Animal Rights

It's not an argument, it's simply a reason I don't have any moral issues with eating meat.
You may be morally offended by it, I'm not.

If you have a moral issue in killing animals for food, do you have an issue with killing plantlife for food?

 

Killing plantlife for food? I don't kill a tree to get its fruit...

 

Not to mention that plants don't have a central nervous system nor a brain. There are vast and distinct differences between Animalia and Plantae. This argument is a cop-out in my opinion.

"If one is concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, a vegetarian diet is still preferable to a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. By eating vegetables directly, rather than eating animals such as cows who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, one is saving many more plants' lives (and destroying less land.)"

So, in other words, meat-eaters are the cause of more plant death then vegetarians are. I have already gone over this in vast detail in earlier posts, but if you like, I can provide you with statistical data in reference to the plant life needed to fuel the meat industry. Just pipe up and let me know. It is all easily accessible.

 

I understand your affinity for volves, they are magnificent animals, but to make such a broad statement as you have regarding them is pretty reckless.

One reckless statement deserves another...

Edit: Enough with Hitler already. Way to reckless to be used in any comparison. Although it has made a nice cushion in this debate.

 

Why's it a cop out argument? Plants and animals are multicellular organisms. Cells have great similarities between plants and animals. It's a matter of opinion whether animals are self aware. I don't see the cop out in saying people farms acres and acres of corn for instance, harvest the seed and then destroy the rest of the crop. That's destruction of life the same way slaughtering animals is. Plants are no less alive than animals are.

 

I draw comparisons as I see fit.

We are talking about an industry that promotes the taking of lives and does so under the assumption that it is justified because we are superior beings are we not?

Does that not sound like animal genocide to you? Hitler is the perfect analogy, save he never extinguished so many lives with such skill and ruthlessness. Yes, they were human and that does make a difference, but you cannot argue that the analogy is fitting.

No, my statement is not reckless. It fits to the letter. What I was referring to in yours was in regard to wolves being larger and smarter than all other breeds of canine, which is, of course, untrue. Have you ever come nose to nose with a Mastiff?

 

Uruk-hai,

If you honestly prescribe to that thinking then meat-eaters still carry the onus as more vegetables are pumped into the meat industry than are used for human consumption.

Meat production yields an extremely poor return on resources utilized. Imagine how much water and food a 1500 pound animal consumes. Only a fraction of that is garnered from turning that animal into meat.

 

No, I don't honestly prescribe to that thinking, I am after all a meat eater. I eat vegetables too. I'm just pointing out a double standard in your moral stance.

 

Uruk-hai,

No, it's not "a double standard in my moral stance". It seems you certainly would like to believe so.

So, for clarification purposes, am I to assume that you are placing plants and animals on equivilant levels of sensory perception?

Or perhaps, you agree that plants, void of nerve tissue and brain matter, have no conscious thought and feel no pain. Accordingly, much of the plant life as it currently exists actually relies on the reaping of it's seed to propogate it's species.

I believe that challenging my morals based on an argument thats foundation has no basis in science or reason, is in my opinion, a cop-out.

As I stated twice before, even if eating plants was morally reprehensible, you still would be more of an offender for eating meat, plain and simple.

 

My argument has no foundation in science or reason? Are you saying plants aren't alive?

You have an opinion on eating plants, I have an opinion on eating animals. I feel the same way about eating animals as you do about eating plants, you don't particularly care if a plant dies for you to survive. Animals aren't tortured when they are slaughtered, the nervous system argument is a cop out IMO. It's life that you are taking so you can live, directly or indirectly whether you eat vegetables or meat.

I don't see a problem with it at all. I guess there's no point discussing it further.

 

Uruk-hai,

Many animals used in factory farms entire existence is torturous.

Pigs are kept in filthy "pens" that dont allow them so much as to turn around or even lay down. Females are forced to breed and relinquesh their offspring to the greedy farm hands. Their tails are docked because in such cramped quarters the pigs lash out at one another and in their pain, they bite. Often times they are electrocuted and beaten. I had the horrible experience of viewing a video captured by an undercover investigator in which a pig was killed by a large man standing upon its chest as it wailed in pain. The last few moments of its pitiful life were spent being beaten unmercifully.

