First off,Let me show you how important meat compared to a vegatarian lifestyle is in your diet even for modern peoples.There are innumerable health benefits of eating meat, to say, for example, it serves as a fabulous source of high quality proteins, which a single vegetarian food is not able to provide. It contains all the essential amino acids that the body requires. The red meat contains very high quantities of iron, when compared with plant origin foods. 100 grams of Liver contains 6000 mcgm of iron as against 325 mcgm in 100-gram carrots. The phosphorus content present in meat gets much more easily absorbed than that present in cereals and legumes. This is owing to the fact that cereals and legumes contain phosphorus, usually in the form of phytic acid that must be hydrolyzed before absorption. Meat also serves as the main source for the intake of vitamin B12. Lets look at this in a more moral approach,which i know your arguement is generally based around.The reason why we think,feel emotion,love,talk and behave the way we do is not from divine being who made us special,but our large brains.Everything around you,from the chair your sitting on while writing your reply later,to that halo game you play,to every single thing that was ever built or thought of you could that that massive brain of ours because with out it we wouldnt even be having this conversation.Now with that in mind,and the fact that you say that animals have feeling and they shouldnt be treated the way they do is completly false.First of all,animals do NOT have the same feelings or thoughts Humans have,its scientifically proven that the only reason we have emotion is from our brain,but it has never been proven that animals have the same mental ability.The only reason why that animals are treated the way the are is because its the cheapest,most productive and most human way for both the animal and humans.Your basically telling me that the only reason your a vegan is because of the conditions in which the animals are processed (and I know this because we had this discussion on halo once before),then I guess its safe to say that if they were treated better you'd be a meat eater.Your morals cloud your vision.people need to be fed and face it,Humans need meat in their diet to survive.If everyone became a vegan today do you know how much land they would have to convert to farmland to feeed everyone.meat production is the only thing that keeps an agricultural system stable...if plants wheere the only thing the country produced and there happen to be a massive draught or terrible winter,the crop rotation would be desamated and soo many more people would die of starvation.Animals dont have feelings,and im not just saying that from an opinion point of view,its just that its never been proven.It be imoral if they did,but at the same time it be immoral to deprive the world of a great food supply if they didnt.
I understand that meat contains nutrients that are needed, but you are wrong to say that these nutrients can't be replaced with plant-based foods. source - this is not propaganda, this is from the professional association for nutritionists in America. Yes I do - none at all. Meat production is very food and water inefficient (source). Also, at no point have I suggested that it would be good if everyone converted en masse, overnight. All I ask is that people educate themselves as to what happens to their food before they ever see it, as well as the environmental consequences. I do appreciate that you are willing to get into the ethical side of this debate, we may have some real potential for discussion here. Cheapest and most productive: yes. Most humane: absolutely not. In fact, those two goals are completely at odds with each other. I find that many people base their entire diet and arguments defending it on the sincere hope that this is true, and are so dependent on it that it becomes an irrational assumption and belief. Then there are those who do not assume that animals don't have feelings, and just don't care. It has been proven that animals have complex feelings and emotions, in every way that science can ever prove anything given the limitation that we can't actually transfer our consciousness to their point of view. Basic observation reveals this, it's as obvious as the sun in the sky, anyone can see it. You don't have to conduct a scientific study to know this. Seriously, have you never seen an animal before? Have you never seen a dog before? Dogs are nothing but emotion and feeling. Same thing for cows, pigs, chickens, you name it. Now as we get further down the developmental chain, it can be assumed that consciousness and sentience diminish. Do fish have emotions? That's a bit less obvious but then, the fishing industry is guilty of some of the more heinous environmental infractions. Did you know that for every pound of shrimp caught, five pounds on average and upwards to twenty pounds of other marine life is caught as bycatch, which dies for no reason? Of course, if basic observation of very obvious things isn't enough for you, we do in fact have scientific studies (which you said didn't exist. Did you look?) source source source source
I think that what you are saying about animal emotion is false.A dog behaves a sertain way,like acting playfull or showing signs of distress by the reinforsment that is given to them.its a natural instinct that if a dog behaves nicely,it will recieve positive reinforcment like a pet on the head or a treat,there by leading to a greater chance of the chance the behavior will be repeated.Its not that the dog has good morals,knowing wats right or wrong,or showing any sort of emotion,its just a survival instinct. And besides,slaughtering animals for the well being of the society is right,no matter what it takes to meet the demand.It realy shoudnt matter how the animals are treated so long as the human race can continue to trive.
I posted 4 articles about scientific studies that suggest animals have feelings and you respond with nothing but your opinion. Why do dogs left in cages for extended periods of time without stimulus show clear signs of insanity and dementia, if they are numb to such things? Do you think that it takes a human brain to experience such a basic response as pain? Your argument is very convenient to your lifestyle and without linking any references I can only assume that you are guessing and hoping that you are right.
