Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
As the Reason Foundation admits, using the Masai people as an example is extreme. So is the example of eating Stone Soup. What is the evidence for millions of people starving if they didn't eat meat? Prior to the 20th Century, most people all over the world ate meat very infrequently and were much healthier than modern meat eaters. They didn't suffer from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, etc. Millions of vegetarians world-wide are living long, healthy, disease-free lives.
- Santa Cruz Mom
July 13, 2008 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
1) While there are a group of diseases on the rise in the industrialized world, it is inaccurate to describe 19th century people as healthier.
2) Our ancestors did suffer from all of the listed diseases - there is a difference in rates of disease.
3) 100s of Millions of meat eaters are living long, healthy, disease-free lives.
4) There is a huge difference between eating meat infrequently (but as often as possible) and the position advocated by PETA.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 2:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In this thematic, to bring up an exampla such as you did with the Masai, is just wrong!
The question wether people should eat meat or not - especially when it is discussed on the internet - doesn't categorically include such societies as the massai.
Most people who are against eating meat, have a problem with the industrilisation of meat.
i wouldn't have a problem with you going in the woods with a knife and hunt yourself a deer, but, the grotesque is, that children for example don't even recognize that they eat "these cute little veal".
Get It?
- Yelneerg July 28, 2008 5:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
What is the huge sacrifice in NOT eating animals? To say that poor people should eat meat because their lives are bleak and there fore we all should eat animals as well is one of the most silly arguments I've ever heard/read before on this issue.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 12:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Unfortunately, this comment mentions that a remote culture, which has relied through the centuries for survival on cattle blood and milk, must somehow be indicative of what we should do in Western Society. We have abundance and they can't be choosing what they are going to eat. Poor people can have a much better diet if it was based on wholesome plant foods, instead of meat. If meat is culturally a symbol of prosperity, that because of the herding culture we live in (see Will Tuttle's World Peace Diet). It also has a "macho" aura to it, but should we base our actions on that, too? Conclusion: meat is bad for health, bad for the environment, and bad for the animals. Period.
- mgalli
August 7, 2008 4:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet. But for millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is a starvation diet. "
Reason has this backwards. Only wealthy countries and people are capable of having diets based primarily on meat and poor countries typically have diets based primarily on plants. Meat is far less efficient to produce than vegetables (it takes roughly 10 pounds of vegetables to produce one pound of beef) and studies have shown that meat based diets lead to chronic diseases that plant based diets avoid.
Meat costs far more resources to produce than vegetables and is unnecessary for a healthy diet. If we want to feed poor people then a diet built around vegetables, not meat, is the solution.
- reckoner August 14, 2008 2:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet."
You're right. It's incredibly easy to be a vegetarian or vegan in places like the US.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The Reason Foundation said, "It’s easy for those of us lucky enough to live in rich Western countries blessed with fertile soil and temperate climates to insist on a plant-based diet. But for millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is a starvation diet."
This isn't an accurate statement. For millions of people worldwide, a non-meat diet is not a starvation diet. The Masai people of East Africa have become increasingly dependent on food produced in other areas such as maize meal, rice, potatoes, and cabbage. Furthermore, the Masai who live near crop farmers cultivate produce as their main source of sustenance. If the Masai people were to continue eating a diet that consisted only of animal-products they would probably perish.
The Reason Foundation said, "Even for the poor in America, meat is a powerful totem of wealth and good living. People on a limited food budget will trade a smaller number of total calories in exchange for a morsel of meat once they get above starvation levels."
I don't see the relevance of this sociological fact.
The Reason Foundation said, "To be an absolutist against meat eating is fairly uncomplicated for relatively wealthy Americans who make up, say PETA’s membership. But it asks a huge sacrifice of millions, perhaps billions, of people whose lives are already harder, bleaker, and (too often) shorter than our own."
I'd like to dismiss this whole "argument" as a specious piece of rhetoric (which it is), but I think your final conclusion is wrong.
Given that some of the Masai people have moved toward produce cultivation rather than animal husbandry, this undercuts your claim that it is asking a "huge sacrifice" for them. The only "huge sacrifice" that ought to be inferred from this article is that the existence of the Masai people would be harder and bleaker if they did not begin to cultivate produce.
- Tadius September 9, 2008 10:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Arguing that vegetarianisms is a privilege of the wealthy, and that if people stop eating meat, the nebulous poor people of the world will be materially damaged is simply counter factual.
It is an unarguable economic reality that beef and chicken farming increases the price of grain. If we reduced or stopped the farming of beef and chicken then more land would dedicated to producing grain to feed people, instead of grain to feed animals. If this were the case, world grain prices would fall, and the poor and hungry would have more food and more money.
So, whatever else vegetarianisms does or does not do, it does not hurt poor people.
Please do not take the name "reason" in the name of your organization and then go off and say things which are demonstrably false.
Now, I'm going to make myself a ham sandwich.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 12:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So... I think we can all agree that murders wrong right?
Murder refers to killing a human... Humans are animals ... But, killing an animal is okay? doesnt make sence does it??
Think of it like this; you wouldn't like to live in a cage or a digusting factory farm your whole life and then, when you finally think your getting set free, you go to a place where you get your throat slit open, limbs broken and body mutilated. It just isn't fair.
I actually do believe that eating meat is natural and i think its fine to do so in a humane way, but that just doesn't happen anymore. People just don't care, they want to make money and don't care who gets hurt (or killed) in the process, including animals.
So to all the meat eaters out there, I could honestly care less what you eat if you really believe in it, but watch a few videos or go visit a slaughter house where your meat comes from and then see if you can even stand the sight of it, because I know I cant!
- ajroxyoursox
July 11, 2009 9:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Isn't man amazing?
He kills wildlife by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed.
He kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them.
This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative--and fatal-- health conditions like heart disease,kidney disease, and cancer .
So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases.
Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals.
Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for "PEACE ON EARTH"
The meat industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars lying to the public about their product. No amount of false propaganda can sanitize meat.
The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad
for human health, catastrophic for the environment , and a living nightmare for animals
- dms61757 August 6, 2009 4:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You made a succinct and meaningful argument that I will ask permission to use in the future.
Having read this entire thread, and as a ethical vegan, I have heard all the aformentioned arguments and they are true but not quite as sanquine as your straight-forward approach. Plaudits and please continue with this approach.
I am and environmental attorney and thank you for sharing your thoughts
- glo6110 August 12, 2009 11:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I just had to add a comment on the supposition that livestock eats food that could be put to better use being fed to humans.
Wrong.
First of all, livestock consume plants that we humans don't/can't eat: hay, straw, alfalfa, rye grass, etc. Though in some cases they are fed humans products, it's not enough to feed the world.
Also, food grown for human consumption needs to be grown on certain types of soil, which may not be readily available. The most suitable land has a temperate climate, rich humus, sufficient rainfall, is close to water, and has an abundance of natural "pest" control (ie: lady bugs, spiders, etc). Unfortunately, this land is usually occupied by plants and animals , so in order to make it profitable for human crops, the native species have to be evicted. Then, the earth has to be cleared, an infrastructure built, and finally crops will be planted and processed.
However, this poses a certain problem: huge ecosystem damage and animal mortality. Food chains are destroyed, and the environment is irreversibly compromised. Vegans say we can use the existing land originally used for livestock: but that is incorrect.
Livestock land does not = crop land. In most cases, it is very unsuitable. The soil is often hardened, churned up, filled with waste from the animals, and completely depleted of the natural, healthy microorganisms that usually reside in soil and make it productive for crops. It would take much time (and money ) to re-cultivate the land for crop production. No corporation would be willing to do this; instead they will clear more and more already fertile land, keeping the land originally used for livestock barren and untouched.
If the world went vegan, the supply plants will either remain constant, meaning the poor won't reap the benefits, or more land will be cleared, which harms our environment more and more.
- scarlet1979 May 31, 2009 3:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You don't seem to be disputing the fact that meat production requires a great deal more land than the production of vegetables and grains. That's good. It's a simple ecological principle that each step up the food chain normally requires several times the resources as the level below.
It's true that some of the land used for grazing animals would not be suitable for growing crops. Unfortunately, much of that same land is not suitable for grazing animals either! Sure, they can eat the vegetation that grows there, but in doing so they're doing serious damage to the environment . In some cases it may be trampling and compacting the land, promoting erosion, depositing manure where it will wash into streams, or over-consuming rare native plants.
The replacement of meat with vegetarian foods would certainly make more land available for growing crops, but it's not only about feeding more people. Fewer meat eaters would make more land available for all kinds of uses, whether you want homes, factories, parks, parking lots, or wilderness. Untouched land has a great deal of value. For instance, there's a little thing called "biodiversity."
- Paul108h October 27, 2009 7:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
How much cattle kill Masais and how much is killed by the rich countries? Let's compare pollution and breeding-related problems between rich countries and Masai. Actually there's no comparison. Not so many decades ago in most towns and villages people gathered to kill a few pigs or cows or lambs and they used to get the most of them. Think about all different types of meat that a pork gives: tripe, ham, chops, face, muzzle, ears, feet, sirloin, ribs... And people didn't eat meat everyday, rather they learned how to preserve it so that it lasted for a whole year.
Now think about the meat industry in the United States, people eat meat everyday without any consideration, just because they can afford it. Meanwhile , rivers, aquifers, the air is being polluted, forests destroyed to grow food for animals , ... Is this the same situation as with Masai? Please, look for a better comparison because this one does not add up.
- joancarles May 31, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Animals can feel. Getting closer to the process would give you a better understanding of that. Would you be able to kill and eat a chicken you raised from a chick? Would you be able to eat and kill your dog or cat?
- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 5:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
There were quite a few holocaust survivors who later compared the death camps in Germany to modern slaughterhouses. Many of them also became vegetarians after their experiences. The well known author Isaac Bashevas Singer once wrote "To animals, all men are like Nazis". I think the comparison here speaks for itself and is an ugly truth meat eaters will not want to admit.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 1:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
This addition to the conversation seems to be a dispute with PETA's holocaust metaphor (without a rational justification for labeling this comparison "absurd" of course) wrapped up in a question of means: "People aren't going to go vegetarian all at once, so try another method." Okay. Those who believe that forcing an animal to suffer unnecessarily should take your suggestion and perhaps adapt our methods accordingly. But, what is your point as it relates to "Should we eat meat"? You still haven't presented a rational justification for doing so.
I might ask further, if you existed in a society where women were denigrated to the status of property, would you argue to those who seek to abolish this practice, "Listen, not everyone is going to allow women full rights anytime soon; therefore, let's try to make some women "happy property" for now. You're wasting your time otherwise."?
- Alex M August 9, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I'm guessing reason has never been to a industrial "free-range farm". The chickens are anything but happy.
"Rosie the organic chicken's life is little different from that of a conventional chicken. The organic chicken house held 20,000 birds. They get a few more square inches of living space and they get to live a few days longer. Though under the circumstances it's not clear that a longer life is necessarily a boon. Running along side was a grassy yard maybe 15 feet wide, not nearly big enough to accommodate all twenty thousand birds. The federal rules say an organic chicken should merely have "access to the outdoors". I waited by the chicken door to see if any of the birds would exercise that option and stroll down the little ramp to their grassy yard. Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has by now become something of a joke." paraphrasing michael pollan from an omnivore's dilemma.
- reckoner August 13, 2008 9:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I agree with the author, going cage-free or free range is better than eating just any kind of meat. The organic industry needs to be a little more regulated for it to become a perfect world, but changing people's eating habits is more than half the battle.
And yes, I have raised chickens from chicks and I loved them as pets. When it came time to kill them, it was sad, but I can always rest easy knowing they lived long and happy lives.
I was brought up to respect all life, but to also understand we are all are part of the food chain, and we have every right to eat them.
- TwentySomethingAndSmiling August 19, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Show me proof as to how cage-free or free range is better. Find evidence and not rhetoric, please, because I cannot. All of my research seems to suggest the opposite. Then let's consider the fact that you are not the only one who, without looking into it, has stated that it's "better". This is dangerous, because if we're convinced that it's "a good start" without seeking the truth, then we're just succumbing to more blind ignorance. People will feel as though the movement is out of their hands and someone else is making good progress for them so long as they keep buying meat, dairy, and eggs and simply decide to pay more for food labeled with euphemisms that absolve their guilt.
Also, can you please find me a scientific journal where the food chain is used as a justification for using animals to our own ends? I've never seen the "food chain" used by respected sources in this way. It's usually just a way to categorize species.
- mike August 19, 2008 10:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Where do you get this "right"? Argue your point without these undefended assumptions.
If it’s unnecessary to force an animal to suffer, which it is in the case of consuming their body parts as even conservative dieticians argue, to what "right" can you appeal to justify continuing to do so. “Might makes right” perhaps? This principle has been shown to be morally bankrupt as it leads to unacceptable conclusions such as the Holocaust, for example. So again, what “right”?
- Alex M August 21, 2008 2:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The Holocaust occurred, and was stopped, because our reality is one in which "might makes right". Whether it is "morally bankrupt" according to your values is irrelevant as such disagreement does nothing to disprove its existence. It is quite easy to apply ethics when the general populace of our world agrees since in those cases the "unethical" persons are quickly put down by the superior might commanded by the righteous. It may really appear that there is some absolute ethical code that exists; especially considering the role and characteristics of religion throughout human history - I believe there does not. This (religion) too, however, is a natural consequence of "might makes right" since a religious group is, abstractly, a social group whose members have pooled their might in order to try and make reality match their idea of right. Likewise, those same members have a tendency to maximize their own utility and will do within the bounds of the societies to which they belong. It is within these two realities that members of a society believe they have a "right" to their actions.
- polobo August 31, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"cage-free" and "free-range" and "cruelty-free" and "certified humane" barely mean anything for animal welfare. Read more here:
http://www.humanemyth.org /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you want to vote with your dollars consider:
- a vote for meat is a vote against the environment
- a vote for meat is a vote against human health
- a vote for meat is a vote against worker safety
- a vote for meat is a vote against animals
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
How does the genocide of one species differentiate to that of another? Yes, animals may be different compared to human beings but does that justify our reasons for their murder? Human beings can drive cars, they have opposable thumbs and they can talk, but animals can fly without machinery, can run 15 miles per hour and can communicate with one another in a way we can't even begin to understand. So how does the difference between the two mean that animals are below us?
Just because free range farming is "better" then factory farming, does not mean it is okay to kill animals who have absolutely no say in the matter. It's like saying it is okay to kill a Jewish man and mess with fate as long as he's happy.
- Masqueraderuse November 5, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I eat meat because it's my life and my body - and what I put in it is none of your business.
Murder occurs between humans- its one human taking the life of another without consent. Humans killing animals is called hunting, or feeding the world...unless of course that animal is not your property and you kill it without the consent of the owner - which in that case is destruction of property. But if I buy and raise a chicken, i can kill it, and eat its tasty flesh. Same with a cute little cow, i can kill it and make me some tasty steaks. Its my property, its my body, and I have the liberty to do what makes me happy - and that's eating meat when I want to eat meat. If i define my happiness this way, based on my values - there is no argument that PETA or any other anti-human organization can come up with that could make me happier.
And all your illogical ideas on elevating non-human species at or above the level of humans? wow....
If what you say is true - I welcome the day that cows and sheep try to outsmart us humans, maybe someday our sheep and cattle brother and sisters can vote and we'll have bi-species marriage...oh how wonderful!! we'll all eat some type of organic protein material that is not animal based (don't wanna hurt those vegans' feelings!) - in the meantime I'll be happy with exploiting them - enslaving them and cutting off their hair for my garments - stealing their milk for my tasty ice cream, and shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death and then cuttin' up the carcass to feed my hungry tummy. - I think I'll go get me some chicken nuggets and a hamburger..... thanks for showing me how silly animal-rights people are!
- selfish November 17, 2008 6:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree that you are selfish since you seem to be saying that your only consideration in regards to eating meat is whether you want to. If you wanted to eat Downs' syndrome infants or an aged person with severe dementia, it would wrong by society's ethical standards. What you desire isn't the only consideration if you want to live in society. I think we need to reconsider our ethical standards in regards to non-human animals. We re-considered sexism and racism, perhaps we're ready as a society to reconsider speciesism. I believe non-human animals deserve similar moral consideration to that enjoyed by humans. All of us mammals (humans included) and birds (and probably reptiles...) have a subjective experience and desires and the drive to continue living. I'm describing the characteristic of sentience. Sentience is really the only characteristic relevant to whether we're justified in breeding, confining and killing other species. Can you think of another?
The only defense you offer for eating meat, besides that you are selfish, is that cows and sheep aren't as smart as humans. Many individuals aren't as smart as many non-human animals (e.g. the humans referred to above), but that doesn't give us a right to eat them. If you think we are ethically justified in eating other mammal and bird species because of their level of intelligence, then, logically, you should find it justifiable to eat humans whose intelligence is at a similar level. Is that true? Society finds this repugnant.
A common justification for exploiting animals is that humans as a species are 'superior.' But that's not different from saying something like "I'm white and therefore superior. I can exploit blacks if I want." If you think it's okay to be racist, we have nothing to talk about. Speciesism is akin to bigotry.
I understand wanting to eat something you're accustomed to and defending that pleasure, even if there's no good justification for it. But meat only tastes good because of conditioning. Just consider what people eat in other cultures and you'll realize there's no innate DELICIOUSNESS to animal foods. I used to love the taste of meat. After learning more about animal ag, though, I committed to giving it up. After a couple of years being vegan I find animal flesh and secretions disgusting while plant foods are sublimely delicious.
I like that you say "shooting them in the back of the head so they die a painless death." That makes me think you do recognize that non-human animals have feelings and that you have some compassion for them. It's that compassion that eventually led me to change and I just wish I'd been more open to it years ago.
Sammy
- Sammy December 30, 2008 9:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Agreed that those who believe 'meat is murder' and that any murder is too much murder will in no way be appeased with this argument. But there were a number of other arguments presented by PETA including the ones about the environment, world hunger and others that would also be resolved by a reduction (not cessation) of meat eating. Meat eating has been part of human cultures for thousands of years, but the industrialization of the process (killing) has turned it into something so brutal that few of its consumers would be able to stomach watching it let a lone participating. Boycotting or (more likely to have an effect) legislation requiring certain minimal standards (after all we do have cruelty to animal laws) would likely improve conditions and increase price decreasing consumption. Asking people to stop entirely to some people cancels traditions, alienates friends and family, forces people to change their identities. Transitioning from a society where meat is consumed 3 meals a day to once per week would accomplish most goals and focusing on improving standards might be an inroad to that process.
- GreenLove September 3, 2008 1:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Sure, a reduction of meat eating would achieve a good deal for the environment, global human hunger, and human health and welfare. But you said some interesting things about what's wrong with asking people to give up animal products entirely that I'd like to address. You mention tradition. Is tradition ever a justification for an otherwise unethical practice? Think of slavery or sexism, for instance.
I think I only alienate friends and family who have unacknowledged conflicting feelings about eating animal products. The people who are confident they're doing the right thing have no problem with me. Occasionally someone will be 'put off' by the inconvenience my presence brings to an occasion. Often, though, I can mitigate or remove the inconvenience and turn it into a positive experience for everyone. I am very grateful for the people who were unafraid to live their values and thereby introduce me to new and welcome ideas. Living my values brings me more intimacy than alienation.
If someone's identity is wrapped up in their beef burrito, then I think they have a serious problem.
- Sammy December 30, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A reduction in consumption would be a full fix to the environmental problem and the world hunger problem. It would only partially appease those who consider meat to be murder. A tradition of slavery and a traditional turkey on Thanksgiving are really two very different things in my opinion. Those arguing for the environment and world hunger should be arguing for more efficient and sustainable land-use policies (which would result in less meat) not a ban on meat. Those bringing up the poor treatment of animals before they are slaughtered should be advocating improved standards for the treatment of those animals. Those who believe ethically that meat is murder should be advocating that no one eat meat. Lumping all these issues related to meat together prevents any action on any of them until there is a lot of support for a strict vegetarianism . Considering where we are and where we have been that support may never come.
- GreenLove December 31, 2008 6:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants. They do just as people do and herd aphids and other smaller insects. It's a fact that while they protect them from others just as a farmer protects his sheep or cattle from wolves and coyotes , they also use them the same way dairy cows are used for milk. Chimps have learned how to fasion spears to hunt other smaller primates. Food for thought and I was not supprised no-one mentioned this since while most AR activist are schooled in various subjects, I have not seen this one or other eco system facts stated. Or that all domestic animals are part of our society , not really any ecosystem outside of man. That topped by the fact that all plant life eating animals in this group would be competing for our own crops putting them in with coyotes,rats, mice, and all other creatures that eat our crops or herds. Their future still wouldn't be all sunshine.
- Mcdowelli76 May 31, 2009 6:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Ants do not have a developed nervous system. Neither do aphids. These creatures do not suffer when they are farmed.
Cows feel pain, anxiety, and fear. So do chickens, pigs, and other vertebrae. Especially in cramped and miserable conditions seemingly prevalent in mass produced meat factories and farms.
Farming is natural, yes. There is no doubt that it has emerged in other species. But if we are able to minimize the suffering of our animals , why wouldn't we do that?
- advance June 12, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The paper "food miles undermined" declares itself at the beginning - it was written to try to convince environmentally consicous consumers in the EU to buy New Zealand meat and produce. There is no supporting evidence given for the findings. Who commissioned the report? What are the credentials of the people who wrote the report? The argument that a dozen hothouse apples might produce more carbon emissions than a slice of bacon is based on a paper without any credentials and the faulty assumption that a person who refrains from eating meat for environmental reasons would then turn around and eat produce grown in a hot house half way around the world.
- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 6:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I think your whole argument is summed up in your dozen apples vs a slice of bacon comparison. It is dishonest and laughable. You can't grow just one slice of bacon and the amount of resources it takes to raise a pig, slaughter it and transport him or her to a market or restaurant is much more damaging to the environment than even 100 apples. The only thing more damaging is this argument you've laid out about eating meat here.
- Phat P August 6, 2008 1:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
"Be specific about your concerns and eat accordingly, rather than imposing a blanket ban."
I agree that this is a logical way to approach the issue.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. animal welfare,
2. human health and wellness,
3. workers rights and safety,
4. crime and violence,
5. small farmers and the economy, or
6. the environment
...should reduce their meat consumption. Go vegetarian or vegan part-time.
For anyone whose concerns include...
1. the above, and/or,
2. animal rights
...should go vegan.
Remember, it's not an either/or decision.
You can go vegan AND eat organic, local, sustainable.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 8:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
If raising animals for food is so harmful, hunting for meat is obviously the answer. A pound of beef may require 2500 gallons of water, and wheat may require only 25, but wild venison does not need to be provided water. If anything, shooting the deer ends the menace of some creature eating our food, drinking our water, and farting greenhouse gasses. Obviously, I am being a smart ass. Your argument is not against meat, it is against agriculture in general. Since global warming doesn't exist and agriculture is required for sustained human population, human specialization, and civilization in general, I would say that it is worth the cost.
- richardsonkr January 24, 2009 11:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm only allowed 1000 characters, and your quote by John Stuart Mill will save me lots of space. I suggest others read that quote and decide for themselves whether or not we are truly doing this for other sentient inhabitants of our planet. If animals have the right not to be imprissoned, tortured, and then brutally slaughtered, then this argument flies out the window. If you truly believe that animals do not have these most basic rights, then you need to truly think about why this is. Because they don't communicate like we do? Because they look different? Perhaps because they don't have the same type of intelligence we do? What right do we have (according to Mill) to acquire gains at the expense of millions upon millions of animals desiring and struggling to be free of the oppressive, torturous, murderous hand of mankind? Resolve that conflict, and the point posed by this expert becomes meaningless.
- mike August 16, 2008 8:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
When a behavior is damaging to another, it is not a matter of choice. If I follow what the CCF tells me, it is my right to beat children, since no one should tell me how to live my life. It's pretty much an "overlords of the Universe" argument, in which mankind has the self-given right to do pretty much as he pleases. Coming from the CCF, which is a front for the people who produce meat, dairy, eggs, and a bunch of animal-based products and junk food that they want you to keep on buying, we shouldn't give these guys the time of day. They are not "independent thinkers" as they want you to believe, but a think-tank front for the very industry that exploits animals. They don't want a change in the status quo, so they throw the "freedom card" at us. The head of CCF is a know Washington lobbyist for the food industry. I suggest readers pick up a copy of Michele Simon's "Appetite for Profit" and see who these guys really are.
- mgalli August 17, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: No
Nobody should have to... if you had a heart, you would work it out for yourself. On the same basis, absolutist human liberalism, you could argue that nobody should allowed to tell you whether or not to conduct dog fights or conduct other acts of animal cruelty. Law's are made (should be made, anyway) ultimately to protect those who can suffer from the harm in the hands of the heartless.
"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." ~Thomas A. Edison
As is so often the way, we were so quick to use the technological fruits of Edison's intelligence, but remain so selfishly unwilling to accept his even more valuable compassion and wisdom.
- sean joshua
August 20, 2008 12:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
All the other arguments against legislated vegetarianism seem minimal in comparison to this one.
It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence. Since I support human rights (such as the right to put whatever into, on, or through one's own body), I could never condone such totalitarian laws, and think they ought be repugnant to anyone who has an interest in living free. In my estimation, anyone who would support laws telling me what I can eat, smoke, drink, or otherwise put into my body...seems like a person against the very idea of liberty and freedom.
While legislating diet may sound appealing to some, it would be the type of social policy worthy of Stalin or Mao.
- ebsarver August 21, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Can you eat, drink, or smoke other people? No. It's illegal. Is that repugnant? What you'll arrive at is something to the effect of "I can eat whatever I want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do so." That's a more ethical and logical conclusion.
No one is saying that government should make laws until the people are ready to have them enforced. So first, it's important for people to understand why they should be enforced. Suggesting that the idea is to have the government step in and force you to do something you clearly don't understand is merely a scare tactic from people resistant to considering that they may be in the wrong. Pointing and calling people totalitarian is a weak defense indeed.
The only direction you can go from here is to try and argue why animals shouldn't have rights. I'd be happy to help you through that one.
- mike August 21, 2008 7:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
First of all, this is not a "legislating diet" issue, but a moral issue regarding human relationship with other animals. The dietary aspect of it, it's, although very important, just one among others.
I am a Vegan, and I don't support coercion or violence. I strongly believe in education, critical thinking, debating, and helping people see things from another perspective in a non-violent way.
But this doesn't meant that "everything goes". I believe that exploiting other animals is immoral, therefore I work everyday to accomplish a state of affairs (i.e. a majority of the population going Vegan) that will mean their emancipation. I hope to be a part of a movement that will accomplish this without the need of a "violent revolution" or an "imposition" of any kind.
To your argument.
This is NOT a matter of "personal choice" or "liberty". A person who likes to rape women DOES NOT have a right to rape them. He has NOT the right to do whatever he wants to.
Is this a totalitarian law? A violation of liberties?
In my view, it isn't, simply because the rapist's actions are in conflict with the liberties and interests of someone else. That's where liberties have a limit.
You don't seem to recognize other animals as "someone", although everything points into that direction. They are sentient beings, with wants, preferences, likes and dislikes, interests, just as human animals.
They have all that's needed to take them in consideration when we talk about morals.
Violating their interests because you like the taste of their flesh or bodily secretions is NOT a morally relevant justification, because if pleasure is, in fact, enough reason to justify some action, then rape wouldn't be considered immoral at all.
In this light, the argument that "Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'" doesn't represent a meaningful argument in favor of enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals.
Regards.
