In My Memory

Mokele, I dont have the room to include a length excerpt, but the text continues to detail the transportation of cattle. The cattle are unfed for 12 to 24 hours (obviously because it isnt economical to slaughter an animal with undigested food), you have to pack the cattle tightly in train cars and transport them thousands of miles; in the summer this means the cattle suffer and die of thirst and dehydration, in the winter it means the animals will freeze. Due to the stress of transportation, many cattle will break a leg, develop sickness, scientific studies indicate that your average cow will 10% of its body mass in transit, at least 1% will die as a result, and finally there is the slaughter itself. You could never raise cattle for food on a large scale without suffering. Hypothetically, what if we assume that a cow is raised in the happiest of conditions for its entire life, then killed for food. Would that make it ethical? Among the reasons mentioned above (in the "explanation of why killing is wrong" section), it still shows a prejudice in our moral reasoning: it gives greater weight to the interests of humans in wanting to eat animals than an animals interest in its continued existence. Other things that came to mind I could only imagine that it would be right to eat animals in a few cases (mind you that no vegan would be likely to join you because after the first few months on a veggie diet, meat is no longer palatable... its like quitting smoking): - that the animal was euthanized to relieve its suffering (such as in the same way we treat human euthanasia) - that the animal has died of natural causes - that the animal has no interest in its continued existence or the capacity to feel pain (I think some insects fall into this category). - that you compete with other animals for your survival (in a state of nature kind of way, or perhaps in self-defense) But raising it with the intention to be killed for food, that isnt justifiable. I should probably add something important: not all traditional farming methods are bad, one of the most kind vegans I had ever known used to keep three hens and eat the eggs. The hens were very happy and didnt seem to mind their eggs being eaten. I dont find anything wrong with this. (I know, it sounds like a contradiction for a vegan to eat eggs, but ethical vegans abstain from animal products for the sake of minimizing unnecessary suffering rather than the brute fact that it is an animal product. Ethically speaking, there is no inconsistency.) She used to say that the eggs from her hens tasted much better than a factory farm egg, probably due to the fact that factory farmers add a lot of added hormones and colorizing agents that try to make the tasteless commercial egg more appealing. At least in the case of chickens, not all traditional farming methods are unethical. (I would still recommend boycotting free range eggs and milks, and stick to egg and milk substitutes, because often the cows and chickens fair no better than at the factory or they are sold factories as soon as they no long produce.) We dont harvest chickens and cows from the wild, they are mass produced by breeders. It isnt the fact that the animals would have a better life in the factory than the wild, but more to the point these animals would never exist in the first place if they werent bred for the factory. This means it isnt true that the choice is either to have animals living in the wild or in farms, the choice is really to whether the animal will be bred for food or not be born at all. AL, Replying to another critic: (Singer sounds cranky in that paragraph, but if you read the whole exchange, the crankiness is explained because the critic attacks Singer on an intellectually dishonest basis.) Generally, veganism is about minimizing unnecessary suffering, such as voluntarily refusing to use animal products and buying only organic food gardens* and clothing. I think it is hard to make an argument that carnivores in nature kill without necessity, or that their removal would be tantamount to minimizing unnecessary suffering (it could be precisely the opposite) - at least in that respect, I dont see that the claim of fundamental moral neglect is strongly justified. * A quick unrelated footnote on organic gardens: I know some people who grow their own vegetables, and veggies really do taste much better when you grow them yourself. I grow strawberries in my own garden, but I cannot till my yard to grow vegetables - my state assumes that people living in my neighborhood plan to stay for non-permanent residence, therefore it is against the law to dig up your yard for a large garden (or underground pool for that matter). Gardens and shrubbery are set aside only for the 3 foot perimeter around your house. Even if there were no property restrictions, the snow and cold would make it impossible to grow veggies in the winter. People in my situtation usually opt to buy from organic providers. This scenario doesnt have to do with discrimination or giving more value to human interests. It really has more to do with a basic utilitarian maximizing principle: where the interests are in conflict, you should try to perform an action which will satisfy the greatest number of interests. I should mention that the scenario you pose is almost verbatim as the one featured on Peter Singer's Princeton Homepage - Frequently Asked Questions: (Please dont mind that the majority of my posts are quotations from a few animal rights resources. I'm wholly capable of speaking for myself, but I figure its best to quote the material from the actual AR supporters themselves because most people will never come in contact with the material otherwise. Also, I rather like Peter Singer's writings and find them so well-written and well-argued for a topic as complicated as our moral duties to animals.) I also want to add my thanks. Its very rare I can mention and discuss my veganism (something I take very seriously but other people do not) without coming down to a cat fight, so I thank you for your civility, I really appreciate it .