Not true...i take a pscyhologly class in college about this...and the sensation of pain is nothing more than a survival instinct that gives a negative feed back to the animal,to signal that theres some sort of threat in the environment...all of these behaviors are genetically programed for the survival of the species...does a dog know how to create???Do a dog know how to express its feelings true art,music or literature?i dont think so and please dont tell me they do or else they'd be seen as equals to humans which there not.
Your not getting the point...but he could express it in another way can't he?The point is,animals are not seen as equals too humans and probably never will be.Meat is one thing that help the human race survive,and I don't think its going to leave are diet for a very very long time.Its all survival of the fittest,and humans happen to be on top so until we become lower in the food chain I think we should be aloud to call the shots.Animals are here for our well being,we should take full advantage of that.I know your very passionate about what you believe and I completely respect that,Im justing letting know how I feel,which completely contardicts your beliefs,and thats just fine.
I am anything but vegitarian, but I do feel for the animals in the videos. I don't know if I would ever stop eating meat or drinking dairy, but I would gladly support some sort of protest against animal rights, just against their conditions, and not having them brutally slaughtered, maybe just euthenized at the end of their life. I'm not even going to try to watch the second video, mainly because the first one already ruined my day. Not really on the topic of vegitarianism/veganism, more towards animal cruelty, just search "white tigers" on youtube.
Thank you for that. If you want, try watching just the first 10 minutes, which is just the foundational arguments for the ethical debate. It's actually quite beautiful and the more disturbing parts don't start until after that point. Here's the link again, and I updated the OP a bit. Earthlings
Firstly, nice thread. Eating animals causes animals pain (and obviously death). Whether the pain or death of animals is something you care about is determinate of your life views. The secular humanism part of me realises that causing the unnecessary pain of animals is a selfish and fairly primitive act, it's an established fact that humans can live long, healthy lives without eating meat. The moral nihilist side backed by the science I believe in (determinism, we have no souls or free will) doesn't care much at all, and I personally don't care for the company of animals, so their well-being doesn't effect me. It wouldn't matter to me if every species of animals except humans and those that are necessary to certain life (like bees) went extinct, and if they were gone forever, they would not suffer. We're a violent species, evolution has required it. Maybe if humans start colonising other planets the meat industry will be phased out, as humans will rely more heavily on terraforming reliable crop farming land, and the realisation that meat is a resource costly product will cripple the supply. I'm biased. Obviously, as an average person (non-vegetarian parents) I was raised to eat both meat and vegetation, developing a percieved requirement for meat. I HATE and I cannot stress this enough, detest being selective about what I eat. At 55kg and 186 cm (6'3") I should probably be on a diet, because I need to put ON weight, i'm unhealthily thin apparently, but as a typical procrastinator I don't afford myself time to look up diet information, and thus through laziness don't afford myself selectivity about what I eat. I've eaten subway (with meat) about 3-4 times a week for the last month once per day almost exclusively, but I don't exert myself much physically, so my lack of food intake is balanced by my lack of activity. I have a few questions. How do you feel about ordering food that usually has meat in it, but without the meat? For example, would you consider buying special fried rice but asking them to leave eggs and whatever meat it includes out of it as supporting the meat industry? Do you look down on me for believing that the pain animals experience as well as that of humans is irrelevant to "the universe"? Sure, i'd save someone from tripping without thinking, but that's only because people are physically and electro-chemically programmed to have a hero-complex, as well as other psychological explanations. Do you see your abstinence from eating meat as somewhat in vain? People will probably not stop eating meat in your lifetime. You have me really apathetic and slightly depressed now. Nothing I do has any importance, except in a "pretend" context that it would be naive of me to express. I might eat less meat now though.
I've only ever actually known 2 people in real life who were vegetarians, my aunt and uncle. I myself have only been doing it for just under 3 years now, but everyone knows it about me and there's no conflict. Most people would feel rude asking me to buy them something that I would not eat but I honestly wouldn't consider it to be rude, and I have done it before. It's their diet after all, and just because I may be buying it doesn't mean I'm eating it. But of course, if they leave it up to me to pick something out for them they know what to expect. No I don't think less of you at all, not in the slightest. Hell, when you put it in the scope of the universe you're absolutely right, what does anything matter? But I understand and am swayed by lots of ethical schools of thought. Lately I'm becoming more and more of a realist in that I think morality, if it exists at all, is only constructed in the minds of people as a result of our social instincts. But, even if made up, morality does have a place and a benefit. Utilitarianism for all it's faults is maybe the best "place holder" for a perfect moral code until we can invent a better one. I can see that animals have interests and I feel that I must take them into consideration. I feel that anthropocentricism (the belief that humans are central) is a result of narrow, convenient thinking. But, after all that, this is just my take. I am happy that we can all come to our own conclusions, I wouldn't have it otherwise. Ignorance is one thing, forming considered beliefs that may differ from mine is another. Is voting in vain? If it's all about #1, it does me a lot of good physically and psychologically. The only way I'd feel that it was in vain was if I thought I was missing out on something good, and after 3 years, all those feelings are completely gone. It is now something I've gained, not something I've lost. I see it as less of participation in a movement to change the world, and more as a boycott or nonparticipaton in something I disagree with.
