Taking choice away

[John Cuthber]

I wont, let them kill their own meat....if they need it, they can surely do their own dirty work?

What would be the point of them killing their own meat after you decided to poison it?

Did you forget what you had said at the start?

You said "Okay so hypothetically speaking, if we could make it so animals become poisonous for human consumption"

 

You are still advocating the mass slaughter of poor people and claiming that you are the one with morals.

[overtone]

Farming for food in the US without killing animals other than the former resident populations of the land taken would require sub-optimal and degradative use of marginal land, intercontinental shipping of petroleum and other soil nutrient products, transcontinental shipping of foodstuffs, exploitative and damaging economic customs, and very sophisticated balancing of vitamns etc over the winter. It would be high tech in the extreme - hydroponics, international finance, genetic engineering, the whole ball of wax.

 

It would be at least as destructive of the environment, including all the animals in it, as current meat production even at the current levels of abuse and industrial evils - which are very great, and should be changed to better practices by govrnmental force if necessary, but that is another matter.

 

Killing and eating animals is not in itself abuse - it is the evolved, natural, and ncessary cycle of life for animals. Almost all animals in the real world are killed and eaten, the only question being by what.

Edited March 13, 2013 by overtone

[DevilSolution]

This:

-- Summarizes the problem of this thread.

 

No one said we believe in animal murder. In fact, I explained the subtleties of that claim in at least 2 different posts. Further, we showed you in at least 4 different posts about the different problems where meat production (mass and mini) IS a necessity for survival, which you ignored. Then, you finish by labeling the entire society (and those who may disagree with you) as corrupt. This also serves to (once again) push our not-so-extreme claims into the extreme, and paint your dissenters with emotional brush.

 

It's getting quite offensive, now, honestly.

 

You are blatantly StrawMan-ing our claims so it's easier for you to answer us, and you're consistently ignoring and skipping claims that you don't feel like answering by dismissing them off hand, and then repeating the claim as if it was either unanswered or is still wrong despite evidence provided to the contrary.

 

That's great for you, but not really conducive to a proper debate, which is what this forum is for.

 

 

 

~mooey

I realise ive made some bold statements and accusations regarding cruelty and alternatives to meat so before we take this debate any further regarding *forcing* the choice upon specific individuals, i will try and find sources for these answers. I'll define below the points i wanted to raise and still believe need discussing, i'm going to spend some time *now* researching the B12 vitamin, overall production costs involved in animal incarceration and slaughter and also the overall nutritional advantages / disadvantages that go along with taking meat from the ordinary persons diet. I think coming up with a solid set of evidence for both sides of these 3 issues will determine the eventual outcome of the debate (which is totally disregarding the actual ethical point of murder and cruelty).

 

EDIT: after doing a little research it may actually take a while to find all the scientific evidence i need, there's quit alot of data to get through, especially regarding B12 and the total cost of meat nutrition versus alternatives nutrition (this is quite difficult because theres lots of variables).

 

 

A small side note however is although alternatives might be more expensive and certain nutrients vital to certain aspects of metabolism (which i don't yet know fully and will soon have sourced information for). I still want to direct the main aspects of this debate to the people who can afford the alternatives including food fortified with the elusive B12 vitamin or supplements, people who agree with (or dont care) about the cruelty and mass murder involved in meat production or also the generally ignorant, as quoted from OP "that which you dont know wont hurt you", for *THESE* specific individual cases, where the ignorant or arrogant are both financially capable (which i think ive gone OTT in trying to explain are the majority of meat eaters), can it, or is it, ethically sound to force them to *STOP* eating meat???????

 

The original solution i offered can ovcourse be adjusted to suit this situation (less cattle infected etc etc), but i will attempt to demonstrate how the large majority of people who eat meat from the production line infact fall into atleast the ignorant OR arrogant OR those with the education but not the will power and whom are also financially capable.

 

Again i apologise if im frustrating you, its quite a difficult thing to explain to somebody without using extreme examples or hypothetical situations the exact ethics that exist within this subject (such as the cruelty and murder, the nutritional aspects of potentially *needing* meat and also the whole issue of forcing ethics and removing choice). Ive made it clear my belief is that the whole meat industry has corrupt ethical values so i hope you understand why i skip over finer details that hold back the main ethical debate of forcing choice when a specific criteria is met (the finer details i mean are the lack of a very very very specific vitamin, or having to pay 20% extra on meat alternatives etc etc), i admit i have somewhat skipped over them, or atleast not found any solid scientific counter argument only hypothetical and ethical ones, so again as previously mentioned i will now put the time into finding out the facts and sharing the results. Also i will also apologise for the way i conducted my argument so far, i was at times quite vulgar and particular with the way i worded my argument and it may have come across as hypocritical, arrogant or purely bad natured.

