Everyone needs to read this. I don't like their political ideology. And this is just awful.
www.workingpitbull.com/images/petakilling.jpg
http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
http://www.thisistrue.com/petareply.html
http://uncooperativeblogger.com/2005/06/18/peta-employees-arrested-for-animal-cruelty/
Or, for a less biased view of things,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA
(anything that has to label itself "this is true", in my experience, is usually wild speculation)
QuotePETA's philosophy is "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."
It's funny, isn't it? I agree on experiment, but isn't eating other animals and playing with them (and using any resource to keep warm in cool weather) is simple animal nature, both human and non-human? We have a responsability, as a conscious species, to watch out for what we do, but we are still animals, with the same insticts, urges and nature (no, we "the good people" don't kill. Directly. But there's a hunter side to a lot of professions).
Funny, they seem to rather agree with this:
Quote"Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals."
I agree. We're animals too.
Heh, I'll stop. My second thread in less than 5 minutes with a bone to pick that could get out of hand, this time a bone related to vegetarianism.
Regarding the original topic, I'm not sure I believe it. People and organizations like this can be so extreme in their views that PETA mistreating animals would be as unlikely as Greenpeace being behind the deflorestation of the rainforest.
Yeah, the last time I was on a forum and they started moaning about vegetarians I got a warning for flaming, something I've never done before.
They were all making stupid and childish comments taking the piss of of vegetarians and vegans, calling them pasty skinny wimps and the like.
On the forum:
Person: "Vegetarians who think it's wrong to kill animals for meat are morons, IMO."
Me: "That's fine, I think you're a moron, IMO."
I get a warning..
Moderator: "No personal attacks."
Me: "Ah I see, so I can't attack personally, but it's okay to attack a group of people! My bad."
Alas, Rui, i agree with your opinion. Fair enough, experimenting on animals is wrong, unfair and just plain mean, as in missile pointed directly at Amnesty International wrong, unfair, and mean.
But, as harsh as it is, we're humans. Some of us eat meat. Some of us wear fur. Some of us use animals in circuses. Some of us don't shower too often.
With the exception of the last one, i doubt there is there are many people over the age of 16 who has never either eaten meat, worn fur or been to a circus or an entertainment event that uses animals.
The point is, you cannot fight a majority, and as long as PETA keep acting like jerks, i don't think anything will be solved.
Well, i'm sleep deprived.
G'night.
There are some things we must take into consideration... If we are animals, we can DO what ANIMALS DO, and some animals EAT some OTHER ANIMALS. Lions eat gazelles, Crocs eat nyús, or whatever they're called. Our digestive system is preppaired to be omnivorous, so... we can eat meat, IMO.
Minks... They are small, and lovely. And they're used to make expensive overcoats. The ecologists started to say that having farms of aminals to sacrifice them was horrible. Result: Minks are now close to extintion.
Bulls. Apparently bullfights are cruel and bloody... IMO they're also boring. But if you know a bit of our culture you'll know that this animals live like KINGS for 4 years (good natural grass to eat, free live in the pasture, sport, and cows), and their horrible final just lasts 10 minutes (each bullfight must least less that 15 minutes, if not, the bullfight ends), whereas the bulls and cows not destined for bullfights live as slaves, and have a horrible final too, that lasts even days, that includes a horrible transport and a disgusting end by electrocution. In addition if you show you are a good bull in the plaza, you are indulted, cured, and destined to stud for the rest of your live.
My point. Don't allow the ultra complaining attitude of the radical ecologists current take you. there are indeed a lot of things we can do for improving the live of the animals, but some arguments are, not just pointless, but also contraproductive. Be wise, investigate, and take your decissions.
I don't know...
I always thought that the middle way, the golden ration, the common sense would be that:
If you need to eat, kill animals, if you need to dress kill animals, if you need to make a fortune, take care of animals.
Now after a while things have changed and the 'kill to dress' is totally wrong, cause obviously there are 1000s of ways to do that without killing (although still we use animals to do that. But giving a shave to a sheep, does not seem like a big deal really...)
About food, I know that vegetarians have wasted a lot of time and money into finding ways to feed themselves with some alternatives than food, but SOYA MILK???? I mean it just sucks! It's a fact that cows produced 3/4 more milk than their children will need. Why not use that 3/4???? You may not want to eat a T-bone-steak, ok, but milk, eggs, and all that stuff...
As always things are getting ridiculous.
And of course I can see how cruel sometimes the 'factories' (yes I used this word on purpose), for chickens, or sheeps or whatever, can be and I have to say that because we can get 0,02$ for every sheep that we cruely kill, does not justify for me that situation, but still I don't think that we shuold be offering TV and BB (not Big Brother) to every sheep just because we feel that we've done wrong to them.
It is this thing that ALWAYS gets out of hand:
You claim that you believe (in) something (example->) I believe that we shouldn't be cruel to animals! Which on it's own is a perfectly understandable sentence. Don't buy a puppy and leave it on the street after you're bored, don't take cat's and torture them to death and so on... But then someone comes to you and says :" HEY! You don't want cruelty and yet you drink cows milk! Do you know how cruel these people are to cows in order to take their milk?". And so, in response to stay lowal and coherent, you add this little paragraph "I also object to milking cows". Then the next one comes along :" Do you know how much suffering chicken are getting when being 'forced' to make more eggs?", and thus you add a second sentese... and this thing never ends... And in the begining all you wanted was to say that :" People, don't abandon your pets, it's a shame. Think about it! If you wont' be keeping your pet for long, don't buy it! Take your kids to the zoo instead!".
