PETA and the Holocaust [Archive]

Shane Costello

22nd May 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
As for this whole Holocaust analogy, I see nothing wrong, in principle. Maybe I posted to that thread from five months ago, can't remember.

I'm sure that any Jewish people reading will be delighted with the comparison between the holocaust and the slaughter of poultry.

A fair comparison, but perhaps a political miscalculation. Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye). The same argument cannot be made over the Internet since it violates Godwin's Law.

I cannot emphasise enough the central role animal welfare plays in the meat industry. Abused and unhealthy livestock don't put on weight and rack up vet bills. At slaughter it is imperative that the animals are kept calm.

www.iowabeefcenter.org/pdfs/bch/04350.pdf

For narrow economic goals, stress must be kept at a minimum.

www.dpi.qld.gov.au/beef/3479.html

Pre slaughter stress - Stress of animals in the 2-3 day period prior to slaughter depletes reserves of muscle energy (glycogen) leading to high meat ultimate pH values (³ 5.70) resulting in dark, tough meat which is often dry. Rest and access to water prior to slaughter is required to replete these glycogen reserves in stressed animals. If a long recovery period is required, feed will also be needed. The factors associated with pre slaughter stress are:

Temperament - Can be avoided by selecting breeding stock on good temperament and educating/training of weaner cattle.

Rough or excessive handling - Avoid any situation resulting in rough handling on the property prior to consignment, in transit, or at the meatworks which can stress animals. Avoid the use of dogs on cattle not familiar with dogs.

Mixing of cattle - Avoid mixing cattle of different classes, sex or unfamiliar cattle during the turnoff/consignment process.

Climate - If possible, avoid turnoff/consignment of cattle during climatic extremes (heat waves, cold spells) or during rapid extreme changes in climatic conditions.

Holding time at meatworks - Avoid holding cattle at meatworks longer than necessary unless a rest period is required following extended transport periods.

Notions of "abuse" and "atrocities" carried out against livestock are a vegetarian myth. Animal welfare laws mean that anyone who treats livestock the way the third reich treated Untermenschen would be fined and probably jailed.

Are farms really kept from public view? Are abbatoirs covert?

Oh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. ;)

Cain

22nd May 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'm sure that any Jewish people reading will be delighted with the comparison between the holocaust and the slaughter of poultry.

*shrug* Hitler killed homosexuals, communists, Gypsies and other "degenerates" (11-12 million in all). I'm not sure why "Jewish people" are allowed a priveleged monopoly on pain and outrage for crimes against humanity. Either way, it's misguided.

I cannot emphasise enough the central role animal welfare plays in the meat industry. Abused and unhealthy livestock don't put on weight and rack up vet bills. At slaughter it is imperative that the animals are kept calm.

www.iowabeefcenter.org/pdfs/bch/04350.pdf

For narrow economic goals, stress must be kept at a minimum.

www.dpi.qld.gov.au/beef/3479.html

Even conceding these (uninformed) points, which I'm disinclined to do, they completely miss the argument made by animal rights proponents. Identical economic incentives were invoked by slave owners:

"We wouldn't want to over-crowd boats and spread disease because slaves are expensive."

"We wouldn't want to mistreat or abuse our slaves because then they won't be as productive."

Not that it's of critical importance, but those raising animals have strong incentives to inject hormones, mistreat, and even abuse their animals. People in the United States, for example, prefer white breast meat on turkeys come Thanksgiving time. All hopped up on hormones, some become so fat they can't even walk on their own two drumsticks. Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth. Horrible conditions in these industries have consistently been exposed since the days of Upton Sinclair.

Notions of "abuse" and "atrocities" carried out against livestock are a vegetarian myth. Animal welfare laws mean that anyone who treats livestock the way the third reich treated Untermenschen would be fined and probably jailed.

The first sentence is nonsense, but, as mentioned earlier, it's non-essential nonsense. Society has progressed dramatically over the last 100 years that everyone accepts welfare laws against needless abuse and mistreatment. That is to say, animals possess limited rights that even their owners cannot wantonly violate.

Purposeless violence against animals has been condemned by society. Of course, most people (including even myself) do not totally object to scientific experimentatio, since it serves a useful purpose, but even then there are strict laws and codes regulating conduct. Unfortunately, most people hold the same view toward the consumption of animals-- as though eating animals is comparable to scientific research. It's not. Many people the world over have adopted healthy vegetarian/vegan diets so that eating animals to satisfy our appetites has become as unnecessary as abusing them to satisfy sadistic impulses.

Oh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. ;) [/B]

Hitler had gastric problems; he was not a vegetarian for moral reasons (and, obviously, even if he chose not to eat animals for moral reasons it still wouldn't mean anything important).

Shane Costello

22nd May 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by cain:
*shrug* Hitler killed homosexuals, communists, Gypsies and other "degenerates" (11-12 million in all). I'm not sure why "Jewish people" are allowed a priveleged monopoly on pain and outrage for crimes against humanity. Either way, it's misguided.

"Holocaust" is an old testament term, AFAIK, and I know that there are Jewish people on these forums. I never claimed that "Jewish people" had a priveliged monopoly on suffering, nor have I heard any of them suggesting they had. On the contrary, it seems to me that Jewish people have completely repudiated victimhood status, unlike other groups and nationalities, including my own.

Even conceding these (uninformed) points, which I'm disinclined to do, they completely miss the argument made by animal rights proponents. Identical economic incentives were invoked by slave owners:

"We wouldn't want to over-crowd boats and spread disease because slaves are expensive."

"We wouldn't want to mistreat or abuse our slaves because then they won't be as productive."

Oh no, I was addressing a specific claim made by you i.e. "abuse and atrocities" inflicted on animals. I posted those links to show that "abuse and atrocities" have no place whatsoever in livestock production. The links were guidelines, not rebuttals. And you've made another very odious comparison. And I'd point out that animal welfare laws make it illegal to transport animals the way humans were on the slave ships.

Not that it's of critical importance, but those raising animals have strong incentives to inject hormones, mistreat, and even abuse their animals. People in the United States, for example, prefer white breast meat on turkeys come Thanksgiving time. All hopped up on hormones, some become so fat they can't even walk on their own two drumsticks. Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth. Horrible conditions in these industries have consistently been exposed since the days of Upton Sinclair.

Sorry, I've shown that there is a very strong incentive for producers not to mistreat or abuse animals. You've provided no evidence that they do.

Purposeless violence against animals has been condemned by society.

"Purposeless violence" has no place in livestock production, thankfully.

Society has progressed dramatically over the last 100 years that everyone accepts welfare laws against needless abuse and mistreatment. That is to say, animals possess limited rights that even their owners cannot wantonly violate.

The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

Unfortunately, most people hold the same view toward the consumption of animals-- as though eating animals is comparable to scientific research. It's not. Many people the world over have adopted healthy vegetarian/vegan diets so that eating animals to satisfy our appetites has become as unnecessary as abusing them to satisfy sadistic impulses.

Humans are adapted to an omniverous diet. I'm not claiming that a vegetarian diet cannot be balanced, but I just fail to see how meat eating is morally wrong.

Of course, most people (including even myself) do not totally object to scientific experimentatio, since it serves a useful purpose, but even then there are strict laws and codes regulating conduct.

As there are in the meat industry.

BillyTK

22nd May 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Btw, I'm not a member of the Animal Liberation Front, and I do believe some animal experimentation is necessary, if not desireable. I'm not attacking you personally for holding that view Shane, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling that the above causes; I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

Anyway, back to the main topic; is anyone else feeling shockvertising fatigue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/611979.stm)? Can you say Benetton (http://www.ucad.fr/pubgb/virt/mp/benetton/pub_benetton.html)?

Crossbow

22nd May 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Supercharts
Exhibit comparing Holocaust, animals decried.

My very left-wing local newspaper buried this in back of the news today but last night it was all over the local TV stations.

PETA put an exhibit near the Holocaust memorial in downtown Boston. It compared the killing of chickens and turkeys to the Nazi Holocaust.

...

I guess that just goes to show how ones passions can be blinding.

These guys have apparently forgotten that Hitler was a vegan as well.

Go figure!

Shane Costello

22nd May 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK:
<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Yes, but what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death. Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.

I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

Are you denying that it is anything other than fact? Consider this; why are violent an loathsome human beings regularly referred to as "animals"? How come any inherently unfair and heartless state of affairs in the human world is said to be akin to "jungle law"? The natural world is a cruel, heartless place. If you don't believe me then visit a chicken coop after a visit from a fox (more hens are killed than could possibly be eaten by the fox) or walk through some woodland in winter, counting the carcasses of dead and frozen animals as you go.

RandFan,Jr.

22nd May 2003, 06:51 AM

RandFan here,

My son signed on for me. I have been a good boy and have gotten allot of work done so one or two posts won't hurt. This is one of those subjects I just can't pass up.

Originally posted by BillyTK
<rant>But animals in captivity only have such rights to protect them from abuse by their human owners and some animals in the wild are granted certain protections from human harm. But simply granting these protections to animals in no way guarantees their protection--because compliance depends on the threat of force--and this in no way ameloriates the fact that these animals are bred solely to be exploited.</rant>

Btw, I'm not a member of the Animal Liberation Front, and I do believe some animal experimentation is necessary, if not desireable. I'm not attacking you personally for holding that view Shane, and I apologise in advance for any ill-feeling that the above causes; I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating. Hi Billy,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I often get into arguments on the forum that I eventually regret. I truly respect other people's opinion. I think I would have less argument if I would take the same tack that you have in your post.

Your post presupposes that there is something inherently wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation. I see nothing wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation.

I don't think the fact that animals in captivity are somehow how better of does justify an animals captivity but I do believe that it puts it into perspective.

I don't understand why animal rights activists are upset that animals are domesticated or that they are killed for human consumption. From an earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=14910&highlight=animal)on the subject. I was responding to some specific points so it is not quite relevant to your post. However I think it is a good response.

There is no rational reason or demonstrative evidence that if we conceded to the wishes of PETA that we would eliminate animal suffering or decrease it in any significant way. Statistically almost all animals in the wild are killed and eaten by predators or die from the elements.

Nearly all animals [in the wild] are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. Domesticated animals statistically live longer and better lives. That is a fact.

The only real "bad" is that humans have the nerve to domesticate and use animals. So we as a society enforce laws to mitigate animal suffering and your response is "less bad doesn't make it good". My answer, no one is trying to turn bad into good. We are just trying to balance the desires of many in society to reduce animal suffering with the desire of others to use animals for food, clothing, research and in some cases exploitation.

You can choose to equate animals with human bondage and human suffering but it doesn't wash. There will always be animals in the wild that cruelly exploit other animals for there own selfish desires. You have no plans to end this because it makes no sense. Nature requires a food chain. Coyotes must eat baby rabbits and Papa lions must snack on their cubs. Mamas kill babies, mamas kill papas and every animal does what ever it can to survive.

I cannot justify the actions of humans because of what animals do in the wild. I can note however that domesticated animals statistically have much longer life spans, less disease and rarely have to worry about predators.

If you are truly worried about the suffering of animals then you should see what you can do to protect baby ducks born in the wild. Most are eaten by wicked, evil predators. I think that since humans are capable of empathy most of us find it disturbing that a thinking human could cause the suffering of another living thing. I also think that it is quite reasonable to expect humans to mitigate the suffering of animals that are in the care of humans.

But I find it logically inconsistent to decry the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild.

As I said earlier, if we could magically end all human involvement in the lives of animals tomorrow we would not reduce the suffering of animals. While this does not provide justifiation for the use of animals by man but it does give it some perspective.

Kodiak

22nd May 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
I just find the argument that animals in captivity are some how better off than their counterparts in the wild, and that this somehow justifies their captivity a little specious but mostly bloody infuriating.

How's this then? Those cows wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the beef industry. Those chickens and turkeys wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the poultry industry.

Is a short, sedate, care-free life better than no life at all? Is decapitation or electrocution better than being torn to shreds by wolves or starving/freezing to death?

Dancing David

22nd May 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Is a short, sedate, care-free life better than no life at all? Is decapitation or electrocution better than being torn to shreds by wolves or starving/freezing to death?

This shows how little you know about indutrial framing, I could berate you but I sugesst you investigate a little, especialy the way chickens and pigs are raised (And cattle to lesser extent).

Yes from the pure darwinian sense the domesticated animals are benefiting for our use of them as food.

Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Peace

Skeptical Greg

22nd May 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Peace Sure... ( selected parts anyway.. )

Are you making fun of, or degenerating people who consider this a normal thing to do?

Well, I'm off to start a " Dog Appreciation" thread in ' Banter"...:D

Victor Danilchenko

22nd May 2003, 09:40 AM

Cain

Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye).What about the deaths of rodents under the blades of agricultural combines?

If you are concerned about animal deaths and suffering, then you should eat only range-raised meat, preferably from large animals -- that's the best in terms of minimizing the number of deaths required to sustain you, as low-tech agriculture is infeasible. Cows don't squash rodents the way agricultural machinery does. Better one cow than ten field mice, no?.. After all, a life's a life, and a mouse has as much right to live as a cow does...

voidx

22nd May 2003, 10:18 AM

Chickens on factory farms are consigned to the tiniest cages and live in their own filth.

The second part of this statement is patently false. I know people that have been to and worked in Chicken factory farms. Its a very efficient process. Yes, the chickens live in small cages, not even really large enough to turn around in, but whatever. They do not live in their own filth. You know why? Because factory farms make a fortune from selling Chicken feces as fertilizer. Go to a factory farm. This is what you'll see. Chicks are raised on seperate farms, they are bought and come into the egg factory. In the egg factory chickens are stored in cages and have a time span for laying eggs before they are sent off to be processed for meat. The cages are open on the bottom, or chicken-wire on the bottom. Their waste passes through the bottoms of the cage down onto something I believe is like a trough or whatever. This waste is systematically collected and packaged and sent off to fertilizer plants. Its all done with machinery, the only times the chickens are handled is when they first come and get put in the cage, and when their cycle is down, and they are removed from the cage and thrown in a truck to be taken to the meat processing plant. Maybe some small town country bumpkin keeps his chickens living in piles of their own waste, but chicken factory farms, which you referred to, do not.

Humans domesticate animals specifically to exploit them. Some for food, other to help with work. Human society would not be at its level of progress with out domestication of animals, which in turn lead to the first levels of organized food production. Why do we need organized food production? To make food for all of us non food producers. By not actually being a farmer and contributing to producing food you are perpetuating this system. Shane posted a link describing why its beneficial not to harm animals before slaughter. You refuted that, but gave no evidence or link to counter it. I want to see evidence of livestock abuse from a credible source please. And I also want to see evidence that the standards for raising livestock encourage abuse of the animals. I also want to be shown evidence or explanation on what the exact benefit is of abusing a livestock animal. These are 2 of the claims being made.

BillyTK

22nd May 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Yes, but what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death. Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.
So do people on death row. But that's a spurious equivalency. The red haze has gone from my eyes and I might be able to make my point a little clearer. The treatment of animals by humans doesn't justify their fate, because their fate is solely the result of human's desire for their meat, not any desire for their wellbeing. It's certainly preferable to treat animals as humanely (deliberate pun) as possible but this doesn't justify their deaths. Any attempt to dress it our desire for their flesh as anything else is equivalent to the fluffy-headed thinking of some of the animal rights crowd.
Are you denying that it is anything other than fact? Consider this; why are violent an loathsome human beings regularly referred to as "animals"? How come any inherently unfair and heartless state of affairs in the human world is said to be akin to "jungle law"? The natural world is a cruel, heartless place. If you don't believe me then visit a chicken coop after a visit from a fox (more hens are killed than could possibly be eaten by the fox) or walk through some woodland in winter, counting the carcasses of dead and frozen animals as you go.
The use of "animals" and "jungle law" is a matter of semantics resulting from 19th century ideas of the natural world as the opposition of human civilisation. Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?

Btw I've seen the result of foxes in chicken runs, but this doesn't prove the rule; chicken runs are artificial and it's the number of chickens in a confined space which causes the fox to engage in this kind of behaviour.

Edited to expand first para third sentence

BillyTK

22nd May 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
RandFan here,

My son signed on for me. I have been a good boy and have gotten allot of work done so one or two posts won't hurt. This is one of those subjects I just can't pass up.

Hi Billy,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I often get into arguments on the forum that I eventually regret. I truly respect other people's opinion. I think I would have less argument if I would take the same tack that you have in your post.
Thanks!

Your post presupposes that there is something inherently wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation. I see nothing wrong with breeding animals for the purpose of exploitation.
There is a moral argument against domesticating animals but I'm not confident enough to make it. As I explained to Shane in my subsequent post, I'm not objecting to the consumption of animals by humans (I'm a vegetarian, but I'm quite ambivalent about the whole thing), it's the argument that, because animals in captivity get better treatment than their wilderness counterparts, that this somehow justifies their fates.
I don't think the fact that animals in captivity are somehow how better of does justify an animals captivity but I do believe that it puts it into perspective.
But if they're in captivity, how much better off are they? Horses and cows do get a bit of a free ride and should be made to pay taxes or somesuch ;); sows are often kept pinned in cages so that their piglets can feed at anytime and to prevent the mother from rolling over and squashing them. Cattle show signs of distress even before entering the slaughterhouse; chickens and hens in confined spaces produce neurotic pecking behaviours; chicken and turkey meat is so white because they have their throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution; the stunning process is not always successful. Did I mention that I once worked in a turkey slaughterhouse?
I don't understand why animal rights activists are upset that animals are domesticated or that they are killed for human consumption. From an earlier thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=14910&highlight=animal)on the subject. I was responding to some specific points so it is not quite relevant to your post. However I think it is a good response.

I think that since humans are capable of empathy most of us find it disturbing that a thinking human could cause the suffering of another living thing. I also think that it is quite reasonable to expect humans to mitigate the suffering of animals that are in the care of humans.

But I find it logically inconsistent to decry the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild.

As I said earlier, if we could magically end all human involvement in the lives of animals tomorrow we would not reduce the suffering of animals. While this does not provide justifiation for the use of animals by man but it does give it some perspective.
I can't and won't speak for the animal rights lot; whenever I can exercise a choice which doesn't involve animal suffering, I exercise that choice, but in a straight contest between my survival and an animal's survival, I'm sorry but the fluffy bunny gets it. Conditions in the wild are cruel--to us, imposing our values on it as we watch the cute baby get munched by the big bad carnivore on the Discovery Channel, but carefully forget that without that big bad carnivore the cute baby and pals would over-run their habitat with the environmental problems that would cause--but let's stop trying to dress up our treatment of animals as somehow more compassionate.

Edited to add
But there's no inconsistency in decrying the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild, because predation in the wild is not the result of human activity; the treatment of domesticated animals is. The real inconsistency is to condemn outright all animal exploitation but still take medicines, use cosmetics, eat processed food &c &c and as hypocritical to justify eating meat because, well, the cow had a good life.

voidx

22nd May 2003, 11:00 AM

I'll agree with BillyTX here to a degree. We raise these animals to slaughter and eat them, simple as that. I have no problem with that at all. It is a very efficient process of controlled growth and processing to provide us with the meat we want and need.

throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution

This is the process of killing the animals and then processing their meat. Billy, in your experience, did you electrocute and beat the turkeys as they were being grown? Some people don't have the stomach for the killing of an animal, in any fashion, and that's fine, but its a good thing for us that some people do, or else there'd be a lot less food available to us.

BillyTK

22nd May 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by voidx
This is the process of killing the animals and then processing their meat. Billy, in your experience, did you electrocute and beat the turkeys as they were being grown? Some people don't have the stomach for the killing of an animal, in any fashion, and that's fine, but its a good thing for us that some people do, or else there'd be a lot less food available to us.

No, they weren't beaten or electrocuted whilst they were being grown, I have to say the turkeys probably got better treatment than the farmer's own family. Turkeys are notoriously difficult to raise, and tend to get frightened by the slightest thing, which results in them grouping together and suffocating those in the middle, which, though a "natural" behaviour, is made worse by being kept in a confined space.

Kodiak

22nd May 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
This shows how little you know about indutrial framing, I could berate you but I sugesst you investigate a little, especialy the way chickens and pigs are raised (And cattle to lesser extent).

I said "short, sedate, and care free". What stresses, other than their eventual demise (which they are oblivious of) do these animals suffer. They pull no wagons or plows, and they don't compete for food or mates. Berate me indeed... :rolleyes:

Again, without man and his desire and love for meat, these animals wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Dancing David
Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Thanks to my US Army training, I've had to eat much worse. To answer your question though, yes I would eat dog, if I couldn't find an alternative that I found preferable.

Shane Costello

22nd May 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK:
The treatment of animals by humans doesn't justify their fate, because their fate is solely the result of human's desire for their meat, not any desire for their wellbeing. It's certainly preferable to treat animals as humanely (deliberate pun) as possible but this doesn't justify their deaths. Any attempt to dress it our desire for their flesh as anything else is equivalent to the fluffy-headed thinking of some of the animal rights crowd.

Speaking for myself I've never tried to dress my own desire to eat animal flesh as being primarily an exercise in animal welfare. I've never felt the need to apologise for being an active omnivore, so I've never claimed that I eat meat for the sake of the animal.

The use of "animals" and "jungle law" is a matter of semantics resulting from 19th century ideas of the natural world as the opposition of human civilisation. Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?

Oh please, your not trying to suggest that the natural world is like Jellystone national park?

Lions stalking and slaughtering all too sentient Wildebeest? Primates beating one another to death in vicious feuds? Foxes slaughtering far more chickens than they could possibly eat? Tom cats killing kittens? Dominance plays a major role in the natural world. Do you think animals settle questions of dominance by democratic means?

Btw I've seen the result of foxes in chicken runs, but this doesn't prove the rule; chicken runs are artificial and it's the number of chickens in a confined space which causes the fox to engage in this kind of behaviour.

Are you suggesting that the fox wouldn't eat the chickens if it came across them in the wild? BTW the dead chickens I've seen were all free range.

Dancing David

22nd May 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I said "short, sedate, and care free". What stresses, other than their eventual demise (which they are oblivious of) do these animals suffer. They pull no wagons or plows, and they don't compete for food or mates. Berate me indeed... :rolleyes:

Again, without man and his desire and love for meat, these animals wouldn't exist.

Thanks to my US Army training, I've had to eat much worse. To answer your question though, yes I would eat dog, if I couldn't find an alternative that I found preferable.

I was merely pointing out the fact that the way most animals are raised today is comparable to an african jail cell, not a pleasant place, the animals are fed better. Most people think that animals live in these happy little farms like the one in Wizard of OZ, when actually they are just biological gears in an industrial setting.

I can berate you if you want? I'd really rather not, indeed. It was a rhetorical statement, in fact. Which I could retract, in practise. Altough since you don't seem offended I could, in passing.

Peace

PS The comment about the dogs was a troll, the most disgusting thing to me is liver, ew, I would have to be real hungry.

RandFan,Jr.

22nd May 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK
There is a moral argument against domesticating animals but I'm not confident enough to make it. As I explained to Shane in my subsequent post, I'm not objecting to the consumption of animals by humans (I'm a vegetarian, but I'm quite ambivalent about the whole thing), it's the argument that, because animals in captivity get better treatment than their wilderness counterparts, that this somehow justifies their fates. Personally I have not tried to justify their fates based on that fact. However it is demonstrable that an animal born domestically has a far better survival rate than one in the wild. That they will suffer far less from predation and the elements. I was raised on a farm and we took great care of our animals. My father inspected them regularly and called the vet when needed. So I certainly can put my mind to rest knowing that domesticated animals that are not needlessly hurt fair better than their counter parts.

But if they're in captivity, how much better off are they? Horses and cows do get a bit of a free ride and should be made to pay taxes or somesuch ;); sows are often kept pinned in cages so that their piglets can feed at anytime and to prevent the mother from rolling over and squashing them. Cattle show signs of distress even before entering the slaughterhouse; chickens and hens in confined spaces produce neurotic pecking behaviours; chicken and turkey meat is so white because they have their throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution; the stunning process is not always successful. Did I mention that I once worked in a turkey slaughterhouse? My family's main source of income was chickens and rabbits. Yes, there are problems and they should be addressed. I support reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering. I have seen cows slaughtered. I know that ruminants in the wild suffer stress on a regular basis. I think many if not most horses in captivity are well kept.

I will grant that there is an argument to be made that the lot of domesticated animals can be improved. I can't see any reason to stop using domesticated animals for food and clothing.[

Conditions in the wild are cruel--to us, imposing our values on it as we watch the cute baby get munched by the big bad carnivore on the Discovery Channel, but carefully forget that without that big bad carnivore the cute baby and pals would over-run their habitat with the environmental problems that would cause--but let's stop trying to dress up our treatment of animals as somehow more compassionate. I think it often is. Most animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. That being said let me concede that I cannot truly know which life is better for any given animal. However I don't think that statistically there is any comparison.

But there's no inconsistency in decrying the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild, because predation in the wild is not the result of human activity; the treatment of domesticated animals is. We will have to disagree. The very best scenario, the very best mind you is a zero sum gain. You cannot improve the over all quality of life for animals by simply removing man from the equation. Perhaps you would be happier knowing that animals only die as a result of animal predation and not as a result of humans. I don't see the distinction. While I do however think it wrong to cause needles suffering and since humans are capable of treating animals in a way that minimizes suffering then I think we should treat them as such. The fact that a man kills an animal as opposed to another animal is a function of "who" or "what" and not "if" and the human can do so in a way that allows for the animal a much better chance of surviving not only beyond birth but far longer than the average animal in the wild.

If I was going to kill a turkey tomorrow for dinner would you feel better to know that a fox got to it today?

I'm sorry but I just don't see the point.

Cain

22nd May 2003, 10:50 PM

It sucks that I usually post in the dead of night at off-peak hours, so then the next day in addition to several replies, threads start taking different directions. Constraints of time prevent the usually tedious point-by-point analysis.

Shane writes:

"...I was addressing a specific claim made by you i.e. "abuse and atrocities" inflicted on animals. I posted those links to show that "abuse and atrocities" have no place whatsoever in livestock production."

First, you're completely passing over the moral premise: Suppose -- just suppose -- that animal abuse was highly profitable. For instance, confining chickens to tiny spaces that allow little room for exercise, "debeaking" them (causing pain), and, let's just say for the sake of argument, heat waves that suffocate many of these fine birds. Scales of economy and skimping on labor costs allow for high profits.

Many people would shrug their shoulders and say "so what? They're just animals."

In which case it's silly to document atrocities and abuse because they view animals as the property of others, to be disposed as the owner sees fit.

As for my "odious comparison" to slaves, Shane writes:

"I'd point out that animal welfare laws make it illegal to transport animals the way humans were on the slave ships."

So? The argument from economic incentive is the same. Do you agree there should be welfare laws governing the transport of animals? If so, why? Because animals deserve our respect? Or does regulation exists for quality control (human-centered reasons)? Even the United States legally abolished the slave trade in 1808 -- hardly anything more than a step in the right direction.

"Purposeless violence" has no place in livestock production, thankfully.

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

From another post (reply to billy), Shane writes:

"...what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death.

I wish I could be Tyson chicken! :rolleyes:

First, non-human animals are not moral agents, so the violence they carry out against each other (and against humans), is not comparable to our own misconduct. In the next ten years we could abolish all factory farms forever.

Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.

That's an improper comparison (though, not quite odious :)). Again, if we look back on slave life over the course of the 18th century, it improved dramatically. All quality of life indicators went straight up -- but that's not a good argument for slavery. Nor are comparisons to many of the starving Africans back in the homeland at the time. Humans must be held to higher standards precisely because we are the moral animal.

