Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[omni-8]

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall.

Where can a line be drawn? Well, it can't (at least not yet). Life feeds on life...

 

[abitofnothingleft]

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall...

yes but the difference is that plants don't have nervous systems...they don't feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people don't eat animals but eat plants.

 

[omni-8]

yes but the difference is that plants don't have nervous systems...they don't feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people don't eat animals but eat plants.

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

I think the level of consciousness of an animal lends to the perception of what is acceptable to kill and what is not. For example, lacto-ovo vegetarians make allowances for eating fish and eggs.

Overall I agree with Richard Harris, in that moderation is the ultimate course to pursue regardless of the variables.

 

[susanest]

Animals are not ours to eat...

'Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.'
This is the motto of the PETA organization. I suggest you check out some of their excellent information on peta.org. I also agree with the person who suggested that our current attitudes toward animals will one day be looked upon as we now look back at slavery! It's wrong and the sooner we recognize it, the better.

There are many good sources of information available that support the fact that we would all be better off relying on plants for food, rather than putting the plant material through animals and then eating animal flesh which is also a major source of accumulated pesticides, hormones, cholesterol and so on! The three leading causes of death in the US today (heart disease, stroke and cancers) are associated with diet and would be reduced tremendously by eliminating meat, eggs and milk products from the diet.

The excellent book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins is an amazing source of very well-documented truths regarding the lies we have been fed by the meat and dairy industries. Mr. Robbins (heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune who turned away from that business to learn about healthier ways to live!) points out that those industries spend billions each year to maintain the myth that their poisons are good for us! Like so many problems these days, sources of truth are overshadowed by greed in our very corrupt system.

Also check out works by Dr. Dean Ornish who has created a very effective Program for Reversing Heart Disease which includes a vegan diet.

Another point: although it is, of course, true that plants are a life form, too, approximately 20 pounds of plant protein are required to create one pound of beef protein. Very inefficient! The pollution that results from the meat and dairy industries is mind-boggling. These are only a hint of the many reasons that eating meat is very un-healthy for our planet and also for the many hungry people in this country and around the world!

 

[Kurdt]

While i agree that some of our practises toward animals are very cruel and need to be addressed, I would not go so far as to say we should ban meat. It is an individuals choice what he/she eats and should remain so. In most of the world today we live in societies that are supposed to uphold the principal of civil liberty and free speech. while i value the points some people make I resent the fact that they imply that sanctions either way will be imposed.

A right to live a vegan life style is well catered for nowadays and the industry is getting better. I do remember several months ago, a documentary concerning the missing link and current accepted theory (correct me if I am wrong) is that human ancestors developed the brain capacity we have now from the switch to consuming mainly plant life to a mix between meat and plant life. in other words we would not be having a debate on whther it was moral or not.

I also seem to remember that the human body isn't completely incapable of dealing with meat. herbivores have a tough time digesting any meat, carnivores have similar trouble with vegetation omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either. I was under the distinct impression that we were the latter category of animal.

Another thing that caught my attention is if we eventually deem it immoral to cull animals for food then what can we say about carnivores. Round them all up and feed them three bean soup? There is not a chance that we could make a decision whilst nature itself has so much diversity. If we were the only species that did it then i would have no problem with an ultimate moral decision but as it stands there's plenty of room for both parties to live as they wish.

 

[shrumeo]

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. 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).

We come from a mixed line of plant eating and meat eating primates.
We are omnivores, not herbivores.
Human predecessors split into 2 species (homo robustus and homo habilus) a few million years ago. Robustus had huge jaws for grinding leaves, stems, and roots, and habilus became more lanky and active because it supplemented its vegetable diet with meat. Robustus died out because it filled too narrow a niche. We come (more likely) from the habilus line, which was able to digest meat as well as vegetables, and therefore could better adapt to different food supplies. we could SURVIVE on either a strictly vegetable diet or a strictly meat diet (compare vegetarians with Innuit people [or Atkins dieters])

We do have an GI tract capable of digesting vegetables, because that's what it's designed to do. It's also designed to digest meat. Our teeth have BOTH capabilities.

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!

Go on the Atkins diet and you will find that your LDL's go down. All the bad cholesterol levels go down, along with triglycerides and arterial plaque. Then, counterintuitively, go on the Mayo Clinic diet (high carb, low fat) and you will see all these numbers go up. Just because you eat it, doesn't mean it sticks to your arteries.

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?

Depends on how hungry I am. If I am starving in the woods and any edible animal comes my way, it's dinner time.

Let's do the same with plants. When you see a fern or a tulip, do you say 'how pretty' or do you start salivating?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

The should depends on the "who." Our ancestors had taboos on certain things, but eating meat wasn't one of them. Should they not have eaten meat? Even when our population would've died out? Have we evolved to a point where we are a knew "who" and should change our proper course of action regarding food? Or has our environment changed? Just some ideas that probably have been addressed but I'm not going to read all 44 pages of this thread.

For example, we have changed our stance on gender roles, somewhat. So, are we a different "who" or is this another thing we "should" do now and should have done then?