And btw, how cruel is a lion killing a baby zebra? Pretty cruel in human standards... Heck are we, humans, not animals?!?
BS bigtime! BS I tell thee!
(And I think that my last posts have taken a small turn... dunno... I'll analyse and let you know... :S)
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21
About food, I know that vegetarians have wasted a lot of time and money into finding ways to feed themselves with some alternatives than food, but SOYA MILK????
In their eyes, and indeed my eyes, it is not a waste of money. Whatever costs you are talking about anyway. And I drink soya milk because it has proteins for my body. (and.. I drink this nice chilled creamy stuff, not that nasty dry section carton stuff) I still eat cheese and chocolate.
"I mean it just sucks! It's a fact that cows produced 3/4 more milk than their children will need. Why not use that 3/4????"
I'm guessing the reasoning here is because of the majority of cruel ways used in order to get said milk. So the vegetarians/vegans wouldn't want to drink something that had been extracted in such a way.
"As always things are getting ridiculous."
Whatever.
"But then someone comes to you and says :" HEY! You don't want cruelty and yet you drink cows milk! Do you know how cruel these people are to cows in order to take their milk?"
In my experience I get more people telling me I SHOULD eat meat, more often than i've ever told someone they shouldn't. In fact, I never force my ideals down anyone's throat. Only in circumstances like this, or if someone asks me why I don't eat at McDonald's for example. And as you can see, I still haven't told you not to eat meat.
"And btw, how cruel is a lion killing a
baby zebra? Pretty cruel in human standards... Heck are we, humans, not animals?!?"
Not sure of your point here, but we are animals to a degree, albeit with higher intelligence and awareness, so those people who argue that we should eat meat because animals do it are suggesting they contain the same amount of intelligence as the animals, are they not? ::) "ooh look, that monkey just smeared his poo all over that window, and I shall do the same. Heck, I'm an animal too!" :P :)
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 12:52:39
Our digestive system is preppaired to be omnivorous, so... we can eat meat, IMO.
That's a compelling argument, but the same logic could be used to justify cannibalism.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21
It is this thing that ALWAYS gets out of hand...
What you describe as something getting "out of hand" is the taking of an argument to its logical conclusion, which is crucial to rational investigation.
You're right about soya milk though!
So if you have your own chickens that you look after nicely and don't force to lay lots of eggs, it would be OK to eat those eggs, then?
Also, I was reading in this week's New Scientist that giving babies soya milk formula instead of cows milk formula is very bad for them. Of course human milk is better still...
And what's wrong with smearing poo on one's windows, eh? eh?
And can you wear leather if the cow involved died of natural causes. Also, my feet smell if I use non-leather shoes.
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 13:26:16
So if you have your own chickens that you look after nicely and don't force to lay lots of eggs, it would be OK to eat those eggs, then?
Well it's better, anyway.
"Also, I was reading in this week's New Scientist that giving babies soya milk formula instead of cows milk formula is very bad for them. Of course human milk is better still..."
I'm more concerned in that aspect with Nestle encouraging the use of their powdered baby milk products in developing countries and causing deaths from malnutrition. Breastfeeding all the way..
"And what's wrong with smearing poo on one's windows, eh? eh?"
Do I have to answer that one?
"And can you wear leather if the cow involved died of natural causes. Also, my feet smell if I use non-leather shoes."
That's okay, but I'll still grose out about it. Non-leather shoes? Well that depends on the type of shoes now. If they were plastic, well then yeah, there's no air in them for your feet to breath. my shoes are made of the same kind of material as yacht sails. And my safety shoes. And my trainers are synthetic but not sure how, but they aint leather, and they look real cool. Even if they are meant for skateboarding.
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 13:26:16
Also, I was reading in this week's New Scientist that giving babies soya milk formula...
Giving them an orange juice formula is probably not so good, either. Point is, it's not about whether it's breast milk, dairy milk, or soy milk, it's about what a newborn baby needs for good health and what are good sources for that.
Not breastfeeding is entirely absurd, imho.
I'm a vegan and I have to say that I have met few vegans who actually like PETA as an organisation; I certainly don't think they're much good for anything other than giving us a bed rep.
Yes, don't dismiss the whole idea because of some nutcases.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 12:52:39If we are animals, we can DO what ANIMALS DO, and some animals EAT some OTHER ANIMALS. Lions eat gazelles, Crocs eat nyús, or whatever they're called. Our digestive system is preppaired to be omnivorous, so... we can eat meat, IMO.
Sure, we may be animals in the biological sense, but we can think, have morals and ethics. We're human.
I CAN eat meat, but I have a choice, so I don't. The lion killing the zebra doesn't have a choice.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21Now after a while things have changed and the 'kill to dress' is totally wrong, cause obviously there are 1000s of ways to do that without killing.
Agreed.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21
About food, I know that vegetarians have wasted a lot of time and money into finding ways to feed themselves with some alternatives than food, but SOYA MILK???? I mean it just sucks!
