Moontanman Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well, if you believe humans are only acting on instincts and beasts incapable to make rationale for their decisions, then we have nothing to discuss anymore. There is no ethics and the rapists is free to rape anyone on its instincts telling him to do so. Do you know what a strawman argument is? I'd even agree that free will might very well be an illusion. But nobody acts and lives as if all his choices are illusions. We believe we can choose, and we rationalize our decisions all the time. I am only pointing out that when we rationalize, we should at least strive for coherence. If you condemn torturing a baby, you should condemn torturing an adult chimp if you are applying the same standard, because every data seems to point that the adult chimp is most probably more self-aware than a newborn. What does this actually mean in relation to the OP? I have never advocated torturing anything, another strawman. So being the only species that can use, say contraception, or make useful predictions using science... All this is rubbish and we are nothing more than mosquitoes, right? I hope you don't smoke around these strawmen... I've always been paying attention to talk about "unnecessary" suffering. Of course, I value my life and should I have no choice but eating animals, I'd eat animals. This has got NOTHING to do with our lives in developped countries where abundance of everything is allowing anyone to choose what he eats. This is not being hypocritical at all. So...only those who can choose can be ethical? Actually, I'd agree with this, and my post was poorly written in this respect. Like sentience, intelligence and other characteristics, I do believe that there is a continuum over the animal kingdom and our evolution history. So yes, what we call "morality" is just complex, social rules for behaving ourselves. At least we agree on that. At least, if you are coherent and think that animals have no value and we can use them for anything, then I'd say you are entitled to your opinion. However, most people are against causing suffering to animals when it's not necessary. The thing is that they consider it necessary to put tasty chicken in their mouths, when it is not. I just ask people to be coherent. If you don't care about animal sufferings for your food, why should you care about animal suffering for anyone's mere entertainment? Define suffering... When did i say i thought suffering was ok? I don't like chicken either. It's not a question of "liking" or not animals. I see no reason why "taste" should justify any amount of suffering. I like to eat chicken but my feelings toward them is radically colored by being flogged incessantly as a small child by a rooster, kill em all I say... lol I know not a good argument.. Well, we aren't quite still living in the woods, right? I don't deny anything you said in the above paragraph. But just stating that something is natural doesn't mean it's good. It is also pretty unnatural to wear clothes, to perfume ourselves, to shave, etc. To say that "natural" is good is committing the naturalistic fallacy. I won't compare which is best between living in the wild or in a farm as for me, it is unnecessary, at this point of the human history to continue to eat meat. Farm animals don't belong to any ecosystem in the wild. I'm a nudist... I do bath and but I seldom perfume myself and i see no reason for others to do so unless they like they effect. naturalistic fallacy, wow, so you do know that you are continually using fallacies or do only those view points you disagree with count as fallacies? I disagree that eating meat is unnecessary, you'd have to show me how the human race could raise enough quality food that would not contain animals flesh of some sort. The way i see only a special few can do so and they base their behavior on falsehoods like killing animals is torture... I agree that it may take more than telling them it's wrong. Actually, I started by reducing my meat consumption because many studies show that eating as much meat as we do in America is a very bad idea for your health. Our digestive system allows us to eat meat, yes, and if I'm not mistaken, we even evolved some capability to eat more meat than other apes without getting as much adversive effect from dietary cholesterol than they do, but this doesn't mean that eating the amound of meat we do now is good for us. Our diet should be mainly composed of fruits and vegetables, and supplemented by some animal proteins when available. Now look at how our plates are composed in America: a big piece of meat surrounded by a little bit of vegetables, plus, loads of dairy, especially cheese. This is not healthy at all. Also, the environmental toll of raising cattle, especially, to come back to the topic of the thread, is pretty much disastrous. These two reasons are good ones to want to reduce meat and some animal products, and they have nothing to do with animals' well-being. Those are good reason to lower your meat intake but not a good reason to completely stop eating meat... and you keep talking about red meat, I eat mostly local seafood as meat but I realize not everyone has that option and not everyone eats huge chunks of meat with a few if any vegetables. But when i do eat red meat, like a steak, i like it almost raw, blood gushing from it, I am not ashamed of eating meat or my diet, you go from saying no meat to lowering your meat intake and where do you think that supplemental animal proteins comes from? You go from an either or argument to maybe just a little bit? Of course. I don't pretend in any way to be superior. I don't believe my gustatory tastes should pass before the life of an animal. Tell me how this makes me feel superior to animals. Because animals do not make that distinction. And where do you draw the line at killing animals? Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, arthropods, worms? Where is the line drawn? Yes, animals don't see humans giving them food as predators. So what? I can't access eggs that didn't cause at least some chicks to be killed to bring them to my table, so it's easier to just not eat eggs. Plus, I don't need eggs to survive. Oh yes they do, you obviously have little experience with farm animals... but this also extends into the wild as well, certain fish, birds and probably other animals a line themselves with predators to protect themselves by more or less performing a service that prevents the predator from eating more of them than they would loose if they were own their own in the wild. I see eggs as chicken fruit, eggs as commercially produced are not alive and do not have the capability of hatching... often this is true in farm raised birds as well but not generally I admit...
