Animal Welfare

[Alkaline]

The situation leading to you being a carnivore is simply your existence within a meat-eating society.

Can you qualify that please?

Also, the questions i asked before (that you haven't answered) are relative to your arguement so if you'd be so kind as to provide me with an answer please?

[paranoid]

The situation leading to you being a carnivore is simply your existence within a meat-eating society. Thankfully we live prosperous, well-fed times where living can progress beyond an animalistic survival-of-the-fittest system. Meat-eating is not necessity, as expressed earlier.

Employing the 'survival of the fittest' term therefore doesn't cut it in the 21st century, and indeed, the 19th century either.

Sorry, I was wondering why I was suddenly a cannibal, but your comment about carnivores is just as far fetched.

[Swingin' Ryan]

o_O

So you stopped eating meat on moral grounds, but to ease the transition you only stopped eating meat that was reared specifically to be food but kept eating the meat that was ripped out of it's natural environment on an industrial scale?

The fact the cow was reared specifically to be eaten makes no difference, the cow is not aware of that fact, only that it is dying.

I basically considered it as drawing a line on a scale of what I was willing to eat. For example...most meat-eaters would not choose to eat a Gorilla (either because they are endangered or consider them to close to their own species, yet they would eat a cow). I just drew the line further down the scale.

Also continuing to eat fish in a kind of interim step towards full vegetarianism was one of the things that made giving up chicken/beef etc easier and therefore meant I still don't eat meat today.

[Rob_86]

It's interesting the 'mentally disabled - higher animal argument' has come up. Of course all humans and animals are individuals, and our moral arguments should always be based on this fact. I don't react to someone based on their physical attributes, I react based on who they are/what they are capable of. Being a member of the 'Cow' species is not a reason to kill and eat someone if you don't need to, no matter how long your ancestors have been doing so.

Looking at animals as individuals, which of course they are, the mentally disabled analogy is very relevant. If we wouldn't farm and eat individual humans who have the same intellectual qualities of a pig, but would do so to a pig, then there need's to be a reason to justify this. And all of them (in my experience) involve some sort of discrimination based on physical/ intelligence based factors. And it should be painfully obvious to all of us that that sort of discrimination has never been right in our views before, so doesn't really make sense as a view to justify something else now.

The only relevant characteristic, if you are considering an activity that would make a creature suffer or die, would be it's ability to suffer or die - anything else is arbitrary. On the same grounds that skin colour is arbitrary in a right to live, or sex is arbitrary in a right to freedom. An animal doesn't have an ability or intellect to vote, so shouldn't be granted the right, but in life or suffering it's very much equal.

[paranoid]

The fact the cow was reared specifically to be eaten makes no difference, the cow is not aware of that fact, only that it is dying.

How do you know the cow is aware it is dying? They are stunned/knocked unconscious before they are killed, so even if they have a complex enough cognitive function, they are unlikely to think they are away to die when they are queued up in the slaughterhouse. Once they are knocked out, they are unaware of what is going to happen to them.

[KimyReizeger]

Can you qualify that please?

Also, the questions i asked before (that you haven't answered) are relative to your arguement so if you'd be so kind as to provide me with an answer please?

Shaki said he would he eat dog if he lived in a society that did so. I'm therefore suggesting he justifies his actions on the basis of whether or not his peers and parents perform likewise. Hence, being a meat-eater is based on culture and not necessity, and certainly not reasoned, objective consideration.

If you're referring to the question 'am I nudist', then the answer is no. I'm looking forward to seeing how you'll skewer this into some frame of relevance.

[paranoid]

If you're referring to the question 'am I nudist', then the answer is no. I'm looking forward to seeing how you'll skewer this into some frame of relevance.

Probably using a logic similar to yours when I was turned into a cannibal. Can I just go back to eating cows?

[KimyReizeger]

Probably using a logic similar to yours when I was turned into a cannibal. ?

What are you on about?

[paranoid]

What are you on about?

You were harping on about me eating mentally ill people as if I was in the habit of snacking on fellow humans.

