Vegetarianism

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister Touche. Ultimately, preference is used to fufill a need on your part and mine. Yours is more noble or moral because you choose to kill and consume things of a lower caliber of sentience as gaged apon outward appearance and your perception of a displayed pain. Mine is less moral or noble because I endorse the killing and utilizing of sentient things that are capable of displaying pain ,or preception thereof, more conveyingly than a head of Cabbage. Just wanted to stack that up and see how it looked.

Clearly one's preference is of a higher level if it is due to a need to fulfill a feeling of empathy and compassion over an animalistic urge or craving for a food choice.... A food choice which involves taking the life of a sentient being that 'clearly' suffers and has a demonstrably similar interest in living as we do.

I think it's rather silly that we're even arguing over whether a human who operates at the animalistic level of reflexive urges is more/less or equally developed than the one who operates at a level where behaviors are selected based on their congruence with empathic/compassionate urgings.

Those on the end of the spectrum who are completely devoid of empathic ability are considered by behavioral scientists to be psycholgically/emotionally lacking....abnormal or mentally ill, in fact. Mental illnesses/disorders that include those lacking in empathic ability include; Asphergers Syndrome, Autism, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia...just to name a few.

those who are perhaps not completely devoid of this ability, yet on the lower end of the scale, are therefore at a 'lower level of human psychological development' than those who exhibit higher levels.

.

This certain level of empathetic ability, eh? That value would be what? Say 40 percent of the potential 'kisses-N-hugs' emotional apex? Sounds pretty good to me, being that you bring up the certainties of an overall value of an emotion, I would have to assert that 'love' can never be achieved untill at least 44 and 3/4 of the total available percent of the 'warm-N-fuzzy' emotional apex.

Whether you realize it or not, psychological tests do exist for ascertaining an individuals empathic ability.
The Balanced Emotional Empathy Test (BEES) which is based on the model of empathy as proposed by Mehrabian (1996) is such a device.

"Experimental work by Mehrabian, Young, and Satao (1988) in the area of empathy can be summarized as follows: Person's with higher emotional empathic tendency scale scores, compared with those with lower scores, are more likely to:

Have higher skin conductance and heart rate to emotional stimuli
be emotional, as evidenced by their tendency to weep,
Have had parent's who spent more time with them, displayed more affection, and were more explicit verbally about their feelings
be tolerant of infant crying and less abusive toward children
be altruistic in their behavior toward others and volunteer to help others
be affiliative
be non-aggressive
rate positive social traits as important
score higher on measures of moral judgment."

Personality Test of Emotional Empathy

Humans or homo-sapiens have been felling and eating animals for over two-hundred and fifty-thousand years and counting. As pertaining to being a contributing factor in the underlying/driving qualities within the human psyche, the reflexive urge to eat meat is one-hundred times more in reaching into mans developmental past than the moraly driven vegan view you have offered up.

Once again, even in those who choose to kill animals for meat, reflexive urges and empathic ability likely co-exist to some extent.

There is no doubt that as life gets better and easier, most people do find it easier to choose behavior that is in line with their feelings of empathy and compassion...this is how those with low to normal levels of empathy/intergrity usually operate.

When we exist in a state of survivial, clearly these actions become less likely. The strongest drive in most humans is that of self survival. Many have reached a point where they realize that choosing to eat meat is not necessary for this self survival.

Again, I'm not saying ALL humans have this ability. Quite the contrary...it's clearly only those with very highly developed abilities for empathy coupled with high ability for integral action who will be capable of this. Therefore, all of your arguments re: past behavior of humans, etc, are kind of a mute point in relation to my stance.

Working in tandem through necessity or circumstance?

Working in tandem, because that's simply the way we are designed. We have certain urges and 'most' of us also possess some level of empathic ability.

Scientific and moral evolution are not dependent apon each other. They may coincide, but they are not dependent.

I agree with this....Scientific advancement is not dependent upon moral advancement...is this what you're saying?

You could say that advances in dietary technology have allowed you to convey this level of moral/empathetical compass in a more convenient and displayed by the perticular choice in life style.

Sorry..once again, your wording here does not make sense to me.

Einstein split the atom though he didn't bomb Hiroshima. The discovery of the bodies need of B-12 and other essentials and obtaining of such allows you more ease of expression of dietary choice, to whatever ends you take it. The discovery did not make you moraly superior to anybody else. I will say this again, morals are subjective.

It is an ability to feel high levels of empathy adherance to one's empathic urgings when choosing behavior that makes him a more psychologically advanced human being.

Clearly, the man who has the personal integrity to follow through with veganism despite the fact that he lives in an area where it is not easy to do so, is superior to the man who uses this difficulty to choose to continue to eat meat, even though he may be feeling some amount of empathy for the animal. So yes, it seems we're agreeing here to some extent.

Ultimately, morals are subjective. However, as humans, most of us share a general agreement that kindness is valued over cruelty.

Those cases in which I referred to,however being the crisis situations they were, entailed a scenario in which plant matter was not a means of sustenance. Though people or even a small woodland creature here or there would be available.

As I've said before, in crisis situations, many things change. Most of us are currently NOT living in a crisis situation and thus can quite easily choose to follow a vegan diet.

The whole prose related this this particular comment was a longwinded explanation in how your misleading question is not only.........