AL, To your credit, I think you ask a very good question (probably because its one of the few I havent seen 1000 times before). My intuition tells me that this question differs slightly from similar ones about whether its justifiable to kill an animal in self-defense (yes it is), it also tells me that there really should be no difference between predation of a human or a deer (but that answer may not be correct). There are two quotations that I think are relevant to your question: 1) The first comes from Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal: 2) The second quote comes from Peter Singer's The Drowning Child and Expanding Circle: Please dont mind that I am conflating the intention of the second quotation to make my point - its just the first thing that comes to mind when I read your question. Obviously, the problem of carnivorous animals doesnt make me question whether we are justified in eating cows for food (because based on the second quotation, the amount we "suffer" for not being able to eat a cow is much much less than the cow would suffer for being eaten, therefore its a small sacrifice to give up meat in favor of the much more delicious and nutricious vegan diet). One of the things I think animal rights literature really lacks is information dealing with carnivorous animals (no, these arent related to the question "animals eat animals, why shouldnt I?"). Although I take pride in my veganism, I sometimes find some unusual philosophical dilemmas in veganism (if you follow the AR community, you should also be very aware of the philosophical differences between utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer and right-based philosopher Tom Regan). For instance, what are the moral implications of relocating a dangerous animal like a bear from a human community into an animal community? Should pet owner confine their pet cat indoors if it likes to eat birds and rabbits? And to the more absurd lengths, would it be ethical to elimate predators from the planet? (Peter Singer uses an ecological argument to deal with the last question on page 238 and 239 of his book "Animal Liberation", but I'm not convinced his response is as compelling as it ought to have been.) Based on the second quotation, I think it would make sense for me to help a person if I saw they were going to be mauled by a lion, but by my own admission I dont have a clear explanation of why I should or shouldnt help a non-human animal in an identical situation. (I've been in a very remote sense, very close to this situation: I used to own a cat who liked to go outdoors, I saw him stalking a rabbit one day - I immediately took my cat indoors so he wouldnt kill the poor rabbit. This situation may not be comparable because my cat doesnt need to eat the rabbit to survive.) Until I have a better reply, I'll use Singer's ecological reasoning on pages 238 and 239 of Animal Liberation that, with the exception of preventing unnecessary suffering like I mentioned in the last post, once we give up the claim of "dominion" over other animals, then we have no right to interfere with them at all. This means we should not play Big Brother in trying to rescue deer from lions in the same way as we would rescue humans. Its important to point out that my answer says nothing about humans having any more worth than any other animal nor does it say we should give preferencial treatment to our own kind (and certainly it does not justify humans killing animals our own benefit), we are still moral equals. However, answering the question in that odd way makes me uncomfortable, especially in light of the relatively little material addressing such an interesting topic - I will, of course, write and submit a short article on the problem to the academic community (i.e. a few of the nearby colleges) in the hopes that will generate some interest. (I would absolutely LOVE to write a book on the subject, but there are people with more expertise and time who could do a better job.) Demosthenes, I appreciate your post and questions, but I havent the time to reply at the moment. I work nights and usually pass the time by reading forums and pushing my work chores onto the people below me, but this morning is very busy for me so I really havent the time to answer your post. Just pretend I said something so incredibly compelling that it changed your life and made you want to rescue animals and eat tofu