 

Ive already mentioned that i think we agree on some of the very core ethics of this debate but disagree on what or how things can be done to change this situation. Also i will read through the debate again in more detail to find out your views on incarceration as a form of cruelty or mental torture as i dont fully understand if you think its okay to encage animals (yes/no), this is also quite an important aspect of the debate as giving animals a high degree of freedom will sharply increase its cost making alternatives more cost effective.

 

Farming for food in the US without killing animals other than the former resident populations of the land taken would require sub-optimal and degradative use of marginal land, intercontinental shipping of petroleum and other soil nutrient products, transcontinental shipping of foodstuffs, exploitative and damaging economic customs, and very sophisticated balancing of vitamns etc over the winter. It would be high tech in the extreme - hydroponics, international finance, genetic engineering, the whole ball of wax.

 

It would be at least as destructive of the environment, including all the animals in it, as current meat production even at the current levels of abuse and industrial evils - which are very great, and should be changed to better practices by govrnmental force if necessary, but that is another matter.

 

Killing and eating animals is not in itself abuse - it is the evolved, natural, and ncessary cycle of life for animals. Almost all animals in the real world are killed and eaten, the only question being by what.

I appreciate your point, i think i can find evidence to the contrary, i will find some data showing that the overall production cost and nutrition that goes into animal feed, transportation, refrigeration etc etc far outweighs the alternative of farming the land or even farming upwards in skyscrapers.

 

I also appreciate your point on the circle of life, however ethically there is ofcourse an argument to be made for pointlessly murdering a sentient being other no other purpose than for taste or a single vitamin which could potentially be mass made (i need to find out).

 

What would be the point of them killing their own meat after you decided to poison it?

Did you forget what you had said at the start?

You said "Okay so hypothetically speaking, if we could make it so animals become poisonous for human consumption"

 

You are still advocating the mass slaughter of poor people and claiming that you are the one with morals.

I think your not quite grasping what im actually suggesting, if we infect the animals (all or a majority) so they become inedible they will become purposeless to us humans, so we will no longer keep them in cages or fields (where the veg will be) and hence will either starve to death or be killed anyway. HOWEVER i purpose at this point, when they all die because we no longer need or raise them, can we say the world is better off for not torturing and murdering them, i dont think people quite get this *sentience* thing.

 

Look at this way, if you was a cow what would you want to do?

 

keep being caged, watch your young die, being made massively overweight and having problems with muscular pain your whole life to then finally get murdered. (this is within regulation, regardless of behind the door cruelty and torture)

 

Or would you say NO, ive had enough, kill me, and if all generations that follow are to be subjected to the same conditions, kill all my kids too, so they dont suffer?

 

I know this is extreme and subject to our personal sentience not theres, but you can only ever conceive things from your own perspective.

 

This ignores the problems involved in distributing enough protein to the numbers of humans currently inhabiting this planet. It also ignores the huge evolutionary leap made when our intelligence allowed us to create the divisions of labor that have made us so successful as a species. If we have to hunt our own food, we'll have time for little else, and large population centers will quickly hunt out every piece of protein in the area.

Protein itself can be got from lots of places, its not unique to animals or meat. I agree the agricultural evolution did great things for society on the whole throughout history, but history is as it is, just because it was once great doesnt make it so forever. If we now poses the technology and scientific knowledge needed to switch from meat to alternatives that offer essentially the same nutritional value, why should animals be tortured and murdered needlessly because people are too lazy to change diet (for the educated but less willful) or people that are conditioned in a society where meat *tastes* great and therefor disregard the alternative (i say this because i believe if the whole planet was raised on just as tasty but slightly different alternatives, the general public would react in much the same manner when tasting meat, they would say its not as good as this *alternative* and that it has a weird texture, i think theres a branch of psychology associated with this sort of indoctrination).

 

!

Moderator Note

DevilSolution, you are engaging in some logical fallacies here. Characterizing this as murder is a straw-man of the views of people who disagree and creating false dilemmas. You are also arguing generalities based on specific anecdotes, and I've probably missed some. None of this is either good science or good debate.

Whatever, You know, I know, We all know that murder is not a straw man argument; Its the single basis to the debate, things like cruelty, nutrition, incarceration and food costs are all straw man in comparison.

Edited March 14, 2013 by DevilSolution

[Phi for All]

I still want to direct the main aspects of this debate to the people who can afford the alternatives including food fortified with the elusive B12 vitamin or supplements,

 

I'm supposed to eat cereal (which I'm ambivalent about at best) fortified with B12 because I can afford it, instead of meat (which I love) which I can afford, just because you think I enjoy it when an animal is killed? What about those of us who revere the animals that give up their lives for our grills?

