Vegans and Vegetarians
I am vegan and I've seen a lot of support for being vegan. The problem is that almost the support I've seen is based on reasons like "god loves all his creations". But i want to know what some rational people choose to eat and why they choose that. So what are your opinions?
- Login to post comments
Do you have compassion for humans? Why? Everything you've stated here would dismiss any claim that we should show compassion toward humans.
Yes, vegan/vegetarian morality is arbitrary to some degree, but in case you haven't noticed, the is-ought problem is a problem for ALL moral systems, not just vegan/vegetarianism. And until it's resolved, ALL moral systems will be arbitrary to some degree. Yes, that would include the just-as-arbitrary claim that only human suffering matters from a moral standpoint.
So in defense of veganism/vegetarianism, there is nothing wrong with holding to the principle that beings capable of suffering should not be made to unnecessarily suffer. One can hold this view, and practice it consistently, and that is all you can ask out of any moral system.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
A load of unproven assertions.
Also untrue. Excess cholesterol is a problem, not cholesterol itself.
That makes no sense. We need to cook meat because we've eaten it cooked for hundreds of generations. If we were made to eat vegetables why don't you have a garden in your hair? How does it explain eggs and fish?
An all meat diet can be just as healthy as an all vegetarian diet if you want to eat a lot of pills and plan it right. Only a balanced diet of both, which we have evolved to subside from, is truly natural.
It is nothing of the kind. Preferring plants over animals is bigotry, plain and simple.
Unproven assertion regarding pain, and also irrelevant. Animals feel pain whether we inflict it or not. And killing is possible without inflicting pain.
No, it isn't. Just to your moral standards that I find hopelessly racist. Accept it, move on.
They are hypocrites when they suggest killing plants is somehow more morally acceptable than animals. Life is life.
That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
It follows that it is something we ought to do if there isn't a better option. And there isn't. Beyond that, "Something we ought" to do in this scenario is based on emotion and subjective morality. Not on fact. So this fallacy does not apply.
There was once no evidence that the earth and moon revolved around a barypoint, yet it still happened. The suffering/happy/pain bit is assuming human responsibility for every life on this planet. They have their own food chains to follow. As do we. If you want to say that unnecessary infliction of pain is bad I'll agree. But we have no responsibility to make every life form on this planet happy or pain free. Even trying is foolish, when we haven't even accomplished it for ourselves. It can also be counter productive, leading to overpopulation of species.
Indiscriminate murder won't feed or clothe you.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet,
You're missing the point on a lot of what you said. You're still claiming that moral vegs are hypocrites because they would kill a plant over an animal when we've already told you that moral vegs never claimed life was intrinsically valuable for being life. It's been repeated numerous times. They can't be hypocrites if that's not what they believe!
First of all, it does not follow, and it NEVER does. The is-ought problem is a problem for ALL moral systems. I've pointed this out already. If you don't know what the is-ought problem is, google it. It is well known amongst philosophers of ethics, and is actually common sense to anyone who has given their ethics a thought. It is also known as the fact-value distinction.
Please note that I never claimed I could justify moral vegism (vegism = short for veganism/vegetarianism) in keeping with my acknowledgement of the reality of the is-ought problem. I am only noting that YOUR OBJECTIONS to moral vegism succumb to the fallacy, so you can do no more than respect vegs for being vegs rather than argue that they're crazy for not following a descriptive Food Chain prescriptively.
Second, you're begging the question when you say there isn't another option. There are lots of vegs out there and they live their lives just fine. Again, I'm not saying you ought to do it too, merely pointing out that your attacks on vegs do not work.
I really don't know where you're trying to go with this, but most vegs, much like other non-vegs who claim to practice morality, do not have any delusions that they are going to save the world. They are simply doing what they feel is their moral part, which is that if it isn't necessary for them to eat meat, then they won't.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
I am not missing anything from what I said. Though you must realize I'm arguing multiple persons on multiple points, and have to arrange my tactics to fit the scenario per post. My standard tactic to being shown a fallacy is to throw it right back in the same form yet modified to assist from my side of the debate instead of theirs.
And you conveniently ignore how I tore that apart regardless.
This is a discriminatory point of view in this scenario. When I used the term hypocrite I was more thinking of those who whine about cute seals. All the rest are worse. Anyone who applies more value to one life form than another, when there is no intrinsic value to be applied, is a racist.
