The slaughter of nonhuman animals.

[Gamma Male]

Hi. Before we begin here, I'd like to say a few things, and I would greatly appreciate it if everyone took the time to read through everything I have to say before posting.
1 I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic and condescending because I usually am, but I promise I'm not this time. I'm being genuinely nice. Don't misinterprate that as snide passive-aggressivness. I usually get pretty emotional during these threads, but I'm making an effort to remain polite and refrain from my usual sarcasm.

I've made these threads in the past on other forums, and here's how they typically go.
I state my views.
Other people disagree.
I respond, perhaps a bit too judgmentally.
I get called a self righteous holier than thou prick.
I get pissed, abandon the thread, and go on a 3 hour violent videogame/ Death Metal bender blasting the heads off of innocent civilians and listening to Godsmack.
I suddenly become sad and cry myself to sleep, my hope for humanity gradually fading away as it gets replaced by a bitter misanthropic hate.

Now I don't know about you, but I for one would like to avoid all that. So I would like to request the mods be extra stern with this thread.

And I would also request that both sides refrain from jokes and sarcasm. They don't help. Trust me, I know.

Sorry for all that, but I've had a bad experience with vegan debate threads in the past.



So, lets start.

It is my opinion that purchasing animal products is unethical because doing so directly contributes to the genocide, murder, and abusive treatment of billions of sentient nonhuman animals.

[Miserabilia]

I partly aggree, but I'm not really on any side in this.
(As in I still haven't made up my mind about it but I will at some point)

[Living For Love]

It's not unethical to purchase animal products, because most of the times we have no idea how the animals where those products came from were treated. However, it's unethical when food companies and slaughterhouses treat those animals in very bad ways without any dignity, keeping them all packed up in cages, without direct contact with sunlight, feeding them chemicals and only looking for profit. That's what needs to be changed in the first place.

[Cpt_Cutter]

It is my opinion that purchasing animal products is unethical because doing so directly contributes to the genocide, murder, and abusive treatment of billions of sentient nonhuman animals.

I would argue that because of our position on both the food chain and the technological development ladder it is our right as a species to both eat meat and purchase animal products, but yes I do agree that some animal farming methods are cruel and should be abolished.

Your thoughts?

[Gamma Male]

I partly aggree, but I'm not really on any side in this.
(As in I still haven't made up my mind about it but I will at some point)

You sound like me 3 years ago. :lol:
First blind stubborness.
Then willingness to at least listen to other points of view.
Then gradual doubt in your position.
Then reevaluation of your stance.
Then acceptance of a once seemingly radical belief.


I wonder if there's a word for this process.

It's not unethical to purchase animal products, because most of the times we have no idea how the animals where those products cam from were treated.
While some of the more liberal countries have advanced animal welfare laws, most don't. In America use of battery cages, artificial insemination, milking machines, infanticide, and killing conscience animals without puting them to sleep first is very widespread. Most animal products are produced this way. If you're genuinely curious about ranching methods I recommend this video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5oTCA9V3eNs
Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation also provides a pretty good acount, thouh it's a little dated.
However, it's unethical when food companies and slaughterhouses treat those animals in very bad ways without any dignity, keeping them all packed up in cages, without direct contact with sunlight, feeding them chemicals and only looking for profit. That's what needs to be changed in the first place.
Right. This treatment is unethical, and very common.
I would argue that because of our position on both the food chain and the technological development ladder it is our right as a species to both eat meat and purchase animal products, but yes I do agree that some animal farming methods are cruel and should be abolished.

Your thoughts?

Ah, but do we use Social Darwinism and nature as a basis for how to treat each other? If you argue that humans are entitled to use animals because of our natural position on the food chain, couldn't you use that argument to back up almost anything?
If you define "the food chain" as stronger animals eating weaker ones and "natural" as simply having been for a very long time, or as being in our nature as omnivores, you could also say that
It is okay for men to rape women because they are stronger, because it has been going on for a long time, and because it is in the rapists nature. Similar arguments can be made for slavery. Weren't whites above the blacks in the natural food chain?

Please don't double post, use the edit feature. ~ ImCoolBeans

[ksdnfkfr]

I'm pretty neutral on this, bordering on apathy tbh. I have no trouble understanding a vegan's point of view, but i just don't empathize (autistic and doesn't empathize not much of a shock). I'll it doesn't make sense to me that people who would cook and serve me chicken, would freak out if went out and killed a sparrow with a bb gun. So I see a lot of contradiction going on. If I was orphaned and adopted by a vegan family and never served meat the rest of my life, I think I'd be fine with that. I do think a meat free diet is probably a healthier one.

[Dalcourt]

I'm more or less neutral on this. I love animals in general and I watched reports about how animals are treated and read books about veganism, followed PETA activities on the net and so on. I tried to befriend other people but even if they all talked about morals and ethics I found that most of them were, sorry I have to say the evil word self righteous.

So yeah, I found my own way how to balance between eating meat ( a vegan lifestyle if you life mostly on foodstamps isn't really possible) and how to define my view on animal rights.

That's about all I can say on this topic without pissing either side off.

[ImCoolBeans]

I made a thread once about how animals are raised and how mistreated they are, specifically in slaughter houses, and it didn't get much attention. I think people just don't like to think/talk about the topic, especially since it concerns where almost all of their food comes from/gets processed.

It's pretty fucking disgusting. Slaughter houses are the filthiest places in the food industry, and the "farms," if you can even call them that, these animals are raised on are usually hell holes with little sanitation, insufficient room for the animals to roam around, some animals don't even see the light of day, and at most of these "farms" the animals are fed corn. CORN. Corn is worthless on a nutritional level, and should NOT be the staple of the diet for the animals that people are going to eat. It's pretty fucked up. The animals are unhealthy, and pumped full of antibiotics to ward of the diseases that they are guaranteed to get in their hellish living conditions. I do eat meat, not much, but I do. I contemplate giving it up, but I do acknowledge how incredibly fucked up the meat industry is.

Poaching, trophy hunting, and hunting just for "sport" is unethical in my opinion. If you kill an animal in the wild, it should be for consumption, not for the glory of a random kill, on an innocent animal who was just peacefully minding it's own business until you came around and bucked off a few shots into it.

Animal testing is unethical. If another intelligent species lived on Earth, and enslaved us to test cosmetic products on us, how do you think we would react? People who are pro-animal testing make me sick. I don't want to hear "Animals don't have feelings", because that is just bullshit. Have you ever tried to give a dog a bath? It's pretty traumatic for most dogs, imagine how an animal who was raised to do nothing but test shampoo and hair dye on must feel; horrified, violated, and will probably act in fear every time a human is present.

In a perfect world:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbqog9Ze291ricce9o1_500.jpg

[Gamma Male]

I made a thread once about how animals are raised and how mistreated they are, specifically in slaughter houses, and it didn't get much attention. I think people just don't like to think/talk about the topic, especially since it concerns where almost all of their food comes from/gets processed.

It's pretty fucking disgusting. Slaughter houses are the filthiest places in the food industry, and the "farms," if you can even call them that, these animals are raised on are usually hell holes with little sanitation, insufficient room for the animals to roam around, some animals don't even see the light of day, and at most of these "farms" the animals are fed corn. CORN. Corn is worthless on a nutritional level, and should NOT be the staple of the diet for the animals that people are going to eat. It's pretty fucked up. The animals are unhealthy, and pumped full of antibiotics to ward of the diseases that they are guaranteed to get in their hellish living conditions. I do eat meat, not much, but I do. I contemplate giving it up, but I do acknowledge how incredibly fucked up the meat industry is.

Poaching, trophy hunting, and hunting just for "sport" is unethical in my opinion. If you kill an animal in the wild, it should be for consumption, not for the glory of a random kill, on an innocent animal who was just peacefully minding it's own business until you came around and bucked off a few shots into it.

Animal testing is unethical. If another intelligent species lived on Earth, and enslaved us to test cosmetic products on us, how do you think we would react? People who are pro-animal testing make me sick. I don't want to hear "Animals don't have feelings", because that is just bullshit. Have you ever tried to give a dog a bath? It's pretty traumatic for most dogs, imagine how an animal who was raised to do nothing but test shampoo and hair dye on must feel; horrified, violated, and will probably act in fear every time a human is present.

In a perfect world:
image (https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbqog9Ze291ricce9o1_500.jpg)

Yay, Coolbeans is on my side! :D

[Blood]

I made a thread once about how animals are raised and how mistreated they are, specifically in slaughter houses, and it didn't get much attention. I think people just don't like to think/talk about the topic, especially since it concerns where almost all of their food comes from/gets processed.

It's pretty fucking disgusting. Slaughter houses are the filthiest places in the food industry, and the "farms," if you can even call them that, these animals are raised on are usually hell holes with little sanitation, insufficient room for the animals to roam around, some animals don't even see the light of day, and at most of these "farms" the animals are fed corn. CORN. Corn is worthless on a nutritional level, and should NOT be the staple of the diet for the animals that people are going to eat. It's pretty fucked up. The animals are unhealthy, and pumped full of antibiotics to ward of the diseases that they are guaranteed to get in their hellish living conditions. I do eat meat, not much, but I do. I contemplate giving it up, but I do acknowledge how incredibly fucked up the meat industry is.

Poaching, trophy hunting, and hunting just for "sport" is unethical in my opinion. If you kill an animal in the wild, it should be for consumption, not for the glory of a random kill, on an innocent animal who was just peacefully minding it's own business until you came around and bucked off a few shots into it.

Animal testing is unethical. If another intelligent species lived on Earth, and enslaved us to test cosmetic products on us, how do you think we would react? People who are pro-animal testing make me sick. I don't want to hear "Animals don't have feelings", because that is just bullshit. Have you ever tried to give a dog a bath? It's pretty traumatic for most dogs, imagine how an animal who was raised to do nothing but test shampoo and hair dye on must feel; horrified, violated, and will probably act in fear every time a human is present.

In a perfect world:
image (https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbqog9Ze291ricce9o1_500.jpg)

I agree with most of what is said here.

I know a lot of people who hunt for sport and for trophy kills, and honestly they don't even put that much thought into the moral aspect of it. Their families have always done it so they don't see a problem with it at all. I don't see a problem with it either unless you don't consume/use the animal you kill. The people who just kill big bucks to hang their head on a wall are pretty bad.

Also, I really like that picture.

[britishboy]

I buy meat because it tastes nice! Some animals I eat are cute but they're not endangered so I will continue to enjoy meat. I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.:D

[Horatio Nelson]

I think animal slaughter houses are sick and disgusting, but I am a through and through meat eater. I think the only ethical way to harvest animals is to hunt them. Animals that are killed in a clean manner usually don't feel *a lot* of pain. It always saddens me when you ear about poachers and other things like that. I honestly can't see hunting wrong in any light. But that's just my opinion. But commercialized animal killing and growing is really sick and gross. It really does make me sad.

[britishboy]

I think animal slaughter houses are sick and disgusting, but I am a through and through meat eater. I think the only ethical way to harvest animals is to hunt them. Animals that are killed in a clean manner usually don't feel *a lot* of pain. It always saddens me when you ear about poachers and other things like that. I honestly can't see hunting wrong in any light. But that's just my opinion. But commercialized animal killing and growing is really sick and gross. It really does make me sad.

Buy free range food then or buy meat from a butchers that has been hunted and shot, it is higher quality anyway.

I have no problem with animal killing but that makes no sense, animals that are grown up for human consumption are born to die, wild animals aren't.

[Gamma Male]

I buy meat because it tastes nice! Some animals I eat are cute but they're not endangered so I will continue to enjoy meat. I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.:D

Actu, you didn't fight your way to the top of the food chain at all. You were born into a life of privilege and ease. Go kill a rabbit with your teeth and then we'll talk.

I don't want to repeat my self, so I'll just copy/paste what I already said about the naturalistic fallacy.
Ah, but do we use Social Darwinism and nature as a basis for how to treat each other? If you argue that humans are entitled to use animals because of our natural position on the food chain, couldn't you use that argument to back up almost anything? If you define "the food chain" as stronger animals eating weaker ones and "natural" as simply having been for a very long time, or as being in our nature as omnivores, you could also say that
It is okay for men to rape women because they are stronger, rape has been going on for a long time, and because it is in the rapists nature. Similar arguments can be made for slavery. Weren't whites above blacks in the natural food chain?

Buy free range food then or buy meat from a butchers that has been hunted and shot, it is higher quality anyway.

I have no problem with animal killing but that makes no sense, animals that are grown up for human consumption are born to die, wild animals aren't.

Both practices are abhorrent. Just they are "born to die" for us doesn't make it right. Some black people were born to be slaves. But slavery is wrong because people don't want to be slaves. Just like animals don't want to live their lives in complete misery and die painful deaths.

Stop double posting. Use the multi-quote or edit feature. ~ ImCoolBeans

[Horatio Nelson]

Actu, you didn't fight your way to the top of the food chain at all. You were born into a life of privilege and ease. Go kill a rabbit with your teeth and then we'll talk.

