Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[a happy song]

I'd just like you to be consistent, that's all.

I've not said anything about Chicken torture facilities (although, I can assure you, battery farming is just that ), or that Global Warming isn't a very possible and immediate (in that the solution needs to start now) danger. Nor did I say that the plight of the animals should be valued higher than the poverty stricken peoples of the Earth.

I also didn't call for a universal spontaneous shift to veganism/vegetarianism - that would be ridiculous - more a call for awareness leading to a gradual realization.

I don't drive a car. I'm 27 and could easily afford to. I have plenty of friends who drive, and public transport works out cheaper than the total cost of running a motor vehicle, I don't see why I should add to the problem.

Yes, I consume brand foods/goods. I do make a concious effort to not buy from certain companies, but I could do better. I didn't say I was perfect in this regard. I'm working on it, though, which is good enough for me.

Animals becoming extinct is part of the natural order, breeding countless amounts of them in prisons to harvest their flesh is not.

Oh, and it may not be comparable to Human suffering, but if anyone truly believes forcing countless animals to stare at blank walls for the entirety of their bleak and brief lives before they're slaughtered for our tastes to NOT be torturous, I'm even sadder for the Human race than I was.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Nor did I say that the plight of the animals should be valued higher than the poverty stricken peoples of the Earth.

Case closed, then.
Surely you must realize how many people make a living from the meat industry, if not here in the US then around the globe in poverty-struck nations that sell to rich countries. Why do you want to ruin their livelihoods?
Is it because you hate poor people?

I've not said anything about Chicken torture facilities (although, I can assure you, battery farming is just that )
...
Oh, and it may not be comparable to Human suffering, but if anyone truly believes forcing countless animals to stare at blank walls for the entirety of their bleak and brief lives before they're slaughtered for our tastes to NOT be torturous, I'm even sadder for the Human race than I was.

Then despair away.
They're not capable of feeling any meaningful degree of suffering unless they're being actively injured; it's not like they can ponder the bovine condition and wonder what the world outside is like. I think evidence of such thought might be organized (or even individual) attempts to escape, but I've never heard of a cow taking advantage of an open gate and heading for the hills. I don't empathize with goldfish, either.
What I can pity is their lack of adequate brain power. But you're not campaigning for any projects to improve the intelligence of chickens, are you?
But if there's some parallel universe where an intelligent animal is put in the same conditions as our meat industry puts our edible animals (i.e. if they process dolphins, humans, etc.), and the world governments don't have anything more to say about it than our current ones say about the current meat industry, then rest assured that I'll be visiting plantations with an AK and pipe bombs.

I also didn't call for a universal spontaneous shift to veganism/vegetarianism - that would be ridiculous - more a call for awareness leading to a gradual realization.

So if I were to ask you what your end goal would be, what would you reply with? If you're trying to convince people, surely you're trying to convince everyone, or at the very least everyone in a particular culture.
So, what, you want people to realize that they're eating things that were once alive? I'm fairly certain that an overwhelming majority of the population knows that already, too (exceptions being Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Miss Teen USA '07, etc.).
Why are you talking at all? Because if none of these are your motivations, then the only reason I can see readily is that you want to inform everyone how holier thou art for being above eating meat (and that you're under the impression that to avoid eating meat is to be "above").

Yes, I consume brand foods/goods. I do make a concious effort to not buy from certain companies, but I could do better. I didn't say I was perfect in this regard. I'm working on it, though, which is good enough for me.

And it's not like I wade shoulder-deep into herds of wildebeests swinging a scythe.
If you're allowed to excuse yourself for indulging a bit in the suffering of others, why can't I be excused for my own minor indulgence in the non-suffering of non-others?
(By "non-others," I mean that they're less significant; see my "humans > everything else" post on the previous page.)

Animals becoming extinct is part of the natural order, breeding countless amounts of them in prisons to harvest their flesh is not.

Continuing the issue of why people think anything that happens is "unnatural"...
Here's an example of how we might follow the natural order:
There's a species of ant that doesn't produce workers quickly enough to support their disproportionately large soldier caste, so what they do is invade other colonies, steal their larvae, and bring them back to their own colonies to hatch. Once they hatch, they kill the non-workers and enslave the workers, and then repeat the whole process when the workers die.
I'm afraid that it may upset you to know that we have not been following natural order ever since we've abolished slavery. Obviously you're not condoning slavery, but the point here is that you should show why it's good to follow some aspect of the natural order instead of assuming that it's objectively morally good.
But that's all assuming that we're not following the natural order, a notion that's quite puzzling to me. There are no doubt plenty of animal species who dominate their ecologies and subjugate all lesser species to their will (insects especially come to mind, particularly those acid-squirting Japanese wasps the size of your thumb). Hell, even dolphins, one of the smartest animals on the planet, are known to gang up on and maim lesser sea life for absolutely no apparent reason than entertainment. But for some reason you've decided that this is not the natural order for humans (how you know what the natural order for humans even is is similarly confounding). Popular human mentality would suggest that subjugating lesser human cultures (yes, that's within our own species) is common, and you don't appear to be as perturbed about that, but somehow you're all up in arms about some of the lowest forms of life on the food chain entirely.
Is it because you're part of the crowd that thinks man-made things are by definition unnatural? Do you identify yourself with those who would call a gardening tool or a house "unnatural," but wouldn't say the same about the stick a monkey uses to siphon ants from an ant colony, or a bird nest? Are you one of those people who so predictably act like "the natural order" is basically anything that would happen if humans didn't exist, forgetting entirely that humans are animals that evolved just like everything else? It just seems that all I need to do to determine whether or not such a person would call something "natural" or not is imagine whether or not Wizards of the Coast would identify it with a little green tree icon in the top right corner.
Until it turns out that nature is sentient and sends little pixie representatives to suggest otherwise, everything that happens on this planet without interference from a non-terrestrial source is natural. If aliens invade and impose upon us their code of ethics that has developed on a planet with a radically different "natural order," then fine, I'll grant that we'd be doing unnatural things, but until such a time, please stop using Disney's definition of nature.

