Vegetarianism

[RickSp]

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

I never try to convince Catholics that Mary might not have been a virgin and I have given up trying to convince vegans that people just might be a bit more important than pigs. Both are a waste of time.

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

And no doubt you convinced other vegans. Amazing easy, preaching to the choir. Otherwise I found your contentions way too facile and obviously false.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: RickSp I never try to convince Catholics that Mary might not have been a virgin and I have given up trying to convince vegans that people just might be a bit more important than pigs. Both are a waste of time.

More baseless assertions. I say, I might now have enough for a "don't do this in a debate" thread.

The issue with discrimination is not whom we care about or value the most; the question is wheather or not it is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE to treat sentient beings-human or nonhuman as commidities or exclusively as means to the end of others. I say NO, so THIS is what you need to convince me of.

Otherwise I found your contentions way too facile and obviously false.

Thats fine, just don't exspect for others who read this to buy into your subjective, reclusive, and fallacious debating style. I could care less if I convince YOU of anything, but by providing posts with zero refutations (this is about the sixth one) you do nothing but strengthen my side of the fence.

[Cruella]

Stick to debating the topic, rather than sharing opinions on other posters, please. This applies to everyone taking part in this snarky bitch-fest, thank you.

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

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri 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.

" The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".......
I'm kidding...... I'm giddy that I found a good time to use that quote.

Here, let me point out the subjective variables in your reply,again.

"variances amongst"....... "'kindnest'"........." factor".

I can do this as long as you can, I think.

Quote by: inri 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.

No we are not opening up a whole topic because this little jaunt here is going to breed answers that I'm going to use to shut your argument down, in how it applies to this topic.

Quote by: inri The idea that 'nature takes care of it's own" is one that many experts hold.

As do I. That's wholey supported by the fact that man has been both predator and prey for a very very long time. Though mostly a predator.

You ask for prevailing trends? Here you go:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 — from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span

Declining number of hunters means less money - MyOutdoorTV.com

How far the cultural currency of the hunter has fallen in less than 50 years is revealed in these five titles

Project MUSE - American Literary History - Obits for the Fallen Hunter: Reading the Decline--and Death?--of Hunting in America

Its ranks of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, according to department spokeswoman Judy Stokes

Number of U.S. hunters dwindles - USATODAY.com

These quips clearly showcase dwindling prevalence of hunting in the U.S, for different reasons. But I have clearly shown how that a decrease here relates to an influence of increase here...

Quote by: Elminister .

Just click on the little square.

Quote by: inri "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.

Ahhh, but man has already disturbed tha delicate balance. In that he has removed much of what was the natural,aside from us, predator animal base that is key in the natural maintanence of animal populations in the wild. Now, some of these predators numbers are on the mend, mind you, but are nothing compared to how vast they used to be.

As the numbers of these predators increase however so too does the increasing prevalence of their adverse interactions with man.....again. In some cases these adverse interactions are even more severe or needing an increased urgency of response as compared to those of past history, for various reasons.

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

Yes, predatory gorging,starvation of the increased numbers,increased spread of disease amongst weakened increased numbers. Increased encroaching apon mans domain and subsequently being killed.
These would be the most 'ethical' proposistions you could make in the name of 'the least harm possible"? [/quote]

Your relying on "natural occurrences" is actually entailing in a great deal of suffering as I can forsee it and that's part of the point.That it can be forseen thus your consideration here in relation to my point about the cesation of hunting would only contribute the 'pain and suffering' you are so vehemently arguing against.

So the plan is to double back on your morals? Neat. Am I allowed to as well? Oh, wait. It's my morals that tell me it's ok to eat animals and hunt thus aiding in the deterring of those scenarios above. I did mention my reflexive urge is brought about by 'natural occurrence' of evolution, didn't I? I thought I did?

Quote by: inri 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".

Whitetail Deer populations are not augmented. Raccoon poulations are not augmented.Black Crow poulations are not augmented.Prarie Dog poulations are not augmented.Fox/Coyote/Coydog populations are not augmented.