I don't want to repeat my self, so I'll just copy/paste what I already said about the naturalistic fallacy.
Ah, but do we use Social Darwinism and nature as a basis for how to treat each other? If you argue that humans are entitled to use animals because of our natural position on the food chain, couldn't you use that argument to back up almost anything? If you define "the food chain" as stronger animals eating weaker ones and "natural" as simply having been for a very long time, or as being in our nature as omnivores, you could also say that
It is okay for men to rape women because they are stronger, rape has been going on for a long time, and because it is in the rapists nature. Similar arguments can be made for slavery. Weren't whites above blacks in the natural food chain?

The rape and slavery arguments are bogus. Eating food is necessary to live, raping a women is not. Slavery isn't natural either, White people are not naturally better than dark skinned people. Slavery happens usually when a group of people are dominated by another. Historically it was a term of surrender. To the victors go the spoils. But back to the point, enslaving animals is not okay or natural, being able to harvest them for physical sustenance is.

[JamesSuperBoy]

I think it is our responsibility to ensure that what we purchase or consume as food and anything else is from an ethical source and I mean truly ethical not just believing the hype. PR and "Oh we are so good look at the Little Red Tractor" claims. FYI the REd Tractor Scheme is a labeling marketing machine that claims to be ethical.

[Gamma Male]

The rape and slavery arguments are bogus. Eating food is necessary to live, raping a women is not.
Humans do not require animal products to live anymore than we require slaves or forced sex. All 3 are unnecessary, and all three are harmful and immoral.
Slavery isn't natural either, White people are not naturally better than dark skinned people. Slavery happens usually when a group of people are dominated by another. Historically it was a term of surrender. To the victors go the spoils. But back to the point, enslaving animals is not okay or natural, being able to harvest them for physical sustenance is.

But my point was that nature is in no way a good basis for morality, slavery was just an example. The fact that something is "natural" or that we're at the top of the food chain is irrelevant. Saying we don't have to show animals any respect because they're naturally weaker or less intelligent than us is a form of social darwinism. Rapists are usually stronger than the people they rape. That "might is right!" Attitude is a horrible basis for morality.

[britishboy]

Both practices are abhorrent. Just they are "born to die" for us doesn't make it right. Some black people were born to be slaves. But slavery is wrong because people don't want to be slaves. Just like animals don't want to live their lives in complete misery and die painful deaths.

So now an animal is equal to a black person?

[Gamma Male]

So now an animal is equal to a black person?

In the sense that they are both sentient, they both feel pain, and they are both deserving of moral consideration? Yes. Animals and humans are equal in those ways.

[Camazotz]

I agree that a lot of change has to occur in the meat industry to protect the integrity of the animals involved. Animal testing has to be better regulated, and animal cruelty cases need to be monitored and regulated better. You all have valid points and plenty of statistics and anecdotes to support your side; it's definitely a cultural issue that will be (and should) be a part of modern society.

Despite all this, I have no real strong interest in the animal rights movement. My only defense for my side is that you can't get involved with every issue, and this is one that I just don't care about.

[britishboy]

In the sense that they are both sentient, they both feel pain, and they are both deserving of moral consideration? Yes. Animals and humans are equal in those ways.

So you want to give animals human rights?

[Gamma Male]

So you want to give animals human rights?

No, I want to give them animal rights. Should they be allowed to vote or marry? Of course not. Because they don't want to vote or marry. They don't care about those things. But they do care about

Not dying a painful, early death.
Living relatively happy lives, free from inhumane conditions such as battery cages.
Raising their young.
Not being force fed, starved, experimented on, or undergoing cruel treatment.

We have no right to deny them those rights. Why should our trivial interests, such as pleasing our tastebuds or wearing fur coats, be placed above their most important interests, like life and happiness?

I see no destinction between cannalbalism and eating animals, and no reason why they don't deserve fair treatment when humans do. We both feel pain, we both think, we both have desires and wants and needs, and neither of us want to die early or painful deaths.

[britishboy]

No, I want to give them animal rights. Should they be allowed to vote or marry? Of course not. Because they don't want to vote or marry. They don't care about those things. But they do care about

Not dying a painful, early death.
Living relatively happy lives, free from inhumane conditions such as battery cages.
Raising their young.
Not being force fed, starved, experimented on, or undergoing cruel treatment.

We have no right to deny them those rights. Why should our trivial interests, such as pleasing our tastebuds or wearing fur coats, be placed above their most important interests, like life and happiness?

I see no destinction between cannalbalism and eating animals, and no reason why they don't deserve fair treatment when humans do. We both feel pain, we both think, we both have desires and wants and needs, and neither of us want to die early or painful deaths.
They can't think so they don't want.

[Gamma Male]

They can't think so they don't want.

They can think, and they do want. This is a well accepted, undeniable fact within the scientific community. They respond to stimuli, they have central nervous systems, they have similar brain activity, only somebody completely scientifically illiterate would conclude that animals have brains and central nervous systems for absolutely no reason.

[Miserabilia]

They can't think so they don't want.

I think you are not aware of the intelligence of basicly any mammal.

If we really want to eat things that don't think and feel,
we should switch to insects.
(Which btw is a legit movement, I'll try eating them one day but I'm a little too not-used to them yet,
but it's a great thing for food in the future; most insects are nutrient and eatable)

[britishboy]

They can think, and they do want. This is a well accepted, undeniable fact within the scientific community. They respond to stimuli, they have central nervous systems, they have similar brain activity, only somebody completely scientifically illiterate would conclude that animals have brains and central nervous systems for absolutely no reason.

They respond well to stimuli? You want me to stop eating my favorite foods because they respond to being poked? What you have described is the reflex arc, not thinking. Also a plant doesn't want to be cut down but it is.

I think you are not aware of the intelligence of basicly any mammal.

If we really want to eat things that don't think and feel,
we should switch to insects.
(Which btw is a legit movement, I'll try eating them one day but I'm a little too not-used to them yet,
but it's a great thing for food in the future; most insects are nutrient and eatable)

Because it's only mammals with that kind of intelligence?

Because nothing says fine dining like a cockroach.:P

[CosmicNoodle]

I tend not to care to much for other life (I have psychological issues...) But I do agree that on a logical basis there should be huge reform in the way many animals are treated before slaughter. However if its them or me, I would happily kill it myself.

[Gamma Male]

They respond well to stimuli? You want me to stop eating my favorite foods because they respond to being poked? What you have described is the reflex arc, not thinking.
Animals feel pain and they think. We shouldn't even be debating this, it's basic science! They have nerve receptors. They have complex, highly developed brains. What grade are you in? Have you not learned basic biology? Animals think and feel. There is a scientific consensus on the issue. You are the only one debating this.
Also a plant doesn't want to be cut down but it is
Plants don't have any wants. They require water to function, but they don't "want" it anymore than a phone battery wants electricity. They aren't sentient. They don't think or feel. They're little more than biological machines.

[Horatio Nelson]

No, I want to give them animal rights. Should they be allowed to vote or marry? Of course not. Because they don't want to vote or marry. They don't care about those things. But they do care about

Not dying a painful, early death.
Living relatively happy lives, free from inhumane conditions such as battery cages.
Raising their young.
Not being force fed, starved, experimented on, or undergoing cruel treatment.

We have no right to deny them those rights. Why should our trivial interests, such as pleasing our tastebuds or wearing fur coats, be placed above their most important interests, like life and happiness?

I see no destinction between cannalbalism and eating animals, and no reason why they don't deserve fair treatment when humans do. We both feel pain, we both think, we both have desires and wants and needs, and neither of us want to die early or painful deaths.

When did animals deserve rights? "Rights" are such a western idea. No one deserves anything, let alone animals. Besides, how do you know what animals want? Did you ask them?

[Gamma Male]

When did animals deserve rights? "Rights" are such a western idea. No one deserves anything, let alone animals.
They deserve to be treated with the same consideration we give humans. They deserve the rights life and happiness, and to not be locked up in cages their whole lives and treated in inhumane, disgusting conditions.
Besides, how do you know what animals want? Did you ask them?

I think it's fairly self-evident that animals don't want to be tortured, undergo extreme physical and psychological pain, and die early deaths.

[Horatio Nelson]

They deserve to be treated with the same consideration we give humans. They deserve the rights life and happiness, and to not be locked up in cages their whole lives and treated in inhumane, disgusting conditions.


I think it's fairly self-evident that animals don't want to be tortured, undergo extreme physical and psychological pain, and die early deaths.

Sadly, There are a lot of humans treated this way too. I definitely agree with you that animals shouldn't live that way. But "animal rights" is a lame concept if you ask me.

[Gamma Male]

Sadly, There are a lot of humans treated this way too. I definitely agree with you that animals shouldn't live that way. But "animal rights" is a lame concept if you ask me.

Why's that?

[Horatio Nelson]

Why's that?

Because, even though you may think they deserve all of the things previously stated. They won't give two shits about you or ever say thank you.

[Jean Poutine]

We're predators and we eat meat, but that doesn't mean that we have to be inhumane about it. We're gifted with higher thinking processes, so we should use them.

I'm perfectly all right with guaranteeing the animals we eat as humane of a life as possible, but granting livestock rights goes too far.

For a right to arise, according to Raz, X has to have sufficient interest in that right to be able to impose an obligation to Y to respect it. It also must be able to have rights, and that capacity is defined by its value ; it must be valuable on its own and not derived from our benefit.

Prey are valuable to the predator only because they are food sources. Their value derives from that fact, so in a relationship with livestock, the human becomes the party with ultimate value, because our interest is decisive in the relationship. When we do not keep animals as pets, but only as a food source, their value is linked to our appraisal of that value. We like meat, we eat it. That's it.

For the same reason, I'm also perfectly all right with granting animals kept as pets rights, because the relationship is symbiotic. Their value is not linked to our benefit, but becomes an object of ultimate value, since there can be no single party in the relationship that can be said derives its value from the relationship. We like the dog, but the dog also likes us, and dogs are often as valuable to a human as any family member.

Rights are not given, but born out of an obligation ; it is the obligation that is given. It is basically an inverse definition to the one laypeople assume.

[Horatio Nelson]

We're predators and we eat meat, but that doesn't mean that we have to be inhumane about it. We're gifted with higher thinking processes, so we should use them.

I'm perfectly all right with guaranteeing the animals we eat as humane of a life as possible, but granting livestock rights goes too far.

For a right to arise, according to Raz, X has to have sufficient interest in that right to be able to impose an obligation to Y to respect it. It also must be able to have rights, and that capacity is defined by its value ; it must be valuable on its own and not derived from our benefit.

Prey are valuable to the predator only because they are food sources. Their value derives from that fact, so in a relationship with livestock, the human becomes the party with ultimate value, because our interest is decisive in the relationship. When we do not keep animals as pets, but only as a food source, their value is linked to our appraisal of that value. We like meat, we eat it. That's it.

For the same reason, I'm also perfectly all right with granting animals kept as pets rights, because the relationship is symbiotic. Their value is not linked to our benefit, but becomes an object of ultimate value, since there can be no single party in the relationship that can be said derives its value from the relationship. We like the dog, but the dog also likes us, and dogs are often as valuable to a human as any family member.

Rights are not given, but born out of an obligation ; it is the obligation that is given. It is basically an inverse definition to the one laypeople assume.


Even though that hurt my brain to read; you read my mind. I'm telling you, I am not good friends with words. lol

[Lovelife090994]

Personally I hate animal cruelty but I tend to be neutral on the subject. I disagree in trying to change a person from eating meat, and I know that some like to hunt. There is a clear difference between hunting and poaching, and a clear difference between cannibalism and animal slaughter. I never did eat a lot of meat but I still eat and enjoy it. Do I care for animals? Yes, but I usually avoid vegans especially after they describe how my food may have been killed when it is right in front of me. I cannot eat with someone who is going to police my food.

[Typhlosion]

Glancing above I already saw that this is also going to end up in animal testing, to which the answer is...

Continue Animal Testing. Not only we benefit from discoveries as well as we save our own kind from stupidity.

In response to CoolBean's image...

http://image.bayimg.com/2b580259be34511a2b614463e01d17c27381a390.jpg

There is already a food chain. You can't believe in a system where all animals are equal when, before humanity, naturally wasn't true. Heck, there were hierarchies established within animal communities.

While some treatment to animals in slaughterhouses is truly distasteful, I'm afraid I can't support any movement. Should we sedate the animals so they don't feel an excruciating minute of pain? Not only not-cheap as well as poisoning the meat with drugs.

Stop eating meat is something that would bring complications worldwide. To state that would mean break (pretty much) all culture-specific cuisine. Breaking every single culture's tradition. Imbalance the diet of many people used to eating meat. Heck, if we're at the top of the food chain we deserve it! Animals were made to die for the cycle of life.

Plus, shouldn't we be worried about human workers' conditions in 3rd world countries before we change species? Fix the DPRK, they need it!

[Miserabilia]

They respond well to stimuli? You want me to stop eating my favorite foods because they respond to being poked? What you have described is the reflex arc, not thinking. Also a plant doesn't want to be cut down but it is.



Because it's only mammals with that kind of intelligence?

Because nothing says fine dining like a cockroach.:P

Actualy it's not " just reflex"....
All mammals have large skulls with large brains, because they are capable of making decisions and having something pretty close to a thought process.
Not to mention, we already know a fair amount of mamals are conscious beings.
They can feel emotions, too.
Not complicated human emotions, but alot of mammals grieve for the dead and almost ALL mammals feel love for their family as mammals are one of the few sections of the animal kingdom where family and love are really important.

