Animal Rights

[Jacobtm]

Not zoosexuality, but on the topic of animal rights...

Murder and torture in humans, as far as those concerned with civil rights go, are both deplorable. Murder is probably considered worse by most people, though I'm sure that's not anonymous.

With animals, you can kill them because they taste good. You can kill them just for sport, within certain limits. You can raise them in terrible conditions which, if applied to humans, would amount to torture.

I don't see a problem with this, but I can certainly understand people who oppose animal cruelty in all forms, especially industrialized meat etc.

But I don't get people, and this would probably include the vast majority of people, who have no problem with the way animals are industrially raised for consumption, and have no problem with hunting for sport, but do have a problem with something like dog-fighting, labeling it as "cruelty" when support different types of cruel behavior for no other reason than enjoyment, either pleasure of hunting or the pleasure of eating meat.

Is there any sort of argument that can reasonably differentiate the cruelty experienced by dogs bred to fight and the cruelty experienced by cows bred to be fat and then killed on a conveyor belt

I feel like it's just an "out of sight, out of mind" type thing really, which is how most people operate, and in a democracy there you go...

[Eraserhead]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

[Franzl]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Are you a vegetarian?

[Eraserhead]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Are you a vegetarian?

No.

[Franzl]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Are you a vegetarian?

No.

Purely out of interest......you eat meat even though you think it's wrong to kill animals?

[Eraserhead]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Are you a vegetarian?

No.

Purely out of interest......you eat meat even though you think it's wrong to kill animals?

I didn't actually say that it was always wrong to kill animals. A society without any meat eaters wouldn't be very practical. However, the conditions in which much of the livestock is raised is deplorable and I find hunting  "for sport" to be pointless and cruel.

[John Dibble]

I have no problem with killing a non-sapient animal for the purposes of feeding myself or other sapient beings. Other animals that are designed to eat meat have no qualms with it - why should I?

That said, being sapient and having empathy for others, I do prefer that we minimize cruelty to non-sapient animals where it is practical to do so. There's no reason to torture an animal just for the sake of torturing it - your own amusement isn't reason enough. I'm not talking about hunting, rather just explicitly being cruel to an animal - at least with hunting you can eat what you kill. Even if you do have a good justification for causing an animal pain, you should minimize it as much as is reasonably possible.

[Ban my account ffs!]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Are you a vegetarian?

No.

Purely out of interest......you eat meat even though you think it's wrong to kill animals?

It isn't wrong to kill animals for food, in my opinion.  But as Dibble said, the animal shouldn't be a sapient being (like whales and dolphins for example).

With that said, the way we treat our food animals is pretty disgusting.  Luckily here we have options to buy meat from people that treat their animals more fairly.

Plus, meat from animals that ahve been treated well tastes better anyway.  There's nothing quite like extremely tough, tasteless meat from an extremely stressed out cow.

[bgwah]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Cows are very domesticated. But what I think you're getting at is that cats and dogs are common household pets, and as a result many people are actually familiar with the creatures and realize how terrible it is to torture and/or murder them for their own selfish purposes. Unfortunately, most of these people are also stupid and uneducated. It doesn't matter that a pig is as smart as a dog, since most people have never had a pet pig.

Self-proclaimed "animal lovers" who eat meat are easily one of my biggest pet peeves. Another thing I hate is vegans/vegetarians who "rescue" a cat or dog and then feed it meat-based pet food... What's the point of rescuing the animal when you just pay the same slaughterhouses you abhor for pet food? Why is that dog so much more special than the animals in the dog food?

And the "It's okay for food!" argument is silly. We're not friggin' nomads, guys. We're not stranded on some island or in some barren mountain range. There is no excuse for civilized people in a place like the United States to eat meat. But, like numerous aspects of our culture, eating meat is a long-lasting remnant of humanity's primitive, savage, and uncivilized past.

[Ban my account ffs!]

