Meet Your Meat

[Jason]

This warning is a bit late, but StrongHeartsWin and RickSp: please either debate this issues or have a personal argument via private messages. This public forum is not for hurling accusations. Thank you.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I'd like to ask my question again, if I may.

Hi CoffeeSaint. This is an intro reply to your post #99 above which will have to come in several posts over a little time.

You put forth several ways or reasons in which one should promote vegetarians because you feel that I have not been gaining new believers to it by the way I have been putting it forth.

While I don`t agree fully with your thought on that, I do think your statements to that affect are fair enough and deserve to be considered.

First of all, I have to say my main purpose here on Volconvo is not to promote the agenda of vegetarianism or animal rights. My main reason for being here is to engage in debate because I enjoy debate and value it for improving my arguments and learning new ones against mine. But since my interests are in animal related fields, I do tend to focus on those issues for debate. However, I also am interested in religious debate and have in recent days been moving to engage in that topic as well.

(a)I don't see your current arguments accomplishing any of these goals[winning people over to vegetarianism], and so I wonder why you stick with them. (b)I understand that you hope to reach the audience, not your opponents, but (c) you are attacking their dietary habits and personal morals as wel

All excellent comments!

(a) I have to ask: Here on Volconvo where people tend to hang out in certain topic forums that they are interested in and strongly opinionated on those topics, when these people enter into debate here, do they often change their opinions or their opponants'? or does the silent onlooking audience all of a sudden post after a flurry of assertions and rebuttals that they have been won over to a position? I haven`t come across that.

Those who hang out in the religion threads or the government threads are pretty dedicated to their opinions and you will see them fight for them tooth and nail -- and the silent audience of lurkers very seldom pops in to say they have been changed. I am not saying it never happens, but I would guess it is very seldom and rare. Wouldn`t you agree?

So, how could you even assume that I am not winning over an audience when that is seldom seen on any thread here on Volconvo or most other forums? Wouldn`t you think it would be unfair to hold my threads and arguments up for animals to a higher standard than others in regards to judging their success or not success? I think it is enough in forums on the internet for just the arguments themselves to be heard. It is so because there is no objective way to judge if an audience is being moved on their spectrum of belief at any moment. In addition, sometimes the information in arguments provided to the audience takes time to fester and grow within them. What they hear from an argument today may go unblossomed for weeks or months until they recall something from it and perhaps it causes them to rethink things.

I stick with my arguments on moral grounds and focus on reason being non-prejudicial because those are the points that I personally feel are most important to the issue of ending animal exploitation. Those are the reasons that caused me to change from a flesh eater. They and their reasoning rang true with me. I do not think I am so unique that only I have been or will be changed by those reasons.

Sure, I know the other arguments of health and for the environment, and I have posted on those as well. But, I tend to care more about the moral arguments. And to tell you the truth, the moral arguments are the ones that are often the ones best suited to meet the innitial comments of those who resist the argument for vegetarianism. Innitial comments usually hinge on "prejudicial reasoning" or "might makes right." We see this in comments about "top of the food chain, we are more intelligent, animals are here to serve us, etc..."

(b) Yes, that is very true. Opponants who are dogmatic and aggessive, so long as they do not resort to dismissive behaviour or ad hominem attacks, are welcomed by me as a sounding board. Though, I acknowledge that I, too, am their sounding board if they are truly interested in seeing that vegetarianism does not become the norm for man.

More often, though, most people who take issue with those who put forth the vegetarian argument are not really interested in vegetarianism as a point to defeat; they merely have their interest piqued for the moment they come across the topic and then post on it. After that they have had enough of the debate, they will disengage and not go out of their way to seek out more debate against vegetarianism to defeat it. Vegetarians on the other hand who are animal rightists, will actively look for the next sounding board to continuously improve their arguments and knowing that they will be able to reach more people for thought on the issue.

Being well prepared for the argument is essential in moving people on the spectrum. Though, the move is often slow over time and most debators promoting the view of vegetarianism rarely get to see their audience declare they have been moved because of them.

(c) You use the word "attacking" but I would call it "prosecuting." "Prosecuting" has more of a sense of deliberate and systematic approach to it in debate grounded with reason. Wouldn`t you agree?

Yes, I know people do not like personal beliefs strongly challenged or prosecuted, but that is the nature of debate and changing thoughts. Food is very personal because often it is part of family traditions or cultures and in the end it goes into us. Can`t get more personal than that!

But here is some reason with an analogy:

If something is believed by you to be morally wrong, aren`t you obligated to proclaim it is wrong and to fight it without apologising for it? I think you are. Were abolitionists wrong to strongly oppose with harsh words condemning the culture of slavery -- that which they viewed as morally wrong? I don`t think they were and "reason" cannot say it is ok to be strong about one moral belief but not so about another just because one`s opponant does not share the same moral measuring stick as you do. If one does say that then they are resorting to dismissive defense tactics as surely as most status quo sectors do when they are challenged for change.