 

[shrumeo]

I agree with shrumeo. we were made to eat meat, we have thrived on eating meat, why stop now? it is the niche that we are (meant to/ are) occupying right now.

on the other hand, i do enjoy playing the devil's adovacate so here it goes:
Since ppl complain that humans are to "animal-ish" in their behavoir, is this not some way to separate ourselves and say "Yo everyone look at me! I am above those puny animals for I have decided not to be like them!"? Also maybe this whole "man is meant to be a meat eater" thing is outdated? Yes eating meat has gotten us this far, but slaves made Rome great(for a while) yet most ppl would agree that slavery is a old fashion tradition that is evil. Is this not like slavery in a way?

Where do we draw the line? Don't plants have a right to live out their lives and reproduce too? I guess most fruit-bearing plants rely on being eaten to reproduce, but lettuce doesn't, neither does celery or a ton of plants we eat. Shouldn't we limit our diet to plants that bear fruit (beans and nuts too) and leave (no pun intended) the leafy plants, roots, and tubors alone to live out their lives fully?

One extreme is Soylent Green and the other extreme is starvation by altruism.

its true though. why don't we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals don't really eat there own species either.

Exactly. But, we are not "above" animals since we are inevitably animals ourselves. We may not be able to escape the 'cycle of life' unless we come up with Star Trek like replicators or begin to design the evolution of our own species.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org

All right. I was going on old info that claimed that soy did not provide all essential amino acids. Perhaps new research has shed light on this.

BUT, maybe we can't rely on soy for our "meat replacement."
Because it contains isoflavones.
Depending on who you ask, these are good for you and bad for you.
While they may be great for post-menopausal women, I don't think I want to start dosing myself with what could be called an "estrogen replacement."
------------------------------
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html
"Soy by itself is not a magic food," says Christine Lewis, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "But rather it is an example of the different kinds of foods that together in a complete diet can have a positive effect on health."

The problem, researchers say, is that isoflavones are phytoestrogens, a weak form of estrogen that could have a drug-like effect in the body. This may be pronounced in postmenopausal women, and some studies suggest that high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer. Research data, however, are far from conclusive, and some studies show just the opposite--that under some conditions, soy may help prevent breast cancer. It is this scientific conundrum, where evidence simultaneously points to benefits and possible risks, that is causing some researchers to urge caution.

Unlike the controversy surrounding soy isoflavones, available evidence on soy protein benefits is much clearer. That's why FDA limited its health claim to foods containing intact soy protein. The claim does not extend to isolated substances from soy protein such as the isoflavones genistein and daidzein.
---------------------------

Anyway, why is soy protein called a "meat replacement" if we don't normally rely on meat for complete nutrition? This is what we are naturally designed to do. If that ONE plant (soy) didn't exist, we'd be left with the multitude of animal-based options that we have had throughout our evolution to complete our dietary needs. Not all our ancestors had access to soy beans. If they did, we'd probably all be eating tofu for lunch every day and not hamburgers.

Edit:
Ah!
here we go:
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/17084.cfm
This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients.
-------
So, if you are a vegan, you must SUPPLEMENT your diet with manufactured pills in order to meet recommended requirements.
-------
Vegetarian diets offer a number of advantages, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, boron, folate, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and phytochemicals (27-30). Some vegans may have intakes for vitamin B-12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and occasionally riboflavin that are lower than recommended (27,29,31).
-------
And they would have to take pills to make up the difference (or use an animal product).
-------
Anyway, it sounds far easier to just eat the way nature intended.

 

[shrumeo]

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat

Wheat doesn't provide all essential amino acids, so we should not eat wheat.

Eggplants don't provide much nutrition at all (but provide plenty of fiber) so we shouldn't eat eggplants.

A broom has a lot of fiber so we should only eat brooms.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

yes but the point is they are NOT executed properly. and they feel pain by living. the conditions of their living space is disgusting.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.

 

[Kurdt]

In some parts of the USA a lot of PEOPLE aren't executed pain free. It first has to stop there before it ever has a chance of being implemented with animals. A famous comedian in britain once suggested in his satirical magazine show that abatoirs should slaughter a member of staff every six weeks to redress the balance to some extent.

 

[shrumeo]

'Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.'
This is the motto of the PETA organization. I suggest you check out some of their excellent information on peta.org. I also agree with the person who suggested that our current attitudes toward animals will one day be looked upon as we now look back at slavery! It's wrong and the sooner we recognize it, the better.

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).

There are many good sources of information available that support the fact that we would all be better off relying on plants for food, rather than putting the plant material through animals and then eating animal flesh which is also a major source of accumulated pesticides, hormones, cholesterol and so on! The three leading causes of death in the US today (heart disease, stroke and cancers) are associated with diet and would be reduced tremendously by eliminating meat, eggs and milk products from the diet.

Actually, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancers do largely come from a dietary source, but it's not meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) but from eating highly processed carbohydrates like sucrose and white flour mixed with starchy vegetables cooked in saturated fats.

It's McD's, Little Debbie, Lay's, and Ben & Jerry's that leads to those diseases, not eating high quality meats, fishes, and especially not milk and eggs.

The excellent book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins is an amazing source of very well-documented truths regarding the lies we have been fed by the meat and dairy industries. Mr. Robbins (heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune who turned away from that business to learn about healthier ways to live!) points out that those industries spend billions each year to maintain the myth that their poisons are good for us! Like so many problems these days, sources of truth are overshadowed by greed in our very corrupt system.

Get real. Everything is a freaking poison to someone. Hell, Baskin Robbins is poison if anything. Long before a nice steak is poison.

Another point: although it is, of course, true that plants are a life form, too, approximately 20 pounds of plant protein are required to create one pound of beef protein. Very inefficient!