Wildlife management is in place to keep man from OVER hunting many species, as was being done in earlier years. I recollect tragic stories of free range Buffalo and early US settlers.

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

Did you even read through that,mostly opinon driven, story you linked to?
It says that becasue they clear-cut acres of land and plant vegetation that is more favored by deer that equates to that State Agencies are procreating, as your implication reads, more deer without fail. Mind you this is supposedly taking place in State parks, across the US as you proport,and the clear-cutting of ANY land would be a Red-Flag behaviour and draw attention from numerous groups of people who would come out to protest for NUMEROUS reasons. My Grandfather worked for a County park for over forty years and I can assure you that no clear-cutting in order to plant 'deer sweets' was ever,ever done.


Umm, ok. So just how long has the US been clear-cutting it's own State and National Parks down?? If it's been a while we should see huge swaths of man-made low grown scrub brush right? Should I even bother to look?
LMAO

Quote by: inri 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.

They are trying to keep a species from going extinct. So? I wasen't talking about it being ok that man hunt anything to the point of extinction.

Quote by: inri 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.

Then you must have missed the part about us not letting the levels of natural predators reach the magnitudes of what they once were, for obvious reasons, being a necessity- for various reasons.

Quote by: inri "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

A sterilization program that would have to be kept up indefinately. Well, that's a little better than....let em' go and let nature figure out how to dispose of them....I guess.

How much pain and suffering would be involved in the capture/marked/counted?..... I'm sure this is where the sterilization comes into play. Well, at least you wouldn't be killing them or casuing some long-term permanent damage or anything, hopefully.

So I guess when one aspires to become of the highest of ethical and moral standards one is actually trying to attain...... Godhood? Sounds like a neat game! Can I play too? OOOOO,OOOO can we force our new commandments on primitive cultures and tribes too?.......I'll get the guns!!
No,no! You can't kill that monkey and eat it but here, let me rip its uterus out.

What a self-righteous prose, seriously it is.

Quote by: inri 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.

...as long as people can justify doing something according to their own set of moral veiws and standards. Right..... Got it...... Sounds like a good idea to me!

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Elminister " T No we are not opening up a whole topic because this little jaunt here is going to breed answers that I'm going to use to shut your argument down, in how it applies to this topic.

All of the points you bring up regarding this topic (hunting) are open to debate. Experts on both sides of the issue currently disagree. In particular, when you're asking questions of your opponent that require 'imagining' a particular situation that has never existed in human history, (world wide ethical veganism) there is simply no way to present your version of the 'imagined' scenario, as fact.

Because humans have messed with animal populations to such a great extent, both through hunting and through unnatural supplementation of numbers..your hypothetical situation has no basis......in the many, many years down the road of gradual progession it would take for the entire pop. to become ethical vegans....it's anyone's guess what the situation re: wild animals will actually be.

Gradual change has a knack for providing gradually arrived at solutions to obstacles...or do you believe that science has reached the end of the road in terms of knowledge of our world and surrounding ecosystems?


.

So the plan is to double back on your morals? Neat. Am I allowed to as well? Oh, wait. It's my morals that tell me it's ok to eat animals and hunt thus aiding in the deterring of those scenarios above. I did mention my reflexive urge is brought about by 'natural occurrence' of evolution, didn't I? I thought I did?

If the world's majority became ethical vegans...do you really believe these strong 'reflexive urges' will still be operating in most humans?

Most ethical vegans will tell you that they either do not have these reflexive urges in the first place, or they have been able to overcome them. Clearly, they have a different emotional make-up than those who are operating at a more base, emotionless, animalistic level.

the world of people that would be in existence in an all ethically vegan population would be a very different group of humans than what presently exists.




We can argue issues like this (hunting, effects on wildlife, etc.) forever, but the fact is that IF and WHEN a majority of humans reach an agreement that killing animals for meat is morally wrong, there will be little chance of moving backwards.
In the same way that most humans have decided that killing other humans for meat consumption is wrong, the chances of them being able to change their empathic response to the issue would be very, very unlikely...even if say....humans became grossly overpopulated...oh, wait a minute, that's already happening....