-------------------------------------------------------

Kodiak writes:

Those cows wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the beef industry. Those chickens and turkeys wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the poultry industry.

Yep, we could prevent all of that useless suffering. Animal rights activists favor less animals. Singer offers an interesting example in a chapter on abortion (I think it's abortion). Imagine a woman who is pregnent, but her doctor says that the child will be born mentally retarded.... unless, she takes a miracle drug that will cause a "normal" birth. The mother refuses. Years later the retarded child learns about her mother's choice and says, "Had you chosen to take the drug, I wouldn't be retarded." The mother may always reply, "Had I chosen to take the drug, you would not exist."

----------------------------------------------

Victor writes:

What about the deaths of rodents under the blades of agricultural combines?

I believe this argument was made after a professor from Oregon(?) uncovered findings on the number of deaths each year in combines. More research needs to be done, but yes, it's a very real concern.

In keeping consistency with my views on war, these deaths cannot be brushed aside as completely "unintended" or "accidential" because we know they're inevitably going to occur (just as warplanners knew they would take the lives of innocent civilians). The difference, depending on one's stance for the war, is a matter of necessity. We need to produce food just as we need to work (peopel inevitably die on the job, regardless of the restrictions OSHA places on firms).

A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

----------------------------------------------------
Voidx writes:

I know people that have been to and worked in Chicken factory farms. Its a very efficient process. Yes, the chickens live in small cages, not even really large enough to turn around in, but whatever. They do not live in their own filth. You know why? Because factory farms make a fortune from selling Chicken feces as fertilizer.

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles (this came up on one of Randi's programs, I believe. Either he was broadcasting near chicken factory farm or a caller brought it up). Residents regularly complain about the odor. But again, these issues are derivative:

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens? Otherwise it makes little sense to argue "how bad things are" because, as I said once earlier, anyone can reply, "So what?"

Shane posted a link describing why its beneficial not to harm animals before slaughter. You refuted that, but gave no evidence or link to counter it. I want to see evidence of livestock abuse from a credible source please. And I also want to see evidence that the standards for raising livestock encourage abuse of the animals. I also want to be shown evidence or explanation on what the exact benefit is of abusing a livestock animal. These are 2 of the claims being made.

My interests are more philosophical. Anyone can paste links or reccomend books (Matthew Scully's, written from a conservative/religious point of view, tackles these issues in depth).

A quick Internet search leads me to the humane society:

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11533

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11528

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11487

More typical vegetarians can go into far greater detail on all kinds of experimentation, factory farming, the history of regulations and so on.

It just doesn't define me as a person in the same way, so these issues, though non-trivial, I view as missing a fundamental point: non-human animals deserve our respect. Even assuming a Shane-constructed livestock utopia, one over-riding ethical feature goes missing: concern for the interests of animals.

Rigorous documentation of atrocities against animals has the effect of appealing to emotions. It offers greater dimension and deeper understanding, but those efforts are completely squandered if basic moral concern is found missing.

Skeptical Greg

23rd May 2003, 05:18 AM

Cain writes:
A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

Statements similar to this get thrown out frequently.. They are straw men. Such statements are akin to the " eat all your food because people somewhere else are starving " ones.

Tons of food spoil every day because there are no means or the will to distribute it. It is a logistical issue, not one of production.

I see flaws, and to some extent moral questions, regarding the meat production industry in the U.S., but the idea that the solution to feeding the world is for the U.S. or anywhere else to go vegetarian is ludicrous.

Cain

23rd May 2003, 06:17 AM

Statements similar to this get thrown out frequently.. They are straw men. Such statements are akin to the " eat all your food because people somewhere else are starving " ones.
Tons of food spoil every day because there are no means or the will to distribute it. It is a logistical issue, not one of production.

Ah, there goes another JREFer mistakenly trotting out the "straw man" accusation again.

Markets naturally account for only effective demand, so if, theoretically speaking, everyone in rich countries suddenly adopted a vegetarian diet, we cannot ispo facto expect to see dramatic nutritional improvements world-wide. Which is exactly the point Lappe makes about the maldistributions that result from a free-market (though today we scarcely possess anything approaching a free-market in this field).

The point is only that we already have enough food to feed everybody (contrary to renewed euphoria over the hopes for genetically modified crops to solve world hunger). But the preferences of wealthy/first-world consumers, the only ones who really count under current mechanisms of distribution, entails cutting down forests in Brazil so McDonalds can raise cows. So we lose biological diversity from the ecosystems that have been replaced; the cows lead wretched lives; their profligate consumption of valued resources (water figures prominently) strains sustainable development; and they produce tons of waste (methane, an important greenhouse gas, among them).

It's hardly comparable to the scene in "A Christmas Story" (for example), where a mother urges her little one to eat everything on his plate because "people are starving in China," and, indeed, Lappe addresses this exact argument on, I believe, p. 1.

Production IS a "logistical issue."

Skeptical Greg

23rd May 2003, 06:33 AM

Production IS a "logistical issue."
Got me there..

I should have stayed with ..

It is not a problem with production, but of distribution...

Both of which fall under " logistics"..

Victor Danilchenko

23rd May 2003, 06:36 AM

Cain

First, non-human animals are not moral agents, so the violence they carry out against each other (and against humans), is not comparable to our own misconduct.You can't have it both ways. if animals aren't moral agents, then violence against them cannot be immoral. it takes two moral agents interacting to have their interaction have moral value; otherwise, there is no moral difference between kicking a rock and kicking a dog, if neither is a moral agent.

You can argue that they are moral agents, and that therefore violence against animals -- by humans or by other animals -- is immoral; or you can argue that violence against animals is not immoral per se because they are not moral agents, but then such violence by humans isn't immoral either.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I believe this argument was made after a professor from Oregon(?) uncovered findings on the number of deaths each year in combines. More research needs to be done, but yes, it's a very real concern.Not only is it a very real concern, it's a concern sufficient for susp[ension of 'ethical vegetarianism" conclusions. Funny how most "ethical vegetarians" don't do more that shrug their shoulders.

In keeping consistency with my views on war, these deaths cannot be brushed aside as completely "unintended" or "accidential" because we know they're inevitably going to occur (just as warplanners knew they would take the lives of innocent civilians). The difference, depending on one's stance for the war, is a matter of necessity. We need to produce food just as we need to work (peopel inevitably die on the job, regardless of the restrictions OSHA places on firms). Indeed. We need to produce food one way or another. Why do you assume that producing vegetarian diet is less expensive, in terms of animal lives, that producing meat diet? Free-range meat is not *that* much more expensive than industrially-grown meat, but seems to result in a lot less loss of animal life.

Isn't your goal supposed to be to adhere to an adequate diet that minimizes loss of life?

A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef.This is why I spoke about free-range animals: cows don't kill field mice with their combine blades.

Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.We could feed the earth with our current diet, too. The issue is not lack of food, but lack of economic and sociopolitical infrastructure that would actually allow the food to be distributed thusly. That argument is simply dishonest demagoguery. We have the technology to feed 10b population on Earth; it's not through lack of potential to produce food that people starve.

It just doesn't define me as a person in the same way, so these issues, though non-trivial, I view as missing a fundamental point: non-human animals deserve our respect.Only if they are moral agents -- but then their deaths by other animals is no less immoral than their deaths by our hands.

Rigorous documentation of atrocities against animals has the effect of appealing to emotions. It offers greater dimension and deeper understanding, but those efforts are completely squandered if basic moral concern is found missing.Which is why I would like to take my kids hunting someday. They should understand what it means for an animals to be killed for their meal. That doesn't make omnivorous diet be immoral, though.

voidx

23rd May 2003, 09:20 AM

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles

How does the smell have anything to do with them living in their own filth. As I explained to you, the feces and waste are collected and sold as fertilizer. This doesn't get rid of the smell, the feces is still there, but the chickens are not wallowing in it either. You're avoiding the issue of the statement you made of chickens, or more livestock in general wallowing around in their own waste.

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens?

You're misdirecting here. I asked you to provide me any evidence that animal abuse has any benefit to producing better quality meat in livestock, and whethere there was any example of the normal standards for livestock encouraging this practice. You want to assume horrendous conditions, I asked you to show me or prove that there actually are horrendous conditions, so you can't turn the question around on me. What I want to see is, 1. Examples of truly horrendous conditions for livestock, and 2. that lax standards on livestock encourage a farmer to keep livestock in those horrendous conditions, because of some imaginary benefit, which I'd also like to see proof or explanation for.

For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef.

I'll have to dig up the link, but you assume here that it is always grain, and grain alone that is used as feed for cattle. This is not true. Agricultural waste, meaning, parts of vegetables and other things that don't fit the bill for human consumption, but are fine for livestock, are often used as feed also. Its a policy of not wasting anything. Rather than toss out that agricultural waste, its fed to livestock. But as mentioned, its a moot point anyway. Say we all went vegatarian, it still wouldn't mean our new found "bounty" of food would find its way into the proper hands.

Shane Costello

23rd May 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
First, you're completely passing over the moral premise: Suppose -- just suppose -- that animal abuse was highly profitable. For instance, confining chickens to tiny spaces that allow little room for exercise, "debeaking" them (causing pain), and, let's just say for the sake of argument, heat waves that suffocate many of these fine birds. Scales of economy and skimping on labor costs allow for high profits.

You're the one skirting issues here, not me. You made a statement of fact, namely that there is endemic "abuse and atrocities" of animals in the meat industry. Support this assertion before bombarding me with abstract issues.

So? The argument from economic incentive is the same. Do you agree there should be welfare laws governing the transport of animals? If so, why? Because animals deserve our respect? Or does regulation exists for quality control (human-centered reasons)?

Do I support animal welfare laws, especially those governing transport of livestock? Yes. The animals are entitled to humane conditions, both from a moral and from an economic perspective. I'll repeat, there is no economic incentive for animal abuse at any stage of the meat production process, quite the opposite in fact.

Comparing humans, and especially slavery with animals is odious. Animals continue to be articles of property (I'm sure a lot of PETA activists and vegans own pets), and lack the intellectual and moral capacities of humans.

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

Strawman. My claim that violence has no place in farming or meat production stands. Animals have to be slaughtered painlessly and clinically as part of the industrial slaughtering process.

I wish I could be Tyson chicken! :rolleyes:

If you were a bird rather than a human, then it wouldn't be all that bad.

Again, if we look back on slave life over the course of the 18th century, it improved dramatically. All quality of life indicators went straight up -- but that's not a good argument for slavery. Nor are comparisons to many of the starving Africans back in the homeland at the time. Humans must be held to higher standards precisely because we are the moral animal.

But slaves were human beings, not animals and had infinitely more moral and intellectual capacities than even the smartest chimp or yellow lab. The gulf between us and the animal world in these respects makes any comparisons between slavery and farming plainly ridiculous.

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles

Sounds like some batchelor pads and all male college dorms I've been in. :D

And if odour is an overriding concern of yours I think your promotion of a diet strongly derived from legumes is a little hypocritical. ;)

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens?

Stop peddling this. Either support your assertion with evidence, or belt up.

Tmy

23rd May 2003, 12:02 PM

TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN!!!!

Those animals are there to serve our needs. Whether we eat them or wear their fur. Thats nature for ya.

Who gets treated better. Animals raised for fur or for food. Im guessing fur.

RandFan,Jr.

23rd May 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Cain
For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet. This is quite misleading.

Animals such as ruminants convert food that is not edible for human consumption into meat that is fit for human consumption.

I grew up across from a silage field. Silage is grain that is grown for cows and other animals. When grain is grown for humans, only the grain is used. Take for instance corn. Humans consume only the kernels. Cows eat the silk, the husk, the cob, the leaves, the stalk, the whole damn thing. If you watch the harvesting of silage compared to corn for humans the difference is astounding. The grain is only a fraction of the total weight of the food. Wheat silage is the same. Humans only eat the grain while the animal eats everything. Another thing, silage is much cheaper to produce than corn that is fit for human consumption (my buddies and I stole and ate corn from silage once. It was awful). In addition to the grain, the cows grazed on open fields where native grasses grew without any cultivation or irrigation. (google BLM and grazing). Oh and I almost forgot, silage is much cheaper to store than grain for humans. It doesn't require a silo and can be left out in the elements. It is very difficult for birds to pick through tons of non edible silage to eat the grain.

So a true an accurate picture would have to take into account silage and grass that humans could not otherwise eat. That being said, it is true that the beef most preferred by consumers is "whole corn" fed beef. But this has to do with preference and not necessity.

aerocontrols

23rd May 2003, 01:12 PM

On a lighter note...

Cows with Guns (http://www.shagrat.net/Html/cows.htm) is now a movie.

Pretty funny.

Tmy

23rd May 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.

I grew up across from a silage field. Silage is grain that is grown for cows and other animals. .

IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! SILAGE IS PEEEEEEOPLE!!!!!!

(apologies to Charlie Heston)

RandFan,Jr.

23rd May 2003, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Tmy

IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! SILAGE IS PEEEEEEOPLE!!!!!!

(apologies to Charlie Heston) Every once in awhile you go into a serious thread only to have some smart a$$ make some comment.

Well it made my day. :D

Cain

25th May 2003, 03:35 AM

I apologize once again for the (relatively) delayed reply (by Internet standards).

Victor writes:

You can't have it both ways. if animals aren't moral agents, then violence against them cannot be immoral.

No, we need to make another distinction between moral agents and moral patients. Infants are not moral agents either, so can we kick them? If you want to argue that infants are *potential moral agents*, then you'll need to confront the problem of abortion (because then a zygote is a potential moral agent). What about an infant with a heart condition that will not live for very long. Can we kick her around like a rock?

Isn't your goal supposed to be to adhere to an adequate diet that minimizes loss of life?

No, the goal is minimize suffering and maximize happiness. I'm not sure why you would compare free-range meat to industrial-grown if both are inefficient in terms of protein from a dietary perspective.

We could feed the earth with our current diet, too. The issue is not lack of food, but lack of economic and sociopolitical infrastructure that would actually allow the food to be distributed thusly. That argument is simply dishonest demagoguery. We have the technology to feed 10b population on Earth; it's not through lack of potential to produce food that people starve.

In my old copy of Lappe's book (30 years, so the statistics are obviously dated), she has a neat graph with protein conversion (the first line in the Forward screams "This book is about PROTEIN"). Cows in North America are 21 to 1. Then you need to take into account the opportunity costs: how much protein can I produce on an acre of cereal than an acre of meat (Lappe's old figures give us 5 to 1). It's a side issue that I regret bringing up because the arguments are anthropocentric: stop raising animals for the benefit to humans. Yes, the benefits to humans are extremely important, maybe even overwhelmingly so, but a serious cause of concern is the unneccesary harm inflicted upon animals.

Only if they are moral agents -- but then their deaths by other animals is no less immoral than their deaths by our hands.

Again, many humans are not moral agents, but we give them rights and respect. Your criterion for moral agenthood is misguided.

Voidx writes:

You're misdirecting here. I asked you to provide me any evidence that animal abuse has any benefit to producing better quality meat in livestock, and whethere there was any example of the normal standards for livestock encouraging this practice. You want to assume horrendous conditions, I asked you to show me or prove that there actually are horrendous conditions, so you can't turn the question around on me. What I want to see is, 1. Examples of truly horrendous conditions for livestock, and 2. that lax standards on livestock encourage a farmer to keep livestock in those horrendous conditions, because of some imaginary benefit, which I'd also like to see proof or explanation for.

My comments below also apply to Shane's opening statement:

You made a statement of fact, namely that there is endemic "abuse and atrocities" of animals in the meat industry. Support this assertion before bombarding me with abstract issues.

No, I realized after my last post how "abuse" and "mistreatment" are loaded words vis-a-vis human and non-human animals. If you view "mistreating" an animal as "damaging a product" (no different than canned food), then you're missing the point.

Back to VoidX's above quote:

Because "your friends" work on a chicken farm... yes, yes. I could cite a half-dozen books (Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation_ for one, documenting the "horrendous conditions." But if animlas are nothing more than property, then who cares about "horrendous conditons"? Even I glanced over one of the links provided, which talked about chickens living in their own excrement for over a year.

Comparing humans, and especially slavery with animals is odious. Animals continue to be articles of property (I'm sure a lot of PETA activists and vegans own pets), and lack the intellectual and moral capacities of humans.

I love how it's common for us to distinguish between humans and animals. Of course as we all know, humans *are* animals and, technically, it makes more sense to draw lines between human and non-human animals. That non-human animals continued to be viewed as property is the object of dispute. No doubt many animal rights activists "own" pets. Many parents also believe that they "own" their kids, and can treat them any way possible under the "My house, my rules" principle. Of course, no sane person would allow a parent to abuse or molest their own child. Most people are also in favor of anti-cruelty laws. Just because you "own" a pet does not mean you can dispose of it in any way you see fit.

Moral or intellectual capacity is an arbitrary criterion for rights. Some humans are smarter than others, but that doesn't mean those in the top 99 percentile should be the rulers, and those in the bottom 10 percentile slaves. For moral distinctions refer to the agent/patient relationship outlined above in response to Victor.

Strawman. My claim that violence has no place in farming or meat production stands. Animals have to be slaughtered painlessly and clinically as part of the industrial slaughtering process.

As I make a point of stating on these forums every single time: a red flag must always go up whenever a JREFer resorts to "strawman." (There must be an insidious meme that has gone around for years because nearly everyone fails to properly separate the "straw" from "man", let alone correctly accuse).

Anyway, my alleged caricature went as follows:

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

I guess it goes back to whether or not the life of a cow on a factory farm is happy (since it's indisputably unnecessary) because they're slaughtered painlessly. Of course, the same can be said in veal production, but the violence and unnecessary suffering are still there.

But slaves were human beings, not animals and had infinitely more moral and intellectual capacities than even the smartest chimp or yellow lab. The gulf between us and the animal world in these respects makes any comparisons between slavery and farming plainly ridiculous.

Once again I'll note the false distinction between humans and animals.

The use of "infintely" also bothers me (and not just because "infinity" is a nonsense word). Someone observed that if you ask a scientist why it's okay to put animals through nasty experiments she'll say, "because they're nothing like us." Ask the same scientist why they bother at all, "because they're a lot like us." The economic arguments are identical: markets allegedly provide incentives to slave-owners not to abuse and mistreat. As for respecting our moral and intellectual capacities, hell, most firms today don't give a rat's *ss.

Stop peddling this. Either support your assertion with evidence, or belt up.

This is such nonsense for reasons touched upon earlier. I've learned from arguing with Libertarians, anti-abortionists, and Chirstian fundamentalists that underlying philosophical premises must get hashed out first. An anti-abortionist, for example, will talk about the "silent scream" and how a fetus feels pain very early on. Fine. Someone argues 23 weeks, others say it's closer to nine, or even four. Whatever. If a person judges on the basis of pain to the fetus alone, then they should be willing to accept the four weeks claim (assuming forthcoming evidence). But an anti-abortion activists wants to protect zygotes, so what's the point of messing around with all this pain crap? (refer to the thread on Libertarianism for a recent example of this).

It's a simple matter of setting up goal posts. You're telling me to move the ball, but I want to know in advance what counts. Assuming the economic incentives mentioned numerous times, would you oppose market conditions out of respect for the animals' interest?

The animals are entitled to humane conditions, both from a moral and from an economic perspective.

Interesting word -- "humane". Are you considering the interests of the animal from its own perspective and for its own good? Accordingly, you would be in favor of anti-cruelty laws, correct? A person couldn't just a buy a cow to do with it as he pleases (if that means torture or whatever).

Randfan Jr.'s arguments are covered above on efficiency grounds.

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 06:59 AM

Well, I'm new to the forum, but I have decided to weigh in on this issue, not that animal rights is something that I am involved in or care much about, but anyway.

Many people in the thread seem to be making the argument that there is nothing wrong with the way animals are currently farmed .

One of the claims of course was that "we have laws that govern this activity" (paraphrase).

Well, we had laws that governed slavery too, laws mean nothing in terms validating a method. The laws are written by the animals farmers, that's how lobbying works. And I dunno what people were talking about with the slave issue of saying that the salves were well cared for, did everyone miss the information about how slaves were crammed onto boats so thick that there were mortality rates in the 25% range and they were chained down so they had to go to the bathroom and sleep and eat, etc all in the same place.

Now, on the animals.

There are certainly problems with modern animal farming. The issue is not that raising animals for food is bad, there is nothing wrong with that, the issue is that the Industrial Revolution has changed demands on the food industry such that food production has taken on the characteristics of the Industrial Revolution.

200 years ago in America 4 out of 5 families raised their own food. Likewise in Europe there were more farmers raising smaller numbers of animals.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a farmer from 300 years ago to a modern chicken "farm" they would be equally as appalled as some of these PETA types are.

The practices have changed like everything, except in the case of other products what is being produced is inanimate objects, in this case we are using the practices of the Industrial Revolution to produce animals.

Where before 1 farmer may raise hundreds of chickens kept in coups that he tended daily and hand fed, and let the chickens out every day into the yard and had to deal with issues like disease and physical care in ways to keep his chickens healthy and doing well, today they use hormones to prevent disease which allows for overcrowding, they cut off the beaks so that they can't peck at each other, which again allows for overcrowding, and we have fewer "farmers" (food production corporations" producing much higher quantities of animals.

The animals have been integrated into the mechanical process of the Industrial Revolution, they are now grown in factories, not farms.

Now, as for the hormones, I see nothing wrong with the hormones themselves, it what the hormones allow, which is overcrowding and over feeding.

To put this in terms of people, it would be actually worse then the Holocaust IMO.

Here is what it would be like.

Being in a 10 X 10 room from the time you are 2 years old until you are about 20 years old. You are in there with 30 other people the whole time. You are given amphetamines and steroids so that everyone is always hopped up and jump and tens and angry, on top of the conditions that produce that effect. Because these conditions cause the people to fight the farmers pull everyone's teeth and fingernails out and tie their hand behind their backs.

You're life consists of living in this condition and awaiting food to come down a shoot every day. Due to the conditions everyone in the pen is insane and bangs their head against the wall constantly, etc. You live this way until the day you are harvested, which electricity is run through the floor and everyone in the pen is shocked to death.

That's a little different then the way things used to be 200 years ago with farmers doing real farming, and that is the issue.

Now, as for the future of food, I think that many people are going in the wrong direction with all this organic crap. The truth is that the "organic" movement is counter productive. We should be doing more genetic engineering, and looking for ways to develop brainless animals that have no senses, essentially just meat sacks :p Same goes for plants. Genetic engineering is what will allow us to stop using pesticides, we should not be fighting against that, we should before it.

Victor Danilchenko

25th May 2003, 07:44 AM

Cain

No, we need to make another distinction between moral agents and moral patients.that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Infants are not moral agents either, so can we kick them?No; but by the same token, we don't let one infant harm another.

As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. if animals deserve protection from us, then they must be protected from harm by humans and animals.

No, the goal is minimize suffering and maximize happiness. I'm not sure why you would compare free-range meat to industrial-grown if both are inefficient in terms of protein from a dietary perspective.But they are efficient in terms of suffering -- the suffering of a field mouse is no less than the suffering of the cow, and so the most efficient diet in terms of animal suffering (and excluding pre-industrial agriculture) is range-raised large animals.

In my old copy of Lappe's book (30 years, so the statistics are obviously dated), she has a neat graph with protein conversion (the first line in the Forward screams "This book is about PROTEIN"). Cows in North America are 21 to 1. Then you need to take into account the opportunity costs: how much protein can I produce on an acre of cereal than an acre of meat (Lappe's old figures give us 5 to 1).How about taking into the account the amount of suffering inflicted upon the animals by producing quantity X of protein? The comparison is not clear-cut, as you present it.

It's a side issue that I regret bringing up because the arguments are anthropocentric: stop raising animals for the benefit to humans. Yes, the benefits to humans are extremely important, maybe even overwhelmingly so, but a serious cause of concern is the unneccesary harm inflicted upon animals.Such as the dead field mice. Right.

The extra cost of raising meat rather than crops is irrelevant. That we could grow 5X tons of wheat for every X tons of beef doesn't make any difference if we cannot do anything useful with the extra 4X tons of wheat -- and that is exactly the case now. We already make more food than we need. had Earth had 30B population instead of 6B, the efficiency argument would be relevant; but it's not. As I said, the problem is not that we can't produce enough food, but that we can't (and/or won't) get the extra food to those who need it, nor the advanced agricultural technology and distribution infrastructure to those who starve.

In short, the efficiency argument is utterly spurious. It simply is not relevant to the real conditions -- technological growth is already plenty fast enough, our ability to produce food at current diet composition (i.e. with meat) far outpaces our population size and growth. These days, famine is virtually never a function of lack of food per se (such as due to drought), not even in the third-world countries, but rather of sociopolitical factors impeding free distribution of resources.

Shane Costello

25th May 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
I love how it's common for us to distinguish between humans and animals. Of course as we all know, humans *are* animals and, technically, it makes more sense to draw lines between human and non-human animals. That non-human animals continued to be viewed as property is the object of dispute.

It's not just common for us to distinguish between humans and animals, it's on the statute books. Doesn't the US constitution declare that "all men" are equal? Isn't violence against humans treated more severely than violence against animals? Where is the fact that animals are treated as property in dispute? Again, how many animal rights activists "own" pets?

Moral or intellectual capacity is an arbitrary criterion for rights. Some humans are smarter than others, but that doesn't mean those in the top 99 percentile should be the rulers, and those in the bottom 10 percentile slaves.

Yes, but the bottom 10 percentile of humans will still be a lot smarter than any animal.

Once again I'll note the false distinction between humans and animals.

No, it's a real and legal distinction.

This is such nonsense for reasons touched upon earlier. I've learned from arguing with Libertarians, anti-abortionists, and Chirstian fundamentalists that underlying philosophical premises must get hashed out first.

Wait a minute, you set the ball rolling here with your statement of endemic abuses. You put the statement of fact before the phiosophical discussion, not me, so put up or shut up.

Assuming the economic incentives mentioned numerous times, would you oppose market conditions out of respect for the animals' interest?

It's a false dilemma, since I've pointed out (and yopu've failed to refute) the fact that market conditions demand that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. I might as well ask you would you make love to your mother ot save her life. :rolleyes:

Interesting word -- "humane". Are you considering the interests of the animal from its own perspective and for its own good? Accordingly, you would be in favor of anti-cruelty laws, correct? A person couldn't just a buy a cow to do with it as he pleases (if that means torture or whatever).

I am in favour of anti-cruelty laws. They're already in place. As it stands a person can't just simply buy a cow and torture it.

Incitatus

25th May 2003, 09:41 AM

I am curious about something. Exactly where on the phylogenetic chain does it become a problem with killing a critter? Are Rats ok? What about slugs? And why are plants ok? Is not life life?

Cain

25th May 2003, 04:38 PM

I'm answering these out of order:

Incitatus writes:
I am curious about something. Exactly where on the phylogenetic chain does it become a problem with killing a critter? Are Rats ok? What about slugs? And why are plants ok? Is not life life?

Two broad principles (discussed in Peter Singer's _Practical Ethics_).

First, the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Both are morally significant and deserve our attention. In an animal has interests in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Does this mean that it's okay to kill animals if we do so in a painless manner? It's certainly much better than torturing them to death. Would you rather die without suffering in your sleep, or get burned at the stake?

The second point is the whether or not the being in question has an interest in its continued existence; can it form desires that it wishes to act upon at a later time? In the case of humans, we still condemn murder that strikes an unwitting victim because that victim had hopes and aspirations.