But even the above response assumes that you're being consistent at all concerning human adherence to your conception of natural order.
You say that confining animals and reassigning the purpose of their lives from "none" to "feeding humans" is an unnatural act, and that it's wrong because it's not following your personal conception of natural order... but then you say that we're past the point of needing to eat meat (a necessity that's part of the natural order for humans in most every Earthly human culture), and we should therefore accept artificial substitutes for the nutrition we'd naturally get from meat!
Do you want us to follow your natural order or not?

[blue_tetris]

Case closed, then.
Surely you must realize how many people make a living from the meat industry, if not here in the US then around the globe in poverty-struck nations that sell to rich countries. Why do you want to ruin their livelihoods?
Is it because you hate poor people?

To be fair, a lot of poor people make money off of the "harvesting human organs" and "underage sex slave trafficking" industries.

So if I were to ask you what your end goal would be, what would you reply with? If you're trying to convince people, surely you're trying to convince everyone, or at the very least everyone in a particular culture.
So, what, you want people to realize that they're eating things that were once alive? I'm fairly certain that an overwhelming majority of the population knows that already, too (exceptions being Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Miss Teen USA '07, etc.).
Why are you talking at all? Because if none of these are your motivations, then the only reason I can see readily is that you want to inform everyone how holier thou art for being above eating meat (and that you're under the impression that to avoid eating meat is to be "above").

This isn't really fair, Suki. We're in Debate. The initial argument was whether eating animals was ethical or not. The Debate is an end into itself. The goal is to engage in said Debate. Speculating as to his personal goals beyond the confines of this Debate really doesn't render any argument null. In fact, it's a distraction. And you don't need that for your argument.



I brought this up in the IRC a while back:

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.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

To be fair, a lot of poor people make money off of the "harvesting human organs" and "underage sex slave trafficking" industries.

Sure, but I only brought the point up because he said he didn't care more about animals than poor people's livelihoods. Supporting underage sex slave traffickers would mean that one values statutory rape and/or child molestation more than, basically, human life. And I don't think it's fair to project a rapist's ethics onto atob; eating meat is not comparable to murdering people for their kidneys.

So if I were to ask you what your end goal would be, what would you reply with? If you're trying to convince people, surely you're trying to convince everyone, or at the very least everyone in a particular culture.
So, what, you want people to realize that they're eating things that were once alive? I'm fairly certain that an overwhelming majority of the population knows that already, too (exceptions being Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Miss Teen USA '07, etc.).
Why are you talking at all? Because if none of these are your motivations, then the only reason I can see readily is that you want to inform everyone how holier thou art for being above eating meat (and that you're under the impression that to avoid eating meat is to be "above").

This isn't really fair, Suki. We're in Debate. The initial argument was whether eating animals was ethical or not. The Debate is an end into itself. The goal is to engage in said Debate. Speculating as to his personal goals beyond the confines of this Debate really doesn't render any argument null. In fact, it's a distraction. And you don't need that for your argument.

My bad. <_<

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.

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

[a happy song]

Surely you must realize how many people make a living from the meat industry, if not here in the US then around the globe in poverty-struck nations that sell to rich countries. Why do you want to ruin their livelihoods?
Is it because you hate poor people?

Which is why I haven't called for a universal spontaneous halt. Why are we going in circles about this?

If you can prove to me, without any doubt left, that these animals don't suffer at all as part of this process, then I'll happily re-assess my beliefs.

The realization would be that we no longer need meat to survive and that the suffering caused by the industry can be avoided.

A lot of people I've met are shocked when you tell them the HUMANE way animal flesh is harvested. People like to bury their heads about these things.

If you're allowed to excuse yourself for indulging a bit in the suffering of others, why can't I be excused for my own minor indulgence in the non-suffering of non-others?

I don't think were going to agree to what animal suffering equates to. I think we should leave this one alone.

[Continuing the issue of why people think anything that happens is "unnatural"...

Oh, I'm aware of your intellectualization of this. It's smart. I also agree with you. It irks me when people call science unnatural for the same reason.

Perhaps I should have said evolution is a natural order that will continue for as long as there's life here, farming animals for their meat is a purely Human inflicted practice that I find primitve and largely redundant.

[fingersonthefrets]

I have a lot respect for vegetarians. i just couldn't do it. i need meat. it just tastes so brilliant and i hate most vegetables. i know it's selfish. but i just couldn't swap.

[Geti]

*ignoring typos*

If you can prove to me, without any doubt left, that these animals don't suffer at all as part of this process, then I'll happily re-assess my beliefs.

dont. the steers and other eating animals are castrated. that right there should be enough. look down at your testicles. if you tell me you believe taking them from something else, with either emasculators (blades made for removing said genitalia) (in most steer and even in prize racehorses) or rubber bands so tight as to cut off all blood supply (usually only in sheep), without anaesthetic, you are a depraved, sickening example of corrupt humanity.

i dont "believe" in physical castration. i believe it happens, but i also believe that that is pushing the limits, then breaking them. then hunting down their children and eating them.
its like clipping a birds wings, or cutting of a persons big toes. or testicles.
that's sickening. i dont know about you, but i have this thing where i treasure my genitals. all of them.

anyway, i'm going to stick with the "its okay to eat something, but not okay to keep it in a damn boring place while i eat its children, or to cut of its testicles and put a plastic tag through its ear before giving it a boring life before being killed." kind of mentality. i dont know about you, but thats how i feel. so ill stop eating meat.
and i'm weaning myself off of bovine milk, i dont wear leather, i use golden syrup instead of honey (though i see the grey area with bees, i dont like the taste of honey much, golden syrup is a "warmer" kind of sweet) and eat my own chickens eggs. ive taken a liking to seitan and tofu (theyre really good!) and it hasnt hurt me at all.
TRIVIA: meat causes impotence and bad tasting semen.

i think atob has a point in saying that we dont need to eat it any more. we dont! its just a lifestyle choice that is the default nowadays. if you can eat a blue steak, or at least a meal of only medium steak, sliced however you want, cooked in no sauces, ill believe you like and need meat. but most people just use meat as something to soak in gravy, butter, what have you. maybe its just my upbringing. the closest ive had to just meat is steak, spuds, and spinach. and even that is too much meat. but maybe people eat lumps of bloody flesh happily. i couldnt.

the neutrality of this argument is disputed

[krusch]

farming animals for their meat is a purely Human inflicted practice that I find primitve and largely redundant.

