Animal Rights

I've actually already given mine. But this isn't a yellow snow contest.

Perception is the key word here I think. So all animals possess perceptive sensory abilities. This includes even the smallest animal. Right down to the birds, insects, arachnids. All have senses with which to percieve right? You did say ALL animals right? Its not just pasture land that forests are cut down for. In cutting down these forests your killing animals whether its for pasture or agriculture. And growing healthy crops, enough to feed the world takes pesticides, fertilizors and other forms of human internvention that can be detrimental to animals. I agree with your implications that human intervention hurts anything natural. A diet with no meat doesn't make a person above moral judgement in terms of animals rights. We all engage in the use of products that wouldn't be here without the death of animals.

The computer your reading this from was produced in a factory built on land that was once for animals. Built with materials taken from the land which supported animals. Making the issue larger, large enough to encompass all of human behavior, as you've done rather pessimistically in previous posts opens the door for moral judgements about everything you and I do.

Where should we draw the line about what is an animal? Does it include all multi-cellular organisms? Its not ridiculus to think that someday the vegetarians will be declared morally bankrupt by a people that have found a way to eat rocks and dirt.

I've never felt guilt when I pull up to my local Jack in the Crack. And I'm not so naive that I don't understand what I'm eating when I do so. Life is hard and not fair for some animals and sometimes you've got to look past that. Our society is based on John Lock, not John Muir.

How would I feel if someone ate me? I wouldn't...

What do you call a vegetarian wolf?




Dead. Enlightend, morally comendable, a tribute to compasionate beings everywhere, but still dead.

 

JediTre11,

What do you call a vegetarian human?

Alive and healthy. Enlightened, morally comendable, a tribute to compasionate beings everywhere, yet still a reminder of guilt.


What do you call a man who claims an animal cannot love?

I would say blind, but many blind humans who hold animals as their closest companions would judge me an idiot.

Animals are indeed sentient, my friend. In case you are unaware, you yourself are an animal. Not only do the things you do to these defenseless beings bring them tremendous pain and suffering, but it also hurts you. It shows a complete lack of respect for life and a complete disregard for compassion.

When will we wake up and stop feigning ignorance?

 

you yourself are an animal

I agree, and animals are justified in eating whatever they want. Why not me, or any human? I take it that you are not going to refute my implication that you hold all animals, including fruit flies as sentient and now "loving" beings. This has Disney Channel written all over it. Bambi wouldn't have cried in real life.

Obviously there is no changing your mind, which is something I never intended on doing. Your beliefs are personaly justified, just as mine are. There is reasonable justification for a Benedictian Vegetarian Movement. Unless, truely, ALL animals are sentient. Such a question is only answered with opinions.

I've said my peace. If you wish to illicit another response to more vegetarian morality rhetoric, please refer yourself to my ICQ number.

 

Nah, there would be no use in that, would there? So, let's get away from the morality issues and pose another question.

How does consuming animal products benefit the human race? Since we are the only species of concern, let's take a look at it this way.

 

How does consuming animal products benefit the human race?

Dietary variety. Plus any nutrients and such that happened to come along with whatever this animal product would happen to be.

 

Alive and healthy. Enlightened, morally comendable, a tribute to compasionate beings everywhere, yet still a reminder of guilt.

While I disagree with JediTre, I also disagree with this conclusion.

This is like saying that animals deserve compassion but plants don't. It's a silly argument, really... since there's no fundamental difference between these organisms. Emotions may be what bonds us with animals, but to argue that plants have less of an inherent "right to live" is just... ignorant of the fundamental connection between all organisms.

Our existence is dependent upon the consumption of organic compounds. Simple as that. If one were to accuse meat eaters of being insensitive towards animals, one could equally accuse vegetarians of being insensitive towards plant matter... regardless of the plant's inability to feel one way or the other about the issue.

Do we argue that it's okay to take advantage of a mentally retarded individual because they are incapable of understanding they're being taken advantage of?

