quote:Originally posted by Hero_Mike: ...it's interesting nonetheless that it isn't just my singular experience.
Or the comic writer is using a widly known "fact" for comic purposes. I don't know if a comic strip is a good reference.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Malruhn: Name calling, Chloe? My respect for you is rapidly dwindling.
Really? Which vicious piece of namecalling are you most upset about? It is that I said you were "being silly"? Or is it that I said you were "not dumb"?
quote: Now, to be honest I have never considered the total "suffering" involved... the meat PLUS the veggies to raise the meat. That makes for a valid point, and I thank Gen Yus and then Chloe for going into that.
I "went into that" when I first responded to your post, pages ago.
quote: Like Mickey, I was accosted well over a dozen times in college (back in the '80s).
Mickey who?
quote: I have also been evangelized in FOUR different restaurants, ranging from a four star, fine-dining place to a McDonalds. Okay, I'll admit the possibility that I may just be a nutter magnet, but that belies the fact that I have still been approached and told that my meal suffered to provide me with nourishment.
Why does it "belie the fact"? What is it that makes you a "nutter magnet"? And I'll call your four times being approached by evangelical vegetarians, and raise you the much greater number of times that people have noticed me ordering meat-free food, or passing up the meat, and actively attempted to put food on my plate, and/or asked me aggressive questions about why I'm not eating meat, and/or turned my personal decision not to eat meat into a joke. Under those circumstances, I think vegetarians are perfectly entitled to explain how someone else's "meal suffered." Not that I'm suggesting that this is what led to your encounters with vegetarians, of course.
quote: Which brings me to answer the question, "What do I do to minimize the suffering?" Nothing. Nada. Don't care,
Then it is you being disingenuous. If you don't care about plant suffering, why bring it up?
quote: Regarding the "baby" comment. After you are done patting yourself on the back in congratulations for being intellectually superior to me, please explain how it should be taken other than as a snarky straw-man argument intended to further anthropomorphize critters? Help me out that I might one day rise to your level of brightitudeness and no longer languish in the cesspool of... forget it. Stop being obtuse and stick to one argument.
It was intended to demonstrate to RangerDog that it is perfectly possible to make judgments about what people should and shouldn't eat, if what that person is eating is unethical. However, that's before I realised that I completely misread RangerDog's statement, and apologized.
quote: The debate is (now that this is completely derailed), degrees of suffering.veggies get upset over the alleged suffering of animals, but in the HUGE majority of cases (only exception I know of is YOU) will not accept the remote possibility that their beloved bean sprouts may have done the plant version of an agonized scream when they were harvested. It pains the veggies when confronted with the possibility that they still may cause pain.
Which, of course, is why you bring it up. You do like to spread joy, don't you?
quote: The only pain I wish they would stop is my emotional pain when they accost me as I try to enjoy some meat.
Why does it cause you emotional pain, if you don't care?
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Rhiandmoi, I was not the first here to anthropomorphize animals to give them the full ability to understand "suffering", I merely jumped on the bandwagon. Why can THEY suffer, but plants can't? They both react to negative stimuli, just at the speeds given them by nature. Is it brain size? There are gatherings of pre-ganglion material in the stems of most plants... do those count? You are obviously drawing a line somewhere, and I just want to be clear. What of bacterium or amebae or even flagellates? Are they advanced enough? Sea cucumbers? Or is there an IQ rating involved, as an earlier post on this page makes it sound like it.
I think we are having a fundamental disagreement about the definition of suffering and the origin of emotion. Merely being capable of perceiving and responding to negative stimuli does not make a creature capable of suffering. They also have to experience emotional distress in connection with experiencing the stimulus. I am not saying that plants, bacteria, sea sponges, hydra, or any other organism on the planet is not capable of experiencing and reacting to negative stimulation. But they lack the structures necessary to form emotions, and therefore cannot suffer. It doesn't pain me to consider the possibility that plants might suffer. It pains me to think there are people on this planet that think so little that they think plants are capable of suffering.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
posted
Just before anyone gets the wrong idea here - it was me (Mike, or Hero_Mike) who mentioned that I too had been on the receiving end of vocal and public criticism of my dietary choices, by some rather determined vegetarians.