I rather like it. It contains a lot of water which makes it taste fresher, less creamy than cow's milk.
And the fact that that comes from the glands of some farm animal disgusts me, to be honest.
But there are not proper alternatives for everything. While the first question should always be if you can't just do without, I have decided that I can't do without cheese (made from milk, I know). There's just nothing quite like it. And I love pizza.
Now, people always tell me I'm inconsequential. No meat, no milk, but I eat cheese? I'm a hypocrite.
They may be right, but that doesn't belittle everything else I (do not) do.
What do you do to reduce animal suffering?
Why all-or-nothing? Start small.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21It's a fact that cows produced 3/4 more milk than their children will need. Why not use that 3/4???? You may not want to eat a T-bone-steak, ok, but milk, eggs, and all that stuff...
As you say, it's the industrial methods with total disregard for the well-being of the animals that drives most people to boycott it.
That includes breeding cows with udders so big that they can hardly walk anymore.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 12:59:21But then someone comes to you and says (...) Then the next one comes along (...) and this thing never ends...
So you just do nothing at all? That's hypocritical to me. (No offense!)
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 13:26:16
So if you have your own chickens that you look after nicely and don't force to lay lots of eggs, it would be OK to eat those eggs, then?
To me, yes. If you really think you can't do without.
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 13:26:16Also, I was reading in this week's New Scientist that giving babies soya milk formula instead of cows milk formula is very bad for them. Of course human milk is better still...
Yes, I'm on the fence on this as well.
But there are always studies proving one thing or another.
While I think you could feed babies a balanced, but purely vegetarian diet, I would err on the side of caution and feed them a "normal" diet.
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 13:26:16And can you wear leather if the cow involved died of natural causes. Also, my feet smell if I use non-leather shoes.
In my mind, yes. But since it doesn't say so on the label, I'd rather not condone leather at all.
So, if I chose the option of eating meat, I don't have moral and/nor ethic?
Having looked it up, it seems that Organic certification for meat and dairy products means that the animals should have much better living conditions. Why are these then not acceptable?
Quote from: strazer on Fri 28/07/2006 14:05:24
Sure, we may be animals in the biological sense, but we can think, have morals and ethics. We're human.
I CAN eat meat, but I have a choice, so I don't. The lion killing the zebra doesn't have a choice.
It's more of a gray area than you say; animals also think. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence for some background info.
Quote
Now, people always tell me I'm inconsequential. No meat, no milk, but I eat cheese? I'm a hypocrite.
They may be right, but that doesn't belittle everything else I (do not) do.
This does remind me of an old friend of mine who is vegetarian, but nevertheless eats hamburgers because he likes them. If you're going to play the ethics card, at least be consistent.
That said, I'm all in favor of freerange animals.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 15:04:44
So, if I chose the option of eating meat, I don't have moral and/nor ethic?
He never said/implied that.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 15:04:44
So, if I chose the option of eating meat, I don't have moral and/nor ethic?
Of course you do. Please. ::)
What I meant is we can make decisions based on that. Animals not for all we know.
Quote from: Radiant on Fri 28/07/2006 15:14:08
It's more of a gray area than you say; animals also think. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_intelligence for some background info.
We are smarter than they are. However you want to put it.
Quote from: Radiant on Fri 28/07/2006 15:14:08This does remind me of an old friend of mine who is vegetarian, but nevertheless eats hamburgers because he likes them. If you're going to play the ethics card, at least be consistent.
Why do I have to be consistent? So maybe I'm not a "vegetarian". But I still don't eat meat, drink milk or eat eggs. That's better than nothing, no?
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 15:11:44
Having looked it up, it seems that Organic certification for meat and dairy products means that the animals should have much better living conditions. Why are these then not acceptable?
I don't understand. Could you please word it differently?
Edit:
Ah, now I understand.
Better living conditions as opposed to what? It's still far from living naturally.
Cows only give milk when they have babies, just like humans. So they're impregnated constantly and their children then taken away from them. No living condition can change that. And they still get killed.
This is really my main beef with PETA:
PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
--Glamour, January 1990
Are you saying that diabetics shouldn't be animal rights campaigners? Since insulin-dependents usually get diabetes at birth or in childhood, you're basically forcing them never to form opinions on the whole subject in later life....
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 28/07/2006 15:33:24
This is really my main beef with PETA:
In the context, "my main nut cutlet" would have been more diplomatic.
Quote from: strazer on Fri 28/07/2006 14:05:24
So you just do nothing at all? That's hypocritical to me. (No offense!)
Well the exact opposite actually.
Yuo want something, but in order not to be pointed out as hypocrite, you have to accept absolutely everything, or else...
Baby milk, from mothers is yummy! My sons told me! After a while of course we did give them powder milk, so... :-/ Still supposedely it's better than normal cows milk.
Maybe I'm not convinced that there are 1000s of alternatives is feeding, as there are in clothing (where we still use animals, and I do believe that the torturing is still there, but noone seems to say anything...) BTW, so the only fight is not to use furs, and other than that everything is ok, while in food we cannot touch anything?
