Rob_86

Don't forget jenkum.

Oh, and am I right in saying that Rob 86 has only posted in two threads, this and the Wifebeater one?

I can categorically say that this is correct. Though if there was another interesting thread I can also say that this wouldn't be the case.

Certainly for osteoporosis, the WHO seem to still recommend dairy products as a source of calcium and vitamin D (WHO | 5. Population nutrient intake goals for preventing diet-related chronic diseases). Given most soy milk is supplemented with calcium and/or vitamin D I don't think that there's much to seperate the benefit of drinking either (One of those reviews I mentioned previously suggests that they are like-for-like). Again, it's back to the issue of supplementation and how natural that is as a diet, but that's veering off in another tangent again.

I'm not too clear on what's meant by the calcium paradox myself, so I'll have a little look and see what I can find out about it later today. It's probably evident that I like science, but I also like to think that it's easier than most think to critically appraise what it can or can't tell us - I dislike science feeling aloof, elitist or to be relied on as a decisive argument from authority.

They are still recommending dairy as a source of calcium? I had no idea, that's shocking. I'm not big on science, but I have a pretty good understanding (vegan or non-vegan) that dairy isn't a useful source of calcium for humans - and that green veggies store calcium in much higher concentrates.

I was messing around on PubMed during my lunch break and found a couple of opinion/review articles published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition discussing the pros/cons of including dairy products in a vegetarian diet. Both, I think, make some good points, but they overlap awkwardly on several issues. For example, the pro-milk paper pulls up evidence for milk being beneficial for bone health, the anti-milk paper pulls up evidence against. Obviously, both papers are cherry-picking the evidence that best suits their cause, but it does leave me wondering who is right? Both authors couldn't be described as impartial - One receives funding from the National Dairy Council, the other an invited speaker by The International Congress of Vegetarian Nutrition, so it's pretty clear from their allegiances which way they fall. (If anyone's interested: Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1634S7S and Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(suppl):1638S42S.)

I thought I'd mention this as we veer back towards talking about the relevant health pros and cons of dietray choices - We have to be careful what data we pick to make our points and be aware that it's very easy for cherry-picking to affect both sides of the argument. A study in isolation rarely gives the definitive answer, so we need to look at the accumulated evidence in context. As the two papers above go some way to showing, it's easier said than done!

Yeah this is a very good point, and of course we have to be very careful on scientific issues. When it comes to dairy and bone health (to pick at a single issue) I think it's more accepted now that dairy isn't particularly useful (is this not what the WHO calls the calcium paradox - something in dairy, acidity or phosphorousness or something like that, which counteracts the use humans get from the calcium.). But yeah, the problem is someone is always trying to prove something when it comes to nutritional science it seems - as I say, I prefer ethics as everyone can understand it, science is harder!

In a roundabout way me and you are agreeing - Neither of us would be sexist or racist or agree with those being used *in any capacity*, yet we're both showing that speceisism is flexible and does show obvious bias from a human angle. My issue was that people were saying being speciesist is as bad as sexism or racism, which it clearly isn't. That guilt-by-association argument irritates me, you see.

I would take issue with the assertion that "animals and humans are equal in the ability to consciously experience their own life", given the autonomy that humans display that animals don't. We can find analogies and anthropomorphosise them as much as we like to garner as much sympathy as needed, but it's simply not true from a scientific viewpoint. This isn't to say that we shouldn't afford animals rights, but they shouldn't be applied using analogies to humans - We're worlds apart, and the animal kingdom is so diverse that it would be impossible, and impractical, to do so.

Yeah I think we are agreeing to a point. Speciesism could be taken onto irrational conclusions (like ageism can incidentally), in ways that it's hard to do with the other ism's (racism or sexism). And I can see how this would irritate you guilt by association, as the two are different on these grounds. I guess speciesism shares the same qualities with ageism than racism really, as it is flexible in similar ways (except we don't use ageism as a reason to farm, kill and eat people - though older arguments opposing animal rights used to claim this in a roundabout sort of way!). But that kind of shows that species difference being used to justify death is no better than the equivolent of using very young age to determine such.

