"most people just don't care about animals"

[amborin]

"...they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Many people soothe their consciences by purchasing only free-range fowl and eggs, blissfully ignorant that “free range” has very little if any practical significance. Chickens may be labeled free-range even if they’ve never been outside or seen a speck of daylight in their entire lives. And that Thanksgiving turkey? Even if it is raised “free range,” it still lives a life of pain and confinement that ends with the butcher’s knife.

snip

how can people continue to eat meat when they become aware that nearly 53 billion land animals are slaughtered every year for human consumption? The simple answer is that most people just don’t care about the lives or fortunes of animals.

If they did care, they would learn as much as possible about the ways in which our society systematically abuses animals, and they would make what is at once a very simple and a very difficult choice: to forswear the consumption of animal products of all kinds.

snip

We have been trained by a history of thinking of which we are scarcely aware to view non-human animals as resources we are entitled to employ in whatever ways we see fit in order to satisfy our needs and desires. Yes, there are animal welfare laws. But these laws have been formulated by, and are enforced by, people who proceed from the proposition that animals are fundamentally inferior to human beings. At best, these laws make living conditions for animals marginally better than they would be otherwise — right up to the point when we send them to the slaughterhouse.
Think about that when you’re picking out your free-range turkey, which has absolutely nothing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving. All it ever had was a short and miserable life, thanks to us intelligent, compassionate humans.


<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22steiner.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=all>

[dionysus]

1. i like to eat turkey on thanksgiving.

[SIMPLYB1980]

106. Most people do.

"The Thanksgiving Song by Adam Sandler"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z27FKwupds

[SteveM]

233. Last year, I got mine while hunting...

a mature bird, all-natural, rather difficult to hunt on a "non-managed" ranch, far better tasting than even "natural range-raised" birds, a clean shot with a rapid death. And it was living off the land. (Though I support good farming practices, farms are human contrivances which virtually eliminate the eco-systems that were once there.) I also took a deer that year, and have taken another 10 days ago -- plenty of non-agricultural (natural or otherwise) meat taken in a non-cruel manner.

[the other one]

2. Rec'd to help raise awareness

[panader0]

3. are you casting asparagus?

Broccoli has feelings too.

[flvegan]

4. This won't go well.

On edit: that's actually a brilliant bit of writing at that link.

[amborin]

29. your prediction was very accurate!

[Lorien]

62. it's quite unsettling to notice how unprogressive so many DUers are

when it comes to compassion for our fellow living beings. It's hard not to notice the gleeful celebration of utter uncaring selfishness and cruelty that always appears in these threads-just another symptom of our "me first, screw you" society. When one looks at the connection between cruelty and animals-cruelty to humans, compassion for animals and compassion for one's fellow humans it's hard to see how it fails to be unsettling for the "I'm proud to not care" crowd.


"You can tell a lot about a people by the way they treat their animals" M. K Gandhi

[amborin]

69. you're right!

it never fails to amaze me

of all places, you'd think people posting on DU would be open minded, if not enlightened

but many times, just the opposite!

[Confusious]

189. Enlightment means so many things

How far do you think we should go?

[Ignis]

99. Hell, I'd be happy if they just treated other DUers well.

...Instead of exploiting the selective enforcement policies.

So it goes.

[Ikonoklast]

115. I wouldn't quote a wife-beater to support your position.

You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats wis wife, and Ghandi was no saint.

[Ignis]

122. "Yeah, fuck that MLK guy, too!"

"I hear he once sped while driving, and only lawbreakers would listen to a speeder who would endanger the lives of others!"

:crazy:

And down the rabbit hole of ridiculous purity tests we go.

[Ikonoklast]

153. Your words, Strawman.

I made a statement based on facts.

Ghandi himself wrote of what he did.

[Ignis]

168. So we shouldn't listen to a cheatin' run-around like MLK?

He could say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, but you can't believe everything that adulterers say.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

163. By many accounts, MLK was a horrible husband.

And we all know I'd be beating a dead horse, if you'll excuse the pun, by pointing out which sweaty bavarian mass murdering psychopath was also a vegetarian.

[Critters2]

164. And yet again...Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/twoquestions.asp

http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/

http://www.naturalnews.com/025163_Hitler_vegetarian_vegetarianism.html

http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Wow. Would that the animal rights brigade would take such umbrage when Jews who died at Treblinka

are equated to chickens at Col. Sanders.

I guess what is important is clearing the record on what Hitler actually did or didn't eat.

[Ignis]

171. PETA doesn't speak for the AR movement.

They're just one voice, one organization, one distinct marketing style.

Why don't "True" Christians counter-protest more often against Fred Phelps? :shrug:

[Critters2]

185. Actually, it was rabbis and other Jewish thinkers

who drew that analogy. I find it amusing that people who eat meat "took umbrage" when Jews, including Holocaust survivors named all suffering as being equal. How dare they tell you that you are causing very real suffering?!. After all, you want a steak!


Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.
-Theodor Adorno, Ph.D., Jewish philosopher

It seems doubtful from all that has been said whether the Torah would sanction "factory farming", which treats animals as machines, with apparent insensitivity to their natural needs and instincts.
-Rabbi Aryeh Carmell, From Masterplan: Its Programs, Meanings, Goals, Feldheim, 1991, p. 69

No one can deny seriously, or for very long, that do all they can in order to dissimulate this cruelty or to hide it from themselves, in order to organize on a global scale the forgetting or misunderstanding of this violence that some would compare to the worst cases of genocide.
-Jacques Derrida, Jewish philosopher

My ancestors did not belong to the hunters as much as to the hunted, and the idea of attacking the descendants of those who were our comrades in misery goes against my grain.
-Heinrich Heine, Jewish writer

Just as the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in their propaganda and in the atrocities they committed, the apologists for meat consumption and the exploitation of animals have stereotyped and degraded the animal kingdom for their own purposes, declaring animals to be devoid of cognitive functioning and even of pain.
-Jay Lavine, M.D., She’elot Uteshuvot (Questions and Answers) on Jewish Vegetarianism


It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings.
-Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:48

The Nazis explicitly structured their industrial destruction of the Jews on the model of animal slaughter. This is not to compare the suffering of animals and humans, but shows that the way we treat animals is similar to the way the Nazis treated us.
-Rabbi Hillel Norry

The domestication/enslavement of animals was the model and inspiration for human slavery…the breeding of domesticated animals led to eugenic measures as compulsory sterilization, euthanasia killings, and genocide, and…the industrialized slaughter of cattle, pigs, sheep, and other animals paved the way, at least indirectly, for the Final Solution.
-Charles Patterson, Ph.D., author of Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust


In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.
-Isaac Bashevis Singer, “The Letter Writer”


The same questions are bothering me today as they did fifty years ago. Why is one born? Why does one suffer? In my case, the suffering of animals also makes me very sad. I’m a vegetarian, you know. When I see how little attention people pay to animals, and how easily they make peace with man being allowed to do with animals whatever he wants because he keeps a knife or a gun, it gives me a feeling of misery and sometimes anger with the Almighty. I say ‘Do you need your glory to be connected with so much suffering of creatures without glory, just innocent creatures who would like to pass a few years in peace?’ I feel that animals are as bewildered as we are except that they have no words for it. I would say that all life is asking: ‘What am I doing here?"
-Isaac Bashevis Singer, Newsweek interview (October 16, 1978) after winning the Nobel Prize in literature

Unless you believe in fascism - that might makes right - we do not have a right to harm others.
-Henry Spira, Kristallnacht survivor and animal rights advocate




You should contact these rabbis and philosophers, and let them know how silly they are!

[Ignis]

213. I hadn't seen all those quotes. Thanks for posting them.

:hug:

[Critters2]

220. And yet, no response from the meat eater who was so offended by these analogies.

Not that that's surprising.

You're welcome, btw!

[Warren DeMontague]

223. The "meat eater" (actually, I eat very little, but that hasn't given me any more patience for this

sort of crap, oddly) is right here.

How about you start by telling me exactly HOW many people in your family died in the Holocaust. I'm betting none.

I had relatives in those camps; German Jews who, unlike my gf & ggf's generation, didn't leave in time. Don't you fucking DARE tell me I'm not allowed to be outraged, and offended, by PETA's idiotic campaign making equivalences between my relatives and chickens at col. Sanders. I don't give a flying Philadelphia fuck WHO came up with it, I don't care how many Holocaust survivors they dragged out to sign on to that turd, none of that makes it one fucking whit less offensive.

The campaign was flat-out vile, period, and the fact that you still want to get all flappy-armed About how "but but but but lots of Jews think chickens are the exact same thing as that kid whose shoe is in Yad Vashem, too" (you have no fucking clue what I'm talking about, here, do you?) ...and defend that piece of shit, even after PETA ran away from it, says more about you than it ever could say about the ethics of dreaded, sinful "meat eating".



I'm going to say this once, in big text, and I hope you're listening:

CHICKENS ARE NOT PEOPLE. IT IS DEEPLY INSULTING TO TO THE MILLIONS WHO DIED IN THE HOLOCAUST TO DRAW ANY KIND OF MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THEIR DEATHS AND THE CONSUPTION OF CHICKEN MCNUGGETS. THE FACT THAT YOUR UNDERPANTS ARE IN A BUNCH OVER COL. SANDERS DOES NOT EXCUSE USING THEIR DEATHS TO PROMOTE YOUR FORK-MORALIZING AGENDA.

You like quotes so much, here's the ADL statement on the matter: Since you're an expert on how Jews should feel about the Holocaust, why don't you tell THEM they're wrong?

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4235_52.htm

New York, NY, February 24, 2003 …The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) denounced People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" project for trivializing the murder of six million Jews and called its appeal for approval by the Jewish community "outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights."

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor, issued the following statement:

The effort by PETA to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent. PETA's effort to seek "approval" for their "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign is outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights.

[Ignis]

228. Eh? What? Could you speak up a bit there, sonny?

[Warren DeMontague]

238. It was offensive, and denying it was offensive is also offensive.

Go take a walk through Yad Vashem, then come out and tell me with a straight face that human consumption of poultry is an equivalent evil.