As per usual, my tendency to cram a lot of responses into a single reply yields a very long post. Enjoy Pangloss, Thank you, I appreciate it Demosthenes, I've mentioned fishing and ugly animals before: No vegans I've ever known have said fish or reptiles or arthropods dont matter. Among other things, fish can feel pain and respond to anesthetics at least to the extent that a bird can (source) - I could only imagine that as a fish is brough from the water and the gases in its blood undissolve rapidly can only be compared to the human experience called "the bends", which I understand is very painful, and I cant imagine that it is pleasant at all to have ones gills dry out and die. It just isnt true to say that vegans only care about furry animals, and I doubt you could find a single vegan who advocates such a position. Yes, but not explicitly. I was demonstrating how Renee's comments justifying human superiority parallel exactly the same arguments to justify male superiority, and that if she rejected one (which hopefully she does) she ought to reject the other because it is a logical extension of her reasoning. But, now that you've mentioned femenism, I feel obligated to post the following excerpted from Peter Singer's "Animal Rights and Human Obligations": Its a small point, but since you asked: define a working definition of sentience, such as percieving yourself over time, then compare to infants. As far as I know, the most primitive parts of infants brains (the parts that control involuntary actions and sensation of pain) are developed, but the parts that control sensation of ones self are just mush. There is an article called Inner speech and conscious experience which corrolates for the ability to develop a sense of self with inner speech (it cites a case study of man who had a stroke, and for two weeks the internal monologue parts of his brain were functionless). These parts of the brain are located in roughly a dime-sized portion of the pre-frontal cortex - but in infants until a few years of age, these parts are still just mush, so there is reason to suspect they cannot percieve themselves over time. Hopefully that should answer your question. If not, I would ask that you start a thread elsewhere on the board so as not to derail this one. That being said, the comparison between infants and animals is acceptable. Based on your earlier comments about the wrongness of racism and sexism (that is, that there are trivial differences between the races and sexes that cannot justify inequality), then certainly you would find the following quote meaningful taken from Jeremy Bentham's On the Principles of Morals and Legislation: It is very true that infants have no intelligence, no sentience, no concern for their family, no capacity for moral reciprocity, no autonomy, no language, no ability to plan, no expectations - its also true that many of the aforementioned qualities are possessed by many animals to a greater extent than infants of perhaps a few years. A newborn infant lacks all of the qualities that most people would agree denotes moral value, so why dont we section off a small proportion of them to be made into food, leather, and experiments? If the infant were so severely retarded that it could never develop the aforementioned capacities, would it then be justifiable then? Of course not, because that kind of treatment would be profoundly cruel, because despite the infants lack of all other qualities that makes them valuable, they can suffer and therefore merit moral consideration. We value infants for a number of reasons, but above all else we know that they can suffer - and we find it frightening to believe that their suffering would mean less given the fact that they could serve some human needs. Animals, even if they do not have human intelligence or capacity for moral reciprocity to the same degree, do share with infants the capacity to suffer (and many can hold interests). Now, what is the justification for failing to consider animals in at least as much as we consider severely retarded infants? Hopefully, you can see that your comments "there are real difference between Humans and other spices" and "There are inherent difference between people and animals" are irrelevant. I dont deny that there are some differences, but at the same time those differences dont matter; human superiority in intelligence is no more relevant than an eagles superiority in eyesight or a kangaroos superiority in jumping - those differences dont matter. However, where there are similarities between humans and animals, such as the capacity to suffer and hold interests, we should consider them. Come on, be serious. AL, One of the important points about humans and animals is that it really isnt necessary for humans to kill animals for their survival. My own existence, the existence of millions of other vegetarians and vegans across the globe, and the existence of the roughly 700 million vegetarian Hindis and Buddhists demonstrate this fact very clearly. Another important difference is that human beings have the capacity to make choice about the things they eat and kill. However, when we talk about a lion killing a deer, we know the lion can make no choice about what it eats nor can it survive without killing other animals. I couldnt imagine that humans could play Big Brother and micromanage every aspect of carnivore killing without serious ecological disaster. In general, there are only a few times when human interference is justified, such as flipping sea turtles and horseshoe crabs off their backs, rescuing a horse trapped in ice, cleaning animals after an oil spill, helping rabbits out of fences, etc. So, while human interference can improve the conditions of some animals some of the time, its generally a bad idea for humans to try to police all nature. If suffering is unncessary and can be avoided, then it should be prevented. I mentioned in an earlier post the following: That being said, here is an excerpt from an article called "Indian Ethics" by Purusottama Bilimoria[/url] (p. 9-13): I am not a Jain, nor a spiritual nor superstious. I'm sure we both agree that the sun, rocks, bacteria, plants, etc. do not have a vital immaterial soul, and neither of us believe our mysterious souls will be reincarnated into other lifeforms. So, while the Jains are consistent, their philosophy isnt reasonable - put bluntly, the claim that there is a fluid consciousness found in every fiber of matter and life in the universe is false. Even still, they are not interested in reducing suffering because suffering is bad, they do so because they believe it will affect their spiritual rebirth. I dont regard life as sacred in itself, and in fact there are a number of posts which I've said precisely the opposite: the mere fact that something is alive does not make it morally valuable, instead the moral value of a being is based on its capacity to suffer and hold interests (logically, this implies that sometimes, such as in the case of euthanasia, it can be morally correct to kill something to relieve its suffering). Obviously, the idea that many animals suffer and hold interests is factually true, and my reasoning that these things matter is philosophically sound - the same cannot be said for Jainists. If you want to compare anyone to the Jains, compare the people who believe life is sacred and sanctified in itself but continue to eat animals. The belief that the there is some metaphysical property in human life, and only human life, that makes them the only valuable species on the planet is unjustifiable. This is a contradiction in terms. By the very meaning of the words, non-moral factors (such as the color of your skin or whether your have a tail) can contribute nothing to the moral status of animals or humans. Heres an obligatory link to Snopes debunking that urban myth: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm Bascule, Why is it alright to experiment on animals but not severely retarded humans or infants? Does it matter that each suffers to the same degree as the other? imasmartgirl, See Protein the Vegan Diet. Proper nutrition is important, but fortunately most vegan diets are fortified with soy protein, yeast-derived B-vitamins, vegetable derived calcium, etc. so its really not a huge concern. You dont believe that do you? The ability to feel pain isnt something magical, its an experience that is related to the most primitive parts of the brain, and there is nothing so radically different about human brains that makes their pain experiences different from animal pain experiences. It is absolutely false to say that these animals are just machines. Here's a short excerpt from Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" (p. 11-12): Animals and humans also share the same basic emotional responses: fear, anxiety, frustration, anger, contentment, pleasure, etc. Emotionally, there is little difference, except where areas of love and justice may be concerned (but keep in mind, children and infants dont have those emotions, but you would probably never play down the suffering of children and infants in the same way).