[Gamma Male]

We're predators and we eat meat, but that doesn't mean that we have to be inhumane about it. We're gifted with higher thinking processes, so we should use them.

I'm perfectly all right with guaranteeing the animals we eat as humane of a life as possible, but granting livestock rights goes too far.

For a right to arise, according to Raz,1 X has to have sufficient interest in that right to be able to impose an obligation to Y to respect it. It also must be able to have rights, and that capacity is defined by its value ;2 it must be valuable on its own and not derived from our benefit.
1I disagree. Your saying people only have rights if they're able to stop others from imposing on those rights? So, it's okay to violate someone's rights if they can't defend themselves? That doesn't sound right.
2Whether or not animals are "valuable" and to whom they're valuable is irrelevant. The criteria for being treated morally stems from the capacity to suffer, and from having interests. Not some inherent "value". We treat infants and the homeless with the same moral consideration we treat police officers and doctors, because they all have interests and needs, and they all have a capacity to feel emotion.
Prey are valuable to the predator only because they are food sources. Their value derives from that fact, so in a relationship with livestock, the human becomes the party with ultimate value, because our interest is decisive in the relationship. When we do not keep animals as pets, but only as a food source, their value is linked to our appraisal of that value. We like meat, we eat it. That's it.
Again, I don't see what animals not being valuable to us as anything other than a food source has to do with anything. In a non-socially Darwinian society we take other people's needs, wants, and emotions into account not because they're valuabke but so as to not cause undue pain and suffering.
For the same reason, I'm also perfectly all right with granting animals kept as pets rights, because the relationship is symbiotic. Their value is not linked to our benefit, but becomes an object of ultimate value, since there can be no single party in the relationship that can be said derives its value from the relationship. We like the dog, but the dog also likes us, and dogs are often as valuable to a human as any family member.

Rights are not given, but born out of an obligation ; it is the obligation that is given. It is basically an inverse definition to the one laypeople assume.
I disagree. Rights are NOT born out of an obligation. I support rights for all sentient beings with a capacity to feel emotion, and with basic need that when not met cause said sentient being an extreme amount of pain and suffering. Forcing animals to live their lifes in tiny metal cages and otherwise inhumane, cruel conditions is wrong because animals desire not to be placed in those cages for their entire lives, and not having that desire fulfilled causes them an extreme amount of physical and psychological pain. Just like I have a right not to be stabbed in the abdomen because I have a strong desire not to be stabbed in the abdomen, and not having that desire met would cause me an extreme amount of pain. My right not to be stabbed in the abdomen does not stem from my value to the knife wielder.
Personally I hate animal cruelty but I tend to be neutral on the subject. I disagree in trying to change a person from eating meat, and I know that some like to hunt. There is a clear difference between hunting and poaching, and a clear difference between cannibalism and animal slaughter. I never did eat a lot of meat but I still eat and enjoy it. Do I care for animals? Yes, but I usually avoid vegans especially after they describe how my food may have been killed when it is right in front of me. I cannot eat with someone who is going to police my food.
You didn't actually provide any reasons for your opinions. Why is cannaballism worse than eating meat? Why is eating animals okay when it causes so much pain?
Glancing above I already saw that this is also going to end up in animal testing, to which the answer is...

Continue Animal Testing. Not only we benefit from discoveries as well as we save our own kind from stupidity.
Animal testing is up for discussion, and not at all off topic.
Yes, animal testing benefits us. I'm not going to use the typical "but it's misleading" response most vegans use because I know that's false. Animal testing is beneficial to humansociety. But the pain it causes to animals far outways the pain it stops from occurring to humans. But it's wrong either way.
In response to CoolBean's image..

image (http://image.bayimg.com/2b580259be34511a2b614463e01d17c27381a390.jpg)

There is already a food chain. You can't believe in a system where all animals are equal when, before humanity, naturally wasn't true. Heck, there were hierarchies established within animal communities.
We should not base morality off of nature, but rather logic and reasoning. Are you a social darwinist? Do you roll around in your own feces? Do you support murdering babies who are too sick to live on their own one day? No. I'm tired of responding to the same naturalistic fallacy over and over again. Please read the rest of my posts if you would like a more indept rebuttal of that line of reasoning.
While some treatment to animWe should not als in slaughterhouses is truly distasteful, I'm afraid I can't support any movement. Should we sedate the animals so they don't feel an excruciating minute of pain? Not only not-cheap as well as poisoning the meat with drugs.

Stop eating meat is something that would bring complications worldwide. To state that would mean break (pretty much) all culture-specific cuisine. Breaking every single culture's tradition. Imbalance the diet of many people used to eating meat. Heck, if we're at the top of the food chain we deserve it! Animals were made to die for the cycle of life.

I don't expect everybody to suddenly become vagen tomorrow. The transition to veganism will take decades, if not centuries. And yes, problems will arise, peopke will resist justice in the name of tradition, but that's no reason to not treat animals fairly.
Plus, shouldn't we be worried about human workers' conditions in 3rd world countries before we change species? Fix the DPRK, they need it!

Another commonly used fallacy. but, what about *insert other great injustice/crisis*? Shouldn't we be focusing on that too?
Yes. We should still be protesting other things. But
1 Over 100,000,000,000 animals die each year for consumption. That 100 billion. Every year. I have good reason to be focusing on this particular injustice.
And 2 Forgoing the consumption of meat would be good for humanity. Aside from the proven health benefits of a properly planned vegan diet, like longer average lifespans and lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, there are numerous other benefits.
Did you know that the meat industry contributes to over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions? That's right. Cow poop is the number one cause of climate change, not fossil fuels.
And then there are the land and energy conservation and world hunger benefits. I'm exhausted from typing all this, but it's easy to research these things on your own if you're interested.

[Typhlosion]

Animal testing is up for discussion, and not at all off topic.
Yes, animal testing benefits us. I'm not going to use the typical "but it's misleading" response most vegans use because I know that's false. Animal testing is beneficial to humansociety. But the pain it causes to animals far outways the pain it stops from occurring to humans. But it's wrong either way. Maybe. If you could consider the possibility of applying banana essence to wounds on humans in a world where animal testing doesn't exist, then it'd be better them than us.[/quote]

We should not base morality off of nature, but rather logic and reasoning. Are you a social darwinist? Do you roll around in your own feces? Do you support murdering babies who are too sick to live on their own one day? No. I'm tired of responding to the same naturalistic fallacy over and over again. Please read the rest of my posts if you would like a more indept rebuttal of that line of reasoning. In theory, I am somewhat a social darwinist. I wouldn't deny a child if he had some problem, but I would agree with a culture that believes in eugenics. My personal utopia (and yes, I know I wouldn't exist in such culture).

I don't expect everybody to suddenly become vagen tomorrow. The transition to veganism will take decades, if not centuries. And yes, problems will arise, peopke will resist justice in the name of tradition, but that's no reason to not treat animals fairly. It is no reason, but it is a source of immense inertia. "If X people do it, X-1 doing it won't make a difference".

Another commonly used fallacy. but, what about *insert other great injustice/crisis*? Shouldn't we be focusing on that too?
Yes. We should still be protesting other things. But
1 Over 100,000,000,000 animals die each year for consumption. That 100 billion. Every year. I have good reason to be focusing on this particular injustice. I believe that we should solve major problems with our race prior to thinking about other races.

And 2 Forgoing the consumption of meat would be good for humanity. Aside from the proven health benefits of a properly planned vegan diet, like longer average lifespans and lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, there are numerous other benefits.
Problem: properly planned vegan diet. It isn't easy to access nor maintain. (For now)
Did you know that the meat industry contributes to over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions? That's right. Cow poop is the number one cause of climate change, not fossil fuels.
And then there are the land and energy conservation and world hunger benefits. I'm exhausted from typing all this, but it's easy to research these things on your own if you're interested. Yes, I do! :P Also, ~60-75% of all the greenhouse effect is to blame on clouds. I made a presentation at school about misconceptions of environmental warnings and such. I also convinced the class that hydroxylic acid was dangerous :P Valid point.

Note that my biggest problem here is inertia and human superiority. I believe that such a transition is almost utopic AND that humans do have the right to their daily dose of meat.

[Gamma Male]

Maybe. If you could consider the possibility of applying banana essence to wounds on humans in a world where animal testing doesn't exist, then it'd be better them than us.

In theory, I am somewhat a social darwinist. I wouldn't deny a child if he had some problem, but I would agree with a culture that believes in eugenics. My personal utopia (and yes, I know I wouldn't exist in such culture).

It is no reason, but it is a source of immense inertia. "If X people do it, X-1 doing it won't make a difference".

I believe that we should solve major problems with our race prior to thinking about other races.
Problem: properly planned vegan diet. It isn't easy to access nor maintain. (For now)
Yes, I do! :P Also, ~60-75% of all the greenhouse effect is to blame on clouds. I made a presentation at school about misconceptions of environmental warnings and such. I also convinced the class that hydroxylic acid was dangerous :P Valid point.

Note that my biggest problem here is inertia and human superiority. I believe that such a transition is almost utopic AND that humans do have the right to their daily dose of meat.[/QUOTE]
Mostly fair points. But you act as if not eating meat wouldn't benefit humanity, when in fact it would benefit us immensely. We would have more food, more land, less greenhouse gas emissions, and overall better health. Also, your idea that eating a vegan diet is unrealistic may be partly true, but it isn't impossible for most people. And middleclass people in the first world have no excuse.

[Lovelife090994]

1I disagree. Your saying people only have rights if they're able to stop others from imposing on those rights? So, it's okay to violate someone's rights if they can't defend themselves? That doesn't sound right.
2Whether or not animals are "valuable" and to whom they're valuable is irrelevant. The criteria for being treated morally stems from the capacity to suffer, and from having interests. Not some inherent "value". We treat infants and the homeless with the same moral consideration we treat police officers and doctors, because they all have interests and needs, and they all have a capacity to feel emotion.

Again, I don't see what animals not being valuable to us as anything other than a food source has to do with anything. In a non-socially Darwinian society we take other people's needs, wants, and emotions into account not because they're valuabke but so as to not cause undue pain and suffering.

I disagree. Rights are NOT born out of an obligation. I support rights for all sentient beings with a capacity to feel emotion, and with basic need that when not met cause said sentient being an extreme amount of pain and suffering. Forcing animals to live their lifes in tiny metal cages and otherwise inhumane, cruel conditions is wrong because animals desire not to be placed in those cages for their entire lives, and not having that desire fulfilled causes them an extreme amount of physical and psychological pain. Just like I have a right not to be stabbed in the abdomen because I have a strong desire not to be stabbed in the abdomen, and not having that desire met would cause me an extreme amount of pain. My right not to be stabbed in the abdomen does not stem from my value to the knife wielder.

You didn't actually provide any reasons for your opinions. Why is cannaballism worse than eating meat? Why is eating animals okay when it causes so much pain?

Animal testing is up for discussion, and not at all off topic.
Yes, animal testing benefits us. I'm not going to use the typical "but it's misleading" response most vegans use because I know that's false. Animal testing is beneficial to humansociety. But the pain it causes to animals far outways the pain it stops from occurring to humans. But it's wrong either way.

We should not base morality off of nature, but rather logic and reasoning. Are you a social darwinist? Do you roll around in your own feces? Do you support murdering babies who are too sick to live on their own one day? No. I'm tired of responding to the same naturalistic fallacy over and over again. Please read the rest of my posts if you would like a more indept rebuttal of that line of reasoning.

I don't expect everybody to suddenly become vagen tomorrow. The transition to veganism will take decades, if not centuries. And yes, problems will arise, peopke will resist justice in the name of tradition, but that's no reason to not treat animals fairly.


Another commonly used fallacy. but, what about *insert other great injustice/crisis*? Shouldn't we be focusing on that too?
Yes. We should still be protesting other things. But
1 Over 100,000,000,000 animals die each year for consumption. That 100 billion. Every year. I have good reason to be focusing on this particular injustice.
And 2 Forgoing the consumption of meat would be good for humanity. Aside from the proven health benefits of a properly planned vegan diet, like longer average lifespans and lower rates of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, there are numerous other benefits.
Did you know that the meat industry contributes to over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions? That's right. Cow poop is the number one cause of climate change, not fossil fuels.
And then there are the land and energy conservation and world hunger benefits. I'm exhausted from typing all this, but it's easy to research these things on your own if you're interested.

You know why cannibalism is so bad. It's eating a fellow human. That is quite drastic and gross. Eating animals is not like me going outside to kill a rabbit with my teeth. Even nature isn't pretty. All predators are either carnivorous or omnivorous. Basically even in the Animal Kingdom things get gruesome. Lions tear their victims to shreds with their teeth. No human goes out in the jungle to hunt things with his teeth and claws. To say all who eat meat are worse than animals is very detestable and mental. Also it's unfair.

[Typhlosion]

Mostly fair points. But you act as if not eating meat wouldn't benefit humanity, when in fact it would benefit us immensely. We would have more food, more land, less greenhouse gas emissions, and overall better health. Also, your idea that eating a vegan diet is unrealistic may be partly true, but it isn't impossible for most people. And middleclass people in the first world have no excuse.