 

people who agree with (or dont care) about the cruelty and mass murder involved in meat production

 

This part is foolish. How many people here want animals treated cruelly?

[mooeypoo]

Whatever, You know, I know, We all know that murder is not a straw man argument; Its the single basis to the debate, things like cruelty, nutrition, incarceration and food costs are all straw man in comparison.

Saying we advocate murder, by twisting our claims and ignoring some of our points, so you can dismiss our point of view off hand is a strawman, and is offensive.

 

When I posted about it, I included a reference to the meaning of the fallacy term which also has examples in it. The examples you give in this snippet do not follow the ACTUAL meaning.

 

I do hope expecting you to read at least that reference is not too much.

[John Cuthber]

"Look at this way, if you was a cow what would you want to do?

keep being caged, watch your young die, being made massively overweight and having problems with muscular pain your whole life to then finally get murdered. (this is within regulation, regardless of behind the door cruelty and torture)

Or would you say NO, ive had enough, kill me, and if all generations that follow are to be subjected to the same conditions, kill all my kids too, so they dont suffer?"

 

Moo.

 

I'm not a cow, so I can contemplate my future.

So the question is meaningless, but designed to be emotive, rather than scientific.

Why did you do that?

 

Anyway, you can't sidestep the problem that way.

 

Why do you want to murder the poor people?

[DevilSolution]

Saying we advocate murder, by twisting our claims and ignoring some of our points, so you can dismiss our point of view off hand is a strawman, and is offensive.

 

When I posted about it, I included a reference to the meaning of the fallacy term which also has examples in it. The examples you give in this snippet do not follow the ACTUAL meaning.

 

I do hope expecting you to read at least that reference is not too much.

 

I have not found the data i was looking for yet regarding the B12 vitamin as it scientifically it seems limited to be created only by living animal metabolism, which means from my research so far that it has to be artificially synthesized using drug metabolism in the form of enzymes used in micro-organisms found naturally in and ONLY in the animals. However a solution does exist, Although not verified (other than online sources of buyng b12) while talking to my friend about this issue of B12, he told me (although i cant persuade him to not eat meat, he is the partially arrogant and partially ignorant kind, such that he doesnt have all the information and he also enjoys eating meat which dont really help my cause), anyway he told me he got a pack of 300 B12 supplements for £5 from the local pharmaceutical, which is pretty dang cheap, lets just say for now that the amount is 1 years of B12 for £5, even if it was 10 times as expensive (like the omega oils are) Its still ONLY £50 a year for these supplement, any poor family in western society can afford this amount of money and if they cant they should be given it by government. So based on this information, which i will verify personally tomorrow by buying 300 supplementary tablets for myself. Then i think this issue of B12 will be disclosed, agreed?

 

Now the process of getting all the correct information about the production costs is larger than i expected as i cant find a single website that would be deemed scientifically reliable. Its not as easy to find the raw data as i expected.

 

in reply to the quote above:

 

Im not twisting anything, if you eat meat, you are liable for the death of a sentient animal. Infact in an average life time, humans eat:

 

8.2832 cows

1818.2 chickens

20.203 pigs

60.609 turkeys

4.8487 ducks

3434.5 fish

 

the age put in the calculator as 62

 

see how many animals you've actually had murdered for these nutrients that you seem to believe are so essential to your survival.

http://wonder.sitehacks.com/animalssaved.php?m=24&d=4&y=1951

 

I dont know how the calculator works it out, i presume by the amount of meat were supposed to eat by any recommended healthy diet is what is calculated, though again i am racking up data to prove that meat isnt essential for a healthy diet and in some not so extreme cases is actually quite bad for us (such as red meat, meat cooked in particular ways, certain cuts of meat or simply re-heating or preparing meat wrong (i will verify these claims)).

 

Finally based on the fact that B12 is less than £1 a week to supplement i think its time we drop it from the charter. Once i have a receipt i will upload it as evidence of its cost. I think now the main issue is that of an economical one, do you get more nutrients per buck for your meat or for the alternatives that can be created given the same production costs; I.E. is it an economically sustainable idea to switch from meat to alternatives NOW rather than when people start becoming curious or more sentient and start changing their idea's and beliefs, infact i would like to explore this idea a little more, why are people so stubborn to change there views and beliefs, especially those ethical beliefs that seem to take more effort than than other ethical beliefs: for example i could say

 

"i dont believe in killing dogs, i think they are sentient beings and a good companion for humans" and equally i could say:

"i dont believe in killing sentient being's, i think they each have there own purpose or else wouldnt exist, however its our job after being gifted by nature as the most sentient(1) of all living animals to discover this purpose and help them on there way"

