, because they can't have it that a product is sold out. When the date has expired though, they can't sell it anymore and they throw it away. Here's where you can take that food from the dumpsters and consume that, for 90% is perfectly edible, or you can make some sort of an arrangement with one or more of those supermarkets and perhaps they're willing to put the food they're about to throw away in boxes so you can pick it up and share it with your friends, people in your street or the homeless. That way you're boycotting capitalism and helping people out who have trouble handeling debts or have no income or something.


So by that are you a pacifist?
Since effectively you are saying we aren't allowed to kill our class enemies!

I am definitely against the use of violence in order to fuck people over. I am willing to defend myself if attacked, though would not make any attempts to attack one of my (political) opponents. I don't think it would be helpful to me, 'cause no-one likes an agressive take-over.

[Coggeh]

i finished eating two delicious hot dogs mmmmmmm later i had cookies (which prolly had butter) with two delicious cups of chocolate milk

poor little moomoos that are now in my stomach :(:(:(


:D:D:D:D "moomoos" :lol::lol:

trying the veggeh for a while ... so veggeh ...

[Plagueround]

I was vegan for about a year. It was good for me in the sense that it taught me about balancing my diet, but I think vegan politics are absurd. I'm mostly vegetarian now because it seems to be healthier for me, but I'm not opposed to occasionally eating meat.

[Kami]

You'll sooner take the meat from my bones than my mouth

[hekmatista]

Long ago I was an "economic" vegetarian, basing that choice on the Lappe' books on Diet for a Small Planet argument that meat was an extremely high-input means of obtaining dietary protein. By and large, the argument still holds, but individual choices will not make for large-scale changes in patterns of consumption; overthrowing commodity relations will.

[chimx]

You'll sooner take the meat from my bones than my mouth

I'm glad we're on the same page.

[jesper]

Yes i do eat meat though only fish, planning to gradually become a vegetarian.

[Destroy capitalism]

Dairy products are the worst carcinogen after tobacco smoking. look it up, even the most establishment doctor will admit this, but hey, like tobacco, there's money in it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dairy products are the worst carcinogen after tobacco smoking. look it up, even the most establishment doctor will admit this, but hey, like tobacco, there's money in it.

Cite your sources. Who told you this and why should anyone believe them?

And just how the fuck would a doctor profit from the dairy industry? Or the tobacco industry, when it comes to it? As far as I know, doctors are universally of the opinion that smoking is bad for you and increases the risk of cancer.

[DustWolf]

Cite your sources. Who told you this and why should anyone believe them?

If I am not mistaken, the illogical statement is derived from misuse of statistics. There is a statistical correlation between people drinking larger volumes of milk and people getting cancer.

The real reason for this correlation, obvious to any representative of the working class is of course that in jobs that are a health hazard due to dangerous chemicals present (working in mercury mines and stuff like that), milk is thought to help detoxify the body. People who work in these environments are thus typically given large amounts of milk to compensate, asif it helped.

[DustWolf]

I eat meat out of principle.

I love plants. Just kidding, that's not the reason.

I enjoy animal company... out of all the people I'd be the one to promote animal rights (I firmly believe in the theory of evolution and do not think there is a very big difference in anything between humans and other animals). I treat the animals I know the way I treat the people I know and vice versa. Some of my favorite animals are predatory. One obvious candidate, the wolf, is known to kill for pleasure. Animals are not innocent and we are them.

As for the biology of a human digestive system... We are omnivores. Our digestive systems do not contain any bacteria to allow us to survive either on a vegetarian or meat only diet. A cow's digestive system contains bacteria that can digest cellulose, a dog's digestive system contains bacteria which synthesize various vitamins and amino-acids not present in generic dog food. The idea is that from an evolutionary perspective humans have sacrificed their fancy gut flora in exchange for getting more sugars from food, as maintaining the gut flora was not necessary as a wide enough variety of food was always available.

[notesinamargin]

Personally, I don't eat meat, or eggs, and I reduce my milk intake I'm on my wake to being a full blown vegan, all of the material items I own are crielty so far as I know. Allow me to explain why (which btw has an extremely distrinct connection to very passionate involvement in the anarchist movement. My opinion, animal are beings to, they feel pain, they suffer, and to say that opressing for purposes such as food (which if you pick up a biology book or two, you will find is in fact unnecessary), clothes (which could be made out of farm less cruel and more comfortable materials anyway), and product testing (which is crap since we have so many alternative methods, including artificial human skin, for allergy testings) is quite "unanarchistic". After all, we are opposed to the exploitation of people, why not animals. I just don't see how regarding one life over the other is all that efficient, but that's just my opinion.

[Jazzratt]

Personally, I don't eat meat, or eggs, and I reduce my milk intake I'm on my wake to being a full blown vegan,

Best of luck with that. I personally eat a fair bit of meat, poultry and dairy products. Can't stand milk on it's own it tastes like absolutely revolting shite. Speaking of shite...


all of the material items I own are crielty so far as I know.

No they aren't. Someone, somewhere down the line was exploited for it - that's capitalism and I'm willing to lay down my month's earnings on the fact that some greasy fatcat is profiting on your desire to buy a dose of moral superiority.


My opinion, animal are beings to, they feel pain, they suffer, and to say that opressing for purposes such as food (which if you pick up a biology book or two, you will find is in fact unnecessary),

Yes animals are beings - in that they can be said to, well, "be". But that's the same with a lot of other things. They are also beings in that they can feel pain and so on, but they cannot conceptualise oppression, they have no idea their lives are futile and they cannot contribute to our society beyond the multifarious uses we have found for them. As for meat being unnecessary, this has been covered countless times - no single foodstuff is "necessary" because you can get the same nutrients from an array of other foods (what is found in wheat can be found in a whole host of other plants) the point is not necessity buy variety.


clothes (which could be made out of farm less cruel and more comfortable materials anyway),

More comfortable?! Than thick wool? Than good, tough leather? Than soft, warm fur?


and product testing (which is crap since we have so many alternative methods, including artificial human skin, for allergy testings)

What about medical testing? Even with advances in stem science it is still important to us that we can use animals to this end.


is quite "unanarchistic".

Only if your head is full of idealist anarchism bullshit.


After all, we are opposed to the exploitation of people, why not animals.

Different orders of life. Why are you opposed to "exploitation" of animals but not plants?


I just don't see how regarding one life over the other is all that efficient, but that's just my opinion.

What do you mean "efficient"? And of course it's your opinion, it's certainly neither the opinion of myself or many other members nor indeed is it any kind of statement of fact.

[Comrade B]

I eat non-farmed fish. No other meats. I have a friend from the teamsters who worked in some regional slaughter houses. Nasty stories man.

[Jazzratt]

I eat non-farmed fish.

It's better if you do the opposite and here is why; the demand for fish far outweighs our current method of getting fish (that is, hunting - the same thing we did before we had a proper civilisation), hunting them simply causes us to overfish and therefore our fish reserves are incredibly low. Farms on the other hand allow us to, much like with cattle, pigs, sheep and so on, keep the animals we find tasty/useful around in sufficiently high populations.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I will let Immortal Technique take this one



Look, let me make something abundantly clear for people, who are so bereft of activities they feel like they gotta comment on mine.

First of all being a vegetarian should never be associated with being a revolutionary or being open-minded., that's a dietary choice.

If someone wants to proliferate the type of ignorance we're supposed to be fighting by thinking that, you're just fucking yourself.

[Comrade B]

Nonexistence is better than an existence with the only purpose of being killed and eaten.

[black magick hustla]

Animals do "suffer" in as much as they have a nervous system.

Too bad most people nor me dont empathize with animals whatsoever. In fact, the closer people are to animals, like in rural areas and villages, the more probable that people hunt and kill animals just for the kicks.

Hooray.

[Sharon den Adel]

I eat most meats, except pork, because I am allergic to it, and steak, which I don't particulary like.
I don't like the fact that animals have to suffer in order for us to eat meat, but at the same time, I couldn't imagine not eating meat.
I worry about those who are vegan, especially. They seem to be missing out on a great deal of vitamins and nutrients. Of course, there are suppliments, but it's my belief that supplements should only be taken when someone has a vitamin deficiency. I've taken Iron and Folate supplements for about eight months now, and I certainly wouldn't want to take them for the rest of my life.:ohmy:

[notesinamargin]

1. The food that is typically fed to farm animals is neither suitable nor desirable for human consumption. In reality, animal farming coverts food which is inedible by humams into food that is fit to be eaten by people.

2. Your first reasoning for not eating meat assumes that people are going hungry in the world as a result of an absolute failure to produce enough food. This is actually not true. We can already produce more than enough food today to feed the world. The problem is capitalist distribution.

As for your first statement, I must contest, it isn't the fact that that food is not suitable for humans, the fact of the matter is that is that the resources used in this "unsuitable" food could also be used to produce plenty of suitable and desirable food, it was a bit of a shallow argument. Plus a 16:1 ratio is terrible, since, according to a few places I've read is the pounds of grain : pounds of meat. As for your second statement I have to agree, much of the "hunger" that occurs in the world, I personally think is caused by an imbalanced economic system which most of us are opposed to here, it goes by the sweet sounding name of capitalism. But I don't completely agree, that widespread vegetarianism wouldn't make a difference.

[notesinamargin]

"No they aren't. Someone, somewhere down the line was exploited for it - that's capitalism and I'm willing to lay down my month's earnings on the fact that some greasy fatcat is profiting on your desire to buy a dose of moral superiority."

I should've phrased myself a bit better, I make attempts to try and avoid products that don't even bother to hide the fact that they exploit animals, as well as people. It wasn't a shot at moral superiority it was just a reference to a practice of my own. I'm aware we don't share the same opinion, and well the fact is a lot of what is being "argued" here is mainly an opinion, no I personally don't think carcass parts are comfortable.And yes I am an anarchist, if you didn't notice we're on a "leftist" board, and if you also looked over the fact, well a lot of people here, apparently according to your standards, you can get your feathers in a bunch, but honestly the immature shot at my political stance was cheap and pretty dull, I'm sure someone as bright as yourself could have easily come up with something better than that.
Also I'm curious if you're so terribly opposed to anarchism, why in the world is your signature lined with an anarchist quote? Conflict? I think so.