First of all, it can and does. We have evolved to be unable to fly unassited. It therefore follows that you should not jump off a tall building unassited. Perfect example for my argument.
Dealt with.
You misunderstand where I am coming from, and assume I do so morally or through ethics. I merely respond to moral or ethical approaches in this way. Perhaps this is why you fail to realize the fallacy is not applicable as a fallacy in this context.
Strawman. I never said there isn't another option, I said there isn't a better option. And there isn't one that I'm aware of. If there's one I'm not aware of feel free to educate me.
I'm a carnivore and I live my life just fine too.
And yet they work perfectly, exposing bigotry and racism against plant life.
Which is the whole problem. They are racist by preferring one form of life over another for emotional reasons.
Said murders are NOT indiscriminate, by definition. Refutation refuted.
I disagree.
And I showed you how it's inapplicable.
All you've done to try and refute me is bring up subjective morality and inapplicable emotion. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes I did. It didn't say anything of scientific value. Too many factors were left out of comparisons they made for anything in that to be valid. They also lied. Bald faced.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It's ironic that you used the word regardless, because that's exactly what you did. You've failed to give regard to the actual position adopted by moral vegs and torn apart a strawman.
Then I guess you are a "racist" [sic] too, since you eat other creatures but not humans? This is an absurd argument, and again, you are dodging the point that moral vegs never claimed life is of intrinsic value, so you are still arguing a strawman.
You claimed to have "dealt with" the is-ought problem, but if you think the normative, prescriptive claim "I shouldn't jump off a building" follows from the positive, descriptive claim "I cannot fly," then you haven't "dealt with" the problem at all. You are blatantly committing it. I would think someone who wants to dive into an ethical debate would understand some of the more basic issues in philosophy of ethics.
I didn't say you couldn't live your life just fine. I am not telling you to stop eating meat or preaching vegism to you either. I've made that abundantly clear, and yet by the way you responded here, you make it clear you think otherwise. I am targetting only your specific attacks against moral vegs, since you came into this thread claiming that moral vegism is an untenable position and you invoked naturalistic and is-ought fallacies through and through to this end. You stated that there are no better options and that we were "designed" to be omnivores. I pointed out that vegs live their life just fine, so the argument that we were "designed" to be omnivores and that there are no better options doesn't work. I did NOT claim that carnivores cannot live their life just fine, so you are bringing up an irrelevancy.
Vastet, please understand that I am not attacking your meat-eating. I am attacking your arguments against moral vegs. There is a world of difference between the two, and you came in here firing the salvos against moral vegs, and I felt the need to respond.
Again, you are missing the point. OK, so if instead of saying the descriptive claim "we need to eat and have clothes" entails "it's OK to indiscriminately murder," I say rather it entails "it's OK to murder a human for his money discriminately for that reason," you are still left with the simple fact that descriptions are not prescriptions, and you are still committing the is-ought fallacy.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
Nope. I tore apart that which was levelled against me, and that which I have observed. I did not make a strawman to destroy.
Yes, I am racist. I have reason for not eating other humans that directly impacts me however, from imprisonment to the notion that they supposedly don't taste all that good. My racism has logical justification. Theirs does not.
If you wish to continue to ignore what I said and posit a strawman of me making a strawman than I'm going to consider this a waste of my time and cease participation in this segment of the debate with you. If you want to give me something to argue then give me something to argue. Don't dodge and then say I'm the one dodging when I have nothing to dodge. I deliberately did not make generalizations that apply to all vegans, so this is beyond pointless.
Ethics have nothing to do with eating habits, which is my whole thrust of argument in the first place. You're committing a fallacy of applying an invalid fallacy.
And you've done nothing to show my analogy as invalid.
You implied it.
Nope. You made it clear that you don't want to get into the debate itself, which just makes your comments that much less relevant, since my comments are almost always tactically made and tailoured to those I'm responding to.
Nonsense.
Again, no. We EVOLVED to be omnivores. How many of my comments are you going to innaccurately quote?
I'm not sure what fallacy to label this, but I'm sure there is one. Herbivores living fine doesn't prove that it's a better option than omnivores that also live fine. Not by any stretch.
