Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[scythe]

No. That isn't a correct comparison. You're saying that:

Code: Select all

human = animal
and
cow = animal
but
human ≠ cow

...right?

God is love.

Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind.

Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

Seriously, if you have a problem with the logic you quoted, you have no place arguing about such lofty concepts as animal intelligence.

[Mute Monk]

Alright. So, I cannot claim to have read this entire thread, because that would be a lie...I'm lazy and too many of the arguments were becoming mind-numbingly petty.

The nutritional side of things has been resolved (for quite a while), and there appears to be no argument (rational/sensible argument, anyway) that being a vegetarian/vegan is at all unhealthy. In fact, several arguments have been made that claim vegetarianism is healthier than carnivorous actions ... There are indeed studies that back this up; one notable page I found is here. So it does appear as though being a vegetarian is conducive to living.

Noted British professor John Webster has also published work describing the intelligence (and thus, ability to suffer) of cattle, see this article. And it certainly seems that cattle do feel pain; if one pokes a cow or bull with an electric prod, they respond in much the same way as humans (vocalizing, movement away from the source of pain). It can thus be concluded that, based purely on external evidence (which is all we have direct access to), cattle suffer in the same way as humans.

Now, to clarify, we have to define what suffering is. There seems (at first glance on the Internet, anyway) to be two broad categories of suffering: the physical and the mental. The physical side of suffering is indeed quite expansive, covering everything from basic physical pain to itches or twitches. The psychological side of suffering is a bit more difficult to discern. A definition from Merriam-Webster is "mental distress".

According to some in this thread, cattle do not experience psychological suffering (I'm taking it for granted that everyone accepts the experience of physical pain by cattle). One of the more common arguments I spotted was that cattle do not have consciousness. This article, although short, addresses the issue and seems to conclude that animals have at least a simple form of consciousness.

In my opinion, it's impossible to prove (or disprove) consciousness in animals, for the simple reason that we are not them. The same problem arises when trying to discern consciousness in other humans. To me, other humans certainly seem to exhibit forms of consciousness (based on the fact that they respond similar to myself when encountering external stimuli). For example, upon greeting an individual, I say "hello" (or a similar salutation). If they respond in a similar fashion (saying "hello" back, for example), I tend to immediately assume they have some form of consciousness and proceed with conversation. However, computers are now capable of the same actions. Right now, it's impossible for me to determine whether anybody I meet has consciousness. I am the only human example of consciousness for me, and the same is true of everyone.

Back to my point. If we presume that a sample human possesses consciousness (and thus is capable of psychological suffering ... this is assuming that the former is both necessary and sufficient for the latter) based only on their responses to external stimuli, why should we not presume the same for cattle? Their lack of a response in English (or whatever your native language is) is no excuse, as they have no formal education in our languages. A human squirms, yells, runs away, responds with similar violence, etc. when confronted with pain (physical pain, that is ... similar but not identical responses ensue with psychological pain; my point remains regardless). If cattle do the same, we must therefore assume their possession of consciousness of at least vaguely similar type to humans, if we are to be "fair" to both parties.

But for me, because I cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of consciousness beyond my own, the assertion that cattle suffer is essentially moot. As is the argument that humans suffer. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and not eat humans in case they do have a consciousness. Also, the social and judicial consequences for eating humans is considerably less than that for eating cattle.

I keep red meat to a minimum, and fish are rarely on my plate as well. One of my favourite dishes is cheese tortellini with sun-dried tomato sauce. But meat does taste good (if properly prepared), and until society punishes me for eating it, I will continue to indulge on the rare occasion.

Overall, I agree with the vegans/vegetarians, but for different reasons. However, the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.

[heatwave]

Forgive me. I posted that at 1 AM.
I might be completely misinterpreting what you are trying to say, not to mention what I am trying to say. Please bear with me.

Seriously, if you have a problem with the logic you quoted...

I do not dispute the fact that $10 does not equal $20 dollars. It's wonderful logic. I agree with it. I completely agree that a twenty dollar bill is not the same thing as a ten dollar bill. I'm just saying that your 10 vs. 20 comparison doesn't (dis)prove what you were trying to (dis)prove.

Before I explain myself, let me ask a question. Why do humans have rights? At what point in time did humans decide that we are better than other species, and that we deserve rights while others do not, and for what reasons?
(has this already been discussed?)

Ha,

Reading gives you knowledge. But knowledge is power, and power corrupts. Corruption is a crime, and crime doesn't pay! If you keep reading, you'll go broke!