Primitive and largely redundant. I agree. But not "against the natural order".

I don't see how human behaviours could be seen as "unnatural" simply because only humans .. erm, do ... them. Humans are animals - all of our behaviours are as natural as any other creature's. I think I agree with Tsuki about this. And the notion that everyone seems to have which says "natural" equals better really bothers me too, but that's another topic.

And yup, cows can use their horns effectively. They're not as aggressive as bulls though.

What an insubstantial post ..

[DemonzLunchBreak]

dont. the steers and other eating animals are castrated. that right there should be enough. look down at your testicles. if you tell me you believe taking them from something else, with either emasculators (blades made for removing said genitalia) (in most steer and even in prize racehorses) or rubber bands so tight as to cut off all blood supply (usually only in sheep), without anaesthetic, you are a depraved, sickening example of corrupt humanity.

i dont "believe" in physical castration. i believe it happens, but i also believe that that is pushing the limits, then breaking them. then hunting down their children and eating them.
its like clipping a birds wings, or cutting of a persons big toes. or testicles.
that's sickening. i dont know about you, but i have this thing where i treasure my genitals. all of them.

;_;

You HATE me?

But seriously, why would a cow's testes be equivalent to those of a human? Haven't we been over this already?

TRIVIA: meat causes impotence and bad tasting semen.

[Citation Needed]

And quit it with all the appeal to emotion!

[blue_tetris]

TRIVIA: meat causes impotence and bad tasting semen.

This is why, if I have a choice, I will always eat meat over my semen.

Also, impotence? Ridiculous. I'd like to see the source on that. If you can't get someone to stop doing something in the conventional ways, you have to incite the penis panic. It's the oldest and silliest trick in the book.

[origami_alligator]

The argument that eating meat is "primitive" doesn't hold water.

Primitive is something that has been replaced by something better. Obsolete is another term, though the connotation of that word doesn't really apply here. We as humans have a long history of a diet that consists of BOTH animal and plant byproducts. To say eating meat is primitive is like saying drinking beer is primitive. Are we not better off without beer (health-wise)? Do we not have water that is cleaner and healthier for you than beer, which was a primary beverage because water often carried disease?

The arguments are of the same (minus the "cruelty to animals" part) and we could go back and forth about each. Meat has not been replaced by plants. Beer has not been replaced by water. Alcohol and meat have been staples of most every major cultures diet.

As for cruelty to animals, it's only cruel because one feels like the cow could lead a much happier and productive life. How do you judge the happiness of a cow?

Or are things just primitive when you're human and can rationalize for yourself? Without meat the human race would have died off. I bet you 100 to 1 almost anybody could prove that. To say that just because we have the "privilege" to not eat meat means that being a vegetarian is a better lifestyle choice is a little big-headed in my book.

I have now watched a video on the treatment of animals but I'm still not convinced that it is a reason to stop eating meat. Instead of "making a statement by not eating meat" why not "make a statement by calling your senator or congressman." Get your friends to call your senators and congressmen. Help push legislation that requires the meat industry to treat animals fairly. Otherwise simply refusing to eat meat is refusing to take care of the problem at its source.

[a happy song]

farming animals for their meat is a purely Human inflicted practice that I find primitve and largely redundant.

Primitive and largely redundant. I agree. But not "against the natural order".

I don't see how human behaviours could be seen as "unnatural" simply because only humans .. erm, do ... them. Humans are animals - all of our behaviours are as natural as any other creature's. I think I agree with Tsuki about this. And the notion that everyone seems to have which says "natural" equals better really bothers me too, but that's another topic.

And yup, cows can use their horns effectively. They're not as aggressive as bulls though.

What an insubstantial post ..

Not insubstantial at all. I respect your opinions a lot, it's good to read them.

And you and Suki are quite right about the whole 'natural' thing, which is why I amended. I hadn't put enough thought into that one.

The argument that eating meat is "primitive" doesn't hold water.

We no longer need meat to survive. We know enough about nutrition to supplement (and I mean naturally, not with man made vitamins) our diet FULLY and naturally without having to resort to butchering the flesh of another living thing.

It then becomes simply a matter of taste, which is an urge in itself, which is a primitive process.

It holds water.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

atob,

Surely you must realize how many people make a living from the meat industry, if not here in the US then around the globe in poverty-struck nations that sell to rich countries. Why do you want to ruin their livelihoods?
Is it because you hate poor people?

Which is why I haven't called for a universal spontaneous halt. Why are we going in circles about this?

We haven't gone in circles about this (we couldn't have, considering I've only just mentioned it).
I want to know what change you want to see in the world concerning vegetarianism. You said you don't want to convert people to vegetarianism, so as far as I see it you're either just trying to let people know how supercool you are, or you'd like to see happier conditions for the animals that are largely incapable of having emotions of any degree of complexity. (See also my response to Geti's second quote.)

On the same point, you said:

We no longer need meat to survive. We know enough about nutrition to supplement (and I mean naturally, not with man made vitamins) our diet FULLY and naturally without having to resort to butchering the flesh of another living thing.

It then becomes simply a matter of taste, which is an urge in itself, which is a primitive process.

...

The realization would be that we no longer need meat to survive and that the suffering caused by the industry can be avoided.

And I asked you why you think abolishing a pointless practice is worth it, what convinces you that there is suffering, and why ending that potential suffering, if it exists, is worth the chaos that abolishing the meat industry would produce would bring to humans globally.
The only answer you've given so far is:
"Nor did I say that the plight of the animals should be valued higher than the poverty stricken peoples of the Earth."
...in response to me pointing out that a substantial number of poor people make money from the meat industry.
I just want to see this point resolved - what do you want to see happen? How do you think we could improve the current circumstances?
The majority of people in the world already understands that they're eating once-living flesh, and that it's completely possible to live on a vegetarian diet. Hell, a pretty solid chunk of India is vegetarian, isn't it? So don't say you want to spread some awareness of these things, as you've tried to already, because the awareness is already there.
And I know you didn't just come into this thread to say that you, personally, think eating meat is just kind of yucky. Cuz, like, whoop-dee-do, I hate mangoes, but what does that add to the discussion?