 

Theres 2 distinct differences in both of the 2 paraphrases, the first is that one requires alot more effort to abide by ethically, everybody uniformly agrees that killing a family dog is a twisted act and that its not ethical (unless its been viscous but i will discuss this concept later), i also think most people with a fair appreciation or understanding of the word "sentience" would partially but not equally agree with the second paraphrase and ovcourse if you have no comprehension of the meaning behind the word sentience then by default your subconsciously or un-purposefully ignorant of the forces at play in the world. (also your in the WRONG sub-forum my friend), and ill tell you why for a fine fact more people would agree with top one than the bottom is not only the fact they have a dog or like dogs and find them a good companion but this also has alot to do with the way in which you perceive the world. I.E. the culture and society in which you are raised, that is main reason why more people will agree with the top than the bottom paraphrase. I wonder how many people that agree with the first and disagree with the second have actually seen a pigs intellect and sentience first hand, watch them kick a ball around with each other play in the mud? How many chinese people will refuse to eat dog? This is sociological issue related to the nature of mankinds lazy choice to conform to the here and now rather than struggle with the reality and concepts of what *could* be or *should* be.

 

 

Finally and very importantly

 

If we are the most sentient (self defined) beings on this planet surely we should be the guardians of this planet, fighting against disease and famine and war and any situations that sentient beings should not be in, by using our intelligence to develop technology we have created a situation where animals dont need to be farmed agriculturally for there meat and generations of animals need not suffer.

 

just a though.

[John Cuthber]

"Finally based on the fact that B12 is less than £1 a week to supplement i think its time we drop it from the charter."

I presume that you intend personally to ensure that everybody gets their share delivered to them.

Or are you still advocating mass murder?

 

Water is pretty cheap too, but plenty of people die for the want of it.

 

"So based on this information, which i will verify personally tomorrow by buying 300 supplementary tablets for myself. Then i think this issue of B12 will be disclosed, agreed?"

Of course not. The price isn't the issue.

How did you come to the conclusion that it was?

[Phi for All]

Finally and very importantly

 

If we are the most sentient (self defined) beings on this planet surely we should be the guardians of this planet, fighting against disease and famine and war and any situations that sentient beings should not be in, by using our intelligence to develop technology we have created a situation where animals dont need to be farmed agriculturally for there meat and generations of animals need not suffer.

 

We're part of the food chain like any other animal on this planet. Why do we have be excluded from top shelf predator methodology?

 

We already make greater efforts to minimize suffering for animals we eat than any other animal does. Our livestock live sheltered lives. This tells me we may be the ONLY truly sentient species on the planet.

 

We're already working on ways to engineer tissue in labs. When the costs of animal farming begin to exceed that of in vitro protein manufacture, one can assume it will become the preferred method of protein consumption. No need to poison anyone.

 

Honestly, this is one of those issues where some people find out some cruelty exists, they react completely out of proportion and suddenly call for drastic, global, kneejerk reactions. We're supposed to be the smart ones, remember?

[john5746]

Based on the ethics that killing animals, caging animals, injecting artificial hormones and pure cruelty from stupid individuals etc etc is ethically bad? is forcing a solution good? is it physically possible?

Basically, what you are saying is should we eliminate livestock, because if we can't eat domesticated animals, they will vanish. That's kind of the picture I had until recently. Humans growing plants with the occasional wildlife parks. It does seem the closer we can get our energy from the sun, the better for all.

 

This video changed my mind somewhat. He is basically saying that the vast grasslands evolved with mass animal herds being the lawn care systems. Humans disrupted that system and now they are turning into vast deserts. So, if he is correct, eliminating livestock would be the exact opposite of what is needed. Even if he is wrong, it does show the complexity of this issue. In the end, the only solution may be a drastic reduction in human population, but as with any animal without a predator, nature eventually finds a way

Edited March 15, 2013 by john5746

[mooeypoo]

There's another issue that I think should be raised, especially in light of a recent blog article in NPR regarding veganism: Medicines.

 

Meat is not the only derivative of animal farming - life-saving drugs like Insulin, heparin (anticoagulant), amino-acid infusions and horomones are all derived from animals. I think most of us here in the thread would agree that there's a huge difference between using animals for non life-saving things like makeup and beauty product (and, indeed, many countries ban the use of animals for these products) -- and the use of animals for drugs that not only save lives, but are absolutely impossible to avoid without killing people.

 

This article talks more about veganism, but it makes several good points about animal farming and products in general. Some of them we can probably avoid, but some we cannot. It's a good read.

 

Insulin is not something you can choose to take if you're diabetic. You either take it, or you're dead. Heparin is a life-saving measure for preventing clots that kill people.