[Ignis]

241. See post # 171, and ...

I'm not inclined to defend an equivalency argument that I haven't made, but thanks for the offer. :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

242. The poster I was responding to was defending the PETA ad campaign.

I'm certainly aware that they don't speak for all AR activists, and they certainly don't speak for those of us who are committed to improving conditions for livestock animals yet do not believe meat eating is intrinsically and inherently evil.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

234. Thank you for those quotes.

[amborin]

235. thanks for posting this

[flvegan]

240. Oh, man. pwned.

God that was beautiful.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Bullshit.

Like I said. Take a walk through Yad Vashem and then tell me with a straight face that poultry consumption by humans is an equivalent "evil". I'm sorry, but the fact that PETA had to flail around desperately seeking quotes from Jews as cover for it's dumb-ass, offensive ad campaign only highlights what a stupid fucking PR move the whole thing was from the get-go.

You want "pwnage", since we're throwing around information that we all already have heard 10 or 20 times? Here you go:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4366_52.htm

[flvegan]

244. Awww...

somebody's frustrated.

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

246. Yeah, I'm sure it must be very frustrating, having millions of people refuse to do as they're told.

And not even feeling guilty about it.

[flvegan]

254. I have done

nothing of the sort. You, on the other hand, sporting almost brilliant passive aggressiveness.

Frustrated.

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

257. Like I said. Go through Yad Vashem, then talk to me about that obnoxious PETA campaign.

See if it doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth, if you'll excuse the pun.

[Ignis]

247. "information that we all already have heard 10 or 20 times"

Aw, come on. I'll bet you that the vast majority of DUers had not previously seen those quotes. I'm peripherally active in the AR movement and I hadn't seen them all.

[Warren DeMontague]

249. We've had this fight, before.

Did you read the ADL quote, as well?

"The effort by PETA to compare the deliberate systematic murder of millions of Jews to the issue of animal rights is abhorrent. PETA's effort to seek "approval" for their "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign is outrageous, offensive and takes chutzpah to new heights.

Rather than deepen our revulsion against what the Nazis did to the Jews, the project will undermine the struggle to understand the Holocaust and to find ways to make sure such catastrophes never happen again."

[Ignis]

251. Wait ... what fight?

I do try to keep my archive up-to-date, but it's a real chore sometimes. :P

I'm merely saying that it's disingenuous to try to pass these quotes off as old news. They sure didn't get as much mainstream press as the ADL's reaction to PETA's campaign--which I couldn't help reading/hearing about at the time--and I honestly hadn't seen them all before. They also haven't been plastered all over every DU AR/veggie thread, so your criticism seemed especially odd in context.

So, no, I don't think we've ever had that fight before. If a fight there was to be had.

[Warren DeMontague]

252. I don't mean "we" as in me and you.

On DU, if I remember correctly, this exact "discussion" has taken place several times.

Usually the defense of the PETA campaign has included those same particular quotes.

[Ignis]

253. Ah, pronouns. Fair enough. (nt)

[Ignis]

170. Yeah, I was trying to avoid the direct comparison.

So I took the speeding analogy route. Subtle as rhino in a glass house, eh?. :D Hopefully the underpinnings of the argument weren't completely undercut by my mangling.

And you know very well :spank: that Hitler just had a funny, quack-doctor diet. He wasn't a vegetarian, ethical or otherwise.

[Confusious]

188. I care, I'm just not fanatical about it

So in you mind that means "don't care"

That only applies to meat. People mistreating pets really pisses me off.

[zonkers]

195. I am with you on this one, bigtime. The more we value sentient creatures, the better we become.

[pecwae]

206. The treatment of animals

always shines a light on them. Many who do seem to care only care if the cruelty to animals might turn into cruelty to humans; forget the animal victim. It's exactly like buying into biblical exhortations about mans dominion over animals; anything goes, anything is excused because animals have no souls.

There's nothing at all progressive about factory farming, medical research labs, etc.

[vadawg]

5. i care about them, just not as much as i care about my kids

i care about my dog, i care about my food animals, i care about any animal i may have to eat. I just dont put them on the same level as humans...

[dionysus]

16. +5

[Bonn1997]

56. What do your kids have to do with this? You've confused me!

[vadawg]

60. thats okay was just using my kids to show that i care for animals less than humans

hope this helps

[Bonn1997]

77. Well you probably care for your kids more than for your human neighbors too. That's completely

normal and I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I had kids. That doesn't mean your kids are fundamentally of more worth than your neighbors and should have more rights than your neighbors do. When it comes to the rights a living organism should have, I take Jeremy Bentham's view: “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”

[ZombieHorde]

6. I admit I don't care as much about non-human animals as I feel I should.

I have a hard time killing animals, I even feel weird about harming insects and arachnids, but I had chicken, beef, tofu, and broccoli over noodles today for lunch.

[Bonn1997]

194. I felt that way for a while too. I highly recommend trying a 21 day vegetarian or vegan challenge.

(Or 30 day). You can find info. online. You'll see that it's remarkably easy to live a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle and the foods taste great. You won't be missing out on anything worthwhile or enjoyable. Do some reading first, though. Don't just decide that you're going to stop eating all animal products without knowing what you need to replace them with--that's a recipe for disaster.

[ZombieHorde]

232. I was a vegetarian for a few years, and then I was vegan for about one year.

The meat I missed the most was eel, which was surprising to me, I was expecting to miss chicken the most.

The meat my wife missed the most was anchovy, which was really surprising to her, she was expecting to miss beef the most, especially steak.

[Ignis]

250. That is one of the oddest things I've ever heard.

And if you saw it on DU, that's saying something. :D

[Bonn1997]

256. I actually don't miss any food. I don't get enjoyment out of great food beyond the time period while

I'm eating it and then for maybe a minute afterward. After that, to me it's just done.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. It's their own fault for being so darn tasty.

Bless me Father, for I evolved to be omnivorous. :cry:

[dems_rightnow]

14. LOL

My thoughts exactly.

[shireen]

8. i read that article

A lot needs to be done to improve the quality of life for farm animals. We owe them that much. There are some farms that do it well, and i do what i can to support their efforts by buying meat from them.

[uppityperson]

35. More needs to be done to improve the quality of life for famed animals indeed.

When I bought chicken, there were places I bought from, places I didn't. Now I am lucky enough to have a source for local beef and raise my own poultry in part to avoid the chemicals and in part to be more respectful and humane to the animals.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chemisse]

73. +++

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xipe Totec]

9. Until they breed Ameglian Metacows, I'll stick with turkey thank you

[blues90]

10. In the mid 60's I worked with my father , we did a Chicago

Slaughter house , we had to replace flooring , he was a carpenter and this was a job between building custom homes . I have not eaten meat since.

I could see right across the railroad tracks between these horrid buildings where they loaded the box cars . A sausage company was right across the tracks. I never liked that stuff but to see it made was just another nightmare.

[amborin]

20. reminds me of passing cattle trucks on freeways, ghastly!

but what you described is way worse; reminds me of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"

[Triana]

61. I had a friend in high school whose family owned a slaughterhouse...

...I remember the smell of that place, the blood all over, the cows hanging to bleed, picking up the telephone in the place and having it slide out of my hands because it was covered with grease and animal entrails.

I stopped eating meat after that. They also slaughtered chickens. Watch that once or twice and get a whiff of them being dunked in hot water after their heads are lopped off - helps get the feathers off.

Now, all these animals were "humanely" treated. The roamed free and had plenty of space, sun, fresh air. It was a farm and slaughterhouse.

I STILL never ate meat again. No way.

[amborin]

11. amazing un-recs!

people will un-rec things

why?

[vadawg]

12. un-rec due to your asking why its being un-recced

[Iggo]

13. Wait. That didn't make sense.

I should have said "Because you ARE asking for it".

[blues90]

15. How fiiting , How american of you

not you the poster above you

[vadawg]

30. thanks just using the freedom i have to do what i believe

cant get more american than that..... :)

[amborin]

32. can't get more American than

outsourcing industrial pork production to eastern european hog houses

as Smithfield does!

horrific conditions!

[vadawg]

37. mmmmmbacon, honestly i dont care where my bacon comes from

i prefer danish but east european will do just as well in a pinch...

[amborin]

42. have you ever read about Smithfield's practices?

horrific treatment of hogs

and horrific treatment of small producers throughout eastern europe and western africa

[vadawg]

47. as i said, to you the animals are human like to me they are just food and a resource

i kill and prepare a lot of my own meat, always have since i was a child and now all im thinking about is going out for a bacon sandwich, such is the power of suggestion :)

[dionysus]

49. god damn you... it isn't peppered bacon or smoked, is it? damn i have to fire up the iron skillet!

[vadawg]

50. as ive said before these threads always make me want to do a food run

its like subliminal, i swear that PETA is a front for the meat industry as every time i see their stuff i end up getting more meat.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

85. the one from yesterday lead me to

go out and get some Applewood Smoked Bacon and fry it up with some eggs and waffles for a great Sunday family breakfast...mmmm...soooo good!

sP

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. At least the author is admitting what the agenda is: Try to improve the conditions of farmed animals

and you're just a patsy, a 'blissfully ignorant' sell-out.

It's about stopping all meat eating, period. And to the people who think there is absolutely no difference between a chicken and a human being, this makes sense.

Just like throwing women who get abortions- or use the pill, even- in prison for "murder" makes perfect sense to those who can't or won't distinguish between a fertilized egg and a "baby".

[amborin]

27. that doesn't

seem to be a fair analogy

and, there are plenty of people who certainly do acknowledge the vast differences between humans and other animals, yet who nonetheless consider our treatment of other animal species to be unethical

[katanalori]

18. thank you for sharing this, OP

"The same force formed the sparrow
That fashioned Man, the King;
The God of the Whole gave a spark of soul
To each furred and feathered thing.
And I am my brother's keeper,
And I will fight his fight,
And speak the word for beast and bird,
'Til the world shall set things right."
` Ella Wheeler Wilcox

[amborin]

31. that's great!

[bluestateguy]

19. What a pompous ass

Not content to just make a private choice to not eat meat he has to sneeringly judge anybody else who disagrees with his lifestyle choice.

His tone has an eerily resemblance to the rhetoric of anti-gay and anti-abortion fanatics.