Skye, Oh my! Factory farms of the most miserable places on the planet, most people become vegetarians and vegans in the first place because the animals are treated so horribly. I think the amount an animal suffers being raised on a factory farm before becoming your meal at the dinner table is incomparable to the amount you will suffer for not being able to eat it. (And if its just the taste of your food that matters so much, then visit me sometime in the US and I will cook for you very delicious, colorful food that will make you forget about eating animals.) Pangloss, That isnt the crux of my argument, and you probably couldnt find a single post that I've written where sentience is of utmost importance to me. I do think most animals are sentient in the sense of being able to percieve themselves over time, but that isnt central to the reasons why animals matter morally (because, after all, human infants are not sentient but obviously matter morally) - I've been consistent that the things that really matter are animal suffering and interests. (Most of the time, I use the term "sentience" as a shorthand for the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. The term really doesnt matter to me beyond that point, so I do not feel its helpful to argue about it.) Animals suffer, plants do not. What further explanation is necessary?

imasmartgirl, Yes I did. See this post I wrote on the subject some time ago. PETA makes a point about euthanizing animals painlessly, because while other organizations have similar programs they are inhumane about it. When I worked for a nearby Human Society a few winters ago, I found a dead dog that had apparently frozen to death - the HS owner said that the dog had a terminal illness called "parvo", so he tossed the dog in the snow to freeze to death. It was very sad, it would have been better to euthanize painlessly. So thats the difference between PETA and non-PETA euthanization programs.

Zyncod, First, thank you for your admiration. Second, what do you think an "implicit endorsement" is? I cant help but be reminded of Hume's analogy from his "Of the Original Contract": In other words, implicit endorsement (otherwise called tacit consent) cannot apply to anyone when there isnt a realistic alternative. In the second paragraph, Hume gives the example that if someone were on a ship then presumably they would tacitly consent to scrubbing the deck; but how could it be an implicit agreement to swab the decks and use the resources when the only alternative is to jump off the boat and swim for your life? Obviously, there isnt a viable option, so its not possible that anyone could, by the definition of a tacit agreement, could intentionally agree to such conditions. Its a pedant point, but an important one. Unlike shopping at Walmart, where my realistic alternatives are to shop online or at half-dozen small shops I have nearby, it is not possible without conflating the meaning of an implicit endorsement that my realistic alternative to existing in society is to remove myself from society. An implicit agreement is based on a few things, which include that you know what you're doing, your intentions play a relevant part in your actions, you have realistic alternatives, and that you are knowledgeable of those alternatives, etc. (This is the same reason why a pro-lifer paying their taxes does not implicitly endorse stem-cell research or abortion despite their taxdollars paying for it, because their intentions play no part in the outcome of their actions and they dont have a real alternative.) Even still, lets just say my existence probably causes the suffering of some humans and animals, but its by no means intentional. But if I tried to remove myself from society, it would cause suffering of some humans and animals as well, also unintentional (strictly speaking, if I never existed then its concievable that there would be more meat eaters; also from the point of view of the universe, I am a replaceable human being, and if I didnt exist I could be replaced by a meat eater; not to mention many people would be upset and my worldly contributions would be destroyed; thousands more reasons could be mentioned). As a poor analogy, think of that movie "Its a Wonderful Life". I'm wrong to criticize animal research because I'll be met with resistance? Pangloss, Do you have any objections to setting aside a small portion of the population, perhaps the mentally retarded or particular race, for performing experiments on? (I'm certain that you do, but my comment is related to the above remarks on racism.) Renee, The point the author was trying to make was that there were differences in the capacities between men and women, and so he tried to justify this superficial example of inequality as being the reason why we shouldnt treat men and women as equals. I responded to the sexists points with the following: I'm 5'8" and weigh ~120 lbs, but despite my petite build I'm actually very healthy. The whole medical history of my family is very sad (i.e. cancer, thyroid disorders, heart problems, blod clots, aneurisyms, and obesity), but I'm the only healthy person in my family and I think this has to do with the fact that I eat very well and keep physically fit. The key to being a healthy vegan or veggie is planning until you get a good routine developed. According to the American Dietetic Assocation:

BenSon, All those carnivorous cows, chickens, and pigs will come after you in your dreams, you know

