Animal life vs Human life

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Please justify the use of the words "can't" and "have". Why must we do or not do these things?

In this context, I mean that we should preserve the distinction between ethics and anthropology. One is policy, the other science.

[mylfmyhnr]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

What is it in meat that is so special? Proteins? Those can also be found in legumes

most of which are poisonious to humans in an unaltered state (ie, cooked)

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

and you can't tell me that we can't find ways to grow meat without need of the animal itself. Hell, make plant/animal chimeras, and keep out the brain. Case solved.

Uh, ew! And this isn't cruel? to take away the very essence of what makes the animal worth saving in the first place? Would you allow this for human? If not, then why is it acceptable in animals??

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

And furthermore, why not just cut down on meat production? Quite frankly, the average person in the U.S. eats far more meat than is necessary. We overconsume.

Opinion.
I think most americans eat way to many grains and sugars, and not enough meat. I believe that it is killing our young and crippling our medical system. That being said, I also belive that we eat to much grain fed meat and should go back to a grass fed meat diet. That's my opinion. But though I have that opinion, I am not attempting to make it illegal for you to eat wheat.
This is all based on your ideas of what is correct, feasible and acceptable. None of these opinions are acceptable to me. If you choose not to eat meat, fine, but you have no right to define how I eat, nor attempt to force me to believe that it is cruel that I do so. I choose to avoid soy like it's the plague and am never going to replace my meat intake with a bean. My choice.
As has been stated throughout this thread, how does one define what animals are protected and which aren't? I know full well what not to order in S. Korea so that I don't eat dog. They eat dog. I find that repugnant so I don't eat it, but I don't judge them for their cultural understandings of what is acceptable and what isn't. In our culture we don't eat dogs... But that is a cultural standard. What you propose is to replace what most american find acceptable with the opinions of the few. We don't work that way here.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

I'm not sure what you mean by "humane." I treat my dogs quite well. When I kill a deer, I try to minimize its' suffering but I kill them for food. I had a nice venison steak last night that I sauteed with red wine, onions and green peppers. If an animal attacks me or my children, I will be quite brutal. I also poison entire anthills that I discover in my yard. When I find an earthworm I carefully move him to my flowerbed where he will find a nice place to live in exchange for helping with the soil.

There are humans that I would not treat humanely. If they attack me or my children I will be quite brutal. Honestly, I will be quite brutal if you try to steal my bike. I can be quite charitable at times. I'm a regular blood donor and I often volunteer my time to help others.

I hadn't considered killing humans for food much before now. That would be a very last resort. In that case, I would have to make certain value judgements based on the actual situation. If I had to choose between killing and eating any one of you or killing and eating my wife, you would be in big trouble. I would not draw straws or otherwise gamble for who gets "sacrificed for the greater good." I wouldn't expect any one of you to treat me differently if our positions were reversed.

Nasty brutish and short indeed.

Humane-Marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

You don't know how to construct a sentence? Clever?

"Undue" is a subjective term - it is not an absolute.

To measure animal "suffering" you necessarily employ subjective anthropocentric mapping. This too is therefore not an absolute.

Having read your contributions on this and a number of other topics i do sometimes wonder why you bother.....

Should humans limit undue suffering to other humans?

Yes?

If so, What does "undue" mean? If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did? They chose their own definition for "undue". Is what they did bad? Why? If "undue suffering" is simply subjective maybe the suffering they caused was not undue? Would you defend them?

Yes? No? Why not?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Humane-Marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration.

In that case, some animals should be treated humanely and some should not. In the examples I gave before, I am humane towards my dogs, the deer I hunt, earthworms, and any human I might have to eat (that last one still seems pretty far out there). I am inhumane towards ants, animals and humans that threaten me or my family, and humans that try to steal my bike. So, I think I am less inclined to be humane towards parasites and nuisances of any species. Does it surprise you that my answer is so subjective?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Should humans limit undue suffering to other humans?

Yes?

