Animals Have Feelings, Awareness and Preferences
Animals are much more intelligent and complex than most people realize, and scientists are providing more and more evidence of this all the time.
Scientists now know that pigs have the cognitive skills of 3-year-old human children.
Biologists wrote in Fish and Fisheries that fish are “steeped in social intelligence…exhibiting stable cultural traditions, and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food.”
Chickens form friendships and social hierarchies, recognize one another, develop a pecking order, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed between generations. According to researchers, cows enjoy mental challenges and feel excitement when they use their intellect to overcome an obstacle. Dr. Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University, says that when cows figure out a solution to a problem, “The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment.”
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Your place is valueble for me. Thanks! Online Usa Casinos rehear Rtg Code Bigamy Best casino online casinos thalamencephala Rtg Casinos Codes kitchenette
To be sure that creatures have feelings. Regrettably discomfort is a component of existence both human and animal. Humans are occasionally assaulted and wiped out by wildlife. Illnesses may cause prolonged discomfort and suffering before dying. A pride of lions attacking and killing their prey is horribly cruel. Techniques that people use to slaughter domestic creatures is a lot more humane than that. If you won't want to eat meat for private reasons I am fine with this try not to let me know to not. Link building services
Spot on with this write-up, I truly assume this website wants rather more consideration. IÂll probably be again to learn far more, thanks for that info. Cialis runlet Vps hosting testator American income life insurance company hemoglobinemia Watch Tv On PC abomasal
Surprise surprise animals eat other animals too...So really what does it matter? They have feelings, and they have hunger too.
Scientific studies show that plants react to different stimulates of pain. Plants are not mindless creatures that are willing to die to satisfy out diet. Plants are not the alternative to eating meats. When talking about this subject one cannot pull out the guilt card, each candidates feel pain. Neither one wants or should be eaten. However, in order for our survival we must feed. We should not be fighting about the pain in which side feels but in the amount of nutritian we get out from eating plants or animals. As humans, we have the only concious choice in choosing what is right. But limiting us the right to eat meat is unnesesary. Animals were not put on this earth to be let go and over populate. As the dominate species we have the right to decide to eat meat.
On mythbusters they put plants in different greenhouses. The played variuos music and used different voices to see if the growth of the veggies was effected. It was, plants do get stressed when yelled at and it does affect their growth.Plants do die and do show ability to feel pain, but since thet have no voices they are not as noticed as say a cow, sheep, or pig. Listen to cries of the carrotts by Tool.
It's not just the population but where you live. Since the world has constantly changing seasons we have a warm one when veggies and fruit can be grown and a cold one when they can't. A lot of places in the world don't have conditions to grow their own. With the population of the world their is not enough room to grow enough to provide for all the worlds people without more deforestation in a effort to do so. This would indanger more species of wildlife than are already in trouble. Even animals like the New Calidonian Giant Gecko eat fruit in the season it is plentiful while eating rodents and such when it is not around.
While it has been proven most pigs can become wild and take on the look and traits of true wild ones they would be competing for our crops with us. Man would be killing them one way or another. Other animals that we have basically created would ruin our ecosystems should they be set free never to be eatin' only later to wipe out entire wild species that never had to contend with them before. To fight for the dignified treatment of animals is truely noble. To outlaw their consumption would either ultimately mean their genocide or the natural world as we know it.
While I eat very little meat myself it leaves me with one question. Do animal rights activists grasp the logic of conservation?
So must lions stop eating deer then? There is a reason why meat eating must be reduced, and that has nothing to do with animals having feelings. The real reason should be a concern for the environment. Large scale animal farming is the problem, not an individual hunting/raising animals for food. Homo Sapiens is designed to be a meat eater. Just look at the acidity levels in our stomachs and the sharp canines we have. We need the protein.
So if PETA wants to make a change in the world, it must stop hounding individuals and go after large scale animal farming and its harmful effects of the environment. Surely nature did not design for that. But it did design us to hunt, fish and eat protein. A "food chain" in case you didnt realize it, essentially involves species eating species without concern for feelings. The key, I think is in doing this without upsetting the balance of nature, and a million cattle mega ranch does exactly that.
PETA has a personal agenda and want to force their views on those that oppose them through any means necessary. Unfortunately we are animals and must eat to survive. Early man killed their prey through the most inhumane methods possible. When a Lion kills it's prey do they care about the "feelings" of that animal? Our methods today are a lot more humane than what happens in the wild. I believe in treating animals as humanely as possible and killing them as humanely as possible. I observed a Steer being slaughtered in a Meat Packing plant once. The animal was totally calm and without any observable stress until it was instantly knocked out. How can you be sure that plants are without feelings? There are some who believe they do. What would you do if it was proved that plants have emotions, starve? I have always eaten meat and will continue to do so as it is the natural thing to do. PETA makes me want to eat even more of it just for spite. If they wanted to be useful they should devote all their time to ensuring that animals are treated humanely while alive, not trying to prevent men from killing them for food.
They don't pay taxes.
They can't vote.
They don't pay rent.
They don't flush the toilet (or use it for that matter...usually).
They haven't formed a union.
They cannot operate machinery or fire a weapon
--- those that can we either treat really well or run away from
Cat uses the toilet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ug7WEUxH68
Cat flushes the toilet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofFb_eOxxA
Care to revise your statement?
;)
I do not see the point of assuming that animals have feelings, awareness and preference...So what if they do? First of all everything that you have just described are assumptions. We do not know for sure about the mental abilities of animals. Even if it was true that they had feelings, it is not like they do not eat each other in the animal kingdom. It is all very simple. We eat animals not for the joy of killing them, but for the simple fact that we need to eat in order to survive.