So I guess when one aspires to become of the highest of ethical and moral standards one is actually trying to attain...... Godhood? Sounds like a neat game! Can I play too? OOOOO,OOOO can we force our new commandments on primitive cultures and tribes too?.......I'll get the guns!! No,no! You can't kill that monkey and eat it but here, let me rip its uterus out.

For many who possess extremely high ethical standards....'trying' rarely comes into the equation. They simply are as they are. Every choice of action is made with the intent of highest level of well-being possible for each sentient being involved.... Consideration of others becomes as natural as breathing.

[inri]

Quote by: Questatement Another assumption of which I could add a dozen or more reasons to.

..you know of another reason for the breeding of the majority of domestic cows and pigs other than for their meat?

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.

If it were never born into existence, would it ever know the difference?

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri All of the points you bring up regarding this topic (hunting) are open to debate.

Hardly. The numbers of registered hunters are decreasing at clearly marked rates. That's a fact. Increasing animal populations are leading to more and more cases of animals encroaching on mans domain among other negative scenarios. That's a fact.
Here is a fact derived of pure and simple logic; The fewer the numbers of people out hunting animals equates to the fewer numbers of animals being removed from population levels.

Here is another fact derived of pure and simple logic; When a person aspires or commences to aspire to Vegetarianism they are no longer going to hunt animals.

If I were to start another thread on this matter,as it seems you are trying very hard to insinuate that I am leading this topic off course, the title would read something along the lines of.....More hunters aspire to veganism/wild animal population levels climb.......

Quote by: inri Experts on both sides of the issue currently disagree.

Disagree about what? Show me.

Quote by: inri In particular, when you're asking questions of your opponent that require 'imagining' a particular situation that has never existed in human history, (world wide ethical veganism) there is simply no way to present your version of the 'imagined' scenario, as fact.

I'm asking you to take your stance to its fullest reach. I never said that A world full of nothing but vegans was definately going to happen. I'm merely extending your line of logic to its utmost, to show the clearest cases of fault that it contains.

In fact, much of what is debated here on Volconvo has projectable implications. It's becoming apparent to me your merely trying to 'beat feet' away from this item, for obvious reasons.

Quote by: inri Because humans have messed with animal populations to such a great extent, both through hunting and through unnatural supplementation of numbers.

You have failed to show conclusive proof of this "supplementation of numbers". What you have showed as,what you belive to be, supported proof therein I shot full of holes just only using common sense and my own knolwdge base. Thanks for trying though.

Quote by: inri .your hypothetical situation has no basis......in the many, many years down the road of gradual progession it would take for the entire pop. to become ethical vegans....it's anyone's guess what the situation re: wild animals will actually be.

The only thing hypothetical about my scenario is that the whole of the world population being Vegans. The other relating points are already,currently, supporting themselves in their respective value to my scenario, thank you very much.

Quote by: inri Gradual change has a knack for providing gradually arrived at solutions to obstacles...or do you believe that science has reached the end of the road in terms of knowledge of our world and surrounding ecosystems?

Gradual change in regards to fewer and fewer people hunting means along with that are the gradual,related, population increases in the wild and their probable and current ill affects I spoke of before. So far your answers are; Let nature deal with it by letting disease and starvation take it course. By chemically ripping their uterus and testicles out/off, indefinately.

No, I do hold faith in science but am bound by what it currently offers, as perspective. Much like you, in how science conveys the sentience levels of plants..........see how nicely that works out? ...........hypocrite. A lack of a scientifical knowledge base seems to work just fine for you, I see. Regardless of how much double speak you actually have to espouse in order to present it.


.

Quote by: inri If the world's majority became ethical vegans...do you really believe these strong 'reflexive urges' will still be operating in most humans?

Either there and overridden or not there at all.

