is anyone a vegetarian like me

[dizzy]

ok so ive come up with the thought that life is a sick game where we devour liveing things to stay alive,i think its shitty that we hold animals captive and raise them in farms to slaughter and feast upon just to satain our own life,and the ones we dont eat we put in zoos to gawk and stare at or keep as pets at our homes....what do you think?

[Unicorn]

Meat is a part of natural human diet and I personally like the taste very much. Nothing beats a good steak. :)

[Luís Henrique]

ok so ive come up with the thought that life is a sick game where we devour liveing things to stay alive,i think its shitty that we hold animals captive and raise them in farms to slaughter and feast upon just to satain our own life,and the ones we dont eat we put in zoos to gawk and stare at or keep as pets at our homes....what do you think?

That you are obviously prejudiced against the poor vegetals...

Luís Henrique

[BobKKKindle$]

Animals do not have rights, they exist to be used by us, and so there is no reason to abstain from the consumption of meat. Vegetarianism is acceptable as a lifestyle choice, no-one should be forced to eat meat if they have made a conscious choice not to, but vegetarians do not have the right to try and impose their views on people who see no ethical problems arising from meat consumption.

In general, it is legitimate to treat animals in any way, including sexual pleasure. I see no problems with the "mistreatment" of animals because they have no ethical value, they are the same as the other natural resources we use to enhance our quality of life. We do not give rights to a lump of coal, and so we should not give rights to a dog either.


Meat is a part of natural human diet

Arguable. Our canines are not as long as those of other species, and we need to cook meat before we can eat it, it is not possible for humans to eat the raw carcass of an animal, such that, based on this evidence, it can be argued that we are not naturally suited to eating meat. However, this is irrelevant, because we should not restrict our behaviour to what we consider natural, people derive pleasure from eating meat, our quality of life would diminish if we limited our consumption to plant matter, and so eating meat is, from a utilitarian viewpoint, a good thing.

[Coggeh]

ok so ive come up with the thought that life is a sick game where we devour liveing things to stay alive,i think its shitty that we hold animals captive and raise them in farms to slaughter and feast upon just to satain our own life,and the ones we dont eat we put in zoos to gawk and stare at or keep as pets at our homes....what do you think?
Me still trying teh veggism .. it fun :)

Don't listen to these modern day philistines :P

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/lobby/3909/beasts/beast2.html
Thats a good read.

[Kronos]

If it were more efficient to (required less effort and resources) produce agriculturally the necessary plants to provide what nutrition is provided by meat, then I would advocate vegetarianism. If it is easier to farm animals and use meat to get this nutrition, I would conduct the slaughtering of those animals as humanely as possible. Slaughtering procedures would involve killing animals as quickly and painlessly as possible. Regardless of the "animals have no rights" argument, animals have central nervous systems and do experience pain. Advanced life forms have this in common- they don't like pain. While I do not owe animals anything, and while I am the superior animal, I grant this privilege to animals used as food sources.

I do not condone exploiting animals for anything other than their use as a work utility or food source. There would be no zoos in my world. Wild animals would be observed in their preserved natural habitats, while domesticated animals (work animals) would be accommodated as necessary. Sexual exploitation of animals would be entirely out of the question. In my world, people suffering from zoophilia would be provided therapy for rehibilitation. If their condition was not "cured", they would suffer the consequences of practicing zoophilia, which would be illegal. This authoritarian approach is founded on my opinion that zoophilia is a conditioned perversion resulting from various forms of human estrangement and alienation. In shorter words, anybody who has developed the desire to fuck a horse has most likely had social problems with other humans. In my world no such perversions would exist.

[Kropotesta]

ok so ive come up with the thought that life is a sick game where we devour liveing things to stay alive,i think its shitty that we hold animals captive and raise them in farms to slaughter and feast upon just to satain our own life,and the ones we dont eat we put in zoos to gawk and stare at or keep as pets at our homes....what do you think?
I'm vegan
:cool:

[Kropotesta]

Animals do not have rights, they exist to be used by us, and so there is no reason to abstain from the consumption of meat. Vegetarianism is acceptable as a lifestyle choice, no-one should be forced to eat meat if they have made a conscious choice not to, but vegetarians do not have the right to try and impose their views on people who see no ethical problems arising from meat consumption.

Bit of a sad twat ain't you.
Animals can feel, therefore it is unethical to inflict pain on them. You object to discrimination of people i.e. a creature that can feel. You're nothing but a hypocrite.

[R_P_A_S]

I too believe that animals don't have rights. But we as humans, being able to think and use our noodle we should take more responsibility in the mistreatment of other living things. I do think it's rather egocentric to validate the abuse of animals and the environment simply because we are humans and they are here to serve us.