If you can prove to me, without any doubt left, that these animals don't suffer at all as part of this process, then I'll happily re-assess my beliefs.

Nuh-uh, doesn't work that way. You're the one that has the beliefs (what they are, exactly, is something I've been attempting to extract from you for a bit now), so burden of proof is on you. I assume we both know that there are laws about treating animals unfairly, and that's the baseline, but you're introducing the idea that the laws aren't enough or something, so you have to demonstrate why that is.
I realize that I've been playing the active negation side of this debate, and that's really stepping over my boundary. If I had wanted to do this properly, I should've just sat back and asked you to prove your case, but you just weren't stepping up to the plate. I've been taking guesses at what your motivations might be for the vague idea I have on what your stance on vegetarianism actually is, but you really gotta give us something more to work with if you want to make any meaningful contribution to this thread.

A lot of people I've met are shocked when you tell them the HUMANE way animal flesh is harvested. People like to bury their heads about these things.

I also believe that people who don't know better can be affected by PETA propaganda.
What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

If you're allowed to excuse yourself for indulging a bit in the suffering of others, why can't I be excused for my own minor indulgence in the non-suffering of non-others?

I don't think were going to agree to what animal suffering equates to. I think we should leave this one alone.

Oh, no you don't.
You said (as quoted above) that you value the livelihoods of legions of poor people more than you care about the suffering of animals as it is today in the meat industry. So from that we have some measure of where your priorities are.
You said you excuse yourself for an indulgence that negatively affects the livelihoods of legions of poor people, which, again, you had said matters more than the suffering of animals in the meat industry today. So I'm asking you why you can't excuse me for something that is a lower priority for you than something you excuse yourself for.
Unless there's something I'm missing here, you should consider taking one of these statements back:
A) "I value the livelihoods of poor people more than I care about the suffering animals in meat factories experience."
B) "I can excuse myself for buying from companies that take advantage of underpaid labor overseas."
C) (assumed) "I am not a hypocrite."

[Continuing the issue of why people think anything that happens is "unnatural"...

Oh, I'm aware of your intellectualization of this. It's smart. I also agree with you. It irks me when people call science unnatural for the same reason.

Perhaps I should have said evolution is a natural order that will continue for as long as there's life here, farming animals for their meet is a purely Human inflicted practice that I find primitve and largely redundant.

Alright, whatever. Even though one of your arguments earlier in this thread was that keeping animals in cages to eat in liberal amounts is wrong because it's not part of the natural order, at least we agree on it now.

So in summary, far as I see it, your argument in support of vegetarianism is essentially that it's unnecessary and that you don't like that (you think) the animals are suffering too much, but not enough that the meat industry should be destroyed because that would ruin the lives of too many people.
But you don't want to make people vegetarians, so your conclusion, I can only guess, is "and that sucks."
Questions I still have for you:

• What makes you think the animals are being treated less fairly than they should be / the animals deserve to be treated any better?
• What evidence do you have that the animals are capable of caring a meaningful amount about how they are treated?
• Would you like to see a change in the world regarding vegetarianism and/or the meat industry? If so, what?

-----

Geti,

the steers and other eating animals are castrated.

So are dogs and cats. So are people, even. This is a common practice that the world at large doesn't have a problem with, so you may as well drop the point that you thing it's icky.

look down at your testicles.
...
its like... cutting of a persons big toes. or testicles.
...
i dont know about you, but i have this thing where i treasure my genitals. all of them.

Why are you talking about chickens and cows as though they're human?
Demonz is right, we have been over this - cows can't look forward to having a loving family with their testicles, and probably don't regard their own testicles with as much importance as humans do, provided their brains can even contain the fact that they have individual body parts the way humans do and what significance each might have. They can't lament that they never got to see the Eiffel Tower or read all the books they wanted to. If they weren't in the meat-packing plant, they'd be out in a grassy field being just as bored (atob makes it sound like keeping them bored is making them suffer, like they'd be watching movies or partying it up or something), and they'd probably have a much more horrible death by wolves or something anyway, if not painful disease or injury.

but maybe people eat lumps of bloody flesh happily.

My preferences for steak have been shifting toward raw. I'd probably hate raw steak, but my generic choice for steak has been "rare" for a few months or so (from "medium rare"). I find that the taste of the blood enhances the flavor of the steak, and that medium, and even medium rare in some part, destroys too much of that to make it as enjoyable.

[a happy song]

We haven't gone in circles about this (we couldn't have, considering I've only just mentioned it).

I wasn't being specific to just you and I. I've already made myself clear on this point earlier in the thread (that I understand that some are reliant on the system etc..), I don't see why I need to go over it again.

Nuh-uh, doesn't work that way.

Oh, I'm afraid it does. I've said many times why I consider the process to be cruel. Even though I don't consider animals our equals, I don't see that as any reason to kill to satisfy an urge.

I also believe that people who don't know better can be affected by PETA propaganda.

Are you implying all evidence of the abuse of animals in this context is extremist spin? People are ill educated about where there food comes from, largely, I didn't mention heavy politics.

What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

I've seen the way animals interact with their young, it's a simple beauty. The appreciation of life and what it means. Now, they might not be able to reflect and pronounce the profound nature of that, but they're certainly a living example of the beginnings of that thing in motion.

I don't see how our intellect and power = right enough to take that away.

So I'm asking you why you can't excuse me for something that is a lower priority for you than something you excuse yourself for.

When did I say I can't excuse you? I'm simply relaying the way I believe the world would be better.

So in summary, far as I see it, your argument in support of vegetarianism is essentially that it's unnecessary and that you don't like that (you think) the animals are suffering too much, but not enough that the meat industry should be destroyed because that would ruin the lives of too many people.

No, I asked for a gradual realization. I thought that clearly spelt out how I felt: that the meat industry should be 'phased out' somehow. As I said before, strong ideals are rarely water tight, that doesn't mean their not a worthy starting point for change for the better.

[Creampudding]

This is a subject that is quite controversal, but I will probably never stop eating meat, unless there is something very urging that can persuade me.
I do find it disturbing how a lot of meats are processed and made into the steaks and patties people enjoy (Using forklifts to get the sick cow into the meat grinder).
Another thing, I will never eat veal.
A cow is born, and it is instantly chained to a stake and stuck in a "crate" and fed only milk for it's whole life. Once it has reached a certain age, it is carried (because it has no strength to walk or even stand) to be killed.
And all that just so classy people can get their perfectly tender and perfect tasting meat.