As far as I know a 'true vegetarian' (who does not eat any animal products, including cheese, milk, eggs, meat (of course)), has to find alternative ways to keep their protein high, meaning they must carry out a very specific diet in order to stay healthy, if not also some supplements (like vitamins and stuff). This to me does not looks natural, where to just not wear fur, is as natural as it goes (plus the all synthetic stuff that everybody uses,. but still our wardrobes are full of animal byproducts)
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 16:33:07Yuo want something, but in order not to be pointed out as hypocrite, you have to accept absolutely everything, or else...
What I mean is everybody loves animals and doesn't want them to suffer but nobody wants to do anything about it.
I freely admit that I don't do everything I could do. If that makes me a hypocrite and I can't call me vegetarian, fine. At least I do something.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 16:33:07This to me does not look natural
I think most people's diet today is unbalanced and unnatural. But yes, there's a conflict for vegans.
I like the taste of meat and if I didn't know an animal suffered and was killed for it, I would eat it. But I can't do that with a clear conscience.
So I've been vegetarian (it's shorter to write ;)) for 5 years now, had my blood tested, feel fine and am fine according to my doctor.
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 16:33:07
As far as I know a 'true vegetarian' (who does not eat any animal products, including cheese, milk, eggs, meat (of course)
You mean a vegan. A vegetarian by definition eats/drinks dairy products.
Quote from: SSH on Fri 28/07/2006 15:47:48
Are you saying that diabetics shouldn't be animal rights campaigners? Since insulin-dependents usually get diabetes at birth or in childhood, you're basically forcing them never to form opinions on the whole subject in later life....
Sorry, let me clarify, I'm saying that she needs animal testing to live her life. She can not live without animal testing. There are people who can not live without running a hog farm or trapping and killing beavers for their pelts or etc etc. There is a difference in insulin and a wool sweater company but in my opinion it is a small one in many instances.
If your family runs a business that mistreats [by mistreats I mean in the PETA sense, can't even shear sheep as well as slaughter a cow] animals and that is how they have lived for years and years, they have a mortgage and a 4 kids in college, are they supposed to just turn their animals loose and find new jobs? Are they supposed to plant cotton and turn their sheep loose or plant soybeans or whatever and turn their cows loose? Even if they gradually worked towards phasing out their wool sweaters into cotton ones, man that's a huge undertaking requiring a complete overhaul of the entire business model, training new skill sets, new employees, maybe even moving to an area more suited for agriculture. Can family or small business afford to do this?
If you have a disease that is helped by animal tested products, are you supposed to not use them and take your chances while waiting for something non-animal tested to come along? According to Marybeth Sweetland of course not. Preserving her life is more important. So if she's more important than the animals it took to make the insulin but the families that depend on animals to live aren't more important... I get confused.
I eat meat. It tastes good. It's full of important iron and protein that I require. I eat fish and dairy and eggs, the medication I take every single day probably was tested on animals. I wear leather shoes.
The problem with PETA, and some other animal rights organisations, is that they do not see some sort of medium. Though all the things I stated above seem very anti-animal rights, they must be put into a context. I eat meat, but I try my damn hardest to eat free range organic meat from Britain. I eat eggs, but I refuse on principle to eat any eggs that I know are not free range. I am against animal testing for cosmetic purposes....but it's difficult when it comes to medical purposes. When those recent human medical tests went horrifically wrong, people called for more testing on animals. It's a sad and unfortunately necessary thing. No humans are going to want to be mass tested on either.
We should be helping to fight the fur trade, ban battery chicken farms and increase the amount of organic and free range farming of livestock. We should be striving for stricter controls on the import of meat that does not live up to the required welfare standards of our nations. We should be funding animal shelters and conservation programmes.
I do not see an issue with taking the life of an animal to feed another animal (as we are). I do see an issue with the cruelty in which we treat other animals to fulfil that process.
Does insulin (still) require ongoing animal testing in its everyday synthesis?
from her quote:
"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
Even so, no animal testing, no Marybeth Sweetwater. Does she thank animal testing for saving her life? Does she need animal testing to save her life? Yes. Will she protest animal testing by not taking insulin? No. Should we condemn other people to die by diseases that we may be able to prevent or treat with animal testing in the future? Marybeth says yes.
Strazer... You quoted this refering to me...
QuoteThis does remind me of an old friend of mine who is vegetarian, but nevertheless eats hamburgers because he likes them. If you're going to play the ethics card, at least be consistent.
I think Yabb has made a bug or something, because I haven't written that! ^_^
About the "we are not animals, because we can think, we have moral and ethics"... Forget my previous post putting words in your lips... I was playing the fool...
But the real argument is that Peta (which means "joint" in Spanish...) says that we must respect animals becase WE ARE animals, therefore we are not better than them, ergo, we can't kill them. BUT, if you say that we are indeed animals, but different in a degree since we have moral and ethics, you are totally destroying their argument.
That's why I metioned crocs and lions.
I ask for a sensible ecologism... Tigers are being killed because chinese think the powder made of its bones cures reuma. Rich men in the west countries use hands of gorillas as ashtrais. Indian eat penises of rhinos because they think that increases its sexual power. Japs eat whales... Man, all that animals are in real danger, and its deaths don't have any sense. Let's fight against that. If the first animal that ecologists say is "don't eat chicken", "normal" people won't have other choice than join the opposite part...