 

Even if we'd have agreed that we need to find alternatives (and perhaps we should) -- if we make all animals poisonous to man, or if we stop farming animals at all we might make these derivatives obsolete, which has a direct result in killing millions of people.

 

Not to mention that the previously raised point still applies; many animals *depend* on us taking care of them and would quickly die in the wild. Many animals are domesticated to such an extent that they did not come from "nature" but rather from human-made breeding. "Setting them free" might be the unethical point here, since it would mean their deaths and probable extinction. The fact we need to stop cruelty doesn't mean the only thing to do is go to the extreme of going back 10,000 years before animal domestication.

 

I think the point (which we've been trying to make in this thread consistently) is that this discussion is really more than the simplistic "good" vs "evil" of animal product use. There are grey areas that make the ethics behind animal farming a not-so-clear-cut deal and if we ignore these, we're really not being very realistic or intellectually honest.

 

~mooey

[DevilSolution]

There's another issue that I think should be raised, especially in light of a recent blog article in NPR regarding veganism: Medicines.

 

Meat is not the only derivative of animal farming - life-saving drugs like Insulin, heparin (anticoagulant), amino-acid infusions and horomones are all derived from animals. I think most of us here in the thread would agree that there's a huge difference between using animals for non life-saving things like makeup and beauty product (and, indeed, many countries ban the use of animals for these products) -- and the use of animals for drugs that not only save lives, but are absolutely impossible to avoid without killing people.

 

This article talks more about veganism, but it makes several good points about animal farming and products in general. Some of them we can probably avoid, but some we cannot. It's a good read.

 

Insulin is not something you can choose to take if you're diabetic. You either take it, or you're dead. Heparin is a life-saving measure for preventing clots that kill people.

 

Even if we'd have agreed that we need to find alternatives (and perhaps we should) -- if we make all animals poisonous to man, or if we stop farming animals at all we might make these derivatives obsolete, which has a direct result in killing millions of people.

 

Not to mention that the previously raised point still applies; many animals *depend* on us taking care of them and would quickly die in the wild. Many animals are domesticated to such an extent that they did not come from "nature" but rather from human-made breeding. "Setting them free" might be the unethical point here, since it would mean their deaths and probable extinction. The fact we need to stop cruelty doesn't mean the only thing to do is go to the extreme of going back 10,000 years before animal domestication.

 

I think the point (which we've been trying to make in this thread consistently) is that this discussion is really more than the simplistic "good" vs "evil" of animal product use. There are grey areas that make the ethics behind animal farming a not-so-clear-cut deal and if we ignore these, we're really not being very realistic or intellectually honest.

 

~mooey

 

So a species dieing out due to lack of purpose is more ethical than an eternity of being murdered? with the added prolonged amount of torture it will receive given the unknown variable of whether it can be stopped? i think the option of wiping out the species seems rather more ethical given you conceptualise the animals existence from our own perception.

 

I dont know about medicine or any alternatives, i presume the technological era we belong too could find all the answers to these issues by using methods like artificially synthazing whatever chemicals are needed from an animal.

 

Again as ive stated the solution would only infect as many cattle as would be needed to knock meat of the shelves temporarily and therefor force alternative solutions in a much more urgent fashion. The ethical issue of the animals existence should be natures choice, not the humans choice of whether humans have a purpose for the animal. As a previous post suggested where (again i presume) herbivore animals exist, it follows that greenery and plant life follows, maybe with a little help from the humans currently un-inhabitable lands could become rich in life and vegetation.

 

I base my argument and beliefs somewhat on ideological solutions but the counter arguments are weak considering the technology we have available to tackle the issues.

 

"Finally based on the fact that B12 is less than £1 a week to supplement i think its time we drop it from the charter."

I presume that you intend personally to ensure that everybody gets their share delivered to them.

Or are you still advocating mass murder?

 

Water is pretty cheap too, but plenty of people die for the want of it.

 

"So based on this information, which i will verify personally tomorrow by buying 300 supplementary tablets for myself. Then i think this issue of B12 will be disclosed, agreed?"

Of course not. The price isn't the issue.

How did you come to the conclusion that it was?

 

If the argument of supplementing B12 via artificial methods isnt relative to the overall costs involved then what exactly is your argument based on?

The people who die from need of water are not the same people who fund the mass murder if animals, those people have an abundance of water, your talking to me asif i'm personally responsible for already killing all the worlds life stock and letting people die from lack of a vitamin, people dont die from lack of that vitamin, at worse there memory gets a bit worse. I'm pretty sure your aware that if a large majority of life stock was to vanish overnight there would be systems in place and powers at play that will make the problem of B12 deficiency disappear overnight with a single signature, if it will be, as you said, such a huge medical issue.