I think if people want to eat meat thats fine. But I would like better ways to raise the animals. all cramped up in little cages, being injected with shit is just not healthy.

I started to experiment with vegetarianism late last year, simply for economic reasons, meat was to expensive. Last time I eat chicken was 2 months ago and red meat 3 months ago. I sorta just got used to it and realized I don't miss it.

[Luís Henrique]

Bit of a sad twat ain't you.
Animals can feel, therefore it is unethical to inflict pain on them. You object to discrimination of people i.e. a creature that can feel. You're nothing but a hypocrite.

We don't object to the discrimination of people because they can feel.

Luís Henrique

[Dystisis]

I also think some of the members on this forum should get over the "animals exist to get used by humans, because we are the superior race" masturbatory arguments. At least that particular wording, it's just wrong. Animals does not exist to be used by humans, they exist independantly of humans and would exist even if there were no humans. Also, how do we define superior? Many animals have stronger senses than humans. Currently though, humans have superior organizational skills and intellect in general.

Of course, I agree with peoples rights not to be vegetarian, etc.

[Lector Malibu]

In general, it is legitimate to treat animals in any way, including sexual pleasure. I see no problems with the "mistreatment" of animals because they have no ethical value, they are the same as the other natural resources we use to enhance our quality of life. We do not give rights to a lump of coal, and so we should not give rights to a dog either.



This is so far of the mark it's ridiculous.

I will not stand side by side with anyone that abuses animals. Yes we can eat animals big whoopty fucking doo. That in no way gives you the privilege to mistreat another living entity, be it a rabbit or a human (we can eat humans too)

Now I eat meat when I can and am not saying that animals should not be eaten .

When I hear something like this though it sickens me to the core. Your just as bad as those U.S. marines in that video awhile back that got filmed throwing a puppy of a cliff.


Sexual gratification ? How about another person? Or have you not had any luck in that department?

[Unicorn]

This is so far of the mark it's ridiculous.

I will not stand side by side with anyone that abuses animals.
Animals don't have any rights but animal abuse should still be criminalized. Don't confuse these issues.

[Sam_b]

Animals do not have rights

Bollocks. I'm partial to the odd steak, but I recognise that the mass production of meat for human consumption results in inhumane treatment for many animals. Socialists should be against such cruel tactics.

[Vanguard1917]

Bollocks. I'm partial to the odd steak, but I recognise that the mass production of meat for human consumption results in inhumane treatment for many animals. Socialists should be against such cruel tactics.


So we should forbid people from eating meat because chicken have 'feelings'? That's not socialism.

Mass production of meat will be greatly expanded under socialism, so that we can produce more meat more efficiently. Irrational concerns about 'animal rights' will not come into it.

[dizzy]

i just dont think its our place to decide what lives and what dies when we are not the one who granted the animal life in the first place who are we to take it away

[Vanguard1917]

i just dont think its our place to decide what lives and what dies when we are not the one who granted the animal life in the first place who are we to take it away

That sounds like a religious argument to me.

From a humanist perspective, men and women should use nature for their own interests.

[Luís Henrique]

i just dont think its our place to decide what lives and what dies when we are not the one who granted the animal life in the first place who are we to take it away

Who are us to take it away? We are animals, animals live on eating other living beings. We cannot avoid it until we become chlorophilated and photosyntetic.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

we should form an anti-vegetarian carnivore internet group. In fact, I bet I can gather enough people to form one.

[Vanguard1917]

Who are us to take it away? We are animals, animals live on eating other living beings. We cannot avoid it until we become chlorophilated and photosyntetic.

Luís Henrique

I would say that this misses the point. We don't subject nature to our will because we're animals, but precisely because we're human.

[dizzy]

no not really but i just had the realizaion that if an animal was put in a position that it could eat us it would not hesitate so i thank you all for your input to help me realize that.

[Vanguard1917]

But an animal does that out of pure instinct. We use animals for food, clothes, entertainment, scientific research, etc. because, as human beings, we have the unique ability to consciously utilise nature.

[Lector Malibu]

Animals don't have any rights but animal abuse should still be criminalized. Don't confuse these issues.

Shut up Unicorn

[dizzy]

But an animal does that out of pure instinct. We use animals for food, clothes, entertainment, scientific research, etc. because, as human beings, we have the unique ability to consciously utilise nature.

true

[Rosa Provokateur]

Animals are living, feeling, thinking creatures too. They dont deserve the crap people put them through like being eaten, incarcerated, abused, etc. I dont believe in forcing people to not eat meat but as I see it vegetarianism is a conscientous objection to suffering and a refusal to live off of the exploitation of others.

