Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[ShawnD]

I also heard that all animals are against humans, and that a cow will kill a man the first chance it gets! (Simpsons)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Seriously, I think that I've made the case rather well. There are several reasons why it is better to not eat meat: better health, ethical behavior towards animals, and environmental concerns.

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously, I think that I've made the case rather well. There are several reasons why it is better to not eat meat: better health, ethical behavior towards animals, and environmental concerns.

Either way, not a lot of people are buying it.

Your argument isn't bad, but I think its flawed. And the total omission of practical concerns (do monkeys get the right to vote? Cats...?) is a big issue.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, this title isn't entitled "animal rights", so I was trying to stick to food.
As far as practical concerns go, rules that restrict the suffering and killing of animals are good. No one, human or otherwise, should have to go through what animals go through in most of US animal agriculture or animal experiments.

What are the argument's flaws?

 

[pace]

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

 

[Växan]

i've been a vegetarian since birth, originally a lacto-vegetarian (milk products) and now a vegan for 7 years, ever since reasonable substitute soya products were made available in Sweden

the range of soya products is quite impressive now, with meat substitutes that look like the real thing, although i have no idea what meat tastes like, I am told it's quite close, and milk, icecream and cheese substitutes that are almost like the real thing, but more like a different thing that is just as good

i think it's a waste of time trying to convert meat eaters into vegans

most meat eaters are as addicted to meat as heroin addicts are addicted to heroin

so the effort is futile

also no one likes being preached at

how many vegans would tolerate someone trying to convert them into becoming meat eaters?

the fact that arable land is disapearing at a rate of 1 Hectare every 7 seconds
due to world population growth increasing at 2,74 persons per second

means that it's now more expensive to feed grain to wildstock for meat
than to consume the grain directly - and this situation is only getting worse every second

with 6 379 557 400 humans on the planet and only 1,7 Hectares of arable land availabe per person worldwide

it's only a matter of time before the cost of producing meat becomes commercially unviable,
fish populations are declining due to over-fishing
and soon many speces will become commercially unviable

so in the end... the majority of humans will become vegetarians by default
(whether they like it or not) since only hunters and fishermen will have access to meat (yes fish is meat)


so, philosophy and ethics aside - the question is academic

 

[jeffceth]

I'm a meat-eater and I'm hardly addicted to meat. For purely health concerns I eat much less of it than other people(I can do with less animal fats in my diet), but it's also a good source of protein and many other good things. In my mind, as long as the slaughtering is done humanely, there's no philosophical problems. What, after all, would be the difference between an animal that lives and dies for my benefit and a plant that does? What about small organisms such as bacteria? My body kills those all the time in order to survive. How about insects? Every time a drive a car I'm taking out thousands of them. Everything in nature kills other organisms of one form or another. The animals I eat have no demonstrated sentience or consciousness. Although I have no problems with anyone who chooses to be a vegetarian or a vegan, I'm personally convinced that death is a part of life.

sincerely,
jeffceth

 

[Dissident Dan]

The difference is sentience. I'm curious why you would say that animals don't exhibit any sort of sentience. As an animal myself, I attest to my own sentience. In all my dealings with animals, all my knowledge of their bioloical systems and how they compare to my own, and all my knowledge of evolution, I have seen/read/heard nothing but evidence for their sentience.

 

[Växan]

there is no evidence against all life being sentient

how can anyone know if insects, micro organisms and plant life are sentient or not? they communicate in ways very different from humans

i have no doubt that all animals are sentient

anyone who has ever tried to catch a fly is aware that they think and react as a sentient being

everything that lives seems to operate with a purpose, and also are aware of their own existence since they work very hard to defend it

plants 'seem' to be inanimate, however if you view them in time-lapse photography they are quite animated - they just move slower than we do

they derive their nutrition from sunlight and nitrogen in the soil (thanks to bacteria) so they don't need to run around on legs to find food like hysterical animals do

there are living trees that are 1000's of years old!
have they become wise? it's impossible to know

it's true that death is a part of life (nature's way of preventing overpopulation)

some geneticists are desparately trying to find the elusive 'death gene', hoping to switch it off in humans

most humans view themselves as above all other life
somehow more worthy of life than others

i wonder if this view would hold - if humans had a better understanding of non-human intelligence

what if Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales (for example) are more intelligent than humans?