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Are lions wrong to kill the antelope? Are chimpanzees violating the "rights" of termites? Are bears violating the rights of humans when they maul them?
If your answer (the only logical one) is "no," then it begs the question, "why is it only wrong when humans do it."
If your response to that amounts to "because we know better," then I would really have to question your view of life. Some things eat energy. Other things eat other things. We are one of those things that eats other things. Period. Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris.
Attempting to force everyone on the planet to go along with one's own set of values...whether those values are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or whatever religious/social culture you want to pick...seems like a good way of creating a totalitarian society
It amounts to "my culture is better than yours, and I know better, so I'm going to force my culture down your throat."
We already have WAY TOO MUCH of that kind of activity happening. They already legislate which drugs are legal and which are not. Taking the next step to tell us which foods are legal and which are not...scares the heck out of me. What would be next? Telling me WHEN I can eat and WHEN I cannot? Telling me I have to drink the flouridated water, and banning any system of filtering it out of my water?
If you support banning meat eating at the government level, you support totalitarianism, simple and plain. You support "my culture is better than yours." You support "my belief system is superior or more accurate than yours." You support, "I know best and have the right to tell you how to live."
Comparing to murder is a very clever red herring, but does not measure up...it's just a red herring...and I'm not biting.
My argument is not in favor of anything. It is specifically AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives, and specifically AGAINST legislating morality.
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 12:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Ebsarver:
Hubris is slaughtering 12 billion animals annually in the US and 53 billion worldwide. Hubris is thinking that “we’re smarter than others so we can torture and kill them.”
The issue in this debate is whether we are morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food. The issue is NOT about “legislating” anything. We are not morally justified in torturing and killing animals for food, but we cannot legislate anything regarding this problem until more people are educated on the issue.
Finally, nobody is “imposing” anything here. We are merely challenging the cultural dogma that blindly accepts violence IMPOSED on the innocent for trivial human pleasures. For more on “imposing beliefs”, check out the following essay:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-imposing-beliefs-on-others.html
- dan September 2, 2008 8:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
We already discussed this in this very debate, so I'll copy/paste something I wrote already.
I think that getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape and murder is immoral, even when other animals actually rape and murder other animals.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offspring in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or to get the females.
Why is it only wrong when humans do it? "Why can't we rape women? Lions do it! Why can't we!!??"
Because taking your morality from the behavior of other animals it's just NOT REASONABLE.
Yes, we must kill to survive. But I bet that humans are not in that equation for you. I bet that you don't think that cannibalism it's ok because, "hey, we have to eat something!"
And I'm pretty sure that your argument "AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives" doesn't include human murderers or rapists. I don't believe you think "we can't tell rapists how to live their lives". Why? As explained in my former response, it is because our liberties have a limit. And that limit is someone else's liberty.
You've already said that you are in favor of "human rights". This is why I find rather odd your statement that you're "specifically AGAINST legislating morality", since human rights are just that. Morality being legislated. Humans have rights that protect them from other humans violating their interests; in other words, we tell people how to live their own lives, indeed, in order to protect HUMAN RIGHTS.
So the question seems obvious, again and again. Since other sentient animals share the same basic interests, why do we only protect humans?
You already wrote that "Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris."
So, why?
Apart from that... do you think it is ok to impose unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals? To do so just because we want to or derive pleasure of it? Do you think that a human torturing a dog because he likes to do it, isn't doing anything reprehensible?
And please, don't keep bringing the "imposition" issue. We're grown up humans, in a DEBATE website, sharing and debating our views and arguments. Nobody's trying to "force [one's] culture down your throat".
That seems to be just a lack of argument.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 11:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I have read the counter-arguments, and will simply never believe them, because the "no" side of this argument seems founded almost completely upon moral absolutism. I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it.
Let's say meat eating got banned. What kind of results could we expect? It seems easy to project them, based on what we see with other forms of prohibition. It seems likely that people would NOT stop eating meat, and that it would be necessary to hire more police to stop the meat eating. A new federal agency, let's call it the Animal Rights Enforcement Agency (AREA), would likely be formed to deal with the massive problem of rounding up millions of lawbreakers. The prisons would fill to the brims, just as they have with marijuana users, or as they did with alcohol users.
The conditions under which black market meat products get created would not be up to par. A ton of people who refused to kowtow to the government would end up poisoned. The animals who used to be raised under regulated conditions are probably now being raised in horrible ones, or at least unregulated ones.
Predictable results of prohibition: massive crime waves, creation of a police state, decimation of human rights on a grand scale, no true lessening of the "undesireable" behavior.
If Animal Rights folks want to wage their little war against eating animals or using animals, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion of LEGISLATING the issue. If it were ever made law, I would predict a huge cataclysm for democracy. Those who support THAT...will never have my support.
It seems so simple and plain. On one side of the argument is "hey, let's create more prohibition." On the other side of the argument is "hey, let's not." If we examine the results of prohibition, we can see clearly what they are. So...the "No Side" of this argument amounts to an argument in favor of: big government, massive black markets, arresting and jailing our own citizens en masse, removal of constitutional protections in order to hunt down the new "criminal" class, increasing dangers of the black market, poorer animal control and regulation, etc....
This is what you're REALLY voting for on this one, animal rights activists. Is that REALLY what you want? If it is, power to you...go for it...I don't think you'll get many supporters.
Who knows, though. Human history is rife with people who will sacrifice liberty and sanity for ideals. We've already had alcohol prohibition, and they got millions of people to come out in support of that.
All I can say is, the USA is totalitarian enough with the Dept of Homeland Security and the DEA running around out there...the last thing we need is a new federal agency locking up our own citizens for this kind of "crime."
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
With all due respect ebsarver, you haven't really read any "counter-argument" because you haven't raised ANY argument, whatsoever.
And, you haven't counter-argumented any of the arguments raised by the "NO" side either. Just a single "I don't believe them". That is not an argument, it's an opinion.
You are just saying, over and over again, that you're against "imposition". But we've said, over and over again, that we don't want to impose anything, let alone the impossibility of doing so at this time in history.
If we are ever going to change the status of other animals as human commoditties, it will have to come from a paradigm shift in our thinking, in people's minds FIRST. Then can come a regulation or legislation of society as a whole.
Human slavery wasn't abolished when everyone thought human slavery was OK. No. It was abolished after a good amount of people realized the immorality of it.
Sadly, there was a violent revolution to get that abolition.
But, please be honest and answer me this... Do you think that the abolishment of human slavery was wrong? That it was an imposition of someone's beliefs? Poor slave owners?
Same with prohibitions against rape. Are you against them? Poor rapists can't exercise their personal choices?
Your moral relativism really doesn't hold any water.
I'm not a moral absolutist. I think that under certain circumstances, killing other animals (humans or not) can be justified (as in a kill-or-die situation). But, the fact that some action can be justified under a very specific situation, doesn't mean that doing the same action every day, just because you want to, it's justifiable.
There's a clear difference between smoking marijuana/drinking alcohol and eating meat. Basically, the former ARE personal choices, since, under normal circumstances, the only one involved is the consumer (not talking about drunk people driving cars, hitting their couples, or whatever). Eating meat is NOT a personal choice, because it REQUIRES the violation of the interests of someone else (unless you only eat your own flesh, roadkill, or animals that died in the wild from natural causes).
That's why, in my view, labeling marijuana or alcohol consumption as immoral in itself it's nonsense. Enslaving, exploiting and/or killing other animals, in the other hand, is immoral when there is no true necessity involved -- and that is the case for 99.9999% of our uses of other animals.
How do you justify this, then?
An argument would be greatly appreciated.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 1:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I would justify it thusly:
In all of nature, omnivorous beings exist. Homo sapiens sapiens falls into this categorization. That means that homo sapiens sapiens eats other animals.
If I accept that other animals eating other animals is correct and part of the natural order, then humans would be included in this. If I deny it, I must deny the whole of nature, and view nature itself as "morally wrong."
I would justify it as a natural part of the order of life. I would justify it as "this is where we fit in the ecosystem." I would justify it as "if humans did not exist, the same behaviors would continue, but the ecosystem would not be "wrong"." To me, that's all the evidence I need.
I have no problem with animal rights folks trying to win hearts and minds. I have a problem with them legislating their values upon everyone.
If we're going down the "all life is sacred and has rights" path...a seemingly clearly spiritual/religious belief pattern, and not one verifiable by science...then where do we draw the line? Is it okay to eat an egg, but not a chicken? Is it okay to kill a rat? What about a worm? What about a centipede? A dust mite? An aomeba? A bacterium? A virus? A tree? The grass? Is a nervous system required for it to be wrong to eat a thing? If so, how much of a nervous system? Is a small bundle of nerves enough, or does it require an actual medulla be present? Where is the line exactly? Which living beings have a right to life, and which do not? Why? To really take the "living beings have rights" conversation to its logical conclusion is to decide to stop eating.
Some reading for arguments against animal rights:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2921/LRE080.html
http://doingethics.com/Blog/2008/08/arguments-against-animal-rights.html
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4376.html
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9202/articles/derr.html
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/Animal.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--926-The_Problem_Animal_Rights.aspx
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
http://www.ucalgary.ca /~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/cohen.txt
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 2:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
ebsarver:
First, I should remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I should remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
- dan September 2, 2008 3:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Visit the links I posted.
Contrary to your assertion that, "there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals," the links I posted already make arguments to this effect, and additionally completely debunk the arguments of animal rights activists very effectively.
- ebsarver September 2, 2008 3:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it."
Wow, that's not at all circular or absolutist or anything, is it?
Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should. That sounds pretty absolutist to me.
The question is "Should we eat meat?" It is not, "Should meat be banned?"
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What is it with you veggies, that you keep attributing things to me that I never said?
"Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should."
No. I never said anywhere that nobody should be vegetarian. I could care less if you want to be one. Anyone who WANTS to be one should be one. Go for it.
- ebsarver September 9, 2008 3:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/stupid-things-omnivores-say-they-would-eat-us /
Even if animals don’t use or understand ethics that doesn’t absolve humans from ethical obligations. Our ethical obligations arise from our capacity to reason and to behave ethically, not from another’s lack of capacity. Our responsibility to do the right thing comes from our ability to do the right thing (and our capacity to do the wrong thing), not from someone else’s abilities. For example, adults have a responsibility to refrain from harming children because adults have that ability, not because children have the same abilities.
The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to behave ethically.
- ElaineVigneault September 2, 2008 11:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is not about prohibiting people from doing something, or banning "meat eating". This is about protecting someone's interests and rights, in this case, other animals.
Rape analogy it's not a red herring. Saying that rape is immoral it's not about prohibiting people doing something, but protecting people from the harm that others may cause them by raping them.
It really is that simple.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ebsarver:
First, I remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
- dan September 2, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
ebsarver,
Animal rights avocates believe that eating meat is a trival interest for humans. We lived in a world were food is plentiful and we are able to choose what we eat. So, when we choose to eat plants or meat that is choice is trivial. I think you agree with that assessment.
Loins are not omnivores, they are carnivores and really have a non-trivial interest in eating animals . If they don't eat animals, they will die. Therefore it is morally excusable for loins to eat other animals. They have an interest in their continue existence and really have no choice.
Simliarly arguements could be made for omnivores in the wild. They eat what they can find. For them eating is a matter of survival and often are not given a choice of food. We live a very different world from theirs, most of us don't even have to kill or harvest any of our food. We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals?
- FredTheViking October 15, 2009 7:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals ?"
This is the only question of yours I think I have not already addressed elsewhere in my comments.
For the answer, you ought to read the book "The Paleo Diet" by Dr. Loren Cordain. The reason to eat meat is that it is healthy, useful, and a natural part of the human diet . Humans are quite literally built to be omnivores, and there is no substitute for meat eating.
- ebsarver October 15, 2009 4:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research. The American Dietetic Association say that "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy , lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl /media_22003_ENU_HTML.htm
And if you prefer individual authors than I would suggest reading the China Study and Eat to Live. I however prefer the large scietific organizations.
Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?
- jordon October 15, 2009 6:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research."
I am saying it is not as healthy as being omnivorous. I base that on volumes of research. Of course, there is plenty out there to say just the opposite, such as claims that the American " food pyramid" represents our best choice...clearly a total lie for anyone who does any reading into anthropology and the science of diet . Just the same, there are volumes of "scientific" data to show just about any diet is good. I find there to be gaping holes in most of them.
Regarding omnivorous diets (more specifically Paleolithic diets), here is one excellent starting point with thousands of external references for you to peruse:
http://www.beyondveg.com /
I am NOT saying that to be vegetarian is to be unhealthy, though I do find that this tends to be the case more often than not. My experience is that most vegetarians eat horribly inadequate diets. Sure, a balanced one is possible as a vegetarian, but difficult, and most vegans simply don't know the facts and therefore don't get nearly enough protein. They eat a ton of soy and think that will do it, when it is actually woefully inadequate.
I disagree with the American Dietetic Association's findings, and think the findings from my source are better and more accurate, but of course, that will be at least in part a matter of opinion. A simple set of facts convinces me of this...including personal experience and evidence presented in Loren Cordain's books, as well as on the site I posted the link for above.
"Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?"
I would agree that this argument makes no logical sense. It is what debaters would call a Red Herring. You've introduced a separate (and historically inaccurate picture of Paleolithic history) topic unrelated to the eating of meat in an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand. Thus, I won't address this issue.
I will say, however, that I am not attempting to say that "natural = moral." This would also be a logical fallacy.
On the contrary, I would say that morality is up to the individual, and is a wholly human-created idea...not related to the physical world whatsoever, or to the natural order. I would say that if we strip the question of morality out of it, we would see that eating meat is natural for humans. Thus, I would say that regardless of one person's morality versus another person's morality, we ought never legislate against this. But then, this fits with my sense of morality, not everyone's. My sense of morality and liberty are quite different than the majority, and clearly diametrically opposed to the notions of those who would legislate against meat eating. In essence, most of my arguments boil down to this:
DON'T TREAD ON ME.
I'm a hardcore anti- government , anti-legislation, pro-liberty of the individual type of man. Those are my beliefs, and just like your beliefs, they have consequences. I prefer my consequences to others', and my beliefs to others', and would never attempt to prevent you from exercising your beliefs or your choices in life. I would hope that you would do the same for me...and everyone else.
- ebsarver October 16, 2009 5:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You wrote: "It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence."
a) That's not the issue. The question isn't "How best to create a vegan society?" nor is the question "Should meat be banned?" The question is "Should we eat meat?"
For animals, for our health, for the environment, for other humans the answer is clear: NO, we should not eat meat.
b) You're just plain wrong that coercion and violence are the only ways to make a vegan society. There are many routes to the same goal. You've identified one route and focus on it as though it's the only route. You ignore the range of other possibilities, such as vegan education.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
They have the most at stake.
Furtherjmore, the real question is not "Who can tell me what to eat?" The question is "Is it right to kill for pleasure, or out of habit?" The answer is no.
- garyl September 1, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The CF claim that “Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'” is more a statement against free speech than an argument against vegetarianism.
Taken literally, the statement means I shouldn't have the right to voice my opinion on this website.
Make no doubt about it, the Center for Consumer Freedom does not advocate actual freedom. Rather, they seek to silence any and all criticism of the businesses they represent: the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries.
- ElaineVigneault September 7, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No one should have control over what you eat and don't eat. if I wanted to eat a ball of wax, I would not expect anyone to contradict me. Quite frankly, I don't care either way if it's healthy or not. Alot of things without meat aren't either. It's my right to decide what gets put into my stomach! I have been a fan of the Center for Consumer Freedom for a long time, and was excited to see that they had a profile on here. It's good that someone out there is watching out for the consumer, the little guy, who just wants the right to have his cake and eat it too (literally) whithout any radical organization, or movement within the left-wing bowels of the government trying to stop you.
- Brady November 10, 2008 11:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's not "free choice" until vegan options are readily available EVERYWHERE. Until someone can choose veganism as easily as they can "choose" meat, "choosing" meat isn't a truly free choice.
If the Center for Consumer Freedom truly represented the consumer, they'd make sure we all had a truly free choice. They'd promote vegan options at all restaurants so that everyone could make a truly free choice and CHOOSE VEGAN if they wanted.
But that's not what the CCF is about. They don't want everyone to have a free choice to choose to eat animals or to choose to go vegan. They only want people to make one choice: the one that lines their pockets, the "choice" to eat meat.
Very few people who eat meat have made a choice to eat meat. Most have never not eaten meat. Most have never had a wide range of vegan options at restaurants or grocery stores. Most have never been truly exposed to the vegan lifestyle.
Eating meat isn't a free choice when...
...it's the only option available in most restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc.
...it's the status-quo
...people don't have full knowledge about all their choices
When vegan food is as readily available as nonvegan food THEN it will be a free choice. Until then, meat-eaters are merely "sheeple" just doing what they're told, doing what's expected. They haven't made a free choice at all.
If you are a meat-eater and want to say you've made a free choice to eat animals, go vegan for at least 30 days. TRULY explore your other options to make sure you're really making a free choice.
- ElaineVigneault December 3, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You don’t support your own argument. From your comments, I gather you suggest that there is something wrong with animal rights, but then you fail to explain why. All you say is that most people don't see things this way. Really? You're going to base an ethical argument on peer pressure? Your only other argument is that a veal cow doesn't know it's being bestowed rights. First, you need to back up and see that a right is simply the protection of an interest. Are you saying that an animal has no interests? Second, I suggest you learn about moral agents/patients. Many believe that children cannot reason such abstract concepts as rights until around age 12. Perhaps a young child would be delicious in some infant gravy, but we moral agents bestow upon them the right not to be harmed by others, and we uphold those rights whether or not the children recognize it.
The use of sarcasm and bandwagoning is a embarrassing in an adult debate.
- mike August 16, 2008 8:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"If you think enslaving a white man is morally equivalent to enslaving a black man, then you shouldn't have slaves". We can see how they want to turn it into a matter of choice. The CCF wants you to think that AR is giving animals the right to vote, drive a car, or sue you. AR is just the right to not be property. Radical? Yes. Like giving women voting rights. It requires changing our behavior. In this case: towards animals, by not using them. Was the abolition of slavery radical? You bet it was. And it changed the world forever. Humans exceptional? We actually expect humans to step up to the plate. Reason? We have reason, we can choose to not use animals. A calf can't understand a right? A mentally impaired human can't either. So what? They suffer just as we do. "Choosing" to believe that something is not wrong, does not make it right. What if we choose to believe that raping babies is not wrong? Would that make it right? Or a "matter of choice"? I don't think so.
- mgalli August 17, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
CCF is engaging in circular reasoning: We characterize - arbitrarily - certain characteristics that only humans (allegedly) possess (e.g., reason, human language) as “important” or morally substantive. As humans are the group doing the defining, and the characteristics are meant to be species specific, by definition, nonhumans are excluded from the moral community in the final calculus. The rules of the game are such that the outcome is pre-determined. It’s a simple reiteration of undefended beliefs masquerading as a rational defense of those undefended beliefs.
And finally, this isn’t a discourse about how humans and nonhumans are “perfect equals” as CCF baselessly argues. The argument against eating animals follows from our strongly held premise against unnecessary suffering. As Singer writes, “In suffering, we are all equal.” Therefore, why is nonhuman suffering discounted as morally unimportant when the logic of our own premise demands its inclusion?
- Alex M August 26, 2008 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No one denies that humans have certain exceptional qualities. (So do members of every species, for that matter.) In particular, most of us (though not all), can reason about morality. Unfortunately, the author of the above argument displays very poor reasoning about animal liberation. Just as all humans are morally equal, despite different intellectual abilities, so all sentient beings can be entitled to equal respect and equal consideration of their interests, even though they may have very different intellectual abilities.
The basic idea at the root of animal liberation is not rocket science. It is "If you don't have to harm someone else, then you shouldn't." Non-human animals, just as human animals, have lives that matter to them -- things they want and things they want to avoid. To impose unnecessary suffering and death on those who wish to live and flourish cannot be morally justified. It is the consistent application of the Golden Rule that underpins the commitment to animal liberation. The crackpot dogma of human exceptionalism is prejudice and fear masquerading as "consumer freedom".
- Beast Man August 30, 2008 12:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There are plenty of reasons to go vegetarian or vegan:
1) for your health
2) for the environment
3) for animals
4) for religious reasons
5) for economical reasons
Abstaining from meat does not necessarily indicate that you favor animal rights.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 6:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
This argument is logically wrongheaded. Turkeys aren't equivalent to my cousin, but they are semi-conscious animals that feel things like pain, anxiety, and fear.
You DO NOT have to think animals are EQUAL TO HUMANS to TREAT THEM WELL.
- advance June 12, 2009 4:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is one if not the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. First of all more plant foods are fed to animals raised for food than humans actually ever eat. So, giving up animal products will only lighten that consumption as well. Even if all humans switched to veggies.
So, let me ask you... are people that construct highways to blame for the accidents caused on those roads? Are car manufacturers or car sales people responsible for automobile related deaths?
Are you serious with this argument? If that's all you have to go on to convince people to keep consuming animal products you. You better go back to where you get your funding and do a little research on how to come up with real arguments.
- Phat P August 15, 2008 6:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Based on The Center for Consumer Freedom's argument, humans should stop eating vegetables and fruits.
Instead of using this as your argument, those who object eating meat may find a good solution to end all these killing of lives because of land clearing and reason that humans can actually find a solution to end all those unneeded killing.
Also, based on your other argument, eating meat ia a natural process. I do not disagree, but eating vegetables is also a natural process. Humans are not meant to kill to get food. It is only because our population is very big, that's why we need to clear the land. We can also find other alternatives so that we will not kill animals in the process of eating vegetables.
As experts, those opposing your p.o.v. may very quickly find an alternative. I do not think this argument makes great sense as you are contradicting your earlier arguments.
Humans have our rights, so do animals. Humans have their natural processes, so do animals.
- Rainie August 16, 2008 12:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Being a vegetarian or vegan has a moral component because right now in the human world, it is not about killing or not killing, but the way we treat the animals, unlike the natural processes in the wild.
We, humans, should not be ill-treating the animals, because they would live a good life in the wild before getting eaten by their predators. It is only fair that we stop eating until the farms agree to stop mistreating the animals.
- Rainie August 16, 2008 12:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While the other two comments are well-meaning, they get a little convoluted. The reality is that this argument is terribly flawed, because more crops are created and more natural habitat is destroyed in making way for sustaining the animals so many humans desire to eat. Less crops (therefore less land and fewer mice, gophers, etc killed) in a world where domesticated animals don't exist. Moving away from animal consumption alleviates this excess suffering on multiple levels.
Contrary to a previous comment, vegan morality is absolutely about killing. But it is about choosing the route of least suffering and working towards a life of no unnecessary harm. Eating meat is unnecessarily harming millions of small rodents who live in the crop fields, millions of animals displaced by deforestation, and millions of farmed animals.
I love that argument, because refuting it does such a great job of uncovering some of the most tragic and inconsistent behaviors of humankind.
- mike August 16, 2008 8:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
As Gary Francione puts it, it's in the intent. The highway example is perfect. Would we not build them since we know people will die? Of course not. It`s different choosing to kill, than the deaths of animals in the field when food is harvested. We are not intending to kill them, whereas in a slaughterhouse we are.
- mgalli August 17, 2008 2:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
A plant-based diet is much more environmentally and ethically responsible than an animal-based diet. Eating as a vegetarian or vegan will kill far fewer plants than eating as an omnivore.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 6:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Why vegetarian and not meat, why consuming plant base diet kill more animals and not the other way around.
It is not so much whether eating meat is more cruel than eating plant, to those who is being raise on meat and love biting on that morsel will always argue for killing more animal because they need to satisfy their urge to eat meat and thus find reason be it reasonable or not and so goes for the other side of the argument.
What we should look at is our biological build up.
1st we look at where the food enters the body, our mouth. Ask any dentist and they will tell you our sets of teeth is not design for meat eating. There are more teeth design for grinding than cutting, if one were to take a careful look at the teeth of meat eating animal there are more teeth design for cutting than for grinding other than reptiles that swallows their food .
Look at the teeth of plant eating animals and you will find more teeth design for grinding than cutting.
2nd out digestive system, we have longer intestine that meat eating animal. Majority of plant eating animal have longer intestine compare to meat eating animal, I don't know the reason why perhaps some one out there can throw light on this. All plant eating animal had longer iintestine than the meat eating animals.
3rd our body is make up of all the elements found in the earth and in order for our body to replenish this elements we either have to eat the soil or from the plant that had absorb this elements. Eating meat does not fulfill all our requirement for this elements.
4th the human body is not every efficient in breaking down saturated fat found in all meat except those in fishes. Because we are such intelligent creatures that we learn to build comfort around us and wear clothing to keep yourself warm much of this fats are stored in the body instate of flushing them out. Most plant products carries the unsaturated fat except for a few variates.
Biologically humans are not design to eat meat so why did we ended up eating so much meat. Putting evolution aside, economic, the meat and meat related products industries is one of the biggest industries in the world and they spend more money advertising their product than Ford and General Motor put together.
We had been sold the idea that animal products is the best form of food since the day we were born, doctor recommend it, your grandparent recommend it and the business man recommend it so how can they be wrong.
The next time you put that morsel into your mouth think of what goes on in your body when you swallow it.
To those who need to eat meat I suggest that once a week eat no meat and if you do not feel sick for that day try it twice a week and so on.
If you are not convince of the above, I suggest you add more vegetable product to your food intake.
Whether we clear land to produce more meat or plant food for humans, we only have so much land will we have enough left over, to pass them on to our future generation to come.
- why
September 9, 2008 9:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
i suggest everyone go type in "agriculture: man's worst mistake" on yahoo and then go to popular science dot com and type in green tower. You can still eat meat without abusing animals and it also solves a good portion of pollution problems.
- ignint October 1, 2008 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Imagine 10 voles are killed to produce a pound of grain. It takes 10 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef.
My lunch=10 deaths
Your lunch=101 deaths
The vast majority of agricultural land is devoted to feeding animals destined for slaughter. A veg*n diet causes far less harm to animals.
You fail.
- hap January 1, 2009 2:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes, eating meat kills animals. Eating vegetables that come from big farms for mass production also kills animals. The last paragraph seems to state (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we should stop as much of the aminal killing as we can. Fair enough, we have a way that we can stop all the animal killing, by farming our own vegetables. If you live in an apartment, move!
It's clearly within our power, but it's not convinient, so the idea will be dismissed. Killing animals is a matter of convinience. Some people love the animals enough to stop eating them, but not enough to stop killing them from mass consumption crops.
- Kawlinz December 8, 2008 4:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the flesh of your fellow humans tasted good and smelled good while cooking, would you eat human flesh?
If the breast milk of human females tasted good, and made for good cheese, butter etc, would you enslave them for their whole lives and consume those "dairy" products?
- Sandy August 24, 2008 1:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
1. If human flesh tasted good would I eat it? Well, that depends on the situation. If we're talking Donner Party or "Alive" scenario then certainly I'd eat the bodies of my dead friends. If we had a society that said it was acceptable to eat the bodies of your dead friends and family members at their funeral, and it tasted good then why not? Some societies do that.
2. On the second point if milk made from humans tasted good (and I've heard that it does) and women wanted to make a business of selling their own milk and possibly making it into products and the FDA approved it, hey, why not?