All of that is definitely wrong but Americans will never be as emotionally invested in the treatment of cows as they are in the treatment of a domesticated animal (like dogs). That's a fact. That doesn't make it right but that's just how it is.

Cows are very domesticated. But what I think you're getting at is that cats and dogs are common household pets, and as a result many people are actually familiar with the creatures and realize how terrible it is to torture and/or murder them for their own selfish purposes. Unfortunately, most of these people are also stupid and uneducated. It doesn't matter that a pig is as smart as a dog, since most people have never had a pet pig.

Self-proclaimed "animal lovers" who eat meat are easily one of my biggest pet peeves. Another thing I hate is vegans/vegetarians who "rescue" a cat or dog and then feed it meat-based pet food... What's the point of rescuing the animal when you just pay the same slaughterhouses you abhor for pet food? Why is that dog so much more special than the animals in the dog food?

And the "It's okay for food!" argument is silly. We're not friggin' nomads, guys. We're not stranded on some island or in some barren mountain range. There is no excuse for civilized people in a place like the United States to eat meat. But, like numerous aspects of our culture, eating meat is a long-lasting remnant of humanity's primitive, savage, and uncivilized past.

I think it's a dangerous attitude to have.  Also, I think the fact that vegetarians must often supplement their diets with animal based vitamins proves that we have not evolved to be vegetarians.  It doesn't matter how hard you try.. if you want to be healthy, you have to include animal based nutrients in your diet some way or another.

How about rather than lambasting people for eating meat and calling them primitive and uncivilized, you focus on the real problems at hand... the way we treat the animals we eat... or how many resources go into producing the steak on your plate.. and how much you could help if you cut the steak in half and had a bigger potato and salad.

That argument I would listen to.  I'd even be sympathetic.  But you obviously care about the issue... your'e not going to convert me by insulting me.

[Alcon]

I think it's a dangerous attitude to have.  Also, I think the fact that vegetarians must often supplement their diets with animal based vitamins proves that we have not evolved to be vegetarians.  It doesn't matter how hard you try.. if you want to be healthy, you have to include animal based nutrients in your diet some way or another.

I'm no vegan, but this is not true and there are studies to prove it.  Although "no killing of animals" hardly extrapolates to "no use of any animal-associated products."  The vegetarian lifestyle is not especially hard to maintain healthily.

How about rather than lambasting people for eating meat and calling them primitive and uncivilized, you focus on the real problems at hand... the way we treat the animals we eat... or how many resources go into producing the steak on your plate.. and how much you could help if you cut the steak in half and had a bigger potato and salad.

If he can provide a genuine internally consistent basis for his logic, and you believe that society should progress toward more moral caution (instead of just accepting what is status-quo and can be justified), and that the utility of broaching the issue is worth it now, it's fair game.

I'm not advocating being an asshole, but you seem to be implying that criticizing meat consumption is inherently that way and/or can't be considered a "real problem."

That argument I would listen to.  I'd even be sympathetic.  But you obviously care about the issue... your'e not going to convert me by insulting me.

It's also not fair to force him to convert you by moderating to a position that you've already decided you're willing to consider.  That...would imply that you have exhausted consideration on this issue.  That, or you've compartmentalized it amazingly.  It sounds more arbitrary than open-minded, honestly.

And, I mean, I hate to play this card, but if his ideas are sound, it shouldn't matter if he's a dick.  No one should convert to any cause for the cocktail parties.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And I don't have to be nice about it either.  If his point is to just play holier than thou and insult people, then fine.  If he's trying to make a point that might get people to reconsider their ways, that is a poor way to do it.

I merely suggested asking people to reduce their meat consumption as a way to reduce impact on the environment, since that is one of the biggest reasons not to eat meat.  It doesn't answer the moral issue of eating meat... but it does reduce our footprint.

Also, I agree that a vegetarian diet can be very healthy and beneficial... but plants only vegan diets are not healthy for the human body without vitamin supplements.  B12 is of course the elephant in the room here, as it can only be synthesized by bacteria and has not been found to be readily available for human use in any plant so far... so we have to get it from meat or other animal products.