marie-claude Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Do you know what a strawman argument is? What does this actually mean in relation to the OP? I have never advocated torturing anything, another strawman. I know, but failure to show how it is one doesn't make you right. I know you never argued torture; I just try to point out that applying a double-standard is possible, but if one is coherent, then one should admit torture. As for people unable to choose otherwise being unethical, this doesn't follow at all. I said that causing unnecessary suffering was unethical. When you have no choice but causing suffering, well, you have no choice. This doesn't make you unethical, no. Define suffering... When did i say i thought suffering was ok? I'd say that suffering is "pain", i.e. it is more than nociception. Well, if suffering ain't ok, why are we arguing at all? I like to eat chicken but my feelings toward them is radically colored by being flogged incessantly as a small child by a rooster, kill em all I say... lol I know not a good argument.. LOL. I'd be biased too. I'm a nudist... I do bath and but I seldom perfume myself and i see no reason for others to do so unless they like they effect. naturalistic fallacy, wow, so you do know that you are continually using fallacies or do only those view points you disagree with count as fallacies? Again, it doesn't suffice to call something a fallacy to turn it into one. I disagree that eating meat is unnecessary, you'd have to show me how the human race could raise enough quality food that would not contain animals flesh of some sort. The way i see only a special few can do so and they base their behavior on falsehoods like killing animals is torture... But we could. It takes more land to produce meat to feed people than to produce grains or vegetables for them to feed on directly. Of course, there is always the problem of making sure people starving get the food, but you know, we have a meat system and they are starving now. What do they send to starving people as food staples again? Oh, yes, grains, rice, beans. They are cheap and nutritionally interesting. My point was not a global one when I said that we didn't need meat, it was a biological one. A human being doesn't need meat to thrive. I'd not advocate that Inuits can survive where they live without meat though, that would be just plain stupid. Those are good reason to lower your meat intake but not a good reason to completely stop eating meat... You go from an either or argument to maybe just a little bit? Of course. I already acknowledge in a previous post that you most probably haven't read that the ethical argument aiming at reducing unnecessary suffering was most probably the only reason to quit all meat. I am not quiting an argument for another, just pointing out reasons that may make you want to lower meat consumption. and you keep talking about red meat, I eat mostly local seafood as meat but I realize not everyone has that option and not everyone eats huge chunks of meat with a few if any vegetables. But when i do eat red meat, like a steak, i like it almost raw, blood gushing from it, I am not ashamed of eating meat or my diet, you go from saying no meat to lowering your meat intake and where do you think that supplemental animal proteins comes from? We don't absolutely need animal proteins to thrive. There is enough proteins (and even some complete ones at that!) in the vegetable world if one wants to eat only plants. I not not everyone eats that badly, I was talking about the "American Standard Diet". Because animals do not make that distinction. And where do you draw the line at killing animals? Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, arthropods, worms? Where is the line drawn? Sorry, I edited my post when you were answering. I meant "I don't feel superior to anyone" -- I already pointed out that humans have a special status in my view because they can predict the outcomes of their actions in a much distant future than animals to. They can act in ways that seem to be contrary to their nature, i.e. they can use contraception, for instance. I personally try to avoid killing sentient beings. I eat yeast, but no insects. Some shellfish probably don't feel pain, but I don't like shellfish. Some insects most probably don't feel pain either, but they don't attract me much from a gustative standpoint. I prefer sticking to my insect-free diet. I'd consider it worse to eat pigs, who are as intelligent as dogs, or to eat horses, than it would be to eat insects. I think that there is a gradual continuum, as I already said, and the more an animal is able to be aware and suffer, the more I find that killing it for mere taste is unnecessarily causing suffering. Oh yes they do, you obviously have little experience with farm animals... Well, they do only if you give them reasons to fear you. I have not a vast experience with farm animals, but some experience, yes. I see eggs as chicken fruit, eggs as commercially produced are not alive and do not have the capability of hatching... often this is true in farm raised birds as well but not generally I admit... Of course, eggs are not alive. The chicks that are killed in the production of eggs are the male chicks from the hatcheries. Eggs per se needn't involve animal killing, but when massively produced, yes, they do. Edited March 22, 2012 by marie-claude
