Ethical Treatment of Animals in Meat Industry

[Sulkdodds]

Nuri, before I respond to your fantastic exercise in point-missing, do you think in future you could make new responses as new posts and not edit your old ones? That way people know that new content has been added to the thread and it's far less confusing for everyone.

We mentioned militant vegetarianism because that has been a strong motivator behind the majority of posts in this thread.

How? Can you point them out? Only VictimOfScience has made a sustained argument for vegetarianism; Stern might have spat at people a bit as he often does, but VirusType hasn't been much of a douchebag to anyone. Other frequent posters include Solaris (who eats meat), Eejit (who is arguing about science, and eats meat), Raziaar (who eats meat), Saturos (who eats meat), SmwScott (who eats meat), you (who eats meat), and me (who eats meat).

Even if this thread was more savagely 'militant', you're not only attacking a militant position but attacking the way people occupy it in society. That is to say you think they are jerks about it. Problem is, the thread is called Ethical Treatment of Animals in Meat Industry. It's not discussion in which you can expect people to keep quiet about their opinions.

Your own personal experience = proof that militant vegetarianism/veganism doesn't exist...if we went with your logic I could claim that animals don't actually die because I don't see it happen hence there is no moral basis for vegetarianism/veganism but I would 1) be incredibly retarded and 2) most importantly, wrong.

This point would be more than merely comical if you guys had provided any more evidence for the prevalence of "vegan hipster douchebags" than your own experience. As it is: you and Scott say you meet these people all the time. I say that I never do and nobody I know does either. At the very least we're on the same level. Got any specific stories to tell? Were you in McDonald's and someone came up to you and spat in your face? Somehow I can't quite see it.

Even if they had, it would (once again), be irrelevant. This is a discussion about the ethics of meat production. Ethics. Animal rights. Animal welfare. Not 'the behaviour of douchebags in society'. Not 'vegetarianism: the social phenomenon'. Not 'vegetarians! whats up with them, eh??' ETHICS. MEAT. IS IT OKAY? UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IS OKAY? The behaviour of idiot juvenile socialists when you meet them at a party isn't the best argument against socialism as an ideology.

Yet you refer to us as evil

The capital letters and generalising sweep would appear to make it obvious that I was being tongue-in-cheek. If it was not obvious, allow me to clarify. I was being tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think you're evil. I haven't even told you what I think of the meat industry. For all you know I might not believe in animal rights (as it happens, I don't!) and I might even eat meat (tip: I do!). Actually I think the best description of you based on your posts in this thread would, rather than "evil", be "stupid", "petty", and perhaps "adorable". This, for example, is particularly cute:

You don't get to change the world, an industry, the lives of other people based purely off of your own beliefs,

Really, sherlock? The thread's purpose is to argue about whether or not the meat industry in its current form is ethically sound. This is, as far as most people are concerned, an objective question with answers that are quantifiably true - a question worth legislating on. But your eventual if incoherently stated point seems to be that actually there are no quantifiable values and no basis on which legislation can be established because "it is all just a hypothetical exercise in your head".

But it isn't. Whether animals can feel pain or whatever is, actually, something scientists are trying to establish. This might be a good place to start. Off the top of my head I remember reading that pigs are capable of playing (and winning) videogames, and that dogs can mourn. (and even if it is all just an abstraction, you haven't until now made that the clear thrust of your argument. maybe you would have been better received if you'd argued well for your position instead of ranting about trifles and emoting your sausage-munching. it'd still be dumb though: "treatment of other people is hardly a universal"? I guess we should not ever have the hubris to make ethical decisions about that either)

You might ask me to provide better evidence for this, but I'm not going to because actually I very explicitly did not talk about animals in my post. It was about criticising the stupid things other people's arguments. When I call you a vagina I am doing it on the basis of what you have said, not on the basis of my own beliefs about the meat industry. And if you'd been reading properly you might have noticed that the logical difficulties you briefly outline ("isn't sapience the basis by which we relate to others?...do animals have it?....") were ones I mentioned in my criticism of VictimofScience's post (a post advocating that animals have rights! which I criticised!). These are not things we should just throw up our hands at. They're things we should actually try and think about and come up with an answer to.

I do plan to outline my beliefs on the meat industry. But here's a spoiler: they don't actually involve animal rights very much. So including me among those who berate others for eating meat will fall quite flat.