If so, What does "undue" mean? If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did? They chose their own definition for "undue". Is what they did bad? Why? If "undue suffering" is simply subjective maybe the suffering they caused was not undue? Would you defend them?

good grief. If "undue suffering" is an absolute then please define it. Otherwise please stop embarrassing yourself.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

In that case, some animals should be treated humanely and some should not. In the examples I gave before, I am humane towards my dogs, the deer I hunt, earthworms, and any human I might have to eat (that last one still seems pretty far out there). I am inhumane towards ants, animals and humans that threaten me or my family, and humans that try to steal my bike. So, I think I am less inclined to be humane towards parasites and nuisances of any species. Does it surprise you that my answer is so subjective?

No. Your answer is good.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

good grief. If "undue suffering" is an absolute then please define it. Otherwise please stop embarrassing yourself.

If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did? They chose their own definition for "undue". Is what they did bad? Why? If "undue suffering" is simply subjective maybe the suffering they caused was not undue? Would you defend them?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did? They chose their own definition for "undue". Is what they did bad? Why? If "undue suffering" is simply subjective maybe the suffering they caused was not undue? Would you defend them?

ok...you've chosen to continue embarrassing yourself instead - fair enough

I'm still waiting for this absolute definition of "undue suffering" you've been promising - you can't prove it's an absolute term merely by referencing 20th century dictators.

What is the absolute definition of "undue suffering"?

come on......







still waiting.....

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by mylfmyhnr

Uh, ew! And this isn't cruel? to take away the very essence of what makes the animal worth saving in the first place? Would you allow this for human? If not, then why is it acceptable in animals??

Pardon? First of all, what's wrong with growing human body parts for transplant, sans brain? Second, what's wrong with what I advocate? You're saying, basically, "Let's keep around the essence that makes the animal worth saving... so we could butcher it up to get our rocks off!" Also, how is it cruel? You're growing meat. That's all it is. Meat. There is no brain. There is no pain. There's nothing in it but nice nutritious meat.

What the hell is the problem? You get the meat that you're willing to slaughter and butcher vast amounts of animals for, and you get all that nice nutrition that it's supposedly 100% necessary to have. What, is it religion?

Quote:

Opinion.

Please demonstrate that the meat that the average American eats is necessary for survival. If it is not necessary, it is a luxury, and if you eat far more meat than is necessary for survival, then you are, by definition, overconsuming. There is no subjective quality to this: If you're fat, you overconsume or have a glandular problem. That extra meat comes from somewhere. Quid pro quo. There's a large number of fat people in the U.S. Henceforth, there's a large rate of overconsumption.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything wrong with people that are above weight, but this isn't necessarily entirely a case of subjectivity. A man that is so obese that he can't stand isn't exactly the model for moderate consumption. Period.

Quote:

As has been stated throughout this thread, how does one define what animals are protected and which aren't? I know full well what not to order in S. Korea so that I don't eat dog. They eat dog. I find that repugnant so I don't eat it, but I don't judge them for their cultural understandings of what is acceptable and what isn't. In our culture we don't eat dogs... But that is a cultural standard. What you propose is to replace what most american find acceptable with the opinions of the few. We don't work that way here.

No, but I am free to give my opinion, and give backing behind my opinion. I'm free to try to convince you to change your ways. You don't like that? Fine. Don't listen.

But don't play the whole, "You can't change me!" card. I'm expressing my opinion. Don't like it? Don't listen. You may be moderately surprised by what I'd advocate, though. I haven't even explained my whole viewpoint on the subject. Partly because it doesn't matter: People judge someone else (including their eating habits) by the arguments they make. If it isn't immediately pro-butcher, pro-mass consumption of meat, then they must be a vegetarian nazi that has an uzi and wants to destroy the American ideal or somesuch.

Meanwhile, you conveniently ignore posts that endorse "doing what instinctually feels right!" Yes, that's right, forget morality altogether; if I instinctually want to rape you, well, then, by God, I have to fulfill my natural animal desires!

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by RandFan

An easy thing to say but what exactly does it mean?

Nearly all, if not all animals in the wild suffer. Life for wild animals is largely about survival. It includes constant fear, frequent hunger, sickness and predation. That is an unavoidable fact.

Granted.

