Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg So do garbage pickers. What's your point?

You previously said:

Quote by: Kubedawg Quote by: kubedawg This is why we need to develop better treatment of the animals before they are killed. In fact, I know someone who works at a slaughterhouse and I've been there, and seen the process, and it's not at all how you described. Only a few are like how you described, at least all except poultry. ... What I see in those videos is propaganda for the most part.

Why is the turnover rate so high if the conditions are not so bad?

Garbage pickers turnover rates are no where near 90%. Just browsing the web, I am seeing rates of around 30% for garbage workers. A 60% difference is quite large.

I'm not sure what AWist is please elaborate.

It stands for Animal Welfarist. ARist stands for Animal Rightist. The two are quite different.

... testimonials are strong support when supporting or not supporting a cause.

Testimonials in debate are not verifiable -- particularly in debate form where the identities and histories of the participants cannot be verrified, as is the case here in these anonymous forums. We can all invent testimonials that counter the others and in geometry, where things balance out on each side of the equation neither is given extra weight to tip the scales. They cancel each other out. Why don`t you see this?

Captain Chaos, could you take a second to point out to Kubedawg the nil value of testimonials in anonymous debate format styles. I haven`t seen you resort to them, so I am guessing you, too, see they are nil in worth for debate.

I just did in my previous post. Not my fault if you can't muster enough intelligence to see it.

Sorry, you did not. Please quote the passage where I appeal to ignorance. That would require you to find me saying we must consider something equally that we don`t know about with the science or facts that we do know about. Show us where I have posited such.

So I debate on possibility, rather than probability? WTH is wrong with that? What is your point?

Discussions on possibilities is more akin to musing -- not debating on the facts of the issues. So, are you admitting you are not debating on facts? It is well understood that facts are essential to debate, and where they are not certain, the highest probability is then referred to.

[Kamehameha34]

Ok, I've editted it, seeing as you seem to have taken issue with it (although I specifically recall you calling me irrational for eating meat.)

I just want you to acknowledge that your argument is, in essence, subjective,

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Then we are somewhat superior to animals, so your argument is null.

That in no way makes the argument null because every animal is somewhat superior to another animal in some aspect of its biology and the niche it occupies in Earth`s ecological systems.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I just want you to acknowledge that your argument is, in essence, subjective,

• It is an objective and observable fact animals move away from sources of pain.
• It is an objective and observable fact that animals experience pain.
• It is an objective fact that animals can experience suffering and misery.
• It is an objective fact that animals have wills and urges to satisfy natural cravings and or instincts to perform functions inherant to their biology.
• It is an objective fact that when they are denied the ability to act naturally they experiece behavioural and physiological changes due to stress.
• It is an objective fact that humans do not require meat to survive healthily and optimally in today`s modern world.
• It is an objective fact that a vegetarian diet has many health benefits proven by science that shows them less likely to suffer from illnesses such as heart desiese and cancer than flesh eaters.

[Kamehameha34]

What you derive from that is subjective.

Oh, and I believe I have reiterated this point several times, by now:

We can eliminate the animal's pain in the harvesting process without eliminating meat eating.

All that's left is how you, personally, value the animal's life.

Because it is a personal choice, and either one wouldn't violate the rights of other people, it is not validated as an imposed standard.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What you derive from that is subjective.

lol. Well, insert "human" into all those points above in lieu of animal and I guess it would then be subjective that we not cause humans to suffer also -- therefore it is ok from another`s subjective view to use them in a way that results in pain and suffering from exploitation.

Oh, and I believe I have reiterated this point several times, by now: We can eliminate the animal's pain in the harvesting process without eliminating meat eating.

From an animal`s birth to its death in the meat industry, where are the animal farms and slaughterhouses where animals do not experience frustration, stress, and pain?

All that's left is how you, personally, value the animal's life.

I will count myself sitting at the same table with Ghandi on that thought of what we value together, while you sit at another:

I hold today the same opinion as I held then. To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. -- Ghandi

Because it is a personal choice, and either one wouldn't violate the rights of other people, it is not validated as an imposed standard.

That is what laws and the legislative processes are for, to impose a set of acceptable behaviour. Things take time and things evolve over time. No one no longer has the personal choice or right to ownership over another human. Someone`s once perceived rights were abolished -- the slaveholder`s property right weilded over other humans.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin lol. Well, insert "human" into all those points above in lieu of animal and I guess it would then be subjective that we not cause humans to suffer also -- therefore it is ok from another`s subjective view to use them in a way that results in pain and suffering from exploitation.

1) A subjective opinion in regards to a different situation.
2) Slaughter =/= Suffering. I'm getting annoyed at your persistence with this misconception.