[StrongHeartsWin]

CoffeeSaint, I am working on addressing the points you brought up. A few more posts after this one and I should have addressed most of what you wanted an answer for.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If the issue with eating meat is a health issue, and you are trying to improve the health of others, surely there are other issues that should be at least as important: global warming, for instance, which threatens the long term health of all humanity, or alcohol abuse; perhaps,

Environmentalists are specialized in being able to handle the global warming problem. I wouldn`t expect an environmentalist to fight the animal rights debate battle, so why should animal rightists interested in vegetarianism be expected to fight the environmental debate issues? Likewise, why should those interested in providing care and assistance through aid to those starving in Africa be chided into providing care and aid to those in the U.S.? Just because one cares to specialize in a certain area does not meantheir arguments for those areas are discounted because they did not try to cover all points related to that issue in all areas, does it?

I would suggest that trying to do everything for all parties will eventually end up resulting in being able to do nothing for all parties. Specialization let`s recourses to support those with particular skills and passions that can best be harnessed by focusing on specific interests. Wouldn`t you agree to that?

I have neve said that one issue involving suffering or threatening health through environmental damage is more important than another. They are just different and each needing to be addressed by as many people who are attracted to the call for help in alleviating those problems.

If a person is deeply interested in the plight of animals and his/hers passion causes them to act on the issue strongly and productively, wouldn`t it be a drag on them (i.e. recourses) to expect them to do work in another field that does not ignite passion within them? Surely, telling someone who cares about animal abuse in circuses to work on alcholism problems in the instead will result in less productivity on that issue if the person is not deeply passionate about that. Let passions lead people to their interests of work without telling them they are working on less important issues from another`s subjective view or areas of interest they deem to be at least or more important.

...if you want to stick to dietary issues, you should address American obesity, a problem that is not caused simply by eating meat, though meat eating may compound it.

I have addressed obesity in relation to flesh consumption. You can find it I think in the "Vegetarianism" thread. Though, there is more to be said on it than I did. But again, that comes down to interests and specialization. I would expect a vegetarian who is one due to health reasons to put that argument to the fore more than the moral reasons. I think our new member SpideySpirit is more into the health aspects of vegetarianism -- though that is not to say he isn`t concerned about the moral issues. He most surely is.

But, I don`t mind putting forth health issues on vegetarianism. I will. I guess I just haven`t gotten around to more of that because there has not been a shortage of rebuttles on points focusing on "Might makes right, flesh consumption is natural, etc" -- those which usually are dealt with in regards to the moral argument.

You might reach more people, and improve the health of more people, by speaking to an issue that they are already aware of and recognize as problematic.

It is hard to say which reaches most, "health, morals, or environmental." I will not guess. Before when I have debated the issue of either of those, I have always found it funny that when I focus on one, a reply will come forth saying I would reach more people if I focused on the other. And that includes focusing on "health" to have another poster say that "morals" would be a stronger message for themselves for they find it rude to target such a personal thing as food which could be an assault on their culture.

Either way, CoffeeSaint, you can appreciate the "catch22" situation of debate on those 3 issues concerning vegetarianism, can`t you? No matter which I focus on I will be criticise for not focusing on the other or told in a suggestion I should focus on the other.

I choose to focus on all -- but all those cards are played over time. It just takes time to get to them. But, I will. In due time. In due time.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: stagnant filth Meet Your Meat im not looking for people to argue with me about how wrong i am for caring about animals .... im just trying to give some interested people insight into what goes on before a hamburger is a hamburger.

If it's edible with no certain death involved, chances are, I'll eat it if it tastes good.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If the issue with eating meat is the horrible and unethical practices of factory farming, why not simply argue against factory farming?

Animal Welfarists most certainly do do that and I welcome that. Animal Rightists, however, if they were to bargain away the rights of animals to still be deprived of their life for exploitation, would then no longer be Animal Rightists. An Animal Rightist saying it is ok to kill an animal and exploit it if such conditions were met would then be met with charges of hypocracy because they would not be consistant with the message of "rights." Since I am an Animal Rightist I cannot limit myself to the argument of ending only factory farming.

Since Animal Rights is an umbrealla covering/against all animal exploitation, I do argue against factory farming, too. But, I can`t just "simply" argue against that only.

Why not try to convince people to stop buying meat that comes from the slaughterhouses shown in those videos, and instead buy meat from those who raise and kill animals humanely?