It happened a few times in the university cafeteria, always at the start of term, and by several different people. I have never, even in a group, had anyone comment to me about my food choice in any "public" restaurant of any kind. Maybe I'm lucky that nobody chose to make a protest at McDonald's the day I chose to eat a Big Mac, but such is my experience.
I personally have a hard time believing that this happens outside of the situations where you have passionate young people, and there is not only a "system" to fight against (the "institution" of the high-school or university cafeteria dictating what people can or even should deat), but that they can't be removed or barred from such a place. I dare say that if I was in a restaurant - any restaurant - and there was a public confrontation over my carnivorous nature, the police would (and should) be involved. So I personally have a hard time believing that it is such a common thing in "public" restaurants.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are we capable of digesting meat properly with no ill effects, if we weren't designed to eat it? And if we WERE designed to be able to eat it, why is it wrong to do so?
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
MapleLeaf: One of the ethics questions of raising meat animals, is it right to create a sentient life just to eat it? That is different than participating in the "food cycle" by going out into the wild and hunting animals that freely reproduce and direct their own lives. I guess someone like Malruhn who believes plants are sentient can say the same thing about planting vegetables, that they never chose to be planted in Mr. McGregor's garden.
But your question is a values question. We are capable of digesting human flesh with no ill effects, but pretty universally we have decided that it is wrong to eat other people, and even in cultures where it is ok to eat human flesh it is done in a ritualized manner and just grabbing a people burger is not allowed (from what I remember from anthropology class). I think in many ways the idea that eating animals is wrong is an extension of the idea that eating people is wrong.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
quote:I think in many ways the idea that eating animals is wrong is an extension of the idea that eating people is wrong.
But the idea that eating animals is wrong-as-an-extension-of-it-being-wrong-to-eat-people implies that people and animals should be valued the same way.
quote:Who says we were "designed" at all?
Alright. We have evolved to be able to eat meat.
Rhi, I'm not even talking about domesticated cattle. Unless, Chloe, you feel that farm-raised meat is cruel but hunted meat is not.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
But many ethical vegetarians do feel that animals should be valued if not the same as people, darn close.
-------------------- I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.
quote:But many ethical vegetarians do feel that animals should be valued if not the same as people, darn close.
Right, I know. Why, though? What purpose do individual animals serve (not species as a whole?) besides pets, food, and research subjects?
Edit: I'm not suggesting killing them for fun or for no reason. But I don't see why we shouldn't use them.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless, Chloe, you feel that farm-raised meat is cruel but hunted meat is not.
What? Can't think where that came from. Of course I don't.
I was wondering because of what Rhi said:
quote:One of the ethics questions of raising meat animals, is it right to create a sentient life just to eat it? That is different than participating in the "food cycle" by going out into the wild and hunting animals that freely reproduce and direct their own lives.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mistletoey Chloe: Perhaps Rhi feels differently.
Why does something need a purpose? I don't have the beginning of a clue what my purpose is. But I wouldn't want to be harvested for food as a result.
Well, you happen to have the leg up on animals 'cause you can formulate that thought in the first place. Which leads me to believe that you (and all other humans) might have other thoughts that contribute in some way to other people's existence.
We're all friends here. Or at least worthy combatants. We make each other's lives richer (and smarter) by having all of these debates. Some people make important medical discoveries. Some people entertain others. Some people are so friggin' funny that I'd be bored if I ate them. This is why I would not okay the eating of people - they are important and do stuff.
Animals (on an invididual basis) don't do anything important or entertaining. And the ones that do (like Alex the African Grey Parrot) don't get eaten anyway. They can't reason or think, and they don't make life plans that get ruined by our killing and eating them.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you do see, don't you, that the argument you are putting forth (are you important and/or entertaining) would justify the eating of criminals, or profoundly disabled people? I think the better questions are: can one suffer? And if so, is this suffering necessary?
