Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[elwestrand]

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel. I have posed questions, why do you refuse to wonder? Philosophy is not persuasion, nor it is even knowing, it is wondering.

Regardless,as I have said, my vegetarianism has nothing to do with ethics, killing or compassion. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to eat. Infact, I believe it is wrong to kill for sport. The meat has been dead for some time, and it has begun to decompose at the cellular level. That is why it is acidic.

 

[Dissident Dan]

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system. Netiher computers nor plants have either of these.

Animals certainly do. Any legitimate reason you have to believe that humans do, you also have to believe that other animal species do. Any doubts that people are raising as to animals' sentience is an epistemological argument--the classic "How can we be sure/know??" Reducing the argument to this shows the absurdity of the position. These same people operate on the belief that they can know about the world by treating other humans respect and even just by taking the effort to post on this message board.

Through observation of behavior, degree of similarity in structure, and evolutionary reasoning, we can see that other animal species are sentient, as are humans, and that plants and computers are not.

The anti-anti-meat arguments are all borne out fo a combination of desire to continue the unethical practice of eating meat and fear that one is incorrect. It is a rationalization technique that one employs in order to avoid the feelings associated with being incorrect.


Being alive is not the basis for ethics applying to an object, it is being sentient. Bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. all are alive, which only means that they grow and reproduce--nothing significant ethically, while most animal species have sentience (I do not conjecture that sponges are sentient).

The reasoning is really very simple, and I know that most people here on both sides of the argument can understand it, it's just that many people aren't being intellectually honest with themselves and are rationalizing their prejudices.

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel.

Just because we don't know the entire history of evolution does not mean that it is not true. For the sake of argument, I will give in the the idea that there is a chance that no form of evolutionary theory is true. Well, it's still the best thing that we have to go by. Using a small chance of incorrectness is no reason to go against the odds. For over a century, science has upheld evolution. It's best to assume that it's true because that's the way the evidence points.

Also, not eating meat is giving animals the benefit of the doubt, which is the correct option, for the suffering that they endure if sentient is far greater than any of us can imagine, while any disadvantage you incur for not eating meat is incredibly slim and is counter-acted by health and environmental benefits.

We know that plants are not sentient not only through evolutionary reasoning, but through the facts that they do not respond as one would expect sentient beings to do, and more importantly, they lack brains.

Every time someone tries to argue against animal sentience, they try to argue against evolution or our very ability to have knoweldge, and ask us to deny our strongest evidence. The evidence is humongously in favor of non-human animal sentience-as much in favor of non-human animal sentience as in favor of human animal sentience.

 

[elwestrand]

Well, I do not deny that non-human animals are not sentient. I believe, in fact, that consciousness and "self-awareness" are exactly the same. But the persence of a complext neurological system, or any at all, is not the CAUSE for consciousness. Infact, this cannot be proven empiracally, scientifically, so there is no "scientific" reasoning that plants or even inanimate object do not have minds. The only reasoning for or against anything is based on postulates. In this case the postulate is that a brain is required to have a mind. But that is not the axiom that I am working from. You are also using different definitions for life than I am. I mentioned, animals require hearts to live and in the anarobic entity, there is no heart, but it is alive. So why should the absence of a brain imply no mind? In the plant structure, I am sure, following a very in-depth study, we could find some principle which performs basically the same principal of a heart in animals. The Chlorophyll provides the same function as stomache and intestines. Yet the Chlorophyll is very different from the asnimal digestive system. So too is a plant's reseratory system very different, and it is hard to recognize that all of these things serve the same functions. If it were "proven" that plants are sentient, a lot of religions would probably go down the toilet. No, I take that back because the discovery of the helioconcentric solar system didn't impact Christianity. Anyways, are we not conditioned since childhood to not believe that plants are just "there"? How many children, with no knowledge, would deny thgat plants "think"? Okay, how many adults who deny the same thing are merely those children who have carried over and adapted their convicion to fit inside a new system of "proving it"? There is emotional security in this. Vegans almost must be against plant sentience.

In his book, written in the early 20th century, Willian J Sidis, Undoubtedly one of the most intelligent humans to walk the earth, "the Animate and the inanimate," about thermodynamics, wrote that life didn't originate. It simply always existed, even before the formation of the solar system, in the nebulae, and before that. In different forms that would be almost impossible for us to even regognize. He was a rabid athiest. Now, we are indeed observing, scientifically, that life does not materialize from inanimate matter. This has not been observed happening in labs, as much as we try to make it happen. Thus we just keep modifying the theory of evolution, the security blanket of science. "It must be very very rare" The only thing evolving in the threory is the theory itself. In his day, nothing was known about genes. Darwin could only look at tow very different birds in the Galapagos and say they are different species. But they aren't. All the breeds of dogs, from the tiniest to the ST bernard, are the same species. They can all impregnate each other. Their difference is due to selective breeding, but no new spiecies ever devolops. This is a scientific observation. Maybe it will change one day, I don't know. It takes imagination to go anywhere in thought. Darwin had imagination, he was a good scientist... He was such a good scientist that given the knowledge we have today, I doubt he would believe in his own threoy anymore. Scientists who cling to their world views as their life and blood, lack the imagination that progress demands. As for science holding the theory up, it was my impression that it depends on which scientist you talk to. On paper, Science may appear cohesive, but in real life, I think that scientists are very diverse in what they consider sceince.

Look up Clive Baxter. You will probably deride it all, but here is evidence in plant sentience. He even helped win a court trial by enabling a plant to testify through his polygraph.

There are also my own experiments. I postulated that A seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sencing gravity. That alone proves plant sentience. In animals, senses do not work without neuological systems. Plants have many senses. It is not a biological principle that the root, and nto the stem, grows down, or that it follows light. Anyways, my experiment proves otherwise.
So I planted some Mung beans and places a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up) . I cheated though, I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. I hope you will overlook this bit of unprofessionalism. The results were supprising. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third seed was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. Even more supprising, I thin planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity, It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.

If you were offered a million dollars to provide a convincing explanation that plants are sentient, even if you disbelieve it, what would you say? If you can do this and not believe it, you are a very good logician.