Which place raises and kills their animals humanely? You don`t trust corporate labels at face value, do you? Close to 80% of all U.S. flesh comes from factory farms and that trend is on the rise to meat population demands. Factory farms are destroying the family farm of yesteryear with chickens clucking in the yard and a pig rooting around nearby.

Which slaughterhouses open their doors so that those curious can judge their killing systems? They are all closed to the public and do not offer walk through tours like Anheiser Bush does in Florida. If they did open themselves up, perhaps they could blunt some of the criticism they are charged with. In all probability they hide their systems because it is a gruesome business and to say there is humane killing at a slaughterhouse is a misnomer.

Pressure from the free market would be far more effective in stopping factory farming than would political pressure, since factory farming companies can apply far greater pressure than can ordinary citizens.

I agree. If someone is going to eat meat, I would prefer them to get their flesh from another source than a factory farm. But even small time farmers still send their animals to the same slaughterhouses -- which are not humane (another misnomer). Farmers can no longer butcher their meat and then pack it and send it off to the super market. For one thing their small economy of scales would not let them compete with huge agribusinesses. Another point is that USDA inspectors need to inspect meat sent to the general public and the inspectors are at the certified slaughterhouses -- not at the traditional farms.

Some Animal Rights groups do lobby for better conditions, but at the same time they also spend a large amount of recourses on outreach for vegetarianism -- because one less flesh eater means less demand pulling animals not only through the factory farm system, but also keeps them from going to the slaughterhouses.

Ok, CoffeeSaint, one more post and I will have fully addressed all the points you brought up. Hope you have been following the replies up till now.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

I think herbivores are just either too squeemish, lazy, or incapable of hunting an animal. What is the difference between killing many plants versus killing one animal for dinner?

[brien]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] I think herbivores are just either too squeemish, lazy, or incapable of hunting an animal. What is the difference between killing many plants versus killing one animal for dinner?

I had a book that reported on experiments in the early 1970's involving communications betwen plants. I will have to dig it out and post it and its authors. Plants that were played music grew better and were repsorted to be "happy." Plants whose leaves and stems were cut or burned reported screamed and were generally less healthy. Not saying I believe this stuff, just that there were experiments. I will see if I can dig out the book from my library.

Ok here it is:The Secret Life of Plants

The Secret Life of Plants.

The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird Authors of Secrets of the Soil Exploring the world of plants and its relation to mankind as revealed by the latest discoveries of scientists. The Secret Life of Plants includes remarkable information about plants as lie detectors and plants as ecological sentinels; it describes their ability to adapt to human wishes, their response to music, their curative powers, and their ability to communicate with man. Authors Peter Tompkins end Christopher Bird suggest that the most far-reaching revolution of the twentieth century-one that could awe or destroy the planet--may come from the bottom of your garden.

Maybe we should re-evaluate eating plants as well? Indeed in this case, perhaps it is better to eat flesh than plant life.

[StrongHeartsWin]

The book/experiments of "The Secret Life of Plants" have already been debunked in the Scientific study titled "The Not So Secret Life of Plants." Furthermore, no scientific journal has ever published any of the studies carried out by the authors of "The Secret Life of Plants." The editors of respected scientific journals have all never been duped by the spurious claims and methods of the research.

However, one may find many papers in many journals studying the topic of animal pain and sentience.

However, if plants did suffer (which there is no proof accepted by mainstream science as noted above), eating them would still mean less suffering than eating meat because it takes more plant life to create meat than it would if that plant life went directly to end use consumers (i.e. humans). Value added for a luxury item creates more suffering due to more calories being needed to create a higher up food chain product.

Vegetarianism out of concern for suffering is not about eliminating all suffering in a perfect sense -- it is about choosing the lesser amount of suffering and still not forfeiting one`s life.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Plasma Snake[D] What is the difference between killing many plants versus killing one animal for dinner?

A lot. See my post directly above.

[StrongHeartsWin]

CoffeeSaint, with this reply to your post below, this should cover the issues you asked me to address.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If the issue with eating meat is that animals are as valuable as humans, then why not argue that, specifically?

This is fine. And in fact, many Animal Rightists do argue it with Utilitarian value, or more commonly Utilitarianism. Even amongst humans the Utilitarian value can and maybe should be considered. Look here at an ethical situation constructed where values are used:

A homeless man with no money or skills and Bill Gates are rushed to a small clinic at the same time on the outskirts of a suburbian neighborhood. Bill Gates is immediately recognized and so is the local homeless man who has never offered anything to the community he has lived on the periphery of all his life. Both are the same age. Each need the full 4 pints of blood that is only at the clinic. Which one is saved? Utilitarianism would say that Bill Gates should be chosen because his life has more usefulness to society and therefore more to offer thus more valuable. This is in a life and death situation and value does come into play when a third party must choose. However, Utilitarianism breaks down and becomes a hideous tool of exploitation once it is applied to ego, vanity, and pleasure and the chooser is in many cases the beneficiary or related to the beneficiary in some way -- either be it through family, friendship or the more larger group affinity. Surely, if a person came to you and said if we take all of your organs, we can save 5 people. 5 are more valuable than one, so should you give up your life so that five can live? No! Why? Because The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is what stops ego, vanity, and pleasure for self benefit at the expense of another being. Each being has an interest in not being the target of those forms and therefore Utilitarianism stops, or should stop there, if we would like to live in a society where "might does not make right," which would always force us to give way to the majority or stronger party.