[amborin]

22. um

did you mean "eerie" resemblance?

there was nothing sneery about his article

the anti-vegan crowd reminds me a bit of the anti-climate change folks

neither group cares about anyone but themselves; they don't care if species become extinct, as long as humans survive; or rather, as long as they, themselves, survive

[Warren DeMontague]

64. No shit. These people create these bubbles of self-righteous superiority and then wonder why

no one listens to them or takes them seriously.

You face quite a few social difficulties as well, perhaps the chief one being how one should feel about spending time with people who are not vegans.


...why do I get the feeling dude doesn't have many friends?

[vadawg]

67. im pretty happy if vegans dont want to attend my bbqs or my pig roasts

nothing worse than when you have a get together and someone expects you to attend to their dietry whims, now if its an allergy fine we can try but otherwise dont attend and let everyone else party down...

[Warren DeMontague]

71. I have absolutely no problem serving people vegan food. I spent an couple years eating no meat.

I still haven't eaten red meat in many many years, I eat poultry and fish basically. If someone is having a bash and is only serving beef or pork, I either eat something else first or fill up on green beans or salad or potatoes or whatever.

My wife and I made sure that one of the dinner choices at our wedding was vegan. No problem.

So I don't mind accommodating people who don't eat meat, in fact when it comes to barbecue I like a lot of the vegan/veggie burgers myself.

But that's a far cry from someone telling other people what they should or shouldn't eat. The guy who wrote this article apparently can't even be in the same room with a meat eater... Like I said, people should worry about what's on their own forks. Fuck, even the PETA people I lived with for one year in college didn't blow a gasket when I cooked a steak in the kitchen.

[vadawg]

72. yup thats pretty much what i was getting at, dont come to my place and bitch

you know theres gonna be meat so expect it, funnily i was veggie for a while as well, but i enjoy my game to much.

[Shell Beau]

89. You are so tolerant. Wow.

If I invite guests over, I try to accommodate them and their needs. It is called being a good and gracious host (and friend for that matter).

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UndertheOcean]

21. Glad to see this excellent article swinged back to a positive ranking

here on DU

[Bonn1997]

193. Same here. I'm truly astonished that an article advocating for vegan lifestyle is in positive

territory

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Just a little piece of advice. There are 4 more days until Thanksgiving.

I doubt that any of us who are planning on unrepentantly cooking and devouring a turkey for our patriarchal, nationalistic flesh-feast probably aren't going to change our plans at this late date.

Conversely, for the "Holocaust on your plate" crowd, you still have to get through 4 days of chest-puffing moral exhortations and frustrated, impotent outrage on this issue, as your moral lessers stubbornly resist your well-meaning, enlightened consciousness raising on these matters. You might want to pace yourselves.

[amborin]

24. LOL!

that was great!

[katanalori]

25. quotes to ponder

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian." ~Paul McCartney


"Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. " ~George Bernard Shaw


"Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal." ~Ingrid Newkirk

[amborin]

28. those are great!

[BrklynLiberal]

45. Many of the great thinkers were sensitive to how animals were treated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7070329&mesg_id=7070786

Famous vegetarians in history
http://www.veg-world.com/articles/famous.htm

[amborin]

52. thanks for posting those!

[BrklynLiberal]

44. Mahatma Gandhi said you can judge a nation by how it treats its animals.

Albert Einstein:
(1879-1955)

"The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life."

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

“Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind.”

“Our task must be to free ourselves...widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”

[ieoeja]

132. Given how badly India treats their people, I can see why they would say that.

[Ignis]

214. Explain, please. (nt)

[phasma ex machina]

162. +1

[bertman]

57. George Bernard Shaw obviously never met a living, breathing tiger in the wild, or a

hungry grizzly bear. Those "friends" of his would have gladly eaten him.

As a dedicated meat eater I try to eat meat that is pasture-raised on small farms that do not inject their animals with hormones or antibiotics. It costs more so I eat smaller portions. Win-win.

We humans are omnivores but that does not mean we have to be conscienceless in how we treat the animals we eat.

[Bonn1997]

58. “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” –Jeremy Bentham

“Most people adopt a personal philosophy that amounts to little more than a rationalization of all the things they want to be doing anyway.” –Jed Gillen

[MichaelHarris]

26. I care about them

that's why I marinate my meat.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[kestrel91316]

34. Most people understand that livestock is raised to be eaten or utilized by man

in other ways (they are not pets or companion animals for the most part). So the level of concern is less.

[amborin]

38. well

you are subscribing to just the view discussed in the article: the view that the animals are here to be "used"

not everyone agrees!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

263. Nothing "is" there "to" be used.

They were there, we found out they were usable, and we took advantage of that fact. Same thing with fruit, fossil fuels, wood, uranium, grain, wind, the salt in sea water, the kinetic energy of some rivers flow...

Purpose is an illusion.

[amborin]

41. many people

throughout the world also don't believe this

in India, for example, cows are revered

it's a cultural belief that animals are to be "used"

that is tantamount to viewing them as inanimate "things"

[BrklynLiberal]

46. and there are cultures in which it is acceptable to eat what WE consider pets.

Animals were not actually placed on this planet to serve man. Mankind has just assumed that, and acted upon his assumption.

[amborin]

53. exactly!

[BrklynLiberal]

48. The definition of "livestock" can vary from culture to culture.

There are places where it is acceptable to eat dogs, cats, horses....and other creatures that we here in the US consider pets.

[Lucian]

36. I'll make sure to eat a gravy-soaked turkey drumstick in your name on Thanksgiving.

:toast:

[Prism]

39. I wish . . .

. . . certain people spent as much time fighting child and spousal abuse as they did concerning themselves with what's on everyone else's dinner plate.

[amborin]

65. it's not zero sum

fighting against cruelty to animals and for animal rights does not mean one can't also fight other unjust conditions

it's not either/or

and, perhaps if humans developed greater sensitivity to the suffering and plight of animals, both "farm" animals and "wild" animals, it might also indirectly help the causes you mention

it might lead to less insensitity to other living beings, whether humans or other non-human animals!

[Prism]

87. For too many, it usually is

This isn't entirely specific to the OP. For whatever reasons, this week has been vegetarian/vegan assault week both online and off. I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans. I'm a very light meat-eater and an animal lover myself. But I can say with full honesty, that I hear far, far, far, far, far more about what people are eating or can eat or should eat than I do about, say, the foster care system, adoption, women's shelters, etc.

Maybe because food is a universal. It's something we all deal with, so it's easier as a conversation piece. Maybe that's it.

I just like to enjoy my meals superiority-free if it's at all possible. especially when that superiority is coming from someone who cares a great deal about animals and food but couldn't, say, be bothered in the slightest whenever they were asked to volunteer at a shelter or donate to any other cause.

Not that I know people like that or anything . . .

Grrr!

Sorry, I know. The OP was just a convenient vent for me is all.

[Hidden Stillness]

40. Some of the Abuses are Terrible; This Needs to be Taken Seriously

This is a very thoughtful and wise editorial, linked from the OP, and I just finished reading it. As a matter of fact, I have been feeling like crap because I had to look at and listen to yet another story of undercover video on local news, of cruel treatment of pigs at a factory farm--the worst type of place for animals--and yes, it disturbs me greatly. There are still very weak laws on the treatment of commercial operations, and very lax inspection and enforcement. It is very disturbing to me, and I want a lot more attention given to this as an issue of regulation, with punishment for violations.

How many cases have there been, all uncovered by the Humane Society and other animal-welfare organizations: the examples of chickens thrown and stomped on, at a Tyson factory, I think it was; the multiple examples of very sick cows stabbed in the eye, forklifted, bulldozed to get them to move, as they cried; the examples, as now tonight again, of throwing and dropping baby pigs. I am not a vegetarian and I don't think you have to be to care on the level of decent treatment on a farm, not locked in the small cage of a factory, and then killed quickly and painlessly. It has to be dealt with as a thing that you face and admit will still exist, and therefore let's have strong laws for decent treatment, and real punishment when it is found violated. I care about animals.

[amborin]

66. the abuses you mention are horrific!

reminds me of the absolutely ghastly, barbaric, and inhumane conditions at Smithfield's industrial pig "farms" in eastern europe

they are outsourcing their hog production there, to evade US 'regulations' (a joke, right?!). smithfield has bought out 1000s of small hog farms throughout Romania and Poland, putting the small farmers out of business, and creating the most horrific industrial "farms," where pigs are crammed into tiny spaces, never see daylight, and are subjected to cruel and painful conditions.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. "If slaughterhouses had windows, everyone would be a vegetarian."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

103. that is absolute falsehood. assuming none of us have slaughtered our own meat

or that butchers are vegetarians are silly

i will say, slaughterhouses that currently exist, makes some of us want to eat only farm raised animals etc. doesnt make me in any way want to give up meat

[Bonn1997]

196. I think you're taking the quote way too literally.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

255. its not a metaphorical quote. nt

[anigbrowl]

187. Ummm...no.

I've killed animals,. I didn't take any particular pleasure in it, nor did it bother me too much. People who are horrified by such things have, I think, a morbid fear of death or injury. You could die in a car accident, someone might kill you, a tree could fall on you.

[Bonn1997]

197. There is no evidence for this claim. Fear of death is a topic I teach on and am very interested in.

You can read about terror management theory for good info. on the topic.

[anigbrowl]

222. I made it clear that it's my personal opinion, not necessarily a matter of fact.

We will continue to disagree on this topic.

[amborin]

236. totally disagree

[SPedigrees]

51. I've seen a free-range facility, and while it is no sunny barnyard

it is a far cry from hens stuffed into individual cages so tiny they cannot move. The birds can and do walk around the floor of a large industrial steel building, and can and do climb up to roost in nests provided atop a sort of bleacher set-up.

Surprise, surprise, these hens lay better than their caged counterparts.

[edbermac]

54. "It's a cookbook!...IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!"

The irony of it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I care about animals and how they are raised

and for god sakes I know they have feelings...

But here is the problem. We evolved to eat a variety of foods, that includes meats... so did my parrots. They eat meat, they beg for it. You know why? In the wild, in the jungles of South America, where they evolved, they eat smaller mammals, birds, and grubs, none of which is tofu.

Do Humans, especially western humans, consume too much protein? Yes. but did we evolve to eat it? YEP.