Quote:

Raising animals for food has an opportunity to give the animals a number of things that they couldn't otherwise have.

1. A very likely chance of surviving birth and living until maturity.
2. A life largely free of the day to day exposure to predators and the elements.
3. Treatment for disease and injury.

We could, theoretically, through techologically grow animal protein.
We could also, theoretically, significantly reduce animal cruelty at farms.

Have you seen those mass animal factories? I've seen some of 'em, and they weren't kosher, let's just say.

Slaughtering an animal for meat in humane conditions? Yeah, okay, I can accept that. But I think that potential technology, including advanced soy tech, and advanced tech with the production of "alternative meat products" could easily end up cheaper and more beneficial, economically, than the system we currently have. Animals take a while to grow and die, and we can have alternative methods of getting what we supposedly "need", and also what we "want" (I.E., with pseudo-meat, or meat grown in a vat), and also be able to model it to our tastes and desires (such as, for instance, having a higher rate of vitamin intake and a lesser amount of fats).

Quote:

Do you really care that animals suffer or is it only that animals suffer by the hand of man? I think that it is a very important question. Are your feelings arbitrary?

Suffer by the hand of man. We can make a choice about how we influence the wild. As moral creatures, we can decide how we treat other creatures. I say we exercise that ability.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dustin

If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did?

Says the person with an avatar glorifying David Irving --convicted liar, anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier.

I think it's fair to conclude that in your opinion the only thing wrong with what Hitler did was that he wasn't effective enough, since there are still Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals around.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Says the person with an avatar glorifying David Irving --convicted liar, anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier.

Is that who he is? David Irving?

Huh. That explains my instinctual hatred of the man.

[slingblade]

If given the choice to save a dog in the road and a baby in the road, I will pick the baby. Every time. I'm not sure I know why. I don't think I need to know why to be able to feel this is the correct choice. I don't think an argument can be presented to me that would persuade me to ever choose the dog over the baby.

And "dog" is just a random choice. I would choose the human being, regardless of age, ability, race, mental capacity, gender...you name it, every time, over anything not human.

I eat a lot of things that are not necessary for my survival. Candy's not, but you ain't getting any of mine, sorry.

In a way, and I realize I may be picking nits here, I do depend rather heavily on meat of some kind for my diet. I can't afford to eat a lot of produce. I do eat the canned crap a lot though; it's cheap enough. I adore blackberries. I get about 20-25 for $4. That's almost two pounds of hamburger. Gee, a handful of berries or a thick burger for dinner....wonder what I'm gonna choose...

I noticed a lousy box of cereal is once again almost $7. That's two steaks of average quality, about 3 pounds of hamburger, or a decent pot roast. Both the meat and the cereal will feed the two of us for about three days.

I could drive, and think I have driven, myself nuts introspecting my every choice in life. My brain is tired. I don't really care if I'm being moral when I eat meat. I just gotta eat.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Says the person with an avatar glorifying David Irving --convicted liar, anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier.

I think it's fair to conclude that in your opinion the only thing wrong with what Hitler did was that he wasn't effective enough, since there are still Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals around.

Because I have an avatar of him I am automatically "glorifying" him?

The avatar is a reminder that free speech is important even if you disagree with what is being said. It's not there to 'glorify" anyone.


But you already knew that...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=68

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by slingblade

If given the choice to save a dog in the road and a baby in the road, I will pick the baby. Every time. I'm not sure I know why. I don't think I need to know why to be able to feel this is the correct choice. I don't think an argument can be presented to me that would persuade me to ever choose the dog over the baby.

And "dog" is just a random choice. I would choose the human being, regardless of age, ability, race, mental capacity, gender...you name it, every time, over anything not human.

Because of the potential the baby has compared to the Dog. The baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the baby should be saved first. It's potential is much greater.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dustin

The avatar is a reminder that free speech is important even if you disagree with what is being said.

... and even if it's provably untrue, malicious, reckless, libellous, and seditious?

Quote:

It's not there to 'glorify" anyone.