Whoops, I messed up your quote with that additional [ /quote ] tag :teehee:

I do agree that halting/reducing meat consumption would be better for humanity (also, more space for crops, which feed more!) However, it is a premium that not many people want to let go of. Somewhat analogous to video-game consoles: we don't NEED them, heck, we got PCs that do the same thing. Why then, produce them if the resources could be better used? Because it's a premium no one wants to let go of, akin to meat. (Inertia)

Also, I don't think vegetarianism isn't out of question, which could be an argument for eliminating meat consumption for low-class citizens. Everyone having their own few hens and a dairy cow wouldn't abuse the animal (as much) as greater companies do.

[Gamma Male]

Whoops, I messed up your quote with that additional [ /quote ] tag :teehee:

I do agree that halting/reducing meat consumption would be better for humanity (also, more space for crops, which feed more!) However, it is a premium that not many people want to let go of. Somewhat analogous to video-game consoles: we don't NEED them, heck, we got PCs that do the same thing. Why then, produce them if the resources could be better used? Because it's a premium no one wants to let go of, akin to meat. (Inertia)

Also, I don't think vegetarianism isn't out of question, which could be an argument for eliminating meat consumption for low-class citizens. Everyone having their own few hens and a dairy cow wouldn't abuse the animal (as much) as greater companies do.
You seem to agree with many of my points.:lol:
Let's just agree that 200 years from now there's a strong probability most people will be vegan.
You know why cannibalism is so bad. It's eating a fellow human. That is quite drastic and gross. Eating animals is not like me going outside to kill a rabbit with my teeth. Even nature isn't pretty. All predators are either carnivorous or omnivorous. Basically even in the Animal Kingdom things get gruesome. Lions tear their victims to shreds with their teeth. No human goes out in the jungle to hunt things with his teeth and claws. To say all who eat meat are worse than animals is very detestable and mental. Also it's unfair.

On what basis do you object to cannalbalism? And please don't use say religion or because "it's gross". That's an opinion. I think eating dead animals is gross, but that's not why it's wrong.

[Typhlosion]

You seem to agree with many of my points.:lol:
Let's just agree that 200 years from now there's a strong probability most people will be vegan. What about those premiums I mentioned? What do you think of them?


On what basis do you object to cannalbalism? And please don't use say religion or because "it's gross". That's an opinion. I think eating dead animals is gross, but that's not why it's wrong.I'll jump into this one ^^

Because the best thing about intelligence is solidarity and selflessness. To consume one of your own kind is ultimately bad for the whole group. Unless, of course, it's the only source of food you have. Sorry Jeff, you were a good friend.

[Gamma Male]

What about those premiums I mentioned? What do you think of them?

I think putting those premiums above the lives of sentient beings is selfish and immoral.
I'll jump into this one ^^

Because the best thing about intelligence is solidarity and selflessness. To consume one of your own kind is ultimately bad for the whole group. unless, of course, it's the only source of food you have. Sorry Jeff, you were a good friend.

-_- My point. :lol:
Where does one stop when defining "kind"? Why do we not extend our moral standards to animals? I have a sense of morality. Not because having one is "natural", or because I think having morality fosters technological innovation, or because God told me to have one, but because of compassion and logic. Because I know that when I stab someone out of anger, that person suffers. And suffering is bad. And making them suffer without a good reason is illogical. I think the same basic logic should be extended to animals, because they have the same basic properties that qualify them for moral consideration, like the ability to feel pain.

[Typhlosion]

I think putting those premiums above the lives of sentient beings is selfish and immoral. Those premiums, as I defined them, are selfish by nature. However, do you see that as a big hurdle for a hypothetical mass-adoption of veganism/vegetarianism?

[Gamma Male]

Those premiums, as I defined them, are selfish by nature. However, do you see that as a big hurdle for a hypothetical mass-adoption of veganism/vegetarianism?

Not as much as you would think. It's not as if everyone will suddenly become vegan tomorrow. It will be a long, gradual process.

[Horatio Nelson]

I think putting those premiums above the lives of sentient beings is selfish and immoral.


-_- My point. :lol:
Where does one stop when defining "kind"? Why do we not extend our moral standards to animals? I have a sense of morality. Not because having one is "natural", or because I think having morality fosters technological innovation, or because God told me to have one, but because of compassion and logic. Because I know that when I stab someone out of anger, that person suffers. And suffering is bad. And making them suffer without a good reason is illogical. I think the same basic logic should be extended to animals, because they have the same basic properties that qualify them for moral consideration, like the ability to feel pain.


What are animals for? Honestly, what is their purpose? If they are only there to be protected and fed, why have them at all?

[Gamma Male]

What are animals for? Honestly, what is their purpose? If they are only there to be protected and fed, why have them at all?
Because they aren't fucking washing machines, they're sentient beings. They don't have to have a purpose to us. They still don't deserve inhumane treatment. Do homeless people not deserve fair treatment?

And I think the ultimate plan most vegans have is for most of the animals to either go extinct or be integrated back into the wild. Yes, it's sad, but there's no alternative.

[Horatio Nelson]

Because they aren't fucking washing machines, they're sentient beings. They don't have to have a purpose to us. They still don't deserve inhumane treatment. Do homeless people not deserve fair treatment?

And I think the ultimate plan most vegans have is for most of the animals to either go extinct or be integrated back into the wild. Yes, it's sad, but there's no alternative.

I didn't say they were washing machines. The point of view you have makes animals out to be a waste of space. Purposeless.

[Gamma Male]

I didn't say they were washing machines. The point of view you have makes animals out to be a waste of space. Purposeless.


To us. Not to them.

And I don't avoid stabbing doctors because they have a purpose, I do it because stabbings are painful. Not to mention, veganism would be incredibly beneficial to humanity as a whole.

[Horatio Nelson]

To us. Not to them.

And I don't avoid stabbing doctors because they have a purpose, I do it because stabbings are painful. Not to mention, veganism would be incredibly beneficial to humanity as a whole.

I'm kinda lost. What are we debating? Because I completely agree with what you just said.

[Lovelife090994]

You seem to agree with many of my points.:lol:
Let's just agree that 200 years from now there's a strong probability most people will be vegan.


On what basis do you object to cannalbalism? And please don't use say religion or because "it's gross". That's an opinion. I think eating dead animals is gross, but that's not why it's wrong.

No, no, no. No you don't. Never limit someone's freedom of speech. Think about it. Why eat your own kind? That could be a potential partner in survival. And animals are animals. Just because my friends eat meat doesn't make them wrong. Just because you don't doesn't make you right. Look at yourself please. And the day my government tries to force me to be vegan is the day I rebel.

[Gamma Male]

I'm kinda lost. What are we debating? Because I completely agree with what you just said.

What do humans have that animals don't that entitles us to moral treatment but not them? I've always considered the capacity to suffer as the qualification for moral consideration. You're saying that treating animals morally would diminish their purpose to us, so we shouldn't treat them morally. So which is it? Why do you treat other people morally?
I think the reason you treat other people morally is because you know that if you don't it could cause them to feel pain or suffer. And I'm saying animals should also be treated morally because they feel pain too.

[Gamma Male]

No, no, no. No you don't. Never limit someone's freedom of speech.
What? How am I doing that?
Think about it. Why eat your own kind? That could be a potential partner in survival.
So it's okay to eat people as long as they don't intend to help you survive?
And animals are animals.
This has nothing to do with anything. Yes, animals are animals. And pink fedoras are pink fedoras. And fire hydrants are fire hydrants. What's your point?
Just because my friends eat meat doesn't make them wrong. Just because you don't doesn't make you right. Look at yourself please.
While I don't believe in the idea of moral responsibility, I do contend that veganism is more ethical than nonveganism. If I didn't, why would I be vegan? I don't judge anyone, I just think eating meat is unethical.
And the day my government tries to force me to be vegan is the day I rebel.
Mkay, see you on the battlefield.:lol:

[Horatio Nelson]

What do humans have that animals don't that entitles us to moral treatment but not them? I've always considered the capacity to suffer as the qualification for moral consideration. You're saying that treating animals morally would diminish their purpose to us, so we shouldn't treat them morally. So which is it? Why do you treat other people morally?
I think the reason you treat other people morally is because you know that if you don't it could cause them to feel pain or suffer. And I'm saying animals should also be treated morally because they feel pain too.

Ah okay, thank you for clearing that up. :)

Animals *should* be treated morally. But I was saying, that if we treat them with the same standard of morals as a person, that would take killing them for their products out of the picture. Which in our modern society, is not a bad thing at all. If I had enough willpower, I'd be a vegan.

[Gamma Male]

Ah okay, thank you for clearing that up. :)

Animals *should* be treated morally. But I was saying, that if we treat them with the same standard of morals as a person, that would take killing them for their products out of the picture. Which in our modern society, is not a bad thing at all. If I had enough willpower, I'd be a vegan.

Soooo..... you agree that eating animals is unethical, but just admit to not having enough willpower to be vegan?

[Horatio Nelson]

Soooo..... you agree that eating animals is unethical, but just admit to not having enough willpower to be vegan?

Yes....sorta. I would prefer we didn't eat animals. But I will still do it, 'cause I'm lame like that. Animals shouldn't be subject to cruel human machinations just because they taste good. Right? Even though we have the ability to enslave all animal-kind, doesn't mean we should.

[Gamma Male]

Yes....sorta. I would prefer we didn't eat animals. But I will still do it, 'cause I'm lame like that. Animals shouldn't be subject to cruel human machinations just because they taste good. Right? Even though we have the ability to enslave all animal-kind, doesn't mean we should.

INTERNET HIGH FIVE! :D



place hand here



You could always do small things, like trying soy milk instead of real milk every now and then, or free range eggs, or not buying fur. I mean, if you're really interested in it and everything.

And if you ever get a life threatening disease, veganism will always be here for ya! ;)

[Horatio Nelson]

INTERNET HIGH FIVE! :D



place hand here



You could always do small things, like trying soy milk instead of real milk every now and then, or free range eggs, or not buying fur. I mean, if you're really interested in it and everything.

And if you ever get a life threatening disease, veganism will always be here for ya! ;)

Hahaha.

I do, I'm not against any of it. I've eaten vegan meals before. It's the overall diet change I can't bring myself to.

[Lovelife090994]

What? How am I doing that?

So it's okay to eat people as long as they don't intend to help you survive?

This has nothing to do with anything. Yes, animals are animals. And pink fedoras are pink fedoras. And fire hydrants are fire hydrants. What's your point?

While I don't believe in the idea of moral responsibility, I do contend that veganism is more ethical than nonveganism. If I didn't, why would I be vegan? I don't judge anyone, I just think eating meat is unethical.

Mkay, see you on the battlefield.:lol:

Where are you getting this? Cannibalism is never okay, it is insane. Animals are animals but even in nature not everything is vegan. It is not an ethics issue. Not everyone can be vegan, vegetarian is one things, vegan is strict and most are like you; militant.

[Gamma Male]

Where are you getting this? Cannibalism is never okay, it is insane. Animals are animals but even in nature not everything is vegan. It is not an ethics issue. Not everyone can be vegan, vegetarian is one things, vegan is strict and most are like you; militant.

You didn't answer the question.

How am I being "militant"? :lol: I'm just stating my views on a debate forum.

[Lovelife090994]

You didn't answer the question.

How am I being "militant"? :lol: I'm just stating my views on a debate forum.

How is eating meat unethical or ethical at all? Who are you to say everyone will be vegan one way or another?

[Gamma Male]

How is eating meat unethical or ethical at all?
Because it harms animals.
Who are you to say everyone will be vegan one way or another?

Who I am is irrelevant. Focus on the debate.

Now PLEASE answer the question. Why is canabbalism unethical but not eating nonhuman meat?

[Lovelife090994]

Because it harms animals.


Who I am is irrelevant. Focus on the debate.

Now PLEASE answer the question. Why is canabbalism unethical but not eating nonhuman meat?

You do realize that some animals are invasive right? What of tribes who hunt to survive? Are you going to stop them? You living harms animals. Canibalism is unethetical and inhumane because it's eating a human being! You are a monster if you think that is okay. Not everything animals do are right. Harm the animal? What of the animals that harm us? Do we ignore that and demonize anyone who is not the minority veggie?

[Professor Moopicorn]

Ok, I just felt like I have to point this out.
In Australia, our farms are actual farms where cows and sheep roam around in paddocks and eat grass all day. Completely humane. However, I agree that slaughterhouses can be quite inhumane and better methods should be researched.

As far as hunting goes, in areas like Central West NSW, we are completely over-run with kangaroos. On our farm, we have to shoot them otherwise they eat all the available grass or get hit by cars. The amount of dead roos on a 15 km stretch of road through areas that don't even have many roos is WAY TOO HIGH! It's OVER 9000!!! Lol, but seriously, on 10 km there could be 7 dead roos on the side of the road. Now don't like shooting all these roos, but if we haven't had to mow our lawn for 2 and a half years because of some hungry visitors, I think that's too many. My point is, not all hunting has to be for food, but that doesn't mean it's not right.

Because it harms animals.

So does that mean that animals getting hurt is unethical? Does that mean that lions and crocodiles and snakes should go vegan? Animals eat animals. It's just how the earth spins. And because I am Christian, I believe that God gave us animals for food like it says in Genesis 1:30. Look it up if you want.