Recently in Britain a group of animal protestors had a problem with a Guinea Pig breeding farm, where Guinea Pigs were bred and supplied to animal testing laboratories.
Fair enough, I thought, they're trying to help the poor little Guniea Pigs and all.
What happened next, tho, really was abhorrent.
The animal rights group stole the corpse of the mother of one of the farm owners, from her grave, and held it to ransom, claiming they would return it if the farm was closed down.
It was.
Now I'm all for animal rights, and abuse perpetuated on animals sickens me, but I would personally punch anyone in the face who, in this case or similar, took the side of the protestors or justified this kind of action.
Bunch of lowlife f*cks.
Wow, that's low.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 19:08:21I think Yabb has made a bug or something, because I haven't written that! ^_^
Yep, sorry, that was me messing up.
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 19:08:21About the "we are not animals, because we can think, we have moral and ethics"... Forget my previous post putting words in your lips... I was playing the fool...
I'm glad. :)
Quote from: Nacho on Fri 28/07/2006 19:08:21But the real argument is that Peta (which means "joint" in Spanish...) says that we must respect animals becase WE ARE animals, therefore we are not better than them, ergo, we can't kill them. BUT, if you say that we are indeed animals, but different in a degree since we have moral and ethics, you are totally destroying their argument.
I'm speaking for myself, not PETA.
I do think we are superior to animals, and that's exactly the reason we should respect and care for them.
Limping fish: Hmm.. if I was an activist I wouldn't go stealing dead bodies.. no. I imagine I'd just burn the place down to the ground when no one is there, and of course making sure to rescue all the animals out of there first.
Limp: Yup I remember that. Lowlife scumbag sh*ts indeed!
I'd like to sic Von Glower on PETA. Who's with me?
The guinea pig incident was not PETA. It was the Animal Rights Militia.
Yes, and if I remember correctly PETA condemned the action.
Quote from: ManicMatt on Fri 28/07/2006 19:33:30
I imagine I'd just burn the place down to the ground when no one is there, and of course making sure to rescue all the animals out of there first.
Destroying somebodies livelihood in the process? I believe the farm in question was a family run business, which is why the corpse snatching incident had so much impact. What about the people they employed to run the farm? If they were guilty of animal abuse, then drag them through the courts and let the law handle them.
To clarify my stance, I eat animals. Pigs, sheep, assorted poultry. I feel no guilt. They were raised for that purpose, hopefully in humane circumstances, and, well, they taste good.
Farming animals for consumption and the abuse of animals are two completely different things.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 28/07/2006 22:16:20
They were raised for that purpose.
This question has always seemed to me to be a fancy version of "But we want to do these things, so what is wrong with that?" The idea that an act, by virtue of an intention of ours, can be exonerated morally is totally illogical.
But worse than that, however, is the fact that such a belief is a dangerous position to take because it can enable one to justify some practices that are universally condemned. To see how this is so, consider the following restatement of the basis of the question:
"Suffering can be excused so long as we breed them for the purpose." Now, cannot an analogous argument be used to defend a group of slave holders who breed and enslave humans and justify it by saying "but they're bred to be our workers"? Could not the Nazis defend their murder of the Jews by saying "but we rounded them up to be killed"?
Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 28/07/2006 16:33:07
As far as I know a 'true vegetarian' (who does not eat any animal products, including cheese, milk, eggs, meat (of course)), has to find alternative ways to keep their protein high, meaning they must carry out a very specific diet in order to stay healthy, if not also some supplements (like vitamins and stuff). This to me does not looks natural, where to just not wear fur, is as natural as it goes (plus the all synthetic stuff that everybody uses,. but still our wardrobes are full of animal byproducts)
It is not difficult for one to find adequate, or more than adequate, non-animal sources of protein, not to mention all other essential vitamins and minerals. There is not a food in existence that contains no protein whatsoever.
It can seem intimidating at first, but I find that largely comes from ignorance of foods and nutritional values of food. I didn't know a thing about food before I became vegan, but now I know which foods have which nutrients, and how much of them I have. When speaking of health, it makes sense to me that all people, regardless of diet, should know what nutrients their body needs, and where to get these nutrients from.
If one knows this sort of information, then it is easy to live healthily on any diet. My diet takes no careful planning, no special thinking, no expert workarounds, I just eat normal foods... except for meat, dairy, etc.
Quote from: Toefur on Sat 29/07/2006 14:01:53
"Suffering can be excused so long as we breed them for the purpose."
I never said animals who are farmed for consumption should suffer. Quite the opposite in fact. The two don't go hand in hand. Animals bred for consumption must still be treated in a humane way. The only problem you can have with this is that the animal dies at the end of the process.
Quote from: Toefur on Sat 29/07/2006 14:01:53
Now, cannot an analogous argument be used to defend a group of slave holders who breed and enslave humans and justify it by saying "but they're bred to be our workers"? Could not the Nazis defend their murder of the Jews by saying "but we rounded them up to be killed"?
No, that is quite possibly the most ludicrous analogy you could proffer. Nazis rounded up and murdered Jews in an attempt to obliterate the race from the face of the earth. I doubt the meat industry has a similar agenda against cows.