As a side-note, Since you believe that animals are sentient, yet that that sentience is due to certian physical mechanisms, then where does sentience stop or begin? At the insect level? Also, are protozoa sentient?

 

[FZ+]

I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?

I agree. But most people don't. That is the point.

What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.

And I think many people disagree with this too. Just ask Chalmers.

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system.

Heh, yes, I was just trying to do a devil's advocate. But the rub is that animals have varying degrees of complexity in their nervous systems. And at the lower level, they do resemble a computer. So at what stage do we label it as pain, and at what stage do we not?

 

[elwestrand]

An article on memory in plants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ist_uids=14535888&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

I don't understand any of the scientific jargon, but you can clearly see that there is more to a plant that what we see: cellulose and water.

Back when I used to join high iq societies, I encountered a lot of people who do believe that humans ARE automations. They don't consider consciousness as anything more than a boichemical sensation, and feelings as also simple biochemical states in the brain, none of it meaning anything and that there is no purpose to existence of life at all-- it is just an absurdly and chaotic thing. Existentialists who believe as such are almost always "chemically imbalanced," suffer depression and basically survive off of prozack and other drugs.

To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this. But I am not a scientist. The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The same argument that is used to suggest that plants may be sentient can as easily be applied to a rock. People like to use the wonder-word "life" when talking about sentience, as if being alive somehow implies that an object is sentient. Like I said, all that alive means is that an object grows (or has a metabolism) and reproduces--Nothing more.

We are getting off topic, though. This thread is titled, "Should we eat meat?" Regardless of whether plants feel, which they do not, it is unethical to eat meat, because of the intense suffering that it inflicts upon animals. If plants were conscious, eating animals would just cause more of them to be killed than if they were eaten directly, because of the huge inefficiencies involved in producing animals for food.

That brings me to the point that animal agriculture is tearing apart the environment, by using up so much water and land (I think that over half of all water used in the USA goes to agriculture, and a substantial majority or that goes to animal agriculture, directly or indirectly), and polluting like you wouldn't believe - big fecal spills covering the countryside, bacteria-laden substances (such as feces) creeping into groundwater, and so on.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by elwestrand
To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this...The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.

my feeling is that while you may have some excellent and thought-provoking ideas in much of this, it is important to deal with the animal issue here. certainly, the former could be pursued in a separate thread.

my understanding of this thread is that it deals with the consumption of the carcasses of dead creatures (and presumably certain by-products as well). personally, i thought that the posts by Dissident Dan, LAacoustics, XcuddleXcoreX and Be Happy! have been remarkably well-reasoned, thorough, logically sound and enlightening.

the issue seems to hinge around 3 primary areas health, environment and ethics. to that effect, i would like to contribute this excellent summary i found (on a chess site of all places!) while surfing the web that deals concisely (and not without some humor) with all three. what was most encouraging was that the author tells "readers to do their own research and thinking, for it is the only way to be truly convinced"

in friendship,
prad


-----------
goVeg! for Health

A vegetarian diet is recognized as not contributing to heart attack, high blood pressure, cancer, osteoporosis as well as a myriad of other diseases including diabetes, asthma and arthritis. Becoming vegetarian often reverses these conditions (a not-so-surprising fact when you consider that even diehard practioners of 'modern medicine' tell patients to avoid certain foods like red meat, unfortunately after the damage has been already done).

Why this is so, is very simple. Species homo sapiens is not designed to consume animal proteins. Our basic biology forbids it.

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs), nor do we possesses the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

"But where will I get my protein?" is a concern that often arises. The human body's protein requirements are easily met through a vegetarian diet - there is no need to 'carefully combine' vegetable proteins as is sometimes incorrectly thought. The non-vegetarian's body, on the other hand, is overloaded with many times the proper protein amount and becomes acidic (proteins are chains of amino acids) resulting in conditions such as gout and osteoporosis. The idea that milk will provide required calcium to prevent osteoporosis is udder nonsense since the high protein content of milk also leaches calcium from the bones. North Americans, who consume the most dairy, have the second highest osteoporosis rate in the world (outstripped only by the Eskimos who live on a very high protein fish diet). If you thought from all that advertising that bovine milk is the perfect food (which it is for a calf), take a look at all the chemicals, steroids and hormones that wind up in it causing allergies, acne, premature pubescence (and we haven't even told you about the cow pus!).

Speaking of health, a vegetarian diet is very healthy for your pocketbook too. Vegetarian meals are comparatively inexpensive since production costs raise the price of animal-based foods to ridiculous proportions.

So save your wallet, save yourself and save your family - goVeg!


goVeg! for Environment

Do you have any idea the kind of mess 10,000 cattle make? And we're not just talking excrement here. Okay, the excrement is a significant problem for sure - there is no denying it. A hog farm with 5,000 animals produces as much fecal waste as a city with 50,000 people. Factory farms produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. This stuff stays. It contributes massively to air and water pollution and is linked to various diseases caused by E. coli, listeria, and cryptosporidium.

Since cattle consume huge quantities of water, factory farming has a serious impact on the water table. Underground aquifers are being depleted. The largest one in the United States, the Ogallala, stretching from the Midwest to the mountain states, is being depleted by 13 trillion gallons a year and will run out. Northwest Texas is already dry: they can't get any water from their wells.

People are often concerned about the cutting down of forests - the destruction of the 'lungs' of the earth. What many don't recognize is that this isn't so much for the timber industry, but for creating land to grow feed for cattle. Farming methods are designed to produce high quantity through use of potent fertilizers and pesticides destroying the soil's eco-systems.

Consumption of 'wildlife' also leads to severe though not immediately apparent problems. Over-fishing, for instance, creates breakages in the links of the food chain that affect hundreds of species as in the devastation of the Sea of Cortez described in December 1995 in the Sacramento Bee newspaper.

These and many related problems are not just going to go away. While we may not have the power to change things directly and immediately, we certainly do have the power to change our lifestyle to one that doesn't contribute to the destruction of the earth.