[dizzy]

Animals are living, feeling, thinking creatures too. They dont deserve the crap people put them through like being eaten, incarcerated, abused, etc. I dont believe in forcing people to not eat meat but as I see it vegetarianism is a conscientous objection to suffering and a refusal to live off of the exploitation of others.

hehehe i like the way your brain thinks lol

[Vanguard1917]

I dont believe in forcing people to not eat meat

If you oppose mass productions of meat, you do believe in forcing people to not eat meat.

[Luís Henrique]

If we were to stop eating meat, on the other hand, we would harm other animals much more. They would not be able to compete with us as predators, if we decided to transform the whole Earth into a big crop producing farm.

Luís Henrique

[Kropotesta]

From a humanist perspective, men and women should use nature for their own interests.
that sounds like a wank arguement to me.

[Dystisis]

I would say that this misses the point. We don't subject nature to our will because we're animals, but precisely because we're human.
What's the difference? Higher intellect.

Anyways, this would mean we could also overcome our need to enslave animals in the way we do, securing ecological systems in the process. Which we can with f.ex. artificially created meats, etc. Technology to the rescue.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Vegetarian and damn proud. Wouldn't really call it a political view though.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

If we were to stop eating meat, on the other hand, we would harm other animals much more. They would not be able to compete with us as predators, if we decided to transform the whole Earth into a big crop producing farm.

Luís Henrique

Asssphincter says what?

I can't say I have heard that one before. I am not really sure what you mean by this?

[cappin]

I'm skipping through the forest picking wild flowers, listening to birds chirp, feeling a breeze across my face...when...oh no- it dawns on me, I'm at the top of the food chain.

It....can't....be....I live in a perfect happy world where birds don't eat fish and cats don't eat birds and...and...

[cappin]

Humans are just omnivores, and like bears, I guess there are some who feel that they would rather have a radish than a rabbit for dinner?

[Comrade Rage]

ok so ive come up with the thought that life is a sick game where we devour liveing things to stay alive,i think its shitty that we hold animals captive and raise them in farms to slaughter and feast upon just to satain our own life,and the ones we dont eat we put in zoos to gawk and stare at or keep as pets at our homes....what do you think?Hold on while I finish my burger.:cool:

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialism will result in a huge expansion in the use animals for testing, so that we are able to enhance our understanding of disease and develop new medication. This is by far the most important benefit animals have given the human species, even beyond the consumption of meat. Support for "animal rights" entails opposition to testing, and this exposes the "animal rights movement" for what it is: a movement deeply opposed to the interests of the human species, especially the humans currently living with the burden of incurable disease.


Animals can feel, therefore it is unethical to inflict pain on them. You object to discrimination of people i.e. a creature that can feel. You're nothing but a hypocrite.What does the term "feel" mean? Do you mean that animals are capable of feeling pain? There is evidence to suggest that, in the late stages of pregnancy, the fetus is also capable of feeling pain, and yet Socialists agree that women should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time, and so clearly the fact that something may be capable of feeling pain is not sufficient for according that entity rights, from a socialist perspective.


I'm partial to the odd steak, but I recognise that the mass production of meat for human consumption results in inhumane treatment for many animals. Socialists should be against such cruel tactics.It makes no sense to speak of the treatment of animals as "inhumane" because animals are not human, and so the fact that we might treat them in a way which would be unacceptable for a member of our own species is of no consequence.

As for the issue of meat production, if all production were changed to free range (in contrast to the current "factory" method which is currently used) then it would not be possible to produce as much meat, such that it would become more expensive and so only available to those with sufficient income to pay for luxury foodstuffs. Although there are issues about the taste, "factory farming" is the most effective method of meat production, from the viewpoint of economic efficiency.


That in no way gives you the privilege to mistreat another living entity, be it a rabbit or a human (we can eat humans too) Rabbits and Humans are not the same, biologically, and ethically. It is unethical to mistreat a human (to inflict damage without the consent of that person) but it is acceptable to "mistreat" a rabbit. This does not mean that one should be allowed to use any animals - if an animal is the property of a human, then, like all forms of personal property, it cannot be used by someone who is not the owner unless the consent of the owner has first been granted.

[Lector Malibu]

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Owner/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg

Rabbits and Humans are not the same, biologically, and ethically. It is unethical to mistreat a human (to inflict damage without the consent of that person) but it is acceptable to "mistreat" a rabbit. This does not mean that one should be allowed to use any animals - if an animal is the property of a human, then, like all forms of personal property, it cannot be used by someone who is not the owner unless the consent of the owner has first been granted.


How do you figure?

So because a rabbit doesn't make cell phone calls that means it's okay for some kid to bash it's skull in with a bat? Just for something to do?

There is something really wrong with you plain and simple.