You said, "We do not know for sure about the mental abilities of animals."
In fact, you don't know for sure about the mental abilities of other humans. You can't get into other people's heads. What if it's all just a dream or an illusion and none of it is real? What if the Matrix is the truth...?
We have good reason to believe animals feel pain. This isn't a fantasy-land where scientists' conclusions that animals are sentient doesn't matter. This is real life and the scientific consensus is that animals definitely feel pain.
Elaine,
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that we DO know that other humans possess a certain intellectual capability. Specifically, we know that because we each know that we are humans, we have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other humans outwardly display this capacity.
I would further object to your assertion that animals can feel "pain" - specifically, you are effectively equating the human understanding of pain and suffering to animal pain, which unfortunately requires presentation of more specific evidence. Beyond that, you seem to be presuming that the fact that an entity can perceive pain - by whatever definition you've presumed - implies the existence of rights. It would be helpful if you could elucidate the argument that leads you to believe this to be true.
Yousaid: "we DO know that other humans possess a certain intellectual capability. Specifically, we know that because we each know that we are humans, we have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other humans outwardly display this capacity."
The exact same it true of animals. We have no persuasive reason to believe that we are unique in our intellectual capacity, and other ANIMALS outwardly display this capacity.
Please read this National Geographic article for information about animal intelligence:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text
....but that article is not so impressive. Specifically, the details of the experiment are a little sketchy so far as I can tell, and it's difficult to determine to what extent the scientist conducting the activity could be shaping the results, however inadvertently. Further, even if we assume that the study establishes that parrots are capable of complex thought of any kind, that knowledge would not be very easily portable to, for example, cows. The analogy gets even shakier when we start talking about sponges and anemones. Assuming that another human understands and interacts with the world the same way that I do is much less of a stretch than assuming that the same is true for me and my pet dog, who, to every examination I can make, seems to forget that I continue to exist at all if I leave his sensory range. Another good example (relayed by Connie Willis, who is probably embellishing, but I like it for effect) would be sheep, who, by some anecdotal reports, are not only so stupid that they can walk into a corner in a completely open pen and forget how to back out, but will also eat all of the grass available to them in their pen, after which they will proceed to eat the dirt.
The article was about multiple experiments, not just one. Perhaps you only read the first few pages?
Here's more:
http://www.animalintelligence.org /
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind /
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/08-exactly-how-smart-is-mans-best-friend
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/primate-IQ-hierarchy
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1634
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/dog-outsmarts
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/mar/monkeys-know-what-they-know
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/oct/feateye
But the point isn't how smart they are. The point is that they feel pain.
All you have to do is pinch a dog or cat to know that they felt it and disliked it or watch Animal Plant Emergency Vets and see an animal cry out in pain after being hit by a car or mauled by a wild animal or dog. Any person who has ever trimmed their cat, dog, rabbit, ferret, etc 's nails knows that if you cut the quick (the vein), then the animal will bleed and yelp.
Anyone who's ever been near a dog that was abused and beaten know that all they have to do is raise their voice and lift their hand to make the dog cower in fear.
Animals CAN feel pain and can REMEMBER it.
Of all the facets of this argument, animals ' ability to feel pain has got to be the dumbest.
I agree that animals have feelings. Unfortunately pain is part of life both human and animal. Humans are sometimes attacked and killed by wild animals. Diseases can cause prolonged pain and suffering before death. A pride of lions attacking and killing their prey is horribly cruel. Methods that we use to slaughter domestic animals is much more humane than that. If you don't want to eat meat for personal reasons I'm fine with that but don't tell me not to.
Tbcass,
Pain is a part of animal life, that’s right. But the fact that humans can suffer disease that causes prolonged pain doesn’t mean that you can use them as unconsenting subjects for medical experiments, or enslave women, constantly rape them, separate them from their offspring shortly after giving birth, and send them to slaughter after they are no longer “productive” to make hamburgers and shoes with their flesh and skin.
Exactly the same applies to other animals.
Yes, pain and suffering are unavoidable. But the unnecessary imposition of pain and suffering is avoidable.
From your assertions I seriously doubt that you’ve been in slaughterhouses or even seen footage of the slaughtering process.
Usually a pride of lions catch their victim and suffocate her/him before eating her/him. Probably the victim must be terrified during the chase and the few minutes of the suffocation process, but it doesn’t go beyond that (other carnivores use different methods, though).
Humans, on the other hand, torture their victims since they are born, separating them from their mothers, usually mutilating them (debeaking hens, dehorning cows, castrating, cutting the teeth and tails of pigs, etc.), depriving them of liberty and any social life, cramming them together, forcing them to enter trucks using electric prods or other ‘tools’, usually driving them for great distances without food or water, forced again to enter the slaughterhouse where they enter in panic once they hear the screamings, smell the blood, and see the killing of others, announcing their own murder, getting a captive bolt in their heads which, although supposed to, usually doesn’t render them unconscious, so they get their throats slit while fully conscious, and many are still alive when they are put in scalding water.
If this is ‘humane’, then concentration camps are ‘paradise’.
You keep saying that we shouldn’t tell you what to eat, while you don’t give a single thought to what you impose on other animals when you choose to eat what you eat.
What about their liberties?
I hope you can reconsider that.
If you can, and want to, I suggest you to watch this documentary.
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=119
Regards,
Samuel.