From an animal`s birth to its death in the meat industry, where are the animal farms and slaughterhouses where animals do not experience frustration, stress, and pain?

I said animals don't have to feel pain in the harvesting process. Not that none do.

I will count myself sitting at the same table with Ghandi on that thought of what we value together, while you sit at another: I hold today the same opinion as I held then. To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. -- Ghandi

And this means what to me? I don't care what Ghandi said. What Ghandi said isn't evidence. It is ad populum: Appeal to authority.

That is what laws and the legislative processes are for, to impose a set of acceptable behaviour. Things take time and things evolve over time. No one no longer has the personal choice or right to ownership over another human. Someone`s once perceived rights were abolished -- the slaveholder`s property right weilded over other humans.

Humans =/= Animals.

Animals do not have rights. Animals are subcreatures, and their lives are only as valuable as the person who owns them allows them to be.

You can stick up your nose, and claim moral superiority all you want. Your opinion's value here extends to only the poll at the top of the page.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Slaughter =/= Suffering. I'm getting annoyed at your persistence with this misconception.

The case for vegetarianism and animal rights does not solely rest on the "suffering" issue. It rests on the The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.

I said animals don't have to feel pain in the harvesting process. Not that none do.

Then you are discussing what is possible from your view, not what is the reality. I could discuss the possibility of time travel, but until it comes I conduct my life in the constraints of today`s technology.

And this means what to me? I don't care what Ghandi said. What Ghandi said isn't evidence. It is ad populum: Appeal to authority.

I never said it was evidence.

Throughout history respected and wise men and their words are often turned to for moral and ethical guidance on how we should endeavor to conduct ourselves. The volumes of words written and spoken by Martin L. King is not evidence either as to how whites and blacks should conduct relations between themselves, but they are there to be guided by, referred to, and quoted on and for ethical and grounds conduct. You need not care about Ghandi`s words anymore than a white supremist need care about MLK`s words. You can accept them or reject them. But, both of those people are widely respected in the world for their moral and ethical strengths and wisdom.

Humans =/= Animals.

Equality in form or ability is not a pre-requisite for equal consideration from causing pain and suffering and having concern for interests.

[quote]

Animals do not have rights. Animals are subcreatures, and their lives are only as valuable as the person who owns them allows them to be.

Then you had better tell that to law enforcement officers and prosecuters who would prosecute owners for damaging their property. I can take a hack saw and cut my piano up slowly on my front lawn over a few days because I own it and not face prosecution. Should I try that with my dog (even if I gave it anethesia so it would not feel pain) I would be arressted and prosecuted. Clearly the dog has a claim which overrides my right to property. The same could even be said of an ownerlesss dog, e.g. a stray where no porperty rights come into play.

Animals have more rights than you seem to be aware of. You had better look a little more into it.

You can stick up your nose, and claim moral superiority all you want. Your opinion's value here extends to only the poll at the top of the page.

lol.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The case for vegetarianism and animal rights does not solely rest on the "suffering" issue. It rests on the The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.

Then pursue that argument.

Then you are discussing what is possible from your view, not what is the reality. I could discuss the possibility of time travel, but until it comes I conduct my life in the constraints of today`s technology.

Animals do not have to suffer in the harvesting process. Adjust the system so they don't, and your objective desires should be met.

I never said it was evidence. Throughout history respected and wise men and their words are often turned to for moral and ethical guidance on how we should endeavor to conduct ourselves. The volumes of words written and spoken by Martin L. King is not evidence either as to how whites and blacks should conduct relations between themselves, but they are there to be guided by, referred to, and quoted on and for ethical and grounds conduct. You need not care about Ghandi`s words anymore than a white supremist need care about MLK`s words. You can accept them or reject them. But, both of those people are widely respected in the world for their moral and ethical strengths and wisdom.

Oh, so if I don't adhere to Ghandi's words, I am equatable to a racist?

Stop correlating everyone who disagrees with you to moral degenerates.

And no, I am not going to let Ghandi make your subjective opinion objective. Martin Luther King, however, fought for the rights of other humans. Humans > Animals.

Equality in form or ability is not a pre-requisite for equal consideration from causing pain and suffering and having concern for interests.

Pain & suffering =/= death. Human rights > Animal rights.

The first statement is objective. The second one, much like the premise for your entire argument, is subjective.

[quote]

Then you had better tell that to law enforcement officers and prosecuters who would prosecute owners for damaging their property. I can take a hack saw and cut my piano up slowly on my front lawn over a few days because I own it and not face prosecution. Should I try that with my dog (even if I gave it anethesia so it would not feel pain) I would be arressted and prosecuted. Clearly the dog has a claim which overrides my right to property. The same could even be said of an ownerlesss dog, e.g. a stray where no porperty rights come into play. Animals have more rights than you seem to be aware of. You had better look a little more into it.

