Meat Eaters = Selfish (Steve & Bill)

[Madhuri]

No, I would like to reduce suffering and make slaughterhouses and factory farms safer and healthier places to be. I have compassion for animals. I grant that they feel pain and pleasure - ie sentinece. I'd rather they feel more of the latter and less of the former.

I grant them moral consideration. It is immoral to abuse an animal, to cause it pain for fun or due to carelessness.

But animals are not sapient. Animals are not people. And equating the suffering of an animal, however bad it may be, with the suffering of people who were mentally and physically enslaved, or to the Holocaust as PETA has done is ignorant in the extreme. We're particular about our domesticated animals. We've bred some to eat, some for companionship and some basically adopted us as convenient food sources (cats I'm looking at you) but we they are still animals.

I love my cat, and i have a responsibility to her to care for her, but I would save a human before saving her. She's bonded to me on her part as best as she can be, as a mother or littermate. But she can't love me and she isn't even aware that she can't. If you find humans and animals completely equal in value, then at least you can argue consistency, I suppose. But that's a rather weak argument overall.

I largely agree with you, and I do not think that myself of Sum of Awe or most people who rally for animal rights actually think that animals experience life exactly as humans do. In fact, I think every animal species will have some different experience of life and sensation and emotion etc.

Generally bringing up slavery, as I have already mentioned, is not about arguing that all animals are exactly the same as humans. But I do still consider it slavery and abuse, the way animals are generally treated by human beings.

I apologise for my misunderstanding of your view. I think we agree mostly.

 

[Madhuri]

Out of curiousity, is it, in your opinion, worse to live and die than it is to never have existed?

In my opinion, it is better to never have existed if the life one leads is full of horror. My perspective is that despite any difference in intelligence and understanding among animal species, those captive animal lives' are full of horror. Better to have never been born.

 

[Drolefille]

What I meant was, they should have the right to get an equal amount of happiness and freedom.

Animals do not understand freedom. They have instincts to run, or like open spaces, or like tight and enclosed ones. They do not understand "freedom." And for anything other than a limited pleasure/pain/fear based definition, giving most animals - particularly most prey animals - significant emotions is anthropomorphizing them.

How do humans suffer more than animals? They're being beaten, killed, watching their mothers or children get turned into food. It's been like this since the invention of farming animals.

Every animal lives it life with the risk of being turned into food. You think chickens understand when a farmer wrings the neck of their dad? You think they really understand a mechanized slaughterhouse? I'm all for reducing the stress animals experience in slaughterhouses and farms. See the work of Temple Grandin on improving conditions and safety for cows going to slaughter. Her work reduced their stress and kept cows from drowning, removed the need to use prods and overall improved conditions for them. And then they were killed, and that's ok.

Animals exist to eat and be eaten. The world outside of agriculture is not happy bunnies living out their lives with happy families with no fear of being eaten. It's the nest being dug up by a fox and the babies eaten and torn to pieces. It's the adult rabbit not having a feeling in the world about this and having another litter the next season, in a place that doesn't smell like fox. That is life.

Because they don't have a strong sense reason means they don't have feelings?

Are you saying humans have been through worse than nonhumans?

Yes, if you give human feelings to a cow you're doing it wrong.
And yes, humans have not only been through worse, but they're worth more because *looks around* we're all human here.

 

[fallingblood]

What I meant was, they should have the right to get an equal amount of happiness and freedom.
:

Like I said, I'm not going to continue this debate. I do have to stop otherwise I most likely will make belittling remarks. And honestly, I don't you think you're an idiot. I just think that you have found a new idea and have gone completely into it. I know how that is as I have done just that as well. However, as with most ideas, it will mature and be something others could get into and follow you with.

I personally think that vegetarianism is a fine way of life. I think there are many good benefits behind it. However, I don't think it is the only way nor the ideal way. I think it is just one a various ideas that have benefits. If it works for you, great. It doesn't work for me.