 

[smwScott]

You're both completely ridiculous. Who on earth are you talking to? Why are you coming into a thread that is about animal ethics and ranting about militant vegetarians trying to "spread their stupid ideas"? Where does this even come from? One moment, Scott, you're talking about the issue at hand, and the next moment a bizarre rant is intruding like a flasher running onto a football pitch mid-game. And what motivated this? What in the real world has inspired it? I live in Brighton, the hippiest hipsterest lesbian-vegan-communist-est place I know of in the entire country, and yet I have never been actually preached against for eating meat. Nobody I ask has experienced this either. Even if it happens to you, it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. But on the evidence of this thread, you two take the merest mention of animal rights, or the simple statement "I am a vegetarian", as a personal attack which must be vociferously shouted down. I have to wonder what you find so threatening about vegetarians that you feel the need to screech about how stupid they are without even the slightest provocation. Nuri seems to believe that nobody is allowed to talk about their lifestyle habits except himself ("BURP") while to Scott I'm inclined on the evidence of this thread to suggest that what you perceive as "preaching about how morally superior they are" is actually them merely mentioning their preferences when you're all deciding what restaurant to go to, at which point you launch into a diatribe telling them that they're full of shit and they should stop trying to oppress you and how they don't really have any legitimate intellectual reason or any kind of argument to believe what they do, but that instead it's all social reasons (where's all the social pressure to stop eating meat? Can't say I've been put under it. you're like neocons under Bush who believe their opinions are being suppressed) and therefore they haven't a leg to stand on because they're just "vegan hipster douchebags" blah blah blah entitlement blah blah blah thin skin blah blah blah sandy labia blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

By the way, loving that No True Scotsman manouvre there at the end: if you are a vegetarian who does not 'force your beliefs' on people then I'm not actually talking about you, I'm talking about all those other vegetarians nobody else has ever met who I am going to imply are in the majority despite no evidence and so you should just shut up because you aren't who I'm talking about!! You make a similarly slippery move by claiming that while you disagree with inhumane practices, they are "obviously" no longer the norm (really?) and so there really is no possible argument against your position other than nonsense claims that killing flies is as wrong as killing humans.

Get a grip, you pair of blubbering vaginas.

NEXT UP: MY ACTUAL OPINION, POSSIBLY

I'm sorry, who the **** are you?

We're ridiculous? Let me guess, you picture yourself striding in on a white horse as the voice of reason here right? That's laughable.

I addressed the topic at hand. I agree that animals should be treated as humanely as is possible. I also stated that examples such as the awful factory video that was posted are increasingly rare nowadays, which is a good thing. The crux of my argument was that there is nothing wrong with eating meat in and of itself, and that there was nothing inherently "righteous" about being vegetarian.

And the behavior and arguments that vegetarians use are relevant, as they shape the debate (as was already happening in this thread).

And yes, as I have sad before - and am now tired of saying - there are many vegetarians who are douchebags about it. It seems to come with the territory. And no, that description of me that you just completely pulled out of your ass, where I go apeshit at the very mention of broccoli, is ****ing ridiculous. Like I said, my only problem is when they specifically try and make me feel bad about eating and try to act superior about it - especially when I am eating. And yes, it has happened, and I cited examples of how they do it. But go ahead - make up another scenario that doesn't exist and insult me for it, why ****ing not eh?

I can't ****ing make you admit that you understand what I wrote (it's too easy to argue against shit you make up), but I'm going to say it again - I don't have a problem with vegetarians or vegetarianism.

The next time you spew out an unprovoked block of text rant at someone, try to make a ****ing coherent point and avoid childish name-calling. Your whole post seems geared towards making yourself look like hot shit on a goddamn internet video game forum.

Just tell them to mind their ****ing business, pussy. Under attack from all sides by vegans and peace signs, oh the horror.

Virus, go **** yourself. I ignored you and ignored you while you quoted my posts and said dumb shit, then I finally wrote a relatively inoffensive reply and you come back with this bullshit. Seriously, **** off.

 

[laslo]

Until we can make chickens look like cute kittens, I don't think anyone will be treating them any nicer.

I will munch on my tofu while I wait.

 

[Raziaar]

Guys... we can talk meat without putting each other through the grinder. I'm guilty of it myself.

 

[VirusType2]

Virus, go **** yourself. I ignored you and ignored you while you quoted my posts and said dumb shit, then I finally wrote a relatively inoffensive reply and you come back with this bullshit. Seriously, **** off.

I ignored you and ignored you

Well, you shouldn't have. That was your fault.

I'm not sure how much ignoring there was to be done, all I remember saying was "Stop generalizing and being a douchebag". But you seem to love repeating your annoying, obnoxious douchebag self.

You and I have different meanings to 'relatively inoffensive', or what a 'dumb shit' remark is.

I addressed the topic at hand.

No, you went on some retarded rant, about a couple people that you had an issue with (in your entire life), that happened to be vegetarians. But you want to pin that character on all of them.

How about comparing that to how many douchebag carnivores you've ever met?