Malachi writes:

Now, as for the future of food, I think that many people are going in the wrong direction with all this organic crap. The truth is that the "organic" movement is counter productive. We should be doing more genetic engineering, and looking for ways to develop brainless animals that have no senses, essentially just meat sacks Same goes for plants. Genetic engineering is what will allow us to stop using pesticides, we should not be fighting against that, we should before it.

I fully agree on the organic crap going in the wrong direction as well as the possibilites for GM. And if scientists could manufacture a sack of meat that does not have interests -- cannot feel pain or see itself existing over time -- then it's perfectly fit for human consumption and mass slaughter. But, oh wait, where does such a beast fit into the preciously evolved "food chain" I'm constantly hearing about?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor:

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

To what extent is it possible to protect animals from each other? If we could, I agree that we should. Human interference in delicate ecologies has often brought far more than good.

As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. if animals deserve protection from us, then they must be protected from harm by humans and animals.

Again, how can we protect animals from each other? Also remember that most of the suffering inflicted on animals comes from humans.

How about taking into the account the amount of suffering inflicted upon the animals by producing quantity X of protein? The comparison is not clear-cut, as you present it.

No, you're completely missing my point regarding the argument as you presented it. You observed that field mice and rodents die in the process of crop production. Fair enough. I said that most of the grain is squandered on feeding animals (such as cows). If we rooted out the wastefulness and directed it toward humans, then we wouldn't need to produce *as much* and fewer rodents would die. Instead you constantly go off on a tangent about our current capabilities. Look up the context of a "consistent vegetarian" once again.

------------------------------------------------
Shane writes:

It's not just common for us to distinguish between humans and animals, it's on the statute books. Doesn't the US constitution declare that "all men" are equal? Isn't violence against humans treated more severely than violence against animals? Where is the fact that animals are treated as property in dispute? Again, how many animal rights activists "own" pets?

No, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to men at the exclusion of women. Another historic liberation movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, was once ridiculed in comparison to animal rights (are we going to allow dogs to vote next?).

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The legal system is derived from our ethical beliefs. If the law treats animals as nothing more than property (parallel to slaverly again), then it's failing to account for the interests of morally significant beings. When I say it's the object of dispute, I'm speaking in the moral frame. In the case of slavery, the law made itself quite clear in the Dredd Scott decision, the compromise of 1850 and even dating back to the Constitutional Conventions.

Yes, but the bottom 10 percentile of humans will still be a lot smarter than any animal.

Okay, fine. So let's compare fully grown chimps to infants. Would you deny that a chimp possesses is more self-aware than a new-born? Or compare anencephalics to dogs. Species is still an arbitrary line of distinction no different than "race," or gender.

Wait a minute, you set the ball rolling here with your statement of endemic abuses. You put the statement of fact before the phiosophical discussion, not me, so put up or shut up.

In fact, I originally wrote:

A fair comparison, but perhaps a political miscalculation. Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye). The same argument cannot be made over the Internet since it violates Godwin's Law.

An report in the mainstream news on factory farming gets initial widespread condemnation from the public, and various regulations have been handed down over the years (but they don't go far enough) You're the one who started up on how wonderful it is to be an imprisoned cow. And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion. If a person treats a cow as an object (as you have so far), then no amount of abuse seems relevant. It's like debating with a theist and saying, "There's no reason to believe in any god of any kind." And then she says, "Why? Prove it!" Before entering the conversation I must always ask a cautionary question: is there anything anyone can say or do to demonstrate that a belief in God is misguided? If they answer "no, of course not," then I'm wasting my time. We need to set goals and objectives before hand... otherwise you get this...mess.

It's a false dilemma, since I've pointed out (and yopu've failed to refute) the fact that market conditions demand that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. I might as well ask you would you make love to your mother ot save her life.

No, it's a necessary distinction. Again, in the case of the Libertarian thread, Victor posed a question toward foundations: natural rights or utilitarianism. The most vocal Libertarians said that the two co-exist (and of course, that's possible in the real-world, but makes little sense philosophically). So we ask a simple question: suppose economic efficiency -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- violated natural rights? Well, they just couldn't wrap their head around it.

Do you want me to quote passages out of Gail Eisnitz's Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry (published, incidentially, by Prometheus)? I mean, I could do that. There's probably dozens of animal rights sites on factory farming, and then there's Peter Singer's book that started the movement.

I am in favour of anti-cruelty laws. They're already in place. As it stands a person can't just simply buy a cow and torture it.

Cruelty, I think we can both agree, implies unnecessary pain and suffering, right? Both of us further agree that there are healthy vegetarian alternatives to meat, correct? Then, according to you, all I would have to show is that current farming conditions, for animals, produces more pain than happiness?

An intermediary case always helps: You would also oppose big game Safari hunting, right? The kind that attracts obese and bored Americans. It's inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but it's quite unnecessary. There are alternative forms of entertainment.

(apologies for the many, many spelling and grammatical errors, past and present).

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 05:11 PM

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Lame argument.

The issue is not absolution from all pain and harm, the issue is the degree of humanity.

Its disenguinous to claim that wild animals and animals raized in modern factory farsm are in the same conditions.

There is a difference between living, and then getting killed in the process of life, and living in a constant state of torture for entire life.

I am a hunter myself, I'm all for hunting, I view hunting as a better alternative to factory raised meet, though I still buy factory raised meat. I think that deer hunting is lame, but its still in terms of a humain was of getting food, a better way then buying meat at the store.

The deer live free, get to enjoy life, do whatever, then they get kille dand eaten, no big deal.

The issue with with these animals raised in factory conditions.

Here, maybe this will be a better explanation:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=rue-mcclanahan-pig-farm

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=Turkey-farms

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/cattle.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig.html

Now, view those links and then return with argument.

Victor Danilchenko

25th May 2003, 05:18 PM

Cain

To what extent is it possible to protect animals from each other?No to extent whatsoever. This is why it's absurd to consider animals as being moral agents or moral patients -- because it leads to a useless, impractical ethical system that renders us highly immoral for not meddling in the world to a far, far greater extent..

No, you're completely missing my point regarding the argument as you presented it. You observed that field mice and rodents die in the process of crop production. Fair enough. I said that most of the grain is squandered on feeding animals (such as cows). If we rooted out the wastefulness and directed it toward humans, then we wouldn't need to produce *as much* and fewer rodents would die.And you still keep missing my point -- that we would save even more animal lives by replacing the vegetarian diet with range-raised meat diet, at least partially. the more range-raised cows we eat, the less pain the animal world is subjected to. Thus, ethically, vegetarianism doesn't work.

Victor Danilchenko

25th May 2003, 05:25 PM

Malachi151

Lame argument.That may or may not be the case, but you didn't address the argument I made.

I raised the issue of of ethical consistency WRT anuimals as moral agents not in order to defend factory farming (in case you haven't noticed, I specifically suggest range-raised meat instead of factory-raised meat). rather, the issue was simply to demonstrate that granting animals the status of ethical agents (or patients, whatever) leads to an absurd conclusion.

Its disenguinous to claim that wild animals and animals raized in modern factory farsm are in the same conditions.Well, good thing I never made such a claim then! But you, being a very careful and honest debater, have of course noticed that fact already. :)

The issue with with these animals raised in factory conditions.Then direct your ire at someone who defends raising animals in factory conditions. I simply attack "ethical vegetarianism" as inconsistent, I am not defending factory farming.

Now, view those links and then return with argument.How about you get a clue about what it is you are actually arguing against, and say something that addresses my arguments, rather than some strawman factory-farming-defender position I never assumed?..

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 05:54 PM

Okay, okay, here we go again then:

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Yes, I know what you said and did not say, and to be honest I just kinda picked this quote out and then went on to a general statement directed at everyone who was arguing that there is nothing wrong with the way that modern farming is done. So, my statements were only half directed at you, but I can see that I was the source of the confusion.

Now, anyway, I think that your argument is disengeunious.

Your trying to assert that humans should be absolved from humane treatment of animals because it is not in our capaticy to make sure that animals treat animals humanely.

That's like arguing that we shouldn't enforce laws in America because the rest of the people in the world don't go by our laws.

How can we say that people can go to jail for pot when its not illigal in the Netherlands?

We would not have to make the animals obey our laws in order for us to obey them.

Animals are inhumane to other animals in the wild and we have no way to enforce protections for animal in the wild, true. But, when it is within our ability to enforce, then yes, we should. For example in a zoo. If an animal regularly is abusing another then yes they should move it to a different facility, and they do in fact do that, at least in decent zoos.

So, the issue is that if we have guidelines for the humane treatment of animals then yes we should see that they are followed by both people and animals within reason. If you see two dogs fighting and one is killing or maming the other would you just let it happen or throw a rock or something and try to break it up?

The same with animals fighting, that is why that is illigal.

Incitatus

25th May 2003, 06:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cain
I'm answering these out of order:

Incitatus writes:

Two broad principles (discussed in Peter Singer's _Practical Ethics_).

First, the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Both are morally significant and deserve our attention. In an animal has interests in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Does this mean that it's okay to kill animals if we do so in a painless manner? It's certainly much better than torturing them to death. Would you rather die without suffering in your sleep, or get burned at the stake?

The second point is the whether or not the being in question has an interest in its continued existence; can it form desires that it wishes to act upon at a later time? In the case of humans, we still condemn murder that strikes an unwitting victim because that victim had hopes and aspirations.

It is specious to apply internalized sensations to non verbal organisms. All you can say is that such and such a critter will avoid a stimulous, you have no way of knowing how they "feel". Are you seriously suggesting that creatures have "interests", "desires" and "wishes"? Or, rather, do they behave in certain ways that suggest the positive aspects of a specific outcome? Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error.

Now, being somewhat rigorous, distingush between a calf (big brown eyes), a nemotode (no eyes), and a plant (sorta uniform green photo sensitivity).

RandFan,Jr.

25th May 2003, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Randfan Jr.'s arguments are covered above on efficiency grounds. I read your post again, and then read mine again. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you addressed my arguments. On the contrary I would say that I answered your arguments. Humans can only eat grain while cows and ruminants eat grasses, silage and other foods that humans can't eat. In addition, animals such as ruminants can graze on hillsides and other areas where it is not feasible to grow crops for humans. Also, China's long term goals for feeding its people include cows and other ruminants. Considering that China is not interested in profits and does not have the incestuous relationship with the meat industry that the US alegedly has. If a vegetarian diet were truly the panacea that it is proclaimed to be then there is no reason that China would not switch to it.

It really isn't what animal rights people make it out to be.

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 07:18 PM

Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error

The claim of anthropomorphizing can really only be supported if you believe that humans are not animals. ;)

So, if one is to accept that we are animals, then anthropomorphizing kinda loses its meaning.

As to the question of other than human "feelings" I would say that its likely that most animals share most of the same feelings that humans do.

First you have to recognize that emotions are really the bassist of forms of thought. Emotions are the most primitive aspect of the human experience, and as such, also the aspect that we share the most with other organisms.

Who knows what animals feel what and exactly how, for that matter how do I know what you feel? Every individual feels things differently. Ever been backpacking? One guy can be hiking along fine, the next guy is dying and cramping and in pain. Both people doing the same thing, two totally different experiences.

Claiming that animals don't feel X emotion makes just as much sense as claming that they do, both are initially totally baseless statements. How can you assume that they do not?

Based on the premise that we have no idea what they feel we can then just look for signs of expression and behavior and interpret them.

Dogs clearly express behavior suggestive of desire and interest, as do other animals, in fact just about all of the higher ones, mammals, birds, etc.

It really takes recognizing what emotions are to realize that animals likely share most of our emotions. Emotions are not some higher level advanced form of human gift, emotions are the primitive driving force of survival behavior, and as such, likely the very lowest form though, a form of thought that likely foes all the way down to worms. I would recon that there are organisms are purely emotional, they have no rational thought at all.

Rational thought is high level, emotional though low level. Anthropomorphizing is really assuming that animals are not purely emotional.

Love is the classic example. Many writers over the years have said that love is the height of humanity, that its love that makes us human. Nothing is more wrong. I think that any animal that raises its young likely feels love, even some arachnids like scorpions. Why else would they care for their progeny? Instinct? Emotions are the way in which instincts are expressed, so therefore I believe that yes, scorpions feel love.

Victor Danilchenko

25th May 2003, 07:46 PM

Malachi151

Now, anyway, I think that your argument is disengeunious.

Your trying to assert that humans should be absolved from humane treatment of animals because it is not in our capaticy to make sure that animals treat animals humanely.

That's like arguing that we shouldn't enforce laws in America because the rest of the people in the world don't go by our laws.No, it's not. The key duifference is that laws aren't supposed to be universal, and so a law being applicable only locally is not a problem for a law -- it's a feature. Contrawise, ethical norms are supposed to apply to all moral agents.

the correct analogy would be to say that it would be hypocritical for us to extoll, say, freedom of speech as a moral value, yet do nothing about suppression of freedom of speech elsewhere; and so we shouldn't support freedom of speech. the answer of course is that in this case, we pick the other answer -- we extoll freedom of speech, and try to spread it through the world, by education and cultural exchange and somesuch.

Of course, the whole problem is that we regard a functional ecosystem (with animals killing animals) as good, and not meriting kiling-reducing intervention; but we regard killing by humans as evil, and meriting cessation. this double standard is the problem, and the same problem affects any moral system which assigns moral agencies in a manner that entails this sort of duplicity. This problem is radically different from the problem of local laws.

We would not have to make the animals obey our laws in order for us to obey them.but we would be morally bound to do something, just as we try to promote that which we regard as ethically good -- yet any sane environmentalist would scream bloody murder at the idea of such sort of human meddling in the ecosystem!

Animals are inhumane to other animals in the wild and we have no way to enforce protections for animal in the wild, true. But, when it is within our ability to enforce, then yes, we should.You think we should intervene in the ecosystem to prevent killing, if we have the capacity?!. :eek:

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 08:13 PM

No, it's not. The key duifference is that laws aren't supposed to be universal, and so a law being applicable only locally is not a problem for a law -- it's a feature. Contrawise, ethical norms are supposed to apply to all moral agents.

Ah, I was avoiding ethics for your own sake. Your wrong on ethics, they are not universal.

That's why different professions have codes of ethics. The code of ethics applies selectively to the members of that group.

Doctors have a code of ethics that holds them to a higher standard then the average citizen, same would apply in this case to the entirety of humanity vs the rest of the animal kingdom.

You think we should intervene in the ecosystem to prevent killing, if we have the capacity?!.

Obviously not, but who said that killing is inhumane?

I never said that killing is inhumane, I said that living conditions are inhumane.

Even if you want to take the approach of then considering living conditions in the wild. I would again have to say no that people should not make an effort to police the wilds and enforce our code of ethics on animals. Although I do remember one day wondering about this issue and wondering is a day would come when we would decide that we need to "bring civilization" to all animals :p It's an interesting thought :)

Obviously though in so doing, enforcing our ethics on animals in the wild, we would put the ecosystems in jepardy, and so, no its a savagery that will just have to go on unmolested, but really the wilds are savage and brutal, etc. This gets off into a whole other debate though.

If the inhumanity can be avoided or prevented w/o putting anything in jepardy, then yes its certiably viable to enforce human treatment of animals by anyone, human or animal. And, as I said, there is no reason to claim that our code of ethics woudl apply to animals.

Victor Danilchenko

25th May 2003, 08:29 PM

Malachi151

Ah, I was avoiding ethics for your own sake.Oh, don't hold back on my account, hon. My poor wittle bwain had read a couple of monosyllabic words from some booklet on ethics I picked up at my papilloerectile surgeon's office while waiting to have my neanderthalic eyebrows groomed.

Your wrong on ethics, they are not universal.Ethics is universal.

That's why different professions have codes of ethics. The code of ethics applies selectively to the members of that group."medical ethics" has about the same relationship to ethics, as imperial accounting to mathematics.

Obviously not, but who said that killing is inhumane?Ummm, killing is pretty much by definition just about the most inhumane thing one could have happen to them.

I never said that killing is inhumane, I said that living conditions are inhumane.Well, keeping a pig alive but dirty is worse than simply killing it? Somehow, i suspect that if the pig could talk, it would disagree. :rolleyes:

Obviously though in so doing, enforcing our ethics on animals in the wild, we would put the ecosystems in jepardy, and so, no its a savagery that will just have to go on unmolested, but really the wilds are savage and brutal, etc. This gets off into a whole other debate though.So you agree that animals treat other animals unethically -- that it's unethical for a lion to kill a wildebeest. have I gotten that much right?

If the inhumanity can be avoided or prevented w/o putting anything in jepardy, then yes its certiably viable to enforce human treatment of animals by anyone, human or animal. And, as I said, there is no reason to claim that our code of ethics woudl apply to animals [emphasis mine -V].My point exactly; this is why we cannot consistently claim that we bear moral obligation to animals.

Cain

25th May 2003, 10:20 PM

No to extent whatsoever. This is why it's absurd to consider animals as being moral agents or moral patients -- because it leads to a useless, impractical ethical system that renders us highly immoral for not meddling in the world to a far, far greater extent..

No Victor, that argument quite clearly fails if you're striving for absurd conclusions. Observe every human society ever known: no matter what measures we take, senseless murders will occur. Does that mean we give up protecting the weak from exploitation and oppression? Suppose a building catches fire and we could only possibly save 10 out of the 10,000 inhabitants. Do firefighters say, "F*ck it" and break for lunch early? The aim is to reduce suffering of all morally significant creatures as much as possible.

And you still keep missing my point -- that we would save even more animal lives by replacing the vegetarian diet with range-raised meat diet, at least partially. the more range-raised cows we eat, the less pain the animal world is subjected to. Thus, ethically, vegetarianism doesn't work.

How is that? From an efficiency perspective that's just wrong, but fine. If the scheme you describe minimizes animal suffering and maximizes happiness, then sure. The point is only that the interests of animals count, so I see nothing wrong with a paradoxical conclusions.
__________________________________

I read your post again, and then read mine again. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you addressed my arguments. On the contrary I would say that I answered your arguments. Humans can only eat grain while Cows and ruminants eat grasses, silage and other foods that humans can't eat.

First, imagine a cow or pig. Get that image in your head? Got it yet? Good. Now from an efficiency perspective, what portions of that cow do you eat? Do we consume everything? Then there's the problem of cow's natural byproducts:

The US Environmental Protection Agency blames current farming practices for 70% of the pollution in the nation's rivers and streams. The agency reports that runoff of chemicals, silt, and animal waste from US farmland has polluted more than 173,000 miles of waterways.

http://www.factoryfarm.org/facts-wastepollutionandenvironment.html

In addition, animals such as ruminants can graze on hillsides and other areas where it is no feasible to grow crops for humans. Also, China's long term goals for feeding its people include cows and other ruminants. Considering that China is not interested in profits and does not have the insestual relationship with the meat industry that the US alegedly has. If a vegetarian diet were truly the panacea that it is proclaimed to be then there no reason the China would not switch to it.
It really isn't what animal rights people make it out to be.

First, why should we even assume China has a rational government that cares about its people? If China wanted to feed everyone, why don't they just become a free-market democracy, right?

But, are you implying that if a vegetarian diet can be proven as more efficient to feeding the world's population, you would switch (and try to convince others)? As I said, that's not how markets work. As an actor in the free-market, I don't really care about anyone except No.1.

--------------------------------------------------

It is specious to apply internalized sensations to non verbal organisms.

Ah yes, chimps are non-verbal :rolleyes:

Which, I guess, makes newborns non-verbal.

All you can say is that such and such a critter will avoid a stimulous, you have no way of knowing how they "feel".

Yeah- how do we even know animals feel pain? You're probably right-- it's just "anthropomorphizing". :rolleyes"

Are you seriously suggesting that creatures have "interests", "desires" and "wishes"?

Three wishes to be precise. Oh, and cats have nine lives. :rolleyes:

Or, rather, do they behave in certain ways that suggest the positive aspects of a specific outcome?

I agree- they're probably robots. That's it, robots.

Are you saying an animal has no "desire" one way or the other to being tortured? Stroked? Silliness. We could easily reduce humans to the same sort of behaviorism that pushes us beneath freedom and dignity. *shrug* After all, we are created from animals.

Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error.
Now, being somewhat rigorous, distingush between a calf (big brown eyes), a nemtode (no eyes), and a plant (sorta uniform green photo sensitivity).

I've already outline the tools for these kinds of evaluations. Accordingly, nearly all mammals would be protected. Most birds and fish would also be recognized as morally significant.

Can worms or plants feel pain? Are they aware of their continued existence? See my above statements on growing meat.

Hypocolius

25th May 2003, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
I couldnt imagine anyone doinga Vietnam re-enactment. That would offend. So might a WWII re-enactment.

Not at all. The last time I looked (2 years ago) authentic WWII uniforms are selling like hot cakes in the flea markets around London, just for the re-enactment crowd.

Malachi151

25th May 2003, 11:55 PM

Ethics is universal.

In what way are ethics universal? Nothing man made is universal.

Let's just say that we as a society agree on certain ethics. Now, we have a retarded individual who cannot even comprehend ethical conduct. Does that absolve us from treating that individual ethically? Hell no. Same applies to animals.

"medical ethics" has about the same relationship to ethics

Yeah, so? We develop a code of ethics for farming. Job done. We now have a code of ethics that applies to farmers and how they treat animals. This isn't rocket science.

Ummm, killing is pretty much by definition just about the most inhumane thing one could have happen to them.

Umm, no, its not. If so the "Humane" Society needs to change its name :p We all know the "Humane Society puts animals to sleep :D

Well, keeping a pig alive but dirty is worse than simply killing it? Somehow, I suspect that if the pig could talk, it would disagree.

See, you're just being difficult :)

You know, or should know, that the issue is to a matter of keeping pigs clean or dirty. You didn't visit the links I posted did you? ;)

So you agree that animals treat other animals unethically

I'm not sure. If the animals are not aware of ethics then how can they be unethical? I think that's like lying. Its not a lie if you believe it... But if you want to just get to the heart of this matter and call the entire life process unethical then go right ahead. Just claim that the entire life process is unethical, which it is, and so that makes everything acceptable, which ultimately is really true in a way because really nothing actually matters, its all just a big complex deterministic chemical reaction.

However, let's come back down off the super macro view and just acknowledge abuse for what it is.

that it's unethical for a lion to kill a wildebeest.

Killing for survival has always been accepted as ethical as far as I know.

My point exactly; this is why we cannot consistently claim that we bear moral obligation to animals.

Well, your interpretation is not my intent. My intent was to say that our code of ethics does not apply to animals in the same way that a doctor's code of ethics does not apply to patients, i.e. that patients do not have the same ethical obligations to a doctor that the doctors does to patients. I'm sure you knew that though.

As I said, the solution is simple, a code of ethics for animals farmers, or better yet, laws, codes of ethics don't do ****.

Its useless having this discussion if people are not aware of the treatment that animals receive in modern farms.

Are you claiming that it is acceptable to pick up a dog and slam down on the pavement breaking his bones, repeatedly until it is a lumped sack of meat with no solid bones and suffering from internal bleeding, and as long as we keep it alive, its okay? We can beat id daily and it does not matter, cut of its legs and hang it from a tree, as long as we feed it and keep it alive?

Your argument tries to prove that there is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals, that the treatment of animals is beyond question and that any treatment is acceptable.

Its clear that any treatment is not acceptable. The question is on defining what is acceptable. Yes ethics apply to the way that humans treat animals, its impossible to argue otherwise and make any sense. The question is on what IS considered ethical. We can easily just limit the argument to domesticated animals if that makes you feel any better. We can say that domesticaled animals need ot be treated ethically and then you can apply the animal vs animal logic all you want.

Clearly any half observant person can see that modern farming practices include abusive behavior. The behavior is allowed to go on because not enough people care to stop it. These arguments of yours are just a waste of time and a distract from the issues.

Shane Costello

26th May 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally psoted by Malachi151:
Many people in the thread seem to be making the argument that there is nothing wrong with the way animals are currently farmed.

Not only that, but we support it with evidence also.

The laws are written by the animals farmers, that's how lobbying works

Evidence?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a farmer from 300 years ago to a modern chicken "farm" they would be equally as appalled as some of these PETA types are.

Oh horsec**p! Three centuries ago women were burnt to death at the stake for witchcraft, people were hanged for petty thievery, and public executions were a spectator sport. Bulls, bears and badgers were baited for the same reason. Methinks modern farnming wouldn't have perturbed our ancestors at all.

Where before 1 farmer may raise hundreds of chickens kept in coups that he tended daily and hand fed, and let the chickens out every day into the yard and had to deal with issues like disease and physical care in ways to keep his chickens healthy and doing well, today they use hormones to prevent disease which allows for overcrowding, they cut off the beaks so that they can't peck at each other, which again allows for overcrowding, and we have fewer "farmers" (food production corporations" producing much higher quantities of animals.

Hormones as a disease preventatitive? Surely not? Any evidence to back up the rest of your claims?

The animals have been integrated into the mechanical process of the Industrial Revolution, they are now grown in factories, not farms.

Where I come from free range cattle and sheep grazing on family run farms is still the norm. We have one. Don't forget that the rise in population since the industrial revolution has been almost exponential, and it took mechanised agriculture to feed that growth.

Being in a 10 X 10 room from the time you are 2 years old until you are about 20 years old. You are in there with 30 other people the whole time. You are given amphetamines and steroids so that everyone is always hopped up and jump and tens and angry, on top of the conditions that produce that effect. Because these conditions cause the people to fight the farmers pull everyone's teeth and fingernails out and tie their hand behind their backs.

You're life consists of living in this condition and awaiting food to come down a shoot every day. Due to the conditions everyone in the pen is insane and bangs their head against the wall constantly, etc. You live this way until the day you are harvested, which electricity is run through the floor and everyone in the pen is shocked to death.

Please provide supporting evidence that animals are "hopped up" on amphetamines, that animals are insane and bang their heads against the pen walls, and everything else you've claimed. As I've pointed out, stressed animals are dleterious to meat production.

That's a little different then the way things used to be 200 years ago with farmers doing real farming, and that is the issue.

Back when people were hung, drawn and quartered, for legal and recreational reasons?

Shane Costello

26th May 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
No, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to men at the exclusion of women. Another historic liberation movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, was once ridiculed in comparison to animal rights (are we going to allow dogs to vote next?).

Did the opponents of women's suffrage compare women to animals?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The legal system is derived from our ethical beliefs. If the law treats animals as nothing more than property (parallel to slaverly again), then it's failing to account for the interests of morally significant beings. When I say it's the object of dispute, I'm speaking in the moral frame. In the case of slavery, the law made itself quite clear in the Dredd Scott decision, the compromise of 1850 and even dating back to the Constitutional Conventions.

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Okay, fine. So let's compare fully grown chimps to infants. Would you deny that a chimp possesses is more self-aware than a new-born? Or compare anencephalics to dogs. Species is still an arbitrary line of distinction no different than "race," or gender.

Nonsense, species is not an arbitrary line, nor is gender. Try mating and reproducing with a cat or your brother.

An report in the mainstream news on factory farming gets initial widespread condemnation from the public, and various regulations have been handed down over the years (but they don't go far enough) You're the one who started up on how wonderful it is to be an imprisoned cow. And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion.

Look, back up your assertion of endemic abuses in farming and the meat industry, how hard can it be? And yes, quote at length from books, providing a link to amazon.com.

And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion.

Sorry, facts are facts. Facts are what is, not what ought to be. Facts cannot be "informed" by philosophical discussion, it's the other way around. No amount of philosophical discussion is going to alter established fact.