[scythe]

Forgive me. I posted that at 1 AM.
I might be completely misinterpreting what you are trying to say, not to mention what I am trying to say. Please bear with me.

Seriously, if you have a problem with the logic you quoted...

I do not dispute the fact that $10 does not equal $20 dollars. It's wonderful logic. I agree with it. I completely agree that a twenty dollar bill is not the same thing as a ten dollar bill. I'm just saying that your 10 vs. 20 comparison doesn't (dis)prove what you were trying to (dis)prove.

You obviously still don't understand the idea of a subset, set membership, or that "human != animal" (cow != animal as well, in your usage). Humans are animals in the sense that my laptop is black.

Here.

Human = great ape

cow != great ape.

Alternatively...

cow = thing

rock = thing

cow = rock

In fact, your logic leads to

woman = logical construct

object = logical construct

woman = object

Sexist.

What I'm saying is that I don't need to justify that a human is not a cow. Humans were never cows. Humans share a number of characteristics with cows all of which are unrelated to ethics, which is a system of values and ideals.

Also, the prefrontal cortex, which allows cognition, would have to be my answer.

[heatwave]

Ah, whoops. forgot to clarify that. I assumed that when I said "human = animal," people would know that I meant "a human is an animal."
...or "humans are animals," if you like.

You're just (rightfully?) misinterpreting me.

[Atilla]

@Vegetarians who keep dogs or cats: Do you buy pet food which contains meat? Because that's, y'know, slightly hypocritical. Why is it okay to breed flesh-eating beasts for your enjoyment, but not to eat flesh for enjoyment? Isn't owning a dog you don't need just meat consumption by proxy?

My cat is vegan. She is 5 years old, and healthy as ever.

I think you mean "I only feed my cat vegan food." I doubt the cat has made a moral choice not to eat flesh, particularly given that, unlike dogs, cats are obligate carnivores and need either meat or special supplements. Speaking of which, you are giving your kitty supplements and not just sharing your eggplant casserole, I assume? Dietary deficiencies can exist for years with few symptoms, and five years is still fairly young for a housecat. She could suffer problems later in life if you're not monitoring her diet carefully.

[heatwave]

@Vegetarians who keep dogs or cats: Do you buy pet food which contains meat? Because that's, y'know, slightly hypocritical. Why is it okay to breed flesh-eating beasts for your enjoyment, but not to eat flesh for enjoyment? Isn't owning a dog you don't need just meat consumption by proxy?

My cat is vegan. She is 5 years old, and healthy as ever.

I think you mean "I only feed my cat vegan food."

I stand corrected.

Speaking of which, you are giving your kitty supplements and not just sharing your eggplant casserole, I assume?

Correct. We make sure she's getting all the necessary nutrients.

[scythe]

Ah, whoops. forgot to clarify that. I assumed that when I said "human = animal," people would know that I meant "a human is an animal."
...or "humans are animals," if you like.

You're just (rightfully?) misinterpreting me.

No.
No.
A human is a great ape. A human is a living thing. A tree is a living thing. A laptop is a computing device. A playstation is a computing device.

Your line of logic is entirely absurd. I'm not misinterpreting you. You're saying that because a human and a cow fall into the same category, they share similar properties: properties which even you wouldn't argue apply to all members of that category. The fact that a human is an animal is entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. It's like arguing that balsa wood is the same as a human because both are light brown.

[Mute Monk]

scythe33, I'm not saying I disagree with you (in fact I agree with you completely), but allow me to play devils advocate:

[notnecessarilymyviewpoint]
You say that, simply because both are light brown, humans are not balsa wood. Fair enough. But how does that affect our preconceptions of anything? Where are we to draw the line? One can (from your argument) say that any two things which share one property are not the same. What about two properties? Or three? What amount of shared properties is enough to claim that two objects/lifeforms are identical, or at least similar?

We share a vaguely similar body structure with chimpanzees. In fact, the only major differences are the distribution of hair, acrobatic abilities, and (presumed) lower brain function. Therefore, a human suffering from hypertrichosis, Down Syndrome, and abnormal flexibility is a chimpanzee. They share all physical traits, and therefore are the same.

