|
From a biological standpoint, there is literally no substitute for animal protein in a diet.
Carry on with your discussion.
|
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed.
They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too.
Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy).
Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel?
Why are you not against all of this?
You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs).
We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us.
You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms.
I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that.
P.S.
Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
|
I eat meat because I value eating meat more than I value the life of the animals. Same applies to all the other animal products we use: Soap, medicine, fertilizer, gelatin, toothpaste, leather, etc.
Should I also live in a cave so my large house that took a whole lot of trees to cut down doesn't result in dead forest wildlife? Ride a bike everywhere so I never hit any cats or possums in my car? Should machines in farming be banned because they chop up field mice and bunnies?
I'm perfectly fine with killing billions of animals to improve human welfare.
|
On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals  . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective.
http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
All of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore.
Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it?
I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other.
It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common?
Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW):
+ Show Spoiler +
First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later.
When is this procedure being done and why?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation).
Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule.
Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air).
The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here:
-In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens.
-The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered.
-32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total.
ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%.
(Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.)
An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
|
On September 23 2012 17:03 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 16:49 StayPhrosty wrote:so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change. though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to changeImplication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters. It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD
anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
|
I'm no vegetarian, I don't have any ethical problems with killing an animal for food, but I have stopped buying meat at supermarkets, simply because it's crap quality. In the old days, only the aristocracy could afford meat, it was simply too expensive for the normal people, and I think that's how it should be again. Sure, if you fill animals up with antibiotics, you can keep them in minimal cages and reduce the productions costs to sell cheap meat, but people shouldn't buy this shit. Or take minced meat: if I buy it at the supermarket and fry it at home, it'll just leak water, and reduce it's size by half. I talked to a biologist at my university, and he told me the food industry is "enriching" meat with water, so it's heavier and sells for a better margin. The whole business is perverted.
Now, I only buy meat at my local butcher. I know where and how he keeps his cows. This meat is expensive to produce, hence it is expensive to buy, as it should be, so I can only afford it once a week. I'm feeling healthier than ever since I started this.
TLDR: quality meat CANNOT be cheap. People should go back to considering it a special treat on sundays.
|
I do have one question: Is there a way to see this China Study data? I don't really care about a nice text to go with it, but I want to see the actual data they took (i.e. is there a scientific publication to go with it or is it just a book?)
|
On September 23 2012 18:09 Dirich wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too. Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel? Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs). We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that. P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more.
seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
|
On September 23 2012 19:31 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:09 Dirich wrote:On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too. Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel? Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs). We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that. P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking. i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more. seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
It seems quite obvious we should place ourselves first and the things closest to us next? Sorry but that's your opinion. For me it makes no sense. Either it's "only us" or it is "anything that lives".
You implicictly defined what is called a MEASURE and applied it to measure a DISTANCE. Then you said that what is near us is our first step, and dream about extracting matter from almost nothing so that science can make us creatures that live without killing anything.
First of all, a meat eater can define the rest of the animal world "far" and not "close", plus it is stupid to desire to avoid to kill to live, due to the impossibility of reaching that and also because it is a basic concept in nature and there is nothing wrong with it.
Essentially this proves that a meat eater can reach the conclusion that the status quo is fine without using any half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking. So nice try on the last line provoking joke, but you failed hard at it.
Stop dreaming and be real. With a dreaming attitude and leaving all the work to others (science) you solve nothing.
The real point is ethics of treatment, not to avoid killing since no one can.
|
On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other.
Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry.
So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming?
(I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
|
On September 23 2012 20:10 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse. I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other. Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry. So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming? (I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
...I wrote exactly what you said in my post?
If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark.
Go to a place with chicken living outside. No one cuts their peckers off because it's not part of their normal behavior.