On the '"animals and humans are equal in the ability to consciously experience their own life", again I think we're agreeing in a way. I don't mean that animals and humans experience their life in the same manner, I simply mean that it is of the same kind (ie, that life fares experientially better or worse for the one whos' life it is - and to eahc individual their life is everything). We do definetely possess useful characteristics that allow us to experience life in a richer way (in my opinon). But on a similar scale, one might also think they experience the joys of mozart and formal logic and that this makes their experience of life richer than those who enjoy big brother and action novels. This isn't a relevant difference in a 'right' to live your life though, as the analogy shows.

That doesn't make a lot of sense because obviously the male calves would be affected, same as male human infants would be affected if their mother's milk was full of estrogen. However, soy infant formula is banned in a lot of countries because of concerns that it can cause developmental problems in babies.

I'm pretty sure rBST is now banned in the EU but I'm not sure about other growth hormones. Certainly, feed full of grains and soy protein isolates will affect the meat, and defeats the original purpose of using ruminants, ie. to convert grassland into food we can consume.

That's the point, soy milk is no worse than dairy when it comes to oestrogen levels and those hormones, and in fact all vegetables have these instances of that kinda stuff in them. It's all sensationalised. The myths about soya products are, sadly, still accepted even by government authorities in some countries, while the problems with dairy are yet to be accepted even slightly.

Agree with your second point. Feeding food like soya to cows is completely counter productive regardless of the moral arguments, however whilst the demand is so high it's going to be neccessary.

I think my point is more that speciesism is a flawed argument, and is used to provide a dirty label such as 'racism' or 'sexism' rather than to provide a solid moral argument. For specieism to be anything akin to racism or sexism there should be no moral flexibility, but you admit species does make a difference, which is all I was really hoping to prove: It negates someone's claim earlier that, and I paraphrase, "No one has provided a convincing argument why we don't eat mentally disabled people", that turned in to this discussion on speciesim.

As someone's already pointed out, we're very good at ascribing human traits and emotions to animals when there's no way we could realistically ever do so - And certainly not uniformally across the entire living, breathing world. Speciesism, to me, is the ultimate in anthropromorphistic whimsy.

In short, I'm aiming my comments at that specific argument, and not one specific person.

Well that'a strange argument then, because sex and race is a difference - there is flexibility, and there is flexibility between humans. Kids aren't allowed to vote etc. Species divides have relevant differences, which provides relevant moral differences - whereas it has relevant similarities also. What you're trying to do is to say either animals are humans or are nothing like them, whereas morally speaking it's perfectly okay to give an individual the rights their characteristics demand, whilst wiholding the one's that they can't use. For instance, as I said, children don't have a right to vote, but have a right to live. What you have hoped to prove, if you think have proved, would have also proved that children have no right to live - which doesn't make sense, as they have the relevant characteristics to deserve this right.

I don't think there is anything anthropomorphic about animal rights at all. The idea of speciesism, as I've said before isn't as strong as the case for animal rights - but it does put across a good single point. If you don't allow a creature, or a 6 month old child for that matter, a right to vote, then there is nothing wrong with that - you're not being ageist or speciesist - you're picking out a relevant difference. However animals and humans are equal in the ability to consiously experience their own life, so it would be speciesist to begin eating one whilst protectng the other with laws against murder. You can argue species preference as to which one you would save in a house fire etc (species preference is as good as familiarity preference or any other type), but that gives no strength at all to allow the killing and eating of one when you don't need to.

So it's OK to let a species die out?

Well now we are on a different ethical theory altogether - what is the value that desires there be as many species (man-made and naturalloy evolved) as possible? For my own, and other humans' aesthetic pleasure, it is nice to see as many different types of animals running around as possible, I think a more important concern is individuals and their rights. Shown by the fact that I would never sacrifice a human or animal life, or confine either and force it to reproduce so as i can see more of that species or race. The whole nature of desire to protect 'species' rather than 'individuals' is bizarrely formed to say the least, in my opinion.

