Vegetarianism

[Diogenes]

The whole idea that animals suffer and feel pain the same way we do is ignorance of nature...
as I said previously...nature only ' appears ' to be cruel...when you see a hyena gorging on a antelope while it is still alive, or when a tarantula wasp lays it's eggs inside a tarantula to feed on while it is still alive...it ' appears ' to be cruel...

but appearances can be deceiving...

all animals are endowed with safety features that protect them from excessive and/or unbearable pain and suffering...

at a certain point we either pass out or become numb to or even unaware of the pain and suffering...naturally drugged...our minds may even wander off in escapism...

humans have to a certain point tampered with this...and we have devised technics to torture people by-passing these natural protections...

but in the animal world these protections still apply...

so, no...that antelope is not experiencing pain and suffering while it is being eaten alive...in fact it only experiences pain and suffering for a very short period of time...

as pain and suffering in the natural world is just a warning that something is wrong...another natural protection from harm...

what seems like pain and suffering is actually fear...animals, like most people, are afraid to die...and you can see it in their eyes when they know that is going to be the outcome,...

that antelope's glazy look is an indication of fear not pain and suffering...

the ONLY , and I've said this before too, the ONLY legitimate reason that has been raised by anyone in this thread to date...and quite possibly the ONLY reason anyone will ever raise...

is that we don't have to eat meat...at least here in First World Nations.

We don't have to kill animals to eat, there is more than enough abundance to avoid killing to satisfy our cravings. This however is not true in Second and Third World Nations.

So yes, I agree, that we do not ' need ' to kill to eat...we do it because it tastes good on the BBQ...

I eat what I like to eat...because it tastes good...and sometimes a chicken, or a cow, or a pig, or a turkey, or a fish, has to die to satisfy my taste buds...

and I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister You essentialy, in a nutshell, summed up my point."Empathic ability and integrity occur in a heirarchy"......exactly so. It is the individual that determines the values within this heirarchy. Agreeing,loosely, on descriptive terms that can vary in value is one thing. The exact value and implication of, is another.

If the heirarchy is based upon a measure of empathic ability and intergrity of action.... a measure of increasing levels of kindness and compassionate action given to others, with the least amount of consideration for one's own person, a fairly clear agreed upon measurement of ethical behavior can be determined. Kind action is better than action devoid of kindness. It's really quite simple when taken down to this level.

Those who are able to put their own selfish needs on hold to a higher degree in order to consider the plight of another to a higher degree...are operating under a higher, more encompassing moral code, than those who are for whatever reason, less able to do this.

I agree animals can suffer. I agree that torturing animals for the sheer enjoyment of watching another living thing display pain is wrong. I agree that actions devoid of ANY consideration for the animals sense of pain is wrong. Especially when this pain can be accounted for and avoided.

And By all that you've stated here, you are clearly operating at a higher level of empathic ability/integrity than many.

None of those these items of agreeance dispute the fact that you and I take different considerations into affect and therein lay subjection as a quality. I would see a very fast acting thirty ton hydraulic pressure plate press used to litteraly crush a cows head instantly as probably the most humane way to stop the animals nervous system from registering pain and the brain from percieving it being pending. Whereas you may see that as gross or barbaric and cruel.

Actually, I'd be in agreement that whatever produced the least amount of trauma prior to death, and whichever caused the quickest/least painful death would be the 'best' means of causing death...the least amount of suffering possible under the circumstances is imo always the best. Better..or 'more kind' would be not subjecting the animal to death at all, wouldn't it?

If it were considered undesireable though, plainly speaking, you would be inhibiting procreation thus allowing the dying off of these sub-species. An easy enough situation to moraly rectify.Though that was not your original answer.

As I don't see any personal suffering involved in the cessation of breeding. Do you feel compassion for those individuals who were prevented from being born due to contraceptive use? Allowing a sub-species to die off, as it does not cause immediate suffering to any particular individual, is debatable in terms of whether or not it deserves 'moral' consideration.

That was a very eloquent and poignant reply to a question.....that you still didn't asnwer. The premis is simple. How would you propose to make up for the effects man has on curbing population levels that this action has as secondary affect the curtailing the prevalence of detrimental clashes between man and animal?