So save your planet - goVeg!


goVeg! for Ethics

This is a topic many people don't like to deal with sometimes because they think that talking about ethics is preaching and sometimes because they do have an idea about the horrors in the animal agriculture industry.

Factory farming is intended to produce the most meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, and other animals are kept in small cages or stalls so that all of their bodies' energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk. They are fed drugs and are genetically altered to make them grow larger or produce more milk or eggs. Cramped and unclean conditions promote disease and so they are fed large amounts of antibiotics and sprayed with pesticides.

Cattle are castrated, dehorned and branded without anesthetic. Milk cows are forced through artificial insemination and drugs to produce at many times any natural rate leading to mastitis and vastly shortened lifespans while their offspring male calves are chained in stalls only 22 inches wide with slatted floors that cause severe leg and joint pain, deprived of their mother's milk all in preparation for the veal industry. Chickens go mad in their crowded cages and have their beaks seared off with hot blades so they don't 'damage' each other.

These are just a few of the atrocities that billions of our planet's beings endure. Indeed, the only escape is through an even more horrific death. It is irrelevant whether they have as high an intelligence as humans or have a soul as humans apparently are supposed to. What is important is that these beings can and undeniably do suffer and in this capacity, they are our kindred.

We must not forget that 'human' is the start of the word 'humane'. What do we as a species value most? Is it wealth, power, technology? Our literature, philosophies, religions all emphatically stress we strive for other qualities like courage, empathy, humility and kindness. When we stop another being's pain, we free ourselves from fear; when we acknowledge the being's intrinsic value, we gain wisdom; when we embrace the being in compassion, agape touches us. Only in this way will we evolve to what has always been our destiny.

So move your species up a rung on the evolutionary ladder - goVeg!


Conclusion (but perhaps your introduction)

Someone once said to me she found it very difficult to think about going vegetarian. I suggested she contemplate the drugs, the growth hormones, the mercury poisoning, the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella, the cow pus ... so what's so difficult?

We have given you a brief introduction as to why you should go vegetarian. Here's what it now boils down to: either you believe what you have read (in which case, goVeg for it!) or you don't. If you don't, at least make the effort to find out for yourself by consulting not only the mainstream propaganda, but also the health food nuts, the wacky environmentalists and the in-your-face animal rights activists. Each group has its own version of the same story and it is up to you to figure out what makes sense. For us, it was the most important thing we did!
-----------

 

[elibol]

this thread is massive, i vote no, i will cur if it were ever proven it would benefit worldwide harmony...

i mean, i guess if it ever came down to it i would rather have a world that didnt eat meat...

i would be down wit that.

so u know though: i eat meat like crazy...

 

[XcuddleXcoreX]

harmony

Veganism benefits worldwide harmony more so than any other lifestyle choice you could make. No single choice has more positive reprocussions than opting for veganism.

Foremost, veganism offers innocent and exploited creatures the compassion and mercy they are deprived of. 400 animals are murdered for food every second in the United States; every person who chooses veganism decreases that number- to the estimated annual sum of 94 land animals. There can be no harmony where there is slaughter.

Veganism also benefits humanity. Animal-based agriculture is the single most destructive force on our Earth. Animal agriculture produces more pollution than all other industries combined. Animal agriculture kills the rain forest more rapidly than any other industry.

Animal agriculture is the single most prevalent reason for human suffering: it inefficiently funnels edible and nutritious plantfoods through animals whose deaths yield only a minute portion of the nutritional potential of those fruits, vegetables and grains. In the United States, over 80% of domestically grown corn and 90% of domestically grown grains are fed to farmed animals. In Ethiopia and Somolia, while thousands of people were starving to death and dying of nutrition, millions of dollars worth of edible plantfoods were sold to the U.S. to be used as animal feed. Animal agriculture takes food from the poor and wastefully funnels it through animals so that the priviledged can revel in their gluttony.

The consumption of cholesterol, saturated fats, and animal proteins are linked to the top three causes of death in the United States: cancer, heart disease, and stroke. A person with "normal" and "acceptable" cholesterol levels has a 50% chance of dying from heart disease, whereas vegans have a roughly 2% chance.

Veganism causes less suffering to animals. Veganism causes less damage to our Earth. Veganism increases the quantity and decreases the cost of food in poor countries. Veganism improves your personal health.

If that isn't benefiting worldwide harmony, what is?

 

[NUKEELT]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...i am not saying that i have a fat steak everynight for dinner, but i do consume meat at least every other day, mostly fish and chicken...cows, chicken, pigs and fish are not about to be extinct one bit...the farms that specially raise these animals for consumption are horrid, but last i checked, americans have the choice to pick at the grocery store what meat they want to consume...

Kerrie,

While I have great empathy for your condition eating meat is in no way the only or the best way to combat your anemic state. So many non meat foods are fortified with iron these days and iron suppliments are also widely available. If you are concerned for your health (as you seem to be) it would make great sense for you to not eat meat. I don't feel the level of scarcity of the animal has much of anything to do with making the choice or not to consume flesh. The choice to consume flesh should be based on firstly meat consumption is in no way in the best interest of your body or health. Secondly, the animals are kept in factory farms treated horribly then systematically killed in unsanitary conditions (yet another health concern). Finally, meat consumption supports not only mistreatment of animals but it supports the widespread deforestation to make room for factory farms, It supports the continued pollution of water supplies from factory farm runoff, it supports the continued build up of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it supports a gross misappropriation of resources (the amount of water used in any standard factory cattle farm is OBSCENE considering that the beef producing states tend to also be draught prone). If you have any questions about a potential alternative to eating meat that will also effectively deal with your anemic condition please don't hesitate to ask me. I'd be more than willing to help out. Thanks for reading what I have to say.

 

[elibol]

damn b's... this thread is outta control ! ;D

 

[ranjana]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...