Quote by: inri the world of people that would be in existence in an all ethically vegan population would be a very different group of humans than what presently exists.

Yeah........ummm. That's kind of my working point here. Hypothetically anyway. I assert that it not need go that far in order to offer at least some justification to my argument,though. What's your take on that?

Quote by: inri We can argue issues like this (hunting, effects on wildlife, etc.) forever, but the fact is that IF and WHEN a majority of humans reach an agreement that killing animals for meat is morally wrong, there will be little chance of moving backwards.

I agree. I'm merely trying to shut your argument down.

Quote by: inri In the same way that most humans have decided that killing other humans for meat consumption is wrong, the chances of them being able to change their empathic response to the issue would be very, very unlikely...even if say....humans became grossly overpopulated...oh, wait a minute, that's already happening....

I can't quite grip what your trying to say here.

Quote by: inri For many who possess extremely high ethical standards....'trying' rarely comes into the equation. They simply are as they are. Every choice of action is made with the intent of highest level of well-being possible for each sentient being involved.... Consideration of others becomes as natural as breathing.

Oh, so your saying that they have reached Godhood effortlessly then? Relatively speaking of course, these Gods must surely hold their heads high when walking amongst us meager, insignificant moral heathens.

[Lostinlife]

Sorry I'm just getting to you DEE...

Quote by: DEEJ85 ALL organism have a will to live, Bacteria, Archea, Fungi, Animals and Plants.

I don't see how you can prove any oragnism has a "will" if there exists absolutely no evidence of said oragnism processing information via neurons (the nerves and brain). Even if we accept that there exists other mechanisms that would allow one to have interests other than the nervous system, there exists no evidence of said mechanisms existing in non-animal life.

These species would all perish if they didn't seek their own survival at all times.

The scientific principle of parsimony strongly suggests that we shouldn't postulate a complex explanation for phenomena when a simpler explanation will suffice.

(cont.)

[Lostinlife]

When autonomic systems in mammals, such as the cardiovascular system, the immune system, and the reproductive system at the level of the "behavior" of sperm in the presence of an egg appear to be reacting "subjectively, consciously and intentionally" to perpetuate either themselves or their host organism, we don’t assume that these systems are sentient independently of their host organism and acting volitionally.

We recognize that there are insentient hormonal, electrical, mechanical, and chemical processes that cause various ‘behaviors’ and events to take place.

The development of these insentient processes can be explained by tens and hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection, where hundreds of billions of small, genetic mutations and combinations survived or failed to survive based on how adaptive they were. We should apply the principle of parsimony in our assessment of the causes of plant ‘behavior’ similarly.

[Lostinlife]

Supporters of animal exploitation need to quit creating these false dichotomies that say we have either immediately rid the world of ALL animal exploitaion, or do absoutlely nothing at all in regards to animal rights.

This is intellectualy dishonest in how we conduct ourselves and set limitations in respect to HUMAN rights. For instance, some of us may not all agree that health care should be a basic human right, but I imagine most of us would indeed come to the conclusion that say, genocide or human slavery is wrong.

Veganism is not all get out, but it is however the minimum standard of decency.

Animals only deserve one right, and that is the right not to be treated as property or as a resource of others. Without this basic right, even among humans, no other rights can exist with any possible meaning.

[Sapien]

Right, well, my opinion on this is simple. I eat meat. Why? I like meat. Despite this, I don't think it's morally wrong to do what I do.. because I don't think morality exists in the same sense that water exists. We created them, just as we created religion. I almost said just like music, but that wouldn't be true. While you cannot see it, you can hear it. It exists outside of the mind.

Many argue that because we can think about morals, and act on them.. they exist. I disagree -- I can think that I have wings, act on that thought and hop around screaming "I'm a fairy, I'm a fairy!". This doesn't actually mean that I have wings. That said, I'm not implying that morals are as useless as wings.. they certainly serve their purpose. That purpose, in case you ask, is simple - it provides standards by which a person or group can live in order to assure their own comfort and safety. This is key. Morals do not have to be altruistic, although it is often argued that altruism itself is inherently selfish. I'm not saying that selfless acts are not possible, just that the desire to be altruistic is selfishly motivated. These morals, existing only in the mind, are thus capable of changing as conditions, opinions and personalities change.