- DavidSwindle November 13, 2008 11:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Regarding the nutrition of meat: vegetarians and vegans are just as healthy or more healthy than meat-eaters. For many people who consume a high-processed, meat and dairy centric diet, converting to veganism is literally a lifesaver. For more:
http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20060726/low-fat-vegan-diet-may-treat-diabetes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4801570.stm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28979.php
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-reversing-heart-disease-with-a-nutrient-dense-diet.html
Regarding the deliciousness of meat: taste buds are subjective. The more people know about intense animal agriculture and the more they object to it, meat doesn't taste so good. Check out this study for more details on that concept: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4015305/The-Interactive-Effect-of-Cultural-Symbols-and-Human-Values-on-Taste-Evaluation
By the way, Consumer Freedom is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 7:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A recent study showed many people believe fake meat is actually real. It tastes that good:
"69% of the participants believed that the vegetarian sausage roll was in fact meat, compared to 37% for the nutmeat sauce and 37% for the hotdog." source:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4015305/The-Interactive-Effect-of-Cultural-Symbols-and-Human-Values-on-Taste-Evaluation
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Come on... a sausage roll is not exactly the meat industry's flagship product. The fact that participants who ate hotdogs, which are one of the least tasty meat products, were able to get it right 63% of the time does not bode well for your argument.
Try doing the test with a medium rare porterhouse steak and I'm sure the probability will go down to zero.
I'm with PETA on all of their arguments except for taste... if you can fix that then I'll be a vegetarian the next day.
- speedplane November 7, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I find it hard to believe that even if there are any serious health risks to eating meat, how serious are they that I am to sacrifice pleasure and satisfaction for a couple more years of life later on? I doubt that there is any unavoidable serious detriment to your health involved with eating meat that would add any more than maybe 5 years of life to you. I'd rather have a slightly shorter lifetime of enjoying hamburgers, steaks, bacon, and all the rest than eating purely vegetables, fruits, and meat imitators for the rest of my life. Plus, if we were to stop killing all animals, they would start dying of starvation and other more painful deaths from predators due to overpopulation.
- PhilyG January 30, 2009 1:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Since many vegetarians are female and approaching child bearing age, there is another serious consideration generally overlooked by them. That is that these gals may end up pregnant thereby having the obligation to provide nourishment to the developing fetus.
It is much more difficult to provide *all* the nutrition desirable to the building of a healthy new life when the nutritional choices are narrowed to exclude meat and related products.
Many of the young teens switch to vegetarianism after their bodies were adequately nourished by a complete diet by their mothers and often they will have had several years before becoming teens when they themselves have had the benefits of a well rounded diet before they were "talked into" becoming vegetarians- but now they approach the child bearing age with no thought as to whether their bodies are well nourished, complete, ready for the task of nurturing a fetus.
I have personally observed what my two vegetarian granddaughters eat and it is certainly far short of being nutritious.
In their efforts to avoid meat they end up instead eating empty caloried carbohydrates with various sauces added to reduce blandness. Junk food makes the entire dietary intake! Goats even eat better when having kids!
One of the best things that cold be done for these kind of gals is to put them on continuous or permanent birth control.
Hal 84
- Hal 84 January 30, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi Hal,
Whether someone is a vegan or an omnivore, a junk food diet is bad for the body, disease causing and nutritionally inadequate. Coca Cola and deep fried food can be all vegan, but it's terrible food. No one could live on that without getting sick. A healthy vegan diet is more than possible and is endorsed by the World Health Organisation (remember it's very conservative). There is no nutrient that cannot be met on an all-plant diet. While it is commonly assumed that vegetarians must be more prone to aenemia, the facts reveal that vegans and vegetarians do not get aenemia any more than meat eaters. It's a myth.
Think about this one... where do you think gorillas get their iron and protein from? Leaves! They're vegans. And so are the largest and strongest animals on Earth -elephants, giraffs, buffalos, hippos. Herbivores also far outlive carnivores. Did u know that the Guinness book of world records longest living dog at 27 years old is a pure vegan? But they're not humans I hear u say? Well the longest lived people in the world consume a plant based diet. Read about these amazing people in Healthy At 100 by John Robbins.
I am 32 and have been a vegan for 12 years as has my husband also. We have 2 bouncy healthy little boys. We even have two healthy vegan husky dogs whose diet is nutritionally complete for dog requirements. That way no animals have to suffer and die in order for our animals to live. My pregnancies were normal and healthy. I have had blood tests every couple of years (just to satisfy my worried Nanna), and every time my iron is normal, my B12 is normal, folate is excellent, calcium normal, my cholesterol is always low (I do not eat one single thing with any cholesterol in it! My body manufactures its own cholesterol). Our family are all healthy. AND I'm a fitness instructor! I pump weights! One of the benefits of vegan diets is the ENERGY!
Veganism is our way of practicing non-violence. Watch the film Earthlings to see exactly what happens to animals in order to become food. www.earthlings.com . I wouldn't eat a human, and I wouldn't eat any other species either. We all feel just as much pain.
Also our family of six save 9 tonnes of carbon emmissions on a vegan diet every year. That's more than if we switched our family car for a Prius which only saves one tonne a year. Livestock production (including dairy and eggs) contribute more to global warming than all the cars, ships, trains and planes of the world put together. 95% of the Amazon is being destroyed (adding to more global warming and species loss) for meat and dairy production through grazing and crops to feed animals in feedlots in the US. This is far too great a cost just for a mere taste sensation. There are other ways to enjoy food without destroying the Earth or killing living, feeling beings.
Thanks for listening...
- Desert Girl January 31, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Since your argument is about biologically, let me first ask you what is the difference between eating a cow and a chicken and a deep-sea fish.
If what you are trying to argue is about our anotomy, our body structure, our teeth structure, then I have a few questions for you.
1. are humans adapted to swim into deep sea without any man-made materials?
2. Will any normal human be able to kill a cow by hand?
3. Will any normal human be able to bring a deep-sea fish back to land to eat, or eat it in water, without the person dying?
If all humans can do that, then it proves that humans are adapted to eat those animals.
I am not fighting for totally vegan diets for everyone, but I want to fight for fair diets for everyone. I do not think that we can eat most animals without our man-made tools, using technology.
- Rainie August 16, 2008 1:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1) We are adapted to build boats, nets, and fishing lines. We've been doing it for thousands of years.
2) Most people wouldn't because of normative values, but we are certainly capable of doing it. Not even 100 years ago many American's did. In many parts of the world, many people still do.
3) Yes... its called a boat.
- speedplane November 7, 2008 11:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
And yet we mentally devise a way for us to physically catch, kill, and eat them.
Tigers have claws. Humans have brains that create music, contemplate religion , perform complex mathematical equations, and recognize our reflection in mirrors.
- gatorgirl7563 June 13, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Another view of 'man the hunter': http://criticalanimalstudies.blogspot.com/2008/08/from-man-hunter-to-homo-x-rethinking.html
- Rog
August 18, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Carl Linnaeus, the botanist, physician, zoologist, and the "Father of Modern Taxonomy" who established the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature, classified humans as frugivores (fruitarians).
Linnaeus writes: “Man’s structure, internal and external compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables are his natural food.”
His system for naming, ranking, and classifying organisms is still used today.
- Luke August 19, 2008 2:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Linnaeus' system of organismal nomenclature and classification was completely and totally subjective. Modern classification leans more toward molecular (unbiased) evidence linking common ancestry when classifying extant and extinct organisms.
Rather, just because Linnaeus was of the opinion that mankind 'looks like he should be eating vegetables' doesn't really cut the modern day muster.
I for one agree that man is a true omnivore, but maybe mankind should cut back on eating meat with every single meal.
- Schmevbo August 20, 2008 12:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
If we bring modern science to bear on this issue then let's look at the china study and related studies. The overwhelming evidence is that animal proteins lead to chronic diseases and plant proteins do not.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html
- reckoner August 20, 2008 7:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"any excess can become a vice" a fortune cookie told me that once and it is applicable in many situations, including this one. (ex. a sip of wine can help your heart but too much can kill you)
There is no doubt in my mind that overeating meat products can cause diseases. But eaten in moderate amounts, I also have no doubt that eating chicken nuggets a few times a week will do no harm.
Animal proteins are much more complex than plant proteins so there are more molecular interactions taking place in your body, which means more parts of your body affected and more chances for things to go wrong.
Vitamin B12 can only be attained from eating animals .
- gatorgirl7563 April 17, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can get B12 from mushrooms too.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If we are "true omnivores" why are we so selective about which animals we eat? Why do we not salivate when we see and/or smell "road kill"? Why do we have to cook the "meat" to consume it without becoming seriously ill and dying? Ever heard of any other omnivore needing to do that?
We humans do not have claws, we have very delicate fingernails on our delicate fingers. Our teeth are no where near as sharp as "true omnivores" or carnivores. Take a look for yourself. This is not to mention our jaw structure, saliva enzymes, stomach acidity, or the length of our intestines, all of which resemble those of an herbivore.
Imagine this; A human is in the woods and sees a deer a hundred feet away. The human, only on foot, runs down the deer, tackles it to the ground, bites into it's neck which fills the human's mouth with blood. The human then proceeds to rip open the rest of the deer with his/her delicate fingernails and blunt teeth and feast upon the raw, rotting flesh.
Absurd, huh?
- Luke August 21, 2008 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Actually yes, I have heard of some other omnivores eating meat without cooking it. Here's some video of it! ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg )
Furthermore it's *entirely* possible for humans to eat meat without cooking it and not getting sick (sushi, steak/horse tartare, kibbeh nayyeh), but through thousands of generations of eating meat we've kind of gotten the point that eating unrefrigerated, poorly handled meat (much like roadkill) can become contaminated with unsavory bacteria and make one pretty sick. Which may play a part in why most people - and there are people out there who eat roadkill - don't salivate at the sight or smell of it. I'm going to go ahead and guess that two week old roadkill tastes pretty awful to a human too, but I wouldn't know. The aversion to *actively rotting* meat is a pretty well ingrained cultural and natural behavior.
- Schmevbo August 25, 2008 9:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Now as for the physical attributes of us "frugivores." First let me just say that if Linnaeus were correct in his assumption that humans were meant to eat nothing but fruit we wouldn't really be alive. Unless of course his term is some old-timey way of saying "eating things that bear fruiting bodies such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, etc etc."
Either way, granted, humans don't have claws or razor sharp teeth for hunting but we do have these crazy things that help us hunt called "tools" which are arguably the most crucial aspect of what makes us human. So yeah, without tools we probably wouldn't be eating nearly as much meat (much like our primate cousins in the link above), but then again without tools we wouldn't be having this argument because the internet wouldn't exist. Among just about all other things that humans know of. To sum it up with a catch phrase, tools may be necessary for us to hunt, but they also make us human.
- Schmevbo August 25, 2008 9:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
But I know, I know, tools aren't naturally occurring characteristics of the human form. Fine. And I agree, as far as the intestinal tract, salivary enzymes, and some other physical attributes are concerned we certainly share those with herbivores. And as omnivores, we can and do eat most of the things that herbivores do, with the exception of some leaves and most grasses. But we also have front-set eyes and canine/incisor teeth (which I don't care what anyone says, are sharp), characteristics shared with - *drumroll* - carnivores. Even if you wanted to say "Well then humans are 80% herbivore," even by that 3rd grade logic, it still leaves 20% for meat.
(let it be known that I am not participating in any kind of moral/choice aspect of the argument, I understand perfectly that in today's world vegetarians/vegans can survive very well)
- Schmevbo August 25, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
that the other advantages of having a vegan society (positive environmental impact, huge increase in food resources, better health and wellness) are perks. The most important aspect is the complete moral inconsistency. Racism and sexism are arguably moral issues. They are a huge detriment to our world. The violation of rights, on the whole, is a moral issue.
I started this whole journey for so many reasons other than morality, and until I probed further, I had no idea just how important the moral aspect was. I strongly encourage you to debate the moral aspects until you're blue in the face. Once you're through, I assure you that you'll be left with no good justification for using other species as commodities. It simply makes no sense.
There are many things I'm biologically equipped to do. The reason I do not do them is for reasons that transcend biology. The biology argument will always fall short. Let's move on to the aspects that can truly be awakening.
- mike August 25, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I feel you are implicitly limiting your definition of biology in making such a statement. We, as physical beings, are of a biological construction. Our decisions cause an external impact whose response is then fed back into our biological system. That feedback is then analyzed and then used to assist in making further decisions. Ignoring the boundary case of a "first" decision this ever-present biological feedback mechanism is what is responsible for our decisions ("the reason I do not do them"). External input is also provided through these same biological mechanisms. I know of no such non-physical/non-biological means to acquire "reasons" that drive our decisions. I will acknowledge a degree of uncertainly regarding DNA and "innate" decisions but I suspect those are related to self-preservation.
- polobo August 31, 2008 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
that the most important thing is that individuals have their life. By basic necessity individuals have formed societies so that this prime directive (to live) is better able to be met. Secondary is being able to satisfy any wants that they can (maximize utility). The satisfaction of wants entails trade-offs both individually and within the society. Our society wants to be able to consume meat and thus has structured itself to be able to do so - at some cost. Your "perks" are the inverse of those costs (what we save by giving up meat) and are strong drivers for change, stronger (for some) than a claim of moral superiority.
- polobo August 31, 2008 11:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
roadkill is carrion. many carnivores will not eat meat that they have not killed themselves.
We are taught from birth that roadkill is disgusting. Very few people in today's society participate in the slaughter of animals for meat consumption, so seeing any animal carcass that has been violently killed by a car disgusts and revolts them. All of our food , but especially our meats, are served/sold to us in a clean and visually pleasing way, (sometimes even with a little green leaf on the side) so seeing an animal carcass with flies buzzing on it, on the bare earth/asphalt, and with the stink of car exhaust fumes in the air, does understandably not stir our appetites.
The vast majority of humans eat meat from less than a dozen species (excluding fishes) as a part of their REGULAR diet . Cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, duck, clams, etc. Raccoons, armadillos, foxes, crows, cats, and squirrels are not meat animals that most people would consider eating even if served to them on a silver platter.
we may not have claws, but we do have brains that invented tools like: spears, nets, bows, knives, and guns .
- gatorgirl7563 April 17, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Luke...note that other primates...meaning chimpanzees, baboons, and many monkeys EAT MEAT. It is a known fact that these primates, our 'cousins' eat small animals , birds , insects, grubs and even their own babies if the those babies are killed by a raiding group. This indicates that historically, primates are omnivores, not just plant and fruit eaters. And, we are primates.
- BirdLover November 8, 2009 5:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
http://beyondveg.com /
The peer-reviewed studies discussed at this site provide volumes of evidence for humans being omnivorous, for any people interested in reading that side of the argument.
- ebsarver September 3, 2008 4:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The question is not CAN we eat meat, the question is SHOULD we eat meat?
- ElaineVigneault September 16, 2008 11:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
yes but the arguement that many vegs use is that humans SHOULD not eat meat because it is not healthy for us and it is not healthy for us because we are herbivores who aren't meant to eat meat.
- gatorgirl7563 April 17, 2009 5:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
From Wikipedia Raccoon : Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, placed the raccoon in the genus Ursus, first as Ursus cauda elongata ("long-tailed bear") in the second edition of his Systema Naturae, then as Ursus Lotor ("washer bear") in the tenth edition.
From Wikipedia Procyon_(genus) : Genetic studies have shown that the closest relatives of the raccoon are the ring-tailed cats and cacomistles.
From Wikipedia Carl_Linnaeus#Mankind : Linnaeus presented a concept of 'race' as applied to humans, also including mythological creatures. Within Homo sapiens he proposed five taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories were Africanus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Europeanus, and Monstrosus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later on skin colour. Each race had certain characteristics that he considered endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were choleric, red, straightforward, eager and combative. Africans were phlegmatic, black, slow, relaxed and negligent. Asians were melancholic, yellow, inflexible, severe and avaricious. Europeans were sanguine and pale, muscular, swift, clever and inventive. (RACIST) The "monstrous" humans included such entities as the "agile and fainthearted" dwarf of the Alps, the Patagonian giant, and the monorchid Hottentot.
I'm not saying the man wasn't brilliant, just that all of his determinations/findings should not automatically be believed and held in high esteem just because they come from him.
- gatorgirl7563 July 20, 2009 10:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Colour vision which humans possess is a feature of those who eat fruits and vegetables- it is useful for guaging the ripeness of the fruit. Most carnivores have limited colour vision.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dr Patrick C Walsh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Urology at John Hopkins University, 30 year Professor and Director of the Brady Urological Institute (1974 - 2004), said this:
"Lately, scientists at Johns Hopkins have begun exploring the relationship between the prostate and seminal vesicles. What we have learned from their work is that the saga of human evolution is also a story of two male glands-both of which produce fluid that makes up semen. One gland, the prostate, is prone to cancer. The other, the seminal vesicle, is remarkably free of it. In nature, animals that are carnivores-meat-eaters like dogs and lions-don't have seminal vesicles. The only animals that have both prostates and seminal vesicles are herbivores-veggie-eating animals like bulls, apes, and elephants. There is only one exception to this rule: humans. Men have seminal vesicles, too. In other words, man, a meat-lover, has the makeup of an animal that should be a vegetarian."
- Luke August 19, 2008 2:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
William Castelli, Director of the Framingham Heart Study, the world's longest-running epidemiological study says this; "Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rates of coronary disease of any group in the country ... they have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 per cent of our cancer rate."
- Luke August 21, 2008 11:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Perhaps the boundaries between carnivores and omnivores are not so clear cut after all- the panda bear has sharp carnivorous teeth- but eats exclusively bamboo. The small South American cat called the flat headed cat- is perhaps the only feline who is omnivorous. Carnivores evolved from insect eaters originally and before that they were tree-dwelling omnivores who ate fruit and berries. There are some bears who are carnivores and some who are omnivores. Just like baboons can sometimes be carnivorous and sometime omnivorous.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
the 'biologically meant to be' has already been shown to be invalid by Prof. Francione.
Ask yourself: How did our ancestors eat meat before fire was invented? If we really are meant to be eating meat, why can't we eat it raw? And why can't we bear the sight of a butchered cow bleeding to a painful death?
- Sandy August 23, 2008 1:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You are still missing the point CCF. The point is, no matter what you say about cavemen, today we humans can survive very well on a vegan diet. So there is no need to eat meat to live a healthy life, & all races and peoples can be vegan. Therefore, to choose NOT to, just because we used to, or because we can or want to continue exploiting animals unnecessarily is not a moral justification. Do you understand the argument? The argument is; today, we can all survive beautifully healthily on a vegan diet. Therefore, we do not need to slaughter animals for food. This argument is about the moral choice of doing it now and continuing to do it. What is your moral justification for doing it NOW? We also used to enslave people for thousands of years. We are perfectly biologically capable of continuing to do that to weaker or more disadvantaged people. The point is; we recognise that it is immoral to do that so we don't do it anymore. Get it?
- knuckles
August 24, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
you assume in your arguement that eating meat is morally wrong, but it is the issue of the morality of eating meat that we should be debating.
- gatorgirl7563 April 17, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm not sure what your point is. Is this an argument? Also if you are trying to make a valid argument, I do not think John McArdle, Ph.D. is a good resource. His "Talk" is dated and just a commentary as far as I could tell.
The Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP reference is well...just sad. You may want to look into who pays for these "unique research studies". Maybe these folks just did not feel like going to their Anthropology classes. Maybe they thought, and correctly so, that knowing the truth, what is best for our herbivorous bodies and the planet, would not be profitable, or socially acceptable enough for their chosen professions.
If you feel good about animal abuse and the abuse to your body, then so be it. What I am confused about is why you would take the time to support all this abuse!?! Do you wok in the meat industry, or are you a cardiologist? You may want to take a few Anthropology classes yourself, because in fact there is much to support all sides of our dietary choices throughout history, including cannibalism.
- alfawav September 3, 2008 3:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This does not necessarily fit with the question, but seems to fit here better than with any other question in this debate.
I was curious, so I asked a Native American friend about his perspective on this question. I found his answer illuminating, and some here might find it equally illuminating. I'll do my best to communicate his response as accurately as I can.... He said...
"To my people, all living things have a spirit in them. Spirit is in everything, from the grass, to the tree, to the four-leggeds. No living spirit is any better or more important than any other. To live on this earth, we must kill living things with spirits in them to eat and survive. Because no spirit is any better or more important than any other, we must choose which we are going to kill, and which we will allow to live."
"When we take a life, before we do it we make a prayer to the living thing we intend to take. We tell it why we are going to do, and hope that it understands, and maybe can forgive us for what we do. Most people do it the other way around. They do the thing and then ask the forgiveness after. For my people, we ask for the forgiveness, and then do the thing we need to do."
While I'll grant that most do not take this perspective of forgiveness in their meat eating, I found his response very useful. Perhaps others here will get something from it as well.
- ebsarver September 23, 2008 2:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
But there are other religions which promote veganism too. Religions are relative points of view not eternal truths.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yes, and who is to say which one is "right" and which is "wrong." The vegan religions, the meat eating religions, a political body? I don't think anyone should make that decision FOR us. I think we should make it ourselves as individuals according to our beliefs.
This is why I oppose vegans who want to ban meat for all of us. Prohibition is never a solution to anything. It only creates more problems than it solves.
- ebsarver August 31, 2009 6:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Yes I agree that no one should make us do anything. But I reserve my right to be vagan. I wish there were more vegan products on the market I could buy.
- sor666 September 2, 2009 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No. We don't have to eat meat to survive. In fact, it's better for us if we don't. Vegetarians and vegans "are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters." Also, "meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are." The consumption of animal products is linked to a variety of diseases such as asthma and osteoporosis. Our bodies don't need to eat meat, so it's up to our brains to decide what's right. If we're really so smart, we should know that killing animals is wrong.
("Eating for Life." PETA. Go Veg. 14 Dec. 2008. .)
- madninjamonkey December 14, 2008 9:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
A carnivore's teeth are long, sharp and pointed. These are tools that are useful for the task of piercing into flesh. Omnivore's ( meat and plant eaters) teeth are similar to that of carnivores. Man's, as well as other herbivore's teeth are not pointed, but flat edged. These are useful tools for biting, crushing and grinding.
A carnivore's jaws move up and down with minimal sideways motion. The jaw motion of an omnivore is similar. These are tools that are useful for the tasks of shearing, ripping and tearing flesh and swallowing it whole. Omnivores swallow their food whole and/or with simple crushing. Man's, as well as other herbivore's jaws cannot shear, but have good side to side and back to front motion. These are tools that are useful for extensive chewing, crushing and grinding of grains and other high fiber foods. Animal flesh cannot be crushed, ground and chewed with the tools Yahweh gave man without some degenerating process such as cooking or frying.
A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. Man's, as well as other herbivore's saliva is alkaline, containing carbohydrate digestive enzymes.
A carnivore's stomach secretes powerful digestive enzymes with about 10 times the amount of hydrochloric acid than a human or herbivore. The pH is less than or equal to "1" with food in the stomach, for a carnivore or omnivore. For humans or other herbivores, the pH ranges from 4 to 5 with food in the stomach. Hence, man must prepare his meats with laborious cooking or frying methods. E. Coli bacteria, salmonella, campylobacter, trichina worms [parasites] or other pathogens would not survive in the stomach of a lion.
A carnivore's or omnivore's small intestine is three to six times the length of its trunk. This is a tool designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. Man's, as well as other herbivore's small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and winds itself back and forth in random directions. This is a tool designed for keeping food in it for long enough periods of time so that all the valuable nutrients and minerals can be extracted from it before it enters the large intestine.
A carnivore's or omnivore's large intestine is relatively short and simple, like a pipe. This passage is also relatively smooth and runs fairly straight so that fatty wastes high in cholesterol can easily slide out before they start to putrefy. Man's, as well as other herbivore's large intestines, or colons, are puckered and pouched, an apparatus that runs in three directions (ascending, traversing and descending), designed to hold wastes that originally were foods high in water content. This is so that the fluids can be extracted from these wastes, now that all the useful nutrients and minerals have been extracted and the long journey through the small intestine is over. Substances high in fat and cholesterol that have been putrefying for hours during their long stay in the small intestine tend to get stuck in the pockets that line the large intestine.
Animal flesh, composed of the most highly complex type of protein that exists, requires vast amounts of uric acid to process. Uric acid is released into the system in amounts necessary to break proteins down into amino acids. Uric acid is a toxic substance responsible for the aging process and must be flushed out and dealt with. That is one of the jobs of the liver. In relative terms, a carnivore's liver is a tool designed with the capacity to eliminate ten times as much uric acid as the liver of man or other plant eater.
A predator has a gait, large paws and claws, which enable him to hunt, chase and trap his prey. These are tools meant to kill. Man's gait, as well as other herbivore's is designed only for mobility. Examine your hand, fingers and fingernails. Is this an apparatus properly designed for catching, trapping, killing and ripping apart cattle, hogs, chicken and fish? How does this work for picking fruit from trees or harvesting vegetables? The foods your hands were meant to gather are typically, high in water content, high also in fiber to sweep the wastes out of those intestines, and collectively contain every vitamin and mineral necessary to sustain human life.
- progressisdead April 27, 2009 8:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
And this is incidentally why, cats being among the most carnivorous drink so little water and have such bad smelling urine- because they have highly efficient kidneys to deal with all that uric acid.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Every culture and civilization that has ever existed, whether it is an empire or a remote rainforest tribe has an omnivorous diet . In the entire history of mankind, not one vegetarian society has ever been found. THIS MEANS THAT EVERY CULTURE, CIVILIZATION, AND SOCIETY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED, DISCOVERED MEAT-EATING ON THEIR OWN AND INCORPORATED THE PRACTICE INTO THEIR WAY OF LIFE. What more evidence do you need that eating meat is natural?
History has proved the "eating meat is unnatural" theory wrong a THOUSAND TIMES.
I read in a quote book that "vegetarian is just a clever word for lousy hunter". It still makes me laugh today.
- gatorgirl7563 June 13, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Historically speaking, when people were looking for convenient ways to get their calories, they'd go towards meat since it is rich in calories and fats. People are drawn to fat because of our drive to keep warm and have energy that has passed down from our ancestors. Also, eating veg foods requires a lot of eating to get enough calories and fat and nutrients, and people couldn't afford the extra time and energy required for that kind of diet (growing, preparing, consuming, preserving and storing for winter).
Our ancestors spent all of their time and energy just trying to survive. In today's technologically advanced society , everything is all about ease and comfort, which makes a veg diet both practical and possible.
I have no problem admitting that our earliest ancestors were mostly veg foragers and the meat they did eat was raided eggs or carrion killed by accidents or other predators. But when they mastered the art of hunting, their lives became much easier and more of their offspring survived. I can say with confidence that not one of those ancestors in his/her right mind said, "Let's go back to scrounging for roots and berries."
Veg diets are only possible in today's world of "special" ingredients and things made with all sorts of unusual substitutions, usually discovered in labs after years of funding and many zeros of $.
Civilizations throughout history ate what they could get, and they certainly didn't complain if they had to eat honey, eggs or animal parts to survive.
You can follow any sort of veg diet that you want - it's your life, and done properly it works. I don't care as long as you don't try to force me into anything or bomb slaughterhouses.
But if the supermarkets closed down, when all the vegs got hungry, I can guarantee they'd start eating animal products rather than starve.
- gatorgirl7563 July 20, 2009 11:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So what like soy bean? very modern.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Have you ever heard of Hindus?
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
These are RELIGIONS that developed after the society /civilization was already established.
From Wikipedia:
"Jain vegetarianism is the diet of the Jains, the followers of Jainism. It is the most radical form of religiously-motivated diet regulation in the Indian subcontinent.
Like in Hinduism and Buddhism, Jain objections to the eating of meat and fish are based on the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa, literally "non-injuring"). Every act by which a person directly or indirectly supports killing or injury is seen as violence (himsa), which creates harmful karma. The aim of ahimsa is to prevent the accumulation of such karma. The extent to which this intention is put into effect varies greatly among Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. ...