About 10 years ago I discovered I was anemic. My doctor recommended a blended greens soup which consisted of romaine lettuce, green beens, green pepper, cucumber, any other green vegetable I wished, and seasonings all pureed together in a blender. He told me that a concentration of greens would help provide the necessary building blocks of haemoglobin the essential oxygen binding substance in red blood cells. I tried this and after a short while I found my energy returning. I made a full and happy recovery without consuming the flesh of murdered animals. A friend who visited today used a phrase which is appropriate here. She said “It’s a mind set, isn’t it?” about people who consume meat. It’s hard to see a way without it. But once another “mind set” is adopted, the way becomes clear. My doctor was not bound to the meat mindset and so suggested something different.

Ranjana

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by XcuddleXcoreX
Veganism improves your personal health.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html

The child - fed on an odd menu that included ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil - was suffering from rickets and broken bones and could not even lift her head, cops said.

A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.



Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.

1. Plastic
Several fatty acids from animals are key ingredients in plastic. Think of all the things that are made of plastic!

2. New heart valves (most vegans probably won't need these)
Since 1971, tens of thousands of pig heart valves have been used to replace weak or diseased human heart valves.

3. Anything with gelatin
Gelatin, a protein in animal bones and skin, is used in ice cream to keep its shape and texture. You'll also find it in some yogurt, chewing gum and marshmallows.

4. Many different drugs
-insulin (treatment for diabetes)
-Heparin (used in treatment of allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, and respiratory diseases)
-Thyrotropin (stimulates the thyroid gland)
-Parathyroid Hormone (used to treat parathyroid deficiencies)
-Thrombin (promotes coagulation during surgery)
-Glucagon (treats hypoglycaemia)
-Sodium Levathyroxine (thyroid replacement therapy)
-Trypsin & Chymotripsin (cleansing wounds and ulcers)
-Deoxyribonuclease (acts against devitalized tissue in purulent (discharging pus) states)
-Fibrinolysin (treatment of blood clots within the cardiovascular system)
-Pancreatin (treatment of infants with celiac disease (gluten intolerance ) and related pancreatic deficiences)
-Thyroid (treats myxedema (metabolic disease caused by deficient action of the thyroid gland) in adults and cretinism (deformity and mental retardation caused by thyroid deficency) in children)

5. Various household stuff
-candles
-deodorants
-soaps
-textiles
-insecticides
-photograhic film
-shaving cream
-fabric softeners
-glue
-violin strings
-paints
-cosmetics
-detergents
-toothpaste



Now I'm a bit curious as to how a vegan can reply to this message without using a plastic keyboard or plastic mouse

 

[elwestrand]

I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means I eat dairy and eggs.
Dairy is the most "ethical" food in existence-- it EXISTS to provide sutinence. Am, Vegans don't eat honey either. But actually, most foods that seem vegan have some sort of animal product in them. Small children cannot absorb everything from their food than adults can.. . So they need extra nutrition. If you will not feed your infant your own milk (the milk that comes from the mother), it is very insane and you should not be considered a human being. (the definition of mammal is that the mothers feed milk to the babies-- so if you do not, then you are not worthy of the title mammal and hence human being.) This is my logic. My mother was vegetarian the whole time she was pregnant with me and I was breast fed for two years. Breast feeding is very important for brain development. Am, B12 vitamin is in soul. It is lacking from processed foods due to poor topsoil and stuff, so I heard. Just grow a garden. Don't even wash the carrots, just eat them with the dirt and everything. You will have plenty of B12. You should anyways. I have strong bones. Never broke one of them. Of course to be a healthy vegitarian, it is more than avoiding certain foods. And remember I am vegetarian not because of any religious/moral reasons or sentimentality. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to sustain the body-- but I do believe it is wrong to kill and not eat what you have killed-- sport.

 

[pocebokli]

As a matter of fact, Leonardo Da Vinci said that humans will once consider consumption of animals as cannibalism, and this guy was a real visionary hot-shot.

But then again...plants are alive as well aren't they? The trees scream when they're cut down in their own dull way.

The plants are also "alive" and in every way behave like all other beings.

Should I cry when I trample grass?

Should a herd of buffalos be punished for eating out an entire pasture?

A very interesting thing is that a few thousant years ago, at the dawn of civilisation in the indian sub-continent, there were kingdoms where it was FORBIDDEN to eat meat. ANY meat.

EVERYONE was a vegetarian. This lasted for a few hundred years until Arians from around Afghanistan and Iran conquered these kingdoms and as de facto conquerors radically changed their culture.

I really don't know what to think about this issue...

And don't worry, cows get their due. We don't slaughter only cows, we also slaughter each other.

 

[pocebokli]

and something else...

you must realize that human culture is a culture of excesses in it's environment. It is not in-balance with the nature as we know it.

Thus it is not logical to expect a city like New York or Mexico city, with enough population to fill an ant-hill, will live off a few farms where cows are well cared for, like in them olden days.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by ShawnD
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html


A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.



Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.

shawn,

from your avatar, it appears you are an advocate of freebsd! this is a good thing. unfortunately, i cannot follow the logic in your post which does not appear to contain the same structural strength of your operating system.

rather it seems to be a puzzling attack on vegans, using rather dubious and somewhat sensationalistic arguments.

for instance, you seem to be shocked that the baby couldn't lift her head and admit that the diet was 'odd'. your insinuation is that the diet which included "ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil" is somehow related to veganism - which it obviously isn't. admittedly, this attempt is not all your fault, since the paper itself makes the same mistake when they say the parents were " using a vegan diet to nearly starve to death their 15-month-old daughter". it is fortunate that the prosecutors wisely didn't use the term vegan, because the case has nothing to do with being vegan. it is unfortunate that the newspaper used that term in an attempt to disparge what has been proven over centuries (veganism is hardly a new fad) to be a very healthly diet, purely for the sake of sensationalism.

so I'm really not sure what your point was. the child was malnourished because the parents permitted a vitamin deficiency - this has nothing to do with a vegan diet.


