So the last thread got closed 'cos I didn't put enough effort into the OP. Yet I didn't have the chance to respond to the replies because it was like 12am in NZ.
Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
First of all, I do support human rights and am actively involved with charities that help the poor (e.g. sponsoring children, volunteering my time for community groups that help the homeless). Coming from an ex-Christian background, I've dedicated more of my time to helping human rights than animal rights. Chances are those that attack vegans for not supporting human rights are less likely to be involved in any active charitable work themselves, as most people that give their time to various causes know how disrespective it is to have someone attack your cause as being less worthy than another's.
Secondly, supporting animal rights takes nothing away from human rights. All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights.
Thirdly, what it comes down to is what is ethical. Animals may not be as intelligent as us - but that doesn't mean they feel less pain. This is evidenced both physically and mentally.
An extract from nzdairy.webs.com:
In addition to having distinct personalities, cows are very intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time. Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They have complex emotions as well and even have the ability to worry about the future.
Researchers have found that cows can not only figure out problems, they also enjoy the challenge and get excited when they find a solution. In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had to find how to open a door to get some food. The researchers then measured their brainwaves. Professor Broom said that ‘The brainwaves showed the cows excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment,’ Cows can also learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirty or press a button with their head to release food when they’re hungry. Like humans they quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain like electric fences. In fact if just one cow in the herd is shocked by an electric fence, the rest of the herd will learn from that and will avoid the fence in the future.
Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but one cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never communicated to her daughter again. Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members.
Dairy cows are continually kept pregnant and lactating and their babies are sold off to the meat industry when they are only two days old. The life of a dairy cow is not as natural as you might think, especially considering that 80 percent of dairy cows are made pregnant through artificial insemination.
The only way for a cow, like any other mammal, to produce milk is for the cow to have a baby. The milk produced by cows is naturally meant for baby calves; however, because people want to drink this milk, the baby calves are taken away from their mothers when they are only a few days old. Cows are extremely maternal animals and both the mother cow and the baby calf suffer terribly from being separated at such a young age. In fact, one cow missed her baby so much that she broke out of her paddock and trekked through 8 kilometers of paddocks and rivers to find her baby. On dairy farms, mother cows can be heard bellowing out wildly trying to find their babies as well as running after the cattle trucks that take their babies to separate farms.
The baby calves life is then decided by their gender. That’s right, not only is the dairy industry hell for the animals, the environment and your health, it is also an industry that decides an animal’s entire life based on whether they are male or female. If the calve is male then he is taken away to be raised and slaughtered for meat. Because of this the NZ dairy industry contributes to the death of more than 1 million male dairy cows every year. That’s one death every 20 seconds. In fact, 55 percent of all beef in New Zealand supermarkets comes directly from the dairy industry. These male calves are transported to separate meat farms where they will never see their mothers again. They suffer terribly on their journey to the meat farm. Transported as young as 4 days of age, they endure cold and hunger, without food for up to 30 hours, while struggling to maintain their footing in the cattle truck.
However if the calf is female she is raised as a dairy cow, living in the same conditions as her mothers. She too will live in a cycle of pregnancy and lactation, being forced to give birth to a baby calf each year, only to have that baby torn away from her within a few days. In the wild cows can live to be up to 25 years old. But on dairy farms they are slaughtered when they are only 8-10 years old meaning that most dairy cows live less than half their natural life span.
Because dairy cows are milked so excessively, NZ dairy cows have increased risks of teat diseases like mastitis. When a cow has mastitis her udder may become so inflamed that it is as hard as a stone, and blood bubbles into her milk, which becomes clotted and watery. Severe cases of mastitis can kill a cow in less than a day.
On February 10 2011 05:36 Treemonkeys wrote: Simply put, how can you even survive without being a specieist? Are you suggesting to not kill animals at all, or to just be more humane about it?
It's not about making a 180 degree turn overnight, but rather doing as much as practically possible. For example, some people may argue that medical advancements require vivisection. But that doesn't justify vivisection for cosmetic product testing purposes. Or some may argue not all farms are like factory farms. In that case they ought not to eat from places like McDonalds or Burger King, which purchase from the worst offenders.
On February 10 2011 05:31 Tony Campolo wrote:Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
I think you're taking survival of the fittest too literally. It has nothing to do with being stronger or weaker and lacking compassion to "destroy the enemy" in order to survive. It means the fittest gene pool and whether or not you're chosen by nature and can reproduce. Not, and to quote Stephen Merchant, that Lions have been working out in a gym and got stronger and therefore survived.
The reason we don't show the same compassion towards animals is because they are inferior to humans, it's just that simple.
On February 10 2011 05:48 SolHeiM wrote: I think you're taking survival of the fittest too literally. It has nothing to do with being stronger or weaker and lacking compassion to "destroy the enemy" in order to survive. It means the fittest gene pool and whether or not you're chosen by nature and can reproduce. Not, and to quote Stephen Merchant, that Lions have been working out in a gym and got stronger and therefore survived.
The reason we don't show the same compassion towards animals is because they are inferior to humans, it's just that simple.
It's not that simple. Do you lack compassion towards the physically or mentally disabled because they are 'inferior'? That's the kind of mindset racists had towards blacks in the past. Even if they are inferior, it takes nothing away from humans to be more compassionate to them than we already are. The worst thing that can happen is that you eat less meat and miss the taste. For us it's just a meal though. For them it's their whole lives, as well as losing their families. If you've ever been hunting before, you'd see that a kid (baby goat) grieves over the death of their mother.
On February 10 2011 06:11 bonifaceviii wrote: If Jews were the self-aware, technologically-dominant races they'd be doing the same to us Nazis in a heartbeat.
Think of it as pre-empting the Jewish revolution.
As I mentioned above, just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. There are good masters and there are bad masters. A dog owner doesn't need to beat their dogs.
I am concerned about the survival of myself, then my direct family, then my local community, then extended community, then the world.
Animals come in at the bottom as long as their survival doesn't impact my own.
I would not eat meat because it costs ridiculous amounts of natural resources to produce, hurting my extended community.
I would eat meat because it makes me happy, which is critical to my own survival.
If, for example, you offered me the choice of not eating meat and using that money to take non-damaging/addictive narcotics, I would do that. But in the absence of any additional happiness, I will eat meat.
If you derive more happiness out of feeling ethically responsible or morally superior to others than from eating meat, all the more power to you.
The core idea behind equality is the fact that we are all actually fucking equal. We don't hesitate to degrade human beings that are in fact, not equal, who have proven so through there actions (and not such trivialities such as race or gender) and you can sure bet a retarded man will not be eligible for jobs that he is not mentally capable of holding down.
Whats the core idea behind species equality, considering that we are blatantly not equal?
You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
On February 10 2011 06:22 Half wrote: The core idea behind equality is the fact that we are all actually fucking equal. We don't hesitate to degrade human beings that are in fact, not equal, who have proven so through there actions (and not such trivialities such as race or gender) and you can sure bet a retarded man will not be eligible for jobs that he is not mentally capable of holding down.
Whats the core idea behind species equality, considering that we are blatantly not equal?
It doesn't necessarily mean equal status - but at least the minimum rights of not being tortured and alleviating as much of their suffering as possible to the extent that we are responsible for it (e.g. keeping pigs and chickens in cages in factory farms).
On February 10 2011 06:31 Tony Campolo wrote: It doesn't necessarily mean equal status - but at least the minimum rights of not being tortured and alleviating as much of their suffering as possible to the extent that we are responsible for it (e.g. keeping pigs and chickens in cages in factory farms).
So you should be fine with organic meat farming and slaughter techniques that meet the SPCA's guidelines, right?
On February 10 2011 06:11 bonifaceviii wrote: If Jews were the self-aware, technologically-dominant races they'd be doing the same to us Nazis in a heartbeat.
Think of it as pre-empting the Jewish revolution.
As I mentioned above, just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. There are good masters and there are bad masters. A dog owner doesn't need to beat their dogs.
Misquoting is a very mature way to argue.
I like meat.
Most wild animals die of starvation or by getting eaten alive. In the grand scheme of things, guess how many billions and billions of animals have suffered and died painful deaths in the history of the earth. Our way of life has only existed for a very very short amount of time in comparison.
Just because we humans don't like pain and think that it is bad to cause pain to others, doesn't mean that it isn't a completely natural thing to kill other animals and make them suffer for our well-being if necessary. Today we have very efficient methods of doing that, which seems to be necessary to uphold the need for meat of humanity.
Everyone is free to decide to not eat meat, just don't run around and expect us to actually care.
edit: Regarding your point of humans treating each other better than they treat animals. You are wrong. People tortured and killed each other all day long since the dawn of mankind. And it's still happening.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
The difference between advocating for meat-eating and advocating against it is that one of those positions causes unnecessary suffering. If you were purchasing from slave labour made products, then it would be ridiculous for someone who is buying those products to be advocating for more slave labour. On the other hand it would be entirely expected that those who are fighting against slave labour advocate against people purchasing such products.
Meat-eating is your right under the law. But at one stage it was also legal to mistreat black people.
And you have an illogical understanding of rights. Giving someone rights doesn't mean you have to let them have all the other luxuries that come with rights, such as competing in professional sports, in your example. Animals only require one right - the right not to be treated as property. Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
What are you even saying. Becoming a vegetarian or vegan is one of the most criticized things ever. As soon as you become one or even say your thinking about it people get up in arms everywhere. Friends, family, strangers, every one tries to convince you otherwise.
On February 10 2011 06:31 Tony Campolo wrote: It doesn't necessarily mean equal status - but at least the minimum rights of not being tortured and alleviating as much of their suffering as possible to the extent that we are responsible for it (e.g. keeping pigs and chickens in cages in factory farms).
So you should be fine with organic meat farming and slaughter techniques that meet the SPCA's guidelines, right?
That's a step in the right direction. What it comes down to is what is necessary. Meat is not necessary to ensure our survival. All the nutrients that can be obtained from meat can be obtained from other sources (e.g. protein and iron from nuts).
Read some ethics and this issue will make a lot more sense to you, OP.
You're being influenced by what is essentially propaganda aimed at invoking pity and sympathy towards animals.
I do believe animals, depending on the kind, have some general rights and inviolabilities (I don't believe a scorpion is equivalent to a dog, per se). I do not believe that animals have the same general rights and inviolabilities human beings do. I do not believe the ability to feel pain and the ability to have an abstract concern for one's future (no one doubts animals are capable of either of those) grants them rights similar to that of human beings.
I don't believe you're "anti-human rights", but my eating meat doesn't make me unethical, either. In the same way as you, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that humans shouldn't eat meat on moral/ethical grounds.
On February 10 2011 06:33 101TFP wrote: Misquoting is a very mature way to argue.
I like meat.
Most wild animals die of starvation or by getting eaten alive. In the grand scheme of things, guess how many billions and billions of animals have suffered and died painful deaths in the history of the earth. Our way of life has only existed for a very very short amount of time in comparison.
Just because we humans don't like pain and think that it is bad to cause pain to others, doesn't mean that it isn't a completely natural thing to kill other animals and make them suffer for our well-being if necessary. Today we have very efficient methods of doing that, which seems to be necessary to uphold the need for meat of humanity.
Everyone is free to decide to not eat meat, just don't run around and expect us to actually care.
edit: Regarding your point of humans treating each other better than they treat animals. You are wrong. People tortured and killed each other all day long since the dawn of mankind. And it's still happening.
Not true. Most animals die of intensive factory farm practices and in the slaughterhouses - billions per day. In the grand scheme of things, this suffering can be reduced - just because many people have died in wars in the past doesn't justify wars today.
Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering. Likewise for the billions of animals that are produced (via artificial insemination) on factory farms, it would be better if they were not created in the first place. If we can reduce that suffering, then we ought to.
On February 10 2011 06:38 PH wrote: "Specie-cism"?
Speciesism.
Read some ethics and this issue will make a lot more sense to you, OP.
You're being influenced by what is essentially propaganda aimed at invoking pity and sympathy towards animals.
I do believe animals, depending on the kind, have some general rights and inviolabilities (I don't believe a scorpion is equivalent to a dog, per se). I do not believe that animals have the same general rights and inviolabilities human beings do. I do not believe the ability to feel pain and the ability to have an abstract concern for one's future (no one doubts animals are capable of either of those) grants them rights similar to that of human beings.
I don't believe you're "anti-human rights", but my eating meat doesn't make me unethical, either. In the same way as you, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that humans shouldn't eat meat on moral/ethical grounds.
I have raed ethics, in fact I have taken papers on it at university. If you have as well then consider this. Would you go out of your way to kick a dog. Or would you keep it in a cage for a large portion of its life with no freedom of movement. No, because it would be unnecessarily cruel. However, this is what we do to factory farmed animals on a daily basis. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, yet we do the following:
By day 3 the piglets are commonly subjected to surgical procedures with out anaesthetic. These procedures include tail clipping, ear notching, tooth clipping and castration. Pigs have a complex brain and series of pain receptors. Experts say that it is likely that the feeling of pain experienced by these piglets would be similar to that which humans would experience.
Piglets become stressed under farm situations and this can lead to tail biting. Rather than removing the cause of the problem farmers instead choose to remove part of the piglets’ tail. Pigs use their tail for communication and such usage is considerably impaired by this procedure.
Ear notching means a piglets ear is essentially hole punched for identification purposes.
The teeth of piglets are usually shortened in order to avoid damage to the mother’s udder and to the other piglets. Such damage often does not occur or is very minor. Shortening of the point teeth is usually carried out by clipping half of their initial length.
Castration is carried out on all male piglets that are not going to be retained for breeding. The principal purpose of this procedure is to prevent ‘boar taint’ in the flesh of older male pigs.
In the wild piglets would be weaned at about 17 weeks of age but would remain with their mothers herd until they are at least 7 months old. On a factory farm the piglets are taken from their mothers at about 4 weeks old and placed in fattening pens or retained for breeding and sow ‘replacement’ purposes.
In a typical farm set up several hundred piglets from different litters are placed in a series of small pens in a dark concrete floored shed. The conditions are overcrowded and filthy. Like the boars and gilts, the piglets will quickly end up covered in their own excrement.
Pigs are very social and inquisitive animals with a complex brain. In a natural setting these piglets would be playing and learning by exploring their large home range with their mother and siblings. In these sheds piglets cannot do these things easily; this often leads to aggression and overeating.
Over half of the sows in NZ are placed in dry sow stalls for either part or all of their 115 day pregnancy. When the sows are about to give birth they are transferred to a farrowing crate. Given that sows are either nursing young or are pregnant they are essentially confined for their entire life on the farm.
A sow’s home range would usually be upwards of 100 hectares. However on a factory farm they are restricted to an area that measures 60 centimetres by 2 metres. The sows can not turn around in these stalls; they can only sit, stand or lie down.
Sows have strong behavioural desires to root and forage. Confinement and barren living conditions mean that the sows cannot carry out these behaviours and they become bored and frustrated. This leads to the development of abnormal behaviours which the sows regularly repeat. These behaviours include bar chewing, sham chewing, head weaving and tongue rolling.
Sows have also shown behaviour indicative of learned helplessness and depression; this is apparent in sows who can be seen in the ‘dog-sitting’ position.
Confinement also harms the sows physically; frustration can cause the sows to bite the ears of neighbouring sows leaving them with open wounds. The constant contact wit the metal stall bars also leave the sows with cuts and scratches. The constant kneeling on a concrete floor results in calluses forming on the sows knees.
Sows confined to stalls are prone to developing overgrown toenails which result in lameness, foot injuries and leg and foot deformities.
Pigs have strong maternal instincts and confinement to a sow stall makes it impossible for the expectant mother to prepare for the birth of her litter. Before the birth, the mother sow would naturally prepare a special nest for her young. On a factory farm sows cannot do this and instead are moved to a new stall called a farrowing crate where she will give birth and attempt to care for her young.
This isn't necessary. We don't need to eat pork to survive. We carry out these atrocious acts on pigs that we'd never do to dogs, all just to gratify our own lust for taste.
On February 10 2011 06:41 Tony Campolo wrote: Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering.
whoa whoa WHOA
You object to humans making judgements about what's best for animals and then you rattle off this doozy
OP, I think you are being incredibly insulting in comparing animal rights to the historical plight of Blacks and Jews. I think you should just stop using those analogies. Your comments such as "Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university."
are also becoming increasingly racist, although hopefully not intentionally.
On February 10 2011 06:33 101TFP wrote: Misquoting is a very mature way to argue.
I like meat.
Most wild animals die of starvation or by getting eaten alive. In the grand scheme of things, guess how many billions and billions of animals have suffered and died painful deaths in the history of the earth. Our way of life has only existed for a very very short amount of time in comparison.
Just because we humans don't like pain and think that it is bad to cause pain to others, doesn't mean that it isn't a completely natural thing to kill other animals and make them suffer for our well-being if necessary. Today we have very efficient methods of doing that, which seems to be necessary to uphold the need for meat of humanity.
Everyone is free to decide to not eat meat, just don't run around and expect us to actually care.
edit: Regarding your point of humans treating each other better than they treat animals. You are wrong. People tortured and killed each other all day long since the dawn of mankind. And it's still happening.
Not true. Most animals die of intensive factory farm practices and in the slaughterhouses - billions per day. In the grand scheme of things, this suffering can be reduced - just because many people have died in wars in the past doesn't justify wars today.
Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering. Likewise for the billions of animals that are produced (via artificial insemination) on factory farms, it would be better if they were not created in the first place. If we can reduce that suffering, then we ought to.
Or you can go one step further and say if you kill the entire planet now you will stop generation after generation of suffering!
Life = suffering, the two really cannot be separated
The biggest problem I have with all this is you can actually apply most of your arguments about animals to plants as well. IMO it is best to pursue the best diet FOR ME, and that is a mixed diet.
On February 10 2011 05:48 SolHeiM wrote: I think you're taking survival of the fittest too literally. It has nothing to do with being stronger or weaker and lacking compassion to "destroy the enemy" in order to survive. It means the fittest gene pool and whether or not you're chosen by nature and can reproduce. Not, and to quote Stephen Merchant, that Lions have been working out in a gym and got stronger and therefore survived.
The reason we don't show the same compassion towards animals is because they are inferior to humans, it's just that simple.
It's not that simple. Do you lack compassion towards the physically or mentally disabled because they are 'inferior'? That's the kind of mindset racists had towards blacks in the past. Even if they are inferior, it takes nothing away from humans to be more compassionate to them than we already are. The worst thing that can happen is that you eat less meat and miss the taste. For us it's just a meal though. For them it's their whole lives, as well as losing their families. If you've ever been hunting before, you'd see that a kid (baby goat) grieves over the death of their mother.
But mental illness is not the same as being an inferior species. Being disabled doesn't make you less human. The worst thing that can happen is overpopulation, which is already occurring with humans anyway unless we regulate it. And about the racist part, we know better today than we did before. We know that black people are no different than white people. We also know that animals are in no way close to humans, which is why we can safely say we are superior to animals.
Why don't we go a step further. Aside from not eating any animal products, lets put some cheese out so that family of rats can stave off the winter. Oh sorry, put out some tofu cheese.
Maybe we can move that colony of termites in to our attic. That'll really reduce their suffering. After all, what is my right to live in a house compared to their right to survive? I can always sleep in a tent. Its just a simple move. No human rights infringed !!
Come to think of it, animals are pretty close to their mom and dads. Maybe when an animal dies, I'll bury it and not disturb its resting ground. Of course, I can't use fossil fuels, might disturb some animals from worshipping their ancestors.
I like to eat meat, but I have a dog and have an understanding. As long as animals are treated decently and their death is met with as little or no pain, I don't understand why anyone would be against it. Humans are omnivorous, but veggies along simply don't cut it. It takes a balanced diet of fruits, veggies, grains, and meats.
I also think that the video exaggerates a problem. There are already laws against animal cruelty and codes which require farmers to follow specific procedures. When working at kinkos, foster farms gave us their manual to reproduce. When scanning the individual pages, I saw their entire procedure including how to feed the chickens, how to prepare them, and how to kill them. The process was very safe and ethical and the manual stressed the utmost care when following this procedure. There was very little blood in the end.
You view on species assumes that all animals are equal in status and deserve the same chance to live, however, real life would show otherwise. If humans didn't exist at all, animals of all kind would eat each other, hurt each other and show no regards for the suffering of other animals. Humans are the only species truly capable of compassion. (dog's might seem compassionate, but they are simply expressing the emotional component of compassion).
Obviously it is important to treat all animals correctly.
One other thing that's interesting is that animals that are used as food often are the ones that don't go extinct as quickly since it is in the best interest of the farmers to keep a healthy population alive.
Enjoy your veganism, but I can tell you that until we come up with supernatural farming techniques and adequate protein/etc substitutes, that humans will be eating meat for the next thousand years.
plants are alive too, is it specesism to eat them? also you describe a dairy cows life as being bad simply because it is not natural. i suggest you read GE Moore principa ethica or anything else on the naturalistic fallacy. eg that which is good is not good solely because it is a natural state of affairs
On February 10 2011 06:48 SolHeiM wrote: But mental illness is not the same as being an inferior species. Being disabled doesn't make you less human. The worst thing that can happen is overpopulation, which is already occurring with humans anyway unless we regulate it. And about the racist part, we know better today than we did before. We know that black people are no different than white people. We also know that animals are in no way close to humans, which is why we can safely say we are superior to animals.
They're a lot closer than you think. Find someone who owns a pet dog or cat, and then ask them whether they would be willing to put their cat or dog through what a pig goes through in a factory farm. We don't need to afford them the same rights as humans - but as a minimum they deserve the same rights (animal cruelty laws) that domesticated animals have. It is against the law to mistreat your dog, but if it's a pig then it's OK. But a pig is in actual fact more intelligent than a dog. I'm not saying give animals human rights, but give them the same rights as animals we arbitrarily decide to love more than others.
On February 10 2011 06:53 darmousseh wrote:Enjoy your veganism, but I can tell you that until we come up with supernatural farming techniques and adequate protein/etc substitutes, that humans will be eating meat for the next thousand years.
Say no to animal cruelty, say yes to eating meat.
There are plenty of adequate protein substitutes for meat, what are you talking about?
Evolution and natural selection. It;s only natural that a species fights for its own survival and cares solely for itself. Why do you think basically all atruistic behavior is between two animals of the same species? Its only natural that we look after our own preservation. Yes, humans are rational and capable of complex thought and what not but the basic sentiment still stands. We are mainly concerned with the preservation of our own species and theres nothing wrong with that. Eating meat is healthy on top of tasting good. Now of course I'm not going to get carried away with this. I'm not going to torture an animal because I'm bored and I do feel sad when I see a wounded dog. Unnecessary suffering of animals is of course wrong and something I feel terrible about when I see or hear, but I'm not going to let it dictate everything I do and change my eating habits. Animal rights matter, but not nearly as much as human rights. I won't become a vegetarian "because its wrong to kill animals". Fuck no, I love my steak
On February 10 2011 06:41 Tony Campolo wrote: Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering.
whoa whoa WHOA
You object to humans making judgements about what's best for animals and then you rattle off this doozy
Look to the logic of the point I was making, which is that the number of animals that are created for the express purpose of going through the factory farm process should be avoided if possible. We are creating billions of pigs and chickens everyday to go through the process outlined at the beginning of page two of this thread. It is unnecessary.
By analogy, millions of children are being born into poverty without the resources to adequately care for them. It would be better if contraception, for example, was used, so that there would be less pregnancies, as these children are often born with nothing ahead of them but malnutrition and death before their fifth day of life.
On February 10 2011 06:45 lixlix wrote: OP, I think you are being incredibly insulting in comparing animal rights to the historical plight of Blacks and Jews. I think you should just stop using those analogies. Your comments such as "Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university."
are also becoming increasingly racist, although hopefully not intentionally.
I fail to see how I am racist considering I am advocating against differential treatment of blacks and whites.
I really think vegans shoot themselves and their goals in the foot when they try and do stuff like this. There are damn good environmental and health reasons to eat much less meat that the average person living in a developed country does, but rhetoric like what you're using is damaging to that cause.
I am fully aware that you and many other vegans think that consuming animal products is tantamount to murder, slavery, and pretty much everything else evil. However, you need to recognize that most people simply don't feel that way, and are unlikely to change. Simply put, we have different assumptions about the world, and while the arguments you are making seem persuasive to someone like you, they ring hollow to people like me who have no problem thinking of animals as lesser moral subjects than humans. For example, no matter how offensive you and your ilk find factory farms, I and many other meat eaters simply don't care, because for me a cow is nothing more than a source of useful material. You're preaching to the choir, not making a persuasive attempt to change minds.
Furthermore, when you go and make arguments like comparing eating steak to slavery, you actively drive most people away from your movement. Because most people view animals as less important than humans, their reaction to such claims will likely lie somewhere between amusement and taking offense, neither of which are conductive to your cause. More importantly, you drive them away from even considering that maybe they should try and cut down on their meat intake. This is bad, and ends up detracting from your goal of decreasing the consumption of animal products.
Finally, the claim that everyone can live completely healthy lives on vegan diets is provably false. Example.
As a side note, i just want to make clear to you that you will never, ever convince me to be a vegan, so don't waste your time trying. As a type one diabetic, my life depends on regular injections of insulin harvested primarily from genetically modified animals. There are millions of people like me whose lives depend on medications either harvested from or tested on animals, and i can never endorse a philosophy that would condemn me and all of them to death.
On February 10 2011 06:48 SolHeiM wrote: But mental illness is not the same as being an inferior species. Being disabled doesn't make you less human. The worst thing that can happen is overpopulation, which is already occurring with humans anyway unless we regulate it. And about the racist part, we know better today than we did before. We know that black people are no different than white people. We also know that animals are in no way close to humans, which is why we can safely say we are superior to animals.
They're a lot closer than you think. Find someone who owns a pet dog or cat, and then ask them whether they would be willing to put their cat or dog through what a pig goes through in a factory farm. We don't need to afford them the same rights as humans - but as a minimum they deserve the same rights (animal cruelty laws) that domesticated animals have. It is against the law to mistreat your dog, but if it's a pig then it's OK. But a pig is in actual fact more intelligent than a dog. I'm not saying give animals human rights, but give them the same rights as animals we arbitrarily decide to love more than others.
But we don't eat dogs. I don't think those laws specifically mention dogs but mention house pets. If you happened to have a house pet pig, then it would probably be illegal to mistreat the pig. Sharing a certain percentage of our DNA (like we do with monkeys) or being intelligent doesn't make a difference to me. They're not humans.
On February 10 2011 06:45 Treemonkeys wrote: Or you can go one step further and say if you kill the entire planet now you will stop generation after generation of suffering!
Life = suffering, the two really cannot be separated
The biggest problem I have with all this is you can actually apply most of your arguments about animals to plants as well. IMO it is best to pursue the best diet FOR ME, and that is a mixed diet.
On February 10 2011 06:54 rolfe wrote: plants are alive too, is it specesism to eat them? also you describe a dairy cows life as being bad simply because it is not natural. i suggest you read GE Moore principa ethica or anything else on the naturalistic fallacy. eg that which is good is not good solely because it is a natural state of affairs
Occasionally, vegans encounter the claim that plants are sentient as a kind of objection to going vegan. The uninformed reasoning suggests that since ‘all life’ is sentient, it doesn’t matter what we eat. Vegans have three replies to this: 1) accept the premise that plants are sentient (no matter how offensive to common sense it is) and argue from there; 2) deny that plants are sentient; or 3) reply with both 1) and 2), as I intend to do here.
First Reply: Plants Are Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan
Let’s put science and common sense on hold for a couple of minutes and assume for argument’s sake that plants are sentient. Not only that, but let’s take it all the way to absurdity and assume that plants are the most sentient life on Earth.
Even if it’s true that plants are the most sentient life on Earth, veganism would still be the minimum standard of decency. This follows from the simple fact that animals are reverse protein factories, consuming multiple times the protein in plant food that they produce in protein from their flesh and bodily fluids. Cows consume from 9 to 13 times, and pigs 5 to 7 times, the protein they produce, depending on diet and confinement factors. Chickens consume 2 to 4 times the protein they produce, also depending on diet and confinement factors. So the more we’re concerned about the ‘sentience’ of plants, the less we want to contribute to the staggering inefficiencies of cycling plants through animals, and the more reason we have to go vegan to reduce both animal and plant ‘suffering’.
Second Reply: Plants Aren’t Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan
Let’s now examine the idea that plants are sentient and see why people might believe, contrary to common sense, that plants are sentient, and where they might go wrong.
Equivocation on Sentience
To start with, let’s look at the meaning of the word sentience, because equivocation on the meaning of sentience is often a source of confusion. The definition of sentience in standard usage is an organism’s capacity to experience sensations and emotions. A non-standard definition of sentience, introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr., and used in the so-called “sentience quotient” (SQ), is the relationship between the estimated information processing rate (measured in bits per second) of each individual processing unit, the weight or size of a single unit, and the total number of processing units. [1]
When a claim is made that plants are ‘sentient’, it is helpful to ask in what sense the claim is being made. Under the SQ definition, plants are ‘sentient’ in that they have an (extremely low) SQ value, but this low SQ value says nothing about sentience under the standard definition. Consciousness sufficient to support experiential sentience almost certainly requires a sufficiently high SQ value in addition to other neuronal properties, neither of which, for example, do computers and plants possess. [2]
Computers have an SQ value that is several orders of magnitude higher than all plants; and animals, including humans, have an SQ value that is up to several orders of magnitude higher than all computers. If computers can’t experience sensations and emotions, then it is almost certainly impossible that plants can, given plants’ extremely low SQ value and a non-neuronal information processing system. As such, it is unreasonable to believe that plants are sentient under the standard (non-SQ) definition.
Plants Are Complex
Another source of confusion regarding plants that leads some people to speculate that they are sentient is that plants are highly evolved and complex organisms that ‘react’ to their environment in surprising ways, especially in larger time scales than we perceive in everyday life. Some plants ‘react’ to insects by releasing deterrent or poisonous chemicals. Some plants release chemicals to deter other plants from growing near them. Some plants are either aggressive or passive in root development depending on whether or not they are around their own species. The Venus Flytrap catches and consumes insects when insects come in contact with tiny hairs that trigger the trap to close.
The confusion arises when the assumption is made that such plant ‘behavior’ is caused by the plants “subjectively experiencing the world through sense data” rather than by insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes.