I have seen steer slaughtered and the animals didn't suffer at all. They showed no signs of distress. It can be done. If what you say is true then those practices should be modified to reduce any suffering to a minimum. It is not be necessary to treat and kill animals in inhumane ways. That practice should be stopped as it is possible to be humane about it with a little effort. The following comments from that web site express my feelings well.
"This film depicts how cruel humanity can be to animals in a strong argument for vegetanarianism as well as veganism. It is comprehensive, emotional, powerful, biased but extremely informative. I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan, but I do believe that consumers should pressure companies to improve living conditions for the animals used for our products. After all, unlike humans, animals can’t speak for themselves; if we don't speak up for the rights of animals then no one will.
One complaint I have about this film is that it shows the extremes of animal abuse and doesn’t show more humane methods. I do not think that the choice of humane treatment of animals should simply be: be vegan or don't be. For example I do think there is a large moral difference in raising a cage free or caged hen. I also think that we all have the moral obligation for understanding the consequences of our actions. We should never hide from the truth even if it is ugly and our fault. Therefore, if you are curious enough and don't like running from the truth, watch this film."
...that other animals, just like human animals, have some relevant basic interests, such as an interest in not suffering, in experiencing pleasure, in continuing to exist and in liberty, among others.
We protect those interests when it comes to humans, but ignore or violate the same interests when it comes to other animals. Why? Just because we say so, or just because they are not of "our own". Same argument a white-supremacist might raise.
If you say these are just "assumptions", then you must agree that saying that other humans "have feelings, awareness and preference" are just assumptions also, because we do not (and cannot) know FOR SURE what the mental abilities of other humans are (if there are any).
But, we have several ways of reasonably concluding that other animals (humans or not) are sentient, thus, have awareness, preferences, etc.
Whether other animals kill each other or not, says nothing about the morality of HUMANS killing other animals, just as the fact that other animals kill other animals' offspring to reproduce with the mother doesn't mean that it is OK for humans to kill other humans' offspring in order to reproduce with the mother.
You might not eat other animals for the joy of killing them, but you surely eat other animals and their secretions for the joy of eating what's left of their exploitation and killing, which amounts to the same. Them being exploited and killed.
We don't eat them for survival. We eat them for pleasure.
We eat animals for pleasure but at the same time this fulfills our need for amino acids, iron and such. We do exploit animals and we have been doing this for a long time. It was not considered immoral in any way in the past. Why did we all of a sudden think it was immoral? What changed? Did we simply run out of conflicts, that we are seeking for something to argue over?
You said, "It was not considered immoral in any way in the past."
In fact, there's a long history of eating meat being considered immoral. Take a look at the book The Longest Struggle: http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=9781590561065
Hi, Miga. Glad to read from you.
Yes, we can get aminoacids, iron and proteins from animal sources. But also from vegetable sources. We have that choice.
Human slavery wasn't considered immoral in the past. Men domination over women wasn't considered immoral in the past. Many things we consider immoral today, weren't considered immoral in the past. Most of them were done for a long, long time too.
Do you think that the people opposing human slavery were just lazy folks that were seeking for something to argue over? That they had run out of conflicts?
I think that position it's way too simplistic, if not offensive for those struggling for justice, and specially for the victims of unjust practices.
What changed? The way we look and think about things. The fact that we are reconsidering our indoctrinated morals and traditions. We are thinking critically about them, and recognizing that they might be wrong, even if they are ancient or part of our culture.
Other animals, like humans, have an interest in continuing to exist, in liberty, in avoid suffering. We must apply the principle of equal consideration of interests, and conclude that similar interests must be protected equally.
If we think enslaving, exploiting and killing humans violate their most basic interests, and, therefore, think it's immoral to impose that on unconsenting humans, we must apply the same to other animals that have the SAME basic interests.
Plus, I have the feeling that you think it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on other animals. As Gary Francione has already argued, this is a widely accepted notion by most humans.
The problem is that all of our uses of other animals, and the infliction of pain, suffering and death related, cannot be labeled as "necessary" in any reasonable way. Starting with our diet.
If you think that the pleasure you get out of eating other animals' flesh, eggs or milk, it's enough to justify their suffering, pain and death, then you might think that it's ok to, say, torture a dog because we "like" to do so, or get pleasure out of it.
I assume you wouldn't agree with the latter. But then again, what's the difference between the dog-torturer and those that eat animal products? Both of them do it just because they like it, both of them violate someone's interests, and both of them can get pleasure otherwise. So it cannot be considered necessary at all.
There's a huge contradiction between what we say and what we do.
I'm really sorry that you think this issue it's unimportant. For all I know, this issue it's of the MOST importance for all those animals suffering and dying for our selfish and superficial choices.
Best,
Samuel.
I see your point and I agree with most of it. I think it is wrong to torture animals strictly for pleasure and I also think that the way we slaughter animals is cruel and unnecessary. We, humans, are the top of the food chain and having accomplished that we have power over most animals. However, this does not grant us the power to kill animals in a gruesome manner. I am not convinced that animals have the capacity of a humans and therefore I do not agree that they act in a human manner. This may sound too simple but we are superior to animals and they can not attack us back so we get to eat them.
We're finally at the root of the problem. Speciesism can be defined as a paradigm in which individuals in a position of power withholds the rights of other individuals arbitrarily on the basis of their species.
You are a speciesist. Don't be immediately offended. We've all been raised that way. It's not too hard to depart from this so long as you continue the debate to truly try and define what makes us "superior". You'll be at a loss if you truly work at it. Are we more superior than orcas, who can live adeptly under water? How about arthropods who have conquered land, air, and sea, have survived us by millions of years, and it is estimated that they will be here long after we're gone? Are we more superior than they? Birds, perhaps? Cows have the ability to completely break down and digest cellulose. That's impressive for even herbivores!