No, I was countering a statement with a statement of equal value.
That's fine. But your response is tailoured to arguments that were tailoured to other arguments, and may not have been arguments in and of themselves. Your disputing of my argument is barking up the wrong tree. Leave me to my tactics. Trying to refute them will get you nowhere.
No, you are.
How does "we need to eat and have clothes" entail "it's ok to indiscriminately/descriminately murder? You're making your own fallacies now.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well then, I guess we're done Vastet. You are talking past me. A lot of what you "addressed" is irrelevant, and they were not even points I was trying to make. At least you conceded that in calling moral vegs "racist," that you are a "racist" too (as if that's the proper term). So at least you are consistent there, although I'd challenge the assertion that your "racism" is justified while the moral vegs' is not.
One thing though:
This isn't really relevant to the stance I'm taking in defense of moral vegs, but since I don't like be accused of deliberate and dishonest debate tactics, I will quote you verbatim:
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
and the believers are meat eaters. I thought they consider life precious.
I believe this is a two way street.
I would welcome such a challenge. I don't welcome attacks on comments made for a specific purpose by someone they weren't meant for. I believe you would find if we were to debate the matter from scratch that there would not be an issue.
Ah, I see at least part of the problem. When I make a statement in a topic, that statement stands until refuted or clarified, whether by myself or another. I may make later claims using different terminology that is less or more applicable than the original terminology I used for time constraints(I don't necessarily have time to review every previous post in the topic, and make sure my comments are universally organized). In this case, my original statement was "We have evolved to be omnivorous.". My later comment of design was in the context of evolution. To make it more clear, my first post(that wasn't intended as humourous at least) went as such:
"To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on."
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No. Pain (of the non-human variety) has very little to do with it in fact.
Make it economic and you'll have it.
It is not difficult to find. You can find plenty of examples of kin selective behavior and reciprocal altruism in primates and other mammals with a simple google search - better yet, go to PubMed and look at some scientific journal articles.
And, nothing. Should we protect yeasts from the beer making process? What about making cheese? Eating insects? Eating small reptiles? Eating rats? Dogs? Cats? Cows? Where is the demarcation line? Everything I just mentioned is eaten in our culture or in others. So what? Animals eat other animals - there is nothing moral or immoral about i.
Nor does it make it wrong or give us a reason to change.
You say that like it makes a difference.
Frankly, no, I don't see a pattern. I see an arbitrary line drawn at the ability to feel pain. Nothing more. I don't see anything justifying why that line is important - other than the empathy we CHOOSE to apply to it.
Like I said, define needless and suffering. Then tell me why we're obliged to do something about it.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Intersting thought - if I could breed cows and pigs and minks that could NOT feel pain, could I slaughter them for food and cloth without objection?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Add in that the animals had no capacity to hold an interest in continued living and being happy, then certainly. You'd definitely get no objection from me at least. In fact, this is exactly the reason why I supported the euthanizing of Terri Schiavo -- her brain had so severely degenerated she was basically what most would call a "vegetable." (I don't mean this as a joke on the poor woman, only that people really do use the term "vegetable" to describe those with degenerated nervous systems).
On another note, I remember reading a story not too long ago about NASA growing chunks of fish meat in a lab, without the actual fish. If you can get over the "ew" factor of eating lab-grown hunks of fish flesh, I'd have no problem with anyone eating that. If they could do the same for bacon and steak, that'd be pretty neat. I wouldn't eat it, but it'd certainly be neat.
If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?
I'm just wondering why aren't we just poping pills with all the goodies we need and just stop eating all together?
Because the Oompa Loompas can't quite get it right. It all goes bad when you get to the dessert part.
>:3
Oh now they are lieing... Nice. Any more unproven and obviously false claims you like to make?
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
I have to start off with an apology to AL. I made some rather large errors in both communication and comprehension. I didn't have or take the time to think about what either of us were saying, and made some critical errors as a result. I was distracted and not paying nearly as much attention as I should have and completely flew through what you were saying without thinking about it. I apologize.
The first 9 paragraphs are wasted space comparing herbivores to carnivores directly(with us in the middle), when we know conclusively that we are not carnivorous. They make absolute determinations of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores that are provably false. Example:
Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Human Extensive chewing necessary
Since when did we need to extensively chew our food? I've never had to. I swallow most of it after biting a piece off.