But like I said, I can't continue this debate wih you as I find some of the stuff you are saying very insulting and I don't want to insult you. That is something I am working on myself, and that means I have to stop before a debate like this gets to a point that I simply find too ridiculous, where I end up belittling others.

I hope your choice of being vegetarian works for you and I wish you the best with it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But animals are not sapient.

Actually as far as I know, roosters are very sapient. It's been proven that they communicate by pecking, they know how to avoid danger well (just that their evolutionary traits may not be the best when it comes to surviving our technology).

I haven't looked into other animals, but I'm sure many are.

Animals are not people. And equating the suffering of an animal, however bad it may be, with the suffering of people who were mentally and physically enslaved, or to the Holocaust as PETA has done is ignorant in the extreme.

Why is it ignorant? They also suffer mentally and physically, and they have been (about as bad or just as bad as they treated Jews during the holocaust) enslaved whilst suffering mentally and physically much longer than all racist and sexist acts altogether.

and some basically adopted us as convenient food sources (cats I'm looking at you)

So? We need to kill them and eat them to feed them and protect them from nature's harm, etc?

but we they are still animals.

We are also animals.

I love my cat,

That doesn't mean you love all animals or an animal loving person.

But she can't love me

That's sad that you think animals don't have the feeling of love.

and she isn't even aware that she can't.

Are you saying animals are unconscious or don't know anything? ...

If you find humans and animals completely equal in value, then at least you can argue consistency, I suppose. But that's a rather weak argument overall.

Anthropocentricism is a weak argument overall. Just saying "They're animals" doesn't mean anything! But saying "they have feelings and consciousness" does in fact mean a lot.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No it's pretty much disrespecting to human suffering.

It's pretty much disrespecting to animals to eat their dead bodies. You are disrespecting animals' intelligence and their suffering! You are the one disrespecting living creatures.

Have you read the diaries of slaves?

Yes I have.

Being an animal would have been a step up because at least they wouldn't have been aware that they were treated like property.

Animals aren't aware that they're being treated like property? So if I yank your cat's tail it wont be aware of the pain? If I choke a pig it wont wimper?

If you're going to call me a sadist for saying that, you would call the meat producer Hitler x2.

Out of curiousity, is it, in your opinion, worse to live and die than it is to never have existed?[/QUOTE]

Animals don't exist now?

 

[Drolefille]

Actually as far as I know, roosters are very sapient. It's been proven that they communicate by pecking, they know how to avoid danger well (just that their evolutionary traits may not be the best when it comes to surviving our technology).

Sentience is not sapience.
Instincts are not intent.
As you point out, they evolved to the point where they learn to avoid the shadow of a hawk, but not entering of the farmer into the pen. Even though every time the farmer enters the pen, a hen is taken away and killed, the rooster won't learn to avoid the farmer. Because instinct is not the same thing as awareness.

Why is it ignorant? They also suffer mentally and physically, and they have been (about as bad or just as bad as they treated Jews during the holocaust) enslaved whilst suffering mentally and physically much longer than all racist and sexist acts altogether.

And this will be my last post to you, because I will not continue this discussion without saying what I think in an inappropriate manner.

So? We need to kill them and eat them to feed them and protect them from nature's harm, etc?

Domestic animals wouldn't exist without us. And we never domesticated them to protect them from nature's harm. We trained and bred them to pull carts, guard homes, stay put in a pasture to be milked, shorn, and eaten. Domestic animals have always been tools to humanity. Cats are essentially the one animal we impacted the least and who hangs around us for the food. Your typical dog, cow, etc. will not function well in the wild because they are no longer adapted for it. They'll be eaten, killed, or starve more often then not. The life of a feral dog is far worse than the life of a 'slave' dog. Seriously that makes me ill to type.

We are also animals.

Nuh uh. Sorry. We're clearly separating humans and non-human animals here and you don't get to change the definition of terms part way through.

That doesn't mean you love all animals or an animal loving person.

My enjoyment of cow muscle doesn't discount me from being an animal loving person. Unless you mean it in a creepy way.

