Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by Norsefire
...the animals we commonly eat lack any sort of sapience or self awareness, I do not feel sorry for eating them. ”

This is spoken like you've never spent any time with cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.

Of course a animal dont know if its about to be killed... but i highly suspect it sinses "fear" as its bein treeted diferently on slaughter day... an any fear assoiated wit the slaughter is inhumane (much less the pane of bein killed inhumanely).!!!

Origionaly posted by Norsfire
“ Eating meat isn't immoral. ”

Yes it is.

Isnt "moral" what each individual may or may not determine it to be.???

 

[Norsefire]

This is spoken like you've never spent any time with cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. Speaking from a position of complete ignorance as you are, don't you owe it to yourself to investigate the matter before making pronouncements on it? Otherwise, you just end up looking like an idiot, like now.

Actually, in Syria we own a farm and I have spent time with farm animals. I've seen a sheep slaughtered right in front of my eyes.

And enjoyed it that night. Although, we're not quite as crude as some others; we pray for the animal before we eat it.

Also, at least according to the information I was reading into, all animals except for primates and a select other few lack sapience or self awareness

So mummy's little boy always gets what he wants, does he? Diddums.

We don't have to do alot of things.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. What do you owe to the chickens? Wolves don't apologize. And don't give me that moral bullshit.

You're HUMAN. If ANY obligation, it's to Humanity.

It depends on who or what is killing whom or what.

Yes. And we're killing lesser creatures to eat. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

 

[Thoreau]

Although, we're not quite as crude as some others; we pray for the animal before we eat it.

Yes, because prayer is somehow justifies taking another life. Hmmm... reminds me of those Muslim extremists in Iraq that loved to hurl mortars at us.

Also, at least according to the information I was reading into, all animals except for primates and a select other few lack sapience or self awareness
Yes. And we're killing lesser creatures to eat. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

Lesser creatures? They feel pain as well. They know when they are in danger. Just because they can't express to us in words doesn't mean they are lesser creatures. They bleed just like we do.

 

[Norsefire]

Yes, because prayer is somehow justifies taking another life. Hmmm... reminds me of those Muslim extremists in Iraq that loved to hurl mortars at us.

That's not what I'm saying. I do not believe in prayer. I was merely pointing out that we are more grateful than other cultures.

Lesser creatures? They feel pain as well. They know when they are in danger. Just because they can't express to us in words doesn't mean they are lesser creatures. They bleed just like we do.

Tell that to the lions, tigers, wolves, alligators............hum de dum, you get my point.

 

[Thoreau]

Tell that to the lions, tigers, wolves, alligators............hum de dum, you get my point.

Actually, I don't. They are carnivores. We are omnivores. Humans can live without meat, and thus without killing for food; carnivors can't. And fact is humans have killed more animals than animals do! And there are more of them then there are of us. We don't NEED animal meat. Therefore there is no logical reason for us to continue kill them for food.

 

[Norsefire]

Actually, I don't. They are carnivores. We are omnivores. Humans can live without meat, and thus without killing for food; carnivors can't. And fact is humans have killed more animals than animals do! And there are more of them then there are of us. We don't NEED animal meat. Therefore there is no logical reason for us to continue kill them for food.

There's no logical reason to

- drink soda
- watch movies
- eat cheesecake

You're leaving out desire. Also, plenty of people have incorporated meats into their diet and they help immensely in their good health, protein, etc, especially lean meats

Quit the apologetics. It's tiring and disgusting; no offense.

 

[Thoreau]

There's no logical reason to

- drink soda
- watch movies
- eat cheesecake

You're leaving out desire. Also, plenty of people have incorporated meats into their diet and they help immensely in their good health, protein, etc, especially lean meats

Quit the apologetics. It's tiring and disgusting; no offense.

I'm just pointing out that people don't need meat. If you like meat, what is stopping you from killing your dog or cat and eating them? Honest question.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm just pointing out that people don't need meat. If you like meat, what is stopping you from killing your dog or cat and eating them? Honest question.

Nothing. Although there's an emotional connection to your pet, for one, and second such meat is not appealing, at least to me.

People don't need alot of things. People don't need to even be free.

Eating meat is perfectly fine. It's quite absurd to deny yourself meat because of so-called "animal rights"; we're not the only animals that eat meat. We're just the only ones that think we have to apologize for it.......for whatever reason.

 

[Thoreau]

Nothing. Although there's an emotional connection to your pet, for one, and second such meat is not appealing, at least to me.