Cruelty, I think we can both agree, implies unnecessary pain and suffering, right?

Exactly, and as I have shown pain and cruelty have no place whatsoever in agriculture and meat production.

Both of us further agree that there are healthy vegetarian alternatives to meat, correct? Then, according to you, all I would have to show is that current farming conditions, for animals, produces more pain than happiness?

But you haven't shown that farming conditions produce more pain than happiness. Happiness is a relative state. Animals lack the intellectual and emotional capacities of humans. Animals are happy woth warm bedding and an adequate supply of food and water. Cows don't want holiday homes or cable TV, for instance.

An intermediary case always helps: You would also oppose big game Safari hunting, right? The kind that attracts obese and bored Americans. It's inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but it's quite unnecessary. There are alternative forms of entertainment.

Actually, hunting can play an important role in conservation. It helps keep animal populations at sustainable levels. Otherwise mass starvation and ecological disaster is the result. If this was the case on the Savannah, then I would support big game hunting.

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 06:06 AM

First, imagine a cow or pig. Get that image in your head? Got it yet? Good. Now from an efficiency perspective, what portions of that cow do you eat? Do we consume everything? We consume almost all of it. What we don't consume is rendered down and everything is used.

Then there's the problem of cow's natural byproducts: Not my argument. I think that it is a real concern but not enough to eliminate animals as food products for human consumption.

First, why should we even assume China has a rational government that cares about its people? If China wanted to feed everyone, why don't they just become a free-market democracy, right? So because the leaders exploit Cummunism to ensure that they remain in power you conclude that they are incapable of making rational choices to solve their problems?

But, are you implying that if a vegetarian diet can be proven as more efficient to feeding the world's population, you would switch (and try to convince others)? No, I'm saying that the efficency argument is not what vegatarians say that it is. If it were the only way to feed the world I would consider changing. As it has been pointed out before, politics plays more of a part in lack of food than anything else.

Jim Lennox

26th May 2003, 06:55 AM

I have heard it said that if everyone in the world turned vegetarian there would not be enough suitable land to grow the crops, anyone know if this is true?

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 07:40 AM

Shane Costello

LOL, okay I can se that all your points are rooted in ignorance and you are not going to make any effort to educate yourself so the discussion is pointless. I'm not going to waste my time with a full point by point so I'll just address few statements.

Hormones as a disease preventatitive? Surely not? Any evidence to back up the rest of your claims?

Hormones/antibiotic mixes are typically what are used, but yes even just hormones can strengthen immune systems.

Where I come from free range cattle and sheep grazing on family run farms is still the norm. We have one. Don't forget that the rise in population since the industrial revolution has been almost exponential, and it took mechanized agriculture to feed that growth.

I'm not attacking free range farming, and neither was peta in this display. Why even bring it up? Are you trying to claim that because you see free range farming in your area that factory farming does not exist?

Please provide supporting evidence that animals are "hopped up" on amphetamines, that animals are insane and bang their heads against the pen walls, and everything else you've claimed. As I've pointed out, stressed animals are dleterious to meat production.

I've already proved links to such information. I'm not going to spend all day looking up facts for you, especially when you won't read it anyway. Here is "one more" link that discuses factory farm conditions and stress, in this case with chickens and forced moulting.

http://www.upc-online.org/980401moltrpt.html

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Did you design an internal combustion engine? Have you written a significant work? The truth is most people never accomplish anything significant in their lives either they just live in an environment created by others. Since when did intellectual capability become a requisite for humane treatment? If someone in mentally retarded is it okay to abuse them?

There are animals that are smarter then some people, not that that even matters. IQ tests for animals have shown many types of animals to be within range of humans, like in the IQ range of 50 and 60, which is comparable to a very stupid person. Yet, actually its not a true comparison obviously, but in many ways a smart animals is smarter then a retarded human even if they do not show certain cognitive abilities to be higher, because their mental functioning is normal for them and their and their other relational mental abilities are superior to a retarded human.

But anyway, intelligence is not even the question, it would not matter how stupid they are, intelligence is not a requisite for humane treatment, sensitivity to conditions is.

As I already made a post on this; there is nothing to support the idea that other animals are not every bit as emotional humans are.

Nonsense, species is not an arbitrary line, nor is gender. Try mating and reproducing with a cat or your brother.

Actually species is an arbitrary line. See, when you learn that God didn't create everything individually, then you learn about evolution, and you see that all forms of life form a continuum or related individuals. Now, no, you can't mate a cat to a human, but you can mate a house cat to a bobcat, and you can mate a bobcat to a leopard, and you can mate a leopard to a lion.

Gaps in the continuum have developed over time for a variety of different evolutionary reasons, but everything is related in some fashion. Species is an arbitrary human classification, its not something real in nature.

Secondly, why does lack of ability to mate one thing to another make it okay to abuse the other? Well, a cat can't have babies with me, so its okay to kick it in the head. WTF?!

Look, back up your assertion of endemic abuses in farming and the meat industry, how hard can it be?

I've provided several links already.

Exactly, and as I have shown pain and cruelty have no place whatsoever in agriculture and meat production.

LOL :p So, your whole argument is that there is no pain and cruelty in agriculture, therefore if we just ignore it the problem does not exist :p

So, as evidence of pain and cruelty is brought to light, you do what? Dismiss it as not pain and cruelty?

Hypothetically, "if there was" pain and cruelty in agriculture would you approve of that?

But you haven't shown that farming conditions produce more pain than happiness. Happiness is a relative state. Animals lack the intellectual and emotional capacities of humans. Animals are happy woth warm bedding and an adequate supply of food and water. Cows don't want holiday homes or cable TV, for instance.

LOL, just more denial of facts. Here is the thing about all of you type of people. You don't WANT animals to be shown to have emotions and intellect that is worth acknowledging. Because if that happens, if you acknowledge that an animal has emotions and intellect then you have to start taking that into consideration and not treating the animal like property.

Its the same thing the slavers did. They said that blacks were not human and not capable of human comprehension and so they absolved themselves from the need to consider the way they treated them.

There is nothing at all to support the idea that other animals are emotionally insignificant, as my other post already points out. The only thing that supports that idea is denial.

Furthermore, pigs are more intelligent and more highly social then dogs are, and they are treated among the worst of all the animals on factory farms.

You don't want to acknowledge the cognitive capacity of animals so that can justify the way they are treated, that's all it boils down to. If you keep telling yourself that they can't feel the pain, then it really doesn't matter when your beating them on head does it?

voidx

26th May 2003, 10:40 AM

I fully agree on the organic crap going in the wrong direction as well as the possibilites for GM.

Hmmm and who do you think would be first in line decrying these new emotionless meat sacks as inhumane? PETA perhaps? Who went a long way in convincing certain African nations not to accept GM foods from North America? aps? But aside from that I agree with that sentiment. I don't buy anything labelled as "organic" because from what I understand it takes up more acreage of farm land to produce the same level of "organic" yield, as a conventional crop for no discernable difference in quality. But that's a whole seperate issue.

Now my thanks to Malachi for providing some links, even if they do spout off with every image the words "evil, ungodly, obviously don't care for their chickens, its all about the cash". Now I'm not denying that the photo's on that site show some horrendous conditions, or that they have in the past, or currently do exist. The line I've been trying to draw, which you've been missing is this. Do the current industry standards for livestock allow for this, or encourage this. Or is this just one example of a horribly kept farm? From the webpage with the pics of the chickens, it looked to me to come mostly from one site. And hey, why was it found? Were they found to be against code, or standards perhaps? Has there been improvements in the last 5 years? 10 years? I don't deny that you can find examples of horrible conditions, what I'm trying to establish is have they lessened over time, have standards changed from the 70's, 80's? And when you find these horrible conditions, do they fit within code? The point being this, if standards and codes warn away from such conditions, and yet, to some degree they still exist, then its a problem of enforcement and declaring the specific rights of a chicken or a cow, moral agent or blah blah isn't going to change that much. If you can show me that the livestock industry has not improved in recent decades, and that factory farms with horrendous conditions are the over-riding norm, or at least a significant proportion of the norm, and not just isolated incidents, then I may begin to concede you're point. I'll look into the titles you mentioned, but as always will view them with a critical eye as I take everything, and everyones position with a grain of salt.

This for example is a great link:
http://www.upc-online.org/980401moltrpt.html
And if this was more the point you were arguing I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But its not arguing the same thing you are if you read it. They are arguing against a technique used in factory farming called forced molting. The starvation of the chickens in order to promote starving makes them more susceptible to salmonella which in turn is also heightened by the presence of rats spreading disease as they always do. There is some mention of the cruelty involved in this process, but you'll notice 2 things. Their not calling for an end or ban to factory farming, they've presented a scientific arguement with potential health concerns, mostly, starvation of chickens to promote molting makes them more susceptible to harbouring salmonella. Their not calling on all of us go vegetarian, or decrying the evil factory money mongerers. They found a legitimate cause for debate, and are trying to update the standards and practices based upon that. Not to the animals moral agent rights or whether their "happy" or "sad", but rather that their healthy, and that they, as a food supply, which they are, are not spreading disease.

Cain has asked the following question several times in some form or another. "Assuming horrendous conditions would you support stricter standards on livestock conditions." Assuming horrendous conditions were the norm in factory farming, and that current standards were getting in the way of enforcing those standards, then sure, if I could be convinced they'd actually enforce those standards. I'm not as of yet convinced of any of the statements above. Why would I say yes at all? For a happier and more morally content chicken? No, but rather for a healthier food supply, which let's not forget, is what we're really talking about here.

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 10:53 AM

Hmmm and who do you think would be first in line decrying these new emotionless meat sacks as inhumane? PETA perhaps?

Yes, and hence it was said that they were going in the WRONG direction.

Now my thanks to Malachi for providing some links, even if they do spout off with every image the words "evil, ungodly, obviously don't care for their chickens, its all about the cash".

I provided others too earlier in the thread.

I agree with all your points.

If the problems don't exist then fine, there is nothing to do.

The issue is that some people seem to be saying that even if these conditions do exist then its still not an issue because these are animals, and so it does not matter.

The issue is in defining what is acceptable and what is not. If peta is calling attention to a problem that does nto exist then so be it, but if their display is showing evidence of what they consider to be a problem, and comberable to the Holocaust, those are the conditions that are in question.

I have not seen their exact exhibt, but I have seen other peta exhibits and I'm sure its the same general theme, which is generally the same as the links I provided.

The question seems to be, do animals deserve ethical treatment at all?

If so, what constitutes ethical treatment of farm animals?

Are farms today obigated to follow such ethical standards?

If not, should they be?

Cain

26th May 2003, 04:26 PM

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

How are any of these accomplishments morally significant? Our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years without producing written works of literature (or even understanding the concept of a written word). The internal combustion engine? Please.

What about the vast majority of human beings who will never produce a finely written work of literature or develop a technology on par with the internatl combustion engine? Please tell you have something more than this to predicate rights on.

Nonsense, species is not an arbitrary line, nor is gender. Try mating and reproducing with a cat or your brother.

And you're the one who accuses me of straw men. I said gender, species and "race" are morally arbitrary. Of course we can make a real distinction between men and women, but it's morally non-significant. Wow, I have a penis, so what does that mean ethically? Not much. Someone has dark skin, or they're pale, or whatever. What does it mean? Nothing from the moral standpoint.

Can you imagine an intelligent alien species that has created technologies that exist only in our wildest dreams? Can we recognize their rights even though they're a different species (maybe even not carbon-based)? Of course. The point is that one cannot merely say, "We're a different speices, end of story." You need to point to a non-arbitrary, morally significant characterisitic that distinguishes us.

Look, back up your assertion of endemic abuses in farming and the meat industry, how hard can it be? And yes, quote at length from books, providing a link to amazon.com.

Unfortunately, Malachi stole! my links -- or so I thought at first.

Here are two videos, one's about five minutes and takes place on a pigfarm in N. Carolina (Scully spends a lot of time in his book discussing these farms).

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=pigfarminv

The other is a broad over-view of factory farming and notes the abuses to cows, pigs, hens, and broiler chickens.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002

Sorry, facts are facts. Facts are what is, not what ought to be. Facts cannot be "informed" by philosophical discussion, it's the other way around. No amount of philosophical discussion is going to alter established fact.

You're only half-right: facts unquestionably inform discussion, but a philosophical theory decides which facts are relevant. One cannot point to the fact that the Anaheim angels won the 2002 World Series in order to explain a recent earthquake in Algeria. The fact that animal interests are treated as an externality to food production is important; highly relevant; absolutely critical.

Exactly, and as I have shown pain and cruelty have no place whatsoever in agriculture and meat production.

Hubris maybe? So the vast number of books and videos documenting animal cruelty on factory farms are either mistaken or outright fraudulent, correct? Or, perhaps, we have different understandings of cruelty.

But you haven't shown that farming conditions produce more pain than happiness. Happiness is a relative state. Animals lack the intellectual and emotional capacities of humans. Animals are happy woth warm bedding and an adequate supply of food and water. Cows don't want holiday homes or cable TV, for instance.

Yes, and in strict accordance with my interest-based paradigm, I would never consider giving cows holiday homes or cable TV. But let's for a moment assume precisely what you're saying (since you lack the imagination to envision horrendous conditions for philosophical purposes): pigs, cows, whatever on Shane's factory farms are jubiliant. They don't get fresh air. They can't turn around. They're way too big. Fine, but they're happy.

This is where animal interests roll around: if they're so happy, why do we want to kill them? If it's morally significant, why would we choose to kill it? This is precisely why the "abstract" discussion matters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randfan:

So because the leaders exploit Cummunism to ensure that they remain in power you conclude that they are incapable of making rational choices to solve their problems?

No, you're the one assuming Communist leaders are making rational choices. I'm suspsicious of that assumption for reasons contained in the quote.

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 04:44 PM

No, you're the one assuming Communist leaders are making rational choices. I'm suspsicious of that assumption for reasons contained in the quote. No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Do you dismiss all of their scientific data or the political decisions made on that data because the leaders are communist?

No political government that I am familiar with has long term plans to do away with farm animals for the purpose of human consumption. I am also not familiar with any study that any government has taken seriously that includes the elimination of animals as a source of dietary protein based on efficiency grounds.

I have been wrong before and I would welcome any such information. I honestly think that such arguments are specious and have no real world application. At least not in any current planning of any current government or scientific body.

Again, I would be happy to be proven wrong.

RandFan

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 04:53 PM

This is where animal interests roll around: if they're so happy, why do we want to kill them? To eat them and to use their hides and other products for our benefit.

I don't deny that there are problems with a number of farms. I am for correcting those problems. If your only concern is with the treatment of animals then let's agree to work to end any mistreatement of animals.

I grew up on a farm and have not witnessed the cruelty that you speak of. As long as animals are treated the way I saw them treated in my home town then I am quite happy to use animals for food and clothing.

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 05:11 PM

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002

Being in a 10 X 10 room from the time you are 2 years old until you are about 20 years old. You are in there with 30 other people the whole time. You are given amphetamines and steroids so that everyone is always hopped up and jump and tens and angry, on top of the conditions that produce that effect. Because these conditions cause the people to fight the farmers pull everyone's teeth and fingernails out and tie their hand behind their backs.

You're life consists of living in this condition and awaiting food to come down a shoot every day. Due to the conditions everyone in the pen is insane and bangs their head against the wall constantly, etc. You live this way until the day you are harvested, which electricity is run through the floor and everyone in the pen is shocked to death.

I stand by what I said the first time.

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 05:20 PM

No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Well... but the Chinese are also among the worst animals rights violaters on earth. They have practices even worse then American facorty farms already with bears and elephants and turtles, etc, they are driving many species to extinction.

Why would the fact they are are "communist" have anything to do with anything anyway. It's not as if that defined everything about then, they have a culture asside from economic polcy as well.

Cain

26th May 2003, 07:38 PM

No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Another thought: we could apply the same a priori reasoning to Mao's collectivization program.

To eat them and to use their hides and other products for our benefit.

Again, there are alternative ways to clothe ourselves. We don't need to kill animals.

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
Well... but the Chinese are also among the worst animals rights violaters on earth. They have practices even worse then American facorty farms already with bears and elephants and turtles, etc, they are driving many species to extinction. That fact is not germane to my argument.

1. The Chinese have a vested interest to feed their people.

2. The Chinese have economic motivations to feed their people in the most efficient way possible.

3. The Chinese have invested allot of money in research to come up with long term plans to meet the needs of their citizens.

With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian? Could it be that the science has shown that ruminants and other farm animals coupled with crops is the best way to provide protein and nourishment to large numbers of people.

I am confident that that is precisely what the science has come to show and that the "efficiency" argument is specious. I would love to see hard scientific data that shows that large populations of humans can be fed solely by crops.

Why would the fact they are are "communist" have anything to do with anything anyway. I did not bring that fact up. It is not central to my argument.

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 08:47 PM

With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian?

Maybe because people like meat? ;)

I don't have my old ecology books to quote anymore, but yes in terms of biomass it is more effecient to to feed a population on crops only, but in terms of the human perspective its easier to eat meat.

I'm sure that food engineering and whatnot can probably change this a bit though.

I myself see nothing wrong with eating meat, my only issue is with the factory farming practices. I plan to raise my own chickens eventually. I go to the Bahamas a lot nd they always raise their own chickens there, I just got kinda fond of it anyway.

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Another thought: we could apply the same a priori reasoning to Mao's collectivization program. It is demonstrable that Mao did not heed the science of his time. As a simple example, killing sparrows to save grain was stupid and the likely impact was known before his "war on the sparrows" (http://www.hut.fi/~jikaheim/china/camp.html).

To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

Again, there are alternative ways to clothe ourselves. We don't need to kill animals. I did not argue that there was not an alternative. I believe that there is an alternative. However I find the following.

[list=1]
The alternative will not necessarily improve the lives of humans.

The alternative will not improve the lives of animals.

I can find no rational reason to use an alternative [/list=1]
The only real reasonany one has provided for not utilizing animals (that I can find) as food or clothes is that it requires human conscience of will.

[list=1]
The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten.

The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten (probably eaten while they are alive) shortly after they are born.

Animals that don't die from predation will likely die of starvation or the elements.

Few animals die of old age in the wild
[/list=1]

So, eliminating humans from the equation only *eliminates humans from the equation. This leaves, as the only logical argument of those who wish to remove humans from the equation is that they can't bear that humans who have the capacity to feel empathy will kill animals.

The fact that animals will die of predation, starvation and the elements is not a justification to kill animals. It is not a reason not to kill them either. As I have said before, it is at best a zero sum gain. Short of any other reason I find it appropriate and good to use animals for nourishment and clothing.

*If we could stop all human usage of animals it would arguably causes more pain and suffering to statistically more animals. Also we can mitigate the suffering of animals on farms with out eliminating human use of animals.

Malachi151

26th May 2003, 09:03 PM

To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

Right, like the highly scientific Chinese medical practices ;)

RandFan,Jr.

26th May 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian?

Maybe because people like meat? ;) Perhaps but people liked their religion also and that did not keep the communist government from taking it away from them.

I don't have my old ecology books to quote anymore, but yes in terms of biomass it is more effecient to to feed a population on crops only,... I would like to see the data. I will accept that argument in theory. I have argued in this forum in the past that in 100 years plants will grow complete protein that tastes like chicken because it contains the genes that allows it to taste like chicken and provide the good and minimize the bad of the actual animal. Until then I would have to see the elimination of ALL meat and dairy products in a large population before I accepted it as practical.

I'm sure that food engineering and whatnot can probably change this a bit though. Yes, I agree (see previous paragraph).

BillyTK

27th May 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Speaking for myself I've never tried to dress my own desire to eat animal flesh as being primarily an exercise in animal welfare. I've never felt the need to apologise for being an active omnivore, so I've never claimed that I eat meat for the sake of the animal.
That's good to hear. Sorry for misinterpreting the following:
The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

I assumed that this was offered as an argument to justify keeping animals in captivity for human consumption, which as I eexplained previously, kind of riles me. If this is not the case then accept my apologies.
Oh please, your not trying to suggest that the natural world is like Jellystone national park?
No, I was simply pointing out the fallacious nature of the terms you introduced, resulting from human judgements about the natural world.
Lions stalking and slaughtering all too sentient Wildebeest? Primates beating one another to death in vicious feuds? Foxes slaughtering far more chickens than they could possibly eat? Tom cats killing kittens? Dominance plays a major role in the natural world. Do you think animals settle questions of dominance by democratic means?
Sorry Shane, I've no idea what that last sentence was in reference to? :confused: Are you suggesting that it would be desireable for humans to impose democracy on the natural world, and then maybe eat 'em? ;)
Are you suggesting that the fox wouldn't eat the chickens if it came across them in the wild? BTW the dead chickens I've seen were all free range.
No, I'm stating that the fox's behaviour is the result of their interaction with the human world; typically foxes would only kill what they intend to eat, but the combination of a large group of alarmed birds in a confined space--whether it's a hut, or a barn (hens like to roost indoors, and even though practically flightless, also like to flock) stimulates a different set of behaviours in the fox.

Shane Costello

27th May 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151:
LOL, okay I can se that all your points are rooted in ignorance and you are not going to make any effort to educate yourself so the discussion is pointless. I'm not going to waste my time with a full point by point so I'll just address few statements.

Actually I'm undertaking doctorate research in bovine molecular genetics and it's relation to meat quality. This means I've observed all stages of the meat production process at very close quarters. My points are rooted in informed opinion.

Or was it my observations on the mores and attitudes of the 18th century that irked you? Are you suggesting that human, never miond animal life wasn't held a lot cheaper back then?

Hormones/antibiotic mixes are typically what are used, but yes even just hormones can strengthen immune systems.

Hmm, link? I don't disbelieve you, it's just that this is news to me.

I've already proved links to such information. I'm not going to spend all day looking up facts for you, especially when you won't read it anyway. Here is "one more" link that discuses factory farm conditions and stress, in this case with chickens and forced moulting.

But I did read your links, and they didn't show or tell me anything I didn't know before. I've seen assembly line slaughter of pigs. I can reliably inform you that automated milking is necessary in free range dairy cattle. Free range beef cattle are also housed indoors and stock fed for winter months. Your links are just as relevant for free range livestock.

Did you design an internal combustion engine? Have you written a significant work? The truth is most people never accomplish anything significant in their lives either they just live in an environment created by others. Since when did intellectual capability become a requisite for humane treatment? If someone in mentally retarded is it okay to abuse them?

My point wasn't that intellectual capability was necessary for humane treatment, rather that animals have a different understanding of happiness and satisfaction than us because of their limited intellectual and emotional capacities. Your links made great play of the fact that calves are usually separated from their mothers at an early age, yet animals simply don't see this as an emotionally traumatic experience. Both mother and calf will have forgotten each other in a matter of days. I've seen it on countless occasions.

There are animals that are smarter then some people, not that that even matters. IQ tests for animals have shown many types of animals to be within range of humans, like in the IQ range of 50 and 60, which is comparable to a very stupid person. Yet, actually its not a true comparison obviously, but in many ways a smart animals is smarter then a retarded human even if they do not show certain cognitive abilities to be higher, because their mental functioning is normal for them and their and their other relational mental abilities are superior to a retarded human.

A link to the study or studies that established this?

But anyway, intelligence is not even the question, it would not matter how stupid they are, intelligence is not a requisite for humane treatment, sensitivity to conditions is.

Precisely, sensitivity is the key. Where the PETA line errs is that it presumes animals have the same sensitivites as humans. They don't, because of their lack of intellectual and emotional capability compared to humans. You may think that farming is exploitaitve and abusive, but this is because you are a member of a species that has a greater standards for comfort and happiness because of greater emotional and intellectual capability. The animal doesn't think so. As I've repeated many times, it is imperative for narrow economic reasons that livestock are not stressed or abused in any way. If an animal has food, water and warmth, it's happy.

Actually species is an arbitrary line. See, when you learn that God didn't create everything individually, then you learn about evolution, and you see that all forms of life form a continuum or related individuals. Now, no, you can't mate a cat to a human, but you can mate a house cat to a bobcat, and you can mate a bobcat to a leopard, and you can mate a leopard to a lion.

You can mate a leopard to a lion? This I've got to see supported by evidence. Species is not an arbitrary line. You can easily distinguish species using genetic studies, for instance.

Secondly, why does lack of ability to mate one thing to another make it okay to abuse the other? Well, a cat can't have babies with me, so its okay to kick it in the head. WTF?!

Dumbest strawman yet. :rolleyes:

I've provided several links already.

None of which establish that abuse and atrocities are endemic. Pictures of dead animals? I mean come on, you could show pictures of people who died in hospital, put a caption under them along the lines of "Mr. X was strangled/poisoned in his sleep by orderlies" to support an overall line that hospital orderlies are bumping off millions of people every year for kicks. Or you could post pictures of contorted cutlery to support the notion Uri Geller has psychic powers. There's such a thing as standards of proof, you know.

LOL So, your whole argument is that there is no pain and cruelty in agriculture, therefore if we just ignore it the problem does not exist

I have presented factual evidence that animal welfare is central to meat production. Nor is the "problem" "ignored", as you put it. In the interests of public safety, all procedures involved in food production (not just meat) are subjected to the most rigorous standards imaginable.

LOL, just more denial of facts. Here is the thing about all of you type of people. You don't WANT animals to be shown to have emotions and intellect that is worth acknowledging. Because if that happens, if you acknowledge that an animal has emotions and intellect then you have to start taking that into consideration and not treating the animal like property.

Animals don't have emotions and intellect as developed as humans. That is a fact. Hence my comment that no cow has composed a symphony or designed the internal combustion engine. No, I haven't done those things, but my species has.

You don't want to acknowledge the cognitive capacity of animals so that can justify the way they are treated, that's all it boils down to. If you keep telling yourself that they can't feel the pain, then it really doesn't matter when your beating them on head does it?

Stop the ad-homs. I've never beaten an animal about the head.

Shane Costello

27th May 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
How are any of these accomplishments morally significant? Our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years without producing written works of literature (or even understanding the concept of a written word). The internal combustion engine? Please.

What about the vast majority of human beings who will never produce a finely written work of literature or develop a technology on par with the internatl combustion engine? Please tell you have something more than this to predicate rights on.

I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans. I have never claimed that cruelty to animals was justifiable. I have made the point that animal cruelty has no place whatsoever in the meat industry. My other point is that the conditions animals are farmed in are not cruel, since the people making these claims are judging these conditions from a human, rather than the animals perspective. We require a lot more than dry bedding, water and food for happiness and emotional stability, animals don't.

Unfortunately, Malachi stole! my links -- or so I thought at first.

Here are two videos, one's about five minutes and takes place on a pigfarm in N. Carolina (Scully spends a lot of time in his book discussing these farms).

I can't open the video links, but as I've said the photo links are nothing new to me. Reas also what I said about standards of proof.

You're only half-right: facts unquestionably inform discussion, but a philosophical theory decides which facts are relevant.

Whether those facts are correct or erroneous are of the utmost importance, though.

Hubris maybe? So the vast number of books and videos documenting animal cruelty on factory farms are either mistaken or outright fraudulent, correct?

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claimng to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

But let's for a moment assume precisely what you're saying (since you lack the imagination to envision horrendous conditions for philosophical purposes): pigs, cows, whatever on Shane's factory farms are jubiliant. They don't get fresh air. They can't turn around. They're way too big. Fine, but they're happy.

If the animals didn't get fresh air they'd die. Neither are cattle to big, and they can turn around.