i think they're very aware of our intelligence

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I am too mad at the idea of becomming vegan to type out a logical response that would not insult the people who want to become vegans, so let me say this. I agree with SelfAdjoint... I don't care if people don't want to eat meat, that's fine with me if you want to deprive yourself of needed foods and natural insticts. However don't instill your beliefs on an entire community.

Ah screw trying to be nice
Here are some reasons
1. Natural Instict --
2. Jobs--
3. Meat just tastes so Damn good
4. You obviously have never had Makani
5. Over population of Animals
6. I imagine some natrualist could come up with some study saying it would have devesating effects on the plant kingdom
7. (see number 3)
8. What would we do with massive corperations who sell meat
9. Certain people need meat in their diet to survive becasue of a medical condition
10. Try telling the world they can't eat meat
11. Try telling me you can't eat meat
12. What would hunters do with the prey they catch.
13. What will i do without the occational Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger
14. What the hell tastes good by itself that is just plants...
15. Ahhhh no meat

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Don't Do this

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

watched it was predictable
tryed to play off emotions


hmm I think i will go eat a hamburger with bacon

 

[pace]

If america would eat 10% less meat per year it would give 12 million tons more grain to feed 60 million hungry people, because domestic animals need to eat much more protein in form of grain and soya-beans etc. That's just one reason in itself alone.

 

[Växan]

Americans eat far http://www.notmilk.com/forum/979.html < read the hyperlink

in fact 175% the recommended amount

even worse: animal protein is by far the most unhealthy protein a human can eat, containing massive amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol
which cause heart disease and death for millions of meat eaters

soya protein is the most healthy, with absolutely zero cholesterol
and zero saturated fat

an average adult needs only 30 grams of protein per day
equal to 1 liter of milk

soya beans contain more protein by weight than meat

1 liter of milk contains 34 grams of protein
1 liter of soya milk contains 37 grams of protein (vegetable protein)

a recent study has found that the thinnest and healthiest people in the world eat the least protein and the most carbohydrates

the same study found that the fattest people in the world ate the most protein and the least carbohydrates

many people in the west live under the myth that a high protein diet is best
and that only meat can provide protein

both of which are completely untrue

 

[energia]

Ah screw trying to be nice
Here are some reasons
1. Natural Instict --

the natural instinct to be fat?

it seems to be a Natural Instinct for humans to kill each other as well
so why not hunt humans for food?

2. Jobs--

you mean the death industries?
if people stopped using crack, crack dealers would be out of a job as well

3. Meat just tastes so Damn good

soy meat tastes the same, so what's the difference?

4. You obviously have never had Makani

Makani is a location in Hawaii

5. Over population of Animals

there is no over population of animals, if anything there is an under population
of most species, however there is a huge over population of humans

there are 6400 Million humans on a planet that can only support 2000 Million

6. I imagine some natrualist could come up with some study saying it would have devesating effects on the plant kingdom

on the contrary, more plant life is consumed by animals which are slaughtered for meat than by any other animals

if these animals were no longer over bred for meat, the amount of plant life consumed would be reduced dramatically

7. (see number 3)

see answer number 3

8. What would we do with massive corperations who sell meat

I assume you mean Corporations (not corperations)
meat industries could easily become soy industries

9. Certain people need meat in their diet to survive becasue of a medical condition

meat causes critical medical conditions, it's does not prevent them

10. Try telling the world they can't eat meat

a huge percentage of the world already does not eat meat

11. Try telling me you can't eat meat

why should anyone bother?