The scientific principle of parsimony strongly suggests that we shouldn’t postulate a complex explanation for phenomena when a simpler explanation will suffice. When autonomic systems in mammals, such as the cardiovascular system, the immune system, and the reproductive system at the level of the ‘behavior’ of sperm in the presence of an egg appear to be reacting ‘subjectively, consciously and intentionally’ to perpetuate either themselves or their host organism, we don’t assume that these systems are sentient independently of their host organism and acting volitionally. We recognize that there are insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes that cause various ‘behaviors’ and events to take place. The development of these insentient processes can be explained by tens and hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection, where hundreds of billions of small, genetic mutations and combinations survived or failed to survive based on how adaptive they were. We should apply the principle of parsimony in our assessment of the causes of plant ‘behavior’ similarly.
Sentience and Neurobiology
Neuroscientists have positively confirmed the areas of our neurology (brain stem, limbic system, etc) that serve to provide sentience and complex emotion. All vertebrates and at least some non-vertebrate animals have these nervous system components, providing strong positive, empirical evidence that such beings are sentient, and that most of them have highly subjective, emotional lives. Plants do not have any of these neurological components.
Back to Common Sense
Organisms such as humans, dogs, chickens, pigs, cows, goats, and sheep look, behave, and move in ways that highly suggest sentience defined as the experience of sensation and emotion. Organisms such as plants look, behave, and stay still (unless the wind is blowing) in ways that highly suggest absolutely no sentience (again, defined as the experience of sensation and emotion). Absent an excellent reason to reject such strong appearances we ought to accept them.
If there is any room for debate and legitimate questions on sentience, it is in the biological continuum between insects and bacteria. Insects such as spiders certainly behave and move in a manner that highly suggests at least some degree of experiential sentience. How much sentience comes in degrees, and how sentient certain organisms like spiders are, are difficult questions. But we know beyond any reasonable doubt that vertebrates are sentient; and we know with a very high degree of confidence that plants are not sentient.
Conclusion
As unconscious entities, plants have no subjective, conscious interest that would be morally relevant to whether we kill them for food or other sufficient reasons (e.g. removing/killing them to build a shelter). We should respect plants in the same sense in which we respect the beauty, complexity, and wonder of insentient nature and natural phenomena in general, which entails reducing our impact on them as much as is reasonable, and not destroying them gratuitously. Our moral obligations regarding plants, however, do not compare in kind to our direct moral obligations to vertebrates, whose sentience and conscious, intentional striving for life and survival is obvious to us. Given this eager striving for life and survival of sentient vertebrates, veganism is the minimum standard of decency.
My only stake in the matter would be getting meat and milk. Find some other way to create the same commodities just as efficiently and you could convince me. Also, who think compassion is the only way to go are just naive. There's still competition daily to survive and mate(in first world countries mostly just to mate). Its great to show compassion when that luxury is available, but when it comes down to it sane people will gut each other to survive, and the same thing goes for animals.
Obviously in first world countries we aren't reliant on livestock to survive. Its more of a dietary tradition. I'm willing to bet in the (somewhat distant) future we will be eating processed nutrient paste as a dietary staple. Livestock are really not a very efficient food source. You have to feed them, contain them, kill them, repeat. As the population grows, we will need to find more efficient methods of growing food than livestock. There's a lot of cool research and engineering projects in hydroponics and other farming methods.
However, in third world countries people need livestock to survive. This is where any moral qualms about eating an animal should go out the window. Its no longer a trade off between having a clear conscience and quality of life, but a trade off between conscience and survival, which is a really easy pick.
On February 10 2011 06:58 Tony Campolo wrote: Look to the logic of the point I was making, which is that the number of animals that are created for the express purpose of going through the factory farm process should be avoided if possible. We are creating billions of pigs and chickens everyday to go through the process outlined at the beginning of page two of this thread. It is unnecessary.
By analogy, millions of children are being born into poverty without the resources to adequately care for them. It would be better if contraception, for example, was used, so that there would be less pregnancies, as these children are often born with nothing ahead of them but malnutrition and death before their fifth day of life.
"Excuse me African madam, we have determined that you do not have the means to take care of a child and, even if you did, the mortality statistics show that it would die before five days. Please take these contraceptives and refrain from reproducing, since your choices are outweighed by our measure of potential suffering. Thank you."
this establishes sentience as the sole means to determine morality here then this is merely a matter where at what level of sentience layers of morality can be applied. what is your opinion therefore on destroying mosquitoes, rats and other dangerous, disease carrying/spreading creatures for the sole purpose of increasing the quality and chance of human life?
On February 10 2011 06:45 lixlix wrote: OP, I think you are being incredibly insulting in comparing animal rights to the historical plight of Blacks and Jews. I think you should just stop using those analogies. Your comments such as "Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university."
are also becoming increasingly racist, although hopefully not intentionally.
I fail to see how I am racist considering I am advocating against differential treatment of blacks and whites.
You are using the suffering of humans as examples to push your agenda on animals as well as comparing the suffering of humans of a certain race to the suffering of animals and you fail to see that as racist?
On February 10 2011 07:05 gurrpp wrote: My only stake in the matter would be getting meat and milk. Find some other way to create the same commodities just as efficiently and you could convince me. Also, who think compassion is the only way to go are just naive. There's still competition daily to survive and mate(in first world countries mostly just to mate). Its great to show compassion when that luxury is available, but when it comes down to it sane people will gut each other to survive, and the same thing goes for animals.
Obviously in first world countries we aren't reliant on livestock to survive. Its more of a dietary tradition. I'm willing to bet in the (somewhat distant) future we will be eating processed nutrient paste as a dietary staple. Livestock are really not a very efficient food source. You have to feed them, contain them, kill them, repeat. As the population grows, we will need to find more efficient methods of growing food than livestock. There's a lot of cool research and engineering projects in hydroponics and other farming methods.
However, in third world countries people need livestock to survive. This is where any moral qualms about eating an animal should go out the window. Its no longer a trade off between having a clear conscience and quality of life, but a trade off between conscience and survival, which is a really easy pick.
I am not an expert on economics, but see the following:
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
I know that I'm a bad person for not caring about the abysmal conditions that farm animals are raised in. And I know that I'm a bad person for not only eating meat but also for eating it at places that purchase their meat from the worst offenders of animal abuse. And I know that I should do my part by raising awareness and by restricting the amount of meat I consume.
But when it comes down to it, being bad is fun. And I like having fun too much to quit.
On February 10 2011 07:08 rolfe wrote: this establishes sentience as the sole means to determine morality here then this is merely a matter where at what level of sentience layers of morality can be applied. what is your opinion therefore on destroying mosquitoes, rats and other dangerous, disease carrying/spreading creatures for the sole purpose of increasing the quality and chance of human life?
As I mentioned earlier, it's about reducing suffering as much as practically possible. I try to avoid killing insects if I can. The point I am getting across in the OP is that a lot of the suffering we cause is unnecessary - such as factory farming. We go out of our way to cause this suffering. Obviously it won't be possible to be 100% ethical due to practical considerations but it is moral to try and reduce that as much as possible.
I actually fully endorse reducing meat consumption for sustainability or health reasons. However, this is entirely different from becoming vegan for animal rights.
On February 10 2011 06:45 lixlix wrote: OP, I think you are being incredibly insulting in comparing animal rights to the historical plight of Blacks and Jews. I think you should just stop using those analogies. Your comments such as "Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university."
are also becoming increasingly racist, although hopefully not intentionally.
I fail to see how I am racist considering I am advocating against differential treatment of blacks and whites.
You are using the suffering of humans as examples to push your agenda on animals as well as comparing the suffering of humans of a certain race to the suffering of animals and you fail to see that as racist?
You're interpreting it the way you want to. If you look to the logic - dominant versus dominated - then you see it's the same rationale. It has nothing to do with lowering blacks to the level of animals - as I have mentioned many times in this thread I do not advocate giving animals the same rights, but minimal rights to prevent suffering - although it obviously suits your argument to claim that that is what I am trying to do.
On February 10 2011 07:08 rolfe wrote: this establishes sentience as the sole means to determine morality here then this is merely a matter where at what level of sentience layers of morality can be applied. what is your opinion therefore on destroying mosquitoes, rats and other dangerous, disease carrying/spreading creatures for the sole purpose of increasing the quality and chance of human life?
As I mentioned earlier, it's about reducing suffering as much as practically possible. I try to avoid killing insects if I can. The point I am getting across in the OP is that a lot of the suffering we cause is unnecessary - such as factory farming. We go out of our way to cause this suffering. Obviously it won't be possible to be 100% ethical due to practical considerations but it is moral to try and reduce that as much as possible.
so if we establish that killing animal is not an absolute wrong in the same way killing a human would be (excepting cases of clear imminent danger etc etc) and can sometimes be justified on some utilitarian grounds of maximising welfare then is all you are left with the principle of do not be unnecessarily cruel to an animal? then are some systems of farming meat and dairy justifiable when they are not cruel?
as you mention practicality i think it is necessary to point out that even in the farming of crops some killing of creatures must occur as other animals will try to eat them. pesticides will be used to kill other pests and will cause further suffering in the ecosystem and can kill birds, fish etc however all of these things are necessary to produce the food for ~7billion human beings. in that case is it really morally superior to a system where animals are farmed and killed in a decent way?
On February 10 2011 07:33 rolfe wrote: so if we establish that killing animal is not an absolute wrong in the same way killing a human would be (excepting cases of clear imminent danger etc etc) and can sometimes be justified on some utilitarian grounds of maximising welfare then is all you are left with the principle of do not be unnecessarily cruel to an animal? then are some systems of farming meat and dairy justifiable when they are not cruel?
as you mention practicality i think it is necessary to point out that even in the farming of crops some killing of creatures must occur as other animals will try to eat them. pesticides will be used to kill other pests and will cause further suffering in the ecosystem and can kill birds, fish etc however all of these things are necessary to produce the food for ~7billion human beings. in that case is it really morally superior to a system where animals are farmed and killed in a decent way?
My personal position is that if we milk cows without taking their calves away for slaughter, that is preferable (i.e. sharing the milk with them, rather than taking it exclusively for ourselves). This is unlikely to happen given the commercial interests of large factory farms, therefore the better option is to abstain from it in order to affect the profit of these industries. Consumer choice makes a difference - e.g. prior to the 80s people were rarely aware of the differences between caged and free-range eggs.
As for killing animals - if it's not necessary to eat them then it is largely unnecessary to have a system of killing them. The only reason there are so many factory farmed animals is because they are bred for the express purpose of being killed. But it is perfectly valid to survive on a vegan diet. We humans only eat as much meat as we do today because of the industrialisation of agriculture.
On February 10 2011 07:25 lixlix wrote: if you don't advocate giving animals the same rights as humans then stop using humans as an example.
Richard Dawkins touches briefly on the subject in The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, elucidating the connection to evolutionary theory. He compares former racist attitudes and assumptions to their present-day speciesist counterparts. In a chapter of former book entitled "The one true tree of life", he argues that it is not just zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. He describes discrimination against chimpanzees thus:
“ Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.[7] ”
Dawkins more recently elaborated on his personal position towards speciesism and vegetarianism in a live discussion with Singer at The Center for Inquiry on December 7, 2007.[8]
“ What I am doing is going along with the fact that I live in a society where meat eating is accepted as the norm, and it requires a level of social courage which I haven't yet produced to break out of that. It's a little bit like the position which many people would have held a couple of hundred years ago over slavery. Where lots of people felt morally uneasy about slavery but went along with it because the whole economy of the South depended upon slavery.
On February 10 2011 07:08 rolfe wrote: this establishes sentience as the sole means to determine morality here then this is merely a matter where at what level of sentience layers of morality can be applied. what is your opinion therefore on destroying mosquitoes, rats and other dangerous, disease carrying/spreading creatures for the sole purpose of increasing the quality and chance of human life?
As I mentioned earlier, it's about reducing suffering as much as practically possible. I try to avoid killing insects if I can. The point I am getting across in the OP is that a lot of the suffering we cause is unnecessary - such as factory farming. We go out of our way to cause this suffering. Obviously it won't be possible to be 100% ethical due to practical considerations but it is moral to try and reduce that as much as possible.
so if we establish that killing animal is not an absolute wrong in the same way killing a human would be (excepting cases of clear imminent danger etc etc) and can sometimes be justified on some utilitarian grounds of maximising welfare then is all you are left with the principle of do not be unnecessarily cruel to an animal? then are some systems of farming meat and dairy justifiable when they are not cruel?
as you mention practicality i think it is necessary to point out that even in the farming of crops some killing of creatures must occur as other animals will try to eat them. pesticides will be used to kill other pests and will cause further suffering in the ecosystem and can kill birds, fish etc however all of these things are necessary to produce the food for ~7billion human beings. in that case is it really morally superior to a system where animals are farmed and killed in a decent way?
The majority of crops grown (at least in the US) is corn to feed cattle that live in factory farms. And the waste from these farms harms the ecosystem much more than that of crops grown in the US. If people stopped eating factory farm produced meat (I'm not saying stop eating meat all together) then the damage to the ecosystem would not only be reduced by the smaller amount of factory farms, but also by the smaller amount of corn fields to sustain these farms.
On February 10 2011 07:33 rolfe wrote: so if we establish that killing animal is not an absolute wrong in the same way killing a human would be (excepting cases of clear imminent danger etc etc) and can sometimes be justified on some utilitarian grounds of maximising welfare then is all you are left with the principle of do not be unnecessarily cruel to an animal? then are some systems of farming meat and dairy justifiable when they are not cruel?
as you mention practicality i think it is necessary to point out that even in the farming of crops some killing of creatures must occur as other animals will try to eat them. pesticides will be used to kill other pests and will cause further suffering in the ecosystem and can kill birds, fish etc however all of these things are necessary to produce the food for ~7billion human beings. in that case is it really morally superior to a system where animals are farmed and killed in a decent way?
My personal position is that if we milk cows without taking their calves away for slaughter, that is preferable (i.e. sharing the milk with them, rather than taking it exclusively for ourselves). This is unlikely to happen given the commercial interests of large factory farms, therefore the better option is to abstain from it in order to affect the profit of these industries. Consumer choice makes a difference - e.g. prior to the 80s people were rarely aware of the differences between caged and free-range eggs.
As for killing animals - if it's not necessary to eat them then it is largely unnecessary to have a system of killing them. The only reason there are so many factory farmed animals is because they are bred for the express purpose of being killed. But it is perfectly valid to survive on a vegan diet. We humans only eat as much meat as we do today because of the industrialisation of agriculture.
I think you have miss read what i wrote, i said that even in a farming system not designed for the consumption of animals there will be inherent suffering among animals and that that suffering is not just unintentional but is necessary for the farming to be successful and is this morally preferable to a situation where suffering or death is also necessarily present but the animal is consumed also?
On February 10 2011 07:44 Treeship wrote: The majority of crops grown (at least in the US) is corn to feed cattle that live in factory farms. And the waste from these farms harms the ecosystem much more than that of crops grown in the US. If people stopped eating factory farm produced meat (I'm not saying stop eating meat all together) then the damage to the ecosystem would not only be reduced by the smaller amount of factory farms, but also by the smaller amount of corn fields to sustain these farms.
If this were Mr. Campolo's argument I would have no problem with it. But the careless (and, dare I say, racist) analogies he uses are at best obfuscatory and at worst ruining people's opinions of veganism.
On February 10 2011 07:46 rolfe wrote: I think you have miss read what i wrote, i said that even in a farming system not designed for the consumption of animals there will be inherent suffering among animals and that that suffering is not just unintentional but is necessary for the farming to be successful and is this morally preferable to a situation where suffering or death is also necessarily present but the animal is consumed also?
The fact is though the majority of the billions of animals are created solely for the purpose of consumption thus having to go through the torturous factory farm process. These animals would not exist in the first place if not for the factory farms. They would not be out in the wild suffering, being hunted, starving, or any other danger etc. As they wouldn't exist. The fact that they do and go through a slaughterhouse process is unnecessary, they would not 'otherwise' be out in the wild in a 'situation where suffering or death is present'.
On February 10 2011 07:05 gurrpp wrote: My only stake in the matter would be getting meat and milk. Find some other way to create the same commodities just as efficiently and you could convince me. Also, who think compassion is the only way to go are just naive. There's still competition daily to survive and mate(in first world countries mostly just to mate). Its great to show compassion when that luxury is available, but when it comes down to it sane people will gut each other to survive, and the same thing goes for animals.
Obviously in first world countries we aren't reliant on livestock to survive. Its more of a dietary tradition. I'm willing to bet in the (somewhat distant) future we will be eating processed nutrient paste as a dietary staple. Livestock are really not a very efficient food source. You have to feed them, contain them, kill them, repeat. As the population grows, we will need to find more efficient methods of growing food than livestock. There's a lot of cool research and engineering projects in hydroponics and other farming methods.
However, in third world countries people need livestock to survive. This is where any moral qualms about eating an animal should go out the window. Its no longer a trade off between having a clear conscience and quality of life, but a trade off between conscience and survival, which is a really easy pick.
I am not an expert on economics, but see the following:
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
On February 10 2011 07:46 rolfe wrote: I think you have miss read what i wrote, i said that even in a farming system not designed for the consumption of animals there will be inherent suffering among animals and that that suffering is not just unintentional but is necessary for the farming to be successful and is this morally preferable to a situation where suffering or death is also necessarily present but the animal is consumed also?
The fact is though the majority of the billions of animals are created solely for the purpose of consumption thus having to go through the torturous factory farm process. These animals would not exist in the first place if not for the factory farms. They would not be out in the wild suffering, being hunted, starving, or any other danger etc. As they wouldn't exist. The fact that they do and go through a slaughterhouse process is unnecessary, they would not 'otherwise' be out in the wild in a 'situation where suffering or death is present'.
i'm still not satisfied you're answering what i am asking. the ethics of factory farms are somewhat irrelevent to my point. if we imagine a hypothetical system where the farming of the cows is free range, the slaughter is as ethical as is possible as it can be we have a system where pre slaughter nothing would be morally problematic with the treatment of the cow. you may still regard the slaughter of the cow as ethically awkward but as we have established earlier you do not regard the death of an animal as morally equivalent to that of a human and therefore not near an absolute wrong.
then we have a system of farming which purely produces vegetables, cereals etc etc. however in the use of pesticides, and the deaths and suffering of animals are inherent in this system. you cannot have a lettuce farm that will be efficiently productive to the extent that it fulfils its need of supporting a sufficient quantity of human life if you do not kill rabbits that try to eat the produce.
in example A we have the output (beef) demanding the killing of a cow, in example B we have the output (lettuce) demanding the killing of rabbits and other pests, bacteria that would destroy the crop through various negative environmental effects (pesticides and other treatments will leak into the wider environment and cause suffering and sometimes even the deaths of fish and birds). the death and suffering is inherent in both systems and is also necessary to both systems and with that being the case i fail to see why example B, the virtues of which you are extolling, is morally superior to example A.
On February 10 2011 07:05 gurrpp wrote: My only stake in the matter would be getting meat and milk. Find some other way to create the same commodities just as efficiently and you could convince me. Also, who think compassion is the only way to go are just naive. There's still competition daily to survive and mate(in first world countries mostly just to mate). Its great to show compassion when that luxury is available, but when it comes down to it sane people will gut each other to survive, and the same thing goes for animals.
Obviously in first world countries we aren't reliant on livestock to survive. Its more of a dietary tradition. I'm willing to bet in the (somewhat distant) future we will be eating processed nutrient paste as a dietary staple. Livestock are really not a very efficient food source. You have to feed them, contain them, kill them, repeat. As the population grows, we will need to find more efficient methods of growing food than livestock. There's a lot of cool research and engineering projects in hydroponics and other farming methods.
However, in third world countries people need livestock to survive. This is where any moral qualms about eating an animal should go out the window. Its no longer a trade off between having a clear conscience and quality of life, but a trade off between conscience and survival, which is a really easy pick.
I am not an expert on economics, but see the following:
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
But why stop there? Surely, plants are living creatures, and it would be a sin to consume them as well.
Already addressed this on page two... If that's your level of logic then a vegan might as well argue why would meat-eaters stop at eating animals, why not kill humans for food as well?
On February 10 2011 07:05 gurrpp wrote: My only stake in the matter would be getting meat and milk. Find some other way to create the same commodities just as efficiently and you could convince me. Also, who think compassion is the only way to go are just naive. There's still competition daily to survive and mate(in first world countries mostly just to mate). Its great to show compassion when that luxury is available, but when it comes down to it sane people will gut each other to survive, and the same thing goes for animals.
Obviously in first world countries we aren't reliant on livestock to survive. Its more of a dietary tradition. I'm willing to bet in the (somewhat distant) future we will be eating processed nutrient paste as a dietary staple. Livestock are really not a very efficient food source. You have to feed them, contain them, kill them, repeat. As the population grows, we will need to find more efficient methods of growing food than livestock. There's a lot of cool research and engineering projects in hydroponics and other farming methods.
However, in third world countries people need livestock to survive. This is where any moral qualms about eating an animal should go out the window. Its no longer a trade off between having a clear conscience and quality of life, but a trade off between conscience and survival, which is a really easy pick.
I am not an expert on economics, but see the following:
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
But why stop there? Surely, plants are living creatures, and it would be a sin to consume them as well.
Already addressed this on page two... If that's your level of logic then a vegan might as well argue why would meat-eaters stop at eating animals, why not kill humans for food as well?
Already addressed this on page two... If that's your level of logic then a vegan might as well argue why would meat-eaters stop at eating animals, why not kill humans for food as well?
this is fatuous to the extreme, there is nothing in his statement saying that if your opinion as expressed so far in this thread does not properly account for the moral difference between eating a vegetable and eating meat to him not accounting for a moral difference between eating and killing a human and eating and killing a cow.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
What a ridiculous overreaction. There's no evidence whatsoever that OP is "pushing his beliefs onto others". Rather, he has given his thoughts on the matter in a constructive and rational way, while you reward his effort by being as irrational, agressive and blunt as possible.
The notion that OP is "forcing people to become vegan" and is thus "offending your human rights" is simply laughable. Becoming a Vegan IS "just a change in diet" and OP's point was that his views on animal rights are completely non-related to his position on human rights.
I also want to adress your short mindedness for a bit:
"animals are not human"
No, because humans are in fact animals too. Sure, we can think on a higher level and have as such felt the need to distinguish ourselves from "the animals" by calling ourselves "humans". But when you get realistic about it, we're still "just" evolved monkeys that claim to be different/ superior from other mammals. If an alien race visited our world they wouldn't distinguish us as humans and animals, we'd all be in one group.
"Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk."
I feel like this is a cheap attempt at baiting OP. Other than that, it's just based on your assumptions. Saying that human rights matter more than animal rights is just your opinion, and although that opinion is pretty widespread, there's never been an actual discussion on explaining why animal rights are less important than human ones. The biggest argument for human rights being more important is that the people judging the matter are humans themselves. Going back to the aliens vistiting Earth scenario, what reasons would they have to hold "human rights" above that of the other living creatures on earth?
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
On February 10 2011 07:46 rolfe wrote: I think you have miss read what i wrote, i said that even in a farming system not designed for the consumption of animals there will be inherent suffering among animals and that that suffering is not just unintentional but is necessary for the farming to be successful and is this morally preferable to a situation where suffering or death is also necessarily present but the animal is consumed also?
The fact is though the majority of the billions of animals are created solely for the purpose of consumption thus having to go through the torturous factory farm process. These animals would not exist in the first place if not for the factory farms. They would not be out in the wild suffering, being hunted, starving, or any other danger etc. As they wouldn't exist. The fact that they do and go through a slaughterhouse process is unnecessary, they would not 'otherwise' be out in the wild in a 'situation where suffering or death is present'.
It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies.
Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote: It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies.
Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
On February 10 2011 07:46 rolfe wrote: I think you have miss read what i wrote, i said that even in a farming system not designed for the consumption of animals there will be inherent suffering among animals and that that suffering is not just unintentional but is necessary for the farming to be successful and is this morally preferable to a situation where suffering or death is also necessarily present but the animal is consumed also?
The fact is though the majority of the billions of animals are created solely for the purpose of consumption thus having to go through the torturous factory farm process. These animals would not exist in the first place if not for the factory farms. They would not be out in the wild suffering, being hunted, starving, or any other danger etc. As they wouldn't exist. The fact that they do and go through a slaughterhouse process is unnecessary, they would not 'otherwise' be out in the wild in a 'situation where suffering or death is present'.
It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies.
Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving.
Predators don't perceive anything as cruel, they just do whatever they need to kill their prey. At a factory farm there's tons of ways to kill animals in a "humane" way if the people involved chose to do so. And shouldn't we be above these "animalistic" practices, since we're superior to them?
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote: It is true that factory farms should not permit the behavior towards animals that is shown in the video you posted in the other thread, but that is not an argument against specie-cism or "meat-eating", only against factory farms or their policies.
Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
It happens even in nature, and it happens to people too. I would happily feed a million pigs to people who are starving.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
You don't seem to understand nutrition that well.....
There are many different nutrients that can be found in meats that will not be found in other sources of food in the abundance required to eat healthy. And suppliments are capable of covering some of that deficiency in someone who chooses to eat vegan/vegetarian. However, they will not replace the real thing, and the effectiveness of those suppliments vary from person to person. It can actually be dangerous to some people to switch to a vegan/vegetarian diet, because the suppliments simply won't be able to compensate for the lack of meats in their diet.....
It can be working fine for you, and many other people. But that does not mean everyone will be able to handle that type of diet. I know that, personally, I haven't had a steak or a beef burger or any other kind of beef in well over 2 weeks, and I have been craving it for the last few days, meaning that I know my body wants some nutrients in beef that my diet has not been giving me without it.
Well, I must be a fucking monster to advocate eating meat, right?
.....
Actually, I'm all for improving animal rights. However, I have a lot of other things to do instead of preaching for these improvements. Would I pay more money for meat that was raised and slaughtered in a more animal friendly way? Yes. And I do, when I get the chance. Unfortunately, there are not too many options out there, because it is generally twice the price, or more, for the same quantity and quality meats, and most people simply don't give a shit, and would rather buy something for a lower price.
This entire thread seems to make it look like anyone who eats meat is the fucking devil..... I'd argue that it's more about people's priority being money over the welfare of animals. And money is going to win that battle.
PS - I have gone hunting and fishing many times in the past. I have killed animals that I have eaten later on. I don't fucking torture the things..... And I'm sure that you'd find that almost every hunter/fisherman is the same.
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority.
I'm just going to make one post in this thread, since I was up all night in the last thread. I hope you'll read it and think about it.
Do vegans try to push their lifestyle on to others? Sometimes, yes. They feel very strongly about their lifestyle. Imagine, they gave up bacon and cheese because they felt so strongly about it. For some reason others react very negatively to someone who feels strongly about a subject they don't. This guy made this thread because his last thread was shut down by a surge of people rushing to tell him he was wrong. All he's doing is defending himself.
The last thread exploded to 20 pages in a few hours. People couldn't get there fast enough to explain how the OP wasn't going to be healthy, how he wasn't actually going to change anything, how his kids would be retarded, and how what he was doing was actually detrimental.
He believes very strongly in what he does. Sciences backs him up. Logic backs him up. Every single argument against vegans is bullshit. Vegans live perfectly healthy lives, and their bodies can be completely nutritionally satisfied without animal products. Vegans create a change in the demand of a supply/demand production scheme. 1% less people eating meat means 1% less meat raised, tortured, and slaughtered. By consuming only plant energy, vegans are more environmentally friendly by creating the least amount of waste in their food chain. Vegans prevent the unnecessary killing of animals that are intelligent and capable of experiencing emotions and feeling pain. These are facts. No amount of opinion can change them.
Droves of people clamor to refute these facts. Maybe its because they don't like to be told what to do, maybe they like arguing-- fuck this I'm saying it.
In the same way that someone who rescues dogs from shelters are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that people who are environmentally conscious are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that someone is who is willing to make self sacrifices for the good of others is a good person, a vegan is a good person.
On February 10 2011 09:20 Lexpar wrote: I'm just going to make one post in this thread, since I was up all night in the last thread. I hope you'll read it and think about it.
Do vegans try to push their lifestyle on to others? Sometimes, yes. They feel very strongly about their lifestyle. Imagine, they gave up bacon and cheese because they felt so strongly about it. For some reason others react very negatively to someone who feels strongly about a subject they don't. This guy made this thread because his last thread was shut down by a surge of people rushing to tell him he was wrong. All he's doing is defending himself.
The last thread exploded to 20 pages in a few hours. People couldn't get there fast enough to explain how the OP wasn't going to be healthy, how he wasn't actually going to change anything, how his kids would be retarded, and how what he was doing was actually detrimental.
He believes very strongly in what he does. Sciences backs him up. Logic backs him up. Every single argument against vegans is bullshit. Vegans live perfectly healthy lives, and their bodies can be completely nutritionally satisfied without animal products. Vegans create a change in the demand of a supply/demand production scheme. 1% less people eating meat means 1% less meat raised, tortured, and slaughtered. By consuming only plant energy, vegans are more environmentally friendly by creating the least amount of waste in their food chain. Vegans prevent the unnecessary killing of animals that are intelligent and capable of experiencing emotions and feeling pain. These are facts. No amount of opinion can change them.
Droves of people clamor to refute these facts. Maybe its because they don't like to be told what to do, maybe they like arguing-- fuck this I'm saying it.
In the same way that someone who rescues dogs from shelters are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that people who are environmentally conscious are good people, vegans are good people. In the same way that someone is who is willing to make self sacrifices for the good of others is a good person, a vegan is a good person.
Does this make vegans better than you? Maybe.
a debate is perfectly fine to have and i have gone into this rationally and reasonably. paragraph 4 there shows you not entering into it rationally and reasonably and i think shows you to be very arrogant and unable to debate in this way. i agree with your first three paragraphs he is presumably passionate on the subject and i am happy to debate the subject with him.
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority.
I think we can all agree that most of us aren't in a direct struggle for survival. The fact that people like their daily meat doesn't mean they require it to stay alive. Your condescending tone also gives me the impression that you're annoyed by the notion that others can withhold from eating meat based on their beliefs, good.
TL:DR
Don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat.
On February 10 2011 09:31 rolfe wrote:a debate is perfectly fine to have and i have gone into this rationally and reasonably. paragraph 4 there shows you not entering into it rationally and reasonably and i think shows you to be very arrogant and unable to debate in this way. i agree with your first three paragraphs he is presumably passionate on the subject and i am happy to debate the subject with him.
Just because he's making a claim that could be seen as arrogant doesn't mean it's not a rational claim to make. It would be irrational to assume it's invalidity because it comes across as arrogant.
Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world.
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick.
People will literally never stop eating meat until it runs out so it is really futile to even make posts like these or have any vegan efforts at all. Instead, go to school and study biochem and learn how to create tasty fucking steaks out of inorganic material because it will actually help your cause.