People don't need alot of things. People don't need to even be free.

Eating meat is perfectly fine. It's quite absurd to deny yourself meat because of so-called "animal rights"; we're not the only animals that eat meat. We're just the only ones that think we have to apologize for it.......for whatever reason.

Sigh... OK... giving up. One last thing though... watch this and tell me if the way we treat those animals is morally acceptable.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

 

[Norsefire]

Sigh... OK... giving up. One last thing though... watch this and tell me if the way we treat those animals is morally acceptable.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

Oh no, the chickens are uncomfortable.

I'm not through with the entire video yet so I'll get back to you; but honestly, survival of the fittest.

Also chickens descend from dinosaurs, still compassionate now?

Edit: I've finished seeing the video. If that's true, it does make me uncomfortable; more because of the animals being unable to do anything about it. I would probably feel less sorry for humans in that condition

OK, your point is accepted. But still, one can support treating animals well without necessarily never eating meat.

Free-range farm animals, which means they're given freedom and open space, and are able to eat when they want and, necessarily, what they want........in other words, they live comfortably, are more productive and hopefully becomes the norm for farming.

I support treating animals more humanely, but I'm not giving up meat.

 

[Norsefire]

Branch: Vegetarianism based on animal rights

I thought I would branch off from that thread, in the free thoughts subforum, to discuss a more specific issue

After seeing exactly what the animals [here in the US] go through, it is certainly appalling; in my native Syria, most farms are family farms and we do not treat animals this way at all, so I had no idea how exactly they were treated here. Although, then, we're discussing an entirely different issue: how we treat animals, and not necessarily whether or not we eat meat

I entirely support treating animals more humanely..........but I'm not going to give up eating meat. Yes, we should give them fresh air, and a certain degree of freedom to grow and interact as they please. i.e, treat them humanely. However, it's still morally permissable to eat them, in my opinion; of course it's ideal that the methods used would be painless

I simply want to point out the distinction between "I support more humane treatment" and "I'm never gonna eat meat". The latter is absurd, because no other creatures apologize for their eating of meat, and eating meat is eating, which isn't wrong

 

[swarm]

Didn't the branch vegetarians have a complex out near Waco?

Anyway I generally agree, boring as that may be.

 

[Thoreau]

Oh no, the chickens are uncomfortable.

I'm not through with the entire video yet so I'll get back to you; but honestly, survival of the fittest.

Also chickens descend from dinosaurs, still compassionate now?

Edit: I've finished seeing the video. If that's true, it does make me uncomfortable; more because of the animals being unable to do anything about it. I would probably feel less sorry for humans in that condition

OK, your point is accepted. But still, one can support treating animals well without necessarily never eating meat.

Free-range farm animals, which means they're given freedom and open space, and are able to eat when they want and, necessarily, what they want........in other words, they live comfortably, are more productive and hopefully becomes the norm for farming.

I support treating animals more humanely, but I'm not giving up meat.

OK. Finally we find middle ground! I'm happy. lol. Well, for some that give up meat it is as a protest to those who commit this animal abuse. Most vegetarians I know would gladly continue eating meat if the animals raised for food were treated humanely.

 

[Lori_7]

I'm just pointing out that people don't need meat. If you like meat, what is stopping you from killing your dog or cat and eating them? Honest question.

it doesn't stop a lot of people. it's quite common practice in asia. now, i'm not sure if they keep them as pets, but i know they do eat them. the aspect of not eating a pet is just centered around an emotional attachment. if you wanted to you could get emotionally attached to a pig or a cow too.

 

[Nasor]

I simply want to point out the distinction between "I support more humane treatment" and "I'm never gonna eat meat". The latter is absurd, because no other creatures apologize for their eating of meat, and eating meat is eating, which isn't wrong

Okay, I'll have a go at it.

You're also not likely to find animals apologizing for killing, raping, or stealing from each other, or any number of other activities that are widely considered immoral by modern society. I fail to see how the actions of other animals are relevant to human morality. If the (non-human) animal kingdom is what you want to base your morality on, you must want to live in a very wild, brutal world.

Also, most predator animals don't have a choice anyway; their only options are to eat meat or starve. Humans can live perfectly well without eating meat. Eating meat is entirely a luxury for us. So basically, by eating meat you are saying that it's okay to kill animals so that you can derive pleasure. Not pleasure in their death per se, of course, but you don't mind that they have to die in order for you to partake in your enjoyment. Of course your situation might be different if you are a peasant farmer or something who genuinely needs to eat meat in order to survive, but the vast majority of us are not in that situation.