Chickens are cooped so close together that they must have their beaks shaved off to avoid injury. Often times, their appendages actually grow around their cages until their are torn free. Egg-laying hens are force-molted to keep the supply of eggs coming. When bred, the male chicks of the egg laying variety are drowned.

Cows are also kept in cramped stalls. Often a metal bar hung a few inched above their necks so that if their head is lifted they are given an electric shock. Veal calves are taken from their mothers and kept in dark crates their entire lives. Cows are skinned while they still moan out in pain, eyes open. They are fed an unnatural diet that is actually lethal to them, In order for them to survice, vast quatities of antibiotics must be injected into their systems.

All of these animals spend the duration of the lives standing in their own defecation.

OPEN YOUR EYES.

You will tell me that these incidents are isolated, I assure you they are not. When you start talking billions of animals slaughtered every year, you are talking hundreds of thousands of animals slaughtered every single hour. Do the math.

These examples that I have given you are mild compared to how some of them are ultimately treated. You see, most of the corporations that own factory farms think less of animals than you do. They are a commodity, like a can of soda. The more they can process, the more money goes into their wallets. Plain and simple.

 

Using emotive comments like "greedy farmhands" isn't going to change my mind.

I disagree with your assumption that cruelty is not in the minority. At least in Australia there are government regulations on the conduct of abattoirs. Cruelty is not the norm. In fact I would be surprised to find any farms in this country that use the methods you describe.

 

>>>Using emotive comments like "greedy farmhands" isn't going to change my mind.<<<

There was much more to my post that that, however, I stand by that statement. Notice, you don't try to dispute it in any way. Why the comment?

>>>I disagree with your assumption that cruelty is not in the minority. At least in Australia there are government regulations on the conduct of abattoirs. Cruelty is not the norm. In fact I would be surprised to find any farms in this country that use the methods you describe.<<<

Disagree. It's your choice. You can pretend that it is in the minority if you choose. Even if one-percent of the worlds confined animals are being mistreated, the number is still far past the billion mark annually.

As far as government regs are concerned, the United States employs them as well. The problem is that they have no power to enforce them. You see the same people who are supposed to enforce the laws answer to a governmental body whose prime mandate is to promote the industry. Go here if you would like an insiders account.

You would be surprised. Go to a slaughterhouse and check it out if you don't believe me. Don't sit here and make abitrary statements without at least checking into the matter. Australia has many reports of animal cruelty in it's factory farming industry. This information is all easily accessible. Frankly, I am surprised you make such statements without checking the facts first. You are trying to absolve them from any guilt, which in turn absolves yourself. I can't think of another reason why you would blindly summize that Australian farms do not levy cruel acts against their animals.

I attempt to back my statements with facts. My judgements are based on the real and the factual, and not my whimsical impulses. That would be naive when engaging in a debate. I don't make claims that I can't support. I would urge you to do the same.

 

Have you ever been on a real farm? Or do you get all your information from videos? I have worked on farms and I have a great respect for farmers. I had some misconcentions about farmers until I spent a day working on my brother-in-laws parents farm. Cows are not kept pregnant all the time. After a cow has her first calf, she will produce milk the rest of her life as long as she is milked everyday. (I'm a nursing mom, I am not pregnant and if I milked myself everyday until I hit menopause I would still produce milk) The cows I saw getting antibotics where getting them because the had infections in their milk ducts. The electical shock bar is very mild, used as a warning, much like the dog trainers you can buy at the store. I've been to farms where the cows are kept in their stalls all day, I don't like it much, but they do seem to be content to eat all day. At other farms they let the cows go out in the field between milkings. Almost every farm you pass here you will see calves in outside pens with igloo type doghouses. Yes they are taken away from their mothers, but they can eat grass right after birth and only need a couple bottle feedings a day.