Not all herbivores have flat hooves or flattened nails. I give you the fruit bat. Long sharp claws, eats only plant matter.
Not all carnivores have claws at all, and some don't even have teeth. I give you the whale, which uses a filter instead of chewing materials.
They don't take into consideration the fact that humans haven't eaten raw meat for millenia. Why would our stomachs remain so acidic if there was no biological need for it? Why would our bodies not evolve with our eating preparations? There's nothing on that page of any value whatsoever. I'm just scratching the surface on it's flaws.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm surprised this got so deep......meat......is good, tasty.
I'm sure puppies, kittens, and even people are tasty, probably would make some delicious burgers, yet we don't do that do we? Who's to say one animal has less of a right to live than another. And off the subject of animal cruelty, it is beneficial to the environment, even more beneficial than switching to a hybrid car. It is even healthier too, feel free to debate the health issue again if you find it nessicary.
Sorry for the extrem delay. After RRS site crashed my discussions where no longer in my discussion tab. It took me till now to find another way here. Plus I was distracted for awhile.
The link I previously provided gives general rules of thumb. To find execptions here and there doesn't really harm the argument. Specially when one examens the fruit bat. Its claws are not used for its food but to help hang on trees or cave walls ect.
Point being humans share very little with carnivores. The only thing that I think we have in common is foward facing eyes. Beyond that there is nothing physically to suggest that man is a meat eater. It is only to due to our advance ments in techonology and group hunting skills that allowed meat eating in the past and today.
I wish to degress from the moral stand point. I don't really hold to the moral point of veiw but I don't see anything wrong with it either. So I played devil's advocate.
However if you wish to contintue along the lines of heath benfits or environmental benfits. Then I am all game.
Since its earth day lets contintue with the environmental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKPH4x-Gyg
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
General rules of thumb? No such thing.
Yes it does.
So? A cats claws are for climbing. A dogs claws are for maintaining grip on ground. Neither are used for the kill. Both are carnivores.
Because we aren't carnivores. We're omnivores. Your argument collapses on itself. We don't share much with herbivores either.
Birds see sideways, yet are mostly carnivorous. You really have no idea what babble you're speaking.
There's plenty. Our teeth, our organs. You're arguing nonsense.
That's part of who we are. For thousands of years. We've evolved to be that way. Your argument collapses.
I can tear the moral argument apart even easier than this fiction.
You will lose.
Since you've been away for awhile you probably won't be aware that I am unable to access video sites. I can't watch this.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Most of your argument is going "nah-ah". Then you said our teeth suggested meat eating. You got to be fucking kidding me. Below are pics of each type of teeth and human teeth. For whatever reason the html code doesn't work here.
http://whyfiles.org/shorties/147tooth/images/teeth.jpg
http://www.americazoo.com/kids/graphics/tiger2.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Raccoon_skull_Pengo.jpg
http://www.nicksnowden.net/images/cow_skull.jpg
Carnivores have proment canines and molars that sheer meat. Omnivores have proment canines but molars more stuited to grinding plants. Herbivores have incisoral and/or molars. That ocourse are well stuited for plant grinding.
Human do not have well developed canines. What we do have would be insult to call them "canines". We have good incisors and molars. By the study of teeth alone, you would have to say that humans are herbivores.
The only way you can demonstrate that humans are omnivores is to compare all omnivores and find the commonalities. Then demonstrate that humans have these same traits.
So what will it be? Contintue to be a nay sayer or show the commonalities between humans and omnivores?
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
As for our conspicous lack of prominent canines, that has been answered in evolutionary terms based on the sexual practices of lesser primates. Males that were physically imposing could fight, and in most species ended up with a "harem" (the exception of bonobos springs to mind, but I digress). Now the other evolutionarily stable strategy in this system is to develop consortships, in which lower ranked males and females would pair off. Harems produced more offspring in numbers, but consortship produced more sucessful mating as a percentage. this developed into a selective pressure for less physically imposing males (les likely to be challenged and face physical injury) and females with altered reproductive cycles (non-lactational breast enlargement and ovulatory cryptsis). Over time, this would eventually lead to males with smaller canines (harder to show aggression if you don't have the right gear).
