Animal Welfare

[KimyReizeger]

'I desire pain to stop and in doing so I satisfy my instinct.'

I mean, is there any other way to write that?

[KimyReizeger]

Who's suggesting that pain doesn't exist in animals? You've bounded off in a world of your own there mate.

HeinzHines Pg32

We cannot communicate with cows, for all we know, they love being in pain. Stating what you think a cow may or may not feel is irrelevant because no one can truly know either way what they think.

[Alkaline]

'I desire pain to stop and in doing so I satisfy my instinct.'

I mean, is there any other way to write that?

But that's an obvious point as you're not going to not want pain to stop, it's unnatural to want pain to continue. It's in no way the same as a legitimate desire.

That's like saying "I desire to keep breathing and in doing so i satisfy my instinct." It's a completely pointless point.

[Skubbs]

Alkaline is questioning who said pain doesnt exist, the other member (HeinzHines) pointed out cows might enjoy being in pain... two different things

[Alkaline]

HeinzHines Pg32

One person being slightly obtuse about the concept of our knowledge of a cows perception (though he does raise a point worth discussing) doesn't mean everyone on here that eats meat thinks the same.

[KimyReizeger]

So can you tell me why a cow's desire to want pain to cease is not relevant?

[paranoid]

So can you tell me why a cow's desire to want pain to cease is not relevant?

Because they taste good.....

[Rob_86]

I seriously doubt Jane Plant was in any way associated with the study you mention - She is a scientist - she's a geologist, albeit a geologist who had cancer and changed her diet, but she's not a clinical epidemiologist. Also, a claim that a change in diet alone could cause remission of 80% of terminal breast cancers also sends my alarm bells ringing. I did some digging on PubMed (an indexed database of published, peer-reviewed medical journals) and couldn't find anything to corroborate this.

However, diet is related to cancer risk, so it is possible that you are referring to a relationship between prevention of cancer and diet, rather than a cure. Even so, claims that a vegan diet alone could prevent 80% of breast cancer would be met with a lot of scepticism unless the study was tighter than a duck's arse in terms of design. That diet and physical exercise are associated with a decreased risk of developing cancer and other diseases is well known, but this is not an exclusive property of vegan diets: Properly planned, balanced diets containing meat and dairy is perfectly fine. Again, we are privilaged (or fucked as a nation, depending on your view point) to have easy access to supplements and any foodstuff we care for; the majority of the world is not in such a position.

I watched a lecture she did on it (same time as I saw a lecture from the great Colin Campbell actually)- it's not about food curing the problem of the cancer, it's about taking away the promoters which help the cancer to grow in the first place. If the conditions aren't there for it, most cancers won't be able to grow. Anywho, if you look up her books on the matter (I didn't think she was ever a geologist...but I don't know much about her as a person) the science behind it as well as the correlationals are there.

I wouldn't pretend that any correlational study on cancer was perfect, all correlational studies have the same flaws. However some are stronger than others (80% of terminal patients recovering is pretty strong), and it's the sciene thats behind it that got me. All be it science is flawed too sometimes in medical issues...I prefer ethics...

[Rob_86]

This topic has got a little bit of the topic of animal welfare, and is getting very muddled in the last couple of pages. Would someone not be better starting a thread on 'the ethics of eating meat' or on animal rights or something? Would be much easier to discuss this in the correct context, especially as the theory of animal rights is very different to the theory of animal welfare.

[paranoid]

This topic has got a little bit of the topic of animal welfare, and is getting very muddled in the last couple of pages. Would someone not be better starting a thread on 'the ethics of eating meat' or on animal rights or something? Would be much easier to discuss this in the correct context, especially as the theory of animal rights is very different to the theory of animal welfare.

A few of us meat eating heathens have been trying to say things aren't relevant and the thread has been wandering. Would be a fair few pages back now.

[Fluff]

If the conditions aren't there for it, most cancers won't be able to grow.

So you're saying if I have the misfortune to develop cancer I should stop eating and it'll all be fine? The cancerous cells will stop forming due to me missing my ham sandwich at lunch?

Proof please....