In conclusion, I like to eat meat, and most likely always will, but many methods of obtaining it are inhumane. In my opinion.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

We haven't gone in circles about this (we couldn't have, considering I've only just mentioned it).

I wasn't being specific to just you and I. I've already made myself clear on this point earlier in the thread (that I understand that some are reliant on the system etc..), I don't see why I need to go over it again.

I wasn't being specific to you and I either; nowhere previously in this post has anyone mentioned poor people making a living from the meat industry, or poor people making a living off of any controversial market for that matter. The first time it was brought up was in the post to which you replied that you don't want to go in circles about it. A single statement followed by a single reply does not a circle make.

I'm going to raise my point again, because you haven't even replied to it for a first time yet, neither for me nor for anyone else posting in this thread. (Alternatively, you can find where in this thread someone actually did mention poor people making a living and then show how things got circular.)
I want to know what change you want to see in the world concerning vegetarianism. You said you don't want to convert people to vegetarianism because you acknowledge that that would ruin the livelihoods of people who depend on the meat industry, so as far as I see it you're either just trying to let people know how supercool you are, or you'd like to see happier conditions for the animals that are largely incapable of having emotions of any degree of complexity.

Nuh-uh, doesn't work that way.

Oh, I'm afraid it does. I've said many times why I consider the process to be cruel. Even though I don't consider animals our equals, I don't see that as any reason to kill to satisfy an urge.

That's not... I didn't say th- it wasn't a... grr.
That "nuh-uh, it doesn't work that way" was in response to you totally flipping the concept of Burden of Proof on its head.
You asked me to disprove an assertion you made, and without even giving any arguments for, when the Burden of Proof is clearly on you.
"Nuh-uh, [the Burden of Proof] doesn't work that way." I wasn't talking at all about the way they murder cows.

I also believe that people who don't know better can be affected by PETA propaganda.

Are you implying all evidence of the abuse of animals in this context is extremist spin? People are ill educated about where there food comes from, largely, I didn't mention heavy politics.

You seem to be making a habit out of replying only to my initial reactions to the things you say... might I suggest reading anything other than the first line after each quoted segment? That's where I actually place the meat of my arguments. It's kind of conventional, really.
No, I did not imply that all evidence of the abuse of animals is extremist spin. How could I, when I haven't even seen any evidence for it yet (because, y'know, you're still not giving me any evidence even though I keep asking for it). You'd have realized this if you had read the very next line, reproduced below.
*ahem*
What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

So in summary, far as I see it, your argument in support of vegetarianism is essentially that it's unnecessary and that you don't like that (you think) the animals are suffering too much, but not enough that the meat industry should be destroyed because that would ruin the lives of too many people.

No, I asked for a gradual realization.

That would be a reasonable thing to say, had I not said:

The majority of people in the world already understands that they're eating once-living flesh, and that it's completely possible to live on a vegetarian diet. Hell, a pretty solid chunk of India is vegetarian, isn't it? So don't say you want to spread some awareness of these things, as you've tried to already, because the awareness is already there.

I thought that clearly spelt out how I felt: that the meat industry should be 'phased out' somehow. As I said before, strong ideals are rarely water tight, that doesn't mean their not a worthy starting point for change for the better.

This is the first time you're saying anything to this effect (prove me wrong), so don't act like you've been trying to get this through my thick skull the entire time.

So I'm asking you why you can't excuse me for something that is a lower priority for you than something you excuse yourself for.

When did I say I can't excuse you? I'm simply relaying the way I believe the world would be better.

I'm sorry, you did say that you want the world to phase out the meat industry entirely, right? Cuz that sort of gives the impression that you find eating meat unacceptable.

What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

I've seen the way animals interact with their young, it's a simple beauty. The appreciation of life and what it means. Now, they might not be able to reflect and pronounce the profound nature of that, but they're certainly a living example of the beginnings of that thing in motion.

I don't see how our intellect and power = right enough to take that away.

...
Really, dude? It's like you're not even trying anymore.
I just asked for evidence, and you replied with sentimental anecdotes, which were super-special in that they were also entirely unrelated to the question. You could've just gone to peta.org and referenced the first video you saw; that at least would've been minimally acceptable. Giving appeals to emotion instead of evidence is one thing, but most people at least keep it relevant to the challenge for evidence when they do it. You may as well have put in a biography of Davy Crocket as an answer, and it would've been just as effective.

I'm going to come clean about this last statement - I honestly expected it to be defeated. I was making an earnest effort to draw you out of your turtle shell and come back at me with something, assert any sort of evidence to support your claim. Did I need to stick a "HINT HINT: Search for 'meat packing plant' on YouTube!!" in that statement or what? It's trivially easy to find this stuff - I know it exists. I just want you to come back at me with something.


Points you still haven't addressed:

I asked you why you think abolishing a pointless practice is worth it, what convinces you that there is suffering, and why ending that potential suffering, if it exists, is worth the chaos that abolishing the meat industry would produce would bring to humans globally.

You're the one that has the beliefs (what they are, exactly, is something I've been attempting to extract from you for a bit now), so burden of proof is on you. I assume we both know that there are laws about treating animals unfairly, and that's the baseline, but you're introducing the idea that the laws aren't enough or something, so you have to demonstrate why that is.

What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

You said that you value the livelihoods of legions of poor people more than you care about the suffering of animals as it is today in the meat industry. So from that we have some measure of where your priorities are.
You said you excuse yourself for an indulgence that negatively affects the livelihoods of legions of poor people, which, again, you had said matters more than the suffering of animals in the meat industry today. So I'm asking you why you can't excuse me for something that is a lower priority for you than something you excuse yourself for.
Unless there's something I'm missing here, you should consider taking one of these statements back:
A) "I value the livelihoods of poor people more than I care about the suffering animals in meat factories experience."
B) "I can excuse myself for buying from companies that take advantage of underpaid labor overseas."
C) (assumed) "I am not a hypocrite."