Let me explain my point (which maybe has not been clear): Saying that two things are not the same based solely on lack of one or more shared attributes is akin to saying that two things are the same when they share all attributes. Therefore, all humans are the same (obviously not the case). I'm just saying, it's a slippery slope you are on, because now we deal with Types and Instances, which is more of a philosophical debate.
[/notnecessarilymyviewpoint]

Wow, it's difficult to play devils advocate when you don't actually disagree with the points.

[scythe]

You say that, simply because both are light brown, humans are not balsa wood. Fair enough. But how does that affect our preconceptions of anything? Where are we to draw the line? One can (from your argument) say that any two things which share one property are not the same. What about two properties? Or three? What amount of shared properties is enough to claim that two objects/lifeforms are identical, or at least similar?

It's not about the number, it's about what characteristic you're concerned with.

But there's a funny little thing called taxonomy which aims to resolve your queries.

We share a vaguely similar body structure with chimpanzees. In fact, the only major differences are the distribution of hair, acrobatic abilities, and (presumed) lower brain function. Therefore, a human suffering from hypertrichosis, Down Syndrome, and abnormal flexibility is a chimpanzee. They share all physical traits, and therefore are the same.

I don't advocate eating chimpanzees. I think great apes deserve a reasonable amount of deference, as they're rather intelligent. This argument doesn't apply to, say, cows. I'm also somewhat unconcerned with body structure and more concerned with the frontal lobe of the brain, which is significantly larger in great apes than in any other animals (cetacaeans, maybe).

Let me explain my point (which maybe has not been clear): Saying that two things are not the same based solely on lack of one or more shared attributes is akin to saying that two things are the same when they share all attributes. Therefore, all humans are the same (obviously not the case). I'm just saying, it's a slippery slope you are on, because now we deal with Types and Instances, which is more of a philosophical debate.

Nah, I doubt you have the same hair, facial structure, height, weight, or any of a number of various other characteristics as I do.

The problem of identity is more fun in quantum mechanics, though, when two things which are entirely the same are actually forbidden from existing by the no cloning theorem.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Holy shit, people, this is entirely besides the point.
The original point in mentioning any of this animal similarity business was because of the argument that killing an animal for its meat is murder to the same degree that murder of a human is. It was about the value of a life. I thought the issue was right well dead already. (If that qualifies for a pun, it wasn't intended.)

I had this to say about it, and it remains my position in the issue: http://forum.therealn.com/viewtopic.php?p=1839#p1839

[jinxed_07]

Before I explain myself, let me ask a question. Why do humans have rights? At what point in time did humans decide that we are better than other species, and that we deserve rights while others do not, and for what reasons?
(has this already been discussed?)

http://www.gotquestions.org/animal-rights.html
I hate to bring religion into this, seeing what that does to topics, but the bible states that God gave dominion over all the animals on the earth. I'm not saying that we SHOULD do whatever we want/can do with them, but it's my belief( as well just a few billion people's) that we own them.

And to whoever decided to say that plants have 'feelings'... Plants don't feel. Plants don't have morals or feelings because they lack any nervous system.

And back to the topic of humane 'killing'. Heatwave, you state that killings, no matter how quickly, effiently, etc. is in-humane. Your logic, according to you, would also say that if you saw a horse with a broken leg, that is badly injured, or otherwise has _no_ chance of recovering, that you would just let it suffer instead of shooting it.

It's funny that you try to say that ranch owners could kill their livestock 'inhumanely'. Of all the slaughtering houses in the US, they problably use similar methods to kill their livestock. The word 'humane' comes from the word human, obviously. So saying that 'they' kill livestock in-humanely makes as much sense as saying 'they' aren't human.

[Aldaric]

People dont eat just for nutrients. We eat for pleasure. Just because we don't have to do it anymore, does not make it unnatural. Sure, I could eat beans and rice to get my complete proteins, but why would I do that all the time when I could be biting into this? http://pinegrovemarket.com/cart/images/filet_mignon.jpg

Edit: I want to eat that.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I hate to bring religion into this, seeing what that does to topics, but the bible states that God gave dominion over all the animals on the earth. I'm not saying that we SHOULD do whatever we want/can do with them, but it's my belief( as well just a few billion people's) that we own them.

How do you know that God didn't intend for humans to be the animals' caretakers? He might be appalled that He gave us these animals to use and we're fucking eating them.

[Mute Monk]

I hate to bring religion into this, seeing what that does to topics, but the bible states that God gave dominion over all the animals on the earth. I'm not saying that we SHOULD do whatever we want/can do with them, but it's my belief( as well just a few billion people's) that we own them.