On February 10 2011 09:31 rolfe wrote:a debate is perfectly fine to have and i have gone into this rationally and reasonably. paragraph 4 there shows you not entering into it rationally and reasonably and i think shows you to be very arrogant and unable to debate in this way. i agree with your first three paragraphs he is presumably passionate on the subject and i am happy to debate the subject with him.
Just because he's making a claim that could be seen as arrogant doesn't mean it's not a rational claim to make. It would be irrational to assume it's invalidity because it comes across as arrogant.
no. i think hes mixing together facts, half truths and opinions together intentionally and presenting it purely as facts. he is also offering no justification at all for why he considers these things self evidentally true. he is completely ignoring the debate saying he is better than it and above it. this is why i think it is arrogant. if there was any attempt at validation of what he presents as facts i could decide whether i thought it was invalid or not but as there is not i cannot.
I know that the amount of animals we have in captivity to feed ourselves (ei, cattle farms, fish farms, etc) is exponential. We (1st world countries) have so many animals, it has a direct impact on world hunger. We feed so much food to these animals, that instead, we could feed the world with that food; of course this means we would all have to be vegetarians and that will never fly. We spend so many resources to keep cows, chickens, and fish alive to feed the world that we could easily solve world hunger.
If we change the way we consume, increasing crop yields, cramming more plants into an area, watering and feeding crops more efficiently, world hunger can become a thing of the past - also solving the way we slaughter billions of animals a year AND we could use the resources for other things; space exploration, developing 3rd world countries without taking much profit loss.
Then again, capitalism did win and here we are - trying to fix a broken system while individuals become obscenely rich.
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world.
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick.
So basically what you're saying is:
Everything you eat is "cruelty" so you shouldn't even try? Seems like a defeatist attitude; make it seem like all food is bad so you don't have to try and be conscious of your foods' origin.
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world.
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick.
Okay I lied about the one post.
You're wrong. In fact, your statement is exactly the opposite of true. Developing nations and third world communities eat hundreds of times less meat than first worlders. Some guy in the last thread mentioned that some Chinese communities eat less than a pound of meat per year per person. I can't attest to that being true or false, but I imagine its not far from the truth. MEAT is a luxury. It takes 7 times as much land, ie 7 times as much water, ie 7 times as much work to raise 1000 calories of meat than it does to raise 1000 calories of vegetables. Factory farming, ie meat 3 meals a day, is a first world luxury. Its amazing how you could think that eating meat every meal of the day is not a luxury.
News flash: slaughterhouse machinery and other equipment used to raise animals is made in the same place as the equipment to harvest vegetables. What the hell made you think that tilling machines were evil and tainted by Chinese sweat, while a slaughterhouse machine is obviously made and operated by well paid, highly trained, and respected individuals? You makes no sense. Even if by some odd and highly unlikely twist of fate, farming equipment was all made by a uniquely evil corporation that employs only the blindest, stupidest, youngest Chinese girls, the fact remains that livestock eat grain: 7 times as much grains as they can offer in nutrition to human beings.
On February 10 2011 09:53 drewcifer wrote: People will literally never stop eating meat until it runs out so it is really futile to even make posts like these or have any vegan efforts at all. Instead, go to school and study biochem and learn how to create tasty fucking steaks out of inorganic material because it will actually help your cause.
The definition of a vegan is a person who has stopped eating meat. By your logic, why vote, or protest the things you care for? This "you're only a drop in the ocean" mentality is deadly. The ocean is made of drops. Every one of them counts. Look at whats happening in egypt. What if the tens of thousands of protesters concluded that they were only one person and couldn't make a difference? I swear to god this mentality is destroying the world.
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority.
I think we can all agree that most of us aren't in a direct struggle for survival. The fact that people like their daily meat doesn't mean they require it to stay alive. Your condescending tone also gives me the impression that you're annoyed by the notion that others can withhold from eating meat based on their beliefs, good.
TL:DR
Don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat.
I haven't portrayed vegans as anything nor am I condescending. You should look to yourself if you want a definition of condescension. I mean just read that sentence "don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat". I didn't realize I had to justify me eating meat. In fact you believing that I have to justify an act that my ancestors, and all the animals that I evolved from did reveals more about the tenuous position of your stance.
As to the survival argument, you brought up the alien scenario, not I.
The key difference between me and OP is that if there was legislation proposed to outlaw the consumption of meat, OP would probably vote for it, whereas if there was legislation proposed to outlaw vegetarianism, I would vehemently oppose it.
I don't even mind vegans spreading the news on their issue. Thats fine. Its when they compare the rights of animals to the rights of humans or make statements as enforced veganism is not an infringement of human rights that I get annoyed.
In fact, if enforced veganism is enacted, animals will have more rights than humans. I mean I'm not sure what you're going to tell Mr. Lion. You going to tell him " hey mr. Lion, that baby antelope is in a lot of pain while she's still alive and you're chewing on her leg. maybe you can go for some grass. or maybe you can swiftly kill her then eat her".
Nature and animals are cruel. We as humans don't need to add to that cruelty but at the same time, cruelty is often a byproduct of a necessity. The key is obviously whether this need is worth the cruelty. You and the OP happen to think its not, I happen to think it is. Thats all there is to it. There is no need to bring in all this animal rights, racism, etc... in to the argument. Which is what my initial point is abeit in more colorful language.
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world.
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick.
So basically what you're saying is:
Everything you eat is "cruelty" so you shouldn't even try? Seems like a defeatist attitude; make it seem like all food is bad so you don't have to try and be conscious of your foods' origin.
No, he points out that things such as "animal rights" are imaginary first world "problems" that completely ignore the existence of real human suffering. The only way to logically argue for something like veganism or "animal rights" is to equate the life of a human with that of a cow (which the OP has done). From this skewed viewpoint, the arguments make sense, but so does that of equating the life of a human with that of a head of lettuce.
It's absurd to compare speciesism with racism or sexism, because there are no major functional differences between men and women or people of different races.
I have no problem with veganism, and if eating meat makes you uncomfortable, then by all means, don't.
But as of now, I am being accused of being unethical, so I would venture to defend myself.
Animals, for the most part, including the ones we eat, are not self-aware. They don't even realize they exist. Death is no different from life to them. They have no free will. Avoiding pain is just a built-in mechanism that can't be specified for them. Humans are different, humans can actively choose to endure immediate pain for payoff later on. Humans can even choose to sacrifice themselves for others.
The outcome of eating meat is favorable to one party while neutral to the other, assuming the animal you eat is not self-aware, and has no potential to become self-aware (this protects humans in vegetative states). If you help an animal avoid pain, it's status quo still remains unchanged.
The only reason to not eat animals is if you think the end result, the taste and nutrition of meat, is not worth the input of those specific actions, and that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. You, being the intelligent human being you are, are entitled to believe whatever you want, and make decisions for yourselves.
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
fair? its survival. of course we wouldn't find being bred by aliens very fair. But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority.
I think we can all agree that most of us aren't in a direct struggle for survival. The fact that people like their daily meat doesn't mean they require it to stay alive. Your condescending tone also gives me the impression that you're annoyed by the notion that others can withhold from eating meat based on their beliefs, good.
TL:DR
Don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat.
I haven't portrayed vegans as anything nor am I condescending.
So you didn't say these things?
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote:
You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
Painting OP as forcing you to become vegan when he clearly isn't forcing anyone to do anything.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Ridiculing OP's beliefs.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
Stating an opinion as a fact and purposefully describing how you like to eat animals to poke at OP.
On February 10 2011 06:53 lixlix wrote: Why don't we go a step further. Aside from not eating any animal products, lets put some cheese out so that family of rats can stave off the winter. Oh sorry, put out some tofu cheese.
Maybe we can move that colony of termites in to our attic. That'll really reduce their suffering. After all, what is my right to live in a house compared to their right to survive? I can always sleep in a tent. Its just a simple move. No human rights infringed !!
Come to think of it, animals are pretty close to their mom and dads. Maybe when an animal dies, I'll bury it and not disturb its resting ground. Of course, I can't use fossil fuels, might disturb some animals from worshipping their ancestors.
All poking fun of OP's beliefs without making a rational point.
On February 10 2011 06:45 lixlix wrote: OP, I think you are being incredibly insulting in comparing animal rights to the historical plight of Blacks and Jews. I think you should just stop using those analogies. Your comments such as "Just because you give a black person the right not to be racially attacked, does not mean you necessarily have to give them a sponsorship to go to university."
are also becoming increasingly racist, although hopefully not intentionally.
I fail to see how I am racist considering I am advocating against differential treatment of blacks and whites.
You are using the suffering of humans as examples to push your agenda on animals as well as comparing the suffering of humans of a certain race to the suffering of animals and you fail to see that as racist?
Accusing OP of "pushing an agenda" and comparing his veganism to being racist without any rational explanation whatsoever.
Would we find it fair that these aliens would breed us and feed on us in a Matrix'esque style simply because they are more intelligent? Does the fact that animals can't communicate their feelings with us mean we don't have to consider them? Does the fact that we're the most "intelligent" creatures on Earth give us the right to do whatever we want with it? If yes, would we still feel the same way if said aliens invaded?
But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority.
Condescending tone combined with a ridiculisation of an argument that you couldn't refute otherwise.
On February 10 2011 09:48 LoLAdriankat wrote: Vegeterianism, veganism and everything PETA stands for are first world luxuries being supported by places where human rights are worse than the first world.
Your vegetables are often harvested with machines manufactured in Chinese sweatshops, or by hand by extremely young African children being treated like cattle. Unless everything you eat is local and humanely farmed, eating is cruelty. Make your pick.
So basically what you're saying is:
Everything you eat is "cruelty" so you shouldn't even try? Seems like a defeatist attitude; make it seem like all food is bad so you don't have to try and be conscious of your foods' origin.
No, he points out that things such as "animal rights" are imaginary first world "problems" that completely ignore the existence of real human suffering. The only way to logically argue for something like veganism or "animal rights" is to equate the life of a human with that of a cow (which the OP has done). From this skewed viewpoint, the arguments make sense, but so does that of equating the life of a human with that of a head of lettuce.
First of all, why IS the life and rights of an animal inferior to that of a human? I know most people deem themselves superior and have never considered humans and animals having equal rights, but for the sake of arguing; what makes animals inferior to us?
As OP has portayed, most animals have a maternal instinct, they get scared just like us, they communicate with eachother, they have emotions. They're not the empty lifeless shell people are painting them to be. They don't want to die, they don't want to be eaten, they also don't want to be separated from eachother.
Secondly, how can you even compare lettuce to a living, thinking and breathing creature?
Human suffering isn't any more "real" than animal suffering. Fact is also that humanity CAN in fact solve world hunger. Capitalism is just a system that results in inequality, there's enough food, just not enough people with money and influence willing to help them out. As such it's the same as saying "once I win the lottery jackpot I'll worry about animal rights".
On February 10 2011 10:41 Enervate wrote: It's absurd to compare speciesism with racism or sexism, because there are no major functional differences between men and women or people of different races.
I have no problem with veganism, and if eating meat makes you uncomfortable, then by all means, don't.
But as of now, I am being accused of being unethical, so I would venture to defend myself.
Animals, for the most part, including the ones we eat, are not self-aware. They don't even realize they exist. Death is no different from life to them. They have no free will. Avoiding pain is just a built-in mechanism that can't be specified for them. Humans are different, humans can actively choose to endure immediate pain for payoff later on. Humans can even choose to sacrifice themselves for others.
The outcome of eating meat is favorable to one party while neutral to the other, assuming the animal you eat is not self-aware, and has no potential to become self-aware (this protects humans in vegetative states). If you help an animal avoid pain, it's status quo still remains unchanged.
The only reason to not eat animals is if you think the end result, the taste and nutrition of meat, is not worth the input of those specific actions, and that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. You, being the intelligent human being you are, are entitled to believe whatever you want, and make decisions for yourselves.
No-one is being accused of anything. OP has given his reasons for being a vegan and offered these to TL readers for them to consider. The reason is to make people think about these things, not to act morally superior or blame anyone for lack thereof. You don't have to tell me steak is fucking delicious, I know, I'd like to stuff my face with it 24/7. There are also plenty of genuine animal lovers that still eat meat. The point is that people are actually aware of the concerns regarding factory farms. And if even one person decides to cut back a little on the meat, or would buy certified meat instead of the regular, or would even think about these things whilst shopping, than that would already spell succes for OP's beliefs and goals. No-one is pretending to be angels here, I stomp lings every day without shedding a tear and I enjoy nothing more than killing their damned Cows, probably because I'm racist
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
On February 10 2011 11:49 agarangu wrote: I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
If you watch Food Inc you'll see that the food that is fed to pigs is mostly made from corn. Your statement that it is not more economically efficient is inaccurate - and the fact that you say vegans are finding meat 'alternatives' - they are not alternatives to substitute what meat provides - but are simply nutrients in their own right. Nuts contain protein. So does meat. You can get it from either source. Nuts are not an alternative to meat - they are a food on their own that just happen to have the same nutrients in them as meat. This doesn't prove humans need meat. All it proves is that both meats and nuts contain protein.
It is nowhere near as expensive as giving them meat. Meat is inefficient, because it involves farming vegetables to feed to animals, when the first step can simply go towards feeding the poor. Unfortunately this doesn't happen because producing vegetables for third world countries is not as profitable as producing vegetables for animals which are then sold to first world countries. In many third world countries, fields of grain are grown alongside starving children, but these starving children can't touch it because they can't afford it - it's going towards the meat industry to feed the rich.
Speaking of the economical and environmental repercussions of livestock, consider the phrase: everybody poops.
A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency.
This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains.
On February 10 2011 12:25 Lexpar wrote: Speaking of the economical and environmental repercussions of livestock, consider the phrase: everybody poops.
A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency.
This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains.
Really, cows eat a lot of crap that would never be consumed by people. Here in Florida, most cows generally just graze because the grass is green year round. Most of the land isn't fertile enough for growing crops because it is naturally composed of mostly sand, so you aren't giving up land that would be of any value for other forms of agriculture, aside from a few niche plants.
I've never known a human being to go out and graze on just grass, and what isn't grass in the diet of most cows is generally the byproducts of other human productions that is otherwise unusable.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
I have cats, so yes. It's still not their intention to make the mouse suffer though. From a human perspective it's cruel, but animals don't have standards for right and wrong.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is.
You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
I have cats, so yes. It's still not their intention to make the mouse suffer though. From a human perspective it's cruel, but animals don't have standards for right and wrong.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is.
You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world.
You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
I have cats, so yes. It's still not their intention to make the mouse suffer though. From a human perspective it's cruel, but animals don't have standards for right and wrong.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is.
You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world.
You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel.
The image is a bit childish, especially since I've already explained in previous posts that lettuce is in no way comparable to living, breathing and thinking creatures. It seems like you've run out of useful things to say and are now just trying to provoke me. It's a pretty transparent attempt though and it isn't working.
The comparison with Jesus Christ is also very classy
Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless. You're saying that I can't read the mind of animals and as such can't prove that they're not intentionally cruel, how does that proof that they're cruel? The fact that you're implying that animals can judge their own actions as good or bad is only speaking in favor of animal rights.
Is there any reason why this topic is not being bumped in the blogs section as other topics are whenever a new reply is made? Have the moderators done something to effect this or is it just a technical glitch?
It's interesting how people forget that meat consumption habits are one of the factors driving up food prices around the world (expanding starvation and sparking food riots in Third World countries). Even with a "human first" frame of mind, maybe you want to reconsider your hamburger; it's interesting to see why people think that my meat-eating habits save more people than the alternative.
In the wild animals eat each other, and preserve the cycles of nature and the balance of the ecosystem. Wolves benefit the individual moose in the long run. You can look to Canada to see what happened to the moose when they started killing off wolves. In the non-wild, humans eat animals and derail ecosystems for meat (which takes up many more resources per pound of food).
Humans don't benefit the individual pig in the long run, nor are they any good for the ecosystem in any timescale. Even the meat industry won't deny that meat eating consumes a lot more resources per pound of food. 250,000 pounds of manure generated a day, along with the gallons of water and tons of animal feed (not to mention the oil used in generating meat), isn't a small environmental cost.
Additionally, it is probably good to exercise caution with the "it's natural" idea. Cannibalism is natural in multiple species, and 1/3 of duck sex is rape. Sure it's natural; hell, it's even natural in human beings. But does it mean that we should do it?
The bottom line is that even if you disregard the animal rights frame of mind entirely, eating meat might need a lot more justification than a lot of people here are providing. A lot of false dilemmas are given in this thread regarding "people or animals" when it really isn't a choice between the two.
On February 10 2011 12:25 Lexpar wrote: Speaking of the economical and environmental repercussions of livestock, consider the phrase: everybody poops.
A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency.
This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains.
Really, cows eat a lot of crap that would never be consumed by people. Here in Florida, most cows generally just graze because the grass is green year round. Most of the land isn't fertile enough for growing crops because it is naturally composed of mostly sand, so you aren't giving up land that would be of any value for other forms of agriculture, aside from a few niche plants.
I've never known a human being to go out and graze on just grass, and what isn't grass in the diet of most cows is generally the byproducts of other human productions that is otherwise unusable.
A good point, this is the way things should be. Instead of millions or billions of cows on the planet, there should be tens or hundreds of thousands who graze peacefully.
Instead, in factory farms they are in fact fed soybeans and corn: food that is cheap to grow (corn especially is subsidized heavily by the US and CAN governments). Again, if there wasn't such a high demand for meat, the same fields could be used to feed starving humans. Of course that wouldn't really happen either: but that's a failing of capitalism.
Ever see those adds on TV for cat litter made from corn? Corn is in almost every processed food, and is so heavily subsidized that we let our pets shit on it. Corn is equal in worth to lightly perfumed gravel in our countries, yet we'd rather feed it to cows or let our pets shit on it then sell it at a low price to developing countries. I think that's fucked up. That's an entirely different problem though.
On February 10 2011 12:25 Lexpar wrote: Speaking of the economical and environmental repercussions of livestock, consider the phrase: everybody poops.
A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency.
This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains.
Really, cows eat a lot of crap that would never be consumed by people. Here in Florida, most cows generally just graze because the grass is green year round. Most of the land isn't fertile enough for growing crops because it is naturally composed of mostly sand, so you aren't giving up land that would be of any value for other forms of agriculture, aside from a few niche plants.
I've never known a human being to go out and graze on just grass, and what isn't grass in the diet of most cows is generally the byproducts of other human productions that is otherwise unusable.
A good point, this is the way things should be. Instead of millions or billions of cows on the planet, there should be tens or hundreds of thousands who graze peacefully.
Instead, in factory farms they are in fact fed soybeans and corn: food that is cheap to grow (corn especially is subsidized heavily by the US and CAN governments). Again, if there wasn't such a high demand for meat, the same fields could be used to feed starving humans. Of course that wouldn't really happen either: but that's a failing of capitalism.
Ever see those adds on TV for cat litter made from corn? Corn is in almost every processed food, and is so heavily subsidized that we let our pets shit on it. Corn is equal in worth to lightly perfumed gravel in our countries, yet we'd rather feed it to cows or let our pets shit on it then sell it at a low price to developing countries. I think that's fucked up. That's an entirely different problem though.
No, that's not the case at all. My mom grows corn & soy beans. You would never ever want to eat field corn without it having gone through manufacturing processes. It's probably the most bland and uninteresting food ever. Having accidentally cooked it a couple of times, I promise you beyond question there is no way you'd mistake sweet corn for field corn. In short, most field corn goes to feeding cows and making breakfast cereal.
Furthermore, Sweet Corn is harder to grow than Field Corn - there's no way you can just mass convert that corn to sweet corn and expect that to work. Not only would you not get anywhere near equivalent yields, it would massively raise prices in cereals, oils, and stuff like that. Normally, farmers grow as much sweet corn as makes sense and is realistically possible - growing any more would be difficult because field corn genetically dominates (i.e. field corn + sweet corn = field corn). You'd have to keep the field corn away or you'd slowly but surely end up with less sweet corn every year, which means you'd start having higher costs in terms and hours invested, ignoring financial costs entirely.
In effect, your point boils down to saying that cornmeal and other similar manufactured products could be produced to meet all requirements for feeding people if only we didn't raise cattle. I can't find anything to suggest that's actually true - how much time and investment would have to go in to expanding those manufacturing plants to actually get anywhere near that kind of output? Do you have a source? Also, the body requires different types of nutrition to meet needs - while any food is obviously good when you're starving, is this really going to solve the problem? In short, if they could grow enough corn to feed everyone for cheap, don't you think the manufacturers would already have done that? I know for a fact that the farmers like selling stuff and I think it's pretty logical that the manufacturers would love to produce their products for pennies and immediately have guaranteed sales.
As far as production goes, Corn is one of the most efficient crops and is getting better year by year. We produce more corn with substantially fewer farms now than we did in the 1930's. We're meeting current demands using similar amounts of raw material to what we used in 1948. See http://ncga.com/files/pdf/071107_SustainabilityFinal.pdf
I appreciate the effort you put into responding to my post. http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/ is the main article I'm sourcing in my argument for the sustainability of a plant based diet vs that of a meat based one.
The question of "how much time/investment would be required to expand grain production to a level that could feed the entire world" isn't one I can answer. I have no idea what a farm costs, or what a factory that process' grain costs.
My argument isn't entirely based off of solving the entire planet's food problem. Instead, I'm suggesting that the production of meat is all-together dramatically wasteful. I'm saying that we could feed more people with the same fields we have now if 77% (here in Canada) of our grain wasn't fed to animals, who in turn can offer humanity only a pittance of the energy we put into them, the only benefit they offer being enhanced product flavor. That said, it's a medical fact that the human body can get all the nutrition it needs (even those pesky B vitamins and Omega Fatty Acids) through a fortified vegetable diet.
The US government buys over 6 billion dollars of corn per year, through subsidies, of which almost 70% is fed to livestock. Corn is the most subsidized crop in the US, mostly because it is feed to animals, which as I've said, are inherently wasteful when used for human nourishment. Subsidies also create an artificially low price for the export of agricultural goods, which can hurt developing nations who, without the aid of domestic subsidies, can't match the price of imported food from first world countries. This means that third world countries are forced to buy food from the West, rather than growing it themselves.
I haven't tried field corn. I imagine it's probably about as bad as you make it sound. Still, I believe my argument holds sound. I'm interested to hear what you think though.
When Im hungry I have to eat food so I can survive. My ancestors ate meat to survive. Meat is just fucking tasty. My NATURAL instinct to survive drives me to eat meat, there is nothing wrong in killing things to eat them. The ethics of killing something the right way is to me also stupid but usually the most humane way to BREED and to KILL is the one that makes the meat more tasteful. If you have doubts about eating meat Its cause It doesn't taste good, Most industrial manufactured and produced meat sucks. My country is KNOWN for its meat and in my HUMBLE opinion most of the meat (Cow meat) in the rest of the world sucks cause its not produced as well as its produced here by naturally feeding cows grass and let them grow in a real environment, not in a polluting feedlot. My advice dont worry about killing cows for food worry about raising them well and feeding them naturally and well.
On February 10 2011 08:33 agarangu wrote:Besides, have you heard about Jaguars? The have a really cruel way of killing their prey: rather than choking them to death as most felines do, they bite their head until their cranium crash. That's just an example, there are many cases of cruelty in the animal world.
I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be.
Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel.
You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to.
And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
I have cats, so yes. It's still not their intention to make the mouse suffer though. From a human perspective it's cruel, but animals don't have standards for right and wrong.
I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it.
But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said.
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently.
For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread.
Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain.
You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is.
You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel.
On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote:
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it.....
And that's far from the only example of that.....
If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world.
You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel.
The image is a bit childish, especially since I've already explained in previous posts that lettuce is in no way comparable to living, breathing and thinking creatures. It seems like you've run out of useful things to say and are now just trying to provoke me. It's a pretty transparent attempt though and it isn't working.
The comparison with Jesus Christ is also very classy
Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless. You're saying that I can't read the mind of animals and as such can't prove that they're not intentionally cruel, how does that proof that they're cruel? The fact that you're implying that animals can judge their own actions as good or bad is only speaking in favor of animal rights.
Dude are you even reading what I'm writing? Please do it again before reading this + Show Spoiler +
Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless.
Are you serious?
Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure.
That means, I'm not saying that animals have the intention of causing pain. On the contrary, I'm saying that it is impossible to judge people or animals by their intentions, since there no way to know them or prove them for that matter. So, you can only judge actions or events, and it is cruel that a pig gets crushed, just like a car accident is cruel.
That's right.
And plants are living organisms as well. They reproduce, interact with the environment and even communicate when they are in danger. [I can't find the link with the study about it, I will post it when I do].
So you feel like you're killing the lettuce every time you eat one agarangu? and you have no problem with it? Because frankly your whole argument boils down to agreeing with killing vegetables.
On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life.
This following statement just takes the cake.
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights. "
are you serious? Its just a change in diet right? you realize revolutions have started over much lesser offenses on human rights such as taxation on tea and gun ownership and you think that forcing people to go vegan is not an infringement of human rights?
There is a reason specie-cism (not sure thats even a word) is not in the same league as sexism or racism. Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump?
Its not that animal rights don't matter, its that they don't matter as much as my human rights. An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk.
Dude what are you talking about? Since when did he say he advocated forcing people to go vegan? He never mentioned anything like that. He isn't saying we need to "implement" anything. And, although this is irrelevant, for what its worth i have heard lots of meat eaters pushing vegetarians to eat meat, saying things like "you don't know what you're missing" etc. But like i said that isn't what this article was about at all, you need to read a little more carefully. And you took that quote completely out of context, that statement--
"All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights"
was referring to people who say "we shouldn't care about the treatment of animals until every last human is treated well first".
He also wasn't really referring to animal "rights" per se, obviously animals are guaranteed very few or no rights under the law, depending on the country. The point i think was more about supporting at least somewhat ethical treatment of animals. And i don't really see how being opposed to the unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals equates to thinking they are either equal to humans or that they should act like humans and participate in track meets?
I just realized i sound exactly like Lincoln did arguing for the abolition of slavery while saying that the nergro was undeniably inferior to the white man and did not by any means deserve any semblance of equal rights under the law. However, Lincoln did maintain that they were just intelligent enough to deserve the absolute most basic level of rights, just enough rights to make slavery unethical. Its really the exact same language.
The comparison isn't that valid but its interesting to think about how throughout history there have been countless accounts of a direct inverse relationship in the quality of treatment and/or amount rights one deserves and their perceived level of intelligence. And also how the distinction of species skews that whole perception. There are people vehemently against aborting a 4 day old 10 cell embryo that has as much brain function or awareness as a rock just because it technically has human DNA. Yet many of those people have no problems eating a steak that was produced by the killing of a living, breathing, sensing, suffering animal. The topic of opposition to euthanasia poses a similar comparison.
I am an unapologetic meat eater but there are few things in the world i hate more than factory farming.
On February 11 2011 12:17 Cloud wrote: So you feel like you're killing the lettuce every time you eat one agarangu? and you have no problem with it? Because frankly your whole argument boils down to agreeing with killing vegetables.
Come on dude. Really?
I watched the video, and yet today I ate ham at dinner. And I have no problem with that. Why would I be concerned with the killing of a vegetable?
You vegans, on the other hand, feel so bad about animal killing and still you eat plants. I don't know, maybe because plants don't scream. You dare to judge and criticize people who eat meat as murderers, while you take the life away from innocent plants that help the environment so much.
Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine).
Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How?
And I want to make clear that I eat plants and animal, and don't fell bad about it. Both could be treated better than they are, but if I don't eat ether of them I will die.
Feeding livestock pollutes the environment in so many ways and so massively it's almost comical. So those innocent plants that livestock eat aren't helping the world so much. Equaling plant pain to animal pain is an ignorant idea. Animals obviously feel pain orders of magnitude more than plants because of their much better developed survival mechanisms, and if you're equaling plants with animals so hurriedly, why don't you equal people with the rest of the animals too? Maybe it's ok to kill people too. The "x always try to impose their beliefs on us" argument is so cliché and is present in both sides of any discussion.
Funny how you not only assumed that I'm a vegetarian, but also a vegan.
On February 11 2011 10:54 Lexpar wrote: I appreciate the effort you put into responding to my post. http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/ is the main article I'm sourcing in my argument for the sustainability of a plant based diet vs that of a meat based one.
The question of "how much time/investment would be required to expand grain production to a level that could feed the entire world" isn't one I can answer. I have no idea what a farm costs, or what a factory that process' grain costs.
My argument isn't entirely based off of solving the entire planet's food problem. Instead, I'm suggesting that the production of meat is all-together dramatically wasteful. I'm saying that we could feed more people with the same fields we have now if 77% (here in Canada) of our grain wasn't fed to animals, who in turn can offer humanity only a pittance of the energy we put into them, the only benefit they offer being enhanced product flavor. That said, it's a medical fact that the human body can get all the nutrition it needs (even those pesky B vitamins and Omega Fatty Acids) through a fortified vegetable diet.
The US government buys over 6 billion dollars of corn per year, through subsidies, of which almost 70% is fed to livestock. Corn is the most subsidized crop in the US, mostly because it is feed to animals, which as I've said, are inherently wasteful when used for human nourishment. Subsidies also create an artificially low price for the export of agricultural goods, which can hurt developing nations who, without the aid of domestic subsidies, can't match the price of imported food from first world countries. This means that third world countries are forced to buy food from the West, rather than growing it themselves.
I haven't tried field corn. I imagine it's probably about as bad as you make it sound. Still, I believe my argument holds sound. I'm interested to hear what you think though.
The problem with your argument is it assumes that you can just transport food being given to animals straight over to people, which you really can't. You can't throw a bunch of corn/soy/wheat at the wall and call it a day. The problem with your assertion is that consuming field corn isn't 1:1 - you have to process it, package it, etc, which reduces the efficiency. I think if we start looking at the total cost from farm -> doorstep of producing cereals and stuff, we'd find that it's not really that far off of manufacturing costs of producing meats dependent on your location ( i.e. obviously more efficient in the midwest compared to alaska ).
In my opinion, I think corn is subsidized to keep costs down because we still actually overproduce compared to our usage - but that's a totally different topic :-\
As far as your nutritional point, it's demonstrated that a balanced diet of primarily fruits and vegetables alongside a fair amount of meat products is substantially more healthy and less costly than all alternatives. None of vegan, fast-food, or entirely meat-driven diets are actually that great for you. All of those things require vast amounts of supplements to maintain a steady diet - supplements which are expensive to produce and purchase plus not exactly widely available to everyone.