[Echo]

Your eating habits, whatever they may be, have fuck all to do with class politics and are better suited for hippy lifestylism.

[Jazzratt]

I should've phrased myself a bit better, I make attempts to try and avoid products that don't even bother to hide the fact that they exploit animals, as well as people.

Generally more expensive, those products no?


I'm aware we don't share the same opinion, and well the fact is a lot of what is being "argued" here is mainly an opinion,

That's a cop-out. Not all opinions are valid, that's why people "argue".


no I personally don't think carcass parts are comfortable.

You've never had a pair of decent leather boots - they last years and are comfortable as hell.


And yes I am an anarchist, if you didn't notice we're on a "leftist" board,

Really?! Well shit, here I was these two years thinking it was some kind of ultra-conservative thinktank.


and if you also looked over the fact, well a lot of people here, apparently according to your standards, you can get your feathers in a bunch, but honestly the immature shot at my political stance was cheap and pretty dull, I'm sure someone as bright as yourself could have easily come up with something better than that.

Your politics are idealist bullshit, anarchism without materialism and class analysis is just so much detached, directionless chaos.


Also I'm curious if you're so terribly opposed to anarchism, why in the world is your signature lined with an anarchist quote? Conflict? I think so.

That would be because I am an anarchist. If you look at the background of my avatar you will see the traditional black/red syndicalist flag with a grey part representing technocracy. The difference though is that your anarchism is one based on idealist notions of rights granted arbitrarily to all things simply for being alive, it's basically petit-bourgeois ultra-liberalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Everybody who eats meat only eats "certain types of meat". I eat beef, pork, chicken, fish, and shellfish regularly. I've eaten turkey, duck, lamb, boar, alligator, deer, horse, and probably some other tasty animals that I'm forgetting. I wouldn't eat a cockroach, however, for instance.

[Plagueround]

It's better if you do the opposite and here is why; the demand for fish far outweighs our current method of getting fish (that is, hunting - the same thing we did before we had a proper civilisation), hunting them simply causes us to overfish and therefore our fish reserves are incredibly low. Farms on the other hand allow us to, much like with cattle, pigs, sheep and so on, keep the animals we find tasty/useful around in sufficiently high populations.

I had read that farmed fish are fed fish from oceans and streams, and that it's something like a 5:1 ratio of ocean fish being fed to farmed fish. I do not know if it's entirely true or just more PETA propaganda.

[Plagueround]

Everybody who eats meat only eats "certain types of meat". I eat beef, pork, chicken, fish, and shellfish regularly. I've eaten turkey, duck, lamb, boar, alligator, deer, horse, and probably some other tasty animals that I'm forgetting. I wouldn't eat a cockroach, however, for instance.

I wouldn't eat South American cockroaches either. I saw some in the Seattle Zoo (Brazilian I believe) and was scarred for life. Those things are the size of my fist! :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The roaches here aren't as big as some I've seen in Florida, actually. Maybe in the jungle there are some giant roaches. Anyways, would you eat an American cockroach?:huh:

[Jazzratt]

I had read that farmed fish are fed fish from oceans and streams, and that it's something like a 5:1 ratio of ocean fish being fed to farmed fish. I do not know if it's entirely true or just more PETA propaganda.

Hmm, you don't happen to remember where you read it? Seems like a strange and counter intuitive (even by cappie logic) practice to me.

[Plagueround]

Hmm, you don't happen to remember where you read it? Seems like a strange and counter intuitive (even by cappie logic) practice to me.

The only resource I can find is fishinghurts.com, which is PETA run site, and I don't trust anything that comes solely from PETA, especially when the information has no citation links or anything. I'll look a bit more into it. Not that it's really a valid argument against fish farming in the first place because we could easily make fish farms that don't operate that way.

[Plagueround]

The roaches here aren't as big as some I've seen in Florida, actually. Maybe in the jungle there are some giant roaches. Anyways, would you eat an American cockroach?:huh:

I've heard of people doing it. I'd probably give it a shot, but I'm not entirely sure about how sanitary one can make it. Since roaches don't have a hard carapace they secrete a slimy resin on their bodies to compensate and protect them. The resin is a nesting ground for disease, which is one of the reasons they are considered a health hazard.

The roaches I saw were indeed jungle roaches. Hope I didn't come off as ethnocentric and implying everyone in Brazil lives in a jungle and has to fend off evil giant roaches. ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Did you think that all roaches in Brazil were like those giant jungle cockroaches you saw at the zoo?
I'm more concerned about your willingness to eat roaches, though. :lol:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I am a lacto-ovo-veg.

I don't think that we should end the lives of animals purely for the taste of them, basically, and that's it. :)

-Alex

[Plagueround]

Did you think that all roaches in Brazil were like those giant jungle cockroaches you saw at the zoo?
I'm more concerned about your willingness to eat roaches, though. :lol:

Nah, that's why I clarified. We have several different species of roaches here, it would be silly to think Brazilian ones only came in the Godzilla variety. :D
As for eating roaches...I have no defense for that. Who knows, they could be good?

[Mirage]

It's like this.
It's species-ist to put humans above other animals. But it's also to favor animals over vegetables. Animals, though, clearly can suffer more, so I tend to eat vegetables, but I don't draw a solid, unbreachable line between animals and plants. Also, I'm weak, and I love the taste of meat.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who gives a fuck about "species-ism"?:confused:
Honestly.
I think it's downright insane to compare the oppression of humans (capitalism, racism, sexism) to the unequal treatment of other species, as though other animals were in some way our equals. By that logic, I committed mass-murder a few minutes ago when I washed my hands and killed some microbes.

[Pifreak]

There's a lot of evidence showing that vegetarianism is a lot healthier, where you actually don't need cholesterol intake, don't need all the protein found in meat, get all the more important vitamins/nutrients from vegetables, etc. So it's quite obvious that the average American diet is really bad, seeing as kids have grown up to hate broccoli, celery, spinach, or anything other food that's green.

But really, when you start eating meat, there's no turning back.

[Jazzratt]

But really, when you start eating meat, there's no turning back.

Wait, what? Most vegetarians I know came to vegetarianism later in life (one bloke was in his 20s).

[Pifreak]

It depends on your reaction when you find out that eating meat is worse than not eating it.

"There's no turning back" was only my opinion.

[Plagueround]

It depends on your reaction when you find out that eating meat is worse than not eating it.

"There's no turning back" was only my opinion.

Most claims about the health hazards of eating meat are based on biased studies of the "Standard Western Diet" and are not valid arguments against eating meat as part of one's balanced diet.

Also, my son absolutely loves fruits and vegetables, it's the easiest thing in the world to get him to eat them. We have a harder time with other foods.

[Lost In Translation]

I tend to go on the vegetable side more than the meat side, but I really don't have a problem with eating meat. Yes, I feel bad about killing another animal, but I like meat for its taste, not for its consequences. When it comes to food, I only have eyes for the present. However, to be healthier (and only to be healthier), I eat a lot of vegetables.

[reginaeme]

no red meat for me, I just don't like it. . .

[AutomaticMan]

It's like this.
It's species-ist to put humans above other animals. But it's also to favor animals over vegetables. Animals, though, clearly can suffer more, so I tend to eat vegetables, but I don't draw a solid, unbreachable line between animals and plants. Also, I'm weak, and I love the taste of meat.

Speciesism is usually only applied when talking of sentient species. Plants do not suffer at all. The argument[s] against consuming root vegetables, (i.e. adopting a fruitarian diet) are mainly health, but also ethics in that animals are killed to harvest the food, it doesn't fall naturally like fruit etc. I don't agree with that, just putting it out there.


Who gives a fuck about "species-ism"?:confused:
Honestly.
I think it's downright insane to compare the oppression of humans (capitalism, racism, sexism) to the unequal treatment of other species, as though other animals were in some way our equals. By that logic, I committed mass-murder a few minutes ago when I washed my hands and killed some microbes.

Actually, according to animal rights logic, it's not immoral to kill non-sentient entities. And the death of such is not comparable to the murder of sentient beings. Speciesism- arbitrary reasoning about species- is a paradigm of unsupportable bigotry, not dissimilar to other forms of oppression (remember, oppression= prejudice + power) in both it's means and ends. Lots of people have written extensively about the links between different oppressions (intersectionality!) and there's no logical reason why nonhuman animal oppression shouldn't be included in this. Read some Carol Adams. There's a striking number of parallels between human and nonhuman oppression. But aside from that, there doesn't necessarily need to be any link to humans, nor do nonhuman animals need to be considered 'our equals' (but I'd say it's a slippery slope when deciding whom is equal to one and whom isn't, what characteristics are used? Intelligence? Personality? Anything non-arbitrary? Seems disingenuous to me). The core foundation of AR logic is that all sentient beings have the most basic of rights- the rights to not be treated as property and to live a close to a natural life as possible, free from suffering and exploitation.

I'm curious as to what rational arguments you can present to back why exactly it's "down-right insane" to compare the oppression of humans to the oppression of nonhumans (or, as you put it, the "oppression of humans and unequal treatment of other species", nice anthropocentric euphemisms going on there).

And finally, without sounding like an asshat, if you're going to criticize something, it does help to understand it. Your post (*ahem* the whole microbe mass-murder thing) shows a distinct lack of knowledge of AR philosophy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How can something have rights and not even know it? If some dangerous pests are shown to be sentient, are we supposed to stop killing them? There's nothing bigoted about "speciesism". It's the simple recognition of the fact that humans can't survive while respecting equal rights of all sentient animals. And if we're not gonna treat them equally, why bother? I also don't think my cat minds being a prisoner. Furthermore, how is it determined which animals are sentient and which aren't? Does it matter?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I am in no way denouncing vegans, but the human body is designed to consume meat.

However, the amount of meat the average person in the "developed" world, especially the U.S., is disgusting.

There are two reasons I say this:

1. The amount of energy that goes into raising an animal for consumption grows exponentially in comparison to a plant.
If an animal eats X amount of grain in it's lifetime, then is slaughtered and eaten, that X amount of grain has been used by the consumer in a single meal.

In addition, the amount of energy that can be digested from an animal source shrinks exponentially.
Human digestive systems have a harder time digesting meat then grains. Only "ruffage" is harder to digest, but it's benefit is that it cleans out the system; which meat cannot do.