It is an indispensable condition for liberation from the cycle of reincarnation, which is the ultimate goal of all Jain activities. Jains share this goal with Hindus and Buddhists, but their approach is particularly rigorous and comprehensive. Their scrupulous and thorough way of applying nonviolence to everyday activities, and especially to food , shapes their entire lives and is the most significant hallmark of Jain identity. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism
"In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary from school to school. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food for monks. Theravada also believes that the Buddha allowed the monks to choose a vegetarian diet, but only prohibited against eating human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh. Buddha did not prohibit any kind of meat-eating for his lay followers. In Vajrayana, the act of eating meat is not always prohibited. The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, for they believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat meat or fish."
"In the Pali Canon, the Buddha refused suggestion by Devadatta to institute vegetarianism in the monastic code.
Mahayana Buddhism argues that if one pursues the path of the Bodhisattva for enlightenment, one should avoid meat eating to cultivate compassion for all living beings. Similarly, in Theravada Buddhism, avoiding meat eating for the purpose of cultivation of metta (loving kindness) is also seen to be in accord with Buddhist Dharma. In most Buddhist branches, one may adopt vegetarianism if one so wishes but it is not considered skillful practice to verbally attack another person for eating meat.
In Chinese Mahayana, vegetarianism is seen as a prerequisite for pursuing the path of the Bodhisattva. The argument for vegetarianism is made more forcefully, often to the extent of accusing those who eat meat of lacking compassion. Chinese Mahayanists do not accept the Pali suttas as definitive when they conflict with the Mahayana sutras, and consequently some do not accept that Gautama Buddha ever ate meat or permitted eating it, in accordance with the Lankavatara Sutra."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_Buddhism
- gatorgirl7563 September 2, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So, what is your point?
- sor666 September 2, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A religion is not a society .
"A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
What I'm saying is that no veg society, has ever developed, anywhere in the history of the world, ever.
And Hindus religions don't even agree on what an acceptable diet is.
In Mahayana Buddhism, one should avoid meat eating to cultivate compassion, but it's optional and frowned upon to harass meat-eating practioners.
In Chinese Mahayana, veg is required and practioners are pressured.
- gatorgirl7563 September 3, 2009 1:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In Genesis
25 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals , each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food . 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Genesis 4
1 Adam [r] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. [s] She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [t] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
God gave man dominion over all creatures. He told us they were ours to eat. He gave Adam and Eve animal skin clothes. He demanded that animals be killed and sacrificed to him. GOD LIKES MEAT NOT VEGETABLES.
GOD IS A CARNIVORE.
- gatorgirl7563 June 13, 2009 9:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
soo im not a huge follower of the bible but from what i remember adam and eve were placed in what? a garden? and people still say that man has been eating meat since the beginning of time?
well if i had no weapon, but fruit and veggies all around me, i'd be like screw trying to go catch an animal that's ten times faster than me, ill just pluck an apple off the tree and were all set... i mean really, some animal probaly just got killed one day and left behind, and a guy was lucky enough to find it and got a crazy idea; lets cook it. so meat isn't so natural after all?
- ajroxyoursox July 11, 2009 9:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
True, humans without tools are not efficient hunters... but you seem to see it as though H.Sapiens just 'popped' into being. We evolved from earlier species that were better adapted to hunting without tools (tool use has been seen amongst H.Heidelbergensis, over 400000 years ago). Also remember that the use of fire as a tool precedes modern humans by a very long time... perhaps started by H.Erectus ~1.5 mya.
To compare modern humans to animals without taking tool use into account would be like comparing wolves to blind pumas and asking which is the better hunter.
- MrBook September 1, 2009 7:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Any human who thinks they are a carnivore needs to open their cat's mouth. Have a good look inside. Now have a look at your teeth. If you honestly feel there is no difference, you need to schedule a visit to your vet.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
List of carnivores from the New world encyclopedia- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carnivore
Humans are not on the list.
and here is the defintion:Characteristics of carnivores
This tiger's sharp teeth and strong jaws are the classical physical traits expected from carnivorous mammalian predatorsCharacteristics commonly associated with carnivores include organs for capturing and disarticulating prey (teeth and claws serve these functions in many vertebrates) and status as a predator. In truth, these assumptions may be misleading, as some carnivores do not hunt and are scavengers (though most hunting carnivores will scavenge when the opportunity exists). Thus, they do not have the characteristics associated with hunting carnivores.
Carnivores typically have comparatively short digestive systems relative to those of herbivores as they are not required to break down tough cellulose found in plants. Herbivores like horses and rabbits, which depend on microbial fermentation, tend to have a very large and complex large intestine, while carnivores like cats and dogs tend to have a simple and small large intestine (Bowen 2000). Omnivores like pigs and humans tend to have a substantial large intestine, but smaller and less complex than that of herbivores (Bowen 2000). Insectivores lack a large intestine (Palaeos 2003).
In most cases, some plant material is essential for adequate nutrition, particularly with regard to minerals, vitamins, and fiber. Most wild carnivores consume this in the digestive system of their prey. Many carnivores also eat herbivore dung, presumably to obtain essential nutrients that they could not otherwise obtain, since their dentition and digestive system do not permit efficient processing of vegetable matter.
Great Blue Heron with a snakeFelines, ranging from domestic cats to lions, tigers, cheetahs, and leopards.
Some Canines, such the gray wolf and coyote. Domestic dogs and red foxes are broadly considered carnivorous but are able to digest some vegetable matter making them somewhat omnivorous. The Smithsonian Institution has listed them as carnivores, because of their dental makeup and digestive tract.
Hyenas
Some mustelids, including ferrets
Polar Bears
Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses, etc.)
Dolphins
Whales
Microbats
Carnivorous Marsupials, such as the Tasmanian devil
Birds of prey, including hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls
Scavenger birds , for example vultures
Several species of waterfowl including gulls, penguins, pelicans, storks, and herons
Anurans (frogs and toads)
Snakes
Some lizards, such as the gila monster and all monitor lizards.
Crocodilians
the Komodo dragon also known as the Komodo monitor, Komodo Island monitor
Some turtles, including the snapping turtle and most sea turtles
Sharks
Many bony fish, including tuna, marlin, salmon, and bass
Octopuses and squid
Cone shells
Spiders, scorpions, and many other arachnids
Mantises, Giant water bugs, and many other insects
Cnidarians
Sea stars
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Humans have an outstandingly bad sense of smell, hardly something that would serve a carnivore well. For those who think they are carnivores, please go out with your dog sometime and see who will sniff out a prey animal first- you or the dog? Then apologise to your dog, you have underestimated him. You two are just not on the same level.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 12:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Compared to most herbivores we have a terrible sense of smell as well.
Human beings are omnivores, pure and simple. By virtue of our intelligence we are also the apex predator in any environment that we chose to enter.
Eating meat was an important part of how our H.Heidelbergensis ancestors evolved into human beings... and though humans can survive on a vegetarian diet much more care has to be taken to ensure the proper nutrition then a diet that includes the responsible use of meat.
- MrBook September 1, 2009 7:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Until you show me a human who can run down a deer, catch it, kill it, rip it up, and eat it all raw, with only our inadequate teeth and nails, the argument that we are "meant" to eat dead animals is an utter fallacy. We also cannot digenst raw meat, organs, etc. Our intestines are much longer than a real carnivore's, meaning meat rots before being excreted. Really, people, eating dead animals is revolting. It's that simple. And that morally wrong.
- JAT December 13, 2008 2:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
As far as I can see, in this whole post, I cannot see the word Omnivore mentioned. Which is by the way what we are. Even vegan proponents can admit to this fact ( http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm ). It is a disturbing fact that the most funded organization in the vegan "scene", actually uses this argument.
There are many very good reasons for avoiding meat, even if not devouring all arguments against.
- Francis
February 5, 2009 5:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The whole point of being an omnivore is that one is an opportunist- so can eat anything just about. This of course allows one to survive under different conditions . The emphasis is on choice- there is no necessity to choose any type of food exclusively. This is not at all the same as being an obligate carnivore.
"Omnivores (from Latin: omne all, everything; vorare to devour) are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. They are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to eat and digest either meat or plant material exclusively.[1] Pigs are one well-known example of an omnivore.[2] Crows are another example of an omnivore that many people see every day.[3] Humans are also omnivores.[1][4]
Although there are reported cases of herbivores eating meat matter as well as examples of carnivores eating plants, the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores.
Most bear species are considered omnivores, but individuals' diets can range from almost exclusively herbivorous to almost exclusively carnivorous depending on what food sources are available locally and seasonally. Polar bears can be classified as carnivores while pandas almost exclusively eat bamboo and are therefore herbivores, although Giant Pandas will eat some meat from time to time.
"
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1. You are heading home, when you see that your tree has fallen on the middle of the road. Do you:
a) Stop to see if you can move it out of the way, or
b) Stop and devour it raw?
2. You're with your toddler in a picnic under and apple tree. Does (s)he:
a) Bite into the chicken you're serving for lunch.
b) Climb onto the tree and bite one of the apples?
3) You're feeling hungry, but there's nothing in the house to eat. Do you:
a) Go out to a restaurant, or
b) Go out to the woods behind your house sniff out some roots and berries to eat?
If you chose “b,” then you might, in fact, be a herbivore(or, at least, an omnivore). If you selected “a,” however—congratulations, you’re a normal human omnivore.
- sandwiches March 4, 2009 2:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Ahem, listen up class. Today we will learn how to make a biased questionare that every normal person will pass on our side with.
First, you must have as few options as possible.
Second the other option must be as ridiculous as possible.
Humans are not meant to digest raw meat . we can, but we shouldn't. That's why we cook it. It is true that people in first world countries eat too much meat. Just as with anything too much is bad. Too much rain is a flood, too much sun is a drought and too much meat is a heart attack waiting to happen.
If I saw a deer on the side of the road that was hurt, I would aproach it carefully to see how its hurt. If it has a stick in it, I would pull it out and apply an anti septic. If it had an arrow I would wait for the hunter. If said hunter took more than ten minutes to get there I would chew him. If it has a broken leg, I would kill it, as there is nothing you can otherwise do for them. I wouldn't eat it because there are game laws.
A child will eat the most readily available food around. Hence the apple . They may bite the rabbit but that's not to eat it.
most restaurants serve meat my friends.
People only feel sick when they see an animal killed because they have been trained to not kill. It's not something a human normally does without quite a bit of thought before hand. However, it is not something that is universally repelling.
I quite love the thrill of the chase. I'm accurate enough that I almost never have a runner but it is still exciting. It is something we are wired to do.
If we are rigged to only be herbivores, why do we have canines, and shorter digestive tracks than herbivores of similar size?
You guys normally make a lot more sense than this one. :(
- Nivarion August 4, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Obligate carnivores are the only creatures who actually have to eat meat to survive: eg ferrets.
"Ferrets are what is called an "obligate carnivore", meaning they have a digestive system designed to digest ONLY meat. They do not have a cecum, which is necessary to digest plant material. For that reason, they should be fed a diet of meat - or, more commonly in the United States (for convenience) a kibble diet made of meat and meat byproducts." http://en.allexperts.com/q/Ferrets-2277/2008/1/Ferrets-Obligate-Carnivores.htm
Are there any humans out there who can claim the same?
- sor666 August 31, 2009 11:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
One of the guidelines of a yogic lifestyle is to "first do no harm". Killing and eating an animal is defnitely harming it.
- Santa Cruz Mom July 13, 2008 6:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Humans, pigs and chickens are very different. However much of it comes down to the simple laws of nature. We, just like all the others peta has cited, are animals. We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet.
In some cases, species have worked together to form their dietary chain. In other cases, the food chain is usually one-way. For our needs, animals serve a high degree of utility as both food and resources and are used within the laws of nature.
The key point to take away from this is that there are generally no laws of reciprocation between species. I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights nor should I be expected to bestow a chicken with the rights of a human. In essence, the laws of man can not usurp the law of nature.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Any argument based on the law of nature is absurd on its face. We modify nature in every aspect of our lives for any number of reasons. Ultimately any decision on how to treat beings that are different from each other will involve some subjective values, but we can certainly work our way closer to the crux of the issue. For instance, do animals feel pain? Certainly they do. We don't doubt that other human beings feel pain the way we do, and the "lower" levels of our neural networks are very similar to those of animals. One might then go on to consider higher level functions, such as being able to look forward to a future event. These sorts of capabilities might be assigned arbitrary moral value, but we should at least be aware of these capabilities in order to decide whether or not they merit value. Would you say it is ok to kill a mentally retarded person if they were incapable of reciprocating rights? By your logic this would be morally permissible.
- ToddG August 21, 2008 5:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
My comment isn't absurd. It's pointing to the relevant fact that man is a part of nature and the course of human discovery or adaptation is natural. That is unless you are a God, and not encumbered by the trappings of nature.
Note that I do mention that this is largely an issue of species and nature. While a mentally retarded person may not explicitly reciprocate rights, our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves. Whether the human is retarded or extremely intelligent is irrelevant. But let's flip your question on its head:
Is it morally and ethically permissible for a dog to kill retarded dog? If reciprocation is irrelevant, then all life on this planet must have a universal moral and ethical code that is above and beyond nature of which there is no evidence.
- sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It makes debating much easier when arguments are so conveniently titled. :-)
I'm afraid yours is a circular argument. "our species bestows the framework of rights onto other humans because the human species reciprocates those rights amongst ourselves." What? We give ourselves rights because we give ourselves rights? That doesn't help explain why we do it. Nor does it explain why we don't do it to other species. Your speciesist views remain unfounded. Much like racist and sexist views. Upon scrutiny, arguments do not successfully justify excluding any sentient beings from the scope of morality.
As for your question about the morality of dogs, your argument will only end up whittling down to "well they don't do it, so why should I?" This argument just doesn't hold. There are plenty of heinous acts performed by humans on other humans, but you'd never use that to justify a relative code of ethics. There is something above and beyond the laws of nature: logic and reason.
- mike August 21, 2008 9:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
...why you called it a fallacy. Your assumption is that I'm arguing the "appeal to nature".
However let me clarify my point: the appeal to nature is only fallacious if you can define what is unnatural. If everything, as a part of my original statement and argument assumes, there is no such thing as "unnatural", my point stands. I do understand the point of the fallacy but the fallacy itself is only as good as the expectation that nature and non-nature (or anti-nature) are both universal. The argument I use here is that our system of diet is derived from a system of reciprocation that is within the framework of nature.
- sumwatt August 21, 2008 8:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You said, "We are omnivorous and utilize many of the same concepts that are found in other animal species in terms of diet."
No other animal creates intensive animal agriculture that produces global warming and is bad for their species health.
Moreover, we have the capacity to act ethically. It doesn't matter what other animals do and whether or not they follow our same moral code. Their behavior will never justify our behavior. In the same way that the school bully's existence isn't a good enough reason for you to become a bully, the fact that some animals farm, hunt, and eat other animals doesn't mean we should. It really is a bit like the old saying, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" It doesn't matter what other people or animals do. What matters is you. your behaviors, and your conscience.
Unless there is no non-animal food source available, we are not justified in eating them.
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 8:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You said, ". I have no expectation of a chicken reciprocating rights"
But in fact, a chicken would NEVER eat you. Never.
We're not talking about granting complete human rights to animals. We're talking about whether or not you should eat meat.
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Plants, Trees and Mushrooms are organisms with some semblance of intelligence and more notably, survival instincts, meaning, they don't want to die. where do we lay the line?
The question comes down to morals, either you have them from G-D, or you don't believe in G-D and you make your own morals, then you are free to decide on your own if it is moral to eat animals, but you cant decide morals for someone else.
- berelv July 25, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Wow. I'm continually stunned by how few people in our supposedly civilized society still fail to grasp basic biology.
I repeat, Plants, Trees and Mushrooms have NO CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, no pain receptors, and they do not have "survival instincts" at least not in the way that animals do. If I take a knife and stab a pig with it, the pig screams. If I take the knife and stab a piece of broccoli, what does the broccoli do? Scream? Run away? Why not? Certainly if it had "survival instincts" it would try and retreat somehow from my wielding the knife.
I am convinced that those who make this argument are doing so because they really have nothing to go on in favor of the "yes" side and are just grasping at straws.
- kelley August 14, 2008 7:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I both agree and disagree with you.
There is a legitimate question hidden in the original comments oversimplification. Life is a continuous chain without clear and distinct lines separating "types" of creatures. It's easy to see lines when we look at creatures that are far apart (mammals and insects) but not so clear as we move sequentially along the continuum.
If I stab a shrimp it will not scream. Is it Ok to eat shrimp? If I try to kill the a spider in my house it will run away. Should I never kill insects? What about termites that get into the walls of my house?
- reckoner August 15, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Plants most certainly have survival instincts, you're just going about it from a different perspective. An overwhelming number of plants contain toxins, poisons, barbs, hooks, and bright colors designed to deter animals from eating them. And yes, some of them even react physically in real time by curling up - retreating if you will to the extent that they are capable of - to the presence of something that may or may not eat them.
At the end of the day you're still extinguishing life, one way or another, regardless of what you eat. Even plants don't want to die.
- Schmevbo August 20, 2008 12:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
Click on "Insects and Plants". Then feel free to branch out from there. I really enjoyed many of these arguments. If you don't find them satisfactory, then I recommend picking those points out for discussion.
Find me incontrovertible data that I must eat animal products to live, and it becomes morally justifiable. But we must eat plants. And we have no strong evidence of any plant-based sentience. We have undeniable data supporting sentience in the animals we torture and kill. Not being sure about the sentience of one should never justify infringing on the rights of clearly sentient beings.
It would be beneficial to try and support your statement: "Even plants don't want to die" Unless you mean that since plants do not "want" they cannot "want" to die, I don't understand what you mean.
- mike August 20, 2008 7:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What I mean is: Plants have, in many cases, a highly developed set of defense mechanisms that would otherwise confer their survival in the face of something that would eat them. I'm just being cheeky and assigning the words "Don't want to die" to such mechanisms because they sort of fit the description of well, not wanting to die. Obviously plants don't fit our definition of intelligent, sentient, all of the words people are using to support reasons for not eating meat, all I'm trying to say is that as a human consumer of the things around us you have to kill to survive.
- Schmevbo August 21, 2008 8:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes. In as much as we do not generate energy through the process of photosynthesis, we must gather our energy from consuming things that do. So life must end in order that our lives continue.
But if you had a choice between ripping a fruit from a vine and slitting the throat of a baby cow, I have a feeling I know which choice you'd make. We have no evidence that the vine is feeling pain, and we have a fair amount of science suggesting that it doesn't. We do not have any doubt about whether or not that baby cow would suffer from such an event, though. We go with what we know and give the benefit of the doubt where ever we can.
Remember, that in order to sustain animals for human consumption, you must kill WAY more plants, so even if they find that plants are sentient, the net suffering would still be less if we went with a plant-based diet.
- mike August 21, 2008 9:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
discounting any notion of plant sentience or pain sensation, the astronomical amount of land and plant mass necessary to sustain the cattle industry alone is hopelessly ludicrous.
- Schmevbo August 25, 2008 11:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
In my comment I was only questioning where the line is, and who sets it. Who can define life as: sentient, pain feeling, defensible or any other qualification.
Humans are far more in tune to what human life is similar to but its harder to understand life the more different it is from us.
To decide that life is only sentient life, then should a person in a vegetative state not have right to live? that will probably be the opinion of those who decide for themselves what life is, but people who take their view on life from G-D will usually think that it is ok to eat meat but not ok to kill humans.
- berelv August 25, 2008 6:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/4-questions-to-vegans /
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/a-comment-on-the-plant-problem /
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/where-do-you-draw-the-line-insects-plants-bacteria /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You can decide morals for someone else when what they want to do will create suffering.
So: which organisms have rights?
Those which experience pain and suffering, which turns out to be vertebrates. It's our duty to minimize suffering in these animals in a similar manner to our imperative to minimize suffering in humans.
- advance June 12, 2009 4:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Peta should change their argument.
I agree, humans are omnivores. It is not the death of animals that is wrong, but the way we obtain the meat, the way we treat the animals in their whole lives. It is the way that we treat them that hurts them the most. In nature, omnivores do hunt other animals. The animals we eat are also omnivores, for some. We love them, but they kill for the same reason as us, don't they?
The only difference between humans being omnivores and other animals being omnivores or carnivores is that humans breed the animals that we eat and we treat them horribly, which is unacceptable in the animal kingdom.
Personally, I do not want to eat meat because I have the same arguments as Peta. The animals feel the pain. But for other humans, My argument would not be the sympathy for animals, but the injustice towards them.
- Rainie August 10, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I'm amazed at what you're saying, basically that animals are a commodity!!! "It is not the death of animals that is wrong, but the way we obtain the meat..."
Animals are individuals, as we are individuals.... Just because an animal has run around, grazed & lived a descent life, why does that now mean that their flesh is what's important & the animal life means nothing???!
- veganpanda
August 14, 2008 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Is it ok to kill insects? Bacteria? Viruses?
Where do you draw the line and why?
- reckoner August 15, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I wish more people would just read a book or two about speciesism, it would make things much easier.
You do not kill life unless you need to for survival. Very simple. Bugs are just as cool as you are, retards are just as cool as you are, so are babies. I'm not going into the bacteria just now cause its a complex issue which human animals should explore and research on there own.
Just don't act like a speciesist and we will be ok.
- M3house August 15, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not sure how reading books will make this an easier issue. If there is a hornets nest above my door should I not kill them? Hornets stinging me are not a risk to my survival, but it sure wouldn't be pleasant. What about termites eating away at my house? I have enough money to let them destroy my home and rebuild so they aren't a threat to my survival, but I'd rather not sit around and wait for them to destroy my home.
- reckoner August 15, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Sentience is the place to draw the line. Sentience is perceptual awareness; it is the ability to suffer; it is having some sort of cognitive apparatus that has an interest (preference, desire, want) in not suffering and in continued life. Whether insects or all insects have that characteristic is something that I do not know. Plants do not have that characteristic. All nonhumans we routinely exploit without dispute do have that characteristic.
If a being is not sentient, the being has no interests. That is, there is nothing that the being desires, wants or prefers. If a being does not have any interests, then nothing we do to that being constitutes a harm.
- Gary L Francione August 17, 2008 5:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I think there are two important points to make.
1. life is a continuous chain.
I believe you mentioned evolution in one of your arguments. If we accept evolution as truth then we agree that all life stems from the same source and every living thing is the result of small iterative changes over a very long period of time. Any point we draw along that line as a definition of "sentience" is inherently arbitrary because the organism immediately to the left of the line is virtually indistinguishable from the organism directly to the right. Therefore sentience is a matter of degree.
2. Sentience is both a matter of degree and a difference of kind. Plants are different than animals, but things get blurry at a certain level.
My conclusion, there is not a moral equivalence between humans and chickens AND chickens are sentient and should be treated as such.
- reckoner August 17, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Assumption: Sentience exists and the human species is sentient
Assumption: Sentience is either on or off (there is no partial sentience) and once on remains so
Assumption: Physical matter (atoms and sub-structures) does not have sentience
Thus: At some point on a "continuous chain" the combined physical matter gained sentience. At any point prior to that, however small the distance in the chain, sentience did not exist. Different chains may or may not gain sentience. There is nothing inconclusive (with perfect knowledge) about when sentience was enabled and the concept of same source is irrelevant since there can be more than one chain - either branching like a tree (the same source mutating twice) or via separate initial physical combinations. Consider if sentient life does indeed exist in another part of the universe it likely does not share the same (actual) source as humans.
- polobo August 31, 2008 11:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
the point you pick is inherently arbitrary. More importantly, the life form at the point is virtually indistinguishable from the life form immediately prior to your sentience cut off. To claim that one is a full rights holder and the other is not is transparently flawed.
- reckoner September 1, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Since we cannot know conclusively who (or what) feels pain and experiences life in a way similar to the human experience (or conclusively know many other things), it makes the most sense to be agnostic on the issue.
So that takes care of the metaphysics (what is and what isn't - existence). Onto the ethics: We ought to act in a manner that results in the least harm to others. Can we all agree on that ethical principle? (I certainly hope so.)
Since we know humans can live perfectly fine, healthy lives as vegetarians and vegans, then abstaining from meat consumption is not a significant sacrifice to make in order to prevent potential serious harm to animals, as well as the environment and thus future humans.
Since we know humans cannot live perfectly healthy lives without consuming plants, bacteria, etc, then abstaining from consuming those items IS a significant sacrifice. The sacrifice is so significant that it likely contradicts with our main principle and/or other ethical principles.
- ElaineVigneault September 16, 2008 11:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am not at all sure plants are not sentient according to the above definition. I think it is hasty to suggest we have a definition for what sentience is, given we have no definition yet for what consciousnes is.
- sor666 September 2, 2009 9:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you did not, what's the difference between killing a human and an animal? A bacteria? Viruses? Are you saying there should be no line? Why?
- Rainie August 21, 2008 2:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you don’t need to kill or harm another sentient being, then you shouldn’t kill or harm another sentient being.
1. I don’t have to eat animals to survive
2. I have to eat plants to survive
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/where-do-you-draw-the-line-insects-plants-bacteria /
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think you got me wrong. Animal life does mean a lot to me. However, we are born to eat animals. I am against eating meat, but I cannot stop others from eating meat, can I? I can't even stop my own family.
Eating meat, to vegans and vegetarians may be just like committing a crime. To other humans, it is nature. It IS nature. If you studied science you should have learnt about adaptations, and the different teeth structures. I am currently 12 years-old only and I am studying adaptations. I have studied my own teeth structure, and I cannot deny that humans were born to eat meat.
I respect other animals' diets too. I have to. I can't stop them from preying other animals, but what is wrong with our eating meat is because it is not a natural process for us anymore! It is like mass production, which will never occur in the wild.
Animals mean a lot to me. I will never bear to kill an animal, but when it's coming to respect, I respect all life, as well as respect all races and religions.
- Rainie August 21, 2008 2:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If your teachers are teaching you that canine teeth are for ripping into raw muscle tissue, then they are grossly misinformed. Search around a bit. You'll find the right answers. Remember, teachers can be wrong. Also, check this site out: http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm
Click on Arguments From Biology. Ask questions if you don't understand something there. You DO have the right to inform people of the truth. You DO have the right to express your concern when people are doing things that violate the rights of others. There are many things that are a part of human nature that we suppress because our morality has risen above basic biological urges.
You'd never look at a guy beating a black man and say that the guy is simply of a different belief system. You'd run home and tell someone, because you know it's wrong. There's a chance that the guy genuinely doesn't think he's wrong. But just because he doesn't think it's wrong doesn't make it right, does it?
- mike August 21, 2008 9:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Of course animals are sentient, it goes without saying... So why do PeTA have an anti pitbull policy?
Pitbull dogs are sentient creatures who are dreadfully abused by evil humans & PeTA add to that by calling for them to be destroyed as 'dangerous dogs'.
Also PeTA's hypocrisy goes further than that, they kill over 90% of the animals (mainly dogs & cats) that they 'rescue' which lets down ALL animals and makes our arguments for Animal Rights seem much weaker!!!
- veganpanda August 14, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- Miga August 28, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Even the most cursory research would reveal that there is no need to consume animals or their bi-products in order to survive.
A debate is best had by becoming informed on the topic before making false statements as though they are fact. The internet has enough such ignorant statements as it is.
- mike August 28, 2008 6:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you really wanted to challenge my intelligence...at least spell your words right. Please. I am not saying there are no other source of nutrition other than animals, but I enjoy eating meat. Why should I restrict my preference when we are not running out of supply?