The overwhelming majority are vegetarians for religious reasons, not because 'it's the new black'. That's the reason I didn't dispute it when you first claimed "most people are vegetarians for social reasons."

I also stated that examples such as the awful factory video that was posted are increasingly rare nowadays, which is a good thing.

Uh, yes you did Scott, and you couldn't have been further from the truth. You love repeating yourself, but again, even when you are clearly wrong?

The crux of my argument was that there is nothing wrong with eating meat in and of itself, and that there was nothing inherently "righteous" about being vegetarian.

That's your opinion, and that's about the only thing you've said that wasn't detestable.

And yes, as I have sad before - and am now tired of saying - there are many vegetarians who are douchebags about it.

So why don't you spare us then, we're tired of hearing you bitching and moaning about a couple of college kids who told you "meat is murder".

You think that these people are the only veggies you've ever met? They stand out because they made themselves stand out. You probably meet (no pun intended) vegetarians all the time and don't know it.

A couple people count as "the behavior of all vegetarians" for you? Because the way you talk, you'd think you had armies of them, like you were in the middle of a PETA rally eating a baby seal.

there are many vegetarians who are douchebags about it. It seems to come with the territory.

Come on, you weren't fooling anyone. We knew from your first post where you were coming from. And you complain about people being passive aggressive? These little obnoxious remarks you slip in wherever possible really make you pathetic.

Like I said, my only problem is when they specifically try and make me feel bad about eating and try to act superior about it - especially when I am eating.

Yeah, sure, that was a dick move. But what does it matter if they think they're superior? You think you're superior to them as well; that's why you're outraged they had the audacity to speak to you about it - something they care a great deal about.

but I'm going to say it again - I don't have a problem with vegetarians or vegetarianism.

You shouldn't have to keep saying it if it were true.

The next time you spew out an unprovoked block of text rant at someone, try to make a ****ing coherent point and avoid childish name-calling.

"Stupid dipshit vegetarians, blah blah blah blah, my vagina is extremely sandy"

I can see why those guys would want to **** with you. My mistake for showing you any respect initially.

 

[smwScott]

Well, you shouldn't have. That was your fault.

I'm not sure how much ignoring there was to be done, all I remember saying was "Stop generalizing and being a douchebag". But you seem to love repeating your annoying, obnoxious douchebag self.

You didn't have anything to say that hadn't already been said (and much better), and I was debating with another person who has quite a bit more sense than you do. You're not worth it.

That's not to even mention you called me a douchebag in your first response. You're too stupid to formulate a proper argument or say something uinque, you insulted me so there was no reason to humor you and write a response, and you failed to be sufficiently offensive enough to warrant a comeback. No, the only mistake I made was ever responding to you at all.

No, you went on some retarded rant, about a couple people that you had an issue with (in your entire life), that happened to be vegetarians. But you want to pin that character on all of them.

How about comparing that to how many douchebag carnivores you've ever met?

The rant was based on far more than a "couple of people." I've had a few personal situations, yes - but it's also fueled by the public image of organizations like PETA and their absurd, extremist views that poison any real debate.

The overwhelming majority are vegetarians for religious reasons, not because 'it's the new black'. That's the reason I didn't dispute it when you first claimed "most people are vegetarians for social reasons."

This is true. Though I was specifically referring to the hipster crowd ... who are not doing it for religious reasons. Unless it's Kabbalah or some shit, but **** that too.

Uh, yes you did Scott, and you couldn't have been further from the truth. You love repeating yourself, but again, even when you are clearly wrong?

I'm "clearly wrong"? You mean your going to actually try and make a point rather than just insult me? Well, show me some actual evidence that inhumane treatment of animals is either staying level or increasing and we may have something to talk about. From what I've heard standards are significantly superior to what they were just a few years ago.

So why don't you spare us then, we're tired of hearing you bitching and moaning about a couple of college kids who told you "meat is murder".

Because dipshits like you keep bringing it up, saying the same things while refusing to acknowledge what I said in response to those very same things. If you don't like my answers fine, but if you keep asking the same questions over and over...

You think that these people are the only veggies you've ever met? They stand out because they made themselves stand out. You probably meet (no pun intended) vegetarians all the time and don't know it.

A couple people count as "the behavior of all vegetarians" for you? Because the way you talk, you'd think you had armies of them, like you were in the middle of a PETA rally eating a baby seal.

When you use quotes ... try and actually quote something. I never attributed these behaviors to all vegetarians and have went out of my way like 5 times now to say that yes, I do know vegetarians who do not act this way. Read the ****ing posts or shut the **** up.

Come on, you weren't fooling anyone. We knew from your first post where you were coming from. And you complain about people being passive aggressive? These little obnoxious remarks you slip in wherever possible really make you pathetic.