Eating excessive meat while there are hungry people around is wasteful. The only exception would be an animal that feeds off of a plant that humans cannot eat and grows where people cannot grow edible crops.

2. The human body, while designed to eat protein sources (as evident by the digestive tract, blood types, teeth, and inability to absorb certain proteins from plant material), is not designed to eat that much.

The digestive tract of a human has only one stomach and the presence of the appendix suggests evolutionarily a recent significant shortening of the intestines.
This suggests the human body has been adjusting to a more meat- friendly diet. Animals that eat plants have long intestines and often multiple stomachs to allow a more complete digestion.

However, animals that rely on meat as their primary food source have extremely short digestive tracts. This is to prevent the meat from literally rotting inside of them. Human digestive tracts are not designed to eat much meat, and eating too much is correlated with increased bowel disease and cancer (because of the rotting flesh inside.)

Blood-types also have a correlation with diet. The oldest blood-type is O, followed by B, AB, then A.
O blood-types have a metabolism which works better with a grain-heavy diet, while each blood type in order is associated with metabolisms more tolerant of meat. This once again suggests that while the human race is evolving into a more meat-tolerant animal, it is not there yet.

Teeth are a favourite proof that people should eat meat. And it is true. But there are only four canine teeth and eight bicuspids (the teeth designed to tear meat). If the human animal was designed to eat much meat, the mouth would look more like a dog's or cat's (with primarily canine and bicuspids.)

The final evidence I present is the fact that several proteins, minerals, and acids, needed for healthy function, are difficult or impossible for humans to absorb from plant sources. Vegans have to plan their diet and often turn to supplements to offset this.
However, once again, this is blown out of proportion; while it is possible to live without meat, it is nearly impossible to live very long without eating grains.

Grains should be the basis for a healthy human diet, supplemented by fruits and vegetables, then dairy and meat.
I am sometimes appalled with how much meat some people eat. You don't need meat every meal. I only eat meat with dinner. I don't even eat it every day; often I'll have pasta or rice with beans.

I will vote for the first option, because I eat meat freely, but I do have problems eating meat in a way that the human body is not designed to handle.

[AutomaticMan]

How can something have rights and not even know it?

One need not understand the concept of rights to deserve them. What about young children, babies, severely mentally ill people etc.


If some dangerous pests are shown to be sentient, are we supposed to stop killing them?

When dealing with other sentient beings, the most ethical thing is to try and be as humane as possible. There are some circumstances where self-preservation comes first, but most of the time there's an alternative which doesn't involve killing.


There's nothing bigoted about "speciesism". It's the simple recognition of the fact that humans can't survive while respecting equal rights of all sentient animals. And if we're not gonna treat them equally, why bother?

Well, we evidently can. I do, as do all the other vegans in is existence.


I also don't think my cat minds being a prisoner. Furthermore, how is it determined which animals are sentient and which aren't? Does it matter?

A slave is still a slave, whether she views her life as good or not is irrelevant, as slavery is always morally reprehensible.

Considering the very core of animal rights logic is that sentient beings have rights, it clearly does matter. We take a scientific approach to it, and reputable scientists tend to agree that most of the kingdom animalia is sentient. The line gets more blurry with regards to insects and other arthropods (all animals regarded as 'higher' than arthropods are sentient). There's some arthropods that have been proven to be sentient (e.g. crustaceans) but with others many believe they are not. However, if we take a very painist approach to it, insects have a ganglionic nervous system- rudimentary, but still a nervous system- and, evolutionarily speaking, it wouldn't be logical for them, having evolved to almost perfect designs over millions of years, to not have evolved the capacity to feel pain. So, personally, I aim to live by life causing the least suffering possible. If there's a humane approach that doesn't involve exploiting or killing any sentient (or, on less firm ground, potentially sentient) being, I'll take it. For every day life, that approach is veganism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Well, we evidently can. I do, as do all the other vegans in is existence.

You think you treat animals as your equals? lol
You surely eat food that has been raised with pesticides against things like rats, which are sentient. However organic or natural your food is, they all use, in the best of cases, natural pesticides. And you probably use drugs that have been tested on animals. You also live in what was surely the natural habitat of loads of animals. Who are you to forcibly evict them? What about their rights? :lol:

You probably also support politicians who tolerate and practice the slavery and captivity of animals. Would you do that if their slaves were human?


A slave is still a slave, whether she views her life as good or not is irrelevant, as slavery is always morally reprehensible.

Not if the "slaves" aren't human. Then it's cool.


Considering the very core of animal rights logic is that sentient beings have rights, it clearly does matter. We take a scientific approach to it, and reputable scientists tend to agree that most of the kingdom animalia is sentient.

Sentience absolutely doesn't matter.

[AutomaticMan]

You think you treat animals as your equals? lol
You surely eat food that has been raised with pesticides against things like rats, which are sentient. However organic or natural your food is, they all use, in the best of cases, natural pesticides. And you probably use drugs that have been tested on animals. You also live in what was surely the natural habitat of loads of animals. Who are you to forcibly evict them? What about their rights? :lol:

You probably also support politicians who tolerate and practice the slavery and captivity of animals. Would you do that if their slaves were human?

You should probably stop making assumptions.


Not if the "slaves" aren't human. Then it's cool.

Slavery is cool?
If a being can think, is capable of feeling pain, has desires and leads her own life, how exactly do you justify reducing her status to mere property-- enslaving her? I'm still waiting for some kind of rational argument to back up your anthropocentrism, though I suspect I will be waiting a while.


Sentience absolutely doesn't matter.

This is rather absurd. So, if sentience simply doesn't matter, do you have any rational grounds on which you grant rights? Why do humans automatically have rights? Can those reasons always be used to back up the existence of the rights for young children/babies/mentally ill etc. It's seems to me you've not given this much thought, or you have some rather radical views on rights which you're yet to divulge.

[welshboy]

Meat tastes good therefore I eat it. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with killing an animal to eat it or with someone else doing it for me.
Post revolution there will still be slaughter houses and people will still eat meat. It is fine for you as an individual to opt to have a meat free diet but to attempt to force others not to is wrong and frankly I would fight against any attempt to stop folk from having control over their own diets.
Mind you a global switch to a vegan diet would be a great excuse for one last big fuck off barbecue.:D It would be just like the days of foot and mouth but we'd get a proper feeding too.
Pass the ketchup.:D

[AutomaticMan]

It is fine for you as an individual to opt to have a meat free diet but to attempt to force others not to is wrong and frankly I would fight against any attempt to stop folk from having control over their own diets.

It is no longer a personal choice when the ramifications of one's choice effects others drastically, especially when what's at stake is the bodily integrity and liberty of other sentient beings.

[Holden Caulfield]

meat is delicious, i do not consider animals to be conscious beings and so i do not mind eating them up if they are treated and killed in humane ways that do not cause undue suffering to the animal,

i do not push my meat feasting onto anybody and i would hope nobody else would force their vegitarianism or veganism onto me,

and foot and mouth smelled, there were a LOT of animals to burn up in Cumbria

[Colonello Buendia]

I eat meat. meat tastes nice. eating other creatures is an act which is commited by other animals as well. I am not opposed to killing an animal for food because it's completely natural as a process. So long as the animal is killed quickly and humanely then I'm ok with it. I also make sure that the animal was well treated before death. oh and next time a vegan/vegetarian tries to force their diet on me, I shall smakc them with a big juicy raw sirloin stake<drools> also another thing. so long as every bit of an animal is used, I'm ok with it, I wouldn't kill an animal for one thing only. I'd make sure every bit was used.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You should probably stop making assumptions.


Have you no defense for your "speciesist" actions?
:laugh:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm still waiting for some kind of rational argument to back up your anthropocentrism, though I suspect I will be waiting a while.

Survival


This is rather absurd. So, if sentience simply doesn't matter, do you have any rational grounds on which you grant rights?

Yes. People have rights because they're our equals.

[welshboy]

and foot and mouth smelled, there were a LOT of animals to burn up in CumbriaYeah but if it had been done properly it would have been great. Imagine the amount of burgers we could scran if we cooked the entire national herd in one sitting. Huge barbecues spread across the land feeding the slavering masses as we glutted ourselves on one last orgy of flesh. mmmmmmmmm barbecue sauce, burgers and peppers cooked over the spitting hissing fat.
Shit I'm making myself hungry.
I was more making the point that should everyone decide to go vegan we would have to slaughter the national herd as we would need that land for growing veg. When I've asked vegans about this they have never been able to give me a satisfactory answer. Also, should we not slaughter them all and have a barby, why would we continue to feed them if we weren't going to eat them. that would be a complete waste of resources.

[welshboy]

Oh and animals never express their solidarity with us. I've never seen a cow, sheep or pig on a picket line, well okay I've seen more than a few pigs on the wrong side!:D in fact I distinctly remember being charged by an equine beastie that was carrying a copper with the sole intent on helping that copper give me a twatting.
See they're anti-working class collaborators and deserve to be treated as such.

[AutomaticMan]

I eat meat. meat tastes nice. eating other creatures is an act which is commited by other animals as well. I am not opposed to killing an animal for food because it's completely natural as a process.

Infanticide is also both natural and committed by other animals, is that justified? It's not wise to look towards nature for moral bearing, because there are many things that are 'natural' that we find totally unethical.


So long as the animal is killed quickly and humanely then I'm ok with it. I also make sure that the animal was well treated before death.

And what exactly would you suggest is a 'humane' way to die? Humane slaughter is an oxymoron; there's no 'humane' way to murder.


oh and next time a vegan/vegetarian tries to force their diet on me, I shall smakc them with a big juicy raw sirloin stake<drools>

A wonderful show of the intellectual merit to your argument indeed.


also another thing. so long as every bit of an animal is used, I'm ok with it, I wouldn't kill an animal for one thing only. I'd make sure every bit was used.