I think to answer this accurately and concretely, I'd have to have a clear-cut real life example to base my answer upon. As this is presently a 'make-belive' scenario, no one knows for sure what the impact of a gradual shift to the entire worlds pop. refraining from hunting animals for food would actually be. I can only assume that a highly ethical population of humans would take into consideration the highest level of consideration for animals possible under the circumstances while also considering his own survivial. "Do the least amount harm possible" would undoubtedly underscore any such decisions that needed to be addressed.

A wounded raccoon on the side of the road that appears that it's not going to die anytime soon but is obviously in agonising pain and well beyond the aid of a vet. I would view killing that animal as being a kind thing to do.

I would also agree. The action that leads to the least amount of suffering is in my mind, always the best one.

But now here is where you compare Ricky the Raccoon to Betsy the Cow in the pasture and how they werent related. Then here is where I say you didnt ask for a correlated example but that Betsy, at least, was bred for that purpose of food. That she was given a sheltered life in keeping her from predators and keeping her fed and healthy and allowing her the greatest odds of successful procreation that mans technology could offer. These considerations are well above and beyond that of what her odds in living out in the wild would have offered her. Now she dies in order to help feed man who in return will offer her offspring the same considerations.

This all sounds real nice and aboveboard, however you're leaving out many of the horrors that Betsy and her other cow friends will likely encounter during their lives.
More and more, factory farms are the norm. Are you familiar with any of the horrors that animals are subected to during this process? If not, I can supply some facts, (however, if it's not necessary I'd just as soon not confront these images today as It always puts me in an awful place emotionally).

The killing of a cow for meat serves to help me sustain myself through nourishment. I'm still preserving myself it's just that my options are a little more broad than yours, moraly.

I can agree with this. Keep in mind though, There are those who are able to overcome this urge/need and DO survive and actually thrive on a vegan diet.

Right. Killing sentient beings is wrong so we should all be vegans.

Nah...I'm not near as staunch on this as your statement makes me sound. The word 'should' does not take into account that presently for 'some' this is just not possible. "The highest amount of consideration possible to the animal, while still considering one's own self-interests" more accurately sums up my position here.

GeminiBrian presents a great example. He's clearly concerned for the plight of animals, yet has tried to follow a vegan diet to the best of his ability, yet finds it does not support his health...therefore, one could say that his human trait of self-preservation (and I really do still believe that even in highly ethical people, this one trumps all) makes it very difficult if not near impossible to follow a vegan diet. As humans 'doing the best we possibly can' is what should be expected. No doubt, this WILL vary for all of us.

Clearly, 'some' do to have a physical need for meat that others do not. There's even certain doctors who believe that certain blood types need animal protein while other do not....So, yes, I am perhaps a bit more flexible in my approach to this subject that you may think.

I do believe though that very, very gradually man is evolving to higher levels of empathic ability coupled with integrity and that even physically, may be evolving to have less of a 'need' for meat.

In order to fufill a deeply rooted reflexive urge for meat? What's the other options? Besides overriding this urge?

You're right, IF this urge is very, very strong, the only option is the use of will-power to override it...sometimes in those who feel very high levels of empathy, this itself will suffice as a catalyst to great amounts of will-power.

Have you asked them if they have ever obstained from eating meat for long periods of time?

My husand is one such person...poor bugger gets no meat at home, yet the first thing he orders when we go out to dinner, (over profuse apologies to me, of course) is a steak. He's the first one to admit that he's simply lacking the integrity to follow through with his empathic feelings towards animals, just as I'm the first to admit that I also fall short in my level of integrity when I break-down to indulge in diary product...(because of this,I am actually NOT a vegan..and clearly NOT of the highly ethically evolved variety of human)...must say though, that since participating on this thread...I've been able to stick to my guns! proof I think that for many of us, focused awareness of some of the horrors animals experience is all that's needed to push us over the edge into taking empathic action in our choice of diet.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri If the heirarchy is based upon a measure of empathic ability and intergrity of action.... a measure of increasing levels of kindness and compassionate action given to others, with the least amount of consideration for one's own person, a fairly clear agreed upon measurement of ethical behavior can be determined. Kind action is better than action devoid of kindness. It's really quite simple when taken down to this level. Those who are able to put their own selfish needs on hold to a higher degree in order to consider the plight of another to a higher degree...are operating under a higher, more encompassing moral code, than those who are for whatever reason, less able to do this.