12. What would hunters do with the prey they catch.

the same thing they do with it now, stuff it and hang it on the wall

13. What will i do without the occational Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger

..become more healthy

14. What the hell tastes good by itself that is just plants...

bread, fruit, rice, beans, pasta, vegetables
and soy meat tastes the same as real meat

15. Ahhhh no meat

you have meat, so what's the problem?
keep eating meat if that's what makes you happy

 

[jeffceth]

The difference is sentience. I'm curious why you would say that animals don't exhibit any sort of sentience. As an animal myself, I attest to my own sentience. In all my dealings with animals, all my knowledge of their bioloical systems and how they compare to my own, and all my knowledge of evolution, I have seen/read/heard nothing but evidence for their sentience.

I think you need a better understanding of what sentience is. It's not the ability to live or to move around. It's not the existence of a central nervous system. It's the state of being aware. Animals are not aware. They're just one big stimulus-response mechanism. They are incapable of communicating with humans(compare this with the very small amount of time it takes humans from a newly-discovered tribe with a new language to learn to communicate). They don't exhibit any form of self-expression that would compare to our writing or art. They don't advance (do things no other of their species hasn't done before) on their own. These are all things that would be required of, say, a computer before it would be considered sentient and even then there would be no guarantee since these things can be mimicked. However, in animals we don't even see mimicking of these types of things to any real degree. Animals are not sentient unless you re-define it to your own ends.

That doesn't mean we should abuse them or anything, but it does mean we should have no qualms about eating them.

sincerely,
jeffceth

 

[jeffceth]

there is no evidence against all life being sentient

You realize this statement is false if there is even one iota of evidence against all life being sentient? If you wanted a position you had a chance of supporting, you should have said that there was insufficient evidence against all life being sentient. You've shown that you're less interested in coming to a logical conclusion than simply being right.

how can anyone know if insects, micro organisms and plant life are sentient or not? they communicate in ways very different from humans

Humans in Papua New Guinea communicate very differently from humans in North America, but when a new tribe is discovered with a new language the lines of communciation are established very, very quickly.

i have no doubt that all animals are sentient

anyone who has ever tried to catch a fly is aware that they think and react as a sentient being

Anyone who reads this statement is aware that you don't understand what sentient means. A robot can react as efficiently or more efficiently than a fly. I can write a computer program in a matter of minutes that would mimick any insect alive. Having an instinct for evasion is no basis for sentience.

everything that lives seems to operate with a purpose, and also are aware of their own existence since they work very hard to defend it

Working to defend one's existence does not show awareness either. As robotics become more and more complex, they will almost definitely be programmed to defend their existence at least to a certain extent, so that they last longer and thus are more efficient at what they do. From an evolutionary point of view, basically everything that is alive today had to by definition work to defend its existence or it wouldn't be around. Self-preservation is not any reason for sentience.

plants 'seem' to be inanimate, however if you view them in time-lapse photography they are quite animated - they just move slower than we do

they derive their nutrition from sunlight and nitrogen in the soil (thanks to bacteria) so they don't need to run around on legs to find food like hysterical animals do

there are living trees that are 1000's of years old!
have they become wise? it's impossible to know

This is a point for me, not for you. If you eat plants even though you think they could be aware, why not eat animals? The logical gap in your thinking is astounding.

it's true that death is a part of life (nature's way of preventing overpopulation)

some geneticists are desparately trying to find the elusive 'death gene', hoping to switch it off in humans

There need not be any 'death gene.' Things naturally tend toward corruption and aging over the course of their existence due to the law of entropy.

most humans view themselves as above all other life
somehow more worthy of life than others

Or just as sentient, and science seems to back us up on that one.

i wonder if this view would hold - if humans had a better understanding of non-human intelligence

what if Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales (for example) are more intelligent than humans?