I say we're animals, but we can decide what to eat. Personally, I love the taste of a good steak cooked to a nice medium rare, but I realize that not all people like that. I've also helped to kill and butcher animals (I live in the country and worked in a butchers shop for a year). I not only have eaten the hamburger, I've met the cow.
Don't come at this from some kind of misguided moral superiority stand point. I agree with who said it earlier, this is an amoral issure. We will always rely on some other form of life to provide us sustanance.
P.S.-I can dig out my Human Origins textbook and provide sources if this is doubted. (Being an Anthropology minor finally paid off for something).
No Gods, Know Peace.
Has anyone else looked at entomophagy? The idea appeals to me environmentally, since raising bugs can be performed even in a small apartment. IIRC, creation of grazing land for cattle is a substantial factor in rain forest destruction. I haven't been able to get past the unpleasantness of the idea yet, but I may ease myself into it by creating something unrecognizable: like bread made with meal worm flour. I'm an omnivore currently, subsisting on the American mixture of homemade food and processed garbage. I object to factory farming on an aesthetic level, if not an ethical one, but also because they're ruthless corporations that will cut corners that we're not aware of until major problems manifest. Mad cow disease being an example. I used to eat a lot of tofu and drink soy milk until I found out that soybeans contain phytoestrogens that fuck with your hormones, and that soybeans are added as filler to a huge segment of processed foods already.
I'm still on the fence as to what the right way for me to eat is.
Actually by weight bugs are some of the most nutrition things around...though the legs tend to get stuck in your teeth...
No Gods, Know Peace.
That's all your argument deserves.
They do.
Right back at you.
Liar. We have canines. Ask your local dentist. Irrefutable evidence we are at least partially carnivorous.
Burden of proof is on you. You're claiming bullshit is fact, and I'm calling your bullshit the bullshit that it is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm a vegetarian.
Why should animals be confined to cages for years, have a hammer pound them in the head, then (still living of course) be strung up on chains to be skinned and gutted.
It's ridiculous the extent of barbarity that slaughterhouses and cattle farmers commit on a day to day, minute by minute schedule.
In response to yellow number five's thought that if animals could be engineered to not feel pain would that be ok?
i say no. there are people that don't feel pain, should we be allowed to punch them whenever we feel like it, stab them, use them for target practice? just because there is no apparent consequence dosen't make it any less disgusting.
Has anyone ever noticed that cultures that eat relatively low amounts of meat like europeans, asians, and latinos are relatively slim, and when you look at american and soul food, which is basically all meat, the eaters are undeniably fatter than anyone else.
Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.
-Woody Allen
If it's not morally ok to kill an animal for food even when it cannot experience pain, then you are either a hypocrite or immoral for killing anything for food even if it cannot experience pain.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't eat meat because I don't like the taste.
Yes, Im completely serious. Even as a child, I would do silly things like 'accidentally dump milk' onto my plate so I didn't have to eat the porkchops or meatloaf or whatever else my mom had cooked.
I've never liked redmeat whatsoever; and back before I was a vegetarian, the most I would eat was an occasional hamburger(cooked to all hell, ) or some breaded chicken. And this was at my parents insistance.
After I moved out on my own, I just eventually stopped eating meat all together, it wasn't a conscious descision as much as I just chose things I DID like to eat over meat.
So, when I say I don't like the taste this extends to things like 'tofurky' or fake bacon or whatever. I don't eat anything that 'tastes' like meat, whether it's real, or made of soy.
But hey, I'm weird,
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I'm intentionally not responding to the rest of the post...I have my diginity...And your making sweeping generalizations here that don't hold up...Europeans eat meat, asians eat meat, latinos eat meat....it's more to the point that they eat less meat and they also don't have as much artificial shit floating around in the food supply....Americans are fat b/c we invented the trans-fat and fell the fuck in love with it. It's not meat that's bad it's our (generalized here, nobody get offended) diet as a whole that's bad. We do nothing in moderation. If we would be more moderate in our food comsumption, well, then we wouldn't be american...shit I guess we'll just have to be fat then....
No Gods, Know Peace.
Well of course it's a generalization, but, it's what the numbers show.
When you think of mexican food you think of tortillas, beans, rice right? i'm not saying that they dont eat meat, just not as much as most americans. This goes for italian (pasta), greek (bread), chinese (noodles, rice) and a bunch of others.