That does not mean animals should be held in the horrific conditions that they are held or that industrial agriculture is not a crime but damn it, evolution is against you. We do need our protein... from animal sources... and by the way, so do my parrots who enjoy meat every day, almost.

NO I don't cook for them, they eat from my pot.

[Triana]

59. Vegan here. And proud of it. And this is why.

Thank you.

I expect you'll get a lot of self-righteous replies from meat-eaters about their rights. The animals don't have any. They miss the point.

And, some people say they need to eat some meat due to health reasons (they get tired and lose energy if they don't). I can't speak to that. I've never experienced it and don't know of any medical or nutritional explanation for it except that they don't know how to properly replace meat in their diets. It is a shift in thinking and behavior that takes some effort to make.

[BoneDaddy]

92. Projection is a funny thing

[Triana]

97. http://www.escapeabuse.com

YES. It is.

[BoneDaddy]

216. But then again you worship

a pedophile, so what argument could I possibly make that you would understand.

Typically the only "self-righteousness" I see is started from the hard core veg community. Most, if not all, of the meat eaters responses are exactly that, responses to the massive judgements made about them from evil to immoral to advocating their deaths. Sad.

[Bonn1997]

198. Good for you! I've been vegetarian for a long time but just last week finally decided to switch to

veganism.

[nomorenomore08]

63. And demanding that others do as you do isn't self-righteous?

Yeah, sure... :eyes:

[amborin]

68. not "demanding" but rather hoping to motivate

your reply is what is so self-righteous

you don't sound very enlightened, just unjustifiably smug

[nomorenomore08]

70. I didn't say you were demanding anything, rather that the author was.

And if he's not smug, then who is? For Christ's sake, he implies that he can barely stand to be around those less "enlightened" than he is. And he must be either naive or delusional, to believe that anyone is going to go from heavy meat consumption to strictest-level veganism just like that, let alone due to *his* arguments.

[Robb]

82. Oh, bullshit.

It's an inflammatory title. Most people do care about animals.

To pretend at this stage it's an attempt to gently nudge anyone is absurd.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Here's a philosophical question for Mr. Steiner (or anyone)

Most of the animals that we eat are bred specifically so that we can eat them. Therefore they would not exist in the first place if we were not going to eat them. So is it better not to be born at all than to be born and then ultimately slaughtered for human consumption? Would that answer change if they are treated humanely?

[Bonn1997]

199. His view stems from the non-speciesist vegan philosophy that all sentient animals should have equal

rights--including the right to life. Veganism rejects the claim that because we humans are smarter, we should have more rights.

And also, I believe that if we humans brought an animal into existence, we should have an even greater, not lesser, responsibility to ensure its right to life is protected.

It is a good question though. If you are not approaching the issue from a vegan philosophy, it's easy to think that we should have more rights over any animal that we brought into existence.

[Hippo_Tron]

229. Okay but under vegan philosophy...

Is it better for the animal to not have existed at all than to have an existence where it is subjugated by humans?

[Ignis]

245. Just go read the AR pages on Wiki for some background.

Smarter people than either of us have done the philosophy work already. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

The question you're asking is addressed by the split between suffering-based and rights-based theories of animal liberation: Is the moral solution to the problem welfare or abolition?

[cornermouse]

75. There is a big difference between free range and confined.

You can see the difference when you drive down the road behind a semi full of turkey's headed for the processor. They've stuffed too many per cage, feathers are dirty with feces from overcrowded conditions, and there is typically a trail of feathers down the highway. Also those broadbreasted types have difficulty walking due to being overweight. We had a broadbreasted turkey that died a natural, although premature death due to an eventual inability to walk.

Free range, particularly if a heritage type are lighter and healthier.

[Kshasty]

76. looks as some vegetarian club agitation

[Naturyl]

78. Yes,all this true.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I won't try to defend that choice morally. There is really no good moral defense. I am generally an unselfish person in most ways, but I do still allow myself some indulgences. Eating meat is one of them. I won't try to legitimize it. Hopefully I will find a way to give it up eventually.

[Stevenmarc]

79. I do care about the animals, that's why I'm taking the extra time to brine the turkey

[Robb]

83. Oooo... I'd almost forgotten that part. Thanks. nt

[stray cat]

80. Most people just don't care about bacteria - they kill billions with antibiotics

never caring that it is a living creature they are murdering

[SOS]

90. Creature

From the OED:

creature
noun
an animal, as distinct from a human being

Bacteria are not creatures by definition.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. most animals also dont care about other animals. a lion looks at a deer as food

the author deliberately confuses two issues: 1) eating animals as food 2) factory farming

i care that my food has not had a horrible life before me but i see my food as food.

also, i dont buy the horseshit that we wouldnt be able to eat animals if we slaughtered them ourselves. farmers, even before factory farming, were able to slaughter and eat their own meat. maybe those of us raised in cities etc couldnt do it, but i dont think thats a question of nature. if i had grown up seeing animal slaughter, i would be fine with it. my father killed chicken before the family ate them. he strongly believes in farm raised animals for food.

[VMI Dem]

84. But, would the lions change their minds if they knew how many deer are killed by predators?

And it is very unpleasant I would guess.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. clearly when i eat a chicken, i am convinced i am the only human on earth who eats chicken

[immoderate]

167. One cow and one pig per year, that's all I consume. The rest...

of the animals (on earth) I treat with the utmost kindness. :)

--imm

[Bonn1997]

91. That's true but these animals know of no way to survive other than eating animals. We on the other

hand do. We're the only animal species that eats other animals out of convenience and enjoyment rather than necessity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. there are other omnivorous animals and if we didnt add our human element

of insanity to everything, we would be able to see food as food.

[Bonn1997]

94. I know there are other omnivores. There's no indication that they eat animals just for enjoyment

though. That would actually be quite costly, as there is always risk of injury and potentially death involved in attacking prey. I would modify your statement on seeing "food as food" to seeing "potential food as potential food." I would not argue against the claim that a cow is potential food (but so are my human neighbors!).

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. cannibalism is not common in our species so your argument of seeing humans as potential

food really doesn't hold for our species. being omnivores, is however very common to our species. its part of the way we have evolved and part of the way the culture around our food has evolved.

and this article is right, in that i don't think of animal life in any way equivalent to human life. animal life is different. some animals are our foods, some our companions, some we should stay away from etc.

[Bonn1997]

96. War is very common to our species too. We should still do everything we can to prevent it.

Poverty is common to our species. Poor education is common. The list goes on and on. Frequency has nothing to do with morality or desirability.

Why is a nonhuman animal of less worth than a human animal? The usual reason people give is that we have more advanced "cognitive abilities," which is just a fancy way of saying that an animal's rights and worth should be determined by how smart he or she is. That's a very dangerous, slippery slope to go down IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. "Why is a nonhuman animal of less worth than a human animal?" Let's say you have a sick child.

Let's say there's an experimental drug that needs to be tested on a lab rat.

Would you say that the life of the sick child is "worth more" than the lab rat? Yes? No?

Would you accept the death of the lab rat if it would save the kid's life? If it might save the kid's life?

I sure as fucking hell would. In a heartbeat. Without having to write some 1,000 page dissertation on subjective species ethics, either.

Is the life of a human being worth more than the life of a chicken or a rat or a virus? Yes, yes, it is. Do cognitive abilities figure into the rights and worth of living things?

No, as long as you accept that carrots, field mice, chickens and humans all deserve completely equal rights.

[Bonn1997]

102. Carrots have no sentience and are irrelevant. "Worth to me" and "worth" are two different topics. My

kid would be worth more to me than not only a lab rat but also someone else's kid. I would not claim my kid is of more worth though.

I answered your question (even if you don't like the answer). I hope you'll answer the following question. If killing a lab rat hypothetically also made your kid likely to die younger, would you still want the lab rat to be killed? That's more comparable to humans eating animal meat, as all evidence I've seen indicates vegetarianism and veganism are healthier than meat eating.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. I would say that anyone's kid is worth more than a lab rat. Yes.

And wait a minute- if it's a "slippery slope" to define worth in relation to intelligence or sentience, why does it matter that carrots have none? And how do you KNOW carrots are not sentient, anyway?

As for "all the evidence" you've seen- care to back that up?

A lot of things aren't healthy for people to do. You can be a vegan who smokes and eats tons of fried potato chips drizzled in maple syrup.

Look. You think that lab rats should be given equal rights to sick kids, that it's okay for kids to die if it gives lab rats equal standing under the law. That's your perogative. So, own up to your philosophical POV.

[Bonn1997]

119. "I would say that anyone's kid is worth more than a lab rat. Yes." I think you must have

misunderstood my question. My question was whether you would kill the lab rat if doing so also *reduced* the life of your kid (or was *unhealthy* for your kid) but was somehow enjoyable much like eating meat kills the animal and is unhealthy, but is enjoyable to many. Basically the question involves negative effects on the rat and on the kid but does allow for the experience of enjoyment.

I'm a proud non-speciesist and am not running from your question. To be crystal clear: I do not support any form of animal research that harms animals, including the research in your example. If it were my own kid involved, I'm sure I'd WANT to make an exception. However, I would have a conflict of interest and should not be the one deciding on the ethics the research--much like the parent of a murder victim should not be allowed to sit on the jury of the alleged murderer. In this case, the parent might want to make exceptions and just want the murderer killed immediately or maybe tortured and then killed. Obviously, we should not have a society where that takes place though.

For a detailed description of the evidence on plants not having sentience, please read Jed Gillen's book Obligate Carnivore. To put it concisely, though: Plants are not vertebrates; they do not have a brain or spinal cord and thus do not have the only mechanisms that scientists have ever found to produce pain. They do not respond to any environmental stimuli in a manner that suggests they experience pain. And they had no reason from an evolutionary perspective to have evolved capacities to experience pain. Nevertheless, I can't say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to experience pain. I would just say that the current state of scientific theory and research is that they cannot. I am a social scientist by training and I live my life based on principles derived from scientific research. I adjust when new evidence emerges. If everyone did that, I believe we would have a more just world, as I believe science is the most objective source of knowledge. That doesn't mean people would always reach the "right" decision, as scientists can sometimes be mistaken. I believe science is less error prone than any other source of information though. MOST IMPORTANTLY, everything in this paragraph should be overridden by the fact that eating a vegan diet requires less plant life than an omnivorous diet. The only way that I am aware of for humans to survive and do the least harm to any other living species (that is, survive while killing the fewest plants and fewest animals) is to adopt a vegan diet.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. I'm guessing you don't have kids. In fact, I'd be willing to bet on it.