I have maintained that I associate the behaviors I have described with a vegan hipster subculture. It does come with the territory. Once again (Jesus Christ ...) that doesn't mean all vegetarians have these traits.

Yeah, sure, that was a dick move. But what does it matter if they think they're superior? You think you're superior to them as well; that's why you're outraged they had the audacity to speak to you about it - something they care a great deal about.

... Yeah, I do think I'm superior to the people I described. Maybe that intensifies my feelings, sure. However, I don't think vegetarianism in and of itself is a measure of superiority one way or another.

You shouldn't have to keep saying it if it were true.

You people should learn to ****ing read and stop asking the same ****ing questions so I won't have to keep giving the same ****ing answers.

"Stupid dipshit vegetarians, blah blah blah blah, my vagina is extremely sandy"

I'm guessing you didn't use a real quote because none of my actual quotes characterized me in the extreme light you wanted huh?

I can see why those guys would want to **** with you. My mistake for showing you any respect initially.

You called me a douchebag in your first response to me. Seriously, you're full of shit. Go away. If anyone else wants to talk, fine - but you're not worth it. I won't be responding to any more of your inane, stupid drivel.

On a separate note unrelated from this jackass ... I was not the first person to bring up vegetarian attitudes in a negative light in this thread. It's not like I just pulled it out of my ass, it was being discussed shortly before I made my first response. It's interesting that my comments angered as many people as they did, seeing as the worst thing I said about true vegetarianism is that it isn't inherently righteous...

 

[VirusType2]

That's not to even mention you called me a douchebag in your first response. You're too stupid to formulate a proper argument or say something uinque, you insulted me

"Not to mention", but you mentioned it twice. Stop sniveling.

At least be honest with yourself:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3079634&postcount=83
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3079848&postcount=90
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3079922&postcount=102

You had no problem with "childish name-calling."

(Notice my response is on the next page)
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3079870&postcount=94

I didn't even call you a douchebag, I said stop acting like one.

The rant was based on far more than a "couple of people." I've had a few personal situations, yes

The more we find it hard to believe, the more people seem to have disrupted your meals.

A couple is two, a few is what, three? I'm not sure that's worth the distinction, but why don't you go ahead and count them now; get your story straight.

Well, show me some actual evidence that inhumane treatment of animals is either staying level or increasing and we may have something to talk about. From what I've heard standards are significantly superior to what they were just a few years ago.

You're the one who claimed it was fading away. You prove it. But you would have done so already if it were true.

 

[Saturos]

Dammit sweatpants, you double posted!

I lost track of this whole debate. Can someone summarize what the hell is going on here so I don't have to wade through all the squabbling? I'm still pro-meat btw.

 

[Qonfused]

So right, I read through the first couple pages of this thread, jumped to this last page and holy shit my brain exploded.

 

[Saturos]

So right, I read through the first couple pages of this thread, jumped to this last page and holy shit my brain exploded.

I guess I'm a simpleton too. As I read through this thread, all I can think about is how talking about meat and veggies is making my tummy growl.

Think I'll have a slice of ham to cure my midnight munchies.

 

[VirusType2]

I had a cheese quesadilla with salsa. I am holy and righteous.

 

[Saturos]

I had a cheese quesadilla with salsa. I am holy and righteous.

Mmmm, nomnomnomnum. Mind sharing?

 

[VirusType2]

Mmmm, nomnomnomnum. Mind sharing?

Sorry, nothing remains. I put some some diced sweet onion and pepperoncini in there too.

I was drinking beer and watching Defiance. No food could survive in that situation.

 

[Baserape>]

Dammit sweatpants, you double posted!

I lost track of this whole debate. Can someone summarize what the hell is going on here so I don't have to wade through all the squabbling? I'm still pro-meat btw.

Eat meat with veg and some fruit to have a healthy, balanced diet.

 

[Sulkdodds]

to american states that use capital punishment also: stop! it's evil, wrong and barbaric. every person who has contributed to capital punishment is a murderer.

Unfortunately, it's from another thread.

It's true: you weren't "the first person to bring up vegetarian attitudes" in this thread. It's not like you just pulled it out of your arse. On the contrary, you pulled it out of nuri's. He came from pretty much nowhere which was why I was addressing you both.

In any case if the thread was veering towards that place before (and I can't see that it was), your own posts didn't help. Now we're so firmly off-topic that anyone new coming into the thread has no idea what's going on. The whole debate has been diverted by a discussion of vegan hipster douchebags, who aren't really people who deserve to be discussed. I guess this is partly my fault too! If I give myself an infraction, can I give you an infraction too? Honestly, if I wasn't myself involved in the debate, I would be waving my huge phallic compensating moderator stick and telling people to get back on topic.

that description of me that you just completely pulled out of your ass, where I go apeshit at the very mention of broccoli, is ****ing ridiculous...but go ahead - make up another scenario that doesn't exist and insult me for it, why ****ing not eh?