Mokele, Thank you for splitting the thread, I appreciate it Everyone else, My apologies for becoming upset yesterday. I've mentioned in other posts that animal rights is my most sensitive issue, and I'm very prone to letting it affect me on a personal level. I try to be reasonable, and I do a good job about 95% of the time. AL, Actually I'd say this is probably true for 99% of the people on the planet on every political topic. Pangloss, being a moderate Libertarian, should be particularly aware of just how poor and shallow political discourse is in America - everything people say and think can be articulated in 30-second soundbytes, summed up in the talking points of today, or written in some garden-variety pundits next best seller. To prove this point, consider the best philosophy a few hundred years ago, "On Liberty", "On the Principals of Moral Obligations and Legislation", "The Leviathon", etc. All of these works were read by nearly all voting men, discussed intelligently. However, the works of today of comparable quality, such as Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" and Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" are read by a small number of academics and first year philosophy students, I have not seen any of these works referenced in mass media for the last 10 years. The most popular works nowadays are Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", Micheal Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", and Michael Moore's "Fat White Men" - I've read all of these books and considered if they are what the majority of Americans read for their "informed" political opinions, then reason is dead forever replaced with ideologues memorizing apologetics and rationalizations. (I might add that one more way to prove how people enjoy their fast-food apologetics is simply like this: how many people do you think will skip over this quite reasonable post because its a moderately lengthy read? Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I think it brings up a good rhetorical point: ideologues dont care what their opponents have to say.) Having said that, I think I'm in a pretty good place accuse my ideological opponents of giving their opinions relatively little thought, and peoples opinions on animal rights is no exception. I partially blame PETA on lowering animal rights to the status of Micheal Moore by relying on outrageous spectacles to get their point across, but if animal rights has to keep up with current state of fast-food news and the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality, then the demonstrations are the only way to accomplish it - however, as long as my "ideological opponents" continue to attack animal rights in the same ways that PETA defends it, then they are rightfully called uninformed and have given their position no thought. I've personally never been interested to read PETA's "Holocaust on Your Plate", I have more compelling things to base my deeply held convictions upon. I've preferred to read the legitimate academic (although not as emotional or flavorful to read) discussion on animal rights, relying heavily on Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" and "In Defense of Animals" - it puts veganism and animal rights as a position based on philosophy, and reveals the lack of consideration for animal rights to be a mish-mash of contradictory values that is morally intolerable. Hopefully, I've got across my point: I think there is good reason to believe that my ideological opponents are uninformed, and that my veganism isnt "faith" like Pangloss seems to think it is. Based on my experience, I genuinely believe that 99% of all of my ideological opponents, if they are unwilling to put away the credulity that I see everyday or even take a few hours out of their day to read "Animal Liberation", are simply uninformed - I'm sure I could probably try to talk about the principles of equal consideration of interests and the merits of preference utilitarianism, but I doubt my points will be recieved well by many people. (I'm to the point where I think as long as reasoned discourse is dead and people continue to base their meat eating on the fact that they like the taste of steroid-saturated meat, then maybe the best case I could ever make for veganism is to write a cookbook of my favorite recipes.)

What do you collect? Wines, tequilas, spirits, rums, whiskeys, etc. Why do you collect (how did it start)? It started a few years ago around Christmas. Usually, when people give me gifts, I find one reason or another to refuse to accept the gifts (or I'll just repackage them and send them to other people - I'm a notorious re-gifter). One year, I was with my family for Christmas, and I saw there was a used tequila bottle with a very unusual shape (here is a picture of it). I said "Oh my god, I want that", my family took this to mean that I wanted tequilas and wines as Christmas gifts. But, I never mentioned that I just wanted the tequila bottle so I could fill it with glass marbles and make it look pretty, and that I wasnt interested in the tequila inside. So, every year I get about a half-dozen bottles of very pricey wines and alcohols (upwards of US$200). Unless I get a wine rack this year, I'm going to start running out of shelf space to hold all of these wines. What makes you keep adding to your collection? People just keep giving me the bottles, I dont need them. But, I figure I like them because they add a level of class to my home that is otherwise lacking. I've arranged the bottles so that lights shine through behind them, giving a very pleasant blue and red glow (I suspect that I shouldnt be keeping my bottles in front of bright hot lights, and that I've probably destroyed the wine inside). I also consider they are nice to keep because they a good investment, the bottles could be worth much more in a few years than today. (Even if the wines inside are no longer drinkable, the investment ought to be unaffected because the only thing that makes them valuable are the bottles they come in.)