By that logic, the crimes of people like Ed Gein and Jeffery Dahmer would be excused.


meat is delicious, i do not consider animals to be conscious beings and so i do not mind eating them up if they are treated and killed in humane ways that do not cause undue suffering to the animal

Interesting. If you do not consider nonhuman animals to be conscious, then why bother ensuring their treatment and demise is humane?


i do not push my meat feasting onto anybody and i would hope nobody else would force their vegitarianism or veganism onto me

No self-respecting AR vegans will try to 'force' their views on you, since such is both wrong and self-defeating. You may, however, be forced to confront the harsh reality of your actions and the consequences of them.


Survival

No AR philosophy states it'd be immoral to kill a nonhuman for survival, but tell me, are you really in a situation where you have no other choice but to kill nonhumans for survival? I very much doubt it. If you can have access to a computer and the internet, then it'd seem rather likely you have access to a balanced, plant-based diet.


Yes. People have rights because they're our equals.

To make such a statement, you must qualify what makes humans 'people', and people above nonhuman animals, therefore justifying the enslavement of nonhuman animals. For instance, if the characteristic is intelligence, you may want to consider: how to define intelligence, that lots of research unveils everyday how nonhumans are intelligent, that some 'people' such as the severely disabled and very young are not intelligent, especially when compared with nonhumans, such as those people must commonly dine on.

Not only is this reasoning ('people are our equals, and they are above other animals') inherently speciesist, but it rarely manages to hold itself up. It basically comes down to good ol' anthropocentrism, which is intrinsically irrational.

[AutomaticMan]

Yeah but if it had been done properly it would have been great. Imagine the amount of burgers we could scran if we cooked the entire national herd in one sitting. Huge barbecues spread across the land feeding the slavering masses as we glutted ourselves on one last orgy of flesh. mmmmmmmmm barbecue sauce, burgers and peppers cooked over the spitting hissing fat.
Shit I'm making myself hungry.
I was more making the point that should everyone decide to go vegan we would have to slaughter the national herd as we would need that land for growing veg. When I've asked vegans about this they have never been able to give me a satisfactory answer. Also, should we not slaughter them all and have a barby, why would we continue to feed them if we weren't going to eat them. that would be a complete waste of resources.

In the (highly unlikely) event of an overnight vegan revolution, the proletariat will ensure the remaining domesticated animals are spayed/neutered and cared for the rest of the lives.

Of course, the more likely turn of events is that the consumption of nonhumans goes down, and so less and less are bred, slowly phasing them out as more people adopt a plant-based diet.

[welshboy]

To make such a statement, you must qualify what makes humans 'people', and people above nonhuman animals
Language for one, technology, culture and civilisation for a couple of others.

[welshboy]

In the (highly unlikely) event of an overnight vegan revolution, the proletariat will ensure the remaining domesticated animals are spayed/neutered and cared for the rest of the lives.
And why would we waste land and resources feeding these creatures?
Also how does it fit with your morals to wipe out an entire species as they are not useful anymore?
There is no place in a vegan world for herd animals so we would see yet another extinction at the hands of humanity and all for the spurious cause of animal rights.

[AutomaticMan]

Language for one, technology, culture and civilisation for a couple of others.

You may be interested in reading the recent article by New Scientist on 'unique human traits' being found in over animals. Unfortunately, I cannot link to it in this post, but google it anyways.

And also in considering that the great advances of language (a concept clearly not confined to just homo sapiens) and technology were/are made by an elite, and rarely the vast majority of people. And that we've, as a species, not really mastered the whole 'civilisation' thing, as I'm sure many people here will agree.

[AutomaticMan]

And why would we waste land and resources feeding these creatures?

Why continue to inefficiently use resources on them for your taste buds?

The reason for 'wasting' land/resources on them, would be because they have rights, such as those to food, water, shelter and safety.
From a land/resources usage perspective, getting rid of animal agriculture would be a fantastic event.


Also how does it fit with your morals to wipe out an entire species as they are not useful anymore?

Like this: humans domesticated those animals, making them slaves. Domestication is a process which only serves to benefit humans, for domestic animals have only extrinsic value. They are continually brought into existence in order to be used; they are human property. The only ethical thing to do is to phase them out.

[welshboy]

And also in considering that the great advances of language (a concept clearly not confined to just homo sapiens) and technology were/are made by an elite, and rarely the vast majority of people. And that we've, as a species, not really mastered the whole 'civilisation' thing, as I'm sure many people here will agree.
Well that brings it out into the open. You are obviously a primmo nutter and there is fuck all point in trying to converse with you.
Technologies are created by the working class. It is we who make them, we just don't get the full benefit of of our labour due to living under a capitalist class system.
Complex language that is able to convey abstract ideas is a uniquely human development. I am quite aware of the studies that have been carried out on captive Bonobo and their ability to learn the basics of language. This is not a positive thing however and must be stopped.
Exterminate the Bonobo now! We all know what happens next (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRG6ahCs_t0&feature=related).:D

[welshboy]

The only ethical thing to do is to phase them out.
You really are a twisted individual, I quite like cows trundling around the fields. That they taste good too is a bonus.
You are talking about wiping out an entire species and you have the temerity to call meat eaters unethical.
See the biscuit? You just took it.

[AutomaticMan]

Well that brings it out into the open. You are obviously a primmo nutter and there is fuck all point in trying to converse with you.


Primmo nutter? As in, anarcho-primitivist?

[welshboy]

you said it bub

[AutomaticMan]

You really are a twisted individual, I quite like cows trundling around the fields. That they taste good too is a bonus.
You are talking about wiping out an entire species and you have the temerity to call meat eaters unethical.
See the biscuit? You just took it.


There's quite a difference between murdering a sentient being because you enjoy the momentary taste sensation of her flesh, and spay/neutering domestic animals with the goal to phase them out on the grounds that they only exist to be slaves to humans, and they are born purely to be exploited.

[welshboy]

Aye the difference is you are talking about genocide and I am talking about dinner.

[AutomaticMan]

you said it bub

Wouldn't I be out foraging in the trees? Instead of sat here with my laptop to my left, xbawks in front of me and stereo system on.

You may disagree with me, but I don't deserve to be labeled a primitivist. ;)

[AutomaticMan]

Aye the difference is you are talking about genocide and I am talking about dinner.

It is certainly the lesser of the evils to phase animals out who's raison d'être is to be used for human benefit.

The sooner humans stop interfering with nonhuman animals, the better.

[welshboy]

You were the one that came out with primmo line about language and technology being developed by elites.
Laptop, xbox, stero, living in a house. Sounds like most of the primmos I've met. ;)

[Kropotesta]

Well that brings it out into the open. You are obviously a primmo nutter and there is fuck all point in trying to converse with you.
I agree with him and the critque of humans using animals as slaves. Does this also make me a "primmo nutter":rolleyes:
I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge carthorse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat." - George Orwell

[welshboy]

You agree that language and technology are construct of the elite?

[Kropotesta]

You agree that language and technology are construct of the elite?
Yes......:(
No don't agree with that. I said that I simply agreed with the basic sentiments that humans have domesticated animals for personal gain and that this is unjustifiable.
To be fair though, I haven't read up on this thread to much, it just angered me that, yet again, another non-meat eater was getting bashed on the site.

[welshboy]

I was asking some serious questions with admittedly a fair dollop of witty asides.;)
I do really think that wiping out an entire species is a bad thing, especially if it because their existence is an affront to some peoples ethics.
I do agree that the meat and dairy industries are faaaaaaaaaaaaar from perfect but I do think that in a post-revolutionary world we would still eat meat as a part of our diet and that the treatment of herd animals would be greatly improved.
I only called automaticman a primmo as he came out with the statement I quoted not because of his diet. His diet is his concern and I am cool with that.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No AR philosophy states it'd be immoral to kill a nonhuman for survival, but tell me, are you really in a situation where you have no other choice but to kill nonhumans for survival? I very much doubt it. If you can have access to a computer and the internet, then it'd seem rather likely you have access to a balanced, plant-based diet.

I'm not talking about killing animals necessarily, but generally not applying an intrinsic value to animals and ultimately giving them the rights that humans have. My building recently hired people to exterminate rats that were living in the basement because they carry diseases and are pests. My food is grown with pesticides. And I can't afford to buy organic food, so the people who grow my food use normal pesticides, designed to kill animals of various kinds. Probably including rodents and possibly other sentient pests. My building is surely in some animal's former natural habitat. My university is also on the site of an animal's habitat. So is my place of work. The food I eat, when it's not taken from the body of an animal, is grown on an animal's habitat after the animals have been kicked out. If an animal were to start living in my apartment, especially if it were a sentient animals, I would kill it or remove it. Practically all economic activities carried out by people are done at the expense of animals, on land once occupied by them, and now taken over by people. i.e. They don't have the same rights as we do. Oh, and milk and eggs are ingredients in many foods that are staples in my diet and I can't afford to buy whatever milk or egg substitute you people eat in order to avoid violating the sacred tits of cows. So in short, yes, I subjugate animals out of necessity.

I know some vegans argue that all animal proteins can be attained from vegetables, which differs radically from what I have been told by doctors, who said that certain proteins found exclusively in meat, eggs, or milk are necessary for human growth, especially in children. That alone would debunk your argument that animals can be treated as our equals. Either way, you would be condemning all humans from before the XX century and most contemporary humans of practicing slavery, which they do out of sheer necessity. To compare survival to holding other fellow humans captive through force and violence is disgusting.


To make such a statement, you must qualify what makes humans 'people', and people above nonhuman animals, therefore justifying the enslavement of nonhuman animals.People are humans. We're not "above" other animals. I don't believe in hierarchy among species, which is why I find your distinction between sentient and non sentient animals absurd.


For instance, if the characteristic is intelligence, you may want to consider: how to define intelligence, that lots of research unveils everyday how nonhumans are intelligent, that some 'people' such as the severely disabled and very young are not intelligent, especially when compared with nonhumans, such as those people must commonly dine on.People are humans. Look it up. :lol::laugh:

[Socialist18]

I only eat fish and occasionally chicken. I'm an on again off again vegan.
I don't eat eggs, drink milk or consume any other animal based products.
The reason I occasionally eat fish and chicken is because I'm a terrible cook and I cant be bothered/not actually capable of learning good Vegan cooking.

[OI OI OI]

yes it is very rich in protein and it will help me grow to a strong man! :)

[apathy maybe]

yes it is very rich in protein and it will help me grow to a strong man! :)

But you're a girl! How can eating protein help a girl grow into a man?!