[chimx]

I've been vegan for years, close to a decade. Veganism is what turned me on to misotheism: in that creation was based on predation and suffering. The only conclusion I can reach from that is that God is a piece of shit.

[BobKKKindle$]

So because a rabbit doesn't make cell phone calls that means it's okay for some kid to bash it's skull in with a bat? Just for something to do?

If the rabbit is the property of the child, then yes, it is acceptable for the child to use use the rabbit in any way. What right do you have to make judgements about the way other people use their property? Why do you object to the "inhumane" killing of animals, but see no problem with cutting up and roasting vegetables?

[Module]

I've been vegan for years, close to a decade. Veganism is what turned me on to misotheism: in that creation was based on predation and suffering. The only conclusion I can reach from that is that God is a piece of shit.
What creation?
And how exactly would it be based on 'predation and suffering'?
By the way, eating plants is still predation.

[Luís Henrique]

Asssphincter says what?

You don't know what you say?


I can't say I have heard that one before. I am not really sure what you mean by this?

It should be obvious. As it has been said, eating vegetals is much more efficient. If we only ate vegetals, our population would be bigger; as it grew, we would eat an increasing part of the available vegetals, living less and less food for our herbivore competitors, starving them (in fact, we would also do what we already do: kill them to avoid them eating our food).

It is a fantasy that eating only vegetals means that we don't harm any animals.

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

What creation?

The idea that Christians believe God created the universe.


By the way, eating plants is still predation.

You think?


It is a fantasy that eating only vegetals means that we don't harm any animals.

Yes, but not due to the example you just cited.

[BobKKKindle$]

Increasing plant cultivation (to make up for a lack of meat consumption) does create environmental problems, depending on what type of cultivation is used. Using a land for a single crop type for several years in succession leads to the depletion of nutrients, especially if the produce is not allowed to decay and return fertility to the soil. If fertilizers enter the local water system, an algae bloom can occur, which denies the fish access to oxygen. Clearly, abandoning meat will not create an environmental utopia, it may be more harmful (from an ecological viewpoint) to solely eat plant matter.

[Lector Malibu]

If the rabbit is the property of the child, then yes, it is acceptable for the child to use use the rabbit in any way. What right do you have to make judgements about the way other people use their property? Why do you object to the "inhumane" killing of animals, but see no problem with cutting up and roasting vegetables?

I eat out of necessity. I do not waste viable resources. Needless killing of the rabbit is a waste of a viable food source therefore deserves scrutiny.

I object to the inhumane killing and abuse of animals because I expect not to be abused and killed inhumanly

Why are humans allowed this and not another living entity?

[BobKKKindle$]

I eat out of necessity. I do not waste viable resources. Needless killing of the rabbit is a waste of a viable food source therefore deserves scrutiny.

You do not need to eat meat, it is possible to derive all necessary nutrients from plant matter, so you could, in theory, live without every eating meat at all. You only want to think of meat as a necessity because your quality of life would be diminished if you did not eat meat, and so the idea that meat is necessary justifies your consumption of meat, despite your insistence of "animal rights"

[Lector Malibu]

You do not need to eat meat, it is possible to derive all necessary nutrients from plant matter, so you could, in theory, live without every eating meat at all. You only want to think of meat as a necessity because your quality of life would be diminished if you did not eat meat, and so the idea that meat is necessary justifies your consumption of meat, despite your insistence of "animal rights"


When did I say I had to eat meat to eat meat to survive? I did not at all. I said I eat out of necessity. Matter of fact I was just talking on another thread earlier today where I often go on boughts where I just eat vegetarian sometimes even vegan . I was actually raised as a vegetarian till the age of eight.

I'm not talking about animal rights.

If you think you have the right to abuse animals. I think I have the right to abuse you.

[Vanguard1917]

If you think you have the right to abuse animals. I think I have the right to abuse you.


What kind of line of reasoning is that?

We as humans slaughter hundreds of millions of animals a year to be consumed as food. We don't do the same with humans, do we?

[Lector Malibu]

What kind of line of reasoning is that?



It's a completely asinine statement to illustrate a point

He is saying that he can abuse animals because they don't belong to anyone therefore they don't matter. Well humans don't belong to anyone so why is it wrong for me to abuse him?

See my point?

[The Intransigent Faction]

What kind of line of reasoning is that?

We as humans slaughter hundreds of millions of animals a year to be consumed as food. We don't do the same with humans, do we?

Oh just you wait.."Interviewed Tuesday for Charlie Rose's PBS show, CNN founder Ted Turner argued that inaction on global warming 'will be catastrophic' and those who don't die 'will be cannibals'." Someone's taken a page out of Jonathan Swift's satirical "A Modest Proposal". :eek:.