The American and Soul culture is meat.
That's why we're is fat.
Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.
-Woody Allen
As an ex-vegetarian, and current meat-eater, I can definately say I enjoy eating meat. My reasons for going veggie were purely out of the guilty feeling I got from eating a fellow living being's flesh. Also, I did lose weight and felt healthier overall, more energetic. I didn't get that weird "weighted down by rocks" sensation in my tummy after eating.
But I just like the taste of meat too much. It's easy, it's good, and I don't have to panic over my protein intake.
I still eat a lot of veggie foods, tofu, vegetarian ground "beef", but damn if I don't love a big bleeding steak.
Also, in regards to the fat/"soul food" thing, I knew quite a few fat vegetarians.
GlamourKat's MyspaceOperation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangeli
You didn't touch his refutation, and therefore lack any substance within your own.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm vegetarian, have been for 15 years now (I'm 20) since I first discovered what meat actually was: dead animal. My parents being the tolerant people they are let me be vegetarian (a lot of my friends would not have been allowed) and accomodated it, sometimes cooking me a separate meal if they were having meat, but most of the time cooking vegeatarian food.
These days, although I am a fan of Peter Singer's ethics, it doesn't actually lead me to say it is morally wrong to eat meat, my vegetarianism is a habit that I am reluctant to break and doesn't do me or anyone else harm to keep. I generally think we do wrong to any sentient being by not allowing it to pursue it's benign or essential interests. But that is not to say that animals have an actual interest in life. Some quite probably do, higher primates, or at least those trained in sign language have been known to understand the concepts of life and death and talk about them with their human researchers. An interest in life arises from this understanding. A sheep by contrast, cannot understand life or death, cannot forsee its own death, but only deals in its existence, it has interests in living in a field with plenty of tasty grass and in procreating and not feeling pain or fear or what-have-you but it cannot have an interest in life. You are not doing any wrong by the sheep if it is killed in a reasonably peaceful way.
Mice have even fewer interests, and perhaps we have very few moral obligations towards them. Is it morally bankrupt to lay poison down for mice or rats? I don't think so. Is it wrong to perform tests on mice for medical reasons? I'm not sure, certainly some tests on mice involve causing it a lot of pain or sickness which is, as they are sentient beings, against its interests. But, does the human interest in life trump the mouse's interest in not feeling pain? Humans are undoubtedly more complex creatures than mice, we have a greater complexity of interests, this appears to me to say that actually we should be able to conduct experiments on mice for medical reasons (something I always used to be against in my fanatical vegetarian days) but that there should be a duty where possible to cause as little pain as possible and perhaps even engineer test mice without pain receptors, thus allieviating the interest in not feeling pain.
Atheist Books
Thanks for pointing that out Vastet(I was incommunicado this w/e, moving my brother)... And now we are back to trying to turn this into a moral issue....Why is it any less moral for me to eat a cow that was fairly humanely slaughtered as opposed to a lion ripping the throat out of a gazelle (very painfully I might add)? It's not, because this is an A-moral issue. Animals must comsume something to survive. No matter what we consume, it was once alive. In order for humans to survive we must kill things....Tell me where I went wrong in that reasoning...(and yes I realize that this leaves cannibalism open...eh, tastes like chicken..)
No Gods, Know Peace.
Ok, my bad not touching your refutation but let's move on with this one!
For one thing, slaughterhouses are anything but humane. Tiny pens, poor living conditions, lack of attention, and the "killing" of the animal right before they chain them up is normally inaffective.
So what you get is a semi conscious and still breathing animal being skinned and gutted alive.
A gazelle lives a normal, free, and plentiful life. Lions are carnivores, they can't live on just plants so they have to eat the gazelle. I have no issues with carnivorous animals, just humans that try to justify mistreating animals from the second they are born to the day they bleed to death while hanging upside down, by saying that it is natural to eat animals.
Of course it is, i just have a problem with the neglectful way in which we do it.
Minerals, vitamins...those arn't alive, lol, jk.
I see what you mean though, plants are alive, but, animals have emotions and feelings.
Plants don't mind that much, they want other organisms to eat their fruits to spread their seeds, they don't feel anything like animals do.
They certainly don't have brains.
Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.