(Oh, and there are heaps of other sources of protein, nuts and beans, and eggs and milk and milk products, and brown rice and beans, and various soy products...

Almond
Brazil nut
Cashew
Macadamia
Pine nut
Pistachio
Peanut
Azuki bean
Soy bean
Mung bean
Chickpea
Black-eyed pea
Lentil
Kidney bean
Eat with brown rice or other brown grain.

Enjoy.

[Module]

But you're a girl! How can eating protein help a girl grow into a man?!

(Oh, and there are heaps of other sources of protein, nuts and beans, and eggs and milk and milk products, and brown rice and beans, and various soy products...

Almond
Brazil nut
Cashew
Macadamia
Pine nut
Pistachio
Peanut
Azuki bean
Soy bean
Mung bean
Chickpea
Black-eyed pea
Lentil
Kidney bean
Eat with brown rice or other brown grain.

Enjoy.

But none quite as tasty as rissoles ... or pork ribs ... or burgers .. or lamb chops ... Ahh.

[Pogue]

You can be vegeteria and eat milk/cheese, so two of the categories are the same. I don't eat animal meat but I eat milk/cheese/eggs, that is vegeterian.

[freakazoid]

To all the non-meat eaters out there. Is it ok to kill a fetus for an abortion?

Also I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with consuming things like milk. Meat I can understand why, even though I disagree with them, but not milk or cheese.

[apathy maybe]

But none quite as tasty as rissoles ... or pork ribs ... or burgers .. or lamb chops ... Ahh.

Don't tell me you're another girl wanting to grow into a big strong man... :blink:

[professorchaos]

Relevant. (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Beef-Broccoli-lyrics-Immortal-Technique/99AF38F93D1096E5482570220005D112)

I've seen some of you herbivores,
And if you want to argue health,
Y'all need to eat some kind of supplement
Because some of y'all are so skinny
That it's disgusting; looking like the
Only hip-hop motherfuckers on Schindler's list.

[rosa-rl]

Eating other animals bothers me. I would not eat a human (well unless she asked me to) I have 6 cats right now. What is the difference between a cat and a cow? a chicken?

Also, it takes so much more resources to farm meats while people around the world do not have enough to eat.

If you would miss meat, there are great replacements for it. Also, there is a lot of cruelty in the production of milk products...

Soy Rocks.

[Jazzratt]

Eating other animals bothers me. I would not eat a human (well unless she asked me to) I have 6 cats right now. What is the difference between a cat and a cow? a chicken?

Cats taste worse, and more people keep them for company because they're cute. Personally I don't much care for them. Oh and one other difference between a cat and a chicken is that a cat is a mammal and a chicken is a bird.


Also, it takes so much more resources to farm meats while people around the world do not have enough to eat.

This is because we do not grow our food efficiently or make full use of genetic technology.


If you would miss meat, there are great replacements for it.

I think you miss the point of meat...


Also, there is a lot of cruelty in the production of milk products...

And?


Soy Rocks.

No. No it doesn't.

[Lost In Translation]

I think you miss the point of meat...

Yeah...they don't seem to make great replacements for meat. You can probably compensate the nutrition with some protein concoction, but the taste of meat is gone from your system.

[RedAnarchist]

Don't tell me you're another girl wanting to grow into a big strong man... :blink:

Can't she be a big strong woman?

[feminist dyke whore]

I'm vego, and I want to become vegan again. I love cooking and experimenting with food - I think eating meat made me a lazy cook as i'd rely on the meat as the source of flavor. The food I eat is awesome. I don't know if I will always stay vego, I think i'll become "flexitarian" in the future as I am not opposed to eating an animal. The means of production of the meat we eat, the inefficiency of the meat industry, and the ridiculous excess of meat products consumed within western society is what converted me. The only problem is now the thought of eating meat makes me feel a little queezy.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I love meat. It's tasty.

[bretty]

I find it weird that this is the third poll of the same type. I understand threads get a little long, but I think its safe to say the summary is there's a few vegans and vegetarians and the rest eat meat. Pretty much exactly like the real world statistics.

I understand the issues around being vegan. I'm vegan myself but I don't think me being vegan makes me a better person then anyone else. Although I would say that on a personal level it has made me a better person because I'm healthier and i've increased my knowledge on diet and food politics. And I would agree there are definitely problems with animal based farming. It's all part of the Capitalist-Fordist framework however.

As a footnote I'd like to also say whomever posted the thing by Immortal Technique a few pages ago. He pretty much repeats the same idiotic remarks I've gotten from people for years. His opinion is nothing special, and he is seriously misled for the most part. Unfortunate.

If anyone wants to comment on the legitimacy of a vegan/vegetarian diet, they should first look into the American Dietetic Associations paper on it first, considering they suggest it's completely healthy and does have health benefits.

[Pogue]

I don't eat meat because I don't like the idea of something being killed just so I can gain some pleasure.
I eat free-range eggs and milk from companies known not to treat cows in a bad way. This is quite hard to follow though - most restaraunts will label food is vegetarian, that is, no meat, but they wont tell you if the eggs are free-range, or if the cheese/milk is too.
The economic arguments are strong too - meat farming seems to be such a waste! Especially when you grow grain to feed to an animal, then you kill the animal and eat it.
Most vegetarian alternatives to meat, like mycoprotein based meat replicating foods, are really good now. I can have spaghetti bolognese made from mycoprotein mince and not recognise any difference from when I ate meat. Most meat eaters have said the same when they tried it. I can honestly say I have not ever missed meat at all, because the alternatives and replacements are fine!
So yeh, I became a vegetarian for a number of reasons, environmental, moral, social, political, etc (easier to feed people if you dont waste grain on beefing up animals, etc), but mainly because I just wasn't comfortable with something dying to fund my selfish desires. The same way I have stopped buying products from particularly epxloitative companies - because I can't justify funding someone/something's suffering based upon what I want.
I'd like to see animals used exclusively for egg/milk/cheese production in good conditions (free-range), because I don't see this as exploitative, if you look after them well. Thats my argument for when people say "What would happen to the animals?". Fish you can jsut leave to swim around. Pigs could just be left on their own.
It wouldn't be hard at all, and I think it'd be good. but if you really don't want to go vegetarian I'd urge you to at buy meat from the more ethical suppliers, make sure the animals were free-range, etc. But I'd rather you went vegetarian, it's really not hard at all. :)

[Lost In Translation]

Yes, I do agree with HLVS on how vegetarianism is better environmentally and financially. But then, you have to convince your entire family to do that, because if everybody follows it, it's easier for the person preparing the food (namely mom).

However, converting to vegetarianism should be for AFTER your teen years (or after puberty, whichever comes first :lol:), because significantly altering your diet during periods of high growth is not healthy.

But vegetarianism isn't really a choice for many people who already don't have enough to eat. This is only for the rich countries in the northern hemisphere to contemplate...

[Pogue]

I'm lucky in that my family have been understanding and supportive of my vegetarianism :)

[Raoul_RedRat]

"I'm like a post-modern vegetarian. I eat meat... ironically." ~Bill Bailey~

But yes ever so often I eat meat. I have thought a lot about it and have come to the conclusion that in respect to meat, it would be reasonable to be a complete vegan.

Not because I think animals are equal to human beings, but because the relevant distinguishing feature between us and animals is that we have the capacity to reason and have a concept of morality. To kill an animal for consumption is to impose a certain value on it and this value is often derived by a fallacious appeal on nature (it is natural to eat meat) or they are no reasonable agent thus have no moral worth. Yet this last idea would have grave consequences for how we asses the moral worth of disabled human beings, the rain forest, et cetera. Clearly moral agency isn't the only factor in deciding if something is worth our deliberation.

But what reason is their to stop consuming animals? First and the most obvious reason is the way animal consumption plays a role in social and economical inequalities. There is no "fair trade" in the distribution of meat, even the biological versions have become a capitalistic trade in itself and does nothing but ease the mind of the consumer.
Secondly we could argue that moral worth is applied to those beings that we can feel empathic about. We can be empathic about an animals pain, anxiety and stress. Yet -and this is where is disagree with some vegetarians- this does not make an animal a moral agent. So their moral worth is not implied in their being, yet is a consequence of our ability to be empathetic about them

From this stance, I would eat meat if it's wasn't motivated by capitalism and if the said animal wouldn't have had a clue when it would be killed or when it is being killed, and it would live in a harmless environment; given that there aren't any alternatives for meat.

Yet I do eat meat, but for the same weakness I participate in capitalist society. That is all but an excuse, but I somehow get a bit disgruntled about people so fiercely crying for animal rights yet I have not yet met any animal rights activist who is as compassionate about animals as he/she is about our fellow human beings in the 3rd world (and a lot of them rely on animal consumption).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I like eating meat. I try to limit my red meat intake becuase its environmentally not so good. But poultry is pretty efficient. But regardless, animals are not sentient, I really don't give a flying crap about their welfare.

[nuisance]

I'm vegan because I'm not a cruel twat.

[Pogue]

Thats a shame comrade. I just also view at as like how some people just don't care about human beings, like their workers, because they see themselves as above them. And also how an animal can suffer. I don't like to suffer. Why would I inflict this on another being just because I like the tast of their body?

*edit* This was directed at Joe Hill's Ghost

[Sir Comradical]

Not a muslim or jew, just don't like pork.

[Raoul_RedRat]

I'm vegan because I'm not a cruel twat.

Make that an irrational and shallow vegan, since you do realize that you attribute to any non-vegan the predicate 'cruel twat'. And you do so without any proper argument or consideration of who you actually are insulting.

Don't post on these board just to kick in one-liners to gratify your own beliefs.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Thats a shame comrade. I just also view at as like how some people just don't care about human beings, like their workers, because they see themselves as above them. And also how an animal can suffer. I don't like to suffer. Why would I inflict this on another being just because I like the tast of their body?

*edit* This was directed at Joe Hill's Ghost

I don't endorse cruelty. We should treat animals as well as feasibly possible. But we shouldn't forget that they are animals, not people. I'm all down for leaving apes, whales and dolphins alone since they're pretty close to sentience. Best to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I do not give a damn about killing a cow to eat it. If left to the wild that cow would die a pretty brutal death. Cows evolved to suit our needs, they're a domesticated species. But the same applies to all animals really. Nature has no qualm in setting lose some of the most vicious forms of torture on animals. Their lives aren't sacred by any stretch. Once they start talking to me, then ok. But clearly that ain't happening. And in the meantime, I have a hankering for ribs.