Obviously I am not proposing this scenario really happens. I am comparing it to the way you act in this thread. Because it's what you and nuri were doing here. Everyone's talking about animal rights and/or animal welfare and about the ethics of meat production or meat eating (having been invited to talk about it!) and in you sail talking in very loud voices about how vegetarians shouldn't be douchebags and impose their lifestyle on people. Retrospecctive No True Scotsman hair-splitting doesn't really change the effect of that initial sally.

 

[smwScott]

You seem surprised that when you (yes) spew out an unprovoked rant, people get angry with you.

It might've been a rant, but I didn't specifically pull out someone from the debate who I disagreed with and call them a blubbering vagina or whatever the hell. The only person I've directly insulted in this whole thing is Virus, and he had it coming by a longshot.

If, as you say, the crux of your argument was that there is nothing wrong with eating meat and nothing inherently rightous about vegetarianism, why was a full half of your first post taken up with spitting at all the 'fake' vegetarians. Your brief discussions of animal welfare look like a pretext for the rest of it. By the way, if these people aren't 'true' vegetarians, why attack them? Your general tone indicates you feel that they're the mainstream. Like writing two paragraphs about vegan hipster douchebags and then acknowledging "of course, I have some friends who aren't..."

It's true: you weren't "the first person to bring up vegetarian attitudes" in this thread. It's not like you just pulled it out of your arse. On the contrary, you pulled it out of nuri's. He came from pretty much nowhere which was why I was addressing you both.

In any case if the thread was veering towards that place before (and I can't see that it was), your own posts didn't help. Now we're so firmly off-topic that anyone new coming into the thread has no idea what's going on. The whole debate has been diverted by a discussion of vegan hipster douchebags, who aren't really people who deserve to be discussed. I guess this is partly my fault too! If I give myself an infraction, can I give you an infraction too? Honestly, if I wasn't myself involved in the debate, I would be waving my huge phallic compensating moderator stick and telling people to get back on topic.

This is fair enough. I never intended to get into such a long debate over this, but I do have opinions on the matter and it was being discussed, so I gave my own. I suppose the right thing to do would be to ignore it and only post based on the original topic, but I didn't.

Obviously I am not proposing this scenario really happens. I am comparing it to the way you act in this thread. Because it's what you and nuri were doing here. Everyone's talking about animal rights and/or animal welfare and about the ethics of meat production or meat eating (having been invited to talk about it!) and in you sail talking in very loud voices about how vegetarians shouldn't be douchebags and impose their lifestyle on people. Retrospecctive No True Scotsman hair-splitting doesn't really change the effect of that initial sally.

Well ... I didn't retrospectively split the hairs, I split them pretty well in the first post I made. But once again - I get that it was off topic, fair enough. I didn't intend for it to balloon so far out of proportion - and it's worth noting that the bulk of my early posts were focused on the topic at hand and my other statements were consistently brought back up by others. I didn't start the off-topic trend, but I did help perpetuate it.

 

[VictimOfScience]

You're drawing an equivalence between human rights and animal rights.

Yes I am. Hierarchies of oppression are the same no matter what you are looking at: strong over weak (rich over poor, white over black, etc) for some sort of gain (i.e. capital). Animals and laborers have become machines who live not for themselves but for the production of more capital. Human/animal rights are violated every day so that the system can produce as much as possible for the lowest cost possible.

If you're going to argue from rights and not from welfare, I wish you luck, but the vast majority of people will take a lot of convincing. You'd better get to work..

Agreed. Most of the veg*ans I have met abstain from meat becuase they believe it is cruel to kill an animal for food. The rights/welfare debate is one that I am constantly going back and forth with. On the one hand, anything that will lessen the cruelty of the current system is undeniably good. On the other hand, for me it is not enough to stop there. All living creatures deserve the right to live. Animals in the wild that kill for food do it out of necessity because they have no alternative--no choice. We have a choice. We have a choice at every meal we eat.

Oh, come on now. I applaud your effort but this is so silly and conceited. We should all act as we believe in acting. But let's not delude ourselves into believing that as we walk about in the world we might at any moment become the centre of a controversy that will change society. COME ON.