I think your approach vs. mine own to this item is fundamentaly different and has yet to be described? Your expanding apon the inherent value of concepts and morals and offering up their values not withstanding the medium in which they are born and carried out and thus offering the true real world application of the varying degrees of interpretation by individuals.

You have not been able to offer up an operable application of what your talking about, as per applications across an entire scope, without using phrases like "those who are able"......"hold to higher degrees" ....Ect. The final, manifested values given to these concepts are in fact, fluid and alloted by individuals in mannors that best suit their moral compass. I already supported a situation in which killing an animal would a 'kind' thing to do. But it was in the presence of my own moral code and assesment of the situation. Some may not, even in a case that clear-cut to you and I, agree with the killing being kind at all and that no matter what the animals life should have been preserved because being alive is better than not.

Quote by: inri Actually, I'd be in agreement that whatever produced the least amount of trauma prior to death, and whichever caused the quickest/least painful death would be the 'best' means of causing death...the least amount of suffering possible under the circumstances is imo always the best. Better..or 'more kind' would be not subjecting the animal to death at all, wouldn't it?

It would be nulling your need to adhere to an empathetic response to a shared,as you support it, display of pain and suffering. If I could remove pain and suffering alltogether then it would easily fufill your "least harm possible" ethos. In fact, I could offer scenarios that would surpass it. With the pain and suffering and empathy portion, hypothetically, no longer in the equation we then are left with killing still ultimately, using your posistion, being unkind and wrong and you still being unable/unwilling to asnwer my question about wild animal population levels

Quote by: inri As I don't see any personal suffering involved in the cessation of breeding. Do you feel compassion for those individuals who were prevented from being born due to contraceptive use? Allowing a sub-species to die off, as it does not cause immediate suffering to any particular individual, is debatable in terms of whether or not it deserves 'moral' consideration.

Contraceptive use prohibits the birth of some within our species. If every female were to use contraception continously and birth rates ceased then,yes. I would feel a great deal of compassion of loss for our species.

Quote by: inri I would also agree. The action that leads to the least amount of suffering is in my mind, always the best one.

I will reiterate though that even in cases involving the removal of the qualites of empathy relating to pain and suffering your end posisition ultimately remains the same. "Do the least amount of harm" you say. What if no 'harm' is done? What if the life is instantly ended and no pain is felt? Don't you see how that would fulfill the primary stance of your argument? If even hypothetically?

Quote by: inri This all sounds real nice and aboveboard, however you're leaving out many of the horrors that Betsy and her other cow friends will likely encounter during their lives. More and more, factory farms are the norm. Are you familiar with any of the horrors that animals are subected to during this process? If not, I can supply some facts, (however, if it's not necessary I'd just as soon not confront these images today as It always puts me in an awful place emotionally).

No need to supply any supporting proof. I have seen many videos and read many stories related to what your saying. Now you have given me the chance to say that I think the commodity industry and it's methods needs a serious overhaul pertaining to procedures. Those images and stories bother me far more than you or any other here have perceived. I'm defending a notion. I'm not defending how this notion is being manifested by others.

Quote by: inri You're right, IF this urge is very, very strong, the only option is the use of will-power to override it...sometimes in those who feel very high levels of empathy, this itself will suffice as a catalyst to great amounts of will-power.

But then you see that "suffering" is then, though with different impacts and implications, transferred from one being to another. In that a human must contend with self denial and the accompanying suffering. It's more than a choice your asking to be made. Your asking one to subject ones self to suffering.

Quote by: inri My husand is one such person...poor bugger gets no meat at home, yet the first thing he orders when we go out to dinner, (over profuse apologies to me, of course) is a steak. He's the first one to admit that he's simply lacking the integrity to follow through with his empathic feelings towards animals, just as I'm the first to admit that I also fall short in my level of integrity when I break-down to indulge in diary product...(because of this,I am actually NOT a vegan..and clearly NOT of the highly ethically evolved variety of human)...must say though, that since participating on this thread...I've been able to stick to my guns! proof I think that for many of us, focused awareness of some of the horrors animals experience is all that's needed to push us over the edge into taking empathic action in our choice of diet.