Perhaps a better question is:

Are we, humans, capable of exhibiting moderation by choice in our influence upon the environment... without resorting to dogmatic beliefs of either extreme? Can we, on a case by case basis, find it within ourselves, to police our desires... and take that which we need, without taking more? Or must we resort to religious zealotry as an open admission that we fail as a species to exhibit conscious control over our abilities and desires?

It's very easy to walk in a straight path with blinders on... but it takes much greater control, intellect, self-confidence and maturity to be able to maintain focus in the midst of life's distractions.

 

Humans are not superior to other animals, most of us only think we are. "Intelligent" is not a word I would use to define most humans. "Arrogant" and "Self-absorbed" are the most common words.

Who are we to judge who is superior? "Because we are at the top of the food chain" is a downright lame excuse. Omnivores do not need to eat meat to survive. We can get all the nutrients we need from plants. I do eat meat, but only about once a month. I really should stop altogether, though.

 

You see by, calling us barbarians, claiming that eating meat is akin to slavery and all the other mud that has been thrown towards those who eat meat, your argument loses most of it's steam. You won't bring people to your side by demeaning their way of life. In fact, it'll do the opposite.

As to my opinion, I'm not a vegetarian. I happen to enjoy meat. Does that make me a horrible person? Is my lifestyle that offensive to you?

 

It is morally wrong and wrong to your health to do, but you are not horrible if you eat meat.

 

Wrong to your health??? How?

Okay, if stated before, that people are "animals", then, as an animal, why is it wrong that I eat meat? Even if you use the argument that it is not instinct and I am choosing to eat it, an animal that eats meat still always makes the choice to eat meat as well, even if they are carnivores. They still choose. Does that mean that the racoon that haunts the neighbourhood is immoral?

 

Eating meat is wrong to your health because it contains large amounts of sodium and meat. Meats are also cooked in unhealthy ways.

Raccoons do not have to eat meat, but they do not have a choice. They have to take the food they can find or starve, much like many other animals. Most humans, however, can choose because we have a vast surplus of food that allows for more variety in diet. Carnivores have to eat meat because their digestive systems need it; they cannot survive without meat.

 

So basically eating meat doesn't become morally wrong until you have the luxury of a food surplus? So if suddenly we all were thrown back to our prehistoric roots, it would be okay if we ate meat? So, then the only thing that's wrong about eating meat is the fact that we have access to however much we want of it?

My head hurts

 

Well, we have a surplus of asprin!

From your post I think you got my point. Lions, for example, have to eat meat even if they had the luxury of a food surplus. Their digestive system is specially designed to only to digest meat and some plants, so they have no choice in that matter. Humans do because our digestive system is able to do without any meat.

 

Well, we have a surplus of asprin!

 

"Wrong to your health??? How?"

I think I mentioned this once before. Heart Disease is the number one killer of men in America. Figure it out. As meat consumption rises, so does heart disease. Cholesterol, which has been scientifically linked to these types of diseases is only found in animal based diets.

In response to a poster who claimed that Argentinians consume more meat than Americans and are not having the same health concerns, I would point them to Argentina's number one cause of death. You guessed it, heart disease.

I find it disheartening that instead of altering our diets, we opt to ingest medications that lower our cholesterol or keep our blood pressure in check. Instead of moderation in our diets and exercising our bodies, we would rather choose a quick and easy pill containing ephedrine, speed if you were unaware. The whole American diet is based on gluttony and greed, it's no wonder that a large percentage of our population is considered obese. If you haven't heard the young generation in America has now been labled "Generation XXL".

How can you not find it detrimental to your health?