So, are there any instances in how an animal may be viewed as valuable or more valuable than a person? Sure. People often refer to their animals as part of the family and many people mean that. Value will be subjective based on the relationship one has with the object. I would rescue my dog before a human in certain scenarios. But, likewise, I would rescue a human before my dog in some different scenarios as well. I think most people are the same even if they have not thought of it. It is enough to say that it is without getting into too many "if" situations, but surely you can picture some scenario constructs where that could be made to be seen and true. It will come down to relationships or baring that, Utilitarian principles. If all are whitewashed equal, then most people resort to group affinity in decision making.

A person may value their dog's life more than their neighbor`s life or even their own life. Just look at Hurricaine Katrina. Many refused to evacuate and risked their lives by not evacuating on helicopters when told they could not bring their pets. They put themselves in harm`s way for their pet through self-sacrificing, i.e. elevating their pet`s importance and desire to survive up to the level of their own -- but in the process they lowered theirs down to their pet's.

Animals, too, have interests of their own, mainly the one we share with them, the desire to not be the target of another`s designs on us for their own benefit which either causes us suffering, pain, or deprives us of our life -- which we would like to be free to continue and enjoy without undue intereference.

Why not show the qualities that animals have that make them as good as humans (or better), or describe the accomplishments, or simply try to capture the wonder of the natural world? People will feel guilty about eating wonderful animals if they recognize how wonderful animals are -- I doubt they will simply [stop eating/exploiting them] because they have been preached at.

I agree and many Animal Rightists and web sites DO do that. I could do that, too, here, and have been planning to post on some points like that, however, keep in mind, that is merely stating facts about their biology and behaviour or showing cute pictures. It really does not encourage debate. I am here to put forth the arguements in debate form so that I may improve my debating skills or learn new angles that my opponant or future opponant may employ against me. If I were invited to a university for a debate on Animal Rights and I merely hold up pictures stating facts, would that give me points in the eyes of those who came to the debate to judge me and my arguments for being against animal exploitation? I don`t think it would and I think it is more about moving people on the spectrum of their beliefs by speaking to their reason on those beliefs rather than simply make them coo and ah with cute bambi pictures. There have been a number of Disney or documentary animal pics over the decades, and those are not the things that jump started the Animal Rights and vegetarian movements -- it was an appeal to reason with structured argument.

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

Ok, CoffeeSaint, I took the time to address each of your points. I hope, whether you agree with them or not that you at least can offer a "fair enough." If not, then I would like to see your rebuttals or comments to my 4 replies to you. Thanks for offering a great and well thought out post to propel the discussion positively without derision. Very appreciated. -- SHW

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Hi CoffeeSaint. This is an intro reply to your post #99 above which will have to come in several posts over a little time. You put forth several ways or reasons in which one should promote vegetarians because you feel that I have not been gaining new believers to it by the way I have been putting it forth. While I don`t agree fully with your thought on that, I do think your statements to that affect are fair enough and deserve to be considered. First of all, I have to say my main purpose here on Volconvo is not to promote the agenda of vegetarianism or animal rights. My main reason for being here is to engage in debate because I enjoy debate and value it for improving my arguments and learning new ones against mine. But since my interests are in animal related fields, I do tend to focus on those issues for debate. However, I also am interested in religious debate and have in recent days been moving to engage in that topic as well. All excellent comments! (a) I have to ask: Here on Volconvo where people tend to hang out in certain topic forums that they are interested in and strongly opinionated on those topics, when these people enter into debate here, do they often change their opinions or their opponants'? or does the silent onlooking audience all of a sudden post after a flurry of assertions and rebuttals that they have been won over to a position? I haven`t come across that. Those who hang out in the religion threads or the government threads are pretty dedicated to their opinions and you will see them fight for them tooth and nail -- and the silent audience of lurkers very seldom pops in to say they have been changed. I am not saying it never happens, but I would guess it is very seldom and rare. Wouldn`t you agree? So, how could you even assume that I am not winning over an audience when that is seldom seen on any thread here on Volconvo or most other forums? Wouldn`t you think it would be unfair to hold my threads and arguments up for animals to a higher standard than others in regards to judging their success or not success? I think it is enough in forums on the internet for just the arguments themselves to be heard. It is so because there is no objective way to judge if an audience is being moved on their spectrum of belief at any moment. In addition, sometimes the information in arguments provided to the audience takes time to fester and grow within them. What they hear from an argument today may go unblossomed for weeks or months until they recall something from it and perhaps it causes them to rethink things. I stick with my arguments on moral grounds and focus on reason being non-prejudicial because those are the points that I personally feel are most important to the issue of ending animal exploitation. Those are the reasons that caused me to change from a flesh eater. They and their reasoning rang true with me. I do not think I am so unique that only I have been or will be changed by those reasons. Sure, I know the other arguments of health and for the environment, and I have posted on those as well. But, I tend to care more about the moral arguments. And to tell you the truth, the moral arguments are the ones that are often the ones best suited to meet the innitial comments of those who resist the argument for vegetarianism. Innitial comments usually hinge on "prejudicial reasoning" or "might makes right." We see this in comments about "top of the food chain, we are more intelligent, animals are here to serve us, etc..."