then you go on to say that milk is a great source of calcium (which admittedly it is - the advertisements say so too), however the reality seems to be that there is a serious osteroporosis problem in north america ( eg more than 1 million Americans suffer from fractures due to osteoporosis every year - info not from a vegan site http://www.lifescript.com/www/HealthResources/Spotlight/HealthConditions/Osteoporosis/index.asp ). if your implication is that drinking milk is a good idea because you get lots of calcium (a necessary preventative to osteoporosis), then it is reasonable to conclude that

a) the people who get the condition are always vegan (or at least don't consume milk).
b) milk is not a particularly good preventative for osteoporosis

since a) is completely false, there may be a very good possibility that b) is true. this leads to an interesting and apparent paradox - how is it that something that is touted as such an excellent source of calcium and is so strongly recommended and used as a deterent to osteoporosis (go check the internet for osteoporosis + milk) still leaves the disease rampant? it's fine to go along with the ads and make claims like "Milk is a great source of calcium", but given the high incidence of osteoporosis, the idea may be pragmatically meaningless.

then again you link the not drinking milk to veganism. are you suggesting that vegans are somehow deficient in calcium because they don't drink milk, or that they are deficient in milk because they don't drink milk?

and again, "Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat". the implication is i presume that vegans are deficient in protein, because they don't eat meat.

and then there is the very perplexing B12 comment " it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants)" with a flourishing warning about B12 deficiencies. so are you suggesting that vegans somehow remove the B12 organisms before munching on the plant and so are also B12 deficient (along with all the others deficiencies you have given them)?

somehow you try to tie all this to "Growing kids" who need all these things and are in trouble if they are vegan. if this is your intention, then you should at the very least provide some statistical evidence to that effect other than the single Swinton child who wasn't even vegan. can you do that? because if you don't, it seems to me that you are just throwing anti-vegan propaganda around with a similar lack of integrity as scott shifrel.

the rest of your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion for it seems to be nothing more than a cheap and self-admitted attempt to make vegans feel bad about using certain products. i have no idea why you introduce this here other than to possibly settle some personal vendetta. whereas, the first part of your post had some interesting points worth considering and pursuing (if you wish to), this latter effort seems bizarre by comparison.

 

[ShawnD]

My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about. Vegans say how wonderful their lifestyle is but then I see them buy the same hand soap and toothpaste that I use.
Another weird thing is that whenever I see somebody pickup things like soyburgers, the burgers are always wrapped in plastic. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?

About the milk thing, I was not implying that most non-vegans have healthy bones. I was saying that vegans make it very difficult to get recommended amounts of calcium. In 1 day, you can have drink 3 cups of milk, 6oz. of beans, 5 cups of spinach, 50 slices of bread, or 12oz of almonds.
I can drink 3 cups of milk in 2 minutes, no problem. 6oz. of beans takes a while to make and beans are very filling. 5 cups of spinach? 50 slices of bread? 12oz. of almonds?
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/milk/whycal/sources.cfm

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products. People should feel bad when they say they don't use animal byproducts then turn around and accept medicines and use things like drywall and plastics when they know those items are made with animal byproducts. Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.

 

[ranjana]

Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about...

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products... Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.

Your post showed no such thing. It only showed your personal animosity towards vegans which is not a very convincing argument for your cause. Have you conducted a survey or have any statistical information regarding your claims that "most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about"?

Vegans are opposed to murder of people and animals. And as such do what they can to not support this. Since the slaughter of animals for food is the main reason for murdering them it makes complete sense to stop eating meat first. As people learn about other byproducts and find alternatives, these too can be incorporated into a vegan's lifestyle. The ethics are clear and the intention good. Can the same be said of yours based on your post?

Ranjana

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about.

well i don't have a clue how your post shows that most vegans "do not have a clue what they are talking about". all your postings do is demonstrate clearly that

a) you make wild connections based on cheap tabloid style media writing
b) you attack the vegan platform through blatant accusations of 'vegan lack of knowledge'
c) you have a personal problem with vegans, with their lifestyles, or their statements or all of these

the vegans (i presume they are vegans at any rate) on this thread for the most part have presented their case with clarity and cohesiveness. they provide detailed rationale (eg see LAacoustics post) to justify the arguments which are well-constructed (eg dissident dan's stuff) and come to a decisive conclusion (eg see XcuddleXcoreX initial post) and even pose the ethical issue effectively (eg be happy).

and your effort? i am going to make these clueless vegans feel really bad by pointing out that they are typing on a plastic keyboard! (geewiz, i am tempted to dump freebsd and go to windoze)

as for your calcium argument, you can get into serious trouble on that one when the vegan knowledgebase point out that

a) milk's high protein content (acidic) leaches out the calcium (the oxalic acid in spinach apparently does something similar) so getting it doesn't mean you are going to be keep'n it
b) the rda or dri (whatever!) are deliberately inflated for legal reasons and have little bearing on what the body needs (of course, this has nothing to do with veganism but it proves interesting to investigate)

using the convenience argument that you can drink 3 cups of milk faster than the poor vegan who has to gobble down a loaf of bread is not confidence inspiring.

these vegans seem anything but clueless and if one is going to take the opposing side, there are plenty of resources still out there that will enable the formation of a reasonable basis for attack - so by all means use them.

personally, i don't see what the problem is. veganism seems to me from what I've read here and elsewhere a very efficient and intelligent way to live (eg see the goVeg stuff i pulled from the web). i think, given the overwhelming nutritional and environmental evidence, it has become increasingly difficult to argue against.

so the only course left seems to be to rant and rave along the lines of who is really more holier-than-thou. people may not like to have their ethics challenged, but if that challenge cannot be met in a rational fashion, perhaps those ethics should be re-examined.

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by ranjana
Have you conducted a survey or have any statistical information regarding your claims that "most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about"?

Of course I do - PLASTIC

You yourself claim to be a vegan yet you are using a plastic keybard, a plastic mouse and have a plastic computer monitor. That means one of two things.
a). you have no idea what contains animal byproducts
b). you simply don't care


Now you say you know plastic contains animal byproducts, why are you still using plastic? You either use byproducts or you don't, there is no happy medium. You are either a vegan or you are not.

 

[ranjana]

Originally posted by ShawnD
Of course I do - PLASTIC

You yourself claim to be a vegan yet you are using a plastic keybard, a plastic mouse and have a plastic computer monitor. That means one of two things.
a). you have no idea what contains animal byproducts
b). you simply don't care

Since vegans care, that leaves only one option.