[Bilan]

Animals do not have rights, they exist to be used by us, and so there is no reason to abstain from the consumption of meat.

Nothing "has rights" by default. Rights are given and created.
Secondly, there are reasons.
For some people a meat free diet is better for them - due to lower levels of fat, and salts. (for some, the opposite is true)
Some see it as unnecessary to consume a living creature as a means of subsistence.
That view is not wrong or right universally, it's a personal ethical choice; but still a reason.



Vegetarianism is acceptable as a lifestyle choice, no-one should be forced to eat meat if they have made a conscious choice not to, but vegetarians do not have the right to try and impose their views on people who see no ethical problems arising from meat consumption.

And do you agree that the opposite is true, too?

[qyite[
In general, it is legitimate to treat animals in any way, including sexual pleasure. I see no problems with the "mistreatment" of animals because they have no ethical value, they are the same as the other natural resources we use to enhance our quality of life.[/quote]

How do you determine if something has 'ethical value'?




We do not give rights to a lump of coal, and so we should not give rights to a dog either.

A dog is not the same as a lump of coal. A silly comparison.



Arguable. Our canines are not as long as those of other species, and we need to cook meat before we can eat it, it is not possible for humans to eat the raw carcass of an animal, such that, based on this evidence, it can be argued that we are not naturally suited to eating meat. However, this is irrelevant, because we should not restrict our behaviour to what we consider natural, people derive pleasure from eating meat, our quality of life would diminish if we limited our consumption to plant matter, and so eating meat is, from a utilitarian viewpoint, a good thing.

It would not 'diminish' if we ate plant matter. It would change.


Hold on while I finish my burger.:cool:

Don't spam the forum.


Socialism will result in a huge expansion in the use animals for testing, so that we are able to enhance our understanding of disease and develop new medication. This is by far the most important benefit animals have given the human species, even beyond the consumption of meat. Support for "animal rights" entails opposition to testing, and this exposes the "animal rights movement" for what it is: a movement deeply opposed to the interests of the human species, especially the humans currently living with the burden of incurable disease.

...apart from the fact that animal testing can be negative toward humans as well?
It's not necessarily "against" the interest of the human species (though, it often is, and that part should be opposed), but its often considered out dated, and potentially dangerous.



What does the term "feel" mean? Do you mean that animals are capable of feeling pain? There is evidence to suggest that, in the late stages of pregnancy, the fetus is also capable of feeling pain, and yet Socialists agree that women should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any time, and so clearly the fact that something may be capable of feeling pain is not sufficient for according that entity rights, from a socialist perspective.


Surely you can see the difference between these two issues.
A fetus is acts more as a parasite on a womans body, furthermore, it is part of her body: it is her body, and what she with it is her decision, completely.

The situation animals are in is completely different to that of abortion.

One is needless killing (And in your case, exerting sexual frustration, torture, etc) the other is sovereignty over ones body.


As for the issue of meat production, if all production were changed to free range (in contrast to the current "factory" method which is currently used) then it would not be possible to produce as much meat, such that it would become more expensive and so only available to those with sufficient income to pay for luxury foodstuffs. Although there are issues about the taste, "factory farming" is the most effective method of meat production, from the viewpoint of economic efficiency.


That's a given, due to it being a capitalist economy.

[Vanguard1917]

It's a completely asinine statement to illustrate a point

He is saying that he can abuse animals because they don't belong to anyone therefore they don't matter. Well humans don't belong to anyone so why is it wrong for me to abuse him?

See my point?


I think what he's saying is that we can't apply the same standards that we apply to human beings on animals. You seem to be suggesting that we should:


I object to the inhumane killing and abuse of animals because I expect not to be abused and killed inhumanly

Why are humans allowed this and not another living entity?



If you think you have the right to abuse animals. I think I have the right to abuse you.

[Bilan]

Also, I was a vegan for 3 years, stopped recently, and I'm now a vegetarian, and I am completely against vegan politics. ;)

[Lector Malibu]

I think what he's saying is that we can't apply the same standards that we apply to human beings on animals. You seem to be suggesting that we should:

No I'm not. I think your misunderstanding me. I'm not advocating abuse period , in this case against animals.

Specifically I am stating opposition to the justification of abuse whether it be mistreatment of animals or obtaining sexual pleasure from them as Bobkindles Is defending as in his mind animals don't ethically matter.

I am not arguing over whether humans should eat meat or not

When I asked why humans are allowed not to be abused or killed inhumanly.

I was asking what makes us better than the animals?

I was not advocating that we should mistreat humans because animals are mistreated or eat humans or anything weird like that.

[Vanguard1917]

For some people a meat free diet is better for them - due to lower levels of fat, and salts. (for some, the opposite is true)
Some see it as unnecessary to consume a living creature as a means of subsistence.