I'm not someone who finds much value in arguing endlessly with my navel over whether or not dialectical materialism proves that it's objectively there from a paradigm-free perspective. I'm a human, and you're damn right I value human life over, say, the life of a rat.

Nevertheless, I don't think you can argue that a lack of sentience doesn't matter in the case of a carrot, yet degrees of sentience are immaterial when comparing the existence of, say, a bacteria or a bird or a rat or a dolphin or a human.

As for your thought experiment, it doesn't make any sense. No one eats lab rats, and killing lab rats has nothing to do with eating meat, much less whether eating meat is inherently "unhealthy". You are using your belief that it is unhealthy in all instances (certainly, SOME diets, containing meat as well as not, are unhealthy) to justify your primary moral focus, which is to stop meat eating. Actually, there is a good deal of scientific evidence that diets containing omega oils, including fish, are very healthful- yet I suspect that if all the evidence in the world pointed to meat eating being MORE healthy, you would drop that line of reasoning- because your goal isn't "health" as it is, again, stopping meat eating.

[Bonn1997]

130. I never said it was a slippery sloap to define worth in terms of sentience. The basis of veganism is

to minimize suffering. So sentience is actually crucial. (Sentience is NOT the same thing as intelligence.)

[Confusious]

191. Chickens have no sentience..............eom

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. because there is such a thing a food chain even animals recognize it

it only seems that some humans refuse to see thing as they are.

some problems are human created, poverty, war, education, bias etc

some things exist in nature, like omnivores/carnivores eating herbivores.

pretending that we have somehow evolved to not see food as such, is just pretence

[Bonn1997]

105. I've never said that eating animal meat was "unnatural"; I've only said that I believe it is wrong

Nature has nothing to do with what is moral or optimal. For more on the nature fallacy, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Sure we could resort to the "natural food chain" just like we could stop using vaccinations, stop traveling by anything other than foot (or maybe horse), stop using light bulbs, and stop using clothing (these are all unnatural products/activities just like you're implying that ignoring the food chain would be). All it would accomplish is a)humans having more fun eating convenient things that taste good, b) humans dying earlier due to the unhealthy products in many meats and animal products, and c) nonhuman animals dying unnecessarily. You haven't convinced me that sticking to nature in this instance makes any sense!

[amborin]

108. "nature" "carnivore" etc.....all humanly-created categories;

you are victim of the "natural attitude"

humans, unlike other animals, are not condemned to their evolutionary instincts

humans have the capacity to intervene in darwinian processes

animals are forced to eat other animals, to survive

[Warren DeMontague]

111. "animals are forced to eat other animals, to survive"

Are you one of those people who tries to force their cats to eat vegan cat food?

Good luck with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You know what is funny

the "commercial" diet for parrots, is all but healthy for them. What they eat for long life is an omnivorous diet, that includes animal protein. Why? they eat that in the wild... and grubs ain't tofu.

Now a cat eating carrots, that is not quite a mental I needed. I am sure the cat will have the same issues our seed eater had with malnutrtion. And 100% vegans, if they are not careful, have similar issues to those the bird had... B12, iron and other deficiencies.

[Bonn1997]

120. No one should be a careless vegan. I will readily agree with you on that. Being a vegan does not

require more care than being a meat eater, though. It just requires buying different products.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. And even Indians who eat a vegetarian diet

consume eggs, cheese and other animal products. Just not flesh

There is a reason for that.

100% vegan diets lead to all kinds of issues with B vitamins and iron chiefly...

Now I must say the conure just had some chicken... and potatoes, and vegies... and he is a much more happier and energetic, oh and healthier bird.

[Bonn1997]

125. Correction: A poorly thought out vegan diet leads to those problems just like a poor meat-based diet

leads to its own problems

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Again, there is a reason that outside of the VEGAN movement

fully vegan diets have not taken off around the world, over the last oh 50K years or more.

Like it or not it is called evolution. We are omnivores.

And as I said, westerners in particular eat a little too much meat. but we are omnivores.

[Bonn1997]

136. I agree we are omnivores and we evolved to be capable of eating meat. You need to read up on the

naturalistic fallacy if you think evolution is relevant to morality or optimal functioning, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. body needs have little to do wiht morality

I need niacin, for example, ethics have little to do with niacin.

Now we do need to correct the horrible conditions of industrial agriculture, that is not in discussion. But to claim that we as a species should just turn evolutionary needs because they are not trendy is just nuts.

Oh and before you say it, what do you want to know about industrial coups? I worked in a few... so showing me I don't know... movies of them will not affect me. Been there, done that got the T-shirt and I wish conditions were far better.

[Bonn1997]

150. We should (and always have) abandoned evolutionary practices when doing so is suboptimal

and often (but not always, sadly) when it is immoral.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Niacin has nothing to do with morality

sorry.

Now for your happiness, now that we are in the sixth extinction, given life on earth, you should be happy... we are perhaps on the way out... but life, and that circle of life you seem to detest will continue.

I should clarify why. Apex Species have not survived the other five extinctions, or if they have (birds are descendants of Dinos, even T-Rex) they are thoroughly changed by the experience. So life will go on but humans, perhaps not.

[Bonn1997]

156. OK, you need niacin. So what?

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. And a slew of other nutrients

and I am not the only omnivore species in this household

But be happy. Humanity's days may be on the way out. So then no pondering where we came from, or why some critters eat other critters...

Not until the next self aware, I will not use sentient, being that can actually write... I am not sure other species don't have this ability, comes to be. But until then, and if... well our days may be counted. that may make some of you happy... humans will not eat other animals anymore.

Now if you made your arguments vs a vs global warming... you might have a better chance... just better. And as is one recommendation to reduce green houses is to reduce meat consumption the way it is consumed in other places... almost as a garnish.

But that's ok... even this is too radical for you.

Oh don quixote, good luck.

[Bonn1997]

160. I agree 100% with the environmental reasons for veganism. Just because I didn't state it doesn't

mean I disagree with the claim that veganism is better for the environment.

[Bonn1997]

270. The slew of other nutrients are all available from a vegan diet and often in healthier forms than

from a nonvegan diet

[Confusious]

192. Out of curiosity

Which evolutionary practices have we abandoned?

[Bonn1997]

201. Anbandoning "nature" would have been a more precise way to word it. I carelessly stuck to the

previous poster's language. I suspect the poster really meant our "historical nature" rather than referring to evolution, as evolution has no bearing on the current discussion. (There certainly is no evidence that eating meat increases your ability to survive and reproduce in our modern environment.) If you want examples of how we've abandoned nature out of convenience, I can give a really long list but you may not need such a list now that I've clarified what I meant.

[Confusious]

273. Please do, as far as nature

Living in caves does not count. My apt counts as a cave.

[Bonn1997]

210. Or, there is no evolutionary justification for prohibiting human slavery. Slaves are a group we

have power over and can use to maximize our resources and thus chances of survival and reproduction. Nevertheless, we eventually chose morality over the evolutionary pressure to maximize our resources.

(You could argue that we evolved a strong sense of morality and ability to choose to do things that are inconvenient and/or costly. However, this same argument must then be applied to the decision of whether to kill animals to eat them when we don't have to.)

[Confusious]

274. You could also say

That we abandoned slavery BECAUSE of economics. You can pay a wage slave a lot less then you need to feed a slave. And you can give less of a shit.

Most Historians say that economics was part of the cause for the civil war, and slavery was economics.

[Bonn1997]

121. Well-put. I'd add that we not only have the capacity to intervene in the Darwinian process but that

we do it all the time already (so long as it's convenient and doesn't ruin any fun we'd have by sticking to what's evolved)

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Chimps also go to war, so do dolphins

and as mal adaptive as war may be today... it could be an evolved trait.

I am sure you never thought of it in that way.

[Bonn1997]

118. ??? Nothing I said contradicts the possibility that "war is an evolved trait"

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Here is a hint... we are much more like animals

than we want to believe. Yes, there is this patina of culture over us, but we are far more acting on our instincts than we want to believe. In other words, you and I are closer to others in nature. Not superior or inferior, and most humans will eat what is culturally available, but also evolved towards eating. Why all, cultures eat animal products of one kind or another, yes even in India... and some eat stuff that will make your head turn in horror...

Now that does not mean that industrial agriculture does not have issues, it does. That does not mean our industrial production facilities don't have issues, they do. But please stay out of my fork, and I will stay out of yours. Personally I do try my best to buy locally grown all, and if you think I have no idea what goes on in oh an industrial coup, having worked in one, I fear I do. And I still enjoy a couple of eggs in the morning from time to time.

[amborin]

127. and evolutionary psychologists agree with you!

[amborin]

107. been to

PNG lately?

they still have active head-hunting....

true, they don't eat the victims, but do value their heads

so....

[ElboRuum]

174. Really?

If we are the only ones who eat out of enjoyment rather than necessity, why then do dogs and cats show preferences for certain types of food over others? Your statement seems to employ the idea that nutrition in the animal world is purely mechanical and inspires no emotion, but the fact is that apparently taste plays a role.

[Bonn1997]

205. I will try to put it more clearly below:

We're the only animal species that eats other animals *solely* out of convenience and enjoyment (not out of necessity). My "thought activity" in reply #203 may help you to understand my viewpoint.

[ElboRuum]

217. No, I understand your view and all...

But I don't see consumption as a particularly moral issue. Others do. To me, animals are another resource, to be utilized, conserved, and cared for, but yes, ultimately consumed in some way.

I would, however, conjecture that we eat other animals solely out of convenience and enjoyment. Just like a cat who chases and eats mice even though they are being fed well and regularly, we are also true to our own natures. A cat is true to its nature when it chases down and eats a mouse, and we are true to our nature insofar as we do what strikes our preference. It isn't solely out of convenience or enjoyment, it is to seek that enjoyment which is in our natures. To suggest that being smart or civilized should somehow give us impetus or duty to squelch this nature for some arbitrary moral standard goes squarely against that nature, an artifice of arbitrary standards of civilization.