Questions I still have for you:

• What makes you think the animals are being treated less fairly than they should be / the animals deserve to be treated any better?
• What evidence do you have that the animals are capable of caring a meaningful amount about how they are treated?

Hell, I even laid that last one out all nice for you at the end of the post. Most people wouldn't make the effort, and assume that the other party can extract that by reading all of the responses. I'm being nice here, and you're just not meeting me half-way. It's a little insulting.

Things I'd like you to stop doing, if you could:

• Not making the effort to read more than the first line after each quote to understand the context. A simple example would be the "nuh-uh" Burden of Proof thing.
• Not making the effort to read more than the first line after each quote to reach the actual point I make, responding instead to my initial reaction only. This appears to be all you did in your last post.
• Lying. I'm talking primarily about pretending you've said something a thousand times, or that you've already addressed a point that has only been mentioned once and never brought up before. I have a scrollbar, dude.
• Skipping over the parts that you can't find a way to argue against. This sort of ties in with point #2, but some of the stuff I said you didn't even dignify with a first-line-quoting.
• Refusing to add anything new to the discussion. You're locked in this pattern where no matter what I say, all you do is restate your original position. It's like you interpret everything I say as, "please repeat everything you wrote in your first post in this thread."

If this stays as unfun as it is now, that's does it, I'm flipping sides.

[a happy song]

I'm not putting the effort in, you're right. My bad. I'll try to make my stances clear.

One

I wasn't being specific to you and I either; nowhere previously in this post has anyone mentioned poor people making a living from the meat industry, or poor people making a living off of any controversial market for that matter.

From the second page:

...all the ones you listed are necessities (commercial cosmetic surgery aside) in the world we live in. Eating meat is not (minus certain climates/socities that currently rely on it).

I understand there is a problem with implementing a shift. My ideals tell me we should/could afford to take that hit, but in reality the people who'd bear the brunt of the negative impact probably wouldn't be so quick to care about the plight of animals.



Two

Nuh-uh, doesn't work that way. You're the one that has the beliefs (what they are, exactly, is something I've been attempting to extract from you for a bit now), so burden of proof is on you. I assume we both know that there are laws about treating animals unfairly, and that's the baseline, but you're introducing the idea that the laws aren't enough or something, so you have to demonstrate why that is.
I realize that I've been playing the active negation side of this debate, and that's really stepping over my boundary. If I had wanted to do this properly, I should've just sat back and asked you to prove your case, but you just weren't stepping up to the plate. I've been taking guesses at what your motivations might be for the vague idea I have on what your stance on vegetarianism actually is, but you really gotta give us something more to work with if you want to make any meaningful contribution to this thread.

Again, I completely read that wrong/wasn't paying attention.

My beliefs are this:

The eating of flesh for sustenance is a primitive mode brought on by a need/urge to violence that's developed into a taste for blood. As part of our evolution as a society, we've gained control over many of these detrimental urges and instincts. I believe it would benefit us if we could overcome the need to cause such bloody violence to nourish ourselves.

The suffering that is caused as part of the process (there is evidence and counter evidence of this all over the internet - see below) isn't worth satisfying the urge.

Just because animals can't reflect on their pain doesn't mean it's justifiable to inflict it on them. I'll have a search for some evidence on my side of the debate (that animals are capable of suffering), if you could find some decent reading to counter this, it would be appreciated.



Three

What I'd like to see from you is evidence of intentional poor treatment of animals, and how the animals are capable of caring.

This is where my skimming *really* backfired. I read 'capable of caring' by itself (hence the sentimental anecdote) and not as 'are they capable of caring that they're 'suffering'. I apologize for the frustration.

I'll agree, from what I can gather, that the standard of animal slaughter for the most part falls within requested guidlines. However, there is plenty of evidence that animals are subjected to certain conditions that cause growth defects (veal kept in small cages to bring on atrophy to keep the meat tender), pain (certain hormonal cocktails used in farming producing ulcerated guts, pneumonia etc..) and disease (similar hormones causing painful swelling and disease of cow udders in dairy farming).

If you really want me to find you the evidence of this, I'll do so over the weekend.



Four

No, I asked for a gradual realization.

That would be a reasonable thing to say, had I not said:

The majority of people in the world already understands that they're eating once-living flesh, and that it's completely possible to live on a vegetarian diet. Hell, a pretty solid chunk of India is vegetarian, isn't it? So don't say you want to spread some awareness of these things, as you've tried to already, because the awareness is already there.

My call for awareness was to all the people in the world who remove themselves entirely from the source of their food. There are plenty out there who are unaware of how meat is produced (not where it comes from, obviously, but what happens in-between).



Five

I thought that clearly spelt out how I felt: that the meat industry should be 'phased out' somehow. As I said before, strong ideals are rarely water tight, that doesn't mean their not a worthy starting point for change for the better.

This is the first time you're saying anything to this effect (prove me wrong), so don't act like you've been trying to get this through my thick skull the entire time.

From the top of the page.

I also didn't call for a universal spontaneous shift to veganism/vegetarianism - that would be ridiculous - more a call for awareness leading to a gradual realization.

Six

Really, dude? It's like you're not even trying anymore.

As explained above, my bad.



Your Requests

I asked you why you think abolishing a pointless practice is worth it, what convinces you that there is suffering, and why ending that potential suffering, if it exists, is worth the chaos that abolishing the meat industry would produce would bring to humans globally.

What's convinced me of the suffering? See Three (as I said, I'll elaborate if need be).

My ideal is the world no longer consuming meat (for reasons as explained in Two and Three, and if I were able to apply it the shift would be as gradual as possible. I'll go into this more if you like, but I don't have time right now.

Unless there's something I'm missing here, you should consider taking one of these statements back:
A) "I value the livelihoods of poor people more than I care about the suffering animals in meat factories experience."
B) "I can excuse myself for buying from companies that take advantage of underpaid labor overseas."
C) (assumed) "I am not a hypocrite."

I didn't say I can excuse myself from buying from such companies, I'm obviously being hypocritical if you cross reference like this. I'm not perfect in this regard by any means, but I am working toward a balance here.

This is why I don't go out and campaign for the things I believe in, I'm not strong enough yet. I'm too ingrained with my own selfish drives and ambitions. I'm hoping once I achieve certain things I'll be able to devote more time to these issues that I feel so passionately about.