Regardless, I think elements of your argument have merit but you take it too far. You're ignoring the total cost of producing products that still require large amounts of manufacturing to remain safe and desirable. I'd agree if you said something like "We should reduce the production of meat by 20% because we're over-saturating markets" but when you're saying "We shouldn't produce meat at all" then I think you're just going too far.
Moderation is really the best choice here. I eat fast foods here & there, but primarily do my shopping in stores I know produce meats and vegetables up to high standards, including not using factory farms. I also pay nearly twice the price of both compared to just shopping at my local Albertson's - even the veggies are insanely high priced :-\.
The moment humans, as a species, start showing too much compassion to all other life forms, is the moment we start going extinct. I'm glad most people are not overzealous vegans with misplaced affections.
Also, as someone who claims that animals should be treated without discrimination, where do you draw the line? Is it o.k. to swat mosquitoes yet abject immorality to kill a cow? Is the use of disinfectants immoral? Where do you draw the line? Why? And if you draw a line, isn't that just blatant hypocrisy?
Also, personally, I will continue eating animals for the rest of my life because: 1. In moderation, they are a convenient source of good nutrition, and 2. They can't do jack shit about it.
On February 11 2011 14:47 Cloud wrote: Feeding livestock pollutes the environment in so many ways and so massively it's almost comical. So those innocent plants that livestock eat aren't helping the world so much. Equaling plant pain to animal pain is an ignorant idea. Animals obviously feel pain orders of magnitude more than plants because of their much better developed survival mechanisms, and if you're equaling plants with animals so hurriedly, why don't you equal people with the rest of the animals too? Maybe it's ok to kill people too. The "x always try to impose their beliefs on us" argument is so cliché and is present in both sides of any discussion.
Funny how you not only assumed that I'm a vegetarian, but also a vegan.
Ps. You won't die if you don't eat animals.
Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the environment and produce O2. You can see how the world is so polluted, now imagine if there were no plants. So plants help the environment, a lot.
And I didn't say plants feel as much pain as animals do. I said plants feel pain. That's it. Now, maybe you want to establish an arbitrary parameter to decide how much pain is it fair for an organism to feel in order to classify which being to kill, and which not to. On the other hand, I don't think it is arbitrary to decide to preserve your own specie.
And you are right, even if my reply wasn't only directed to you I did assume you were a vegetarian and a vegan. Sorry about that.
I don´t want you to waste your time writing a reply while you don´t get what I mean, so I will be clear about it. I´m in favor of eating plants and animals, and against eating humans.
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
As such all post criticizing vegans for being pretentious hypocrits are useless and needlessly insulting. Ridiculisation of their beliefs by saying plants have feelings too and as such they shouldn't eat anything, is unwanted and unwarranted. If you like eating meat and don't feel guilty for doing so, that's fine. Just don't come into a rational thread pretending you're being pushed into beliefs or that OP is just posting this thread to gloat over having moral high-ground.
@agarangu:
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic. You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you. Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe.
I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote: Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
As such all post criticizing vegans for being pretentious hypocrits are useless and needlessly insulting. Ridiculisation of their beliefs by saying plants have feelings too and as such they shouldn't eat anything, is unwanted and unwarranted. If you like eating meat and don't feel guilty for doing so, that's fine. Just don't come into a rational thread pretending you're being pushed into beliefs or that OP is just posting this thread to gloat over having moral high-ground.
@agarangu:
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic. You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you. Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
@Saechiis:
You wrote a lot of stuff about me in your last post, without any kind of an argument.
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic.
Really? When did that happen? What facts did you observe to reach that conclusion?
You're doing everything in your power to paint vegans as pretentious hypocrits that are harassing you to stop eating meat. You even adress them as "you vegans" like they're an evil faction conspiring against you.
I will admit this is fun to read, even if it's an enormous assumption. So, I wrote "you vegans" and you read "you evil pretentious hypocrite conspirators who eat plants". Here I want to stop a little. All of the arguments that I've used here are not meant to make vegetarians look like hypocrites. I'm just trying to explain to you the facts that lead me to believe that eating an animal is just like eating a plant and that there's nothing wrong with that. And I've been defending my belief due to the replays.
Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll
I'd be willing to show you the reasoning behind my arguments if you can point out why are they irrational. If you don't, I'll understand that this was just something you wrote.
but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
You should have your own comedy show, like in youtube or something, because let's face it, you are extremely talented when it comes to make people laugh.+ Show Spoiler +
I'm all for meat in general, and most of the time it's fine. I think its kinda gay for certain animals though, like pigs.
For example, in all cattle farms in ireland cows/cattle are left out for most of the year, except for the winter and the youngest who don't go out into the fields until they are pretty big. I can guarantee you these cattle life far more stress free and happy lives than humans do, and then instant death isn't too nice but its a very small percentage of an overall happy life. I understand that it's popular in america to cut the grass and leave the cattle in all day though, which I think is gay.
Pigs here, however, are kept indoors all the time to reduce loss of heat to surrounding and they just feed feed feed until they die. That's not very cool to them. Same thing with some chicken farms, free range is great but the indoors stuff sucks.
Dying is natural, so I don't care about killing animals, raising them in captivity and closed environments sucks ass though I wish it didn't happen.
On February 12 2011 05:25 Slayer91 wrote: I'm all for meat in general, and most of the time it's fine. I think its kinda gay for certain animals though, like pigs.
For example, in all cattle farms in ireland cows/cattle are left out for most of the year, except for the winter and the youngest who don't go out into the fields until they are pretty big. I can guarantee you these cattle life far more stress free and happy lives than humans do, and then instant death isn't too nice but its a very small percentage of an overall happy life. I understand that it's popular in america to cut the grass and leave the cattle in all day though, which I think is gay.
Pigs here, however, are kept indoors all the time to reduce loss of heat to surrounding and they just feed feed feed until they die. That's not very cool to them. Same thing with some chicken farms, free range is great but the indoors stuff sucks.
Dying is natural, so I don't care about killing animals, raising them in captivity and closed environments sucks ass though I wish it didn't happen.
You should consider not using the word "gay" like that... I know what you mean but it feels like I'm reading a 12 year old's opinion which has been proof read by his mom.
Man, there's nothing negatively aristocratic about an intelligent debate. I can't speak for anyone else, but I come form a single income family and have gone to public schools my entire life.
On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism.
It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal.
@agarangu I think this question was posed to you already but I didn't see an answer. Why is it that you find plants and animals to be similar enough that eating either is fine, but eating a human is not?
On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism.
It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal.
@agarangu I think this question was posed to you already but I didn't see an answer. Why is it that you find plants and animals to be similar enough that eating either is fine, but eating a human is not?
On February 12 2011 00:59 agarangu wrote: And I didn't say plants feel as much pain as animals do. I said plants feel pain. That's it. Now, maybe you want to establish an arbitrary parameter to decide how much pain is it fair for an organism to feel in order to classify which being to kill, and which not to. On the other hand, I don't think it is arbitrary to decide to preserve your own specie.
I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe.
I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
But anyways ...
Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong.
Basically, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the not considering your opinion as a universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts.
Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress.
Whenever I want to convince someone to stop doing something, I relate what they're doing to the nazis.
Oh wait. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can think of at least a 100,000,000 ways I could put that better. Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe.
I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
But anyways ...
Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; since it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong either.
As such, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the act of not considering your opinion to be an universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts.
Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress.
And don't you say this while sitting in a house that's truly packed with stuff made by exploited workers from poor countries? It seems weird to me that you would criticize people on that specific issue and say that they're doing something wrong when you yourself encourage cheap labor and you buy stuff made in containers that aren't ecological. You probably drive a car that consumes gas and you use electricity which was made at a power plant which pollutes a lot.
I mean, we do a LOT of stuff that's "bad" in some way or another. You picked your battle - others pick other battles. Who's better, the vegan who pollutes or the "green" guy who eats meat?
If I was to stop using everything that's exploitive or bad in some way, my quality of life would suck. And the main reason why I think it's hard for vegans to make rational arguments (save a few) is because really, this lifestyle (eating meat) is pretty sustainable, whereas pollution and chopping down entire forests isn't necessarily viable for the long term.
You're quoting my post, but everything you say screams "I haven't read your post!". What are you responding to?
I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
I think when he related eating meat to being sexist or racist, there may possibly have been some implication of insinuation that people who eat meat are not good people. Maybe.
I think I made and deleted three posts trying to respond to this thread, before finally grasping how futile it is. So instead I will pick on you.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
But anyways ...
Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct. In a discussion of good and wrong no-one's ever right; since it's a personal judgement, not a truth. If you eat meat and don't find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong. If you don't eat meat and find it morally reprehensible, you're not wrong either.
As such, I'm asking people in this thread to be more open-minded about the matter; open-mindedness not meaning devoid of an opinion, but the act of not considering your opinion to be an universal truth. It's not a discussion of who's right and who's wrong and it's not a judgement of people's choices. It's an exchange of views, facts and opinions that might convince someone to review or refine his judgement on the morality of eating meat. Whether that's me or someone else doesn't matter, having refined your opinion never hurts.
Tapping into Day9's eternal wisdom: it's not about winning the game NOW, it's about getting better in the progress.
And don't you say this while sitting in a house that's truly packed with stuff made by exploited workers from poor countries? It seems weird to me that you would criticize people on that specific issue and say that they're doing something wrong when you yourself encourage cheap labor and you buy stuff made in containers that aren't ecological. You probably drive a car that consumes gas and you use electricity which was made at a power plant which pollutes a lot.
I mean, we do a LOT of stuff that's "bad" in some way or another. You picked your battle - others pick other battles. Who's better, the vegan who pollutes or the "green" guy who eats meat?
If I was to stop using everything that's exploitive or bad in some way, my quality of life would suck. And the main reason why I think it's hard for vegans to make rational arguments (save a few) is because really, this lifestyle (eating meat) is pretty sustainable, whereas pollution and chopping down entire forests isn't necessarily viable for the long term.
You're quoting my post, but everything you say screams "I haven't read your post!". What are you responding to?
Not sure what happened. Made sense at the time. Think I meant to quote someone else from another page or something. Sorry
My take on this whole this is that we should treat animals better and to minimize their suffering while they are being raised for food. However, any argument against eating meat because we shouldn't kill animals is silly in my book. Its how nature has acted since basically forever and we are just a part of the same system except we have the capability to control our environment the a much greater extent then do other animals. Just because our species has developed sentience and the ability to create abstract ideas like compassion doesn't mean we automatically have some responsibility to never harm any other living thing. These traits developed because they were beneficial when they were applied to our own species since we are highly social and complex animals that need the interaction.
On February 12 2011 12:06 Chef wrote: Whenever I want to convince someone to stop doing something, I relate what they're doing to the nazis.
Oh wait. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can think of at least a 100,000,000 ways I could put that better. Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ...
Nazi's?
As for the rest of your post:
I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying
Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion?
On February 12 2011 13:23 Slaughter wrote: My take on this whole this is that we should treat animals better and to minimize their suffering while they are being raised for food. However, any argument against eating meat because we shouldn't kill animals is silly in my book. Its how nature has acted since basically forever and we are just a part of the same system except we have the capability to control our environment the a much greater extent then do other animals. Just because our species has developed sentience and the ability to create abstract ideas like compassion doesn't mean we automatically have some responsibility to never harm any other living thing. These traits developed because they were beneficial when they were applied to our own species since we are highly social and complex animals that need the interaction.
I agree with your first sentence.
As for the second part of your post, I feel like humans have been cheating the rules of nature for a long time now. I have no problem with the killing of animals in the wild since predators can't choose not to. Either the prey dies or the predator, since the latter needs to eat the former to survive. Predators that have compassion couldn't survive through evolution since they'd have nothing to eat.
Humans however are omnivores, we don't need to eat meat to survive. Our lives are also no longer a struggle for survival, we have the freedom to choose our food. So, if we can choose to not eat other sentient creatures without ramifications, why not do it? Doesn't the fact that we can think about the morality of eating animals not automatically give us responsiblity of some sort? If compassion isn't useful to humans, then why have we developed the ability to do so?
If we could replicate any food we wanted like in Star Trek, would you still rather eat animals that had a life?
We are developed monkeys, what makes our lives more valuable than theirs? Can we really deny that we're animals that have the brains to claim they're humans?
On February 10 2011 06:33 101TFP wrote: Misquoting is a very mature way to argue.
I like meat.
Most wild animals die of starvation or by getting eaten alive. In the grand scheme of things, guess how many billions and billions of animals have suffered and died painful deaths in the history of the earth. Our way of life has only existed for a very very short amount of time in comparison.
Just because we humans don't like pain and think that it is bad to cause pain to others, doesn't mean that it isn't a completely natural thing to kill other animals and make them suffer for our well-being if necessary. Today we have very efficient methods of doing that, which seems to be necessary to uphold the need for meat of humanity.
Everyone is free to decide to not eat meat, just don't run around and expect us to actually care.
edit: Regarding your point of humans treating each other better than they treat animals. You are wrong. People tortured and killed each other all day long since the dawn of mankind. And it's still happening.
Not true. Most animals die of intensive factory farm practices and in the slaughterhouses - billions per day. In the grand scheme of things, this suffering can be reduced - just because many people have died in wars in the past doesn't justify wars today.
Take for example the fact that thousands of Africans are dying daily from malnutrition and starvation. It would be better for less of them to have children, as these children are simply being born and living lives full of suffering. Likewise for the billions of animals that are produced (via artificial insemination) on factory farms, it would be better if they were not created in the first place. If we can reduce that suffering, then we ought to.
can you please link me to a source for this information?
Hmmm. I have a lot to say about this, I'll knock them all out in a simple list.
1) About vegetarians. It's fine if you want to eat plants only. But don't push this stuff on me. Meat is essential to the human diet. Vegetarians are some of the most sickly people I have ever met, but that's their choice and I have nothing wrong with it.
2) You say we should treat all animals with compassion, even though they are of lesser intelligence. I love animals, and never cause any harm of them. I treat my pets as if they were my best friends. In fact, I spend WAY more money donating to animals causes than human causes because I think animals deserve it way more.
I now ask you this question....all those vegetables you are eating come from the death of plants, don't you feel bad? Oh wait, you say they are not intelligent? well you clearly don't regard the intelligence difference between us and animals, why not animals and plants? don't plants have a right to life as well?
On February 10 2011 05:31 Tony Campolo wrote: So the last thread got closed 'cos I didn't put enough effort into the OP. Yet I didn't have the chance to respond to the replies because it was like 12am in NZ.
Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
First of all, I do support human rights and am actively involved with charities that help the poor (e.g. sponsoring children, volunteering my time for community groups that help the homeless). Coming from an ex-Christian background, I've dedicated more of my time to helping human rights than animal rights. Chances are those that attack vegans for not supporting human rights are less likely to be involved in any active charitable work themselves, as most people that give their time to various causes know how disrespective it is to have someone attack your cause as being less worthy than another's.
Secondly, supporting animal rights takes nothing away from human rights. All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights.
Thirdly, what it comes down to is what is ethical. Animals may not be as intelligent as us - but that doesn't mean they feel less pain. This is evidenced both physically and mentally.
An extract from my personal blog:
In addition to having distinct personalities, cows are very intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time. Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They have complex emotions as well and even have the ability to worry about the future.
Researchers have found that cows can not only figure out problems, they also enjoy the challenge and get excited when they find a solution. In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had to find how to open a door to get some food. The researchers then measured their brainwaves. Professor Broom said that ‘The brainwaves showed the cows excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment,’ Cows can also learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirty or press a button with their head to release food when they’re hungry. Like humans they quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain like electric fences. In fact if just one cow in the herd is shocked by an electric fence, the rest of the herd will learn from that and will avoid the fence in the future.
Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but one cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never communicated to her daughter again. Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members.
Dairy cows are continually kept pregnant and lactating and their babies are sold off to the meat industry when they are only two days old. The life of a dairy cow is not as natural as you might think, especially considering that 80 percent of dairy cows are made pregnant through artificial insemination.
The only way for a cow, like any other mammal, to produce milk is for the cow to have a baby. The milk produced by cows is naturally meant for baby calves; however, because people want to drink this milk, the baby calves are taken away from their mothers when they are only a few days old. Cows are extremely maternal animals and both the mother cow and the baby calf suffer terribly from being separated at such a young age. In fact, one cow missed her baby so much that she broke out of her paddock and trekked through 8 kilometers of paddocks and rivers to find her baby. On dairy farms, mother cows can be heard bellowing out wildly trying to find their babies as well as running after the cattle trucks that take their babies to separate farms.
The baby calves life is then decided by their gender. That’s right, not only is the dairy industry hell for the animals, the environment and your health, it is also an industry that decides an animal’s entire life based on whether they are male or female. If the calve is male then he is taken away to be raised and slaughtered for meat. Because of this the NZ dairy industry contributes to the death of more than 1 million male dairy cows every year. That’s one death every 20 seconds. In fact, 55 percent of all beef in New Zealand supermarkets comes directly from the dairy industry. These male calves are transported to separate meat farms where they will never see their mothers again. They suffer terribly on their journey to the meat farm. Transported as young as 4 days of age, they endure cold and hunger, without food for up to 30 hours, while struggling to maintain their footing in the cattle truck.
However if the calf is female she is raised as a dairy cow, living in the same conditions as her mothers. She too will live in a cycle of pregnancy and lactation, being forced to give birth to a baby calf each year, only to have that baby torn away from her within a few days. In the wild cows can live to be up to 25 years old. But on dairy farms they are slaughtered when they are only 8-10 years old meaning that most dairy cows live less than half their natural life span.
Because dairy cows are milked so excessively, NZ dairy cows have increased risks of teat diseases like mastitis. When a cow has mastitis her udder may become so inflamed that it is as hard as a stone, and blood bubbles into her milk, which becomes clotted and watery. Severe cases of mastitis can kill a cow in less than a day.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights.
Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false.
Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way.
Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action.
My question:
Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not?
I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree.
So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living?
On February 12 2011 06:30 Slayer91 wrote: Big words don't make you intelligent. It's just literary elitism.
It's easier to paint a picture when you have more colors of the rainbow at your disposal.
I only used the word "gay" once and you'd understand the connotation as well unless you're 80
Let's think about it like this then, Slayer. How many people have responded to the point that you made in your original post?
How many have responded to your use of the word "gay"?
In retrospect, then, didn't your use of the word "gay" serve to obscure your point rather than communicate it? Didn't it distract your readers and therefore detract from the effectiveness of your post?
You may not think it did. That's fair. But I definitely think it did, and I think that a little bit of audience awareness on your part would have avoided this hang-up entirely. Then we would have been free to discuss what you said rather than how you said it.
You got to know who you're talking to, and when you're talking to the bleeding-heart, spineless, shiftless, fairness-equity-tolerance-and-mutual-understanding, dorm-room Socialist, hippy asswipes that comprise 99% of TL's userbase, well... you have to choose the right words for the job. You can't offend any of these delicate sensibilities. They're fragile little blossoms, they are.
That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
I'm pretty happy with my meat-eating lifestyle as of the moment. Besides, 80% of Philippine meat and dairy products are done organically. Not because they are animal rights advocates, but because Philippine farmers simply can't afford all the equipment for more efficient farming
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote: That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
You could have won this argument really easily if you'd just told him rainbows are gay.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ...
Nazi's?
As for the rest of your post:
I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying
Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion?
Let's review:
1 The OP (who is not you) began his argument by saying that much like racism and sexism, 'specism' is a form of discrimination.
2 His intended audience, presumably, are people who eat meat. His ideal to either defend his way of life, or to convince others to adopt it as well. I would say it's the latter.
3 I say that this is a pretty poor way to open an argument. You alienate your entire intended audience by associating the plights of human rights, to the plights of animal rights. Regardless of what I think of animal rights, I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument. Most people are going to stop reading the OPs argument at this point. What promise does a 2 page rant that begins with how meat eaters are akin to women haters and bigots have? Even if his arguments did get better, he shot himself in the foot.
4 In defence of the OP, you say that no matter how one opens an argument for veganism, they are going to find something they find offensive to them, because they are looking for it and 'construing it.'
5 I respond, sarcastically, that I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much effort to be offended by a statement which puts one on the level of misogynists and bigots, and that if that there was a good argument to be had, it probably wouldn't have opened up with this clearly provocative statement.
6 You respond, as you have to with most posts in this thread, complaining that I somehow didn't read your post properly, or didn't read it at all, or that I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see how that defends opening one's argument with a statement that can only be taken as an attack on the reader's morality, but okay. Sure, maybe one day in the year 2050 we'll all look back on the year 2011 and think how barbaric they were for eating animals. Or maybe we won't. It's besides the point. It doesn't help your argument now, by fantasizing about a time in the future when eating animals will be akin to owning a slave.
This concludes our review. Please study it well as you will no doubt be tested in the future for its contents, though likely in a different context.
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote: That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
I like your style, Slayer, even if you made a totally newbie move. I also like the fact that you recognize that sensationalism is the only thing that's going to get you airtime in a debate like this. You're going to have to be more polarized, rabid, and partisan if you want to get anywhere in life!
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote: That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
You could have won this argument really easily if you'd just told him rainbows are gay.
If you read the OP with the intention of finding something that can be construed as pretentious, you can. Fact is though, that it's pretty hard to write a non-offensive piece about the negative affects of eating meat when 95% of people do so.
I'm assuming this is in response to my post? I'm not sure since it doesn't make much sense ...
Nazi's?
As for the rest of your post:
I was using sexism and racism as a bridge to show that people's perception of morals change over time, which you should've seen if you read my post carefully. And even though I've never related sexism and racism to "specie-ism", saying
Please don't relate the cause of vegans to civil rights movements. If you actually had a good argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such low tactics.
is still non-sensical, what does it proof besides the fact that you like to give your opinion?
Let's review:
1 The OP (who is not you) began his argument by saying that much like racism and sexism, 'specism' is a form of discrimination. It is discrimination, I'm just questioning whether it's warranted. And indeed, I'm not OP, so the "civil rights" and "nazi" comments don't make any sense in response to my post.
2 His intended audience, presumably, are people who eat meat. His ideal to either defend his way of life, or to convince others to adopt it as well. I would say it's the latter.
What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it. You're also making a personal judgement on what OP's intentions are.
3 I say that this is a pretty poor way to open an argument. You alienate your entire intended audience by associating the plights of human rights, to the plights of animal rights. Regardless of what I think of animal rights, I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument. Most people are going to stop reading the OPs argument at this point. What promise does a 2 page rant that begins with how meat eaters are akin to women haters and bigots have? Even if his arguments did get better, he shot himself in the foot.
What do you mean with "you"? I'm not OP and my post had nothing to do with human rights, hence the comment that it doesn't make sense.
Also " I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument" ?
Interpreting what other people are going to be thinking is not an argument, and it certainly doesn't give people the liberty to disregard OP's points, let alone not read it. There's also no worse way to begin an argument than bringing up Nazi's in an unrelated thread, I'm sure you're aware of Godwin's law.
4 In defence of the OP, you say that no matter how one opens an argument for veganism, they are going to find something they find offensive to them, because they are looking for it and 'construing it.'
95% of posts have been attacking OP for "pushing his beliefs upon people" "being a hypocrit lettuce murderer" or "being pretentious". Yet no-one has quoted where he implies these things, leaving me to conclude that people are looking for things to be offended by. Yes, it is nearly impossible to address a controversial topic like the possibility of not eating meat without getting flamed, do you disagree?
5 I respond, sarcastically, that I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much effort to be offended by a statement which puts one on the level of misogynists and bigots, and that if that there was a good argument to be had, it probably wouldn't have opened up with this clearly provocative statement.
As I said, it's only "clearly" provocative when you are looking for something to be offended by. He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you deny the truthness of this statement? Or were you too consumed by the controversial nature of the statement to see that it's actually a completely valid comparison?
OP is putting specie-cism on the same page with sexism and racism since they're all forms of discrimination. When I say red, purple and yellow are colors, that doesn't imply you're all of the above or does it? Hence my sidenote that everyone can find offensiveness in a controversial post, even when it isn't intended. So I implied it might be in everyone's interests to not form entire arguments concerning OP's perceived insults and discuss the contents instead.
6 You respond, as you have to with most posts in this thread, complaining that I somehow didn't read your post properly, or didn't read it at all, or that I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see how that defends opening one's argument with a statement that can only be taken as an attack on the reader's morality, but okay. Sure, maybe one day in the year 2050 we'll all look back on the year 2011 and think how barbaric they were for eating animals. Or maybe we won't. It's besides the point. It doesn't help your argument now, by fantasizing about a time in the future when eating animals will be akin to owning a slave.
Your post had no contents that adressed mine, as such I'm going to comment on how your post makes no sense in reply to mine. You can hide behind the notion that I'm "bullying" in this thread, but it doesn't conceal that your post, like most, focuses completely on criticizing the OP for perceived insults to people eating meat, instead of attacking it's content. Kinda like an ... ad-hominem, how ironic.
I never fantasized over "one day in the year 2050", that's why I'm asking you to read my post for what it says. Once again:
"Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct."
This concludes our review. Please study it well as you will no doubt be tested in the future for its contents, though likely in a different context.
Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is.
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote: Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it.
I apologise for poking fun at your tragically short memory, but this is where the argument began. With you saying the OP "is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others" and "in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat."
I'm not sure at what point you got confused, but hopefully this will help you to follow the my relatively simple train of thought.
On February 12 2011 22:02 Slayer91 wrote: That's because you guys are all gay literary aristocrats! You wouldn't have responded to my point anyway, it's too rational and non confrontational. It seems the posts that strike up debate tend to make wildly biased claims with lots of insults toward something or other.
In any case, using it twice is really bad on my part, using an awkward word once and you can get away with it. Twice is a total newbie move.
I like your style, Slayer, even if you made a totally newbie move. I also like the fact that you recognize that sensationalism is the only thing that's going to get you airtime in a debate like this. You're going to have to be more polarized, rabid, and partisan if you want to get anywhere in life!
No, I fucking hate debates and shit because of this, If I build a career it's going to have nothing to with them.
On February 13 2011 04:10 HULKAMANIA wrote: Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority. I know they get mad about it, it shows pretty clearly in this thread. I'm arguing that getting mad isn't a proof that veganism is bad idea. I'm tired of playing the "you're claiming to be superior"-game as it comes down to personal, subjective, judgements of intention. I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals, but there'll be 10 that say I'm doing it for personal gain. As such, it's infinitely more useful to focus on what makes veganism worse than eating meat.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors. I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common. Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, is fallicious. When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too.
OP could've been more delicate, but it doesn't take anything away from his point.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
What you and I think is irrelevant since it doesn't disprove OP's claims.He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you disprove that?
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is. I think that he, I think he wants, I think that his posts, I also think that, I think. But it's not the "What do you think OP's intentions are?"-thread. It's the "specie-cism and veganism" thread. Reply to what he has to say about specie-cism and veganism, not what you think his agenda is. Even if he was implying that eating meat is immoral, if you don't think it is, why don't you explain him why it isn't?
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
Your theory completely revolves around your opinion and it doesn't relate to the merits and/ or demerits of veganism. I have argued that it's practically impossible to non-offensively discuss veganism when 95% of replying posters eat meat. How would you suggest one to make a thread about the benefits of veganism over eating meat without rubbing meat-eaters the wrong way?
On February 12 2011 04:23 Saechiis wrote: Why does 90% of posts here come down to:
"STFU, how dare you tell me I can't eat meat!? You are arrogant and are pretending to be better than me. You eat vegetables so you're a murderer!"
I will stop responding to these posts since it's no use replying to them. I've already explained that the OP brings up rational arguments for not eating meat, yet is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others. He has also in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat.
What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it.
I apologise for poking fun at your tragically short memory, but this is where the argument began. With you saying the OP "is in no way forcing his beliefs upon others" and "in no way implied he was a better person for not eating meat."
I'm not sure at what point you got confused, but hopefully this will help you to follow the my relatively simple train of thought.
I tested your ability to reason in a rational matter. But as expected, you're only known on TL for your witty remarks. When you take out the "witty" though, there's no content left in your posting. Please continue without me though, I'm sure there'll people that will mistake your shallow posts and evasions as a cover for something much grander.
I'm known on TL for writing silly StarCraft fanfiction and hyping BroodWar.
I think you've gotten yourself deep into this argument and you feel like you can't give an inch. I'm not saying there aren't decent arguments for vegetarianism, or that as humans we shouldn't be able to think 'raising a chicken in a cage its whole life to be eaten by us' is a little fucked up. It's a really complicated argument which I don't want to get myself into. So I choose this fringe argument where you're arguing the OP was in no way saying meat-eaters are reprehensible, when I give you quoted proof, and you try to deny it with 'well that's not what he really meant'... I don't know. I think that's pretty dumb. Of course it's what he meant. He wouldn't have mentioned sexism or racism if he didn't. He wouldn't have coined the term 'specie-cism' if he didn't. He'd have just gone straight into 'why eating meat is bad.' He labeled meat eaters as 'specie-ists' with what I think are pretty obvious intentions.
The term specism itself is unnecessary and silly. You're damn right I'm specieiest.. And so are you. I'd save a human life before I'd save an animal's. Is that like saying I'd save a white person before a black person? I don't think so, but that's the comparison being made. I also won't let dogs ride at the front of the bus. Or on the bus at all, unless they are a guide dog, because I am also breedist. Also, dogs are not allowed to eat at the dinner table with me, they have to eat from a crappy bowl on the floor. How reprehensible. In truth I don't own any pets though, because I'm actually slightly unnerved by the idea of owning another creature. However, I'm not going to call my friends who own pets speciests, or cruel. Maybe one day I'll even own a pet when I get over it. A little slave bunny who doesn't have the freedom to leave me and I keep solely for my amusement. Yeaaah. Then when it dies of old age, I'll eat it.
On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote: I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy.
I bet you're wondering why no-one is quoting your post saying lol.
It's because it isn't funny.
Either the OP wants to talk about veganism/vegetarianism.....
Vegetarians are particularly subject to pernicious anemia (results from deficiency of vitamin B12) unless they eat generous amounts of milk and eggs. A lack of vitamin B12, found only in animal sources, can seriously interfere with the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. To make up for milk products, vegans should eat plenty of calcium-rich plant foods. Other problems include iron deficiency, animal protein deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency, which can interfere with the body's ability to absorb calcium. There is a possibility of low levels of zinc, which is needed for synthesizing protein.
.....and does not realize that fortified diets or suppliments do not fix these issues for everyone as well as he'd wish they would..... It can be unhealthy for someone to eat a vegan/vegetarian diet in many cases.....
Or he is arguing that the animals deserve better living conditions.