I read your thought activity and have this to say. If we are tasty, and we are powerless to act against the gastronomes of a civilized alien species, we will be meat. This is nature, and it can be cruel.

[Bonn1997]

219. That same reasoning could justify human slaves though

They're powerless against us. They help maximize our resources and hence ability to survive and reproduce. It is in our nature to try to survive and reproduce, right?

[ElboRuum]

224. You're missing the point...

Your arguments fail because they beg the question. There is, to me, no moral proscription which defines eating meat, wearing fur or leather, or keeping pets as an immoral act. Some think it is, many do not. Your arguments proceed from comparisons of immorality (in a rather anthropomorphic way, another fallacy, but I'll put that aside for now) based upon this premise which requires proof, or at least an agreement on it as hypothetical for purposes of exposition of the argument.

Also, you are proceeding also from a position that there is a moral character to this argument, when in fact, the entire point could be morally neutral.

Let me put it this way, so that you can clearly understand where I'm coming from.

From another post (and correct me if I am wrong if it wasn't you who stated this), you mentioned that you came about your current view through reading about veganism, at least in part. Did you eat meat prior to this? If so, were you then engaged in an immoral act? If you respond affirmatively to that, then were you aware that theft was immoral without reading about "nontheftism"? Were you aware that murder was immoral without reading about "antimurderism"? Both of these things are axiomatic in our society (and consequently in most if not all others), so why would you need to read about veganism to come to realize, which you're assuming through your premises, an axiomatic moral truth? There really is only one answer to this and that is "because it is not axiomatic", and thus, requires proof in order to support your further arguments upon which they are based.

The argument you posed in this latest post would fail for other reasons, but the prime reason most arguments of this sort fail to convince is for assuming facts of moral proscription not in evidence.

Is eating meat immoral? You say yes. I say no. Impasse reached for lack of proof of your assertion that it is. Conversation typically ends at that point.

[Bonn1997]

227. Disagreement does not mean all arguments are equally valid. Yes, I ate meat until I learned about

speciesism and veganism. Yes, I believe my past meat eating caused needless suffering and death of animals and I believe my behavior was immoral. Why was I acting immorally? I'd say it was a combination of ignorance, believing everything the media told me about nutrition, and moral disengagement. A lot of that I think was because it's easy to assume what the masses are doing must be right. I don't think that made me a bad person and I don't think most meat eaters are bad people. But their eating behavior and mine previously I do believe is immoral.

[ElboRuum]

262. You are absolutely correct that not all arguments are equally valid.

But a sense of moral rectitude does not decide which is more or less valid.

In the case of this, they are equal. If there was a moral proscription generally against eating meat, or such a thing could be proven as needful even in its absence, then you could add more weight to your side of the argument. In the absence of proof required by your premises, you've ceded the moral position, making it morally neutral and therefore subject to a simple matter of individual choice.

Personally, I understand the veggie way from a health standpoint. Perhaps it is a healthier alternative, but IANAD so I can't and won't argue for or against, but doing the healthy thing is a choice unfettered by moral concerns. That point of view is concrete and reasonable, and can be supported by facts (or at least statisically valid conjectures) in evidence. It is the moral view I take issue with because it does NOT stand up to reason, or at least to this point it has not had the advocacy required to make it possible to stand up to reason.

Playing devil's advocate, I could stand up for the rights of plants against plant-eaters and make similar moral claims with equal relevance.

[Bonn1997]

264. OK, now I understand what you're saying

Sorry it took me a while. I'll try to explain my argument further. There has to be an underlying philosophical foundation for one's moral positions. Indeed, all science has an underlying set of philosophical assumptions. These philosophical assumptions are not statistically tested but are agreed on as a reasonable starting point. For example, there is no statistical test justifying our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That does NOT, however, mean that any and all philosophical foundations are equally valid. Let me illustrate what I mean:

At a most basic level, the philosophy underlying my life is that we humans have an obligation to do as minimal harm to others (including nonhuman animals) and the environment as possible. I believe we do not have the right to *unnecessarily and intentionally* harm any living organism unless doing so is the *only* means possible to self-defense or self-preservation. You are certainly free to argue against this philosophical foundation but then laws against many forms of animal mistreatment would no longer be justifiable. For example, if an individual can make a lot of money (and increase his or her resources and hence survival chances) by arranging dog fights and selling tickets, what's to stop him? You would need some kind of underlying philosophy that justifies unnecessarily harming animals for food but not for maximization of any other resources that are also directly tied to survival. I cannot think of any such justification.

I would also say that humans *should* try to do as much good as possible for (not only as minimal harm to) others but I would not go so far as to say an individual *must* do as much good as possible. I personally feel we should strive to do as much good, though.

The issue of plants is irrelevant because a vegan diet is actually the only diet that allows humans to survive and kills the fewest plants possible. If you stood up for plants' rights in your devil's advocate example, the only two conclusions that I believe could follow are that either (a) humans must adopt a vegan lifestyle or (b) humans must stop eating altogether. Obviously the moral philosophy I outlined above would allow for option (a) and I do not know anyone whose moral philosophy would require choice (b).

[ElboRuum]

265. Well Stated.

Not to drag this on too much further because I detect a limit to the amount of new information that can be brought to this discussion was fast approaching, I'd just like to place these few items out there.

You are forgetting a host of possible snags that the devil's advocate examples entails. My advocacy, much in the spirit of your philosophy, only taken to the logical extreme, states that your philosophy arbitrarily assigns plants a lesser status in the living world. In other words, you claim that we should not harm any living organism, yet you arbitrarily choose the plant as the "sacrificial lamb" once you establish the fact that sustenance is necessary for survival. My advocacy implies that ALL living organisms either have equal status for consideration or none of them do, because the choice not to eat animals implies that animals somehow rank as more "protected" in your philosophy than plants. Since this must be arbitrary (no moral proscription specifically exists which places humans and animals on the same plane, neither does one exist which places plants in the same stead as animals) then the choice to eat one versus the other must also be arbitrary.

So actually, there are many more legitimate conclusions one could draw. (a) humans can adopt a vegan lifestyle (b) humans can adopt a meat eating lifestyle (c) humans can adopt a lifestyle which combines both vegetable or animal matter for consumption or (d) humans can stop eating altogether. Since we can safely rule out (d) according to any sensible argument which recognizes the drive for survival, and combining the first three logically into (a) humans can adopt a method of sustenance of choice, the advocacy intimates that in order for your conjecture to be valid, there is an incipient ranking of sorts as to which actors in this deserve more consideration, and that this ranking has been imposed artificially, rather than being intrinsic.

This, in an of itself, is perfectly fine for a personal choice. If you wish to impose a morality personally upon this which guides your decisions because you believe it to be right to do so, by all means, you have my blessings and support. But never forget that this morality is an imposed one, and that arguments which claim that such rights for animals and actionable in a more general sense, require justification.

All of this said, I believe you are generally correct in your philosophy insofar as we, as sentient beings, have the capacity for extensive wrangling with moral issues, although I'd probably differ with you in the degree in which we pursue it. I would expect that people in general, where the environment as a whole is a concerned, feel different degrees of kinship with the natural world. Some probably look at nature and marvel at its "perfection and harmony" and ignore the obvious chaos and destruction that exist and feel an extraordinary need to protect it. In fact, some would even look at the negative aspects of our own civilization and claim that we are the interlopers, totally forgetting the idea that we are, too, a part of nature, and develop a view that nature should be protected even at the expense of our own survival. Then there is the other end of the spectrum, people who view the natural world as something to be exploited and overcome, because they feel no kinship with it.

As for me, I see the natural world as we are a part of it, part predator, part prey, part protector, part destroyer, involved in all aspects of its development and destruction. Thus the natural world is a resource, to be cared for, to be conserved, but to also be utilized. Part of being human that makes it worthwhile is that we can not only survive, but prosper and enjoy. Sure, absolutely find the most humane way possible for raising livestock, but make no mistake, in the end its food. I have no problem with that, even though you might.

[Bonn1997]

269. I don't believe that the distinction between plants and animals in my philosophy is arbitrary...

I'll try to explain the distinction more precisely below. I've also added a few details upon further reflection too. The best science presently available indicates that plants have no sentience and thus no ability to suffer. My philosophy *does* make a distinction between sentient and non-sentient organisms, though, and I believe the distinction can be justified based on the following philosophical foundations of what I believe is a strong moral philosophy:
A) Humans have the right to survive and reproduce.
B) Humans have a moral responsibility to cause as minimal intentional death of and suffering to all living organisms. (Note: Point A does not give humans freedom to cause suffering in any instance in which they could survive and reproduce without causing such suffering.)
C) Whenever possible, humans' moral reasoning ought to be guided by the best available scientific evidence.

So, if plants are incapable of suffering (based on point C), then eating them does not add suffering (and thus does not violate point B) while at the same time allows us to survive and reproduce point C. (Note that you can eat plant based food without in any way killing the plant and thus my addition of "death" to point B is, I believe, irrelevant to a plant-based diet). However, I do not see any way that eating animal meat could also be consistent with points A, B, and C. Note that animal meat includes animals that are not only cows, bulls, chickens, etc. but also animals that are humans! I believe that there is no way to justify eating nonhuman animal meat without also allowing for the eating of human animal meat without simultaneously violating points B and C.

Although I take points A, B, and C as self-evident starting points, one could challenge them (and you are clearly free to do so). However, anyone challenging them must then be prepared to justify the morality of any and all consequences that would follow from violating these points. I do not believe they can.

Please do let me know which, if any, aspects of this philosophy I have either insufficiently explained or inadequately justified. Doing so will simply help me to build a stronger, more justifiable philosophy.

[ElboRuum]

271. Final thoughts.

All three self-evident points have certain issues I would take with them. Unfortunately I don't have the time to go into it at length so just let me be brief and hopefully that will at least offer you something to go on.

A is not necessarily self-evident because the right to survive and reproduce is a right as conferred by a human society. Nothing on earth has a right to survive and reproduce per se. Evolution proceeds from precisely the opposite process, by weeding out those which have weaknesses which cause difficulties with survival. So it could be offered that if animals have the right to be left alone by man, then they must be able to overcome man's predation. Now, clearly I don't believe this is necessarily true from a moral standpoint as it applies to us. Morality may be a human artifice, but that does not mean it does not have value. It just needs to be understood that survival and reproduction are only rights in our society protected by mechanisms in that society. Nature can relieve us of one or both without our consent, and as such it is not intrinsic.