Oh, and enjoy your oestrogen induced tits, soya lovers.

Haha, someone should probably let you know that dairy comes from female cows, whilst pregnant/just afterwards. Do you know how many hormones female mammals have pumping through them when lactating? Oh and also, most farm animals are fed soya products too - so you are eating it, just filtered through another creatures system. Other than that, I love your argument!

Yup, racism and sexism are based on either an essential requirement to have both male and female people to procreate and something as trivial as skin colour - Trivial things that make no difference because male or female, black or white, we're all human and share every millions of other traits that encompasses.

It's not inconsequential differences that seperate us from cows, it's unsurmountable millions. A cow is not a human, it never will be: there's a clear species divide and, whether we chose to eat them or not, it doesn't come down to one trivial difference that we decide to eat a cripple or a dog.

This argument doesn't stop us from treating animals as the individuals they are. No matter how much we argue 'cows aren't humans' it doesn't change the fact that they share the relevant characteristics that make them desire to live thier lives like you or I would. The idea that species boudaries make it okay is bizarre, and presumably crops up as most of us don't have to consider this moral thought as we look the animal we are about to kill in the eye - we paid for it to be killed in an automatic proceess instead to take this away.

Basically, we stopped seeing race as important as it was irrelevant in the ideas of all 'human rights'. Well now we know that species is irrelevant in the idea of some rights - to life and not to be tortured etc. Species IS relevant when it comes to other rights, and is why animals have no claim to many of our higher rights, but there is no sense in which a physical or intellectual difference justifies a difference in the basic rights - especially those which the animal has direct claim to (by virtue of being a conscious individual, or by inherently valuing not being in pain). Animals are different to humans in many ways, but not in these ways, so shouldn't be in these rights.

I'd be wary of relying on any argument that suggests that animals use up resources better served for humans, as that sounds speciesist to me. (Sorry, cheap shot!)

I, for one, would welcome our intergalactic overlords should they arrive. For one, they'd have shown more technological know-how than your average chicken, but they'd be the first species to have demonstrated true autonomy other than us mere humans. Unless they sent a space-ship full of space-cows, or mentally disabled aliens, then we'd be look sillier than the emperor and his new clothes.

Joking apart, an alien that demonstrated true autonomy and the capacity to understand what rights were being bestowed upon it is somewhat of an intangible wild-card designed to test the moral boundaries: It's too unrealistic to prove anything about our in-depth and developed sense of sentience and species boundaries on Earth.

It's not really speciesist at all, there wouldn't be any farmed animals to deny of food if we didn't breed them, hence not causng a problem.

And on the contrary the example of the aliens proves that rights aren't related merely to humans, but to individual characteristics (regardless of how fictional the example is). It is exactly designed to test our moral boudaries, and subject them to reason rather than habit.

I accept that the moral issue is extremely important (anyone who didn't wouldn't be discussing it in this thread), however I think the morality of keeping future humans alive is just as great an issue as that of killing an animal to eat it.

Obviously animals need to eat large amounts of vegetation to keep them alive, but they can digest things that humans can't, allowing for a greater variety of food sources to be utilized. If a crop as important to the (relatively limited) vegan diet such as soya were to be blighted potato style, our hypothetical nationally herbivorous grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren could find themselves in the shit.

Not really, I don't think that's particularly likely. All vegans don't get in their diet is dead flesh (with very few nutritional qualities) dairy (which has a couple, but still relatively few) and eggs (barely any again). The few things that you do find in these things, are found in an abundance on vegan diets - in many different types of food. If something like soya were to be disastrously wiped out, there wouldn't be a great deal of difference. The key to addressning your concerns, I guess, would be not to plant too much of one thing wouldn't it? Soya is in a lot of vegan products, because people like it, but it isn't necesary.

You've kind of missed my point. Human beings should always be more important to their own species as they are the only basis that we can realistically project our own ideals upon. Each species is important to its own species. Other animals don't value human lives as an equal to their own.

