[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: leftcider I'm not arguing what is and isn't unnecessary pain, merely saying that while most people don't want bad conditions for animals, their concern doesn't go much farther than that.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you that most people have the same thought on the issue.

I think most people do have this foggy concept of "unecessary pain" in their minds and believe that the animals are not experiencing that -- that therefore allows them to eat their meals without feeling they are part of the problem inflicting "unecessary pain." However, the reality of the situation is that farmed animals suffer greatly -- so much so that if I were to make a thread with post after post of pics with animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses that the moderators would surely not allow it. ON THE OTHERHAND, if there were a thread dedicated to sights of amusment parks around the world with pics after pics of people having wonderful times, such a thread would in all probability be allowed. Why? Because, witnessing suffering is bothersome. If the whole concept of animals experiencing of "unecessary pain" were not true and the factory farms and slaughterhouses were not bad, or did not pull at our insides, then why would not such a thread be welcomed? Obviously a picture tells a thousand words and a thousand pics on the topic would be a strong downer.

So, if one is going to bring up this concept of "unecessary pain" in a discussion, believing that animals are not experiencing it, then that party has the responsibility to let those interested in the debate know what "unecessary pain" amounts to.

If you want to improve standards of living for animals, that should be a fact that you deal with.

If this were a thread on "animal welfare for a flesh eating world," then I would do so. But, this is a thread on "vegetarianism" and in it I am putting forth the moral reasons for choosing it. You aren`t saying I have to play all positions of the field at the same time, are you? The animal welfare/rights/liberation movement is quite varied. At times they work together and at times they do so seperately. Some large animal orgs attack both issues of welfare and rights -- admitting that in the short run welfare are their main targets but keeping an eye and active on their long term goal of winning rights for animals. Large orgs have the ability to sign staff to different aspects of the struggle. Individuals within large orgs can choose which of the various aspects they want to lend their energy to. I at times tend to both when time permits. Here in this thread and perhaps on this forum, I will usually choose to focus on rights and liberation. But, if someone were to ask me a pragmatic question such as this:

Seeing that liberation for chickens will not occur within this century, would you lend your time to getting signatures, tabling, and lobbying others to force industry to make more living space for their chickens?

My answer: Of course, I would. However, even after doing those things I would still not give up on acting for animal liberation in its end form.

But you see, that is a different thread from this so I am trying to stay on topic of "vegetarianism out of moral considerations. Fair enough?

You care about animal welfare if you care about animal rights. If people are going to continue to raise animals for meat, don't you want the animals that are used to be treated better?

Yes. Just addressed this above.

If no one was eating meat, most of these livestock animals wouldn't even exist.

There is no suffering in non-existance. Beings do not care about their species when they are being submitted to pain and suffering. They want the pain and suffering to end, and if they can locate themselves away from the source of pain they will do so. Even humans will often opt for death if it means and end to chronic suffering. The billions of years that past before you were born, did you notice your non-existance?

Animal Rights, the other side of the coin of animal welfare, is not focused on welfare. Were abolitionists lobbying governments to give slaves 6 feet of chains instead of 3 feet? Sure abolitionists cared about how slaves were treated, but when they worked for fundamental rights they had to put on different hats that did not negotiate for less suffering, but for an end to direct exploitation through denying freedom.