|
On May 29 2009 06:15 EarthServant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:10 Aegraen wrote:On May 29 2009 06:01 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:39 Aegraen wrote:On May 29 2009 05:31 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:22 King K. Rool wrote:On May 29 2009 05:20 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote:
Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation. Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this. If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals. Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top. Then I ask you. If you had to choose between a person living, or an animal living, where if you picked one or the other, the other would die. Which would you choose and why? I would choose the animal to live, simply due to environmental reasons. Animals generally support and are an important part of the environment, where as humans are generally detrimental to that environment. If I had a real choice, I would choose neither, or I would give my own life. Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to take your own life over something like this.
|
Facts I've found from this book I got out by an vegan Australian athlete:
The majority of humans in the world, including almost all those in African, Asian and South American countries, consume no milk after weaning, are found to have stronger bone structures with almost no occurrence of osteoporosis compared to milk drinkers in industrialised nations. In addition, populations which follow plant-based diets have been found to have lower rates of hip fracture than those whose diets are based on animal products, in spite of their lower calcium intake.
Human infants lose most of their ability to digest the lactose in milk by the age of four. This is a natural process for most mammals, indicating that nature never intended milk to continue as a food source after weaning. Humans are the only mammals, apart from those in human care, that continue to drink milk after weaning and drink the milk of other animals.
The dairy industry has exploited the gentle and docile nature of the cow in its pursuit for maximum milk output.
Contrary to popular belief, a cow must be pregnant in order to stimulate milk production, similar to that of a pregnant woman and her newborn infant. Continuous milking and pregnancy takes its toll on the animal. The stressful conditions encourage the onset of disease for both cow and calf. Most common in young calves are gastro-intestinal disturbances, respiratory infections and hypothermia. Common problems in cows are bloat, facial eczema, lameness and mastitis.
One o the most barbaric mutilations inflicted on dairy cows is tail docking. Tail docking is the removal of part or all of the tail either by rubber ring or a heated scissor-like tool called a docking iron. It is argued tail docking is necessary to prevent risk of contamination in the milk and to workers, reduction in disease and risk of injury to workers being swatted in the face. However, scientific evidence strongly disputes most of these arguments and has revealed docked cows display abnormal characteristics and behaviours.
The reason meat eating is such a profitable industry is because so many people still eat it. If more people became vegans, the demand for meat would decrease and thus the farmers would move into other less meat intensive industries.
Every major change causes lost jobs. Yet most major changes create other work opportunities. A drift from "snail mail" to email has cost postal jobs but opened up a host of IT jobs. If we all become vegetarians (hardly an imminent event to cause you concern, but environmental pressures may eventually precipitate it), employment in the meat industry would disappear and the demand for heart specialists diminish. To compensate, the fruit and vegetable industry would expand and supernumerary heart specialists could devote their energies to other areas of health.
Most employers and employees have to adjust, especially as technology forges ahead. There is no reason why the meat and dairy industries should be cocooned from change.
If we were all vegetarians this would not ruin the economy but rather help it. As vegetarians and, even more so, vegans require far less medical attention, there would be a huge saving on state health budgets. More money for other needs.
Whenever there is progress in social standards, there will be losses in jobs. Rather, we should say changes in jobs. Those who farm raised cattle or sheep for slaughter can change to raising vegetables. A fraction of the land area is required to produce the same amount of vegetable food as meat. That is a lot less environmental destruction, including that of trees as well as water quality from faeces pollution.
Yes, I care about cattle and sheep farmers. And I am sure we both care about starvation in countries such as Bangladesh, India and Mozambique. If we were all vegetarians, we could look after both farmers and starvers. The same amount of land presently devoted to cattle feed would easily feed the world's human population.
|
i'm not sure why people ITT think that just because you are concerned about the humane treatment of farm animals you are equating them to humans
I would choose the animal to live, simply due to environmental reasons. Animals generally support and are an important part of the environment, where as humans are generally detrimental to that environment.
If I had a real choice, I would choose neither, or I would give my own life.
heh, nevermind
|
On May 29 2009 06:08 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not tricking you at all. If you propose that we eat too much, then you can tell us how much it is we need to eat. If you can't answer that, then why do you think we should believe what you say?
Proof is in the pudding, no?
Because you are Aegraen. You really expect people to respond constructively?
|
Perhaps it's just me being used to raising animals, but that video is a lot more "campaign material" than reality. I'm not saying it's fake or that I agree with the treatment displayed there but things aren't like that all over the world.
In Europe atleast, EU standards forbid producers to kill anymals without painkillers. Also, hygienical conditions in most farms are very good and animals are treated with a lot of care. I've been in a farm like this recently and never seen any of the bad treatments in the video.
But even with these conditions we could consider ourselves cruel. We do raise animals solely for their meat/eggs/milk and just because we can't give up the luxury of having meat on our plates. I for one, am not affected by this perspective.
I don't really have a problem with the concept of being a vegetarian, but with some of the people that preach it. Being a vegetarian is one thing and trying to impose your own choices is another. Some vegetarians are a tad radical and only seem to see the empty part of the glass.
|
On May 29 2009 06:15 EarthServant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:10 Aegraen wrote:On May 29 2009 06:01 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:39 Aegraen wrote:On May 29 2009 05:31 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:22 King K. Rool wrote:On May 29 2009 05:20 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On May 29 2009 05:17 King K. Rool wrote:
Bolded is exactly why I'm not swayed at all from your arguments. I like to eat meat hence I endorse these methods.