I think it was a case of -

[Chris]

The fact the cow was reared specifically to be eaten makes no difference, the cow is not aware of that fact, only that it is dying.

Of course it makes a difference. A cow gets stunned and killed quickly after a short life in a field with other cows.

A fish gets hauled by a net over a number of hours while it was happily minding it's own business in the sea, then it gets lifted up with hundreds of other fish and dumped in the hold of a boat to suffocate before hitting the conveyor belt to be gutted.

If it came to a moral choice it would be eating fish that I'd give up.

[Alkaline]

If you're referring to the question 'am I nudist', then the answer is no. I'm looking forward to seeing how you'll skewer this into some frame of relevance.

You're not required to wear clothes at all to survive (our bodies are actually more sturdy than you would think despite the vast amount of coddling that they are afforded these days) . You only do so because its been decided through generations that it is more acceptable to do so than to let it all hang out, so to speak, . Wearing clothes is based more on culture than necessity. In our current environements its not an absolute necessity for us to wear clothing indoors as most places are/could be heated enough for us to live comfortably without them. Outdoors, maybe, but as i said the human body is a lot stronger than people give it credit for.

Yes, our bodies have evolved around our climate but they would still do if put under the same natural stresses today. Humans would probably relocate to warmer climates if there was no clothing but within a couple of generations we would no doubt become more hardy to the climates that we lived in anyway, those unable to adapt would naturally die.

[paranoid]

You're not required to wear clothes at all to survive (our bodies are actually more sturdy than you would think despite the vast amount of coddling that they are afforded these days) . You only do so because its been decided through generations that it is more acceptable to do so than to let it all hang out, so to speak, . Wearing clothes is based more on culture than necessity. In our current environements its not an absolute necessity for us to wear clothing indoors as most places are/could be heated enough for us to live comfortably without them. Outdoors, maybe, but as i said the human body is a lot stronger than people give it credit for.

Yes, our bodies have evolved around our climate but they would still do if put under the same natural stresses today. Humans would probably relocate to warmer climates if there was no clothing but within a couple of generations we would no doubt become more hardy to the climates that we lived in anyway, those unable to adapt would naturally die.

But you can't say "survival of the fittest", Wikipedia says so.

[Swingin' Ryan]

How do you know the cow is aware it is dying? They are stunned/knocked unconscious before they are killed, so even if they have a complex enough cognitive function, they are unlikely to think they are away to die when they are queued up in the slaughterhouse. Once they are knocked out, they are unaware of what is going to happen to them.

The stunning does not always work, I've seen a number of bits of footage where it's had to be done two or three times by which point the cows are struggling. I've also seen cows struggle away from the bolt gun before it's even been placed on their head.

Here's mad bastard Temple Grandin explaining the slaughter process explaining her self-designed 'slaughter conveyor-belt'.

[Le Stu]

No talk of nutrition, which I find odd as this is the number one reason I eat meat. Protein is lacking in a strictly vegan diet, as vegetables do not offer the range or level of amino acids that meat does. Whether an optimal or at least sustainable amount of protein can be obtained from a varied yet strictly herbivorous diet is debatable. Some people may fare better than others. Vegan diets are also devoid of vitamin B12 and long chain omega-3 fatty acids but these can both be supplemented.

[paranoid]

The stunning does not always work, I've seen a number of bits of footage where it's had to be done two or three times by which point the cows are struggling. I've also seen cows struggle away from the bolt gun before it's even been placed on their head.

There's no such thing as 'humane slaughter' regardless of how many regulations are set in place.

On the flip side, I've seen heaps of cows and pigs slaughtered, and they were totally clueless that they were away to die. Head in a bucket of food and "pop", lights out.

Two sides to every story, no it doesn't always work out, but you are focussing on the bad and the minority to hammer home your point. What about the thousands of cattle that are slaughtered with no suffering what so ever? If there was an opposite group to PETA, some lot who throw buckets of chickpeas at veggies, they could make a very convincing video that not only do cattle feel bugger all at the time of slaughter, but also that the beefy bastards get what is coming to them.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

You're not required to wear clothes at all to survive (our bodies are actually more sturdy than you would think despite the vast amount of coddling that they are afforded these days) . You only do so because its been decided through generations that it is more acceptable to do so than to let it all hang out, so to speak, . Wearing clothes is based more on culture than necessity. In our current environements its not an absolute necessity for us to wear clothing indoors as most places are/could be heated enough for us to live comfortably without them. Outdoors, maybe, but as i said the human body is a lot stronger than people give it credit for.