- Miga September 1, 2008 3:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
...you're violating someone's interests by doing so.
Sure, there are enough women in the world, but that doesn't mean that men can go around killing women since "we are not running out of supply".
Rapists enjoy raping women. It is their preference to do so.
But, the fact that their preference involves violating or ignoring someone else's, makes their "choice" immoral. When our actions affect others, they cannot be labeled simply as a personal opinion or choice.
I'm not saying that you're a rapist. I'm just arguing that pleasure or preference cannot be a moral justification, and this is because someone else's interests are at stake. It's the same when it comes to eating other animals' flesh or bodily secretions.
Other animals are not "supply". They are "somebody".
- Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 4:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not calling into question your capacity for knowledge. I'm simply saying that you've done very little research in coming into this debate. Those points you made have been refuted time and time again. I suppose the statement "we need to eat in order to survive" IS, in fact, a simple fact, but how on Earth are you using it here to justify enslaving and killing animals? You admit that you don't NEED to eat animals, yet you follow up by supporting your argument with the fact that carnivores kill other animals? Again, this supports nothing.
Coma victims may or may not feel pain, and I enjoy stabbing them. There are clearly enough that I'd hardly make a dent in the population as even the most diligent of people-stabbers. So, by your argument, I should be able to stab? 1) brings me pleasure 2) who cares if they feel 3) near-limitless supply
So as to avoid redundancy, read the arguments on this site http://www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm and then start from a point where you either address the rebuttals given there, or you find something that hasn't been addressed ad nauseum.
- mike September 1, 2008 5:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...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.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 2:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Now you know this is where I've been hiding! Don't tell the others! Or do, in fact. This is a great place to practice understanding and articulating one's beliefs and the logic that backs them.
For how ridiculous the vast majority of "Yes Side" arguments have been (mostly from the "experts" and those who are merely echoing them), there actually are some challenging individuals around here.
This is where I'm vacationing while my true home is undergoing some much-needed renovations. :-)
- mike September 1, 2008 2:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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?
- Miga September 1, 2008 3:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 1, 2008 4:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
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.
- Miga September 1, 2008 8:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thanks for being open-minded. This seems to be a very rare characteristic these days.
So, I was right about my assumption regarding your already held beliefs, primarily, that it is wrong to impose unnecessary suffering and death on other animals.
By your assumption alone, the only reasonable answer, and the one that would truly align with your stated belief, is Veganism.
Eating animal products is unnecessary, involves a huge amount of pain, suffering and death, and can only be justified by "pleasure" or "habit".
Now I encourage you to think about your claims that "the way we slaughter animals" is the problem.
Fact is, sentient animals do not only care about "suffering". They have an interest in their lives, freedom, positive experiences such as pleasure, etc.
So, regardless of the "way" we slaughter, enslave and/or exploit other animals, we are, without a doubt, violating their most basic interests, without necessity.
Whether we do it "kindly" or not, is a separate issue, and doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving and exploiting them.
I have not argued that other animals have the same capacities as human animals, nor that they act in a "human manner".
I have only argued that, because we are sentient, we do share the same basic interests, which must protected equally in order to be morally consistent.
Sure, as Gary Francione usually argues, a dog may not have an interest in getting a college education, just as a retarded human don't have that same interest.
But this doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving, exploiting and killing the dog or the severely retarded human. Why? Because the interest in having a college-education isn't relevant to the issue.
What's relevant is that the dog, just as the retarded human, have an interest in not suffering, in their liberty and in continuing to exist.
That's all that matters in that case.
The "top of the food chain" statement isn't really accurate. There is no such thing as a "pyramidal" state of affairs in nature. We're all interconnected and dependent on each other. The "top of the food chain" bit, it's just another lie created to make humans fool themselves into thinking that the oppression they impose on other animals comes from some self-claimed "superiority" or "natural order".
We are NOT "superior" to animals, first, because WE ARE animals, and second, because any claim of "human superiority" is usually framed into some specific characteristic. In this sense, humans might be "superior" to other animals in some respects, but "inferior" in others.
But the truth is, "human superiority" is yet another lie, probably sharing the same root as the "top of the food chain" one, with some religious/supernatural superstition involved.
Now, we might have the "power" to exploit and kill other animals (especially those that can hardly pose a threat to a human - mostly passive herbivores, not surprisingly, the ones we kill and eat the most). But might doesn't make it right. As Gary also argued, I might have the power to exploit and kill "weaker" humans, but that doesn't mean it is morally justifiable to do so, let alone an obligation for me to do so.
I tend to think that those "weaker" humans should be protected even more, NOT exploited because of their weakness.
In the case of other animals, it isn't even a matter of "protecting" them, but simply of letting them live their own lives. That's what Veganism and Animal Rights is all about.
When you think about it, you can conclude that it's not that much to ask, is it?
Kind regards.
- Liberacion Igualdad September 2, 2008 12:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe that eating animals is natural. Suffering is part of life for both humans and animals. It is naive to think otherwise. Your Utopian vision simply doesn't fly in the face of reality. Animals should be treated humanely as possible I agree but that includes killing animals for food as humanely as possible. If an animal kills a human well so be it, it's natural. If we kill an animal for food it's also natural. If you want to live a Vegan lifestyle so be it but so many of you PETA/Vegan types have such an air of moral superiority it makes me sick. Don't tell me what to eat and I won't tell you what to eat. How do you know those plants you eat don't have feelings?
"In the case of other animals, it isn't even a matter of "protecting" them, but simply of letting them live their own lives. That's what Veganism and Animal Rights is all about."
Does that include carnivorous animals letting their prey "live their own lives"? On the one hand you say humans aren't superior yet on the other hand you tolerate a pride of lions tearing a live wildebeest to shreds. Seems like a double standard to me.
- tbcass December 18, 2008 5:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- mike September 2, 2008 6:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It would appear, mike, that you are attempting to equate physical capabilities - wings, enzyme production, natural defenses - with intellectual capabilities. I'm afraid that I don't buy that as a legitimate argument. To the contrary - it is because of man's ability to reason that we have created for ourselves the ability to fly better and faster than a bird, run further and faster than a cheetah, and continue breathing underwater just as well as a fish. It baffles me how any of the examples that you've given don't go to prove the actual superiority of the human animal.
More importantly, I don't think we've accurately understood where rights derive from. This entire debate seems to be predicated on the presumption that all entities must be afforded basic rights unless significant reason can be provided to deny them. That's simply backwards thinking. It's a fairly simple task to indicate that humans must have rights because of their nature as rational animals, and if you can establish that other animals meet the same criteria, I'll be happy to afford them whatever rights they're equipped to handle (I doubt, for instance, that even if you could prove a gorilla to be a rational creature that you could prove that it possesses the judgment and capacity to vote in an election). Unfortunately, I've yet to see a persuasive argument toward that point.
That being the case, it seems that the entire notion of speciesism is wrongheaded. I personally believe the human animal to be superior to other animals, but it truthfully doesn't enter the analysis when determining whether or not I have the right to own, kill, or eat an animal. The only important issue is whether or not the animal can be demonstrated to have rights as a result of its own nature.
- Brian Seiler September 2, 2008 12:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- tbcass December 18, 2008 5:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- Brian Seiler September 11, 2008 2:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
- ElaineVigneault September 11, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
....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.
- Brian Seiler September 11, 2008 7:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- ElaineVigneault September 12, 2008 9:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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 December 18, 2008 4:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- gatorgirl7563 July 20, 2009 10:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
- polobo September 2, 2008 8:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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?
;)
- ElaineVigneault September 11, 2008 4:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- tbcass December 18, 2008 4:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- krishashok December 25, 2008 9:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- Dying Utopia January 12, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
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?
- Mcdowelli76 May 30, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- Mcdowelli76 May 30, 2009 12:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Cruelty as defined by who? You mean cruelty defined by man. Is it any more or less cruel that dolphins play with their food while it is still living? Or that a shark may take its prey apart in pieces?
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Huh?? Yeah, of course "cruel" as defined by man. "People" are the ones who are having this discussion. And what exactly did you expect??
Surely there is a better argument you could attempt to make than this.
- kelley August 14, 2008 7:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Are you saying that the fact that we kill animals is cruel? Or are you suggesting that the way we kill them before we eat them is cruel? I am on the yes side and I agree that the way we slaughter animals is cruel by my standards, but at the same time I can not do it myself for that would require too much work and commitment.
- Miga September 3, 2008 5:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The morals that are set for Kosher meat state that an animal cannot suffer excessively,be castrated, have any sickness, be missing any body part (including a beak) or even have a single nick on the slaughtering knife (it most be 100% smooth) if these standards are not met, then the animal cannot be eaten by anyone who keeps kosher.
That is besides the Torah's prohibition against Mistreating or hurting animals for any reason.
- berelv July 25, 2008 12:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You need to investigate further into the world of mass-produced Kosher meats. I, like you, assumed that the laws, as you stated, could not be bastardized in order to allow the stunning industry it has become. Please investigate instead of assuming that your laws and traditions are being upheld to the standards you assume exist.
Then continue reading this debate to see if you can truly justify supporting the industry and the paradigm.
- mike August 17, 2008 10:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have never cared to investigate how animals are treated before they are slaughtered because I was ignorant. I still think there is nothing wrong with eating meat and I do not care for kosher or whatnot because I do not know if they do what they claim. How do I make sure that the meat products I eat have not been slaughtered in a cruel manner?
- Miga September 3, 2008 5:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
How ya doin, yes the laws are being upheld, i raise cattle i've been in countless slaughter house no ivestgation needed, im aware of what's going on, uve been listing to peta to long, and here's some advice they are greedy, misleading bigots
- Bleininger14 August 12, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Cool to see that people read these debates long after the dust has settled.
A few quick points:
1) The laws I was referring to were Jewish laws, and they are most certainly not being followed. The ones that are being followed are several thousand years old from a source whose moral guidance has long since been dismissed as antiquated and inconsistent.
2) The USDA enforced laws to which you are referring are ridiculously vague, unconcerned with the rights of animals , inconsistent and arbitrary in assignment and enforcement, and monetarily driven. But you're right; for the most part, they are being followed by slaughterhouses.
3) PeTA is not an organization I "list to" for some of the very reasons you mention.
You'd do well to investigate the animal rights movement instead of assuming that it is being run by PeTA and its supporters. Sadly, PeTA claims to be our voice and our reason. Their voice is loud and ineffective, and their reasoning is typically flawed. Seek the points in this debate specifically regarding the inconsistency of supporting human rights while dismissing animal rights. Stay away from PeTA demonstrations as fodder for counter arguments, because you'll hold no ground with me or most activists with argument grounded in logic.
- mike August 12, 2009 4:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
is there a solution? It is cruel how we treat animals in slaughter houses but is there a right way to kill animals before eating them? Euthanasia shots? so they can have 'death with dignity?'
No I'm not really making fun I'm just curious what the plan would be.
I suppose some of you think we shouldn't eat meat at all. But what do we do with the animals?? Can someone answer that please? Do we set them up in apartment buildings and wait on their every need? (please no) Do we pick some island in the Pacific and send the excess of species there to run wild?
And what about when we pluck down from geese? Is that cruel? Shall I burn my down comforter?
And what about shaving alpacas fiber off? The shavers make them do the double splits (four legs) and tie them there as they shave them. Is this cruel? Perhaps they like it...
but returning to my point...say we decide NOT to eat meat. that will only lead to using animal products. THEN what do we do with the animals?
- zebrakin November 24, 2008 3:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
i meant lead to NOT eating animal products....
- zebrakin November 24, 2008 4:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animals are not concious when there hung up and bled there knocked unconcious because there was a little animal rights bill passed in the 70's about having the animal being unconcious. Plus if a 2,500 pound bull was conious and hanging up by his legs there would be a huge 2,500 lbs safley issse for the employees, trust me you'd want it unconcious
- Bleininger14 August 12, 2009 4:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am neither a scientist nor a physician but I do believe from everything I have read on the subject, that eating meat in moderation, as with all other things, cannot really be harmful or have long-lasting negative health effects.
The artery-clogging effects most likely come from eating very large portions of fatty meats and not eating enough fruits, grains and vegetables. In addition, those who over indulge generally do not have other good health habits such as getting sufficient sleep and exercise which are known to contribute to better health.
In addition, there are certain B Vitamins and I imagine other nutrients which are not easily found in other foods. Those who abstain from eating meat and are healthier than the meat eaters, probably owe their better states of health to their healthier lifestyles in general and not simply because they avoid eating meat.
- redondo July 16, 2008 10:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You forgot that life will absolutely end in death. The problem with such scare tactics is that you forget to weigh the positive traits of the consumption of animals.
The most dramatic steps in the evolutionary chain on our branch of the tree tends to come from the introduction of complex proteins that were derived from animals. We are here today simply because we changed from herbivores to omnivores. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that we now face such things as heart disease, but your implication is that vegetarianism is not fraught with its own complications that have been teased out over time.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We haven't had to eat the scavenger diet en mass since the agricultural revoltion... are you still evolutionarily speaking "that far behind?" Yes, sorry to have to break it to you but we evolved a long time ago. Some societies have been vegetarian for thousands of years already... why hold on so tightly to something so destructive? I know you didn't plan to be like this but here you are, you can let go now.
Not critters need to die for you in particular, yes you, you don't have to eat another animal, egg, or any derivative. What would you be fighting for? Why?
- M3house August 15, 2008 1:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
This point is largely irrelevant as well. Using it to support your argument implies that stopping the process of raising animals will reduce greenhouse gases. But there is a large hole in that theory: When people stop raising animals, they will turn to doing other things that will increase the amount of greenhouse gases in those areas that were lower than livestock outputs.
- sumwatt July 24, 2008 10:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Planning has come a long way, we tend to put more into it now.
But I'll humor you; switching from animal to grain and/or veggie production increases global warming how? More methane... uh no. More brown sun absorbing soil exposure... uh uh, just the opposite. Come up with something please, what are these mysterious "other things" you mention?
- M3house August 15, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The problem PETA seems to have is based, in large part, on animal agriculture. Fine then: go hunt. There is, in many states (my home state of PA, for instance) an overabundance of game animals such as the white tailed deer. Deer are not grain fed, they don't require huge areas of leveled pasturage, and venison and other game is much better for you than processed meat. Hunting game doesn't contribute to global warming, cause starvation, or harm the environment in any way- hunters pay disproportionately for conservation efforts, AND hunting the deer population, for instance, down to a natural levels puts humans back into a stable ecological niche as predators.
- marxandlennon September 17, 2008 8:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow" that supposedly proved that livestock creates 18 percent of greenhouse gases is a good example of how easy it is to lie with statistics. For the complete explanation of why the conclusions in the report are wrong, please read http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm /headline/3742.
- Bonnie1 April 11, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The funny thing is that this was disproven, but oh wait PETA providing misleading information, what a shocker!
- Bleininger14 August 12, 2009 3:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is no dispute that the pollution created by farm animals - feces and urine - is high. The problem with this statement lies with the inherent implication that the amount of pollution mentioned significantly impacts the environment.
It's not a difficult idea to understand: All excrement created by animals originated from their food - various plant life. Their waste, when released, does what it has been doing for billions of years. It decomposes into basic chemicals and minerals, ready for absorption new seeds ready to grow new plants, continues the cycle, or circle of life.
As livestock population increases, also does the amount of crop growing required to sustain it. This effectively keeps the damage caused by said pollution at zero.
- ZMX September 2, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I've read an FAO report on supposed sustainability of mixed farming. That's the best you'll find to support your last statement. It's a pie-in-the-sky idea because it is based on a world without factory farms and the copious amounts of meat. The FAO also came out with a report stating that the greenhouse gases from livestock surpasses that of all automobiles on the planet. No significant impact? I suppose I should see if you weighed in on the Global Warming debate, too.
The notion that what is happening now on the planet is even remotely similar to what had been happening for billions of years prior indicates your gross misunderstanding about the sustainability and symbiotic nature of Earth's inhabitants. You should really investigate the results of factory farming.
How about this?
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp
There is plenty of research to support the claims that the problem is a serious one. The debates on morality I can understand. This topic, however, is simply too difficult to refute.
- mike September 2, 2008 8:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Every bit of energy taken in by an animal is eventually released into the atmosphere and the ground, via excretion or death (decomposition). This is known as waste. Now, plants and animals have been eating and dying for (depending on your beliefs) at least five thousand years. Why is the world not a gigantic cesspool?
Because the animals that are being fed must continue to be fed. Every bit of waste that comes out of an animal has the exact same composition as the food it ate - it's just been broken down into more difficult to use forms. All of this waste is the exact same matter as the food that was consumed, and a lot of plants have to be made to keep up. Now, the matter has to come from somewhere, we all know you can't just create matter. The plants grow from all of the waste material. In fact, there NEEDS to be waste material for the plants to grow in the first place. Otherwise everything would be used up in the form of other objects.
Example: Say there are a million cows. In a year these million cows eat a billion plants and excrete a billion plants' worth of waste. The next year, they'll need a billion more plants to eat. The matter that makes up the plants comes from the billion plants worth of waste the cows excreted.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Plants are born from the waste of other plants that have been eaten. The system is self sustaining.
The only problem is that some selfish farmers may decide to dump the waste where it doesn't belong.
- ZMX September 18, 2008 5:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your "conservation of energy/matter" statement is true enough. So, at the end of our universe's life, what went in also came out. But that says nothing about the sustainability for mammals on the planet.
Sure, we're turning the potential energy of coal into all forms of kinetic energy. We're not creating the matter that makes up the greenhouse gases. It's the form the matter takes as a result of our actions that will generate serious consequences. We can generate CFCs, and all that matter came from Earth. Yet the form of a CFC will deplete the ozone. Yes. Poop fertilizes. The key here is time-frame and concentration. The Earth can recycle quite a bit, but not as fast as we're producing it, and not over such a small area.
So, I suppose you're right. To say that we're ruining or poisoning the planet is an entirely relative statement. What I meant to say is that we're creating conditions that will kill us. My mistake.
- mike September 18, 2008 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
First of all, your comments on coal and CFCs aren't really related to the topic of whether or not animal excretions are harmful.
Anyway, you're the one making a bold statement: That the ecosystem cannot keep up with the amount of waste animals produce and continue the life cycle. It's your job to prove this to be so. Where is there any hard evidence that says that plants are incapable of growing because all the waste from livestock isn't being broken down fast enough?
I also pose another question. There are nitrogen converting bacteria in the ground. Without them, we would never have existed, for they are predominantly what keeps the cycle moving. Now, why would it be unreasonable to think that with increased waste those helpful bacteria would flourish and help more?
- ZMX September 21, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The coal and CFCs are referring to your defense that a closed system works itself out and that neither matter cannot be created nor destroyed. They can be changed, however, and humans exist in a relatively narrow band of life.
Who on Earth said anything about plants not being able to grow? I don't think I've ever cried strawman so much as I've had to do since coming to this board. Please read carefully and don't misrepresent either side of a discussion.
Some reading:
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html
http://www.agriculture.de/acms1/conf6/ws4cont.htm
Really, I can't find any sources to defend your side of this argument. No one is debating this topic. The debate is over what to do about it, not whether or not it's an issue.
It's an issue!
There are other solutions besides veganism, I'll be first to admit. That's why the environment is only a piece of it. You can feasibly cut down on consumption to, say, 1/100 of your typical consumption, and more sustainable methods of animal exploitation become available.
I just don't subscribe to those, because no matter how you slice it, it's not justifiable.
- mike September 21, 2008 1:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am a vegetarian for religious and ethical reasons. I feel that eating meat is bad for the environment and (because many meat animals are grain fed) causes price increases in staple foods that are needed by underfed people worldwide.
How about a middle ground in the meat eating vs. vegetarian debate?
Most suburban yards (in this part of the USA) have an excess of rabbits, ground hogs, chipmunks, squirrels and deer. In our neighborhood, there are also fish in a local pond. We have no wolves here - the predator that used to control these populations. A meat-eater could kill (harvest) a small number of these each year with minimal impact on the local ecosystem. In fact, a reduction in the ground hog population would benefit us since they they eat many of our garden plants.
Meat eaters - please start with humanely killing and eating the food supply in your back yard. The environmental impact will be less.
- Sane Mom September 9, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
they could use water to grow their own animals as well and its not our fault theyre poor
- mattbertrams January 12, 2009 11:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree starve the animals !
Tiergeschmack Gut (it's German)
- FpUeCtKa October 11, 2009 3:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Well said.
I also have a problem with the question. I roll my eyes once again to see this title, "Should we eat meat?" The more we say things like "go vegetarian" and "meat is murder", objective approaches to abolishing the animal industry are put in a corner and called extreme, confusing people as to what is right and wrong when it comes to our use of animals.
A better question is "Is it morally justifiable to use animals as our property?". We seem to be way too focused on the "meat" a single product of the animal industry. But the animal industry is what we should be up against. The animal industry exploits living beings with their own interests in order to be used as property. This is why we have meat today. This is no longer an issue of survival or evolution.
- ajkochanowicz August 25, 2008 3:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I'm fine with focusing just on the dietary aspect for the sake of this question, but focusing only on animal flesh totally misses the problems inherent in the "production" of dairy and eggs for human consumption. If we are going to focus on diet, we need to address the morally unjustifiable consumption of all animal products.
- Eric Prescott August 26, 2008 12:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The distinction between eating meat and eating eggs and dairy is justified as a conceptual distinction, and perhaps even as a factual distinction; but it certainly can't be justified as a moral distinction. Both contribute to the suffering of non-human animals and both treat non-human animals with a lack of respect.
I just wanted to clarify these different senses of justification in case anyone attempts to undermine the very important moral distinction that Gary is making and which is essential to his argument for veganism.
- Tadius September 9, 2008 2:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't buy my meat or eggs or dairy from a grocery store. I buy from a small, sustainable farmer that treats the animals better than they would be treated in the wild. No hormones, no antibiotics. Feed on what they feed on. Chickens range the farm, different place every day in the summer, chicken house is parked in the winter.
Cows eat grass. Not force fed grain.
Milk is raw and unprocessed.
This is how the animals we eat and milk and collect eggs from should be treated.
I can't see how anyone who has omnivore teeth and has evolved that way can have a problem. If you do, you have too much free time on your hands and probably should find more things to do than worry so much about the life your sustenance food leads that it interferes with your life and that of others.
If you were going to follow through your arguments about the feelings of the animals, you should carry that to plants. They react to their environments, just to a different extent than animals.
This is life people. Learn to deal with it. If you don't like factory food. Find a different source. Food was alive. You can't get around it.
- jeffthenose October 25, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Should We Eat Meat?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Peta's arguments are well thought out and informative
There are many reasons not to eat meat, even if they don't all resonate with you, one of them might. The argument that could give you the most immediate and recognizable benefits is that abstaining from eating meat will make you healthier. This is an easy debate to resolve by just trying it out for yourself. See how you feel after 20 days of not eating meat.
- Santa Cruz Mom
July 13, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Think Twice
PETA wants you to believe this garbage. It's just good buisness. Meat is the only true way to get some protien in your body and buil muscle. Sure, animals have some rights, but groups like PETA need to unscrew their heads and put them back on right. Meat has been important to this country's economy and history for centuries. If you take away America's meat, I'll burn all of your salad just to get back at you. MAN UP!!!
- HUNTER
March 3, 2009 5:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no
Then how come me (a vegetarian ) and my friend (a carnivore ) could face off in a sit-up contest, and I would win?
- weeboman
March 29, 2009 11:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree with disagreeing
Exactly, it IS good business. It's ALL about money , not anyone's health .
Protein can easily be found in nuts, legumes, peanut butter, broccoli, and spinach. In fact, spinach and broccoli have a higher percentage of protein that any animal protein.
Also, I'd like to pitch that it's a fact that there are other cultures in which the citizens eat half the protein that the standard American does, but their lives have more health AND longevity. Most Americans eat too much protein.
- thefant
April 19, 2009 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
oh the ignorance of omnivores.....
Do you seriously think " meat is the only true way to get some protein in your body and build muscle"?!?!? Wow. Please read a book....better still, go tell that to mixed martial arts champion, and vegan, Mac Danzig.
- progressisdead
May 12, 2009 8:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not sustainable
Eating meat is not sustainable. Until we are able to actually do something about overpopulation (ever hear a US politician mention this concept?!) we need to do everything we can to slow global warming. Meat eaters= gross polluters.
I'd like to see a world where those who have a small carbon footprint are rewarded.
In the end we will all be rewarded -if- we are able to come to terms with the reality that there are far too many of us, and we are killing ourselves (and many other species) by overpopulating, over-polluting and over-consuming.
- HoleiRollei July 24, 2008 9:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sustainable? Really?
Well, let's just think about this one for a moment. Where do most people get their veggies? Well, most people buy them. Either in the grocery store or at a farmer's market. How did those veggies get there?
Okay, but they probably didn't travel that far, right? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on where you bought them. Store bought means they could come from as far away as South America. Bananas certainly don't come from Ohio. Local buying is better, but that's still a carbon footprint. Several of my friends and I "go in" on a cow and a pig. We know where it's raised, we know who raised it, and guess what? It traveled just as far to reach us as the veggies some people I know (who don't grow their own) buy. As an added bonus, it raises money for rural kids to go to college. Do veggies do that?
Considering that over-population is a result of poverty, you would think that anytime you raise a person up to a level where they are self-sustaining, it's better for the earth. Now if only we could do this in places where poverty is the biggest issue facing the region.
So, even in-season, veggies have a carbon footprint. A huge one when they're shipped from other countries.
Now, what's a vegetarian to do when he lives in Vermont and it's January? How is he to get the nutrition he needs to survive? Where is his small carbon footprint? It has morphed into a huge carbon footprint. That's where it went.
You're also not considering the human impact. I don't know about you, but I DO have a huge problem with the treatment of fruit and veggie pickers as being second-class citizens. Or more likely, they're treated as second-class because they are not citizens. Whilst most are documented workers - as in, they're here specifically for the purpose of picking those veggies you so love to tout as being better than meat - the fact remains that they are looked down upon in our great society, and are paid minimal wages for work that you wouldn't be able to take for so little pay. Or do I have this wrong and you're okay with spending 10 hours in a field, bent over, picking cucumbers in 92 degree (F) heat for little more than minimum wage? I wouldn't do it.
In an ideal world, people would grow their own vegetables and eat what is locally available to them. THAT is what is sustainable.
- SocialistBetty
December 25, 2008 9:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree on what is sustainable
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?
- Mcdowelli76
May 29, 2009 11:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eating meat is not sustainable?
"Eating meat is not sustainable"? What does that mean?
"Meat eaters= gross polluters." LOL thats that funniest thing i've ever heard on the internet .
What won't we be able to sustain? Eating meat? Meat is a HUGE part of our global economy . PERIOD. It's not going away any time soon. I'd expect to hear this kind of "unsustainable" crap about oil and pollution, but not meat eating.
Are we overpopulating? Well, if you mean there are more people on this earth than ever before, you're right! But thats like being surprised when you put bacteria in a warm, moist, sugary space and getting all worked up because the bacteria are multiplying - you're just stating the obvious.
So if we are indeed "overpopulating" (which is relative in it's own right)... why don't you... sterilize yourself, or better yet, don't have kids .
Carbon footprint? You realize that carbon is an essential gas? Its up there with water and oxygen. Funny, you will rant about how we should all eat vegetables, but in the same breath you want to REDUCE THE GAS THAT VEGETABLES BREATH. Thats like saying "man, I really need to plant more tomatoes in my garden" while you light bags of tomato seeds on fire.