Basically it's a procedure that's considered animal cruelty, but if you shove enough chickens into a small enough room it becomes a necessity to stop them from killing each other. So.. maybe... we should... shove less of them.... into a room... that's... too... small? ;; ... Just an idea.
|
On September 23 2012 20:10 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse. I had a brief look into debeaking after you mentioned it. Based on very cursory research (wikipedia ftw), debeaking seems to be intended to reduce the harm (up to and including death) that poultry kept in farms inflict upon each other. Wikipedia claims that without it, cannibalism can cause up to a 15% mortality rate even on free range farms, from pecking each other to death. If this is true, there is certainly an argument that debeaking reduces overall harm to farmed poultry. So I'm certainly not prepared to condemn debeaking just based on what I've seen so far. Why is it necessary to begin with? Do farms create an environment where poultry are more likely to attack each other, or is that something they do anyway that we only observe because of farming? (I'm not expecting anyone to do research for me, just pointing out that issues like this might not be as simple as "OMG there are turkeys without beaks, these people must be torturing them".)
Chicken, and I guess turkeys aswell, have a strict hierarchy, i.e. pecking order. If you keep up to 40 or so chicken in a pen, it's no problem, they'll figure it out, and everything is fine. If you put more together, they start picking each other to death, because they can't figure out who's in charge. So basically the industry is forcing them into unnatural behavior, and then debeaking them so they stop killing each other.
|
Was a vegan for a bit and a veg for many years. Fact of the matter is nobody gives a shit about your ethics. Seen enough animal cruelty to know what animal cruelty really means, and have been a vegan and vegetarian to understand what that means. Not eating a poached egg is not gonna save a swarm of baby chickens from being made for consumption.
|
On September 23 2012 19:31 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:09 Dirich wrote:On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too. Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel? Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs). We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that. P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking. i just wrote a really long post on why we actually should care about killing plants, but you are correct that saying it is weird to stop at veganism if we are to end killing. you are wrong though, to assert that vegans kill themselves by not eating anything. there are many paths we can take to a better future, and though veganism is certainly not the only path, it is certainly a respectable path in our current society. we may feed on life today but who are you to deny the inevitable expansion of science and technology. sure plants and animals are different, what's hypocritical with acknowledging that? it seems quite obvious that we should place ourselves first and then the things that are the closest to us next. we are first because we can affect change, and the next things are simply the first step in expanding our consciousness to including every being. also your argument that he is the problem because he has an incomplete view is quite flawed, as there have been countless others here who have held an opposing view that is expressed in just as short sighted a way, if not more. seriously, there's nothing wrong with being a meat eater, the problem is their half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
Warning: Harcore Metaphysics
I dont know if you have read what I wrote a couple of pages back and what has just been ignored but this is kinda an answer and its one that I can accept to certain extent. If I understand correct you are basically wanting to give equal moral status to these things that we have a common ground with. And your claim is that this is a progress, we start from a point, where we only give this moral status to humans based on the ground that we are all humans (this actually not the first step, it would start at giving it to yourself, then to those closest to you, then to those of the same group, country, ethnicity, species) We are now at the point where we are on the verge of including animals in this "consciousness" and giving them the same moral status. Basically this is an ongoing emancipation of everything but in a set way because we go from what is closest to us to what is further and further away from us (Its kinda like Hegelianism this thought). So we should embrace animals now and give them a moral status, plants should be next, next thing would be bacteria? doesnt really matter, in my previous post ive written about human beings, sentient beings, living beings, existing beings, to possible beings. I think possible beings is the last step, but feel free to add another. Lets call this thought the emancipation of everything (where everything is everything thats possible, but perhaps we should even include the impossible).