Your posts have no rational basis. Your list of possible conclusions are not exhaustive. To the list might be added, for example, c). you haven't found an alternative, d) you haven't been able to access an alternative or even e) you are aware of many items containing animal byproducts but have not yet discovered all items containing byproducts. Can you suggest a keyboard that doesn't contain plastic? Could you please give me a reference for the animal byproducts in keyboards? I would gratefully be enlightened.

At any rate, your conclusions are not valid as you didn't take into account the above possibilities.

Ranjana

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by ranjana
Can you suggest a keyboard that doesn't contain plastic?

Well that's flawed logic. If you can use a keyboard saying there is no keyboard not made of plastic, I could just as easily say it's ok to eat jello because there is no jello not made of gelatin.

Now let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. It's ok to use plastic because there is no byproduct-free alternative but it is wrong to eat jello even though there is no byproduct-free alternative?
How does that make sense?

Being a vegan is not about making up excuses for why it's ok to use animal byproducts in some cases but not others. You either use byproducts or you do not.

 

[Be Happy!]

do the best you can

Shawn, I have been vegan for over 12 years, and I have never heard of such a claim of animal by-products in plastics...

Even so, it doesn't negate the good that a vegan diet brings to one's health, alleviation of animal suffering, and the positive global ramifications of such a lifestyle...

We do the best that we can, in the society that we live in.

By your logic, why do anything good if you can't do everything.

 

[ranjana]

Originally posted by ShawnD
Well that's flawed logic. If you can use a keyboard saying there is no keyboard not made of plastic, I could just as easily say it's ok to eat jello because there is no jello not made of gelatin.

Being a vegan is not about making up excuses for why it's ok to use animal byproducts in some cases but not others. You either use byproducts or you do not.

If the logic you are suggesting is employed then, taken to its conclusion vegans should not breathe because it too involves the killing of living organisms (as does the use of animal byproducts). Without breathing vegans will surely die, again involving the willful killing of living beings. You end up in logical bind, a paradox, which of course is perfectly possible in a mere intellectual exercise. Let us inject a healthy dose of common sense, reason and real life - it makes no sense to commit suicide and certainly is not reasonable to expect it! In order to function and live in this world and society as it is, it is not possible to eliminate use of all animal byproducts. The rubber of tires for example contains animals byproducts however, in the structure of present day North American society it is not possible to transport oneself everywhere by foot only. In today’s world computers are all prevailing and pretty much essential for most professional occupations and communications – in other words it is important to many in earning their living or for many others to function in our society. It doesn’t make sense and is not reasonable to expect computers not be used. Jello, on the other hand, is not in anyway important in order for us to live and function in society. It is a food which we clearly do not need to survive in today’s world. What we are talking about here is making reasonable choices and eliminating as many animal based products as possible.

Let’s put your concern in perspective. 80 to 90 percent of profits derived from the murder of animals is made from the meat industry. You are “worried” about the significantly smaller part.

Finally, I have failed to find any references that directly link animal byproducts to all plastics. Plastics as you know are made up principally of a binder together with plasticizers, fillers, pigments, and other additives. Again, I ask you, can you please give me a reference that states which components of plastics contain only animal derived fatty acids? If you cannot, then I suggest that you put your concerns to rest as this is then much ado about nothing.

Ranjana

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by ShawnD
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html


A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head... healthy?

http://www.pcrm.org/news/health030317.html

“Studies show that a meat-free vegan diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes offers clear advantages to growing bodies. In fact, some research has even shown that vegan diets may offer advantages for developing minds as well,” says Dr. Lanou. “The Swintons weren’t even following a real vegan diet because they reportedly gave their child cod-liver oil, which is derived from fish.”

Leading baby expert Dr. Benjamin Spock embraced the use of vegan diets in the 7th edition of Baby and Child Care, the leading guide for parents. Vegan babies, like all infants, should be raised on mother’s milk or formula, eventually followed by fortified infant cereal and mashed fruits and vegetables. At approximately eight months, parents can begin introducing additional foods. To ensure adequate vitamin B12 after weaning, parents should also introduce any common children’s multivitamin.
...

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.

[/quote]

Milk has lots of calcium, but the animal protein in it counters the calcium in it. You can get plenty of protein from plants. The typical US diet is too hight in protein. B12 can be obtained from fortified foods or supplements (from sea algae-like organisms) or the mother's breast milk

 

[NUKEELT]

Firstly I'd like to point out that to make a general statement that all plastics contain animal by product is ignorant at best. Lactic acid which is occasionally used in soft plastics can be found and extracted from animal tissues but the laboratory grade Lactic Acid used in the creation of such soft plactics such as polyurithane is created through a bacterial fermentation process of cellulose (for a multitude of reasons, cost, clenliness control, quality control and biohazard safety issues) so any lactic acid containing plastic is most likely vegan. As far as glycerin is concerned for many of the same reasons (cost efficiency, quality control, etc) Vegetable Glycerine is most often used in plactic formation as well. The only even marginally valid non vegan plastics claim you have is in geletin. The number of household plastics that use geletin instead of agar are going to be fairly slim. I can guarantee that the Polypropenol that was most likely used to make my keyboard parts contains zero animal byproducts.

Secondly I'd like to point out the biggest flaw of all in your thinking. If I live a vegan lifestyle to the best of my ability then I've accomplished every imaginable goal. I've upheld my morals, I've greatly increased my health, I've saved countless animals from suffering and needlessly dying. If by some oversight I purchase a plastic product that has some trace amount of an animal by-product in it so what. It's not like I compromised my morals, it's not like it takes back all the wonderful things that me following a vegan lifestyle has done. The greater good is still obtained. I appricate your opinion but you really need to stop skirting the issue with ad hominem attacks against vegans and really stick to the issue at hand.

Thanks for your time,
Gabriel

 

[Dissident Dan]

What's all this talk about plastic? I thought that we were talking about meat...