Carbon Dioxide also increases PRIOR to climate warming. Correlation does not constitute Causation! GORES " global warming " theories have been proven wrong over and over again, so why is it now just politicians and fake wannabe "liberals" who are proposing carbon footprint tracking and taxation? Because they are a bunch of power hungry, petty thieves. With good hearts in the wrong place.
Oh, and back to your original claim - That meat eaters somehow are "gross polluters", first of all, thats hypocritical, because i'll bet you drive a car, and those veggies you eat? Well those fields are most likely tilled by TRACTORS, and oh, they probably slaughter pigs + cows in the next field. And what about all the oil burned shipping these veggies? You're a Hypocrite.
I'm not assuming that you are proposing a government plan, but I am assuming that you wouldn't be opposed to a plan which restricts meat consumption and/or awards those who eat/produce veggies. If this is the case, you are advocating the THEFT of my hard earned money to feed your own cause, which is immoral and unacceptable.
This claim that meat eating causes pollution is UNFOUNDED and a testament to show how far people are willing to let the government go when it comes to restricting our basic freedoms. Show some class, dude.
- aone
July 29, 2009 5:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegetarianism and IQ
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently launched "IQ Test the Nation," and the breakdown of results was interesting. There was a statistically significant difference between the average IQ of meat eaters and vegetarians of more than 1 IQ point, with meat eaters scoring higher. Even more interesting is that the subset of Vegetarians who are also Vegans scored 6 points lower on average than meat eaters. So the difference between all meat eaters and all non-meat eaters was about 1.75 IQ points. http://www.cbc.ca/testthenation/episodes/iq/results/groups.html
People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't. So vegetarians can be healthier, but I would argue brain performance is an indicator of health, and this study suggests that meateaters are healthier. Besides, most people would be much healthier if they focused on removing starches from their diets rather than meat.
- LiberalMulroney
July 24, 2008 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what was the margin of error?
what was the margin of error in the study? I'm guess it is greater than 1.75 points which would make the result meaningless.
- reckoner
August 15, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nice try
If you want to argue that this study is meaningless, then you'll have to do better than "I guess [the margin of error] is greater than 1.75 points." No information was listed about what the margin of error is. But with 10,000 vegetarians and 90,000 meat eaters participating, that's a pretty significant sample size. Certainly the Vegan, even though only 1,600 people responded, is well withing the margin of error.
Please read my comment again. When you choose to exclude things from your diet, you may not be getting all of the nutrients that your body requires to function at 100%. That isn't n argument; it's common sense. This study is obviously a pop culture study, but that doesn't make it meaningless.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
the burden of proof is on you to show that this study is meaningful. If you don't know the margin of error then you can't honestly make the claim you are making.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fair enough, I'll repeat what I wrote below.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 10:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
smoke and mirrors
You still haven't given the margin of error for the results. I'll assume that means you don't know it.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Margin of error
No one seems to know much statistics here. The confidence MUST be set in advance, and determines the margin of error. To speak of one without the other is meaningless. That is, if you wish to discriminate among populations (vegans and meat lovers) with 90% confidence level, you might have a margin of error of 1, or 2, or 1.75 points. However, you can't go back to say a 1.75% gives a 90% confidence level - that's intellectually dishonest and statistically bankrupt.
As Disraeli said, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 12:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
EQ measures overall health while IQ does not
A persons EQ is a much better predictor of health, an individual can have a high IQ and a high level of apathy at the same time. Concerning IQ I feel you ought to know: 1.75 is a very trivial number and in this case quite meaningless. If you know about statistics- like taking upper division college courses on the subject and passing with good scores, then you would know these scores mean nothing in this context.
FOOD
Total Respondents Lowest IQ Highest IQ Average IQ Estimated IQ (Avg.)
Meat eater 98876 29.0 156.0 109.85492 109.18708
Vegeterian 11048 29.0 156.0 108.73959 107.68057
Vegan 1674 29.0 153.0 103.69176 103.9092
Look at the number of total respondents. This study doesn't say much of anything.
- M3house
August 15, 2008 12:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congratulations
Congratulations on your academic success in upper division college courses! I completed a Bachelor of Commerce at University and got A's in all of my statistics courses. YAY for me too!
This is the second person to cite statistical significance to discredit this survey, and yet nobody has actually applied statistical theory to prove your point. If you want to discredit the argument, then apply the statistics that you aptly studied in upper division college and prove it, rather than just stating your credentials and dismissing it without proof.
With over 100,000 respondents to the survey, and over 10,000 vegetarians, this is a statistically significant number. Don't forget that in IQ, one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. Consider that the average IQ was perhaps too high on this test, reset the average to 100, and this jumps to 4% of the population.
Your point about EQ vs IQ is pointless. So what if one is a better indicator? IQ information while not necessarily preferable, is valid nonetheless. And if the lower IQ scores are simply due to apathy, then isn't that just another argument in favor of meat-eating?
Again, I am not saying that vegetarians are dumber people. Read my post again.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Looks like you deserved the A's
Well said Mulroney, well said.
- MrZ750 September 2, 2008 6:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the burden of proof is on you
again, you are the one making the assertion so the burden of proof is on you. Can you please show me which peer reviewed journal this "study" was published in.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Glad you got your A
My profs would have failed you. Without knowing the confidence level designated at the start of the study, you can't know if the results are statistically significant. And the credibility of a 65% confidence level is far different from a 99% level.
I could easily make the case that vegetarians come from a different social strata - one that measures as more intelligent. A cliche in statistics - correlation is not causation. Good studies control for such things - bad ones just throw out numbers.
I have no dog in this fight. I just think if the difference is that small, you are better off using other arguments. If you look closely enough, you can always find statistical differences in any population.
- AlibiFarmer
September 5, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
is mulroney an aries or libra?
you're absolutely right, and to make it more meaningless, this wasn't any type of serious study. It was looking at astrological signs! Apparently Libras are the smartest and Aries are the dumbest, oh and black haired people are the dumbest ;)
- reckoner
September 6, 2008 10:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unfounded.
Your statement is a carbon copy of the urban myth of vegetarianism. Everything you said is simply wrong. You use one...one study without mentioning the methods to confirm a point that has been disproven over and over again. How many people were in this study anyway? What other tests did they do, just that one?
- ajkochanowicz August 25, 2008 3:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Even less-founded
I use one... one study, but you use none, and you clearly didn't even look at my study. There were over 100,000 people in the study; if you actually visited the site you'd see that. My statement isn't a carbon copy of an urban myth. I have never heard the myth before, and my evidence would suggest that perhaps it is not a myth. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken. If you want to lambaste my argument, you should more than casually skim through it.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Source?
Does this information -- "People who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" -- also come from this study? What is "often" to you?
Though I have no "written" documentation, I can say that both my family doctor and my nutritionist have stated several times that, in general, non-vegetarians get TOO MUCH protein and not enough of the vitamins available from plant-based sources. I agree that cutting out an excess of meals with starches can have positive side effects, but I think it also risks sending the wrong message that an Atkin's-type diet is good for your health. Whether you are vegan or a carnivore, I think we should all be smart enough to know that zero carbs and excessive meat is bad for the body.
- MelissaRae August 25, 2008 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Apply common sense
I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist. The fact that "people who do not eat meat frequently do not get enough protein or iron in their diets: not that they can't supplement this in their diets, but often don't" is common knowledge and common sense. And you're right that most people in North America probably get too much protein. It's not just about protein though, it's also about iron. And vegetarians, particularly vegans, don't get enough protein or iron in their diets.
You are totally misrepresenting my argument. I am not advocating Atkins diet. I am not arguing that people should eat fewer fruits and vegetables and more meat, but I am arguing that we should eat at all.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 10:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So what?
Even if it is true (which I don't accept your appeal to "common sense" here) that vegans don't get "enough iron", the answer is to educate vegans on increasing their vegan iron intake, not to eat meat to get iron (or protein).
OTOH, arguing from a health standpoint that people should eliminate or drastically reduce their animal fat intake (a HUGE cause of early death in the US) does imply eliminating meat, dairy and eggs.
As a vegan, I eat healthier than 99.9999% of Americans and get plenty of protein and iron (and B12 and everything else). The answer is education, not eating the flesh and bodily fluids of nonhuman beings who have just as much right to their lives as you do.
- dan August 31, 2008 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Congrats on being 1 in a million!
I am very happy for you that you eat healthier (or at least think you do) than 99.9999% of Americans; that makes you one in a million, Dan. I wouldn't expect someone who would make such an outrageous claim to accept an appeal to common sense. I'm not trying to convert you. I am just defending what I, most humans, and many animals do which YOU think is unethical.
I agree that the average American probably does consume too much animal fat. But the debate is whether or not we should eat meat? I would agree that we should not eat as much as we do, perhaps. But I don't believe in cutting it out entirely. Because apparently most vegans aren't getting the nutrients that they need, even if you do. Also, did it occur to you that some diets might be better for different lifestyles, body types, and even blood types?
I agree that people should have more education about nutrition, but I don't like the idea of self-righteous vegans with ulterior motives indoctrinating people to eat like they do. Killing animals for food is natural. Humans do it, as do countless other animals. Suggesting that humans shouldn't eat other animals is as ridiculous as suggesting that Bears, sharks, and spiders shouldn't either. Maybe we should enforce vegetarian policies on other creatures as well. Maybe we could feed spiders and bears your vitamin supplements and lots of veggies!
All I said in my initial argument is that the IQ survey suggested (within the margin of error) is that vegans showed lower IQ's. It could be that many of these vegans' bodies and brains aren't functioning at 100% because they aren't getting the nutrients they need. Or it could be that less-intelligent people are more inclined to adopt vegan diets. Take your pick, unless you have an alternative explanation for the difference. (Other than denial)
- LiberalMulroney
August 31, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exhausting
1)Non-human animals do it, so shouldn't we? No. I bet the reason is posted here. Search. 2) Lots of humans do it, shouldn't I? No. Again, read this forum before diving into an argument. 3) Most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need? Sorry, I don't subscribe to this scientific journal you refer to as "Common Knowledge". Perhaps you can verify this source for me? I'm unfamiliar with the study.
As for your CBC study, no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such disparagingly different sizes and draw comparative conclusions from them. It's not simply a statistical margin of error involved here. There are many other variables that, until revealed or explained, render that report ineffective in the way you hope to use it. I would be very surprised to see the authors of that report draw the conclusion you're making from it.
You're flailing with your statements. Find me a report that says that certain blood-types must consume meat. Find me data. Show me proof. That business is not about being self-richeous. I would argue that someone that would support torture and murder so as to have an increased intelligence quotient is FAR more self-richeous. That's the stuff of super villains.
- mike
September 1, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh Dear
1) and 2) You "bet" the answer is posted here or it is? Apparently you haven't read this forum either, so you're a hypocrite. 3) Your sarcasm is much appreciated. I never said that most vegans aren't getting the nutrients they need. You should try reading my posts more carefully, then you might actually know how to spell self-righteous. It's common knowledge where I live in Victoria, BC; one of the most left-leaning cities in the entire country, and I have discussed this with many vegans and vegetarians. Frankly, I don't care what you eat. Just don't criticize me for eating meat.
The reason that the sample sets were different between vegans and non-vegans is because of the proportion of the total population. The statement that no respected statistician would ever take two sample sets of such different sizes is untrue; you just made it up. And that wasn't the purpose of the IQ test either.
http://www.dadamo.com / But for the record, you haven't cited a single study, and you demand that I provide them. I argue that killing animals is natural, and you deride me for not seeking out the other side of the argument myself which you suspect may be on the page, but you're not sure, and you don't feel like giving it to me. Lastly, you scorn me for my support of torture and murder, which is an absolutely fanatical accusation. If you find disputing my arguments and sources without backing up any of your own "exhausting," then perhaps you aren't getting the nutrients that you need.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ulterior motives who?
You love to use accusatory words that actually argue nothing: "I don't LIKE the idea of SELF-RIGHTEOUS VEGANS with ULTERIOR MOTIVES INDOCTRINATING." Wow. Well, I don't like the idea of meat-eaters forcing their status quo upon me by arguing that I am wrong because I'm in the minority. Anyway, as I already showed in another post, you DO have ulterior motives. You are trying to argue in favor of meat-eating purely on the basis of a health study, when in actuality you have plenty of motives that are forcing you to go beyond the health study. You don't say it directly because you probably don't even realize it - and I don't entirely blame you because PETA was asking for it. But your motive is to maintain the status quo. Your motive is that you don't want to change. And feeling pressured to change is what you call "indoctrination." I'm sorry, buddy, but I have been indoctrinated for my entire life until this year to think that not only was meat ethical, not only that I *should* eat it, but that I *needed* to eat it. And now PETA is trying to tell you the same thing: that you *need* to avoid it for your health.
This is why I dislike PETA. They are maintaining the status quo by recycling mindless arguments, by trying to indoctrinate people to do the right thing in the same exact way that we have been indoctrinated to do the wrong thing. What we need is to be liberated from these dishonest arguments, just as the animals need to be liberated from exploitation. However, don't get me or anyone else confused with indoctrination just because you chose to engage in an argument with your own ulterior motives.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 10:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Calm down
I'm not trying to force you to eat meat. You can do whatever you like. What makes me angry is when people argue that eating animals is unethical because they are suggesting that I am unethical. You obviously haven't read the entire thread because you are just repeating points that have already been made and addressed.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Dan
Animals may have the right to life, but the rule of nature is survival of the fittest. There was once a time when we were hunted, but because of our brains, not physique, we came out on top. We can now make up for our physical shortcomings. I love animals, but I eat them(certain ones). Now we are on top of the food chain, too bad for them. They weren't sitting around a table holding a council wondering if they should or shouldn't kill humans. The main reason meat is causing early death is because of improper cooking, growth, and what the government does or doesn't do to the meat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More prejudice
Nature and other species are amoral. One cannot justify any moral claim by an appeal to nature or power, or by appeal to what another species would do for survival. To base one’s ‘morality’ on nature or other species’ survival needs is to deny morality altogether.
Another way of thinking about it is that if I base my moral claims on nature, power, or other species’ need to survive, then I ought to intentionally kill humans also, whenever it is convenient for me to do so.
- dan January 28, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vegetarians easily get sufficient protein
this is a myth you are trying to pass of as common sense (i.e. meaning you have no basis for the opinion). Please read the book called The China Study. It is written by a researcher with decades of experience researching this subject and publishing it in peer reviewed scientific journals.
- reckoner
September 3, 2008 3:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree
I don't know or care about what any vegans eat, as I'm a lover of meat. But meat is not the only way to get protein. Many non-animal products have protein like beans and peanuts. However, meat is the most effective way of getting protein. Besides, I like the way meat tastes better than peanuts or beans or whatever vegans eat.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Biology
I'm no biology major but from what I've learned in science class, I would conclude we need meat. I mean, we have canine teeth and meat is the best way to get protein. We should eat produce too. End of story.
- GettinGwap
January 28, 2009 12:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan here. My IQ is well above average.
That same "statistically significant difference" of 1 IQ point is also found between:
a) people in their 20s and people in their 30s
b) people with black hair and people with blond hair
c) lefties and right-handed people
All of which suggests reckoner's point that 1 or 2 IQ points on this survey is within the margin of error. Moreover, they only sampled 1,674 vegans whereas they sampled 98,876 meat-eaters.
Meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans all tested well within the normal, average IQ. Clearly, given the survey results as well as the well-reasoned discussion here made by vegetarians and vegans, veg*nism is no hazard to cognitive abilities.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It actually makes sense
a) 20-29 yr vs 30-39 yr: Why wouldn't older people test higher on the IQ test? They would have a greater vocabulary, more education and more-developed brains etc.
b) Black hair vs blond hair: Could it be that people with black hair are more likely to speak English as a second language than blondes in Canada, thereby negatively affecting their scores on this English IQ test? You'd have to understand Canadain demographics, but this makes perfect sense.
c) lefties vs. righties: I don't believe that left handed people are less bright, but I think that they ultimately think differently, and are perhaps more intuitive. Albert Einstein, Lenardo da Vinci, and four of the last six presidents were left handed (Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton) and both Obama and McCain are left handed, and one of them will be the next President. (The probability of 5 of 7 randomly chosen people being left-handed is 0.06%)
There you go. Perfectly reasonable explanations for other variations in IQ from this test. Now my argument about meat eaters and vegetarians still stands.
See my above posts regarding statistical significance. The gap between vegans and meat eaters is HUGE and 1,600 is a respectable sample size for such a significant difference.
- LiberalMulroney
August 29, 2008 11:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are you serious?
1. Just because you can come up with explanations doesn't make any of them true.
2. The "gap" between meat-eaters and vegans is NOT "huge." It's 6 points. Coincidentally, it's the same difference between people who drink wine and people who abstain from alcohol.
3. You ignored the issue of margin of error.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 1:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes I am
1. When you listed these three examples of IQ variation, I was assuming that you were attempting to prove that the test was bogus. I was merely offering logical, reasonable explanations. Are you saying that these differences SHOULDN'T exist? You decided to dismiss the whole thing because of these differences, which is an unreasonable approach.
2. The gap between beer drinkers and wine drinkers was found to be 2.07 points (estimated at 0.09). The difference between Vegans and meat eaters was found to be 6.16 points (estimated at 5.28). That is not the same difference; that's 3 x the difference, and estimated to be higher. Oh, and I reiterate that the difference between vegans and meat-eaters IS huge.
3. No I did not ignore the issue of margin of error, you just didn't bother to read the above posts and refuse accept that it is statistically significant. With 1,674 respondents for vegans, over 10,000 for vegetarians, and over 90,000 meat-eaters, the differences are statistically significant. Consider that in IQ, the mean is 100 and one standard deviation is 15 points, and that the difference between 103.69 and 109.85 is 14.7% of the population. That's huge. With a survey size of 1,600 people, the margin of error is less than 3%. Between mere vegetarians and meat-eaters, the gap is much smaller, which makes sense, since vegans are more likely to be nutritionally deficient because they are excluding more foods from their diet. The difference between 107.68 and 109.19 is 3.43% of the population. But the margin of error is also much greater, since the sample size is 6.6 times larger for vegetarians and vegans.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Errors in your reasoning
1. You misunderstand my point. If you can dream up explanations for the 20-somethings, the blonds, and the lefties, surely you can find a more reasonable explanation for the veg*ns than the one you proposed earlier. It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role.
2. I said non-drinkers, not beer drinkers.
3. The margin for error for the vegans is greater, not for the meat-eaters, because a smaller sample size is less representative of the whole.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This doesn't make any sense
1. "It's more reasonable to assume the difference isn't significant or that some other non-nutritional factor played a role." - Then what? You've offered nothing. I offered reasonable explanations. You are just complaining because you don't like my conclusion. Iron deficiency would do it for vegans, or lack of protein. There are lots of dietary explanations. You haven't even offered a theory that could explain the magnitude of the difference.
2. Oops my bad. This is likely driven by the fact that people 20 and under can't drink, and these people scored much lower. Still, it makes sense.
3. I know. What's your point? The sample size is 1,674. But given the magnitude of the difference, it is still within the margin of error.
- LiberalMulroney
August 30, 2008 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
IQ test indicating health?
With all due respect, I suggest you to search for health and nutrition studies if you want to claim that this or that diet is "healthier" or not nutritionally apt for humans.
The ADA's position on vegetarian diets (vegan included) might be of interest for you.
You say that brain performance is an indicator of health. I think this is not necessary so. But even if it is, I think that relying on an IQ test to measure "brain performance" it's rather narrow.
Intelligence, as a whole is a very difficult thing to measure at all. The characteristics that form a part of what we usually regard as "intelligence" (without even considering contemporary extensions like "emotional intelligence", "social intelligence", etc.) are so vast --imagination, comprehension, evocation, memory, etc.-- that a any test will always fall short.
For all of this, and as I usually argue, I believe we can never say that there is such thing as "equality" of intelligences. Therefore, we humans commit the logical mistake of arguing that the opposite of "equal" it`s "higher" or "lower", when the opposite of "equal" is "different".
So the question, "which intelligence is superior to the other?" is question that lacks of sense, to which we can only answer with the absurd assumption that "intelligence" can be measured quantitatively.
But all of this is irrelevant. I might be genetically "dumber" than you. Maybe that's why I chose to be a Vegan. Or maybe I'm less intelligent because I'm not getting enough saturated fat or cholesterol. Who knows?
But the question should be, is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? A supposed lower IQ result isn't a matter of "necessity".
What if tomorrow we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests. Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh?
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 4:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting points
You make some interesting points. I don't think that IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence, but that doesn't mean that it's irrelevant either.
Is there a moral justification for us to be using, exploiting and/or killing other animals? - Yes. It's natural behavior. Animals kill other animals for food. I think that people can decide for themselves whether this is ethical. How can we as a society can't ask humans not to eat flesh of other animals when animals do it? I maintain my ethical position, and don't really care what yours is unless it interferes with mine.
Are we going to start raping women or eating baby's flesh [if we discover that raping women, or eating baby's flesh makes you score higher in IQ tests]? - No. And give me a break. This is not natural behavior.
- LiberalMulroney
September 1, 2008 5:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Natural behavior - Moral justification?
First of all, I think that relying on the "natural behavior" thing, it's rather odd.
I believe that what's "natural" it's what takes place in "nature". Since all we know happens in "nature", I tend to think that everything is "natural". Therefore, I don't see how what's "natural" can be of any help to decide what's morally justifiable or not.
I fail to see what is "not natural" about rape, for instance. People do it due to a "natural" inclination to do it. Everything on it seems natural to me.
The problem is not that. The problem is that raping involves violating or ignoring someone else's interests. That's the same issue with enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals. Not whether it is "natural" or not.
Your "ethical position" interferes with someone else's liberties and interests (other animals in this case), and that's why it is NOT a matter of "personal choice".
How can we as a society ask humans not to rape females, when other animals do it? How can we as a society ask humans not to kill other humans, when other animals kill individuals of their own species?
Primarily, because getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape or homicide is immoral.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offsprings in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or for get the females (again).
Those are "natural" behaviors. Does it mean that humans, therefore, are morally justified to do the same with others?
Of course not. Claiming that it's just not reasonable.
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 6:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need to eat something
Interesting, and very eloquently put. Again, I think your logic is a bit of a stretch. You are jumping between sociology and nature here with touchy and sensitive subjects. If animals rape one another or kill each other's young, it is either an anomaly or necessary for survival. For humans, rape is an anomaly (albeit all too common). But in human society we have rules to protect people's rights, and such actions are thus forbidden.
In your argument you refer to animals as "someone." Someone is a person, a human who as yo put it can think critically, and an animal is not. Frankly we need to eat other living things for food, whether they be plants or animals. The difference are pain receptors. But do they not both have the same right to live? If we could kill an animal and minimize the pain, is that any less ethical than killing a plant?
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 1:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Anomalies
The frequency or prevalence of a behavior should not dictate right from wrong. This prevalence, however, often makes it difficult for people to see the immorality. Owning slaves was once commonplace. I would say that today, someone who feels that a different race is inferior enough to justify their enslavement is an anomaly. This, alone, doesn't make slave ownership wrong.
As for necessity, it is not a valid argument for the consumption of animal products by humans.
Rights can only exist in regards to their protection of interests. It is in defining these that we can focus the debate where it should remain: "do animals have rights?" and "are we justified in violating them?"
As for the rights of plants, there are fairly strong arguments about what it takes to have rights that seems more logical than only including humans. It is apparent to me that animals have rights. Whether or not plants do, has no bearing on my respecting of animal rights to the very best of my abilities.
- mike
September 2, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Another Dogma od Cultural Prejudice
Mulroney:
You say that nonhuman beings cannot be persons, supposedly because they “can’t think critically.” Why is the ability to “think critically” is required for personhood? Please remember mentally disabled humans who cannot “think critically” when you respond. I realize that Kant and many others have arbitrarily put the dogma forth that an ability for abstract reasoning is “required” for personhood and inclusion in the moral community, and I realize that this dogma has been accepted as a strong cultural prejudice for a long time, but like most dogmas, it has never been justified, only blindly accepted.
- dan September 2, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Read my post more carefully
I was referring to someone else's statement about critical thinking.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eat something...not somebody!
Someone is a person, indeed. I suggest you to get Gary Francione's book "Animals as persons". It seems to fit perfectly with our current discussion.
Although most of us think of a "person" as synonym with "human", we should first consider what does it take to be a person.
Do you think that an individual, sentient being, with particular interests, wants, preferences, likes and dislikes would fit in your view of a person?
I think it does.
Do other animals fit with this view? Absolutely!
As Mike already argued, rights are a way to protect interests. So, if a being has basic interests, he should have rights to protect them, regardless of species, sex, gender, sexual inclination, intellectual capacity, etc. A right-bearer, therefore, it's someone with legal "personhood". A person. That's the animal rights position. All sentient animals are persons, and should be protected as such.
Critical thinking it's a characteristic that isn't relevant for most conflict of interests. As Mike also said, severely retarded humans, just as babies and old senile humans, cannot think critically or in abstract terms. Nevertheless, they have other interests, by the very fact that they are, indeed, sentient. That's why we protect their interests, even if they can't think critically.
And to say that NO other animals can think in abstract terms it's just a over-simplified generalization. Most of our "common knowledge" about other animals amounts to nothing but a gross ignorance. No facts. No logic.
I suggest you to read some things on "Ethology" (the study of other animals' behavior). I can assure you'll be more than surprised about their capacities (reason, self-consciousness, abstract thinking, among others).
Plants, on the other hand, have no characteristic we can relate to "sentience", thus it's unreasonable to think they can have "interests" or "awareness". Whether they are alive it's irrelevant. After all, bacteria, tumours, spermatozoids and so on, are indeed alive. But that doesn't mean they are individual "beings" with interests that should be protected.
In all honesty, I don't think you consider it's the same to cut a broccoli in two, and doing the same with a dog.
And, even if this isn't enough for you, it's worth reminding you that it takes between 8 to 16 kgs. of grains to produce 1 kg. of flesh, so switching to a Vegan diet does, in fact, kill far less plants AND animals than any other diet.
Finally, killing an animal (human or not) whether painlessly or not, it's still harming that animal, since he/she has interests in continuing to live and living positive experiences. The same can be said with enslaving and exploiting them. That's why eating "meat" is not "less wrong" than eating other animal products.
That's it for now. Ehh, mmm... Go Vegan! ;)
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 2, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Getting tiresome
Wow, that was a long chain of rationalization. I haven't read this book of yours, but it seems to have really influenced you. But your arguments rely on a whole bunch or arbitrary declarations, such as what a person is and is not.
Frankly I disagree. I disagree with you about what a person is. I don't think that we can arbitrarily decide that perceived sentience or awareness are what make the difference between ethical and non-ethical killing.
I am going to have to leave it at that. I am seriously outnumbered here by people who are quite passionate.
- LiberalMulroney
September 2, 2008 8:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comparing meat eating to veganism is like comparing apples to oranges
Animals eat plants. So consuming animal life (eating meat) isn’t the opposite of consuming plant life (eating a vegan diet), it’s consuming plant life indirectly. That is, eating meat is consuming plant life filtered through animal life. People who consume animals are consuming, on average, four times the resources of people who consume only plants.
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/4-questions-to-vegans /
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 12:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning
I'm sorry, but this is scientific elitism. You are just coming up with arbitrary explanations for these statistics, and your solution is clearly biased in favor of maintaining the status quo: meat-eating. As for me, I'm not going to lie: I favor an animal-free diet. For ethical reasons. As you said, it's not that people on an animal-free diet can't be healthier. What you neglected to mention is that it can also be very easy to be healthier. The problem is being vegan in a non-vegan world. If we lived in a vegan world, I'd say good luck trying to live on a meat-based diet. Meat-eaters would be in my position as a vegan. But unlike meat-eaters, vegans actually have an ethical reason for choosing their diet, which gives us the collective power to challenge the status quo.