BillyTK

27th May 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
Personally I have not tried to justify their fates based on that fact.
Could we be arguing at cross purposes? This is the argument I was responding to; that human treatment of animals which are raised for exploitation (whether it be meat, fur, milk &c &c) justifies that exploitation.
However it is demonstrable that an animal born domestically has a far better survival rate than one in the wild. That they will suffer far less from predation and the elements.
Well, it's got a far better survival rate until it's slaughtered ;)
I was raised on a farm and we took great care of our animals. My father inspected them regularly and called the vet when needed. So I certainly can put my mind to rest knowing that domesticated animals that are not needlessly hurt fair better than their counter parts.

My family's main source of income was chickens and rabbits. Yes, there are problems and they should be addressed. I support reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering. I have seen cows slaughtered. I know that ruminants in the wild suffer stress on a regular basis. I think many if not most horses in captivity are well kept.
I'm glad to hear you and your family treated your animals so well, but you can't generalise the treatment of all domesticated animals from a single example.
I will grant that there is an argument to be made that the lot of domesticated animals can be improved. I can't see any reason to stop using domesticated animals for food and clothing.
Nor am I suggesting such--well, not this argument anyway ;)
I think it often is. Most animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. That being said let me concede that I cannot truly know which life is better for any given animal. However I don't think that statistically there is any comparison.
But in this case, statistics are meaningless; yes, most animals die shortly after birth, so the strategy is to have as sufficient offspring as possible that enough survive. If they all survived, ecological disaster would loom.
We will have to disagree.
I'm cool with that :D
The very best scenario, the very best mind you is a zero sum gain. You cannot improve the over all quality of life for animals by simply removing man from the equation.
But quality of life is a human concept, and in the natural world is meaningless.
Perhaps you would be happier knowing that animals only die as a result of animal predation and not as a result of humans.
This is a separate argument and not relevant to the point I'm making here.
I don't see the distinction. While I do however think it wrong to cause needles suffering and since humans are capable of treating animals in a way that minimizes suffering then I think we should treat them as such.
I agree! Except that my point is this doesn't justifiy their exploitation; it's that their exploitation justifies (necessitates?) more "humane" treatment.
The fact that a man kills an animal as opposed to another animal is a function of "who" or "what" and not "if" and the human can do so in a way that allows for the animal a much better chance of surviving not only beyond birth but far longer than the average animal in the wild.
No. There is no equivalent predator in the natural world to humans so the two are not comparable.
If I was going to kill a turkey tomorrow for dinner would you feel better to know that a fox got to it today?
Actually no, but this point is not relevant to the argument.
I'm sorry but I just don't see the point.

Victor Danilchenko

27th May 2003, 05:17 AM

Cain

No Victor, that argument quite clearly fails if you're striving for absurd conclusions. Observe every human society ever known: no matter what measures we take, senseless murders will occur. Does that mean we give up protecting the weak from exploitation and oppression? Suppose a building catches fire and we could only possibly save 10 out of the 10,000 inhabitants. Do firefighters say, "F*ck it" and break for lunch early? The aim is to reduce suffering of all morally significant creatures as much as possible.Yes; but th epoint is that the firefighters still do their best, even though they may save only a minute proportion of the inhabitants. The limitation here is of ability -- the firefighters are still consistent with their mission. Contrawise, we not merely don't try to protect animals from each other, we actively oppose such attempts. Here the failure to avert the outcome is from lack of trying. This is exactly the hypocrisy -- the fact that you regard human killing animals as unethical, but animals killing animals as not unethical. Had you regarded both unethical, and did your best to protect rabbits from foxes (but only succeeded ion minute percentage of cases, due to inability to do better), your view wouldn't be hypocritical.

How is that? From an efficiency perspective that's just wrong, but fine. If the scheme you describe minimizes animal suffering and maximizes happiness, then sure. The point is only that the interests of animals count, so I see nothing wrong with a paradoxical conclusions.Well, the paradoxical conclusion is that vegetarianism is less ethical that well-structured omnivorous diet. As long as you have no problem conceding that, we are on the same page.

Victor Danilchenko

27th May 2003, 05:28 AM

Malachi151

In what way are ethics universal? Nothing man made is universal.Ethics is universal within its domain -- it applies to all ethical agents, not just to some.

Umm, no, its not. If so the "Humane" Society needs to change its name :pI agree. What "Humane Society" defends is not humane treatment of animals, but rather human-discomfort-reducing treatment of animals.

You know, or should know, that the issue is to a matter of keeping pigs clean or dirty. You didn't visit the links I posted did you?of course not. As you yourself said, they weren't exactly addressed to me. The post in which you included those links had at best a tangential relationship to my statements -- you simply went on an off-the-wall rant.

I'm not sure. If the animals are not aware of ethics then how can they be unethical?that's one of the reasons why i don't think we can conclude that treatment of animals can be ethical or unethical.

Killing for survival has always been accepted as ethical as far as I know.Not among humans...

Well, your interpretation is not my intent. My intent was to say that our code of ethics does not apply to animals in the same way that a doctor's code of ethics does not apply to patients, i.e. that patients do not have the same ethical obligations to a doctor that the doctors does to patients. I'm sure you knew that though.And my point is that our general ethical code is very different in its nature and origin from something like "medical ethics".

Are you claiming that it is acceptable to pick up a dog and slam down on the pavement breaking his bones, repeatedly until it is a lumped sack of meat with no solid bones and suffering from internal bleeding, and as long as we keep it alive, its okay? We can beat id daily and it does not matter, cut of its legs and hang it from a tree, as long as we feed it and keep it alive?No. I never said that inflicting pain is not unethical -- I merely said that killing is just about the most unethical thing that can happen to a moral agent.

Your argument tries to prove that there is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals, that the treatment of animals is beyond question and that any treatment is acceptable.No, my argument tries to prove that we cannot conclude certain treatment of animals as ethical or unethical, based on our human ethics. We can and should make some rules for animal treatment -- but those rules will be constructed rather than derived. We wish to prevent cruelty to animals because of the effect it will have on the moral fabric of society (don't you know about the connection between criminality and childhood cruelty to animals), not because mistreating animals is immoral per se.

Its clear that any treatment is not acceptable. The question is on defining what is acceptable.The real question is on figuring out how we derive what's acceptable and what's not.

P.S. Understand that your goal in this discussion is not my goal.

Shane Costello

27th May 2003, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK:
That's good to hear. Sorry for misinterpreting the following:

That's fine. :)

No, I was simply pointing out the fallacious nature of the terms you introduced, resulting from human judgements about the natural world.

This is the cut and thrust of my argument, too. Humans making judgements about the natural world and agriculture solely from a human viewpoint, using standards of human comfort and treatment to judge those of animals.

Sorry Shane, I've no idea what that last sentence was in reference to? Are you suggesting that it would be desireable for humans to impose democracy on the natural world, and then maybe eat 'em?

It was in reference to an earlier point you made, namely:
[I]Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?[/B]

By human standards, the natural world is completely ammoral, hence the term "jungle law".

No, I'm stating that the fox's behaviour is the result of their interaction with the human world; typically foxes would only kill what they intend to eat, but the combination of a large group of alarmed birds in a confined space--whether it's a hut, or a barn (hens like to roost indoors, and even though practically flightless, also like to flock) stimulates a different set of behaviours in the fox.

Have to disagree. The fox certainly wreaks havoc on the henhouse because it was put there by man, but the killer instinct was innate, not provoked by people.

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 07:55 AM

Shane Costello

Actually I'm undertaking doctorate research in bovine molecular genetics and it's relation to meat quality. This means I've observed all stages of the meat production process at very close quarters. My points are rooted in informed opinion.

Observed all stages in the process at what facility? A facility representative of free range farming or factory farming?

Or was it my observations on the mores and attitudes of the 18th century that irked you? Are you suggesting that human, never mind animal life wasn't held a lot cheaper back then?

Actually in many ways people back then took better care of their animals then fellow humans, because animals were seen as valuable property. I'll admit it was a weak point.

Hmm, link? I don't disbelieve you, it's just that this is news to me.

Well, there are hormones that increase immune response and ones that decrease it. Actually I don't know exactly what they give these animals. I know that they are given antibiotics and also hormone/antibiotic mixes. In all likelihood the hormone/antibiotic mixes are really because the hormones(steroids) lower immune response and the antibiotics are there to help in the case of the weakened immune system. I'm just guessing at what they actually practice though.

My point wasn't that intellectual capability was necessary for humane treatment, rather that animals have a different understanding of happiness and satisfaction than us because of their limited intellectual and emotional capacities.

Wrong. Intellectual capability and living conditions make it possible to consider the feelings of other beings, but that in no way changes an animal's personal emotional state. Just because a wolf may not take the feels of a sheep into consideration when the wolf kills the sheep does not mean that the sheep is not taking his own feelings into consideration.

Animals understand their OWN happiness and satisfaction and they don't take the happiness and satisfaction of others whom they are in competition with into consideration.

To claim that animals are incapable of taking anyone else's feelings into consideration at all is to deny facts, but its also not even relevant. Your argument is, well a wolf does not care about the feelings of other animals, so we shouldn't either. Great, thanks for putting humanity on the same plane as wild animals.

The thing is though that a wolf does not control every aspect of its prey's life, and farmers do. Humans has a capacity to cause pain and suffering that animals in the wild are nto capable of, with that capacity comes responsibilty.

Your links made great play of the fact that calves are usually separated from their mothers at an early age, yet animals simply don't see this as an emotionally traumatic experience. Both mother and calf will have forgotten each other in a matter of days. I've seen it on countless occasions.

I agree that those comments were stupid. I don't have a problem with taking young away from mothers in farming.

A link to the study or studies that established this?

Info taken from memory, if I happen across a link I'll post it.

Precisely, sensitivity is the key. Where the PETA line errs is that it presumes animals have the same sensitivities as humans. They don't, because of their lack of intellectual and emotional capability compared to humans. You may think that farming is exploitative and abusive, but this is because you are a member of a species that has a greater standards for comfort and happiness because of greater emotional and intellectual capability. The animal doesn't think so.

Whoa, whoa. I already made a post on animals and emotions, that post was never addressed. I'll just restate the basics here. What evidence do you have that animals have no emotional capacity? In fact I say that emotions are the most primitive form of thought and the way in which other animals and people are the most similar. I'm quite confident that all higher animals feel love, hate, fear, sad, happy, pain, desire, etc. To assume that these qualities are purely human is to believe in "god" and the creation of man as a separate "kind".

Hopefully, if you are doctoring in molecular biology or genetics you don't believe that.

As I've repeated many times, it is imperative for narrow economic reasons that livestock are not stressed or abused in any way. If an animal has food, water and warmth, it's happy.

Okay, so evidence that the animals are stressed and abused is just what? False? You just claimed here that the animals are "happy", but I thought that you were arguing that animals could not be happy? Which is it? So let's just take veal for example. Are you saying that veal are happy, and they are made sure to be happy because its economically beneficial for he farmers to see to their happiness?

You can mate a leopard to a lion? This I've got to see supported by evidence. Species is not an arbitrary line. You can easily distinguish species using genetic studies, for instance.

Are you sure that you are working on a doctorate in genetics? Have you not heard of chimeras and monsters? A Ligers, etc?

http://www.greenapple.com/~jorp/amzanim/crossesa.htm

Species is an arbitrary line. What is you're degree in BTW? I'm assuming biology of some kind. I've done research papers on speciation myself, and have a bs in biology. Yes, we can identify "species" through genetic testing, we can also identify race and ethnicity too. Through genetic testing it can be determined is someone is white or black and if they are still "pure breed" what region of the globe they are from.

None of which establish that abuse and atrocities are endemic.

I never said that they were, all I said that was the types of conditions that peta is speaking out against are inhumane. If they only occur at one place then fine, shut that one place down and we can all be happy.

Pictures of dead animals?

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

Animals don't have emotions and intellect as developed as humans. That is a fact.

No, that's not fact. In fact I would say that animals are more emotional then people precisely because they are not as intellectual. Intellect has given us a degree of control over our emotions. You're still buying into some 19th century notion that animals have no feelings and that their apparent display of emotion and response to stimuli is just a robotic response that we as humans misinterpret as emotion.

Okay, and WHY would anyone make that assumption? The assumption really speaks more about our self identity then how we view animals IMO. Our lives and perceptions are dictated by all the same systems that other animals are, we are animals.

To say that other animals are emotionally insignificant because we are more intelligent then them would be the same as saying that compared to birds all other animals are emotionally insignificant because birds can fly and other animals can't.

The fact that we can do math doesn't make us more sensitive to feelings any more then the fact that birds can fly makes them more sensitive.

This again was the same thing that "civilized" people said about "primitive" people 200+ years ago. Oh, those Indians in South America, they can only built small huts and nothing more so they must not really care about being enslaved in working in gold mines and dying at the age 20 due to overwork.

Stop the ad-homs. I've never beaten an animal about the head.

No, but obviously its a part of standard farming practice is it not?

If the animals didn't get fresh air they'd die. Neither are cattle to big, and they can turn around.

So you are simply deny thing conditions exist. Let's just say hypothetically then, would you approve of these conditions if they did exist?

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claming to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

Victor Danilchenko

of course not.

Are you refusing to look at the evidence? Have you visited the links yet or are you still discussing an issue that you are not informed on?

I agree. What "Humane Society" defends is not humane treatment of animals, but rather human-discomfort-reducing treatment of animals.

I really don't get what you are trying to say with this whole line of comments. You seem to be arguing that death is the most inhumane thing in the world, and so anything less then death is acceptable. That if we can't stop the killing of animals for food, then abusing them is of no consequence.

First of all I don't think the claim that killing someone is the most inhumane thing, and I don't think that most people think that. That's the whole "put me out of my misery" issue.

Killing is obviously a needed part of farming animals and the part that will never go away. The issue is in how the animals are cared for up to the time of slaughter, and the way in which they are slaughtered.

The links discuss standard acceptable practices of skinning cows while they are still alive and conscious. Of dunking pigs into scalding water to remove hair while they are still alive. They discuss the living conditions of the animals, etc.

that's one of the reasons why i don't think we can conclude that treatment of animals can be ethical or unethical.

So, because a wolf is not capable of acting ethically that absolves us from having to act ethically? That makes no sense.

The ultimate issue comes down to capability.

Yes animals may treat each other unethically, but animals also don't' have the capacity to inflict the amount of pain and suffering that people do, so its naturally regulated. Lions, while they kill animals to eat, they don't cause the suffering of hundreds of millions of animals on a daily basis.

Yes, a lion may not be driven by ethics, but whereas a lion will go an kill an animal every so often, I as a human am capable of taking an animal, putting it in a pin, whereby I then am responsible for feeding and responsible for its environment. The lion is not responsible for the environment that its food lives in, but farmers are. As I said, I have no problem with hunting, and animals are hunters. The issue is when you control every aspect of an animal's life, you then also take on responsibility for the conditions of life.

Now, to address all of these arguments.

You are all arguing that living conditions for animals ultimately do not matter and that animals are incapable of really caring what their living conditions are. Anyone care to tell Zoos that?

Essentially everything that every person is saying in this thread that is defending modern farming practices is in direct contradiction to years of research and accepted position in the area of zoo keeping and animal behavior. If conditions for animals made no difference then why all this talk in zoos about animals keeped in small pens going insane and displaying self destructive behavior, etc?

What is a farm? Just a giant zoo.

I tell you this, open these facilities up to the public to be on display like a zoo, and watch the farming practices get changed real quick.

Start farming dogs like they do pigs and watch people get upset, yet pigs are more intelligent and social then dogs, they are just accepted as farm animals is all.

No one wants to acknowledge the issues of animal behavior in the farm industry because its not economically beneficial to do so. And to take a lead from DialectialMaterialist, I'll say that the behavior displayed here in defending the practices is a product of social evolution in defending economically beneficial practices that are viewed as beneficial to society, though I'm not going to waste my time going into detail like DM did in another thread :p

Another ironic example of man's own primitivity and instinctual drives.

Valmorian

27th May 2003, 09:23 AM

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claming to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

The saddest part of your rebuttal is this one here. He's absolutely right. The AMOUNT of "evidence" is irrelevant if the evidence isn't well substantiated. Do you deny this?

Nice Ad Hom too, by the way. :rolleyes:

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian

The saddest part of your rebuttal is this one here. He's absolutely right. The AMOUNT of "evidence" is irrelevant if the evidence isn't well substantiated. Do you deny this?

Nice Ad Hom too, by the way. :rolleyes:

Which is the whole point!

What do you call substantiated?

Let's see, we have video footage, interviews, photographs, entire documentaries made on the subject, testimony from experts, etc.

Is he (you) claiming that these images are faked? Made in a production studio, or what?

At what point does do the conditions themselves become verified? When you say so?

I think the conditions are well documented and reliably depicted.

No one is claiming that these conditions are representative of all farms, simply that these conditions exist in the farming industry.

In cases where these conditions are not present then its not an issue.

You are now going to claim that vast amounts of verifiable documentation on these conditions is comperable to books on aliens!

See, if you think that, then the problem lies with you and your grasp of reality.

Valmorian

27th May 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Which is the whole point!

Then MAKE that point, don't engage in a fallacy and ad-hom.

What do you call substantiated?

>I< don't call any of the information unsubstantiated. Why don't you ask HIM? Instead of accusing him of being irrational for not taking the VOLUME of information as support for the veracity of same, you might want to start pointing out the information you feel is relevant and substantiated. Alternately, you can suggest a number of books in support of your position, and inquire what he thinks is unsubstantiated about them.

Is he (you) claiming that these images are faked? Made in a production studio, or what?

I don't know, why don't you ask him THAT instead of engaging in a fallacy?

No one is claiming that these conditions are representative of all farms, simply that these conditions exist in the farming industry.

Shock of shocks, there's bad conditions in every industry. Now you need to show that the bad conditions are somehow more prolific in the farming industry than in others. It's going to be unavoidable that there will be some irresponsible parties, that's not enough to discount them all.

You are now going to claim that vast amounts of verifiable documentation on these conditions is comperable to books on aliens!

I'm going to point out that the NUMBER of claims has NO bearing on the truth of them. This is EXACTLY what he pointed out, and it's true.

See, if you think that, then the problem lies with you and your grasp of reality.

Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:

Shane Costello

27th May 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Observed all stages in the process at what facility? A facility representative of free range farming or factory farming?

Both. Even with free range farming it's necessary to have the animals housed in close proximity when environmental conditions require it. The slaughter process is identical in both cases also. In this country all cattle are free range.

Well, there are hormones that increase immune response and ones that decrease it. Actually I don't know exactly what they give these animals. I know that they are given antibiotics and also hormone/antibiotic mixes. In all likelihood the hormone/antibiotic mixes are really because the hormones(steroids) lower immune response and the antibiotics are there to help in the case of the weakened immune system. I'm just guessing at what they actually practice though.

Well, at least your not basing your opinions on ignorance. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Intellectual capability and living conditions make it possible to consider the feelings of other beings, but that in no way changes an animal's personal emotional state. Just because a wolf may not take the feels of a sheep into consideration when the wolf kills the sheep does not mean that the sheep is not taking his own feelings into consideration.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever.

Animals understand their OWN happiness and satisfaction and they don't take the happiness and satisfaction of others whom they are in competition with into consideration.

So animals aren't capable of making the moral judgements we are? My point exactly.

To claim that animals are incapable of taking anyone else's feelings into consideration at all is to deny facts, but its also not even relevant. Your argument is, well a wolf does not care about the feelings of other animals, so we shouldn't either. Great, thanks for putting humanity on the same plane as wild animals.

Excuse me, you haven't cited any studies or that have established factual evidence of the emotional capabilities of animals. I never claimed that the amorality of the natural world justified animal cruelty among humans. I never tried to justify animal cruelty, full stop. I've also repeated the point that humans are a couple of planes above animals in nearly every post.

What evidence do you have that animals have no emotional capacity?

That was never my point. I said humans had a much greater emotional capacity than animals. See my earlier point about cows and calves.

Okay, so evidence that the animals are stressed and abused is just what? False? You just claimed here that the animals are "happy", but I thought that you were arguing that animals could not be happy? Which is it? So let's just take veal for example. Are you saying that veal are happy, and they are made sure to be happy because its economically beneficial for he farmers to see to their happiness?

My, my, if you could only market and sell strawmen! :rolleyes:

I never argued that animals couldn't be happy, just that their different emotional and intellectual development means that what makes animals happy might appear primitive and cruel to humans. And no, you haven't produced evidence of animal cruelty. You've posted pictures of animals, peppered with biblical references. Which is highly hypocritical, since so many animals were harmed in the making of the Good Book, what with deluges and fatted calf slaughtering.

Are you sure that you are working on a doctorate in genetics? Have you not heard of chimeras and monsters? A Ligers, etc?

IIRC a chimera is an imaginary thing, ditto a monster. But let's look at that website a bit more closely.

Well, crossing cattle with buffalo isn't anything to suprised with, since these animals are closely related. Ditto Manchurian and Siberian tigers (wow, tigers breed with tigers!)

However, methinks that many of these hybrids owe more to Photoshop than interbreeding. Or maybe not even that, since many of the hybrids look like conventional breeds of animal.

Yes, we can identify "species" through genetic testing, we can also identify race and ethnicity too.

Race and ethnicity established by genetic testing? Wrong, very wrong, since these terms are indeed arbitrary. Ethnicity depends more on culture than genetics. What genetics can establish, by Y-c'some and mitochondrial analysis, is ancestry.

Through genetic testing it can be determined is someone is white or black and if they are still "pure breed" what region of the globe they are from.

Codswollop.

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

So you didn't even read your own links, something you accused me of? :rolleyes:

No, that's not fact. In fact I would say that animals are more emotional then people precisely because they are not as intellectual. Intellect has given us a degree of control over our emotions.

And the scientific studies that have established this are?

Okay, and WHY would anyone make that assumption?

Cows and calves.

No, but obviously its a part of standard farming practice is it not?

No, what gave you that idea?

So you are simply deny thing conditions exist.

Yes, because they don't exist (at least not to the endemic degree you claim). I've presented evidence why these conditions are counterproductive to meat production.

LOL, well we may as well just discount everything then. Do you believe books about how cars are made? Why, it could just as easily be like books on aliens.

No, it comes down to standards of proof. I've seen cars, I've driven cars, therefore a book about automanufacture has some credence. My lack of engineering knowledge would preempt me from making a judgement as to the efficacy of the methods presented in the book, though. However in this case I do have knowledge of the matter in question, so I am able to make a judgement. But don't tell me that because something is in a book automatically gives it merit.

Are you seriously getting an PhD in the sciences? Maybe this is what is wrong with the world today.

In light of that comment I'd like a look at your publication list.

Victor Danilchenko

27th May 2003, 10:20 AM

Malachi151

Are you refusing to look at the evidence?That's right. And when you understand why, you will perhaps understand why you are a fscking loon.

Have you visited the links yet or are you still discussing an issue that you are not informed on?Dude, I have no idea what you are discussing. I am discussing ethical theory, and I assure you that on that subject, I am far more informed about than than you are (and I similarly assure you that the actual treatment of animals have no bearing on their ethical status).

I really don't get what you are trying to say with this whole line of comments.No, indeed you don't.

You seem to be arguing that death is the most inhumane thing in the world, and so anything less then death is acceptable. That if we can't stop the killing of animals for food, then abusing them is of no consequence.No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

It's inconsistent to act on the matter of a child having his lollypop stolen, but do nothing about a child being beaten. it's insonsistent to decry inhumane treatment of animals, without decrying their killing even more.

First of all I don't think the claim that killing someone is the most inhumane thing, and I don't think that most people think that. That's the whole "put me out of my misery" issue.Oh, please. being well-fed and cared for does not come close to comparing to th sort of privation that prompts the "put me out of my misery" mindset. More importantly, that mindset is uniquely human -- animals will fight for life tooth and nail. It takes intelligence to consider one's status and the nature of death, and to conclude that death is preferrable.

So, because a wolf is not capable of acting ethically that absolves us from having to act ethically? That makes no sense.of course not -- not to you. You have no idea what ethics is, after all. :rolleyes:

Dude, you really have to get your act straight. Your arguments are nearly incoherent.

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 11:32 AM

That's right. And when you understand why, you will perhaps understand why you are a fscking loon.

Right, because refusing to review information and judge for yourself makes so much sense :rolleyes:

No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

Well, for the last time I disagree. We can make ethical arguments about for assisted suicide and euthanasia. That is "pro-death", and related to quality of life.

We can make ethical arguments for war, that is "pro-death", and again ultiamtely deals with quality of life.

Why would we not be able to make ethical judgements about quality of life for animals just because we intent to kill them? Everything dies, so ultimately by your logic there is no need for any ethics at all.

Oh, please. being well-fed and cared for does not come close to comparing to th sort of privation that prompts the "put me out of my misery" mindset.

LOL, here we go ignoring reality again. No one in this thead has said that its inhumane to feed and give good care to animals. Teh issue at hand in actually in fact in some cases starvation and in all cases lack of good care.

of course not -- not to you. You have no idea what ethics is, after all.

Riiiiight... as the one saying that we have an obligation to take good care of animals who's lives are in our control, I'm the one with no idea of ethics :rolleyes: :p

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 12:24 PM

http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/111299/DL_animalethics.html

SW: In the second edition of your book, Veterinary Ethics, you say the next wave of activism will be related to farm-animal welfare.

JT: Reasonably accurate statistics indicate that 20 million to 40 million animals are used in research in the United States each year, while at least 7 billion animals are used in agriculture. Many protesters believe that farm-animal issues will be the major thrust of activism in the 21st century, because some people want to apply their companion-animal values to farm animals. For example, much of agriculture today is intensive, meaning that animals are housed in group conditions that are not the way they would have been housed in family farms years ago. And many people wonder whether they are suffering and whether it’s an adequate way of life for them. I think we can expect protests and questions about this. Because we have the finest veterinary school in the world, we should be ready with answers. If the animals are being treated appropriately, then we should be able to say so. If the animals’ conditions could be improved, then we should be interested in how various improvements could be made.

Welcome to the Monash University Animal Ethics Office Home Page

http://www.monash.edu.au/resgrant/animal-ethics/

Morals are a purely human construction (animals don't understand morals); doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to animals?

The fallaciousness of this argument can be easily demonstrated by making a simple substitution: Infants and young children don't understand morals, doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to them? Of course not. We refrain from harming infants and children for the same reasons that we do so for adults. That they are incapable of conceptualizing a system of morals and its benefits is irrelevant. The relevant distinction is formalized in the concept of "moral agents" versus "moral patients". A moral agent is an individual possessing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way. By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts. The paradigmatic moral agent is the normal adult human being. Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents. Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood. Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

http://urmel.dusnet.de/animal-rights.net/ar-faq/q.phtml?17

I would agree that in theory animals fall into a category equal to children and invalids, but I also weight that against human needs and the laws of nature and accept the killing of animals for survival.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE

http://www.animal-law.org/library/araw_ii.htm

Animal Care and Ethics

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/research/animal/

Animal Cognition

http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/kardas/courses/CS/Student%20Pages/Animal%20Cognition/Animal%20Cognition.html

Animal Ethics

This means that the ethics of farm animal welfare will increas-ingly come to be seen in terms of industry standards, market structure and government regulation, in additionto individuals’ responsibility to the animals in their care.

http://www.porkscience.org/documents/Other/SwineWelfFACTSHT-ethic.pdf

And from the USDA:

Hmm, seems the USDA has plenty of info realted to Animal ethics in farming as well....