I originally stopped replying to this thread because I didnt want to derail it but... Demosthenes, No he doesnt. He's being smug and pompous. (Feel free to skip to the last paragraph of this post, because for most of it I'm just venting because this thread has made me upset.) I think I'm probably the only person on the board who goes out of her way to go on a vegan diet for the sake of reducing animal suffering, avoids drinking milk or eating eggs because the animals are treated so horribly, buys organic food and clothing for the sake of the environment, does not shop at Walmarts or megastores for the sake of reducing human suffering and rights abuses, uses only non-animal tested cosmetics and hygiene products, semi-regular involvement in animal care and liberation, and huge sums of annual income donated to famine relief overseas...only to be told that I'm being inconsistent, that if I really cared about reducing suffering, I should move into the woods (this suggestion is actually more mild than what comes up every so often: "any consistent vegan would kill themselves" or some other nonsense). People who make those kinds of suggestions dont actually care about suffering themselves, but they are just trying to make an outrageous statement to offend others. (I've heard more offensive things, like people comparing vegan parents to the most ruthless child abusers. And there are some really bizarre things said, such as trying to "stump" the insane vegans by asking them how they discriminate against organisms simply because they dont have a brain - as if the fact that plants and bacteria dont suffer is suddenly forgotten.) I've heard these kinds of claims every day for the 5 or 6 years that I've committed myself to veganism, and I find them frustrating because the comments are simply smug and offensive rather than genuine. See this salient quote on the subject: That quote describes most people I've ever known who have asked about veganism - they just have a fascination with trying to offend people. That speaks more volumes about the people who ask those kinds of questions than the actual reasonableness of veganism. Because I dont have the patience of a saint, I usually ignore all the slanderous and offensive questions that upset me. Based on my experience, most people who ask "stumpers" to vegans are fully aware of the answers in advance (i.e. people who ask the "plant question" know that plants dont feel pain, people who ask "can animals suffer" already know that they do, etc.). Having said that, (1) I'm fairly sure that zyncod is aware that my way of living causes the least amount of intentional suffering than himself and probably most people he'll ever meet. And (2), I'm pretty sure that while he accuses me of being self-righteous (I admit, I'm incredibly vain and have a ego the size of an airship), he knows that I dont care about life for the species that it belongs to, but rather its capacity to suffer and have its interests fulfilled, and that there is no inconsistency in saying that some humans (because they can suffer more and have more interests to be satisfied) are more valuable than mice (whose capacity to suffer emotionally is limited and have relatively few interests) - in other words, life is valuable for its morally relevant qualities rather than its species membership (to prove this point, try to guess what my reaction is to abortion that causes no suffering on the unborn human, and compare it with my reaction to electroshock reinforcement on mice that suffer considerably). Anyone who is interested in what I have to say about animal rights is free to start a new thread or PM me, but until then I am through derailing this thread.

I used to go on so many dates, see movies, and have a social life that I never had time be such a nerd.

LucidDreamer, I appreciate the offer, but I'm not interested. Maybe another time Bascule, You mean suffering doesnt occur to you as a justification? Bascule, you are such a fan of Dennet, but you're not using his arguments anymore. And yet, disregarding that fact, have you ever considered just how truly bad that "potential people" arguments are? There is no logical rule that says "x is a potential y, therefore x is morally equivalent to y" - but even if there were, the argument would justify protecting potential meme exchangers in the infant stage as well as in the unborn and pre-born stage (i.e. the argument equally justifies prohibiting abortion and birth control). And taken to its logical ends, it would equally justify the premise that that young girl being a potential queen has all the same rights as queens, or that children as potential voters have all the same rights as voters, or the frightening extreme that all children who potentially will consent to sex are equivalent to people who have consented to sex - no one seriously entertains any of those ideas. (There are a few morbid suggestions why the "potential" arguments just dont work, such as the fact that humans are replaceable so that as long as someone promises to have another human later in life there is no net loss in terms of meme exchanging; or another consideration is that humans could be farmed in such a way that none are intended to ever participate in meme exchanging, meaning they were never potential meme exchangers in the first place.) You are not protecting any human consciousness by valuing the lives of infants - they arent conscious or self-aware. Obviously there is something more than consciousness that makes you find the lives of unconscious humans valuable - but, if you have given thought to what that additional something is, then I leave you to consider whether your inclusion of infants in your sphere of moral consideration is consistently applied, or whether you exclude animals that have all the same cognitive abilities infants for non-moral reasons like failing to be members of the human species.

Bascule, Darling, you have no idea how many times I get questions like this. The answer is always the same: theres no difference to me between human life and non-human animal life. I could no more look at a field of dead animals than a house full of dead people.