Moontanman Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I know, but failure to show how it is one doesn't make you right. I know you never argued torture; I just try to point out that applying a double-standard is possible, but if one is coherent, then one should admit torture. This is not true, animals can be killed without torture and killing doesn't mean that torture is ok, again a strawman... As for people unable to choose otherwise being unethical, this doesn't follow at all. I said that causing unnecessary suffering was unethical. When you have no choice but causing suffering, well, you have no choice. This doesn't make you unethical, no. Unnecessary suffering is point of view isn't it? I'd say that suffering is "pain", i.e. it is more than nociception. Well, if suffering ain't ok, why are we arguing at all? So if I anesthetized the cow and killed it with no suffering it would be ok? LOL. I'd be biased too. Tastes like chiken... lol Again, it doesn't suffice to call something a fallacy to turn it into one. Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it's a duck... But we could. It takes more land to produce meat to feed people than to produce grains or vegetables for them to feed on directly. Of course, there is always the problem of making sure people starving get the food, but you know, we have a meat system and they are starving now. What do they send to starving people as food staples again? Oh, yes, grains, rice, beans. They are cheap and nutritionally interesting. My point was not a global one when I said that we didn't need meat, it was a biological one. A human being doesn't need meat to thrive. I'd not advocate that Inuits can survive where they live without meat though, that would be just plain stupid. so killing whales is ok? you confuse me, i think your argument against killing animals is simply your own personal agenda you want to impose on others.. sounds a bit like religion... Of course. I already acknowledge in a previous post that you most probably haven't read that the ethical argument aiming at reducing unnecessary suffering was most probably the only reason to quit all meat. I am not quiting an argument for another, just pointing out reasons that may make you want to lower meat consumption. Again with the suffering thing, to kill does not equate with suffering, or torture, or being unethical... We don't absolutely need animal proteins to thrive. There is enough proteins (and even some complete ones at that!) in the vegetable world if one wants to eat only plants. I not not everyone eats that badly, I was talking about the "American Standard Diet". I think this was dispelled in an earlier post in this thread, vegans need certain supplements in their diets because a lack of animals in their diet cannot be replaced by vegetables alone in any reasonable manner. Sorry, I edited my post when you were answering. I meant "I don't feel superior to anyone" -- I already pointed out that humans have a special status in my view because they can predict the outcomes of their actions in a much distant future than animals to. They can act in ways that seem to be contrary to their nature, i.e. they can use contraception, for instance. I personally try to avoid killing sentient beings. I eat yeast, but no insects. Some shellfish probably don't feel pain, but I don't like shellfish. Some insects most probably don't feel pain either, but they don't attract me much from a gustative standpoint. I prefer sticking to my insect-free diet. I'd consider it worse to eat pigs, who are as intelligent as dogs, or to eat horses, than it would be to eat insects. I think that there is a gradual continuum, as I already said, and the more an animal is able to be aware and suffer, the more I find that killing it for mere taste is unnecessarily causing suffering. Ok, again, if i put a cow to sleep so it can feel no pain or stress from the killing then it's ok? Shellfish do not feel pain? they avoid unpleasant stimuli, they respond to touch, I don't follow you on this. And why is ok to kill anything if it's unethical to kill then it's unethical to kill, insects are alive respond to stimuli and can eve be tamed to allow them selves to be handled, even wild ones. Crustaceans like shrimp respond to external stimuli, i seriously think this is an invalid way to look at the world. I am getting ready to go outside and beat the plant life around my house into submission, i am certain i will kill thousands of animals in the process, some will even be vertebrates, possibly even a mammal or two, maybe even a bird... WOW! good excuse to tell my wife when she asks why the yard looks like a empty over grown field, i bet it won't fly... This has real possibilities, honey, i didn't wash the dishes because i was afraid I'd kill something in the sink? yeah, she'll go for that I am sure of it, a few more beers and I'll be certain of it... Well, they do only if you give them reasons to fear you. I have not a vast experience with farm animals, but some experience, yes. Again, you do not understand animals or farming if you feel this way. Don't think for a moment those tame farm petting zoos are how animals are kept on a farm, farm animals can be dangerous, I was almost eaten several times by pigs as a child, cows are also quite dangerous if provoked, I've been drug into the hog pen, horned, trampled, bitten, chewed and chased many times, farming can be and is dangerous, animals are unpredictable and will defend themselves and what they perceive as their "space" Of course, eggs are not alive. The chicks that are killed in the production of eggs are the male chicks from the hatcheries. Eggs per se needn't involve animal killing, but when massively produced, yes, they do. then free range eggs are ok? your argument is not consistent, if killing is unethical then killing anything is unethical, microbes respond to unpleasant stimuli, intentionally torturing or killing something for pleasure is not the same as killing for food or for survival.