And of course guidelines for humane reatment of livestock. If there are guidelines then that must mean that humane treatement of animals is recognized as something to consider.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/9cfr313_00.html

The electric current shall be administered so as to produce, at a
minimum, surgical anesthesia, i.e., a state where the animal feels no
painful sensation. The animals shall be either stunned or killed before
they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. They shall be exposed
to the electric current in a way that will accomplish the desired result
quickly and effectively, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort.

...

Electric current. Each animal shall be given a sufficient
application of electric current to ensure surgical anesthesia throughout
the bleeding operation. Suitable timing, voltage and current control
devices shall be used to ensure that each animal receives the necessary
electrical charge to produce immediate unconsciousness. The current
shall be applied so as to avoid the
production of hemorrhages or other tissue changes which could interfere
with inspection procedures.

So, these things are something TO BE considered.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/farmanimals/farm.htm

Symposium on Animal Agriculture and Ethics

http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca/groups/seta/guelph.html

Valmorian

27th May 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Malachi151
No, what I am arguing is that we cannot consistently make ethical argument against mistreatment of animals, while simultaneously endorsing the killing of animals.

Well, for the last time I disagree. We can make ethical arguments about for assisted suicide and euthanasia. That is "pro-death", and related to quality of life.

Wow. You have NO CLUE what he was talking about there, and it's painfully obvious. I wonder if Victor will have the patience to try and explain it in yet ANOTHER way? I know I don't.

Victor Danilchenko

27th May 2003, 01:00 PM

Valmorian

Wow. You have NO CLUE what he was talking about there, and it's painfully obvious. I wonder if Victor will have the patience to try and explain it in yet ANOTHER way? I know I don't.i don't think I do, either. Malachi has shown himself no go into his own little world and engage in private rants than have pretty much nothing to do with anything being said. He doesn't understand what he is being told, and apparently doesn't care to understand.

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 01:23 PM

IIRC a chimera is an imaginary thing, ditto a monster. But let's look at that website a bit more closely.

Well, crossing cattle with buffalo isn't anything to suprised with, since these animals are closely related. Ditto Manchurian and Siberian tigers (wow, tigers breed with tigers!)

However, methinks that many of these hybrids owe more to Photoshop than interbreeding. Or maybe not even that, since many of the hybrids look like conventional breeds of animal.

Oh man, this takes the cake!

You don't even realize that chimer is a biological term?

chimera (biology)
In biology, an organism composed of tissues that are genetically different. Chimeras can develop naturally if a mutation occurs in a cell of a developing embryo, but are more commonly produced artificially by implanting cells from one organism into the embryo of another.

Ligers and tigons

http://www.sierrasafarizoo.com/animals/liger.htm

Species are defined as clades of animals that interbreed and are both genetically and anatomically similar. The key word in our use of species here is "interbreed." Since the pipiens and molestus mosquitoes could no longer interbreed, that makes molestus a completely different species from pipiens. This definition of species isn't always very clear, for example, have you ever heard of any of these animals: Liger (lion and tiger, also known as tigon), Wholfon ( psuedo-orca and bottle nose dolphin), Zonkey (zebra and donkey) and Zorse (zebra and horse), Cama (camel and llama), and Chimera (goat and sheep). Still, the species definition is good and applies for the vast majority of cases. The ability to interbreed does not necessarily make them the same species, but not being able to interbreed automatically makes them different species.

Polyploidy & Hybridization

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/hybrids1.htm

Some so-called "hybrid" animals mentioned in news articles are actually chimeras. They are produced by combining genes and cells of two species.

So, we have hybrids which are cross breeds, and chimeras which are genetically engineered, and monsters I believe are animals with transplants from other animals, such as a person with a baboon heart or something.

Race and ethnicity established by genetic testing? Wrong, very wrong, since these terms are indeed arbitrary. Ethnicity depends more on culture than genetics. What genetics can establish, by Y-c'some and mitochondrial analysis, is ancestry.

Codswollop.

Wrong. Scientific American a few months ago:

Here is "a" link, but its not the article I read where they did blind tests and were able determine race, but its a realted article.

"It was chilling," recalls Francis S. Collins, director of the institute. He had not been aware of DNA sequences that could identify race, and it shocked him that the information can be used to investigate crimes. "It stopped the conversation in its tracks."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002A353-C027-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF

Anyway, its really beside the point, the point is that species is a human classifcation, not an natural reality. Two individuals being able to produce offsprice together is a natural reality, but that is one of our arbitrary means how we classify animals.

What about asexual organisms? We obviously can't use that test there can we? ;)

Species is just how we, as humans, group oragisms.

voidx

27th May 2003, 03:57 PM

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you:

To my knowledge there were no pictures of dead animals in the links I provided.

I do not objectively take this website as good evidence based upon the fact that it has a clear religious and political agenda. For christs sake, at one point they quote something similar to, "Look at this pig, he is chewing on the steel bar, happy content pigs do not chew on steel bars". Huh? Hell even my kitten chews on everthing from power cords to chair legs to fingers to wood, and he's the most spoiled little snot on the face of the planet. My main issue with this site is basically several things. There is no documentation of why these sites were looked at, when these photo's were taken, where they were taken, what were the circumstances surrounding these particular sites and were these sites in violation of the standards of the time. And what happened to these farms as a result of all the attention they received? Were they fined? Were they convicted of animal cruelty? Were lawsuits launched? We're not told, the only thing we're told is to quit eating livestock as we are contributing to this "evil" by doing so. As mentioned, no one disagree's that these conditions exist, or have existed. But if these photo's are from 10 years ago, and new standards have been put in place since then, then the entire site is pointless.

Once again I'll put forth that the nature of the animals happiness is not the point here, these animals are a food supply, they are domesticated. That does not make it alright to abuse them, but no one has stated that they believe animal abuse and cruelty is ok either. They have argued about the justification of cruelty towards them and how it may be hypocritical in relation to our opinions in other forms of non-human cruelty, but that's different IMO. The main concern is that they are kept in as healthy an environment as possible. For one because yes we should keep them for their sake in as nice an environment as possible for a livestock food supply, but the other reason is also to have a healthy food supply. The article you linked about forced molting again makes this arguement very well, and I could debate and even agree with it based on its scientific merits. It does not argue that the industry should be abolished or is similiar to the holocaust, but rather just argues on improvements, and changed standards to discourage in the articles opinion potentially unhealthy practices used by the industry. Changes and arguements of this kind I can agree with, or at least take seriously as they present proof and research and a real practical solution.

As another example of this let me post the following links (information is older but still has relevance):

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/PIP9.pdf

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/PIP26.pdf (http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/avian/PIP26.pdf)

There are many articles regarding poultry on here, as well as practices in california regarding dairy and other cattle. Scientifically and objectively stated articles that show yes in some cases overcrowding poultry in cages (up to 4 hens per cage) while producing a higher mortality rate, also can yield more eggs per hen and reduce feed costs overall. But it also states that depending on margins, this may be too expensive a form of farming for some poultrymen. Also it states that the higher denisty of hens per cage once at a certain level, starts to actually reduce the number of eggs produced per hen, while contributing to slightly higher mortality rates. In essence, producing less eggs per hen, at higher hen loss, therefore biting money out of the farmers bottom line. Hardly incentive to cram as many chickens as possible into one cage for greeds sake. These articles of course should be taken with a grain of salt, their a little old. However at least they state cage dimensions, output, feed costs, mortality rates. None of the horrendous conditions sites mention any of this information. The US humane society didn't link to any sources or documents citing specific cases, just blanket descriptions of why these conditions are bad. But even then, the US humane society links an article describing how the United Egg Producers are trying to take steps to make conditions more humane.

It appears to me from my initial amount of looking around that even as far back as the late 70's research was showing at least in poultry that certain levels of over-crowding resulted in less productivity and was warned against. I haven't been able to check what federal standards on all this stuff are, but it seems they may have been lacking. But I see every indication that there have been improvements, that standards are being updated and that the industry is starting to pay attention. If that is the case, then doesn't it seem rather ridiculous to compare the industry to an animal holocaust that should be abolished, just when your lobbying and scientific analysis is making marked improvements and revising standards for this industry?

Oh and on a sidenote, here's an article regarding hormones, as it pertains to poultry in the state of California at least:

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-PO_BroilerCarePrax.pdf

Hormones are not approved for poultry and are never included in the feed or water of commercial poultry

Malachi151

27th May 2003, 05:03 PM

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you:

And that detracts from the assertions how?

I was assuming that he original poster of the remark meant that pictures of animals properly killed wasn't anything to worry about. Like, pictures of animals being slaughtered or having already been processed. To that I meant that the pictures were not about those types of things, insinuating that the imagery was simply exposing the obvious.

Pictures of animals that have died and been left in cages to rot with other animals, how is pictures of that detracting from the argument any?

I do not objectively take this website as good evidence based upon the fact that it has a clear religious and political agenda.

That's fine I just did a google and pulled up something at random w/o spending hours looking for "the best evidence". Its not my job to fully educate everyone here.

So these people that are appalled happen to be very religious, so what? How does that detract from the photos in any way?

Again, what is the argument?

That these pictures are fake because the people taking them are religious nut.

That these pictures are not representative of industry conditions.

That these conditions, even if they are representative don't merit outrage?

My only point is that these are the types of conditions that are being said are inhumane.

Do you agree that these "alleged" conditions are inhumane?

If these conditions are not representative, then great, and I'm sure that they probably are not. However, where these conditions do exist they are problematic. The issue is how common are these conditions, and what is really done to police farms to ensure that these conditions are not present?

Of course you can always say that there is nothing wrong with these conditions.

In addition, this was just one link of about 10 that have been posted in this thread.

Yet, everyone wants to pick on it because it has religious nuts talking in it. Okay, this is a religious nut link, so what, what about the other half dozen or so links, and again, these are just a few random links that posters here have pulled up, its not like this is the full body of evidence or anything, its just an example of the types of conditions that are being discussed.

no one has stated that they believe animal abuse and cruelty is ok either.

This comment is not really directed at you, but yes, it seems that some people are arguing just that.

while producing a higher mortality rate, also can yield more eggs per hen and reduce feed costs overall. But it also states that depending on margins, this may be too expensive a form of farming for some poultrymen.

Yes, exactly, in this case we are talking about animal welfare being dictated by what is most economically viable. Economic viability in no way dictates what is humane. This is why its compared to the Holocaust. The concentration camps in Germany were LABOR CAMPS. They were maintained at levels of economic viability. Economics dictated the conditions, and morals in regard for the lives were taken out of play. As long at the people could do the work needed that was all that mattered. Same goes for the animals, and its why its really a good comparison.

These articles are primarily concerned with optimal production and product quality. Again, that says nothing of quality of life for the animals.

Hormones are not approved for poultry and are never included in the feed or water of commercial poultry

Good info. However antibiotics are, and hormones are used for cows. The antibiotics allow for higher population concentrations. Now, I'm not saying that antibiotics are bad to feed animals, or even that hormones are necessarily.

Again, I've never said that these conditions are common in the industry, I've just said that there is such a thing as inhumane conditons for animals, and that we do have an ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.

Many people have said no, thats not the case.

All I'm saying is that in the examples shows I agree that the conditions are inhumane. If those examples are isolated then all the better.

I also agree that free range farming is more humane then factory farming, and that while not as economically effective I feel its preferable to factory farming because it is more humane. These animals sustain us and provide the food we need to survive, I think they deserve at little bit of respect for that. Thats all. I'm no vegitarian, I eat meat in every meal. I am sure that I eat factory farmed meat too, because its impossible to tell what is what. I do hunt and and I do fish, and I feel that those methods of getting food are more humane and preferable to factory farming, even by industy acceptable standards.

BillyTK

28th May 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello

That's fine. :)
Sweet!
This is the cut and thrust of my argument, too. Humans making judgements about the natural world and agriculture solely from a human viewpoint, using standards of human comfort and treatment to judge those of animals.
I agree. But the problem with this is the tendency towards a Disney view of the natural world, which I object to.
It was in reference to an earlier point you made, namely:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By human standards, the natural world is completely ammoral, hence the term "jungle law".
I agree; however, my point was that the traits implied when someone is called an animal are not traits we typically see in the natrual world. For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary provides the following definition for "animal":
a very cruel, violent, or uncivilized person
Can animals ever be described as cruel, violent or uncivilised in an equivalent way to humans?

Similarly with "the law of the jungle"; sure the natural world is amoral and lawless, but those are human artefacts; the implicit in the term is the notion of survival of the strongest, which is a misunderstanding of Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest, in which fittest means best suited to the environment, not most physically strong.
Have to disagree. The fox certainly wreaks havoc on the henhouse because it was put there by man, but the killer instinct was innate, not provoked by people.
Same idea, different direction; foxes are predators, but it's human activity--in the form of keeping hens in confined spaces--which exacerbates the fox's killer behaviour.

voidx

28th May 2003, 09:36 AM

The above link, and the accompanying ones about pigs and cattle all contain photo's of dead animals, this in relation to this comment by you: .
And that detracts from the assertions how?

Never said that it did. I was merely clarifying what was indeed the case.

So these people that are appalled happen to be very religious, so what?

My main point here is just a frustration. I agree the pictures state some horrible conditions, but rather than making a valid point and giving us information about the incident and what we can actively do to help would have been much more effective. Instead we get a bunch of "respect for God's creature and don't eat meat no more" claptrap. My main beef with the site isn't that it is run by religious nuts, its that there's no damned information on what we're looking at. I agree that these are bad cases, and I'd like to see what happened so I can more accurately judge for myself just how much standards may have improved as a result, or how they didn't improve at all.

The issue is how common are these conditions, and what is really done to police farms to ensure that these conditions are not present?

I'm in full agreement. I just simply felt that those 3 links to the all-creatures website were not a very good example of good objective reporting of this problem. So lets agree that this website in particular isn't helping us with information on the above stated quote. The issue you state by the way is precisely what my concern is as well. Its just been hard finding objective information in that regard. Peta isn't a very good source, however the US humane society site seems better, but even it gets sidetracked by articles pushing its "organic" food standards.

Do you agree that these "alleged" conditions are inhumane?

Yes of course. However I still have trouble finding any objective view of just how common this is in the industry, statistics, analysis, anything. If you happen to have a link to a good objective source for this information I'd like to see it just for my own information. I myself am finding it hard to get any clear picture of what these industries as a whole are like aside from individual incidents, which I obviously also agree even if not the norm still need to be dealt with.

Economic viability in no way dictates what is humane.

But it also does not automatically lead to an environment of horrendous inhumane conditions. The links I provided showed lower mortality rates for certain types and dimensions of cages, with lower hen densities for example that still provided comparable income per hen. How do these tested cage conditions compare to industry standard? And from all these groups vying for improved conditions, what proposed cage size and density would be appropriate? Again the information just doesn't seem to be there, although I'd gladly be proven wrong here.

The concentration camps in Germany were LABOR CAMPS. They were maintained at levels of economic viability. Economics dictated the conditions, and morals in regard for the lives were taken out of play. As long at the people could do the work needed that was all that mattered. Same goes for the animals, and its why its really a good comparison.

Oh come on. A domesticated animal, doing what it was domesticated to do in an attempted efficient manner (regardless of whether we agree or not that the efficiency is humane in its practice) is the same thing as previously free peoples doing forced manual labour by an oppressive regime? A chicken in the wild would be mating and laying eggs, same as a free range farm chicken, or a factory chicken, its the conditions that are different. I'm pretty sure jews and homosexuals and the other groups oppressed by the Nazi's would not have been out digging up turnips for 20 hours a day and digging ditches if given a choice. You could perhaps argue the economic viability point for comparison, but anything else is pure sensationlism IMO.

I also agree that free range farming is more humane then factory farming

I'll agree with that, but I also think done properly factory farming could provide a healthy environment for livestock while still remaining economically viable. I'd like to see new research done like that in the links I provided to come up with a compromise between healthy conditions and economic viability for factory farming. While free range would give the livestock more room for freedom of movement, I still think as long as conditions are healthy, and revised minimum amount of space is decided upon, that factory farming can be healthy and humane and personally I would have no problem with it.

Malachi151

28th May 2003, 09:48 AM

voidx

Okay, I think that you and I at least have reached consensus on this issue, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

The truth is that farming is like any part of life, unfair.

Obviously the amount of food needed is causing these types of farming issues to come up. There is no real way to go back to free range farms for everything, its just not economically viable. There will be some level of suffering by the animals, but its just an issue of minimizing it to a reasonable level.

I still think that genetic engineering holds the most promise, so that we can engineer brainless animals or like someone else said, plants that produce animal proteins, which I image it not far off.

I do think that keeping animals in small pens their whole life is inhumane, even if they are kept physically health and are not physically harmed and, if possible I would choose free range food over animals kept in pens.

voidx

28th May 2003, 12:33 PM

Agreed. Its a grey area in many ways, and a necessity because of our diets and lifestyle. I'm willing to say fair enough :D. A minimal amount of animal suffering and discomfort as possible is a reasonable goal.

Cain

29th May 2003, 04:34 PM

I apologize again for the delay. I really should be finishing a paper, but a few comments cannot go without reply:

Victor first:

I offered the analogy that firefighters would still try to save people from a burning building, even if they couldn't save them all.

Yes; but th epoint is that the firefighters still do their best, even though they may save only a minute proportion of the inhabitants. The limitation here is of ability -- the firefighters are still consistent with their mission. Contrawise, we not merely don't try to protect animals from each other, we actively oppose such attempts. Here the failure to avert the outcome is from lack of trying. This is exactly the hypocrisy -- the fact that you regard human killing animals as unethical, but animals killing animals as not unethical. Had you regarded both unethical, and did your best to protect rabbits from foxes (but only succeeded ion minute percentage of cases, due to inability to do better), your view wouldn't be hypocritical.

You're use of the term "unethical" is vague. As I've maintained, animals (including some humans) are not moral agents, so their own actions cannot be regarded as unethical. Now, animals can act in ways that cause suffering to humans and each other and this is morally significant. As I've said previously, Victor, if we could intervene in the affairs of animals in the wild to cause less suffering, then we should. But, at the moment, this is an unachieavable goal (and just because it's unachievable does not undermine the ethical point: reducing suffering to a minimum).

And stop using the word "hypocrisy" as though it's going out of style.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
[B]I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Your comments have been vague at best. I asked for a non-arbitrary moral criterion and you pointed to two intellectual accomplishments. So what level of "emotional advancement and awareness" is necessary? Would comparing the intellectual and emotional capabilities of a chimp to an infant work? Why should privilege the human infant over the chimp?

I have never claimed that cruelty to animals was justifiable. I have made the point that animal cruelty has no place whatsoever in the meat industry. My other point is that the conditions animals are farmed in are not cruel, since the people making these claims are judging these conditions from a human, rather than the animals perspective.

Yes, apparently animals don't like to turn around in their pins, enjoy fresh air, or do much anything other than sit and get fat
:rolleyes:

I can't open the video links, but as I've said the photo links are nothing new to me. Reas also what I said about standards of proof.

...
Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claimng to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

Earlier you spoke of "odious" comparisons. This is a perfect example. Instead of bothering to even download the software to view the videos, you just spout nonsense over claims of alien abductions and spoon-bending. Yes, yes, I suppose the videos I linked -- which, again, you never viewed -- was completely faked. A pig didn't have its head smashed with a cinder block. They weren't beaten and a throat wasn't slashed.

I don't have Eisnitz's book at the moment, but Scully recounts a passage dealing with the slaughterhouse:

"Does it ever happen," she asked a fellow named Nathan Price, a worker for Carolina Foods, "that hogs aren't properly stunned?"
"All the time," Price laughed. "Because if you're killing 16,000 hogs a shift, those guys aren't going to stun all them hogs all the time. Some hogs come out kicking and raising hell."
"Is kicking the only sign that they're not stunned properly?"
"Running across the table or floor isn't a good sign neither. See, they use this four-pronged stunner. And if you don't hit that hog precisely, that hog runs across the table."
At this point you'd almost that some mighty instinct would make them charge the throat slasher, the sooner to escape a world that never gave them anything but hurt, but they don't, they still want to live, and so, as Mr. Price explained, they have to be chased and beaten. There are beatings? asked Ms. Eisnitz. "That's all the time. You get a stubborn hog that doesn't want to go, employees can get to beating that hog all they want to. They use a shackle, a pipe, anything they can get their hands on."
...
These mistakes, we're assured, happen with but a slight fraction of the totla hogs slaughtered every year. Yet every year, just in America, 103 million pigs are slaughtered, and what is a fraction of that? Supposing the very minmum of 1 percent, that's more than a million right there, 3,550 creatures condemned every day, today, to this most merciless of deaths.

Undercover reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and other papers have described the abuses: "...Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, 'they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'"

Here's the entry on Factory Farms from everything2 (a pretty cool site):

A factory farm is a large scale livestock production system optimized for production of a single commodity. Factory farms tend to discount non-monetary "externalities" such as animal rights, nutritional quality, energy efficiency, environmental&integrity, rural community, and public health. Although opposition to these methods is widespread, it survives partly because of the refusal of the consumer to take responsiblily for what their money funds.

And it makes perfect economic sense to confine pigs to the smallest possible pins. It saves space and deprives of them of exercise.

Factory farms are worse, of course. But let's follow the line of reasoning over economic advantage. Scully discusses ISE America (an ironic acryonym for International Standard Excellence), which was "convicted of cruelly discarding live chickens in trash cans." They had six employees overseeing 1.2 million hens, and the company's lawyer initially argued that these birds were trash.

"Kevin M. Hahn (attorney): we contend, your Honor, that clearly my client meets the requirements [of the law]. Clearly it's a commercial farm. And clearly the handling of chickens, and how chickens are discarded, falls into agricultural management practices of my client. And we've had -- we'vel itgated this issue before in this county with respect to my client and how it handles manure..."
"The Court: Isn't there a big distinction between manure and live animals?"
Hahn: "No, Your Honor. Because the Right to Farm Act protects us in the operation of our farm and all the agricultural management practices employed by our farm."

--------------------------------------------------------------

It is demonstrable that Mao did not heed the science of his time. As a simple example, killing sparrows to save grain was stupid and the likely impact was known before his "war on the sparrows".
To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

*sigh* You offered an a priori argument -- i.e. it makes sense that China would implement a scientifically sound agricultural policy to feed all of its people. As I said, the same could be applied at Mao's time. I said earlier that cereals produce 5 times more protein per acre than livestock. Well legumes produce ten times more; leafy vegetables 15 times more. (these are averages from _Diet for a Small Planet_).

Again, from Dominion on ethically sane China:
"I think for a example of some wrenching footage aired in late 1998 the NBC news program Dateline docuemnting the use of some two million cats and dogs a year by chinese fur manufacturers for export mostly to the WEst. Filmed by undercover agents for the Humane Society of the United States, on the video we saw the dogs tied down while being skinned alive, whimpering for mercy, actually licking the head of the skinner, and the cats stuffed into little cagtes, huddled in terror as one after another was strangled to death -- literally noosed and hung inside the cage, this to avoid bleeding or other damage to the fur."
(to say nothing of the bear farms).

The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten.

The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten (probably eaten while they are alive) shortly after they are born.

Animals that don't die from predation will likely die of starvation or the elements.

Without current domestication policies, millions and millions of animals wouldn't exist. What, eight billion chickens are killed every year? 103 million pigs slaughtered in the US alone? Those are ridiculous figures -- and fully preventable. Yes, we can't stop animals from killing each other (just as we cannot stop humans from murdering one another). That's a misguided non-argument, however.

Malachi151

29th May 2003, 05:44 PM

What is interresting is some people's desire to defend these practises.

Shane Costello

29th May 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Cain:
Your comments have been vague at best.

Over your head, perhaps. Vague, I don't think so. I mean, what part of the statement "Animal Welfare is central to meat production do you find vague?

I asked for a non-arbitrary moral criterion and you pointed to two intellectual accomplishments.

You offered as a statement of fact the line that "abuse and atrocities" against animals were endemic in the meat industry. Until you offer supporting evidence for this you're in no position to ask me or anyone else for anything in this debate.

So what level of "emotional advancement and awareness" is necessary?

I never claimed any level of emotional or intellectual advacnement was a prerequisite for ethical treatment. However these are vital factors when considering "happiness". I've heard it said that happiness is 95% perception and 5% reality. In which case how an animal percieves it's surroundings and situation is of utmost importance, as is our ability to percieve and interpret those surroundings from an uniquely human viewpoint.

Yes, apparently animals don't like to turn around in their pins, enjoy fresh air, or do much anything other than sit and get fat :rolleyes:

Your evidence for this is? Do animals get to turn around in their pins? Do they need to? Do they fail to get fresh air? Would they "enjoy" it in any case?

Earlier you spoke of "odious" comparisons. This is a perfect example. Instead of bothering to even download the software to view the videos, you just spout nonsense over claims of alien abductions and spoon-bending.

I made a pertinent point. I could also view videos of Uri Geller bending spoon using his psychic abilities, or alien corpses being dissected in Area 51. Just because something is on video doesn't make it factual.

Yes, yes, I suppose the videos I linked -- which, again, you never viewed -- was completely faked.

It's a distinct possibility.

A pig didn't have its head smashed with a cinder block. They weren't beaten and a throat wasn't slashed.

They weren't, or at least they shouldn't have been, because it just doesn't make any sense. I'll refer back to my earleir links; Humane pre-slaughter handling and slughtering methods are absolutely vital from an economic sense. Smashing a pig's head head off a cinder block is a very innefficient way to slaughter it. It affects meat quality and is more than consuming than stunning or gassing with carbon monoxide. Pig's throats are slashed after initial stunning, to kill the animal and remove the blood. At this stage, the animal is no longer sentient.

"These mistakes, we're assured, happen with but a slight fraction of the totla hogs slaughtered every year. Yet every year, just in America, 103 million pigs are slaughtered, and what is a fraction of that? Supposing the very minmum of 1 percent, that's more than a million right there, 3,550 creatures condemned every day, today, to this most merciless of deaths.

I'm not denying that slaughter methods aren't 100% foolproof, but then what is? That being said, the above is heresay, and doesn't come up to the requisite standard of proof. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, a detailed study giving a reliable approximation is a different thing altogether. Look at Jayson Blair.

Undercover reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and other papers have described the abuses: "...Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, 'they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'"

Crap. If they killed people they'd be in jail or on death row. This is anecdotal evidence. I'd like to see employment records for the companies in question.

A factory farm is a large scale livestock production system optimized for production of a single commodity.

And?

Factory farms tend to discount non-monetary "externalities" such as animal rights, nutritional quality, energy efficiency, environmental&integrity, rural community, and public health. Although opposition to these methods is widespread, it survives partly because of the refusal of the consumer to take responsiblily for what their money funds.

Even more assertions. What about evidence?

And it makes perfect economic sense to confine pigs to the smallest possible pins. It saves space and deprives of them of exercise.

Says who? How many times do I have to say it "IT MAKES PERFECT ECONOMIC SENSE TO TREAT LIVESTOCK WITH THE UTMOST CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE"

Victor Danilchenko

30th May 2003, 07:06 AM

Cain

As I've maintained, animals (including some humans) are not moral agents, so their own actions cannot be regarded as unethical. Now, animals can act in ways that cause suffering to humans and each other and this is morally significant. As I've said previously, Victor, if we could intervene in the affairs of animals in the wild to cause less suffering, then we should.So you think we should, say, protect rabbits from foxes? We don't have to punish the fox, but protecting rabbits from it is a morally desirable goal in your opinion, correct?

