|
On September 23 2012 20:16 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 20:10 dmfg 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. 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? Show nested quote +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.
The reason I replied to your post is because it sounded like you think debeaking itself is the problem, whereas it looks more like it's man's solution to a problem that might be man-made, or might be entirely natural. Maybe I misinterpreted you.
Wikipedia claims it happens even on free range farms, but the reference doesn't have a link so I can't follow it up. I have no idea what the truth is, but adding emotive spin to it makes it more difficult to find what the truth actually is.
- do chickens peck each other to death in the wild?
- do chickens kept on free range farms still peck each other to death? (wikipedia says yes)
Those sound like questions that you'd want answering before you decide whether debeaking is harmful - but it sounds like you've already decided that the crowded environments are the cause. I'm not convinced the evidence is good enough to decide (unless you know something I don't?)
[OT: The other reason I replied was because you kept talking about "cutting off their peckers", and when I saw your images tagged as NSFW I thought you were talking about a completely different procedure ^^]
|
On September 23 2012 23:14 Mczeppo 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. 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.
Im sorry but why is saying I draw the line at sentient any better than saying I draw the line at living or I draw the line at human? Ofcourse plants are different from animals, and like you say animals are different from humans. But we also have common ground. Animals suffer but we usually do not attribute them higher emotions and reason, thus I would argue that the world plants live in is as different for non-human animals as is the world humans live in. I have not yet heard one person give a good argument why it is wrong to say that animals do deserve moral consideration that also on the same grounds excludes plants or other form of living but not sentient beings from deserving moral consideration. Thus the decision remains arbitrary.
You make an arbitrary decision, another makes an arbitrary decision that is different from yours and you facepalm at it while you are both doing the same thing and both are not providing any good arguments why one decision is better than the other.
|
On September 23 2012 17:54 Ponera wrote:
From a biological standpoint, there is literally no substitute for animal protein in a diet.
Carry on with your discussion.
Plant protein includes all the same amino acids as meat protein does. Just in less convinient propotions, so you need much more of it.
|
On September 23 2012 23:50 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 23:14 Mczeppo wrote: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. 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. Im sorry but why is saying I draw the line at sentient any better than saying I draw the line at living or I draw the line at human? Ofcourse plants are different from animals, and like you say animals are different from humans. But we also have common ground. Animals suffer but we usually do not attribute them higher emotions and reason, thus I would argue that the world plants live in is as different for non-human animals as is the world humans live in. I have not yet heard one person give a good argument why it is wrong to say that animals do deserve moral consideration that also on the same grounds excludes plants or other form of living but not sentient beings from deserving moral consideration. Thus the decision remains arbitrary. You make an arbitrary decision, another makes an arbitrary decision that is different from yours and you facepalm at it while you are both doing the same thing and both are not providing any good arguments why one decision is better than the other.
I clearly underlined my argument by saying that animals have the ability to suffer while plants dont which is common scientific believe. Furthermore i stated that we have to care about plants as a whole because destroying an ecosystem is wrong. I say that picking of individual single plants isn't a bad thing and cant be compare to killing animals which hopefully everyone here can relate to (reasons for that are obvious).
So i clearly showed the reason for the line i draw which makes my point not arbitrary. It's arbitrary on the other hand to say that we cant eat living organism at all because right there there is no reasoning behind it. If suffering isn't reason enough for some people that we at least try to reduce our consumption of meat i cant help it. My reasoning is everything else than arbitrary.
Of course humans are different from animals (higher evolved thats all... today we even believe that some animal possess self consciousness which ofter correlates to the amount of brain mass in relation to body mass) but taking that as the single reason to act arbitrary about the issue is wrong as much as it is wrong to put animals and plants on the same level.
Thats just my opinion on the whole issue. I respect the decision of other i just state my reason on it.
|
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
|
Been a vegetarian for close to a decade now. Tried going vegan once, made it a week before pizza got me. Cheese is too hard. T_T
|
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not.
I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons.
From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision.
Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid).
I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion.
Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is.
In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above.
I made as best of a reason i could
|
On September 24 2012 00:55 Mczeppo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary. No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons. From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision. Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid). I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is. In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could
I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that.
Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species.
I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion.
If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
|
On September 24 2012 01:41 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 00:55 Mczeppo wrote:On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary. No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons. From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision. Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid). I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is. In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that. Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species. I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then.
I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good.
I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree.
This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^).
We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from
|
I love mah meat too much to go Vegan, but for those who are considering it, make sure you get the neccessary amino acids!! I'm sure its been stressed a bunch in the past 36 pages, but it is extremely important
|
On September 24 2012 02:40 Mczeppo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 01:41 TSORG wrote:On September 24 2012 00:55 Mczeppo wrote:On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary. No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons. From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision. Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid). I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is. In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that. Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species. I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then. I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good. I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree. This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^). We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from
I dont think our opinion is very different, if different at all regarding the suffering of animals. We only regard the problem from different perspectives I think and there was some mix up involved (atleast on my part) regarding your views on the moral status of animals.
but there is indeed not much left for us to talk about regarding this topic so have a good day
|
IF you're a vegan and demotivational pictures offend you, don't open : ) It's for the light hearted people since everyone is getting so wired.
+ Show Spoiler +
I think before we tackle animal rights, we should solve human rights...
User was warned for this post
|
The whole "vegans are morally superior" argument is completely ridiculous to me, and here is why: humans are animals, yes. Animals eat other animals. Are you going to condemn a cat for hunting and eating a mouse? If you want to condemn factory farming, good for you - seriously! No sarcasm there! Factory farming is a horrible industry no matter how you look at it. But what about local farms that treat their animals well? Better yet, what about people who still hunt for food? How is a human hunting and eating a deer any different from a cat hunting and eating a mouse or a fox hunting and eating a rabbit? That is just how nature works - it's the circle of life, if you will. The food chain exists for a reason. Humans are omnivores like it or not and there is nothing unnatural about a human eating meat.