marie-claude Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) This is not true, animals can be killed without torture and killing doesn't mean that torture is ok, again a strawman... Can animals be raised without suffering? Can they be killed without suffering? Are hens in battery something you would accept for cats? What amount of suffering would you call torture? Unnecessary suffering is point of view isn't it? It's but one ethical stance. If you have a better one that leads to coherent conclusions, you are free to share and debate it. So if I anesthetized the cow and killed it with no suffering it would be ok? What about the whole life of the cow? To me, death is only part of the suffering of farm animals' lives. so killing whales is ok? you confuse me, i think your argument against killing animals is simply your own personal agenda you want to impose on others.. sounds a bit like religion... *sighs* I'm telling the same thing since the very start. To me, it's about unnecessary suffering. It would be very ill-advised from me to tell people who can't do anything else but feed on animals not to do it. In the absolute, I think that killing human beings is wrong too, but if I must choose between my life and that of someone attacking me, I'll protect my own life. Survival does matter. Again with the suffering thing, to kill does not equate with suffering, or torture, or being unethical... I believe that to cause unnecessary suffering is unethical. If you want to argue the contrary, please do so. I never equated killing with suffering, you did. Of course, that being said, I'd argue that to be killed usually causes pain, but you need to take into account the suffering endured during their lives. I think this was dispelled in an earlier post in this thread, vegans need certain supplements in their diets because a lack of animals in their diet cannot be replaced by vegetables alone in any reasonable manner. The only required potential supplement would be B12, and you can get it from yeast. Plus, you need vitamin D supplements in winter to live in Canada. So well. What's the problem with supplementing our diets again? And, being vegan is *not* about eating only vegetables. Legumes, beans, lentils are also plant food. Shellfish do not feel pain? they avoid unpleasant stimuli, they respond to touch, I don't follow you on this. And why is ok to kill anything if it's unethical to kill then it's unethical to kill, insects are alive respond to stimuli and can eve be tamed to allow them selves to be handled, even wild ones. Crustaceans like shrimp respond to external stimuli, i seriously think this is an invalid way to look at the world. I didn't talk about shrimps, I said some shellfish without naming them. You are fighting strawmen. Nociception ain't the same thing as pain or suffering. Some plants show reactions to stimuli. Again, you do not understand animals or farming if you feel this way. Don't think for a moment those tame farm petting zoos are how animals are kept on a farm, farm animals can be dangerous, Did I ever say the contrary? You keep assigning me opinions on things I never said anything about. then free range eggs are ok? It depends. Some eggs labelled "free-range" mean chickens packed in barns but "free" to roam, and more gets killed than when they are caged in batteries. your argument is not consistent, if killing is unethical then killing anything is unethical, microbes respond to unpleasant stimuli, intentionally torturing or killing something for pleasure is not the same as killing for food or for survival. Again, nociception is not pain. I already said that killing for pleasure wasn't the same thing as killing for survival. The thing is, you don't need meat to survive. Edited March 22, 2012 by marie-claude
questionposter Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Quite simply, I'd say that to invoke the "food chain" argument, you have to advocate that humans are just beasts like any other animals that walk the Earth. Usually, people believe humans have a "special status" somewhat. Now, does this special status come with increased power, or with increased responsibility? If you say humans can't help it, and that they feed on other animals following blindly their instincts, like any other animal does in the wild to survive, I'd say ok. There's no ethics involved in that. If you say humans can think about their choices and act according to some moral standard, then invoking the food chain makes no sense. What people seem to do when they invoke the food chain is applying a double standard: humans are moral, except when it comes to putting food in their plate. The tiger eats a gazelle without caring about its suffering simply because it isn't an animal that can contemplate moral arguments. If you say humans are moral animals, than I say they'd have the minimal responsibility to act like they are moral animals and at least care about how they raise animals for food. What I find the most hypocritical is that usually people will be obfuscated at cats and dogs being piled in tiny cages in shelters, after being abandoned by their owners, but happily eat pork coming from farms where they use contention crates, or eat eggs from chicken in batteries. Most people don't think it's ok to make animals suffer unnecessarily, but they don't react when animals are kept in suffering conditions to satisfy their gustatory habits and preferences. I generally agree with that. We can decide what we believe is ethical and what isn't. Of course, it's also relative, as cows probably don't want to be eaten (though, really, we have no means to know what goes on in a cow's head). We can infer from the behaviour of most animals that they usually strive not to get eaten and so they must "value" their life to the extent that their own brain development allows them to. We usually perceive suffering as bad, and many people would agree with a somewhat utilitarian view stipulating that something that is good increases one's well-being or reduces one's suffering. So we can say that we strive to avoid suffering, and that this is good. If it's good for us, it's good for others too, usually. All beings that can experience pain and suffering strive to avoid it. Some suffering might be necessary though (we have no choice but controlling pests when growing food, say). That's fine. Some suffering is unavoidable. But if we can reduce suffering, especially for sentient beings that can experience pain not only when put to death but during their lifetime, and if this suffering is the result of human behaviours that are not necessary, then why not change our behaviours? I do not *need* to eat meat. I can very well live without. Plus, many recent studies point toward health problems caused by meat, and the American Dietetic Association states the following: "The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals." I avoid meat because even though it was a very useful calorific source at some point during human evolution, we now know it is not the healthiest food around. Plus, we used to eat animals living in the wild, not selectively bred animals kept confined in cages. I have much more respect for someone hunting its own food than I have for our modern ways where people buy animal parts that don't look much like animal parts because if they did, people would feel disgusted to prepare them. We put pads in meat trays so that the consumers won't see any blood that could repulse them. From animals, we've gone to "animal products". This is a twisted way to look at living things, methinks. ------------------ I'd like to quote this: "Why is taste, the crudest of our senses, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses? If you stop and think about it, its crazy. Why doesn't a horny person have as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to killing and eating it? It's easy to dismiss that question but hard to respond to it. And how would you judge an artist who mutilated animals in a gallery because it was visually arresting? How riveting would the sound of a tortured animal need to be to make you want to hear it THAT badly? Try to imagine any end other than taste for which it would be justifiable to do what we do to farmed animals." -- Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals I suppose I generally agree with what your saying, but to play devil's advocate, isn't it unethical to not feed many hungry people? Also, the things about pain and suffering are still "evolution" based. People might only strive to avoid pain because there is an evolutionary mechanism to tell if suffereing is happening to one's body and mechanisms that implore how to react, so that realm isn't necessarily under ethics. Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter
questionposter Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) .. Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter
marie-claude Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I suppose I generally agree with what your saying, but to play devil's advocate, isn't it unethical to not feed many hungry people? Yes, if you *can* feed people and you don't, it creates unnecessary suffering. Now, ideally, producing meat requires more land, so that a solution including less meat production should be of more help than one including more meat. But I don't argue that simply producing less meat would generally and automatically lead to less people starving; there is a whole lot more considerations and logistics surrounding that problem. Also, the things about pain and suffering are still "evolution" based. People might only strive to avoid pain because there is an evolutionary mechanism to tell if suffereing is happening to one's body and mechanisms that implore how to react, so that realm isn't necessarily under ethics. Yes, of course, pain and suffering are the result of evolution. That's why I did ask if we did consider humans as mere automatons or as beings able to anticipate the consequences of their decisions and able to understand the world that surrounds them in a more complete manner than, say, earthworms or shrimps. I do believe that since we can choose (or at least are under the very real illusion that we can choose) what we do, we can choose to avoid making others suffer if it ain't necessary. Failure to do so would be, IMHO, unethical. As I said, there are other ways to consider the "good" than to appeal to "suffering". People are free to debate such other views with me, if they so wish. Edited March 22, 2012 by marie-claude
Moontanman Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) I'd like to quote this: "Why is taste, the crudest of our senses, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses? If you stop and think about it, its crazy. Why doesn't a horny person have as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to killing and eating it? It's easy to dismiss that question but hard to respond to it. And how would you judge an artist who mutilated animals in a gallery because it was visually arresting? How riveting would the sound of a tortured animal need to be to make you want to hear it THAT badly? Try to imagine any end other than taste for which it would be justifiable to do what we do to farmed animals." -- Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals Seriously? You continually equate farm animals and killing with suffering, are you aware that humans created these animals? They are not just wild animals that were taken from some idyllic life and forced into servitude. We bred them to be passive, to be easily killed and have limited awareness. I will be the first to admit that all animals deserve not to be horrifically treated but with out us they would not exist, in some ways we are more like parasites on them than predators. I can't see why you think that killing to eat is unethical, it suggests that we are somehow immoral for killing animals to eat, that somehow we are better than animals in some way or maybe it's superior I'm not sure but you have failed to show why this would be relevant. The argument that raising beef is ecologically unsound is easier to support than it being unethical. Edited March 22, 2012 by Moontanman
marie-claude Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 You continually equate farm animals and killing with suffering, are you aware that humans created these animals? They are not just wild animals that were taken from some idyllic life and forced into servitude. We bred them to be passive, to be easily killed and have limited awareness. I will be the first to admit that all animals deserve not to be horrifically treated but with out us they would not exist, in some ways we are more like parasites on them than predators. I know we bred them as they are now, but one problem is that we bred them into creatures that possibly suffer more, not less. Debeaking chicken is ok and doesn't cause suffering? Macerating chicks doesn't cause suffering maybe? Or wait, castrating pigs doesn't cause suffering? Many procedures cause suffering, let alone the overcrowding of cages or contention of animals. I can't see why you think that killing to eat is unethical, it suggests that we are somehow immoral for killing animals to eat, that somehow we are better than animals in some way or maybe it's superior I'm not sure but you have failed to show why this would be relevant. Again, I never argued that "killing" was the greatest part of the problem, but the suffering is. I did offer reasons as to why we are "better" than animals in some way, though I didn't use "better" as a wording. I said that we had a more comprehensive understanding of the consequences of our actions and of the whole world in general, and that we do believe that we can choose to act as we do according to rationales. I also proposed that reducing suffering was a good thing. You still haven't debated as to why this argument is unsound or silly. The argument that raising beef is ecologically unsound is easier to support than it being unethical. Well, that too. Raising beef is ecologically unsound which is unethical. It is unethical to destroy our environment because this will ultimately cause us and all the other living beings inhabiting the world with us more suffering.
questionposter Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Seriously? You continually equate farm animals and killing with suffering, are you aware that humans created these animals? They are not just wild animals that were taken from some idyllic life and forced into servitude. We bred them to be passive, to be easily killed and have limited awareness. I will be the first to admit that all animals deserve not to be horrifically treated but with out us they would not exist, in some ways we are more like parasites on them than predators. I can't see why you think that killing to eat is unethical, it suggests that we are somehow immoral for killing animals to eat, that somehow we are better than animals in some way or maybe it's superior I'm not sure but you have failed to show why this would be relevant. The argument that raising beef is ecologically unsound is easier to support than it being unethical. It would take a bit of energy to make a shift from this system, but it's not to say it can be done, and what's the point of cows living if it's inevitable they are just going to be slaughtered by some careless machine for some random species that is too lazy to explore alternate possibilities? Even though I avoid it, I don't think killing to eat meat is unethical, but you kind of have to admit we dropped the ball on this and created this situation in the first place. Edited March 22, 2012 by questionposter 1
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 It would take a bit of energy to make a shift from this system, but it's not to say it can be done, and what's the point of cows living if it's inevitable they are just going to be slaughtered by some careless machine for some random species that is too lazy to explore alternate possibilities? Even though I avoid it, I don't think killing to eat meat is unethical, but you kind of have to admit we dropped the ball on this and created this situation in the first place. It is of course a continuation of old traditions, in some places dogs are eaten, in some places cats or horses and I would not eat either unless I was really starving. Cows are stupid creatures, we have bred them to be so, just a look at what they were bred from will show how far they have come to be our "food beasts" and while pigs might still be smart an encounter with a wild boar will convince you really quickly that domestic pigs are lacking quite a bit compared to their wild brethren. The sad thing is that we have lost contact with the animals we eat, we no longer take care of them or even see them as animals, they are just packages of meat, this i agree with. Everyone should try to raise and eat your own meat, rabbits will do, once you see the emotional investment that goes into actually raising a food animal I think some people might tend to not be so quick to think of meat as just a package like carrots of broccoli. But i honestly don't see killing a food animal as unethical... mistreating it while it is alive i can see as unethical, i can't imagine not being moved by the killing of an animal...