But, at the moment, this is an unachieavable goal (and just because it's unachievable does not undermine the ethical point: reducing suffering to a minimum).Why is it unachievable? Why don't we try breeding vegetarian foxes, and rabbits with built-in population controls (so they don't need predators to keep the population down)? Let's at least try to make the lion lie with the lamb, right?

Your position leads to prima-facie absurd conclusions, I think.

And stop using the word "hypocrisy" as though it's going out of style.Sorry. It does look to me like you're not being hypocritical -- but then your beliefs (i.e. that we should intervene in the ecosphere on behalf of the prey, if we can) are bizarre to say the least.

Tmy

30th May 2003, 07:09 AM

My cat is always killing birds and small animals. Am I a bad person for not putting a bell on his collar?

BillyTK

30th May 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
My cat is always killing birds and small animals. Am I a bad person for not putting a bell on his collar?

Yes! Murderer! (j/k) :)

My cats are always bringing in moths, bees and bluebottles, although the male once brought in a joint of ham...

Tmy

30th May 2003, 07:34 AM

I would think its cruel to put a bell on him. Imagine havingthat ringing all the time!?!?

My cat catches all sorts of things. He caught a squirrel the other week! And he has a bionic leg (long story which will result in a rant about manipulating Animal Hospitals)

I think people forget that we are as much a part of the planet as the animals. Our behavior is nature.

Did you say the cat brought in a joint?!?!!? How do you teach that trick!

Cain

31st May 2003, 07:24 PM

Oh Shane, the hits keep comin'.

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Over your head, perhaps. Vague, I don't think so. I mean, what part of the statement [B]"Animal Welfare is central to meat production do you find vague?

Over MY head -- you're a funny guy! No, I was actually referring to this nonsense: I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Taken in the context of this nonsense:

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Which was a reply, if you try to remember (please try), to a statement on morality in the context of ethics. They're silly, arbitrary and, in the final analysis, completely devoid of content. I thought I was being polite by calling them vague (confused is perhaps more accurate, but oh well...).

Your evidence for this is? Do animals get to turn around in their pins? Do they need to? Do they fail to get fresh air? Would they "enjoy" it in any case?

Oh, I've seen the light. You're probably right. Animals are better confined to small pins and cages where they can hardly turn around. They love it! But wait, how can I know when an animal is "enjoy" itself. That's yet another absurd claim. Personal experience, and I'm sure the personal experiences of others, verifies this. :rolleyes:

I made a pertinent point. I could also view videos of Uri Geller bending spoon using his psychic abilities, or alien corpses being dissected in Area 51. Just because something is on video doesn't make it factual.

Yes, a pertinent point. We should apply this rigorious skepticism to everything we see on television, hear on the radio, or read in print (fake stuff has seeped through before, right). We should especially promote this "distinct possibly" after NOT viewing the video in question.

They weren't, or at least they shouldn't have been, because it just doesn't make any sense. I'll refer back to my earleir links; Humane pre-slaughter handling and slughtering methods are absolutely vital from an economic sense. Smashing a pig's head head off a cinder block is a very innefficient way to slaughter it. It affects meat quality and is more than consuming than stunning or gassing with carbon monoxide. Pig's throats are slashed [I]after initial stunning, to kill the animal and remove the blood. At this stage, the animal is no longer sentient.

One of the videos shows a farm worker slashing the throat of a pig and not bothering to use a stunner. This makes perfect economic sense: why bother stunning a lame sow? Oh, but the video that documents this event -- it's probably a fraud. You mentioned something about Uri Geller...

I'm not denying that slaughter methods aren't 100% foolproof, but then what is? That being said, the above is heresay, and doesn't come up to the requisite standard of proof. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, a detailed study giving a reliable approximation is a different thing altogether. Look at Jayson Blair.

So you would definitely approve of legislation forcing slaughterhouses and factory farms to install cameras at critical locations, correct?

You do realize that, um, factory farms and slaughterhouses do not want people sniffing around, yammering about rights and suffering. These are closed companies where investigative journalists have to go undercover and infilitrate.

Says who? How many times do I have to say it [B]"IT MAKES PERFECT ECONOMIC SENSE TO TREAT LIVESTOCK WITH THE UTMOST CONCERN FOR THEIR WELFARE"

Say it "louder", it just might become true. Oh, and once again, slave owners had economic incentives to treat their property with the utmost concern. :rolleyes:

Oh, but wait, that's completely different? How is it different?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Victor: see Peter Singer's letter in the NYBooks to the same argument http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2837

I've already addressed it twice and I'm not sure what else I can say that hasn't been said.

Why is it unachievable? Why don't we try breeding vegetarian foxes, and rabbits with built-in population controls (so they don't need predators to keep the population down)? Let's at least try to make the lion lie with the lamb, right?

How is that going to work, assuming it's possible, in complex ecosystems? We're talking about animals "in the wild," no? Singer, in the link provided above, writes:

[i]The reason that animal liberationists do not try to interfere with predator-prey relationships is that they are not as arrogant or stupid as other humans who, over the centuries, have imagined that they know how to rearrange nature by introducing a few rabbits here, or letting some goats run wild there. The outcome of past cases of human interference has been disastrous for the nonhuman animals, and often for the humans as well.

Shane Costello

1st June 2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
Over MY head -- you're a funny guy! No, I was actually referring to this nonsense: I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans.

Taken in the context of this nonsense:

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Which was a reply, if you try to remember (please try), to a statement on morality in the context of ethics. They're silly, arbitrary and, in the final analysis, completely devoid of content. I thought I was being polite by calling them vague (confused is perhaps more accurate, but oh well...).

I don't see what's vague about it. Indeed it's a position you youself seem to be endorsing, since you haven't suggested that we impose our standards of ethics on the natural world, or that animals are to be held to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

Yes, a pertinent point. We should apply this rigorious skepticism to everything we see on television, hear on the radio, or read in print (fake stuff has seeped through before, right). We should especially promote this "distinct possibly" after NOT viewing the video in question.

A video doesn't come up to the requisite standard of evidence. What I would look for are studies undertaken by reputable agencies detailing "atrocities and abuses", or evidence of court proceedings against meat processors, or evidence that a large number of them have been convicted for "abuses and atrocities". Nor am I likely to view the video in question now, since the poster in question has engaged in ad-hom attacks, and clearly didn't even bother to examine his own evidence in detail (He claimed there weren't any dead animals in it!).

One of the videos shows a farm worker slashing the throat of a pig and not bothering to use a stunner. This makes perfect economic sense: why bother stunning a lame sow?

Because slaughtering a sentient animal like that yields poor quality meat. Besides, just because the sow was moving doesn't mean it hadn't been stunned or was still sentient. There's such a thing as delayed nerve response.

Just wondering, any word on the investigations into these suspected abuses?

So you would definitely approve of legislation forcing slaughterhouses and factory farms to install cameras at critical locations, correct?

No, because there isn't any evidence to suggest that present regulations are failing.

You do realize that, um, factory farms and slaughterhouses do not want people sniffing around, yammering about rights and suffering. These are closed companies where investigative journalists have to go undercover and infilitrate.

You do realise that, um, for safety and insurance reasons people in general aren't permitted to sniff around any industrial workplace? For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people. Again, if undercover and investigative journalists have infiltrated the meat industry and uncovered evidence of "atrocities and abuse" then you should be able to provide a wealth of links detailing the deluge of official investigations and convictions that followed.

Cain

2nd June 2003, 02:20 AM

I don't see what's vague about it. Indeed it's a position you youself seem to be endorsing, since you haven't suggested that we impose our standards of ethics on the natural world, or that animals are to be held to the same ethical standards as we hold ourselves to.

Shane, I asked for a criterion, a characteristic or ability of some kind, that's morally relevant and distinguishes us from non-human animals (in terms of rights). We could, for example, compare the reproductive rights of men and women. I say, and I'm not sure whether you agree or not, that women ought to have reproductive control in ways that men do not; specifically, the right to have an abortion. Why am I against allowing men to have an abortion? Well, for the plainly obvious reason that men cannot have one. The same argument applies to why I am against the idea of dogs voting. The same reasoning fashioned in a different context demonstrates why we cannot hold non-human animals morally accountable for their actions (and, by the way, we cannot hold many humans, especially children, morally accountable for their own actions).

Because slaughtering a sentient animal like that yields poor quality meat. Besides, just because the sow was moving doesn't mean it hadn't been stunned or was still sentient. There's such a thing as delayed nerve response.
Just wondering, any word on the investigations into these suspected abuses?

No, this is taken from the very first part of the undercover video -- the one you've never seen, remember? They were killing a sow, and could have chosen to use the stun gun (this took place at the farm, not in the slaughterhouse). Instead they just slit her throat.

No, because there isn't any evidence to suggest that present regulations are failing.

Omi-god, true believer syndrome. Earlier I went to the extent of manually typing in first hand accounts from one slaughterhouse. You said that of course accidents happen. You do realize that those accidents could be minimized if they weren't slaughtering 16,000 pigs a shift, right? But why should the for-profit system take into account the suffering of an animal? It's an externality not factored into the equation. To quote George Soros:

The fallacy of endowing the market mechanism with a moral quality goes deep.... What distinguishes markets is exactly that they are amoral—that is to say, moral considerations do not find expression in market prices.

You do realise that, um, for safety and insurance reasons people in general aren't permitted to sniff around any industrial workplace? For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people. Again, if undercover and investigative journalists have infiltrated the meat industry and uncovered evidence of "atrocities and abuse" then you should be able to provide a wealth of links detailing the deluge of official investigations and convictions that followed.

Are you kidding me? The factory farm mentioned earlier, according to the New York Times, has a 100 percent turnover rate. "Slaughtering swine," according to Charlie LeDuff, "is repetitive, brutish work.... Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, "they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'" The Times found that this company, Smithfield, "comb the streets of New York's immigrant communities... and word has reached mexico and beyond. The company even procures criminals. Several t the morning orientation were inmates on work release in green uniforms, bused in from the county prison."

Shane Costello

2nd June 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Cain:
Omi-god, true believer syndrome. Earlier I went to the extent of manually typing in first hand accounts from one slaughterhouse.

"First hand accounts" = "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof, reports from official investigations, statistics od court proceedings etc does. If you're willing to accept an anecdotal account from someone who may have worked in a slaughterhouse as proof enough then I suggest it is you suffering from true believer syndrome, not me.

You do realize that those accidents could be minimized if they weren't slaughtering 16,000 pigs a shift, right?

What evidence is there that accidents aren't currently at a minimal level?

But why should the for-profit system take into account the suffering of an animal? It's an externality not factored into the equation. To quote George Soros:

The fallacy of endowing the market mechanism with a moral quality goes deep.... What distinguishes markets is exactly that they are amoral—that is to say, moral considerations do not find expression in market prices.

You are continuing to ignore the thrust of my argument. I've argued that for narrow economic reasons the welfare of the animal is central to efficient meat production, and provided supporting evidence for this. For this reason alone "abuse and atrocities" of animals have no place in meat production. Don't mix up "amorality" with "immorality"

Are you kidding me? The factory farm mentioned earlier, according to the New York Times, has a 100 percent turnover rate. "Slaughtering swine," according to Charlie LeDuff, "is repetitive, brutish work.... Five thousand quit and five thousand are hired every year. You hear people say, "they don't kill pigs in the plant, they kill people.'" The Times found that this company, Smithfield, "comb the streets of New York's immigrant communities... and word has reached mexico and beyond. The company even procures criminals. Several t the morning orientation were inmates on work release in green uniforms, bused in from the county prison."

All factory work is repetitive, not just slaughtering animals. To call the work "brutish" is a subjective judgement. It's clinical, efficient and fast, and leaves no room for anyone to indulge their sadistic tendencies. The figure of a staff turnover of 5,000 means nothing on it's own. Is the work seasonal, as it is on most farms? If so then a highturnover is to be expected. How does this rate of turnover compare with other industries? The article mentions "people" claiming that the farms slaughters people, rather than animals? Who are these people, and did they even work on the farm, or are they just repeating anecdotal evidnec they heard? So what if they hire immigrant workers, or prisoners for that matter. Are they doing anything illegal here? If so then what action was taken against the company?

And why should I believe anything the New York Times prints? (www.mediaethics.ca/jayson_blair.html)

BillyTK

2nd June 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Did you say the cat brought in a joint?!?!!? How do you teach that trick!
Yup. A joint of ham--admittedly not much bigger than his little head, but big enough. We didn't actually teach him, in fact the problem was unteaching him so he'd stop pinching people's dinners! He's since returned to his usual prey of bugs, straws and paintbrushes.

Cain

2nd June 2003, 11:30 AM

"First hand accounts" = "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence doesn't meet the requisite standard of proof, reports from official investigations, statistics od court proceedings etc does. If you're willing to accept an anecdotal account from someone who may have worked in a slaughterhouse as proof enough then I suggest it is you suffering from true believer syndrome, not me.

It would be quite easy to systematically document evidence by placing cameras at important stages in the slaughtering process- but you're opposed to that of course. You do realize, um, these sort of "first hand accounts" are the impetus for such legislation, right?

From an article on PETA's site: According to the USDA, more than 100,000 cattle per year, mostly dairy cows, arrive at slaughterhouses unable to walk off the backs of the transport trucks. According to the National Pork Board, more than 400,000 pigs each year arrive for slaughter unable to walk off the trucks. More than 100,000 pigs arrive dead from the harsh traveling conditions.

But hey, those are probably the "minimal" numbers (which the afflicted animals must find very reassuring).

What evidence is there that accidents aren't currently at a minimal level?

What do you mean by "minimal level"? They could slow down the line, which increases the chances the animals are stunned. But why would a for-profit institution want to slow down the process of slaughter? To make sure the animals do not suffer? That's an externality not accounted for by the consumer (remember, market expressions do not arise).

You are continuing to ignore the thrust of my argument. I've argued that for narrow economic reasons the welfare of the animal is central to efficient meat production, and provided supporting evidence for this.

Yep, you put up two links. I'm impressed, no really. We all know, for example, that Colorado State's research would not be influenced by the Colorado Cattlemen Association: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/SoilCrop/extension/Soils/cnmp/partners.html

For this reason alone "abuse and atrocities" of animals have no place in meat production. Don't mix up "amorality" with "immorality"

Markets are amoral systems, but they're not completely inflexible. Again, we could say the same for the slave-owner trying to get ahead of his competition. He may not be too keen to the idea of buying people, but it's necessary to keep up (and relating to another point, we know that abuses and atrocities against slaves fully documented :rolleyes:)

If so then a highturnover is to be expected. How does this rate of turnover compare with other industries?

Compare with:

For safety reasons most industrial areas are tightly restricted in terms of movement of people.

And why should I believe anything the New York Times prints?

Wow, this is incredible. An almost impentrable shield of irrationality, one part market fundamentalism reinforced by severe moral retardation. I'm impressed. Unless you really find LeDuff's reporting to be sooo unbelievable, there's a presumption of honesty (until proven otherwise). Of course, you won't bother investigating (in keeping with general intellectual laziness). And even if his account is correct, so what, they're just animals.

Which leads me to note:

you didn't even pretend to offer a moral distinction between human and non-human animals this time. I found that to be, um, worth noting.

Shane Costello

3rd June 2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Caiun:
It would be quite easy to systematically document evidence by placing cameras at important stages in the slaughtering process- but you're opposed to that of course. You do realize, um, these sort of "first hand accounts" are the impetus for such legislation, right?

Evidence? Impetus for legislation comes from government and private sponsered studies and expert advice, not anecdotal evidence.

But hey, those are probably the "minimal" numbers (which the afflicted animals must find very reassuring).

Link?

What do you mean by "minimal level"? They could slow down the line, which increases the chances the animals are stunned. But why would a for-profit institution want to slow down the process of slaughter? To make sure the animals do not suffer? That's an externality not accounted for by the consumer (remember, market expressions do not arise

But the animals don't (in nearly all cases) suffer, there just isn't time. And you can slow the process down all you wan't but still couldn't guarantee it would be 100% foolproof.

Yep, you put up two links. I'm impressed, no really. We all know, for example, that Colorado State's research would not be influenced by the Colorado Cattlemen Association: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Soil...p/partners.html

The Colorado Cattlemen cannot influence or change scientific fact or the metabolic processes influencing meat quality. What they have is "a narrow economic interest in animal welfare".

Markets are amoral systems, but they're not completely inflexible. Again, we could say the same for the slave-owner trying to get ahead of his competition. He may not be too keen to the idea of buying people, but it's necessary to keep up (and relating to another point, we know that abuses and atrocities against slaves fully documented

What relevance has this got to meat?

Wow, this is incredible. An almost impentrable shield of irrationality, one part market fundamentalism reinforced by severe moral retardation. I'm impressed. Unless you really find LeDuff's reporting to be sooo unbelievable, there's a presumption of honesty (until proven otherwise). Of course, you won't bother investigating (in keeping with general intellectual laziness). And even if his account is correct, so what, they're just animals.

Inpenetrable shield of irrationality? Blow it out your rear orifice! What I'm doing is exercising critical thinking, and to an even greater degree than normal given the justified doubts about the NYT's editorial rigour. This involves no presumption of honesty or dishonesty, nor is there any obligation on my part to investigate your link to establish the evidence to support your claim. And you accuse me of intellectual laziness! :rolleyes:

Cain

3rd June 2003, 08:48 AM

Truly laughable. Especailly the last paragraph.

What I'm doing is exercising critical thinking, and to an even greater degree than normal given the justified doubts about the NYT's editorial rigour. This involves no presumption of honesty or dishonesty, nor is there any obligation on my part to investigate your link to establish the evidence to support your claim. And you accuse me of intellectual laziness!

So an investigative reporter summarizes his findings at slaughterhouse. How am I suppose to support those claims? You just close your eyes, plug your ears, chant "na na na na", and that's exercising critical thinking skills? Puh-lease.

You do realize that the under-cover video tape from China showing cats and dogs flayed alive is considered "anecdotal evidence," don't you? The process is also economically efficient.

Here's the link on a prior quote: http://www.goveg.com/ns-welfare.html

I'm still not sure why anyone would refuse to allow legislation that requires cameras inside slaughterhouses and factory farms because it would produce all the necessary information on the process.

Oh, but please, continue to rely on that flimsy a priori argument from economic reasoning. Persist in refusing to even acknowledge the moral distinctions. Continue to rely on the one link you provided (which I doubt you even bothered to read). And finally,never forget to ask fatuous questions, such as "What relevance has this got to meat?" Ignoring context and speaking in non-sequiturs -- it works!

All good fun.

Shane Costello

4th June 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Cain;
So an investigative reporter summarizes his findings at slaughterhouse. How am I suppose to support those claims? You just close your eyes, plug your ears, chant "na na na na", and that's exercising critical thinking skills? Puh-lease.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing to suggest that these are "his findings". Indeed his use of the phrase "people say" along with the serious questions now being posed about NYT editorial policy lead me to question the accuracy of his reporting without further corroborating evidence.

You do realize that the under-cover video tape from China showing cats and dogs flayed alive is considered "anecdotal evidence," don't you? The process is also economically efficient.

Yes it is anecdotal evidence, and what leads you to conclude the process is economically efficient?

I'm still not sure why anyone would refuse to allow legislation that requires cameras inside slaughterhouses and factory farms because it would produce all the necessary information on the process.

Because it adds costs and there's nothing to suggest the present system of regulation and inspection is failing.

Oh, but please, continue to rely on that flimsy a priori argument from economic reasoning.

I'm relying on scientifically established fact.

Persist in refusing to even acknowledge the moral distinctions.

Where? In fact I've pointed out the serious moral distinction between slavery and meat.

Continue to rely on the one link you provided (which I doubt you even bothered to read).

Hubris.

Here's the link on a prior quote: http://www.goveg.com/ns-welfare.html

Let's take a look then.

The fourth reason for adopting a vegan diet is a recognition that eating animal products supports cruelty to animals.

Good thing production of animal products doesn't involve cruelty to animals.

We share the planet with an array of amazing beings, and if we would prefer not to contribute to their extreme suffering, we should not eat them.

But then as Victor pointed out production of non-animal derived foods also involves cruelty to animals. Best not to eat anything, so.

Twenty years ago, scientists, the ones who were telling us we could smoke low tar cigarettes, were still telling us that other animals don’t feel pain in the same way that humans do. Now, no reputable scientist believes that. Everyone now understands that cattle, pigs, chickens, fish—all farmed animals—feel not only pain but joy, sorrow, fear, distress, and an array of other emotions as well, just as we do. They share these and other capacities with us.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the refeence to the study that established this, and whaddya now, they don't give any.

As just a few examples, among many: Scientists at the University of Guelph have learned that pigs and chickens will choose to turn on the heat in a cold barn if given the chance and to turn it off again when they are too warm, and University of Bristol researchers have observed that chickens will complete a difficult maze to reach a nest instead of laying their eggs on the barn floor. Perhaps you read the recent New York Times article about the ability of sheep to recognize the faces of 50 or more other sheep or humans from photographs, even if they haven’t seen the other sheep or humans in two years? In Pennsylvania, a farm welfare researcher has shown that sows like to play video games, and that they play the games better than some primates. And a researcher in Saskatchewan is studying the complex social lives of cattle, finding that they interact in ways very similar to the ways we interact. These scientists join sanctuary owners and many small farmers in recognizing that animals are individuals, with feelings just like our own.

Ditto. At this stage I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of this.

Cain

4th June 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
There's nothing to suggest that these are "his findings". Indeed his use of the phrase "people say" along with the serious questions now being posed about NYT editorial policy lead me to question the accuracy of his reporting without further corroborating evidence.

Yes, that's very rational of you :rolleyes: That whole "people say" line -- what was he thinking? So what if I present the undercover work of Joby Warrick of the _Washington Post_? Larry Gallagher?

Yes it is anecdotal evidence, and what leads you to conclude the process is economically efficient?

The suffering of animals is an externality not factored into market pricing. Why should they bother properly sedating the animals?

Here's yet another example: Quote from "Lancaster Farming" (October 27, 1990)-- "Death losses during transport are too high-- amounting to more than $8 million per year. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out why we load as many hogs on a truck as we do. It's cheaper... Even with a zero death rate that might be associated with providing more space on the truck, the hogs we save would not be enough to pay for the increased transportation costs of hauling fewer hogs on a load."

Where? In fact I've pointed out the serious moral distinction between slavery and meat.

What? Where? And we're not pointing out moral distinctions between "meat" and slavery. We're pointing out moral distinctions between humans and non-human animals. It's not difficult to distinguish between a corpse and a cat.

Good thing production of animal products doesn't involve cruelty to animals.

Calves confined to a 2x5 crate and given a pure liquid diet? Slaughtered within a couple months time? Or we can just quote Mr. Warrick (that is, if the Post is respectable paper) at a plant and quotes a worker who says "the line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive."

Earlier I cited the 16,000 pigs slaughtered on a shift, and the workers who say many go unstunned.

To this you asked, fatuously, if that was the "minimal number". No, it's not the minimal number. The minimal number could be zero if we stopped consuming pigs altogether. It makes zero economic sense to the stop the line to prevent one from suffering. Or to slow down the line to reduce the incidence of one going by without being properly stunned.

But then as Victor pointed out production of non-animal derived foods also involves cruelty to animals. Best not to eat anything, so.

I've addressed this canard no fewer than three times.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the refeence to the study that established this, and whaddya now, they don't give any.

Yeah-- they're made up. The studies don't exist. :rolleyes: Content yourself with the blue pill. Although, if you were genuinely interested, I'm sure it wouldn't take much time to find that articles on the Internet, or to e-mail the author. No, better to assume that anything that could possibly contradict your view is just wrong. If a source is given, commit the genetic fallacy. No matter how many do suffer in the slaughterhouse or transport, invoke the "minimal number" non-reply. Cry "subjectivity" at descriptions of the plant. Summon misguided economic arguments, long disproven since the days of child labor and slavery (owners have an economic interest in maintain their health standards, right?). Discount any and all investigative reporting as "anecdotal" (are there any scientific studies documenting the abuses in Saddam's regime? Nah, they're based on subjective accounts, and not too rigorously documented. And if the New York Times reports it, well, then it didn't happen). :rolleyes:

voidx

8th June 2003, 04:41 PM

Reading these debates is like watching an ping-pong match in the dark. Their all over the goddamned place.

Reel your scope down to one area. We start discussing American standards and then, wheeeee, we're off to China talking about the flaying of cats and dogs. Realized their not in the same country, with the same standards, and that also our lack of eating meat here, does not mean any change in conditions over there. And enough with the damned slavery. You can try and argue it all you like, and hey, maybe deep down there you can find something, but let's realize that we have 2 arguements going here. One is the intellectual level at which animals feel emotions if at all, and whether they should be recognized for that (realize that if you're arguing this line in this thread it must pertain strictly to livestock animals, whales and dolphins and the like are out), also realize that even if they are shown to have said emotions, it doesn't across the board mean we should discontinue their consumption as a food source IMO. Two is the arguement over what constitutes cruelty to animals and over whether standards properly reduce cruelty levels or not in factory farms.

Here's another issue. Ok fine, you're against eating animals, you've stated many cases of abuse. I have wanted to get a large scale picture of how pervasive this is in the industry and I sympathize. It wouldn't be easy, and I've gone looking myself to large extent to find surveys and articles painting the current condition of the livestock industry. Now realize that arguing to discontinue the consumption of meat is a) impractical, b) economical risky and unlikely (due to the switch over that would have to occur), and c) pushes your lifestyle choices onto me who enjoys the taste of meat. What I'm getting at, and this follows for both sides certainly, but decide what you're arguing about, and stick to it. If we're discussing North American issues of livestock quality, then leave China out of it. I'm not dismissing China, but you can't use it to argue against North American practices, their different for one, and we have less control over what we can make China do compared to here. If its the cruelty to livestock animals within the process of factory farms then I agree that more observation of these process' would be a good thing, if we're doing nothing wrong, we have nothing to hide. But acknowledge why perhaps the meat industry might be against it. Financial conisderations for one. And also, the weak stomach of the general public for even normal least-cruel, ethical slaughter practices they no longer, or have never had to see before in their cushy lives. A well run factory farm which takes best care of the livestock it has while being profitable and adhering to all the proper standards, might still look like a house of horrors to some suburban mom who has never had to comprehend or see where her chicken and beef comes from. Remember that their often multiple results for any action taken, and you must consider them all before running off and suggesting said action.

Now I agree, there have been cases of animal cruelty, and the definition of just what should be considered humane enough conditions for livestock varies depending on how you talk too. I think so long as the animals are kept healthy, and slaughtered humanely (and admit, Shane is right here, no process will ever be 100% failproof all the time), then they don't necessarily need to run around in an open field all day and what have you. That is my opinion of course. I agree that this should be looked at more, that a closer eye should be paid to ensure standards are providing the best environment for the livestock as they are grown, and then processed. I've found evidence on the US Humane Society that level-head people are fighting this fight. For example looking at redefining forced molting procedures as it is potentially stressful to poultry, and also causes more health concerns into the processed meat. This is a practical solution, and I would like to see more work done like this with good science to back it up. The problem I'm having in all the reading I've been doing on PETA even on the USHS, is that they all have an under-current of pushing a vegetarian diet, or promoting the use of local, range fed livestock, which hasn't been shown in my reading so far that it could meet current meat production needs, so it may or may not be a proper alternative. Many of these sites just plain call for the end of consuming livestock meat period. IMO this is not only a naive idea, but economically unfeasiable currently, impractical at best, calls for switching to a food supply which might not be prepared for the sudden increased demand due to fall off of meat consumption, and just isn't going to happen because of people like me who enjoy eating meat. Argue for better standards, yes, I agree whole-heartedly, but don't go preaching to give up meat, its pushing your lifestyle on someone else, and it's just not going to happen anytime soon.