If it is the first scenario - he's misinformed or lying to persuade people and deserves correcting, and the condecending tone is far from warranted. Thread finished quickly.
In the 2nd one, he'll find many, many people who share similar views (myself included). And a lot of this argumenting could have been prevented if he had left the vegan/vegetarian + comparisons to sexism/racism out of the picture. Not much more than chiming in with agreement would have come up in the thread. Thread finished quickly.
This thread has kept going because of that condecending tone that he and others have had, going in either direction. It's not constructive at all.
In 100 years, people could look back and think we were barbaric for eating meat (especially if substitutes and suppliments improve drastically). However, things could take a complete 180 degree turn, and they could look back at people arguing for a vegan/vegetarian diet as being complete fucking retards, because suppliments and other substitutes/fortified foods cannot possibly replace the nutrition that meats give us. Either way, we won't know until we get there.....
Trying to insinuate that eating meat is comparible to sexism or racism is fucking dumb. And, of course, that is going to piss off anyone who enjoys a non vegan/vegetarian diet.
On February 13 2011 06:16 Chef wrote: I'm known on TL for writing silly StarCraft fanfiction and hyping BroodWar.
I think you've gotten yourself deep into this argument and you feel like you can't give an inch. I'm not saying there aren't decent arguments for vegetarianism, or that as humans we shouldn't be able to think 'raising a chicken in a cage its whole life to be eaten by us' is a little fucked up. It's a really complicated argument which I don't want to get myself into. So I choose this fringe argument where you're arguing the OP was in no way saying meat-eaters are reprehensible, when I give you quoted proof, and you try to deny it with 'well that's not what he really meant'... I don't know. I think that's pretty dumb. Of course it's what he meant. He wouldn't have mentioned sexism or racism if he didn't. He wouldn't have coined the term 'specie-cism' if he didn't. He'd have just gone straight into 'why eating meat is bad.' He labeled meat eaters as 'specie-ists' with what I think are pretty obvious intentions.
The term specism itself is unnecessary and silly. You're damn right I'm specieiest.. And so are you. I'd save a human life before I'd save an animal's. Is that like saying I'd save a white person before a black person? I don't think so, but that's the comparison being made. I also won't let dogs ride at the front of the bus. Or on the bus at all, unless they are a guide dog, because I am also breedist. Also, dogs are not allowed to eat at the dinner table with me, they have to eat from a crappy bowl on the floor. How reprehensible. In truth I don't own any pets though, because I'm actually slightly unnerved by the idea of owning another creature. However, I'm not going to call my friends who own pets speciests, or cruel. Maybe one day I'll even own a pet when I get over it. A little slave bunny who doesn't have the freedom to leave me and I keep solely for my amusement. Yeaaah. Then when it dies of old age, I'll eat it.
I'll give an inch when there's a reason to, but no-one's even discussing specie-cism and veganism in this thread. It's all a discussion about OP's "evil" intentions which I've argued a million times isn't even relevant to the discussion. But still you're pretending like OP's intentions proof anything about the merits of veganism.
You're also once again jumping on specie-cism as if it's a synonym for racism and sexism. They're all forms of discrimination, that's where the comparison stops. Everyone is a specie-ist since everyone makes the separation between humans and animals, that's not the point as I've tried to explain over and over and over and over again, yet you insist on taking it as an insult.
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it. Rather you make a "witty" comment so you seem clever and avoid the discussion all together. If you don't want to dive in, then don't respond. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold, it's an insult to the effort I'm putting in.
On February 13 2011 06:08 HULKAMANIA wrote: Saechiis this responding-by-bolding-inside-quotes shit has to stop.
Why? Does bolded text make it harder to read? Still waiting for your reply, I'm curious.
Vegetarians are particularly subject to pernicious anemia (results from deficiency of vitamin B12) unless they eat generous amounts of milk and eggs. A lack of vitamin B12, found only in animal sources, can seriously interfere with the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. To make up for milk products, vegans should eat plenty of calcium-rich plant foods. Other problems include iron deficiency, animal protein deficiency, and vitamin D deficiency, which can interfere with the body's ability to absorb calcium. There is a possibility of low levels of zinc, which is needed for synthesizing protein.
.....and does not realize that fortified diets or suppliments do not fix these issues for everyone as well as he'd wish they would..... It can be unhealthy for someone to eat a vegan/vegetarian diet in many cases.....
Or he is arguing that the animals deserve better living conditions.
If it is the first scenario - he's misinformed or lying to persuade people and deserves correcting, and the condecending tone is far from warranted. Thread finished quickly.
In the 2nd one, he'll find many, many people who share similar views (myself included). And a lot of this argumenting could have been prevented if he had left the vegan/vegetarian + comparisons to sexism/racism out of the picture. Not much more than chiming in with agreement would have come up in the thread. Thread finished quickly.
This thread has kept going because of that condecending tone that he and others have had, going in either direction. It's not constructive at all.
In 100 years, people could look back and think we were barbaric for eating meat (especially if substitutes and suppliments improve drastically). However, things could take a complete 180 degree turn, and they could look back at people arguing for a vegan/vegetarian diet as being complete fucking retards, because suppliments and other substitutes/fortified foods cannot possibly replace the nutrition that meats give us. Either way, we won't know until we get there.....
Trying to insinuate that eating meat is comparible to sexism or racism is fucking dumb. And, of course, that is going to piss off anyone who enjoys a non vegan/vegetarian diet.
I'm not OP and I want to have a constructive discussion regardless of what OP said that pissed people off. Please read my posts for the last pages and reply to them without bringing up anything related to the OP's perceived intentions.
On a sidenote, THIS is condescending, especially towards someone who chooses to no eat meat out of beliefs.
On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote: I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals,
I do too. With mashed potatoes and gravy.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote: Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet # 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem # 59% are plagued with food cravings # A whopping 67% report scattered thinking. # 46% feel they are looking older than they should. # 54% feel run down, chronically tired. # 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote: Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
I copy/pasted this from internet.
analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ)
— n , pl -gies 1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details 2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system 3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts 4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects 5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc
It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious.
And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it?
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it.
While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue.
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote: Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
I copy/pasted this from internet.
analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ)
— n , pl -gies 1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details 2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system 3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts 4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects 5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc
It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious.
And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
The allegations are getting worse and worse. Now my arguments are even bad because I bold them so they can be read properly or because I respond to posts piece by piece.
If you're going to copy paste the meaning of analogy from the internet it's common practice to post a source. It would also be nice if you explained to me how it relates to anything. I don't wish to take your place in this argument too.
On February 13 2011 08:14 Impervious wrote: Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet # 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem # 59% are plagued with food cravings # A whopping 67% report scattered thinking. # 46% feel they are looking older than they should. # 54% feel run down, chronically tired. # 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
A quote from Ghandi in 1946 is not relevant to a discussion on veganism in 2011. He was not even a nutrional expert in his days.
As for the numbers, that's interesting. Could you post the source? Can't really comment on it's validity since I don't know the context of the survey.
I've never claimed veganism was a healthier choice though, it's common knowledge that the best diets consist of varied food. I've said that one can live without eating meat, even normal if you're balancing your diet correctly. It was never under discussion that being vegan is a sacrifice.
Also, how popular do you think veganism was more than a hundred years ago? I'm betting it wasn't 1% Probably not even 0,1%
If you just don't post offensive oneliners to bait people, no-one's going to call you a troll.
On February 13 2011 07:09 Saechiis wrote: Why? Does bolded text make it harder to read? Still waiting for your reply, I'm curious.
Yes. It does as a matter of fact. The quote function is for quoting, not for posting.
On February 13 2011 07:09 Saechiis wrote:I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it. Rather you make a "witty" comment so you seem clever and avoid the discussion all together. If you don't want to dive in, then don't respond. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold, it's an insult to the effort I'm putting in.
Here’s where you’re wrong. You seem to think that people don’t respond to you point-by-point—the way you do—because it would be too difficult to argue against the points you’ve laid out in that manner.
Wrong. People don’t respond like that because it’s the most tedious and most captious way possible to argue on the internet. If you can’t just out and say what you mean in a paragraph or two, no one’s interested.
Allow me, if you will, to illustrate. Here is my best argument in full-on Saechiis style:
On February 13 2011 05:14 Saechiis wrote: Maybe meat-eaters get mad at vegans because the meat-eaters are always "looking for something to get offended by." That's possible, I suppose. I also think it's possible that the meat-eaters get mad because vegan rhetoric invariably involves claiming moral or nutritional superiority.
I know they get mad about it, it shows pretty clearly in this thread. I'm arguing that getting mad isn't a proof that veganism is bad idea.
I wasn’t arguing that anyone was offering proof for anything one way or another about vegetarianism. I was simply pointing out that it’s very understandable that non-vegs get mad about being mentioned in the same breath as wife-beaters and slave-owners. The fact that you think I was offering proof that vegetarianism is bad only serves to highlight your obviously lacking reading comprehension skills, as well as your insistence on bringing into the discussion blatantly irrelevant arguments. You’re a strawman builder. You should go into the scarecrow business.
I'm tired of playing the "you're claiming to be superior"-game as it comes down to personal, subjective, judgements of intention. I can say I'm actually just a vegan because I love animals, but there'll be 10 that say I'm doing it for personal gain. As such, it's infinitely more useful to focus on what makes veganism worse than eating meat.
I never said that you were claiming to be superior. Read my post again because you obviously didn’t and you obviously don’t care to understand my point anyway. My entire reply concerned the OP, which has nothing to do with you except insofar as you insist on defending him. I also claimed that the rhetoric of veganism invariably involves the rhetoric of superiority, of condescension. That would obviously be outside the scope of this thread to demonstrate sufficiently, but the posts within this thread certainly attest to that tendency, especially the OP.
Also, you have on numerous occasions in this thread suggested that our moral senses will be improved in time. That’s another trope of vegan condescension. You’re deferring to some fictionalized and self-serving account of the future in order to justify your frankly obnoxious comportment in the present. If you were a vegan because you love animals, I think that would be a much more prominent feature in your discussions of veganism. As it stands, the discussions are always moral/ethical/nutritional.
You're saying that the OP mentioned speciesism alongside sexism and racism simply because they belong to the category of "discrimination." You even say that it was as innocent as saying "red, purple, and yellow" are all colors.
I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common.
More specious arguing. You don’t think that colors have anything in common beyond the fact that they’re colors? You don’t think that in practice and in theory we tend to treat them somewhat interchangeably?
For instance, I associate both red and blue and yellow with paint. If I think about paint, I am likely to imagine that paint in any of these colors. This reminds me of one time that I went to Lowes and brought along a throw-pillow to use in their color-matching machine at the store. As it turns out, they can’t load fabric into the machine because the texture of the fabric and the shadows that it produces ultimately produce a color different from the one produced by the naked eye. It won’t look like a match on the wall.
As you can clearly see from my personal experience, the associations between those colors are much broader and more meaningful than the bare fact that they both belong to the category “color.” I don’t understand how you fail to realize this, but I chalk it up to poor reading comprehension and also maybe you didn’t read my post and/or respond to it line by line. In the same way that colors can be associated with one another in ways other than simply being examples of colors, the –isms in question here can be associated with one another in many other ways than simply being examples of discrimination. IN FACT, that was the whole goddamn point of the OP.
Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, is fallicious.
Fallicious is not a word. Poor spelling is yet another testament to your ineptitude when it comes to reading, as our repertoire of correct spellings are formed in our younger years (along with our pools of acceptable syntax), primarily from our reading. Obviously you didn’t read a lot when you were a child. Obviously you didn’t read my post either.
I have already thoroughly debunked the notion that OP brought up speciesism as a mere example of discrimination. But you probably didn’t read that either so allow me to continue.
OP definitely implied that meat-eaters are in some way equivalent to sexists and racists. The sexist/racist sentence serves as what we in the business call a “topic sentence,” the sentence that tells the reader what the paragraph is about. The that follows concerns the need to employ compassion and mutual understanding in abolishing such abusive, hierarchical relationships as have been evidenced by sexism and racism in the past. The explicit suggestion is that we need to defer to those same higher feelings to overcome the—perfectly analogous—abusive hierarchy of mankind denying rights to animalkind.
What you have to remember here is that no one is talking about your opinion on the –isms. We’re talking about the OPs. Only someone with seriously lacking reading comprehension skills would suggest that Chef’s assessment of the OP was, as it were, fallacious.
When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too. OP could've been more delicate, but it doesn't take anything away from his point.
Vegans, cannibals, and crackwhore cocksuckers. They all put things into their mouths that a great deal of normal human beings would not. Mind you all I am doing is categorizing those three terms by the barest, most straightforward definition of what they do. The fact that I say vegans are a lot like cocksuckers should not be construed on your end as having made any untoward suggestions about your lifestyle.
I am merely discussing set theory—even though I never introduced my discussion as such. I hope you can see that it was an innocent comparison and that you and your cocksucker-like friends would be silly to take any offense to it.
Do you actually believe that? You don't think that, just perhaps, comparing speciesism to sexism and racism in any capacity is a loaded comparison? You don't think that comparison has an agenda?
What you and I think is irrelevant since it doesn't disprove OP's claims.He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you disprove that?
Yes, as a matter of fact I can. I can read the rest of the paragraph where he calls on us to exercise compassion to choose what is “good” over what is “bad.” Only a person committed to winning an argument at all costs would choose such a rarefied interpretation of the paragraph. You’re essentially saying that the second half is a non-sequitur to the first, which it isn’t. It follows. And EVERY LAST PERSON IN THIS THREAD EXCEPT FOR YOU has picked up on the fact that it’s one paragraph and no a bipartite double conversation about discrimination-category words on the one hand and the need for empathy in life choices on the other. The paragraph is about choosing “good” which there equals nondiscrimination over “evil” which there equals speciesism, sexism, and racism.
I don’t see how you’re not picking up on this. Perhaps you lack the proper socio-linguistic context to understand Tony, seeing as he is an American and you are a European. It’s a recognized phenomenon in literary and linguistic circles that the readers context in many ways predetermines his or her ability to interpret a text. I now hypothesize that you’re a much poorer (demonstrably poorer, as you have demonstrated so many times in this thread) reader of the OP than we are because you’re simply far less familiar with American-style paragraph organization. Sounds good to me. But the point is we know what’s going on in that paragraph but you don’t
I think that the OP finds those three -isms to be equally immoral. I think he wants his fellow TLers to agree with him in that assessment. I think that his posts in this thread clearly evidence that evangelistic fervor. I also think that him opening his please-convert thread with the old sexism-racism-speciesism triad was passive aggressive at best, and I think it's perfectly understandable that it rubbed a large portion of his audience the wrong way. I don't know see where the confusion about his motives is.
I think that he, I think he wants, I think that his posts, I also think that, I think. But it's not the "What do you think OP's intentions are?"-thread. It's the "specie-cism and veganism" thread. Reply to what he has to say about specie-cism and veganism, not what you think his agenda is. Even if he was implying that eating meat is immoral, if you don't think it is, why don't you explain him why it isn't?
I don’t want to be all solipsistic about this discussion, but all we have are our thoughts about the world and not the world itself. Your evasion here of my point is a cheap one, and one that could be invoked in any conversation about anything anywhere and at any time. Also, the whole fucking conversation we’re having concerns the fact that everyone has picked up on the fact that OP has an agenda in introducing the –isms in the way that he did.
Your posts, in fact, have been there to defend that very question. Your posts are defending OP on the grounds that his OP has no agenda other than a simple, illustrative comparison. Therefore your posts are concerning what “you think his agenda is.” It seems like talking about what old Tony intended is all well and good if you’re the one doing the talking, but it’s not well and good if anyone else is. That’s a pretty selfish way to argue.
I chalk up that argumentative strategy in you to poor reading comprehension skills. Your lack of skill in that area probably predisposes you to avoid reading as much as possible, which in turn predisposes you to not having encountered many good, quality, written arguments, which in turn predisposes you to the tendency, manifested here, of arguing with a marked lack of self-awareness, integrity, and effectiveness.
So my question to you now is would you rather have your cake or would you rather eat it. I consider it self-evident and also a wise saying that one cannot both have their cake and eat it as well.
That's my theory, at least. Like I said, though, your meat-eaters-want-to-be-offended theory is pretty good, too. Maybe it has to do with the protein and/or hormonal payload of their dietary regimen. Who knows?
Your theory completely revolves around your opinion and it doesn't relate to the merits and/ or demerits of veganism. I have argued that it's practically impossible to non-offensively discuss veganism when 95% of replying posters eat meat.
The reason why my theory doesn’t relate at all to the merits of veganism is because it is not a theory of the merits of veganism. My theory was on why meat-eaters tend to be angry at instances of vegan rhetoric.
Personally, I find you entire post irrelevant and stupid and wrong. In fact, I find your ENTIRE POST HISTORY on this whole site irrelevant/stupid/wrong. Do you know why I do this? Because nowhere do you ever take into account what is the real discussion here, which is an argument about the merits or demerits [sic] of self-sharpening knives—which this whole site is about.
You may find it unfair that I have discounted your opinion because it does not relate to something you obviously never attempted to relate it to. You’ll find that I don’t care. All I was looking for was a way to discount your opinion, and I found it. Life is not fair. Discuss.
How would you suggest one to make a thread about the benefits of veganism over eating meat without rubbing meat-eaters the wrong way?
I wouldn’t. Vegan rhetoric is invariably shot-through with condescension. It’s a bad scene, and there’s no way to pleasantly represent it.
Now, Saechiis. I expect a full on, point-by-point rebuttal of my argument (because this is a fruitful way to argue).
Also make sure that it's all within that quote and properly color-coded, or I will think you're not living up the amount of effort I am putting into this thread.
On February 13 2011 08:14 Impervious wrote: Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet # 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem # 59% are plagued with food cravings # A whopping 67% report scattered thinking. # 46% feel they are looking older than they should. # 54% feel run down, chronically tired. # 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
If you're going to cite statistics then actually link to them, don't copy them here and expect us to believe you. And just so you know, the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians Of Canada have found that a properly planned vegan diet is fine in all stages of life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028
Also I can find at least one vegan over the age of 100.
On February 13 2011 08:22 Chef wrote: While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it?
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it.
While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue.
HULKAMANIA and Chef, should I read all eight pages of this thread or assume you two are right about whatever aspects of veganism and "speciesism" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) are being discussed and move on?
I feel like maybe I owe a little more explanation.We'll put it this way: if this thread were on the side of the road, I wouldn't poke it with a stick.
What Chef and I are talking about with this Saechiis fellow is not even veganism. We're talking about how non-vegans find it offensive to be compared to sexists and racists.Saechiis seems to think no such comparison ever took place. So that's the discussion that the veganism discussion devolved to.
But then it devolved again recently because Saechiis insists on arguing by endless quoting. So now Chef and I are just trying to communicate to him that arguing like that is obnoxious.
On February 13 2011 09:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:But then it devolved again recently because Saechiis insists on arguing by endless quoting. So now Chef and I are just trying to communicate to him that arguing like that is obnoxious.
I think everyone, from all walks of life, should be able to agree on this one thing.
Although frankly I wish people would spend less time taking offense and more time wondering if the person being offensive has a point.
The point in this case being that people who are comfortable with eating meat are displaying the same sort of attitude slave owners would have displayed 500 years ago upon being told that owning slaves is wrong. Or upon being told that women should have the vote.
That doesn't mean that anyone thinks eating meat is as wrong as owning slaves or denying women the vote. (Although some do.)
For those attacking the OP... I note you've all ignored the most significant part, which is where I share the life of a dairy cow. Those are actually NZ facts, it's worse in larger countries such as the US where cows are kept in stalls.
So bearing this in mind - what steps are you willing to take to reduce their suffering?
Is it OK to continue drinking their milk - when you know that for the milk to arrive in your bottle, a baby calf was likely to have been taken away from its mother to be slaughtered, so that they wouldn't drink the milk? Is it OK that the mother cow has her life reduced from an average span of 20 or so years to five because she is constantly milked until she is no longer considered productive, and then sent to slaughter after a life of slavery? Do you propose doing anything to improve their conditions?
This blog posted a few pages back is actually a great read. It seems going vegan affects your mental clarity! That might explain all the misunderstanding and arguments in this thread .
On February 13 2011 09:47 Tony Campolo wrote: For those attacking the OP... I note you've all ignored the most significant part, which is where I share the life of a dairy cow. Those are actually NZ facts, it's worse in larger countries such as the US where cows are kept in stalls.
So bearing this in mind - what steps are you willing to take to reduce their suffering?
Is it OK to continue drinking their milk - when you know that for the milk to arrive in your bottle, a baby calf was likely to have been taken away from its mother to be slaughtered, so that they wouldn't drink the milk? Is it OK that the mother cow has her life reduced from an average span of 20 or so years to five because she is constantly milked until she is no longer considered productive, and then sent to slaughter after a life of slavery? Do you propose doing anything to improve their conditions?
On February 10 2011 05:31 Tony Campolo wrote: So the last thread got closed 'cos I didn't put enough effort into the OP. Yet I didn't have the chance to respond to the replies because it was like 12am in NZ.
Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
First of all, I do support human rights and am actively involved with charities that help the poor (e.g. sponsoring children, volunteering my time for community groups that help the homeless). Coming from an ex-Christian background, I've dedicated more of my time to helping human rights than animal rights. Chances are those that attack vegans for not supporting human rights are less likely to be involved in any active charitable work themselves, as most people that give their time to various causes know how disrespective it is to have someone attack your cause as being less worthy than another's.
Secondly, supporting animal rights takes nothing away from human rights. All veganism requires is a change in diet - it does not require going out and trampling on human rights.
Thirdly, what it comes down to is what is ethical. Animals may not be as intelligent as us - but that doesn't mean they feel less pain. This is evidenced both physically and mentally.
An extract from my personal blog:
In addition to having distinct personalities, cows are very intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time. Animal behaviorists have found that cows interact in complex ways, developing friendships over time, sometimes holding grudges against cows who treat them badly and choosing leaders based upon intelligence. They have complex emotions as well and even have the ability to worry about the future.
Researchers have found that cows can not only figure out problems, they also enjoy the challenge and get excited when they find a solution. In one study, researchers challenged the animals with a task where they had to find how to open a door to get some food. The researchers then measured their brainwaves. Professor Broom said that ‘The brainwaves showed the cows excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment,’ Cows can also learn how to push a lever to operate a drinking fountain when they’re thirty or press a button with their head to release food when they’re hungry. Like humans they quickly learn to avoid things that cause pain like electric fences. In fact if just one cow in the herd is shocked by an electric fence, the rest of the herd will learn from that and will avoid the fence in the future.
Grandmother cows often help their daughters with mothering duties, but one cow named Olivia wanted no part of that. She never left her calf’s side, and she ignored her mother’s offers to help groom him. Offended, her mother finally marched off to another field to graze with her friends and never communicated to her daughter again. Cows can also remember and hold grudges against people who have hurt them or their family members.
Dairy cows are continually kept pregnant and lactating and their babies are sold off to the meat industry when they are only two days old. The life of a dairy cow is not as natural as you might think, especially considering that 80 percent of dairy cows are made pregnant through artificial insemination.
The only way for a cow, like any other mammal, to produce milk is for the cow to have a baby. The milk produced by cows is naturally meant for baby calves; however, because people want to drink this milk, the baby calves are taken away from their mothers when they are only a few days old. Cows are extremely maternal animals and both the mother cow and the baby calf suffer terribly from being separated at such a young age. In fact, one cow missed her baby so much that she broke out of her paddock and trekked through 8 kilometers of paddocks and rivers to find her baby. On dairy farms, mother cows can be heard bellowing out wildly trying to find their babies as well as running after the cattle trucks that take their babies to separate farms.
The baby calves life is then decided by their gender. That’s right, not only is the dairy industry hell for the animals, the environment and your health, it is also an industry that decides an animal’s entire life based on whether they are male or female. If the calve is male then he is taken away to be raised and slaughtered for meat. Because of this the NZ dairy industry contributes to the death of more than 1 million male dairy cows every year. That’s one death every 20 seconds. In fact, 55 percent of all beef in New Zealand supermarkets comes directly from the dairy industry. These male calves are transported to separate meat farms where they will never see their mothers again. They suffer terribly on their journey to the meat farm. Transported as young as 4 days of age, they endure cold and hunger, without food for up to 30 hours, while struggling to maintain their footing in the cattle truck.
However if the calf is female she is raised as a dairy cow, living in the same conditions as her mothers. She too will live in a cycle of pregnancy and lactation, being forced to give birth to a baby calf each year, only to have that baby torn away from her within a few days. In the wild cows can live to be up to 25 years old. But on dairy farms they are slaughtered when they are only 8-10 years old meaning that most dairy cows live less than half their natural life span.
Because dairy cows are milked so excessively, NZ dairy cows have increased risks of teat diseases like mastitis. When a cow has mastitis her udder may become so inflamed that it is as hard as a stone, and blood bubbles into her milk, which becomes clotted and watery. Severe cases of mastitis can kill a cow in less than a day.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights.
Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false.
Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way.
Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action.
My question:
Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not?
I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree.
So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living?
On February 13 2011 09:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:But then it devolved again recently because Saechiis insists on arguing by endless quoting. So now Chef and I are just trying to communicate to him that arguing like that is obnoxious.
I think everyone, from all walks of life, should be able to agree on this one thing.
Although frankly I wish people would spend less time taking offense and more time wondering if the person being offensive has a point.
The point in this case being that people who are comfortable with eating meat are displaying the same sort of attitude slave owners would have displayed 500 years ago upon being told that owning slaves is wrong. Or upon being told that women should have the vote.
That doesn't mean that anyone thinks eating meat is as wrong as owning slaves or denying women the vote. (Although some do.)
Actually, not all walks of life would be able to agree on that: a lion, for example, would not comprehend rhetorical obnoxiousness nor would that lion comprehend the rights supposedly afforded to it by liberalism and the exegesis thereof. By definition, nature has no intrinsic rights; that's a human thing, a byproduct of civilization.
As for the rest of your post, you can't have your rhetorical meat and not eat it. What mitigates the cultivation and stewardship (or "cruelty" or "slavery," depending on where you stand in this debate) of animals to make it less wrong than slavery or sexism? Considering that were sheep or cows released into the wild en masse they would remain as likely to die violent deaths as they would in captivity, what is the ethical decision here? N.B. Millennia of human domestication has bred all the fight out of sheep and cows.
On February 13 2011 09:47 Tony Campolo wrote: For those attacking the OP... I note you've all ignored the most significant part, which is where I share the life of a dairy cow. Those are actually NZ facts, it's worse in larger countries such as the US where cows are kept in stalls.
It was all cry-me-a-river pathos. I saw Unser täglich Brot. I know, I know, I know. And look, I haven't eaten foie gras, and I don't ever intend to.
But it is disingenuous for you to claim that cows experience their lives with the same cultural associations as human beings do, and to use the language of human-to-human violent interaction (e.g. oppression, slavery) to codify the human-to-animal interaction demeans the former and misunderstands the latter.
Reductio ad absurdum, your rhetorical style suggests it is sad that the baby calf cannot grow up at its mother's teat and get a Law degree at Yale.
On February 13 2011 08:22 Chef wrote: While I'm happy you keep telling me how witty I am, I'm not sure why you keep saying this argument has nothing to do with the OP. You were the one who brought the OP up in the first place, and that was what I responded to. If you didn't want to talk about the OP anymore, seeing how he DID bring up a point you know you can't defend anymore, why wouldn't you just concede it?
I've even posted and commented an entire post of yours, which you've then ignored since it would be too difficult to respond to it.
While you make think you're being diligent by going thru an entire post like that, it's actually pretty insulting and bad internet etiquette. That's why someone else told you to stop doing that. I didn't not respond to it because that would be too difficult, but because that's a really inane and tedious way to argue.
I brought up OP since he's the person who started this thread, and the title of the thread says "specie-cism and veganism". I tried to explain that you can interpret his OP in two ways, a negative and a positive and that it all comes down to subjectiveness of people's judgement.
Since everybody only replied to the sexism and racism part instead of the part OP intended to discuss, and since I couldn't convince anyone that OP wasn't just a bad person, I chose to direct the conversation away from what intentions we read behind his opening post to discuss the actual subject of the thread, which is specie-cism and veganism. I don't need to concede anything since no-one has proved anything, which is the problem with the subjectiveness of interpreting someone's intentions. As such I thought the thread would be better off if we left the whole debate of OP's mentioning of sexism and racism for what it was, since it doesn't relate to anything he wanted to discuss. It was a technicality that doesn't proof or disproof anyone, it just derails the thread and has led me through the neverending story of returning arguments one too many times to believe there's anything left to gain.
For your second part, could you link me to the rules of internet etiquette? I've responded like that many times and have never gotten a complaint. If you thought it was insulting to go over every part of your post to respond to it and bold my response for readability, then why didn't you say so? When you quoted another post I had made in my history to point out my "tragically short memory" it somehow led me to believe that you were just ignoring my time-consuming response since it was too difficult and you just wanted to take a cheap shot.
But since it's now clear to me that I was, in fact, the one insulting you, I shall remedy this by undoing my point for point bolding of quote style of reasoning and instead paste it all under the quote for readability.
1 The OP (who is not you) began his argument by saying that much like racism and sexism, 'specism' is a form of discrimination.
2 His intended audience, presumably, are people who eat meat. His ideal to either defend his way of life, or to convince others to adopt it as well. I would say it's the latter.
3 I say that this is a pretty poor way to open an argument. You alienate your entire intended audience by associating the plights of human rights, to the plights of animal rights. Regardless of what I think of animal rights, I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument. Most people are going to stop reading the OPs argument at this point. What promise does a 2 page rant that begins with how meat eaters are akin to women haters and bigots have? Even if his arguments did get better, he shot himself in the foot.
4 In defence of the OP, you say that no matter how one opens an argument for veganism, they are going to find something they find offensive to them, because they are looking for it and 'construing it.'
5 I respond, sarcastically, that I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much effort to be offended by a statement which puts one on the level of misogynists and bigots, and that if that there was a good argument to be had, it probably wouldn't have opened up with this clearly provocative statement.
6 You respond, as you have to with most posts in this thread, complaining that I somehow didn't read your post properly, or didn't read it at all, or that I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see how that defends opening one's argument with a statement that can only be taken as an attack on the reader's morality, but okay. Sure, maybe one day in the year 2050 we'll all look back on the year 2011 and think how barbaric they were for eating animals. Or maybe we won't. It's besides the point. It doesn't help your argument now, by fantasizing about a time in the future when eating animals will be akin to owning a slave.
This concludes our review. Please study it well as you will no doubt be tested in the future for its contents, though likely in a different context.