How do you know that God didn't intend for humans to be the animals' caretakers? He might be appalled that He gave us these animals to use and we're fucking eating them.

Indeed. Asserting that you know God's exact plan for human/animal relations is absurd. Unless you are claiming to be God, which would require a different thread.

God: "Hey Gabriel, you have to see this awesome creation of mine. I call it...the deer. See it? Right next to the-"
Humans: *munch munch*
God: O_o

Just trying to inject my own brand of fail-humour.

[Atilla]

I hate to bring religion into this, seeing what that does to topics, but the bible states that God gave dominion over all the animals on the earth. I'm not saying that we SHOULD do whatever we want/can do with them, but it's my belief( as well just a few billion people's) that we own them.

How do you know that God didn't intend for humans to be the animals' caretakers? He might be appalled that He gave us these animals to use and we're fucking eating them.

I'm pretty sure when God gave us dominion over animals, he meant that we should make them our vassals and call on them to defend the kingdom should it ever be under threat.

I call dibs on the bears for my fief. Few things are more fearsome than bear-mounted knights.

[Aldaric]

I now have more reasons not to be vegetarian.
http://mmm-yoso.typepad.com/mmmyoso/ima ... igen02.JPG
http://www.barillaus.com/Home/Publishin ... 128278.JPG
http://www.meadowvale.co.uk/Newsletters ... hicken.jpg

This last one looks the best.
http://sparkyblue.org/archive/wp-conten ... 5_hamb.jpg

[Aldaric]

blue_tetris wrote:
How about the Jewish method of slaughtering their food? They have to decapitate the animal while it's still alive and hang up the body so all the blood drips out. Most rabbis will deny this six million cow Holocaust, when confronted, but it goes off without a hitch every day. So, talking point: Should we continue to let Jews torture animals or should we eradicate all the Jews? Ball's in your court.

Suki wrote :That's horrible!
I think Judaism should be outlawed.

I really hope you were joking about this.

Kosher slaughtering

The mammals and birds that may be eaten must be slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law. (Deut. 12:21). We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. These restrictions do not apply to fish; only to the flocks and herds (Num. 11:22).

Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Cheit-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.

Another advantage of shechitah is that it ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher.

The shochet is not simply a butcher; he must be a pious man, well-trained in Jewish law, particularly as it relates to kashrut. In smaller, more remote communities, the rabbi and the shochet were often the same person.

Sorry i dont know how to quote from that far back. But im not changing their words. Here is a link to the website about kosher laws http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
Also, if we didnt breed cows. Then there wouldnt be cowbells and we need more cowbell.

[jinxed_07]

blue_tetris wrote:
How about the Jewish method of slaughtering their food? They have to decapitate the animal while it's still alive and hang up the body so all the blood drips out. Most rabbis will deny this six million cow Holocaust, when confronted, but it goes off without a hitch every day. So, talking point: Should we continue to let Jews torture animals or should we eradicate all the Jews? Ball's in your court.

Personally, I like to choke my chickens but...
wait, that came out wrong
sh!t

God: "Hey Gabriel, you have to see this awesome creation of mine. I call it...the deer. See it? Right next to the-"
Humans: *munch munch*
God: O_o

Couldn't help but giggle at that one

How do you know that God didn't intend for humans to be the animals' caretakers? He might be appalled that He gave us these animals to use and we're fucking eating them.

We own them, we can do whatever we want, God already knows what we are going to do in advance, so why would he be 'appalled'. On a second note against what you just said, wt heck would we use a Cow/bull for? Agriculture assisted by horse drawn machines had a while until it was invented.

[Geti]

Wow, my topic took off again.
Also, Tsukatu, your argument is admirable and insightful, as always. Not to mention generally fun to read. I'm sad that I don't have time to contribute anything now, maybe later..

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Also, Tsukatu, your argument is admirable and insightful, as always. Not to mention generally fun to read.

Thanks!

Suki wrote :That's horrible!
I think Judaism should be outlawed.

I really hope you were joking about this.

Of course.

We own them, we can do whatever we want, God already knows what we are going to do in advance, so why would he be 'appalled'.

Isn't one of the foundations of Christianity the idea that God gives you Free Will and suggests you be moral, but ultimately leaves it up to you to be a good person?
Why is it unreasonable that God wants us to be kind to His other creations and not eat them, but knows we won't all do so? Y'know, for the same reason that many of us kill and steal despite the Commandments that forbid it.