Ask him this simple question; Does the want to consume meat grow more pressing with the passage of time? Surely there is some sort of underlaying craving there on his part. He apologises to you ,in lieu of your moraly derived dietary standards becuase though it appears it to be polite to you to try to adhere himself as it seems he does at home he has been beaten by a craving. At least that's how I interpret the information you have supplied.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister I t. I already supported a situation in which killing an animal would a 'kind' thing to do. But it was in the presence of my own moral code and assesment of the situation. Some may not, even in a case that clear-cut to you and I, agree with the killing being kind at all and that no matter what the animals life should have been preserved because being alive is better than not.

When it comes to measuring one's level of empathic ability and resultant choice of action....INTENT is everything. choosing to kill an animal because it is suffering terribly and has no chance of healing, is a kind act if it is done to alleviate suffering. For many this would sit as the very best they could do for the animal under the circumstances.
It would be difficult to argue that it would be kinder to allow the animal to survive a few more hours of life, when it's clearly in agony for those few remaining hours...can't imagine too many people who would disagree & argue that it's 'kinder' to allow an animal to writhe in pain just so it could 'enjoy' life a little longer...but I suppose anything is possible.

It would be nulling your need to adhere to an empathetic response to a shared,as you support it, display of pain and suffering. If I could remove pain and suffering alltogether then it would easily fufill your "least harm possible" ethos. In fact, I could offer scenarios that would surpass it. With the pain and suffering and empathy portion, hypothetically, no longer in the equation we then are left with killing still ultimately, using your posistion, being unkind and wrong and you still being unable/unwilling to asnwer my question about wild animal population levels

I'll attempt to answer your questions about wild animal population levels when you give me an exact scenario and provide proof that it is a likely one that would ensue under these circumstances. It's difficult when we're talking about hypothetical situations that do not currently actually exist.

Contraceptive use prohibits the birth of some within our species. If every female were to use contraception continously and birth rates ceased then,yes. I would feel a great deal of compassion of loss for our species.

I don't understand how anyone could feel 'compassion' for a group of beings that has never been born, has never come into existence.

I understand perhaps feeling regretful or even sad that a certain species would be lost, however, feeling compassion, denotes empathic response which by it's very definition MUST be directed at a being that is capable of demonstrating suffering.

I will reiterate though that even in cases involving the removal of the qualites of empathy relating to pain and suffering your end posisition ultimately remains the same. "Do the least amount of harm" you say. What if no 'harm' is done? What if the life is instantly ended and no pain is felt? Don't you see how that would fulfill the primary stance of your argument? If even hypothetically?

Sure certain considerations given to mitigate suffering are better than none, but it would be kinder yet, not to take the animals life at all. Once again....levels of kindness apply. We could say it is a kind act to consider an animal's suffering while killing it and as a result to choose a manner of killing that is swift and as painless as possible...however, wouldn't it be 'kinder' yet to simply not kill the animal at all? It seems that if you can find a way to kill an animal without it feeling pain, you believe that the loss of life to the animal is of no consequence whatsoever. Do you not believe that animals have and demonstrate a will to live?...or that they have an interest in preserving their life?

But then you see that "suffering" is then, though with different impacts and implications, transferred from one being to another. In that a human must contend with self denial and the accompanying suffering. It's more than a choice your asking to be made. Your asking one to subject ones self to suffering.

For many, (ethical vegans per se) the suffering one feels when denying themselves animal products is miniscule compared to what an animal would endure in the meat processing industry.

Ask him this simple question; Does the want to consume meat grow more pressing with the passage of time? Surely there is some sort of underlaying craving there on his part. He apologises to you ,in lieu of your moraly derived dietary standards becuase though it appears it to be polite to you to try to adhere himself as it seems he does at home he has been beaten by a craving. At least that's how I interpret the information you have supplied.

Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up.... he would also be one of the first to admit that although he considers himself to be a kind and moral person, he clearly has a long ways to go before he'll even come close to possessing a moral code that's as devloped as the man who values human AND animal life on a level that allows their well-being to supercedes his own food cravings.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri When it comes to measuring one's level of empathic ability and resultant choice of action....INTENT is everything. choosing to kill an animal because it is suffering terribly and has no chance of healing, is a kind act if it is done to alleviate suffering. For many this would sit as the very best they could do for the animal under the circumstances. It would be difficult to argue that it would be kinder to allow the animal to survive a few more hours of life, when it's clearly in agony for those few remaining hours...can't imagine too many people who would disagree & argue that it's 'kinder' to allow an animal to writhe in pain just so it could 'enjoy' life a little longer...but I suppose anything is possible.

The argument would probably be that everything should be tried to save the Raccoon depsite how very,very unlikely the success would be. Much like the scenario would be for finding a wouned human. However though ,my assertion and actions in that situation would be much different,to that of the raccoon, as I'm sure yours would be too. You follow?

Quote by: inri I'll attempt to answer your questions about wild animal population levels when you give me an exact scenario and provide proof that it is a likely one that would ensue under these circumstances. It's difficult when we're talking about hypothetical situations that do not currently actually exist.

With the decreasing numbers of those that hunt Whitetail deer, the populations of these deer are showing related increases,annualy. Thus increasing the prevalence of relating negative impacts on society; Crop damage,increasing motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, increasing occurrences of Lyme Disease as brought about by Deer Ticks. The hypothetical cessastion of hunting Whitetail deer would remove all the positive influence mans' hunting has as an effect on the inhibiting of these statistics. Further, it's shown that deer populations,as they expand devoid of many of their natural predators, would grow and sustain at rates that could not be supported by their natural enviornments, generaly speaking that is. This factor would then be compounded by the hypothetical removal of man hunting. I will agree that this scenario, too, would take place gradually, over time.

What would you offer up in order to suppliment mans influence here?

Quote by: inri I don't understand how anyone could feel 'compassion' for a group of beings that has never been born, has never come into existence.

The compassion I spoke of would be for the human race itself. In that if no new humans were being born and yet we continued to die.........well, extend that line of thought and see where it takes you. My relation with this was that of simularity to your solution to that of the final bloodlines of the commodity animals.

Quote by: inri It seems that if you can find a way to kill an animal without it feeling pain, you believe that the loss of life to the animal is of no consequence whatsoever. Do you not believe that animals have and demonstrate a will to live?...or that they have an interest in preserving their life?

If I can find a way to kill an animal without inflicting pain then I have removed the major(empathetical) portion of your argument and that I'm cornering you into saying that yes, in some cases if we were all to be vegans,we would have to kill animals in certain regards, anyway. Which is the final bastion of your argument.

Quote by: inri For many, (ethical vegans per se) the suffering one feels when denying themselves animal products is miniscule compared to what an animal would endure in the meat processing industry.

Well, I hope these ethical vegans can find themselves a little pocket on this planet where they don't have to co-exist with animals and thus be forced into making decisions that would entail them gagging their own morals down, washed down along with a bitter dose of reality.

A balance will be kept, one way or another.

[Lostinlife]

RICKSP:

Apparently you do not understand that on a debate forum we tend to respond to questions and points that one another raises with COUNTER-ARGUMENTS. If you have no wish to do this, and have your status quo position challenged, then please step aside for those that actually find this debate worth having.

This is your argument as follows:

One is moral in eating meat beacuse nature has intended they eat it - Naturalistic fallacy, murder, rape, and incest also occur in nature, yet we have deemed these acts immoral.

Vegan diets kill children - Hasty Generalization, all diets can kill in some way, but similarly just because I can find that diets heavy in animal products kill children as a result of obesity does not mean that there exists no healthy children on either vegan or animal diets.

The examples you have given are a result of inept parenting, not the diet in question. This also disproves your ad hominem attack claiming that I care more for animals than humans by supporting a vegan diet.

cont.

[Lostinlife]

Once again (just in case you missed it), the American Dietetic Association (ADA) is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with nearly 67,000 members, and they take a very clear stance on this matter:

Vegetarian Diets

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. ...

Now if you so choose Rick, we might actually be able to have a civil and worthwhile discussion here if you leave out the logical fallacies in future arguments.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lostinlife Now if you so choose Rick, we might actually be able to have a civil and worthwhile discussion here if you leave out the logical fallacies in future arguments.