That's sad that you think animals don't have the feeling of love.

Don't know why it's sad. Animals bond, but love is a pretty human emotion. Instinct isn't emotion.

Are you saying animals are unconscious or don't know anything? ...

I'm saying that I find your arguments based in emotion and ignorance, not in logic. And that my cat doesn't know the first thing about love and therefore isn't the least bit upset that she can't love me. If I died in my sleep and her food bowl was empty, she'd probably eat me and not think the slightest thing about it either. I'm under no delusions that she's sapient.
If she were unconscious I'd have to take her to the vet.

Anthropocentricism is a weak argument overall. Just saying "They're animals" doesn't mean anything! But saying "they have feelings and consciousness" does in fact mean a lot.

Sorry, prove that animals, particularly the animals we eat, have feelings beyond "feels good, endorphins flow" and "PAIN" and "PREDATOR FLEE"

You're giving a cow that bleats for her calf the human emotions of loss and grief, when instincts and evolution taught cows and calves to bleat to each other to find each other if separated. A cow can't even be guaranteed to nurse her own calf, much less mourn for it if it's gone.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Animals do not understand freedom. They have instincts to run, or like open spaces, or like tight and enclosed ones. They do not understand "freedom." And for anything other than a limited pleasure/pain/fear based definition, giving most animals - particularly most prey animals - significant emotions is anthropomorphizing them.

Now you are saying humans are the only beings with emotions? Are the only ones who understand that they are free? Oh my god

Every animal lives it life with the risk of being turned into food.

Because of us.

You think chickens understand when a farmer wrings the neck of their dad?

Maybe not at first, but when they try to communicate with the clucking and poking with their beaks at the unconscious body they understand that he's dead, they're never going to see him again. Then they will understand what the rings do.

You think they really understand a mechanized slaughterhouse?

They don't understand what it is, all they know is that they are in Hell but don't understand what they've done wrong.

They're being killed, beaten, but don't know what they've done wrong.

I'm all for reducing the stress animals experience in slaughterhouses and farms.

Yeah... doesn't work like that...

See the work of Temple Grandin on improving conditions and safety for cows going to slaughter. Her work reduced their stress and kept cows from drowning, removed the need to use prods and overall improved conditions for them. And then they were killed, and that's ok.

So if Hitler kept Jews from drowning and removed all the need to use prods and overall improved conditions for them (except giving them choices) but killed them, it'd be okay?

Animals exist to eat and be eaten.

WHAT??? This is the most ignorant post I've seen! Wrong in so many ways......

The world outside of agriculture is not happy bunnies living out their lives with happy families with no fear of being eaten.

And what made you think I believed this?

It's the nest being dug up by a fox and the babies eaten and torn to pieces. It's the adult rabbit not having a feeling in the world about this and having another litter the next season, in a place that doesn't smell like fox. That is life.

Sounds better than the way we kill them... Much less death, much more freedom, and much more chance to live.

Yes, if you give human feelings to a cow you're doing it wrong.

Cows do have feelings... Maybe not the same as humans, but I'm sure they can feel the difference between being unhappy and happy.

And yes, humans have not only been through worse, but they're worth more because *looks around* we're all human here.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Like I said, I'm not going to continue this debate. I do have to stop otherwise I most likely will make belittling remarks. And honestly, I don't you think you're an idiot. I just think that you have found a new idea and have gone completely into it. I know how that is as I have done just that as well. However, as with most ideas, it will mature and be something others could get into and follow you with.

I personally think that vegetarianism is a fine way of life. I think there are many good benefits behind it. However, I don't think it is the only way nor the ideal way. I think it is just one a various ideas that have benefits. If it works for you, great. It doesn't work for me.

But like I said, I can't continue this debate wih you as I find some of the stuff you are saying very insulting and I don't want to insult you. That is something I am working on myself, and that means I have to stop before a debate like this gets to a point that I simply find too ridiculous, where I end up belittling others.

I hope your choice of being vegetarian works for you and I wish you the best with it.