On a second note against what you just said, wt heck would we use a Cow/bull for? Agriculture assisted by horse drawn machines had a while until it was invented.

Most animals are of no use to humans, but God put them here for some reason, didn't He?

[Kablizzy]

I just noticed this a couple pages back, and I just had to respond.

Regardless of what we were intended to do as cavemen, we've reached a different point in time. We don't draw ash and berry paintings on cave walls, nor do we rub sticks together to make fire. We treat women and men equally, whereas our ancestors did not. We aren't racist nor do we let the sickly die as they have no value to the well being of the tribe. We have become civilized and it is time we act it.

Wait, what? Are you living in some sort of parallel universe, or something? Women struggle to be treated "equally"; Pimpin' ain't easy, but it's still a profession. Domestic violence is still as predominant as ever, and women in Africa and the Middle-East, and significant portions of Asia minor and Asia proper and the *band* Asia are beaten, raped, sold, and killed on a regular basis. Being racist is perhaps one of the only defining factors about humanity that will never cease to exist. The fact that we have racism and affirmative action as concepts will perpetually stand tribute to the idea that we will never breach the "color-barrier." Take a dog, for example. When you're walking your dog down the street, and it sees another dog, do you think it goes, "Wait, is that a German Shepherd? No, no, that looks like a Rottweiler. Or a Pitbull. Fuckin' pitbulls. Probably gonna try and take my shit. I... I better cross the street."

Of fucking course not. In a dog's mind, your dog sees another dog and things, "DOG. HOLY FUCK ANOTHER DOG." Did you not see what happened to Terri Schiavo? We *explicitly* let her die because she had no value to the well-being of the tribe. Dr. Kevorkian kills healthy people who think they aren't of any worth to the race, even though they may very well have some merit left in 'em.

We're nowhere even remotely fucking *close* to civilized. We might give ourselves a pat on the back every time we find a smiley-face crater on Mars, or when we cure a disease, or some shit, but in all honesty? We're extremely arrogant, self-righteous, blind, uncaring fiends who now have nothing better to do than to laugh at other retards shitting into a cup.

[Mute Monk]

Hear, hear.

Although, that shouldn't stop us from trying to act civilized once in a while.

Which is what I believe the your argument was about in the first place. Amadeus wrote that we are civilized and should act like it, whereas Wachtwoord claims that we aren't civilized and (I'm presuming he thinks this next part) should try to act civilized anyways. Whew, get on track.

Why are we arguing about human habits when it comes to racism or violence? That is not the topic of this thread...if you want to argue those points, you're probably better off making a completely new topic.

My stance on the topic, as previously stated: I will eat some red meat, especially if it's served to me (out of politeness). I try to stick to fish if I'm going to eat meat, which is rarely. I mostly do this because there is no definite way to tell if an animal is truly "suffering" (psychologically...the physical is pretty obvious); thus I try to err on the side of caution. Who knows, if cattle or sheep take over one day, maybe I'll live through it.

I know I'm not a moderator or admin, but I still prefer to have threads stay on topic. Sure, I'm guilty of sidetracking, but if I see a splinter in your eye, I might as well take it out, even if I've got a frickin' tree in my own.

[Kablizzy]

Hear, hear.

Although, that shouldn't stop us from trying to act civilized once in a while.

Which is what I believe the your argument was about in the first place. Amadeus wrote that we are civilized and should act like it, whereas Wachtwoord claims that we aren't civilized and (I'm presuming he thinks this next part) should try to act civilized anyways. Whew, get on track.

Why are we arguing about human habits when it comes to racism or violence? That is not the topic of this thread...if you want to argue those points, you're probably better off making a completely new topic.

My stance on the topic, as previously stated: I will eat some red meat, especially if it's served to me (out of politeness). I try to stick to fish if I'm going to eat meat, which is rarely. I mostly do this because there is no definite way to tell if an animal is truly "suffering" (psychologically...the physical is pretty obvious); thus I try to err on the side of caution. Who knows, if cattle or sheep take over one day, maybe I'll live through it.

I know I'm not a moderator or admin, but I still prefer to have threads stay on topic. Sure, I'm guilty of sidetracking, but if I see a splinter in your eye, I might as well take it out, even if I've got a frickin' tree in my own.

I *like* you.

[otters~1]

Threads never stay on topic around here, mostly because of the staff.

I eat meat all the time, by the way, with no moral misgivings whatsoever.