Insane_alien, Dont you know you cant derive an "ought" from an "is" Bascule, [derail] Somewhere, someone said a great cliche "in as much as we can suffer, animals are our equal". Have you ever heard that phrase, or could you see how it might be relevant to biomedical research? If I know you based on your posts, I dont think you are the type of person who is terribly superstitious, and probably doesnt entertain ideas like humans having a soul or the idea that humans have a divine right to dominate animals. Having said that, I would challenge you to explain what makes humans being a member of a human species suddenly have moral value that non-humans do not? And if it isnt species membership, then I'd challenge you to explain what moral quality humans have, from every newborn infant to every insane animal rights activist, that is present in humans but no where else in the animal kingdom. Needless to say, those are impossible challenges, but they serve to demonstrate a very powerful rhetorical point: there is no difference between killing a human and killing an animal, and if you dont believe that then maybe you'll find it more reasonable that there is no real difference between the suffering. If you dont mind me invoking Godwin's law, theres a book called Doctors from Hell: The Horrific Account of Nazi Experiments on Humans, documenting experiments on humans that yielded valuable medical research that contributed to saving thousands of human lives (for instance, it used to puzzle doctors why soldiers would drop dead from hypothermia 20 minutes after stepping out of the water until the famous freezing water experiments, malaria vaccines were developed, dehydration sickness and treatment was studied, etc.). I dont mean to milk people for their sympathies, but I find it genuinely disturbing that people could conduct experiments on animals that feel pain every bit as much as humans, and not shed a single tear. But if a human infant were in the place of the animal, it would be horrific crime. The difference in attitude resulting from equal treatment between those two beings, where the only real difference between the two is species membership, demonstrates an utterly irrational inconsistency that is fundamentally no different from racism (i.e. there is no difference between giving preferencial treatment to beings for non-moral reasons such as being a member of your own species, than there is to giving preferencial treatment to beings for non-moral reasons like being a member of your own race or gender or nationality etc.). Now, if you have any objections to farming humans to be used in medical experiments, then there is single difference between your moral priorities and mine: that I apply my moral reasoning consistently. I dont talk about animal rights because its trendy and cool, but because it seriously matters. [/derail] Thank you! *Tallies 1 more vote* Only 49% of the country to go!*

If I ran a country, my core principles would probably be welfare (as in minimal suffering, poverty, hunger, etc.) and pluralism (accomodating all points of views within their rational limits). Economic issues: - allow people the option to opt out of social security - abolish government agricultural subsidies to commericial farmers - abolish protectionist trade policies against third-world nations - reduce the scale of the monolithic bureaucracy that makes up government. I know "small government" is a cliche, but one of things I notice is that committees and large bureaucracies often spend more time and effort highering staff and trying to keep organized that they have a hard time producing results. I like to use the analogy of Microsoft vs. Apple, Sun, Oracle, etc.: Microsoft employs hundreds of programmers to work on a single project, but they can never turn out anything without bugs, on time, or for a reasonable price. Compare to smaller companies like Apple and Sun Microsystems that use a few programmers, but all of their software is delivered bugfree, on time, and cheap. I find this exactly analogous to the way the real world works. - I'd probably try to do what Clinton did and reduce the size of the military, because it is extremely wasteful Social issues: - strong emphasis on gay rights - marriage would be secularized - strong emphasis on animal rights (including making it illegal to hunt animals for sport, use them for food, experiment on them, etc.) - strong emphasis on separation of church and state (i.e. not single out any religion for preferencial treatment) - encourage multilateralist foreign policy (I know the UN is a boogey man of the American conservatives, but they dont understand that the UN helps amplify US overseas rather than impede them) - combat poverty and famine in third-world nations by setting real goals and trying to attain them, not just raising awareness. Its not enough to "raise awareness" or rely on charity donations - we've been doing those things decades, but poverty and famine are still problems. - I'd pay special attention to the environment buy encouraging conservation projects, requiring manufacturers to meet more strict emissions and pollutant standards, promoting the use of ethanol in place of gasoline. - I'd consider ending the pointless war on drugs, perhaps allowing the government to regulate drug consumption in the same way as alcohol and cigarrettes. The problem with the criminalization of drugs is that it puts drug trade into the hands of the black market peddlers which is more dangerous than drugs themselves. - and finally I'd put Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and other pundits who are polluting rational political discourse into a cannon and fire them into the sun. So, those are things I'd do as dictator. IMM for president '08!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html Me heartie bilge rats, it be Sept. 19 again, Talk Like a Pirate Day, yaaaarrrrr!

I voted for Carter. Twice. Kidding! Much too young at the time.

J_p, I'm not ignorant of history - in fact, when writing the post, I debated with myself whether I should explain the difference between bi-partisan competency tests and the Jim Crow laws, but I figured most people would understand where I'm coming from without explanation. But, since you mentioned it, I suppose it does deserve a bit of clarification: Jim Crow tactics were bad for the actual negative and racist consequences they had on people, the way that they were oppressive and hurt people, and how they stripped good people of their first-class citizenship. But, of course, nothing I've said implies that I wanted to ressurrect Jim Crow laws. Instead, all I've said is that I find it completely reasonable that to test people on the basic knowledge of how government works on a bi-partisan basis, so that the only people excluded are the desperately uninformed voters without reference to race, sex, political party, etc, (for instance, asking how many senators each state has - 1, 2, 3, or proportioned by population; name the three branches of government; etc). Its very very predictable for people to discredit the idea on the wrong assumptions - for instance, by misassociating competency tests with racist post-Civil War "literacy tests". Its the same kind reasoning that says "assisted suicide for terminally ill people is bad because the Nazi's used 'euthanasia programs' too" (I apologize in advance for invoking Godwin's law), or "affirmative action is bad because its just as racist as the KKK", or "separation of church/state is bad because look at all the oppressive secular regimes like Stalin, Soviet Russia, and communist China". I think this follows exactly from one of those things that sets you off in your own words, "Undeclared premises and non-legitimate inferences"