marie-claude Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 It is of course a continuation of old traditions, in some places dogs are eaten, in some places cats or horses and I would not eat either unless I was really starving. Cows are stupid creatures, we have bred them to be so, just a look at what they were bred from will show how far they have come to be our "food beasts" and while pigs might still be smart an encounter with a wild boar will convince you really quickly that domestic pigs are lacking quite a bit compared to their wild brethren. The sad thing is that we have lost contact with the animals we eat, we no longer take care of them or even see them as animals, they are just packages of meat, this i agree with. Everyone should try to raise and eat your own meat, rabbits will do, once you see the emotional investment that goes into actually raising a food animal I think some people might tend to not be so quick to think of meat as just a package like carrots of broccoli. But i honestly don't see killing a food animal as unethical... mistreating it while it is alive i can see as unethical, i can't imagine not being moved by the killing of an animal... Well. I am moved by the killing and the suffering of an animal. I wouldn't kill an animal such as a cow or a pig myself. I killed fish, I could manage preparing a rabbit, but I'd prefer to stick with growing vegetables if I have a say. Oh wait, I do have a say, and that's why I don't do it! As I said, I respect people who at least hunt or kill their own food. It's way less hypocritical than buying arranged meat in esthetic packaging enabling you not to think where it comes from. Relevant: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201202/meat-eaters-downplay-animal-minds
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Can animals be raised without suffering? Can they be killed without suffering? Are hens in battery something you would accept for cats? What amount of suffering would you call torture? First of all, i will concede that such practices are indeed cruel but not those are not farm animals, such "meat factories" are far from what a farm is. It's but one ethical stance. If you have a better one that leads to coherent conclusions, you are free to share and debate it. I challenge that the raising of animals for food is inherently cruel and leads to suffering, the people who raise them can be shown to suffer by your broad standards. What about the whole life of the cow? To me, death is only part of the suffering of farm animals' lives. Again i will concede that factory type farming is cruel but that is not farming any more than hydroponics is the same as farming in the natural environment. *sighs* I'm telling the same thing since the very start. To me, it's about unnecessary suffering. It would be very ill-advised from me to tell people who can't do anything else but feed on animals not to do it. In the absolute, I think that killing human beings is wrong too, but if I must choose between my life and that of someone attacking me, I'll protect my own life. Survival does matter. And I assert that simply raising animals to eat is not cruel and does not mean suffering by definition. I believe that to cause unnecessary suffering is unethical. If you want to argue the contrary, please do so. I never equated killing with suffering, you did. Of course, that being said, I'd argue that to be killed usually causes pain, but you need to take into account the suffering endured during their lives. Oh no, you opened that can of worms with your quote from Jonathan Safran Foer, Eating Animals The only required potential supplement would be B12, and you can get it from yeast. Plus, you need vitamin D supplements in winter to live in Canada. So well. What's the problem with supplementing our diets again?And, being vegan is *not* about eating only vegetables. Legumes, beans, lentils are also plant food. I cannot argue with that and I will not try to, but I like meat, fish and sea food especially, but beef as well deer is good, pork, chicken, turkey and I, like many others, will want to eat it at least occasionally and legumes and beans and lentils are still vegetables in the context we are discussing... I didn't talk about shrimps, I said some shellfish without naming them. You are fighting strawmen. Nociception ain't the same thing as pain or suffering. Some plants show reactions to stimuli. Horse Feathers you are creating strawmen faster than i can fight them... Did I ever say the contrary? You keep assigning me opinions on things I never said anything about. Oh contrare, your views on farming are totally disconnected from reality, you read farm and you see a factory, not the same thing... It depends. Some eggs labelled "free-range" mean chickens packed in barns but "free" to roam, and more gets killed than when they are caged in batteries. That's true but I do get my eggs from chicken that actually run free, you can tell by the yolks if they are eating things like bugs, but I do know where my eggs come from. Again, nociception is not pain. I already said that killing for pleasure wasn't the same thing as killing for survival. The thing is, you don't need meat to survive. What does nociception mean? Would Kobe beef be ok? They actually give the animals massages and beer to drink.... Well. I am moved by the killing and the suffering of an animal. I wouldn't kill an animal such as a cow or a pig myself. I killed fish, I could manage preparing a rabbit, but I'd prefer to stick with growing vegetables if I have a say. Oh wait, I do have a say, and that's why I don't do it! As I said, I respect people who at least hunt or kill their own food. It's way less hypocritical than buying arranged meat in esthetic packaging enabling you not to think where it comes from. Relevant: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201202/meat-eaters-downplay-animal-minds it's only relevant if you agree with him, he is a vegetarian, of course he feels that way... it's like asking a creationist to say why he doesn't believe in evolution and using his views to justify not believing in evolution... Ethics is a very subjective thing, some people think that keeping pets is unethical...