I understand your point, but if no one thought they could make a diffrerence, no one would do anything. By living a certain way, we have the ability to influence others. I've already helped affect changes in the behaviors of many of the people that I have encountered in my life. They are actually thinking now about many of the choices they make instead of blindly following the masses and becoming complicit in the violence, oppression, cruelty, and murder of the current (capitalist) system. If I can influence 10 people to go veg and they can influence 10 people to go veg then something undeniably wonderful is happening here. I still hold out hope that one day we will look back on this issue and wonder, "What were we thinking?"

 

[Eejit]

So you believe that animals should be afforded rights similar to our own?
If that is the case, what responsibilities should they be held to? Shouldn't animals then be held to our laws?

 

[Eejit]

The point about the infant is a bit extraneous, they can still grow to understand their rights and responsibilities, and even the severely mentally handicapped are at least members of a species which can do so in general - and I believe the scale of species is what we're talking about.

I believe rights would require responsibility, and the ability to understand them as well as being able to respect the rights of others. Thus I am against any inherent rights for animals.
That doesn't mean I condone wanton cruelty to animals, but that's because I think we should act with compassion rather than because it would be abrogating inalienable rights of these creatures.
Concern for welfare as dodds said, not rights.

Do we really have an obligation to recognise rights of animals which will not (cannot) respect our rights (even ignoring issues of responsibility), nor those of each other animals? I think not.


As for welfare, it's a nice ideal. Unfortunately given our current population and its growth we need to provide protein for a lot of people. In a lot of climates it's more effective to provide grazing for livestock (which can also provide milk/eggs) rather than trying to grow 'whole foods' such as Soy.

 

[smwScott]

As for welfare, it's a nice ideal. Unfortunately given our current population and its growth we need to provide protein for a lot of people. In a lot of climates it's more effective to provide grazing for livestock (which can also provide milk/eggs) rather than trying to grow 'whole foods' such as Soy.

Indeed, without modern farming practices the current world population would be unsustainable (well, more so). The idea of "whole foods" is something that will only ever be attainable by the relative elite.

Attempting to feed already starving populations vegan diets is laughable. Although first world countries might could subsist without meat, attempting to afford animals "human" rights on a philosophical basis poses problems in terms of actual human rights. While we have the economic luxury of being able to debate the morality of eating meat, I doubt the "meat is murder" argument would get very far in various other parts of the world.

The truth is that animals aren't humans. They do not have the cognitive capacity for thought and true consciousness. While they are nevertheless living creatures that deserve respect and humane treatment - their well-being and "rights" take a backseat to our own.

Livestock are grown and raised for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. Without the meat industry many of those animals (who were bred for the sole purpose of food) would die out or at the very least dramatically diminish in number. As long as their lives are spent healthy and free from cruelty, there is no ethical or moral problem with the meat industry.

 

[Eejit]

Actually we could quite easily feed the world on a vegetarian diet from a purely technical standpoint, however we'd need far better and fairer distribution of food in that case as there are regions where it would be much more difficult to grow meat substitute crops than to rear livestock.
In a perfect world there would be fewer tough moral choices to make.

 

[PvtRyan]

Honestly, "militant" meat eaters are far more annoying than "militant" vegetarians. You know, the type that likes to inform everyone they're going to eat some meat in these kind of debates or otherwise animal related, just to piss people off. We should eat those cunts.

I also don't get the whole "you're not better than me, we just have different opinions/diets" argument. If someone doesn't eat meat because he either thinks killing for food is inherently wrong, or just doesn't wanna support the meat industry, by definition someone who eats meat is doing something morally wrong in his eyes. It's not about different preferences, a meat eater is doing something that's bad in a vegetarian's eyes and you expect him not to voice it but to shrug it off as a matter of opinion? On the risk of invoking Godwin's law, would you tell someone who's pissed about you exterminating Jews in a concentration camp "That's, like, your opinion, man. Let me live my lifestyle and I'll let you live yours."? I fully understand angry vegetarians or vegetarians that think they're better than meat eaters. I may not quite agree, but I understand because to them it's about right and wrong, not about a difference in opinion, a preference.

It's not inherently wrong to kill a chicken or a cow for food, I think. Under the assumption you can give one a perfect life and an instantaneous painless death, it simply doesn't matter to the animal that it gets killed. It has no knowledge of the fact that its life wasn't always going to end this way, or that it's even going to end, nor that its life could extend beyond the life it had. Giving it that perfect life is where it currently breaks down though, so lets focus on that. And in that sense, meat eaters are simply wrong because it's not possible to give all animals a good quality life with the quantities we eat. So yes, we are wrong and we should change this. And that is not a matter of opinion or a "lifestyle preference", so fuck you.

And why the fuck are we arguing whether or not animals should get "animal rights" without first defining what that means. Or why we are treating the concept of "animal" as some homogeneous thing, when it's clearly not? Do I think primates should get the same protection as humans? Fuck yes. Do I think chickens and fish should? No.