Farmers work very hard to take care of their livestock. My brother in law worked at his parents farm for 6 months and he lost 60 pounds, he was working so hard. If they lose an animal before it time, they lose money. If a animal is very sick, they can only use it as food for themselves. I have also been to slaughter houses and have seen deer shot that did not die right away. I know where my food comes from...I don't rely on biased videos and books.

I have no problem with a vegitarian diet...to each there own. I do have problem with someone caling me a murderer and comparing me to Hitler becaue I choose to include meat in our families balanced diet.

You can not get vitamn B-12 from veggies (not a problem if you do consume dairy products).

My cholestrol is low and even my husbands is low and he is on Atkins diet and eats mostly meat.

 

Well, that is why I, for the most part, eat kosher meats.

I'm not kosher, as in I do mix dairy and meat and I do eat here and there bacon. I for the most part, eat kosher red and white meats.

The animal is in a good non cruel environment, the animal is not pumped with chemicals and the animal is killed in a painless non cruel fashion, and all under the very strict supervision of a rabbi.

And kosher meat is healthier for you.


So, just eat koser. Don't worry, we don't do aything wierd to the meat. Cow is cow. We just have a healthier and non cruel way of getting it.

 

I have no problem with a vegitarian diet...to each there own. I do have problem with someone caling me a murderer and comparing me to Hitler becaue I choose to include meat in our families balanced diet.

Nobody ever thinks about the plant's feelings!



Vegetable fascists are just as deplorable as any other type of fundamentalists... chiefly because they conjure up some ridiculous "morality" to rationalize the killing of plant matter as opposed to the killing of animal matter.

Look, we're living organisms... we feed off other living organisms. The problem is that in our agricultural society we overproduce and overconsume both animal and plant matter far beyond what is necessary. If the argument is "How do we feed all the starving people"... well, how many people would be left out there starving if we weren't a mass-agricultural society?

You don't see hunter-gatherers trying to spread like a virus... they're pretty content to maintain a stable birth-to-death ratio and live within their means. Granted, some people might not survive the winter if there aren't enough resources... but that's life. Despite having all the security of an industrialized world, where we're not concerned about "just surviving" every day... many countries including America continue to hoard resources, and pop out five, six... maybe even 14 kids. Why?

If we have the spare time, and the intellect, and the means to ponder the "morality" of being carbon-based lifeforms who survive off hydrocarbons and carbohydrates... Why can't we direct that energy towards pondering the morality of industrial agriculture and manifest destiny? Why can we not seek ways to moderate our lifestyles at an individual level? After all, you cannot control what the world does... but you can control what you do. Why is it in our nature to tell everyone else but ourselves how one ought to live?

We are a society that exists on credit... buy now, pay later. If we tried to fix things now... our economy would suffer... but, of course, suffering now isn't worth security and prosperity for our future generations, is it?

 

JMM,

The farms that you speak of are all but extinct. Do you really think mom and pop farms can produce the amount of meat that is consumed in America. I will state it again and you can find the link in my previous post to the NASS data.

In September alone, 3.8 Billion pounds of red meat were produced.

This is done at factory farms owned by massive conglomerate corperations. Many of them are able to slaughter thousands of animals daily.

The farms you speak of are now few and far between. As a matter of fact, if you are ever in Minnesota, check out their Zoo. It actually has a museum-like replica of a family owned farm, just like the one you are speaking of.

---

B12. 1 tablespoon of nutritional yeast. Fortified cereals and soy/rice milks that contain B12 analogs. Tempeh, Miso, and Sea-veggies. Organic vegetables.

These all contain B12.