Sorry if I've been harsh on you then, cya around.

 

[fallingblood]

Talk about generalisation. So all animal species have the same nature? Maybe you think it's amusing when the farmer takes away the calf from the mother and they spend days calling one another and searching for one another. But that's fine because crocodiles have been known to eat their own babies.

Most animals quite evidently experience intense emotions and suffering. You have to be blind to not see this. Have you had much experience with animals? To say that animals are slaves is not disrespecting humans. What a strange conclusion to come to. Even if you can conclude that slavery of humans is far worse, that still does not make it all right to treat animals as objects or senseless machines.

I wasnt trying to be overly generalizing here. At the same time though, I didn't want to get into specific details as I was ending my debate with him. However, I probably should have left that last part out.

There are animals that portray some fine parenting skills. At the same time, most are very different than human parenting skills, and would be greatly frowns upon in human society. I just don't think the two can really be compared as there is so much diversity in animals (which much of the discussion in this thread has been extremely generalized. To speak of animals, as most here have, as one group is being overly generalized) that the comparison between humans and animals is weak at best.

Like you mentioned, some cows will moo and whine and even try to search for their calves when they are taken away. It is a motherly instinct. At the same time, I have seen many cows simply pay no mind to their calves, where if there wasn't human intervention, that calf would die. With chickens, I have seen many get extremely aggressive to the point they will kill any and all competition if possible. I have seen plenty of livestock of various sorts rape and abuse their offspring simply because they are there.

This happens in the human population as well; however, we see it as natural in many animals (sometimes as even survival methods). So there is a huge difference here and the idea of parenting in animals simply can not be related to other animals because it is so different in so many cases.

And yes, I have spent a lot of time with animals. And if all those animals are enslaved, then I see nothing wrong with slavery. On many of the small and medium farms, the animals are free to roam, they are treated good and are taken care in a way they would not have been in the wild.

I agree that some of the operations are horrible and need to have something done about them. And the more people learn quality information about the subject, the better we see he treatment of animals. However, equating farmers or ranchers with slavery and the holocaust (not saying you did, but just that it has) or calling meat eaters selfish and questioning their level of compassion, ethics, and morality, simply because they have a different view point does not help.

And really, many humans are treated as badly as animals. And hat is one of the reasons hat I have such a problem with some of the arguments here. Once people begin equating humans with all other animals, historically, we see problems. Once people start using emotional ideas such as slavery or holocaust, we see problems. And I just can't really stomach that.

 

[Drolefille]

Whatever, I know better, but I'll do it anyway.

It's pretty much disrespecting to animals to eat their dead bodies. You are disrespecting animals' intelligence and their suffering! You are the one disrespecting living creatures.

So.. animals disrespect each other all the time then? Why is it wrong to "disrespect" an animal if humans are ~*~animals too~*~.
I find nothing disrespectful about eating an animal.

Animals aren't aware that they're being treated like property?

No.

So if I yank your cat's tail it wont be aware of the pain? If I choke a pig it wont wimper?

Pain isn't the same thing as sapience.

If you're going to call me a sadist for saying that, you would call the meat producer Hitler x2.

We're Godwin'd already so why not. There's nothing sadistic about what you said. Someone who would cause pain to an animal for fun would be sadistic, that's not the same.

Animals don't exist now?

Not what i asked.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sentience is not sapience.

Yeah.... Not like I already knew this.

Instincts are not intent.

If communication is only an instinct, I don't know what is an intent anymore.

As you point out, they evolved to the point where they learn to avoid the shadow of a hawk, but not entering of the farmer into the pen.

Living in a farming state, I visited many farms and I've seen many animals avoid going into the pen... But some are smart enough to go in because the farmer will beat them to the point where it seems like they're dead but they're not... Yeah I've seen it happen.

Live in a city? You see that roadkill on the street? Nobody ever cared to see if it were still barely alive. I've seen one on the road that I could've sworn was dead, but still felt a heart beat.