So whatever your statistics, your interpretation ignores the fact that we live in a meat-eating world. It ignores the fact the most vegans do not go vegan for health reasons, but rather for ethical reasons, and that most meat-eaters challenged by veganism stay meat-eaters (partly) because they don't know how to find or do not have the privilege of a healthy animal-free diet. Now, I'm sure there are legitimate health reasons to go vegan, but they would never have made me go vegan. As vegans, we need to get our arguments straight and (unlike PETA) present a veganism that is sustainable... a vegan diet that is healthy AND ethical. One thing meat-eaters will never be able to say honestly is that the ethics of their diet stands up to that of an exploitation-free vegan diet.
- Ciuma
November 30, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor reasoning indeed
You really didn't address the point I made at all. You simply labeled it and indicated that you don't like it. My interpretation does not ignore the fact that most people do not go vegan for health reasons. You just made that assumption. Your supposed reasoning is just a rant in which you express frustrations about living in a meat-eating world. Frankly, this discussion ended a long time ago and you missed it.
- LiberalMulroney
December 1, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Irrevelant to the Arguments Made
This is irrevelant to the arguments presented.
Further more your link is completely biased and unaccurate. Less then 2000 vegans were surveyed. According to the chart, those outside Canada have the lowest IQ.
Did you take a look at Dr. Franciones Creditentials? He has two masters, in philosophy and in law. I think it takes a smart person to do that.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here we go again
You really should try reading the whole thing before jumping in to a discussion that ended 6 months ago. It's pretty obvious that the lower IQs for those outside of Canada is easily explainable by the fact that the IQ test was in English, and would therefore be biased against those whose first language is not. People outside Canada who participated in this test would likely have disproportionately more non-native English speakers than the rest. This poll is more pop-culture than science, but still we were discussing possible explanations for the vegan numbers.
I have already explained that 2,000 is a significant enough sample size for such a large difference in IQs to be statistically significant. And I love the irony that half your post incorrectly suggests that 2,000 is not a significant enough sample size, and the other half of your post uses a counterexample of a sample size of one person who is presumably of above average intelligence.
I have no doubt that there are people who are vegans and are also fiercely intelligent. There are also others who really bring down the average.
- LiberalMulroney
March 14, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My repsonse
LOL, Your right that my post was contradictary...
However...
my point with the people outside of canada is that the survey could be biased or inaccurate. It also does not state what age the people participating in the survey are, and i was just trying to say that you can`t take the survey as hardcore truth.
And BTW i just took an IQ test, and i think its very biased. Depending on the test it will skew your results. For example i scored horribly low in the mathy parts and quite high in the english, and i get high 90s in english and low 70s in math....
But to return to my previous point... You don`t have to have a high IQ to be compassionate and to understand the arguments presented. Its irrelevant.
Anywho i`ve spent to much time here, enjoy the rest of your live
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agh
I didn`t get to finish my post..
i was going to say enjoy the rest or your life, i`have more important things to do, but that would come out as rude.... Anyway, I guess we`ll agree to disagree i`ll go save the animals and you`ll sit at home on your computer.
Lol that came out as rude to =P
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should we kill?
The question is a dodge of the larger and more significant question - is it right for us to kill to survive? Again, that we must kill to live is beyond question. That we claim that "life is precious" is also beyond question. The question then becomes, who or what deserves to live and who or what deserves to die - according to our collectively agreed upon set of values?
Should we eat plants? Should we eat animals? Should we eat? Do we deserve to live? Do we deserve to be eaten? Whose values reign supreme?
- Naumadd
July 24, 2008 8:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Naumadd is speciesist.
If I am clinically starving to death in a place where vegetation will not sustain me and I come upon you and a seal at the same time it would be more ethical for me to eat you cause your chances of survival in that milieu are less than the seal. The seal has just as much right to life as a human animal. Your argument is no different from a slave owner arguing for why slavery is right.
Once you elevate beyond "supreme values" you will see that "humanity" is not on the top of anything. Thank you Joan Dunayer for making me a more informed consumer.
- M3house
August 15, 2008 12:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You Decide
You make a relativist argument so I offer a relativist response:
The majority of Americans value animal lives. Most Americans find the act of killing animals so repulsive that they're unwilling to do it themselves. Though they pay others to do it, the majority wish animals didn't have to suffer. This is evidenced in the increasing demand for stricter animal protection laws and in the increase in vegetarianism.
According to a Gallup poll ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/107293/PostDerby-Tragedy-38-Support-Banning-Animal-Racing.aspx ): 35% of Americans strongly support and 64% support passing strict laws concerning the treatment of farm animals. “A quarter of Americans say animals deserve the same rights as humans, while almost all of the rest agree that animals should be given some protection from harm and exploitation.”
But ultimately, it's not about the majority. It's about each individual. You can choose to cause unnecessary suffering and death in order to please your taste buds or you can choose the kinder, healthier, and more sustainable plant-based diet.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mass Production, not Mass Disgust
The majority of americans do not value animal lives equally with human lives as the majority of americans are meat-eaters. Also to say that people buy meat pre-processed because they are disgusted wiht doing it themselves is simply wrong. People by pre-processed meat because it is faster, cheaper, and easier.
- OolonColluphid
September 4, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
regarding equality
You don't have to value animal lives equally in order to stop eating meat. In fact, you can think they're inferior to humans. All you have to believe is that animals don't deserve to be treated cruelly.
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again the point is missed ...
You must destroy to eat. It's that simple. Although I'm the occasional eater of meats, I am well aware of the harm caused to animals to supply it to me and, just as I want to minimize my impact on plants, I want to minimize my impact on animal life. My diet is restricted to only one meal a day. To value the lives of animals over those of plants is only half the compassion you ought to feel toward the fact - you must destroy to eat. Destroy at least in a most reverent way to all life, not simply a portion of it. As I asked, do we deserved to live? Should our values reign supreme on Earth? By what standard? By what argument? By what right?
Also, every value is relativist. Values cannot exist outside of specific context.
- Naumadd
September 6, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
mimizing impact
Eating only plants is eating lower in the food chain and thus is truly minimizing one's impact on the Earth. For more, read The China Study, The Thrive Diet, Diet for a New America, Diet for a Small Planet, or:
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/to-fight-global-warming-ditch-those-burgers /
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/we-can-change-the-world-one-meal-at-a-time /
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choice ...
Yes, choice is precisely what we're talking about. All that you think, do and say is necessarily humanocentric and, therefore, relativist. There is no escaping that. Such is the nature of values that they are always context-dependent. Even your concern over the suffering of other species, although only favorable to some and prejudiced to others, is a human prejudice. Even if we assume compassion in wild animals, their particular compassions will be centric to their species and to the individual organism. You will not find a universal value, nor can you hold such a value that does not and cannot exist.
As I said originally, the meat vs. non-meat question is only a portion of a larger question - ought we kill to survive? The answer to that is straight forward - whether it be animal or vegetable, we MUST kill to survive. The question then comes - on what basis do we make our decisions concerning what we will and what we will not? There are no universal values to choose from so, we must create our values from our relativist point of view. My original point was this - one can value plants over animals, animals over plants or, to be consistent, value all life as it relates to your own - assuming you do love your own life. Certainly, there are interesting arguments for an entirely vegetable human diet and I am convinced by many of them, however, I am aware that all arguments are necessarily to a human point of view.
Our concern over suffering and "unnecessary" suffering is a choice.
- Naumadd
September 6, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reasons to choose vegan
You said, "we MUST kill to survive. The question then comes - on what basis do we make our decisions concerning what we will and what we will not?"
The basis vegans choose is one or more of the following:
1. animals' sentience/ the capacity to feel pain
2. human health
3. the environment/ global warming
4. feeding the poor/ equality of resources
5. our conscience/ religious
5. worker rights/ human safety
- ElaineVigneault
September 8, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Context and content
Well yes, of course every choice we make is made in the context of who we are and is ultimately relative, but being relative does not mean it is irrelevant or untrue. We are defined by our freedoms and the degree to which we are free. Everything we do is relative and individual precisely because we have freedom. But there is an opposite movement too- just as much as context determines content, content also interacts with and alters the context- this is the rule of intertextual relations and of our relations with the culture which is our context.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 9:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sorry, you missed the point ...
I'm neither for nor against eating meat. I'm simply for my own survival. I will do so in as compassionate a way as I'm able but, of course, my compassion for that which I must kill to survive is quite uncommon among the other species. Found starving, I doubt seriously the lion gives a damn about my right to live. Even worse than "speciesist", I am a species of one. My own survival is primary in my mind. If it comes to your life or mine, I choose mine. I would choose not to be in that situation and would work very hard to avoid it but, there it is. That is genuine love of one's own life WITH compassion for other life as much as is practical and still survive. For your information, I eat very little meat but, when I do, I do so without guilt but still fully conscious of the life that's been lost to feed me. As I indicated, the responsibility is not to survive without killing - that is impossible for human life and just about every other. The responsibility is to survive by killing in an authentically conscious and compassionate manner. I doubt many vegetarians mourn the loss of the lives of the plants they consume. If they do not, it matters little they are vegetarians. They continue to kill with little compassion for the loss of life. Conscious and compassionate survival is the most reasonable way, far superior to the almost mindless gluttony and finger pointing so common to our species.
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 12:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Regarding Survival
"If it comes to your life or mine, I choose mine."
I agree with that statement and would choose my own life as well.
However, the animals you eat are probably herbivores. Your analogies involving carnivores simply don't work. The cow who became your steak never posed a threat to you, except as the steak in the form of heart disease or Mad Cow Disease. The fish who became your sushi never posed a threat to you, except in the form of food poisoning or mercury poisoning. The chicken who became your buffalo wings never posed a threat to you, except in the form of Salmonella and high cholesterol.
"The responsibility is to survive by killing in an authentically conscious and compassionate manner."
It isn't a matter of survival. It's a matter of taste.
You choose to eat animals because they taste good, not because you have to. It's not about survival at all. Don't delude yourself and others into thinking you need to eat animal flesh. Countless vegetarians and vegans prove it's not about survival.
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 1:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Threats ...
As far as I know, most if not all carnivores primarily kill other animals - herbivores primarily - to feed, not due to threat. Regardless, along with other species, human beings are omnivores and need not apologize for it to other human beings or, if the day should come, to other species. You wish to compel guilt according to your own standards. I am not compelled. I'm satisfied I do not kill nor by proxy kill needlessly for my own survival. I eat meat, but not primarily. I eat one meal a day relatively safely to limit my consumption of food regardless of its source and for various reasons, not the least of which is to minimize my impact on other life - sentient or not. Not many people, vegetarian or otherwise, can say the same nor, I'll wager, are many as reverent in their consumption as I am and others like me. If you find it ridiculous to give authentic thanks and feel authentic regret or pain for eating a potato or a leafy salad, I'd suggest you genuinely rethink and rebuild your own empathy for all other life, not simply for other animals you judge capable of suffering or "sentient". I feel no guilt that I must eat or for the specific things I eat, however, I'm deliberately and consciously aware of what has been lost in my doing so which keeps me conscious, compassionate and deliberate in future actions. The best goal is a mindful life in all things, not unhealthy extremism. Of course, extremism is your right and privilege.
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
on reverence
Just because you're thankful or reverent doesn't mean you're right. If you asked an animal if they'd prefer that you be thankful or that you be vegan, they'd say "vegan!"
- ElaineVigneault
September 2, 2008 1:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We must differentiate to the best of our understanding.
I am struggling with what is meant here by "mindful and reverant"? If I extend this argument then, if I am mindful and reverant about murdering someone, even if I could have avoided it, it makes it justifiable? The problem with this argument is not that no distinction is made between degrees of sentience,but that no distinction is made between necessity and freedom. It is necessary to destroy to survive, but it is not necessary to destroy animals to survive. We know from biology animals have more complex nervous systems than plants. That is all we need to know to choose to destroy plants rather than animals because plants suffer less and because we cannot avoid eating plants, but we can avoid eating animals- so we are mitigating our impact.
To say we destroy either way menas there is no effort made to mitigate suffering even where the choice exists to do so. Being mindful and reverant is an attitude and has noting to do with the wrongfulness or otherwise of the action performed. The Inquisition felt very religious and inspired when they burned witches, but that does not mean that that was not wrong. I am not sure that plants feel pain. We need to establish this fact first. Distinguishing between the biology of different living things with a view to limiting suffering is not extremism. And while we certainly cannot know what plants feel compared to what animals feel we also cannot say that we know so little we cannot make a rational distinciton or comparison.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 9:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Suffering
No, the question is: Can we survive without forcing another being to unnecessarily suffer? Your appeal to plants, then, is erroneous. Further, even assuming the sentience of plants, which is unfounded, our processes funnel plant protein (e.g., between 5-15 pounds depending on the nonhuman) through nonhumans so as to produce one edible pound of animal protein. We can, therefore, remove the nonhumans from the process - and thus, stop unnecessary suffering in this regard - and consume the plant protein directly. Therefore, on your own premise, we ought to all be vegans because "less life is lost."
- Alex M
August 30, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On Sentience ...
I made no mention of the sentience of plants because it is immaterial to the discussion. As I've said, that we must kill life in order to sustain our own survival is without question. Sentient or not, killing plants to eat is still the taking of life. It's rather inconsistent to claim that the taking of an animal life is wrong but the taking of a plant's life is not. Life is either precious or it is not. To me, it's immaterial whether the life I take to survive suffers or not. What matters to me is that I remain conscious of and compassionate toward the life I take and remain respectful and grateful for the sacrifice. My focus is whether or not I pursue my own survival mindlessly and with little to no thought or feeling regarding the life lost in the process. If anyone wishes to live their lives eating primarily or only plants, that's great. I try to come as close to that as I'm able without extremist thinking or practice. I always choose the middle road of sensibility. My point earlier was this - whether you remain primarily a herbivore, carnivore or omnivore - do so in humility, with compassion and respect for the life you take. The "sentience" of that life is irrelevant to the fact you are killing to survive. We humans may or may not be unique in our ability to care about the suffering or destruction we cause. Regardless, because we can care, we must care. To become apathetic to the destruction you cause is a betrayal of your own life specifically, and a betrayal of the fullest potential of our species in general.
I eat meat and I will not apologize for it, however, what meat I consume I do so in as reverent a manner as I'm able. It seems some may be making some rather unwarranted assumptions about my eating habits of which you cannot know any detail. I ask that you read the words carefully I've written. You are vegetarian or vegan and I salute your devotion to the lifestyle. I must ask, however, how reverent are you for the life you must take - sentient or not?
- Naumadd
August 30, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On mumbo jumbo
Naumadd, your idea of "compassionately" and "reverently" inflicting unnecessary suffering and destruction on sentient creatures is, uh, wonky, to put it mildly. Plants don't care what happens to them. Sentient beings, human and non-human, do care. That's what sentience is about. Inflicting unnecessary suffering and death "in humility, with compassion and respect for the life you take" is a joke in bad taste -- perhaps the result of coming under the influence of some New Age guru? If you wish to live a life of compassion and reverence for others, I suggest you keep in mind the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.
- Beast Man
August 30, 2008 8:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Half-measure compassion
If I "treated others as I wish to be treated", and because I value my own life and would not choose to loose it, I would not take any life at all and would starve, as would you. As I said, the sentience of one's kill is irrelevant. In the fact we must eat to survive, nature has seen to that truth. That you are "sentient" and are able to feel compassion for what you kill is at issue. You can choose to freely or selectively exercise that compassion or not. That you must kill is without question - as I've also said. You call the killing of another animal unnecessary and the killing of a plant necessary. I would submit that, in many contexts, those necessities could quite possibly and probably be reversed, thus, the necessity you claim is relative. I do not consider a vegetarian lifestyle or that of an omnivore or carnivore to be inherently good or bad. The value of each is to be estimated by the individual within the context of their own life. There cannot be a universal morality here. By my own judgment which I trust, and even though it is a limited need, there are times when I consider it necessary to eat meat and times when it is not necessary. So too the plants I consume. In any event, the sentience of my "kill" is far less relevant than my own thoughts and emotions in the act. I can feel compassion for what life I take to survive or can choose not to. I choose to have compassion for all life - seemingly sentient or not according to my own judgment. I choose a compassionate balance more in line with the bulk of what is true of nature and of the living organisms of which we're aware. You choose a half-measure compassion with an extremist's approach - animals bad, plants good - and expect others to fall in line with your half-measure lifestyle. Such is your choice but, I cannot agree with it any more than you can agree with mine. So be it, and good luck.
- Naumadd
August 31, 2008 2:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Extremist approach - humans bad, other animals good -
Hi Naumadd,
I have just one question for you. Do you put humans in the same equation as other animals and plants? Cannibalism, as omnivorism, carnivorism, vegetarianism and veganism, are not inherently good or bad, and that the value of each must be estimated the individual within the context of their own life?
Would you agree with people that kill other humans in "humility", with "compassion" and "respect"?
If you would agree with that, and think it's ok to kill humans because, "hey, we gotta kill to live!" then I can't argue. You'd be completely consistent with your stated belief.
If you would not, could you explain why? Why such an "extremist" position - "humans bad, other animals and plants good?"
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 2, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On caring ...
Beast Man, perhaps plants do not care. In any event, YOU can care ... if you choose to. That's the real issue here. Are you angry that wild carnivores kill to eat, or is your anger limited to killing by human beings? Why limit the policing to human beings? By your thinking, ought we not also police the wild beasts to ensure there is no "unnecessary suffering"? Who decides what is necessary suffering and what is not? By what standard? By what values? By what right?
- Naumadd
August 31, 2008 2:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Inevitable Response
Quote:
"By your thinking, ought we not also police the wild beasts to ensure there is no "unnecessary suffering"?"
To begin, a carnivore killing other animals for food is not "unnecessary." We do not require these products to live happily and healthily, whereas carnivorous animals would die in the absence of flesh. So, it's not unnecessary. In regard to omnivores in the wild, many of them, like us, have evolved to exist without flesh. However, we are the only species, as far as we know, capable of guiding our actions and leveling our impulses with moral reasoning. Therefore, as it is unnecessary, we ought to eat a diet free from flesh and sexual excretions.
The question, then, is: Does it cause less suffering to act paternalistically throughout the whole of the wild world and prevent omnivores from killing other animals or would these actions, which would have to include making sure they eat enough plant matter to be healthy, controlling their actions to a very great degree, etc., cause further harm? The vegan response is simple: Yes. As we would have to literally remove these animals from nature, more suffering would necessarily result so we should, therefore, adopt a principle of respect for their nature and allow them to exist freely (unless conflict is literally inevitable).
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unnecessary Suffering
Quote:
"Who decides what is necessary suffering and what is not?"
Unnecessary should involve "convenience," "entertainment," "taste," or "habit," unless we are willing to extend this line of reason, and new definition of "unnecessary," to other aspects of our ethical reasoning.
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 7:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moral Symmetry
If we accept that animals are moral agents and are moral equals then does that not mean that we must jail animals for killing other animals? After all if they are to be held to the same standard as humans in one regard it would be arbitrary not to hold them to that standard in another regard.
- OolonColluphid
September 4, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Accountability
I think this is really simple- accountability derives from free-will. Humans are more accountable for their actions than animals because humans have more free-will. We cannot say therefore that it is ethical for us to kill other animals in order to eat them only because other animals do so to each other. This is because animals are not as free as we are, and therefore not as accountable. So, no there is no point policing wild beasts since animals cannot justify their actions to other animals nor do they need to justify their actions to people. I am trying to imagine the situation where a chicken could sue a cat for eating her eggs and the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to prosecute the case. This would be possible if animals had the same kind of accountability as people and that would only be possible if they had the same degree of fee will.
However, people do not need to justify their actions with respect to animals to themselves and to other people (but not to animals) because people are accountable for not causing suffering to other beings in their own estimation. That I tink defines what caring is. It is really not possible to care if one is not free.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 8:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Naumadd
Quote:
" Life is either precious or it is not."
As the processes involved in turning experiencing beings into food require funneling plant protein through these nonhumans, which make's the outcome roughly 10 pounds of plant protein to 1 pound of animal protein, aren't vegans displaying more reverence for life by consuming the plant matter directly? Shouldn't you "apologize" for wasted life, regardless of whether or not we "care" if the animals are raised and killed with reverence for their life?
Quote:
"It seems some may be making some rather unwarranted assumptions about my eating habits of which you cannot know any detail."
I make no assumptions. On your own premise about "respecting life," less life is taken, more respect is shown, by avoiding the gluttony and wasted death involved in meat production. Therefore, aren't you a hypocrite, following your own line of reasoning, if you are not a vegan?
The only reason I mention sentience is because that is how the animal rights side is framed; therefore, the question remains (for us), Isn't unnecessary suffering evil?
- Alex M
August 31, 2008 6:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good grief...
No sane person can have compassion for plants. Plants are not sentient. To feel "compassion" for plants is to be seriously misinformed about biology or to be in the grip of a self-serving delusion that justifies the unnecessary killing of sentient creatures on the basis that there is no difference between them and plants.
- Beast Man
March 19, 2009 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Degrees of suffering
So, you are saying you dont discriminate between killing animals or plants, you are just aware that you must destroy to survive. But surely, it is more ethical to cause less suffering in the process of such destruction by consuming less sentient organisms than more sentient organisms? Even if ethics is contextual withing culture and values and values are of course choices, even so one would want to discriminate between degrees of suffering caused?
- sor666
August 31, 2009 9:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
OK
After reading your lengthy discussion here I congratulate you on a well argued point. I disagree regarding the equivalent morality of killing sentient versus non-sentient life and regarding the issue of suffering, but I take your point that this is a decision internal to me - not intrinsic to the life forms in question. We also don't have any perfect definition of sentience (coral? - its an animal) or suffering. I'm just more judgmental than you are.
I do wonder why you list yes on animal eating. Surely you don't feel that other people should eat meat even if they don't want to.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 2:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't have to kill to survive
Who deserves to live is not the questions.
If we were all supported animal rights there would be no domesticated animals, and therefor no reason to kill any animals. We bring animals into existence and enslave them and then kill them. If animal rights had a strong hold in our society we wouldn't have to decide who deserves to live, because there would be no animals there to kill.
Your last questions are kind of wierd. We should eat plants, shouldn't eat animals, should eat, we deserve to life, no one of a herbivous anatomy needs to eat anyone else, and its irrevelant whose values reign "supreme."
I don't think you read franciones argument, try it again=P
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not needed for health, and ethically wrong
Too many studies to mention here demonstrate that eating animal products is deleterious to human health.
Aside from the health implications, however, it is simply unethical to torture and kill any sentient being for the purposes of our human whim
The fact that dolphins play with their food is irrelevant. So did Jeffrey Dahmer. Please.
When the argument "the natural order of things" is invoked that's an immediate cue that the proponent understands little of what "natural order" really is. Lock yourself in a room, unarmed, with a lion and see who comes out alive, having eaten their lunch and dinner too. It is the "natural order" for the praying mantis female to kill her mate after copulation. Well heck if she can do it I think I should be able to. And so on...
- kelley
August 4, 2008 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plants, Trees and Mushrooms...
...have no central nervous system and no pain receptors. They are unable to feel pain or react to their environment in ways that animals are capable of doing. This is biology 101. Actually, this is eighth grade biology.
- kelley
August 4, 2008 8:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals deserve better then PETA.
I've been a supporter of animal rights and a vegan now for nearly 20 years and at one time I believed that PETA did more good for the cause of animal rights rather than more harm.
I now see that they have damaged the cause by trivializing an important issue and turning off many possible supporters. Over the last 12 years or so they have made animal rights people and the issue itself seem CRAZY, trendy and hypocritical. By disregarding the actual lives of animals, by promoting bikinis instead of going vegan, and by making some people comfortable with killing animals as well as eating animals they have set back the movement (which does not even exist anymore) years and years.
- Phat P
August 6, 2008 1:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan is best
No we shouldn't eat meat. We don't need it. There are plenty of nutritious plant foods available, even many "faux meats", veg milks and egg replacers for die-hard animal food lovers. There's no excuse for eating animals anymore.
The more you replace animal foods with plant foods the better it is for the animals, the planet, and if you take B-12 and avoid fats, sugars and processed food you're going to be way healthier too.
- SojournerTruth
August 7, 2008 5:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reciprocity?
Those who regard reciprocity as fundamental to discourses about "rights" fail (intentionally?) to acknowledge the inherent contradiction between our commonly held premises regarding infants or the mentally retarded, for example, and the exclusion of nonhumans from rights-based protection.
Surely an adult hog is more rational than a severely senile elderly adult. Therefore, it follows from this argument, that either the adult hog has a better claim to "rights" than the adult human, or neither have a sufficient claim and therefore are both excluded. But again, this does not conform with our practice, which means that the proponents of this argument are either illogical or demonstrably arbitrary.
- Alex M
August 9, 2008 8:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor argument
The Masai concept has already been well refuted, but I think it's also important to point out that your "impoverished American" example really just helps explain the oppositions point on how an entrenched paradigm can actually promote poor health. People with few means opting for lower caloric intake in favor of something they consider as a symbol of improved status do not comprise a good reason for violating the rights of other species.
- mike
August 12, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
we do as we're told
Someone on one of the better vegan forums posted this idea and i wanted to share it. Basically, if one were to seriously question their reasons for eating meat they'd realize that for the most part, they eat it because it has been deemed socially acceptable when in fact the meat and dairy industry is morally bankrupt, corrupt and about as antisocial as it gets. Accepting what the meat and dairy industry does to animals as being "natural" or "not that bad" is to be living in complete denial.
"There are people who accept anything as truthful or 'good' as long as it stems from tradition, national security, or TV."
sad but true
- Plissken August 18, 2008 4:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There's no reason to eat animals
Of course we shouldn't eat meat (animals) - there is absolutely no justification for it. There's astounding evidence that a plant based diet is better for the body and the planet. Consuming animal products, indeed (ab)using animals in anyway for "food", clothing, entertainment or science is not necessary. Stop feeding the mega-giant meat/animal industries. They are poisoning the planet and our bodies. They are murdering billions of animals needlessly. For health & heart -
Go Vegan
- Bea Elliott
August 27, 2008 11:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should we eat animals? No.
Before you read the rest of my response, go vegan for one month. If you're seriously considering whether you should eat animals or not, then you ought to stop eating animals long enough to make a clear decision between the two behaviors. Without experience, your decision will certainly be biased and flawed.
Now that the only readers are permanent or temporary vegans I can assume I don't need to dispel myths about veganism such as the myth that vegans are weak (vegans tend to be just as healthy or more healthy than meat-eaters) or the myth that it's too difficult to be a vegan (in today's society it's just as easy to eat vegan as it is to eat kosher or to follow any popular diet). I don't need correct people who say veganism is a privileged position only for the wealthy (poor people tend to eat less meat as a rule and don't have any major issue going vegan unless rich, powerful food lobbies make it hard for them). I don't need to explain where my protein comes from (beans, nuts, grains, vegetables, and fruits). And I don't need to prove that vegan food tastes great (there's a whole world of vegan food out there - plenty of it is extremely tasty).
And now that the only readers are permanent or temporary vegans I can assume the readers reading this come to the question of whether or not we should eat meat without meat-eating guilt and absurd rationalizations. Now we can have an honest discourse about meat-eating and veganism.
As you likely know, there are numerous reasons why people choose to eat animals or not. Here are some of the most compelling reasons we should not eat animals:
1. For The Animals: It's immoral to force animals to breed, live, and die according to our arbitrary whims. Animals feel pain and can suffer. They have desires and needs. They do not want to become your dinner. Since we don't need to eat animals to survive, we shouldn't eat animals.