 

[Eejit]

What is a 'perfect life' for an animal? A life without any kind of stress or struggle? Why should we endeavour to give livestock a life so much more coddled than what any wild animal would ever experience? We do already do this with slaughter btw, it's far more merciful than almost any death they would experience otherwise.

Why wouldn't I treat animals as a homogeneous group for this argument? Orang-utans and chimps are no more able to understand or respect rights or responsibilities than a fish, and as I said imo that's the criteria by which we should judge whether a species should receive any inalienable rights.
Again, I'm not saying we should be cruel to them needlessly, but they don't deserve the same protections under law that we ourselves do.

 

[PvtRyan]

What is a 'perfect life' for an animal? A life without any kind of stress or struggle? Why should we endeavour to give livestock a life so much more coddled than what any wild animal would ever experience? We do already do this with slaughter btw, it's far more merciful than almost any death they would experience otherwise.

The definition of a "perfect life" is not relevant here. I said it merely to get to the core "is killing an animal for food inherently wrong" and leave all other considerations such as quality of life aside.

Why wouldn't I treat animals as a homogeneous group for this argument? Orang-utans and chimps are no more able to understand or respect rights or responsibilities than a fish, and as I said imo that's the criteria by which we should judge whether a species should receive any inalienable rights.
Again, I'm not saying we should be cruel to them needlessly, but they don't deserve the same protections under law that we ourselves do.

We are animals. So clearly it's not a homogeneous group. We give this one animal very special rights, why is that? A human child doesn't understand her rights any more than a chimp, yet she gets more rights than an adult. Are you really saying that there's no difference in how a fish or a chimp should be treated, that it's some binary thing, yes or no, rather than a sliding scale?

No one is suggesting a chimp should get the right to vote (although they would likely do a better job than humans) but you shouldn't be able to kill, abuse, wound or torture them, perform medical experiments on them, have them "work" for you in any capacity for more than x hours a day (even though they didn't sign a contract or gave any form of consent to work for you, this doesn't mean you should be able to use them as you please, it's not a binary thing you see!), and you should be required to provide them with sufficient food and mental stimulants (play or otherwise).

This is what every chimp under human supervision should get, and that are not subject to change under any circumstance, so they are inalienable rights.

Yes, even without those rights, mistreatment of them resulting in a damaged chimp in any way will still land you in jail currently, which is good, but that's not for violating their rights, but for damaging them. Very different things, because you're not allowed to have a 4-year old work for you, even if nothing bad has happened to them yet.

And obviously, none of those rights really apply to fish, so that again shows that "animal" is not a homogeneous concept and we shouldn't treat it as such. This reminds me of that TED talk from that statistician guy that showed that we're wrong to talk about "the third world" or "developing countries" as some homogeneous thing, or to treat them as such, since every developing country has different needs and they should be treated individually. A chimp shouldn't be treated as a human, since it has different needs but should certainly not be equal to a fish or a chicken.

I'm also not sure where "responsibilities" come into play here. A human still gets all his rights even when he doesn't take his responsibilities, that's why they are inalienable rights. You still can't torture a criminal. And again, a human child doesn't have any responsibilities.

 

[VirusType2]

Someone asked if animals feel pain in the same way humans do. If you've ever stepped on your cat or dog's tail or their foot on accident, they let you know - loud and clear - they aren't happy about it. Clearly they don't like it, so clearly they feel pain, whether it's more intense [than our perception of pain] or muted, does that really matter?

 

[Eejit]

I believe I already addressed most of that PvtRyan.
To me whether a species deserves inalienable rights is a binary thing based on their ability (on average - the child/retard argument is extraneous as I said before) to understand their rights and the rights of others. Chimps cannot understand the concept of inalienable rights any more than a fish does. We can and do, which is why I'm considering us a different group from other animals for the sake of simplicity in this argument.
There might be a sliding scale if, say, orang-utans could understand some aspects of some basic rights but not others. This is not the case. In practice it is a binary decision as to whether any other animals should have rights based on the criteria I believe apply.

By responsibilities I mean that if you give an animal more rights they have more obligations and face the same consequences for their actions we would. If you give them rights under law (ownership etc.) they will be obliged to obey laws.

 

[PvtRyan]

Someone asked if animals feel pain in the same way humans do. If you've ever stepped on your cat or dog's tail or their foot on accident, they let you know - loud and clear - they aren't happy about it. Clearly they don't like it, so clearly they feel pain, whether it's more intense [than our perception of pain] or muted, does that really matter?

Is anyone really putting that to question then? Of course they feel pain, they're mammals, very similar to us, why would they work radically different than us? It makes no sense. But then again, some people are just retarded. For instance, at some point in history, it was considered entertainment to light cats on fire and watch them run through the streets, burning.