As most people choose to operate inside the majority, a system of morals is created that benefits in some way or another the greatest number of people possible. Or, at least.. the people capable of fighting back and/or making their voices heard. For example, a silent gay minority has no rights, but a vocal group of gay and straight people demanding equal rights will force change in the moral structure of society (the majority).

A group of thieves can have a system of morals which are conducive to group success, even if they do nothing to assist (and in fact are a detriment to) those outside of the group. They steal from others to provide benefit for themselves, whilst at the same time resisting stealing from their fellow thieves in order to.. continue stealing. One who argues that morals based on criminal behavior cannot exist fails to understand the nature of both morality and crime. Few actions benefit everyone while harming none, so those who are harmed by (or cannot succeed with) the majority must strike out on their own. As the saying goes, 'Everyone looks out for number one.' Well, that, and some people just like loot and don't care how they get it or from whom. Not that I blame them.

If I want something I could take it, it wouldn't cause me guilt or anguish. However, as I'm surrounded by the majority such an action carries with it risk, so I'm unlikely to act on that desire unless my desire for the object outweighs my fear of punishment.. or unless I feel I could escape punishment. Yes, it might hurt someone else, but it would help me. And again, I'm selfish. I'll help someone if it doesn't hurt me, and hurt someone else if it helps me, assuming such an action wouldn't hurt me in the long run. This is, at least as I see it, what it means to live by a system of morality based on self-interest.

Why did I say all of that? Well, I didn't want someone running up and saying "Naturalistic fallacy!" when I claimed that, just as animals eat meat, humans do too. xD See, I'm not suggesting that what is natural is good, just that what is natural is REAL! As I don't believe morals are real, and I don't see how a system of morality based around veganism is in any way helpful to ME (selfish!), I don't have a problem with eating meat. Good and evil never enter into it.

Every action is measured by how much it benefits someone. When I see a worm on the pavement, I toss it on some semi-dry grass. Why, because it was the 'right' thing for me to do? No.. but the benefit to the worm far outweighed the cost to me. I would not have climbed Everest to rescue the worm, but walking a few feet and bending over doesn't hurt me in the least.

I do not hunt. Why, because I care about the life of the deer? No. If I don't *need* the food, I have no reason to kill it. The cost to the deer outweighs the benefit to myself. If however I was hungry and needed food, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to kill it. As long as I have enough money to buy food I have no reason to kill for it. The animal is dead and loses nothing by my eating it. Yes, it died so that it could be eaten, but I don't care enough about the welfare of an animal to suggest that all of humanity refrain from eating meat.

When a bug bugs me, I don't kill it.. not because I think it's wrong to kill a bug, but because I don't want to get into the habit of killing everything and everyone that annoys me. I might not stop! There are a lot of annoying people out there. xD Yes, I know, I type a lot. I also eat meat a lot. I like it so I eat it. I needn't justify it against some grand moral scheme (even though I just.. did..), my desire is all the justification I need.

[Lostinlife]

I could be wrong, you sound to me to be a utilitarian, or one who supports the death of others for the "greater good".

I must question your assertion that veganism is not benificial to YOU.

Many of the consequences of carrying out the AR agenda are highly beneficial to humans. For example, stopping the production and consumption of animal products would result in a significant improvement of the general health of the human population, and destruction of the environment would be greatly reduced.

Fostering compassion for animals is likely to pay dividends in terms of a general increase of compassion in human affairs.

Tom Regan puts it this way: "...the animal rights movement is a part of, not antagonistic to, the human rights movement. The theory that rationally grounds the rights of animals also grounds the rights of humans. Thus those involved in the animal rights movement are partners in the struggle to secure respect for human rights--the rights of women, for example, or minorities, or workers.