But if the animal was never fed the plant protein how would it live? Would these animals even exist if it weren't for their purpose as human consumables? How many animals would be left in this world if all we did with their land is plant crops? Some of that farmland is now inhabited by domesticated food animals.

The pollution that results from the meat and dairy industries is mind-boggling.

What would that be? poo poo? That's not pollution unless it's highly concentrated in an area that would be harmed by that high concentration. Dilution is the solution to pollution. The amount of pollution from human poo poo is comparable.

 

[shrumeo]

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.

Does this mean that you are thinking a bit about the pro-meat arguments?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats)

thats not totally true. PETA has made MANY great steps in the move forward to stop animal cruelty. as i said before, they are not total extremesists. how do i know? because I am part of it. yes...im a peta person. we have stands to educate people. we don't walk up to someone eating a burger and throw it on the ground and i haven't heard of any controlled peta members recently throwing paint on peoples fur coats. it is people who take that too far that give peta that reputation. we have a campaign that emphasizes the horrors of fur coats, clothes, etc. its called "i'd rather go naked then wear fur." and it is vastly spreading. Pamela Anderson even posed for the calendar.
check this link out for more info:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=naked_campaign

peta overall works to benefit the stopping of animal cruelty by advertising, and educating people about the horrors of wearing fur. its true that in the past people went extreme, but they now have official members who cannot do such things and blame it on peta, because peta would never tell someone to throw red paint on a person who is wearing a fur coat. they would tell them to educate that person, rather then totally humiliate them. this is because no one wants to listen to someone when you are embarasing them. therefore, instead of doing that, they are educating.


and no shrumeo...i think he means for the pro-meaters to think about the pro-veggies arguements a little more before before you dismiss them.

 

[Dissident Dan]

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).

Maybe, but I don't see what that has to do with what susanest wrote.

Actually, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancers do largely come from a dietary source, but it's not meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) but from eating highly processed carbohydrates like sucrose and white flour mixed with starchy vegetables cooked in saturated fats.

Highly processed carbohydrates are not good for you in most regards, but I'd like to know why you claim that animal products do not contribute to the ailments mentioned and why you claim they are actually very healthy. I am especially perplexed about the milk one. Milk is one of the most unhealthy and alien substances that people regularly consume in large amounts. It is packed with saturated fat, cholesterol, hormones, antibiotics, harmful proteins, and puss, and it triggers allergic reactions in many people, if not everyone.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).
.

they are doing that too...there are tons of campaigns that peta runs all at once. so not only are they attempting big leaps, but also those steps too. and its harder then you think to obtain humane treatment for those animals.
its an ongoing battle, as are many of their other campaigns, but as i said before, they have made some awesome achievements in the past and have helped animals out a lot!

 

[theriddler876]

this isn't about animal treatment or testing, it's about animal consumption, try not to deviate from the topic... anyways, analysis of our teeth proves what we were and were not meant to eat..

 

[abitofnothingleft]

okay ...well people are arguing as to whether we should or should not eat meat. along with your opinion comes a reason...that is my argument against theirs. i don't see how that doesn't directly relate to the topic.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I do remember several months ago, a documentary concerning the missing link and current accepted theory (correct me if I am wrong) is that human ancestors developed the brain capacity we have now from the switch to consuming mainly plant life to a mix between meat and plant life.

At the end of this post is some information from another thread on the idea some people propose regarding increased protein causing increase brain capacity (not that this is what you or the documentary is suggesting). The essence of it is that increased caloric density (available through grains for instance) was what contributed to increased brain size.

I also seem to remember that the human body isn't completely incapable of dealing with meat. herbivores have a tough time digesting any meat, carnivores have similar trouble with vegetation omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either. I was under the distinct impression that we were the latter category of animal.

the key point you make is the "omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either". humans can eat meat, just as cats can manage vegetables and fruits, and factory farmed animals often end up being fed animal proteins in the form of 'rendered flesh', feces etc. every creature can be said to be omnivorous to some extent - but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. as for humans eating meat, the evidence accummulated over the past half century certainly indicates that it is a very bad idea.

Another thing that caught my attention is if we eventually deem it immoral to cull animals for food then what can we say about carnivores. Round them all up and feed them three bean soup?

the issue here is 'should we eat meat?' not 'should we allow any creature to eat meat'. i do not think the matter is simply one of morality though meat and dairy production can certainly be deemed to be immoral considering what goes on. the point is that since humans have no need to kill other animals for food (except in places where it is not possible to grow food), therefore eating meat can certainly be considered immoral given the circumstances.

in friendship,
prad


-----------
the idea of large brain development being a result of the free hours for creative thought which became available as a result of the high caloric intake that meat supposedly provided is at best speculation.

However, the rationale behind some of this is perhaps interesting at least.

The idea is derived from the topic of encephalization reviewed (albeit somewhat biasedly) here: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4a.shtml.

Essentially, the correlation between DQ (diet quality specifically the caloric intake) and brain size led to the hypothesis that in order to get all this energy, we needed to eat meat otherwise our brains wouldn't have ever developed. In fact, Leonard and Robertson claim that

What made meat an important resource to exploit was not its high protein content, rather, its high caloric return ... the early hunting-gathering life-way associated with H. erectus was a more efficient way of getting food which supported a 35-55% increase in caloric needs (relative to australopithecines)...