Lost, there you go again, more holier than thou pontificating. You seem incapable of distinguishing between your platitudes and argument. I have no doubt that your recitation here of vegan talking points would be very convincing - to other vegans. Otherwise I can do without the pious preaching.

Once again you argue the case against vegangelism, even if that is not your intention.

[Lostinlife]

I see... now pointing out logical fallacies and asking you to refrain from using them is "holier-than-thou"? The Naturalistic and Hasty Generalization fallacies are subjective "vegan points"? Give me a freaking break.

PROVE your assertion of veganism being based on platitudes instead of merely stating it to be evidence in itself, the former being an obvious requirement in order to DEBATE someone. YOU have been the arguing with logical fallacies, which ironically indicates a position based on platitudes, and yet criticize my viewpoint. Do me a favor and show me why your criticism is valid, or else please stop posting in this topic.

My original point before you went off on a tangent:

The key to remember is that UNLIKE US, animals consuming meat in the wild is a NECESSITY, they have no choice: kill or starve. We as human adults also have a much higher capacity for empathy than nonhuman animals, and can decide through moral imperitives (the principle of equal consideration) not to consume them.

[Questatement]

Mother with young child at the zoo.


"Mommy, what's that called?"

"That's a pig, honey"

"What country do they come from?

"I'm not sure but when I was a little girl they were plentiful in most every county in the world. Now you will only find them in select zoos like this one."

"Did mean hunters kill them off?"

"No, dear... nice vegans did."

[RickSp]

Lost, will you buy a clue? Can't you understand how your repeated assertions that only vegans are moral and the rest of us are brutes comes across as "holier than thou"?

I am not debating vegetarianism with you. I have no interest in trying to talk you off your imaginary moral high ground. I was responding specifically to the previous topic related to whether or not vegans were holier than thou. And you keep proving the point that you argue against. It is rather amusing.

[Lostinlife]

Questatement: Good thing that wasn't an actual argument, right?

Quote by: RickSP Lost, will you buy a clue? Can't you understand how your repeated assertions that only vegans are moral and the rest of us are brutes comes across as "holier than thou"?

Yes and I have provided arguments for why we are "more moral", you have not, other than simply stating that something is "wrong" or using logical fallacies. You have offered no reason why I SHOULDN'T feel "hoiler-than-thou."

I am not debating vegetarianism with you. I have no interest in trying to talk you off your imaginary moral high ground. I was responding specifically to the previous topic related to whether or not vegans were holier than thou. And you keep proving the point that you argue against. It is rather amusing.

Then you shouldn't have argued the previously mentioned fallacies, which I am inclined to correct as to not confuse others. Thank you, for showing me that you have absoultely no argument against veganism. Goodbye.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister The argument would probably be that everything should be tried to save the Raccoon depsite how very,very unlikely the success would be. Much like the scenario would be for finding a wouned human. However though ,my assertion and actions in that situation would be much different,to that of the raccoon, as I'm sure yours would be too. You follow?

Yes, there will likely always be variances amongst highly ethical people as to exactly WHAT precise action to take when attempting to do the 'kindnest' thing possible. Once again...when assessing someones level of empathic ability and integrity to their ethics...INTENT is the important factor.

With the decreasing numbers of those that hunt Whitetail deer, the populations of these deer are showing related increases,annualy. Thus increasing the prevalence of relating negative impacts on society; Crop damage,increasing motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, increasing occurrences of Lyme Disease as brought about by Deer Ticks. The hypothetical cessastion of hunting Whitetail deer would remove all the positive influence mans' hunting has as an effect on the inhibiting of these statistics. Further, it's shown that deer populations,as they expand devoid of many of their natural predators, would grow and sustain at rates that could not be supported by their natural enviornments, generaly speaking that is. This factor would then be compounded by the hypothetical removal of man hunting. I will agree that this scenario, too, would take place gradually, over time.

Can you provide some proof that this will absolutely be the case if years and years down the road, hunting were to eventually cease?.
We're essentially opening up a whole new debate topic here as great debate currently exists re: this issue.
The idea that 'nature takes care of it's own" is one that many experts hold.