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LeaflessMapleTree: Edit: I'm not suggesting killing them for fun or for no reason.
But why not? What's the difference?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because there are people who would be more than willing to eat that meat, and it's sad to see perfectly good, nutritious food left to rot because someone wanted a trophy on their wall. If you're gonna kill it, eat it too, or send the meat to a foodbank or some kind of way of giving it to people who need it.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To you it's sad. To other's it's sad to see the animals killed for any reason.
You were basing your argument on this premise: "What purpose do individual animals serve (not species as a whole?) besides pets, food, and research subjects?" That argument works exactly as well for killing animals for fun. Not even necessarily for sport. Why not just have farms where there are fenced-in pigs and you can go, lean over the fence and kill them? The pigs still have no individual purpose. You could breed the pigs especially for it, so that there's a surplus of pigs, were they just being used for food.
Why? And, for that matter, why not dogs or cats?
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess we have gotten down to the crux of my opinion then: I don't really lose sleep over animals. Why? I suppose, given how this thread has turned out, I don't have a logical answer. I like pets, because I become attached to them. And I personally don't have the heart to kill an animal. But if people kill them for a purpose it doesn't bother me much. I'm not sure why. And I'm not sure why it DOES bother me if people kill them for fun or don't kill them humanely.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
People who cite waste as a reason for not eating meat have one small problem. Humans do need some kind of animal protein, as evidenced by the fact nothing that grows out of the ground has vitamin B12 in it. So, even if everyone stops eating meat, we still have to feed the animals we keep for milk and eggs. And free grazing is still a problem, because what cows eat is reflected in their milk.
I'll add I have two vegetarian friends, and I don't mind that. I think killing animals, provided it is for the purpose of food or personal safety (hunting to bring down the deer population I consider an aspect of the second), is not wrong. My rationale is that there are many animals that eat meat. I would be silly to try to make myself superior to them.
Sister "i shouldn't be in the soapbox derby though..." Ray
"There can't be a war on Christmas. Even Cambridge has decorations up!" - an observation I made Posts: 2719 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: Humans do need some kind of animal protein, as evidenced by the fact nothing that grows out of the ground has vitamin B12 in it. So, even if everyone stops eating meat, we still have to feed the animals we keep for milk and eggs.
B12 can be taken from other sources besides meat and animal products -- some special kinds of yeast and a certain Chinese herb root -- or synthesized in the lab (since 1972). (Incidentally, B12 can't be sythesized by animals either. Only certain microorganisms have the enzymes to make it. It is also known to be synthesized by bacteria in the human intestines.) B12 is recycled in the body so the amount of B12 needed for a healthy person is so small that these non-animal sources are plenty.
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: I'll add I have two vegetarian friends, and I don't mind that.
Why would you?
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
"There can't be a war on Christmas. Even Cambridge has decorations up!" - an observation I made Posts: 2719 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: My rationale is that there are many animals that eat meat. I would be silly to try to make myself superior to them.
I don't find it silly. I hope and believe that the way the cows I eat are killed is more humane than the way it would be done by the typical pack of wolves.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stepped out of the argument for a while, i'll just say one thing for now:
For efficiency reasons, there's no point in being cruel to the animals that you kill. Unless you are a sadist and are killing the animals for more than the meat, most humans (And animals!) would prefer if the animal died as quickly as possible, without struggle. No one really intentionally tortures the animals before slaughter, and like someone said, Kobe beef have the best living conditions as possible, and it shows in the taste and texture of the meat. No one has said specifically that humans are intentionally cruel to livestock, but the implication that a meat eater= someone who is intentionally creul to animals. Of course, YMMV on the definition of cruelty.
Do i think being creul to animals is bad? Yes, and if it were up to me, all livestock would live like Kobe beef, just for the fact that it makes a better quality of meat. Am i going to be an activist for it? Hell no, I have my own concerns and my own problems to deal with.