It has always struck me as somewhat strange that people are okay with killing an animal so that they can enjoy the unnecessary pleasure of eating it, but bothered by the prospect of it suffering first. Kind of like a hitman who doesn't have a problem with killing innocent people, so long as he gets to shoot them in the head so that they die cleanly and don't suffer. Obviously you have enough empathy with your victim that you don't want it to suffer, but you don't have enough empathy to actually avoid killing it for what are essentially recreational purposes. If you're bothered by it suffering, why aren't you bothered by needlessly killing it?

 

[James R]

Isnt "moral" what each individual may or may not determine it to be.???

No. Morals would be meaningless if there was not a wide consensus about them. In fact, the only relevance of morality at all is in a person's relations to other people, other animals and their environment.

Actually, in Syria we own a farm and I have spent time with farm animals. I've seen a sheep slaughtered right in front of my eyes.

Spending 10 minutes killing an animal does not amount to observing the animal's natural behaviour. You need to spend a day watching that sheep you killed - an ordinary day when the sheep is doing what sheep do. Then try to tell me that sheep are not sentient or conscious.

Also, at least according to the information I was reading into, all animals except for primates and a select other few lack sapience or self awareness

That's complete self-serving crap. Certainly sheep and cattle, at the least, are self-aware and have some intelligence. It is obvious to anybody who watches them for more than a few moments.

No, it isn't. What do you owe to the chickens?

It's not a matter of owing. I don't have a contract with them.

You have to get beyond this childish way you have of judging the worth of everything by what's in it for you. You're the centre of your world, but there are other creatures who share your world and whom you have an impact upon. It isn't all about you. To be worth anything as a human being, you have to look beyond selfishness.

Wolves don't apologize.

Wolves can't talk.

And don't give me that moral bullshit.

It's all bullshit if it doesn't serve your egotistical aims. Right?

You're HUMAN. If ANY obligation, it's to Humanity.

My moral compass is much broader than that. As for you, you seem to be on a step below even that. You only care about yourself.

Yes. And we're killing lesser creatures to eat. Sounds perfectly fine to me.

And slaves are only "lesser people", so slavery is ok too.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Isnt "moral" what each individual may or may not determine it to be.???

No. Morals would be meaningless if there was not a wide consensus about them. In fact, the only relevance of morality at all is in a person's relations to other people, other animals and their environment.

But dont you have the final say in what you determine you'r morals to be.???

 

[Norsefire]

Spending 10 minutes killing an animal does not amount to observing the animal's natural behaviour. You need to spend a day watching that sheep you killed - an ordinary day when the sheep is doing what sheep do. Then try to tell me that sheep are not sentient or conscious.

Hum de dum........I was in the farm for extended periods of time every time I visited. I did view the animals.

I also never said they weren't conscious; I said they weren't self aware or sapient.

That's complete self-serving crap. Certainly sheep and cattle, at the least, are self-aware and have some intelligence. It is obvious to anybody who watches them for more than a few moments.

They aren't sapient. They are sentient, but not sapient.

It's not a matter of owing. I don't have a contract with them.

You have to get beyond this childish way you have of judging the worth of everything by what's in it for you. You're the centre of your world, but there are other creatures who share your world and whom you have an impact upon. It isn't all about you. To be worth anything as a human being, you have to look beyond selfishness.

You're taking it to the extreme; you aren't permitting anybody to do ANYTHING if it "impacts" something else, to the point of absurdity. I want to eat. I want to eat meat. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

Wolves can't talk.

If they could, they wouldn't apologize.

It's all bullshit if it doesn't serve your egotistical aims. Right?

This has nothing to do with "egotism"; you are taking this pacifism too far. You're alive, you hunt, you survive. You eat meat. Well, I do. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

And slaves are only "lesser people", so slavery is ok too.

This is absurd. I usually enjoy debating you but if you are going to repeat this nonsense I'm not wasting my time on this topic - our only obligation is the survival of the human species.

I mean, when you use antiseptic you're killing bacteria; when you eat veggies, you're killing something. When you eat meat, you're killing animals. What about cockroaches? Should we not kill them too? How about tapeworms?

James R, you are a human being; use your wisdom for the well being of all entities but not to the extent that you deny yourself indulgence.