You are right, I only rarely see lurkers come in and state that their minds have been changed by a debate. I do see some of the members admit -- usually grudgingly -- that they have been changed, but not often. I am not, however, holding your arguments up to a higher standard; I'm considering your purpose here in relation to my own. I, too, debate because I enjoy debating; I stick to a certain few topics that interest me, and that I feel I have some knowledge about. I no longer have an agenda, however, because I learned that my arguments were untenable and, more importantly, pushed people away from my side of the argument, rather than drawing them toward me. When I first started on this site, I argued for gun control, a position that I held as passionately as you cleave to hold animal rights, and though I still believe in gun control, I have stopped arguing for it -- bar some minor comments that slip out of me almost unconsciously -- for many of the reasons I named to you. To wit, I was arguing aggressively, attacking the moral and logical inconsistencies of my opponents' positions, and I was arguing for a very specific goal, which ignored many other pertinent issues, because I felt my goal was of tantamount importance.

I am not saying that you should learn from my example and stop arguing for vegetarianism and animal rights; you and I are different debaters, and our arguments are very different. But that was why I asked you what I did, because I saw parallels to my own experience, and I wondered if you were feeling the same things I did that made me give up.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin (c) You use the word "attacking" but I would call it "prosecuting." "Prosecuting" has more of a sense of deliberate and systematic approach to it in debate grounded with reason. Wouldn`t you agree? Yes, I know people do not like personal beliefs strongly challenged or prosecuted, but that is the nature of debate and changing thoughts. Food is very personal because often it is part of family traditions or cultures and in the end it goes into us. Can`t get more personal than that! But here is some reason with an analogy: If something is believed by you to be morally wrong, aren`t you obligated to proclaim it is wrong and to fight it without apologising for it? I think you are. Were abolitionists wrong to strongly oppose with harsh words condemning the culture of slavery -- that which they viewed as morally wrong? I don`t think they were and "reason" cannot say it is ok to be strong about one moral belief but not so about another just because one`s opponant does not share the same moral measuring stick as you do. If one does say that then they are resorting to dismissive defense tactics as surely as most status quo sectors do when they are challenged for change.

Changing "attacking" for "prosecuting" seems inappropriate because it assumes that you, as the prosecutor, are correct, and attempting to move the unacceptable behavior of others into a closer proximity to your own correct position; I don't see that your position has that much of the moral high ground. But I realize that you do feel that way, and so I won't argue the wording until I can argue the morality first.

You are obligated to point out things that are morally wrong, and I would never suggest that you should silence yourself. But I think you are making a mistake in your methods, in your prosecution, if you truly want to accomplish the goal of promoting animal rights. Of course, your other goals of debating for fun and the improvement of your arguments and skills are certainly achieved by aggressive debating, so by no means am I telling you that you must change your ways.

But I do believe that most people are almost totally ignorant in this area -- whether that ignorance is chosen or inadvertent, I can't say -- but they have not looked into factory farming and animal rights in the past, for the most part. And because the forces behind factory farming and other animal rights violations work in secrecy, knowing as they do (I would think) that their methods would put people off their product, people are not forced to confront the reality on a daily basis, as they would have been with slavery, or as they are with the war in Iraq, for instance. Animals, especially food animals, are not in our consciousness, they are not in our daily lives, except as food.
Thus you are not arguing with those who have confronted the reality, considered it, and formed an opinion opposite to yours; you are arguing with primarily ignorant people (though they may never confess that ignorance, of course) who are lashing out because, as you say, this is an intensely personal issue for them. When you are aggressive, I think you scare them off, shut them out -- and your ideas are not allowed in far enough to fester. As I said, I think your strongest arguments are your links; not because your written arguments are weak, by any means, but because the links, the videos, the facts, are fairly indisputable. The reason they have not converted more people until now is because they have not been seen, not because people have an anti-animal or anti-vegetarian agenda. I think your cause would have more success if you saw yourself more as a teacher, rather than a debater.