There are a few things I would like to note, this is no longer about diminishing (animal) suffering in itself (although its ofcourse the result of this emancipation). This emancipation thought is grounded in a sense of equality and the wish that it is extended not only to every human but the everything in existance. But its a process that is progressing in a linear way, from closest to farthest away, thus its implicitely impossible for us to emancipate plants but deny it to animals, it would actually be irrational. Note ofcourse that there are alot of practical problems with this because even although we give moral status to these beings we cannot give them the same practical or theoretical status and it should be wrong to do so. If we start treating a plant like a human in every way the plant will die. But in a certain way the emancipation thought is about equality in value not about equality in everything. But there are still other problems, which you have no doubt seen as well, if we cannot eat animals on the common ground that we both suffer, we should not eat plants on the common grounds that we both live. Your answer to this is that you believe that science will offer a solution, even though I'm not sure how this would work, because I fail to see how we can sustain life in nourishment by something that is not life itself, i will accept this for now. So if science comes with a type of food that is not a living being but can still sustain us it would have to be an existing being, because it is already hard to see how something that is not living can sustain something living, i completely find it impossible to see how something that does not exist (and thus must be a possible being or perhaps even an impossible being) can sustain something that does exist. But then comes the next problem, with this existing being we share the common ground of existance, so are we allowed to eat it? Perhaps existing beings are of the nature that they never go out of existance, they will simply be transformed (a thought shared by both monotheistic religion and science). Thus eating an existing being would not be wrong because we do not end its existance. Allright, so even though its all shady how this will turn out, its something we can work with.
But my objection to this thought is the following: I do not agree with an emancipation of everything because for me the goal of emancipation is participation in society and the groups of beings that we treat practically and theoretically different cannot participate in our society even if we would treat them morally the same. At the same time I think the morals work such that when you think of them you believe that everyone should think so and is capable of doing thinking so. But when we give moral status to non human beings, they are not capable of giving this moral status back to us. My criteria would be to give moral status to those who can give or could have probably (here using the scienctific term of probability) given it back to us. Thus this would include babies, retarded people, and down right evil cruel bastards. Why do I deny it to other animals then and further down the line to living beings etc, because I deny that if they would ever develop the cognitive requirements for morality that they would have a morality similar to our own. I think that to believe that that would be the case is severe anthromorphism. Ofcourse it is possible that they would have similar morality, but I dont think it is probable.
Therefor I draw the line at human being.
|
On September 23 2012 05:22 AngryMag wrote:This thread sported a lot of top end intellectual performances. I went to the whole thread again to save them for other readers who didn't went through the whole thing, but still want to enjoy all the highlights. And here they are: PS: Some of these thoughts might be trolling, hard to tell if all the posters were actually serious. Here is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesismIndeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing. Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species. This is why I am vegan. I bet you've eaten insects before while you're sleeping. Technically you're not a vegan. We are animals, they are animals, we shouldn't slaughter animals. I don't believe we should support human suffering and slavery, so i don't support animal suffering and slavery. I don't believe rape is ok, so i don't support the dairy industry. It's more because of the actual methods used to make those cows "perform". Imagine taking a 8-12 year old girl, pumping her full of medicine that tells her body she's pregnant and then milking her for about 1000% of the amount that would be healthy for a 20 year old to give. After a few years of doing that you say that she's not worth it anymore on an economical level and slaughter her. That's pretty much what we do to cows. If you want to go there, sure: please tell me a major difference between a concentration camp and a slaughterhouse besides "humans vs animals". Please keep in mind that "they aren't humans, they are lesser beings, animals" was one of the main "reasons" which made it "morally okay" to make it happen in the first place HOW can you compare human brain and dog brain? Or any other animal brain, for that matter? Human brain weight around 1.5 kg, thats dozens, hundred times more than animal brains. Noone can say for sure how any animal realizes this world simply because humans are only ones who can think. There was a chicken who lived a year or two without a head. Look it up, i think there was an article about it in "Times" (somewhere in 1930-s). Show me how to eat a carrot without killing it. Being vegan just makes you better than most people. Hypothetically, if we advance as a species and begin to colonize other plantets, what would you say about the following situation: we happen upon another planet inhabited by sentient 'cave man' - like beings. we know they have consciousness, and we know they feel pain. we can see them torturing and killing one another by the millions. would you intervene? would you stop them from killing each other senselessly? I would say that it important that we consider the ethics of what everything does, not just ourselves You can substitute "I eat meat because it's here and I like it and that's all now leave me alone" with "I hate black people because they're everywhere and that's how I live and now leave me alone", exactly the same chain of thought. He has a right to look down on ignorant meat eaters just as i have a right to look down on ignorant racists. There is a right and a wrong answer here, and one person is looking for the truth and the other is closing their mind and glorifying ignorance. fox eats rabbit => fox poops into the soil => the living soil then absorbs the poop(which includes the rabbit) => fruit and vegetable plants absorb that exact same soil to grow => humans eat those same fruits and vegetables This process happens EVERYWHERE in nature. So even if you’re a vegetarian, you’re technically eating dead animals, albeit in a more indirect liquid form. But last time I checked, vegetarians were all about saving lives no matter what."