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by NUKEELT
I can guarantee that the Polypropenol that was most likely used to make my keyboard parts contains zero animal byproducts.

wow! what a great post gabriel!
i wish i'd seen it earlier - I've been running all over the net and even into my van nostrand scientific encyclopedia (ya the big fat one!) to see if i could find anything on animal products in keyboard plastics. i couldn't so your explanation on this is much appreciated!

so were your subsequent points about what a vegan lifestyle can accomplish were inspiring!

 

[ShawnD]

Originally posted by Be Happy!
By your logic, why do anything good if you can't do everything.

Point duely noted. It's great that you're trying to change something.

Let’s put your concern in perspective. 80 to 90 percent of profits derived from the murder of animals is made from the meat industry. You are “worried” about the significantly smaller part.

Although that is true, those animals would still be killed even if the meat was not used. It's not about byproducts making big money, it's about SAVING big money. Gelatin taken from cows that are being killed for meat is cheap. Gelatin (or something like it) created in a lab would be very expensive. Jello only costs like 30 cents per box right now when it's made from animal parts. If the gelatin had to be created from scratch, that same box of Jello would cost at least $1.

Finally, I have failed to find any references that directly link animal byproducts to all plastics

http://www.akzonobel-oleochemicals.com/fatty_acids.htm
"Fatty acids are mainly used as a raw material in the chemical industry. After conversion into products like fatty alcohols, amines, or esters, they are used in various market segments. The main application areas are resins, soap and surfactants, paper chemicals, plastic additives, lubricants and consumer products, like candles."

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by ShawnD
Point duely noted. It's great that you're trying to change something.

ya it is isn't it!

and it is also decent of you to acknowledge this, shawn :)

 

[ranjana]

Originally posted by ShawnD

http://www.akzonobel-oleochemicals.com/fatty_acids.htm
"Fatty acids are mainly used as a raw material in the chemical industry. After conversion into products like fatty alcohols, amines, or esters, they are used in various market segments. The main application areas are resins, soap and surfactants, paper chemicals, plastic additives, lubricants and consumer products, like candles."

Thank you very much for your reference, it is much appreciated. However, it does not state that the fatty acids are animal based, and many of those listed are also found in plants.

Ranjana

 

[Dissident Dan]

If you don't really know how food production works, please check out the following videos:

http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

http://www.dissidentlogic.com/temp/BARC/video/Pig_Farm_Investigation.mpg (it's about 90 megs, non-streaming).

I think that these videos lend strength to the vegetarian argument.

 

[XcuddleXcoreX]

dairy

Originally posted by elwestrand
I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means I eat dairy and eggs.
Dairy is the most "ethical" food in existence-- it EXISTS to provide sutinence. Am, Vegans don't eat honey either. But actually, most foods that seem vegan have some sort of animal product in them. Small children cannot absorb everything from their food than adults can.. . So they need extra nutrition. If you will not feed your infant your own milk (the milk that comes from the mother), it is very insane and you should not be considered a human being. (the definition of mammal is that the mothers feed milk to the babies-- so if you do not, then you are not worthy of the title mammal and hence human being.) This is my logic. My mother was vegetarian the whole time she was pregnant with me and I was breast fed for two years. Breast feeding is very important for brain development. Am, B12 vitamin is in soul. It is lacking from processed foods due to poor topsoil and stuff, so I heard. Just grow a garden. Don't even wash the carrots, just eat them with the dirt and everything. You will have plenty of B12. You should anyways. I have strong bones. Never broke one of them. Of course to be a healthy vegitarian, it is more than avoiding certain foods. And remember I am vegetarian not because of any religious/moral reasons or sentimentality. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to sustain the body-- but I do believe it is wrong to kill and not eat what you have killed-- sport.

Dairy-producing cows suffer worse and for longer durations of time than any animals on this planet, with perhaps the exception of egg-laying hens. I cannot fathom how you consider dairy to be the most ethical of all foods.

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/dairy.html

These animals are deprived of everything natural to them. Their natural environment is replaced with crowded and filthy stalls. Their natural diet is replaced with antibiotics, rendered animal byproducts (including blood, feces, rectum, eyes and other treats), and inefficiently used plantfoods (recall that 90% of America's domestically grown grains are fed to farmed animals). Their natural social orders are disrupted: calves produced by dairy cows are often torn from their mothers days after birth and slaughtered for veal. And ultimately they are denied their natural lifespan: dairy cows are typically slaughtered at 5 years of age (note that over 85% of all ground beef in the United States is made primarily of "spent" dairy cows).

Most dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder ailment caused by milking machines. They routinely suffer from untreated cuts and bruises on their udders. The majority of dairy cows in the United States are artificially inseminated- an invasive and unnatural procedure that causes pain and stress to the cows. Almost all dairy cows are kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy, causing unimaginable strains on their bodies.

Buying dairy products is supporting animal cruelty.

 

[Be Happy!]

interesting site

www.goveg.com is a wonderful site jammed packed with great reasons to go veg and it even tells you how...

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by XcuddleXcoreX

Most dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder ailment caused by milking machines. They routinely suffer from untreated cuts and bruises on their udders. The majority of dairy cows in the United States are artificially inseminated- an invasive and unnatural procedure that causes pain and stress to the cows. Almost all dairy cows are kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy, causing unimaginable strains on their bodies.

You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

 

[pocebokli]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but is collecting points for each side philosophy??

this post is pretty much collecting data and bickering about wether we should eat plastic keyboard (hey, microsoft has this "natural keyboard", probably for vegetarians? doh...)

you really can't see the broader picture?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by elwestrand
You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

Do you know how the milk you get is produced? Do you really think that dairy cows are allowed to live full lives? In order to produce milk, they are impregnated frequently. I'm sure that this is common in all industrialized areas. The male calves are probably used for veal or adult meat. Dairy supports the meat industry. If you want to raise your own cow, that's one thing, but if you buy it from the store, it is a product which has a production method that causes killing, and in many "modernized" areas, torture.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by elwestrand
You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

The milk itself isn't evil or cruel. It has to do with how it is acquired and from whom.

The cow doesn't make the milk for homo sapiens - she makes it for bos taurus. The dairy mechanism, large or small, forces the cow to produce a child, takes her child away from her, and then, takes the nourishment that she produced for that child away from her too.