Toefur wasn't saying that the acts were analogous, but that the arguments he gave in defence of them were comparable with yours.
Some people have such a boring life that they want to start a rebellion just for the sake of it. I doubt if half the PETA members actually care about animals. They just need something to fight for, so their life can have a meaning.
See, I have to stay out of this debate as I've taken multiple philosophy of the environment and sociology of the environment courses that defend animal rights logically and all these attacks on PETA are logically ridiculous, but so defensive and angry it would only create a rift. I mean, I'd get angry, they'd get angry and nothing would get solved.
All I ask is for God's sake please read some Peter Singer with an open mind. He argues that there is no logical defense for eating meat or testing animals and does so very well--in fact, the only arguments against him that I have read grossly misrepresent his argument. Or if you're more into comedy, watch some David Cross, who more or less makes the same argument, only in reverse, for satirical reasons.
Myself, I have nothing against the ethical culling of animals any more than I have against the ethical culling of people. People are animals after all, and in higher population than most animals. Or, if you're into the "they're less intelligent therefore we can eat them" camp, say "retarded children" instead. Or Terry Shaivo. Or soldiers, since they've actually agreed to go into some situation where they could be killed.
Arg, I'm using argument shorthand now, which always leads to misinterpretation. I'll just say this:
I believe in women's rights and the equivalent treatment of women, and yet I objectify the female body. The way I do so I believe is ethically indefensible, so I feel bad for it and work to overcome such exploitation, at least in situations where it makes people uncomfortable or conform to an unfair expectation.
I believe in animal rights and that eating them/experimenting on them is *at this point in history* ethically indefensible considering the various non-animal alternatives in every field. I am not 100% vegetarian, however and eat some meat. I don't try to defend it ethically, I just find it difficult to do given the cost of some non-meat substitutes and my skill with vegetables.
Sometimes we do things that are ethically indefensable. Don't try to pretend you can get by with bombast and ad hominum attacks (look it up, though be sure to spell it correctly, because I probably didn't). Ethics is a process of self development, and in our society you can't be perfect--but you can at least work towards more consistency.
BLAH BLAH BLAH, I shouldn't even be in this one, voop.
Ad hominem. Yes you shouldn't even be in this one unless you're prepared to invest in it and not sweep everything you don't agree with off the table as being angry and illogical.
I agree ethical consistency is a good goal to strive for. But the foundations of the various ethical schools themselves, be them utilitarian or some more absolute systems, are not logical or consistent with anything else as they're axiomatic and based on someone's arbiterate idea about what is 'good to do'. So let's not get too carried away with 'nnngh! your arguments are illogical!'
Should animals that eat OTHER animals be taught to eat a meat substitute?
If all animals, as you say, are entitled to the same rights as humans, shouldn't they also have the same rights as the animals that might eat them?
Shouldn't voles be equipped with a synthetic spiked armor to defend themselves against the hungry jackal?
If we are all animals too, then why is my right to eat other animals frowned upon?
If we, as animals, are all the same, why do we have to conform to a non-animalistic way of sustaining ourselves?
Because we are more ethically advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom? Oh, but I thought we were all the same, and that a stoat or a finch has the same right to life that I do. So why is the lion allowed to hunt, dismember, and feast upon a lame gazelle, in a hardly humane manner, but I mustn't eat a KFC family bucket of chicken?
The lion is an animal. I am an animal. Why differentiate? Are we not the same?
btw, the first person to raise the point of cannabalism will be eaten.
I don't like the idea of a lion eating an animal. But I'm not in the power to stop the lion, or even you from doing so.
My ideals in my life are to do the least damage to the world as possible while I am in it, and thus die with a clear conscience.
Haven't KFC been known to drown chickens to kill them? I read that recently somewhere.
Quote from: Helm on Sat 29/07/2006 20:03:24
I agree ethical consistency is a good goal to strive for. But the foundations of the various ethical schools themselves, be them utilitarian or some more absolute systems, are not logical or consistent with anything else as they're axiomatic and based on someone's arbiterate idea about what is 'good to do'.
Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is not inherently illogical. What little I know of Peter Singer's utilitarianism suggests to me that it is logical and consistent. Like other ethical systems, it just isn't necessarily right about what is "good and bad".
Quote from: Ali on Sun 30/07/2006 11:06:14Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is not inherently illogical. What little I know of Peter Singer's utilitarianism suggests to me that it is logical and consistent. Like other ethical systems, it just isn't necessarily right about what is "good and bad".
Choosing a particular idea about what is "good to do" is as logical as choosing the next idea. All equally invented, fabricated.
Inventing Right and Wrong by JL Mackie might be a good read on this one. This is what I said. Was I not clear? I have not read any of Peter Singer's stuff, but I am prepared to accept that his ethical conclusions all follow his premises, and that he makes no major logical blunders or contradictions. This wasn't what I was talking about.
EDIT: which is, I guess it's good to spell this out in this thread: it's easier to prove almost everybody in this thread, including bspeers to be logically inconsistent with his own statements than it is to prove anyone WRONG (read: bad) on moral grounds. What people are then likely to do is just that, punch holes in each other's credibility, because none here are master arguers that pay particular attention to their logical errors. Lots od personal discrediting, lots of Ad Hominems. It's fun discussion, but nobody should take the moral highground.