A person's personal choice of diet is of no interest to me. People should be free to eat what they want.

But when a personal opposes mass meat production, they're attacking the freedom of others.



...apart from the fact that animal testing can be negative toward humans as well?


Are you disputing the fact that scientific experimentation on animals has played a vital role in medical progress?



One is needless killing


The vast majority of animals are not killed 'needlessly'. They're killed to meet human needs, albeit through the mediation of the market.


That's a given, due to it being a capitalist economy.

No, the intensive farming of animals (i.e. factory farming) is more efficient than all the alternatives. It has given way to a greater output of meat and thus to a wider consumption of meat for billions of people worldwide. This is a good thing. Socialism will seek to expand on it.

[Bilan]

A person's personal choice of diet is of no interest to me. People should be free to eat what they want.

But when a personal opposes mass meat production, they're attacking the freedom of others.


That was my point.




Are you disputing the fact that scientific experimentation on animals has played a vital role in medical progress?

Of course not. Don't be silly.



The vast majority of animals are not killed 'needlessly'. They're killed to meet human needs, albeit through the mediation of the market.


A massive amount of meat is wasted and you damn well know it.



No, the intensive farming of animals (i.e. factory farming) is more efficient than all the alternatives.

True. And mass efficiency (in this sense) has repercussions - particuarly environmental ones, and also raises questions of ethics on how we treat other species.



It has given way to a greater output of meat and thus to a wider consumption of meat for billions of people worldwide. This is a good thing. Socialism will seek to expand on it.

Factory farming is something that you'll find in either World Cities or just Developed Nation States. World Wide? Hardly.

Socialists (thank you very much) will seek to expand (hopfully) on being able to provide for greater distribution and production of food sources (meat, etc) whilst developing methods that are both sustainable and practical.
Ya dig?
This method isn't.

[Vanguard1917]

That was my point.


So you support the mass production of meat?


Of course not. Don't be silly.

But you consider animal testing to be 'negative toward humans' and 'out dated'?

Do you support it or not?


A massive amount of meat is wasted and you damn well know it.

It's wasted because not enough people can afford to buy it - hence supply outstripping demand.

The point is to create an economy where this does not happen.


Factory farming is something that you'll find in either World Cities or just Developed Nation States. World Wide? Hardly.

No, but it should be global. Creating an equal global society means applying our best, most efficient and most advanced industrial and agrilcultural methods and technology worldwide. Intensive agriculture is a part of this.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

It should be obvious. As it has been said, eating vegetals is much more efficient. If we only ate vegetals, our population would be bigger; as it grew, we would eat an increasing part of the available vegetals, living less and less food for our herbivore competitors, starving them (in fact, we would also do what we already do: kill them to avoid them eating our food).

It is a fantasy that eating only vegetals means that we don't harm any animals.

Luís Henrique

No I think that is a pretty spurious claim to make. Vegetarianism should be part of an ecologically sustainable approach to our environment. That would not include over farming habitats and would include retaining biodiversity and space for wildlife. The production of crops takes far less space and energy than that for animals.

[Kropotesta]

If the rabbit is the property of the child, then yes, it is acceptable for the child to use use the rabbit in any way. What right do you have to make judgements about the way other people use their property? Why do you object to the "inhumane" killing of animals, but see no problem with cutting up and roasting vegetables?
wow, bet you woulda supported slavery and racism with your petty arguements back in the day.

[Module]

wow, bet you woulda supported slavery and racism with your petty arguements back in the day.
Race is primarily a social construct, especially in the context of what I assume you're calling 'back in the day'. Species is pure, simple biology.
All human beings can participate in our social community. No rabbit can.

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm getting pretty damn sick of seeing your substanceless one-liners.

[Kropotesta]

Race is primarily a social construct, especially in the context of what I assume you're calling 'back in the day'. Species is pure, simple biology.
All human beings can participate in our social community. No rabbit can.

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm getting pretty damn sick of seeing your substanceless one-liners.
sick one of one liners? so what.
Biology aye? So women biologyically have small brains than men. So do you think they are inferior becasue of that simple piece of biology?

[Unicorn]

sick one of one liners? so what.
Biology aye? So women biologyically have small brains than men. So do you think they are inferior becasue of that simple piece of biology?
Although women have smaller brains they are not less intelligent than men. Animals are much less intelligent than humans and they are not sapient. Thus, they don't have any subjective rights.

[Module]

sick one of one liners? so what.
Biology aye? So women biologyically have small brains than men. So do you think they are inferior becasue of that simple piece of biology?
Men have larger brains, and women have more brain cells. That's also a simple piece of biology.
Another simple piece of biology is that there is no difference in the level of mental performance between men and women.
If you don't want to intelligently discuss your views, don't post on a discussion board.