B I would conjecture that it is not self-evident because it, for a non-trivial many, begs the question. If it did not, then more would naturally feel this way about it. Most people eat meat, and most people adhere to a moral code, so one might argue that the number of people who eat meat would be much less than it is if this were an intrinsic moral imperative. The fact remains and indicates that it is not.

C I think isn't necessarily self-evident because science serves science's ends in a morally neutral fashion and is not necessarily a good guidepost for moral decisions. Science is also comfortable with the fact that it makes mistakes, morality requires more certitude than this. Morality based upon scientific theory and conjecture that is interim but later proven false can argue against the moral principle even if the principle is sound in absence of scientific proof.

That said, other than the fact that what you consider self-evident isn't necessarily so for me (and other meat-eaters, more than likely, I won't speak with certitude here), the argument you make is pretty solid. Unfortunately, it is this disconnect of self-evidence versus requiring proof that derails its impact with its intended target.

I don't know if this is the sort of critique you were looking for, but I hope it was helpful in some way.

[Bonn1997]

272. Interesting. Those are very good responses. I'll add a few brief comments

I think point A should have read "All organisms have the right TO TRY to survive and reproduce. This right can only be violated by another organism ONLY when that organism's survival or reproduction necessitates doing so."

Most people do eat meat. Most people until very recently believed in human enslavement too. I believe both are due to a variety of psychological processes (terror management:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory; moral disengagement; and many others) that explain but do not justify the frequency of the event.

On point C: "Science" doesn't make mistakes; "Scientists" do. You are right that scientists can make erroneous conclusions, though. However, I believe the scientific process involves more safeguards against errors than any other process of gaining information and thus is the least error prone and most justifiable source of information. I also think the moral neutrality of science actually helps to justify not to negate point C. Specifically, the moral neutrality in science refers to the fact that scientific *methodology* (research design, data collection, data interpretation) should be done without any bias favoring one particular conclusion. Bias is a key word, though: Each potential conclusion must have been given an equal shot at being supported. We still can and I believe should always keep in mind the moral implications of the results. I think the virtually universally agreed upon goals of research in my field of social science (psychology) provide strong support for this latter interpretation. In any Intro Psych textbook, the goals or purposes of research in the field are usually listed as description, understanding, prediction, and MODIFICATION of human behavior and mental processes. Modification could entail reducing symptoms of depression or the occurrence of racism in job hiring--among many other things--and I believe strong moral elements are inherent to the goal of modification. (If the most solid evidence available did not indicate that the specific modification we psychologists were advocating for was *good* or *right* or *moral*, we'd have no right to advocate for it.) For this reason, many scientific organizations do offer formal policy statements on the moral issues of our time.

Finally, I think the term "self-evident" was a poor one. I would describe the three points I stated earlier as the currently most reasonable starting point--one that should be maintained *unless* a refinement or change is justified.

[amborin]

109. animals eat animals to survive; humans can survive well w/o resorting to killing animals;

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Humans evolved to eat an omnivours diet

in fact, archeological evidence points to eating MEAT to the growth of the brain... but I am sure you will deny that too. Oh and all the studies we have on Vegan diets do point to a few issues, more than just a few.

Do we eat too much of the stuff? Yes... but there is a reason why we humans evolved to eat it... and it was also a pure sheer accident that we started cooking it too.

You may want to look into paleolithic diets...

Now you may believe we can live without it, and though a small group of people can... even Indians who do not eat meat, eat animal products of some sort, including milk and eggs.

[Bonn1997]

129. There is no evidence that it was meat rather than merely protein that led to brain encephalization--

You can get the exact same nutrients, including amino acids, in plant based protein. It contradicts logic to claim that only the meat sources of the same nutrients would lead to brain encephalization.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. While correct, you are ingnoring archeological data

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1).

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+role+of+animal+protein+in+human+evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3886S

there are more sources out there, but I know they contradict belief. So I say we'd better say our goodbyes, since we will not agree on this, not now, not in the future.

[Bonn1997]

149. I do agree that many humans ate meat along time ago. You've never posted anything that contradicted

anything I said.
You should look into the China Study by the way if you're interested in nutrition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. I have and the Chinese do eat meat

eggs, cheese and bean curd.

Next question?

It's just the amounts.

Traditional societies consume animal protein in SMALLER amounts than we do, but they still consume it.

Now care to discuss food safety in China? I mean Melanin in baby formula is all the rage.

[Bonn1997]

155. Here are some conclusions from the authors of the China Study

"several studies have now shown, in both experimental animals and in humans, that consuming animal-based protein increases blood cholesterol levels."

"The findings from the China Study indicate that the lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits—even when that percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products is zero."

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. And human evolution be damned

you realize that the study is also critized on the grounds that it defies human nutrition going back 100K years?

Of course you should know that the link between cholesterol and heart disease is starting to be questioned after a generation. Read about the Eisenhower Paradox. After his attack in '56 he continued to reduce his fat consumption, yet his cholesterol continued to go up. So a few folks, even the ADA, have started to realize that a high carb, low fat diet may not be the best, especially in adults with things like I don't know Insulin resistance?

You remind me of the if you would not eat all that extra food and exercise you'd lose weight... crew.

In your case it is... stop eating animal products...

Have a good day... I really do not like to discuss this with religious fanatics, don't care what kind.

[Bonn1997]

159. Well we do agree on the "evolution be damned" point. You just don't understand the nature fallacy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Oh I get it

we are outside of Nature...

Where have I read that before?

Scratches head....

Oh yes, the Religious Right...

Have a good life.

[Bonn1997]

165. You do not understand the naturalistic fallacy and appear content to continue your ignorance.

Oh well. I can't educate everyone I guess.

[dysfunctional press]

208. but at least you can keep trying to, can't you...?

after all- it's so damn entertaining...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[amborin]

184. you dismiss science, and argue using anecdotal evidence

projection is amazing!

[Kali]

182. tsk tsk tsk

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml

[Odin2005]

183. Horsehit.

Read up on some stuff on human evolution. Humans have hunted for 2 million years, it's part of our nature.

[Bonn1997]

200. Nothing you said contradicts what I said

[Bonn1997]

131. And please show me the studies indicating that you cannot get every nutrient you need in sufficient

quantity and quality on a vegan diet.

[Bonn1997]

126. Most meat eating humans are interested in doing nothing other than rationalizing something they do

for no reason other than having fun--it's just fun to kill innocent animals and eat the meat!

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Given that most people in the US

have never been on a farm, let alone an idealized one... they have no clue of the process leading to the production of their food. So I'd say your claim is not only wrong, but insane.

Most Vegans I know are not absolutists either, and most realize that no, most people are too distanced from their food source to know a chicken when it clucks. Or to realize how that egg reached their table, or how conditions change from a free range coop to a cage confinement cage to an ideal and true free range.

So to say that people have fun shows your extremism... and sadly ignorance.

By the way I am proof positive you are an extremist that avoids anything that you think has an animal product, (even if they don't). I am also positive that you do not realize that in TRADITIONAL societies giving thanks for the meal you are about to consume, as part of that circle of life you also deny is quite the rage.

You never been in a traditional dinner of any kind, have you? Hell we even gave thanks for mother snake to feed us after one of the local farmers killed a ratler. The ratler was used, all of it. It fed people and the skin was cured. Look as I said you will think I ENJOY killing for the sake of killing, whatever that means, and I think you are an extremist who does not understand the first thing about nutrition (yes it can be done, but it is usually not done) or human anthropology, history and the archeological record.

Now if you do not min... I will enjoy some Turkey on Thursday, with some salad, a pie, and chiefly the good company. And of course will give thanks for that bounty, and for the life force that allows the rest of us to live... it is that circle of life... and you may think this is rationalization... well then, you are not that spiritual as you think you are. Oh and if we had rattler for dinner same thing... and cow, you betcha... how about... if we were celebrating this AGRICULTURAL RITE in the country I grew... grasshoppers? Oh ants... see the circle is not just cow. Oh and when I die the circle will be completed and I will become worm food. I am not tofu either.

[flvegan]

179. See, nobody likes to be faced with facts.

So stop it.

[Confusious]

190. I would wack the head off a chicken NP

gut it too. Most birds only have reptile brains. I don't think they get past eat/shit.

[LWolf]

88. My chickens range freely on 6 acres.

I can get home-raised meat locally, where I've seen how animals are kept and treated.

If I lived in an over-populated city environment with no connection to where my food was coming from, I'd probably eat little to no meat.

[a la izquierda]

98. K & R from an HFA supporter

[AngryAmish]

104. I care that so many animals are so tasty

[galledgoblin]

116. the USDA needs to enforce a real labeling process

it's sick what factory farms are allowed to get away with, and, rather than accurately adjusting the rules for a label and refusing to give the label to violators or *fining them* for breaking the rules (WHAT A CONCEPT), they just come up with a new one for factory farms to abuse. remember "cage-free"? now "free-range" is losing meaning as well.

[NeedleCast]

117. "We have been trained by a history of thinking of which we are scarcely aware"

Wrong. We've been trained by 40,000 years of biology.

I eat meat, and I don't feel bad about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. !

[Mari333]

135. knr. people dont care. they prefer denial.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Mmmm. Denial. ....preferably with some gravy and a nice side of potatoes.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azmouse]

140. Just like clockwork the anti-meat people wag their fingers

this time every year. :eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

142. i can't feel guilty about being born at the top of a food chain.

:shrug:

i can just be thankful that i wasn't born a turkey, a cow, a chicken, a pig, a lamb, or any other tasty critter.

if it bothers you to be a human, you always have the option of ceasing your existence.

[Bonn1997]

203. What if an alien species invaded our earth and was more powerful than us and able to eat us? They

would then be at the top of the food chain. However, what if they didn't need to eat us to survive and thrive but simply did so out of convenience and taste preference? Let's further assume that a small segment of their population--let's say around 5%--was forcefully arguing that the right thing to do is let the humans live freely. Then the other 95% just made comments like, "Yeah but humans taste so good with gravy!" Let's further assume that the 95% group made comments to the 5% group like, "It's fine if you personally want to do this senseless mission of ending human suffering but please stop irritating us by inflicting your view of ending human suffering on us!" Which group do you think was making the morally correct decision--those in the 5% or those in the 95% group?