..sorry, I found your wording confusing.

Exceptions and not the rule. I know of ways to kill animals in which they would feel or perceive no pain.

This would not change the fact that you'd be depriving them of life.

Not at all, but I don't prop 'man' up to be more that he actually is either.

In your world, humans appear to be mere puppets to their animalistic urges and cravings. Yes, my opinion of human beings is more expansive. Empathic ability and integrity to choose congruent action is imo, (and that of most behavioral scientists as well) a VERY important and integral part of being human.

Again, not at all do I wish to discredit the qualities that make man the alpha predator of the planet.

These abilities (empathy and integral choice of action) are in actuality qualities that ALLOW man to rise above these animalistic urges to become much, much more than a mere 'alpha predator.'

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Clearly one's preference is of a higher level if it is due to a need to fulfill a feeling of empathy and compassion over an animalistic urge or craving for a food choice.... A food choice which involves taking the life of a sentient being that 'clearly' suffers and has a demonstrably similar interest in living as we do. I think it's rather silly that we're even arguing over whether a human who operates at the animalistic level of reflexive urges is more/less or equally developed than the one who operates at a level where behaviors are selected based on their congruence with empathic/compassionate urgings. Those on the end of the spectrum who are completely devoid of empathic ability are considered by behavioral scientists to be psycholgically/emotionally lacking....abnormal or mentally ill, in fact. Mental illnesses/disorders that include those lacking in empathic ability include; Asphergers Syndrome, Autism, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia...just to name a few. those who are perhaps not completely devoid of this ability, yet on the lower end of the scale, are therefore at a 'lower level of human psychological development' than those who exhibit higher levels.

It is more than a mere choice, like that of deciding which movie to see at the theater, that is being made. I'm explaining a behaviour that is guided by a very strong, deep rooted reflexive desire to eat and enjoy meat. In fact it has been a driving force within man for far longer than you can provide support for the longevity of the qualities you bring to this debate table. In how you are applying them.

I could suppress it, perhaps. I quit smoking after 16 years using the 'cold turky' method. I know all too well the lengths of which people would have to go to,to beat back extreme cravings. But why should I? Because I can identify with another sentient things dealings with pain? Because I can assume it has the same vested interest to live as I do?

These things ,as they are supported here, are not equal in means to mine own. Related or simular perhaps but not on par with the superior exhibits of man in these areas. Therefore to me these actions need not be weighed with equal consideration to mine own, or the desires that drive them.

I'm saying humans possess a deep rooted relfexive desire. Your saying that people can trump this desire through empathetical outreaching. Your also saying that people need not eat meat and can live on plant material alone and that in hopes of moraly evolving the urge to eat meat should be supressed.

Allow me to expand apon your own posistion here, if you would. As I see it, the end product would reveal scenarios that are in complete contrast to what your saying now.

Lets begin with your assesment that humans ,as a whole, would not moraly/empathetically evolve to a point of no longer consuming meat or animal products over night.

To give your perspective its full merit lets say that over time society has evovled empathetically to the point in which meat and animal products are no longer utilized. With the vast numbers of commodity animals gone through a gradual decreasing in the numbers due to the decreasing demand by the evolving society what would you propose be done with the final remaining bloodlines of these domesticated animals?

What of the populations of wild animals? With people no longer willing to hunt and eat them or havrest them for other reasons their population growths would be totally unfettered and would most assuredly pose a myriad of negative impacts to man as the populations increase.As is currently indicated now with the number of those who hunt to eat or otherwise harvest them decreases.

What would you propose be done to keep these circumstances in check? A continuous sterilization program? A continuous relocating program, so as long as there is land to do it with? Those domesticated bloodlines; would you just hold them intill they died out or would you introduce them into the wild and hope for the best?

Can you not see that at its fullest potential your point of veiw here is doomed to failure and hypocritical actions?

Being that veganism is growing, as you stated, the trend points to what I said above as a probability. It is your posistion that life not be taken wantonly so your posistion itself seeks this very end of its means.

Now here is where you say,again, that your not implying that everybody become a vegan, but the fundamental points in your posistion say exactly that. I suggest you stop running in circles and face the fact that your argument is doomed to fail to stay within its own creed.

A predator is more than just a "mere" cog in the natural scheme of things. It is a necessity.

That's a fact that cannot be undone.
.

Quote by: inri Have higher skin conductance and heart rate to emotional stimuli be emotional, as evidenced by their tendency to weep, Have had parent's who spent more time with them, displayed more affection, and were more explicit verbally about their feelings be tolerant of infant crying and less abusive toward children be altruistic in their behavior toward others and volunteer to help others be affiliative be non-aggressive rate positive social traits as important score higher on measures of moral judgment."

I could use every one of these points to describe personal traits I have displayed throughout my own life. How could that be if I choose to eat meat too?

Quote by: inri Again, I'm not saying ALL humans have this ability. Quite the contrary...it's clearly only those with very highly developed abilities for empathy coupled with high ability for integral action who will be capable of this. Therefore, all of your arguments re: past behavior of humans, etc, are kind of a mute point in relation to my stance.

But you are implying that in following with advancing moral/ethical evolution your promoting all people should seek this mantra should they wish to be considered at least morally/ethically equivalent to those that already do so.