Take a look at Hawaii for example, or Japan. What has the American influenced diet done to their cultures? More meat has equalled more obesity. More obesity equals more famine in third world countries. You can ask Darth_SnowDog about the impact that agriculture has had upon the modern day world. He will gladly impart his knowledge in the area. You should listen too. Not only are you hurting yourself if you prescribe to this diet, but you are hurting the world's environment, the ecosystem and it's other animals, and most importantly other people who could easily be fed by the vast quantities of food that is wasted on the trillions of animals that our grown to feed the few. Ahh, but you don't care do you. You are too worried about your "diverse" diet of hamburger and pizza. Too worried about your all-important taste buds.

So, far as I can tell diversity is the current answer to why you are participating in this "diet"? Anything else about eating meat that would classify it as beneficial to a human being? Rather, anything that could outweigh the negative impact that it has levied?

 

I am not the typical American. I eat a balanced diet, don't take diet pills, and try to exercise daily.

You are correct in all your points, though.

 

Whenever they come up with some fanciful new reason not to eat this food or that food, my Mom always says:

"Everything in moderation."

Just because I eat meat, it doesn't mean that I am shovelling it down the hatch like there's not tomorrow. Quite the opposite, I eat a rather poor diet (I'll admit it) of which meat usually only consists of beef. Otherwise, it's mostly grains (I'm an exception to the rule "Man cannot live by bread alone ). Yes, your points about obeseity are abosultly correct. So, I give you my rule I stated before. If people had meat in moderation (along with just about everything else, going overboard on one thing is not exactly healthy) then you would not have such sky-rocketing obeseity rates.

 

Eating meat is wrong to your health because it contains large amounts of sodium and meat.

Umm...true. There is meat in meat. Try living without sodium. Won't happen. Humans die without sodium. Like ADMIRALSPUZZUM's mom said, "Everything in Moderation"

Heart Disease is the number one killer of men in America.

There is no "single' cause for heart disease. And what most studies miss is correlation does not imply causation. And what about the women?

Humans are not superior to other animals, most of us only think we are. "Intelligent" is not a word I would use to define most humans. "Arrogant" and "Self-absorbed" are the most common words.

Begin rant:
Voltaire would have loved to hear this. "Sweet vindication! There really is no Eldorado!" Not exactly virtuous however true it may be. I'd really like to know where such pessimism about humans came from, and how people who call humans arrogant and self-absorbed exclude themselves. Are they not human? Pick any person on this planet, from any time period and I'll find something wrong with that person. To be arrogant, or self-absorbed, or any other adj. is part of being a human. No one is perfect. Perfection does not exist. How can anyone say "most humans" and not realize they are themselves, included on someone elses list of who is morally bankrupt.
End rant.

My eating meat doesn't hurt vegetarians. Thats why things will never change, there will always be a meat industry to abuse MY heart with. Eating meat is a personal choice. Right or wrong its for me to decide.

But of course, everything in moderation. No furs, no hunting, no milk, egg substitutes, easy on the bread (an animal product), and no electroshock experiments on your sister's gerbal. Meat is where I draw the line.

Don't get me wrong, I swerve to avoid squirrels. He's just doing his business. Cows exist to feed me. If no one ate meat all of a sudden, what would we do with all of them? Slaughter them all and burn them?

As soon as I give up meat, some dendropheliac is going to come pounding on my door demanding that I stop buying Christmas Trees.

 

Um, no.

The number one cause of death in Argentina is not heart disease.

I'm from there. While there is heart disease, in ratio to the population, it is quite low. And it is way lower than that of North Americans, who consume less meat than us.

Second, eating meat is only bad for your health if that is all your diet consist of. Everything in moderation. While we do consume more meat than the US, it is not the only thin our diet is based on.

If you actually do the research, you will find that both vegeterians and omnivores have their pros and cons. Being a vegeterian does not make you healthier and being an omnivore does not make you healthier. They both have pros and cons.

But if you want to talk about heart problems, what about the recent studies that suggest that vegeterians are more probable to heart problems than those who eat meat along with the occasional glass of wine? Read the July issue of Time and you can see for yourself the pros and cons of both.