I said an animal's life. Stop equating death to suffering.


DEATH =/= SUFFERING

[Kamehameha34]

You can stick up your nose, and claim moral superiority all you want. Your opinion's value here extends to only the poll at the top of the page. lol.

Shall I cite examples, or will that just push you further into your blatant denial?

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Discussions on possibilities is more akin to musing -- not debating on the facts of the issues. So, are you admitting you are not debating on facts? It is well understood that facts are essential to debate, and where they are not certain, the highest probability is then referred to.

statistics are different than facts. probability is different than proof. possibility has the same merit as probability. Just because I roll a dice 20 times, and the first 19 roll a 5, does not mean the 20th roll will be a 5. On subjects such as this, it's hard to sum down the probability to 1 in 6 when talking about plants ability to feel, therefore, it is better to go by possibility rather than probability because there are too many variables, and no proof, regardless of the evidence to show we've not been able to find that plants suffer. Maybe they do, even they don't show signs of it. Maybe we're not able to determine if they do or not because they don't have a face, eyes, tears, vocal coords etc... Plants work in very different ways than us, so how is it hard to believe that plants might be able to feel/suffer? It's not. And it's not neurotic to think that plants feel/suffer because you cannot disprove that possibility. One can only debate facts when facts are available. When talking about this subject, or say, God, evidence is not enough because noone knows, until there is proof that there is or isn't a god. I cannot provide links to some reputable source because of the fact that it hasn't been experimented enough or we just don't understand plants well enough to deduct proof on whether they feel or not, although there is substantial evidence to show that plants have a feeling sense. One which we as humans poses. It can defend itself, and it can tell when pray is near sometimes such as the venus fly trap. Sensitive plants they are called. If they have the ability to feel, then they automatically have the ability to suffer/feel pain, to defend itself in danger. This has been proven.

http://www.carolina.com/manuals/manu...ve%20Plant.pdf

Shows that some plants shrivle up when lightly touched. This means they can feel. When you put your hand on a hot stove, you pull it away because it hurts, you feel the pain. Plants in this instance do the same thing, to defend itself. Therefore, the argument regarding equal consideration of interests is hypocrisy because plants can feel and plants are a living thing, and by killing plants, it is the same as killing an animal. Or would you view plants as lower on the food chain, like me? I view plants and animals the same. Lower on the food chain. As such, that's why I eat meat.

Back to the argument about appeal to ignorance. Well, just for you, I've posted what I hope to be a reputable source on how plants can feel/respond to even the lightest of touch, therefore, since a plant can feel, it can suffer, and becomes the same as an animal. Therefore, if vegetarians were to follow this rule, they'd have to eat rocks, or wait till plants/animals die naturally until they eat em for it not to be hypocrisy.

[Kathleen E.]

I've skimmed the great majority of this very long thread and haven't been able to find anyone who pointed out some facts I would like to add, so I guess I'll throw them in.

I love animals and am sympathetic to the vegetarian position. I believe we should certainly, from a moral standpoint, do everything possible to treat them humanely, not just at their death, but during their lives, when they are raised as meat animals.

However, I personally have IgA deficiency, celiac disease and multiple food allergies, most of them to plant foods. I cannot eat soy. My little grandson is also celiac and autistic and it has recently been discovered that oxalates in plants are very bad for him (they interact with the heavy metals and form crystals, like kidney stones, in the body tissues of these kids---look up the website for Great Plains Laboratories for more information). Soy is an extremely high-oxalate food.Oxalates are not found in meat.

I personally tried eating a strictly vegetarian diet and ended up in the hospital in severe pain from interstitial cystitis. It was probably too much potassium for my body to handle and oxalates may also have been a problem.

Moreover, we are not alone. Women, the elderly, and other vulnerable adults need meat and animal products in their diets to live healthy lives, especially during pregnancy, childhood, etc. B12, iron and complete proteins are the main problem. Please note the arguments in Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism (Paperback) by Kathryn Paxton George which argues that to say vegan diets are ethically superior puts women in an inferior moral position and is opposed to equality for that reason.

It is certainly true that with the excess animal protein consumed by most people in the United States, so that cholesterol and saturated fat become a problem, vegetarianism might be a healthier option for some--especially healthy adult males. Kathryn George suggests an aesthetic semi-vegetarianism as a reasonable option.

Meanwhile, I am trying to get my little grandson to start eating meat again. He hasn't had any in several months, although he used to eat hamburgers (minus the bun).