Or are you saying that meat is causing cancer? If this is the case then why does the government spend so much on health care when a simple outlawing of all things meaty would save the NHS millions every year?

Again, proof please......

[Stichman]

A lot of people seem to be stumbling on the idea that we consider ourselves as both superior to animals, yet also as equals (such as when they've been referred to as 'people'). Well, you probably consider yourself as superior mentally to a mentally disabled person. However, certainly mentally-disabled people shouldn't have their right to not be interfered with, abused and subjected to suffering reduced on the basis of their disability.

That a cow or disabled person is not aware of these complex philosophical arguments does not give you the right to subject said being to pain.

I still don't get this argument. A disabled person is a person. A cow is not a person.

[Rob_86]

So you're saying if I have the misfortune to develop cancer I should stop eating and it'll all be fine? The cancerous cells will stop forming due to me missing my ham sandwich at lunch?

Proof please....

Or are you saying that meat is causing cancer? If this is the case then why does the government spend so much on health care when a simple outlawing of all things meaty would save the NHS millions every year?

Again, proof please......

Well, sort of yes. There are kinds of products which do 'cause' cancer in a sense. Cigarettes are strongly linked to lung cancer, beef is linked to colon cancer, and now dairy is starting to be linked to breast/prostate cancer.

And yeah 'outlawing' meat would save a lot of money in the NHS due to heart disease etc (the UKs biggest killer) but a lot of the economy relies on the meat industry, and the short term downturn would look bad on the current government - i would imagine.

[Rob_86]

A few of us meat eating heathens have been trying to say things aren't relevant and the thread has been wandering. Would be a fair few pages back now.

True. It is an interesting argument and sort of related, but would just be easier to follow if it was in a dedicated thread that's all. Not brave enought to start it on my own, swimming against the tide of norms and all that

[Rob_86]

I still don't get this argument. A disabled person is a person. A cow is not a person.

No but some disabled persons have intellect on the level of cows, hence showing that it isn't a cows mental processes which allow it to be farmed etc. It is an argument used to show that we are in a sense 'discriminating' against some creatures because of physical differences. Few allow the fact that a cow lives a sentient and consious life to penetrate their moral views - and this is a decent analogy to show it.

[Alkaline]

So can you tell me why a cow's desire to want pain to cease is not relevant?

It's not desire it's natural instinct.

[Alkaline]

Well, sort of yes. There are kinds of products which do 'cause' cancer in a sense. Cigarettes are strongly linked to lung cancer, beef is linked to colon cancer, and now dairy is starting to be linked to breast/prostate cancer.

And yeah 'outlawing' meat would save a lot of money in the NHS due to heart disease etc (the UKs biggest killer) but a lot of the economy relies on the meat industry, and the short term downturn would look bad on the current government - i would imagine.

Please don't mention cigarettes in this argument as it undermines Kimy Reizieer's basis for his belief system.

[nullmouse]

I watched a lecture she did on it (same time as I saw a lecture from the great Colin Campbell actually)- it's not about food curing the problem of the cancer, it's about taking away the promoters which help the cancer to grow in the first place. If the conditions aren't there for it, most cancers won't be able to grow. Anywho, if you look up her books on the matter (I didn't think she was ever a geologist...but I don't know much about her as a person) the science behind it as well as the correlationals are there.

I wouldn't pretend that any correlational study on cancer was perfect, all correlational studies have the same flaws. However some are stronger than others (80% of terminal patients recovering is pretty strong), and it's the sciene thats behind it that got me. All be it science is flawed too sometimes in medical issues...I prefer ethics...

She is a geologist, a geochemist to be precise, and it's that she's a professor of.

Seriously, this study you're quoting I can't find any evidence of; 80% of terminal patients would be very strong indeed, and would be shouted from the rooftops by researchers world-wide. Just to be clear, prevention of cancer is one thing, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish from causing regression of an existing cancer: I guess I was looking for clarification if you were 100% sure that was the claim that was being made.

I like science, but the veracity of claims are often left unquestioned. Every study has limitations, and one study should not be taken in isolation - it should be viewed in the wider context of accepted, reviewed data. Ethics is much easier to discuss without needing to rely on critical appraisal of evidence.