[Lostinlife]

^^^ The animal rights movement is cut from the same moral cloth as these."

I'm curious though, how far does your desire for meat take you? Do you feel that your desire is justified in requiring that a human dies and overrides the HUMAN's desire to live? Where do you draw the line and why?

[Sapien]

Hrm, I'm not sure I understand the question.. so I'll just wing it. Last I checked, human wasn't available in the supermarket. If you're asking if I would kill a human to eat him.. assuming I wasn't starving, no, meat isn't that important to me. Meat is a commodity, a pleasure rather than a necessity, so I highly doubt there would ever come a time when anyone would need to kill a human for meat. Excluding those crashed plane, "What if?" scenarios, lol.

I am however more likely to respect the wishes of a human, as opposed to an animal.. because despite any qualms that a human has about killing an animal, that animal has none about killing the human. The usefulness of morality only goes as far as it benefits the person who lives by said morals. Animals do not use a system of morals and thus there is benefit in applying one to them. A human, on the other hand, is less likely to try eating me if it knows I don't intend to eat him. Or so I'd think.

Furthermore, I fail to see how refraining from harvesting cows has any major effect on the environment. Maybe if we were eating Amazon birds.. but we're not. I'm not, anyway. On the subject though, I am definitely for preserving as much of the environment as we can. I'm a lover of science, and the resources lost simply because some farmer wants room for more Starbucks beans is atrocious. As for health, my health is fine. I watch what I eat, I stay away from the hyper-processed stuff -- but no, I'm not into the latest organic fad. I just like real food, rather than stuff that is 50% corn (HFCS, etc), 20% preservatives, and 30% meat and water product (whatever that is). I've had my own garden for roughly 10 years, I've worked on a farm and know a few people who own one.. soo.. food is never in short supply.

As for the 'greater good', I'm not so much concerned with the welfare and happiness of an unknown other as I am of myself. First and foremost in my mind are my own interests, after that comes the interest of those I can help without hurting myself, and finally (last) is those whose help would be a disadvantage to me. I know if have my own back, so I'm not totally screwed when other people stick a knife in it. I'm not TOTALLY selfish, however, in the sense that I wouldn't have a million people killed to save tiny old me. xD As I see it, the 'greater good' is a sham. The majority are of course going to do their best to enforce the "greater/majority good", but as it will more than likely hurt the minority.. they have no reason to go along with it, and it's not a "bad" thing if they resist. Inconvenient to the many, perhaps, but not bad.

Honestly though, I don't know where I draw the line. I'm reminded of an Outer Limits episode.. essentially, most of the world was infertile, so the government took all healthy babies for study. The issue was whether you agreed with the government's position, or if you felt that the family should be left alone, the world be damned. To this day I'm not sure on which side I stand. Bugs the hell out of me; I like to know what I think.

[Questatement]

Quote by: inri ..you know of another reason for the breeding of the majority of domestic cows and pigs other than for their meat?

Below is your earlier post to which I responded that it was baseless and that I could "add a dozen or more reasons to."

Quote by: inri 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.

It seems you found a second reason even without any help from me?

Have you also considered - 3. dung for fertilizer, 4. employment opportunities within the industry and related industries, 5. byproducts such as leather, etc., 6. food source for wild species such as the gray wolf, 7. various scientific studies using these animals, 8. milk and its related industries, 9. rodeo industry, 10. bulls still used in many parts of the world to pull carts/wagons, 11. best of show competitions, 12. religious use/worship of.

And there's your dozen.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife 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.

That's false, sorry. As an example of an animal that is as closely akin to ourselves as possible while still within the animal kingdom I present the Chimpanzee. This fellow consumes mostly as an herbivore but at given times he will consume other sentient things/animals on a whim when he does not actually have to do it. It is not necessary for the Chimp to drag ants out of their nests and enjoy this delicacy but he can and does. It is not necessary for a group of Chimps to cooperate and corner and run down a Howler Monkey and rip it apart alive and consume its flesh but they can and do it.