I'm an Episcopal priest and a Franciscan. St. Francis believed that animals were our brothers and sisters in God, yet he also said that on such a wonderful feast day as Christmas, everyone should eat meat--and if they wouldn't it should be smeared on the walls (typical Franciscan exaggeration).

Peace and a happy Christmas to you all,
(Rev.) Kathleen Eickwort, PhD (former Research Associate, Cornell Nutrition Division)

[kubedawg]

I'm sorry to hear about your grandson. My mom and little brother both have celiac disease, so I can understand what it's like trying to cope and live life as normally as possible. Hopefully soon they will find a cure for celiac disease as quite a few people have it. Merry Christmas to you too.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The case for vegetarianism and animal rights does not solely rest on the "suffering" issue. It rests on the The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then pursue that argument.

I already have and will continue to do so as the thread evolves. I`ve brought it up several times in this thread. Several times with Capt. Chaos. Aren`t you following along? You may also want to consider the meaning "not solely."

Animals do not have to suffer in the harvesting process. Adjust the system so they don't, and your objective desires should be met.

That is what AWists do. You seem to not be understanding what ARists do.

Oh, so if I don't adhere to Ghandi's words, I am equatable to a racist?

I am not going to make this personal and call you a racist. I`ve outlined two different men that are respected for their wisdom around the world on ethics and morals. You protested to quotes being used by a wise and respected person by saying you didn`t care about what he said and explained to you that the world puts values on the words of respected men known the world over.

Stop correlating everyone who disagrees with you to moral degenerates.

You need to stop taking things personal in a debate and learn to handle the arguments with a response without an imparative just because you become indignant.

And no, I am not going to let Ghandi make your subjective opinion objective. Martin Luther King, however, fought for the rights of other humans. Humans > Animals.

Ghandi`s thoughts are just as objective or subjective as MLK`s. The object of thoughts do not dictate truths within the thoughts.

Pain & suffering =/= death.

Of course they don`t equal each other. Only death equals death. Only pain and suffering equal pain and suffering. Death for market animals is a release from the pain and suffering which our commercialization and exploitive use of them causes.

Human rights > Animal rights.

Sure they are, now. The whole Movement is towards winning more and more rights for animals. If they were equal there would be no Movement. You are stating an obvious.

The status quo always gives ground slowly in widening the circle of rights. At one time rights of whites were greater than non-whites, as well as the rights of men were greater than women as Believers were greater than infidels or Pagans, or Wiccans.

Rights are the moral and eithical considerations which protect others from wanton abuse codified, recognized and granted by man. They are man made. Being man made man can grant them as he wishes when he comes to a point in time that he recognizes that they should be granted to another group that is either seeking them or that is being sought them for another group by a third party -- such as Abolitionists petitioning and fighting for the granting of rights for blacks.

I do not argue that human rights are not greater than animal rights. They most certainly are. It is merely a fact of the present situation -- one that is over time being moved on the spectrum little by little. Perhaps someday like Leonardo Divinci, not only a great artist but a visionary of the future as well stated:

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men. --Leonardo Da Vinci

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Animals have more rights than you seem to be aware of. You had better look a little more into it.

I said an animal's life. Stop equating death to suffering.

You specifically said animals "do not have rights." Here it is in full:

Animals do not have rights. Animals are subcreatures, and their lives are only as valuable as the person who owns them allows them to be.

Suffering through acts caused by an owner can lead to the death of an animal. Are you denying that? Value of an animal is independent of the rights they do possess in the eyes of the law.

DEATH =/= SUFFERING

Never said it did. I even said in the example above that even if I anethetized my dog so he would not suffer and feel no pain, it still would not keep me from being prosecuted if I treated it like mere property such as a piano which I decide to saw up on my front lawn. With the dog under sedation it would not suffer as I saw away at it. But, its mere non-suffering death at my hands would still get me prosecuted. It is protected with rights which over ride my property rights regardless of what value I allow it to have -- in this case very little in my eyes, or perhaps a lot if the value is in the form of pleasure I would get from performing such an act.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Well, just for you, I've posted what I hope to be a reputable source on how plants can feel/respond to even the lightest of touch, therefore, since a plant can feel, it can suffer, and becomes the same as an animal.

Do you have a source from reputable researchers that have been published in well respected journals willing to state what is bolded above? I am guessing not since you previously wrote this:

I cannot provide links to some reputable source because of the fact that it hasn't been experimented enough or we just don't understand plants well enough to deduct proof on whether they feel or not, although there is substantial evidence to show that plants have a feeling sense.