[Stichman]

We are at the top of the food chain; we can eat whatever we want to eat. For me, there is absolutely no question of morality because we are infinitely superior to other animals. They do not have complex emotions, they are not aware that they are going to be killed and eaten for food. Thus, breeding them for food is not cruel. Nor is it immoral. Indeed, cattle live a more comfortable existence than they ever would in the wild.

Of course I do not agree with animal cruelty or causing animals to suffer for no reason. However, I have no problem with eating meat because I think we have the right to eat whatever we want. If pigs could kill and eat me then they would, without a second thought.

For me, the big mistake in vegan/vegetarian logic is the application of human morality to animals. Animals are not humans, and the rights we grant to each should be very different. Animals are less important than humans. It makes me sick to the stomach when people donate millions of pounds to charities to help re-house cats or provide care for hamsters, when millions of human beings are suffering and dying every single day.

[Fluff]

No but some disabled persons have intellect on the level of cows

Am I the only one that finds this rather offensive?

[Rob_86]

It's not desire it's natural instinct.

I can't get why this argument is still ongoing. Realistically speaking, there is no way anyone has ever proved anything a human does isn't instinctive on some level. We like to think our lives are more important etc, but at the end of the day it's all to fulfill our base desires or 'instincts', so why does it matter that we try to do so in a cleverer ways than cows? If aliens appeared who could pursue their desires in a cleverer ways than us, should they be allowed to use us? Surely they would be implored to morally respect our ability to suffer, regardless of our intelligence in seeking our goals.

[Fluff]

We are at the top of the food chain; we can eat whatever we want to eat. For me, there is absolutely no question of morality because we are infinitely superior to other animals. They do not have complex emotions, they are not aware that they are going to be killed and eaten for food. Thus, breeding them for food is not cruel. Nor is it immoral. Indeed, cattle live a more comfortable existence than they ever would in the wild.

Of course I do not agree with animal cruelty or causing animals to suffer for no reason. However, I have no problem with eating meat because I think we have the right to eat whatever we want. If pigs could kill and eat me then they would, without a second thought.

For me, the big mistake in vegan/vegetarian logic is the application of human morality to animals. Animals are not humans, and the rights we grant to each should be very different. Animals are less important than humans. It makes me sick to the stomach when people donate millions of pounds to charities to help re-house cats or provide care for hamsters, when millions of human beings are suffering and dying every single day.

Spot on

[paranoid]

If pigs could kill and eat me then they would, without a second thought.

They could and they would. Pigs can be vicious, and they think nothing of snacking on hoominz. Snatch isn't total fiction....

[paranoid]

I can't get why this argument is still ongoing. Realistically speaking, there is no way anyone has ever proved anything a human does isn't instinctive on some level.

You are telling me that Sky+ exists because of natural instinct? Is that instinct "oh fuck, hope I don't miss X Factor"?

o_O

[Rob_86]

She is a geologist, a geochemist to be precise, and it's that she's a professor of.

Seriously, this study you're quoting I can't find any evidence of; 80% of terminal patients would be very strong indeed, and would be shouted from the rooftops by researchers world-wide. Just to be clear, prevention of cancer is one thing, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish from causing regression of an existing cancer: I guess I was looking for clarification if you were 100% sure that was the claim that was being made.

I like science, but the veracity of claims are often left unquestioned. Every study has limitations, and one study should not be taken in isolation - it should be viewed in the wider context of accepted, reviewed data. Ethics is much easier to discuss without needing to rely on critical appraisal of evidence.

Oh yeah the claim was definetely made. I don't know where you would find it other than the elcture I saw, will have a look when I get a minute and try find you a link.

As to why it isn't shouted from the rooftops (if true) I would hesitantly bring back the fact that there were for many years a lot of truths involving smoking and cancer risk that were witheld through various different methods. Add to this factors like the low numbers there are researching it etc, it's not hard for their to be sicentific truths these days that aren't well known, especially on things like cancer when there are new stories in the paper everyday claiming something or other - everyone takes it with a pinch of salt.