No I do understand this, and would agree - you can always get on better etc with your own species (except many Aberdonian farmers I'm lead to believe) I think that's a very valid point.

But still doesn't make us any less obliged to respect the lives of these non-human animals. I mean you are meant to get on better with your own flesh and blood too, and have more feelings for protecting them, doesn't give you reason to go out and eat those other members of the human race. You don't have to 'love' all creatures like you 'love' you're family, but I think there is a moral case for respecting them and not doing anything to put them at harm which you don't need to do.

Granted a vegan wouldn't eat mentally disabled person or children, but nor would I (German homosexual cannibals aside). I wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race or sex because that would be calling someone less than human, and it is patently obvious that a cow is not, nor ever will be, a human. To me, racism and sexism is a world apart from speciesism and I would I sincerely doubt that an oppressed ethnic minority would take kindly to the suggestion that the plight of cows is akin to their situation.

Again, just to reiterate, we don't ascribe the same rights and weighting to animals no matter how much anyone posting here would like to think they're not speciesist: You'd save the human, screw the sheep. Not literally. That would be disgusting.

You don't need the speciesism argument to justify being a vegan, I'm happy enough conceding that it's your choice. It's untenable to justify a political change across the entire human population because it wouldn't be viable for anyone other than economically permissive societies - And we've got these societies by shafting more than just sheep and cows.

I don't think that'ds a particularly strong view, as show by the 'aliens' thought experiment (not the movie). If aliens discovered Earth and had the same abilities as us, but slightly better, they would be party to most of the 'human' rights we grant. Hence showing that these rights aren't 'human' rights at all, they are just rights. Just as skin colour should have no bearing on an individuals right to live, neither should number of legs, wooliness of fur, or intellectual abilities (after all, the less mentally able a human is, the mroe we protect them). The suggestion and case of 'speciesism', though not as techinical and compelte as the rest of the animal rights argument, is just as strong as the reasons against racism.

As for the economic viability, that's another practical issue. But given the efficiency of vegan diets (animals take many times their use as food, in feed, not to mention far more water than crops, and the harm on the environment which is just becoming publicised) then I would imagine society would flourish in the long run. And I'm no expert on the hunger issue, but given the inefficiency of animal products, isn't the figure of people who could be fed on them (or at least the recommended US diet with them in anyway) something like half the world. Food for the rich much? Even if we could solve the logistical problem of feeding the world, it's impossible without drastically cutting the idea that people need animal products.

Yes there are people who have lower mental capacities than others but to say they are no better than a cat or a dog is ridiculous regardless. I think if you read ca_gere's post you'll see what i mean.

There are much greater moral arguments regarding how we treat our own species that we could do with concentrating on before we start over indulging trivialities like whether other animals should be allowed the same status as humans.

I'm not sure you veggies would be able to lift your arms above your head with that leafy diets nevermind run me out of town

That's kind of the point - you're still seeing it as 'if a human has the mental abilities of a cow, there still better than a cow', whereas the point is that it's not about being better than. In the right to experience these abilities, they are equal. Whatever your personal preferences are, the technical points are the same. There's nothing wrong with prefering a human life, but it doesn't give reason to go 'right humans are more important, protect all humans, and do what we like with the rest'. Hence why we vegans also advocate human rights and stuff (well, most of us) it's about life and respect, not animals being better.

"It's all the fault of the christians!"

Doesn't your apparent obsession with 'morality' stem from religion?

Touche! Your right our wants to do 'what's right' probably originated from religion, but I think they stretch deeper than that. Either way I haven't ever met anyone who disagrees with the idea that doing 'what's right' is a good idea. However when it comes to taking the other ideas that Christianity gave us, the vast majority seem foundation-less. Especially this idea of humans as heaven granted rulers of the planet, especially as science suggests we were once animals without our current characteristics, so making us moral animals rather than heavenly suppported rulers. That's all I was getting at really.

Well I don't believe.

Infants have the capacity to be fully-fledged, functoning human beings. Eating them would be denying them the potential to live. I just don't believe that humans and cows should have the same rights.