If you want to argue about eating meat, there are legitimate ecological (this applies to farming only) and health arguments against it, though the health arguments vary from person to person. But the only valid ethical argument is against factory farming - there is no legitimate ethical argument against eating meat in general.
End rant now.
|
On September 24 2012 02:57 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 02:40 Mczeppo wrote:On September 24 2012 01:41 TSORG wrote:On September 24 2012 00:55 Mczeppo wrote:On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary. No it's not arbitrary. Reason to reduce consumption because suffering is as deep as you can argument on that. Everything beyond that has personal believe involved and thus is a philosophical question wether you care about someone suffering or not. I dont know how you can possibly dig deeper and search for "deeper" reasons. From your standpoint you could also say that everything is arbitrary because compared to the universe and existence in itself nothing matters really. But we should look for a good reason at some point to make our decision. Everything has will to survive thats the driving force of evolution you are right on that but in my opinion it doesnt matter because eating plant doesn't mean that we kill a whole plant species (which is the important part to avoid). I understand your thought patterns now but i'm not of same opinion. Your last argument is true plants are more different from animals than animals are from humans and thats the single motivation for me to take my standpoint where it is. In the end it comes down to personal believes as i said above. I made as best of a reason i could I do not disagree that the suffering of animals is a good reason to cut down or alltogether avoid the consumption of animals in the way that we do now. I do disagree with using that as a reason to then also give animals the same moral status as humans. Perhaps if that was not your point we might not need to have this discussion between the two of us but many do support that point thus I still want to have it said. And the suffering argument without also trying to give animals the same or a similar moral status as humans would mean that killing without suffering (if possible) would be ok, and (intuitively) many people do not want to accept that. Its true that in eating a single plant we do not kill the whole plant species but same is true for eating a cow, by eating a single cow we are not exterminating its species. I sense that you are taking a bit more pragmatic (and enviromental) stance on this, which is a stance to which I can relate more than the principle stance which is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. If you do not wish to discuss it further I dont see any need to, you have made yourself clear enough to me and I do disagree but let's leave it at that then. I dont think animals and humans have the same moral status. I said cutting consumption down would be good. I thought about your point on killing without suffering. Thats true to a certain degree. I myself dont like killing of higher evolved animals at all. You can call that arbitrary if you want. For me it's my ethics. I'm ok if the whole thing is treated with more respect and consumption is reduced to a certain degree. This discussion is going in circles. I dont want to discuss it anymore (i dont mean that in an offensive way by the way^^). We have different opinion which isn't necessarily bad but i can relate to some of your arguments. At least i can understand the motivation where they come from I dont think our opinion is very different, if different at all regarding the suffering of animals. We only regard the problem from different perspectives I think and there was some mix up involved (atleast on my part) regarding your views on the moral status of animals. but there is indeed not much left for us to talk about regarding this topic so have a good day
Yeah thats right have a nice day ^^
|
On September 23 2012 23:27 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 20:16 r.Evo wrote:On September 23 2012 20:10 dmfg 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. 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. The reason I replied to your post is because it sounded like you think debeaking itself is the problem, whereas it looks more like it's man's solution to a problem that might be man-made, or might be entirely natural. Maybe I misinterpreted you. Wikipedia claims it happens even on free range farms, but the reference doesn't have a link so I can't follow it up. I have no idea what the truth is, but adding emotive spin to it makes it more difficult to find what the truth actually is. - do chickens peck each other to death in the wild? - do chickens kept on free range farms still peck each other to death? (wikipedia says yes) Those sound like questions that you'd want answering before you decide whether debeaking is harmful - but it sounds like you've already decided that the crowded environments are the cause. I'm not convinced the evidence is good enough to decide (unless you know something I don't?) [OT: The other reason I replied was because you kept talking about "cutting off their peckers", and when I saw your images tagged as NSFW I thought you were talking about a completely different procedure ^^]
I think the problem is the definition of free-range. I honestly don't know what it is in Germany, so I can't speak to that, but wikipedia is probably using the USA's USDA definition, which is basically "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING:
Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside. (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FACTSheets/Meat_&_Poultry_Labeling_Terms/index.asp#4).". That does not mean they can't be in a confined area with way too many birds with unnatural conditions and unethical treatment... leading to pecking. I know several people with chickens, and while they do peck each other some, they don't do it until death, not even close as far as I know, yes this is anecdotal evidence, but saying that free range chickens peck each other too, this must just be normal for 15% of birds to be pecked to death.
Basically when you buy "free-range" eggs or meat at a supermarket in the U.S.A. it's a crapshoot, you might get a product that had worse conditions then otherwise...
Again, I am sorry if the definition is different for Germany.
|
On September 23 2012 19:14 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 17:03 kmillz wrote: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.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
|
Being an omnivore doesn't mean I morally support the barbaric things that some farms do to animals, and all I hear is that argument.
|
there are basically 2 discussions which are mixed.
one is about eating meat and the other one is about factory production of food (made from animals).
both sides mostly agree that what happens in the factory production of food is cruel. most also find that something has to be done about it, but then there is one side claiming that we shouldnt eat meat to achieve this with perhaps a smaller group of people claiming that we shouldnt eat meat at all because it is immoral. the other side does not find this to be the case.
the omnivore argument is aimed at the first discussion not the second. and ofcourse its not the only or best argument thats been posed in the thread by either side.
|
On September 24 2012 05:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:14 StayPhrosty wrote:On September 23 2012 17:03 kmillz wrote: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. you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoralNot quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different. Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion". They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
|
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote:
yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/animalrightsa.jpg/)