Whether you would have more fun that way, I can't say.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Environmentalists are specialized in being able to handle the global warming problem. I wouldn`t expect an environmentalist to fight the animal rights debate battle, so why should animal rightists interested in vegetarianism be expected to fight the environmental debate issues? Likewise, why should those interested in providing care and assistance through aid to those starving in Africa be chided into providing care and aid to those in the U.S.? Just because one cares to specialize in a certain area does not meantheir arguments for those areas are discounted because they did not try to cover all points related to that issue in all areas, does it? I would suggest that trying to do everything for all parties will eventually end up resulting in being able to do nothing for all parties. Specialization let`s recourses to support those with particular skills and passions that can best be harnessed by focusing on specific interests. Wouldn`t you agree to that? I have neve said that one issue involving suffering or threatening health through environmental damage is more important than another. They are just different and each needing to be addressed by as many people who are attracted to the call for help in alleviating those problems. If a person is deeply interested in the plight of animals and his/hers passion causes them to act on the issue strongly and productively, wouldn`t it be a drag on them (i.e. recourses) to expect them to do work in another field that does not ignite passion within them? Surely, telling someone who cares about animal abuse in circuses to work on alcholism problems in the instead will result in less productivity on that issue if the person is not deeply passionate about that. Let passions lead people to their interests of work without telling them they are working on less important issues from another`s subjective view or areas of interest they deem to be at least or more important.

Absolutely, I would agree that specialization allows one to focus energy and resources on a particular issue, and in the case of internet debate -- where there is no particular impetus to argue for something other than one's own opinions and conscience -- there is no reason whatsoever for one to argue an issue divergent from what one cares about. But I feel that you have been doing just that: you argue for animal rights, by arguing that people should become vegetarians for their health. I recognize that you have been responding to the questions and objections raised by your opponents, and that they, in the inimitable manner of us all on these forums, have been breaking your whole argument down into bits that they can chew on. However, I have seen at least three threads in different forums, with wholly different orientations -- bow-hunting, vegetarianism, and this one on factory farming -- in which you have argued for animal rights; this does not seem to me to be specialized. One is primarily concerned with sport, the second with health, and the third with economics and the inhumanity of modern "production," so to speak. Of course, all of them are related to animals and animal rights, but in very different ways; thus it seems that you are trying to argue on every possible front, all at once, and are spreading your own resources thin, as you say. Hence my question.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin It is hard to say which reaches most, "health, morals, or environmental." I will not guess. Before when I have debated the issue of either of those, I have always found it funny that when I focus on one, a reply will come forth saying I would reach more people if I focused on the other. And that includes focusing on "health" to have another poster say that "morals" would be a stronger message for themselves for they find it rude to target such a personal thing as food which could be an assault on their culture. Either way, CoffeeSaint, you can appreciate the "catch22" situation of debate on those 3 issues concerning vegetarianism, can`t you? No matter which I focus on I will be criticise for not focusing on the other or told in a suggestion I should focus on the other. I choose to focus on all -- but all those cards are played over time. It just takes time to get to them. But, I will. In due time. In due time.

But the point is that your interest lies in the rights of animals, not in the health of humans. When you argue for vegetarianism on health-related grounds, it rings hollow, because it is quite clear that your real interest is in the consumed, not the consumers. If you were arguing two separate interests in the two separate areas, that would be fine, but since the two are so closely related, you end up with your catch-22. You can't argue both ends of an argument when you are not objective: you can't argue both for the health of the humans, and for the health of the animals, against those who think those two are in conflict -- i.e., meat eaters. I have trouble arguing for strong penalties for certain crimes, for instance, because I have argued in the past for the rights of the accused; if I argue that the death penalty should not be used because no one, not even a criminal, deserves to die, I can't then argue that a rapist should suffer some horrible fate such as mutiliation and lifelong solitary confinement (I don't support that, just an example). It makes me seem a hypocrite: if I am so concerned with the life of a criminal, why am I arguing for harsher punishments? The correct answer, in this hypothetical situation, would be that I believe in human rights, both of the victim and of the criminal, and I could be arguing that harsh punishment of rapists could deter others, thus protecting the human rights of the victim, while my opposition to the death penalty protects the human rights of the criminal -- but it seems hypocritical, all the same. Thus it is with you, arguing both for the animal's right not to get eaten, and the health of humans who don't eat animals; this is, I think, why you get so much crap about the morality of eating plants. People are trying to catch you in a moral contradiction not because it's a natural counterargument, but because your arguments already seem somewhat contradictory.