Or you could just simplify it and take a multivitamin. Easy. :)
[hr]

[link=]Atkins diet.[/link]

"This protein load can [b]damage the kidneys and leach calcium from the bones.[/b] The dearth of fiber disrupts the digestive tract. George Blackburn, director of the Center for the Study of Nutrition and Medicine at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a researcher who studies high-protein diets, points out other annoyingly common side effects: [b]bad breath, constipation, fatigue, nausea, dizziness, irritability, and lightheadedness.[/b]

Somehow Atkins ignores the many population studies, notably the Framingham Heart Study, showing diets high in meat and saturated fat increase risks for problems such as [b]heart disease, colon cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis, obesity, and a shortened lifespan.[/b] He also ignores the fact that the planet's thinnest people live in Asia, where rice, noodles, and other high-carbohydrate foods are staples. When Asians abandon those foods in favor of McDonald's and other Western fare, obesity becomes commonplace. Research studies show that, on average, people switching to a vegetarian diet lose an average of 10 percent of their body weight. In fact, without limiting calories at all, a vegan diet (free of all animal products) trims about one pound per week. Weight loss on a meat- and dairy-free diet occurs even in the absence of beneficial exercise and without shunning pasta, rice, bread, or even the occasional cookie.

To someone like Atkins, a vegetarian diet apparently is out of the question. But how would he explain the fact that heart attacks are the most common form of death in the United States, and yet the risk of heart attack for a man consuming a non-meat diet is cut dramatically? And what would Atkins say about vegetarians having one-third the incidence of colon cancer as meat-eaters?

It's no surprise that the [b]American Dietetic Association has called the Atkins Diet "a nightmare,"[/b] or that thousands of doctors and dietitians are speaking out against this irresponsible medicine. As it turns out, the Atkins Diet only works when dieters also cut calories. The regimen is a throwback to old low-calorie diets of the 1970s. They promised plenty, but delivered only temporary weight loss."

 

Never been to Wisconsin Almost all dairy farms around here are mom and pop farms.

 

JMM,

I have indeed been to Wisconsin. In fact, I spent nine years in Rochester, Minnesota. I am sure you have probably heard of the city. My Father is from Green Bay and still has family there at present and I am also very familiar with Iowa and Missouri. Here is a little blurb that may interest you about the current status of farming in Wisconsin.

"Wisconsin?s family farms have been going out-of-business at a rate of 4-5 per day, largely due to industry consolidation and the growing stranglehold that large retailers and food processors have on farm markets. The Family Farm Protection Act would get the state?s Department of Justice and the University of Wisconsin involved in investigating and addressing industry consolidation and the anti-competitive practices that are driving many farmers out of business.

?We need state government to be more active in standing up to the commodities brokers and processing giants that are putting the squeeze on our farmers,? said Burke, who would be in a position to enforce agricultural anti-trust laws if elected Attorney General in November.

Wisconsin Farmers Union District Director Gerry Jaeger, whose organization helped to develop the proposal, said it was a very important day for Wisconsin farmers. ?We?ve struggled to get state action while losing one-third of our dairy farms in the last seven years,? said Jaeger. ?Now finally we are going to have a serious discussion in the legislature about the future of Wisconsin farming.?"

 

I draw comparisons as I see fit.

So I've noticed. Sometimes the comparisons don't display your compassion for animals but your anamosity for humans. Either your severely downgrading the holocaust or severely upgrading the slaughter houses. Few people would see them as equivalent.

Have you ever come nose to nose with a Mastiff?

Have you ever come nose to nose with a wolf? Probably not in the wild...so I guess we both have experiences that support our own opinions.

 

Few people would see them as equivalent.

I hardly think that he was suggesting that they were any where near an 'equivelant.' It would be an idiot who suggested that lifestock farming is anything like the horrors of the Holocaust, but I believe he was right in that we show outright revulsion at the latter, as opposed to mere indifference at the former. Both are mass killings. That, however, for me, is where the similarity ends.

- Scarlet.

 

JediTre11,

I'll start with the easy one first. The comment about the Mastiff was merely to diclaim your assumption that wolves were larger than dogs. Considering that male wolves generally weigh in at less than 100 pounds and a Mastiff can easily top 200 pounds, I think that your statement was, as I put it, reckless.

On to my animosity.

I hold no bitter hatred against the human race. Not only have I avidly posted that vegetarianism would be better for the animals, but I have also stated my case for it's benefit to humans. You, on the other hand, even when prompted, do not post why you feel eating meat is beneficial to humans. I have asked the very question at least five distinct times. Either you choose not to answer or you haven't one to give. This is another tired argument that is spouted by the likes of Ted Nugent. "You don't want me to kill animals so you are anti-human. It is my right to kill!"