Uh-huh. Of course I belive you. Because neither you nor Mr. Irving would lie about your motivations for asking a question like "what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did?", would you?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Dustin

The avatar is a reminder that free speech is important even if you disagree with what is being said. It's not there to 'glorify" anyone.


But you already knew that...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=68

I did not "know" that. To "know" a statement, it is necessary that the statement be true. I know you asserted that -- but I have no reason to believe it to be true.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Because of the potential the baby has compared to the Dog. The baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the baby should be saved first. It's potential is much greater.

Conversely - the baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the dog should be saved first. It's potential to screw things up is much less.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by drkitten

... and even if it's provably untrue, malicious, reckless, libellous, and seditious?

Yes. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by drkitten

Uh-huh. Of course I belive you. Because neither you nor Mr. Irving would lie about your motivations for asking a question like "what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did?", would you?

Ever hear of the term "rhetorical"?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Conversely - the baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the dog should be saved first. It's potential to screw things up is much less.

You mean "worse".

It's true that the baby could grow up to change the world for the worse. But I prefer to think the cup is half full not half empty.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Ever hear of the term "rhetorical"?

let's see your quote again

Quote:

If it's just a subjective non-absolute term then what's wrong with what Stalin or Hitler did? They chose their own definition for "undue". Is what they did bad? Why? If "undue suffering" is simply subjective maybe the suffering they caused was not undue? Would you defend them?

seems like you were asking questions you wanted answered there - that would not qualify as "rhetorical" in most people's understanding of the term.







.......still waiting for this absolute definition of "undue suffering".....

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hey, if I see a baby and a dog in the road, I'm not thinking potential for anything but dinner. It's bosintang time!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

let's see your quote again



seems like you were asking questions you wanted answered there - that would not qualify as "rhetorical" in most people's understanding of the term.

still waiting for this absolute definition of "undue suffering".....

I don't expect answers to these questions. They are used as a device to encourage contemplation in the person they are addressed to. Clearly Hitler was wrong in killing anyone. You won't argue that Hitler "duly" killed them therefore he unduly killed them.

By "Undue" I mean inappropriate or unjustifiable.

By "Suffering" I mean to feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

By "Undue" I mean inappropriate or unjustifiable.

By "Suffering" I mean to feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.

hang on.....that's your absolute definition of "undue suffering"?

Who decides what is "inappropriate" or "unjustifiable"? Your definition is wholly subjective.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

hang on.....that's your absolute definition of "undue suffering"?

Who decides what is "inappropriate" or "unjustifiable"? Your definition is wholly subjective.

By subjective you must mean epistemologically subjective. In either case, It being subjective does not mean that it should not be followed.

I could say that Hitler's murder of 6 million people was totally inappropriate and unjustifiable but I'm not wrong simply because the terms are subjective.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

By subjective you must mean epistemologically subjective. In either case, It being subjective does not mean that it should not be followed.

I could say that Hitler's murder of 6 million people was totally inappropriate and unjustifiable but I'm not wrong simply because the terms are subjective.

Yes, "undue suffering" is a subjective phrase - i'm glad you understand now.....

...as an aside, must you drag Hitler into every analogy? What with your avater and all people are going to think you've got something of an obsession going on there....

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

I think all of this highlights one of the big problems we have in applying ethical principles in the big mess of a world we find ourselves.

If we apply purely utilitarian principles and only wish to increase pleasure and limit suffering, then how do we apply the rule to animal life? First, we don't really know any other being's value system, so it's presumptuous of us to assume what other animals consider important. But we also don't know how to properly apply the rules we use on ourselves. If we look only at the fact that animals suffer and die for our food, then it seems obvious that we shouldn't kill them. But if we take a more global perspective, like you have, and realize that more animals live, reproduce, and eat well free of predation, then we have clearly increased the overall good and pleasure. That these same animals will die is almost beside the point because they will die regardless of any action on our part (what it means to be mortal). The fact that we stack them in cages should count against us. The fact that they die violently should count against us, but if we do it humanely, then we have limited suffering to a degree. How does this all come out in the wash on utilitarian grounds? I haven't the slightest. That's one of the reasons I'm glad not to be a pure utilitarian.