Need other beings have the capacity of humans? Complex language? Well, we're not sure which species have this, but we do know they can't speak English (though a couple have learned to understand it). Is it the ability to reason? Clearly not even all members of our own species have this. Mathematics? Philosophy? Technology?
Humans are not very superior, at all. We can't take large fluctuations of temperature. We cannot hold our breath very long. Our soft flesh is penetrable to even the weakest of claws or fangs. We can't run very fast or far. We must constantly eat and drink. Even our young need to be tended to for years before they are capable individuals. I would argue that humans are SO unable to adapt physiologically, because the trait we developed is intellect. Some animals got gills, some wings, some incredible speed. We got bigger brains. Everyone got something. Superior? Hardly. Just different.
Every animal adapts the best they can. Lions use strength, teeth and claws. Antelopes use speed. Man uses intellect which has allowed us to adapt to a far wider range of conditions than any other animal, which have rendered fur, claws, fangs etc unnecessary. It's just another adaptive strategy that has proved very successful. From an adaptive POV man is superior like it or not. In nature the ability to survive and adapt to a wide range of conditions is what makes one species superior to another.
Hi tbcass,
You wrote: “Every animal adapts the best they can.”
That’s absolutely true. That’s because we are different. Different adaptive characteristics, as you wrote. Not inferior or superior, but different.
You wrote: “In nature the ability to survive and adapt to a wide range of conditions is what makes one species superior to another.”
Under this reasoning, then, bacteria are superior to humans. If we talk about survival, it’s worth noting that most animals, plants, fungi, and almost all life has existed long before humans, and probably will exist long after humans become extinct, so following your logic, they are superior too.
But the question remains, how is this of any relevance of whether we should enslave, exploit and/or murder others?
Should we choose to kill humans instead of bacteria in a case where we have to choose between both, because the latter are, arguably, “superior in nature” due to their better capacity to survive and adapt?
I don't believe that members of the same species should kill each other except in self defense.
Your bacteria response was a good one and pointed out that my comment was overly simplistic. I should have added "all other things being more or less equal".
We're talking about biological/physiological adaptation (I had to reread this entire thread, because it's been quite a while).
Animals do not "adapt the best they can." Adaptation is a product of natural selection. Favorable mutations are passed on because the mutations allowed them to successfully reproduce. My argument, here, is that to indicate that a being is superior is not only needlessly arbitrary, but it in no way justifies the causing of unnecessary harm.
Our favorable trait was a large, dynamic brain that allowed us to develop technologies and reach a point of survival and reproduction. Whether that technology was a spear, fire, agriculture, or indoor heating and cooling, if that big brain of ours hadn't developed technologies, then we wouldn't have passed on our big-brain genome and spread our ever-expanding population across the face of the Earth. In our overuse of resources and threat
Any argument of superiority (be it intellectual or physical) merely identifies that we CAN capture, enslave, breed, and slaughter other species. It doesn't indicate that we SHOULD. I grant that animal rights are given, and that the givers are rational beings, but how does that mean that it is morally sound to take these rights away? To suggest that might is the only source of right simply doesn't fit if we're also going to argue so strongly that our ability to rationalize is truly important.
Natural selection adaption has resulted in human's having a greater ability to adapt to the existing environment. One led to another. From a moral point of view it is neither right or wrong. It just is. This is a case where different moral points of views are not absolutes but are very personal. If Peta doesn't want to kill or eat animals fine but I believe it is wrong to try to FORCE their views on others. That is immoral IMO.
Evolutionary change has little to do with the morality of needlessly causing harm and death.
We can evolve in any which way, but so long as we do not have a biological need for animal flesh or excretions, there is a ethical consideration in making a decision to consume them. Animals about which we have no question of their sentience and ability to suffer are being forced to suffer and die at the hands of an industry who stands to profit from it.
The cost? The lives of the animals, the health and wellness of humankind, and the planet's ability to sustain the vast majority of its inhabitants.
This is most certainly NOT a case where there are different moral points of view. It is simply a case where people have not been given the opportunity or the tools to live their beliefs. The majority of people in the United States (and the world) feel it is wrong to unnecessarily harm and kill an animal. Isn't it time we help them deprogram so they can see they've been taught to do things they fundamentally disagree with?
I am not a Peta supporter, because I believe that their practices are self-aggrandizing and mostly ineffective in helping animals. However, exposing information that makes people uncomfortable so that truth may be revealed and people are forced to choose between denial and acceptance is in no way immoral. To stand by idly while billions upon billions of animals are suffering for selfish, unsubstantial reasons is immoral. To not present honest information regarding the health concerns of meat-based diets while pharmaceutical companies produce billions of dollars worth of medications we need as a result of our psychological addiction to animal protein is immoral. To consume the majority of the world's resources so that an elite few can eat meat while millions of people are starving to death is immoral.
I don't speak in unfounded beliefs or nihilistic relativism. I speak in facts and logical consistency.
Facts:
--producing animals for food is a huge waste of water/land resources
--human health benefits greatly from a plant-based diet
--global food supplies increase dramatically when humans eat only plants
--the majority of humans already believe in a life that causes as little suffering as possible
--producing animals for food results in vast deforestation in the rain forest
--the animals we kill not only have fully functioning pain receptors, but they also have social, intellectual, and emotional skills well within the range of human children
You're absolutely right that within your definition of adaptation, our human intellect has allowed us to adapt and survive. Perhaps it's time we adapt once again, stop using Nature as an excuse for behavior that is morally inconsistent with our beliefs, and begin living a way in which the majority of humans on Earth will have plenty of food, a planet that sustains us, and a greater chance at a long, happy life.