While the vegans can get b12 fortified soymilk, the vitamin itself once again comes from animal products.

[bgwah]

Also, I think the fact that vegetarians must often supplement their diets with animal based vitamins proves that we have not evolved to be vegetarians.

False.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

False. Perhaps you meant vegans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then reduce your consumption of animals to these "animal-based vitamins" you speak of. Even under your assumptions, which I don't agree with, I see no reason to eat animal products beyond these vitamins.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already seen your unprovoked hostility towards vegetarianism displayed multiple times on this board. But go ahead and use this as another excuse if it helps ease your guilty conscience.

And I don't have to be nice about it either.  If his point is to just play holier than thou and insult people, then fine.  If he's trying to make a point that might get people to reconsider their ways, that is a poor way to do it.

That's funny. I've always gotten a "holier than though" vibe from you on global warming issues. I'm sure you've been annoyed by my signature! Not eating meat would be the easiest thing you could personally do to help fight global warming and reduce your carbon footprint... But you don't do it. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind. Sure, it's easy to sit at your computer and type about the issue, but I will not be interested in listening to you on the subject until you start practicing what you preach. Of course, it's quite easy to misinterpret what someone means when it's just text on the internet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm reminded of the Mafia hit man who kisses the cross hanging from his neck after killing in cold blood... Just like I can't help but wonder how he considers himself a Christian, I'm not sure why you seem to think you're some sort of environmentalist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vegetarian would have no problem getting B12... A vegan can get it from nutritional yeast and certain kinds of cereal. While I agree that many vitamins are animal-based despite what their labels may say, I disagree that all B12 has to come from animals. At least from what I've read, but I would be happy to look over your sources. Also, vegetables grown in feces (which is high in B12) can provide adequate amounts of the vitamin.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being mean. I've encountered a lot of random hostility towards vegetarianism and perhaps have become too defensive. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go watch Whale Wars.

[minionofmidas]

An animal has the right, when killed (and edible, and not sick) to be eaten. It also has the right of being treated at least semi-decently during its lifetime.
I am not a vegetarian. I used to be, for that very reason. Thinking about the way beef and pork is produced for the market tends to make me almost throw up the last meat I ate. Poultry is even worse but that's why I don't eat any.

[minionofmidas]

I feel like it's just an "out of sight, out of mind" type thing really, which is how most people operate, and in a democracy there you go...

Exactly. Any animal used in cock fighting - now finally illegal across the US - has lived to several times a machine chicken already, and lived what is still within recognizability of a decent chicken's life, too.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm sorry if you meet a lot of random hostility about your vegetarianism.  But it's not as if you're not being hostile yourself.  Your signature is a perfect example.  I'm sure there are many things that you do that I could cite as proof that you are not an "environmentalist" if you want to go that route.

There are plenty of other things one can do to reduce his impact while still eating meat.  Where the meat comes from is a big deal.  A much larger share of people here than is common around the rest of hte nation slaughter their own animals or get their meat from people they know that raised the animals.  Also, hunting and fishing are big sources of meat here.

Our development of the land has driven away many of the natural predators of deer.  We have a hunt every year to manage the population that would get out of control and seriously damage our forests, further reducing habitat for the deers' natural predators. 

How does that increase your carbon footprint or damage the environment?  You're actually helping to prevent further destruction than what you've already caused.

By letting the population just rise out of control because you feel bad for the animals is incredibly stupid.  Not only are you hurting that species, but many others as well.

If you care for the environment, for the ecosystem, and in the absence of natural predators, we have to step in and manage certain species to maintain the current biodiversity and try to restore habitats.

If you were arguing against eating factory farm produced meat, I would understand your argument.  But what you're arguing is that eating meat is stupid and primitive and anybody who eats meat and claims to care about the environment is a hypocrite.

I have no problem with you being a vegetarian.  Just don't try to justify your lifestyle choice by lowering everybody else around you.