Ok. Your saying not all humans currently have this ability. What an astute observation, really. So the point your making is that some people choose not to consume animals or animal products due to moral reasons. Just where was I arguing that point? I said humans possess a deep rooted reflexive urge, much like empathy, to consume meat. My urge is just as subjective as the empathy you bring up. I have never said it wasent subjective. It does, however, as a reflexive urge combat the empathy you bring up. You have agreed to that fact. So my stance in showing the longevity of the basis for my reflexive urge is entirely relative.

Quote by: inri Working in tandem, because that's simply the way we are designed. We have certain urges and 'most' of us also possess some level of empathic ability.

I'm sorry. I cannot see "working in tandem by design" at all. That smacks of some sort of supernatural force and not circumstance that actually is what places scientific and moral evolution on congruent lines.

I assert that EVERYBODY possess a level of empathy. It's just alloted in different ways. Even a psychopath is driven by an urge or desire to fufill a need. It's the extened values that a person doles out that are given to anything which after this, these values are drawn opon to constitute/create feelings that motivate them. Somebody could have empathy for something that doesn't even physically exist.

Quote by: inri I agree with this....Scientific advancement is not dependent upon moral advancement...is this what you're saying?

More or less, yes.

Quote by: inri Sorry..once again, your wording here does not make sense to me.

Ehh, I seem to get that sometimes. I'm actually thinking a few sentences ahead of what I'm typing. Sometimes that does not work quite as well as desired.

Quote by: inri Ultimately, morals are subjective. However, as humans, most of us share a general agreement that kindness is valued over cruelty.

I am not advocating cruelty* to animals.

Quote by: inri This would not change the fact that you'd be depriving them of life.

I elaborated on this point above.I quote it here now to show your use of this concept, again.

Quote by: inri In your world, humans appear to be mere puppets to their animalistic urges and cravings. Yes, my opinion of human beings is more expansive. Empathic ability and integrity to choose congruent action is imo, (and that of most behavioral scientists as well) a VERY important and integral part of being human.

In my world humans a driven by instinctualy and emotionaly driven relfexive thoughts, coupled with logic. Just like your world.

Quote by: inri These abilities (empathy and integral choice of action) are in actuality qualities that ALLOW man to rise above these animalistic urges to become much, much more than a mere 'alpha predator.'

You cannot disassociate man with what it is that he is.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister It is more than a mere choice, like that of deciding which movie to see at the theater, that is being made. I'm explaining a behaviour that is guided by a very strong, deep rooted reflexive desire to eat and enjoy meat. In fact it has been a driving force within man for far longer than you can provide support for the longevity of the qualities you bring to this debate table. In how you are applying them. I could suppress it, perhaps. I quit smoking after 16 years using the 'cold turky' method. I know all too well the lengths of which people would have to go to,to beat back extreme cravings. But why should I? Because I can identify with another sentient things dealings with pain? Because I can assume it has the same vested interest to live as I do?

And yet....clearly 'some' humans exist that seem to have somehow been able to 'rise above' these urges. My argument is: these individuals are mentally/emotionall superior to those who have not. They are operating at a higher level of development than those humans who react and give-in to urges..who completely disregard any small amount of empathy they may actually be feeling.

To give your perspective its full merit lets say that over time society has evovled empathetically to the point in which meat and animal products are no longer utilized. With the vast numbers of commodity animals gone through a gradual decreasing in the numbers due to the decreasing demand by the evolving society what would you propose be done with the final remaining bloodlines of these domesticated animals?

I'd assume that the breeding of these animals would decrease as the need for their meat decreased. Once again...I can't imagine this occurring in any way but a very gradual process. Will there ever be a day where the entire world will suddenly declare..."Hey, every single one of us is a vegan as of yesterday, what should we do with all the animals we bred last year"....I kind of doubt it will go down like that.

What of the populations of wild animals? With people no longer willing to hunt and eat them or havrest them for other reasons their population growths would be totally unfettered and would most assuredly pose a myriad of negative impacts to man as the populations increase.As is currently indicated now with the number of those who hunt to eat or otherwise harvest them decreases.

The idea that hunters are solely responsible for keeping wildlife numbers in check is one that is debatable. Many believe that nature takes care of itself just fine, independent of man's interventions. This really opens up a whole new topic of debate.

Can you not see that at its fullest potential your point of veiw here is doomed to failure and hypocritical actions?

Please keep in mind, that no where here have I stated that I believe ALL people (or even 'some' of them) 'should' aspire to veganism.

Being that veganism is growing, as you stated, the trend points to what I said above as a probability. It is your posistion that life not be taken wantonly so your posistion itself seeks this very end of its means.

What I've stated is that those who deem it okay to take life wantonly, are operating at a lower level mentally/emotionally speaking....ie; they are less developed human beings than their counterparts who are capable of seeing suffering, feeling empathy for it, and adjusting their behavior as a consequence.

Now here is where you say,again, that your not implying that everybody become a vegan, but the fundamental points in your posistion say exactly that. I suggest you stop running in circles and face the fact that your argument is doomed to fail to stay within its own creed.

My argument is NOT that everybody should become a vegan. In my version of utopia..sure, ALL humans would act with complete kindness and intergral action. The fact is though that this is simply not presently the case...and merely wishing for this is not going to make it happen. Many humans presently appear to be lacking the emotional development to make this even a remote possibility.