questionposter Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) It is of course a continuation of old traditions, in some places dogs are eaten, in some places cats or horses and I would not eat either unless I was really starving. Cows are stupid creatures, we have bred them to be so, just a look at what they were bred from will show how far they have come to be our "food beasts" and while pigs might still be smart an encounter with a wild boar will convince you really quickly that domestic pigs are lacking quite a bit compared to their wild brethren. The sad thing is that we have lost contact with the animals we eat, we no longer take care of them or even see them as animals, they are just packages of meat, this i agree with. Everyone should try to raise and eat your own meat, rabbits will do, once you see the emotional investment that goes into actually raising a food animal I think some people might tend to not be so quick to think of meat as just a package like carrots of broccoli. But i honestly don't see killing a food animal as unethical... mistreating it while it is alive i can see as unethical, i can't imagine not being moved by the killing of an animal... But then that goes into the ethics of whether an animal deserves to be taken care of or be eaten. Also, I think you'll find that on a regular basis, people really don't act much smarter than cows. I suppose even with relativity, a living thing doesn't actually "deserve" a particular thing, no living organism is actually guaranteed any particular thing or right from the universe, at least not as far as physics shows. Edited March 23, 2012 by questionposter
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 But then that goes into the ethics of whether an animal deserves to be taken care of or be eaten. Also, I think you'll find that on a regular basis, people really don't act much smarter than cows. I've raised a lot of cows, you generally don't see people ignoring a human who is drowning or a child who is in trouble but not theirs... Cows are not with out some sort of mind, mostly they are contrary and react to things unseen and seem to have no concept of anything but what they want right now... wow what a bad direction to take this argument
questionposter Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I've raised a lot of cows, you generally don't see people ignoring a human who is drowning or a child who is in trouble but not theirs... Cows are not with out some sort of mind, mostly they are contrary and react to things unseen and seem to have no concept of anything but what they want right now... wow what a bad direction to take this argument Well based on your post, I think people would care about cows drowning of they saw it. But, the meat packing industries pay a lot of money to hide that side of a machine with a pit below filling with cow heads. Cows don't think in terms of words, they think in terms of images by the way. It's kind of different than most people, but there are people who have claimed to think in this way anyway. And oddly enough, they seem kind of peaceful and docile, like cows. Edited March 23, 2012 by questionposter
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Well based on your post, I think people would care about cows drowning of they saw it. But, the meat packing industries pay a lot of money to hide that side of a machine with a pit below filling with cow heads. Nonsense, cow heads are valuable, they have to make pink slime out of something... Cows don't think in terms of words, they think in terms of images by the way. It's kind of different than most people, but there are people who have claimed to think in this way anyway. And oddly enough, they seem kind of peaceful and docile, like cows. And you know how cows think... how exactly?
questionposter Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Nonsense, cow heads are valuable, they have to make pink slime out of something... And you know how cows think... how exactly? Well, I suppose from my own research, but also from people like this http://www.youtube.c...h?v=46ycu3JFRrA Based on how I see things working too, it may be that the type of thinking various animals have is essentially the same, but with different mechanisms to implore different actions and different ways in which to perceive information, such as with images, words, sounds, tastes, touches, etc. In fact, I can even express emotion in terms of music so that it is inexpressible in terms of words, and the same with art (just look at Juxtapoz). Now that I even think about Juxtapoz, it may be related to the mathematics of imaginary numbers, where they are expressing feelings which are not naturally perceivable by human beings, and there-fore seem confusing or enigmatic, much like how the imaginary number "i" is not a number you can see the actual value of and only seems to exist in imaginary axis with virtual particles and invisible dimensions. Edited March 23, 2012 by questionposter
marie-claude Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 First of all, i will concede that such practices are indeed cruel but not those are not farm animals, such "meat factories" are far from what a farm is. Would you also dispute that a whole lot of animals we eat comes from factory farms? Plus, this type of "farming" is growing. http://markbittman.com/america-the-sht-factory I challenge that the raising of animals for food is inherently cruel and leads to suffering, the people who raise them can be shown to suffer by your broad standards. Well, there is a difference between one person suffering because of her own choices and making another being suffering. Also, killing is not performed without pain. But I'd agree with you that improvements in living conditions of animals are a step in the right direction. Oh contrare, your views on farming are totally disconnected from reality, you read farm and you see a factory, not the same thing... Well, I know personally in my family three farmers, and I can say that their practices include daily suffering for the animals. Not necessarily heavy suffering, but still. Milk cows, veals, and sheeps. The veal industry is pretty pathetic. That's true but I do get my eggs from chicken that actually run free, you can tell by the yolks if they are eating things like bugs, but I do know where my eggs come from. Well good for you. As for nociception... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nociception it's only relevant if you agree with him, he is a vegetarian, of course he feels that way... it's like asking a creationist to say why he doesn't believe in evolution and using his views to justify not believing in evolution... The paper isn't itself written by that vegetarian. He only reports the study.