Nobody has yet told me why we should feel obliged to not kill (other) animals, if we too are animals? They're fair game.

I don't agree with this. Because if a young or impaired human wasn't going to develop into a fully fledged , functioning human being, then I would still respect their right to live equally - if not more. Hence if you would also agree with this, then the idea that this development matters is rendered unimportant on this particular issue.

As for the obligation to eat other animals, what is this meant to mean? Yes we are animals, but animals with morality! If we had no capacity for morality, there would be no obligation to act morally! Being animal doesn't give us reason to ignore our morality, it simply gives us reason to respect the other animals that share the traits of suffering with us. We are similar to other animals in suffering and being alive, but different in forms of morality - so can't act in ways that are relevant on each issue.

And the 'eye for an eye' theory doesn't make sense in relation to animals anyway. 'They would kill me, so I can kill them'. That's fine if we disregard determinism and use it as a way to kill serial killers, but animals don't think morally - they can't be held to moral obligations as they don't have the capacity for morality. Either way the theory for animal rights seems to come out on top.

This is an odd debate to be involved in for me - I keep hearing all the same arguments that I used to use, it's a little eerie.

I personally have issues with you comparing mentally impaired people with animals as my sister is mentally impaired and she's a lot brighter than my dog and cat. You've slapped on the guilt trip by saying that anyone who does eat meat is immoral as well. I eat meat and i'm not an immoral person.

What, this is just made up. If you go back and check the posts, it is not all mentally impaired people who I am saying have the intellectual abilities of a cat or dog - just the one's that do, and there are people that do.

Well if you eat meat and don't think it is immoral that is what makes this discussion pointful, because the great moral arguments of our time seem to suggest otherwise. Hence why it's an interesting debate. Don't go getting all offended, it's just a debate, I'm not going to organise a mob to run you out of the city.

I don't even want to get into that with you but you've already had a go at meat eaters, mentally impaired people and now you're taking a pop at religious people as well!

What? I haven't had a pop at anyone, I've simply used analogous thought experiments, which if you think are insults to those involved, then you aren't getting them!

Except for the Christian thing...yeah you have a point there, my bad. But there are far bigger problems with Christianity which are reasons we don't include Christianity in our moral decisions anymore!

A mentally disabled person, "but for the grace of God", is still a human - You might as well ask why we don't eat children. Being mentally disabled or not fully compos mentis for any reason does not make you into a cow, pig, sheep, dog, carrot or whatever you choose to eat (or not).

If that makes me sound specieist then I really don't care (as it's not analogous in any form to sexism or racism, and is astoundingly degrading to those civil rights fights to claim so) - I'd rescue a human from a burning house that I didn't know over a sheep any day, although I would worry about one person being alone in a house with a sheep.

To be clear, I have no problem at all with people eating meat or not eating meat and respect anyone who decides they do not personally want to impart suffering on another animal - I just don't find any of the arguments why I should be guilted into changing my diet that convincing.

personally I wouldn't eat a mentally disabled person, not because of their social labels of being black or male, or of their physical labels of being human. I wouldn't eat them because I don't need to, and they have a right to live purely by virtue of being individually alive. That is how interactions take place (whether you kill the person yourself, or pay some one else to do it). So in the case of similar individuals who aren't human, the case is still the same and the exact same moral problem is present. You can't morally hide behind the labels of race or sex, so you shouldn't be able (in situations where the creature are mentally similar) to hide behind the labels of species - it doesn't make any logical sense.

This debate has got me thinking about some of the philosophical literature I have read on the subject. Especially on the sense of superiority we feel over other animals, and sense of complete uncomparability between us that we feel we want to attribute. This obviously comes from our development from a society which used to be Christian in base (and still probably is) and other such pre-evolutionary ideas.