From your posts on this thread, it is obvious that ethics and compassion are important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be challenging the others for an argument to show that milk is 'evil and cruel'.

Yet, i do not think that what i have written here, or dan in the last post, or XcuddleXcoreX earlier can possibly be construed as being kind or beneficial to the cow or her children.

Therefore, the challenge goes back to you. either prove that this is not what is done to produce milk, or demonstrate that these practises are really not cruelty in action. Since the former is pretty hard to dispute, the focus will probably be on the latter and the attempt thereof, may provide an deeper insight into our species' sense of understanding and empathy.

Tragically, the saying needs to be modified:

"to err is human, to forgive is bovine"

and cows certainly have much to forgive

 

[Jonh Doe]

More animals to conduct researches on.

By physicskid

HAHAHAHA!

No, seriously, not a so good argument. (if you consider that some research is a lot more cruel than just killing the animal. (figure that I have heard about research of how to graft genital human organs on mice!)

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

By decibel

This is, and sorry for insulting him, espescially stupid of him, because the actual consumption of meat on Earth has already disrupted the food chain by a lot, and isn't even part of the natural predator/prey food chain anymore. If we would all stop eating meat, it would more likely restore the food chain than disrupt it.

Oh, and by the way, I am against eating meat, of any kind. (yes, fish is still meat...)

 

[pace]

Just to put a little more light into this thread, I've been a vegetarian(eating milk and eggs) for 2 months now, after discussing in this thread.
I've tried a couple of times before, but now I found it suprisingly easy after discuissing against eating meat in this thread.

 

[XcuddleXcoreX]

admiration

I commend you for making a compassionate decision. As you learn more thoroughly about the issues your ethics will evolve and you will become more secure in them. Remember to constantly ask yourself, "is the decision I'm about to make a compassionate one?". You're on the right path.

 

[revesz]

what is it that the average vegitarian sees wrong eating meat? is it the killing or suffering caused to the living animal? Or, is it the consumption of the flesh of an animal that they don't like?(OR BOTH)

the killing is justified, it is for neutrients, for food, life. It is a natural way to get energy. If you think it cruel or evil, you must think about the fact that you are in your personal universe, it is reality as it exists to you, you only experience your own conciousness, so why would the pain inflicted be morally wrong if it is not as a result causing you personally any suffering? The feelings of the animal are not a part of your experience, the feelings don't exist to you, like a bad dream you had and then forgot, it causes no pain.

Death itself is not so bad(except the part where you actually experience death). but being dead is nothing bad, its nothing good either, its nothing at all really, so why is that not wanted for an animal? Do you fear not waiking up one day? why? you won't feel any regret or pain from not living anymore, so an animal is not going to care that its life is over.

If its the eating the meat that makes you not want it, the actual consuption of somethings body, that you find disturbing or whatever, then you should also stop eating plants too, infact just starve to death while your at it. the fate of your body doesn't matter just because you were once alive, a dead animal is just as much going to care about being eaten as a apple, or head of cabbage. so really eating meat is perfectly fine, in fact if you don't eat meat, then that's your problem. i don't see anything wrong with not eating meat, just that eating it is more convenient, and it tastes great.

 

[Dissident Dan]

revesz, would you find nothing wrong in raising humans in intense confinement so that they could be slaughtered for your consumption?

 

[revesz]

One thing i overlooked, i was not considering the living conditions of the animals, i was more thinking about the fate of the animal. It is wrong to have animals living in poor conditions, not because they are being eaten, but because while they are alive, they are unhappy.
I see how it is evil, and i eat meat, i see that the only thing to do personally that will in any way help, would be to stop eating meat, but I am also a gready human, and i want my meat, and I am not going to stop eating meat. if someone were to say, we should not eat meat, because eating meat is bad i would have to argue. but livestock should be raised in good conditions, in open fields.

I can't remember seeing anything wrong with the conditions of livestock. is it really confinement? cows live in open fields, and they seem happy, chickens don't need lots of room. dogs live in confinement, is that also wrong?

I think we should eat meat, but we should also, give the animals good soroundings, not overcrowded or dirty. And when we slaughter them, it should be by some nonpainfull or at least very quick method.

 

[Dissident Dan]

When I first became vegetarian, I did not find it wrong to raise animals for slaughter in general, but I found that our system of production is so horrible that I could not fathom further supporting the system.

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that teach about the cruelties involved in modern intensive confinement food production, often referred to as "factory farming." Some URLs:

http://www.factoryfarming.org
http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/factsheet_contents.htm
http://www.vegsoc.org/animals/

There are videos, too, like "Meet Your Meat" (www.meetyourmeat.com), "Diet for a New America" (based on a book), and "Peacable Kingdom".

I do not believe that those who raise animals for food will give much concern to animal welfare. This is especially true given the trend towards larger and larger corporate operations.

 

[chrismbg]

Priorities

I really don't care if we eat meat or not. Here's why.

There are a lot of people that eat meat. They don't care about the health of the animal they are eating. This is part of the food chain, whether we like it or not. We are at the top.

I see a lot of people that are against eating meat because it hurts the animals involved. Of course it will, you are killing the animals to eat them. Whether it's systematic or personal hunting, the animal dies, usually a painful death, to be eaten. So is nature.

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not...come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

Maybe I am thinking too big, but this is the way I see things.

Chris

 

[cookiemonster]

Are cows even smart enough to care how they live?

cookiemonster

 

[pace]

Yes I think so.

chrismbg,
We do focus a lot more more on humans than other animals.

It's sad that when violence and torture is done to humans we are so horrified but when it's done between different animals(including us) it's suddenly supposed to be so natural.

Where is the line?
I might as well argue that my mom, dad and cousins are like me, and that americans are so different. I might as well back this up by saying nations have gone too war as long as man's memory, therefore it's completely natural that we capture all americans and do whatever we please with them.

There is no line to love, morals, and friendship.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by chrismbg

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not...come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

"When non-vegetarians say that 'human problems come first,' I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of animals." -- Peter Singer