(If you recall, I mentioned the 2 human 'strains' earlier in the thread)

Their entire thrust appears based on dense caloric intake (as opposed to just meat) for later they write (Leonard and Robertson 1994, p. 79)

Even in human populations where meat consumption is low, DQ is still much higher than in other large-bodied primates because grains are much more calorically dense than foliage.

Having said all this, they conclude:

These results imply that changes in diet quality during hominid evolution were linked with the evolution of brain size. The shift to a more calorically dense diet was probably needed in order to substantially increase the amount of metabolic energy being used by the hominid brain. Thus, while nutritional factors alone are not sufficient to explain the evolution of our large brains, it seems clear that certain dietary changes were necessary for substantial brain evolution to take place.

Notice that they say that nutritional factors alone are not sufficient to explain brain development.

Note: there are several other theories such as the rather interesting one put forth by william calvin in the Ascent of Man deals with the ice ages and how human intelligence evolved as a result of having to deal with resulting challenges:

Three things apparently started 2.5 million years ago: the ice ages, toolmaking, growth in brain size.

Indeed, switches in climate may promote a jack-of-all-trades set of capabilities under some conditions. The rapidity of the climate change would appear to be more important than its magnitude.
Climate Instability and Hominid Brain Evolution
http://www.williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AGU.htm


as well as the more 'political' effort (quite remarkable for its time) by Engels on the importance of labor on human brain development, developed with minimal fossil evidence, but still "a masterpiece of the dialectical method"
http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/HumanDevelopment.html

 

[physicsisphirst]

yes but the point is they are NOT executed properly. and they feel pain by living. the conditions of their living space is disgusting.

this is very true even in so-called 'human slaughter'. for instance, after receiving complaints, an investigation by PETA revealed the horrors of 'kosher' killing at the plant run by Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa:

AgriProcessor workers ignore the suffering of cows who are still sensible to pain after having their throats slit by the ritual slaughterer. The animals stagger and slip in blood while their tracheas dangle from their necks.
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

there are two videos at the above link that show this 'kosher' process as well as this What You Can Do link: http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/wycd.asp

below is the New York Times article that appeared yesterday regarding this investigation.

in friendship,
prad



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/national/30cnd-kosh.html
November 30, 2004
Videotapes Show Grisly Scenes at Kosher Slaughterhouse
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

An animal-rights group released grisly undercover videotapes today showing cows in a major kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa staggering and bellowing in seeming agony long after their throats were cut.

The plant, run by Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa, is being denounced as inhumane by the group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and by several experts on animal science and kosher practice.

But the plant's supervising rabbi said the tapes were "testimony that this is being done right." And representatives of the Orthodox Union, the leading organization that certifies kosher products, said that while the pictures were not pretty, they did not make the case that the slaughterhouse is violating kosher law.

The plant is the country's largest producer of meat certified as glatt kosher, the highest standard for cleanliness under kosher law. (Glatt means smooth, or free of the lung blemishes that might indicate disease.) Employing 600 people and selling under the popular Aaron's Best brand, it is the only American plant allowed to export to Israel.

On the 30-minute tape, each animal is placed in a rotating drum so it can be killed while upside down, as required by Orthodox rabbis in Israel. Immediately after the shochet, or ritual slaughterer, has slit the throat, another worker tears open each steer's neck with a hook and pulls out the trachea and esophagus. The drum rotates, and the steer is dumped on the floor. One after another, animals with dangling windpipes stand up or try to; in one case, death takes three minutes.

In most kosher plants, animals are tightly penned while their throats are
slashed, and the organs are not torn; tearing by the shochet is forbidden under Jewish law. In nonkosher plants, animals by law must be made unconscious before they are killed.

Virtually all defenders of kosher slaughter, called shechita, insist that the
prescribed rapid cut with a razor-sharp two-foot blade is humane because it causes instant and painless death. Jewish law also forbids killing injured or sick animals, so they may not be stunned first, either with clubs as in ancient times or with air hammers, pistols or electricity today.

Federal law considers properly conducted religious slaughter to be humane, and so allows Jewish as well as Muslim slaughterhouses to forgo stunning. But federal rules outlaw leaving animals killed that way conscious "for an extended period of time."

Rabbi Chaim Kohn, of the Agriprocessors plant, says the cows feel nothing, even as they struggle on the floor and slamm their heads into walls. "Unconsciousness and the external behavior of the animal have nothing to do with shechita," he said. Because the throat-tearing happens after the shochet's cut, he said, it does not render the animal nonkosher.

Other experts in kosher law were divided on the issue.
Rabbis Menachem Genack and Yisroel Belsky, the chief experts for the Orthodox Union, which certifies over 600,000 products as kosher - including Aaron's Best meats - said the killings on the tape, while "gruesome," appeared kosher because the shochet checked to make sure he had severed both the trachea and esophagus.

Scientific studies, Rabbi Belsky said, found that an animal whose brain had lost blood pressure when its throat was slit felt nothing and any motions it made were involuntary.

"The perfect model is the headless chicken running around," said Rabbi Genack.
Both rabbis said they were willing to revisit the plant and study whether
tearing the throat or letting steers thrash on the ground violated Talmudic proscriptions against cruelty to animals.

The union, they said, prefers a type of pen designed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in which steers are killed standing up with their weight supported. They were designed in the 1950's so American kosher plants could stop killing live animals suspended on chains, which was seen as both cruel and dangerous to the slaughterer.

