I think that’s exactly correct but we can go even further down that slope. In the end, the industry is just obeying the laws of capitalism. Cut costs, increase output, get as much product to the market at competitive prices, or die trying. You can get a hamburger for under a dollar (not saying it will be a good burger), but what considerations have been ignored to get it that cheap? It’s one thing if the product is orange juice. I can only imagine the number of splattered oranges that fall to the floor as a result of the perpetual rush. I think that in many ways democracy and capitalism have conflicting interests. They can undermine our electoral votes in so many ways but the world bends to our dollar votes. In many cultures meat is a luxury, a once-a-week indulgence. In ours, it damn well be in every meal. Availability has driven up demand, which calls for more availability. This vicious cycle has led to a horrendous situation. Legislation/regulation is really the only thing that forces industries to widen their scope of consideration, and that only works as long as the playing field is kept fair (the same restrictions apply to all competitors). But how are we to buy back our government to make this happen? I think it’s an information war. Most people really just have a total disconnect between their food and the process that made it. Not simply because they don’t want to know, I think it’s much more because they couldn’t see it if they wanted to. We have these videos like Earthlings circling around on the internet but there are all kinds of ****ed up attractions on the internet. So, to answer your question, I think it’s a combination of both. Educating people on what really goes on behind closed doors in their name, which is what it will take to make any push for effective regulation. You’re right, I really don’t have a problem with people eating meat but the current level of demand just can’t be supported in a humane way, period. No, I still think it's a slippery slope fallacy, and now you’re just furthering it. For all intents and purposes you have taken my stance that I am willing to reject animal exploitation for the benefit of my own menu variety, and suggested that because of this I must answer whether or not I am willing to reject animal exploitation that may be vital to my life. Classic slippery slope. Not Life, health, nor well-being is at stake for humans in anything I have suggested. As Aldo Leopold pointed out in Thinking Like a Mountain, killing the predator for the sake of the prey does more damage to the prey in the long run by destroying the equilibrium of the ecosystem. In the other three scenarios I would save the human. Why is any of this relevant? On one branch of the tracks is every chimpanzee in the world, on the other is a street junkie with AIDS. Which do you choose?
First of all I have and do eat meat, but lately I have been only eating raw food such as Lettuce, Spinach, carrots, nuts, and other things, my reason is to get into shape, and lose some weight, honestly it makes me feel great, and more energetic, and ready to do things. As for do I think it is wrong to kill animals for food, I would have to say no. I enjoy meat, such as Chicken and so on, but I don't like them being over killed, I think they get killed sometime and not eaten, and it is pointless. I also like eggs a lot, I honestly do not see a problem with eating eggs, mostly because there is already a **** load of chickens, and it is good, so why not. Also it is actually good for you to a extent. I have never thought to much on the concept of vegetarianism, but I would see my self more as a vegan, cause I show a bit of interest, and I don't always eat meat.
It's not wrong to kill animals for food, it's how you kill these animals and treat them that's wrong. The point of this debate to me is not whether we kill them or not, but how we do it. This is a serious issue, these animals are treated almost the exact same way the ****'s treated the Jews and all of their enemies. This is what is happening. We are all ****'s because we believe that since animals are different, we think they are inferior we take them out of their homes and shove them into concentration camps. Where we later kill them just because we can.