You can like to do something while not supporting the harmful effects of it, you know. Liking the way meat tastes does not justify animal cruelty and ecological degradation. Unless you can get me a better rate with a better method, I'll be supporting this. If you're honest about the fact that you don't give a shit where your food comes from as long as it's 'efficient,' then go ahead and keep eating it i guess? One might say such a view point is morally questionable, but you don't seem to care As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals. Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top. Then I ask you. If you had to choose between a person living, or an animal living, where if you picked one or the other, the other would die. Which would you choose and why? I would choose the animal to live, simply due to environmental reasons. Animals generally support and are an important part of the environment, where as humans are generally detrimental to that environment. If I had a real choice, I would choose neither, or I would give my own life.
At least you were honest. Hopefully if I'm in the wild one day hunting, and a bear happens upon me and you have the means to either kill it, or let it kill me, I hope you have a change of heart, for that matter, anyone that may encounter you in any situation where its a killed or be killed between human and animal.
|
On May 29 2009 06:18 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:08 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not tricking you at all. If you propose that we eat too much, then you can tell us how much it is we need to eat. If you can't answer that, then why do you think we should believe what you say?
Proof is in the pudding, no? Because you are Aegraen. You really expect people to respond constructively?
Want to then provide the source for your assertion? Come on, this isn't hard. I'm genuinely intrigued, not going to let me down are you?
|
In Europe atleast, EU standards forbid producers to kill anymals without painkillers.
You can't make halal meat when you use painkillers.
Also, EU rules force meat/animals to be transported across Europe. And here there are some minor rules but they aren't even enforced.
It's an issue in Europe. Maybe less than in other parts of the world. But it's not like things you would disprove off don't happen regularly.
Aegraen, you are an idiot. Just get out.
|
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following?
|
On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following?
why do you think people are incapable of making a moral decision independent of dogma?
|
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
Animals don't conceive of dignity and respect. It's about suffering and stress when it comes to animal welfare. Animals in factory farms go through a lot of human-caused pain, suffering, stress, dysfunctional behavior.
Then ethical principles dictate that if you were an animal you wouldn't want to be treated that way, you shouldn't do that to them yourself.
|
On May 29 2009 06:25 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following? why do you think people are incapable of making a moral decision independent of dogma?
usually dogmas impose their own moral codes
|
"The last and a very important reason to reduce meat consumption is the ethical one. I believe that it is important not to cause pain to other creatures - basically the golden rule, I don't want to experience pain, so I would do well to prevent causing pain to other beings. From what I understand of nervous systems, and biology in general, we are far more similar to animals than we are not, and therefore I find it necessary to include them as a subject of my ethical discussion. Of course, animals eat each other, but they do not have our mental capability, and lack the capacity toward logical, ethical discussion. Therefore, they have exemption. We, on the other hand, do not."
If you truly follow the Golden Rule and you think it applies to all living things than you should kill yourself, since by existing you cause pain to other creatures, whether you are vegetarian or not. Think about how much energy you consume and how much that energy could have alleviated the pain and suffering of hundreds of other creatures with lesser energy requirements. A great deal of animals starve because you snatch eat the grain that they could have feasted on, you cultivate the land that they could have lived on, you build cities and destroy their habitat, by existing you do take part in all these things.
Therefore by killing yourself you will reduce the net pain in the world which according to your dogma is our supreme moral duty.
|
On May 29 2009 06:25 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following? why do you think people are incapable of making a moral decision independent of dogma?
Your idea that animals deserve our respect and dignity such that we cannot cultivate them for food in the modern manner is a dogma. It is a belief system that has no rational basis.
|
On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following?
I can field this.
There is no universal scripture of right and wrong. This is true. But you must have an intrinsic feeling that suffering is worse than being happy. This is true of all forms of life. Most people also feel that trying to alleviate others suffering is important.
So if you accept that animals can feel pain it seems logical to try and limit this suffering. And since we can live without eating any animal products at all, why not do that?
|
On May 29 2009 06:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The anti-vegetarian argument really just boils down to THEY'RE JUST SO DAMN TASTY :d
Anti-vegerarians don't need arguments. The industry won't just disappear because some people don't eat meat.
|
If you truly follow the Golden Rule and you think it applies to all living things than you should kill yourself, since by existing you cause pain to other creatures, whether you are vegetarian or not.
What?
You expect others to kill themselves to reduce your suffering? The golden rule dictates so? WTF If you follow the golden rule everyone has to commit suicide?
|
[QUOTE]On May 29 2009 06:21 Diomedes wrote:
[quote]
Aegraen, you are an idiot. Just get out.[/QUOTE]
Whats up with all the ad hominems, can't you provide your source when called out on it, on something as blatantly misrepresented as what your preaching?
Nope, I'm the idiot. :laughs:
|
Aegraen, look up 'ad hominem' on wikipedia. I'm not making an argument so I can't be guilty of a fallacy. You make a request, I refuse. I even explain why. It's really simple.
|
On May 29 2009 06:28 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The anti-vegetarian argument really just boils down to THEY'RE JUST SO DAMN TASTY :d Anti-vegerarians don't need arguments. The industry won't just disappear because some people don't eat meat.
Well I think it's pretty important to be able to justify everything you do rationally. I'm not a vegan because of any moral calling or desire to change the world or anything, more just because I can't think of any logical reason for doing not being one thats acceptable to me.
So I think meat eaters do need arguments. I think thats something thats very important for them to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