[Alcon]

And I don't have to be nice about it either.  If his point is to just play holier than thou and insult people, then fine.  If he's trying to make a point that might get people to reconsider their ways, that is a poor way to do it.

The only thing I was replying to there was: I think it's a dangerous attitude to have.  Also, I think the fact that vegetarians must often supplement their diets with animal based vitamins proves that we have not evolved to be vegetarians.  It doesn't matter how hard you try.. if you want to be healthy, you have to include animal based nutrients in your diet some way or another.  If you meant "vegan," that's fair (although "proves we have not evolved" is kind of a weird argument since we didn't really "evolve" to do much of what we do) but otherwise it's kind of confusing.

As for why he shouldn't use rhetorical devices...Yeah, some people are moralistic to be pricks.  But say someone came around and was like, "I'm good with killing babies because they're not really meaningfully sentient yet, like animals."  It's a perfectly internally consistent argument.  Is it horrible?  You and me think so.  Now, imagine you're someone who thinks that eating meat is a horrible failure of moral caution, akin to the baby-eating.  Are you going to be all circumspect about it, thinking that how a ton of people do this and they're not all that bad?  Well, maybe.  But is it unreasonable to express your opinion in a way that aims to change the heinous behavior, even if it offends or discomforts those who practice it?  I mean...that's how society progresses to more moral views in an ideal world, don't you think?  There are ways to not be dickish about this, but those don't involve completely avoiding value judgments about the "quality" of someone's behavior.

I'm also not sure I would intuitively agree with your assertion that killing animals is the only way to limit their populations for the sake of biodiversity, but I don't know much about the topic.

[Ban my account ffs!]

And I don't have to be nice about it either.  If his point is to just play holier than thou and insult people, then fine.  If he's trying to make a point that might get people to reconsider their ways, that is a poor way to do it.

The only thing I was replying to there was: I think it's a dangerous attitude to have.  Also, I think the fact that vegetarians must often supplement their diets with animal based vitamins proves that we have not evolved to be vegetarians.  It doesn't matter how hard you try.. if you want to be healthy, you have to include animal based nutrients in your diet some way or another.  If you meant "vegan," that's fair (although "proves we have not evolved" is kind of a weird argument since we didn't really "evolve" to do much of what we do) but otherwise it's kind of confusing.

As for why he shouldn't use rhetorical devices...Yeah, some people are moralistic to be pricks.  But say someone came around and was like, "I'm good with killing babies because they're not really meaningfully sentient yet, like animals."  It's a perfectly internally consistent argument.  Is it horrible?  You and me think so.  Now, imagine you're someone who thinks that eating meat is a horrible failure of moral caution, akin to the baby-eating.  Are you going to be all circumspect about it, thinking that how a ton of people do this and they're not all that bad?  Well, maybe.  But is it unreasonable to express your opinion in a way that aims to change the heinous behavior, even if it offends or discomforts those who practice it?  I mean...that's how society progresses to more moral views in an ideal world, don't you think?  There are ways to not be dickish about this, but those don't involve completely avoiding value judgments about the "quality" of someone's behavior.

I'm also not sure I would intuitively agree with your assertion that killing animals is the only way to limit their populations for the sake of biodiversity, but I don't know much about the topic.

What would you suggest doing about it?  Reintroducing predators?  We've done that... but there isn't enough suitable habitat for them... the combination of bad logging methods, development, and changes in forest competition by animals like deer that thrive in our presence have all meant much smaller population capacity for the predators even if their food source is quite large.

Introducing disease?  Bad idea.  No matter what.

I mean... what can we do?  Eventually we'd like to be able to restore the balance int he ecosystem... until then, though, we have to take measures to manage the populations in order to prevent a crash.

[pogo stick]

Animals have no rights, they are our property.

[Eraserhead]

Animals have no rights, they are our property.

Well, I guess that clears this argument up.

GO HOME EVERYBODY