This thread opened my eyes like the General Election thread... There are some really really stupid people on the internet. It's one thing to be for or against, another thing entirely to have ridiculous conclusions as to why that is.
My favorite was the colonizing of planets, priceless really.
|
On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse.
And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest.
And antibiotics = Germ genocide.
|
On September 23 2012 22:23 oygp wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse. And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest. And antibiotics = Germ genocide.
Common man, germ lives aren't equatable to animal lives!!!
|
On September 23 2012 22:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 22:23 oygp wrote:On September 23 2012 18:43 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:46 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:35 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 09:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 23 2012 09:05 BlueBird. wrote:On September 23 2012 08:52 m4inbrain wrote:
The only thing speaking against meat for me is the water consumption. Roughly 100.000l needed for a kg of beef, thats quite alot. Other than that, i dont care. I focus more on helping humans (i helped building a school in akuapem hills, africa for example - not with money, but with my hands) than animals, thats more important to me.
And because i read it at least two times: please stop saying that its more efficient to eat plants directly than indirectly trough meat, because most of the stuff my meat eats, cant even be digested by humans. Its not like we feed them bananas, coconuts and strawberries, their diet mostly consists out of hay and grass, and (but thats the smaller part) forage beets, carrots and whole grain. Also, a cow produces alot of natural fertilizer, so my food is helping to grow your food. Eat like a rabbit, thats completely fine with me. But dont dare to judge me based on the fact that i eat meat.
Edit: edited out some profanity against these bright lights that compare meatproduction with the holocaust. Please feel insulted by me. Most of the stuff meat eats, they do eat tons of grains as well, but yes in general your correct, and the water is freaking awful. My arguments that it's more efficient to eat plants was not in response of wasting plants.. but in the stupid comments about how plants have feelings, and if they did, it would be more "humane" or "less cruel" to eat plants directly then to have animals eat tons more. I focus on helping humans and animals . I dont disagree fully, it may be more efficient. But it hurts my brain to see that people try to "deceive" (dont know a better word right now, its not meant that negative) in a discussion that is actually not too bad (and i had my fair share of arguments with vegans..). They may eat alot of plantstuff, but they also produce fertilizer by doing that. So its not just wasted, because you need that fertilizer. And well, i cant help everyone (or everything) - humans and my family, thats all i have time and energy for. And to be brutally honest, i dont know about these huge cattle-farm-thingies in the US, but over here, i actually can see my future meal walking around, and they dont look unhappy or fat or something. I pay a bit more for my meat, but at least i know, where it came from (local butcher). I may even agree on the fact that (okay, im a bit "spoiled" due to media) the "average" american may eat too much meat. For me, its two/sometimes three meals a week. I dont like burgerking/mcdonalds/subway etc, so i dont really eat there - not because of the meatquality or something, just because i dont like the taste. Also, at least in my family (since i can remember, and im 30 years old), meat always comes with vegetables. God i hated that cauliflower so bad in my youth (and i still hate it now). Since I'm assuming from your earlier comments that you're German, you should be aware of the fact that IF the whole "I know where my meat is coming from" part is true, you're part of an incredibly small minority. Around 98% of the meat sold in Germany comes from factory farming (number from 2008). In France for example that number is at 82%. Good ol' German efficiency. Yep, german. What do you mean, "IF" it is true? Why would i lie, if you're happen to be from Niedersachsen as well, youre welcome to visit me. Also, i would like to see your source on these 98% (most factory farmed animal in germany is chicken, and thats at 78% overall, so