If I were to imply that everyone should become a vegan, I'd be in extreme denial over this very basic fact.

A predator is more than just a "mere" cog in the natural scheme of things. It is a necessity. That's a fact that cannot be undone.

In the animal kingdom, amongst many species, this appears to be true. Can you provide evidence that this is a 'necessity' where human are invovled? Seems to me, many are doing just fine without this 'cog' playing a part in their life and existence.
.

I could use every one of these points to describe personal traits I have displayed throughout my own life. How could that be if I choose to eat meat too?

Sure... 'most' humans have 'some' amount of empathic ability. Clearly, if your empathic ability and integrity was in the higher levels though, you'd see suffering when and where it does exist and you'd be capable of overriding your 'urges' to choose behavior consistent with your empathic resonse. This is what most highly emotionally developed humans do.

Ok. Your saying not all humans currently have this ability. What an astute observation, really. So the point your making is that some people choose not to consume animals or animal products due to moral reasons. Just where was I arguing that point? I said humans possess a deep rooted reflexive urge, much like empathy, to consume meat. My urge is just as subjective as the empathy you bring up. I have never said it wasent subjective. It does, however, as a reflexive urge combat the empathy you bring up. You have agreed to that fact. So my stance in showing the longevity of the basis for my reflexive urge is entirely relative.

When empathic feelings and ability to take integral action prevail over animalistic urges...a human is demonstrating higher levels of mental/emotional development...there in a nutshell is my argument.

I'm sorry. I cannot see "working in tandem by design" at all. That smacks of some sort of supernatural force and not circumstance that actually is what places scientific and moral evolution on congruent lines.

To some degree, BOTH of these traits exist in each of us...nothing supernatural about that.

I assert that EVERYBODY possess a level of empathy. It's just alloted in different ways.

Exactly...and Those who possess very high levels, coupled with ability for integral action are often those who are capable of becoming vegans..... selflessly putting their immediate needs aside to contribute to the well-being of other people and animals alike.

Even a psychopath is driven by an urge or desire to fufill a need. It's the extened values that a person doles out that are given to anything which after this, these values are drawn opon to constitute/create feelings that motivate them. Somebody could have empathy for something that doesn't even physically exist.

Most of us humans do 'value' kindness over cruelty. Sure, someone 'could' have empathy for something that doesn't exist....animals though, clearly 'do' exist and clearly 'do' demonstrate a will to live and an ability to suffer.

Ehh, I seem to get that sometimes. I'm actually thinking a few sentences ahead of what I'm typing. Sometimes that does not work quite as well as desired.

No worries.....I've gone back over some of mine that even I can't understand!...lol...the heat of the moment, I guess!

I am not advocating cruelty* to animals.

But...isn't subjecting animals to confinement, fear, pain and death cruel? ....if you don't believe it is cruel, certainly you must admit that it does not fall under the heading of 'kind'?

In my world humans a driven by instinctualy and emotionaly driven relfexive thoughts, coupled with logic. Just like your world.

Make no mistake...we live in the same world. I simply acknowledge that those who are able to overcome their instincts and urges in order to serve their higher human mental/emotional abilities, are of higher a development.

You cannot disassociate man with what it is that he is.

do you consider those who have no urges or reflexive needs for meat..or who have overcome them...those who are ruled by the higher attributes of mental/emotional urging, to still be human?

Is a man who gives in to animalistic urges to rape or thieve more or less emotionally developed than a man who either does not have these urges, or has the ability to overcome them? I'd say he is of a lower development than the man who possesses higher abilities in this area....likewise with the man who can overcome his urges to eat meat in order to consider the animal involved and act accordingly.

[Lostinlife]

I’ve seen a new word floating around cyberspace. The word is "vegangelical." I believe it is meant to be a derogatory term for us so-called “holier-than-thou” or “extreme” vegans who "impose our beliefs" on supposedly innocuous and “moderate and reasonable” consumers of animal products. This essay is dedicated to looking a little closer at some of these derogatory terms and descriptions of vegans who dare to speak on behalf of the innocent. Specifically, we'll compare...I mean contrast, "extremism" in avoiding animal products versus extremism in using and consuming animal products.

Extremism In Violence

Let’s first take a glance at that pervasive Orwellian concept that veganism is “extreme” while the "Standard American Diet" (referred to herein as “SAD”) including meat, dairy, and eggs is “moderate and reasonable.” The only way veganism can be considered “extreme” is by contrasting it with its opposite; namely, the societal norm of slaughtering 10 billion innocent animals annually.

The average American causes the intentional slaughter of about 33.3 fully-sentient nonhuman beings annually. By contrast, there are absolutely no intentional deaths in a vegan diet, and any inadvertent deaths in crop production in vegan human populations are far less per capita than the number of inadvertent deaths per capita in any non-vegan human population. Intentionally terminating an innocent life – human or nonhuman – for completely unnecessary food preferences is extreme.

Extremism In Poor Health

The obesity and heart disease rate in this country is anything but “moderate and reasonable”, and it is a direct result of our obsession with meat, dairy, and eggs. We are literally taking several years, and in some cases, a few decades, off of our life-expectancy because we clog our arteries with the blood-sludge of the animal fat and cholesterol inherent in the SAD.