[Bilan]

So you support the mass production of meat?

If its in demand, ecologically sustainable, etc. then yes.



But you consider animal testing to be 'negative toward humans' and 'out dated'?

Parts of it, yes.
More efficent and ethical methods should be developed (and I'm told that there are...)



Do you support it or not?


The answer is not a simple 'yes' and 'no'.




The point is to create an economy where this does not happen.


Indeed.



No, but it should be global.


Yeah, but you said it was, and it isn't. Hence.


Creating an equal global society means applying our best, most efficient and most advanced industrial and agrilcultural methods and technology worldwide.


Correct.

[Kropotesta]

Although women have smaller brains they are not less intelligent than men. Animals are much less intelligent than humans and they are not sapient. Thus, they don't have any subjective rights.
who creates these 'rights' you keep bleating on about?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Well I look at vegetarianism/omnitarian/veganism/fruitarianism at an evolutionary position. Human beings are built to eat both meat and vegetables and fruit. We are both carnivores and herbivores, and we can even be insectivores as well, if we could stomache such an idea. So I do the most healthy thing: I eat according to my diet passed down by thousands and even millions of years of evolutionary processes.

[Vanguard1917]

Parts of it, yes.
More efficent and ethical methods should be developed (and I'm told that there are...)


Scientific opinion is that animal testing is vital. The bottom line is that if it's useful in helping bring about scientific advancement, it should be used. Irrational concerns about 'animal rights' should not enter the equation and stand in the way of progress.



Yeah, but you said it was, and it isn't. Hence.


What i said is that modern agricultural methods have made meat more available for billions of people across the world. This is a fact. The point is to take this progress even further.

[cappin]

Well I look at vegetarianism/omnitarian/veganism/fruitarianism at an evolutionary position. Human beings are built to eat both meat and vegetables and fruit. We are both carnivores and herbivores, and we can even be insectivores as well, if we could stomache such an idea. So I do the most healthy thing: I eat according to my diet passed down by thousands and even millions of years of evolutionary processes.
Same here. If everyone had this position, it wouldn't be an argument.

[Module]

who creates these 'rights' you keep bleating on about?
Human society.
Thanks for ignoring my post.

[Lector Malibu]

All human beings can participate in our social community. No rabbit can.


Chimps can participate in our social community :rolleyes:

And they have established community's of there own. Go figure

Here's a link. Please go over the section closeness to humans towards the bottom of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

[Module]

The idea that Christians believe God created the universe.
Not just Christians.
So are you talking about the Christian notion of creation?
Then why, in what way, do you specifically say that it was based on "predation and suffering", to repeat my question?


You think?
Why, yes. Do you?
If a creation based on predation makes you think the creator is a piece of shit, why still participate in it? And if the participation is based on necessity, then why were you 'turned' towards misotheism by specifically one sort of predation?

[Kropotesta]

Human society.

not really, no.

[BobKKKindle$]

not really, no.

So where do rights come from? The idea of someone having rights which should be protected is actually a recent concept, and so if rights are not the products of human society, why have they not always applied?

"Rights" are part of the ideological superstructure which arises from a mode of production.

[cappin]

"Rights" are part of the ideological superstructure which arises from a mode of production.
It's true that in the wild there are no rights. When humans come along with thoughts and feelings, things change.

Cats love to kill prey for sport and excitement. The what we would call "trashier" people of our society in more rural or urban areas participate in dog fighting and many forms of animal abuse. They don't care because they aren't conditioned to. They grew up in a place that's less liberal and doesn't believe in "rights".

It seems more suitable in a primitive way, but if you want to be empathetic and balanced, it's tabboo.

I think when people become more aware and sensitive to others, they realize that they're hurting what could be considered their clan, or family, and that it would be in their best interest to improve a relationship with what might have earlier been below them, and used as a possession or toy. They see that it would be of better use to them if treated with equality. This is a little twisted when it comes to farming animals for food, though, because people get confused between what is a family pet that we have to love and pamper and call our own and what is cooking in the oven full of proteins and fats we can't get from eating vegetables alone.

[Rosa Provokateur]

If you oppose mass productions of meat, you do believe in forcing people to not eat meat.

No, I oppose the mass production of meat and the sick factory farm system. Far be it from me however to stop you from deer hunting, etc.

[Vanguard1917]

No, I oppose the mass production of meat and the sick factory farm system.

But if you oppose the mass production of meat, you do, for all intents and purposes, oppose the mass consumption of meat.

If 'factory farming' (i.e. the intensive farming of animals) was banned tomorrow, meat output would radically decline, meat prices would fly up, and less and less people would be able to afford to eat meat.