[Jean Poutine]

1I disagree. Your saying people only have rights if they're able to stop others from imposing on those rights? So, it's okay to violate someone's rights if they can't defend themselves? That doesn't sound right.

It doesn't sound right because you add an unnecessary condition. People only have rights when an obligation is created in others. It has nothing to do with your personal capacity to enforce that obligation - generally, the State does that for you.

I'm also not the one saying it. Joseph Raz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Raz) is saying it.

2Whether or not animals are "valuable" and to whom they're valuable is irrelevant. The criteria for being treated morally stems from the capacity to suffer, and from having interests. Not some inherent "value". We treat infants and the homeless with the same moral consideration we treat police officers and doctors, because they all have interests and needs, and they all have a capacity to feel emotion.

Whether rights or not are awarded has everything to do with "value" (although I dislike the term, Raz being an Israeli might have something to do with it). Rights are nothing but a human invention, and only humans can receive the obligations they enforce because no other animal can understand the concept of a right and thus cannot act on the duties they would impose to them. Every human being has ultimate (which BTW has no qualitative connotations in context, it just means core or non-derived) value because in human society, no human derives his/her own value from another person's value. Animals derive their value from their use to human society and incidentally, to us. That is a fact of life.

Further, only beings with ultimate value can have rights because only beings with ultimate value can have obligations. One is inexorably linked to the other ; it's called the reciprocity thesis. Hell, I am overly generous in attributing pets rights due to that thesis, although that is something I would really like to see. I would like to see an exception to it - there probably is a way to schematise it, but I'm not learned enough (I'd like to consider myself smart enough to do it with additional research and a lot of thought).

To resume : you've surely heard of Uncle Ben's quote "with great powers come great responsibilities" (I'm paraphrasing). Why would I not have the right to kill and eat animals when a wildcat attacking me could kill and eat me?

Again, I don't see what animals not being valuable to us as anything other than a food source has to do with anything. In a non-socially Darwinian society we take other people's needs, wants, and emotions into account not because they're valuabke but so as to not cause undue pain and suffering.

Are you sure? Why, for example, couldn't have murder become a taboo thing in society because back when we were just a few monkeylike beings trying to survive, a murder would incur a loss of gravely needed manpower and probably leave dependents without any provider? Any offense penalized by criminal law and any violation of someone's rights has a material aspect to it : loss of manpower, wealth, productivity...

Truth is, I'm just toying with you, because none of the above matters. Beings that have non-derived value in a society (ie. us) can hold rights and impose obligations on others, so that means only humans and MAYBE pets can have rights. Mind you, that's only one theory of rights, but I'm arguing with you on the basis of the only one that would be able to grant rights to animals. Others are much less tolerant and usually base the capacity to have rights on free will, which animals certainly do not have.

I disagree. Rights are NOT born out of an obligation. I support rights for all sentient beings with a capacity to feel emotion, and with basic need that when not met cause said sentient being an extreme amount of pain and suffering. Forcing animals to live their lifes in tiny metal cages and otherwise inhumane, cruel conditions is wrong because animals desire not to be placed in those cages for their entire lives, and not having that desire fulfilled causes them an extreme amount of physical and psychological pain. Just like I have a right not to be stabbed in the abdomen because I have a strong desire not to be stabbed in the abdomen, and not having that desire met would cause me an extreme amount of pain. My right not to be stabbed in the abdomen does not stem from my value to the knife wielder.

I'm gonna go with the bold first because it is a good question : do animals have desires? I've read that interest requires a desire and that, in turn, requires a belief. Can animals believe stuff? I'll let you answer that before going with the rest of the premise. I'm interested.

You can't just disagree then restate my premise in a negative fashion. Why do you disagree?

Rights are nothing but an obligation vested in others to not engage in a certain conduct towards the right holder : true or false? That is certainly true. Rights are a middle step that links the obligations of others to beings carrying ultimate value. I can declare that I have the right to not see you post anymore on this forum, but you are going to ignore me as you rightly should because I don't have enough interest to impose you this obligation. So prima facie, your assertion that rights do not derive from obligations is false, since I can't create them out of thin air without you first having a duty to respect them.

Your "right" not to be stabbed in the abdomen (no such direct right exists BTW, but there's a right to life, liberty and security of the person in the Canadian Constitution which is why the death penalty could never be reinstated in Canada without a notwithstanding clause. the Charter modulates the interactions between a private person and the State though, so inapplicable to a stabbing) would stem from your status as a human being of a holder of core, non-derivative value, but mostly it's just a criminal infraction prescribed by law which has nothing to do with rights. Pleasure or pain has nothing to do with rights. Rights are not arbitrarily granted based on whether or not things feel harm. They are granted based on an obligation felt by every other member of society not to indulge in a particular conduct. Unfortunately, as holders of derived value, livestock certainly can't stop us predators from eating them.

You also have to distinguish "rights" from "criminal infractions". You can make it illegal to your heart's content to not kill any animals, to keep them in inhumane conditions, to consume the flesh of animals, to kill them in manners cruel and unusual, etc. After all, criminal infractions do not presuppose a right to anything for an obligation to be imposed on society.

I find that the fight of animal rights activists is terribly misplaced. You are not aiming for the right thing. You keep talking of "rights" as in human rights and you have to realize that's one thing you are never going to get, because no legal theory or legal philosophy of rights supports it. Even if you are going to get them, who would enforce them and how? Do you realise most Charters of Rights (there are exceptions) only regulate the relationship between a private person and the government? Do you realise nobody goes to prison because "rights" were violated, the remedy instead being damages? Can you pay money to a goat if you break its leg?

Why don't you fight for criminalisation instead? I'd say somebody who willingly breaks his dog's leg because he's bored and wanted to hear something snap deserves prison. Don't you? How about these imbeciles that adopt a pet only to kick it out of the house to lead its life in the streets 2 months later because "omg I can't care for it" instead of at least doing the responsible thing and giving it to a shelter? It saves you the tiresome adventure of arguing legal philosophy with me and every other person AND the criminalisation of a conduct requires no special status for the victim.

In closing, I agree with Justice Posner's summary of animal rights : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/animal_rights/_3.html. It is an answer to a letter written by Peter Singer. You can read the whole thing on the website,

[Gamma Male]

It doesn't sound right because you add an unnecessary condition. People only have rights when an obligation is created in others. It has nothing to do with your personal capacity to enforce that obligation - generally, the State does that for you.

I'm also not the one saying it. Joseph Raz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Raz) is saying it.



Whether rights or not are awarded has everything to do with "value" (although I dislike the term, Raz being an Israeli might have something to do with it). Rights are nothing but a human invention, and only humans can receive the obligations they enforce because no other animal can understand the concept of a right and thus cannot act on the duties they would impose to them. Every human being has ultimate (which BTW has no qualitative connotations in context, it just means core or non-derived) value because in human society, no human derives his/her own value from another person's value. Animals derive their value from their use to human society and incidentally, to us. That is a fact of life.

Further, only beings with ultimate value can have rights because only beings with ultimate value can have obligations. One is inexorably linked to the other ; it's called the reciprocity thesis. Hell, I am overly generous in attributing pets rights due to that thesis, although that is something I would really like to see. I would like to see an exception to it - there probably is a way to schematise it, but I'm not learned enough (I'd like to consider myself smart enough to do it with additional research and a lot of thought).

To resume : you've surely heard of Uncle Ben's quote "with great powers come great responsibilities" (I'm paraphrasing). Why would I not have the right to kill and eat animals when a wildcat attacking me could kill and eat me?



Are you sure? Why, for example, couldn't have murder become a taboo thing in society because back when we were just a few monkeylike beings trying to survive, a murder would incur a loss of gravely needed manpower and probably leave dependents without any provider? Any offense penalized by criminal law and any violation of someone's rights has a material aspect to it : loss of manpower, wealth, productivity...

Truth is, I'm just toying with you, because none of the above matters. Beings that have non-derived value in a society (ie. us) can hold rights and impose obligations on others, so that means only humans and MAYBE pets can have rights. Mind you, that's only one theory of rights, but I'm arguing with you on the basis of the only one that would be able to grant rights to animals. Others are much less tolerant and usually base the capacity to have rights on free will, which animals certainly do not have.



I'm gonna go with the bold first because it is a good question : do animals have desires? I've read that interest requires a desire and that, in turn, requires a belief. Can animals believe stuff? I'll let you answer that before going with the rest of the premise. I'm interested.

You can't just disagree then restate my premise in a negative fashion. Why do you disagree?

Rights are nothing but an obligation vested in others to not engage in a certain conduct towards the right holder : true or false? That is certainly true. Rights are a middle step that links the obligations of others to beings carrying ultimate value. I can declare that I have the right to not see you post anymore on this forum, but you are going to ignore me as you rightly should because I don't have enough interest to impose you this obligation. So prima facie, your assertion that rights do not derive from obligations is false, since I can't create them out of thin air without you first having a duty to respect them.

Your "right" not to be stabbed in the abdomen (no such direct right exists BTW, but there's a right to life, liberty and security of the person in the Canadian Constitution which is why the death penalty could never be reinstated in Canada without a notwithstanding clause. the Charter modulates the interactions between a private person and the State though, so inapplicable to a stabbing) would stem from your status as a human being of a holder of core, non-derivative value, but mostly it's just a criminal infraction prescribed by law which has nothing to do with rights. Pleasure or pain has nothing to do with rights. Rights are not arbitrarily granted based on whether or not things feel harm. They are granted based on an obligation felt by every other member of society not to indulge in a particular conduct. Unfortunately, as holders of derived value, livestock certainly can't stop us predators from eating them.

You also have to distinguish "rights" from "criminal infractions". You can make it illegal to your heart's content to not kill any animals, to keep them in inhumane conditions, to consume the flesh of animals, to kill them in manners cruel and unusual, etc. After all, criminal infractions do not presuppose a right to anything for an obligation to be imposed on society.

I find that the fight of animal rights activists is terribly misplaced. You are not aiming for the right thing. You keep talking of "rights" as in human rights and you have to realize that's one thing you are never going to get, because no legal theory or legal philosophy of rights supports it. Even if you are going to get them, who would enforce them and how? Do you realise most Charters of Rights (there are exceptions) only regulate the relationship between a private person and the government? Do you realise nobody goes to prison because "rights" were violated, the remedy instead being damages? Can you pay money to a goat if you break its leg?

Why don't you fight for criminalisation instead? I'd say somebody who willingly breaks his dog's leg because he's bored and wanted to hear something snap deserves prison. Don't you? How about these imbeciles that adopt a pet only to kick it out of the house to lead its life in the streets 2 months later because "omg I can't care for it" instead of at least doing the responsible thing and giving it to a shelter? It saves you the tiresome adventure of arguing legal philosophy with me and every other person AND the criminalisation of a conduct requires no special status for the victim.

In closing, I agree with Justice Posner's summary of animal rights : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dialogues/features/2001/animal_rights/_3.html. It is an answer to a letter written by Peter Singer. You can read the whole thing on the website,
You know, I'd rather not get caught up in a deeply philosophical discussion over the nature of legal rights, because I don't really believe in all of that bullocks. Here's what I believe.
When I treat someone with moral consideration, ie NOT stabbing, raping, or stealing from them, I do so because I don't want them to suffer. Now maybe you have different reasons for behaving morally. Maybe you do so because of some complex, rhetorical philosophy having to do with obligatory rights or whatever. And if you do, then I'm not going to argue with you. Because I'm a 14 year old junior high student on a 1 and a half year old phone with a 3 inch screen and a poor internet connection, and I'm simply not prepared to go down that path.
But I think the real reason you treat other people morally is simple, and the same as me. Because not doing so could cause them to suffer, and unnecessary suffering is usually bad. I think that this simple logic is employed by almost everyone. You can deny it all you want, but I'm willing to bet that that's why you act morally. I think that there is only one thing that qualifies an individual to be considered morally, and to have his wellbeing taken into account in your decision making proccess. The ability to suffer. And since the vast majority of animals that we kill and eat have brains capable of feeling pain and fear, I think that they should all be taken into account.
On a side note, I'm not one of those vegans that avoid eating honey because research suggests bees don't feel pain. I also don't care about people eating farmed oysters for this reason, though I don't eat them myself because I think they taste disgusting.
So does that mean that animals getting hurt is unethical?
When somebody causes unnecessary suffering to an animal, that it usually unethical.
Does that mean that lions and crocodiles and snakes should go vegan? Animals eat animals. It's just how the earth spins.
This is a pisspoor line of reasoning. The majority of animals who eat other animals actually require animal flesh to survive, humans do not. .We are perfectly capable of living healthy lives without exploiting animals. Additionally, THEY'RE ANIMALS! WE'RE HUMANS! Why on earth would you base your morals off of animal behaviour? A lot of ducks rape one another. Does that make it okay for humans?
and because I am Christian, I believe that God gave us animals for food like it says in Genesis 1:30. Look it up if you want.
Objectively prove the validity of your religion, then you can use it to justify genocide.
You do realize that some animals are invasive right? What of tribes who hunt to survive? Are you going to stop them? You living harms animals. Canibalism is unethetical and inhumane because it's eating a human being! You are a monster if you think that is okay. Not everything animals do are right. Harm the animal? What of the animals that harm us? Do we ignore that and demonize anyone who is not the minority veggie?
I'm just going to ignore you until you answer the question, because you haven't yet.
Why is it wrong? Its wrong because it's wrong, that's why it's wrong!
Is circular reasoning. And
Because it's disgusting!
Is a subjective opinion.