"The delicate balance of ecosysstems ensures their own survival - If they are left unaltered. Natural predtors help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters however, kill any animal whose head they would like to hang over the fireplace - including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Elephant poaching is believed to have increased the number of tuskless animals in Africa, and in Canada, hunting has caused bighorn sheep size to fall by 25 percent in the last 40 years. Nature magazine reports that the effect of the populations' genetics is probably deeper.

Even when unusual natural occurrences cause overpopulation, natural processes work to stabilize the group."

HelpingAnimals.com // Help An Animal // Factsheets // Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary

Currently many animal populations are unnaturally supplemented in order to provide larger number BECAUSE of hunting. This interference with natural ecosystems falls under the heading of "widlife management".

This occurs in many areas of the US.
How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies - Hunting, Conservation, License Sales and Pittman-Robertson Funds

In Canada, Jasper Park, most of the elk that now exist do so because elk were re-introduced into the area after Hunting nearly exterminated them from this area.

What would you offer up in order to suppliment mans influence here?

I don't believe any supplementation would necessarily be required.

According to the information I've uncovered, your hypothetical scenario is not one that will absolutely occur, particularly if the decline in hunting happened very gradually. many experts seem to agree that given a certain length of time, ecosystems naturally take care of themselves when man stops interferring.


If it did, and humans decided that the kindest action to take was 'active control of the animal population' several methods have been studied and I can only imagine that in the many, many years down the road that this scenario would occur in, these prodedures would be refined to a much higher degree of efficacy and humaness.

"A method called TNR has been tried on deer in Ithaca NY, and an experimental birth-control vaccine is being used on female deer in Princeton, NJ. One Georgia study of 1500 white-tailed deer on Cumberland Island concluded that if females are captured, marked, and counted, sterilization reduces herd size, even at relatively lowo anual sterilization rates."

HelpingAnimals.com // Help An Animal // Factsheets // Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary

If I can find a way to kill an animal without inflicting pain then I have removed the major(empathetical) portion of your argument and that I'm cornering you into saying that yes, in some cases if we were all to be vegans,we would have to kill animals in certain regards, anyway. Which is the final bastion of your argument.

Suffering is absolutely one component...and yes, the main one as far as I'm concerned..however, taking the life of another sentient being for such a reason as food preference is not a morally neutral choice, unless you can prove that animals do not have a will to live or an interest in maintaining their life.

Once again...Intent, when considering the ethics of certain actions is always very, very important. I can't imagine that many meat-eaters are honestly setting out to somehow contribute to the well-being of the animal when they kill it for a food craving.

Well, I hope these ethical vegans can find themselves a little pocket on this planet where they don't have to co-exist with animals and thus be forced into making decisions that would entail them gagging their own morals down, washed down along with a bitter dose of reality.

As long as they could reconcile their actions with their morals in terms of 'taking the highest road possible'....... doing the kindest thing possible under the presenting circumstances, there would be no gagging involved.

[inri]

Quote by: Questatement Mother with young child at the zoo. "Mommy, what's that called?" "That's a pig, honey" "What country do they come from? "I'm not sure but when I was a little girl they were plentiful in most every county in the world. Now you will only find them in select zoos like this one." "Did mean hunters kill them off?" "No, dear... nice vegans did."

Let's flip the scenario around to where we now sit. I actually had the very conversation my daughter...where I had to explain to her that pigs and cows only exist because human's like to eat their meat. Let's just say that this idea did not give her the warm-fuzzies.

I really don't understand how one can argue that it's kinder to keep large populations of domesticated animals on this earth when the only reason we do so is to exploit and abuse them?

Imagine that we bred a population of humans purely for the purpose of slavery. We genetically engineered them with certain specifications to make them the very best slaves possible.

Over time, it was decided that this use of slaves was a cruel practice.

Therefore, this breeding of these genetically engineered humans stopped.

Would you really feel badly for the future genetically engineered slaves that never came into existence?

[Questatement]

Your assumption of abuse and comparison to human slavery has yet to be established.

I could just as easily make that claim if animal consumption were outlawed - but could I back it up?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lostinlife Yes and I have provided arguments for why we are "more moral", you have not, other than simply stating that something is "wrong" or using logical fallacies. You have offered no reason why I SHOULDN'T feel "hoiler-than-thou."