And I'm sorry, like someone else mentioned already, eating a plant is eating life as well. So willing to save a tree many vegetarians are, yet they'll feed off its brothers.

 

"Everything in Moderation"

Does this include murder? Pretty blanket statement. I do understand it's root implication, however I don't think you would actually like to see this mantra applies to reality.

"There is no "single' cause for heart disease. And what most studies miss is correlation does not imply causation. And what about the women?"

No, there is no single cause of Heart disease, but it is very simple to take a look at the changes that have taken place in the American diet over the last 100 years and compare them to the soaring rates of caridiovascular illnesses and make an educated correlation. Wouldn't you agree? As I said take a look at the recent shift in the Japanes and Hawaian diet and you will find the same trend. These are cultures that had very few instances of diet related healt concerns before the introduction of American diet "ideals".

As far as women are concerned, sorry for leaving them out. Heart disease is the number one killer of women as well.

"My eating meat doesn't hurt vegetarians."

No, not vegetarians, per se, but what about people who are in third world nations that need our help. I know you are not obligated to help them, but with the resources that are pumped into the meat industry we could feed them all, easily. Have you ever checked how much fresh water it takes to produce a single pound of beef or how much grain? It's staggering. We turn in thousands of pounds of resources to get a measely few in return. Not to mention the antibiotics that must be poured into this agricultural nightmare to keep the cows alive.

"Cows exist to feed me. If no one ate meat all of a sudden, what would we do with all of them? Slaughter them all and burn them?"

This is the killer. You presume that another being is here solely to feed you. Where does this information come from? Do you have the spirit of David Koresh in your pocket. It certainly souds crazy to me. YOu went on about how being arrogent is part of being human, now I see you point clearly. Maybe, I should not be classified in this same species. At one time plantation owners believed that slavery was okay because the slaves were bread and existed to be servants. This was a common thought. What happens to all those cows when you stop eating them? Well, we stop breeding them and they would return to a "normal" level of population. The vast majority of American soil is now used a land for agriculture, they will have plenty of space. We could have applied the same to the Jewish people during Nazi times. What will we do with all those Jews. Oh well, let's let Hitler continue. Poor, poor argument, my friend.

 

Oops, JediTre, I meant to say meat contains a large amount of sodium and fat. Which we have plenty of in modern society.

S_o_t_T Uh, no. We need to eat something! We can't just say "save the plants" and starve to death. Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain. They might not even be aware of their own existance. Most times, people want to save trees because they do things for the ecosystem. Examples include providing homes for endangererd animals, providing oxygen (if there were no plants, there would be no oxygen), and holding the soil together with its roots to keep landslides from happening.

Animals are, in many different ways, not very similar to plants. Yes, it may be some emotional connection to our own kingdom, but do plants feel fear before dying? The answer is no. Even the "lowest" form of animal life has the ability to feel basic emotions, all plants do not. Besides, as I said before, we need to eat something.

 

Have you ever checked how much fresh water it takes to produce a single pound of beef or how much grain? It's staggering.

You keep bringing this up, but without any proof for it. I'm not doubting it's right, but I wouldn't mind if you showed us the statistics.

Maybe, I should not be classified in this same species.

So, because we don't agree with your ideals or adhere to you lifestyle, that makes us all immoral and you some sort of englightened being?

As said before in this thread, this is only an issue because we have a food surplus in the west. If we had to run about through the woods to catch our meat, I am presuming there would be nothing wrong with it because then our survival would be at stake. Does this mean it is not morally wrong for people without access to easy meat to eat it? It only becomes wrong when you have lots of it available. That to me makes no sense whatsoever.

Edit: A few word mistakes that might have come off as rude.

 

If you have to eat meat to live, then it is acceptable. How does that not make sense to you?

 

Because then what makes it wrong to just plain eat it like any other animal can?

 

Most animals that eat meat have to eat it, or they would starve. Most humans wouldn't starve because they didn't eat meat.