[DerBear]

The slaughter process is horrible but I guess the ends justify the means. As humans we could all live off of natural produce but that isn't going to happen. Generally I always try to buy from free ranged farms and local produce where I know animals have had a humane slaughter (I know that doesn't sound right).

I don't really think this can be solved because slaughtering animals for food isn't a deviant act within society and if you asked members of the public their opinion about it they'd maybe say they don't like it but they'll still go to Asda and buy their 2 steaks for £7. Until we see as a society the slaughtering of animals as a deviant act then it will continue.

[Jean Poutine]

You know, I'd rather not get caught up in a deeply philosophical discussion over the nature of legal rights, because I don't really believe in all of that bullocks. Here's what I believe.
When I treat someone with moral consideration, ie NOT stabbing, raping, or stealing from them, I do so because I don't want them to suffer. Now maybe you have different reasons for behaving morally. Maybe you do so because of some complex, rhetorical philosophy having to do with obligatory rights or whatever. And if you do, then I'm not going to argue with you. Because I'm a 14 year old junior high student on a 1 and a half year old phone with a 3 inch screen and a poor internet connection, and I'm simply not prepared to go down that path.
But I think the real reason you treat other people morally is simple, and the same as me. Because not doing so could cause them to suffer, and unnecessary suffering is usually bad. I think that this simple logic is employed by almost everyone. You can deny it all you want, but I'm willing to bet that that's why you act morally. I think that there is only one thing that qualifies an individual to be considered morally, and to have his wellbeing taken into account in your decision making proccess. The ability to suffer. And since the vast majority of animals that we kill and eat have brains capable of feeling pain and fear, I think that they should all be taken into account.
On a side note, I'm not one of those vegans that avoid eating honey because research suggests bees don't feel pain. I also don't care about people eating farmed oysters for this reason, though I don't eat them myself because I think they taste disgusting.

Let's employ the Socratic method then. Easier for you to understand and answer and less effort for me.

Simple premise rebuffing your line of argumentation : you speak highly of morality, and I don't see myself disagreeing. But consider this : when it comes to law, morality does not matter. By that I mean, laws exist in a vacuum and nothing can be considered in a legal system that isn't part of the legal system itself, including extraneous elements such as whether a law or the reasons to enact it are morally just or not (and by part I mean the Constitution, legislation, executive rulings, jurisprudence, and so on, basically the bricks of the legal system). Agree or disagree?

I'm just gonna put a few things clear : I consider myself an educator and that is why I'm still around here at my age, and why I seem unable to leave. I don't really care about winning a debate with you but if you've learned something about legal philosophy, which is what the debate hangs on, I'll sleep easy tonight.

View it as an introductory course to legal philosophy. Later, after a few more years of education, if you become a militant, you'll be hopefully able to remember and to consider what you've learned here and reflect on it.

Besides, I've always wanted to try out this Socratic crap I have to deal with in law school.

[Gamma Male]

Let's employ the Socratic method then. Easier for you to understand and answer and less effort for me.

Simple premise rebuffing your line of argumentation : you speak highly of morality, and I don't see myself disagreeing. But consider this : when it comes to law, morality does not matter. By that I mean, laws exist in a vacuum and nothing can be considered in a legal system that isn't part of the legal system itself, including extraneous elements such as whether a law or the reasons to enact it are morally just or not (and by part I mean the Constitution, legislation, executive rulings, jurisprudence, and so on, basically the bricks of the legal system). Agree or disagree?

I'm just gonna put a few things clear : I consider myself an educator and that is why I'm still around here at my age, and why I seem unable to leave. I don't really care about winning a debate with you but if you've learned something about legal philosophy, which is what the debate hangs on, I'll sleep easy tonight.

View it as an introductory course to legal philosophy. Later, after a few more years of education, if you become a militant, you'll be hopefully able to remember and to consider what you've learned here and reflect on it.

Besides, I've always wanted to try out this Socratic crap I have to deal with in law school.

When did this become about law? We're debating the ethics of eating meat, not whether or not it should be legal. Which for the record I don't think it should be yet, because people would simply revolt against it. If the world is ever to become vegan someday in the future it will be voluntarily, and through nonviolent persuasion.

Now, back to the debate. Do you accept the basic premise that the reason people should treat other people morally is to prevent pain, suffering, and other such negative sensations from occurring? If so, why should moral treatment not be extended to animals who share the same characteristics humans have that qualify us for moral consideration?

[CharlieHorse]

ok so what do you want us to do? Is there a question to answer or something?

[Gamma Male]

ok so what do you want us to do? Is there a question to answer or something?

What do you mean?

[CharlieHorse]

What do you mean?

like you just stated your opinion, then what? should we agree or disagree?

[Gamma Male]

like you just stated your opinion, then what? should we agree or disagree?

We're supposed to be debating, just like any other RotW thread. I think supporting the slaughter of animals for meat is unethical. Do you disagree? Why or why not?

[Lovelife090994]

You know, I'd rather not get caught up in a deeply philosophical discussion over the nature of legal rights, because I don't really believe in all of that bullocks. Here's what I believe.
When I treat someone with moral consideration, ie NOT stabbing, raping, or stealing from them, I do so because I don't want them to suffer. Now maybe you have different reasons for behaving morally. Maybe you do so because of some complex, rhetorical philosophy having to do with obligatory rights or whatever. And if you do, then I'm not going to argue with you. Because I'm a 14 year old junior high student on a 1 and a half year old phone with a 3 inch screen and a poor internet connection, and I'm simply not prepared to go down that path.
But I think the real reason you treat other people morally is simple, and the same as me. Because not doing so could cause them to suffer, and unnecessary suffering is usually bad. I think that this simple logic is employed by almost everyone. You can deny it all you want, but I'm willing to bet that that's why you act morally. I think that there is only one thing that qualifies an individual to be considered morally, and to have his wellbeing taken into account in your decision making proccess. The ability to suffer. And since the vast majority of animals that we kill and eat have brains capable of feeling pain and fear, I think that they should all be taken into account.
On a side note, I'm not one of those vegans that avoid eating honey because research suggests bees don't feel pain. I also don't care about people eating farmed oysters for this reason, though I don't eat them myself because I think they taste disgusting.

When somebody causes unnecessary suffering to an animal, that it usually unethical.

This is a pisspoor line of reasoning. The majority of animals who eat other animals actually require animal flesh to survive, humans do not. .We are perfectly capable of living healthy lives without exploiting animals. Additionally, THEY'RE ANIMALS! WE'RE HUMANS! Why on earth would you base your morals off of animal behaviour? A lot of ducks rape one another. Does that make it okay for humans?

Objectively prove the validity of your religion, then you can use it to justify genocide.

I'm just going to ignore you until you answer the question, because you haven't yet.
Why is it wrong? Its wrong because it's wrong, that's why it's wrong!
Is circular reasoning. And
Because it's disgusting!
Is a subjective opinion.

I have no idea why you aren't understanding my words. I'm typing them in Modern American English. But I digress, you truly have a skull of diamond. It would take a soul equally hard to get through to you. For now have a happily ever evening. Maybe we can pick up on this later when this doesn't lead to an infinite loop?

[Gamma Male]

I have no idea why you aren't understanding my words. I'm typing them in Modern American English. But I digress, you truly have a skull of diamond. It would take a soul equally hard to get through to you. For now have a happily ever evening. Maybe we can pick up on this later when this doesn't lead to an infinite loop?

You haven't answered my question! Why is cannalbalism wrong?
Because it's wrong! is circular reasoning.
Because, you're eating a human! isn't an actual answer. You're just stating the definition of cannalbalism.
Because it's disgusting! is a subjective opinion.
I'm not the one being hardheaded, you are. Now please answer the question.

[Lovelife090994]

You haven't answered my question! Why is cannalbalism wrong?
Because it's wrong! is circular reasoning.
Because, you're eating a human! isn't an actual answer. You're just stating the definition of cannalbalism.
Because it's disgusting! is a subjective opinion.
I'm not the one being hardheaded, you are. Now please answer the question.

I'll answer your question when you ask at. I'll respond when your innate sense of decency or what's left of it tells me why cannabalism is right. You know why cannabalism is wrong. Eating a human being is both savage and downright terrifying. Aside from that it's animal and evil. How would you feel eating a human? I'd throw up if. Any graced my lips. It's a big low.

[Gamma Male]

I'll answer your question when you ask at. I'll respond when your innate sense of decency or what's left of it tells me why cannabalism is right. You know why cannabalism is wrong[b]. Eating a human being is both savage and downright terrifying. Aside from that it's animal and evil.[\b] How would you feel eating a human? I'd throw up if. Any graced my lips. It's a big low.

I DO think cannabalism is wrong, I'm only asking you to make a point. You know that right?

Anyways, until you give me a clear, rational answer that isn't bogged down in meaningless rhetoric and circular logic, I'm just going to quit responding. That bolded section? That isn't an actual answer. I asked why cannabalism is wrong, and you reply
because it's...
Savage Okay, now provide a link between savagry and cannabalism. Why is it savage?
terrifyingWhat? What does this even mean? It's evil because it's scary?
animal It's evil because it's animal? What? Define "animal".
evil It's evil because it's evil? That doesn't make any sense.


Now, PLEASE for the love of God explain to me why exactly you think canaballism is wrong, WITHOUT just saying
"Because it's wrong!" over again. That's all I want.

[Lovelife090994]

I DO think cannabalism is wrong, I'm only asking you to make a point. You know that right?

Anyways, until you give me a clear, rational answer that isn't bogged down in meaningless rhetoric and circular logic, I'm just going to quit responding. That bolded section? That isn't an actual answer. I asked why cannabalism is wrong, and you reply
because it's...
Savage Okay, now provide a link between savagry and cannabalism. Why is it savage?
terrifyingWhat? What does this even mean? It's evil because it's scary?
animal It's evil because it's animal? What? Define "animal".
evil It's evil because it's evil? That doesn't make any sense.


Now, PLEASE for the love of God explain to me why exactly you think canaballism is wrong, WITHOUT just saying
"Because it's wrong!" over again. That's all I want.

Hello, Earth to human, if you are one. Cannabalism is the gorging of human flesh. Isn't that scary and downright unfathomable? I can't even begin to explain how terrible it is. It's so bad it makes me woozy. Animals eat their own kind, we humans shouldn't. Evil because you are eating human flesh and blood. And just the fact that blood is involved is bad enough. No, what you want is to hear what you want to hear which isn't me.

[Gamma Male]

Hello, Earth to human, if you are one. Meat eating is the gorging of another animals flesh. Isn't that scary and downright unfathomable? I can't even begin to explain how terrible it is. It's so bad it makes me woozy. Animals eat other animals, we humans shouldn't. Evil because you are eating flesh and blood. And just the fact that blood is involved is bad enough. No, what you want is to hear what you want to hear which isn't me.

Show me how what you originally said is any different than this.

[Lovelife090994]

Show me how what you originally said is any different than this.

This is supposed to be simple. Why make it hard?

[Gamma Male]

This is supposed to be simple. Why make it hard?

What are you talking about? I just don't see why canaballism is worse than eating other animals.

[Lovelife090994]

What are you talking about? I just don't see why canaballism is worse than eating other animals.

Facepalm... Forget it. As long as you keep seing the majority of people who eat meat as killers then I'll never get through to you. Haven't you been listening, or reading? I don't care what you do or don't eat. I care for animals. But eating meat does not make me or my mother murderers. Eating meat is natural. Don't say human can't eat meat or that we aren't designed to. If that were the case then I wouldn't be here and humanity wouldn't have a plethora of foods.

[Gamma Male]

Facepalm... Forget it. As long as you keep seing the majority of people who eat meat as killers then I'll never get through to you. Haven't you been listening, or reading? I don't care what you do or don't eat. I care for animals. But eating meat does not make me or my mother murderers. Eating meat is natural. Don't say human can't eat meat or that we aren't designed to. If that were the case then I wouldn't be here and humanity wouldn't have a plethora of foods.

I have been reading your posts, the problem is you haven't made any valid points.

Look up "naturalistic fallacy".

[Lovelife090994]

I have been reading your posts, the problem is you haven't made any valid points.

Look up "naturalistic fallacy".

What is this? Another trick to make us argue again? Look I don't even know you and we probably will never be friends by any stretch of the word; but can you please for me just try and explain yourself in detail to the tee with nothing left out?

[Gamma Male]

What is this? Another trick to make us argue again? Look I don't even know you and we probably will never be friends by any stretch of the word; but can you please for me just try and explain yourself in detail to the tee with nothing left out?

I'm tired of repeating myself. Goodbye.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm tired of repeating myself. Goodbye.

And I'm tired of stooping to your level. So with that I bid you a truly great day.

[Gamma Male]

And I'm tired of stooping to your level. So with that I bid you a truly great day.

Stooping to my le-


Oh, nevermind. Have a good day.