questionposter Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Would you also dispute that a whole lot of animals we eat comes from factory farms? Plus, this type of "farming" is growing. http://markbittman.c...the-sht-factory Well, there is a difference between one person suffering because of her own choices and making another being suffering. Also, killing is not performed without pain. But I'd agree with you that improvements in living conditions of animals are a step in the right direction. Well, I know personally in my family three farmers, and I can say that their practices include daily suffering for the animals. Not necessarily heavy suffering, but still. Milk cows, veals, and sheeps. The veal industry is pretty pathetic. Well good for you. As for nociception... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nociception The paper isn't itself written by that vegetarian. He only reports the study. What moon is doing even if I don't like the way the entire system works I wouldn't say is evil, the only problem is that it seems to be that the only value farmers have for animals they raise and connect to is that they will eventually become food, which seems like how the rest of the animal kindom thinks as well . Also, killing is not performed without pain. Plants? Bacterium? Edited March 23, 2012 by questionposter
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Would you also dispute that a whole lot of animals we eat comes from factory farms? Plus, this type of "farming" is growing. http://markbittman.com/america-the-sht-factory No i would not and i think it's appalling... Well, there is a difference between one person suffering because of her own choices and making another being suffering. Also, killing is not performed without pain. But I'd agree with you that improvements in living conditions of animals are a step in the right direction. You have yet to demonstrate that killing equals pain, a direct shot to the brain results in death with no pain, the brain cannot feel pain and the shot travels faster than pain impulses.. it is just not true that killing results in pain... Well, I know personally in my family three farmers, and I can say that their practices include daily suffering for the animals. Not necessarily heavy suffering, but still. Milk cows, veals, and sheeps. The veal industry is pretty pathetic. As i have no idea of what the conditions your family keeps it's animals i cannot dispute that and yes veal is pathetic, i do not eat it ever... Well good for you. As for nociception... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nociception My spell checker wouldn't pick it up, i thought you had misspelled something I didn't recognize, thanks for the lesson in google... The paper isn't itself written by that vegetarian. He only reports the study. yes he does and totally unbiased too i bet... I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, i know i am not going to convince you and I know i am not going to be convinced, good luck with the rest of the world, i think i am quite liberal on this, very few others are...
marie-claude Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Plants? Bacterium? I was talking short for "killing of sentient beings".
questionposter Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 I was talking short for "killing of sentient beings". Shot to the head? Instantaneous incineration? 5 ton steel block being dropped at terminal velocity?
marie-claude Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 No i would not and i think it's appalling... Yup. You have yet to demonstrate that killing equals pain, a direct shot to the brain results in death with no pain, the brain cannot feel pain and the shot travels faster than pain impulses.. it is just not true that killing results in pain... Well, we've been having a public debate brought by politicians over reasonable accomodation for religious minorities to kill meat in the halal or casher fashion, which is deemed to be "cruel" and "more painful". This type of killing seems indeed to cause pain: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html Now, does the regular stunning method followed by bleeding causes pain? Yes it does (linking one example, but there are many for various types of animals and methods): http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0043933906001097 Probably that killing by a bullet shot directly at the good spot wouldn't involve much suffering. Still, to die from a shot is not pain free, usually, even though the pain is very short. I didn't deny that there are more humane ways to kill sentient beings, only that suffering is usually experienced when one is dying, even shortly, unless heavily medicamented or being killed in a very efficient way, which isn't the case for most regularly consumed animals that can be bought on the market. yes he does and totally unbiased too i bet... Well, I never argued he wasn't biased in commenting the study, but you can look up the study by yourself if you can find the original source and think that he isn't reporting the conclusions adequately. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, i know i am not going to convince you and I know i am not going to be convinced, good luck with the rest of the world, i think i am quite liberal on this, very few others are... Indeed. Shot to the head? Instantaneous incineration? 5 ton steel block being dropped at terminal velocity? I doubt you'd have much useful meat after the last two methods. Even a shot in the head involves some pain, but it is probably more humane: http://web.mac.com/flip/AUR/Archives_of_Uncomfortable_Research/Entries/2006/9/12_The_possible_pain_experienced_during_execution_by_different_methods_files/Hillman1993Execution.PDF BTW, I wouldn't say that what Moontanman is doing sounds "evil" either. There is a whole lot of shades of gray between "evil" and "slightly unethical".
Moontanman Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Even a shot in the head involves some pain, but it is probably more humane: http://web.mac.com/flip/AUR/Archives_of_Uncomfortable_Research/Entries/2006/9/12_The_possible_pain_experienced_during_execution_by_different_methods_files/Hillman1993Execution.PDF BTW, I wouldn't say that what Moontanman is doing sounds "evil" either. There is a whole lot of shades of gray between "evil" and "slightly unethical". No, a shot to the head in the proper place cannot not include pain, your link is about a firing squad, if your brain is destroyed before the pain impulses can get to it you feel no pain...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now