With several paragraphs that espoused YOUR morality based on some incorrect assumptions. I happen to think that eating meat is right and natural and I will continue to do so. That is my morality. Siting health concerns gives reasons why some people should restrict certain kinds of meat. I am not one of those people as at 63 I am in excellent health and have eaten meat all my life. Both my parents ate meat and lived to their 80's and 90's and died from causes unrelated to their meat consumption.
At present Global food supplies are more than adequate. Any shortages are due to poor distribution, economic and political reasons, and poor farming practices in African countries. Deforestation in the tropics (which has been balanced by increasing forests in the Tempreate areas) is not the result of eating meat as more than enough grain is produced in existing farms. It is the result of cutting trees and selling them for financial gain.
"--the animals we kill have social, intellectual, and emotional skills well within the range of human children"
Absolutely untrue but I am curious about something. Generally speaking people who believe the way you do are progressive politically and are in favor of legalized abortion . It has been proven that the human fetus feels pain. How do you feel about this?
You have a right to your opinion although I believe you have most of your facts wrong.
My advice to you is don't eat meat. I on the other hand will continue to do so.
To summarize
--producing animals for food is a huge waste of water/land resources
We have more than enough water/land resources to support eating meat but they are improperly managed
--human health benefits greatly from a plant-based diet
For some people true but not others. Besides what right do you to tell people what to do with their health. I guess personal freedom isn't morally important to you.
--global food supplies increase dramatically when humans eat only plants
There is more than land to produce adequate food supplies with proper farming techniques and improved distribution of existing supplies.
--the majority of humans already believe in a life that causes as little suffering as possible
So raising and slaughtering farm animals should be done as humanely as possibly.
--producing animals for food results in vast deforestation in the rain forest
As stated previously, this is untrue.
--the animals we kill not only have fully functioning pain receptors, but they also have social, intellectual, and emotional skills well within the range of human children
Pain yes but the rest is untrue.
"Perhaps it's time we adapt once again, stop using Nature as an excuse for behavior that is morally inconsistent with our beliefs"
Should be YOUR beliefs. They aren't mine.
The data supports my view in all of these areas.
I reference the 2006 UN's FAO report for most of my environmental issues. You refuted with no sources.
This is another hub of substantiated sources regarding animal cognizance, health concerns, and environmental concerns
http://www.goveg.com /
Again, I don't support Peta, but they've done good homework here. Follow their sources for more information. Then come back and refute these points with hard facts. The same goes for your blanket remark about animal intelligence. Are you prepared to argue that the rest of the planet's animals are merely automata?
http://mammals.suite101.com/article.cfm /the_intelligent_pig
As far as abortion , you will find my comments on the very page you linked. There is a point before birth where sentience begins. I don't know where that line is, but at some point it is clear that both the mother and the unborn have interests. Before a child has a working neocortex and pain receptors, I don't see how it could have interests. After that point, there are some serious ethical concerns regarding who has rights and who doesn't.
Your argument is absent of supporting evidence and riddled with logical fallacies:
You've attempted to derail the argument by pinning me with a label and committing a genetic fallacy
You've made a hasty generalization in regards to the longevity of your parents.
You've set up a straw man in suggesting I'm telling people what to do with their health
You've delivered an ad hominem attack by "supposing" that personal freedom isn't morality to me
Enslaving an animal and killing it (no matter what method you choose) is not the path of LEAST POSSIBLE suffering. It is merely the least possible suffering such that you can still satisfy your totally unnecessary desire for animal flesh.
Even if you choose to ignore the data regarding health and environment, the issue is simple. When there are two paths to take for eating where one path requires a plant-based diet and one path causes the suffering and death of sentient beings, is it immoral to take the latter? I suppose it's my opinion, but it's also my opinion that humans should not be enslaved and killed for the very same reasons. It is upon this consistent parallel that I base my belief of certain animal rights.
Until you've rectified your logical fallacies, delivered some degree of evidence, and supported your arbitrary beliefs, I think my debate with you has come to a close. Thanks.
Every thingI said is based on facts that I have researched.
You said. "Your argument is absent of supporting evidence and riddled with logical fallacies:" Funny I feel the same thing about your argument.
You also said "Until you've rectified your logical fallacies, delivered some degree of evidence, and supported your arbitrary beliefs"
Once again That's exactly How I feel about your arguments. Your "evidence" is isolated and not universally agreed upon. Saying a Pig is more intelligent than other animals does not put it at the level of humanity.
Your link to the GoVeg web site is useless as they have an agenda and can't be trusted to give an unbiased view. The same with Peta. They pick and choose their facts in a way that promotes their agenda. My evidence is derived from raw data from the UN and other similar unbiased sources of information. Look it up if you really care to learn.
I don't care if someone else refrains from eating meat as long as they don't push their ideas on me. I have friends that are Vegetarians and I don't try to convince them to eat meat. It seems to me that many Vegans have an agenda that everyone should be a Vegan. That is what I resent.
"I think my debate with you has come to a close. Thanks."
I agree. We will never see eye to eye on this but I will never try to convince you to eat meat while apparently you don't feel the same about your beliefs.
By your response, it seems that you are either unfamiliar with the concept of logical fallacies, or you have no refutation for the ones I pointed out. I even itemized them and named them so that you could address them easily and individually. You did, however, point out two issues from my post, so I will address both:
1) the sentience of farm animals has begun to be researched profoundly and evidence of farmed animals' capacity for suffering is abundant. To dismiss the evidence because it has not been universally agreed upon is an absurdity. But here is more data for you to consider.