Yes, our bodies have evolved around our climate but they would still do if put under the same natural stresses today. Humans would probably relocate to warmer climates if there was no clothing but within a couple of generations we would no doubt become more hardy to the climates that we lived in anyway, those unable to adapt would naturally die.

Honestly. What the fuck.

What moral implications are you trying to expose here? What has nudism got to do with the suffering of other beings? What in Christs name are you on about?

[Alkaline]

Honestly. What the fuck.

What moral implications are you trying to expose here? What has nudism got to do with the suffering of other beings? What in Christs name are you on about?

A large percentage of our clothing is not ethically made. A large percentage of our clothing is made using animal/natural biproducts. A large percentage of the clothes we produce have a negative impact on our environment and those who occupy it, animals included. Need a moral, have a look there...

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

No talk of nutrition, which I find odd as this is the number one reason I eat meat. Protein is lacking in a strictly vegan diet, as vegetables do not offer the range or level of amino acids that meat does. Whether an optimal or at least sustainable amount of protein can be obtained from a varied yet strictly herbivorous diet is debatable. Some people may fare better than others. Vegan diets are also devoid of vitamin B12 and long chain omega-3 fatty acids but these can both be supplemented.

Well we are talking about morals, not nutrition.

If slavery was proven to be better for our well being and without a doubt made us healthier people, would you use that as a reason to debate the morality of slavery?

No, you wouldn't because it has nothing to do with the moral debate.

[Bletheringvegan]

No talk of nutrition, which I find odd as this is the number one reason I eat meat. Protein is lacking in a strictly vegan diet, as vegetables do not offer the range or level of amino acids that meat does. Whether an optimal or at least sustainable amount of protein can be obtained from a varied yet strictly herbivorous diet is debatable. Some people may fare better than others. Vegan diets are also devoid of vitamin B12 and long chain omega-3 fatty acids but these can both be supplemented.

Hey, this is my first post. I'd just like to clear some stuff up about vegan nutrition. It is a widely known fact, and a fact that all major dietetic associations, that a vegan diet is suitable for any stage in life. You are right that the only one we have to worry about is B12, but this can be supplemented, and is a better source than from animal flesh anyway because it is guaranteed. Omega-3 occurs in flax seeds and some leafy greens, although flax seeds are the best source. Fish get their omega 3 from eating sea algae, so it makes sense to get omega 3 from a plant source, not to mention the fact that our waters are so polluted that eating fish is probably as damaging to your health as it is good for your health. You assesment of protein is an outdated notion from the 1970's. Protein should be the least of anyones worries, just eat a varied diet and you will get enough. People who eat animal flesh and reproductive excretions should be more worried about getting too much protein!

There is an excellent book on vegan nutrition by Vesanto Melina called "Becoming Vegan" in case anyone is intersted, which looks doubtful considering the kind of responses on this thread.

I think most of us on here would agree with this statement: It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. This is what the entire flawed animal welfare organisations are based on. So with that here's a hypoethetical:

Say you are walking down the street one day and you come across a man who is blow torching a dog. You stop, horrified, and ask him why he is torturing the poor dog. His reply: "Because I enjoy doing it!". No other reason but his enjoyment is why the dog is suffering. Am I right in saying you would find his actions morally indefensible? In fact you would probably think, like the majority of society, that he should be locked up or at least sent for psychiatric help. So why would you be horrified by this? If you have a companion animal, say a dog, you are aware that he or she has feelings, needs, mood swings, a desire for love and most of all the capacity to feel pain. If you stand on your dogs tail by accident, he or she will yelp in agony and probably run away to avoid further pain.