Then you'd think they'd figure out a way to defeat the whalers and fishermen who hunt them. Even a basic manoeuvre like getting a big group together and attacking one of the boats, pushing on one side and tipping it over or something. But no, they don't.

i think they're very aware of our intelligence

Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, of course.

Everything I pointed out in my reply to Dissident Dan applies equally here. The basic 'symptoms' that would be required to demonstrate the sentience of any computer or robot are lacking in animals. Even if you claim that's only a tiny iota of evidence, your original position that there is no evience whatsoever against all life being sentient has been disproven.

Also, even if all life were sentient, there are many, many animals who eat other animals. Why shouldn't we? Take bears, for example. Their anatomy is such that they could survive only on vegetable matter. But they choose to eat meat(if we believe they are sentient). So does every other carnivorous animal in the world. If they, as sentient beings, could justify it to themselves, why can't we as sentient beings do the same thing?

sincerely,
jeffceth

 

[Dissident Dan]

By sentient, I mean having the ability for subjective experience (feeling, emotion). All the animals that we generally think of can experience and are aware. There is no relevant difference between humans and other animals when looking for evidence of the basic quality of sentience. Our emotions are more related to the "lower" parts of our brains (such as the hypothalamus and the rest of the limbic system) that all animals from fish to reptiles to amphibians to birds to mammals have, rather than our enlarged neocortexes.

I do not understand why you say that other species cannot communicate with us, have no forms of self-expression, and don't advance. I communicate with my dogs on a regular basis. Apes have been taught sign language. Those who research apes in the wild have discovered technological differences between different groups of the same species (advancement).

Everything animals that I have had contact with do is evidence of their awareness. They have understanding of what is pleasant and painful to them, and they protect themselves. They have understanding of their environment. They react to different people and different situations in different ways.

Intelligence is not the important criterion. The ability to experience (sentience) is the important criterion. Sure, humans are obviously able to learn faster, but that is not relevant. If it was, then we should not care about severely mentally-handicapped people, right?

 

[jeffceth]

By sentient, I mean having the ability for subjective experience (feeling, emotion). All the animals that we generally think of can experience and are aware. There is no relevant difference between humans and other animals when looking for evidence of the basic quality of sentience. Our emotions are more related to the "lower" parts of our brains (such as the hypothalamus and the rest of the limbic system) that all animals from fish to reptiles to amphibians to birds to mammals have, rather than our enlarged neocortexes.

The emotions have never been isolated to a specific part of the brain, and even more importantly, people who have had these parts of their brain lost or damaged, ie through hydroencephalopathy, have still exhibited emotions, communication, etc.

I do not understand why you say that other species cannot communicate with us, have no forms of self-expression, and don't advance. I communicate with my dogs on a regular basis.

Has your 'communication' ever branched into discussing something you'd never discussed before through the dog's initiation? If not, it's more than likely you've just conditioned one specific type of stimulus-response.

Apes have been taught sign language.

Sure they have. I've seen the 'communication' of koko the gorrila and others. The vast majority of the scientific community is of the opinion that the communication lies in the sign-language interpreter. Have you read any of the transcripts? Sometimes koko says something like 'nipple' and the interpetery says she's thinking of the rhyming word 'people' and ould like to welcome everyone. It's just wishful thinking.

Those who research apes in the wild have discovered technological differences between different groups of the same species (advancement).

I have never heard of any species acting different in a technological sense except by environmental constraints, ie can't use straws to catch termites when you lack either straws or termites, etc. If you have any actual information other than this vague assertion, feel free to post it and I'll consider it. However, it seems to me that this type of thing would have been groundbreaking enough that I would have heard about it.

Everything animals that I have had contact with do is evidence of their awareness. They have understanding of what is pleasant and painful to them, and they protect themselves. They have understanding of their environment. They react to different people and different situations in different ways.

There is no evidence that they have understandings of these things simply because they do them. I can create a computer program which would mimick the behaviour of any of the simpler animals or even an entirely new species of my own creation which would respond differently or positive and negative stimulus, adapt to its environment, protect itself and its progeny, etc. Yet most people would agree that such a computer program would not be sentient.