If you eat an animal and it has a soul, does that still matter? (Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.) Anyways, animals do have personalities and a will. That to me is the very essence of a soul. I might be forgetting some of the ingredient's of a soul right now, but I am terribly tired. It's a poor excuse, but I don't know when I'll have this thought again. But, comparing an animal to a human, in my eyes, is like comparing a plant to an animal. Yes, we do have physiological similarities, but on a cognitive level, there is no equal. Besides, yo quiero taco bell.
My argument against PETA: Ethical Vegansim: The abstinence from the consumption of meat due to moral or philosophical grounds. Now, I have no problems with vegetarianism. If you only want to eat vegies I won't stop you, but, assuming ethical veganism is to be adhered to, where do you draw the line? Pig hearts can be used in humans. Let's assume for a moment a human gets sick and needs a new heart. A pig is slaughtered and put in the person to save their life. Right or wrong? A pig falls ill and needs a heart, a human is slaughtered and the heart given to the pig. Right or wrong? Most of us will, by now, have made a moral judgment on what's right and wrong but when you compare chickens in captivity to Jews in concentration camps, do we really? Is this a philosophy we want to associate ourselves with?
I first have to point out that being wary of slippery slopes is a fallacy of reasoning. It's a symptom of too much ideology and not enough practicality. As long as we're just talking about food, it's pretty easy. I know that sea sponges are the simplest members of the Kingdom Animalia, and that they can not be said to have any more sentience than plants by any objective standard. It is also true that sentience is a key element of any type of animal rights argument. It's not unprecedented for a good argument to be made for the rights of all life, but practicality takes over from there. If I don't eat organic material of some kind I will die. The line between which species one will and will not eat is not important. It's not necessary for humans to eat animals for survival, health, well-being, or anything else except simple hedonism and cultural conformity. Our current methods of satisfying that hedonism comes at a huge cost for the environmental and animal interests. It's the casual disregard for the animal's every vital need to satisfy our trivial ones that gives the holocaust comparison power, and I don't hesitate, out of fear of offending anthropocentrists, to use it. You however crossed a very clear line with your example, from food into medicine. And as such, we've entered into a better debate but one that may be above my abilities. In this case, it can be said to be a matter of survival. Personally, I've said before in this thread that I would readily eat animals if my survival was at stake. I might even eat people, how am I to say I wouldn't? But is there frivolous, unnecessary, fruitless, and cruel animal testing that goes on? Yes there is.
So is the real issue pred in trying to educate consumers to force them to change the industry or should you attack the industry itself?
Hes not trying to force change on anybody,he's just educating us about these things,if you decide to become a vegan it has absolutly nothing to do with him.
Duh. I know it isn't about him and I know he's isn't trying to force anyone to change, but everyone's got an agenda. If his agenda is to educate people, it's probably so that they will make a change in dietary habits. Like he said, he's not against eating meat, but against the cruelty of animals. So, if we slide down that slippery slope, which in this case is far more practical than Nitrous's example then we should conclude that the issue really isn't with any meat eater but with the industry itself. As the industry tries to maintain a profit, then the humane treatment of animals goes down. If you can sway public opinion to change the industry then humane treatment of animals goes up. Do you see what I'm getting at? So again, is the correct thing to do educating the populace to enact change or to make a change in the law. Obviously public opinion influences legislation, but if an issue isn't hotbed, like the issue of capital punishment, then public opinion can have little effect. Most people agree that capital punishment is right, but the law says otherwise. If people were passionate then it would be changed. So, is animal rights a big enough issue to warrant a change in the law through public opinion or is so small that an outspoken minority needs direct involvement?
I'd like to point out to you that my argument is not a slippery slope fallacy. If I should be accused of anything it is that of breaking Godwin's law. Pay no mind to my use of medicine, as an analogy, because it was not used as an opening to a medical debate. My argument, simply, is that when you reject the consumption of animals due strictly upon moral grounds you, yourself, cross the line. You provoke the argument and I should not be held accountable for raising it. If you are a vegan out of moral guilt then there are questions you must answer and be held accountable for: A train goes hurtling down the tracks. Just beyond the switch there are three animals. A deer on one track and two bears on the other. Do you save the carnivore or the herbivore? In saving the carnivores you preserve the most life but they must eat other animals to survive so what would be the morally right thing to do? Same scenario; two humans on one track, one deer on the other. A pig needs a heart to survive. A boy needs a heart to survive. A recently deceased organ donors heart comes in. It is a perfect match for both, who gets it? Same scenario; it is a perfect match for the pig and carries a 100% survival rate whereas the boy carries a 20% survival rate, who gets it? --- My choice to consume meat is a product of my freewill. If you cannot answer the above questions either directly to me or to yourself you have no business telling me how or what I should eat. Just like I have no business telling people who or how they love.