1. It is discrimination, I'm just questioning whether it's warranted. And indeed, I'm not OP, so the "civil rights" and "nazi" comments don't make any sense in response to my post.
2. What his intended audience is, isn't relevant when you're criticizing my post for it. You're also making a personal judgement on what OP's intentions are.
3. What do you mean with "you"? I'm not OP and my post had nothing to do with human rights, hence the comment that it doesn't make sense.
Also " I know every person who reads this is going to think you're basically calling them a nazi as your opening argument" ?
Interpreting what other people are going to be thinking is not an argument, and it certainly doesn't give people the liberty to disregard OP's points, let alone not read it. There's also no worse way to begin an argument than bringing up Nazi's in an unrelated thread, I'm sure you're aware of Godwin's law.
4. 95% of posts have been attacking OP for "pushing his beliefs upon people" "being a hypocrit lettuce murderer" or "being pretentious". Yet no-one has quoted where he implies these things, leaving me to conclude that people are looking for things to be offended by. Yes, it is nearly impossible to address a controversial topic like the possibility of not eating meat without getting flamed, do you disagree?
5. As I said, it's only "clearly" provocative when you are looking for something to be offended by. He's saying that sexism and racism are comparable to specie-cism in regards to "one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species." Can you deny the truthness of this statement? Or were you too consumed by the controversial nature of the statement to see that it's actually a completely valid comparison?
OP is putting specie-cism on the same page with sexism and racism since they're all forms of discrimination. When I say red, purple and yellow are colors, that doesn't imply you're all of the above or does it? Hence my sidenote that everyone can find offensiveness in a controversial post, even when it isn't intended. So I implied it might be in everyone's interests to not form entire arguments concerning OP's perceived insults and discuss the contents instead.
6. Your post had no contents that adressed mine, as such I'm going to comment on how your post makes no sense in reply to mine. You can hide behind the notion that I'm "bullying" in this thread, but it doesn't conceal that your post, like most, focuses completely on criticizing the OP for perceived insults to people eating meat, instead of attacking it's content. Kinda like an ... ad-hominem, how ironic.
I never fantasized over "one day in the year 2050", that's why I'm asking you to read my post for what it says. Once again:
"Good and wrong are subjective terms; sexism wasn't considered wrong for a long time, nor was racism. As such, it would be ignorant to think that there's a natural defined standard for good and wrong. Each culture has it's own general concensus on morality, and even that is shifting constantly.
My point being that morality is more of an opinion than it is a truth. So when I say that I think it's wrong to kill animals when you don't need their flesh to survive, it's not to say that other views on the matter aren't correct."
@Hulkmania: I couldn't really understand your post through the bolding and colours, but I managed to pick out a piece where you weren't really satisifed with my English. As such I propose we argue about veganism in Dutch, so I don't have to bother you with my weird words.
On February 13 2011 08:14 Impervious wrote: Ok, want some info about veganism?
In 1946, Ghandi declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
A relatively large survey among vegans showed:
# 55% reported loss of muscle and muscle tone on the diet # 55% also report difficulty staying warm, a thyroid problem # 59% are plagued with food cravings # A whopping 67% report scattered thinking. # 46% feel they are looking older than they should. # 54% feel run down, chronically tired. # 59% don't feel like exercising or working on the diet.
Another interesting statistic - recently, out of the ~60 000 people in the USA who were 100 years of age or older, not a single one was a vegan. A full 1% of americans claim to be Vegan. If it's really a healthier choice, why is there not some representation in that demographic? And, if it's based on morals - this conversation is over.
If I'm a bad troll, you're a terrible "anti-troll".
If you're going to cite statistics then actually link to them, don't copy them here and expect us to believe you. And just so you know, the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians Of Canada have found that a properly planned vegan diet is fine in all stages of life. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028
Also I can find at least one vegan over the age of 100.
It's amazing what a quick google search will throw up.
First one - it's a freaking quote from Ghandi..... You know, from after he and his 22 companions had to give up living vegan, because of the health problems they all developed.....
He obviously missed that one (omg, missed one, therefore argument is invalid!!!!!), however, he says "After 30 years of research, I have no doubts that the foundation of a healthy diet should be fresh, raw, organically grown vegetables and fruits (and their juices), plus sprouts, nuts and seeds. Short-term, raw vegan diets offer enormous benefits in overcoming serious health problems. However, long-term physical and psychological deterioration will almost certainly occur unless animal foods such as eggs, fish or dairy products are consumed. Those who refuse to do this should supplement with B12 (methylcobalamin), folic acid and flax or hemp seeds. " Basically, though, he's been studying this type of thing for a long time, and having not come across a single vegan himself (or, at least one that was not always vegan) shows that there is some kind of negative correlation; not positive, as many people would like to believe.
And, you realize that fortified foods are not that great of a substitute, right? A good example is the Vitamin D in milk - it's about enough to prevent rickets, but that's all..... The best way to actually get the nutrient into your system is to spend half an hour outdoors - you'll get something like 20 times the amount of Vitamin D from that..... A balanced diet is always preferred.....
You know, you could actually eat some meat instead of having to fortify other foods, and take other suppliments instead.....
And, even then, that may not be good enough. I was living with someone who had iron deficieny anemia, from some unknown cause. Oddly enough, switching to a diet with a larger amount of iron, or suppliments alone wasn't a good enough solution, he had to do both. He still struggles with that issue. He could not live comfortably with just suppliments and fortified foods.....
So, yes, in principle a vegan or vegetarian diet is nice. It gets rid of a lot of health problems (obesity, high cholesterol, heart problems, etc). At the same time, it is not right for everyone. The same goes for a diet that includes meat.
And, frankly, if you're trying to compare a vegan lifestyle to the average omnivorous lifestyle, there's a massive difference - it is going to be healthier***.
So, unless there is a health reason for a carnivorous/omnivorous/vegan/vegetarian diet, it is a personal choice (whether monetary, moral, etc). Pushing your view on someone else in this situation is no better than in a religious debate - it'll only lead to a giant flame-war, as this thread has already proven.
By healthier, I mean along the lines of less of the traditional health problems facing people who, on average, eat like shit (myself included). The type of diet lends itself to removing these obvious issues which could be fixed if people ate a more balanced diet. It's an obvious choice what is better; similar to choosing either a greasy burger or a garden salad.
On February 13 2011 08:50 Saechiis wrote: A quote from Ghandi in 1946 is not relevant to a discussion on veganism in 2011. He was not even a nutrional expert in his days.
As for the numbers, that's interesting. Could you post the source? Can't really comment on it's validity since I don't know the context of the survey.
I've never claimed veganism was a healthier choice though, it's common knowledge that the best diets consist of varied food. I've said that one can live without eating meat, even normal if you're balancing your diet correctly. It was never under discussion that being vegan is a sacrifice.
Also, how popular do you think veganism was more than a hundred years ago? I'm betting it wasn't 1% Probably not even 0,1%
If you just don't post offensive oneliners to bait people, no-one's going to call you a troll.
When one of the largest proponents of being a vegan, leading 22 other highly dedicated people in the quest of finding out if it is a reasonable lifestyle, must all change their diets because of health problems, it shows that there is something seriously wrong with the mentality.....
Posted the source in a previous post.
Ok, so, we're in agreement - a balanced diet is superior. Failing that, suppliments and fortified foods can help fix any problems in a non balanced diet (for whatever reasons). Apparently, if you have significant stores of vitamin B12 and D, you can live something like 10-12 years with a deficient diet before problems will start to arise, and those problems are very difficult to reverse..... Why take the chance?
Do you realize how old veganism actually is? The origin of the term is like 60 something years old, but the same types of diets have been practiced for thousands of years..... We should be seeing super-people, if it was really a healthier choice..... So, because that hasn't, it's a fair assumption to say that it is, at best, no healthier than eating a balanced diet..... In which case, it's purely a personal choice.....
And, posting an offensive one-liner is somehow worse than a larger post that's offensive?
in our world in such prevalence, I'm less inclined to feel sorry for a cow living in a cage..... Heck, child poverty in Canada is at 12% (the definition of poverty in Canada is not nearly as bad as many countries in Africa however)..... That's right, in motherfucking Canada!
As much as it sucks, there are far more important things for our own species to worry about - the cows probably have a longer life expectancy than those kids..... And the solution to that problem is not in giving them money, or giving them the grain used to feed the cattle.....
I purchase free-range eggs when I can (or I get them from a friend who actually raises chickens), and when my family buys meat, we buy it in bulk from a butcher that buys animals from free-range farms and kills them in a humane method. But, with the current system, it's almost impossible to do that all the time (and, essentially impossible for me to do it while in uni without cutting meat out of my diet completely, which I will not do).
So, essentially, I want to see the conditions of animals improve, while at the same time, I also love them while they're on my plate. I love them in a way you don't - therefore I love them more than you do.
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote: Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
I copy/pasted this from internet.
analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ)
— n , pl -gies 1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details 2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system 3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts 4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects 5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc
It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious.
And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
The allegations are getting worse and worse. Now my arguments are even bad because I bold them so they can be read properly or because I respond to posts piece by piece.
If you're going to copy paste the meaning of analogy from the internet it's common practice to post a source. It would also be nice if you explained to me how it relates to anything. I don't wish to take your place in this argument too.
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
In the first post the OP compared racism and sexism to specie-cism. If you can find a way to connect them by making an analogy it would be really beneficial to your arguments, but it seems to me (and to Impervious) that it's hard to make that connection.
Now, few posts before I used an analogy to make a point. + Show Spoiler +
Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine).
Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How?
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic [...] Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
Neither of us got a response that would suggest you understood what we meant, and then I though "Hey, maybe Saechis doesn't know what an analogy is" so I decided to help you out by quoting a dictionary+ Show Spoiler +
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
.
Honestly, I don't think you even read what Impervious wrote.
On February 13 2011 11:55 Lexpar wrote: Did you actually just supplement your argument with pictures of starving African children? Wow. And you were being so reasonable.
From the OP Like racism or sexism, specie-cism is one dominant species disregarding the rights of other species. It is compassion and the capacity for empathy that differentiates human beings from being good and bad. Without compassion for our fellow man, there is only the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest.
Why can't the same compassion be shown towards animals? The worst argument I heard was that children are dying around the world, therefore animal rights don't matter and somehow because I support animal rights I am against human rights.
Am I disregarding the rights of other species? Nope.
Am i putting it as high as I put human rights? Fuck no.
Am I going to put the life of an animal above the welfare of a person? Also no (probably the point where the OP and I disagree in principle, but that's where morals come in, so I don't want to go further into that).
As a simple example - I'm driving home from work and a cat runs infront of my vehicle. I could avoid it by swerving into the opposite lane, endangering myself and potentially others.
If I had to make the choice between the death of an animal and the death of a person, I'll kill the animal without a second thought. I'm not going to swerve into oncoming traffic when a cat runs across the road, for instance.....
I'm not saying he's against human rights either. I highly doubt that he'd swerve into oncoming traffic for said cat either..... Same goes for everyone with that point of view. Subconciously, at minimum, you've put your own species first on many occasions in your life, even if you are vegan.
Ultimately, this entire argument is about that; it's the welfare of the animals vs the welfare of people. Just on a much larger scale than the example of the cat.
But, of course, it's highly unreasonable to actually look at it like this.....
On February 13 2011 09:50 Logros wrote: This blog posted a few pages back is actually a great read. It seems going vegan affects your mental clarity! That might explain all the misunderstanding and arguments in this thread .
Good article, not sure how I missed it.
I feel bad for that girl! Guess it wasn't for her. Takes a lot of guts to turn your blog around like that though. E-penis and things. Too bad she's completely changed her mind.
She obviously has her opinion swayed and radicalized very easily though, going directly from eating meat to vegan (How many people actually do that? I ate fish for a year, then cut out fish, now am reducing dairy and eggs... not sure if I'll ever fully eliminate them though), and her fervent support of feminism. How does feminism have a fucking thing to do with veganism? It doesn't. "My friends are telling me to stick with the vegan diet even though I'm sick, obviously they want to keep me down so MEN can run the world.*" Right lady. Sure.
On February 13 2011 10:12 Saechiis wrote: @Hulkmania: I couldn't really understand your post through the bolding and colours, but I managed to pick out a piece where you weren't really satisifed with my English. As such I propose we argue about veganism in Dutch, so I don't have to bother you with my weird words.
Huh... WHAT?!
You're telling me that even though I posted and commented an entire post of yours, you're just going to ignore it because it would be too difficult to respond to it? Instead you're just going to pick out one part of my post and make a "witty" response to it. Is that any way to behave?
Hey, man. If you don't want to dive in, then don't start a debate in the first place. Don't dip your toes in the shallow water and pull back when it gets too cold.
On February 13 2011 09:50 Logros wrote: This blog posted a few pages back is actually a great read. It seems going vegan affects your mental clarity! That might explain all the misunderstanding and arguments in this thread .
That was interesting, thank you. It is interesting to read the story of a person who was forced with a choice between her own life, and the lives of animals, after being a vegan for so long, chose her own life. I feel like this is a normal thing. That she rationalizes in the end that she is just another part of the ecosystem is also something I thought I might bring up, but would have no real impact in this thread.
There are some who claim they would rather die than commit injustice. I don't know if that is true, but this seems like the account of someone who really wanted to believe that, and in the end chose her own life.
One thing I wanted to bring up, but didn't want to have to defend in the subject of debate, was that I feel worse the longer an animal's lifespan is. For example, I don't think twice about killing a fly who is just as likely to be swatted by my hand as it is to fly over my pot of boiling water, get dizzy, and drown. Hell, liquid doesn't even have to be boiling for those idiots to drown in it. How bad I feel also scales with how useful an animal is. I can ride a horse. A dog can help me hunt. A bunny is really cute. I feel worse about cutting those lives short than I do about cutting the life of a chicken short. I am truly, and wholly, concerned with an animal's value in relation to myself. I'd feel bad about killing a lizard which I had no intentions of eating as well, but I wouldn't feel bad at all about a deer.
In the end, I realise that I am just a creature who sees other species in terms of their value to me. If a giant space worm needed to eat humans to survive, even if it was sentient and understood we didn't want to die, I don't think I'd particularly hate the space worm. I think I can accept mortality in my world. That's how I eat meat without feeling guilty.
If I ask why is it, when I think in terms of value only relative to myself, that I think sexism and racism is wrong, I have to decide that it is different. It's different because those are humans, and human ethics are different. While a slave is useful, and perhaps having domination over the other sex might be useful, they are more useful as equals. I have to admit that I am equally vulnerable to being seen as the enslavable race/sex. It is not a fact of nature, but a political decision that affects these values.
In nature, animals don't really have a concept of racism or sexism. Maybe one sex has certain roles that the other does not, but it is not the same as sexism in human culture. Yet they do eat other animals. That is natural. I will not call a tiger specie-ist because it eats other animals. I don't see why humans should be criticised for eating other animals, especially when there are many people who eventually suffer health problems from not doing so.
Will you allow yourself to die before an animal just because of some bizarre ethical conviction? I wouldn't.
Maybe this is the response Mr. Annotation-Arguer wanted. These are basically my thoughts on the topic. They don't change anything. They won't change your opinion. In the end they're as meaningless as they are fruitless. But that blog made me want to write them out Killing animals is wrong? That's truly arbitrary. Wanting to live? I'd say that's a biological program we can't deny. Some animals' lives are more valuable than others? It sounds sick, but it's absolutely what I believe.
edit: To elaborate on why discrimination against humans is different vs discrimination against animals... I live with humans. Society functions because humans band together and can trust each other. We would have no technology if we were constantly trying to use and enslave each other. Animals on the other hand... pose no threat. We are 100% above them on the food chain. If a sentient, alien race were able to join human society, they also would not be on the rank of animals. Morality, I suppose, is more carefully planned than people believe.
On February 13 2011 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights.
Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false.
Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way.
Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action.
My question:
Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not?
I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree.
So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living?
Why all the 'let's say' presumptions though? Because that was the whole purpose of sharing the experiences of a dairy cow.
Undoubtedly there are differences, since humans and animals are not the same in all respects. Granted, these animals do not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless, we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain? These desires are shared by nonhuman animals and human beings. As for comprehension: like humans, many nonhuman animals understand the world in which they live and move. Otherwise, they could not survive. So beneath the many differences, there is sameness.
I just wanted to say that it's better not to argue with saiichis( or w/e his name is) from what I have seen from him is that all he does is personally insult people and when he loses an argument he just disappears.
On topic I've seen vegans and it doesn't seem very healthy to me I think there is a reason we eat both meat and veggies for the same reason lions eat meat it's to survive and humans survive better with meat. Plus from what I have seen people who eat meat are a lot fitter and seem more positive in life so that's why I am a meat eater
On February 13 2011 20:34 RvB wrote: I just wanted to say that it's better not to argue with saiichis( or w/e his name is) from what I have seen from him is that all he does is personally insult people and when he loses an argument he just disappears.
On topic I've seen vegans and it doesn't seem very healthy to me I think there is a reason we eat both meat and veggies for the same reason lions eat meat it's to survive and humans survive better with meat. Plus from what I have seen people who eat meat are a lot fitter and seem more positive in life so that's why I am a meat eater
If you want to criticize me, that's fine, but at least do so in a fair manner. If you're of the opinion that I'm a bad poster, please point out what is wrong with my reasoning. If you can't spell my screenname correctly after reading my 20 posts in this thread, I seriously begin to doubt how well you've read them. Generalizing my replies in this thread across the 1465 other posts I've made on TeamLiquid also doesn't help your case.
I've tried to be as objective and non-offensive as I could in this thread, so I'm surprised at the claim that all I do is insult people. And saying that I run away when I lose an argument is just completely unfounded. I'm still here replying aren't I? I think I've even made the most responses in this thread, so if you're still thinking that I'm running away from the argument I'd like to hear a good reason why that is so.
You argument against Veganism is more your opinion on Veganism; there isn't really any way for anyone to respond to it since your opinion is your opinion.
On February 13 2011 07:58 Impervious wrote: Simple - I love animals as well.
My family has several animals - dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, fish, etc. My father owned a store selling fish/reptile/amphibians and supplies needed to take care of them.
Ever held a 12 foot boa constictor? Ever had your hand in a tank with pirannahs? Ever had wild chipmunks and squirrels eat out of your hand (we eventually were able to convince some of them that live in our back yard to eat right out of our hands)?
I have.
Before I moved to go to Uni, I was an avid catch-and-release fisherman. However, if I'm fishing/hunting with the intent to eat it, then I kill it.
So, yes, I love animals just like you do. I also love them with veggies on the plate as well.
And since I've never called anyone sexist, racist, immoral or nazi and have never declared myself morally superior or pushed people to become vegan ... I wonder how this comment is warranted in your eyes?
Do you think that racism is bad?
Do you think that sexism is bad?
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
I copy/pasted this from internet.
analogy (əˈnælədʒɪ)
— n , pl -gies 1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details 2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system 3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts 4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects 5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc
It seems that you were completely unfamiliar with this concept before reading this thread. We excuse you for that now, but from now on please be a little more careful when treating people as "trolls" for using analogies, like you did with me and now with Impervious.
And I'm still awaiting for your reply. I bolded it because you seem too like bolded letters.
The allegations are getting worse and worse. Now my arguments are even bad because I bold them so they can be read properly or because I respond to posts piece by piece.
If you're going to copy paste the meaning of analogy from the internet it's common practice to post a source. It would also be nice if you explained to me how it relates to anything. I don't wish to take your place in this argument too.
If you answered no to either of those two things, than this argument is done. If you answered yes to both, then continue.
Relating something like "specie-cism" to racism and sexism insinuates that they are all bad, and his view is superior (and you're sticking up for him). I don't see how you don't make that connection - and that's what seems to be causing problems. I know that I'm far from the first person to make that connection, so just maybe there is a reason for it.
I literally just told you I've never said anything about sexism and racism and wanted to divert the discussion back to veganism like the thread was supposed to ... and you're still bringing it up. You're such a bad troll, try harder.
In the first post the OP compared racism and sexism to specie-cism. If you can find a way to connect them by making an analogy it would be really beneficial to your arguments, but it seems to me (and to Impervious) that it's hard to make that connection.
Now, few posts before I used an analogy to make a point. + Show Spoiler +
Growing plants with the sole purpose of selling them as food. Most of this plant are not healthy because of the dirty water farmers use to irrigate them, or the lack of water when this farmers get lazy. They are grown in terrain that is infested with insects, and they use chemicals on the plants that damage their leaves. Some of this plants have even been experimented with, in order to create new species. Those vegetables that survive this painful* process get to be in your kitchen (and mine).
Now tell me, is this different from what is shown in the video? How?
You in particular have proven to be immune to all forms of logic [...] Your arguments have become so irrational that I'm having a hard time believing that you're not a troll, but maybe you've just been heavily traumatized as a kid, when some zombie vegans sieged your house with lettuce.
Neither of us got a response that would suggest you understood what we meant, and then I though "Hey, maybe Saechis doesn't know what an analogy is" so I decided to help you out by quoting a dictionary+ Show Spoiler +
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
.
Honestly, I don't think you even read what Impervious wrote.
I used an analogy earlier in the thread which is perfect in response to your post; why didn't you quote that?
I never said it was innocent, I said that red is a colour, like blue, but besides the fact that they're both colours they have nothing in common. Saying that specie-cism is a form of discrimination doesn't imply it's equally reprehensible as other subgroups of discrimination, like sexism and racism. As such, Chef's claims that OP implies meat-eaters are nazi's, racists and sexists, are fallacious. When I say your head is red, it doesn't imply your head is yellow, green and orange too.
Too bad that analogy doesn't make any sense. The issue wouldn't be implying that because you're specie-ist, you're also sexist and racist. The issue would be that it implies specie-ism is on the same level of atrocity as sexism and racism, just like yellow and orange belong to the same rainbow as red does.
I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean?
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean?
You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan? It's everyone against you vegans isn't it? You guys are like, what, the last stand?
See I can do it too. I mentioned the word vegan one time in my entire paragraph. What I clearly meant was I am annoyed by vegans who feel superior of it because of that choice and criticize people for eating meat. The main point for everything I said there was meat is fine, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean?
You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan?
"is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is needlessly agressive. I'm just wondering why everyone keep saying that I'm just playing morally superior when I never implied I am. It seems like people are automatically offended when I mention that I'm a vegan, why is that?
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean?
You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan?
"is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is needlessly agressive. I'm just wondering why everyone keep saying that I'm just playing morally superior when I never implied I am. It seems like people are automatically offended when I mention that I'm a vegan, why is that?
First, your "is that what you mean?", is basically a question to reinforce your statement similar to "you feeling lucky, punk?" or "are you serious?" Don't try to trick me with, "chill man, its just a question". And once again, you somehow turn everything to yourself and how everyone, when it was just me you were responding to, hates you because you eat vegetables. No sir, YOU, not vegans, annoyed me because you somehow tried to take a few words from my mouth out of context to make me into a vegan hater and you the victim of some random injustice you made up.
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
Why is everyone so insistent in claiming all vegans feel superior and are saying meat is unhealthy? You're basically saying that vegans are only vegan because they want to feel superior, is that what you mean?
You like feeling morally superior by trying to make me look like a tool by putting insults I did not speak in my mouth vegan?
"is that what you mean?" is a question. Your behaviour is agressive and unprovoked.
Dude, forget about it. You still have not made any good argument and have failed to prove us wrong. You are just not making any sense.
I've tried to be as objective and non-offensive as I could in this thread, so I'm surprised at the claim that all I do is insult people. And saying that I run away when I lose an argument is just completely unfounded. I'm still here replying aren't I? I think I've even made the most responses in this thread, so if you're still thinking that I'm running away from the argument I'd like to hear a good reason why that is so.
You keep posting, but instead of continuing with the discussion of an argument you change the topic, change the focus of attention or make a "witty" comment.
Here are some things you could have attempted to refute, instead of making a funny but unsubstantial post.
1. If killing an animal to eat it is wrong, killing a plant to eat it is also wrong. 2. Killing a human being is different from killing an animal. 2.1. Making an analogy between racism and specie-cism is impossible. 2.2.If you have to choose between killing a human and killing an animal, choosing to preserve the life of a human makes a lot more sense. 2.2.1 If you can kill an animal to preserve the life of a human you should. 3. Eating plants only in never as healthy as having an omnivore diet, and is usually bad for your health.
Those are just some statements. The arguments that support them have been posted in this thread, and have not yet been answered with an argument. I will not repost them all in quote tags, I'm not that annoying.
On February 13 2011 09:57 HULKAMANIA wrote: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I do not believe in rights. Let’s say that I don’t think such a thing as a “right” exists. Consequently, I would also like to table all considerations of “sentience” and “intelligence” and "the capacity to experience suffering," especially insofar as you take them to secure for their bearers access to these various rights.
Let’s also say that I do not believe that compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc. determine in any way what is moral or immoral. Let’s say that I think that feelings, whatever other roles they may have, are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is right and what is wrong—in the exact same way that, in the scientific method, feelings are absolutely irrelevant to knowing what is true or what is false.
Let’s also say that, for me, whether an action contributes to the survival of a species or the extinction of a species (our species or another species) has no bearing on whether or not that action is moral. Similarly, let’s say that an action being right or wrong has nothing to do with whether it contributes to the stability or health or equity or prosperity or progress of a society or of a nation or of the global village. Let’s say that an action’s efficacy (or lack thereof) in any of these contexts and that action’s rightness (or wrongness) are two different evaluations entirely and that they relate to one another in no meaningful way.
Let’s say that the same is true for individual health—that longevity or fitness or the proper functioning of heart and lungs are not things that should be placed in the balance when weighing the morality of an action.
My question:
Do you still have an argument as to why I should go vegan, or do, as I suspect, your arguments all rely on the assumption that you and I share assumptions about what makes something desirable or not?
I don’t want to be unfair to you, but it seems to me that your missionary zeal for veganism is just that—missionary zeal. If I agreed with your original moral scheme, I would agree with your conclusions. But I don’t agree.
So do you still have anything to say to me? Or shall I, like a tribesman hearing a well-intentioned sermon, simply smile a little in amazement, wonder whether the craziness of this particular foreigner knows no bounds, and then retire into my domicile to carry on with the business of living?
Why all the 'let's say' presumptions though? Because that was the whole purpose of sharing the experiences of a dairy cow.
Undoubtedly there are differences, since humans and animals are not the same in all respects. Granted, these animals do not have all the desires we humans have; granted, they do not comprehend everything we humans comprehend; nevertheless, we and they do have some of the same desires and do comprehend some of the same things. The desires for food and water, shelter and companionship, freedom of movement and avoidance of pain? These desires are shared by nonhuman animals and human beings. As for comprehension: like humans, many nonhuman animals understand the world in which they live and move. Otherwise, they could not survive. So beneath the many differences, there is sameness.
I was just trying to suggest that your argument for veganism rests on a lot of assumptions that not everyone necessarily shares. I don't share them, at least.
I eat meat, and I think eating meat is morally right. I don't think it's a suspect practice at all. But I do not, for instance, justify my eating beef by thinking that cows do not feel pain or that they are always treated humanely or that they exhibit no form of consciousness. Factors like the capacity for suffering and the capacity for thought are not moral factors for me.
So I was wondering if you could elaborate your philosophy a little bit more, and perhaps suggest why I should alter my dietary philosophy around those sorts of factors. I think your reasoning from those principles is sound, but I see no reason to start with those principles in the first place.
Children and teenagers, particularly girls, have been found to be deficient in zinc - half of all girls in their teens do not have healthy levels of the mineral.
Some research has shown that having red meat less than twice a week can result in zinc deficiencies. Zinc is particularly important for healthy skin and a healthy immune system. During the winter months in particular a good supply may help prevent colds and other infections.
While other foods such as oysters, milk and lentils contain zinc, red meat is the most efficient way of getting it into your body.
Iron
Red meat is an essential source of iron - lean beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g - and is vital to good health, as well as preventing conditions such as anaemia. Up to a quarter of menstruating women are thought to be deficient in iron. Meat contains more iron than most foods, and it is more easily utilised by the body than from vegetable sources.
Elderly people, pregnant women, children and those recovering from surgery could all benefit from increased iron intake. Iron helps to generate red blood cells, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and carbon dioxide back to the lungs. Red meat is also a good source of other vitamins and minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and selenium.
Protein
Red meat is a major source of protein, which is needed for muscle and organ health. The protein found in meat is "complete", meaning that it contains all the amino acids that the body cannot make on its own. It is essential for the body's repair and renewal as well as general health.
Weight loss
Australian scientists have found that people who ate a diet high in protein, based on lean red meat, as well as fruit and vegetables, lost 25 per cent more weight over a fixed period of time than those who ate a low protein, carbohydrate-rich diet that contained the same amount of calories and fat.
The scientists concluded that some people might be more successful in losing weight on a high-protein diet because they felt less hungry and could go without food for longer. Those on the high-protein diet also saw levels of their "bad" cholesterol drop.
B vitamins
Red meat is one of the best sources for these vitamins, which are found only in animal foods, and which help to maintain nerve cells and normal blood formation.
It's natural
This is a controversial argument, but some experts have said that humans are in fact natural meat-eaters - and that to totally eliminate such a big food-group from our diets could be unhealthy. There is a theory that our guts contain bacteria that help us to digest meat, and that not to eat meat could mean that the bacteria are lying idle, so making it easier for diseases to flourish.
Pork, lamb and beef: what's in your meat
Cancer-causing, artery-clogging and brain-damaging? Or a rich source of essential vitamins and minerals that we can't do without? The debate over red meat and its impact on health continues to rage, and it hit the headlines again last week when a study suggested that a high intake could double a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.
So what is the truth about red meat? In essence, it all comes down to the type of red meat you are talking about - and how you are eating it.
* The three official red meats are pork, lamb and beef. Pork is the leanest, lamb the fattiest and beef the most nutritious.
* Beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g, and 4.1mg of zinc. A large proportion of the population, particularly teenage girls and women, are deficient in both minerals.
* Pork and lamb also contain zinc and iron, but not in the same quantities.
* Red meat is high in saturated fats and "bad" cholesterol, which can lead to clogged arteries and heart disease.
* But lean beef is actually fairly healthy; it will provide you with essential vitamins and minerals, but it will not have a high fat content.
* The British Dietetic Association says that up to 90g of lean red meat a day (equivalent to a portion of bolognese) is acceptable.
* But the Food Standards Agency (FSA) points out that different cuts of meat will have very different nutritional contents.
A lean pork leg joint will contain around 5.5g of fat per 100g, of which 1.9g will be saturated fat; compare that with a grilled joint of pork belly, which has 23.4g of fat, of which 8.2g will be saturated.