Intelligence is not the important criterion. The ability to experience (sentience) is the important criterion. Sure, humans are obviously able to learn faster, but that is not relevant. If it was, then we should not care about severely mentally-handicapped people, right?

Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

sincerely,
jeffceth

 

[Växan]

You realize this statement is false if there is even one iota of evidence against all life being sentient? If you wanted a position you had a chance of supporting, you should have said that there was insufficient evidence against all life being sentient. You've shown that you're less interested in coming to a logical conclusion than simply being right.

you seem to be more concerned with winning an argument than i am

i would rather raise some good questions, than claim to have all the answers

Humans in Papua New Guinea communicate very differently from humans in North America, but when a new tribe is discovered with a new language the lines of communciation are established very, very quickly.

this is an illiogical analogy, of course humans can adapt to other languages
humans are designed to use language for communication

other lifeforms may use chemical changes to communicate
or ultrasound, or complex low frequency oscillations, the possibilities are endless

Anyone who reads this statement is aware that you don't understand what sentient means.

im quite aware of what sentient means

here is the definition:

sentient

adj 1: endowed with feeling and consciousness, self awareness

so what part don't you understand?

A robot can react as efficiently or more efficiently than a fly. I can write a computer program in a matter of minutes that would mimick any insect alive. .

no, you can't... and you insult our intelligence by claiming that you can

robotics are not up to the level of the most retarded insect
even the robotics group at MIT can't match the abilities of a common housefly

Working to defend one's existence does not show awareness either.

prove it

This is a point for me, not for you. If you eat plants even though you think they could be aware, why not eat animals? The logical gap in your thinking is astounding.

i am not a vegetarian for philosophical reasons
animal protein is unhealthy and vegetable protein is not

it's also possible to live on fruit and fruit vegetables without killing plants

There need not be any 'death gene.' Things naturally tend toward corruption and aging over the course of their existence due to the law of entropy.

the population inversion of energy states in a laser violates entropy, therefore entropy is not a law

Or just as sentient, and science seems to back us up on that one.

what science are you referring to specifically?

Then you'd think they'd figure out a way to defeat the whalers and fishermen who hunt them. Even a basic manoeuvre like getting a big group together and attacking one of the boats, pushing on one side and tipping it over or something. But no, they don't.

you obviously have never studied the history of whaling
whales have capsized ships

and dolphins are not an aggressive species
humans are *******s by nature

i think they're very aware of our intelligence

Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, of course.

what evidence? post the scientific evidence to the contrary here

Everything I pointed out in my reply to Dissident Dan applies equally here. The basic 'symptoms' that would be required to demonstrate the sentience of any computer or robot are lacking in animals.

the most powerful computer on the planet does not even approach 1% the potential brain power of a rat

Also, even if all life were sentient, there are many, many animals who eat other animals. Why shouldn't we? Take bears, for example. Their anatomy is such that they could survive only on vegetable matter. But they choose to eat meat(if we believe they are sentient). So does every other carnivorous animal in the world. If they, as sentient beings, could justify it to themselves, why can't we as sentient beings do the same thing?

animals play, as humans play, and the act of playing clearly demonstrates that they are indeed sentient

humans measure everything by their own standards
but humans in truth are neither capable of self understanding
nor mutual understanding of their fellow humans

your case for justifying the exploitation of animals as food
is based on the statement - if it's ok for animals to eat other animals
and animals are sentient, therefore it's ok for humans to eat animals

humans are the only animal which hunts to extinction
and especially just for sport
the only animal which force breeds and genetically modifies other species
for profit (cash)
the only animal which conducts cruel experiments on other species to satisfy it's own lack of real knowledge and pseudo-scientific sadism
the only animal that taunts, tortures and mutilates other animals for the sake of sadistic pleasure
the only animal that pretends to be wise, respectable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and even devine and godlike in the face of it's own ignorance
and depravity

i believe that animal inteligence excedes human intelligence
humans are just too stupid to interpret the language

brain size has been used as an argument for human superiority
but there are several species with larger brains than humans

humans are the only animal that cannot thrive or even survive without artificial means

a naked human is no match in battle against 90% of the world's species
humans are weak and vulnerable, and make up for this insecurity with an inflated ego and big guns

the most pathetic animal of all

 