[Miserabilia]

And I'm tired of stooping to your level. So with that I bid you a truly great day.

Nobody is stooping to anyone's level, but I suppose the debate is pretty much ruined now.

What is this? Another trick to make us argue again? Look I don't even know you and we probably will never be friends by any stretch of the word; but can you please for me just try and explain yourself in detail to the tee with nothing left out?
What is this? Another trick to make us argue again?
Do you know what a debate is?


Facepalm... Forget it. As long as you keep seing the majority of people who eat meat as killers then I'll never get through to you. Haven't you been listening, or reading? I don't care what you do or don't eat. I care for animals. But eating meat does not make me or my mother murderers. Eating meat is natural. Don't say human can't eat meat or that we aren't designed to. If that were the case then I wouldn't be here and humanity wouldn't have a plethora of foods.
If that were the case then I wouldn't be here and humanity wouldn't have a plethora of foods.
That's an invalid argument to supper it being "natural".
That would mean cannabilism is natural too, because other wise people wouldn't do it.

Hello, Earth to human, if you are one. Cannabalism is the gorging of human flesh. Isn't that scary and downright unfathomable? I can't even begin to explain how terrible it is. It's so bad it makes me woozy. Animals eat their own kind, we humans shouldn't. Evil because you are eating human flesh and blood. And just the fact that blood is involved is bad enough. No, what you want is to hear what you want to hear which isn't me.
And just the fact that blood is involved is bad enough.
How?
Also you still haven't explained exactly what is so terrible about cannibalism.
I'd see what is bad about capturing live humans and cooking them alive or something, but if they are dead why not make use of the nutrient parts of their body?
Not saying I'd do it, but if we know alot of which parts we can eat and which parts we can't, why wouldn't we?

[phuckphace]

if animals don't like being slaughtered then they need to evolve further so they can start slaughtering us in return. we just happened to get here first, no biggie.

[Miserabilia]

if animals don't like being slaughtered then they need to evolve further so they can start slaughtering us in return. we just happened to get here first, no biggie.

Except that we are intelligent and have a choice to not cause harm to other animals.

[Lovelife090994]

Nobody is stooping to anyone's level, but I suppose the debate is pretty much ruined now.



Do you know what a debate is?




That's an invalid argument to supper it being "natural".
That would mean cannabilism is natural too, because other wise people wouldn't do it.



How?
Also you still haven't explained exactly what is so terrible about cannibalism.
I'd see what is bad about capturing live humans and cooking them alive or something, but if they are dead why not make use of the nutrient parts of their body?
Not saying I'd do it, but if we know alot of which parts we can eat and which parts we can't, why wouldn't we?

So in other words you condone cannibalism?

[Capto]

Except that we are intelligent and have a choice to not cause harm to other animals.

And so?

[Gamma Male]

And so?

And so, eating them is unethical. We don't have to eat them, but we do anyway despite all the pain it causes.
if animals don't like being slaughtered then they need to evolve further so they can start slaughtering us in return. we just happened to get here first, no biggie.

I'm curious, do you consider yourself a social darwinist?

If so, have a nice day.

But if not, why should you apply socially Darwinian reasoning to animals but not humans? Isn't it hypocritical considering animals and humans both share the same basic characteristics that entitle us to moral consideration, such as the ability to feel pain?

[Miserabilia]

And so?

And so we can choose to not eat other intelligent and emotional animals, instead of just doing it because we are on top of a food pyramid.

[Capto]

But if not, why should you apply socially Darwinian reasoning to animals but not humans? Isn't it hypocritical considering animals and humans both share the same basic characteristics that entitle us to moral consideration, such as the ability to feel pain?

It's not social darwinist if it's not social.

And so we can choose to not eat other intelligent and emotional animals, instead of just doing it because we are on top of a food pyramid.

Cool story.

[Gamma Male]

It's not social darwinist if it's not social.



Cool story.

Social darwinism is a moral philosophy. The logic you use to excuse the atrocities committed against billions of animals is social darwinism. You're basically saying, "We're stronger than them! We should we care about them? We deserve to eat them!

That same logic, if applied to cripples or infants or the elderly, would be considered by you to be disgusting and unethical would it not?

[Capto]

Social darwinism is a moral philosophy. The logic you use to excuse the atrocities committed against billions of animals is social darwinism. You're basically saying, "We're stronger than them! We should we care about them? We deserve to eat them!

That same logic, if applied to cripples or infants or the elderly, would be considered by you to be disgusting and unethical would it not?

I never said anything of the sort.

Stop putting arbitrary words in my mouth.

And no, in that case, it would be social.

[Gamma Male]

I never said anything of the sort.

Stop putting arbitrary words in my mouth.

And no, in that case, it would be social.

Why is it okay to murder and torture sentient cows and pigs but not humans?

[Capto]

Why is it okay to murder and torture sentient cows and pigs but not humans?

Is it?

[Miserabilia]

Why is it okay to murder and torture sentient cows and pigs but not humans?

Are you asking capto or society in general?

[Lovelife090994]

Why is it okay to murder and torture sentient cows and pigs but not humans?

Tortuting is different than raising.

[Gamma Male]

Is it?
Is it what?
Are you asking capto or society in general?

Anyone with an opposing point of view who's willing to engage in rational debate.

[Capto]

Is it what?


Anyone with an opposing point of view who's willing to engage in rational debate.

Okay?

Why do I have an opposing point of view?

[Gamma Male]

Tortuting is different than raising.

It's tortue. The conditions animals are exposed to in factory farms and slaughterhouses are torture.
http://m.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/ (http://humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/)
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/#
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/veal/

Okay?
No, it isn't. That's my point.

Why do I have an opposing point of view?

Do you or do you not object to the conditions in which most animals are raised in the US?

[Lovelife090994]

It's tortue. The conditions animals are exposed to in factory farms and slaughterhouses are torture.
http://m.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/ (http://humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/)
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/#
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/veal/


No, it isn't. That's my point.



Do you or do you not object to the conditions in which most animals are raised in the US?

You do know not every farm is factory-owned right? And it is illegal to mistreat animals which could lead to millions if not billions in fines. Try and acknowledge the good farmers because you'll always find them. What about the animals that kill each other and people? Does a woman deserve to be mauled by a bear and the bear not caught? I don't look at biased propaganda sites. Have fun raising the green picket fence signs yelling "Go vegan, brainwashed carnavores". That is no way to raise awareness. Plus like Capto I don't really care. I care, just not enough to be an activist like you when I am busy in studies. You can take the course in life to fight animal cruelty, just don't blame the 98%.

[Gamma Male]

You do know not every farm is factory-owned right?
Over 99% of livestock in the US are factory farmed. Those red barn, lush green fields, happy animals farms you see in commercials are a sham.
And it is illegal to mistreat animals which could lead to millions if not billions in fines.
No it isn't. There are virtually no animal rights laws in the US that apply to livestock.
Try and acknowledge the good farmers because you'll always find them. What about the animals that kill each other and people? Does a woman deserve to be mauled by a bear and the bear not caught? I don't look at biased propaganda sites. Have fun raising the green picket fence signs yelling "Go vegan, brainwashed carnavores". That is no way to raise awareness. Plus like Capto I don't really care. I care, just not enough to be an activist like you when I am busy in studies. You can take the course in life to fight animal cruelty, just don't blame the 98%.

You don't have to be an activist to not contribute to the torture and abuse of billions of animals yearly.

[Jean Poutine]

When did this become about law? We're debating the ethics of eating meat, not whether or not it should be legal. Which for the record I don't think it should be yet, because people would simply revolt against it. If the world is ever to become vegan someday in the future it will be voluntarily, and through nonviolent persuasion.

Now, back to the debate. Do you accept the basic premise that the reason people should treat other people morally is to prevent pain, suffering, and other such negative sensations from occurring? If so, why should moral treatment not be extended to animals who share the same characteristics humans have that qualify us for moral consideration?

It became about law as soon as the word "law" was written in the thread, which, by my count, was by yourself at the 5th post.

But, hey, fine, I'll bite.

You are using an utilitarian's definition of morality (pain is bad, pleasure is good, the best outcome possible being the maximization of pleasure and the minimisation of pain for the largest number of interested parties) that is seen in the works of Jeremy Bentham or David Hume, among others, but you fail to take into account whether that definition should take into account animals or not. I'll debate you on that perception.

Animals can't have the "desire" to avoid pain and suffering because they have no belief in pain and suffering in the first place.

be·lief
noun
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

As a belief has two polar outcomes, meaning either you hold it or you don't, for something to be considered a belief means that an animal should be able to hold both points of view - believing or not, else it becomes an imperative. As far as I know there is no animal that believes that pain = pleasure (there are humans who do), and there are no animals that think on a true or false basis whether they believe in something or not. Animals judge by instinctual response that pain = bad and will seek to fight the cause of pain or flee it (the fight or flight response). Ergo, they don't think about it, and thus can't have the desire to avoid it, because it is not a belief. Attributing desire to (most) non-humans, but certainly livestock, is to anthropomorphise animals by attributing them higher-thinking processes they certainly do not have.

But from this desire should arise interest - your interest in fulfilling the desire stemming from the belief you hold to be true or false. However, an animal's response to pain does not arise out of interest, but instinct. Meaning, that to act morally, an utilitarian's definition being "the maximum of happiness for the largest member of interested parties", I can't take an animal's interest into account simply because it doesn't have any. My personal preferences require it to be a quick, painless kill, and I would like to see livestock raised to graze on fields in as much freedom as possible, but these preferences do not influence the final outcome, since those are my own interests, and I can act by them by buying meat from local farmers with these same interests to maximise my own happiness. While a lot of people share these, if you want everyone to stop eating meat, it's as simple as a majority sharing the interest of becoming a vegan, which will probably never happen.

Simply put, animals do NOT share the same characteristics that qualify humans for moral consideration, meaning, the presence of interest.

Besides, as far as I view it, every living being dies someday. That it be from old age, sickness or predation does not matter to me. Animals live in the present. I'm not sure it's very important for them to plan their future. They can be eaten by a pack of wolves jumping the fence (assuming the animals are question are raised in free-range farms) or by me, or they can die of disease. I'm 100% willing to bet it's much less painful for them to be eaten by me.

[Gamma Male]

It became about law as soon as the word "law" was written in the thread, which, by my count, was by yourself at the 5th post.

But, hey, fine, I'll bite.

You are using an utilitarian's definition of morality (pain is bad, pleasure is good, the best outcome possible being the maximization of pleasure and the minimisation of pain for the largest number of interested parties) that is seen in the works of Jeremy Bentham or David Hume, among others, but you fail to take into account whether that definition should take into account animals or not. I'll debate you on that perception.

Animals can't have the "desire" to avoid pain and suffering because they have no belief in pain and suffering in the first place.

be·lief
noun
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

As a belief has two polar outcomes, meaning either you hold it or you don't, for something to be considered a belief means that an animal should be able to hold both points of view - believing or not, else it becomes an imperative. As far as I know there is no animal that believes that pain = pleasure (there are humans who do), and there are no animals that think on a true or false basis whether they believe in something or not. Animals judge by instinctual response that pain = bad and will seek to fight the cause of pain or flee it (the fight or flight response). Ergo, they don't think about it, and thus can't have the desire to avoid it, because it is not a belief. Attributing desire to (most) non-humans, but certainly livestock, is to anthropomorphise animals by attributing them higher-thinking processes they certainly do not have.

But from this desire should arise interest - your interest in fulfilling the desire stemming from the belief you hold to be true or false. However, an animal's response to pain does not arise out of interest, but instinct. Meaning, that to act morally, an utilitarian's definition being "the maximum of happiness for the largest member of interested parties", I can't take an animal's interest into account simply because it doesn't have any. My personal preferences require it to be a quick, painless kill, and I would like to see livestock raised to graze on fields in as much freedom as possible, but these preferences do not influence the final outcome, since those are my own interests, and I can act by them by buying meat from local farmers with these same interests to maximise my own happiness. While a lot of people share these, if you want everyone to stop eating meat, it's as simple as a majority sharing the interest of becoming a vegan, which will probably never happen.

Simply put, animals do NOT share the same characteristics that qualify humans for moral consideration, meaning, the presence of interest.

Besides, as far as I view it, every living being dies someday. That it be from old age, sickness or predation does not matter to me. Animals live in the present. I'm not sure it's very important for them to plan their future. They can be eaten by a pack of wolves jumping the fence (assuming the animals are question are raised in free-range farms) or by me, or they can die of disease. I'm 100% willing to bet it's much less painful for them to be eaten by me.