But a spokesman for Shechita UK, a British lobbying group that defends ritual slaughter against the protests of animal-rights activists, said after watching the tape with a rabbi and a British shochet that he "felt queasy," and added,"I don't know what that is, but it's not shechita."

The spokesman, Shimon Cohen, said that in Britain an animal must be restrained for 30 seconds to bleed, and no second cut is allowed. Done correctly, he said, a shochet's cut must produce instantaneous unconsciousness, so Agriprocessors' meat could not be considered kosher.

Asked how prominent authorities could disagree over such a fundamental issue, he replied: "Well, we don't have a pope. You do find rabbis who interpret things in different ways."

Dr. Temple Grandin, a veterinarian at Colorado State University who designs humane slaughter plants, viewed the tape last week without knowing the location. She called it "an atrocious abomination, nothing like I've seen in 30 kosher plants I've visited here and in England, France, Ireland and Canada."

She said the throat-tearing violated federal anti-cruelty law. "Nothing in the Humane Slaughter Act says you can start dismembering an animal while it's still conscious," she said.

A spokesman for the Department of Agriculture, which also certifies the plant, said it had not received the tapes yet and had no comment.

Rabbi Kohn, of Agriprocessors, said the throat-tearing was done only to speed bleeding. Recent Federal rules for slaughterhouse inspectors do recognize "the ritual cut and any additional cut to facilitate bleeding" as different from skinning or butchering, which is forbidden "until the animal is insensible."

The plant is at the center of a 2000 book, "Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America," by Stephen G. Bloom, which described the tensions in the tiny farming town between residents and Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn who took over its defunct slaughterhouse in 1987.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA, posted the tapes at GoVeg.com today and demanded that the plant be prosecuted for animal cruelty and decertified by kosher authorities. While the group advocates vegetarianism, it accepts that shechita can be relatively painless, said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman.

Mr. Friedrich said that after two fruitless years of pressing Agriprocessors to improve conditions, PETA sent a volunteer to the plant with a hidden camera for seven weeks last summer.

The cameraman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had no trouble being hired (he was assigned to the sausage department) or filming during his lunch hours and on days he called in sick.

"I'm glad I did it," said the young man, who became a vegetarian and volunteered for undercover work two years ago after seeing a PETA videotape. "I wish people who eat meat could stand where I did and see the things I saw."

Meat from the Agriprocessors plant can end up in any market or restaurant. Because Jewish law requires that the sciatic nerves and certain fats be cut out, which tears up the meat until it can only be sold as hamburger, the hindquarters of virtually all kosher-killed steers are sold as conventional meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures.

This is a strange thing to say considering

* PETA has been around for more than 2 decades
* has a membership of over 800 000 worldwide (last i heard)
* has helped to make 'animal rights' practically a household phrase
* been responsible for numerous changes for both animal welfare and animal rights (here is a link to recent victories: http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp and for milestones by year go to http://www.peta.org/about/ and follow the milestones link)

Admittedly, a few of PETA's tactics may not be considered to be 'productive' even by certain AR groups, but the organization is obviously highly respected judging by the support it has from people in all walks of life as well as feared judging by the concerns of many of its opponents.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Does this mean that you are thinking a bit about the pro-meat arguments?

shrumeo, there really aren't any pro-meat arguments other than

1. i like the taste
2. we are omnivores (which isn't the point or particularly correct considering what animal proteins - high quality or otherwise - do to humans)
3. extremely rare situations such as primary carbohydrate intolerance (where it appears there may be lacking digestive enzymes)
4. mind your own business because i'll do whatever i want to

To argue the nutritional merits of eating meat using stuff like the Atkins diet is a bit strange considering it is really not regarded too highly by even medical authorities (though it does appear to be somewhat successful for weightloss) as is the psychological comparison you put forth earlier regarding whether a fern or a tulip can cause salivation LOL.

In any case, consumption of animal proteins isn't necessary nor healthful. The agri-production is seriously damaging to the environment and it is certainly causing more and more people to question their ethical values.

Even ethics aside, going veg really isn't too difficult when one contemplates what is associated with animal protein production such as the drugs, the growth hormones, the mercury poisoning, the deforestation, the pollution, the depletion of the water table, the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella and of course the cow pus!

Vegetarianism isn't just another fad - it's been around a long, long time and has been increasing in popularity for several decades thanks to research and dissemination of information.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm supporting the vegetarian economic/health efficiency arguements so far. I'm still a bit stuck on the issue though.

What about the animal right to life issue? I like meat and generally dislike vegetables and can't see these animals contributing to me enough for me to justify their existence. Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

 

[learningphysics]

I'm supporting the vegetarian economic/health efficiency arguements so far. I'm still a bit stuck on the issue though.

What about the animal right to life issue? I like meat and generally dislike vegetables and can't see these animals contributing to me enough for me to justify their existence. Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

Ask yourself this: if a human contributes nothing to human society, and his death provides pleasure, is his/her existence justified?

There are plenty of humans that don't contribute to me. Does that mean I can't justify their existence?

Lots of animal societies would be better off if humans were extinct. We contribute nothing to their societies. Is our existence justified?

Also think about what the word "society" means exactly...

Just pointing out some issues.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

An interesting line of reasoning, but very well addressed by learningphysics in the previous post.