John, I think you are putting words in mouth, or maybe reading things into posts that I never actually said. I never said I could remedy the working conditions of people in foreign nations, I only said that I've removed myself from participating in those economies. But, since you asked, I should mention that nothing I could do can remedy negative working conditions - at least not directly. There two general ways I can help more or less indirectly: 1) At the very very least, boycotting certain countries could put pressure on businesses (or even governments) to meet certain human rights standards. It works according to this vastly oversimplified formula: increase working standards, increase the number of people willing to buy your goods, increase profits. Before you get concerned that my actions will cause workers to be laid off or take reduced pay, keep in mind that the money that businesses gain in sweat shops are not proportioned or distributed evenly to laborers. 2) Or, like any good voter, I could extend my influence through my politicians - for instance, I could get a large number of people to sign a petition stating that if my politician does not pressure foreign businesses to meet acceptable human rights standards, that all of these people on the petition will vote him out of office. Having said that, its out of my power to be able to directly help the working class people in foreign nations - ultimately changes come from within the countries themselves. But, while I do find the topic of human rights in global economies to be incredibily interesting, I dont want to derail this thread. Perhaps the discussion could be taken to another thread if you want to continue?

John, This is probably worth dedicating a thread to, but basically almost everything I buy comes from the local community and is made in the US. As long as I can avoid it, I take extreme care into making sure that what I buy doesnt inadvertantly go into child labor or sweat shops. I couldnt imagine willfully putting my money into corporations that do all but torture its employees. And as far as helping out the working class, I'm fairly sure that all the money I spend from buying locally gets reinvested directly into my surrounding community. Almost all the money goes into the hands of my local providers rather than to faceless CEOs that I'll never see or meet. So, I imagine that I do more for the working class by shopping as I do now than buying all my things from Walmart. There are literally thousands of websites dedicated to buying locally, see 10 Ways to Buy Local for a few resources (that one is on food and clothing, but I'm sure a little searching on the internet will show places to buy American-made electronics). If you're smart enough to pick a good organic food and clothing suppliers, then buying locally can be good for both your local communitys economy and environment. Not at all, have you seen the number of smilies in this thread This thread is for show and tell without getting strange looks, getting to know our SFNers a little better, and even for a little poking fun at our selves. Its a fun thread, just enjoy

Pangloss, Oh, dear you misunderstand! I never meant to imply that my veganism example of extremism was faith-based or not rationally defensible, I mentioned it because I know its really "out there" and probably goes outside of the acceptable mainstreams, and I'm personally very sensitive to it being trivialized (or being called faith - thats like nails on a chalkboard to me ). The veganism itself is reasonable, but its my major hotbutton issue for me and one prone to make me very upset in the wrong company. Extremism means many things, which includes positions that go beyond normal bounds of reason, but also includes ideas: - being literally uncompromising. You might know these people as brickwalls, who despite the facts could not imagine that they would possibly be wrong. Think of all the Sean Hannitys and Ann Coulters in the world for example. - being desperately removed from the mainstream. Enter anyone you've ever seen in those huge PETA demonstrations. - that once challenged, reasonable discourse becomes impossible. For instance, I know members of Anti-defemation League who are very good writers and compose absolutely beautiful essays on the rhetorical implications of anti-semitism in media, but they would go insane calling people "scum" and "monsters" at the first joke that goes "Two Rabbis walk into a bar, then they bought it". I'd also be tempted to lump in anyone who has a persecution complex about their political opinions, possibly ideas defended on conspiracy theories, and maybe ideas that are never defended any further than meaningless platitudes and soundbytes. Much appreciated

SwansonT,

I'm having deja vu: Have you ever wondered about plant suffering during the times when you arent talking to an animal-rights activist You've read my posts, it would be truly out of character for me to argue that veganism is a matter of faith rather than actual good reasons (it would be something interesting to see me write "there are absolutely no reasons why you should be a vegan, but do it anyway" ). Most of my reasons for veganism were inspired by Oxford professor of Bioethics Peter Singer and his books on the animal rights including "Animal Liberation" and "Practical Ethics". If you start another thread on vegetarianism / veganism, I'll be happy to be the representative vegan and answer your questions in more detail. (I've edited my post so as not to derail this thread.)

Pangloss, Because I really really hate shrubbery. There, I said it. (And because animals have the capacity to suffer and value their continued existence )