BTW, I'm sorry these posts are coming at you in one giant lump; I have spent quite a bit of time making my replies on Wordpad, and am now just pasting my replies into your quoted posts. Sorry if there's too much to deal with in one go.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Animal Welfarists most certainly do do that and I welcome that. Animal Rightists, however, if they were to bargain away the rights of animals to still be deprived of their life for exploitation, would then no longer be Animal Rightists. An Animal Rightist saying it is ok to kill an animal and exploit it if such conditions were met would then be met with charges of hypocracy because they would not be consistant with the message of "rights." Since I am an Animal Rightist I cannot limit myself to the argument of ending only factory farming. Since Animal Rights is an umbrealla covering/against all animal exploitation, I do argue against factory farming, too. But, I can`t just "simply" argue against that only.

Fair enough. :)

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Which place raises and kills their animals humanely? You don`t trust corporate labels at face value, do you? Close to 80% of all U.S. flesh comes from factory farms and that trend is on the rise to meat population demands. Factory farms are destroying the family farm of yesteryear with chickens clucking in the yard and a pig rooting around nearby. Which slaughterhouses open their doors so that those curious can judge their killing systems? They are all closed to the public and do not offer walk through tours like Anheiser Bush does in Florida. If they did open themselves up, perhaps they could blunt some of the criticism they are charged with. In all probability they hide their systems because it is a gruesome business and to say there is humane killing at a slaughterhouse is a misnomer.

Since this is your issue, shouldn't you be able to answer these questions? I don't mean that in the jerky way it sounds -- I'm not trying to disprove your points or demanding you prove them. But this is what I meant: there are meat suppliers that do not use factory-farming methods; not many, I'm sure, but arguing that there are some, with examples, might get people to go out and look for those sorts of places, thus lowering the demand for factory-farmed meat.

But as you said, you are for animal rights including the right not to be eaten, so this is basically moot. But I will note, then, that arguing against factory farming specifically, and not against raising and slaughtering livestock in general, again makes your arguments ring hollow; it seems as though you are arguing against the extremes of cruelty shown in the "Meet Your Meat" video, but when it turns out that you are arguing against all meat consumption and livestock raising, it looks like you are trying to use shock tactics, rather than the simple logic and reasonable arguments you are so obviously capable of. Again, that is why I think you get so many intentionally blase responses to the images and descriptions of factory farming; it's like you are trying to horrify people, and it's not cool to be horrified, so people give you the same, "Yeah, so what?" that they have been saying since they were teenagers and their parents tried to scare them about sex and drugs.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I agree. If someone is going to eat meat, I would prefer them to get their flesh from another source than a factory farm. But even small time farmers still send their animals to the same slaughterhouses -- which are not humane (another misnomer). Farmers can no longer butcher their meat and then pack it and send it off to the super market. For one thing their small economy of scales would not let them compete with huge agribusinesses. Another point is that USDA inspectors need to inspect meat sent to the general public and the inspectors are at the certified slaughterhouses -- not at the traditional farms. Some Animal Rights groups do lobby for better conditions, but at the same time they also spend a large amount of recourses on outreach for vegetarianism -- because one less flesh eater means less demand pulling animals not only through the factory farm system, but also keeps them from going to the slaughterhouses.

And this sort of argument seems more logical, and thus more effective. But here, too, you use the term "flesh eater," which seems intended to horrify; it is this sort of manipulation that sets people's teeth on edge. It goes back to the distinction between objective debate and subjective debate: you are clearly subjective on the issue, and yet try to argue objectively from different ends of the spectrum -- but your language shows through.