Reputable researchers do not waste their time on this because they already know that plants do not have the equipment to feel pain -- e.g. no nerve endings and no central nervous systems to process it. In some cases they may have some sense mechanism that cause them to react in some way, but that is a far jump from automata reaction to to declaring a sense of pain. That is why researchers do not attribute pain or suffering to automata reaction no different than not attributing pain to your door bell just because you push it and then it reacts with automata by performing a function of sound -- even if you smash it with a sledge hammer.

Kubedawg, do you think one should at least strive to cause the least amount of suffering from the choices available when it comes to diet -- if in fact we do accept that suffering in some form is inevitable and unavoidable?

[pahl]

@ Kamehameha34

Humans =/= Animals

Really? Most scientists would disagree with that. Humans are per definition animals. If you are an theist then i cant do anything about religions arguments, but if you are not then you really should realize that the differens between humans and other aimals is only the differens between two species.

I eat all kinds of food, including meat. So im not against eating meat, neither am i against being a vegitarian. But what i am against is the widespread notion that humans are so fundamentaly different and superior to other animals that animals can be seen merely as objects and belongings. This way of thinking comes from religion and myth and has no support in science or proven facts.

It is natural for humans to eat meat and care for their own "pack" over others, and it is not wrong. But humans have reached a level of understanding of the world around them that they should realize that the differens between killing a dog and killing another human lies only in that the human is part of your race and is usefull for your species survival.

My parents have an old book that i once looked through, a sort of encyklopedia if i remember correctly. In that book there is a part that explains the people of Africa which is kind of funny in a tradic way. It shows a picture of an african boy sitting in a tree and the text below explains that "the negro is an uncivilised and stupid race, much closer to animals than acctual humans". It goes on to describe how they barely wear clothes and communicate with beast-like sounds. This book is very old and in those days africans where seen just as the book described them, as animals. And thus they where often treated as such.
The reason for seeing them as a lower race was that they had no technology that even came near that of europeans at the time, they lived in unciviliced tribes and could not communicate with europeans. Obvious proof of them being less intelligent and less worth most thought.
Is this not how we treat animals? If a animal could speak and communicate with us, even at the most basic level, would we think different of it?

The proven fact still remains that we are all animals and most animals can feel pain and and work in the same basic ways as a human being does. To think that we are in any way more alive or different from them is just foolish speculation. We dont know the other animals but we know we have accomplised much more then them and therefore some draw the conclusions that we are worth more then them. Just like people did with the Africans, just as people judge other people prematurely all the time.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I already have and will continue to do so as the thread evolves. I`ve brought it up several times in this thread. Several times with Capt. Chaos. Aren`t you following along? You may also want to consider the meaning "not solely."

I meant only that argument. Although it is subjective, it is not invalid, like your "Death =/= Pain" argument.

That is what AWists do. You seem to not be understanding what ARists do.

I don't care what anyone "does", eliminating pain from the harvesting process eliminates all objectivity from your argument.

I am not going to make this personal and call you a racist. I`ve outlined two different men that are respected for their wisdom around the world on ethics and morals. You protested to quotes being used by a wise and respected person by saying you didn`t care about what he said and explained to you that the world puts values on the words of respected men known the world over.

Defend your point with reason; don't fall back on this appeal to authority fallacy. It does nothing for your argument, no matter how much you equate me to a moral degenerate (yet another ad hominem fallacy).

You need to stop taking things personal in a debate and learn to handle the arguments with a response without an imparative just because you become indignant.

You equated me to a racist earlier. Preceding that, you called me a "stupid meat eater with no reason", or the like. What if I continuously called you a communist in response to all of your points? It would, like your points, attack the debator and not the arguments, and I could fall back on "Don't take it personally".

Ghandi`s thoughts are just as objective or subjective as MLK`s. The object of thoughts do not dictate truths within the thoughts.

Human equality = Fact. There is no biological difference.
Animal/Human equality = Fiction. There are numorous biological and mental differences.

Of course they don`t equal each other. Only death equals death. Only pain and suffering equal pain and suffering. Death for market animals is a release from the pain and suffering which our commercialization and exploitive use of them causes.

THEY DO NOT NEED TO EXPERIENCE PAIN IN THE HARVESTING PROCESS. This is a much more suitable solution than abolishing meat eating altogether.

Sure they are, now. The whole Movement is towards winning more and more rights for animals. If they were equal there would be no Movement. You are stating an obvious. The status quo always gives ground slowly in widening the circle of rights. At one time rights of whites were greater than non-whites, as well as the rights of men were greater than women as Believers were greater than infidels or Pagans, or Wiccans. Rights are the moral and eithical considerations