You're right that there arre contradictions in most of the arguments here.
The three main strands of agrument have been:
I'm an animal. Animals eat meat, so I should eat meat.
I'm better than an animal, so I should look after animals.
I'm better than an animal, so I can eat animals.
The first is logical, as long as you endorse canniballism. The latter two are only as reasonable as each other. What I would suggest is that instead of drawing an idea of "good" from nature or any other source, it would be better to intentionally manufacture one that suits us best.
For instance, I suspect that most of us would endorse a system of farming whereby farmers could earn a decent income, animals were well treated and the meat produced was free from antibiotics and other hilarious additives.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 29/07/2006 21:46:31
btw, the first person to raise the point of cannabalism will be eaten.
I already did, a page or so back, and again in this post. Do you think I'd go better with ketchup or mustard?
I like my human flesh with a nice chunky salsa dip.
Do lions eat lions?
Sometimes. Seriously, the cannibalism line of thinking is faulty either way.
I love animals.
Roasted or grilled, braised or sauteed!
Just don't eat Limping Fish! >:(
I love these "hot button" ethical questions. Mostly because the sides are so polarized that the ensuing debate boils to a "uh-hun"/"no-way" flame war.
I love the argument that cow farms are cruel because they cram them in so tight they can't properly grow and it becomes torture for them. Have you ever seen a corn field? Without proper maintenance with pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers no crop can grow that densely.
I love the argument that acres and acres of forests are cut down in order to build animal farms but no-one ever mentions the acres of forests that are cut down for wheat or coffee or whatever.
I love the argument that animal farms pollute the land and the running water but all the aformentionned chemicals used to grow crops are never considered as pollutants.
I love the cannibalism argument because it makes people seem so clever.
I love the argument about the stink of animal farms, but crop fields smell just as bad because guess what, those chemicals aren't exactly made from roses and gumdrops.
But I digress.
I'm not a vegetarian but I can understand their point of view.
I do agree on an economic/ environmental basis that cows, in particular, are detrimental. It takes far more land, food and money to grow a cow to eating size that an equal amount of, say, corn. furthermore, I don't buy leather goods because with the amount of cows we kill every day, they should be pratically giving it away. It's a travesty, anywhere from 300 to 1000 Canadian Dollars for a leather jacket?
Non-human animals are opportunistic eaters(a starving animal will eat anything food-like given the chance). You think an eagle on the hunt says "you know, i should really cut out the field mouse. I eat way too much field mouse, it's bad for my heart!". They eat whats available because they don't know when their next meal is going to be. if animals could buy food at a grocery store, they would and they'd all get really fat and lazy. All the better for me, because I like them big and juicy.
<edit> good catch on the spelling!
QuoteI love the canabalism argument because it makes people seem so clever.
Spell the word.
a) Animals that are tortured can taste better: e.g. foie gras, veal
b) Some animals are cannibals, but usually only when they HAVE to. If you've seen the movie Alive, I think you might accept that cannibalism is justifiable when there is no other choice, and murder is not involved.
c) I blame Disney, et. el for anthropomorphising everything that moves
And why stop at not killing animals? Who's to say that plants shouldn't be protected too. In fact, lets just all starve to death and save the world from all the pollution we generate.
Quote from: Radiant on Fri 28/07/2006 09:07:28
Or, for a less biased view of things,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETA
(anything that has to label itself "this is true", in my experience, is usually wild speculation)
The only problem here is that you have linked to Wikipedia. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a joke site based upon half-truths and flat-out lies.
For the truth about PETA you should read the Uncyclopedia article. Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia based on the search for truth. Just read this quote:
Quote from: Uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia"I make all my decisions based on facts from Uncyclopedia!"
~ George W. Bush on Uncyclopedia
If George W. Bush puts his faith in Uncyclopedia, then so should the rest of the known universe.
http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/PETA
For the real truth about "animal rights".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a more serious note, I think that animal rights activists are just lunatics and attention whores (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Attention_Whore). That is my honest opinion. Sorry if I offend anybody, but I eat meat, I don't see a problem with wearing fur, and I think it's rather ridiculous that every movie we make has to include a disclaimer that no animals were harmed in the making of the film.
What if I want to make a movie about the senseless slaughtering of hundreds of innocent animals so I can make myself a nice fur coat? Screw animal rights. People rights come first!
And if you don't agree with me, that's cool. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just don't expect me to convert to vegetable-ism.
[EDIT:]Having read SSH's comments here, I just have to reflect on what I said and think how much I wish I could have said the exact same thing as SSH only before he said it.
Seriously...I think I may give up breathing because any time I breathe in I take in a lot of gases out of the air which could be used to help someone or something else breathe at that or a later time. Eating is definitely out of the question because I wouldn't want to offend any living thing by taking its life so I could survive. And in fact I don't think I can even stand to drink water any more. Just thinking of all the tiny microorganisms inside that glass of water...it's enough to bring tears to my eyes.
Oh... I love this last post.
I'm eagerly waiting for the response ;D ;D ;D
Nah, his post is not worth replying to. :P
I can add that posts like that make me get closer to the arguments of animal rights activists...