Cain

8th June 2003, 06:34 PM

Re: We're discussing America, not China; find an argument and stick to it.

Topics and subtopics tend to splinter in a thread containing over 100 posts. China's behavior toward animals arose in at least three separate contexts (1: an example of feeding the world's population; 2: anecdotal evidence 3: economic incentives). The last two only mattered for purposes with SC. The last point is the most important, made using different examples, because it captures a fundamental difficulty in process versus product in the market system. As a rationally self-interested (i.e. self-maximizer) actor in the free-market, it makes no sense to consider the circumstances, or process, by which my food (or anything else) is delivered to the market. There might be cruelty involved, it might be slave labor, it might be ecologically unsound, doesn't matter.

Suppose products A and B are identical in all regards except two: 1) A is cheaper 2) A was made using forced labor.

Markets compel us to choose A over B and never really ask questions. The suffering of animals is an externality not captured in price (George Soros documents the general fallacy).

Re: two separate arguments:
One is the intellectual level at which animals feel emotions if at all, and whether they should be recognized for that (realize that if you're arguing this line in this thread it must pertain strictly to livestock animals, whales and dolphins and the like are out), also realize that even if they are shown to have said emotions, it doesn't across the board mean we should discontinue their consumption as a food source IMO. Two is the arguement over what constitutes cruelty to animals and over whether standards properly reduce cruelty levels or not in factory farms.

To the first part I'd ask a very simple question: what characteristics do non-human animals lack that allow us to endlessly consume them? Even though most people in first world countries eat animals, they still oppose needless suffering. Unfortunately, the connection between consumption and needless suffering has not been made. This reminds me of the pro-life activists who permit abortions in the case of rape and incest, as if to say these future people will lack a "soul". I've defined cruelty as "unnecessary suffering," so the second part of this question builds slightly on the first. And, as mentioned on at least the second thread, "atrocity" or "abuse" to describe either human or non-human animals is loaded because it assumes their moral significance. If a person thinks of animals no differently than rocks, then there's not much to discuss about practices on factory farms (or hunting, or the psychotic young boys who torture their pets).

Now realize that arguing to discontinue the consumption of meat is a) impractical, b) economical risky and unlikely (due to the switch over that would have to occur), and c) pushes your lifestyle choices onto me who enjoys the taste of meat.

I hardly believe that one day a vegan dictator will come to power and prohibit the use of all animals for dietary consumption. The idea that we might wake up one morning and see a headline in the paper that says, "Animals have rights! Meat banned" is unlikely. So, yes, it would be impractical to suddenly discontinue the consumption of meat, but that defies the slow, incremental process and history of all liberation movements. The last point has always annoyed me -- you're enforcing your beliefs on me. No, if animals are morally significant creatures, then you're taking actions against them, and I'm merely preventing abuse and protecting rights. We could apply the same argument to the abortion debate. A pro-choice person who says that pro-lifers enforce their beliefs on her is quite right in one sense, but only granting certain assumptions. If the pro-life case is correct, that the fetus possesses some kind of immaterial soul that we should observe, then it's silly to argue that she's "being forced" to do something. A morally significant being -- the human inside her -- has had his rights trampled.

A well run factory farm which takes best care of the livestock it has while being profitable and adhering to all the proper standards, might still look like a house of horrors to some suburban mom who has never had to comprehend or see where her chicken and beef comes from. Remember that their often multiple results for any action taken, and you must consider them all before running off and suggesting said action.

I'm not sure why anyone would have problems with this -- that is, a more informed consumer. The _NYT_ reported the recent case about salmon grown on factory farms.

Eighty percent of the salmon sold in the United States were raised on farms.

While all salmon in the store may look similar, the Department of Agriculture says farmed salmon contains almost twice the total fat, more than twice the saturated fat and fewer beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than wild salmon.

Last month, consumers learned about another difference, when the class-action lawsuit in Washington called attention to the little-known fact that farmed salmon are not naturally salmon pink or red, and that if they were not fed artificial colors they would range from gray or khaki to pale yellow or pale pink. Wild salmon turn pink from the krill and shrimp they eat. (Farmed salmon eat a fishmeal diet.)

I'm sure someone could say, "Oh, well you never had a problem before! This is just an irrational knee-jerk reaction." I think that's a case of market paternalism, ironically enough. Just keep eating; what you don't know won't hurt you. Again, moral considerations are absent.

Re: PETA's vegetarian agenda

I've never really liked PETA, and I'm not a member. But after seeing how they get under people's skin, I might just join.

Here are PETA's draconian demands for KFC:

• Replace electrical stunning and throat slicing with gas killing. Experts agree that gas killing causes less suffering for birds than KFC's present method of snapping chickens into metal shackles and slicing their throats open, often while they are still conscious.

• Install cameras in slaughterhouses to enforce humane standards. Cameras should be installed at key points for animal handling, including unloading areas, the point of entry into the "stun" bath, the point of entry into the scalding tank and places where chickens have their throats slit.

• Switch to humane mechanized chicken gathering. Studies have shown that when using manual methods, there are four times as many broken legs, more than eight times as much bruising and increased stress.

• Use genetic selection for leaner and less agressive birds. Breed leaner, healthier birds instead of breeding the biggest, fattest birds possible.

• Stop forcing rapid growth and using drugs for non-therapeutic purpose. This results in more metabolic disorders, painful chronic lameness and an increased mortality rate.

• Give chickens broiler and breeding chickens more living space. Presently, bird fatality and injury rates are enormous, based in part on the fact that the birds simply do not have enough space to survive. Experts agree that increased living space would decrease these problems.

• Include sheltered areas and perches in chicken houses. This would enhance the birds' living space, reducing their stress and aggression, and allow them to engage in some of their natural behaviors.

• Allow birds the opportunity to fulfill their natural desire for activity. For example, provide the birds with whole green cabbages suspended in the air to peck at and eat. The cabbages stimulate healthy activity, dispel boredom, strengthen leg muscles, and provide nutrients without adding to the weight problems of these birds. Providing bales of hay for the birds to peck at and climb would give similar results.

http://www.kfccruelty.com/animals.html The five subsections go into greater detail.

voidx

10th June 2003, 12:30 PM

Ahh there is some hope for PETA yet...sort of:

http://www.kfccruelty.com/cemsgestationreport.html

This is from Cain's link and I find it to be well documented and full of logical suggestions for in this case pig gestation stalls. But guess what. If I had not been actively looking through and examining Cain's link because of this thread I'd never have gotten far enough into this site to read the article. Why? Because its plastered with cartoons of Colonel sanders holding up and knifing plucked chickens, blood all over the place, and oh..."Hey kids, sign up to be a Veggie today! GoVeg.com!!!". This really has been the gyst of my arguement, and why I think the holocaust comparison is not only in bad taste, but just plain ineffective. Having a website called KFCCruelty in the first place will not attract people trying to objectively find out more about livestock welfare. Just as comparing factory chicken conditions to the holocaust is also ineffective. Yah it has shock value, and it gets peoples attention, but guess what, they dismiss it as just that, shock value media. The only people that follow through and find out more and read are the people that were already looking in the first place.

They also show pics such as this (graphic):
http://www.kfccruelty.com/images/h8.jpg
But don't directly state what it is we're seeing. They alude in other parts of the site that chickens don't get stunned well enough in the stunbaths, and then their throats are cut, and they are sometimes still dying when boiled (which removes the feathers). However this picture doesn't necessarily show any of that. I watched some of their videos, and on this point in particular, even their video's are inconclusive. Sure that pic looks horrible to you and I, but its probably somewhat typical of all slaughter scenes. Don't forget that the blood has to be drained or it can damage the meat. Lots of places site examples of cows and pigs strung up, blood running from slit throats. Well that's a normal part of the process of draining the animal of blood. Now if its still alive when they do this, ok you have an arguement there, but I'm not seeing solid evidence of that being the norm. Again I agree standards need to be looked at, and this article on the PETA sight was actually well researched. Its just a shame that their Vegetarian diet and shockvalue agenda's get in the way.

Markets compel us to choose A over B and never really ask questions. The suffering of animals is an externality not captured in price (George Soros documents the general fallacy).
Stated many times and fine, seems logical. What can we do about it? Go Vegan? Consumers do have a choice, and its clear their starting to on some levels to exercise that use of choice to demand there be as little suffering of livestock animals as possible. Their suffering (which appears to be defined differently by everyone) may not be captured in price, but its starting to be captured in consumer awareness.

what characteristics do non-human animals lack that allow us to endlessly consume them?
Pardon my french, but who cares? They taste good and we can. "What right do we have to consume them" again is a different arguement to me. I see how one somewhat leads into the other, but only slightly. We do consume them, fact, so given that what standards are needed to provide them the healthiest, least cruel, type conditions?

If a person thinks of animals no differently than rocks, then there's not much to discuss about practices on factory farms
You always make it out to be black or white. If you think of livestock as no more than rocks, etc. So if I don't believe in their morale significance, or at least in that its on a level equal with humans, which I don't, I just think of animals as rocks? I think of them as animals, livestock, that feel stress' and physical pain, and can suffer behaviourial problems, which should be addressed as it affects their health as a food supply, and would be less cruel. My reading has started to convince me of that fact. I don't believe their on the same mental or morale capacity as humans, and there are many of this board that know far more on both sides of this arguement than me. But again, that's still pointless. We still consume them, so at the end of the day defining non-human charateristics and morale significance doesn't change that, or the fact that the consumption causes problems for the health of the animals based upon factory farming process' and demand, if we're to believe PETA and other sites. So I say deal with the problem at hand.

So, yes, it would be impractical to suddenly discontinue the consumption of meat, but that defies the slow, incremental process and history of all liberation movements.
Agreed, which is why I find it annoying that PETA gets the attention it does because it first and foremost in peoples mind pushes this message of discontinued consumption of meat. Once again I'm not particularly against the movement, but I think its shooting itself in the foot, especially with ad campaigns like this one.

The last point has always annoyed me -- you're enforcing your beliefs on me.
Good, you have a point there. And now you must get an idea how any normal person who enjoys consuming meat must feel when trying to read through many of these animal/livestock liberation sites. Give up your habit of meat, its you're fault this abuse continues, go vegan, and oh in small print at the bottom, here's links to actual level headed studies done on the subject. Its damned annoying.

No, if animals are morally significant creatures, then you're taking actions against them, and I'm merely preventing abuse and protecting rights.
If they are. In the meantime its ok to try and guilt me on my eating habits, while keeping the high ground yourself. Not a good way to convince most people of anything.

I've never really liked PETA, and I'm not a member. But after seeing how they get under people's skin, I might just join.
I will give PETA credit for one thing. They seem to say thev've had no luck getting regulations passed on a whole on the factory farm level. So instead they've switched their campaigns to the companies relying on those factory farms. MacDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's. And used their tactics on them instead, trying to get them to force their suppliers to adhere to stricter standards. And its worked in a few cases. Too bad nobody knows about it because you'd have to go to one of the following sites to find the press releases:
http://www.kfccruelty.com
http://www.mccruelty.com
http://www.murderking.com
http://www.wickedwendys.com
Go check out the look of these sites and tell me if you'd take them seriously enough to actually get far enough to read an objective article.

Cain

11th June 2003, 03:13 AM

Voidx-

If this comes down to PETA's tactics, then fine, I agree. My very first post said something about "political miscalculation."

As for disturbing videos, images etc., people can do their own research and make up their minds. Frankly, it's never interested me, and played no role in my initial move toward vegetarianism. My nearly non-existent activism for animal rights has been confined to isolated private discussions and Internet forums.

Pardon my french, but who cares? They taste good and we can. "What right do we have to consume them" again is a different arguement to me. I see how one somewhat leads into the other, but only slightly. We do consume them, fact, so given that what standards are needed to provide them the healthiest, least cruel, type conditions?

A normative conclusion does not follow from a historical fact. Substitute "animals" with "people" and it leads to an unacceptable moral conclusion. The "least cruel" conditions, if we're serious, would be to swear off consuming animals altogether.

You always make it out to be black or white. If you think of livestock as no more than rocks, etc. So if I don't believe in their morale significance, or at least in that its on a level equal with humans, which I don't, I just think of animals as rocks? I think of them as animals, livestock, that feel stress' and physical pain, and can suffer behaviourial problems, which should be addressed as it affects their health as a food supply, and would be less cruel.

First, I feel you misrepresented my position. I said, "If you think..." Second, as I've stated nearly a dozen times, MOST people clearly do not feel that way, and believe in laws against animal cruelty. Not everyone, however, says cruelty is wrong because of the pain and suffering inflicted against the animals themselves. Kant, for example, believed that it bludgeoned our moral senses and could culminate in violence against fellow humans. Finally, I've defined cruelty (take issue with this definition if you wish) as *unnecessary* pain and suffering. We simply do not need to consume them any longer. If someone considers them morally significant, as I believe anyone who takes into account their pain and suffering does, then we need to weigh our interests against their's. A (psychotic) young boy might become over-joyed at the chance to dismember a cat, but we as a society rightfully condemn such sadism. It lacks a good reason. Suppose instead the boy forcibly restrains the cat and slits her throat so that later he can enjoy a nice meal. Well, we say, that caused unnecessary pain and distress. Okay suppose instead another child humanely kills a cat while she's sleeping and wants to cook it for lunch. Do his interests in a good meal now outweigh the cat's regard for its one and only life?

voidx

11th June 2003, 04:43 PM

Substitute "animals" with "people" and it leads to an unacceptable moral conclusion.
But we're not eating "people", we're eating "animals". What makes it possible for you to substitute?

The "least cruel" conditions, if we're serious, would be to swear off consuming animals altogether.
I disagree. Say we give them as natural and healthy an environment as possible. They are killed as humanely and painlessly as possible. Then we consume them. Would you consider that process cruel? Would it be more cruel than dying of natural causes? If not, then to me arguing for better standards for livestock could potentially meet your "least cruel" conditions. I just don't buy into the fact that any form of animal consumption and the process' involved is by default more cruel than a wild existence.

First, I feel you misrepresented my position.
Fair enough, but I felt my own was being mis-represented a tad also.

Finally, I've defined cruelty (take issue with this definition if you wish) as *unnecessary* pain and suffering. We simply do not need to consume them any longer.
So if we can find a farming method that removes any unnessary pain and suffering in the process, then there's no harm in people consuming them that wish to do so is there. If the animal lives a healthy life, and then is killed humanely and painlessly and then processed for meat, I don't see the problem.

Also enough with the child references. As far as I know there are no chicken factory farms employing children to run around and slit chicken throats, IMO that's playing to peoples emotions. Also so is using cats. Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows. I see the point you're making, that we can choose other alternative ways to eat, that a cat/cow/chicken, doesn't have to lose its life to satisfy our desire for a tasty and nutrious meal. Its only because of our own intellectual capacity that its potential morale agency comes into play at all, so I guess you have two choices. Decide that it does have said agency and decide not to eat it. Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals, just like all other omnivore's on the planet and eat it. As long as standards are in place to ensure that processing and rearing is healthy and humane, I see no problems with that.

BillyTK

12th June 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by voidx
Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals,
You appear to contradicting yourself here; as you've noted, we don't eat dogs and cats as a matter of learned behaviour, therefore the animals we do eat is a matter of learned behaviour, not instinct. Learned behaviour can impact on instinctive behaviour, but it can't stop it.

For instance, my cats hunt because it's instinctive behaviour, even though I feed them on a regular basis and they've learnt to expect food at particular times of the day. On the otherhand, I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice, but I don't feel compelled by innate forces to hunt down any animal I see.

voidx

12th June 2003, 09:38 AM

Well I don't see how that is exactly contradicting myself. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

For instance, my cats hunt because it's instinctive behaviour, even though I feed them on a regular basis and they've learnt to expect food at particular times of the day. On the otherhand, I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice, but I don't feel compelled by innate forces to hunt down any animal I see.
The main reason is probably because of our intellectual capacity, we realize that if we are getting enough food to eat, we don't have to go hunting. You're cat doesn't comprehend this. I was trying to be a bit light hearted by showing you can either choose to see animals as having morale agency, or you can be the other extreme of man scrounging around being his true omnivore self. Suppose I should have known better :rolleyes: . But you also kind of backup my other point that switching the scenario to children and cats is just playing to, North American peoples at least, emotions, because of our learned behaviour as keeping cats as pets.

I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice
Which is a choice I'll respect, but if livestock conditions are healthy and humane, then there should be no issue with people respecting my personal choice to continue consuming meat.

Cain

12th June 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by voidx

But we're not eating "people", we're eating "animals". What makes it possible for you to substitute?

This goes back to the fundamental moral difference. I want to know precisely what makes us "people" and makes them "animals."

I've emphasized many times that species is just an arbitrary moral distinction. We can easily imagine aliens from a distant planet just as intelligent as us, but non-human. What *characteristics* are morally significant?

I disagree. Say we give them as natural and healthy an environment as possible. They are killed as humanely and painlessly as possible. Then we consume them. Would you consider that process cruel?

Of course.

Would it be more cruel than dying of natural causes?

It certainly could be (and most instances probably would be), but I have to caution that these comparisons are not very meaningful. Supposing pig X was NOT raised for human consumption, there's no reason to think that animal (or a replacement) would exist out in the wild.

Dr. Strangelove cannot capture me, imprison me in a ten by ten cell, feed me three nutritious meals a day and then say a lot of people have it much worse. That's indisputably true, but also beside the point.

So if we can find a farming method that removes any unnessary pain and suffering in the process, then there's no harm in people consuming them that wish to do so is there. If the animal lives a healthy life, and then is killed humanely and painlessly and then processed for meat, I don't see the problem.

This would be a vast (and commendable) improvement on current conditions, but in my opinion, it still misses the point. And I said this earlier: if the animals enjoy such a wonderful existence, why would you want to kill them? *Their interests matter*. The pig's interest in here one and only life probably outweighs the meals you can make out of here. There's nothing wrong with eating meat in itself. If a car hits a family dog, for example, and the father's heard dog meat tastes delicious, they could chop up rover and eat him without any moral qualms (though most people react negatively to such scenarios).

Also enough with the child references. As far as I know there are no chicken factory farms employing children to run around and slit chicken throats, IMO that's playing to peoples emotions. Also so is using cats. Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture.

I don't see how these are appeals to emotion. So I'm using a cat instead of a cow. What's the difference other than an irrational cultural bias? I'm speaking in the context of morality. Unless you subscribe to some kind of relativism, the example shouldn't bother you.

I used a child as the torturer because some people insist that cruelty to animals could lead to cruelty against humans (most serial murderers first experimented on animals). But that's not the best reason to have anti-cruelty laws. The best reason is for the immediate interests of the animals.

so I guess you have two choices. Decide that it does have said agency and decide not to eat it. Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals, just like all other omnivore's on the planet and eat it.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean about agency in the first part. Do I have to believe that non-human animals have moral agency? Earlier I distinguished between moral patients and moral agents (though that distinction is open to dispute if you wish).

As for the second part, why don't you come to grips with your evolutionary past and give up clothes? Why don't we go commit genocide? Or maybe I should spread my genes by raping a nubile co-ed? So what if I'm an omnivore. I'm also suspectible to violence and jealousy. That doesn't make it right.

voidx

12th June 2003, 10:34 PM

This goes back to the fundamental moral difference. I want to know precisely what makes us "people" and makes them "animals."
And at this point no one seems to agree one way or the other, so wouldn't you find it a tad off-base to be calling me to task for eating meat at this point?

I've emphasized many times that species is just an arbitrary moral distinction. We can easily imagine aliens from a distant planet just as intelligent as us, but non-human. What *characteristics* are morally significant?
Not a good comparison. "aliens...just as intelligent as us". Do you then believe animals to be just as intelligent as us? If you don't, which is where I stand, then its not valid.

Supposing pig X was NOT raised for human consumption, there's no reason to think that animal (or a replacement) would exist out in the wild.
No need to suppose. If we quit eating meat and livestock where would it go? Probably, into the wild. And what would happen to it? It would be preyed upon. Would its death as being preyed upon be any better than the quick humane death I described in the post above? I can't see how, at the very least they'd be equal. Now yes I understand we can get into the whole, well cattle wouldn't exist as they do if not for domestication by man, and their our responsibility. But since we can't go back and change the past, it doesn't really matter, so we might as well just deal with the issue at hand. Now by continuing to consume meat do we not perpetuate their existence in a fashion, and well yes we do, but IMO since we've been doing it for centuries anyway, I don't see a problem to continue doing it to support a demand for meat as long as the conditions are humane.

The pig's interest in here one and only life probably outweighs the meals you can make out of here.
Any proof out there that Pigs have "interests"? Or do they rather just have survival instincts? Yes they are different IMO. So that statement should really be, Does the pigs survival instinct outweigh my desire to consume it for meat? A matter of perspective, not morales, IMO.

So I'm using a cat instead of a cow. What's the difference other than an irrational cultural bias? I'm speaking in the context of morality.
The difference is there is no reason to substitute the cow for the cat since we're talking about livestock here. The only reason to do so is to boost its context of morality, which it does, because we all love our kittens and cats. And the last time I checked we're not growing them in North America for meat so its a tad off-base.

I used a child as the torturer because some people insist that cruelty to animals could lead to cruelty against humans
Which would happen regardless of our consumption of meat. The only thing the factory farm would provide would perhaps be the opportunity or outlet for a person who already has problems. But if they didn't exist(factory farms), they'd simply find another outlet. This is a seperate issue IMO.

As for the second part, why don't you come to grips with your evolutionary past and give up clothes? Why don't we go commit genocide? Or maybe I should spread my genes by raping a nubile co-ed? So what if I'm an omnivore. I'm also suspectible to violence and jealousy. That doesn't make it right.
As I explained in my last post I was trying to be a tad humourous and paint the decision as either being someone all warm and fuzzy about animal emotions and not eating meat, and the opposite of a person base and savage and just giving in to his Omnivorious desires. I regret ever putting it that way. However, I am an Omnivore and if I should choose to consume livestock meat, then its my choice to do so, just as its yours not too. The fact that I have the intellect to comprehend and ponder the morale significance, if any, of what I'm doing, IMO shouldn't negate me from doing what every other omnivore on the planet has the choice to do, eat meat. The last time I checked no one was trying to convince me to give up my clothes, or to go commit genoside, or to go rape nubile co-eds, so lets dispense with the silliness. The fact that I already eat meat, and that realizing I'm an omnivorious animal at some base level and that is something I can do and that I personally am ok with that, is not going to suddenly send me off on some naked, genocidal, co-ed raping bender :rolleyes: .

BillyTK

13th June 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by voidx
Well I don't see how that is exactly contradicting myself. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.
First you said, " Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows." which is an example of learnt behaviour; then you said, "Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals," which is where the contradiction comes in; either we eat meat as a matter of base animal instinct or we eat meat a matter of learnt behaviour (which is why we eat some animals but not others), but it can't be both; learnt behaviour can never overcome instinct. So it's one or the other, and the learnt behaviour theory is the stronger argument, because it's supported by the norms we have about which animals should be eaten, and because these norms change from location to location and across time.

The main reason is probably because of our intellectual capacity, we realize that if we are getting enough food to eat, we don't have to go hunting. You're cat doesn't comprehend this.
The reason why my cat hunts is because the learnt behaviour (of being provided with food at specific periods of the day) cannot overcome the instinct to hunt.

I was trying to be a bit light hearted by showing you can either choose to see animals as having morale agency, or you can be the other extreme of man scrounging around being his true omnivore self. Suppose I should have known better :rolleyes: .
Well, hopefully! ;) :) It's this "true self" business. I'd put the success of the human race down to its capacity for adaptability, not by conforming to some "true self" or following base animal instincts.

But you also kind of backup my other point that switching the scenario to children and cats is just playing to, North American peoples at least, emotions, because of our learned behaviour as keeping cats as pets.
Well yes, it's certainly a provocative device, but that's the point of using it. And here you back up my point about learnt behaviour vs instinct; if eating meat was instinctive, we wouldn't make that distinction between animals we don't eat and animals we do. Mind you, if our behaviour was so instinctive, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, and some other species would probably be having a conversation about what to do with those damn pesky apes ;)

Which is a choice I'll respect, but if livestock conditions are healthy and humane, then there should be no issue with people respecting my personal choice to continue consuming meat.
Well, my point was I don't eat meat as a matter of choice, which I couldn't do if meat-eating was instinctive. But consider, unless you raise the animals you intend to eat yourself, and slaughter them yourself, how can you be sure that their conditions are as healthy and humane as you would hope for?

voidx

13th June 2003, 09:46 AM

I see what you're getting at with the learned behaviour versus instinct bit and I'll concede, it makes sense. You're still quoting me out of context in my opinion.

First you said, " Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows."
Which I said in relation to Cain making her Children torturing Cats example.

then you said, "Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals,"
Which was said in relation to my attempt to draw a picture of extremes, from one person not ever wanting to harm animals because of their "emotions" and "interests", to someone justifying their eating of meat as a base omnivorious instinct. Note however that in this last statement I never implied what animals we were consuming, just animals period, so the learned behaviour doesn't come into play IMO.

The reason why my cat hunts is because the learnt behaviour (of being provided with food at specific periods of the day) cannot overcome the instinct to hunt.
Good point.

I'd put the success of the human race down to its capacity for adaptability, not by conforming to some "true self" or following base animal instincts.
Agreed, but I don't think it changes the fact that we have residual base animal instincts. We just have the mental capacity and adaptability to control them.

Well yes, it's certainly a provocative device, but that's the point of using it. And here you back up my point about learnt behaviour vs instinct; if eating meat was instinctive, we wouldn't make that distinction between animals we don't eat and animals we do. Mind you, if our behaviour was so instinctive, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, and some other species would probably be having a conversation about what to do with those damn pesky apes
Its a misleading device IMO. If you can show me how there is any real logical connection between an adult worker in a factory farm processing and slaughtering livestock, and a child torturing cats, I'd be happy to hear it. The only one I can think of is to tug at you're mentioned learned behaviour of our society hating to see anything bad happen to a cat, which we keep as pets, doesn't make it a relevant example IMO.

About making the distinction, some human populations still don't. Many aboriginal cultures make a distinction between what animals they eat, and which they don't, but its based upon availability and ease of procurement. If cats where an easy source of meat and protein in an aboriginal area, more so than any other animal, they wouldn't hesitate to eat it. Its only us in our furthered culture and philosophical sensabilities that spend time pondering it.

Well, my point was I don't eat meat as a matter of choice, which I couldn't do if meat-eating was instinctive.
I see how this works in all other animal species. But IMO humans mental capacity certainly does give us the ability to make choices contrary to our base instincts. I think that is one from of adaption that allowed us to progress and thrive.

But consider, unless you raise the animals you intend to eat yourself, and slaughter them yourself, how can you be sure that their conditions are as healthy and humane as you would hope for?
All I can do is be educated about it myself and try to support better standards in the industry. I don't understand this arguement. In every facet of modern life we consume products and services that we do not control or produce on our own. We have standards to try and provide we get the best quality from these goods as we can. Its not perfect, but it works for the most part. If we don't put at least some faith in standards for industries and through inspections and other things constantly update and make sure their being met as much as possible, then why have standards at all? Its a necessary part of living in a society where the majority of the population isn't involved in food production. You could go on all day about growing your own vegetables and livestock and procuring your own materials for clothe for your own clothes and what have you to make sure all conditions are healthy and meet our standards, but its not reasonable whatsoever, nor efficient in any manner either, so its kind of a moot point.