I am entirely appalled by factory farming - however, although I would support a movement for the more humane treatment of [sentient] animals, there is a supreme difference between that, and simply denying meat altogether. Eating meat is not subject to morals.

If you don't want to eat meat because you don't like it, fine; but don't bring morality into this.

Further, it appears that you're arguing against meat consumption because it "kills", although that assumes killing is inherently wrong.

What if we raised animals that lacked a brain? Or, my point is, animals that lacked a "mind", because their brains would be removed/altered by drugs; i.e, raising "braindead" animals.

Then we're not "killing" anything.

 

[Norsefire]

The moral imperative to feed the population far exceeds the one to be pacifistic toward non-human species (and there isn't even one)

Yes, you will say "but we don't have to eat meat". We don't have to do alot of things. Human beings enjoy choice; and human comfort is first and foremost

And don't bring "egotism" into this; not everybody that wants to order a Big mac and fries at Mickey D's is an evil egotist

And who doesn't love juicy steak...

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Hum de dum........I was in the farm for extended periods of time every time I visited. I did view the animals.

I also never said they weren't conscious; I said they weren't self aware or sapient.

They are clearly self-aware. "Sapient", according to my dictionary, means "acutely insightful and wise", so I'll grant you that not all non-human animals are sapient.

You're taking it to the extreme; you aren't permitting anybody to do ANYTHING if it "impacts" something else, to the point of absurdity.

Not "impacts". Try "harms". And what greater harm can you do to a conscious creature than to curtail its life?

I want to eat. I want to eat meat. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

It's immoral, so there is a lot wrong with it.

Wolves can't talk.

If they could, they wouldn't apologize.

And if pigs could sing they'd sing "Blue Suede Shoes".

You're alive, you hunt, you survive. You eat meat. Well, I do. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

I very much doubt you hunt for your meat, except maybe in the supermarket, where it has been neatly killed for you by other people.

There is no need to eat meat. You just do it because you like the taste and you're selfish. That's all.

This is absurd. I usually enjoy debating you but if you are going to repeat this nonsense I'm not wasting my time on this topic - our only obligation is the survival of the human species.

Your only obligation is your own pleasure, it sounds like.

I mean, when you use antiseptic you're killing bacteria; when you eat veggies, you're killing something.

Last time I checked, bacteria and veggies were not conscious or sentient and had no concept of their continued existence into the future.

When you eat meat, you're killing animals. What about cockroaches? Should we not kill them too? How about tapeworms?

Why kill cockroaches and tapeworm? Do you eat those too?

I am entirely appalled by factory farming - however, although I would support a movement for the more humane treatment of [sentient] animals, there is a supreme difference between that, and simply denying meat altogether. Eating meat is not subject to morals.

You support factory farming every time you eat the meat supplied by factory farms. You're living in a fantasy land if you think you don't.

If you don't want to eat meat because you don't like it, fine; but don't bring morality into this.

Many vegetarians I know love the taste of meat. But they don't eat it on moral grounds. I know this must sound like a totally bizarre concept to you: not doing something you enjoy because it's the right thing to do, but that's the way some people actually try to live their lives.

Further, it appears that you're arguing against meat consumption because it "kills", although that assumes killing is inherently wrong.

Killing a conscious, sentient being that has a concept of its ongoing existence as a distinct entity is morally wrong. You apply that concept to human beings, presumably, so what's fundamentally different about a sheep? Explain.

What if we raised animals that lacked a brain? Or, my point is, animals that lacked a "mind", because their brains would be removed/altered by drugs; i.e, raising "braindead" animals.

If we could "grow" unconscious meat in a vat, I'd have no problem with eating it. I probably would have a problem with taking existing animals and genetically engineering them to lack a brain - even assuming such a thing was technically possible. Suppose we could do this with human children. Would you eat them?

The moral imperative to feed the population far exceeds the one to be pacifistic toward non-human species (and there isn't even one)

It's far far more efficent to feed the population a vegetarian diet, if that's what you're concerned about.

Yes, you will say "but we don't have to eat meat". We don't have to do alot of things.

A lot of things are not conscious, sentient beings.

Human beings enjoy choice; and human comfort is first and foremost

Why? Because mummy's boy demands his comforts?

And don't bring "egotism" into this; not everybody that wants to order a Big mac and fries at Mickey D's is an evil egotist

No. Some are just unthinking morons.

And who doesn't love juicy steak...

I wish I had a dollar for every time some idiot trumpeted his immorality thinking it is an argument.