I can only say that the killing of billions of animals has more to do with individual selfishness than it does with "speciesism". Do I like the fact that humans destroy life so frivolously? Of course not. Does that make me anti-human?

Of course, the Hitler analogy is mine to make. I have posted my thoughts clearly on the subject matter and I am not required to justify it. This is just another example of the human ego getting in the way of compassionate thinking.

It was not humane for Hitler to kill because he was killing humans.

It is humane for you to kill because you are killing animals.

Now I see the difference clearly. We don't have to respect life that isn't of the same species.

 

Considering that male wolves generally weigh in at less than 100 pounds

Wrong. See post by Darth_Snowdog. Not that size really has anything to do with it.

But the Mastiff being over 200lbs is an extreme case. Which only emphasizes my observation that your philospohy is an extreme one, supported by extreme opinions and examples. It is only the extreme nature of your position that I argue against.

Edit:

You, on the other hand, even when prompted, do not post why you feel eating meat is beneficial to humans

I've seen the Atkins diet work. Although it doesn't entirely justify everyone eating meat it certainly demonstrates the need for duality in a balanced diet.

How I feel really has nothing to do with it. I'm not going to post such on opinion only to have it slandered by supposed facts. My answer is in the form of a question. If eating meat were not beneficial to humans, then how have we populated this planet faster than any other animal?

We've eaten meat for thousands of years. Clearly we've evolved as omnivores. Now just because we can get by without eating meat, we should all live on beans? Just because we can doesn't make the decision obligatory. Science doesn't fully understand the body, how can science say that everyone will benefit from eating no meat? "Man has learned new ways of surviving" should really include a denotation of theory.

So why is tradition not a valid reason for eating meat? Thousands of years of human experience shouldn't be just thrown out just because we can. History proves that if you do this without consideration then nothing is sacred. The lines have to be drawn somewhere. If one wants so dearly to extend a portion of human rights to animals then there will be someone that will want to do the same for vegetables and plants. Tradition draws the line at animals.

While we're on the subject of pets...what should we feed them? Dogs won't eat beans, nor should they be forced to. We'd still need a meat industry to feed man's best friends. We'd still be killing millions of animals. Unless you want to feed Dispo pills.

 

According to the UKC, the male Bull Mastiff is 25 to 27 inches (Old English 30 inches) at the shoulders and weighs from 100 to 130 pounds... some up to 160 pounds.

By comparison, the male Timber Wolf (aka Grey Wolf, canis lupus) can weigh up to 180 pounds (average 100lbs) and stands 26 to 32 inches at the shoulders. Males are generally six feet from head to tail.

I don't know what the original conversation was... but I'm just mentioning this for the record. An excellent resource on the wolf is Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species by Dr. L. David Mech, the world's leading expert on the grey wolf. Also, if I had to put my money on one or the other... I would pick the wolf. They are pack hunters, very lean, agile and aggressive... Compared to the mastiff, they are natural predators bred by extremely harsh environments (In Alberta and Northern Minnesota, winters can reach -50 degrees F, -100 degrees windchill), and they would outwit, outpace and corner a mastiff.

 

>>>But the Mastiff being over 200lbs is an extreme case. Which only emphasizes my observation that your philospohy is an extreme one, supported by extreme opinions and examples. It is only the extreme nature of your position that I argue against.<<<

Wrong again.

Adult males generally run about 160-230 pounds, females are normally between 120-170 pounds. Males over 200 pounds are not too uncommon and a few females reach these weights. According to the Guinness Book of Records the record holder for the world's largest dog is Zorba, a Mastiff, at 343 pounds. He stood 37 inches at the shoulder and was 8 foot 3 inches from the tip of his nose to the tip of his tail. Zorba set this record in November, 1989, when he was 8 years old.

Check it here.

As far as the wolf info is concerned.

I stand by my assessment. It was neither extreme, nor incorrect.

Care to retract? I didn't think so, even though you are clearly wrong on this black and white issue and I have posted reputable sources to back up my information.