I think some people have a very odd mental image of animals and their emotions. Why does a human mother protect her children? Because she's scared shitless and worried about them: emotions. Why does a cat or a dog protect her offspring? *BZZT* MUST PROTECT OFFSPRING TO ENSURE SURVIVAL OF NEXT GENERATION IN ORDER FOR THEM TO PASS ON MY GENES *BZZT*. No! For the same reason a human does: scared shitless and worried. Emotions are nature's way to communicate our instincts to us. Emotions aren't necessarily associated with high intelligence, they're very basal in fact. Being able to reason about your emotions, or to write songs about it is a sign of high intelligence. It's funny that when people try to explain an animal's behavior, they're very rational in their explanation, while the animal is actually mostly going on emotion, which is something people attribute mostly to humans.

 

[VirusType2]

Exactly, I almost feel out of my chair when I first read it. Yes, someone brought it up.

I see it as an excuse to not care. But I wanted to cover it because I don't feel they should have that 'ammo' - "How do you know they even feel pain?"

Of course they feel pain. They evolved just like we did. If they didn't feel pain, they wouldn't care much about getting hurt, they wouldn't run away from a loosing fight, and they wouldn't be here today. (extinct)

For as long as I can remember, people have always told me "fish don't feel pain". But recent experiments reveal they sure exhibit pain-like behaviors.

I think this is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. Until we prove that [specific] animals with nervous systems don't feel pain, I think all signs point to the fact that they do feel pain [in a similar way to us].

Just some examples, plants and jellyfish don't have brains, nor exhibit 'pain-like' reactions to stimuli, so I think we can safely assume they don't feel pain.


I am not arguing one way or the other right now - for rights or not - I just wanted to discuss this since someone brought it up and it wasn't addressed yet.

The interesting thing is that humans are so dominant, that we have to handicap ourselves, giving animals rights - well, it's a bit strange compared to other species, but I don't feel it's a great burden or anything.

 

[PvtRyan]

I believe I already addressed most of that PvtRyan.
To me whether a species deserves inalienable rights is a binary thing based on their ability (on average - the child/retard argument is extraneous as I said before) to understand their rights and the rights of others. Chimps cannot understand the concept of inalienable rights any more than a fish does. We can and do, which is why I'm considering us a different group from other animals for the sake of simplicity in this argument.
There might be a sliding scale if, say, orang-utans could understand some aspects of some basic rights but not others. This is not the case. In practice it is a binary decision as to whether any other animals should have rights based on the criteria I believe apply.

By responsibilities I mean that if you give an animal more rights they have more obligations and face the same consequences for their actions we would. If you give them rights under law (ownership etc.) they will be obliged to obey laws.

Why does an animal have to understand their rights in order to receive them? It's the foundation of your argument but I see no reason why. I'd say rights need to be given on a need basis, and since a chimp is a highly complex creature and is able to experience pain, stress and emotional pain on a high level, it has a need to be protected from that. And although an untrained chimp has no more understanding of written English than a fish, it's certainly a very different creature on the level of mental ability, so the understanding of rights is a very weird criteria to use. Almost as inane a criteria as the ability to peel a banana with your feet.

And what exactly is the ability to understand rights? You can wait until you weigh an ounce, but a chimp will never be able to read the UN declaration of human rights, but what exactly does that say? In the wild, a chimp lives in a fairly complicated society, which certainly has some concepts of fairness and taking care of each other. So does it understand them or not?

It's easy to brush aside the human child argument, but I think it's pretty valid. We treat children in a special way, give them more rights, in part because they do not understand them. We do not hold them accountable to law either, again because they can not be expected to understand it. So why is understanding suddenly a criteria when it comes to primates?

 

[Eejit]

They have to understand their rights in order to respect them themselves.
It would be hypocritical to say that we cannot kill a bear, denying its 'right to life' but be fine with it killing other bears, or other members of other species, denying their rights. A animal species can be given a right when they themselves are able to abide by it, and the rights of others. Otherwise you're holding humans to double standards - it's fine for all other animals to fight and kill each other, just as long as we don't do it to them? Why is that?

Are we 'just animals' or aren't we?

If we are then why shouldn't we kill and eat meat just as we have evolved to be able to do? Other omnivores do, so why should we prevent ourselves from struggling for advantage in any way we can just as they do?

If we are not, and we are something more, creatures of understanding, then why should we treat animals as our equals - affording them protections solely from ourselves? They may suffer pain or death, but is that not natural for them, while we are now something higher? Would they not still suffer the same at the hands (paws) of those other 'lower' animals anyway?