But, what if we take the even more global perspective that the earth is more important than any of us? Our need for animal protein is helping to destroy the atmosphere, increases the disease burden, etc.

And what if other concerns, such a liberty, are important. Most wild animals do not walk up to a cage, open the door, and say "feed me".

I don't know. There seem to be all sorts of problems with every approach we take. I still think the best we can do is negotiate some sort of settlement amongst ourselves, but we are likely to arrive at the best solution by taking the most global perspective into account. That is why I think discussions of this sort are very important.

Thanks for the response.

I also find that a rilance on any single ethical philosophy problematic. I agree with a lot that you say but I do have a few issues.

There is nothing intriniscly important about the earth. It is important to us because we perceive that it is important. It is important to our continued existence and to our appreciation of it. I'm willing to agree that it is important to animals that are not humans but I'm not sure to what extent. Certainly not conceptually to them.

Animals, by and large, don't posess the cognitive ability to make decisions about being in a cage or not being in a cage. That they don't ask us to put them in cages and feed them is entirely irrelevant, IMO.

If I were given a choice between statistically certain death, frequent hunger and constant fear of predation on one hand or a life to do what I would otherwise want to do which is graze but I would have to do it on a 32 acre lot surrounded by barbed wire on the other hand then I would of course choose the later.

We need to be careful about anthropomorphizing animals. Just because you want to be free to go to the movies on Saturday Night does not mean that a cow does. Cows don't necassarily have wants. They have states in which they are free of pain or fear and are able to roam around grazing and not to be chased by predators. Cows in captivity get that.

I have no idea how or why animals dying violently should "count" against us. You will have to expand on that a bit. I certainly don't agree. Again, it seems to me that the only concern is that an animal dies violently at the hands of a human.

If a hunter were about to kill a deer and you were to intercede and spare the life of the deer and moments later the deer was killed and eaten by a mountain lion, how would you feel?

Do you honestly care about the violent death of animals? Or is there something about humans in the equation that causes you unease?

BTW, I absolutely agree with you that these discussions are important. I also have no problem with the raising of consiousness concerning animals.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Yes, "undue suffering" is a subjective phrase - i'm glad you understand now.....

...as an aside, must you drag Hitler into every analogy? What with your avater and all people are going to think you've got something of an obsession going on there....

Hitler is an easy example. I could use Stalin, Pol Pot, Manson or the nuts who shot up columbine. It makes no real difference for the point.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Because of the potential the baby has compared to the Dog. The baby could grow up to change the world for the better. The dog could not. That's why the baby should be saved first. It's potential is much greater.

Baby could also grow up to become Dog Catcher, or deer molester, or pig torturer.

There is an old Chinese custom that goes something like this: When you save a life, you take responsiblity for it.

DR

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

In this context, I mean that we should preserve the distinction between ethics and anthropology. One is policy, the other science.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means as it realates to what you said.

Are you saying that we should or can derive what we ought to do, or in the case of what you said, can do from what is?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Hitler is an easy example. I could use Stalin, Pol Pot, Manson or the nuts who shot up columbine. It makes no real difference for the point.

so many examples to choose, but you are repeatedly drawn to Hitler.......

Viereinhalb Jahre gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Have you seen those mass animal factories? I've seen some of 'em, and they weren't kosher, let's just say.

Yes, but these farms are not our only option if we truly cared we could do something about them. It would be a false dichotamy which I know you agree with from the rest of your post, to suggest that it is an all or nothing proposition.

Quote:

Slaughtering an animal for meat in humane conditions? Yeah, okay, I can accept that. But I think that potential technology, including advanced soy tech, and advanced tech with the production of "alternative meat products" could easily end up cheaper and more beneficial, economically, than the system we currently have. Animals take a while to grow and die, and we can have alternative methods of getting what we supposedly "need", and also what we "want" (I.E., with pseudo-meat, or meat grown in a vat), and also be able to model it to our tastes and desires (such as, for instance, having a higher rate of vitamin intake and a lesser amount of fats).

I'm quite confident that this is our future. I've said this for years.