A lot of arguments on here haven't just seeked to point out the moral capacity difference between humans and other animals, but has also clutched at other differences that we more than anything want to be there, or want to be relevant. Well evolution, i think, shows there are a lot of similarities between us and other animals, and the only significant difference is the ability to conceptualise, and the capacity for morality. However the ability to conceptualise doesn't give a being greater rights, and the capacty for morality is pretty worthless unless it is used to a reasoned conclusion (not ignoring the ideas of speciesism - ie, not attributing an individual lesser rights purely based on physical boudaries - regardless of whether they can protest it or not). And either way, neither allow us to believe we suffer more, in fact some would say quite the opposite.

I would just like to say, at my peril, that I think a lot of our emotion to reject humans and animals being 'basically' the same in terms of 'basic' rights, comes from a time of Christian moral values - the ideals of humans being a heaven sent shepherd for the planet. And, again I risk incurring somewhat of a heavenly revenge, but Christian ethics are mainly based on the desires of an arrogant mythical being - which is bollocks.

Oh God, not speciesism... Humanity cannot even conquer racism, let alone our bizarre, uneven attitudes to other species. We simply paper over it and call that civilisation.

We eat cows because we eat cows. We don't eat dogs because we don't eat dogs. Vegans eat vegetables because vegans eat vegetables. And when our paper-thin civilisation rips in half, we'll eat vegetables, cows, dogs, cats, people of varying intelligence and our own bodies from the inside out.

Haha the eternal optimist! I wouldn't like to be on the opposite side of you in a revolution.

It got touched on by hobo earlier, but having a number of different food sources is a plus. If future human's did theoretically adapt to live farm animal free, wouldn't they be in danger of starvation if something dramatic happened to the massive crop of soya beans that were keeping them alive?

Also still to be addressed: where is the moral line? Cows and sheep are cuddly, but what about fish and insects? Less deserving?

ooh practical problem, does this mean that you've accepted the moral issue is important?! No point worrying about practical application if not!

If something happened to the soya crops you would have a hell of a job feeding the animals we currently keep, and infact even a massive amount less due to the amount cows eat and the amount we need to feed ourselves. If something happens to our crops we're buggered on both ends - animal use and non-animal use.

Again, the moral line is a practical application point. The best judge would be science, and judging which animals have nervous systems complex enough to feel emotion (by our best reckoning). I mean cows, pigs, chickens, fish etc obviously come above the line, comfortably. As for insects, I haven't researched it to be honest. My philosophy on the matter is, if you can't be sure then be careful. We have no idea if most insects suffer in a way which is important, but it's not like we need to eat them so until we can be sure leave the fine young critters alone - don't go out of your way to stamp on them, and if you do see one in the street, there is nothing wrong sidestepping it just in case!

No, I'm obviously not talking about pidgeons getting angsty or pigs getting grouchy. I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible. Like what ca-gere says -

Oh, and where are all these 'recent studies' you keep referring to?

Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they? You are applying our human notion of 'life' to that of an animal. A pig is not a human with trotters. Why should I change my tastes? I don't think there is anything remotely morally wrong with eating animals. In that sense, it's not even a moral issue for me. Morals don't come into it. Why should we have some kind of obligation to not eat and kill animals? Again, if pigs were the dominant species, they'd have no problem with killing and eating me.

There is a massive contradiction in vegetarian argument - you would agree that we are all just animals, yeah? Then we should be able to eat anything we want. Just because we are capable of reason doesn't mean we should treat all other animals as equals. They aren't.

'I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible.'

If this provides reason to farm and eat cows, it justifies the same of any individual who has those same characteristics of unawaredness etc. And obviously that doesn't sit well with moral thought, hence why it isn't upheld as a point against animal rights. Well, it is on here, but not in the literature!

'Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they?'

Well it's fairly simple. I don't treat human beings I meet with respect because they are human, I treat them with respect because they possess certain characteristics which deserve it. Similarly if an alien race appeared who had similar characteristics, I would treeat them with respect too - another thought experiemtn which shows it isn't 'being human' that matters, but instead it is the characteristics that humans have that matter. Well obviously pigs don't have our intelligence, or awaredness, or whatever else you like in this area. But they are individuals who experience their own life (which is the important things about humans) and so by virtue of this deserve the respect that goes along with it. They don't have intelligence on our level, so we don;t need to give them a right to vote. or right to education etc, but they do live , experience life and can suffer - so why wouldn't they be equal in these areas?

