Animal Welfare

[Rob_86]

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.

[Le Stu]

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!

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.

[nullmouse]

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.

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[nullmouse]

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.

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!

[Rob_86]

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!

[nullmouse]

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!

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.

[Bigsby]

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

Oh, and "only a few things you can do with excretions" I refer you either to General De Gaulle's comments on the impossibility of governing France due to the quantities of cheese varietals, or Spinal Tap's Shit Sandwich.

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?

[Rob_86]

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.

[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.

[Shaki]

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.

Neil, how about a Morality sub forum?

[Rob_86]

Neil, how about a Morality sub forum?

Haha, that would totally get me actually

[Le Stu]

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 have a problem here. Who am I to believe? Vegans will tell me my dairy products are full of estrogen, blood and pus. Meatists (snigger) will tell me Soy is full of phytoestrogens and phytates. It just seems to me that the ideological propaganda war is completely warping the truth of the matter, and it's backed by the interests of agribusiness on both sides!

Also, there is a massive amount of focus on soy, but virtually nothing on the other legumes. Don't they contain genisteins too?

It gives me a massive headache.*

*Researching it, I mean. I tolerate both dairy and soy well.

[Old Gold]

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.

As with your apparent facts on 'dead flesh' being of barely notable nutritional value, I would question your sources.

Of course, both sides of the argument could be lying when it comes to their 'scientific facts'. Dairy producers want to keep their customers and vegans have their moral agenda. Both are filled with ridiculous propaganda.

[Old Gold]

I have a problem here. Who am I to believe? Vegans will tell me my dairy products are full of estrogen, blood and pus. Meatists (snigger) will tell me Soy is full of phytoestrogens and phytates. It just seems to me that the ideological propaganda war is completely warping the truth of the matter, and it's backed by the interests of agribusiness on both sides!

Also, there is a massive amount of focus on soy, but virtually nothing on the other legumes. Don't they contain genisteins too?

It gives me a massive headache.*

*Researching it, I mean. I tolerate both dairy and soy well.

Or alternatively, what he said. Too slow.

[Shaki]

I tolerate both dairy and soy well.

That's all you need to know, no?!

You feel ill, bloated, upset belly, lack of energy, headache, you fat?

No?

Canna be bad.

please note: I am not a qualified nutritionist

[Rob_86]

I have a problem here. Who am I to believe? Vegans will tell me my dairy products are full of estrogen, blood and pus. Meatists (snigger) will tell me Soy is full of phytoestrogens and phytates. It just seems to me that the ideological propaganda war is completely warping the truth of the matter, and it's backed by the interests of agribusiness on both sides!

Also, there is a massive amount of focus on soy, but virtually nothing on the other legumes. Don't they contain genisteins too?

It gives me a massive headache.*

*Researching it, I mean. I tolerate both dairy and soy well.

Well yeah, the truth is both vegans and carnists (I believe someone coined this phrase quite recently!) both survive to oldish ages generally (statsiticaly vegans a bit longer I think). The vegan propagandha is useful to counter-act the carnist propogandha (which is often more inherent in society), but neither side is a substitute for good science. At the end of the day it comes down to ethics, and in my years of readings/discussions and research, I have yet to come up with an argument which levels the one for animal rights.

[Le Stu]

That's all you need to know, no?!

You feel ill, bloated, upset belly, lack of energy, headache, you fat?

No?

Canna be bad.

please note: I am not a qualified nutritionist

By that I meant I don't get a dicky belly or other immediate adverse effects from drinking either soy or cow's milk.

[Hugh_Jazz]

This adequately sums up my feelings on the matter:

[Old Gold]

Well yeah, the truth is both vegans and carnists (I believe someone coined this phrase quite recently!) both survive to oldish ages generally (statsiticaly vegans a bit longer I think). The vegan propagandha is useful to counter-act the carnist propogandha (which is often more inherent in society), but neither side is a substitute for good science. At the end of the day it comes down to ethics, and in my years of readings/discussions and research, I have yet to come up with an argument which levels the one for animal rights.

Even if the statistic for longer life expectancy was independent and accurate (almost certainly not), vegans will probably statistically live longer as will anybody who examines carefully what they eat. The overall number of carnivores dying younger will always include the big mac gulping crowd, which not all meat eaters are party to.

[Rob_86]

This adequately sums up my feelings on the matter:

A fine example of propogandha! Well done!

[Shaki]

The overall number of carnivores dying younger will always include the big mac gulping crowd, which not all meat eaters are party to.

That's a different ethical discussion all together......

[Old Gold]

That's a different ethical discussion all together......

Secret sauce is immoral, no doubt about it.

[Rob_86]

Even if the statistic for longer life expectancy was independent and accurate (almost certainly not), vegans will probably statistically live longer as will anybody who examines carefully what they eat. The overall number of carnivores dying younger will always include the big mac gulping crowd, which not all meat eaters are party to.

I know, wasn't using this as a reason to go vegan was just saying that both diets aren't hugely different in terms of sustaining human health. The only big issue that I draw between the two is that of heart disease - that's the one thing that if all the ethical issues were somehow negated would keep me from eating animal products. There is cholesterol in all animal products, and a third of the country die from it. But more over no matter how much you eat, you're always gonna have some swimming about in your arteris, which is mank. And I mean how hard is it to get used to eating a different texture of food to avoid this? I mean I grew up on a farm eating bugger all but meat, and my only problem going vegan was the worry beforehand. Anyway, I feel the health issue takes this thread a bit far from it's original source doesn't it?