Quote:

Suffer by the hand of man. We can make a choice about how we influence the wild. As moral creatures, we can decide how we treat other creatures. I say we exercise that ability.

Don't get me wrong. I really understand your point. I really do. But I want to make certain you understand mine.

Let me repeat my question posed in a previous post.

If a hunter were about to kill a deer and you were to intercede and spare the life of the deer and moments later the deer was killed and eaten by a mountain lion, how would you feel?

If the alternative is net zero then why would you have a problem with humans taking the lives of animals?

We may, and I suspect we will, remove humans from the equation but when we do we will not have improved the lives of animals by doing so. I think we need to be honest withourselves on that point. On the contrary there is good argument that we will have decreased the quality of life for many.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Human life, is more important than animal life. If that needs to be explained further.....................

[Lonewulf]

Andyandy, your new avatar hurts my eyes.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by RandFan

If a hunter were about to kill a deer and you were to intercede and spare the life of the deer and moments later the deer was killed and eaten by a mountain lion, how would you feel?

I wouldn't intercede between a hunter and a deer.

If, however, I intervened to stop a zoo from forcefully putting animals under inhumane conditions, and the animals then ended up killed for whatever reason, by natural means... I'd feel pretty bad.

Quote:

If the alternative is net zero then why would you have a problem with humans taking the lives of animals?

My problem is when it is not necessary. I think that hunting is currently as necessary as buying a steak at the local store is. Hunting for sport, however, I do not support. If you're going to kill something, then use it, and kill it humanely. But those people that fly out to Africa just so that they could shoot a pride lion and prove that they have a big penis? No, I do not support it.

Quote:

We may, and I suspect we will, remove humans from the equation but when we do we will not have improved the lives of animals by doing so. I think we need to be honest withourselves on that point. On the contrary there is good argument that we will have decreased the quality of life for many.

Which is, unfortunately, a necessity for wildlife to be able to thrive and evolve.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks for the response.

I also find that a rilance on any single ethical philosophy problematic. I agree with a lot that you say but I do have a few issues.

There is nothing intriniscly important about the earth. It is important to us because we perceive that it is important. It is important to our continued existence and to our appreciation of it. I'm willing to agree that it is important to animals that are not humans but I'm not sure to what extent. Certainly not conceptually to them.

I'm not saying that there is anything intrinsically important about the earth, only that it is our home and is necessary for our survival. One of the big problems discussing issues such as this is that everything occurs within a big system. Our actions in one part of the system affect other parts. Raising large numbers of cows results in huge greenhouse emissions from their rumbling ruminant tummies. The big picture would argue against our current farm practices for this reason alone. If we had a way to grow meat then this wouldn't be a problem. I consider this a bigger concern than us killing animals, which is a relatively minor concern for me. Now if we can devise some sort of CO2/methane filter or converter that will eliminate all these emissions, then the cow problem for the environment disappears. In other words, I'm not arguing a moral problem per se here but a practical problem for our future existence.

Quote:

Animals, by and large, don't posess the cognitive ability to make decisions about being in a cage or not being in a cage. That they don't ask us to put them in cages and feed them is entirely irrelevant, IMO.

I'm not so sure about that. Concept -- "ooh I'm in a cage", no I don't think that is likely, but "I want over there and can't get there and I'm frustrated as all get out" -- now that I buy.

Quote:

If I were given a choice between statistically certain death, frequent hunger and constant fear of predation on one hand or a life to do what I would otherwise want to do which is graze but I would have to do it on a 32 acre lot surrounded by barbed wire on the other hand then I would of course choose the later.

If the latter were only possible if you were a brain in a vat how would you feel about it? I know that is moving the goalposts, but we are making assumptions about what is important in a creature that we can't erally comprehend easily. Their wants and drives are set by their evolutionary heritage. I suspect that most animals would love to be in a zoo situation free of predators with food thrown at them, but there is no way for me to know that for sure. I'm open to the other possibility.

Quote:

We need to be careful about anthropomorphizing animals. Just because you want to be free to go to the movies on Saturday Night does not mean that a cow does. Cows don't necassarily have wants. They have states in which they are free of pain or fear and are able to roam around grazing and not to be chased by predators. Cows in captivity get that.