Not to absolve consumers, because we consumers are ultimately responsible for our choices, but the SAD and the big animal agribusiness interests that promote it in a bombardment of daily advertising, are having an extreme field day sending Americans to their graves much earlier than they would normally arrive there; not to mention the health care and pharmaceutical costs of attempting to prevent or reduce further damage from the SAD.

Extremism In Unnecessary Environmental Filth

Unimaginable amounts of raw sewage from pig farms, feed lots, and massive chicken sheds is polluting our air, ground water, and rivers and killing fish by the millions. As noted in the December 14, 2006 issue of Rolling Stone magazine in an article entitled "Boss Hog", our large pig farms spray huge quantities of liquid shit from gigantic manure pits (which often overflow in storms into surrounding [formerly fresh] water) up into the local air, causing people unfortunate enough to live anywhere near the “farms” to breathe in the toxins and develop severe respiratory illnesses (and possibly lung cancer and related problems).

As stated in the Rolling Stone article:

“The smell of hog waste is unduly invasive: It’s as if something has physically entered your stomach. The stench causes pilots to gag at 3,000 feet.”

Even the methane and nitrous oxide produced by cows and pigs from our feed lots and pig sheds is causing a warming effect on the atmosphere at a rate that is comparable, and sometimes exceeds, the warming effect of what millions of cars and trucks belch into the air in our country.

On top of all of this, and due to the political power these corporations wield by lobbying and buying politicians, Congress exempts these pollutters from even reporting, much less doing anything about, what they emit into the environment.

Further, we are now environmentally concerned about the industrialization of China and India – including their newfound fondness of the SAD, which is expected to at least double the environmental problems we have now over the coming decades – while we do nothing to set an example. What kind of world are our children and grandchildren going to live in during the next 50 years, the next 100 years? Will they even survive it and the global power struggles that will come with it?

What’s Extreme?

So what’s extreme? Veganism certainly isn’t “extreme,” unless we consider a peaceful, healthy, and environmentally responsible way of life extreme. If anything is extreme, it is intentionally slaughtering 10 billion animals annually in the U.S. (or 33.3 nonhuman beings per non-vegan person annually), killing ourselves from heart disease and obesity on the SAD, and ruining our environment (so severely that we’re literally making people sick, and not just making them gag), when it is completely unnecessary and so destructive.

[Lostinlife]

Holier-Than-Thou Vegans

Let’s now turn to the “holier-than-thou” criticism; and the related charge that vegans are vegans because “it’s a sweet way of feeling superior to others”.

The only way I could see this criticism holding weight in a criticism of someone’s attitude is when the difference in another’s behavior that they are disapproving of is trivial or insignificant when compared to their own behavior, and the moral judgment and disapproving attitude of that trivial difference in behavior is clearly an overreaction.

But how can we, with any decent conscience whatsoever, consider the killing of so many innocent beings, the destruction of our health, and the environmental consequences “trivial” or “insignificant”? It is monstrous to dismiss such violence and destruction as trivial or insignificant.

Criticizing vegans who are outspoken about the atrocities of our day and the easy vegan solution to it as “holier-than-thou” or “feeling superior” is unwise at best, given all of the benefits of living in a vegan society.

To go a step further and suggest that vegans should shut up and mind our own business – given the consequences of the SAD on us, nonhumans, and the environment – is foolish; and it is foolish because it is either embarrassingly ignorant of the facts, or so numb and apathetic to the plight of others as to be parasitic, but worse than most parasites, because most parasites must be parasitic to survive, whereas we don’t have such a need to be parasitic. We have a choice. We can go vegan. Anyone who can read this right now, CAN GO VEGAN.

Talk Is Cheap

Anyone can say they “care about animals” and talk about avoiding “unnecessary” suffering. But vegans walk the talk, and if some of us do happen to feel “superior to others” or “holier-than-thou” in this regard, we’ve earned every right to feel that way.

The only thing that really is nothing more than “a sweet way of feeling superior to others” is using this line to cheaply pump one’s ego and feel a false sense of “morally superiority” by expressing the old self contradictory “absolute” rule in moral relativity: Thou shall not judge (and in expressing that rule, even implicitly, one automatically contradicts oneself by committing a judgment and violating the rule).

Our Badge of Honor

Vegans should wear the term “vegangelical” as a badge of honor. After all, what crime did nonhumans commit to deserve their sentence to a life in “cage-free”, “certified humane” and organic concentration camps and a brutal slaughter to end it all? Their crime was evidently to be born completely innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time, or to be born of the wrong species/parents.

As "vegangelicals", we are the ones promoting decent, civilized behavior toward nonhuman beings and a healthy human diet, promoting life and longevity. We are the ones helping to protect the environment by our food and clothing choices. We are the ones giving the otherwise speechless innocent the strongest voice they have. This is nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, but rather something strong and immensely respectable to embrace and bring into the open – a respect for all life.

Derived from - Unpopular Vegan Essays: extremism

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri And yet....clearly 'some' humans exist that seem to have somehow been able to 'rise above' these urges. My argument is: these individuals are mentally/emotionall superior to those who have not. They are operating at a higher level of development than those humans who react and give-in to urges..who completely disregard any small amount of empathy they may actually be feeling.

This is a nice subjective observation you have made here. Thank you. Duely noted.