I think part of the idea is along these lines as well:

'ask not what your planet can do for you, ask what you can do for your planet'.

hedonism may bring instant gratification, but what is admired, what we teach our children, is to contribute and not to just take. The examples throughout history pointed to as 'models of humanity' have overwhelmingly been kind, compassionate, selfless, courageous and very prone to do for others rather than usurp for themselves.

Hence, the issue changes somewhat from passing judgement on whether the 'contribution' some being makes can justify its existence, to how should I act in order to justify mine.

in friendship,
prad

 

[abitofnothingleft]

Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

wow...that amazes me...you would much rather see and eat a dead animal then see it wild and alive? really...?! you would rather eat a horse then see it living and wild and running around ...as hard as it may be for you to believe...animals can enjoy their life too. seeing an animal in the wild is one of the most amazing sites ever. i think that's one of the most selfish questions I've ever heard.

"i'd like to have an animal tortured and slaughtered so i can enjoy the juicy greasy hormone ridden meat of its dead carcass, thank you!"

p.s.~ I'm sorry but i get really passionate over these kind of arguements...both the argument for or against meat as well as abortions

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I don't take any offense to passion. I prefer unemotional debates but I can understand how some people get emotional over certain topics. I certainly hope your pro-choice. Concerning the running around part, if I could see a cow run around or eat a nice BBQed hamburger with cheese I'd certainly take the burger.

The majority of people contribute to my existence because they contribute to society and society helps sustain my existence. What are the logical arguements against selfishness towards dealing with both animals and humans?

 

[learningphysics]

I don't take any offense to passion. I prefer unemotional debates but I can understand how some people get emotional over certain topics. I certainly hope your pro-choice. Concerning the running around part, if I could see a cow run around or eat a nice BBQed hamburger with cheese I'd certainly take the burger.

The majority of people contribute to my existence because they contribute to society and society helps sustain my existence. What are the logical arguements against selfishness towards dealing with both animals and humans?

All of this comes down to a matter of ethics. What is "right"? What is "wrong"? If one starts with a moral foundation of "right" being whatever is selfish, and "wrong" being otherwise, then it is impossible to give any argument against selfishness.

If a thief can get away with stealing, and he enjoys the process and rewards of stealing, is it right for him to continue? I can't think of any logical arguments against it. There might be ethical arguments though...

 

[abitofnothingleft]

Concerning the running around part, if I could see a cow run around or eat a nice BBQed hamburger with cheese I'd certainly take the burger.

The majority of people contribute to my existence because they contribute to society and society helps sustain my existence. What are the logical arguements against selfishness towards dealing with both animals and humans?

the thing is you've only ever seen cows in farms...you haven't seen them wild (or at least that's what I am assuming considering cows arent really in the wild.) animals are totally different when they're in the wild and when they're captive in farms. nothing ever looks as good as it would if it was wild.

humans are very very selfish when it comes to anything. they prefer to be in control of everything they possibly can be. they want to be in control of what they eat, how juicy and thick the meat is, they want to be in an environment where they are the masters and controllers and the animals are the victims, the tortured, slaughtered victims. they cannot simply kill the animal, they mutate it and then kill it. they are mutating animals for their own pleasure...how selfish is that?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What does Tofu taste like? If someone doesn't like it what should they do?

Can someone be Vegeterian and eat eggs? Are eggs considered chicken abortions? Are the majority of vegeterians pro-life? What reasoning is placed against drinking milk and eating cheese?

 

[shrumeo]

thats not totally true. PETA has made MANY great steps in the move forward to stop animal cruelty. as i said before, they are not total extremesists. how do i know? because I am part of it. yes...im a peta person. we have stands to educate people. we don't walk up to someone eating a burger and throw it on the ground and i haven't heard of any controlled peta members recently throwing paint on peoples fur coats. it is people who take that too far that give peta that reputation. we have a campaign that emphasizes the horrors of fur coats, clothes, etc. its called "i'd rather go naked then wear fur." and it is vastly spreading. Pamela Anderson even posed for the calendar.
check this link out for more info:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=naked_campaign

peta overall works to benefit the stopping of animal cruelty by advertising, and educating people about the horrors of wearing fur. its true that in the past people went extreme, but they now have official members who cannot do such things and blame it on peta, because peta would never tell someone to throw red paint on a person who is wearing a fur coat. they would tell them to educate that person, rather then totally humiliate them. this is because no one wants to listen to someone when you are embarasing them. therefore, instead of doing that, they are educating.


and no shrumeo...i think he means for the pro-meaters to think about the pro-veggies arguements a little more before before you dismiss them.

I was just making sure that he was doing the same.

Eat meat. It's healthy.

I guess I have to say it 1000 times. We should eat meat, but that doesn't mean we have to be cruel to animals. We could even wear fur, but there is no excuse for the treatment most of these animals receive in the name of "saving money."

So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.

Ok, about the Peta thing. It wasn't some fringe part of PETA that threw paint on people, that was just a tactic that backfired and had to be labelled as "fringe." I applaud the naked campaign if it really had the results they claim.

I don't think anyone was really humiliated when they got the paint thrown on them. I would think it really pissed them off, and they were probably rich enough to sue.

Look, I'll just end it with this:
Eating meat, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals. Wearing fur, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals.
Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?

 

[physicsisphirst]

What does Tofu taste like? If someone doesn't like it what should they do?

tofu takes on the taste of various flavorings - that's what makes it an excellent and versatile item. if you don't like tofu one way, it can probably be made in some other way that you will like.