I don't know. If those cows had a good look at Selma Hayek I think they might change their minds. They do seem to spend a lot of time writing on billboards.

I think it is almost certain that cows have wants. They wouldn't move if they didn't.

Quote:

I have no idea how or why animals dying violently should "count" against us. You will have to expand on that a bit. I certainly don't agree. Again, it seems to me that the only concern is that an animal dies violently at the hands of a human.

If a hunter were about to kill a deer and you were to intercede and spare the life of the deer and moments later the deer was killed and eaten by a mountain lion, how would you feel?

Do you honestly care about the violent death of animals? Or is there something about humans in the equation that causes you unease?.

Count, only in the sense that we would be responsible for the violent death. That's all that I meant by that. Do I honestly care about the violent deaths of animals? No, not really. It might be nice if we were something that we are not, but I'm afraid we are just omnivores and the world is a very violent place.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Andyandy, your new avatar hurts my eyes.

lol

it is a bit garish....i don't think it'll last too long

[mylfmyhnr]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

"Let's keep around the essence that makes the animal worth saving... so we could butcher it up to get our rocks off!"

Yep. I like cows. I like seeing the young calves frolic in the fields. I like knowing that my meal had a life and that it got to see and feel and taste and experience. I'm not willing to take that experience away from them. Without my need for meat there is no need for cows. What do you propose to do with the cows??

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

What, is it religion?

nope, just "insticts". There... I mentioned them. You assume because it's instinct and genetics to eat meat, and that you don't like meat, that all insticts are bad (ie, rape). The instict to protect my children is good. My insticts to duck when something is thrown at me is good. My insticts to run when something chases me is good. You are picking and choosing which istincts you want to vilify and including meat there in.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

]Please demonstrate that the meat that the average American eats is necessary for survival.

Meat is a human food. Quantities are independant of individuals. However:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

(The above shows how human molars are not, in fact, like herbivore grinding teeth)

"Ungar shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University".

There is planty of research into the field of humans need of meat. Examples:
Dr Cordain
Dr Eades
Dr Atkins
Dr Agatston
to name just a few.

Please demonstrate that the grains an average american eats is necessary for survival.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

If it is not necessary, it is a luxury, and if you eat far more meat than is necessary for survival, then you are, by definition, overconsuming. There is no subjective quality to this: If you're fat, you overconsume or have a glandular problem. That extra meat comes from somewhere. Quid pro quo. There's a large number of fat people in the U.S. Henceforth, there's a large rate of overconsumption.

Please demonstrate how it is overconsumption of meat that is making people fat.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

No, but I am free to give my opinion, and give backing behind my opinion. I'm free to try to convince you to change your ways. You don't like that? Fine. Don't listen.

First, right back at ya... And second, you didn't attempt reason and logic to convince me, you used morality to convince me. As has been proven, morality is subjective.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

But don't play the whole, "You can't change me!" card. I'm expressing my opinion. Don't like it? Don't listen

So, it's okay for your opinion to have wieght, but not mine? I'm just a b----- for telling you not to accuse me of evil because I have a different opinion?

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You may be moderately surprised by what I'd advocate, though. I haven't even explained my whole viewpoint on the subject.

Please, feel free.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

If it isn't immediately pro-butcher, pro-mass consumption of meat, then they must be a vegetarian nazi that has an uzi and wants to destroy the American ideal or somesuch.

But the views expressed here are that if a person is not a vegetarian they are an immoral person commiting mass genocide.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Meanwhile, you conveniently ignore posts that endorse "doing what instinctually feels right!" Yes, that's right, forget morality altogether; if I instinctually want to rape you, well, then, by God, I have to fulfill my natural animal desires!

See above. And in that situation (that occurs, BTW) I have the instinctual right to attempt to stop you. By any and all means necessary. You have the instinctual right to decide to save your life by not attempting the rape. The instinct may be backed by reason, but it's still instinctual.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

You have been talking to pigs?

In Yahweh's world, pig's talk and they also thnk about these things.