* A lean rump steak, grilled, has 5.9g of fat per 100g, of which 2.5g is saturated.
But the same cut of beef, not trimmed of its fat, and fried instead of grilled has 12.7g of fat, of which 4.9g is saturated.
The fat content of mince will vary widely, so the advice is always to look at the label and go for the leanest versions.
The FSA recommends that you also look at the meat itself; the more white you can see, the more fat it will contain.
* Some of the concerns that exist about red meat in America do not apply here; for instance, the US still allows animals to be fed growth hormones (a potential risk factor in cancer), but the practice has been outlawed by the European Union for some years now. The things to avoid are processed meats - these will contain far more additives and fat than a simple cut of beef, pork or lamb.
* And, while red meat can have real health benefits, it is important that the food is treated simply as one part of an overall balanced diet. For example, it is a poor source of fibre, which aids digestion; other foods are required to provide that.
...and the risks
Bowel cancer
A pan-European study of nutrition and cancer found that people who ate more than two 80g portions of red meat a week were 30 per cent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who ate less than one portion.
Scientists are still unsure why there is an increased risk, but there is a theory that the compounds haemoglobin and myoglobin, found in red meat, trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut which in turn leads to the formation of cancer-causing compounds.
Processed meats such as sausages may also be risky because the cooking process can create carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines.
Alzheimer's disease
Research has shown that a Mediterranean diet - low in red meat but rich in plant foods and fish - can reduce the chances of developing Alzheimer's by up to two-thirds.
Again, there is no firm theory on this. Researchers University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) suggested last month that red meat could be linked to a build-up of iron in the brain, causing the opposite effect of antioxidants; in effect, the brain rusts. The researchers suggest it may also explain why more men develop Alzheimer's, as men eat more red meat than women.
Bones
Too much red meat can have an adverse effect on bone health. The digestive process of protein leaves acid residues in the body that need to be neutralised with alkalising minerals - and these may be taken from the bones, leading to a higher risk of osteoporosis and other conditions. While green, leafy vegetables are high in calcium, red meat has a low level and can cause excess acid to form, creating bone problems for the future.
Arthritis
Eating red meat every day could double your risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists believe that collagen, found in red meat, may trigger an immune system response, which may also affect the joints.
Additives contained in processed meats may also play a part in the increased rate of the disease.
Cholesterol
Red meat is one of the first foods that doctors advise patients to stop eating if they are at risk of heart disease, because it contains high levels of dietary cholesterol.
A build-up of cholesterol in the arteries can eventually stop blood flow and trigger heart attacks.
However, it depends on the type of meat you are eating; lean red meat is relatively healthy - it is the fatty chops and burgers that are more risky.
Red meat is also high in saturated fat, which has been linked to a range of cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure.
Food poisoning
The Food Standards Agency has launched an investigation into the safety of red meat after research suggested that beef, lamb and pork are the cause of one in six outbreaks of food poisoning. Experts are to test samples to find out the amount of bacteria in them, although the problems are more likely to be linked to poor hygiene in the home than to standards at abattoirs.
Breast cancer
A study from the Harvard Medical School last week suggested that eating more than 100g of red meat a day could double the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. The risk was associated with young women who had not yet gone through the menopause. Experts said the increased risk may be down to the cancer-causing compounds created by cooking meat, or by excess iron levels.
However, the study was among women in the US, where animals are given growth hormones that are banned in the EU; British experts say that women here may not be at such risk.
Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds).
Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit.
To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to.
On February 14 2011 00:40 lone_hydra wrote: I am an omnivore. I have 4 sharp canine teeth meant for ripping through meat and I'm gonna use em. I mean, I frankly couldn't care less what you eat, but when people start feeling superior to me because they are vegan and talk about how meat is unhealthy or some shit, I get annoyed. They keep on forgetting we have gone through centuries of eating meat, so many top athletes or our time still eat meat, so stop bitching.
No one should feel guilty for eating meat, and you are a fucking douche if you have ever tried to make someone feel guilty for eating something our natural bodies was designed to eat.
If you care to open your mind a bit then take the time to read this article regarding our evolution.
The truth is our so-called "canine teeth" are canine in name only. Humans' "canine teeth" are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are really long and really pointed. Our teeth are absolutely not like theirs. In fact, other vegetarian animals (like gorillas, horses, hippos, and chimpanzees) possess the same so-called "canine" teeth, which are often used for defensive purposes rather than for eating. Check out the chimpanzee picture at right, and consider that chimps' diets are up to 99% vegetarian (and what litle non-vegetarian food they eat usually isn't meat, it's termites). And remember that we're most similar to chimps than to any other animal.
John A. McDougall, M.D., has a good take on this:
Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not tearing and masticating flesh. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores. I lecture to over 10,000 dentists, dental hygienists, and oral specialists every year, and I always ask them to show me the “canine” teeth in a person’s mouth – those that resemble a cat’s or dog’s teeth – I am still waiting to be shown the first example of a sharply pointed canine tooth.
If you have any doubt of the truth of this observation then go look in the mirror right now – you may have learned to call your 4 corner front teeth, “canine teeth” – but in no way do they resemble the sharp, jagged, blades of a true carnivore – your corner teeth are short, blunted, and flat on top (or slightly rounded at most). Nor do they ever function in the manner of true canine teeth. Have you ever observed someone purposely favoring these teeth while tearing off a piece of steak or chewing it? Nor have I. The lower jaw of a meat-eating animal has very little side-to-side motion – it is fixed to open and close, which adds strength and stability to its powerful bite. Like other plant-eating animals our jaw can move forwards and backwards, and side-to-side, as well as open and close, for biting off pieces of plant matter, and then grinding them into smaller pieces with our flat molars.
On February 14 2011 05:57 Tony Campolo wrote: Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds).
While you may be right that many people who argue pro-meat are the type who eat excessive amounts of fast food, I know that I am not one of them. It is rare for me to eat that type of food more than 2 times per week. And usually it is only once.
In fact, I eat red meats only about 2 times a week, and when I do eat it, I make sure its lean. I eat a lot of tuna/salmon/other fish and eggs though.
Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit.
Taken further - what about any "pests" out there? Would you rather we invite rats and termites into our homes? How about leaving pots of water around for mosquitoes to breed in? Maybe you should leave an extra plate of your next dessert out in the open for a colony of ants.....
I'm sure you've drawn a line at where it becomes acceptable to kill other living, breathing creatures. Where you draw the line is different than where I draw it. That's all.
So, why exactly do you feel the need to compare eating meat with racism, sexism, etc? Overall, our views on killing other creatures are probably very similar, they simply differ in one aspect.....
To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to.
How is it unnecessary? A lot of people benefit from the nutrition it provides..... You may be a perfectly healthy vegan as an example, but what works for you will not work for everyone..... While a lot of people should be eating healthier than they currently do, that is a completely different topic than going completely vegan or vegetarian.....
EDIT - and, the graph - lol. You can make just about any statistical information show your point to be 100% correct if you leave out certain pieces of information, such as the fact that humans have incisors, the stomach acid is not as good as most other herbovores, and that our intestinal tract, while longer than carnivores, is still shorter than most herbovores..... There are some pretty distinct differences in other parts of our physiology, such as the distance between our eyes..... So that chart is doing a little bit of misrepresenting.....
Children and teenagers, particularly girls, have been found to be deficient in zinc - half of all girls in their teens do not have healthy levels of the mineral.
Some research has shown that having red meat less than twice a week can result in zinc deficiencies. Zinc is particularly important for healthy skin and a healthy immune system. During the winter months in particular a good supply may help prevent colds and other infections.
While other foods such as oysters, milk and lentils contain zinc, red meat is the most efficient way of getting it into your body.
Iron
Red meat is an essential source of iron - lean beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g - and is vital to good health, as well as preventing conditions such as anaemia. Up to a quarter of menstruating women are thought to be deficient in iron. Meat contains more iron than most foods, and it is more easily utilised by the body than from vegetable sources.
Elderly people, pregnant women, children and those recovering from surgery could all benefit from increased iron intake. Iron helps to generate red blood cells, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and carbon dioxide back to the lungs. Red meat is also a good source of other vitamins and minerals such as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and selenium.
Protein
Red meat is a major source of protein, which is needed for muscle and organ health. The protein found in meat is "complete", meaning that it contains all the amino acids that the body cannot make on its own. It is essential for the body's repair and renewal as well as general health.
Weight loss
Australian scientists have found that people who ate a diet high in protein, based on lean red meat, as well as fruit and vegetables, lost 25 per cent more weight over a fixed period of time than those who ate a low protein, carbohydrate-rich diet that contained the same amount of calories and fat.
The scientists concluded that some people might be more successful in losing weight on a high-protein diet because they felt less hungry and could go without food for longer. Those on the high-protein diet also saw levels of their "bad" cholesterol drop.
B vitamins
Red meat is one of the best sources for these vitamins, which are found only in animal foods, and which help to maintain nerve cells and normal blood formation.
It's natural
This is a controversial argument, but some experts have said that humans are in fact natural meat-eaters - and that to totally eliminate such a big food-group from our diets could be unhealthy. There is a theory that our guts contain bacteria that help us to digest meat, and that not to eat meat could mean that the bacteria are lying idle, so making it easier for diseases to flourish.
Pork, lamb and beef: what's in your meat
Cancer-causing, artery-clogging and brain-damaging? Or a rich source of essential vitamins and minerals that we can't do without? The debate over red meat and its impact on health continues to rage, and it hit the headlines again last week when a study suggested that a high intake could double a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.
So what is the truth about red meat? In essence, it all comes down to the type of red meat you are talking about - and how you are eating it.
* The three official red meats are pork, lamb and beef. Pork is the leanest, lamb the fattiest and beef the most nutritious.
* Beef has 2.7mg of iron per 100g, and 4.1mg of zinc. A large proportion of the population, particularly teenage girls and women, are deficient in both minerals.
* Pork and lamb also contain zinc and iron, but not in the same quantities.
* Red meat is high in saturated fats and "bad" cholesterol, which can lead to clogged arteries and heart disease.
* But lean beef is actually fairly healthy; it will provide you with essential vitamins and minerals, but it will not have a high fat content.
* The British Dietetic Association says that up to 90g of lean red meat a day (equivalent to a portion of bolognese) is acceptable.
* But the Food Standards Agency (FSA) points out that different cuts of meat will have very different nutritional contents.
A lean pork leg joint will contain around 5.5g of fat per 100g, of which 1.9g will be saturated fat; compare that with a grilled joint of pork belly, which has 23.4g of fat, of which 8.2g will be saturated.
* A lean rump steak, grilled, has 5.9g of fat per 100g, of which 2.5g is saturated.
But the same cut of beef, not trimmed of its fat, and fried instead of grilled has 12.7g of fat, of which 4.9g is saturated.
The fat content of mince will vary widely, so the advice is always to look at the label and go for the leanest versions.
The FSA recommends that you also look at the meat itself; the more white you can see, the more fat it will contain.
* Some of the concerns that exist about red meat in America do not apply here; for instance, the US still allows animals to be fed growth hormones (a potential risk factor in cancer), but the practice has been outlawed by the European Union for some years now. The things to avoid are processed meats - these will contain far more additives and fat than a simple cut of beef, pork or lamb.
* And, while red meat can have real health benefits, it is important that the food is treated simply as one part of an overall balanced diet. For example, it is a poor source of fibre, which aids digestion; other foods are required to provide that.
...and the risks
Bowel cancer
A pan-European study of nutrition and cancer found that people who ate more than two 80g portions of red meat a week were 30 per cent more likely to develop bowel cancer than those who ate less than one portion.
Scientists are still unsure why there is an increased risk, but there is a theory that the compounds haemoglobin and myoglobin, found in red meat, trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut which in turn leads to the formation of cancer-causing compounds.
Processed meats such as sausages may also be risky because the cooking process can create carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines.
Alzheimer's disease
Research has shown that a Mediterranean diet - low in red meat but rich in plant foods and fish - can reduce the chances of developing Alzheimer's by up to two-thirds.
Again, there is no firm theory on this. Researchers University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) suggested last month that red meat could be linked to a build-up of iron in the brain, causing the opposite effect of antioxidants; in effect, the brain rusts. The researchers suggest it may also explain why more men develop Alzheimer's, as men eat more red meat than women.
Bones
Too much red meat can have an adverse effect on bone health. The digestive process of protein leaves acid residues in the body that need to be neutralised with alkalising minerals - and these may be taken from the bones, leading to a higher risk of osteoporosis and other conditions. While green, leafy vegetables are high in calcium, red meat has a low level and can cause excess acid to form, creating bone problems for the future.
Arthritis
Eating red meat every day could double your risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists believe that collagen, found in red meat, may trigger an immune system response, which may also affect the joints.
Additives contained in processed meats may also play a part in the increased rate of the disease.
Cholesterol
Red meat is one of the first foods that doctors advise patients to stop eating if they are at risk of heart disease, because it contains high levels of dietary cholesterol.
A build-up of cholesterol in the arteries can eventually stop blood flow and trigger heart attacks.
However, it depends on the type of meat you are eating; lean red meat is relatively healthy - it is the fatty chops and burgers that are more risky.
Red meat is also high in saturated fat, which has been linked to a range of cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure.
Food poisoning
The Food Standards Agency has launched an investigation into the safety of red meat after research suggested that beef, lamb and pork are the cause of one in six outbreaks of food poisoning. Experts are to test samples to find out the amount of bacteria in them, although the problems are more likely to be linked to poor hygiene in the home than to standards at abattoirs.
Breast cancer
A study from the Harvard Medical School last week suggested that eating more than 100g of red meat a day could double the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. The risk was associated with young women who had not yet gone through the menopause. Experts said the increased risk may be down to the cancer-causing compounds created by cooking meat, or by excess iron levels.
However, the study was among women in the US, where animals are given growth hormones that are banned in the EU; British experts say that women here may not be at such risk.
Despite all the health risks and benefits - I am willing to bet that many of those arguing that they are eating meat because their body require it for the nutritional value - will be ones that don't eat healthily anyway even if they are on a meat diet (e.g. consuming from fast food joints such as McDonalds).
Secondly, in terms of suggesting why one should alter their dietary philosophy around factors such as the capacity of suffering - well obviously you wouldn't hurt a dog if it was unnecessary. It would be sadistic to attack and kill a dog - in fact, if you found a dog on the street and slit its throat, you'd be put in jail for animal cruelty. Yet we do this to livestock animals daily. This is why in the OP I made the argument that we need to show empathy. If not, then it is similar to people being unable to show empathy to black slaves in the past, because they were of a 'different' appearance. And it was only in this last century that we have been able to get our heads around this. The attitudes humans have towards animals today is the same attitude humans had with regards to racism, or the same attitude many fundamentalist Muslims have towards women (e.g. the recent case of a 14 year old girl being stoned to death for adultery, despite the fact that she was raped by a man who was married). Yet they have the same feelings of pain as us. For those arguing that an animal is different from a human - their physical appearance is, but if you slit an animal's throat, it feels the same feeling a human feels when a human has their throat slit.
To clarify: What I'm saying is, it's not necessary to kill a dog. It is also unnecessary to kill a cow. There's a wealth of nutritional information out there for vegans. People in this thread keep claiming vegans are unhealthy - I am a perfect example of a healthy vegan, so are many of my vegan friends in the animal rights community. For every unhealthy vegan you point out, I can point out an unhealthy meat eater. So what? The point is if we don't need to kill a cow, and can save it from having its throat slit (because we don't need to eat meat), just as we wouldn't go out and kill a dog (because we don't need to eat a dog), then on an ethical level we ought to.
You've never heard me claim that vegans are unhealthy. But I did try to make it clear that I want to discuss whether or not it is morally wrong to eat animals. And I also tried to make it clear that I think health issues are completely irrelevant to questions of morality.
If I hadn't made it clear enough before, I hope I have now.
Now onto the "you wouldn't kill a dog" question. First of all, I most certainly would kill a dog if I needed and/or wanted to eat it. I have no problem with killing dogs in the abstract any more than I have a problem with killing cows in the abstract. If I were in a country where dogs were on the menu, I can tell you right now I wouldn't avoid those menu items.
Furthermore, if I were to live and work in one of those countries, and, if I were to work in a slaughterhouse in one of those countries, I would slit a dogs throat. I don't find that morally suspect at all so I don't find the assertion that I "wouldn't kill a dog" very persuasive at all. I would. I would kill Fido and Poochy and Scrappy Doo if it were in the normal course of my life to do so. No question.
So the next item to deal with is your argument that we should avoid causing "unnecessary" suffering. That's a loaded term if I have ever heard one. In practice, "avoiding causing unnecessary suffering" always boils down to "avoiding causing suffering to the exact same extent I do" I would have to agree with you on what unnecessary means before I ever agreed with you on whether or not I should let that word weigh in my moral calculus.
And I guarantee you that you and I don't agree on what is or is not unnecessary. In fact, I think "unnecessary" is a meaningless term in moral contexts exactly because there is no such thing as a necessity.
It is not necessary for me to wake up in the morning. It is not necessary for me to eat. It is not necessary for me to not starve myself to death. It is not necessary that I survive. It is not necessary that I don't steal, murder, rape. It's not necessary that I don't extort or blackmail or cheat. It's not necessary that I don't fling myself out of a window.
That's what I think about necessity. What, in your view, makes something necessary?
So let's move on to the final item, the old eating-meat-is-like-owning-slaves argument. I'll simply point out two things:
1. Understanding factory farming in those terms already assumes that I think animals are entitled to the same rights as a human. The only possible way that I could accept that argument is if I were on your side already. The only possible audience that you could preach that to would be the choir.
As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan.
2. The "animals are people too" argument has all sorts of fun and unintended consequences. A couple:
We humans (back in the old days when we were all unenlightened and immoral) used to look down in interracial marriage. We thought that we should not enter into relationships with blacks simply because "they looked different than us" (your narrative, not mine). But now we realize that there should be love and intercourse and marriage between these two races!
I ardently hope for a future when people realize that animals are just like us, and it would be a shame not to court, marry, and/or fuck them. Can they not feel pleasure just like us? Can they not enjoy affection? Are we being kind of close-minded about this?
Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice?
Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located.
Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought.
The only reason I posted the graph was because of the reply at the top of this page arguing that we are meant to eat meat because of our canine teeth. My original intent of this thread was to post on the ethical reasons for eating meat - not the natural, health or environmental reasons etc. Those are arguments others have raised and I am responding to.
But regarding the point on what is necessary - you're right in that I am not perfect, that I have killed many insects and would not want a rat in my house. The thing is though I can go further by abstaining from eating meat - and if more people did then we wouldn't have slaughterhouses and factory farms. And I have the feeling that it would be entirely possible for you to go further to by refraining from eating meat too. The comparison is appropriate because the animals feel the same pain we do, and we can prevent it.
It's kind of like the thread in General at the moment - a picture is worth a thousand words. We can go out and buy the next CD of our favourite musician. Or we could donate that money to sponsoring a child, for the same cost each month. I am not perfect in this either as I sometimes buy CDs, but I do try to do a bit more - for example, I try to sponsor one new child on top of my current sponsorships per year (as well as donating to other causes). It's entirely possible for someone to do that. Likewise you have mentioned that it's not possible for everyone to go vegan - allowances can be made for the small percentage of people who cannot live on a vegan diet - but for the majority of us it is a perfectly reasonable lifestyle change. I can do it and suffer no negative health effects (I am a fit runner and practice karate), so can many others. Do you think you could? Because by doing so you're one more person who can make the decision to refuse to support the cruel meat industry. That is the whole purpose of the OP.
Just read your second post after finishing my reply. I won't even reply to it because you are claiming things that are completely ridiculous, for example that I am supposedly arguing for rights to commit bestiality. And at the end of the day - you can argue we may need to wake up in the morning, but we definitely don't need to eat animals. We can eat a large range of other foods which provide the same nutrients. We don't need to rape, steal or murder, because we can have a mutually loving relationship, earn money to buy items, and deal with issues with people we dislike through legal means.
As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan.
Well that's where you're wrong. I was once a meat-eater like you up until I was 17. I heard the exact same arguments, that it would be unhealthy, that animals don't know any better - from my parents and friends. But I saw the horrific cruelties being carried out on animals and decided it would be unethical to continue simply to gratify my own desire for the taste of flesh. When I look back now I realise that although my parents intended the best for me and that my friends simply weren't happy with me changing because they thought it was a challenge on their lifestyle, they weren't actually qualified to give such advice, and that there are nutritionists out there who can accommodate diets that don't involve animal products.
On February 14 2011 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote: Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice?
Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located.
Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought.
Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation.
On February 14 2011 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote: Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice?
Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located.
Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought.
Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation.
ed: and you entirely missed his point. His point is the same as the one I just made - you're drawing arbitrary lines in the sand based on your own opinions of what animals feel and saying "This line must not be crossed."
And no one ever said that mistreatment of animals is fine. What's not fine is your proof is basically: Animals are mistreated, therefore don't eat meat.
What we're saying is: Animals are mistreated, therefore don't eat meat from factory farms
On February 14 2011 08:38 Tony Campolo wrote: Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical.
This still happens.
I'm still not convinced you've earned through logical argument the right to analogize human-to-human interaction with human-to-animal. The marked inconsistency with which we treat some animals as opposed to others is sound, if inconsistent and ethnocentric (like how Hinduism venerates the cow and still uses its milk; East Asian countries eat dogs for varying reasons), but ultimately what you're decrying is animal abuse in food manufacturing, a problem that is (however spuriously) dealt with by food manufacturers, and not necessarily the act of eating meat itself.
i.e., if I shop logically and ethically, if I try to buy animal-derived products from purveyors who treat their animals with comparative nicety (assuming that you've proven that animals experience notions of the family with the same framework that humans do, which you have not), then what is the issue here?
Your fetish for animals and conflation of them with human beings does little for your argument.
On February 14 2011 08:54 jon arbuckle wrote: i.e., if I shop logically and ethically, if I try to buy animal-derived products from purveyors who treat their animals with comparative nicety (assuming that you've proven that animals experience notions of the family with the same framework that humans do, which you have not), then what is the issue here?
It's a step in the right direction, but you can still be doing more. It's like not buying one CD, and you can sponsor an extra child. So you can still not buy two CDs and sponsor two extra children. I'm just advocating that we do more than we currently are. Eating free range meat is better than eating factory farmed meat. But you could still do more. What's the harm to you in stopping eating meat and becoming a vegan? Not a lot. But the benefit to animals is quite significant - saving them from the slaughterhouse process. Most animal rights activists began with vegetarians because of the slaughterhouses. They then later find out about the factory farming processes too and its cruelty in addition to the slaughterhouse processes. And I agree I could be doing more too if I put the effort in - I do believe that I am already doing more than most people though by refraining as much as I already am by being a vegan. So hopefully you are shopping ethically already by boycotting the majority of meat out there (e.g. 99% of food outlets, all supermarket meat that is not labelled free-range) - in New Zealand 4% is free range. If you want to do more good you can also go the extra step to not eat meat and replace meat with foods that provide the same nutrients, e.g. nuts and beans.
Occasionally, vegans encounter the claim that plants are sentient as a kind of objection to going vegan. The uninformed reasoning suggests that since ‘all life’ is sentient, it doesn’t matter what we eat. Vegans have three replies to this: 1) accept the premise that plants are sentient (no matter how offensive to common sense it is) and argue from there; 2) deny that plants are sentient; or 3) reply with both 1) and 2), as I intend to do here.
First Reply: Plants Are Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan
Let’s put science and common sense on hold for a couple of minutes and assume for argument’s sake that plants are sentient. Not only that, but let’s take it all the way to absurdity and assume that plants are the most sentient life on Earth.
Even if it’s true that plants are the most sentient life on Earth, veganism would still be the minimum standard of decency. This follows from the simple fact that animals are reverse protein factories, consuming multiple times the protein in plant food that they produce in protein from their flesh and bodily fluids. Cows consume from 9 to 13 times, and pigs 5 to 7 times, the protein they produce, depending on diet and confinement factors. Chickens consume 2 to 4 times the protein they produce, also depending on diet and confinement factors. So the more we’re concerned about the ‘sentience’ of plants, the less we want to contribute to the staggering inefficiencies of cycling plants through animals, and the more reason we have to go vegan to reduce both animal and plant ‘suffering’.
Second Reply: Plants Aren’t Sentient; Therefore, Go Vegan
Let’s now examine the idea that plants are sentient and see why people might believe, contrary to common sense, that plants are sentient, and where they might go wrong.
Equivocation on Sentience
To start with, let’s look at the meaning of the word sentience, because equivocation on the meaning of sentience is often a source of confusion. The definition of sentience in standard usage is an organism’s capacity to experience sensations and emotions. A non-standard definition of sentience, introduced by Robert A. Freitas Jr., and used in the so-called “sentience quotient” (SQ), is the relationship between the estimated information processing rate (measured in bits per second) of each individual processing unit, the weight or size of a single unit, and the total number of processing units. [1]
When a claim is made that plants are ‘sentient’, it is helpful to ask in what sense the claim is being made. Under the SQ definition, plants are ‘sentient’ in that they have an (extremely low) SQ value, but this low SQ value says nothing about sentience under the standard definition. Consciousness sufficient to support experiential sentience almost certainly requires a sufficiently high SQ value in addition to other neuronal properties, neither of which, for example, do computers and plants possess. [2]
Computers have an SQ value that is several orders of magnitude higher than all plants; and animals, including humans, have an SQ value that is up to several orders of magnitude higher than all computers. If computers can’t experience sensations and emotions, then it is almost certainly impossible that plants can, given plants’ extremely low SQ value and a non-neuronal information processing system. As such, it is unreasonable to believe that plants are sentient under the standard (non-SQ) definition.
Plants Are Complex
Another source of confusion regarding plants that leads some people to speculate that they are sentient is that plants are highly evolved and complex organisms that ‘react’ to their environment in surprising ways, especially in larger time scales than we perceive in everyday life. Some plants ‘react’ to insects by releasing deterrent or poisonous chemicals. Some plants release chemicals to deter other plants from growing near them. Some plants are either aggressive or passive in root development depending on whether or not they are around their own species. The Venus Flytrap catches and consumes insects when insects come in contact with tiny hairs that trigger the trap to close.
The confusion arises when the assumption is made that such plant ‘behavior’ is caused by the plants “subjectively experiencing the world through sense data” rather than by insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes.
The scientific principle of parsimony strongly suggests that we shouldn’t postulate a complex explanation for phenomena when a simpler explanation will suffice. When autonomic systems in mammals, such as the cardiovascular system, the immune system, and the reproductive system at the level of the ‘behavior’ of sperm in the presence of an egg appear to be reacting ‘subjectively, consciously and intentionally’ to perpetuate either themselves or their host organism, we don’t assume that these systems are sentient independently of their host organism and acting volitionally. We recognize that there are insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes that cause various ‘behaviors’ and events to take place. The development of these insentient processes can be explained by tens and hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection, where hundreds of billions of small, genetic mutations and combinations survived or failed to survive based on how adaptive they were. We should apply the principle of parsimony in our assessment of the causes of plant ‘behavior’ similarly.
Sentience and Neurobiology
Neuroscientists have positively confirmed the areas of our neurology (brain stem, limbic system, etc) that serve to provide sentience and complex emotion. All vertebrates and at least some non-vertebrate animals have these nervous system components, providing strong positive, empirical evidence that such beings are sentient, and that most of them have highly subjective, emotional lives. Plants do not have any of these neurological components.
Back to Common Sense
Organisms such as humans, dogs, chickens, pigs, cows, goats, and sheep look, behave, and move in ways that highly suggest sentience defined as the experience of sensation and emotion. Organisms such as plants look, behave, and stay still (unless the wind is blowing) in ways that highly suggest absolutely no sentience (again, defined as the experience of sensation and emotion). Absent an excellent reason to reject such strong appearances we ought to accept them.
If there is any room for debate and legitimate questions on sentience, it is in the biological continuum between insects and bacteria. Insects such as spiders certainly behave and move in a manner that highly suggests at least some degree of experiential sentience. How much sentience comes in degrees, and how sentient certain organisms like spiders are, are difficult questions. But we know beyond any reasonable doubt that vertebrates are sentient; and we know with a very high degree of confidence that plants are not sentient.
Conclusion
As unconscious entities, plants have no subjective, conscious interest that would be morally relevant to whether we kill them for food or other sufficient reasons (e.g. removing/killing them to build a shelter). We should respect plants in the same sense in which we respect the beauty, complexity, and wonder of insentient nature and natural phenomena in general, which entails reducing our impact on them as much as is reasonable, and not destroying them gratuitously. Our moral obligations regarding plants, however, do not compare in kind to our direct moral obligations to vertebrates, whose sentience and conscious, intentional striving for life and survival is obvious to us. Given this eager striving for life and survival of sentient vertebrates, veganism is the minimum standard of decency.
On February 14 2011 08:54 jon arbuckle wrote: i.e., if I shop logically and ethically, if I try to buy animal-derived products from purveyors who treat their animals with comparative nicety (assuming that you've proven that animals experience notions of the family with the same framework that humans do, which you have not), then what is the issue here?
It's a step in the right direction, but you can still be doing more. It's like not buying one CD, and you can sponsor an extra child. So you can still not buy two CDs and sponsor two extra children. I'm just advocating that we do more than we currently are. Eating free range meat is better than eating factory farmed meat. But you could still do more. What's the harm to you in stopping eating meat and becoming a vegan? Not a lot. But the benefit to animals is quite significant - saving them from the slaughterhouse process. Most animal rights activists began with vegetarians because of the slaughterhouses. They then later find out about the factory farming processes too and its cruelty in addition to the slaughterhouse processes. And I agree I could be doing more too if I put the effort in - I do believe that I am already doing more than most people though by refraining as much as I already am by being a vegan. So hopefully you are shopping ethically already by boycotting the majority of meat out there (e.g. 99% of food outlets, all supermarket meat that is not labelled free-range) - in New Zealand 4% is free range. If you want to do more good you can also go the extra step to not eat meat and replace meat with foods that provide the same nutrients, e.g. nuts and beans.
Well, the harm in not eating meat and becoming vegetarian, let alone ditching butter or milk and becoming vegan, is that getting my complete protein fix becomes substantially more difficult than eating a chicken breast. Some meat and vegetables fulfills a larger range of dietary intake with minimal exertion, whereas playing with soy and lentils takes more time and energy.