[John Cuthber]

Liar

 

This is what the WIKi article about B 12 deficiency (caused by pernicious anemia, but the outcome is the same) says

"Failure to treat can lead to severe consequences for those with severe PA. Giving rise to the name, "pernicious," meaning fatal, patients may experience symptoms such as severe fatigue, depression, irritability, neurological damage, heart and organ failure, and even death."

It's what killed the sharpshooter Annie Oakley.

 

While you want to pretend that "people dont die from lack of that vitamin, at worse there memory gets a bit worse."

 

So, you are prepared, not just to kill people, but to lie about doing so.

 

And your idea that "there would be systems in place and powers at play that will make the problem of B12 deficiency disappear overnight with a single signature, if it will be, as you said, such a huge medical issue."

would be laughable if it were not for the tragedy of the real situation.

 

Those "powers" can't even supply water to everyone: why do you think they could supply something complicated like B12.

Edited March 17, 2013 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

 

 

‘DevilSolution’

You continue to use the very emotive term ‘murder’, not only, incorrectly but it is as previously stated a strawman, please stop.

 

In your post #28 you ask “if you was a cow what would you want to do?” what you seem to not appreciate is what the animals get from the relationship: Security from predation (if you want a definition of ‘cruelty’ watch a pack of wolves take down an elk), guaranteed food supply, shelter from the extremes of winter and a guaranteed health program.

 

Farmers, at least the dozen or so that I know, would be extremely upset at your line of argument and casual generalizations of cruelty and murder, they all take great pride in their husbandry skills and the strides, both they and governments take in order to alleviate cruelty and develop every more humane ways to dispatch livestock.

 

Nobody in this thread has suggested cruelty doesn’t exist, we’ve all seen the videos of malpractice in the farming world, but these are the extreme and most governments are trying to regulate against such practices. It’s like arguing “because some people drive recklessly cars should be banned”.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

So a species dieing out due to lack of purpose is more ethical than an eternity of being murdered? with the added prolonged amount of torture it will receive given the unknown variable of whether it can be stopped? i think the option of wiping out the species seems rather more ethical given you conceptualise the animals existence from our own perception.

Since you're not even taking the time to break down my quote so I understand what it is you're referring to, I'll have to guess you're refering to my (rather MINOR and tangential) point about how releasing animals to the wild completely would mean their deaths.

 

So:

(a) That was not even remotely close to being the point of my thread. Nitpicking the points you can answer does not an intellectually honest debate make.

(b) I don't understand what you wrote in the above paragraph.

I base my argument and beliefs somewhat on ideological solutions but the counter arguments are weak considering the technology we have available to tackle the issues.

That would fly in a theology forum, not in a science forum. That's why we give you *evidence* and support to our claims.

 

What you are doing, really, is trying to nitpick claims, shrug counter claims off casually (without checking) and twist the facts so that *your* side will look more ethical and correct. I can recommend a couple of conspiracy theory forums that would accept this tactic and might even crown you for their royalty if you persist.

 

*We* are here for rational substantiated evidence-based arguments. Either participate according to our rules, or choose leave. You definitely won't convince anyone with that tactic.

I dont know about medicine or any alternatives, i presume the technological era we belong too could find all the answers to these issues by using methods like artificially synthazing whatever chemicals are needed from an animal.

You're proposing a huge extreme action based on something that you don't know. We're just trying to show you that there are things yo udon't know that might transform your idea from a great solution to an extremely unethical one.

 

Dismissing the claims we give you off hand just because you don't know them is not really showing your willingness to discuss things. It kinda shows us you're not here to *consider* points. You're here to preach.

 

 

So, "we can probably find a solution" is an irrelevant claim because we didn't find a solution yet. When we do, we can discuss the merits of poisoning animals and stopping medical use, etc.

 

And if you disagree with this, you need go get off your high horse and bring us actual evidence, because I, for one, am getting really tired of being a voodoo doll for your abuse because anyone who thinks slightly differently than you is a murderer.

 

~mooey

[imatfaal]

Liar

 

This is what the WIKi article about B 12 deficiency (caused by pernicious anemia, but the outcome is the same) says.....

 

/snipped

 

!

Moderator Note

Please refrain from using insulting language and attacking the person rather than the argument. There is no need, nor is it acceptable, to move from quite rightly pointing out a glaring factual error to asserting personal dishonesty on the part of another member.

[SplitInfinity]

Okay so hypothetically speaking, if we could make it so animals become poisonous for human consumption via editing its DNA / feeding it specific molecules that make it un-edible but perfectly safe otherwise (I.E some harmful bacteria / virus for humans but totally safe for the animal).