So how is a cow, a pig or a chicken any different? We have created groups of animals that have nothing to do with intelligence: one group is for eating, the other is for loving. Yet it has been shown that humans don't NEED any animal products to live, in fact they can live even better without animal products. So, what is the reason for your continued consumption of animals?

[Le Stu]

Well we are talking about morals, not nutrition.

If slavery was proven to be better for our well being and without a doubt made us healthier people, would you use that as a reason to debate the morality of slavery?

No, you wouldn't because it has nothing to do with the moral debate.

It has everything to do with the moral debate. The moral debate has no basis, if we have no real choice but to consume meat in order to maintain our health, and that itself is debatable.

[paranoid]

Rep comment from TheTickingTime-Bomb

You failed to grasp any of his arguments.

For this post -

I was referring to the thread as a whole. One person tells us animals are equal, another that we are superior.

What are the circumstances that have led to me turning carnivore?!? Have the veg-nazis released all of the cows to frolic in the wild, or is there some major disaster? If it is the latter, and I'll warn you, you won't like this, then survival of the fittest kicks in, so the old, young and weak are top of the menu.

If it was a toss-up between going to a butcher to buy steak, or down to Cornhill to bump off a patient and stick them on a BBQ, then obviously the butcher would get my custom.

Can we go back to reality now please, I don't like being a cannibal while there are tasty cows all over the place...

Of course I can't grasp his argument, he has turned a thread about eating cows into a fantasy-land romp about people eating each other!

[Alkaline]

Say you are walking down the street one day and you come across a man who is blow torching a dog. You stop, horrified, and ask him why he is torturing the poor dog. His reply: "Because I enjoy doing it!". No other reason but his enjoyment is why the dog is suffering. Am I right in saying you would find his actions morally indefensible? In fact you would probably think, like the majority of society, that he should be locked up or at least sent for psychiatric help. So why would you be horrified by this? If you have a companion animal, say a dog, you are aware that he or she has feelings, needs, mood swings, a desire for love and most of all the capacity to feel pain. If you stand on your dogs tail by accident, he or she will yelp in agony and probably run away to avoid further pain.

So how is a cow, a pig or a chicken any different? We have created groups of animals that have nothing to do with intelligence: one group is for eating, the other is for loving. Yet it has been shown that humans don't NEED any animal products to live, in fact they can live even better without animal products. So, what is the reason for your continued consumption of animals?

Interesting read. Thing is though, i'd wager most of the people killing animals for human consumption aren't doing it because they "enjoy doing it". They're more than likely doing it to put food on their families tables (be it vegetables or meat as they both cost money). The animals aren't being brutally tortured with blow torches they are being killed in the most humane way possible. If anyone can find an efficient and cost effective way of killing animals that is also non-suffering then that would be great and there have been substantial movements on the subject over the past 50 years.

I'd agree, it's not 100% necessary for humans to consume animal products to survive but i take issue with a statement that says we can live better without animal products as there is no quantifiable evidence to back up that claim.

[paranoid]

Yet it has been shown that humans don't NEED any animal products to live, in fact they can live even better without animal products. So, what is the reason for your continued consumption of animals?

WTF?!? Where has it been shown? Why has their been a glut of diet supplements to stop pasty vegans from falling over in the street if they are doing "better" without meat?

o_O

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

A large percentage of our clothing is not ethically made. A large percentage of our clothing is made using animal/natural biproducts. A large percentage of the clothes we produce have a negative impact on our environment and those who occupy it, animals included. Need a moral, have a look there...

Who doesn't know about this? Suggesting that you have to be a nudist to be ethical and not simply buy ethically made (or recycled, second-hand etc) clothes makes me cringe for you, especially after your lengthy inference both to this utterly derailed topic and also to your previous "Do you smoke?" failure of a point.

[paranoid]

If anyone can find an efficient and cost effective way of killing animals that is also non-suffering then that would be great and there have been substantial movements on the subject over the past 50 years.

Someone, I think it was Michael Portillo, did a programme on the death penalty, and he found that the best way to humanely kill something is to use a vaccum (not a Hoover, hypoxia) as the subject becomes euphoric just before death. That is the most humane, but least efficient way to do it.