-


I've not lied, not once. I've skimmed over your paragraphs, not paid attention and made a mess of explaining myself, sure. If I've missed anything I'll respond when I have more time.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Point One:
Okay. That's fine. I'd argue your implication that the welfare of people who don't care about animals is worth less than the welfare of those who do, but fine.
But I also don't think that underpaid overseas labor, exploitation of migrant workers, and many other controversial / potentially immoral issues are "necessities," which begs the question again of how you can excuse yourself for contributing to Horrible Things but you want the meat industry, a likely comparatively lesser evil, to be phased out and not these other things.
But I suppose those Horrible Things would have to be examined individually, and are not technically relevant to this discussion.

Point Two:

The eating of flesh for sustenance is a primitive mode brought on by a need/urge to violence that's developed into a taste for blood. As part of our evolution as a society, we've gained control over many of these detrimental urges and instincts. I believe it would benefit us if we could overcome the need to cause such bloody violence to nourish ourselves.

Why is primitive bad? Sex is primitive beyond much else, as is the horrifically painful process of childbirth. It's certainly within our capacity to neuter everyone and then generate test-tube babies - children that we can make sure won't even have genetic defects - and neutering everyone would also drastically cut down on rape, one of the most emotionally traumatizing crimes commonly performed. But it still strikes me as a bad idea to abolish the primitive practice of sex.
We could also implant tubes that inject nutrients directly into our intestines instead of using our primitive digestion system which, combined with our primitive practices of even delivering the nutrients to people (can you believe that the lettuce you eat in your salad comes from the ground, farmed by some dude??), causes all manner of dental problems, unbalanced diets and obesity, food poisoning, indigestion, and countless problems one could develop with the bowels and bladder. But we could eschew all that if we simply worked around this primitive "eating" thing we do.
And building on that, I don't think we've gained control over our urges for meat in the slightest. After I made my previous post last night, I needed to go out and get me a steak. I had a hankerin' for some tri-tip sirloin cooked rare. And after I ate it, I felt great (ask the folks on Vent last night how great I felt). All I did was indulge my desire to eat a large, bloody slab of flesh, and it was fantastic. Either they cooked that thing with crystal meth, or there's some biology at work here.

The suffering that is caused as part of the process (there is evidence and counter evidence of this all over the internet - see below) isn't worth satisfying the urge.

Just because animals can't reflect on their pain doesn't mean it's justifiable to inflict it on them. I'll have a search for some evidence on my side of the debate (that animals are capable of suffering), if you could find some decent reading to counter this, it would be appreciated.

Fine, good. Now I know what your position actually is.
You implied that evidence is below, so I won't ask for that now.

Point Three:

This is where my skimming *really* backfired. I read 'capable of caring' by itself (hence the sentimental anecdote) and not as 'are they capable of caring that they're 'suffering'. I apologize for the frustration.

I'll agree, from what I can gather, that the standard of animal slaughter for the most part falls within requested guidlines. However, there is plenty of evidence that animals are subjected to certain conditions that cause growth defects (veal kept in small cages to bring on atrophy to keep the meat tender), pain (certain hormonal cocktails used in farming producing ulcerated guts, pneumonia etc..) and disease (similar hormones causing painful swelling and disease of cow udders in dairy farming).

If you really want me to find you the evidence of this, I'll do so over the weekend.

Awesome. Now we're getting somewhere.
Please do.

Point Four: Okay. I understand now. Thank you.

Point Five: Okay.

My ideal is the world no longer consuming meat (for reasons as explained in Two and Three, and if I were able to apply it the shift would be as gradual as possible. I'll go into this more if you like, but I don't have time right now.

Please do, when you have the time.

[Geti]

TRIVIA: meat causes impotence and bad tasting semen.

This is why, if I have a choice, I will always eat meat over my semen.

Also, impotence? Ridiculous. I'd like to see the source on that. If you can't get someone to stop doing something in the conventional ways, you have to incite the penis panic. It's the oldest and silliest trick in the book.

i laughed hard at the first line. <3

http://www.goveg.com/impotence_cholesterol.asp
read if you were interested in the impotence issue. i dont just say things for no reason.

------------------

Geti,
A
So are dogs and cats. So are people, even. This is a common practice that the world at large doesn't have a problem with, so you may as well drop the point that you thing it's icky.

B
Why are you talking about chickens and cows as though they're human?
Demonz is right, we have been over this - cows can't look forward to having a loving family with their testicles, and probably don't regard their own testicles with as much importance as humans do, provided their brains can even contain the fact that they have individual body parts the way humans do and what significance each might have. They can't lament that they never got to see the Eiffel Tower or read all the books they wanted to. If they weren't in the meat-packing plant, they'd be out in a grassy field being just as bored (atob makes it sound like keeping them bored is making them suffer, like they'd be watching movies or partying it up or something), and they'd probably have a much more horrible death by wolves or something anyway, if not painful disease or injury.

C
My preferences for steak have been shifting toward raw. I'd probably hate raw steak, but my generic choice for steak has been "rare" for a few months or so (from "medium rare"). I find that the taste of the blood enhances the flavor of the steak, and that medium, and even medium rare in some part, destroys too much of that to make it as enjoyable.

@A: i think thats part of what this topic is about, suki. just because the world at large finds something okay, or that its been done for ages, doesnt mean its fine. people used to have no problem with torture, stoning, gladiatorial events, cannibalism, and slavery. why should this be any different, considering you're chopping a part of an animal off?

@B: the cows you eat for meat rarely live outside.. the ones you get milk from, maybe, depending on which country you live in, but not the steer for slaughter. being bored isnt very fun either, humans go crazy without stimulation, and being alone is a punishment (solitary confinement), and though cows minds are more simple (so they probably wont go crazy) they sure wont be enjoying themselves. no, cows dont party it up, and yes, in the wild, most cows would just die. however, thats what natural selection is about, and if they were extinct it wouldnt be too bad. id rather we just let them die out than kept them in captivity to eat.

im more against the mass factory farming issue than just eating meat. as someone said, its part of the "natural order" of things, but i doubt anyone believes killing massive numbers of animals each year counts as natural. maybe if you lived with the cows/sheep, having a symbiotic relationship with each other, and knowing the animals, then when one got sick or broke something you killed, skinned, gutted and butchered it that would be okay, as that's on a much smaller scale, though its still not good.

as atob and i keep pointing out; we are at a stage where eating meat is more of an accepted luxury than a necessity. as we (in 1st world countries) can live happily and healthily without eating another animal's meat, why should we continue to kill and eat animals?