 

For the humans with philosophical idioms such as "what you dont know wont hurt you", is it ethically sound to take choice away from humans that dont have the will power, curiosity or empathy to care for animal cruelty?

 

Based on the ethics that killing animals, caging animals, injecting artificial hormones and pure cruelty from stupid individuals etc etc is ethically bad? is forcing a solution good? is it physically possible?

 

thx.

Your question is based on the premise that a person who eats animal flesh is somehow acting in an immoral and cruel manner.

 

The reality of our planet is that every living thing or person becomes FOOD for some other living organism. This is the hard cold fact of the matter and it is a natural state of condition for all living things.

 

Human Belings are omniverous. We eat plant and animal life and reguardless of the Vegan proposition that Humans can get everything our body needs from plant life...this idea is incorrect. Therre are many health problems that are specific to a complete and total plant based diet and this is especially so for young children who's bodies need animal fats and protiens for proper growth. Many studies have compared children who either are Vegans or Omniverous and such studies show that the Vegan Children are underweight...more prone to disease as well as have much lessor muscle mass upon their bodies.

 

I myself am a Hunter and enjoy a good Venisopn Steak which is super high in Protein and low in Fat. Thw deer population in our state is so high that deer are dying of starvation and desease due to their over population. The number of deer a Hunter can havest in one year has been raised and this is helping.

 

Split Infinity

[John Cuthber]

If someone repeatedly calls me, and others murderers (albeit tacitly) then they are lying or delusional.

When it's clear that they have looked into the effects of vitamin B12 deficiency, but only quote the bits that suit them, that's also plainly dishonest.

 

On the basis of the evidence supplied in this thread, it is clear that he tells lies.

 

Calling such an individual a liar is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

Note to everybody:

 

We have noticed that this discussion is becoming personal and even emotional.

Calling someone a liar may be a statement of fact, but it will be perceived by the other party as insulting, and therefore we wish you to stop doing this.

Similarly, calling people who eat meat murderers may be true in your eyes, but this is also seen as insulting by the other party.

 

We (moderators) request that all people involved improve their quality of posting. All logical fallacies stop now, including the personal attacks and strawman arguments. Our only alternative will be to close the thread.

[Phi for All]

Calling such an individual a liar is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.

 

It's also just as easy to point to a statement and show it to be a lie, which is not attacking the individual. For our discussion purposes, can we stick to this caveat?

 

That means, of course, that pointing to individual acts as murder is going to be more in line with the rules than calling people murderers. The line is not really all that fine.

[DevilSolution]

Your question is based on the premise that a person who eats animal flesh is somehow acting in an immoral and cruel manner.

 

The reality of our planet is that every living thing or person becomes FOOD for some other living organism. This is the hard cold fact of the matter and it is a natural state of condition for all living things.

 

Human Belings are omniverous. We eat plant and animal life and reguardless of the Vegan proposition that Humans can get everything our body needs from plant life...this idea is incorrect. Therre are many health problems that are specific to a complete and total plant based diet and this is especially so for young children who's bodies need animal fats and protiens for proper growth. Many studies have compared children who either are Vegans or Omniverous and such studies show that the Vegan Children are underweight...more prone to disease as well as have much lessor muscle mass upon their bodies.

 

I myself am a Hunter and enjoy a good Venisopn Steak which is super high in Protein and low in Fat. Thw deer population in our state is so high that deer are dying of starvation and desease due to their over population. The number of deer a Hunter can havest in one year has been raised and this is helping.

 

Split Infinity

 

I dont disagree with eating meat persay, just the current system where animals are mis-treated and generally tortured

 

If humans need meat and kill it for themselves then there is no issue.

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

I dont disagree with eating meat persay, just the current system where animals are mis-treated and generally tortured

 

If humans need meat and kill it for themselves then there is no issue.

 

I have a smallholding on which I have 4 pigs, 12 geese, 10 ducks and 9 chickens, it was 10 chickens but we had a visit from the local fox. I guess the fact that the fowl are killed by me means, by your standard, I can go ahead and eat them, thanks. Unfortunately by this same standard I’m unable to eat the pork, regulations demand the pigs are sent to the abattoir for dispatch. By all means please protest any and all cruelty you find few here would argue against that, I for one would join you, but to argue that eating meat, unless killed personally, automatically results in cruelty/torture is not justified and insults those that run a farm designed with animal care in mind.

 

 

 

 

 

It is an offence to cause or permit an animal avoidable excitement, pain or suffering. There are also specific rules on handling, stunning, slaughter or killing of animals. In particular:

• anyone carrying out any of

  these tasks must have the knowledge and skill to do their job humanely and

  efficiently;

• slaughtermen must be

  competent and hold a Registered Licence;

• in every slaughterhouse a

  competent person must be given authority to take action to safeguard

  welfare; and

• only permitted methods may

  be used to stun or kill animals.