I feel no desire to attempt to change your mind regarding your religion. Your claims about "morality" are nothing more than a religious belief. I do not happen to agree with your moral views that creatures of another species deserve as much or more consideration than those of my own. I frankly find it to be rather bizarre. But it is your religion, not mine.

Quote by: Lostinlife Then you shouldn't have argued the previously mentioned fallacies, which I am inclined to correct as to not confuse others. Thank you, for showing me that you have absolutely no argument against veganism. Goodbye.

LOL. Your arguments consists of shouting "fallacy." Odd amusing but not convincing in the slightest.

[inri]

Quote by: Questatement Your assumption of abuse and comparison to human slavery has yet to be established. I could just as easily make that claim if animal consumption were outlawed - but could I back it up?

A comparison itself (between slavery and raising animals for their meat) wasn't really my point. My point was that it seems strange to grieve over the diminishment a population/species whose only reason for existing in the first place was to fulfill selfish needs on the part of the breeder.

When it comes to animals, the word 'abuse' will hold different meaning. For some, abuse is the intentional harm brought about to an animal either through direct action or lack of responsible action. For those who believe that animals are deserving of certain rights and considerations, any practice that denies those rights and considerations will be seen as abuse. Those who belive it is wrong to kill any living sentient being, would therefore see 'abuse' in the singular act of killing animals for food, not to mention in all the painful/unpleasant stuff the animals are subjected to prior to death.

Breeding animals specifically for meat production can't possibly be for 'their' benefit...what...we kindly bestow the gift of life upon them so they can live a life complete with all the wonderful practices necessary to get them ready for human consumption?

[Lostinlife]

Sigh... good thing you have compelling arguments to prove your assertions. If you want other readers to believe that I support a baseless religion then back it up with FACTS, as not everything is so OBVIOUS to everyone else as to the all-knowing Rick. I suppose this will always be to much to ask of you when discussing this topic on a debate forum.

My position uses the principle of equal consideration, and is the same sort of extension of morailty that was given to those of a different color and sex, because we recognize that these beings can suffer, so therefore there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration, through our own empathic responses.

Tell me, do you believe that animals deserve zero moral consideration? What is the line YOU draw?

LOL. Your arguments consists of shouting "fallacy." Odd amusing but not convincing in the slightest.

I have explained WHY every one of your arguments is a fallacy. What the hell have you given to me?

[Questatement]

Quote by: inri A comparison itself (between slavery and raising animals for their meat) wasn't really my point. My point was that it seems strange to grieve over the diminishment a population/species whose only reason for existing in the first place was to fulfill selfish needs on the part of the breeder.

Another assumption of which I could add a dozen or more reasons to.

Quote by: inri When it comes to animals, the word 'abuse' will hold different meaning. For some, abuse is the intentional harm brought about to an animal either through direct action or lack of responsible action. For those who believe that animals are deserving of certain rights and considerations, any practice that denies those rights and considerations will be seen as abuse. Those who belive it is wrong to kill any living sentient being, would therefore see 'abuse' in the singular act of killing animals for food, not to mention in all the painful/unpleasant stuff the animals are subjected to prior to death.

Just do you know that I'm not completely heartless, what I don't kill myself in the wild, I buy all my meat from Whole Foods market.

Farm Animal and Meat Quality Standards Program Requirements

Quote by: inri Breeding animals specifically for meat production can't possibly be for 'their' benefit...what...we kindly bestow the gift of life upon them so they can live a life complete with all the wonderful practices necessary to get them ready for human consumption?

What if that same animal experiences at least one or more pleasant experience(s) in life? That's x more than they would have if they weren't bred for consumption.

[Lostinlife]

Don't worry, I understand how you feel Rick. I get annoyed at those in the status quo who don`t want their position or lifestyle challenged, and then when it is, instead of addressing the questions or reasoning put forth to them, just become indignant in their self-righteousness -- like from what we have seen here with the person remaining in the debate but refusing/unable to answer questions. Indignance is humorous. Those people who display it are just all so flustered.

Sound familar? That is because a certain StrongHeartsWin caught you pulling the same sort of crap 3 years ago on pages 5 and 6 of this thread, and said these very words. History is doomed to repeat itself. Amusing... heh... in the very least.