[Module]

So where do rights come from? The idea of someone having rights which should be protected is actually a recent concept, and so if rights are not the products of human society, why have they not always applied?

"Rights" are part of the ideological superstructure which arises from a mode of production.
Subjective rights are an idea, more than anything else, as you've put it, and from that I can assume that such an idea has existed for as long as human beings have (atleast) been at this current level of intelligence.
The idea of a human being having rights seems to be more of a social ethic, which can manifest itself in cultural laws. Human beings generally seem to like the equal staying equal (outside of themselves), and having known rights is a genuine way of maintaining social stability in a group, having a generally acknowledged ... rightful allowance of certain behaviour.

Even if the legal concept of human rights hasn't been around forever, now such a solid concept exists, it's subject to selective interpretation, and so on, and regardless of what the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', or any other says, you'll notice people saying that so and so has or does not have a "right" to do such and such thing, and people and societies having their own cultural concept of what constitutes a human right.

Human rights has become a name for something which exists in people's minds, regardless, the way they can figure out right and wrong, and how that manifests itself in the social norms of their society.
While "rights" refer to the logical human freedoms we should be entitled to in a society, it becomes something each society depending on what it feels is best for them to decide what's 'logical' and what's not.

(This is just me discussing, by the way, not making some sort of argument against anyone on this.)

[superiority]

Only humans are able to stand up for my rights. I will stand up for only theirs.

And, you know, aliens and shit. If they're sapient too.

(I wrote a way longer post that explained this all in more detail, but decided just to keep those last two lines. I can put up what I originally wrote, if anyone wants.)

[Cult of Reason]

In order for the concept of rights to function, an overwhelming majority of those covered by those rights must recognise that those rights affect those who recognise that those rights affect the former. In other words, rights, like rational authority and aid, are granted by one individual to another, but, to be functional over a large society, these attitudes must be mutual. A system of rights cannot work if half of the people affected do not (or cannot, when it comes to animals) recognise those rights, or cannot communicate in any way that they recognise those rights.

If "animals", as a blanket term, were given "rights", it would be inconsequential, really, since they would continue to kill each other, compete with each other and so on. The only effect would be to disadvantage humanity, who now cannot use animals for labour (so we will now have famine in the third world, where there are few tractors), cannot test on them for diseases (millions will die, in the long run, as a result), cannot cull them to prevent the spread of disease (resulting in even more human deaths, think of the rats!), cannot eat them and cannot keep them as pets.

So, whether subjectively or not, any concept of giving animals rights, or even "welfare", is objectively a misanthropist one.

[Lector Malibu]

In order for the concept of rights to function, an overwhelming majority of those covered by those rights must recognise that those rights affect those who recognise that those rights affect the former. In other words, rights, like rational authority and aid, are granted by one individual to another, but, to be functional over a large society, these attitudes must be mutual. A system of rights cannot work if half of the people affected do not (or cannot, when it comes to animals) recognise those rights, or cannot communicate in any way that they recognise those rights.

Question

So based on this assertion , mentally challenged and severely mentally ill people should not have rights. Do they fall under the same criteria?


quote]If "animals", as a blanket term, were given "rights", it would be inconsequential, really, since they would continue to kill each other, compete with each other and so on. The only effect would be to disadvantage humanity, who now cannot use animals for labour (so we will now have famine in the third world, where there are few tractors), cannot test on them for diseases (millions will die, in the long run, as a result), cannot cull them to prevent the spread of disease (resulting in even more human deaths, think of the rats!), cannot eat them and cannot keep them as pets.

I'm not against using animals for resourcefully. Where I draw the line is the way it has been done , and inhumane treatment and abuse of animals.


So, whether subjectively or not, any concept of giving animals rights, or even "welfare", is objectively a misanthropist one.

That may be so but still...

[Module]

Chimps can participate in our social community :rolleyes:

And they have established community's of there own. Go figure

Here's a link. Please go over the section closeness to humans towards the bottom of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

Lector Malibu, sapience is some sort of a case for rights, and this is not demonstrated through being able to learn human language, or pass the mirror awareness test.

Besides that, all social animals have their own communities. That doesn't mean anything in relation to us.

[Lector Malibu]

Lector Malibu, sapience is some sort of a case for rights, and this is not demonstrated through being able to learn human language, or pass the mirror awareness test.

Besides that, all social animals have their own communities. That doesn't mean anything in relation to us.


Maybe you should not use the term us than.

[Module]

Maybe you should not use the term us than.
Why?
Do you interact with the communities of other species? :confused:

[Lector Malibu]

Why?
Do you interact with the communities of other species? :confused:

no I'm saying the fact that animals can communicate and in the case of the link I posted even are starting to be able to respond to humans interest me.