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/AnimalMinds.html
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/s/stop_look_listen_2006.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s536007.htm
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/308650.html
If you notice, the first link I provided in my previous response was from the UN. A source you favor.
If you follow the sources from goveg, you would see that their sources are not only reputable, but you can often link to the source and read it in context. I don't fault you for mistrusting a biased source. I was wrong in using that site as a tertiary source.
"Researchers at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan have carried out a life-cycle analysis of beef production which shows that 'a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent of 36.4 kilograms of CO2' (New Scientist, 21.7.07).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070220145244.htm
It takes nearly twice as much fossil energy to produce a typical American diet than a pure vegetarian diet .(Pimentel et al., 1992)
Agriculture accounts for 80% of the annual world deforestation (Pimentel et al., 1992)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html
2) A pig should not need to be elevated to the level of humanity in order to be considered for protection from exploitation. That's my whole point. To say that a creature must be human in order to be recognized as a member of a moral community is unfounded and arbitrary. What is it about a human that makes my enslaving and killing them wrong? Their intellect? Their complex understanding of symbols? Their high-order problem solving skills?
"I don't care if someone else refrains from eating meat as long as they don't push their ideas on me."
This concept is flawed, since until you answer the question I ask above, this is the equivalent to me saying, "I don't care if someone else doesn't believe in supporting slavery, torture, and killing as long as they don't push their ideas on me."
Now that I've provided multiple sources and further explained my stance, if you intend to continue discussing, please respond to the information directly (without making sweeping generalizations or committing the numerous logical fallacies as in your last post), or go back and explain the errors I identified from your previous post.
Your errors are siting narrow focused opinions by people who have an agenda and are sources that can't be trusted. Even if there is some truth it is not enough to make me give up eating meat. Equating eating meat to supporting slavery, torture and killing is so extreme a view that I can no longer take you seriously. I simply don't agree that eating meat is 1/100th as bad as you and your biased sources make it out to be.
None of your new sources should preclude me from eating meat. Basically almost everything a civilized society or any animal does causes some harm to the environment. Maybe we should go back to the stone age. If you search hard enough you can find someone somewhere to support any argument. Migrating Elephants destroy massive amounts of vegetation. Shall we kill the elephants.
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/1095
http://the-wild-life.com/_wsn/page8.html
A quick Google search and I can find sources to support any argument so your isolated sources mean nothing to me.
http://www.iloveindia.com/nutrition/recipes/non-veg-dishes/goodness-of-meat.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
http://hec.server101.com/courses/12345food-var/5-4.php
As I've been hearing these alarmist warnings for at least 50 years and since our environment has actually improved over that time. (believe me there is less land and air pollution now than there was 50 years ago) most of that is exaggerated BS spewed out by activists to promote an agenda. I don't go to Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz for information on politics as they have rigid extreme views. I don't go to the Vegan/environmental activists or meat packing industry for information either. It's difficult to get unbiased info these days. You belong to the fringe that has very rigid views and obviously spend time gathering info to support your views. Do you spend any time researching the other side and examining with an open mind or is your mind already made up and anything that is said that you disagree with automatically dismissed?
In the end I believe strongly in personal freedom. I'm sure you do to except when it comes to eating meat or any other cause you believe in. In that case freedom goes out the window. The difference between you and me is if you had your way no one would eat meat while I'm fine with you being a Vegan. Of course personal freedom has limits when society as a whole is negatively impacted in a major way. Your attempts to convince me that eating meat meets that criteria have failed. Depriving others of their right of choice of what to eat is, IMO, immoral. That is more immoral than any high minded ideals you have about abstaining from eating meat. If you try to deprive me of that choice I would fight you tooth and nail to prevent that from happening. If that is your agenda you are my enemy. This discussion is closed.
Once again you've done several things:
1) you have not addressed the flaws in your logic from several posts back
2) you have presented no counter-argument, but have simply discounted my sources, which included the UN FAO report, an ABC report, a British newspaper, and Science Daily (an online hub for accessing University and Research Organization data)
3) You discount my terminology because you say it's extreme, but let's look at some basic definitions:
Slavery - The institution or social practice of owning individuals as property
Torture - mental distress or extreme physical pain
Killing - an event that causes death
Really? You take issue with these definitions as they apply to someone who pays for a product that requires each of these to take place? From your current world view, I could see you being troubled by the notion of slavery, but surely you see that your dollars directly contribute to torture and killing. Unless, of course, you do not feel that animals can be tortured. In which case we'd just be left with killing, but again, you've offered no refutation for the previous two.
You did, however, provide some sources regarding the health, so I will be sure to read through those.
"Do you spend any time researching the other side and examining with an open mind or is your mind already made up and anything that is said that you disagree with automatically dismissed?"
Definitely not a closed mind, or I'd never have ended up where I am. I am, however, critical of logical argument and debate. That requires, first, that I'm presented with one.
As far as researching "the other side", not only have I read every link provided on this page (albeit some are simply absurd), but I've listened to talks and read essays by Tibor Machan, Carl Cohen, and several others who oppose rights for sentient, non-human animals. I've done extensive research into the environmental impacts of current farming practices. And your general practitioner can give you plenty of information on the adverse effects of animal protein and high-fat/cholesterol diets. My challenge to you is to refute the claims I've made and supported using something other than a dismissive "untrue".
In the end, all of these discussions end with the "Yes" side saying that the "No" side is wrong because we would like to force you to do something. That is a pity, because not only is it an inaccurate understanding of my arguments, but in doing so, you've committed yet another logical fallacy known as a red herring.