-Woody Allen
My problem with your post so far is simple; I've seen the things that you are railing against first-hand and find you to be so melodramatic as to be bordering on falsification. I'll stop short of that due only to the fact that things such as you've mentioned do happen, but they are the exception not the rule.
some animals show what humans interpret as emotion, but don't anthropomorphize all animals.
No Gods, Know Peace.
For one thing, this is merely an argument against current practices against the slaughter of animals for consumption, not against the consumption itself.
Secondly, as Ninja pointed to, you are by no means describing the circumstances in every slaughterhouse. Merely what the terrorist organization PETA wants you to believe. I've been to a few myself when I grew up in Alberta(perhaps you've heard of Alberta beef, greatest in North America if not the world?). There was nothing inhumane that I saw. Animals were killed quickly and efficiently. There was no "skinning alive", "poor living conditions"(in itself a contradiction, animals don't live in a slaughter house, they die there), etc.
I know you were joking, but if it were your position then why are you eating plants? You come up with food that involves no death from any life whatsoever and you'll have my backing. Not before.
Who are you to say an animal has more right to life than a plant? Or that a plant can't feel? They certainly do a pretty damn good job of responding to stimulai for something that can't feel. Seriously, people who suggest such nonsense piss me off. Plants were one of the first life forms. They have the most diverse base of any classification on the globe. Plants can even be carnivores. They are far more essential to the ecology than a few animals who couldn't survive in the wild. You know what would happen if you let all the livestock in farms go? The vast majority of them would die. Those that didn't would wreak havoc on local wildlife. It would be a lot worse than a few assholes taking bad care of their animals.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You guys are scary.
I have seen a few slaughter houses and it is pretty bad for someone grown up in a family of tree huggers and WWF supporters so there is a bit of a bias on my part.
As long as this sort of behavior is allowed to go on in even a couple of these meat farms I will continue to be against it.
I have faith in the fact that there are probably really good and humane houses where everything is very efficient and clean, but there are still the ones that arn't.
I'm kinda done with this argument, don't get me wrong, I'm no coward, I just know when I'm beat.
P.S.: I am very melodramatic, just who I am.
Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.
-Woody Allen
I think that slaughterhouses and such should treat animals humanely (seems like an oxymoron, I know), and people that don't should be punished.
I guess it also stems from the fact that i grew up around livestock, farmers, slaughterhouses, hunters, butchers....you name it. Most of these people are thankful for the animals that they have, and in a weird way are very defensive of them. They don't like it anymore than you do when someone abuses their animals, mainly because it makes them look bad. Shit, I know a hunter who doesn't eat any processed meats. He owns a bunch of land and eats mainly the deer that live on it, but he also gives tobacco offerings (he's a little new aged at times).
I guess my point is: When you're talking about people, most people do the right things. There will always be those who are cruel/bad/inhumane, but we can't judge the many based on the few. If we did that why are we even here on this site.....
No Gods, Know Peace.
I would agree, and there are certain regulations which have to be adhered to in British law unless they are Kosher or Halal slaughter houses in which case they are given the right to ignore such rules. It seems a little bit weak really. It annoys me, but what can I do.
Atheist Books
You seriously need to check your sources. Quoting PETA propanganda does not score you points in my book.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Yup, I was a hypocritical vegetarian once. Now I'm one who doesn't try and argue in favour of vegetarianism, but I'm just in the habit of not eating meat and my metabolism probably couldn't cope with it now anyway. Long term vegetarians who go back to eating meat can actually die from it. Yup, you have a point.
Atheist Books
Your attitude against plant life scares me more than my unbiased consumption of life in general should scare you.
The only reason you could call yourself a tree hugger is because you can't eat trees. You certainly have a problem with plant life in general.
Be against the farms that use such behaviour, not everyone who's ever consumed a healthy steak or fish.
Yes there are, and they should be shut down. But taking a stance against all meat consumption will not accomplish it. When you wrap the innocent and the guilty together, the guilty have a much bigger defense than if you isolate them. The innocent have no choice but to help them to protect their own interests. Peta's ignorant and hypocritical position means anything they come up with that's real is ignored by most rational people. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Everytime they find a bad practice they call to arms against all meat, instead of putting pressure only on the practice they found.
This happens to be something I'm rather passionate about myself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.