[Dissident Dan]

The emotions have never been isolated to a specific part of the brain, and even more importantly, people who have had these parts of their brain lost or damaged, ie through hydroencephalopathy, have still exhibited emotions, communication, etc.

I didn't say that specifically, the hypothalamus, or any other such specific region is solely responsible. Mentioned the limbic system, which is composed of many different such parts. Researchers have done much work that strongly shows the correlations between different brain regions and different emotional states. The brain regions most involved are those of the hindbrain and midbrain.

Has your 'communication' ever branched into discussing something you'd never discussed before through the dog's initiation? If not, it's more than likely you've just conditioned one specific type of stimulus-response.

One example: When my dog is hungry or thirsty, she will scratch her bowl. I did not teach her to do this. She started doing it completely on her own. If I do not respond soon enough, she will start barking, or perhaps walk over to me to gain my attention, and then perhaps return to her bowl. There are many subleties and variations that tell me that she is trying to gain my attention. While these activities are surely reinforced by my behavior, just as my behavior reinforces the behavior of other humans, these actions were not in any way induced in me in the first place. I did not inspire any of the various tactics used.

I have never heard of any species acting different in a technological sense except by environmental constraints, ie can't use straws to catch termites when you lack either straws or termites, etc. If you have any actual information other than this vague assertion, feel free to post it and I'll consider it. However, it seems to me that this type of thing would have been groundbreaking enough that I would have heard about it.

This is the best I could find for now:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/gwu-ajr051602.php
http://wvwv.essortment.com/primatesmammal_rrtr.htm

There is no evidence that they have understandings of these things simply because they do them. I can create a computer program which would mimick the behaviour of any of the simpler animals or even an entirely new species of my own creation which would respond differently or positive and negative stimulus, adapt to its environment, protect itself and its progeny, etc. Yet most people would agree that such a computer program would not be sentient.

As vaxan said.

Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

I am talking about severely mentally-handicapped people, such as one girl I remember from way back in my elementary school cafeteria who would just rock back and forth, back and forth...Would you say that someone so simple as that, who cannot even form sentences, does not deserve protection? What about babies?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

the natural instinct to be fat?

it seems to be a Natural Instinct for humans to kill each other as well
so why not hunt humans for food?



you mean the death industries?
if people stopped using crack, crack dealers would be out of a job as well



soy meat tastes the same, so what's the difference?



Makani is a location in Hawaii



there is no over population of animals, if anything there is an under population
of most species, however there is a huge over population of humans

there are 6400 Million humans on a planet that can only support 2000 Million



on the contrary, more plant life is consumed by animals which are slaughtered for meat than by any other animals

if these animals were no longer over bred for meat, the amount of plant life consumed would be reduced dramatically



see answer number 3



I assume you mean Corporations (not corperations)
meat industries could easily become soy industries


meat causes critical medical conditions, it's does not prevent them



a huge percentage of the world already does not eat meat



why should anyone bother?



the same thing they do with it now, stuff it and hang it on the wall



..become more healthy



bread, fruit, rice, beans, pasta, vegetables
and soy meat tastes the same as real meat



you have meat, so what's the problem?
keep eating meat if that's what makes you happy

first of all

soy meat does not remotly taste like real meat
makani is a paki dish
and the rest of your stuff was just made up bull****

the whole point people who want to eat meat should and people who don't ... then fine... but don't try to prevent people from eating meat... its just not realistic...