[Incendiarism]

I'm a vegetarian, but I think that when people take environmental and animal crusading to its extreme it trivializes human suffering. Until we can assure and safeguard that people may live with dignity then we should funnel energy into such things.

I mean, yeah, it's sad and terrible when you see those pictures and what not, but it shouldn't be one's top priority.

[nuisance]

Make that an irrational and shallow vegan, since you do realize that you attribute to any non-vegan the predicate 'cruel twat'. And you do so without any proper argument or consideration of who you actually are insulting.

Don't post on these board just to kick in one-liners to gratify your own beliefs.
Grow a sense of humour.

[Pogue]

I've always noted that when challenged by vegetarians/vegans, most meat eaters respond with a sort of self-righteous tone, with a hint of aggression, saying things like "Now I'm off to eat a big tasty juicy burger because I want too" and "I don't give a fuck about animals."
I think they take this harsh approach because there is no moral defence for what they do, so they resort to this brutal approach to satisfy themselves with what they do.

[Jazzratt]

I've always noted that when challenged by vegetarians/vegans, most meat eaters respond with a sort of self-righteous tone, with a hint of aggression, saying things like "Now I'm off to eat a big tasty juicy burger because I want too" and "I don't give a fuck about animals."
I think they take this harsh approach because there is no moral defence for what they do, so they resort to this brutal approach to satisfy themselves with what they do.

You convinced yourself there is no moral defense, more like. It's the ultimate hypocrisy for a vegetarian/vegan that "challenges" people to talk about "self righteousness", as I can think of nothing more twattishly self-righteous than confronting someone over their dietry habits. As it happens it's around lunch time and I'm going to have a sandwhich that may or may not contain meat but I'm sure as fuck not going to base my decision either way on what some prick with a stick up their arse has said about my eating habits.

[Pogue]

But I'm not confronting you anyone. I'm bringing this up in a forum discussion about vegetarianism. You don't need to swear, it's not cool or intimidating.
You believe it's OK to inflict fear and pain upon something because you want too - that's your decision. I don't see how that can ever be morally right, so I think it's wrong. I'm just basing that on basic morality, that is to say, that its wrong to cause suffering when it isn't neccesary.
Do you think we, as socialists, should not talk to people about their political decisions? Is that as 'twattish' and 'self-righteous' as 'confronting' them on their dietary habits? Do you not judge people in the opposing ideologies section on their political decisions? When you do activism, do you not try to engage people and put across your point of view? Don't you criticise fascists and capitalists for their decisions in life?
You almost seem to be proving my point with your angry response. You seem offended by my suggestion that harming a living thing is wrong.

[Jazzratt]

But I'm not confronting you anyone. I'm bringing this up in a forum discussion about vegetarianism. You don't need to swear, it's not cool or intimidating.

I'm not trying to be cool or to intimidate you, so calm down you thin-skinned little creep.


You believe it's OK to inflict fear and pain upon something because you want too - that's your decision. I don't see how that can ever be morally right, so I think it's wrong. I'm just basing that on basic morality, that is to say, that its wrong to cause suffering when it isn't neccesary.

But you have no logical basis for that, you have simply started working on the base assumption that any suffering of any kind inflicted on anything is wrong, you've given no reason for this. My morality places sapient creatures above those that are merely sentient, to the point that the death or suffering of the latter caqn (usually) be justified by the comfort/nutrition of the former.


Do you think we, as socialists, should not talk to people about their political decisions? Is that as 'twattish' and 'self-righteous' as 'confronting' them on their dietary habits?

Yes we should, and it's nowhere near as twattish, not living in a socialist society affects humans adversely so we, as humans, must act to bring about socialism (using the very generic term which encoimpasses all future forms of far-left societies including anarchism).


Do you not judge people in the opposing ideologies section on their political decisions? When you do activism, do you not try to engage people and put across your point of view? Don't you criticise fascists and capitalists for their decisions in life?

Again these all have ramifications beyond me finding them "wrong" on the basis of some ill thought-out morality.


You almost seem to be proving my point with your angry response. You seem offended by my suggestion that harming a living thing is wrong.


I'm angry because you believe that someone defending themselves from criticism by some vegan soapdodger is "self righteous" and that you believe simply stating that the opposing side doesn't have an argument is actually a way of winning an argument. You're a lying hypocrite, so fuck off.

[Pogue]

I don't understand you're problem - why are you swearing, why are you so angry? Are you tkaing something out on me? It's so unnecesary, fi you're angry, just argue passionately, this is text based disucssion, theres no reason to insult me. You don't know me. You're morality says you're right, mine say's I'm right. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. I am a hypocrit in no way. Why tell me to fuck off? I'm part of an argument with you. Why should I leave? What gives you the right to say that?
I base my morality on what I see. Animals can cry out in pain and demonstrate fear, and I understand killing them would scare them, and have some degree of pain involved. Even if they die painlessly, if thats possible, there's fear and whatever else a confused animal may feel.
Please stop taking out you're anger out on me with baseless insults - we're both socialists and have no reason to be angry with each other. Call me self-righteous if you want, call me wrong, I don't care, I know I'm not, but please don't tell me to fuck off and call me a thin-skinned little creep, thats very degrading and horrible, and I wouldn't expect it from an anarchist.

[Raoul_RedRat]

I don't understand you're problem...

You are wrong to think that any claims can fly by unchallenged because they're just your opinion.

You say,


I think they take this harsh approach because there is no moral defence for what they do, so they resort to this brutal approach to satisfy themselves with what they do.

You claim more than you argue for. It is you who is making the implicit insults, for not doing justice to the probable arguments meat eaters can give and have given. You blame them for self-righteousness but you yourself are self-righteous for stating that meat eaters have no defence, but you give no arguments for it.

Or in sum, you started to play the ad hominem fallacy and you are answerd in full by Jazzrat with more than just personal attacks.

[Raoul_RedRat]

Grow a sense of humour.

By giving such a fallacious response you only validate that you either came to the conclusion that you shouldn't have filled this thread with your nonsense. Or that you are in fact irrational and shallow.

How's that for humour?

[nuisance]

By giving such a fallacious response you only validate that you either came to the conclusion that you shouldn't have filled this thread with your nonsense. Or that you are in fact irrational and shallow.

How's that for humour?
Pretty good actually :laugh:

[Pogue]

I don't understand the anger and competition that seems to pervade this forum. It seems that every post has a hint of anger in it. Its ridiculous.
Once more, I state that its morally wrong to cause something to suffer for your own desire to eat it. There is an argument. If you deny that suffering is a bad thing, then you're not worth arguing with.

[Raoul_RedRat]

I don't understand the anger and competition that seems to pervade this forum. It seems that every post has a hint of anger in it. Its ridiculous.
Once more, I state that its morally wrong to cause something to suffer for your own desire to eat it. There is an argument. If you deny that suffering is a bad thing, then you're not worth arguing with.

You give no argument you state, as you say so yourself.

You state: it is morally wrong to inflict suffering on something because you have a desire to eat it.

It lacks argument, because you presuppose that the desire to eat neccessary entails inflicting harm. And your statement lacks an explanation how suffering precisely is measured. You gave the behaviourist approach that fear and pain can be seen, but your whole statement relies on the ability to know there is fear and pain, for which you give no argument but you only put forward another claim that it is so.

You state: "If you deny that suffering is a bad thing, then you're not worth arguing with."

This is ad hominem, and contains the same agression you are projecting on others. On a side note, there are so many examples in the history of man in which suffering was considered a moral good. And I even think that you could give reasons for saying that 'suffering' is a-moral, am I now not worth arguing with?

[Pogue]

OK, so the fact is, you think its ok for sometihng to suffer for your own desire. And I think thats wrong, because an animals comfort is more important than your unneccesary desire. Theres my argument.
Following your logic we can't justify socialism unless we can 100% fully justify that exploitation of people is bad. :confused:

[Raoul_RedRat]

OK, so the fact is, you think its ok for sometihng to suffer for your own desire. And I think thats wrong, because an animals comfort is more important than your unneccesary desire. Theres my argument.
Following your logic we can't justify socialism unless we can 100% fully justify that exploitation of people is bad. :confused:

I never said I thought it was ok for something to suffer for my own desire, neither have I stated otherwise. You were the one making bold claims and failed to give any argument besides making statement upon statement, therefor the burden of proof still remains with you.

And even without you making a real effort in arguing for your opinion, you also refrain from replying in detail to your opponents with critical citations of what they've sad. You either blame them for agression and insults or you think you have sufficient knowledge to condense their words into one sentence.

[Jazzratt]

I don't understand you're problem - why are you swearing, why are you so angry? Are you tkaing something out on me? It's so unnecesary, fi you're angry, just argue passionately, this is text based disucssion, theres no reason to insult me. You don't know me.

Look, this is why calling you a thin-skinned little creep is so deliciously tempting, my first reply to you was not laced with niceties and ever since you've been making comments like this which attack the style of my argument but never the substance.


You're morality says you're right, mine say's I'm right. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. I am a hypocrit in no way.

Well, yes you are because you started by implying that people who reacted to your self-righteous proselytising about vegetarianism were somehow more self-righteous than the pious soapdodgers. This strikes me as a hypocritical inability to see wrong in the people on your side of the fence.


Why tell me to fuck off? I'm part of an argument with you. Why should I leave? What gives you the right to say that?

Okay, I'll rephrase that - "Stop talking out of your arse". And what gives me the right to tell you, or anyone else, to fuck off is - in my part of the world - a set of laws that enshrines freedom of speach and has existed for centuries.


I base my morality on what I see. Animals can cry out in pain and demonstrate fear, and I understand killing them would scare them, and have some degree of pain involved. Even if they die painlessly, if thats possible, there's fear and whatever else a confused animal may feel.