Can someone be Vegeterian and eat eggs?

not really if you go by the actual meaning of the word vegetarian.
however, common (though incorrect) usage has resulted in vegetarian being used to describe lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegan being used to describe strict vegetarians (no animal products at all - including honey).

Are eggs considered chicken abortions?

no since fertilization hasn't occurred in most eggs that people eat.
see them rather as the menstrual waste of another species :D

Are the majority of vegeterians pro-life?

vegetarianism is a dietary stance not an ethical one - though many vegetarians are that way for ethical reasons. the three primary reasons to go veg are health, environment, ethics. so it is certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still wear leather or fur, hunt for sport, and clearcut forests. however, most vegetarians probably don't do these things.

What reasoning is placed against drinking milk and eating cheese?

here are a few:
1) animal protein consumption lead to inflammatories such as eczema, asthma and arthritis
2) calcium depletion (ya i know they tell you the opposite LOL) leading to osteoporosis
3) the chemicals, steroids and hormones that wind up in it causing allergies, acne, premature pubescence (and we haven't even to the cow pus!)
4) destruction of the environment and pollution (got to keep those cows somehow)
5) the veal industry (can't have male calves sucking up all that milk)
6) cheese addiction:
Several scientific teams have shown that the principal protein in cheese, casein, breaks apart during digestion to produce abundant amounts of morphine-like compounds called casomorphins. Biologically, these opiates appear to be responsible for part of the mother-infant bond that occurs during nursing.
http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary030519.html

for more stuff see http://www.notmilk.com

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Eat meat. It's healthy ... So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.

this is hardly a convincing argument especially in light of the excellent posts several people have made throughout the thread against meat consumption.

Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).

i agree that cruel practices must be stopped - the law and boycotting can both be very effective.

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?

dogs do extremely well on veg diets - and tend to be free from problems non-veg diets cause (and there are quite a few of these). here are 2 links for veg dogs if anyone is interested:
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
http://www.veggiepets.com/
there are lots of others and even big commercial petfood manufacturers - natural life and nature's choice (i think) - provide a vegetarian dog food since some dogs are actually allergic to meat by-products. of course, there are pure veg petfood companies as well such as evolution (http://www.petfoodshop.com/) and hoana (http://www.vegepet.com/ - provides veg supplementation) which are both excellent.

in friendship,
prad

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I was just making sure that he was doing the same.

Eat meat. It's healthy.

I guess I have to say it 1000 times. We should eat meat, but that doesn't mean we have to be cruel to animals. We could even wear fur, but there is no excuse for the treatment most of these animals receive in the name of "saving money."

So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.

Ok, about the Peta thing. It wasn't some fringe part of PETA that threw paint on people, that was just a tactic that backfired and had to be labelled as "fringe." I applaud the naked campaign if it really had the results they claim.

I don't think anyone was really humiliated when they got the paint thrown on them. I would think it really pissed them off, and they were probably rich enough to sue.

Look, I'll just end it with this:
Eating meat, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals. Wearing fur, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals.
Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?

i'd be pretty humiliated if i had to walk down the street drenched in paint

i have considered the pro meat arguements ...i did that before i became a veggie and even when i first read this topic and i still chooose to dismiss them.
eating meat and wearing fur is still supporting those industries which torture the animals so yes, it is being cruel and unethical.

 

[kirkmcloren]

After burning 100¨s of thousands of animals in England there are so few cases if any, that they do not publisize it. Anyway the chances of getting mad cow disease were as high as going down in a jet liner at the height of the disease in those animals. Does anyone ever wonder why when virtually everyone is exposed to a disease only a few fall ill?

It is a slow disease like scrapies or visna. Takes a 1/4 to 1/3 of an animals lifetime in most cases to show pathology.

Ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

[Bobby R]

Eat Meat responsibly!

When we lack some mineral or vitamin (If we tune in!) our body should tell us what we need to supplement. For example, a craving for a potato may signify a need for potassium while leafy veggies may reveal a need for chlorophyll. A well balanced diet should include meat and fish. To replace these food items with vitamins & minerals from the shelf doesn’t seem to me a smart healthy idea. Of course you can always eat anything you want and as much as you want as long as you eat in front of a bunch of naked fat people.
Bob Rollins

 

[Coolblueflame]

Eat A Dead Animal

Of course we should eat DOMESTICATED critters (after they are dead!) as we are all "OMNIVOURS" (multi-types of food) that's why we have the COMBINATION TYPE TEETH that Tear as well as Grind...But my teeth prefer the marinated type dead animal...basted in BBQ sauce ...

 

[Alkatran]

If we stop eating the cows, we might as well kill 99% of them off in the process, because they aren't exactly the most... intelligent... species.


The thing I don't understand about society is this massive urge to "Save the whales and pandas". Whales and Pandas' aren't EATEN by anything and generally have very little effect on other species (I'm sure there's some exception, here). So... what's the point of saving animals that devour soooo much food (haha, like us ) but don't actually get eaten that much? Couldn't all the money spent on this be better spent... stopping the rain forest from being cut down?

I watched "The Last Samurai" with my girlfriend. She slept through 50% of it, but in the final battle, after we'd been seeing killing of people off and on the ENTIRE movie, she saw a horse die. "Oh no! They're killing the horses!" explain the logic here? Those horses probably wouldn't have been alive if they weren't needed for war... some > none, right?