To argue that animals do not hold beliefs is absurd.
Consider the diversity of opinion. Do animals have beliefs? I have said Yes, supporting my claim by pointing to the undeniable fact that their behavior can often be predicted (and explained, and manipulated) using what I call the intentional stance (Dennett, 1971, 1987)--the strategy of treating them as "rational agents" whose actions are those they deem most likely to further their "desires" given their "beliefs". One can often predict or explain what an animal will do by simply noticing what it notices and figuring out what it wants. The raccoon wants the food in the box-trap, but knows better than to walk into a potential trap where it can't see its way out. That's why you have to put two open doors on the trap--so that the animal will dare to enter the first, planning to leave by the second if there's any trouble. You'll have a hard time getting a raccoon to enter a trap that doesn't have an apparent "emergency exit" that closes along with the entrance. I take it that this style of explanation and prediction is uncontroversially valuable--it works, and it works because raccoons (for instance) are that smart. That fact suffices,given what I mean by "belief", to show that raccoons have beliefs--and desires, of course. One might call the latter items preferences, or goals, or wants, or values, but whatever you call them, their specification involves the use of intentional (mentalistic) idioms. That guarantees that translating between "desire"-talk and "preference" or "goal" talk is trivial, so I view the connotational differences between these terms as theoretically irrelevant. The same thing holds for beliefs, of course; you might as well call the state of the raccoon a belief, since if you call it a "registration" or a "data-structure" in the "environmental information store" or some other technical term, the logic you use to draw inferences about the animal's behavior, given its internal states, will be the standard, "intentionalistic" logic of belief. (For more on the logic of intentionality, see Dennett, 1969, 1971, 1983, 1987, or the Oxford Companion to the Mind (Gregory, 1987) article on intentionality.)

I didn't write that, obviously, but I think it gets the point across pretty well. Animals have beliefs. Animals can feel pain. And the ability to hold beliefs and the ability to suffer are the only things necessary for desires to form. Computers have beliefs, in a sense, but they don't have desires because they don't feel emotion. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that, like humans, most animals desire to not have extraordinary amounts of pain inflicted upon them.

[Sir Suomi]

I thought this was going to be a thread about hunting or the likes and was getting ready for a fight, but instead, I find myself on the fence. I do agree, animals should be humanely treated, which in some areas of the world they are, and in some other areas of the world, they are not. But also, realize that in today's world, we have a lot of mouths to feed, and without animal products, we could not sustain ourselves. We are one of nature's ultimate predators, and we should not be ashamed of that.

[Gamma Male]

I thought this was going to be a thread about hunting or the likes and was getting ready for a fight, but instead, I find myself on the fence. I do agree, animals should be humanely treated, which in some areas of the world they are, and in some other areas of the world, they are not. But also, realize that in today's world, we have a lot of mouths to feed, and without animal products, we could not sustain ourselves. We are one of nature's ultimate predators, and we should not be ashamed of that.

The unsustainability part is untrue. We would actually have several times as much food if we stopped eating meat, because all of the plants that go to feed animals would instead feed people.

[Sir Suomi]

The unsustainability part is untrue. We would actually have several times as much food if we stopped eating meat, because all of the plants that go to feed animals would instead feed people.

So you would wish to cease the feeding of livestock, and thus killing off a good population of domestic animals? I thought your goal was to eliminate the slaughter of animals, but if we would redirect all of the crops that we feed to our livestock to humans, it'd be similar to starving out a population.

[Gamma Male]

So you would wish to cease the feeding of livestock, and thus killing off a good population of domestic animals? I thought your goal was to eliminate the slaughter of animals, but if we would redirect all of the crops that we feed to our livestock to humans, it'd be similar to starving out a population.

If more and more people become vegan, than the demand for meat will lessen, and if the demand for meat lessens the supply will too, because farmers will breed less animals. I'm not suggesting we starve the ones that are already here, I'm saying that if we don't breed as many in the first place the livestock population won't need as much food in the future.

[Sir Suomi]

If more and more people become vegan, than the demand for meat will lessen, and if the demand for meat lessens the supply will too, because farmers will breed less animals. I'm not suggesting we starve the ones that are already here, I'm saying that if we don't breed as many in the first place the livestock population won't need as much food in the future.

Do you realize how terrible that would be for the United States economy, specifically my home state, Nebraska? Livestock and crops grown to feed livestock are a huge part of our economy. Your proposal would ruin many people's lives. As an omnivore, I believe in having the ability to eat both meats and vegetables/fruits at my discretion, and not being forced to eat certain foods, just because some can't get over the fact that there is a natural food chain in our world, a food chain that follows the golden rule of predator consuming prey. If such a measure would be attempted, it would be such a major overstep in government involvement, that I would no longer consider myself a citizen of that government, and would rather fend for myself.

[Gamma Male]

Do you realize how terrible that would be for the United States economy, specifically my home state, Nebraska? Livestock and crops grown to feed livestock are a huge part of our economy. Your proposal would ruin many people's lives. As an omnivore, I believe in having the ability to eat both meats and vegetables/fruits at my discretion, and not being forced to eat certain foods, just because some can't get over the fact that there is a natural food chain in our world, a food chain that follows the golden rule of predator consuming prey. If such a measure would be attempted, it would be such a major overstep in government involvement, that I would no longer consider myself a citizen of that government, and would rather fend for myself.

It's not as if everyone is going to suddenly become vegan tomorrow, or the government is just going to make it illegal all of a sudden. I'm optimistic, not delusional. If in the future everyone is vegan, it will be because more and more people choose to be vegan, until eventually eating meat is seen as unethical and disgusting by the majority of the population, lile canaballism is now. But I seriously doubt that will happen in any of our lifetimes.

I've rebutted the naturalistic fallacy dozens of time, I'm not doing it again. Read my previous posts explaining why that reasoning is illogical.

[Dalcourt]

It's not as if everyone is going to suddenly become vegan tomorrow, or the government is just going to make it illegal all of a sudden. I'm optimistic, not delusional. If in the future everyone is vegan, it will be because more and more people choose to be vegan, until eventually eating meat is seen as unethical and disgusting by the majority of the population, lile canaballism is now. But I seriously doubt that will happen in any of our lifetimes.

I've rebutted the naturalistic fallacy dozens of time, I'm not doing it again. Read my previous posts explaining why that reasoning is illogical.

Well, I hope that veganism becomes more popular and that this helps to reduce prices for stuff like vegan cheese and stuff and makes it more available cuz going shopping where I live shows me that a vegan diet is just for rich people...I can't just live on rice and beans...and it is just appalling how much cheaper it is to buy meat to feed a crowd than tofu for me...

[tovaris]

i agre they should be treated better, for that would make the quylety of the meet better

[Gamma Male]

i agre they should be treated better, for that would make the quylety of the meet better

That's not possible. Treating animals morally while continuing to kill and sell them would cost too much money, and ultimately be unsustainable.

[tovaris]

That's not possible. Treating animals morally while continuing to kill and sell them would cost too much money, and ultimately be unsustainable.

all you need is a bit of gas to drug them before slaughter, how mch can taht cost?

[Miserabilia]

all you need is a bit of gas to drug them before slaughter, how mch can taht cost?

]all you need is a bit of gas to drug them before slaughter,

That's not equivilant to treating them moraly right before slaughter,
that's just drugging them up.
That's not moraly right at all in this case.

[tovaris]

That's not equivilant to treating them moraly right before slaughter,
that's just drugging them up.
That's not moraly right at all in this case.

if a cow lives on a farm and is treated right, most farms nowerdays do, thanks to the EU directives, and you druge them before death i dont see anything wrong.
Cows ment for food here actuly walk around on pastures and stuf, i dont know how this is in your country... but a few years ago the republic purchesed some meat for strategic reservesbut inset of buing alredy cut up cows they baught some that continue to walk around to this day and will be used if necesary

[Miserabilia]

if a cow lives on a farm and is treated right, most farms nowerdays do, thanks to the EU directives, and you druge them before death i dont see anything wrong.
Cows ment for food here actuly walk around on pastures and stuf, i dont know how this is in your country... but a few years ago the republic purchesed some meat for strategic reservesbut inset of buing alredy cut up cows they baught some that continue to walk around to this day and will be used if necesary

]if a cow lives on a farm and is treated right,

Well ther eyou have it; thats expensive and it takes alot of space.

[Gamma Male]

Well ther eyou have it; thats expensive and it takes alot of space.

Right. Though it sounds nice in theory, treating animals morally up until slaughter is unsustainable on a large scale. It would cost too much money. Individual ranches can get by doing it because they sell eggs for 8$ a dozen, but for all the farms to treat animals good and still make a profit and have enough space is impossible. That's why buying free range eggs and grass fed beef is really only a temporary solution.

[Miserabilia]

Right. Though it sounds nice in theory, treating animals morally up until slaughter is unsustainable on a large scale. It would cost too much money. Individual ranches can get by doing it because they sell eggs for 8$ a dozen, but for all the farms to treat animals good and still make a profit and have enough space is impossible. That's why buying free range eggs and grass fed beef is really only a temporary solution.

Exactly.
The only reason they can sel it is because they are distinct in treating animals better, which costs more money but they can also ask more money for it.
If this were the case for all meat products, they couldn't all ask so much money and the industry would collide.

[Gamma Male]

Exactly.
The only reason they can sel it is because they are distinct in treating animals better, which costs more money but they can also ask more money for it.
If this were the case for all meat products, they couldn't all ask so much money and the industry would collide.

Which leaves only two solutions. Continue contributing to climate change, deforestation, pollution, and genocide, or veganism. I choose the latter.

[bob97]

I'm more or less neutral on this. I love animals in general and I watched reports about how animals are treated and read books about veganism, followed PETA activities on the net and so on. I tried to befriend other people but even if they all talked about morals and ethics I found that most of them were, sorry I have to say the evil word self righteous.

So yeah, I found my own way how to balance between eating meat ( a vegan lifestyle if you life mostly on foodstamps isn't really possible) and how to define my view on animal rights.

That's about all I can say on this topic without pissing either side off.

Being a poor vegan is possible. My dad makes around $12 an hour and has a $600 a month apartment. He supports me as well. We are pretty poor and he's been vegan for 7 years. I'm eat regular at school but I'm vegan at his house. Its not that difficult. You just can't have regular luxuries. It is more expensive but there is a way.

[Dalcourt]

Being a poor vegan is possible. My dad makes around $12 an hour and has a $600 a month apartment. He supports me as well. We are pretty poor and he's been vegan for 7 years. I'm eat regular at school but I'm vegan at his house. Its not that difficult. You just can't have regular luxuries. It is more expensive but there is a way.

yeah, it's probably possible...he buys vegan food for both of you ...but as my Dad wants to eat meat and all those things we have the costs for that, too...also it is hard to find substitute products here in some of the smaller places, so I'd have to buy online. I guess you can be a vegetarian here but living strictly vegan would be really hard without getting health problems.

[bob97]

yeah, it's probably possible...he buys vegan food for both of you ...but as my Dad wants to eat meat and all those things we have the costs for that, too...also it is hard to find substitute products here in some of the smaller places, so I'd have to buy online. I guess you can be a vegetarian here but living strictly vegan would be really hard without getting health problems.

That is probably true. Where is "here" for you? And what health problems are you talking about?

[Gamma Male]

yeah, it's probably possible...he buys vegan food for both of you ...but as my Dad wants to eat meat and all those things we have the costs for that, too...also it is hard to find substitute products here in some of the smaller places, so I'd have to buy online. I guess you can be a vegetarian here but living strictly vegan would be really hard without getting health problems.

Yeah, going vegan is usually something that should wait until you can plan a healthy diet and stick to it. It's pretty hard when your not making much money. I mean if you're really interested and everything, just going vegetarian is a lot easier.

[Aajj333]

Hamburgers are yummy. Im also against vegetarians because they eat all the animals food!

[Miserabilia]

Hamburgers are yummy. Im also against vegetarians because they eat all the animals food!

sarcasm right?
Also,
how did you get the Flying Psaghetti Monster (Peace be upon him, lord and saviour),
under your post count thingy?!
I want that
x_x

[Aajj333]

sarcasm right?
Also,
how did you get the Flying Psaghetti Monster (Peace be upon him, lord and saviour),
under your post count thingy?!
I want that
x_x

I am being sarcastic, though those vegetarians do need to quit eating the precious animal's food. The fsm is just my profile pic!

[Miserabilia]

I am being sarcastic, though those vegetarians do need to quit eating the precious animal's food. The fsm is just my profile pic!

oooh ye it´s just your avatar :D
It llooks weird because it's smaller than the post icon!:yes:

[Syvelocin]

Yeah, going vegan is usually something that should wait until you can plan a healthy diet and stick to it. It's pretty hard when your not making much money. I mean if you're really interested and everything, just going vegetarian is a lot easier.

I'm poor and my other half is vegan. I've actually gone vegan quite recently (I've been mostly vegetarian since I was nine, but I wasn't exclusive). But I DO live in a hippie college town where organic corner shops and local produce are easy to find and frequented so fresh vegetables and bulk dry goods are very manageable. Good quality, ethically-sourced meat is expensive, and to me the alternative is not an option so I opt out of buying meat.

The reason why the meat industry sucks is because people are buying meat, and I don't mean that in a pro-vegan way as much as a humane-treatment way. I couldn't care less how many adorable bulls you've consumed in your lifetime. Maybe a vegan who accepts our status as omnivores is rare, but eat meat, enjoy it, who gives a fuck. But every time you buy something, you are providing even more security that this product will stay around. The people who piss me off are those who say they can't do anything about it and then buy ten pounds of corn-fed, hormone-treated beef that never saw the light of day.

Most people eat too much protein; we could definitely survive with a smaller meat industry. And not to mention other sources of protein are yummy and super good for you. The meat industry lies to you, the dairy industry lies to you (milk isn't good for you). But people should know this by now.