N.B. You cannot say that there's little harm in not eating meat and becoming a vegan and then backing up when the argument turns to nutrition. Maintaining a healthy diet as a vegan is more difficult than as a conscious omnivore; whether an omnivore is more liable to eat fast food is irrelevant here, because the attention to diet required as a vegan is nearly impossible for someone reliant on fast food for nourishment.
Likewise, you don't seem to be listening to me: I do not think that buying CDs in place of donating that money to starving children is remotely comparable to buying meat that is processed "cruelly" as opposed to not eating meat. How meat is processed by one company does not apply for the whole concept of meat eating, and the economic and political conditions that lead to starving children are wide-ranging and not easily fixed, while the condition that leads human beings to eat meat are even less so, not even economic but instinctive.
You're evangelizing without a solid ethical premise and making analogies that don't work. When people talk about vegan elitism, I think that's what they're talking about.
I can't argue because it seems you're affirming what I said above. You've drawn arbitrary lines in the sand based on one of either protein production efficiency or their non-sentience. Since we have at least some evidence that plants likely have, at some level, an element of sentience (even if incomplete or less complex) and there's no existing scientific evidence to the contrary then your entire argument really is just that they're more efficient. I'm just having an issue seeing that it's more than just "I feel this way."
Your argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant.
On February 14 2011 09:24 jon arbuckle wrote: Well, the harm in not eating meat and becoming vegetarian, let alone ditching butter or milk and becoming vegan, is that getting my complete protein fix becomes substantially more difficult than eating a chicken breast. Some meat and vegetables fulfills a larger range of dietary intake with minimal exertion, whereas playing with soy and lentils takes more time and energy.
N.B. You cannot say that there's little harm in not eating meat and becoming a vegan and then backing up when the argument turns to nutrition. Maintaining a healthy diet as a vegan is more difficult than as a conscious omnivore; whether an omnivore is more liable to eat fast food is irrelevant here, because the attention to diet required as a vegan is nearly impossible for someone reliant on fast food for nourishment.
Likewise, you don't seem to be listening to me: I do not think that buying CDs in place of donating that money to starving children is remotely comparable to buying meat that is processed "cruelly" as opposed to not eating meat. How meat is processed by one company does not apply for the whole concept of meat eating, and the economic and political conditions that lead to starving children are wide-ranging and not easily fixed, while the condition that leads human beings to eat meat are even less so, not even economic but instinctive.
You're evangelizing without a solid ethical premise and making analogies that don't work. When people talk about vegan elitism, I think that's what they're talking about.
The fact that you seem to think protein is a significant concern to vegans simply shows that you don't know as much about health as you would like to think.
The little known truth about protein is that most of us get too much, not too little of it. Women need about 45 grams per day and men need around 55 grams. One cup of tofu contains about 20 grams of protein, so women, eat some tofu and you’re almost halfway there! Lots of foods contain protein and if you’re eating a well-balanced diet, you’re probably consuming more than enough protein without even thinking about it. Even though it’s quite easy to get plenty of protein on a vegetarian or vegan diet, its a good idea to make sure you’re eating a variety of protein-rich foods. If you’re a lacto-ovo vegetarian, you’ll likely get sufficient protein from eggs and dairy without even trying, but if you’re vegan, here are some high protein vegan foods to include in your diet: tofu, seitan, veggie burgers, soy, lentils, chickpeas, nuts and seeds, brown rice and whole grains.
Below is a list of the most common foods vegans use to obtain essential nutrients:
•Protein: Wholegrains (e.g. wholewheat flour, bread and pasta, brown rice, oats, rye), nuts (e.g. hazels, cashews, brazils, almonds), seeds (sunflower, sesame, pumpkin), pulses (peas, beans, lentils), soya products (flour, soya milk, tofu, tempeh) •Carbohydrates: Wholegrains, pulses, potatoes, fresh fruit, dried fruit •Fats: Nuts and seeds (and their oils), vegan margarine, avocados •Vitamins: ◦A - Carrots, spinach, pumpkins, tomatoes, dark greens, vegan margarines ◦B - Nuts, wholegrains, oats, muesli, pulses (peas, beans, lentils), yeast extracts, green leafy vegetables, potatoes, mushrooms and dried fruit ◦B12 - Fortified yeast extracts (e.g. Marmite), soya milks (e.g. Plamil), TVP products, packeted veggie burger mixes, some cereals (e.g. Kellogg's Fruit & Fibre, Frosties or Common Sense Oat Bran Flakes). Seaweed and fermented products may contain some B12 but are not reliable sources. ◦C - Citrus fruits (e.g. oranges, lemons, grapefruit), red and blackcurrants, berries, green vegetables, potatoes ◦D - Action of sunlight on the skin, vegan margarines, some soya milks (e.g. Plamil) ◦E - Nuts, seeds, wholegrains, vegetable oils •Minerals: ◦Calcium - Nuts, seeds, pulses, molasses, parsley, figs, sea vegetables, grains, fortified soya milks, hard tap water ◦Iron - Nuts, seeds, pulses, grains, dried fruit, sea vegetables, parsley, green leafy vegetable
On February 14 2011 09:34 ShadowWolf wrote: I can't argue because it seems you're affirming what I said above. You've drawn arbitrary lines in the sand based on one of either protein production efficiency or their non-sentience. Since we have at least some evidence that plants likely have, at some level, an element of sentience (even if incomplete or less complex) and there's no existing scientific evidence to the contrary then your entire argument really is just that they're more efficient. I'm just having an issue seeing that it's more than just "I feel this way."
Your argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant.
As in the first paragraph assumption that plants are sentient - if you really did care about how plants felt then in order to reduce plant 'suffering' then we ought to eat less meat, because the animal industry consumes far more plants than humans ever will be able to. Secondly, your argument that going vegan "has been demonstrated to be thoroughly false" is a thoroughly false statement.
I said the effort required to fulfill dietary requirements as a vegan (and additionally to make that diet exciting, not monotonous) far outweighs that of an omnivore. An omnivore can eat meat to get their complete protein; a vegan has to play with soy or otherwise mix and match lentils with nuts throughout the day. It takes a lot of effort to make soy exciting; a steak or a chicken breast with a pan sauce takes maybe twenty minutes of actual preparation and cook time.
(Not all proteins are the same, by the way, but this is not an argument about nutrition, it is about the life of a New Zealand cow.)
It's a lot easier to eat a packet of nuts than it is to cook a meat meal. You're just arguing convenience now. It's easy to fulfill the dietary requirements of a vegan, it takes me no effort at all - it's probably hard for you to imagine given you obviously don't know anything about it but it takes at maximum one hour of internet research to get an understanding of a vegan diet, and then simply applying it to your grocery trips to the supermarket. It's not hard - you're just lazy. 15-30 minutes cooking time for dinner if you want a fancy meal. And if it's excitement that you're concerned about well that's hardly a major factor, as you're right, it is about ethics and the life of animals and how they can be treated better without unnecessary slaughter.
Technically, this entire page hasn't been about ethics, because you haven't responded to any of my points on that.
One sentence, without any pitiful descriptions of crying calves and their mournful moms: what is wrong about using animal-derived products for nourishment? - and we can move on from there.
Additionally, "unnecessary slaughter" seems a little extreme, because veganism implies not animal-derived products whatsoever. It's larger than mere vegetarianism.
At the end of the day, I eat almonds like the vegan folks, but I also really want to cook a souffle, and that's even harder to do without eggs and butter (and cheese, depending on what type of souffle).
On February 14 2011 10:19 jon arbuckle wrote: One sentence, without any pitiful descriptions of crying calves and their mournful moms: what is wrong about using animal-derived products for nourishment? - and we can move on from there.
So basically you're saying - let's discuss ethics, but remove the premise for ethics. How do you expect a discussion about it if you're going to remove that? It's wrong because it causes suffering which can be prevented, and we ought to reduce suffering as much as we can. Just as if you saw a dog being cruelly killed, you'd probably want to stop it, likewise same with cows.
But the cow can be raised and killed in such a way that the pain is minimized, unlike in the wild where a less discreet predator would rip its neck out.
(edit: I am trying to reduce your argument to its basic moral premises and strip away the rhetoric, which was the cause for this topic's wayward opening trajectory to begin with.)
To suggest that the Earth could exist without any animal causing another animal pain is supremely idealistic. Humans are in such a position where we can at least not cause undue pain onto animals we breed, use, and slaughter, and I support that, but the idea that all suffering can be ameliorated is something I don't buy into.
On February 14 2011 10:29 jon arbuckle wrote: But the cow can be raised and killed in such a way that the pain is minimized, unlike in the wild where a less discreet predator would rip it's neck out.
To suggest that the Earth could exist without any animal causing another animal pain is supremely idealistic. Humans are in such a position where we can at least not cause undue pain onto animals we breed, use, and slaughter, and I support that, but the idea that all suffering can be ameliorated is something I don't buy into.
Say there are a million cows in the wild. Then there are a billion cows in the slaughterhouses. The only reason the billion exist is because of the demand that is created by the meat industry - they are breed via artificial insemination, generally live their whole lives in stressful production lines (e.g. the dairy industry that causes their premature deaths).
It would be better for (A) the million cows to die in the wild, than for (B) the million cows to die in the wild and the billion killed in slaughterhouses. You're right, it would be idealistic to prevent all cows from dying, but we can definitely affect a large proportion of them. And I've never argued in the absolute terms you are using, to alleviate all suffering. But we can easily alleviate a large proportion of it by not engaging in the industry that kills the most.
Look up Earthlings Part 2 and 3 on YouTube if you think we are not causing undie pain on livestock animals.
On February 14 2011 09:34 ShadowWolf wrote: I can't argue because it seems you're affirming what I said above. You've drawn arbitrary lines in the sand based on one of either protein production efficiency or their non-sentience. Since we have at least some evidence that plants likely have, at some level, an element of sentience (even if incomplete or less complex) and there's no existing scientific evidence to the contrary then your entire argument really is just that they're more efficient. I'm just having an issue seeing that it's more than just "I feel this way."
Your argument that any given person can go vegan has already been demonstrated thoroughly false, though, and probably doesn't need a rehash. It'd be helpful to either provide more evidence that vegetarian diets can work for everyone or just let that one go. It's also on that same ground your diagram isn't really relevant.
As in the first paragraph assumption that plants are sentient - if you really did care about how plants felt then in order to reduce plant 'suffering' then we ought to eat less meat, because the animal industry consumes far more plants than humans ever will be able to. Secondly, your argument that going vegan "has been demonstrated to be thoroughly false" is a thoroughly false statement.
I never claimed to really care what any suffering meant to anything, so that's non-sequitur. Secondly, the FDA disagrees with you and states that vegetarian diets should strongly consider taking supplements to alleviate missing vitamins: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm118079.htm. Ghandi disagrees with you as shown earlier. There's that anecdotal blog about that lady that tried to go vegan and was incredibly unhealthy as a result earlier.
So I feel like my pov is pretty substantiated at this point.
According to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a vegetarian diet is associated with lower levels of obesity and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.[15] According to the EPIC-Oxford study, vegetarian diets provide large amounts of cereals, pulses, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, which makes them rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and magnesium.[4] The vegan diet is more restricted, and recommendations differ. Poorly planned vegan diets may be low in vitamin B12, calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, iron, zinc, riboflavin (vitamin B2), and iodine.[4] The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada said in 2003 that properly planned vegan diets were nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and lactation, and provided health benefits in the treatment and prevention of certain diseases.[16] The Swiss Federal Nutrition Commission and the German Society for Nutrition do not recommend a vegan diet, and caution against it for children, the pregnant, and the elderly.[17]
A vegan version of the nutritional food pyramid which normally includes meat and animal products. Click to enlarge.Physicians John A. McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Neal D. Barnard, Michael Greger, and nutritional biochemist T. Colin Campbell, argue that high animal fat and protein diets, such as the standard American diet, are detrimental to health, and that a low-fat vegan diet can both prevent and reverse degenerative diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes.[18] A 2006 study by Barnard found that in people with type 2 diabetes, a low-fat vegan diet reduced weight, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol, and did so to a greater extent than the diet prescribed by the American Diabetes Association.[19]
The 12-year Oxford Vegetarian Study of 11,000 subjects recruited between 1980 and 1984 showed that vegans had lower total- and LDL-cholesterol concentrations that did meat-eaters. Death rates were lower in non-meat eaters than in meat eaters; mortality from ischemic heart disease was positively associated with eating animal fat and with dietary cholesterol levels. The study also showed that vegans in the UK may be at risk of iodine deficiency because of deficiencies in the soil.[20] According to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, diets that avoid meat tend to have lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants, such as vitamins C and E, and phytochemicals. People who avoid meat are reported to have lower body mass index than those following the average Canadian or American diet. From this follows lower death rates from ischemic heart disease, lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.[4]
A 1999 meta-analysis of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease 26 percent lower among vegans compared to regular meat eaters, but 34 percent lower among lacto-ovo vegetarians (vegetarians who eat dairy products and eggs) and pescetarians (those who eat fish but no other meat). The lower rate of protection for vegans compared to pescetarians or lacto-ovo vegetarians is believed to be linked to higher levels of homocysteine, which is caused by insufficient vitamin B12, and it is believed that vegans who get sufficient B12 should show even lower risk of ischemic heart disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians. No significant difference in mortality was found from other causes.[21]
[edit] Vitamin B12, iodine, cholineFurther information: Vitamin B12 deficiency and Iodine deficiency The Vegan Society and Vegan Outreach recommend that vegans eat foods fortified with B12 or take a supplement. B12 is a bacterial product that cannot be found reliably in plant foods, and is needed for the formation and maturation of red blood cells and the synthesis of DNA, and for normal nerve function; a deficiency can lead to a number of health problems, including megaloblastic anemia.[22] Iodine supplementation may be necessary for vegans in countries where salt is not typically iodized, where it is iodized at low levels, or where, as in Britain or Ireland, dairy products are relied upon for iodine delivery because of low levels in the soil. Iodine can be obtained from most vegan multivitamins or from regular consumption of seaweeds, such as kelp.[23] Vegans may also be at risk of choline deficiency and may benefit from choline supplements.[24]
[edit] Iron, calcium, vitamin D A vegan burgerFurther information: Iron deficiency, Hypocalcaemia, and Hypovitaminosis D Iron deficiency may lead to anemia. Iron is less well absorbed from vegetarian diets (10 percent absorption from vegetarian diets, versus 18 percent from an omnivorous diet); vegetarians who exclude all animal products may need almost twice as much dietary iron each day than non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the iron status of omnivores and vegans appears to be similar, and body absorption processes may adjust to low intakes over time by enhancing absorption efficiency.[25] Molasses is a high-iron food source and many vegans take it in spoonfuls as an iron supplement.[26]
It is recommended that vegans eat three servings per day of a high-calcium food, such as fortified soy milk, almonds, hazelnuts, and take a calcium supplement as necessary.[4] The EPIC-Oxford study suggested that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over meat eaters and vegetarians, likely because of lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than 525 mg/day had a risk of fractures similar to other groups.[27] A 2009 study of bone density found the bone density of vegans was 94 percent that of omnivores, but deemed the difference clinically insignificant.[28] Another study in 2009 by the same researchers examined over 100 vegan post-menopausal women, and found that their diet had no adverse effect on bone mineral density (BMD) and no alteration in body composition.[29] Biochemist T. Colin Campbell suggested in The China Study (2005) that osteoporosis is linked to the consumption of animal protein because, unlike plant protein, animal protein increases the acidity of blood and tissues, which is then neutralized by calcium pulled from the bones. Cornell wrote that his China-Oxford-Cornell study of nutrition in the 1970s and 1980s found that, in rural China, "where the animal to plant ratio [for protein] was about 10 percent, the fracture rate is only one-fifth that of the U.S."[30]
Regarding vitamin D, Vegan Outreach writes that the only significant natural sources in foods are from fatty fish, such as cod liver oil, mackerel, salmon, and sardines; eggs, if the chickens have been fed vitamin D; and mushrooms if treated with UVB rays. Vegans are therefore advised to use supplements, though light-skinned people can obtain adequate amounts by spending 15 to 30 minutes in the sunlight every few days. Dark-skinned people need significantly more sunlight to obtain the same amount of vitamin D, and sunlight exposure may be difficult in some parts of the world during winter, in which case supplements are recommended.[31]
[edit] Pregnancies and children Vegan version of a salad popular in Russia, with wakame, root vegetables, avocados, and vegan mayonnaise.The American Dietetic Association considers well-planned vegan diets "appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation,"[4] but recommends that vegan mothers supplement for iron, vitamin D, and vitamin B12.[32] Vitamin B12 deficiency in lactating vegetarian mothers has been linked to deficiencies and neurological disorders in their children. [33] Some research suggests that the essential omega-3 fatty acid α-linolenic acid and its derivatives should also be supplemented in pregnant and lactating vegan mothers, since they are very low in most vegan diets, and the metabolically related docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is essential to the developing visual system.[34] Pregnant vegans may need to supplement choline (see above). A maternal vegan diet has also been associated with low birth weight,[35] and a five times lower likelihood of having twins than those who eat animal products, though the article cited concludes that it is the consumption of dairy products by non-vegans that increases the likelihood of conceiving twins, especially in areas where growth hormone is fed to dairy cattle.[36] Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories.[37] Dr. Amy Lanou, an expert witness for the prosecution in a case that went to court, wrote that vegan diets are "not only safe for babies; they're healthier than ones based on animal products". She wrote that "the real problem was that [the child] was not given enough food of any sort."[38]
What's wrong with supplements? I don't take any, some people do. At the end of the day... Taking a supplement is hardly a significant factor to be worrying about - taking medically and scientifically approved pills as opposed to slaughtering an animal. Ghandi is famous for peace but there are many monks who can share opposing viewpoints regarding non-animal product diets. I can also link various blogs of people posting about how changing to a vegan diet has improved their health too in response to that girl's blog.
The problem with taking a supplement is that not everyone can afford supplements and supplements are pretty much required for nearly anyone to actually do the diet. A good case in point is that many westerns in particular react fairly negatively to eating large amounts of Soy all the sudden. That pretty much means not everyone can be a vegan the same way that not everyone can eat an exclusively meat diet. I mean, people pull off staying on the Atkins diet for long, long periods of time. Similarly, you have to take a lot of supplements.
Not to mention you're still fighting against the mound of evidence showing that a diet containing a variety of meats and vegetables is superior to all other diets.
On February 14 2011 11:01 ShadowWolf wrote: The problem with taking a supplement is that not everyone can afford supplements and supplements are pretty much required for nearly anyone to actually do the diet. A good case in point is that many westerns in particular react fairly negatively to eating large amounts of Soy all the sudden. That pretty much means not everyone can be a vegan the same way that not everyone can eat an exclusively meat diet. I mean, people pull off staying on the Atkins diet for long, long periods of time. Similarly, you have to take a lot of supplements.
Not to mention you're still fighting against the mound of evidence showing that a diet containing a variety of meats and vegetables is superior to all other diets.
I'm not sure where you get the 'nearly everyone' statistics from. The reason why vegan diets may be unhealthy for meat-eaters is simply because most of them don't know what to replace their meat with to get the same nutrients. I was a vegetarian from 17 to 23 and have been vegan from 23 to 26. I have no adverse health issues nor have I needed to take supplements. Supplements are definitely a lot cheaper than buying meat. Supplements are not pretty much required. It's just about eating the right foods. Most people can easily switch to vegan diets - unfortunately most just would rather not have to face this option and would rather continue supporting the meat industry, whether for reasons of taste or convenience - but just use health as their default argument when in truth few of them have taken the time to research it.
On February 14 2011 10:29 jon arbuckle wrote: But the cow can be raised and killed in such a way that the pain is minimized, unlike in the wild where a less discreet predator would rip it's neck out.
To suggest that the Earth could exist without any animal causing another animal pain is supremely idealistic. Humans are in such a position where we can at least not cause undue pain onto animals we breed, use, and slaughter, and I support that, but the idea that all suffering can be ameliorated is something I don't buy into.
Say there are a million cows in the wild. Then there are a billion cows in the slaughterhouses. The only reason the billion exist is because of the demand that is created by the meat industry - they are breed via artificial insemination, generally live their whole lives in stressful production lines (e.g. the dairy industry that causes their premature deaths).
It would be better for (A) the million cows to die in the wild, than for (B) the million cows to die in the wild and the billion killed in slaughterhouses. You're right, it would be idealistic to prevent all cows from dying, but we can definitely affect a large proportion of them. And I've never argued in the absolute terms you are using, to alleviate all suffering. But we can easily alleviate a large proportion of it by not engaging in the industry that kills the most.
There does not exist a wild cow of the same breed that humans have domesticated, so more realistically there are no million cows in the wild. Ostensibly, we would be sending a species to extinction.
(I will ignore the "artificial insemination"/"stressful production lines" remark because as I said before the cow probably doesn't have a barometer whereby it can be nostalgic for some forgotten past. There are no memories there of the Savannah.)
I'm sorry to put your argument in such absolutist terms, but writ large you're suggesting this is the ends: to reduce suffering in any being, be it cow or fish or mollusk or whatever. I argue that this is impossible, and that if these cows are to exist, we ought to use them for the purpose that we domesticated them, over millennia, in such a way that is no more cruel than need be.
(This is also ignoring that after nourishment food is cultural, more than anything else, and that many traditional cuisines aren't vegan, let alone even humane, according to the standard that at least I hold.)
On February 14 2011 11:01 ShadowWolf wrote: The problem with taking a supplement is that not everyone can afford supplements and supplements are pretty much required for nearly anyone to actually do the diet. A good case in point is that many westerns in particular react fairly negatively to eating large amounts of Soy all the sudden. That pretty much means not everyone can be a vegan the same way that not everyone can eat an exclusively meat diet. I mean, people pull off staying on the Atkins diet for long, long periods of time. Similarly, you have to take a lot of supplements.
Not to mention you're still fighting against the mound of evidence showing that a diet containing a variety of meats and vegetables is superior to all other diets.
I'm not sure where you get the 'nearly everyone' statistics from. The reason why vegan diets may be unhealthy for meat-eaters is simply because most of them don't know what to replace their meat with to get the same nutrients. I was a vegetarian from 17 to 23 and have been vegan from 23 to 26. I have no adverse health issues nor have I needed to take supplements. Supplements are definitely a lot cheaper than buying meat. Supplements are not pretty much required. It's just about eating the right foods. Most people can easily switch to vegan diets - unfortunately most just would rather not have to face this option and would rather continue supporting the meat industry, whether for reasons of taste or convenience - but just use health as their default argument when in truth few of them have taken the time to research it.
You're not reading anything I'm writing or linking and now you're just going on with sweeping generalizations that are pretty frustrating to read. To be quite frank, I find them insulting, so I'm done. Thanks for the discussion though, I did learn a few things about vegetarianism.
You say if these cows are to exist. The only reason they exist is because there is a demand for them. If more consumers became vegans, there would be less demand for beef and milk, as a result, less would be artificially bred to meet that demand, and therefore less would have to go through the meat industry process. See the OP for your barometer comment - cows aren't as intelligent as dogs, but still have the capacity to feel and show emotions. If you think about dogs that can act as human companions, play with each other, etc. Then pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet we keep them in sow stalls. Regarding domesticating animals - the agricultural industry only expanded to the extent that it is and to the current factory state after the invention of refrigeration - as a result animals suffer on a much larger scale than ever before in history.
On February 14 2011 11:20 ShadowWolf wrote: You're not reading anything I'm writing or linking and now you're just going on with sweeping generalizations that are pretty frustrating to read. To be quite frank, I find them insulting, so I'm done. Thanks for the discussion though, I did learn a few things about vegetarianism.
Cheers. It's hard to discuss something with differing viewpoints when both parties feel the same way about each other's generalisations. At least it provides readers with both perspectives to gain information from.
This will be my final post on this matter, as I feel like I have covered most of the arguments and everyone is obviously tired from the debating. I saw this in the picture says 1,000 words thread:
In conclusion - it's hard for me to imagine that we are willing to kill one being just so the other can eat it, when we don't need to. If there is anything we can do to reduce the suffering, then we ought to out of compassion and empathy.
On February 14 2011 08:05 HULKAMANIA wrote: Also we can agree that we here in America gave the Africans a raw deal. Didn't we give the Native Americans an even worse one, though? What should we do about all the people that we displaced and killed in order to make our cities? Wasn't that a terrible injustice?
Likewise think of all the wildlife that clearing the land for your house displaced and murdered. And you, of all people, you who thinks that we should treat the animals with the same consideration that we treat people, you're alright with living over the graves of the creatures that were killed so you would have a place to live. Your subdivision, your apartment complex, your city, whatever--it's America and all the little furries that had to die because of its founding are the Native Americans. So you can preach to me about freeing the slaves all you want, but you seem to be just fine with killing their brethren who just so happened to be less conveniently located.
Let's talk about the morality of this doublethought.
Yes it was, and yes it is - that is why we don't continue to engage in these injustices. We no longer steal land off people with guns because it is unethical. Likewise many creatures are exploited everyday - so why not at least do what we can, rather than continue on with it? Your logic is almost like saying well we carried out injustice on Indians so let's continue. Because you are saying we are committing injustices on animals, so let's just keep doing it. One step at a time. First, we can avoid eating them for food. This already takes out a large percentage of those that are killed everyday through painful methods. Then we can start addressing preserving the ecosystem and protecting animal conservation.
My point is that not only do we engage in these injustices, but you do as well. You engage in these injustices. Right now.
Those soybeans you eat. How many squirrels were displaced and or killed to clear the land to grow them? How many hares and snakes were dismembered by the combines that harvest them? The fuel you use to power your car. That fuel was purchased at the expense of tragedies like the Gulf Coast, in which untold numbers of our animal friends died slow choking deaths to the poison we released into the gulf.
Do you use paper products? Do you think that sentient beings are not slaughtered mercilessly in the harvesting of the trees from which we derive those products? I’m really tempted here to post an excerpt from my “personal blog” about the rich home-lives of robins and how the big bad lumberjacks killed their children in their sleep.
I don’t buy your “one step at a time” methodology. What you’re really suggesting, as I have pointed out before, is that we buy into your animal=human philosophy to the exact same arbitrary extent that you do.
If you want me to believe that a human life and an animal life is equivalent. I’ll do that. But I would like to see that you believe that in the first place. I would like to have someone explain to me what the world would look like if we accepted that equivalency. But I don’t.
All I see you believing is that you feel a little guilty about the treatment of cows and that you really think someone should do something about it. Your stance strikes me as purely emotional, masquerading as ethical. And honestly I don’t have it in me to brook that sort of worldview.
On February 14 2011 08:34 Tony Campolo wrote: Just read your second post after finishing my reply. I won't even reply to it because you are claiming things that are completely ridiculous, for example that I am supposedly arguing for rights to commit bestiality. And at the end of the day - you can argue we may need to wake up in the morning, but we definitely don't need to eat animals. We can eat a large range of other foods which provide the same nutrients. We don't need to rape, steal or murder, because we can have a mutually loving relationship, earn money to buy items, and deal with issues with people we dislike through legal means.
Again, this is what I predicted from the onset. You want me to believe in your principle of doing no unnecessary harm but only to the extent that you do. You don’t believe in doing no unnecessary harm. You believe in avoiding doing as much harm as is consistent with your current lifestyle, which strikes me as a fairly weak belief to proselytize.
In the same vein, you ostensibly want to treat humans and animals as philosophically interchangeably. What it seems that you actually want is for me to treat them exactly like you do, no less compassionately and certainly no more.
On February 14 2011 08:34 Tony Campolo wrote: As far as persuasion, it's a terrible strategy. It's offensive, alienating to your intended converts, and frankly ridiculous sounding to anyone who's not already a committed vegan.
Well that's where you're wrong. I was once a meat-eater like you up until I was 17. I heard the exact same arguments, that it would be unhealthy, that animals don't know any better - from my parents and friends. But I saw the horrific cruelties being carried out on animals and decided it would be unethical to continue simply to gratify my own desire for the taste of flesh. When I look back now I realise that although my parents intended the best for me and that my friends simply weren't happy with me changing because they thought it was a challenge on their lifestyle, they weren't actually qualified to give such advice, and that there are nutritionists out there who can accommodate diets that don't involve animal products.
The fact that these arguments were persuasive to a seventeen-year-old don’t really recommend them to me. I have taught seventeen-year-olds. They’re among the most fickle, short-sighted, malleable individuals on the planet.
When I was a child, I thought as a child. But when I grew up, I put those childish thoughts behind me and became a grown ass man. And now glib arguments that—among their myriad other offenses—trivialize slavery don’t really hold the same fascination for me that they once might have.
My first post to you in this thread was asking if you had anything to say to me that would prompt me to assume the same sorts of things about animal rights and morality that you do. But you never addressed that request. You have offered no such insights. You simply continue to reason from those assumptions as blithely as you did in post one, which leads me to believe that you’re not even aware of them, nor are you aware that other folks on this wide old earth might not share them.
You’re the fresh-faced Jehovah’s witness on the doorstep. I’ll freely admit that I have a certain respect for what you’re doing. I’ll even accept a tract or two from you. But if I were you I wouldn’t count on seeing me next Sunday.
On February 14 2011 11:30 Tony Campolo wrote: This will be my final post on this matter, as I feel like I have covered most of the arguments and everyone is obviously tired from the debating. I saw this in the picture says 1,000 words thread:
In conclusion - it's hard for me to imagine that we are willing to kill one being just so the other can eat it, when we don't need to. If there is anything we can do to reduce the suffering, then we ought to out of compassion and empathy.
Well, plants are also living organisms, and can also feel pain (a whole lot less that an animal though). And we could reduce their suffering by not eating them, and only eat fruits and other non-living food. So you are doing exactly what you described you can't imagine: killing a being just so the other can eat it, when you don't need to.
This seems appropriate to a vegan discussion. Vegan parents face "neglect or food deprivation followed by death" charges for letting their 11 month old die.
Are you saying i have to have compassion for my food ? -_-; Cause i don't normally cry while i eat. Is that a sin ? /troll
On a more serious note; not eating meat is silly and will weaken your body.
A clear indication that we're supposed to eat meat is the binnocular vision of our eyes. Predators have the eyes at the front to be able to focus on the prey during the chase. Prey has its eyes on the sides so they can see the predator coming.
And yeah, I am not giving up ham for breakfast. I've never understood this vegan or vegetarian thing. Still don't, even after having read your posts. How you think humans being treated badly due to racism or sexism is even remotely like breeding and eating cows, pigs, chickens, etc is beyond me.
Kind of reminds me of anarcho-primitivism, except they don't actually care about the animals. I feel like this sort of mentality comes from the mistaken idea humans are evil by existence and somehow outside of nature and imposing ourselves on it, rather than us being a part of nature.