I think the mistake you're making is taking the physical boudaries of species and suing it to determine moral decisions. Whereas, of course, rights aren't given on basis of physical boudaries, they are given by virtue of intellectual characteristics. Amnesty may have you believe that 'protect the human' is the point, but it is really 'protect the individuals ability to suffer' which is the important thing. It's not as catchy though.

Again, this doesn't tally with my experience. All the charities I've ever had dealings with have a policy of open-access publishing, where papers are submitted to journals that peer-review and publish research online and available for all. Admittedly, if your work was industry funded there would be clauses and caveats for what you can or can't publish, but for research funded by councils or charities there's no such clauses. Again, if this work was true and perfomed properly then journals would be tripping over themselves to publish it and the charity or council that funded it would be baying about it from up high.

Thank you for the offer of a shot of your DVD - It wouldn't satisfy me too much in terms of providing evidence that the study shows what is claimed, but it sounds like it would be an interesting watch

Yeah it is pretty interesting...will have to PM for your address or something. Either way be warned that it is a dvd made by a pro-vegetarian group, so ignore the first lecture (which is just propogandha and not health based at all!). The rest of it is good though, Jane Plant and Colin Campbell on there (he's always interesting I find).

I'd agree some animals do have emotions. Obviously not as complex as a human's but Elephants mourning a lost one, those australian fat lizards that mate for life, primates in general, etc... a certain level of emotion can be proven.

But, a cow in an abattoir is not contemplating his immediate death. If it's in a field, it doesn't matter if that field is part of a beef processing plant or part of a friendly no-death-involved old mcdonald farm, it has no concept of either and if it leads a happy existence munching grass and whatnot in plenty of open space, it'll be as happy as larry untill it gets a sudden bullet in its brain at which point it'll simply be dead.

Arguing that we shouldn't kill animals in order to eat them because they are beings on a level with humans and have the same frames of reference (i.e. the same notions of suffering, an idea of morality, etc) as we do is wrong in my opinion. I can understand that not everyone feels that way but I always will.

It's like that old philisophical concept that if a lion was suddenly able to speak english we still wouldn't understand it. It's frames of reference are so far removed from ours, itd be gobbledygook.

Well I wouild say it isn't really about whether they now they are going to die or not. It's just a simple philosophical thought experiment that's needed to tell us that. Ie, if you have one individual human who is at the same intellectual level as say a pig, it wouldn't be right to farm and then kill to eat him (even if it was shown to be healthy food), so that says something about our moral stance on the matter. That pig is just an individual, so if you can live without killing and eating him (like in the example if you can live without eating the mentally impaired individual) then you arguably should.

I wouldn't advocate we treat animals well/don't use them because they are the same as us, I would advocate we treat them well because we can, and they can feel it if not. If we don't need to eat them, there is little reason to, regardless of how much they feel suffering etc - as the point is that they do.

Cheers, I'd really appreciate a link. I wouldn't reckon there's much call for a conspiracy theory about suppression - There is a lot of data out there on diet and cancer risk, but nothing as profoundly striking as that. Diet is quite well researched, to be honest (we've got a whole institute in Aberdeen dedicated to it), and there are numerous credible and politically-independent scientific journals dedicated to peer-reviewed work on the subject.

Well no, but you have to remember that in America charities (especially the cancer charities) are run like businesses. There is very good dietary information, as you state, which involves cancer prevention - however they rarely will support these causes, instead working on the elusive cures. I would doubt our charities are run much better, especially from what I know of the british heart foundation anyway. As conspiracy based as it might sound, it is very difficult to get information out if there are interests that don't want it to.

Link wise, after having a brief look I could only suggest giving you a copy of the propogandha-promoted DVD with lecture on. Either that or buy/obtain the book in which she talks about it (this one I would imagine: www.JanePlant.com).