That is an outrageous accusation. Nazis collected Jews, because in their minds, Jews were inferior to the Aryan race which was seen to the perfect race. However, most concentration camps were not built on the sole purpose of extermination. It was the living conditions that usually killed them. Why were the Jews in such bad conditions? The guards and others working at the camps had absolutely no use for the Jews. What purpose would Nazis have for murdering Jews other than extermination itself? Unless you are suggesting that the Nazis were cannibals, there is really no correlation between the two. It's like say members of the Donner party are as bad as Charles Manson. There is a reason for us. We kill the animals to get something, and the Nazis did the killing for the sake of killing or for the sense of supremacy. And what is this about inferiority? Are you trying to say that animals are equal to humans? That's just preposterous. Can animals write a symphony or paint a masterpiece? If animals are equal to humans, slavery should be reinstated and Human Burgers will be sold at fast-food restaurants. Either that or we should eat no animals. Why stop there? Plants are living things to! They are equal, and if I eat an apple or a tomato or a potato, I am a ****. No, no. Such ideas are ignorant and misguided. It is quite clear Humans will have to eat something. Where do we draw the line? It is rightly drawn between humans and the rest of living things. Don't get me wrong. I am not supporting cruelty to animals. That is caused by capitalism, so debate that. I am simply pointing out the obvious flaws in you guys' debate. I think some others were trying to express the same idea. You want to eat only plants and such? Fine. However, you should fine the basis of why you do so. If in your mind you think being a vegan is in a higher moral status than others, you don't deserve to call yourself such. By saying only eating plants is moral, you say that eating animals is immoral. Thus, everyone else is immoral. I eat meat. Do I do it because I feel it is just? No, I do it because I like it. Sure people do what is "moral" to become a better person all the time. But the basis for the argument of morals here isn't well founded. So who is more like a ****? A CEO of a big company that slaughters thousands of animals a year to feed people, or a vegan who believes he/she has better morals than someone whom eats meat? In the meantime, I'll eat what I want. I can't control companies. If you dislike how animals are treated, debate against capitalism, fast-food restaurants, and the need of convenience in a modern society.
Why the outrage? Nobody's claiming moral superiority, and your reaction appears to me to be a defense mechanism. I was the one who brought up capitalism, and that is a key part of the problem, but the moral standing of animals is the heart and soul of this debate. Don't be so dismissive of it. You seem very confident that you know the answer, I think you're wrong. Many, many people think you're wrong. That doesn't mean you're wrong. This debate isn't limited to this thread, it's an ongoing philosophical struggle. I think animals are equal to humans. The differences between us don't take the form of superiority or inferiority. Survival is (debatably) a moral imperative, and we must eat organic material to survive. Your enjoyment of your meal is not a moral imperative. Many people cannot write a symphony or paint a masterpiece. If you claim that the one difference that sets humans apart (mental capacity) makes us superior, you are embracing "might makes right". That's saying that our moral superiority over animals is a result of our powers and abilities. Read back through this thread to see what I already said about the holocaust analogy. Here's some advice that you're probably not going to take - learn to identify thoughts and characteristics in yourself that are products of your culture. It's very obvious and easy to do in other cultures, and once you've practiced enough by observing enough different people, you can apply it to yourself more easily.
First of all you responded to me. Second of all I asked a question on whether or not you believed that animals should be placed on the same level as humans. If you do place them on the same level then there are question to be accounted for. I did NOT say ANYTHING about your PERSONAL choice to eat or not eat meat. I even stated I had no problems with vegetarianism. A slippery slope would be "if we allow 'X' then this will logically follow from 'X'". I never stated that something would logically follow from 'X'. I asked a question which does not violate the slippery slope fallacy. The only argument that I made was that if you compare chickens in cages to Jews in a holocaust, like PETA did, then you will have a harder time determining what is morally right and wrong. It is not a fallacy of slippery slope if you are presenting a red herring. Two individuals are not substantial enough to throw off a predator-prey cycle. .. If you save the human then you value humans above those of animals and as such you shouldn't be arguing for equality if you don't mean it. I on the other hand, never argued for equality. Everything is malleable. I would kill that street junkie in a heart beat rather than kill every chimpanzee on the planet. Does that affect me or my argument? No. So what do I care? Why don't we reassess what I've said? I asked two questions in my original post asking what you would do in a specific situation and then stated that if you cloud the issue with rhetoric such as the kind displayed in the PETA ad then you present a philosophy you don't want to be associated with. You have filled in the blanks you created. I don't want to hear it. If you want to respond to me you can but I'm not going to sit here and clarify myself over and over again.
Nothing makes you look cooler than subtly putting someone down. Why aren't we allow to base opinions off our culture? Should I degrade women now that I have realized that my humane nature towards them is a product of my culture and not my own personality?