i wonder where 98% comes from - i guess you googled "Massentierhaltung", which is obviously not the smartest way to get real numbers). Also, "factory farming" (or better, Intensivtierhaltung) in germany just means that you have farmers that have to buy animal food because they dont have the land to grow it. That does not automatically mean cruelty, please be objective. http://www.arte.tv/de/zahlen-gesetze-fakten/6449206,CmC=6449638.html is a solid list for actual real numbers all in one spot. Since some of their links are still towards the old site, here's an example for the 98%: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischversorgung1023202089004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileAll of the numbers in the arte article can be verified by checking the page of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (I doublechecked like 3-4, couldn't bother for more). If your next step is to claim those numbers are all wrong, well, can't help you anymore. Also, yes, you're correct. Some time ago most officials stopped calling it "Massentierhaltung" (equivalent to "Mass animal farming") and we now call it "Intensivtierhaltung" (equivalent to "Intensive animal farming") - sounds much more lovely, doesn't it? I actually do know some PETA activists personally who break into those factories to get videos/photos. First of all those things remind one trying to get in more of a high security prison than a paradise for animals. The conditions inside? (Herbivore) Animals chewing at each other because of the stress and enclosed space, animals falling down and getting trampled, some randomly attacking each other. It doesn't mean animal cruelty? You do understand that cutting of the pecker of chickens or turkeys is still practiced and common? Let me put things into perspective (spoiler NSFW): + Show Spoiler +First image shows a normal turkey, second about 10 days after it's pecker has been cut, third is about 14 weeks later. When is this procedure being done and why? If you put a big enough number of turkey/chicken into a small enough space, they'll start pecking each other, not rarely until death. We call that a behavioral disorder. First the factory has to try and use different methods to fight this which include switching to different foods, increasing fresh air intake and keeping the animals entirely in the dark. If those procedures fail, they have to get most of the animals to the slaughterhouse asap to spare them more suffering (this is probably the best part about the whole regulation). Once those procedures fail the factory has to apply to a certain ministry which will then allow them the right to cut the peckers after birth. In some few cases it's never allowed (e.g. for "Gallus gallus" chickens which are kept mostly as pets anyway) but those are more exceptions than the rule. Please note that while most official articles on this topic start with "cutting of the pecker is considered animal cruelty unless given specific permission to do so", that "specific permission" is comparable easy to get and you can safely assume that almost all "intensive care" farms have enough of an reasoning to apply it. Also note that the reason it's considered necessary in the first place comes from terrible conditions (not enough space, fresh air). The only chicken/turkey meat you can buy where this does NOT happen at all is if the animal farm is certified according to the EU-Eco-regulation. Now, let's look at the numbers for meat production only here: -In May 2005, 9800 farms had a total of 56.8 million chickens. -The 100 biggest farms (all 100k+ chickens) are responsible for a total of 41.5% of the animals slaughtered. -32.7 million chickens (~57.5%) came from factories with 10k to 100k animals total. ALL OTHER FARMS COMBINED (this number includes those which are considered "good enough" for the EU-Eco-regulation and some others mixed in) are at a whooping 0.9%. (Source: Once again, Federal Statistical Office of Germany, article linked above.) An example of how laws look like about the whole "cutting of the pecker"-thing can be found here. Fun sidefact, this is about Niedersachsen only which, if I remember correctly, have comparatively fair conditions for animals. All of what has been said above applies to that county. Some (e.g. in East Germany) are much, much worse. And that's a good thing right? That's how we feed our burgeoning human population isn't it? Human ingenuity at it's finest. And antibiotics = Germ genocide. Common man, germ lives aren't equatable to animal lives!!!