Unfortunate.
If you really don't care if I or anybody else eats meat then why do you spend so much time and effort in trying to convince others not to eat meat? If you try to say otherwise, that you really believe that we should "live and let live", that you are very opposed to any government action to control the amount of meat we eat, that you don't care that people other than yourself eat meat, I will have difficulty believing you. It's all based on a central base of morality. The yes side believes that it is more immoral to prevent people from eating meat than it is to restrict the personal freedom to do something that has been practiced by the vast majority of the worlds population since man was first able to hunt. It's not about logic because in this case, and in any morally based argument, logic fails. Your whole discussion is based on why People should not eat meat. I read your arguments and links provided and have rejected them since they don't apply to me. I also think your environmental concerns are overstated and exaggerated.
I never once suggested people should not eat vegetables. In fact I eat very little meat with at least 80% + vegetables. You certainly can see the difference.
You equate slavery, torture & killing of animals equivalent to that of doing the same to humans (Those definitions you supply apply to people not animals BTW). To you that's logical. To me not logical. Many of your arguments make no sense to me at all since you put animals on an equal footing with humans. I do agree that animals should not be tortured and should be killed as humanely as possible. Since I totally disagree with your basic premise what seems logical to you seems totally illogical to me. That's why no agreement between us is possible.
You said: "As far as researching "the other side", not only have I read every link provided on this page (albeit some are simply absurd)"
But you see. Those arguments are absurd to you. They make perfect sense to me. The fact that you consider them absurd shows that you are not open minded. If you had said "OK that makes sense but I feel it's not enough to change my mind" I could sense some open mindedness.
You said: "My challenge to you is to refute the claims I've made"
It is not my challenge to do so since I am not trying to convince you to give up a vegetarian life style. It your arguments work for you fine. The fact that I say they do not work for me should be enough. The closest I can come is I enjoy eating meat and there are certain nutrients that are difficult to get from a vegetarian diet . Other than that I do not owe you an explanation.
http://holistic-nutrition.suite101.com/article.cfm /disadvantages_of_going_veg
Your headline "Let the readers be the judge" is answered in the poll.
58% say yes, eat meat, 42% say no. Of course this is not representative of the general population of the world which would probably be about 99% yes and 1% no. Among people reading this discussion between us the yes side would say my argument is better, the no side yours. Simple as that.
Of course the original question is "Should we eat meat". My actual answer to that is I don't care if you do or not. Absolutist statements don't work with questions that don't have an absolute answer so neither Yes or No is correct. I answered the question as "should people be allowed to eat meat".
In conclusion there are many fascinating studies that Plants have some kind of emotions, react to emotional stimuli, can communicate with each other and even feel some sort of pain. If that's true then maybe we shouldn't eat plants either.
Why would you have replied to something I'd written months ago if you had no intention of actually engaging in a debate? You take on a challenge as soon as you engage someone and make contrary claims.
"I read your arguments and links provided and have rejected them since they don't apply to me. I also think your environmental concerns are overstated and exaggerated."
That, thus far, has been the extent of your debate. THAT is what I hope the readers will see. You have not supported any of your claims. You've been dismissive, logically fallacious (these errors exist outside of the topic of this debate), and uncooperative. Even your "In conclusion" was a red herring.
While I have made my case as to why animals should not be needlessly harmed, your rebuttal has simply been that I'm extreme, my logic doesn't apply, and you disagree. You've provided nothing of substance except for diet information. I never indicated diet as a primary reason for changing behavior, and the link you provided concluded that so long as you're aware and don't mind taking a supplement, a vegetarian or vegan diet is fine.
My premises in this debate:
Sentient beings can feel pain and can suffer.
There are environmental concerns with current meat processing practices.
We have the option of not causing suffering without losing anything but some luxury food, clothing, and entertainment items that are unnecessary to our well-being.
Conclusion:
In a world view where causing unnecessary pain and suffering is morally wrong, these items/practices should be given up in order to remain morally consistent.
If this is not your world view, then clearly my logic doesn't apply to you. But my running theory is that most human beings have a world view as I describe based on their fundamental beliefs on topics like human rights, child abuse, and even animal cruelty. Therefore, I believe that a majority of people will eventually come to the same conclusions I have. It may just take several generations of new people who have not laid their tracks of tradition and routine.
Thank you for reading the information I provided, I've definitely learned that leading with information that may be construed as biased is bad form and I will avoid this. In the future, should you choose to state a premise of your own and support it, or develop an argument refuting one of my claims, I will gladly participate.
Take care.
I did it only to point out that this is a Moral issue and as such is impossible to debate when 2 people are on different moral pages. I did it as a mental exercise and to try to get you to understand that points of view different from yours are legitimate. I understand where you're coming from but I don't totally agree with it. I do agree that there are health problems associated with eating too much meat, beef especially. I eat very little beef and not a real lot of meat. I think that Westerners do eat way too much meat, way more than is necessary. You'd be surprised that I agree with much of what you said but I would never become a vegetarian. I also would never tell anyone else to change their eating habits unless they asked. I've seen Vegetarians who had horrible diets full of refined sugar and simple carbohydrates. What about Fish? Fish is very healthy yet is abstained from by Vegans. I'm a person who believes in moderation of all things and avoids extremes of everything as much as possible.
BTW, as far as your moral view? I would never try to change it. It's none of my business. It becomes my business when groups like PETA take a militant attitude toward people who disagree with them. That, I believe, is morally wrong. On this post I have changed my side to what more truly expresses my beliefs.