You still haven't explained what the imperative is for preventing their fear and pain. Most animals don't have the intellect to figure out they're going to be killed, so if there was a 100% painless method that could be used while they were grazing that would be morally right would it? As far as I can see you're either going have to argue for animals to have legal rights and prove that they are rational actors in society and thus deserving of those rights or you are going to have to explain why a merely sentient creatures deserves to be the moral equivlent of a sapient one.


Please stop taking out you're anger out on me with baseless insults - we're both socialists and have no reason to be angry with each other. Call me self-righteous if you want, call me wrong, I don't care, I know I'm not, but please don't tell me to fuck off and call me a thin-skinned little creep, thats very degrading and horrible, and I wouldn't expect it from an anarchist.

Please stop this fucking whining. It's not getting you anywhere and I suspect it's more of a ploy to dodge actual argument.

[Pogue]

I don't like arguing with people who see it neccesary to vent their rage from their home life onto people on forums because they have no other escape, so I'll ask for you to stop blaming your life issues on me and start acting like an adult, then I'll proceed to defeat your pathetic excuse for an argument.

[Jazzratt]

I don't like arguing with people who see it neccesary to vent their rage from their home life onto people on forums because they have no other escape, so I'll ask for you to stop blaming your life issues on me and start acting like an adult, then I'll proceed to defeat your pathetic excuse for an argument.

Don't presume I have problems at home just because I think you're being pathetic, either start arguing properly or fuck off.

[Dean]

You still haven't explained what the imperative is for preventing their fear and pain. Most animals don't have the intellect to figure out they're going to be killed, so if there was a 100% painless method that could be used while they were grazing that would be morally right would it? As far as I can see you're either going have to argue for animals to have legal rights and prove that they are rational actors in society and thus deserving of those rights or you are going to have to explain why a merely sentient creatures deserves to be the moral equivlent of a sapient one.

I can't comment on your current debate, because I'm not a part of it, but I think I can make a few observations on what sets you apart from (at least some of) the vegetarians here.

My view is that sapience doesn't matter. What makes self-awareness so special, when it comes to morality, or even rational activity? For me, it is an issue of the dignity of life which exists in certain forms. I think that sentient life is deserving of continued life. This is based on the same reasoning I have for being against murder. The abortion argument only differs in that it is the right to bodily autonomy which far exceeds the same in a creature which is probably not even sentient yet.

When it comes to your difference with the others here, I think you are a utilitarian, except when it comes to humans, where you do indeed apply morality - whether you are willing to admit it or not. Granted, many of the arguments put forth for animal rights are not very deep, but I think you enjoy bashing them :rolleyes:.

Your problem with animal rights activists is much deeper than the arguments presented here, it involves a fundamentally different way of looking at morality, utilitarianism and people in general.

[Pogue]

Don't presume I have problems at home just because I think you're being pathetic, either start arguing properly or fuck off.

I presume you've got problems because you're raging it out like a 6 year old spoilt child whose been denied a new toy on a forum to a person you don't know. I'm just telling you to sort that out properly, rather than taking it out on me with your big swear words. Because you're becoming really boring, and I don't see the point in treating you like an adult by arguing back until you behave like one.
And you're a moderator? Hah!

[Cult of Reason]

H-L-V-S, why is it bad for animals to feel pain, fear, doubt? To be killed? To be exploited, like a seam of copper, for human use? Also, in what way bad? It might be "bad" for the animals, assuming that would mean anything to them (I doubt it), but is that, in general terms, "a bad thing"? Is it a bad thing, for humans, for animals to be exploited and killed, or even tortured for the pleasure of a rather disturbed little boy? Is it a bad thing, for humans, for animals to feel pain and fear? How could that be?

A society's ideas of right and wrong, its morals, are not a Platonic form on some parallel dimension, but rules that apply within the society for the benefit of that society. For that reason, wanton killing is obviously wrong, but killing sanctioned by a society, such as capital punishment, is, even when coopted by a different body such as the state, a more difficult problem, even when used against members of that society (although there can be ceremonial "chuckings out of society", in obvious cases such as the outlaws of medieval Iceland and less so in the case of common criminals (again, it is less than clear who defines this--commonly it is the state or the media)). When killing, as an example, is done outside of the society, then there is no conflict at all, as the victims are not in the society.

Animals are not, and likely cannot be without human tinkering, members of human society, which is the largest relevant society for us to speak of here.

[Jazzratt]

My view is that sapience doesn't matter. What makes self-awareness so special, when it comes to morality, or even rational activity? For me, it is an issue of the dignity of life which exists in certain forms. I think that sentient life is deserving of continued life. This is based on the same reasoning I have for being against murder. The abortion argument only differs in that it is the right to bodily autonomy which far exceeds the same in a creature which is probably not even sentient yet.

I've no problem with your outlook, because it starts with the phrase "for me", and it indicates that you have decided that sentient life deserves to continue (presumably by virtue of its being sentient). However before I agree with this I would like to know why life deserves to continue simply by virtue of its sentience, what connection we have with non-self aware creatures that means we are ethically compelled to treat them like us. The only reason I refer to sapience rather than humanity is because I recognise that we would have too my in common with any other sapience not to treat them as equal to us.


When it comes to your difference with the others here, I think you are a utilitarian, except when it comes to humans, where you do indeed apply morality - whether you are willing to admit it or not. Granted, many of the arguments put forth for animal rights are not very deep, but I think you enjoy bashing them :rolleyes:.

Could you explain the first bit, I didn't quite understand it. As regards my liking to bash veggie arguments you may also wish to note that water is wet and that old bloke who used to be in the hitler youth that wears a silly hat follows this christian sect called "Catholocism".


Your problem with animal rights activists is much deeper than the arguments presented here, it involves a fundamentally different way of looking at morality, utilitarianism and people in general.

Well of course it would be, most ethical systems that condemn meat-eating lifestyles (and of course those that condone it) tend to have plenty of other facets - so it is only natural that I would differ in my outlook to someone who abstains from eating meat. However this is a thread in S&E on the subject of meat and meat eating rather than one in philosophy covering morality and ethics.


I presume you've got problems because you're raging it out like a 6 year old spoilt child whose been denied a new toy on a forum to a person you don't know. I'm just telling you to sort that out properly, rather than taking it out on me with your big swear words. Because you're becoming really boring, and I don't see the point in treating you like an adult by arguing back until you behave like one.
And you're a moderator? Hah!

Ah, I see you have chosen not to get over your personal offence and indignant rage. While it would be lovely to see you make a post as to why us "self righteous" meat eaters have no argument I suppose I'll have to wait until you can grow a thick enough skin to get over some words on a screen. Either that or when you admit to yourself you're doing all this whining in order to dodge any arguments.

[Pogue]

I seriously don't want to engage in an argument with someone as angry and pathetic as you, its a waste of time because you're an idiot.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think what vegetarians fail to notice is that animals without sapience are really just self propelled, organic machines. They are not conscious of anything, they're a bundle of instincts wired to an evolutionary program. When your car breaks down you don't cry, its not self aware. The same applies to animals. It just so happens that we are physically and evolutionarily similar to these creatures, and thus feel a certain affinity towards them. But the feelings we thrust upon them, are not the creature's feelings. Animal right activists intrinsically understand this, that's why they tend to be such assholes. They're not liberating anything, they're foisting their idea of liberation on something that doesn't understand liberation. Animal rights activists enjoy forcing their views on a population that, by its definition, cannot talk back. Animals have no moral agency, they can't stand up for themselves in any meaningful way. They merely seek to continue functioning, like any self perpetuating program.

[Lost In Translation]

I seriously don't want to engage in an argument with someone as angry and pathetic as you, its a waste of time because you're an idiot.
I hate to interject in this heated debate, but H-L-V-S, calling somebody an idiot, especially a mod, is asking for trouble. Plus, it's not a great way to end the debate. It's really weak.

[Incendiarism]

I hate to interject in this heated debate, but H-L-V-S, calling somebody an idiot, especially a mod, is asking for trouble. Plus, it's not a great way to end the debate. It's really weak.

Read Jazz's post. All of this is equally(I'm compelled to say this for the sake of communism!) ridiculous

[Pogue]

I called him an idiot because he was behaving like one. And if he bans me or something, fine. It would just demonstrate his immaturity, and also show how he is a disgrace to the position of forum moderator. And what kind of anarchist would take action against someone for disagreeing with them? That'd be abusing his power. He couldn't even pull the insult card, because he's been doing it too.

[Pogue]

Anyway, this is stupid, it's a waste of time, its not getting us anywhere and it's turning to insults and anger.

*edit*

Actually, don't delete it, that'd be stupid.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I called him an idiot because he was behaving like one. And if he bans me or something, fine. It would just demonstrate his immaturity, and also show how he is a disgrace to the position of forum moderator. And what kind of anarchist would take action against someone for disagreeing with them? That'd be abusing his power. He couldn't even pull the insult card, because he's been doing it too.


Mods can't ban people for arguments. Calm down. :cool:

[bretty]

Well of course it would be, most ethical systems that condemn meat-eating lifestyles (and of course those that condone it) tend to have plenty of other facets - so it is only natural that I would differ in my outlook to someone who abstains from eating meat. However this is a thread in S&E on the subject of meat and meat eating rather than one in philosophy covering morality and ethics.
Then we can discuss the Science of food politics around factory farming if that's what you'd prefer this thread to be about, and I'd agree.

I'm not going to argue ethics with you. I'm in agreement that my viewpoint on animal welfare will vary from yours. I'm not completely all for animal rights, as I do believe humans come first, however I do agree with some aspects and I have no qualms with the personal advocation of animal welfare. That being said I will provide evidence for purely anthropocentric reasonings as to why one should at least minimize the meat & dairy they eat in their diet.

Firstly here is some evidence pertaining to studies done to test the health benefits of plant based diets. Here is an abstract (I can provide the full article if someone is interested.

"There is increasing evidence that dietary factors in plantbased
diets are important in the prevention of chronic
disease. This study examined protective (eg, antioxidant
vitamins, carotenoids, and fiber) and pathogenic (eg, saturated
fatty acids and cholesterol) dietary factors in a
very-low-fat vegan diet. Ninety-three early-stage prostate
cancer patients participated in a randomized controlled
trial and were assigned to a very-low-fat (10% fat) vegan
diet supplemented with soy protein and lifestyle changes
or to usual care. Three-day food records were collected at
baseline (n
42 intervention, n
43 control) and after 1
year (n
37 in each group). Analyses of changes in dietary
intake of macronutrients, vitamins, minerals, carotenoids,
and isoflavones from baseline to 1 year showed
significantly increased intake of most protective dietary
factors (eg, fiber increased from a mean of 31 to 59 g/day,
lycopene increased from 8,693 to 34,464
g/day) and significantly
decreased intake of most pathogenic dietary
factors (eg, saturated fatty acids decreased from 20 to 5
g/day, cholesterol decreased from 200 to 10 mg/day) in the
intervention group compared to controls. These results
suggest that a very-low-fat vegan diet can be useful in
increasing intake of protective nutrients and phytochemicals
and minimizing intake of dietary factors implicated
in several chronic diseases."
J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:347-356.

Please note that this also means you can be vegan and be incredibly unhealthy. It's in a HEALTHY vegan diet that one sees benefits.

Here is another study done discussing the ingestion of meat from factory farming and the effects of the antibiotics they use (which in turn is one of the reasons so much meat can be produced annually).

"Most of the antibiotics produced in the U.S. are fed to farm animals routinely as “growth promoters, and to facilitate “factory farming. Unfortunately, this places selective pressure on bacteria to develop antibiotic-resistance. Genes that neutralize antibiotics wind up protecting disease-causing germs. We have seen a tremendous increase in antibiotic-resistance in common food poisoning bacteria like Salmonella, but the problem is even worse than food-borne diseases. Bacteria also can rapidly transfer and spread antibiotic-resistance to other bacterial species. Therefore, diseases not even related to food become resistant to antibiotics, and hence much greater threats. For example, Staphylococci resistant to every available antibiotic have been isolated in recent years. Acquisition of antibiotic-resistance by bioterrorism weapons are also a concern. Use of antibiotics in animal feed, by selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, is thus a global threat to human health. Major scientific and medical organizations have concluded that agricultural uses of antibiotics pose a threat to public health. We need prescriptions for these drugs, yet the animal-food industries use them casually. This irresponsible misuse of antibiotics is unilaterally disarming our species from our precious last line of defense, and devastating epidemics may be the legacy of hunger for inexpensive meat. Legislation is urgently needed to curb this practice." - Emanuel Goldman Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, New Jersey Medical School.

This is not to argue against all practices of meat production, however one of the important reasons meat is so inexpensive and easy to come by is because of the casual use of antibiotics in food. If these lax practices were not in place, the meat industry would be a much different scenario in both economic and health terms.

I guess this is a start to a discussion.

[Sam_b]

Vegetarian. Very new, about 2 months into it now.

Chilli with fake meat kicks ass :lol:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Vegetarian. Very new, about 2 months into it now.

Chilli with fake meat kicks ass :lol:

No it doesn't, its like a broken promise. It looks like meat, but its not meat. No flesh=no taste when it comes to chili.

[Sam_b]

pfffffffft. Its all about the texture. When it comes to chilli, you're needing the flavour of spices, tomatoes, peppers etc much more than you need the meat.

However, veggie sausages can burn in hell.

[Incendiarism]

I looks like meat, but its not meat.

What are you made out of?

[Dean]

I've no problem with your outlook, because it starts with the phrase "for me", and it indicates that you have decided that sentient life deserves to continue (presumably by virtue of its being sentient). However before I agree with this I would like to know why life deserves to continue simply by virtue of its sentience, what connection we have with non-self aware creatures that means we are ethically compelled to treat them like us. The only reason I refer to sapience rather than humanity is because I recognise that we would have too my in common with any other sapience not to treat them as equal to us.
Why does a specific mode of thought compel you? I think it is more than enough that a creature have similar nervous system structure and the liability to feel and think. If I have a form of schizophrenia in which I do not understand that I see things from a human perspective, in other words I am not self-aware, what makes that so compellingly different when it comes to the rationale that society should let me continue to live?



Could you explain the first bit, I didn't quite understand it. As regards my liking to bash veggie arguments you may also wish to note that water is wet and that old bloke who used to be in the hitler youth that wears a silly hat follows this christian sect called "Catholocism".
I am saying that you come to your conclusions from an extremely utilitarian, mechanical standpoint. You are very legalistic, the only fluidity arrives when someone proves that a material system works differently. Your axioms are set in stone, and you always divert arguments away from such issues. As in the following:


However this is a thread in S&E on the subject of meat and meat eating rather than one in philosophy covering morality and ethics.
I wonder why it is in science and Environment, but I still don't think the distinction between that and philosophy is really that compelling. Philosophy rests squarely on the shoulders of science; for instance, this entire debate centers around issues basically rooted in the biological existence of non-human animals.

In any case, the issue has come to a decisive point: the issue of spaience versus sentience. And this is indeed both a scientific and moral issue. I am interested in your response on this.

[Pogue]

I think vegetarian sausages are great. And you're right about chilli. The same goes for the vegetarian mince you use for spaghetti sauces, I honestly can't tell the difference betweent hat and meat.

[freakazoid]

No one answered my question, :(


To all the non-meat eaters out there. Is it ok to kill a fetus for an abortion?

[Dean]

No one answered my question, :(
Yes I did:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1204409&postcount=217

[Jazzratt]

Why does a specific mode of thought compel you? I think it is more than enough that a creature have similar nervous system structure and the liability to feel and think. If I have a form of schizophrenia in which I do not understand that I see things from a human perspective, in other words I am not self-aware, what makes that so compellingly different when it comes to the rationale that society should let me continue to live?

I still don't see why it is that nervous structure is so important. Yes the animal can feel but that doesn't compel us to do anything about its suffering. As for your schizophrenia example - presumably there is some way of treating that (and if there isn't I firmly believe that the sufferer should either be euthaniesed (if the present a danger) or kept seperate from the rest of society), whereas there is currently no treatment for the mental condition of being a cow.


I am saying that you come to your conclusions from an extremely utilitarian, mechanical standpoint.

Is this a criticism? If so, how?


You are very legalistic, the only fluidity arrives when someone proves that a material system works differently.

Yes, I do change my mind if someone presents me with new evidence, this is how people work.


Your axioms are set in stone, and you always divert arguments away from such issues. As in the following:

My point with this is that while I may be willing at some points to discuss my broader moral/ethical outlook this is not the correct thread in which to do it, instead this thread - where there are moral/ethical debates (as there would be on this subject) they should stick firmly to the issue in hand.


I wonder why it is in science and Environment, but I still don't think the distinction between that and philosophy is really that compelling. Philosophy rests squarely on the shoulders of science; for instance, this entire debate centers around issues basically rooted in the biological existence of non-human animals.

I was only pointing out it was in S&E because that is where it is, not because that should change a lot of the morality debates here (which can be interesting). My main point was, as I stated above, that this is not the correct thread for the discussion of the wider implications of any given ethical outlook.


In any case, the issue has come to a decisive point: the issue of spaience versus sentience. And this is indeed both a scientific and moral issue. I am interested in your response on this.

What is there to say? Sapience is generally well defined and is more deserving of moral consideration than mere sentience. There is, obviously, more to it than that but without your asking for something more indepth I really can't think of what else to say.


I seriously don't want to engage in an argument with someone as angry and pathetic as you, its a waste of time because you're an idiot.

Have you noticed, hunchbrain, that when you started your post as an outright attack on people who ate meat as being "self righteous" just because they didn't agree with you I treated you like shite, whereas with people that aren't dickheads - like dean - I'm more polite. It's like for like treatment and if you don't like it, don't be a cocktip.

bretty:

WHile what you say is interesting and I may well reply to it at a later date, I simply can't be arsed replying to three people at once. As a preliminary point, though, health isn't always a person's top concern - it may be good to be aware of health risks from consuming too much meat (as with anything) but it doesn't compel people not to. For example, I as a drinker, smoker and overeater I expect to die young but that's not stopping me because I enjoy those things and none of them are immediatly toxic.

[Pogue]

Once more, you show the aggresion and idiocy that most keyboard armchair communists show. You need to get out more. I reccomend a job. See how far swearing at people in real life gets you, prick.
You life is so boring you have to get angry at people on forums, I pity you, you lonely twat.

[Jazzratt]

Once more, you show the aggresion and idiocy that most keyboard armchair communists show. You need to get out more. I reccomend a job. See how far swearing at people in real life gets you, prick.
You life is so boring you have to get angry at people on forums, I pity you, you lonely twat.

Don't lecture me you presumptious little shit.

[freakazoid]

Yes I did:

D'oh, I don't know how I missed that, lol

[Pogue]

Don't lecture me you presumptious little shit.

I'll take your insult as an admittance that you are in fact, an armchair/keyboard communist leading a lonely life. ;)

[LiberaCHE]

I'm a "Meatitarian"

If it walks, swims, or flies I'll eat it.

I find "vegetarianism" / "veganism" (along with animal rights etc) to be a bourgeoisie luxury & distraction.

[Sam_b]

To all the non-meat eaters out there. Is it ok to kill a fetus for an abortion?

Yes. I'm not a vegetarian because I have a moral problem with killing animals, its primarily as action against the environmental damage that the mass production of meat causes, as well as health and economic reasons.

[Sam_b]

an armchair/keyboard communist

How much activity do you do in 'real life' to build the movement? Can you assume that sort of moral high ground without (i'm guessing) any idea of what Jazzrat does?


The same goes for the vegetarian mince you use for spaghetti sauces

THIS! :D

[LiberaCHE]

I do find it an amusing mental image to picture Comrade Stalin standing at a PETA rally :lol:

He'd bite the head off of the rabbit himself. :ninja:

[Sam_b]

Not every vegetarian supports PETA, y'know. And its wrong to necessarily make the connection between vegetarianism/veganism and animal rights. I don't understand how it could be a 'bourgeois luxury' anyway.

[Pogue]

Good to see appreciation of vegetarian mince, it's ace, and I thought I was one of the only ones :D

[Sam_b]

I will bitterly dispute your sausage claim though ;)

[Pogue]

:O What sausages are you buying?!?!

[Sam_b]

Quorn. And the Cauldron ones.

Really disappointed with Cauldron. They do amazing falafel but their sausages are awful.