The guy must be trolling. If serious, he should look at the good chance of already being dead without antibiotics, think of influenza and stuff. Or he is also one of the guys "rejecting" speciesism. Some of these guys would give voting rights to fruitflies if they could Not everyone in this thread came to the conclusion that the words "species" and "race" indeed have different meanings.
|
Same here I love my meats too i don't know if i could live without them lol
|
On September 23 2012 18:09 Dirich wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
Within the past few years I have watched many documentaries on the food industry. Everything ranging from GMO food to the industrial meat farms. To put it quickly and simply, the more I learned about the health, ethical, and environmental consequence of the typical American diet I could no long stay inactive.
Strange, it happened to me the same, but with the plant world. Think about their contribution to the echosystem (CO2 -> O2) and the like. They are planted so near each other that they have barely enough space to live. They are rised just to be killed. They have no voice of their own to scream their pain, and no one cares about them unless they are some rain forest. It is a world so different that their condition is not even considered as "inhuman" but it is unnatural, which is closest analogue. Actually, we do not even consider ethical problems related to the plant world, even if they ARE life forms too. Plants of the same kind do not usually grow 20cm one from another, with their roots almost interwining, which is the analogous of animals kept in a 1m x 1m cage (numbers are random, it's just to give the idea of the analogy). Of course there are things that are difficult to compare (other parts of the unethical treatments of animals), but consider pruning for example. It is not only used as an healt practice, it can be done just for the sake of improving the product, and it is very much like an amputation if you think about it. The plant "bleeds" (in the sense that it reacts to the pruning), which proves the plant "feel" something when pruning happens. Sure, it regrows its lost part, like lizards regrow their tail, but who would ever consider ethical to amputate a lizard's tail considering the pain it would feel? Why are you not against all of this? You should be, so just stop eating anything produced by exploiting the plant world too (which includes their fruits, the closest analogous to the dietary products and the eggs). We feed on life, like everything else. There's no escaping it. We should give dignity to what we kill, regardless of how different a life form is from us. You decided to be vegan beacause you consider plant life forms to be inferior to animal life forms. I do not see righeousness in what you do, I see hypocrisy. No one should respect that. P.S. Nothing wrong with being vegan, the problem is your half-assed, media driven, no reasoning on the whole picutre kind of thinking.
First of all i eat meat myself but i strongly admire and respect ones decision to stop eating meat. Doing that out of love to our fellow creatures is a very respectable thing. It's very disinterested. Your whole argument that plant life forms are equal to animal life forms is an absolute joke. I dont want to be offensive but i literally had to facepalm when i read it. Please believe me when i say that animals are not different from humans especially high evolved mammals. The human being is just the most successful of them all due to the capability of complex thinking and reasoning which correlates to the exceptional well evolved nervous system (most important the actual brain). That leads to my actual point which is that plants don't have a nervous system like animals do. Therefor they cant suffer pain or "sadness", whatever you call it. Plants are lifeforms right but life is defined by a few terms. A few of them are: Metabolism, the capability to regulate themselves, reproduction, crating a closed system that zones it from the environment (e.g. membranes of cells) and a few others...
These things in itself dont imply that we have to take care of single individual plants. Damage comes if you ruin a whole ecosystem but thats a long way to go and wont happen due to nutrition. They dont possess consciousness. They dont have a nervous system.
With that background it is ethically an absolute mistake to equalize every life form that stands below just for the sake of it just because we're the most powerful of them.
Your argument that plants contribute to the ecosystem is weak because the amount of plants we eat doesn't even matter because humans grow everything on farms repeatedly. The only thing i can think of is if forrests are being chopped down for the space to build additional plant fields. But to be honest i dont think that would be the case if many of us would focus on vegan/vegetarian diet.
I often get the feeling that meat eaters feel the need to defend themselves with every weak argument they can find. One should just respect a nice decision of another man to stop eating meat. And if you dont want to stop eating meat at the moment everyone could at least reduce it quite a bit which is obviously a good thing.
PS: Your last sentence is offensive (of course many meat eaters defend themselves with everything they have. For some reason they feel offended by threads like this) but his thinking is actually clearer and has more reason behind it than yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-06.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-03.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tierschutz-landwirtschaft.de/assets/images/Schn-05.jpg)