-------------------- “We live in a society of victimization, where people are much more comfortable being victimized than actually standing up for themselves.” - Marilyn Manson "Well, end more, your not ending enough!" - MST3K Posts: 259 | From: Texas | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaidenAthene: For efficiency reasons, there's no point in being cruel to the animals that you kill. Unless you are a sadist and are killing the animals for more than the meat, most humans (And animals!) would prefer if the animal died as quickly as possible, without struggle. No one really intentionally tortures the animals before slaughter, and like someone said, Kobe beef have the best living conditions as possible, and it shows in the taste and texture of the meat. No one has said specifically that humans are intentionally cruel to livestock, but the implication that a meat eater= someone who is intentionally creul to animals. Of course, YMMV on the definition of cruelty.
Do i think being creul to animals is bad? Yes, and if it were up to me, all livestock would live like Kobe beef, just for the fact that it makes a better quality of meat. Am i going to be an activist for it? Hell no, I have my own concerns and my own problems to deal with.
Firrst of all, the legendary conditions of the pampered Kobe cows are just that: a legend. (Funny thing that you should see so many of them coming out as if they were fact on an urban legend message board.) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,889220,00.html Anyway, since veal and other meat treats that require brutal treatment are very delicious, I doubt there is a positive correlation between quality of animal life and quality of animal meat except that it seems to help if they are well fed.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail at brain-having. They do seem to give Kobes a little better treatment, although most of the quality is genetics.
(I personally don't like veal, it doesn't taste right!)
-------------------- “We live in a society of victimization, where people are much more comfortable being victimized than actually standing up for themselves.” - Marilyn Manson "Well, end more, your not ending enough!" - MST3K Posts: 259 | From: Texas | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: My rationale is that there are many animals that eat meat. I would be silly to try to make myself superior to them.
That's a bit strange, as far as reasoning goes. Many Animals would shit on the floor wherever they happen to be standing. Come to that, many animals will eat their own (and other animal's) shit. I'd hope that you make yourself superior to them in that respect, at least.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: I'll add I have two vegetarian friends, and I don't mind that.
Why would you?
Some people think when I try to point out a fallacy in a vegetarian argument, it means I do not like vegetarians, which is not true.
How silly of those people.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: My rationale is that there are many animals that eat meat. I would be silly to try to make myself superior to them.
That's a bit strange, as far as reasoning goes. Many Animals would shit on the floor wherever they happen to be standing. Come to that, many animals will eat their own (and other animal's) shit. I'd hope that you make yourself superior to them in that respect, at least.
I was planning to go for "NFBSK their relatives," myself. But the same principle applies.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
"There can't be a war on Christmas. Even Cambridge has decorations up!" - an observation I made Posts: 2719 | From: Chicago, IL | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sister Ray: My rationale is that there are many animals that eat meat. I would be silly to try to make myself superior to them.
That's a bit strange, as far as reasoning goes. Many Animals would shit on the floor wherever they happen to be standing. Come to that, many animals will eat their own (and other animal's) shit. I'd hope that you make yourself superior to them in that respect, at least.
I was planning to go for "NFBSK their relatives," myself. But the same principle applies.
So is shitting on the floor and incest = eating meat?
-------------------- “We live in a society of victimization, where people are much more comfortable being victimized than actually standing up for themselves.” - Marilyn Manson "Well, end more, your not ending enough!" - MST3K Posts: 259 | From: Texas | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaidenAthene: So is shitting on the floor and incest = eating meat?
No. Sister Ray sais that she wouldn't put herself above animals. I merely pointed out that animals engage in behaviour that very few mentally-competent humans engage in willingly.
Sister Ray, I don't think that you're "wrong", just that your reasoning on this point doesn't hold up.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaidenAthene: So is shitting on the floor and incest = eating meat?
No, shitting on the floor + incest = logical human behavior if the rule is, as has been suggested, that we should behave like animals. This would seem to indicate that it's not a very good rule.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Why would you?