 

[energia]

first of all soy meat does not remotly taste like real meat

have you ever actually tried it?

it's quite nice.. but every brand is different
it takes some experimentation to separate the good from the not so good
but then not all meat is equal quality either

and the rest of your stuff was just made up bull****

uh, no, it's not made up bull****

I only stated facts, if you refuse to accept the facts, then there's nothing more to be said

hey, don't be angry with me, I'm not against you, this topic is just asking a question: should we eat meat, for you the answer is obviously yes
for others it's a definite no

you can deny the evidence that meat is unhealthy for humans, you can deny that killing animals is wrong, the animals being slaughtered have no say in the matter, so their fate is in the hands of profit hungry meat industries (greed has no mercy) who are counting on people like you to keep lusting for meat, not unlike the tabacco industries who are counting on people lusting for cigaretts, do you think they care how many die from lung disease? hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars are all they care about, and all they will ever care about

the whole point people who want to eat meat should and people who don't ... then fine... but don't try to prevent people from eating meat... its just not realistic...

who's trying to prevent anyone from eating meat?
you're free to do as you wish

 

[russ_watters]

I am talking about severely mentally-handicapped people, such as one girl I remember from way back in my elementary school cafeteria who would just rock back and forth, back and forth...Would you say that someone so simple as that, who cannot even form sentences, does not deserve protection? What about babies?

They do get protection of course. But then answer this: do they get the same protection and rights as fully-functional adults?

 

[jimmy p]

Have you read the article in New Scientist about the man who survived solely on meat. Dont the Inuits survive on mainly meat?? A lot of them manage to stay healthy.

 

[energia]

Inuits become quite fat on their meat diet, which is how they survive the cold

most people do not need to survive in the arctic circle

 

[Växan]

As vaxan said.

Quote:
Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

you are quoting the wrong person (this is a quote of a quote)

and the statement is false

also isn't it interesting that there are so many mentally handicapped people
and so few mentally handicapped animals

 

[jimmy p]

Inuits become quite fat on their meat diet, which is how they survive the cold

most people do not need to survive in the arctic circle

Well there was a scientist that proved that he could stay healthy on a meat diet and managed quite successfully. He was ill for the first few days but after that he was fine and showed better signs of health than people who aint balanced diets. The doctors didnt think that he would last more than a few days. But then this was the early 1900s or 1930s i think... got to find the copy of the magazine...

 

[jammieg]

Why don't we eat each other?

 

[Växan]

humans are omnivores, we can survive on anything

survival does not equal good health



and there is an ethical question

is it right to kill for cash?

paid assassins kill for cash, is there an ethical problem here?

the meat industries kill for cash, is there a difference?

meat farmers raise whole herds (or flocks) of animals for the purpose of exploiting them and killing them for cash

carnivores do not kill for cash, they kill to survive, and typically only ONE of the weakest individuals they can find, no animal (except humans) hunts to extinction

several species have been hunted (by humans) to extinction, or near extinction (buffalo for example), many fish species face extinction from over fishing, humans kill with impunity, like a virus

animals are not being killed by the hundreds or thousands or even millions

they are being killed EVERY DAY, DAY AFTER DAY by the BILLIONS! (GIGADEATH)

how in the world can human beings do this, without conscience
and still sleep at night?

and yet people have the hypocracy to be outraged when dogs and cats are abused, skinned alive for fur, and eaten (in some asian countries)
as well as horses - because these are "domesticated animals"

people are outraged if 1 single person is murdered!

yet don't give a sh*te if 100's of Billions of Cows, Pigs, Baby Lambs, Chickens, Turkeys, Fish and countless other animals are murdered every day

this is HYPOCRACY!

 

[Dissident Dan]

They do get protection of course. But then answer this: do they get the same protection and rights as fully-functional adults?

They do not get all the priveleges of more intelligent people, but they still should be afforded basic protection from harm and not be confined (except where it is necessary for their safety), as should be for nonhuman animals.