Hi tbcass,
I will just stick to one argument that I think both of us agree with. Namely, that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, suffering and/or death on other animals. (If I'm incorrect, and you think it is OK to cause unnecessary pain, suffering and/or death on other animals, then the rest of the post would be irrelevant for you).
So, we can reduce the argument to this.
(a) It is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals.
(b) Eating other animal products causes pain, suffering and death.
(c) Humans can live perfectly healthy without eating other animal products.
Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the logical conclusion seems to be.
(d) Eating animal products is wrong.
Since (c) is undisputably true, we can conclude that eating animal products is unnecessary. And since (b) eating animal products causes pain, suffering and death, its imposition is unnecessary, therefore, eating animal products falls into the category of (a).
We are on the same moral page here, but you still deny it's logical conclusion.
Why is that?
Gary Francione (one of the experts) wrote about this here:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/animals-our-moral-schizophrenia
PS: The reason why Animal Rights people want to abolish other animal's slavery it's because we recognize the interests and liberties of them. It's not that we want to impose on, or deprive the liberties of other humans, but to respect the interests and liberties of other animals.
I suppose that you agree that not permitting men to rape women is NOT a matter of restraining the liberties of men, but of protecting the liberties of women, right?
So, we can reduce the argument to this.
(a) It is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals.
(b) Eating other animal products causes pain, suffering and death.
(c) Humans can live perfectly healthy without eating other animal products.
Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but the logical conclusion seems to be.
(d) Eating animal products is wrong.
The reason I disagree with you is because a certain amount of pain and suffering is unavoidable but should be kept to a minimum and death is inevitable. I do not believe that killing animals is wrong as long as it is done for a useful purpose and in as humane a manor as possible. It boils down to this. You are morally opposed to killing animals I am not. For that reason any "logical" discussion between us is impossible. If you prefer to abstain from eating meat for moral reasons that's fine with me.
I just don't understand why PETA and and extremest groups in general just won't live and let live. Extremism is the greatest and most dangerous trend in the world today and can even lead to war. More moderate thinking is the way to go. The fact is the vast majority of the world are moderate thinkers but the extremists make the most noise.
Are you saying it's BETTER not to eat meat or are you saying we shouldn't eat meat altogether?
I'm saying that there is no consistent moral justification for needlessly harming animals. I'm saying that the moral framework in which enslaving and killing sentient beings is wrong is one which the vast majority of humans align with.
Do you think it's BETTER not to enslave, harm, and kill someone or do you think you shouldn't enslave, harm, and kill them all together? I say both, I suppose. Why? Because they can speak my language? Because of their arithmetic skills? Because of their ability to have philosophical discussions? Or is it because of their ability to feel pain and suffer?
If you read through this entire debate, you will find that several things are absent: 1) empirical data indicating a need for the consumption of animal products 2) a moral justification for the commoditization of animals 3) data refuting the evidence of planet-wide devastation as a result of agribusiness
The majority of arguments will be based on a fear of legislation and on a seeming relativity (or non-existence) of morality. Only a fool or a fascist would fight for laws that would make the behavior and customs of millions to instantly become illegal, and morals are only as relative as human empathy.
"I'm saying that there is no consistent moral justification for needlessly harming animals. I'm saying that the moral framework in which enslaving and killing sentient beings is wrong is one which the vast majority of humans align with."
The idea that there is no justification is absurd. As insignifigant as it might seem, we justify this by eating the meat. Therefore, it is not simply "needlessly" harming an animal. Harm may be done, but it has a purpose, not just "harm for harm's sake".
Perhaps there's absurdity in the idea you state, but I never said there is no justification. I said "there is no consistent moral justification".
Purpose does not equate to need. You do not need to eat meat in order to survive. In the absence of need, regardless of your purpose, you are causing needless harm. These acts are unjustifiable in a moral framework wherein injury and death inflicted for the purposes of convenience, pleasure, or tradition is considered wrong.
By your argument, a necrophile might justify the victim's murder by copulating with the body. A carjacker might justify the assault and theft by putting the car to use. These are both justifications for causing harm where there is purpose beyond the harm, itself. They are not consistent with what the vast majority of people deem moral, however.
"Purpose does not equate to need. You do not need to eat meat in order to survive."
I, directly, may not need to eat meat in order to survive. I could choose to eat carrots, wheat, etc. However, there are familys that might fully depend on my (along with many others) consumption of meat (seeing how it has now become a $74 billion industry as of 2007 (in the US alone)). There are many familys that make their living through this trade.
As for moral framework... Say I was in a situation where all I had to eat was an animal (we'll say that it is still alive). Say that I was also aware that it was either "kill and eat" or "die", a life or death situation. Would it be right for me to harm this beast to survive? Most would argue yes. What if I was to go further and say that I had a family that needed the food as well? Again, most would say that they hold no objections. Going even further, what if I needed to SUPPORT my family, still life or death, but in a more "civilized" fashion. Now, say that I, without a proper education (rule out professional jobs), proper land for agriculture, or an near by industries (factory jobs are gone), had to support my family. Is it wrong to raise cattle, essentially my only choice? Here death and harm are not for pleasure of convenience, they are for survial.
Now, as a side note,
"They are not consistent with what the vast majority of people deem moral"
This in no way should affect how I percieve my morals. Many people had at one time believed the universe to be geocentric. Did the universe adapt to our beliefs? Who's to say the "carjacker" is wrong, or the "necrophiliac". I am not arguing to preech tolerance, rather just that the "judge" realizes that they may not be fully sure in what is "right" and "wrong".
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm