Animal Welfare

[Bletheringvegan]

Oh and also someone said that we should sort out humanity before we worry about animals. Why can't we do both? Most animal rights activists I know are also active in human related causes too.

[nullmouse]

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.

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.

[nullmouse]

I think someone said that you can't compare racism, sexism and homophobia to speciesism, I'd disagree with this. Although the contexts are different, the process of 'othering' is essentially the same.

I'd disagree quite strongly with this. 'Othering' on sex and race is based nothing more on prejudice and hate - Speciesism is based on there being clear and obvious differences between us and cows, chickens, cats, dogs, carrots etc. To say they are analogous does, to me, belittle the stupidity of racism and sexism and serves no use other than to shame by association.

[Bletheringvegan]

I'd disagree quite strongly with this. 'Othering' on sex and race is based nothing more on prejudice and hate - Speciesism is based on there being clear and obvious differences between us and cows, chickens, cats, dogs, carrots etc. To say they are analogous does, to me, belittle the stupidity of racism and sexism and serves no use other than to shame by association.

Racism and sexism are based on prejudice and hate because of what? Because of a difference in skin colour/nationality or a difference in gender. I fail to see how this 'othering' is different than the 'othering' based on species.

And for the record it is not my goal to belittle the stupidity of racism and sexism. My veganism stems from a general rejection of all oppressions and hierarchies, so I put as much weight on opposing racism, sexism and homophonia as I do on speciesism.

[ca_gere]

Racism and sexism are based on prejudice and hate because of what? Because of a difference in skin colour/nationality or a difference in gender. I fail to see how this 'othering' is different than the 'othering' based on species.

And for the record it is not my goal to belittle the stupidity of racism and sexism. My veganism stems from a general rejection of all oppressions and hierarchies, so I put as much weight on opposing racism, sexism and homophonia as I do on speciesism.

You are driving down the road and you spot a person and a dog lying in the road after being hit by a car. Which one do you tend to first?... Bearing in mind the person is screaming for help whereas the dog is lying motionless and silent. The person? speciesist! The dog? insane!

[Bletheringvegan]

You are driving down the road and you spot a person and a dog lying in the road after being hit by a car. Which one do you tend to first?... Bearing in mind the person is screaming for help whereas the dog is lying motionless and silent. The person? speciesist! The dog? insane!

This is an unfair hypoethetical. Moral intuition would tell me to tend to the human first and I don't see how this would make me a speciesist. I am concerned with the "unecessary" suffering of animals, but if a situation like this actually did occur of course I would tend to the human first. Question for you: What if the human was the countries worst peodophile and the dog was a member of your family? See, unfair hypothetical.

[nullmouse]

Racism and sexism are based on prejudice and hate because of what? Because of a difference in skin colour/nationality or a difference in gender. I fail to see how this 'othering' is different than the 'othering' based on species.

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.

[nullmouse]

Moral intuition would tell me to tend to the human first and I don't see how this would make me a speciesist.

We're all just a little bit speciesist. But it's okay, it's just like being a bit racist or sexist.

[ca_gere]

This is an unfair hypoethetical. Moral intuition would tell me to tend to the human first and I don't see how this would make me a speciesist. I am concerned with the "unecessary" suffering of animals, but if a situation like this actually did occur of course I would tend to the human first. Question for you: What if the human was the countries worst peodophile and the dog was a member of your family? See, unfair hypothetical.

It's a fair hypothetical in that it illustrates that we naturally place Humans above animals. I would still tend to the person over the dog in any case. Even if it was only to take pleasure in a peado's suffering, which I'm not sure I would, i'm naturally more immediately affected by the death of a human over the death of an animal. Obviously if my pet dog got killed I'd be gutted but there's no way on earth I'd run to it before running to the human, any human.

The debate is not concerned with unnecessary suffering, it's concerned with killing. We are all in agreement that animals should not suffer. People are disagreeing over whether we should be able to kill them for consumption.

[Afro Droid]

Racism and sexism are based on prejudice and hate because of what? Because of a difference in skin colour/nationality or a difference in gender. I fail to see how this 'othering' is different than the 'othering' based on species.

You're mental.

Never trust a hippy....

o_O

[ca_gere]

This thread has taken some odd turns like.

anyway, I'm off...I'm away out for a battered 'tard supper and a bottle of Tizer.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

I was going to read this thread, but due to the size of it, fuck that.

I do think that as the dominant species on the planet, it morally behooves us to be thoughtful of animal distress, and to try to minimise it where possible. BUT

a) The rights of humans before the rights of animals-absolutely

b) The sacrifice of animals to improve human conditions- agree

c) The Eating of animals- Of course, we are evolutionary omnivores that find it nigh impossible to get proper nutrition without animals.

d) Animal sentience, the more self-aware an animal is, the more rights it has. This is anthrocentric in the extreme, but what do you expect from a human.

e) If every human on the planet became Vegan tomorrow, the first thing we would have to do is destroy all grazing animals, as we would sure as hell need every milimetre of arable land going. Square that circle St.Crustopher.

Or in a nutshell; Treat em nicer, Eat em Nicer.

[Monster Zero]

I'm not sure about what the mentalists define as an infant to the point that they have the mental capacity of a cow, but my 2.5 year old son to me is an infant and he's smart. Far smarter than I ever realised a kid that young could be. Same goes for various other children of that age that I am in contact with.

So bang goes yet another of the ridiculous analogies the veggies are trying to justify their argument by.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

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.

[Le Stu]

The question of variety is absurd, there's only a few types of flesh and only a few things you can do with reproductive excretions, yet there is a plethora of different vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains and whatever else we vegans eat.

Sorry to cherry pick the more ridiculous of your comments, and this is Scotland so I can't rule out the possibility that I'm wrong, but there's a pretty good chance that most of us are familiar with and consume the odd vegetable.

Further more, I don't understand why you think there's only a few types of flesh. If you want Kangaroo, you can get it. In fact, it's probably easier to find than a fucking decent avocado in this land.

[Le Stu]

You're mental.

Never trust a hippy....

o_O

I used to have that Zenith pin.

[Zapatista]

WOW, how good am I at starting threads! ha ha

Tomas

[Guest Hobo]

A womans wheeling her quadraplegic husband out of the hospital is talking to the doctor

She says : I need some meat

------------

2 kids battering the fuck outta an afro man with a squash, when the mans half dead one of the kids utters the impossible: i love vegetables, especially brocolli

[Rob_86]

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.

[Rob_86]

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.

[nullmouse]

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.

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

[Rob_86]

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!

[Rob_86]

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.

[nullmouse]

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 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.

[nullmouse]

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.

Every man, animal and plant for itself? We've got a bit of a head-start on that one