[dysfunctional press]

207. if we're food to them, then there's no morality involved.

that's how food chains work. after all, it's not like we'd be able to organize and mount a counter-attack to fend them off- food doesn't do that.

although they would probably be wise to cull the sick ones from the herds, and start a breeding program to further develop those human traits that they find the tastiest.

they could also put together a book of their favorite recipes that call for human flesh- 'to serve man' might be a catchy title.

[Bonn1997]

209. "That's how food chains work." I suspect your reasoning is based on the naturalistic fallacy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Do you believe that we should always and only behave in accordance with nature (if so, you probably have a life that's very different from every human I've met). Or is your belief about following nature restricted to eating? If the latter, why is eating so unique?

[dysfunctional press]

211. "always and only"? now there's a red flag statement.

i believe that we should each do that which serves us individually, and our species as whole, as best we can according to our personal preferences and the circumstances that exist.

diet-wise, in my own opinion, it's probably best to stay as true to our body's physical nature as possible. human beings evolved as hunter-gatherers- as omnivores, that is the type of diet that our bodies evolved to subsist on. now, if someone wants the whole of their life experiences to be as natural as their diet- that's their prerogative, and more power to them. personally, i'd rather avail myself of some/many of the comforts that the human species has been able to develop along the way.

in many facets of our lives, we have choices- it's mostly a matter of personal taste and preferences which choices we make, and there are generally consequences(good and/or bad) for those choices, and we each decide if for us the consequences of our choices are worth it.

i choose to eat meat- as a result, i may or may not have health problems associated with it at some point in my life, but i've decided that for myself, it's worth the risks, even though i realize that it means that i won't live forever. :shrug:

[Bonn1997]

212. The majority of human historical nature involves eating animals but certainly not all of it

Cultures for thousands of years lived on plant based diets. Here's one relevant source:
Speth, J.D. (1989). The evolution of human hunting. Science, 243, 241-242.
Eating plant-based diets is certainly part of our "physical human nature" and there is certainly contradictory evidence to the claim that it is best to stick to a meat-eating diet. You can get the exact same nutrients on a plant based diet that you can get on an animal based diet without the high saturated fat and cholesterol. It would not make sense for the meat-based diet to be healthier.

I don't blame you for having these concerns about a meat-based diet, though. The meat industry has really hammered these ideas into our minds and I had the same concerns before I started reading about veganism.

[dysfunctional press]

230. who made the claim that it's best to stick to a meat-eating diet?

we're omnivores- we can subsist on a variety of diets, based on personal preference, metabolism, and availability.
in my own case, mostly because of my hla-b27 gene, i cannot eat dietary starch, as my body is allergic to it- so luckily for me, the healthiest diet is definitely one that contains a good share of meat.

as for my own health concerns- the main one, as i mentioned is that because of it, i won't live forever(3 of my 4 carnivorous grandparents only made it into their 90's :( the fourth was killed in a truck accident when he was 63.) but then- i don't know too many immortal veg-heads either.

[ElboRuum]

218. No, this is not the naturalistic fallacy...

It would be if we were to claim moral correctness or rectitude in appealing to our natures, but that's not what's being argued here. In fact, just the opposite. The premise of something being morally incorrect because it is within our capability to act against our natures is equally fallacious.

In addition, your argument begs the question. You are putting forth a premise requiring proof, specifically, 'consuming animals is immoral', as though it were axiomatic. The basic counterargument to this is the rejection of that as axiomatic. Indeed, if humans have a morality within them, clearly hundreds of thousands of years of civilization would have produced this moral axiom in the same manner as it has intrinsic admonitions against theft and murder. However, it has not. This admonition against the consumption of animals is far more recent, so can it really be taken as intrinsic? No, it requires an argument free of fallacy establishing its truth.

Unfortunately, the impasse occurs here. If one cannot frame the debate so that all participating can agree to basic premises, then debate cannot accomplish anything but exposition of this disagreement.

[anonymous171]

144. I don't really care what happens to (most) animals. nt

[Johonny]

148. domestication has an evolutionary advantage

Just look at the wolf population to the dog population numbers. Or look at the numbers of cows to all other large herbivores in EurAsia and the Americas. Being a domestic animal raised for eating and other human uses turned out to be advantageous to the species. Not being domestic animal turns out to be disadvantageous. See spotted owl etc... Oddly the worse thing we could do to these species is stop eating them if you want to see them in a few hundred years.

[Blue-Jay]

169. These threads...

[tilsammans]

176. Well, then, don't bother reading 'em. n/t

[Blue-Jay]

177. I didn't.

[ElboRuum]

172. I eat bacon while wearing leather sneakers.

For some reason, I don't give that a second thought.

Weird.

[ddeclue]

173. oh brother.. can we get a PETA dungeon please?

[ElboRuum]

175. Seconded. n/t

[Ignis]

215. "Hide Thread" is too difficult?

Also, there is a Vegungeon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=231

But we're civil there, so YMMV.

[tilsammans]

178. Thank you for posting that

:yourock:

For a variety of reasons (including those in the linked article), I've been following a primarily vegetarian diet for almost 20 years, having meat only occasionally.

Industrialized meat exploits not only animals, but consumers, its workers, and the environment. Not a pretty picture.

[Reterr]

180. Threads like this are the reason I never visit this idiotic site anymore

(Idiotic site comment not directed at the owners of the site but at the sort of internet rabble that pollute every site with their moronic non-contributions).
Predictably imbecile responses as always unfortunately Amborin. It isn't that I would mind lively discussion for or against specific issues within the animal welfare/rights movement, it is the dumb shit like "Yeah you know Hitler was a vegetarian neener neener neener.."



I haven't logged on in many months but I have this to say about leaving this site-it makes sense for any serious progressive to do so (well ok except for reading the actual articles and news items posted and original stuff by many of the prolific writers ;-)). Participating in the discussions and comments here is just not worth it. There are many serious progressives/moderates here, but there are also many people who seem to lack any sort of actual life and appear to spend their time living out fake controversies, battling over trivialities or just enjoy trolling (not just conservatives; there seem to be many here who just like baiting for the sake of baiting).
The comments, in-fights, back biting, personal battles or drama that one descends into (or even just ends up wasting time observing-I know I spent an hour or two observing the drama at places at like the Lounge (let alone in GD and GD:P) since it just had such a horrible, train-wreck reality show quality) if you participate in the "community" here is just not worth it.

Quitting this site and spending that time on more activism in the real world is one of best decisions I ever made. And way better for one's mental health (directed at cool people like Lorien etc.) than listening to morons troll...

I am logging off for the next 6 months...I logged on after months, read this thread, got irritated and realized that unlike obnoxious conservatives one has to deal with in real life, these losers one can just turn off by logging off and never bothering to read their b.s. again :D. Its not like there is any getting through to them ever.

[Odin2005]

181. This self-righteous moran obviously never heard of Temple Grandin.

[Critters2]

221. Temple Grandin, who makes a living assuring the meat industry

that cruelty isn't cruelty? I've heard of her. What's your point?

[Greyhound]

186. We are slow, weak, bald monkeys with no natural weapons or defense

and so have almost no chance of surviving except for the fact that we breed pretty quickly, are just bright enough to get dogs to help us, and can eat damn near anything.

So no, most of us really don't care about them at all.

[yawnmaster]

239. what??? "almost no chance of surviving except..." "breed quickly"?

link please.

[Greyhound]

266. You want a link to a biology book?

:crazy:

:rofl:

[yawnmaster]

267. I have plenty of them. You underestimate humans. eom

[Quantess]

202. Malish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia4Fd661GLM

[Dorian Gray]

204. An interesting discussion could be had

about caring for animals and what it means if one eats meat. But, I don't think that will happen here, as judgmental commentary seems to rule the day in these topics.

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yawnmaster]

226. I can't find free-range bacon. I do love bacon. eom

[hayu_lol]

231. Enjoyed all the references to India and the Hindu's treatment...

of animals.

On the Breaking News page, a large Hindu festival(to make wishes come true)is about to take place in Nepal. Some 250,000 animals(large to small)are to be killed with knives, hatchets, swords etc. The bodies will be processed by 'untouchables' who will sell the meat to meat eaters and tan the skins.

I try my best to take tender care of my carrots and celery. I am human and enjoy a wide spectrum of food--including meat.

Take a look vegans, at the FFA/4H kids who raise animals as projects and their tears when they finally sell the 'projects.'

We are only here today because our ancestors were diet-adaptable.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

237. "By and large, meat-eaters are a self-righteous bunch."

It's this kind of (ironically) self-righteous bullshit by (some) vegans that do nothing to bring people over to their side.

For the record, I don't care if someone is vegan, vegetarian or an omnivore. I have always believed that self-determination extends to your body. I do eat meat fairly often, and I don't feel bad for doing so. And for those who complain about my resultant carbon footprint, I don't own a car, don't have children and live in a tiny apartment about the size of a walk-in closet, so at worst, I break even carbon-wise.

[Warren DeMontague]

248. What could be more self-righteous than refusing to let your moral betters dictate diet to you?

I mean, willfully resisting consciousness raising from someone who knows better than you do what you should and should eat... how self-righteous can you get? :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

260. Yes, having no children or a spouce does more for an individuals "footprint"

Than many other things. :)

I drive a car less than 5 miles per week, have no children, am single and share a 1 bed room apartment with two other people. :shrug:

Had meatloaf tonight. It was good.

[Political Heretic]

258. I love meat and will eat it until the day I die. Oh and PS...... for my next post.....

Flame away. I could not care less.

[Political Heretic]

259. [TAG] - this thread has been tagged as example of bourgeios underground in action.

Tagged for future reference

[Touchdown]

261. And they say circumcision threads are flame fests.

:wow:

[JonQ]

268. I care and I get furious whenever farm animals are abused

like when someone orders their steak well done then smothers it with ketchup. Disgusting. ;-)

(a bit of snark there, I *am* opposed to animal abuse and think all animals should be treated as humanely as possible, but that doesn't preclude raising them for meat/milk).