2. For Your Health: Eating a plant-based, whole foods diet is healthy. There are numerous diseases associated with meat-eating. If you're concerned about your health, you should limit or eliminate meat-eating.
3. For The Future: Animal agriculture is a major polluter. If you care about the environment and if you care about stopping or slowing climate change, you should limit or eliminate your consumption of animal products.
Thank you for reading.
- ElaineVigneault
August 29, 2008 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vgans
I think people who eat plants and vegtables are disgusting criminals. These poeple take an innocent plant, created by God, and grind it into pulp for digestion. These plants have never killed another living creature on this earth and are not deserving of death. It has been proven that plants have feelings and respond to kind words and love. Anyone who kills and eats a plant is a murderer!
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 7:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I love the taste of meat
Anyone with all of the facts and information must accept the vast majority of PETA's argument except for one. Meat tastes great! That's why we eat it... all this talk about nutrition, happy chickens, and the environment seems disingenuous from the meat industry's point of view.
The Animal product industry really only has one tenable argument: Meat tastes great. None of that soy crap comes close. Viva la meat!
- speedplane
October 30, 2008 5:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I love the taste of good food
The argument about "taste" is genuine... but did you know that really "flesh" has no real "taste" it, like other foods is seasoned and spices to make it what we wish it be... There is no "meat" flavor - that's why so many meat analogs are so successful... they are duplicating not only texture but "taste"... the salty, peppery, spicey, "flavors" are recreated in plant based foods all the time...
But plant based foods also don't include some other major components of *meat* such as the tendons, veins, blood vessels, cancers, infections, scar tissue, boils, cysts, tumors, fat, drugs, chemicals pain and death. Are you serious that what you are eating is "food" at all?
And Vgan... put the plant thing away - it's really getting childish.
- Bea Elliott
November 6, 2008 6:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Meat is Good Food, therefore I like the taste of meat
Flesh most certainly has a taste. I will happily eat a well cooked steak without any seasoning or condiment sauce any day of the week. The crispiness of the slightly charred skin, the juiciness of the meat itself, the saltiness of the marbled fat... even just the way it holds together as you chew it.... I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.
I would argue that plants have much less taste by themselves than meat. How often do people sit down for a plain slab of soy? Or eat a salad with no dressing (no oil or vinegar)? Virtually all foods improved with seasonings or sauses.
You are right that plants don't include tendons, veins, blood vessels, boils, cysts, and tumors. However good meat doesn't have any of those things either. I am 100% for increasing quality control standards for meat.
You say that meat has lots of drugs and chemicals... but plants have them too. Its worse for plants, they're also genetically modified. There are no genetically modified animals which have been approved by the FDA for consumption. True, if you're worried about drugs and chemicals (a fear I think is overblown, but thats another story) you can get organic vegetables, but you can also get organic meat.
Your point about death is more of a religious one. From a purely atheistic standpoint, when you kill a plant you cause its death. If you think that animals have a soul and it should be revered, then that's another story... I'll leave it to the theologists.
Your one valid point is the animal's pain. I do feel bad for the animals pain. In fact I would be happy to spend a bit more money on meat to ensure that they had less miserable lives. But I just don't care enough to give up eating meat.
- speedplane
November 7, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stop the "Humane" hooey already.
I'd actually have to challenge your point about what has "taste".A recent study examined the likes/dislikes of certain food products:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht -114690.html Published in the Journal of Consumer Research:8/08“Our present findings may have implications for efforts to promote better eating habits,” write the authors".“Heavy meat eaters claim that they eat meat because it tastes better than other foods, such as meat substitutes. Our results challenge that claim. Participants who ate the vegetarian alternative did not rate the taste and aroma less favorably than those who ate the beef product. Instead, what influenced taste evaluation was what they thought they had eaten and whether that food symbolized values that they personally supported." Tastebuds can be deceived based on preconceived notions.
Last month, The American Dietetic Association released these findings:consumption of whole grains- up 56%, 50% increased fruits and 48% increased vegetables over the past five years. On the other hand, 41% said they cut back on beef, 33% reduced their pork consumption and 23% reduced their dairy intake. http://www.eatright.org/ada/files/Overall_Findings_ADA_Trends_2008.pdf
There is a "raw-food" movement.People are discovering how delicious good food can be by it's self. But like a drug, artificial tastes and flavors have to be purged from your body before you can really enjoy the "real" stuff. It's not something that will happen over night. Just like most things that are worth having. Enjoyment of good food must be cultivated. It's very sad that even the best of parents miss the mark by allowing over-processed, un-natural foods rule at mealtimes.
No there are no genetically modified animal food products (yet).Consumers aren't ready and the industry is pacing themselves just like they did with cloned animal products.And technically, genetically "controlled" animals exist already. From bull semen auctions to pigs being bred without "stress genes". Did you know that because of all this tampering and inbreeding there's a scare in the poultry biz? http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/fresh-genes-nee.html?cid=13757 3556#comment-137573556 Chickens have been cross bred so much they have no resistance to illness or disease. Nature has a reason for diversification. Animal science in the name of greater profit and expediency has "mono-fied" most of what we eat.
We should be stressing more variety produced in sustainable ways, yet we do the opposite. We should be focusing on foods that replenish the air- yet we opt for "foods" that compromise it. We should be growing foods that use little resources in a responsible manner.Yet untold amounts of poop from factory farms leaches into ground water and contaiminates rivers. We're doing everything backwards.Deliberately.
Your free-range muscle meats are innoculated with dozens of vaccines, and are wormed several times before slaughter. They ingest chemicals to that are sprayed to discourage the growth of certain weeds that make cows sick.There's also insecticides that ward of flies, mosquitos, and the dreaded "cattle tick".Ranchers "borrow" grazing pasture from protected, conservation land.Ranchers also need to protect their livestock from predators which requires the slaughter of wolves, foxes, coyotes, bears.Bison "compete" for grass-1300 were slaughtered this year to provide more grass to your muscle meats.
- Bea Elliott
November 8, 2008 4:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humanity - Meat - part 2
"From a purely atheistic standpoint, when you kill a plant you cause its death. If you think that animals have a soul and it should be revered, then that's another story... I'll leave it to the theologists". We are all our own theologists and spiritual advisors... Each of us knows what is "right and wrong"... Especially when it comes to killing: "Thy Shalt Not K*ll". We hardly need "advisers" to guide us through this very basic "rule"... even atheists get the principle. I remember my neighbor was horrified to learn that her young son bashed in the skull of a cat... I don't know that she would have had as much concern if he was out picking daisies instead. We are all horrified to hear the abuse of a single animal... the killing of an innocent (and helpless) being - Yet, the meat industry hires illegals, destitute, homeless people to work the knock-boxes at packing plants... and it all seems to make such good sense. (?)
Thank you for recognizing *one* valid point... that of pain. That is the crux of extending non-human animals "moral consideration"... that they - (like us) - feel pain. That they - (like us) - have an interest in their own lives. If we want to be consistent with our "humane" ethics we cannot do so and continue to kill/eat animals. The two concepts cannot logically occupy the same space within our values. Either we are or we are *Not* "humane". A "humane" culture would not attempt to justify suffering/killing because of "tastebuds". So let's stop with the "humane" hooey already - We are *Not* "humane" at all... we just like saying we are... It allows us to continue inappropriate behavior with cultural sanctions -
I respect that you say the animal's pain is not enough to warrant any consideration from you beyond your words... "I feel bad"... Your honesty is appreciated. However your insensitivity is deplored.
- Bea Elliott
November 8, 2008 4:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humanity & Meat, etc
1) That study that you referred to on taste did a comparison between meat and vegetarian sausage rolls. A sausage roll is not exactly the meat industry's flagship product. Instead try comparing the taste of a grilled soy patty to a flame-broiled porterhouse steak.
2) Just because I am for eating meat doesn't mean I am also for eating processed foods. I don't like processed foods and only rarely purchase them. But you're right that eating meat is bad for the environment. But its not clear how bad it is (as a percentage of our total pollution)... and for now, I can rationalize it by taking public transit every day.
3) Being humane is not an on-off switch. Just because I don't hold an animal's pain to as high a standard as a human's doesn't make me inhumane.
4) I don't think I am insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals. But in order to eat meat you have to kill an animal. Given that there is probably no such thing as an instant death, the animal will go through some amount of pain. It is something all meat eaters should accept.
- speedplane
November 8, 2008 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's Inhumane to Cause Suffering
So your saying that "taste" is reason enough (for you) to justify causing pain to an innocent being. The hunk of charred carcass aces the soy patty - regardless of the suffering or life of an animal victim... Those are some mighty demanding tastebuds! Are we eating to live by any chance?
Inhumane: Lacking pity or compassion
Deliberately killing animals causes injury and suffering. The only "switch" I'm aware of - is the one that you are using to define an action with an incorrect name... You cannot eat meat and call yourself "humane" or "compassionate"... nor can you say you care for animals while you consume their bodies. They are two opposite concepts. Smoke and mirrors do not mask this incongruance.
You don't think you are "insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals"? Really? You're causing it!!! Repeat after me: I am inhumane. I am insensitive to the pain and consequent death of animals because *I eat them*. Yes, "animals go through some amount of pain". It is something all meat eaters should question the necessity of.
- Bea Elliott
November 10, 2008 8:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes... I'll kill for meat
> "So your saying that "taste" is reason enough (for you) to justify causing pain to an innocent being"
Nailed it on the head.
> "Are we eating to live by any chance?"
I think very few people in modern countries, including vegans, eat to live. Most of us live to eat.
Lets go back that part where you say I'm inhumane....
For me to be inhumane I must be "lacking pity or compassion". However I don't lack either of those. I try to be compassionate when I see someone I can help and I pity those who cannot help themselves. My compassion for humans knows no bounds. And I certainly have pity and compassion for animals which are tortured or abused. But you're right, assuming an animal has lived a humane and healthy life, I don't have much compassion for animals brought to slaughter.
But I can't be alone here. Surely there must be things that you don't pity or feel compassionate about. Do you feel as compassionate about bugs as you do to larger animals? Or forget that... do you feel as compassionate about animals as you do to humans? Surely there must be some "compassion" scale you put living things on. Fungi and plants are probably at the very bottom, then maybe bugs, then dumb animals like fish and so on.
A scaled system is the only rational way. You couldn't possibly hold everything to the same level of compassion. Nor could you ever split all living things into two groups: those you feel compassionate about and those you don't. Perhaps you could split them into three, four, or five groups of compassion, but then it starts looking like what everybody else uses: a gradated scale to rate the value of living things.
So, I have to ask then: if there is no scale, where do you draw the line? At what point are you willing to kill? I doubt you would ever use a mouse trap, but what about a roach traps? Is fishing ok? What about using pesticides to grow food? I would assume you would kill an animal if it were attacking you, but what if you were just terrified of it?
- speedplane
November 10, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
early man
Since humans have been around they ate meat to survive and without the meat they whould have been killed and there whould be no modern sociaty and by the way plants are liveing things too,
- kenn13
December 13, 2008 10:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God's Creatures
I believe in a world where there is safe place for all of God's creatures...right next to the mashed potatoes.
- jbritt March 11, 2009 4:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God Is Irrevelant
I don't know why you started talking about god, but she/he is irrevelant in this debate. And on the note of god, you can't hope to justify anything with the bible. The bible and Jesus were clear supporters of slavery, racism and sexism, all of which are frowned upon nowadays.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 3:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your comment is irrelevant
I'm not sure what you mean by "God is Irrevelant". I don't know whether he is revelant myself as that is a word I am unfamiliar with. My comment was not really an argument, and I wasn't trying to use the Bible to justify anything. My comment was just a comment. Talk about your appropriate screen names. Keep screaming at nothing ScreamingChicken. I didn't come here to debate religion, but as long as you are going to castigate my religion I would ask you to quote where in the Bible it encourages slavery, racism or sexism. I mean that. Quote the Bible. Don't give me an anecdotal story about someone doing something bad under the banner of Christianity. There are plenty of bad people that did bad things in the name of Christianity, but that is the case bad people who exploited a religion using a deranged interpretation to justify their own evil deeds. Way to turn a light hearted comment into an unrelated attack on someone's religion. Are you one of those fervently anti-religion types that because you do not follow a religion you feel a need to try and strip others of their right to choose to follow a religion? Do you do this because religion is bad and you are looking out for the greater good? If so, kindly keep your fascism to yourself and stop looking for an opportunity to attack people for the slightest infraction against your personal beliefs. By the way, steak is delicious.
- jbritt March 16, 2009 7:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bumper stickers
I once saw a bumper sticker that read thus, "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat two" While funny it represents the problem all this debate comes from. TOO MUCH. Too much of anything is bad for you meat is not an exception and neither are veggies. Surprisingly enough the food pyramid is mildly accurate about what our diet should look like but we are a country of excess. We love the big steak, the quadruple layer burger and the full rack of ribs.... with a side salad. Only in america do we order a bic mac, large fry and a DIET coke. Seriously people time to wise up. And to those who want to dispute about the no-meat diet being bad for you I have a little story.
Roughly a year ago I was in Ecuador doing some service work and some students from an American university came to take a census in an attempt to secure monetary sponsors for some of the disadvantaged children of the area. Now in the jungles of Santo Domingo Ecuador there is no shortage of greens to eat. Mango, pineapple, strange fruits and papayas the size of your head grow on every tree. There's an excess to the point that it rots in the streets. Carrots, beets, potatoes, and yuca are also ridiculously plentiful. Now while these children were being weighed and having their photos taken I was translating an interview for the students with the parents . The principle question asked was not about the amount of food the children were given, it was about the frequency of meat in those diets. "una vez a la semana, los domingos." (one time a week on sunday) was the most frequent response. That put these people on the top of the list. I'd also like to make special mention of the "meat" they eat. They have an odd style of dairy farming there. The fat cows live to produce milk until they're old and skinny then they're killed for meat. Making the meat scarce and laced with cartilage. It comes out paper thin and is pounded out further to make enough for the family. Meat is wanted. It's needed. Just like veggies. So next time you cut into that steak just be glad its more than 1/2mm thick.
- ecuadmail
April 24, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, but animals eat each other and we are animals
This a difficult quesiton for me logically. I am vegan, but I cannot say that all people should not eat meat . If people are animals as they are and animals kill and eat each other all the time (oftne killing each other in terribly cruel ways)- then why shouldn't humans logically do the same? Animals who are omnivores do kill herbivores and eat them all the time.
My only answer to this is that we must not eat meat because we are more aware than the animals of the hurt/cruelty this imposes on the animals being killed- but if I argue this then I risk falling into the trap of suggesting that humans are more moral than animals! Certainly, they are not.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 3:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Beyond vegetarianism....GO VEGAN
FOR THE ANIMALS
Despite the common belief that drinking milk or eating eggs does not kill animals , commercially-raised dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, whether factory-farmed or "free range", are slaughtered when their production rates decline. The same factory farm methods that are used to produce most meats are also used to produce most milk and eggs. These cows and chickens live their short lives caged, drugged, mutilated, and deprived of their most basic freedoms.
On U.S. farms, an average of 7 egg-laying hens spend their entire lives in a battery cage with a floor area the size of a vinyl record cover. Living on wire floors that deform their feet, in cages so tiny they cannot stretch their wings, and covered with excrement from cages above them, these chickens suffer lameness, bone disease, and obsessive pecking, which is curbed by searing the beaks off young chicks. Although chickens can live up to 15 years, they are usually slaughtered when their egg production rates decline after two years. Hatcheries have no use for male chicks, so they are killed by suffocation, decapitation, gassing, or crushing.
As with any mammal, cows produce milk only when pregnant and stop after their calves have been weaned. When a dairy cow delivers a female calf, the calf becomes a dairy cow herself, born to live in the same conditions as her mother. But when a dairy cow delivers a male calf, the calf is sold to a veal farm within days of birth, where he is tethered to a stall, deprived of food and exercise, and soon slaughtered for meat . Life is only a few years longer for the mother. Because it is unprofitable to keep cows alive once their milk production declines, dairy cows are usually slaughtered at 5 years of age. Thus, a cow's normal lifespan of 25 years is cut 20 years short just to cut costs and maximize production.
Today's farms are not like the ones most of us learned about in school; they are mechanized factories where an animal's welfare is of little concern compared to profit. Veganism emerges as the lifestyle most consistent with the philosophy that animals are not ours to use.
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Animal agriculture takes a devastating toll on the earth. It is an inefficient way of producing food, since feed for farm animals requires land, water, fertilizer, and other resources that could otherwise have been used directly for producing human food.
Animal agriculture's dependence on higher yields accelerates topsoil erosion on our farmlands, rendering land less productive for crop cultivation, and forcing the conversion of wilderness to grazing and farm lands. Animal waste from massive feedlots and factory farms is a leading cause of pollution in our groundwater and rivers. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has linked animal agriculture to a number of other environmental problems, including: contamination of aquatic ecosystems, soil, and drinking water by manure, pesticides, and fertilizers; acid rain from ammonia emissions; greenhouse gas production; and depletion of aquifers for irrigation.
In a time when population pressures have become an increasing stress on the environment , there are additional arguments for a vegan diet . The United Nations has reported that a vegan diet can feed many more people than an animal-based diet. For instance, projections have estimated that the 1992 food supply could have fed about 6.3 billion people on a purely vegetarian diet, 4.2 billion people on a 85% vegetarian diet, or 3.2 billion people on a 75% vegetarian diet.
FOR OUR HEALTH
The consumption of animal fats and proteins has been linked to heart disease, colon and lung cancer , osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity , and a number of other debilitating conditions. Cows' milk contains ideal amounts of fat and protein for young calves, but far too much for humans. And eggs are higher in cholesterol than any other food, making them a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. The American Dietetic Association reports that vegetarian/vegan diets are associated with reduced risks for all of these conditions.
Vegan foods, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and beans, are low in fat, contain no cholesterol, and are rich in fiber and nutrients. Vegans can get all the protein they need from legumes (e.g., beans, tofu, peanuts) and grains (e.g., rice, corn, whole wheat breads and pastas); calcium from broccoli, kale, collard greens, tofu, fortified juices and soymilks; iron from chickpeas, spinach, pinto beans, and soy products; and B12 from fortified foods or supplements.
With planning, a vegan diet can provide all the nutrients we were taught as schoolchildren came only from animal products.
- progressisdead
May 12, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES IS SO GOOD
Why not I love my beef,pork,veal,chicken,fish they are so good on the grill.I think I am going to cook me up a newyork strip stake now.this give me the munchies
- countryboy
June 14, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why not
Why not....it cant be any worse than all the pharmaceuticals they try to dump into our bodies.
- rkm
June 15, 2009 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reducing red meat consumption good for health
I would think it would be good for the president to address this issue simply by suggesting the benefits. It's good for your health . It's good for the health of the eccomy, the environment , and the spiritual health of people. We are rapidly increasing the level of cruelty in which we produce our cow beef and chicken. Meat is one of the easiest sources to get healthy food . IF we can introduce more nutritious foods into common consumption such as sea weed, and complex grains, we'd be saving the environment and ourselves. we can't cook like an irishman and excpect people to reduce their meat consumption. IT would take an observation of healthy alternative. It could really impact the world. It's a very big problem eating all this cow. we're destroying the world, ourselves, and our spirit. We're hitting a threshold.
- jxzac June 15, 2009 11:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
If God wanted us to eat vegetables, he would have made them taste like cheeseburgers.
- mhambletonatc
June 23, 2009 10:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Better nutritional value in vegetables and fruits.
I hope some of you realize meat will just make you fat. Fat and gross. Yeah meat has protein. Well so do vegetables. Thing about vegetables is they have a whole hell of a lot less fat in them, yet the same amount of protein. l
- RebeccaG
July 22, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no dont eat meat
i support this. as a vegetarian i think vegetarianism is good,it stops animal cruelty and benifits your health
meat is gross.... ewww... i mean come on you eating someon else
- oliu1
August 9, 2009 2:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals
Animals eat other animals . So why can't people eat animals?
- Dylandts
August 11, 2009 12:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because we have free-will
Because people have more free-will and therefore more accountability for their actions than do animals . Animals are not morally responsible for their actions because they are not as free as we are ie they are boung by necessity and instinct.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 8:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moral
So it's a moral issue now?
- Dylandts
September 26, 2009 9:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animal Rights Argument
I am still on the fence as to whether or not I should continue eating meat . I enjoy the taste, and though I recognize the health benefits of vegetarian , I haven't seen anything telling me that eating LESS meat as opposed to going "cold turkey" (pun intended) would be any less healthy.
Where I am still not sure, is the debate over animal rights to life. I understand that they go through alot of torture in some conditions , but if we eliminated animal product consumption, wouldn't that mean we eliminate the animals as well? Afterall, cows don't exactly make cuddly pets . What happens when we aren't eating them anymore? All I can think of in this practical world is they would end up being slaughtered or left to starve anyway. How is that more humane?
Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely with more humane methods of preparing and ultimately killing the animal foods we eat. But to suggest we don't eat them at all, is the same as saying let's just wipe them out and be done with it - genocide.
Indulge me in a moment of logical thinking and please, someone who is anti-meat show me how I'm wrong in this. Currently, most cows live on farms owned by farmers. These farmers pay for their cow's food and water . If not directly, indirectly (i.e. paying taxes for the land that cows graze on). Let's say tomorrow all animal products are made illegal or spontaneously everyone stopped eating cow meat. Cows require alot of food and water to sustain. Who is going to take care of them when the farmer can't make a living off them anymore? They can't exactly release them in the wild, they don't make good pets, most aren't even allowed within city limits, and as already noted, they produce a great deal of pollutants (methane gas).
I suspect in most cases they'd be left in the pastures until they starved or the farmer would just go out and shoot them. Maybe black market meat?? So explain to me how that's good for cows? And then, after the cows are killed off, we start killing rabbits, groundhogs, and other small mammals and rodents that will be killed to plow new farmland. In the end, by "saving" the animals we eat we are only committing genocide against them and adding even more animals to the list that we have to kill to survive.
By this logic, it seems to be the most HUMANE thing to continue eating meat and try to make comfortable and painless a life as possible for cows and other such animals.
- JoeXP
August 26, 2009 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Necessity and Freedom
This is really about distinguishing between necessity and freedom. We can only be ethically responsible for those actions which we perform freely ie out of free-will. If we can show that eating meat is trully not necessary for us to survive, then we have effectively proven that it is also not ethical for us to eat meat , since it creates suffering for animals . If however, we prove that eating meat is absolutely necessary for us to survive then we can argue that we do not have a choice and we must hurt animals to survive.
I think we all know we do not have to eat meat to survive. If you are still not sure please check out the definiton of what an obligate carnivore is. These are the only animals that actually must eat meat to survive ie dogs and cats. They possess a different kind of digestive system to omnivores in that they actually cannot digest any foods other than meat. If you think that applies to you and you are human you might need to see your doctor to see if you have evolved into a whole new species. One of the reasons we have colour vision and more taste buds is perecisely so that we can distinguish between different kinds of fruit and veg. This is also why my cat has such a hard time figuring out by sight alone which leaf is a grass leaf and which is some other plant when she tries to eat grass. She has no colour vision because she is a carnivore. Incidentally, if humans were carnivores they would not need the extra taste buds to distinguish so many different kinds of flavours of spices and plants- meat really has very few kinds of taste. And if humans really were carnivores they would have better night visiona and a much better sense of smell. They would be facinated by movement and would surely run much faster. I suggest you consider what evolutionary adaptaions you actually have that would allow you to compete with other carnivores for prey? I think humans would make patheticly bad carnivores and not one of them would be a match for my cat.
To extend this argument further, just because the tiger must eat you to live, does not logically imply that it is ethically acceptable for you to eat other animals. The point is that the tiger has no choice and youd do, not only because you are omnivorous and not carnivorous, but also because you have more fee-will and that makes humans more accountable for their actions than animals, who have less free will.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 8:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here is one truth revealed!
Well here is some evidence that eating meat isn't bad!
No Evidence Of 'Unhealthful' Relation Between Animal Foods And Breast Cancer, New Studies Find
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2009) — Breast cancer is the 7th leading cause of mortality in the United States and results in approximately 41,000 deaths each year. Although genetic factors are important, there is considerable evidence that breast cancer risk is related to modifiable lifestyle factors, such as physical activity, body weight , alcohol intake, and dietary choices. The September 2009 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports the results of 3 human studies designed to better delineate the relation between animal foods and breast cancer risk.
________________________________________
"These studies highlight two very important points," said American Society for Nutrition Spokesperson Shelley McGuire, PhD. "First we all need to remember that there are really no such things as 'bad' foods. Second, observational studies that show associations between diet and health need to be considered with a proverbial grain of salt. These studies clearly provide additional and strong evidence that consumption of meat and dairy products by women does not, by itself, increase breast cancer risk. Further, moderate and mindful consumption of these foods can be very important in attaining optimal nutrition for most women who often do not consume sufficient iron and calcium."
In the first study, which was a controlled dietary intervention trial conducted in the United States, 35 obese postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes received conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) supplements or a control supplement (safflower oil ) each for 36 wk; adiposity was assessed. In another study, researchers examined the association between CLA intake from natural sources and breast cancer incidence in a large cohort of initially cancer-free Swedish women for 17.4 y. The third study assessed whether the consumption of meat, eggs, and dairy products was associated with breast cancer risk in a very large group of healthy European women followed for 8.8 y.
These studies provide no evidence that animal- food consumption increases (or decreases) risk of breast cancer, although CLA supplementation may decrease adiposity (a major risk factor for this disease). In an editorial, Linos and Willett remind us that these studies did not assess the relation between animal-food intake during early life and later breast cancer, a likely important piece of the puzzle. Nonetheless, they conclude, "These data are sufficient to exclude any major effect of consuming these foods during midlife or later on risk of breast cancer." Perhaps we finally have the answer to this long-standing question.
________________________________________
Journal references:
1. Susanna C Larsson, Leif Bergkvist, and Alicja Wolk. Conjugated linoleic acid intake and breast cancer risk in a prospective cohort of Swedish Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009; DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27480
2. Leigh E Norris, Angela L Collene, Michelle L Asp, Jason C Hsu, Li-Fen Liu, Julia R Richardson, Dongmei Li, Doris Bell, Kwame Osei, Rebecca D Jackson, and Martha A Belury. Comparison of dietary conjugated linoleic acid with safflower oil on body composition in obese postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009; DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27371
3. Pala et al. Meat, eggs, dairy products, and risk of breast cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009; DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27173
4. Eleni Linos and Walter Willett. Meat, dairy and breast cancer: do we have an answer? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009; DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28340
Adapted from materials provided by American Society for Nutrition, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814103235.htm
- jmcv02
September 2, 2009 12:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
another politically correct group trying to push their ideas
on everyone else.... I will eat my thanksgiving turkey with a clear concious. as i have every year of my life and so has my whole family. I grew up on meat and fed it to my children who are disgustingly healthy men now. I will eat steak or a hamburger or ham or sausage anytime i want with no apologies to anyone. if you go to sleep worrying about that silly turkey who is so stupid it will drown itself in the rain as turkeys are known to do if you want to worry about that that is your problem but i will sleep with the satisfaction of a full warm tummy and you can sit and look at your carrot sticks while your tummy growels if you want but no one can tell me I cant eat meat. We have a farm and i am proud to be from a long line of farmers who have helped feed this country for generations with grain, milk and meat. so get over your selves you bleeding hearts who are only on the band wagon because it is politically correct.. i dont care what any of you think.
- cbooh
October 30, 2009 11:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.