Now your going to say that man is far more evolved than Chimps and you would be right. We have supermarkets now and do not need to go through all that extra leg work.

What specific problem do you have with an egg or dairy farm?

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife Supporters of animal exploitation need to quit creating these false dichotomies that say we have either immediately rid the world of ALL animal exploitaion, or do absoutlely nothing at all in regards to animal rights. Animals only deserve one right, and that is the right not to be treated as property or as a resource of others. Without this basic right, even among humans, no other rights can exist with any possible meaning.

I take the first part here as being aimed at myself. If so I need to ask you where I said we need to rid the world of animal use immediately.

For your second part I must ask; by what criteria do you assert that animals deserve this right?

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister H Here is a fact derived of pure and simple logic; The fewer the numbers of people out hunting animals equates to the fewer numbers of animals being removed from population levels. Here is another fact derived of pure and simple logic; When a person aspires or commences to aspire to Vegetarianism they are no longer going to hunt animals.

In short here, you seem to be saying that as a decrease in hunting occurs, overpopulation of animals may occur and this in itself could create animal suffering...?..therefore, choosing not to hunt is actually an inhumane act...?

Because of this, you believe that those who refuse to hunt due to their ethical beliefs re: direct killing of animals, should somehow abandon their empathic responses and kill these animals anyway...otherwise they are being hypocrites...?

Let's take the same logic and apply it to the human population problem. There is little doubt that if we began hunting each other for sport and even perhaps for food, that we'd be helping to curb human overpopulation. Clearly human overpopulation can lead to human suffering, therefore, by killing fellow humans, we'd be doing a good thing.

somehow I'm betting you won't agree with the above statement.


Reaching for and adhering to higher, more encompassing ethics will never be completely free from obstacles. Laws of cause and effect will always come into play. YOu seem to want to say that because certain naturally occuring issues arise (possible animal overpopulation that could also result in unintentional animal suffering) when certain ethically based decisions are made (choosing not to hunt and kill animals) that these ethical urgings should simply be ignored. For many, this is simply impossible. In the same way it would be impossible for most humans to ethically embrace killing other humans.

Good thing this wasn't the accepted POV when certain human issues involving ethics were being addressed....(slavery, womens' rights, child labor laws..etc.) Any one of these causes could have been abandoned due to obstacles that could have been imagined as hypothetical outcomes.

Overcoming consequences and obstacles as they occur whenever we choose actions based upon ethics is undoubtedly one of the highest of human challenges...but for many of us, this fact does not deter our aspirations to reach for the highest ethics possible in all situations.












.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Questatement Below is your earlier post to which I responded that it was baseless and that I could "add a dozen or more reasons to." It seems you found a second reason even without any help from me? Have you also considered - 3. dung for fertilizer, 4. employment opportunities within the industry and related industries, 5. byproducts such as leather, etc., 6. food source for wild species such as the gray wolf, 7. various scientific studies using these animals, 8. milk and its related industries, 9. rodeo industry, 10. bulls still used in many parts of the world to pull carts/wagons, 11. best of show competitions, 12. religious use/worship of. And there's your dozen.

All of thse reasons benefit others (mainly humans).... I don't see anything here that directly benefits the animal being bred.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Elminister It is not necessary for a group of Chimps to cooperate and corner and run down a Howler Monkey and rip it apart alive and consume its flesh but they can and do it.

I am unsure of where you get your information, but I would think you would still be unable to convince me that they inflict pain and anguish for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience i.e unessacerily, KNOWING it to be so, which only we humans are known to be capable of.
A cat may play with their prey and bring it pain, but they are unable to comprehend what "pain" is.

Now your going to say that man is far more evolved than Chimps and you would be right. We have supermarkets now and do not need to go through all that extra leg work.

Not quite... What inri has obviously been talking you about for many pages now, is that humans have evolved a much higher capacity for empathic response, so we need not lower our actions to reflect those of nonhuman animals. However "civilized" we deem them.