@C: really? ive always found raw/rare meat to be pretty disgusting.. blood is another matter, but as its pretty hard to access ethically harvested blood, im sure im fine without it XD

------------

I have now watched a video on the treatment of animals but I'm still not convinced that it is a reason to stop eating meat. Instead of "making a statement by not eating meat" why not "make a statement by calling your senator or congressman." Get your friends to call your senators and congressmen. Help push legislation that requires the meat industry to treat animals fairly. Otherwise simply refusing to eat meat is refusing to take care of the problem at its source.

im not making a statement by not eating meat, im satisfying my own morals.
if i lived in the US, though, i would make a call to my congressman. in any case, i managed to convince my uncle (a farmer) to stop fuelling the meat industry. he still breeds his dogs (he always has, its how he started) and grows wheat and vegetables, but hes promised me he wont buy any more cattle or sheep for meat, and keep all the current ones for himself. when they cant live anymore, he'll kill them, yeah, but they'll be the last ones, and at least theyre outside. the dogs like chasing them about too, and now that hes not selling them he can let them. anyway, thats me tackling the problem as close to the source as i can at 15.

------------

im glad some people can man up and say "i know its wrong, but ill continue to eat it" without even trying to justify it. most people probably know its wrong. the purpose of this discussion is not to convince people to become vegetarian or vegan, (it would be nice if it did) but to discuss the the ethics behind such lifestyles, and the meat industry. im glad this topic has attracted so much attention, as it means more people are at least interested. gratz to you if you can just say "i know its wrong" (acceptance being the first step and all that), gratz more if you try being vegetarian for 30 days (its what i did, i just didnt stop), and a cookie for those who actually take up the lifestyle.

[blue_tetris]

It is a bit odd that our government is opposed to cruelty to some animals and not others.

http://www.goveg.com/impotence_cholesterol.asp
read if you were interested in the impotence issue. i dont just say things for no reason.

Ahh, so eating excess meat can cause impotence. I imagine eating an excess of certain vegetables can't possibly cause impotence?

[Zora_S_Kenneth]

Ahh, so eating excess meat can cause impotence. I imagine eating an excess of certain vegetables can't possibly cause impotence?

Probably not, but that's just my thoughts with the information I have. Apparently, excessive LDL cholesterol can cause impotence, and that cholesterol is found in all manner of animal sources. So being a vegetarian won't necessarily protect you. You'd have to be a vegan.

[Qix]

Ahh, so eating excess meat can cause impotence. I imagine eating an excess of certain vegetables can't possibly cause impotence?

Probably not, but that's just my thoughts with the information I have. Apparently, excessive LDL cholesterol can cause impotence, and that cholesterol is found in all manner of animal sources. So being a vegetarian won't necessarily protect you. You'd have to be a vegan.

I really have to disagree, eating an excess of anything is bad for you.

I'm not going to stop eating meat, but I'm all for anything that makes the meat industry more humane.

Edit: I hate the fact that the quote button has moved from the top of posts to the bottom.

[Zora_S_Kenneth]

Ahh, so eating excess meat can cause impotence. I imagine eating an excess of certain vegetables can't possibly cause impotence?

Probably not, but that's just my thoughts with the information I have. Apparently, excessive LDL cholesterol can cause impotence, and that cholesterol is found in all manner of animal sources. So being a vegetarian won't necessarily protect you. You'd have to be a vegan.

I really have to disagree, eating an excess of anything is bad for you.

I'm not going to stop eating meat, but I'm all for anything that makes the meat industry more humane.

Edit: I hate the fact that the quote button has moved from the top of posts to the bottom.

We were discussing impotence (ED) specifically. But no matter what you thought we were discussing, you are right.

I think that even the meat-eaters here that have not intention of dropping their carnivorous tendencies might raise their eyebrows at all this. This is quite a bit of a revelation for most people, and some do something about it, some just suffer from PTSD after thinking about this and don't do anything. As far as I'm concerned, well, I do what I can, and I usually end up getting grass-fed free-range beef when I can.

@ Qix's Edit: I know! The moving of that button so irritating at times.

Zora_S_hout-out: Wait a minute! Why the heck aren't we talking about the ethics of PLANT GROWTH? Surely you must be concerned as much about the poor plants struggling for life in hard, dry, baked sand as much as the horrid vegetable-slaying monsters known as cows? Or is it just that you don't care about them because they don't look or feel as much alive?

[Geti]

Ahh, so eating excess meat can cause impotence. I imagine eating an excess of certain vegetables can't possibly cause impotence?

well, maybe if you ate so much that your intestines bloated so much as to block the necessary blood vessels. animal proteins (yes, even those in non-meat products, sadly) raise cholesterol levels, which increases the risk of ED, while plant proteins are usually neutral, and soy proteins lower cholesterol.

While animal proteins increase cholesterol levels, soy proteins have consistently been found to lower cholesterol levels. Plant-based vegan diets often are high in soy protein and completely devoid of animal protein. Because of this, the average vegan cholesterol level is 133, which is 37 percent lower than in the general population. The average cholesterol level in vegetarians is 23 percent lower than in nonvegetarians. It is commonly considered medically impossible for a person with cholesterol below 150 to have a heart attack.

so no, i dont believe eating an excess of plant matter would cause impotence. however, overeating on any food is always bad.

@zora: as everyone is talking about food chains and the like, id like to point out that plants are always at the bottom, as they make their own food. as much as i wish we could do this, we cant. if you have some sort of indication that the plant can feel pain, ill go live off passively aquired foods (ie foods that harm nothing). however, as ive never heard any indication of pain from a plant, im going to stick with eating them.

[blue_tetris]

Plants, too, use hormones and receptors to interpret what's going on around them, in much the same way that nerves work. Vegetables didn't ever get good at looking like they're in pain, so they get eaten a lot quicker. I suppose, in a modern world, evolving a cute face is a survival tactic.