Quote by: inri I'd assume that the breeding of these animals would decrease as the need for their meat decreased. Once again...I can't imagine this occurring in any way but a very gradual process. Will there ever be a day where the entire world will suddenly declare..."Hey, every single one of us is a vegan as of yesterday, what should we do with all the animals we bred last year"....I kind of doubt it will go down like that.

Yes, quite right that the numbers would gradualy decrease over time. That's why I included that as a stipulation in my question that you seem to want to skirt around.You only repeated what I already said. Why? This gradual decrease does not exclude the scenario of these final lots of domesticated commodity aniamls needing some sort of action or idea of what to do with them. Using assessments you have made about the increasing prevalence of veganism and applying the only real absolute statement you seem to want to stick to that being the killing of sentient things being wrong; this would be a probable scenario to use to express your argument.

So I will ask again. What would you do with these final lots of commodity animals?

Quote by: inri The idea that hunters are solely responsible for keeping wildlife numbers in check is one that is debatable. Many believe that nature takes care of itself just fine, independent of man's interventions. This really opens up a whole new topic of debate.

Who said anything about hunting being "solely" resposible for keeping wild life numbers in check? I can provide as facts, though, the direct influence apon these numbers buy hunters.Wherein your posistion would erradicate this impact made by men. I asked you how you would supplement this influence. Again, you seem to want to navigate around this question. No new topic is needed as this point is being at the other end of the spectrum in regards to hunting animals to fufill this deep rooted urge I support is, well,obviously vegetarianism.


For your argument to see full fruition in regards to your key point,- that being the "killing another sentient being is wrong" due to me boiling your argument down to this very point several times- how could it be if everybody was not indeed a vegetarian?

Quote by: inri Please keep in mind, that no where here have I stated that I believe ALL people (or even 'some' of them) 'should' aspire to veganism.

Yes, indeed you have for how can this.......

Quote by: inri This would not change the fact that you'd be depriving them of life. '

and its implied actions coming to fruition not necessitate eveybody becoming a vegetarian?

I'm flabbergasted that you can not or choose not to see how your posistion demands an all vegan society as its end scenario?

Quote by: inri What I've stated is that those who deem it okay to take life wantonly, are operating at a lower level mentally/emotionally speaking....ie; they are less developed human beings than their counterparts who are capable of seeing suffering, feeling empathy for it, and adjusting their behavior as a consequence.

Another subjective observation in which you choose to both; not attempt to apply as a general argument and; also choose to forget about a key, absolute statement you have made several times.

Quote by: inri My argument is NOT that everybody should become a vegan. In my version of utopia..sure, ALL humans would act with complete kindness and intergral action. The fact is though that this is simply not presently the case...and merely wishing for this is not going to make it happen. Many humans presently appear to be lacking the emotional development to make this even a remote possibility. If I were to imply that everyone should become a vegan, I'd be in extreme denial over this very basic fact.

Depsite whatever posistion you think you will have by denying it, yes, yes you are saying that everyone should become a vegan because killing other sentient beings is wrong.

I'm anxiously awaiting your answers to my questions.

Quote by: inri In the animal kingdom, amongst many species, this appears to be true. Can you provide evidence that this is a 'necessity' where human are invovled? Seems to me, many are doing just fine without this 'cog' playing a part in their life and existence.

Seems to me you don't know enough about the intermingling of man and animal to make such an assertion.

Rapid spread of rabies predicted Raccoon population to increase in spring - The Boston Globe | Encyclopedia.com

HOOSIER RACCOON POPULATION REACHES ALL-TIME HIGH - Post-Tribune (IN) | Encyclopedia.com

Chicago Raccoon Control Pest Removal

Fall peak season for deer accidents Experts offer tips for avoiding deer damage

Public Health: Collisions with wildlife: the rising toll

prairiedog control, Prairiedog control, PRAIRIEDOG CONTROL, prairiedog control, Prairiedog Control, PRAIRIEDOG CONTROL, prarydog control, Prarydog Control, PRARYDOG CONTROL, prary dogs, Prary Dogs, PRARY DOGS, prairie dogs, Prairie Dogs, prarie dog c

Prairie Dogs: A Threatened Species or Public Health Nuisance? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)

Attack of the Crows — Attack of the Humans « The Third Wave

Quote by: inri When empathic feelings and ability to take integral action prevail over animalistic urges...a human is demonstrating higher levels of mental/emotional development...there in a nutshell is my argument.

....and it is your 'argument' that cannot be applied outward. As you have said several times already.

Quote by: inri To some degree, BOTH of these traits exist in each of us...nothing supernatural about that.

No, nothing directly dependant either. Your correlation is circumstantial and not dependant. Therefore your "andvanced moral prowess" is not the next sequential step in mans moral evolution but merely reinforced by circumstances pertaining to dietary knowledge advancement and, if things turned out differently within society, may not even be as prevelant as it is today.

Quote by: inri But...isn't subjecting animals to confinement, fear, pain and death cruel? ....if you don't believe it is cruel, certainly you must admit that it does not fall under the heading of 'kind'?

Even in a scenario devoid of these qualites you describe here you still assert that killing is still wrong so why bother with quibbling over inconsequentials. I already said i don't promote cruelty to animals.