 

[SplitInfinity]

I dont disagree with eating meat persay, just the current system where animals are mis-treated and generally tortured

 

If humans need meat and kill it for themselves then there is no issue.

 

I would agree and support your statement here as Hunters know much more so than others exactly what is being sacrificed for Humans to eat what their body actually requires.

 

Hunting and killing an animal is a SACRED thing. All the Hunters I know take great care and hone their skills to harvest an animal in a manner that is Quick in it's Kill...NEVER to pull the trigger or release an arrow unless a High Probability exists that a Kill will result. To shoot a round or release an arrow into a group of animals or do so from too far a distance can result in a wound to an animal that could cause great suffering and pain before death or if the animal does not die...could result in the animal contracting a disease that could spread or even possibly becoming a threat to Humans if an animal must forage for food close to homes as the injury will not allow the animal to properly forage or hunt if the animal is a predator.

 

Shooting a round or releasing an arrow into a group of animals may kill or injure Female Animals not allowed to be harvested as it is most important to Hunters that proper rules and laws are in place to ensure the survival od a species. In my state of Massachusetts every dollar paid for licensing is used for Wildlife Conservation, Stocking and programs to support all wildlife populations as to ensure stable and balanced levels of fish, deer, bear, bird and now Mountain Lion numbers and breeding teritories.

 

I grew up in Mass. in a town where every kid and their Mom or Dad would go to the Police Station to take a Gun and Hunting Safety course when the Kid turned 11. Every kid...Boy or Girl went and the Police and Rangers taught both Kids and Parents everything that could be known about every possible Rifle, Shotgun, BB or Pellet Gun, Hand Gun Safety...how to know if a Hand Gun is loaded...how to properly handle one as well as how to fire, handle, clean, store, register..etc...all types of fiearms. We also learned how to handle Bows...both recurve and compound as well as Hunting tips and proper Hunting do's and don'ts. We also spent time at the local Fish and Game Firing Range and Archary Range...as both Mom's and Dad's...Son's and Daughters fired weapons and learned safety.

 

As a result of this long running program which is not funded by the Feds or the State as the local Cops, Rangers, Fish and Game Members and Gun Shop owners do this once a year now going on forever program. Because of it there has NEVER been a CHILD killed by a Gun or Bow accident in my town...EVER.

 

I believe that if all Parents and their Kids were to take this program as well as ALL CHILDREN should be made to HUNT...make a kill....Dress the animal...learn how to butcher the animal properly as well as learn how NOTHING is wasted....you would not see any Kids wasting Meat as they would have a DEEP appreciation of the sacrifice the animal has made for that kid to eat.

 

It always amazes me how a person can make derogatory statements about Hunters but at the same time go to a fast Food joint and order Chicken Nuggets or a Burger without thinking about the fact an animal had to die for them to be eating it.

 

As if the Chicken Nugget came into existence in a less painful manner than the clean killed Pheasent or the one shot kill Deer that was not stuffed into some tiny pen to never be able to even walk any distance as it stands in it's own filth.

 

We are Omniverous...and we NEED to eat Animal Protein and Fat's...ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. A Vegan Diet maybe honorable but it is not entirely healthy.

 

Split Infinity

[DevilSolution]

I have a smallholding on which I have 4 pigs, 12 geese, 10 ducks and 9 chickens, it was 10 chickens but we had a visit from the local fox. I guess the fact that the fowl are killed by me means, by your standard, I can go ahead and eat them, thanks. Unfortunately by this same standard I’m unable to eat the pork, regulations demand the pigs are sent to the abattoir for dispatch. By all means please protest any and all cruelty you find few here would argue against that, I for one would join you, but to argue that eating meat, unless killed personally, automatically results in cruelty/torture is not justified and insults those that run a farm designed with animal care in mind.

 

 

 

 

Aha, im not doin a very good job here lol, i didnt want to imply you *ALWAYS* have to kill your own meat, just that if your not capable of killing an animal your obviously sentient enough to not need processed meat.....its almost like they couldnt do it themselves so they hide it away, out in the countryside where they cant see the animal get killed. I have 3 criteria i think people should tick before buying meat.....if they dont they shouldnt.

 

 

Do you need the meat to survive?

Can you kill your own meat?

Had that animal had a free life?

[john5746]

Are you OK with people having pets? We don't generally eat them, but Pets aren't really free.

 

On a small farm, the animals are almost like pets, except you eat them instead of letting them go blind, get arthritis and die slowly.