 

[cAm]

I'm vegan myself, but my parents raised me vegan. I am not sure i CAN eat meat/dairy at this point, because my body has lived 16 years without it, it could have some reaction to it. I personally don't really like the thought of killing animals just so we can eat them and the like, but if i weren't raised vegan, i honestly don't know if i would become so or not.

 

[gee]

Of course we should eat DOMESTICATED critters (after they are dead!) as we are all "OMNIVOURS" (multi-types of food) that's why we have the COMBINATION TYPE TEETH that Tear as well as Grind...But my teeth prefer the marinated type dead animal...basted in BBQ sauce ...

Omnivours means "can eat everything" not "have to eat everything".
You're cool blue flame. You live in your wonderful powerful country eating some BBQ and you feel smart.
The day you will turn your head to see the other side of the story will be the best of your life or the worst. You will be smarter but you also will see the consequences of our behavior toward the rest of the world and animals.

And only then you will fully understand the word : Conditioning.

Nothing but ourselves can free our minds, said Mr Marley.

 

[OneEye]

I suppose the question for me is, if humans are merely animals, and some animals eat meat, and humans by nature eat meat, then what's the big deal? In order to make any kind of case for "ethical" vegetarianism (vs. merely having a personal preference for vegetarianism), one would have to say, "People are in some essential way different from animals, and so ought not to exercise their gustatory impulses."

Another thought along these lines: If people are mere animals, and yet should not eat other animals, then should we try to reform all carnivorous and omnivorous species along with humanity, and teach all nature to stop eating meat?

The basic question is, why is it okay for a bear to eat a pig, while it's not okay for me to eat one?

(Someone has probably posted this thought already. Sorry, I didn't take time to read through the whole thread! If so, please point me at the relevant section of the discussion.)

 

[learningphysics]

I suppose the question for me is, if humans are merely animals, and some animals eat meat, and humans by nature eat meat, then what's the big deal? In order to make any kind of case for "ethical" vegetarianism (vs. merely having a personal preference for vegetarianism), one would have to say, "People are in some essential way different from animals, and so ought not to exercise their gustatory impulses."

Another thought along these lines: If people are mere animals, and yet should not eat other animals, then should we try to reform all carnivorous and omnivorous species along with humanity, and teach all nature to stop eating meat?

The basic question is, why is it okay for a bear to eat a pig, while it's not okay for me to eat one?

(Someone has probably posted this thought already. Sorry, I didn't take time to read through the whole thread! If so, please point me at the relevant section of the discussion.)

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

 

[OneEye]

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

 

[learningphysics]

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

We are special and different in the sense that we have superior intelligence, which leads to power over the other species. That is all. That superior intelligence leads to an awareness of the pain and suffering of other species. None of this means that we are simply morally justified to do whatever we wish to other species.

The difference in humans may in fact make us responsible for protecting the other species in this world. The goal is not to simply make animals behave like humans, or humans behave like animals. The goal is to minimize pain and suffering.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig. But what's the practical solution to this problem? We are limited by our time and resources, so we do what we can.

Yes there is an essential difference (our intelligence). However I don't see how this translates to humans having any more "right" to exist than other animals.

 

[Alkatran]

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

A cat can kill its young and eat it because if the baby was unlikely to survive it doesn't make sense to feed it for 2 more weeks. That doesn't make it right for us to do it, but it does make it right for the cat. (Unless you side with Kant)

Morals are like a societal evolution: morals that make everyone happy flourish and morals that make people sad but other happy die off.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

 

[shrumeo]

humans are very very selfish when it comes to anything. they prefer to be in control of everything they possibly can be. they want to be in control of what they eat, how juicy and thick the meat is, they want to be in an environment where they are the masters and controllers and the animals are the victims, the tortured, slaughtered victims. they cannot simply kill the animal, they mutate it and then kill it. they are mutating animals for their own pleasure...how selfish is that?

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?

this is hardly a convincing argument especially in light of the excellent posts several people have made throughout the thread against meat consumption.

Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind.

i agree that cruel practices must be stopped - the law and boycotting can both be very effective.

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

dogs do extremely well on veg diets - and tend to be free from problems non-veg diets cause (and there are quite a few of these). here are 2 links for veg dogs if anyone is interested:
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
http://www.veggiepets.com/
there are lots of others and even big commercial petfood manufacturers - natural life and nature's choice (i think) - provide a vegetarian dog food since some dogs are actually allergic to meat by-products. of course, there are pure veg petfood companies as well such as evolution (http://www.petfoodshop.com/) and hoana (http://www.vegepet.com/ - provides veg supplementation) which are both excellent.

in friendship,
prad

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

Cats don't have police.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig.

I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What about the philosophy of working within the system rather than condemning it? An example is Atticus Finch, from "To Kill A Mockingbird" if you've read it.

If animals were treated correctly is egg consumption justifiable? Should I suffer a lack of an alternate protein source because of the misdeeds of others? Wouldn't it be better to push for better treatment of egg-laying birds rather than trying to unrealistically stop eating eggs with the belief that it will create change, or is this belief realistic?

For those wondering if they have made a difference, I am currentlye experimenting with vegeterianism. I'm eating eggs and found Tofu to be undesirable - perhaps because of my lack of experience in cooking it. Tonight I shall engage peanut butter in the form of an apple spread!