I could compose a four page speech describing the most humane situation,even by your standards, just for you to reply. "But your still killing" so why bother. Instead I choose to attack the principal of your argument with my hypothetical questions above.

Good luck.

Quote by: inri Is a man who gives in to animalistic urges to rape or thieve more or less emotionally developed than a man who either does not have these urges, or has the ability to overcome them? I'd say he is of a lower development than the man who possesses higher abilities in this area....likewise with the man who can overcome his urges to eat meat in order to consider the animal involved and act accordingly.

In would say the individual who rapes another is less compassionate,yes. Your not saying everybody has the compulsive urge to rape are you? Causing a person to XX amount of years of moral/physical anguish is far more heinous an act than terminating a cows life and subsequently ending the cruelty* then and there, I would say.

[Elminister]

So how much of this cookie-cut presentation do you wish to defend?

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister This is a nice subjective observation you have made here. Thank you. Duely noted.

It's only subjective "IF" you disagree that causing animal suffering is unkind, and IF you disagree that kindness is valued over cruelty.

Yes, quite right that the numbers would gradualy decrease over time. That's why I included that as a stipulation in my question that you seem to want to skirt around.You only repeated what I already said. Why? This gradual decrease does not exclude the scenario of these final lots of domesticated commodity aniamls needing some sort of action or idea of what to do with them. Using assessments you have made about the increasing prevalence of veganism and applying the only real absolute statement you seem to want to stick to that being the killing of sentient things being wrong; this would be a probable scenario to use to express your argument.

There are so many issues to be factored in regarding such a scenario...lets see.. IF the entire worlds population came upon a day where it was realized that EVERY SINGLE PERSON was now an ethical vegan, we'd be dealing with a near entire population of humans who had reached a level of emotional/psychological development which embraced a philosphy of 'do the least amount of harm possible'.. This would indeed be a very, very different world from the one we presently experience, therefore this question and those like it must be answered while attempting to imagine such a world dynamic.

I can only imagine that at this stage of the game, any remaining lots of such animals would be extremely minimal. A world majority of those who value kindness above all else, (as would be necessary for veganism to be the accepted diet amongst all) would very likely embrace the idea of adopting out these animals for care by interested individuals. Further breeding of these remaining animals would be curtailed while they lived out their remaining life spans.

Who said anything about hunting being "solely" resposible for keeping wild life numbers in check? I can provide as facts, though, the direct influence apon these numbers buy hunters.Wherein your posistion would erradicate this impact made by men. I asked you how you would supplement this influence. Again, you seem to want to navigate around this question. No new topic is needed as this point is being at the other end of the spectrum in regards to hunting animals to fufill this deep rooted urge I support is, well,obviously vegetarianism.

When this world reaches a point where every human has attained the level of development necessary to consider all animals worthy of consideration and protection from uncessary cruelty, It's pretty likely that these deep rooted urges to 'kill' and 'consume flesh' will no longer be part of man's psyche. This is clearly a ways off....although 'some' humans are presently exhibiting these advanced tendencies.

For your argument to see full fruition in regards to your key point,- that being the "killing another sentient being is wrong" due to me boiling your argument down to this very point several times- how could it be if everybody was not indeed a vegetarian?

Will everyone one day agree with veganism? I surely do not know for sure, However, It does appear that more and more humans are aspiring to higher levels of ethics, including animal consideration amongst their personal and group values.

and its implied actions coming to fruition not necessitate eveybody becoming a vegetarian? I'm flabbergasted that you can not or choose not to see how your posistion demands an all vegan society as its end scenario?

My position includes a statement of fact: Ethical vegans are morally superior to those who are not...IF...one holds values that say kindness is more desireble than cruelty...and if one believes that purposefully inflicting suffering upon another sentient being is a cruel act.

How can I state that everybody SHOULD become a vegan when I don't actually believe that all humans currently possess the mental/emotional development necessary for the mind set necessary?

Sure, perhaps one day the tipping point will be reached and veganism will be legislated....perhaps this could happen..? who knows. currently, we're light years away from even the possibility that an entire world's population would reach this level of moral dvelopment.

Depsite whatever posistion you think you will have by denying it, yes, yes you are saying that everyone should become a vegan because killing other sentient beings is wrong.

It would be nice if everyone would become ethically predisposed to veganism...yet I don't believe that everyone currently 'can'....a bit of a conundrum.



My argument really is more simple...once again:

Those who extend their empathy/compassion and integral action to encompass all sentient beings are of a higher moral/mental/emotional development than those who do not.

The above statement is a fact IF kindness is valued over cruelty and IF it's accepted that animals are capable of suffering in a similar manner to humans.

Clearly, if you do not agree with the above 'If's" you will not agree with my position.

Seems to me you don't know enough about the intermingling of man and animal to make such an assertion.

I was alluding to the fact that many humans do not feel the necessity to eat meat. You seem believe that underneath the surface, ALL humans have these animalistic urges you speak of. Fact is, many humans have absolutely no urge to kill....no urge to consume animal flesh...and there are even those who do, yet overcome them due to advanced empathy and integrity.

Even in a scenario devoid of these qualites you describe here you still assert that killing is still wrong so why bother with quibbling over inconsequentials. I already said i don't promote cruelty to animals.

You do not consider killing a sentient being with a will to live to be at all cruel? do you believe it to be an act of 'kindness'?