Most of what I said I meant in a satirical fashion. I personally don't feel that animals have the same rights as humans and I think it's silly the way some people get so worked up over it. That's all really. I'm not like the animal Hitler or anything. :=
Quotesatirical
because what this thread needed was your wit.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 30/07/2006 23:17:37
Do lions eat lions?
Quote from: Helm on Sun 30/07/2006 23:50:58
Sometimes. Seriously, the cannibalism line of thinking is faulty either way.
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.
I am not saying that we shouldn't eat animals and we shouldn't be cannibals. I'm saying that whether we eat animals or humans is arbitrary, because humans are animals. We need to base our judgements upon something other than species.
Quote from: Helm on Mon 31/07/2006 14:14:32
Quotesatirical
because what this thread needed was your wit.
Precisely my point.
Quote from: Ali on Mon 31/07/2006 14:21:43
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.
Can you provide some kind of reference for this?
Quote from: Ali link=topic=27616.msg351569#msg351569
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.
Whether animals eat their kind is really irrelevant to the ethical issue at hand is my point.
Definitions make sense in context. The human is an animal, if you look at him in the context of biology. However in the ethical context this takes an entirely different charge, one that cannot be compared to animalistic behaviour simply because animals do not have ethics. We are also made by the same particles as a rock, does this mean that in matters of masonry the one that behaves most as a wall wins the argument?
Cannibalism and if it's ethically sound or not is a different discussion than the current one.
People that think eating animals is wrong need to be brave enough to admit that they think so entirely out of their own arbiterate volition, without any sort of rational backing. They might be logically consistent in their ethical world, but the foundations are manufactured. Just like people who think eating animals is right do the same thing. WRONG. RIGHT. ETHICS. INVENTED. The 'look what animals do!' line of thinking doesn't lead anywhere in my opinion.
For this conversation to go anywhere people need to say 'okay, I realize I have an arbiterate opinion, we all have arbiterate opinions, but for us all to get anywhere we need to come to realistic and applicable compromises between our disparate ethical viewpoints. Because we want to get along.' Trying to rationalize and 'win' this argument by backing one's ethical choices by comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom is silly. So what if we do what other animals do? Does that make it right? So what if we don't do what other animals do? Does that make it wrong?
I agree with almost everything you've said in that post Helm. Beyond your objection to the canbibal question, I don't think it contradicts anything I've posted in this thread. I agree that ideas of right and wrong are arbitrary.
I avoid meat because I feel I cause marginally less sufferring over-all in doing so. I think many people could agree to a similar compromise- not necessarily giving up meat, but diminishing sufferring by supporting alternate methods of farming, perhaps.
This wouldn't hang on universal rights and wrongs, just the idea of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (obviously not my idea, but a good one nonetheless).
Quote from: SSH on Mon 31/07/2006 15:53:46
Quote from: Ali on Mon 31/07/2006 14:21:43
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances.
Can you provide some kind of reference for this?
This article indicates that cannibalism occurs in non-extreme circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
And for a not-from-wikipedia-example, pigs will eat their own meat if the animal is dead. As the mad-cow business revealed, so will cattle.
We are people.... We make the rules. Sorry, mr. Cow, but we people are smarter, stronger and we do as we like - even if we get too far. People come first you know... harsh but true. So live with it... or not. Sorry, I eat dead animals and I enjoy it. And I like milk too.
I 'd define cruelty to animals as "torturing them for no good reason". This includes abandonning your pets when you leave for holidays, overexlpoiting animals for dairy products you are not going to sell because of the market rules, overfishing, overhunting etc etc.
As you can see, I only dislike the exaggeration. Why fish 5 tons for a small village market? Why transport huge amounts of meat in the capital, when everybody does the same and you end up with unsold rotten mountains of stinky stuff? And then you go on a strike and close the streets for other workers... :P
About experiments. I don't like it. I don't like people using animals in cases they can avoid it. But as far as I know, they can and they will test the chemics on something alive, so I prefer them to do it on animals instead of third world's (or even developped world's) children.
Have you seen Asda's (the supermarket, overseas folk) message on some of their products?
"Asda is against animal testing and is funding research into alternatives"
Hmmmm if they were truly against it why would they do it? I suggest a rephasing:
"Asda gets some dissing for it's animal testing so it will research slowly for alternatives to win over more customers"
Yeah! Thats' better!
Because much as people hate animals discovering that a certain product makes you impotent/bald/dead/whatever, they hate humans discovering the same thing MORE
That's not what I'm getting at. I was annoyed at the usage of the word "against"
:)
HA!
Matt, is slowly turning into me! ;D . Picky with words! YAY! Against the system! Fuck ASDA, Fuck TESCOs, Fuck everybody!
ASDA, is really good, exactly because they are against animal testing! And they are doing the best they can in order to find new ways to test on animals! Isn't that what alternatives mean? ;D
Animal testing has most likely kept you or a loved one alive at some point, and may yet be doing so. Asking for an end to animal testing is akin to saying 'let's just get rid of drugs altogether' and have people fend for themselves like the Dark Ages. Survival of the fittest!
Recognize and accept that enough people will never consent to possibly lethal tests for medicines to develop at any kind of rate. This is why animal testing exists and will continue to do so.