I'm not sure how you could argue this and not have to deal with the points I'm trying to raise; I apologize for that. I'm not trying to push you into a particular stance or mode of argument. One of my main purposes in coming to these forums is to write out my ideas and opinions; it helps me to formulate them in a logical way, and I do that better when I have someone to respond to -- a sounding board, as you said. That's all I'm doing here: trying to formulate for myself what it is about your arguments that gets you so many angry-seeming responses. I think it has to do with your arguing style, rather than your topic, and I'm trying to understand why; please don't take this as criticism. I admire that you still argue for your cause, despite the resistance you get; I effectively gave mine up.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin This is fine. And in fact, many Animal Rightists do argue it with Utilitarian value, or more commonly Utilitarianism. Even amongst humans the Utilitarian value can and maybe should be considered. Look here at an ethical situation constructed where values are used: A homeless man with no money or skills and Bill Gates are rushed to a small clinic at the same time on the outskirts of a suburbian neighborhood. Bill Gates is immediately recognized and so is the local homeless man who has never offered anything to the community he has lived on the periphery of all his life. Both are the same age. Each need the full 4 pints of blood that is only at the clinic. Which one is saved? Utilitarianism would say that Bill Gates should be chosen because his life has more usefulness to society and therefore more to offer thus more valuable. This is in a life and death situation and value does come into play when a third party must choose. However, Utilitarianism breaks down and becomes a hideous tool of exploitation once it is applied to ego, vanity, and pleasure and the chooser is in many cases the beneficiary or related to the beneficiary in some way -- either be it through family, friendship or the more larger group affinity. Surely, if a person came to you and said if we take all of your organs, we can save 5 people. 5 are more valuable than one, so should you give up your life so that five can live? No! Why? Because The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is what stops ego, vanity, and pleasure for self benefit at the expense of another being. Each being has an interest in not being the target of those forms and therefore Utilitarianism stops, or should stop there, if we would like to live in a society where "might does not make right," which would always force us to give way to the majority or stronger party. So, are there any instances in how an animal may be viewed as valuable or more valuable than a person? Sure. People often refer to their animals as part of the family and many people mean that. Value will be subjective based on the relationship one has with the object. I would rescue my dog before a human in certain scenarios. But, likewise, I would rescue a human before my dog in some different scenarios as well. I think most people are the same even if they have not thought of it. It is enough to say that it is without getting into too many "if" situations, but surely you can picture some scenario constructs where that could be made to be seen and true. It will come down to relationships or baring that, Utilitarian principles. If all are whitewashed equal, then most people resort to group affinity in decision making. A person may value their dog's life more than their neighbor`s life or even their own life. Just look at Hurricaine Katrina. Many refused to evacuate and risked their lives by not evacuating on helicopters when told they could not bring their pets. They put themselves in harm`s way for their pet through self-sacrificing, i.e. elevating their pet`s importance and desire to survive up to the level of their own -- but in the process they lowered theirs down to their pet's. Animals, too, have interests of their own, mainly the one we share with them, the desire to not be the target of another`s designs on us for their own benefit which either causes us suffering, pain, or deprives us of our life -- which we would like to be free to continue and enjoy without undue intereference. I agree and many Animal Rightists and web sites DO do that. I could do that, too, here, and have been planning to post on some points like that, however, keep in mind, that is merely stating facts about their biology and behaviour or showing cute pictures. It really does not encourage debate. I am here to put forth the arguements in debate form so that I may improve my debating skills or learn new angles that my opponant or future opponant may employ against me. If I were invited to a university for a debate on Animal Rights and I merely hold up pictures stating facts, would that give me points in the eyes of those who came to the debate to judge me and my arguments for being against animal exploitation? I don`t think it would and I think it is more about moving people on the spectrum of their beliefs by speaking to their reason on those beliefs rather than simply make them coo and ah with cute bambi pictures. There have been a number of Disney or documentary animal pics over the decades, and those are not the things that jump started the Animal Rights and vegetarian movements -- it was an appeal to reason with structured argument.

Excellent post, wonderfully put. And I think it shows exactly my point. If you are going to make an appeal to reason with structured arguments, such as the clear-cut evidence that you present that shows vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle, then you should not simultaneously try to use appeals to emotion such as cute Bambi pictures -- or, as seems more common in this topic, pictures of Bambi getting drawn and quartered by some beer-gutted redneck with two teeth and a lower IQ than the animal he's slaughtering. If you try to use appeals to emotion such as the PETA videos you link to, then you should not try to use objective data about vegetarianism's health benefits -- as I said, it makes you seem hypocritical, because you are arguing both ends of the spectrum at once: both for people's health, and for animal's health, when the two sides are in conflict. Both styles of argument can be effective, but only when they are wholly separate.

At least, that has been my experience in arguing about gun control. When I argued subjectively, my opponents demanded objective facts; when I tried to supply them, they accused me of bias -- and of course, they were right; I am biased, and they knew it because I had made subjective, emotional arguments concerning gun control, and the language I used in my objective posts was still clearly opposed to guns in general. But recently, I have taken to arguing against guns only subjectively -- because I am not knowledgeable enough about that particular topic to argue objectively -- and though my opponents are unconvinced, I feel I have a better chance of reaching the silent watchers with my emotional arguments, because they are not weakened by my opponents' attempts to destroy my objective arguments -- attempts that I facilitated by mixing objective arguments with subjective ones. Now, my opponents say things like, "Well, I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect you for having it and expressing it well." That respect from my opponents is what makes me think I have a better chance of reaching the audience than I did before.

I thank you for your remarkable care in forming this reply; I have never been flattered by so much thought about my questions before, and I appreciate it. I hope you feel that flattery, and that thought, has been reciprocated.