In would say the individual who rapes another is less compassionate,yes. Your not saying everybody has the compulsive urge to rape are you?

I'm not saying everybodyd has the compulsive urge to rape...but 'some' do...You're not saying ALL humans have a compulsive urge to kill animals and eat their flesh, are you?

Causing a person to XX amount of years of moral/physical anguish is far more heinous an act than terminating a cows life and subsequently ending the cruelty* then and there, I would say.

Sure, when we compare levels of cruelty, our own personal values will come into play...and most of us will likely agree that certain cruelties trump others. However, for those who believe in a philosophy of 'do the least amount of harm possible' in all scenarios, ANY amount of suffering/abuse is problematic and must be considered.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Lostinlife The average American causes the intentional slaughter of about 33.3 fully-sentient nonhuman beings annually.

I kill that on a good weekend of hunting at sea. Just like the rest of oceanic life, I look 'em right in the eye before they surrender their lives according to the law of the sea and if I ever encounter a shark that just won't go away, I suppose I shall do the same.

Quote by: Lostinlife By contrast, there are absolutely no intentional deaths in a vegan diet...

Strange, I grow a lot of my own food too and damn if all but my trees don't die out after producing. I'm also told the equivalent of a nervous system in plants is even more sensitive to the immediate threat of death, pruning, etc. than most animals are.

[Diogenes]

We interrupt this thread to bring you late Breakin' News from the Dinner Table of Diogenes...

that chicken was really tasty...yummy...

now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[SoylentGreen]

Questatement I'm also told the equivalent of a nervous system in plants is even more sensitive to the immediate threat of death, pruning, etc. than most animals are.

That's strange, because i know i can cut two or three limbs off a tree and it will live. But if i tried cutting two or three limbs off a cow, I don't think the cow will live.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Diogenes We interrupt this thread to bring you late Breakin' News from the Dinner Table of Diogenes... that chicken was really tasty...yummy...

Killed it with that trusty old sledge-hammer of yours, did you Diogenes?

[Questatement]

Did I not mention that my trees live on while still producing food for me?

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Elminister So how much of this cookie-cut presentation do you wish to defend?

My aren't you cheery! I wouldn't of posted it if I didn't believe every word that was written.

Quote by: Questatement I Just like the rest of oceanic life, I look 'em right in the eye before they surrender their lives according to the law of the sea and if I ever encounter a shark that just won't go away

If your talking about what is currently "legal" for YOU to do, sure, but this isn't an argument

I'm also told the equivalent of a nervous system in plants is even more sensitive to the immediate threat of death, pruning, etc. than most animals are.

There exists no objective proof that plants can experience the sensation of pain or have any interests at all. I suppose we can slow the debate with this strawman for the next 50 pages, but my main focus of this dsicussion is debunking the uses of said terms to describe vegans. Hence the name of the topic.

[Questatement]

It would all depend on your defintitions of words like fear and pain.

For instance, if pain is defined as a signal of present or impending tissue damage affected by a harmful stimulus which an organism reliably responds to for self-preservation, it would thus be experienced by almost all multicellular organisms. The question then would not be whether or not plants feel pain, but why is it okay to cause pain to plants but not animals?

[Questatement]

Quote by: SoylentGreen That's strange, because i know i can cut two or three limbs off a tree and it will live. But if i tried cutting two or three limbs off a cow, I don't think the cow will live.

I was just thinking. Based on this philosophy, would it be okay to eat parts of animas that grow back like lizard tails and crustacean limbs?

[inri]

Quote by: Diogenes We interrupt this thread to bring you late Breakin' News from the Dinner Table of Diogenes... that chicken was really tasty...yummy... now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Cool..your gut is full.
Does the thought of that chicken's likely experience of fear, terror, pain, or any level of suffering whatsoever, cause any niggling amount of compassion with you? Does the fact that it is a chicken make this difficult...(another species)...or does your appetite for the taste of chicken sufficiently overcome any of these empathic leanings you may feel if it appetite were not in play?..honestly, just curious.

[Lostinlife]

Not exactly, we can objectively state whether or not a signal is being sent by nerves, as well as wheather or not that signal is received by the brain.

Rain clouds bear meaningful information about their level of oversaturation in the form of weight relative to volume. Do not clouds, therefore, "sense" when atmospheric pressure is insufficient for their moisture content to remain in a vaporous state?

The problem with plant and cloud "pain" is that there exists no objective proof of a mechanism that allows us attribute certain REACTIONS or purposive BEHAVIOURS to a mental state of "felt pain".

Just because something is living has no bearing on wheather or they can be said to experience sensation, so first and foremost, you must ask the question, would this organism have NEEDED to develop this mechanism? As plants are immobile and rooted to the ground, it seems ludacris that they could benefit from any sort of "felt pain" without being able to flee from it and preserve their lives.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Questatement I was just thinking. Based on this philosophy, would it be okay to eat parts of animas that grow back like lizard tails and crustacean limbs?

not if you are trying, as it would appear you are, to make a case that plants have any sort of nervous system that is comparable to animals.

that the cell structure of a tree reacts to change does not mean that it has a nervous system.

[Cruella]

There are copyright issues with cutting and pasting entire articles from other sources, for this reason, the opening posts in this thread will be edited to comply with the forum rules.

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

.