I see my fault now. I've been defending myself against an attack you made at PETA. It's funny that you mention clearifying yourself though because I often find your arguments to be as clear as mud (the wording, not the reasoning). I guess I could be a little less boneheaded but really think you could work on your communication. Thanks for indulging me. Alright with that out of the way, maybe we can start over. I still see some problems with what you've said but I don't want to dwell on those until I'm sure we're on the same page. Are you saying that PETA's use of the holocaust analogy puts ethical vegans in a position of having to defend equality of humans and animals? If so, the reason I may have misunderstood you is because I hardly think ethical veganism requires the use of the holocaust analogy as long as it limits itself to rejection of non-vital animal products, which is what this thread has generally been limited to. I'll respond to everything you've asked in a different way but let me know if I'm on the right track now. We seem to be in a new ballpark. @Failus - my oh my how you skewed my intent. That was not a subtle put-down, it was genuine advice (yeah I know advice is generally worthless.) I personally have lots of opinions that are a product of my culture. I didn't say reject them, I said be aware of them. Some may bear rejection if they don't hold up to scrutiny.
I don't know if this has been posted yet but I think it is kind of cool, in a very bad way. Meat and Pollution And what it is saying is that not eating meat is one of the best ways to fight pollution because the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than cars, SUV's, and pretty much all vehicles land, air and sea combined. And that really surprised me and now this thread is making me feel bad. But what we tend to do in threads like these is complain about issues that are almost impossible to solve. It will be impossible to stop the meat industry and I really doubt even after reading this thread that people like myself will stop eating meat. And it will not stop this problem. But it is an eye opener.
yes the meat industry will never be "stopped". because americans like meat. and im sure the majority dont care about the "stupid" animals. okay, be "mean" to them and kill them then eat them or be nice to them and kill them then eat them. they dont care what you do to them. i know for a fact its not necessary to torture animals. i would try to go vegan. i did try for about 4 or 5 months. but it was hard because my family didnt really help. they were eating meat every night and i would have a salad or something because veggie burgers make me vomit, and my parents wouldnt buy anything else vegan approved.
I'm not here to debate, I just thought predicide would find this interesting. Mad science? Growing meat without animals - Innovation- msnbc.com Talks about meat without the animals. Its a bit wierd but it would be a great break through (not the artificial ***** in the rabbit part though)
And I can't provide information that relates to the debate? Don't remember seeing that in the rules. PS: I'm not from belgium and learn how to quote a post.
That is pretty damn nifty, I gotta say. I think I'll still pass on the rabbit ***** but it's a start, eh? It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.
Haha. yeah when I saw that, I sort of freaked out, but hey, if a soldier gets tortured and his nuts get cut off, at least he can get it all back . It would be interesting if this went far. Then we can say byebye to mass killing of animals. until then though, I must eat (scurries away to go get pizza).
I have no problem with people deciding not to eat meat, or any product from an animal. Its when they want to tell me how to live that I get my dander up. (this is ex girlfriend territory here) When they say it's barbaric, that animals don't deserve to be eaten, I laugh. If the natural world was all herbivores and plants, I'd agree. But its not. The shark and lion agree with me, they want meat. Another thing some of the more militant vegans like to say We (as humans) don't NEED to eat meat, that we never should have started, that early man was an herbivore..... if man hadn't started hunting for his food, he wouldn't have had extra energy and time to make tools and expand his brain, and civilization might not exist at all. SO eat your soyoburger and shut up while I have some carne asada tacos
I don't know. This doesn't even really affect me, I always kinda knew where the meat was coming from. I don't really feel bad for animals unless I have an emotional connection to them and it's just not there for the cows I'm getting my meat from. I'm going to continue eating the good stuff. I only watched the first video. I imagine the second one would be a lot harder to get through.
Trailer YouTube- Did Cooking Make Us Human? - Horizon - BBC Two Horizon BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Did Cooking Make Us Human? I think you should probably watch that. It may be UK only, in which case lol at you but iPlayer will be world-wide in half a years time so hang on tight. It looks at the correlations between human evolution in terms of learning (or being forced) to eat meat, and then to cook it, and our advances and increase in brain size. It's quite startling, but very inconclusive.