Even though every time the farmer enters the pen, a hen is taken away and killed, the rooster won't learn to avoid the farmer. Because instinct is not the same thing as awareness.

Look up above^ They either learn from it by getting hit themselves or seeing others getting hit.

And this will be my last post to you, because I will not continue this discussion without saying what I think in an inappropriate manner.

Then why am I replying to you anymore? A lot of work for a post you will ignore.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Whatever, I know better, but I'll do it anyway.

So.. animals disrespect each other all the time then? Why is it wrong to "disrespect" an animal if humans are ~*~animals too~*~.
I find nothing disrespectful about eating an animal.



No.

Pain isn't the same thing as sapience.


We're Godwin'd already so why not. There's nothing sadistic about what you said. Someone who would cause pain to an animal for fun would be sadistic, that's not the same.


Not what i asked.

Well, seeing that you think humans are the only beings who are self-aware, are conscious, and have feelings, I see how anthropomorphic religion has been involved in the minds of meat eaters.

 

[Drolefille]

Now you are saying humans are the only beings with emotions? Are the only ones who understand that they are free? Oh my god

Yes, I do hope your god is listening. No, my cat does not understand freedom. A chimpanzee or bonobo might, I don't really know the research there.

Because of us.

You think every animal on earth only gets eaten because of humans? That's really really naive. At best. Any animal not at the top of the food chain risks being hunted and killed. Any animal at the top of the food chain that is past its prime risks being killed or eaten alive by scavengers. That is an animal's life.

Maybe not at first, but when they try to communicate with the clucking and poking with their beaks at the unconscious body they understand that he's dead, they're never going to see him again. Then they will understand what the rings do.

No really they don't.

They don't understand what it is, all they know is that they are in Hell but don't understand what they've done wrong.

They're being killed, beaten, but don't know what they've done wrong.

So they know that they're in hell. And you think that you're not anthropomorphizing them here?

Yeah... doesn't work like that...

Yes, yes it does. You measure a cow's stress level by the number of times it moos. The more agitated it is, the more it moos. Have you done any research in this area?

So if Hitler kept Jews from drowning and removed all the need to use prods and overall improved conditions for them (except giving them choices) but killed them, it'd be okay?

No. Because despite what Hitler thought, Jews are human. Just like blacks, women, gays, and vegetarians.

WHAT??? This is the most ignorant post I've seen! Wrong in so many ways......

So what is the purpose of a wild animal's life? Where is the meaning in their life? Provide an answer without pretending you're the animal.

And what made you think I believed this?

Because when I said all animals live their lives in risk of being food, you said "because of us." This leads me to think that you don't get it.

Sounds better than the way we kill them... Much less death, much more freedom, and much more chance to live.

Rabbits don't know the difference.

Cows do have feelings... Maybe not the same as humans, but I'm sure they can feel the difference between being unhappy and happy.

You are sure on what grounds? Provide evidence since you're making the positive claim.

Yes, I'm a horrible species-ist. Do you value the life of a human over the life of a cow?

 

[Drolefille]

Well, seeing that you think humans are the only beings who are self-aware, are conscious, and have feelings, I see how anthropomorphic religion has been involved in the minds of meat eaters.

Since I've been atheistic for the past several years I question your logic and your integrity.

Thing is, I'm pro-vegetarian or veganism or whatever people like. I don't eat a lot of meat myself. But because I find it a morally neutral act, it's somehow religion's fault?

Right.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth about what I claim about animals. Get it right or don't bother.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Since I've been atheistic for the past several years I question your logic and your integrity.

Thing is, I'm pro-vegetarian or veganism or whatever people like. I don't eat a lot of meat myself. But because I find it a morally neutral act, it's somehow religion's fault?

Right.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth about what I claim about animals. Get it right or don't bother.

No, not your practices, your thoughts...

"Humans are the only beings with consciousness" pretty much.

 

[Iti oj]

at least consider learning to supplement your life style with meat from thing you hunt with your own hands?

 

[Averroes]

o.0 do you honestly think plants feel pain?

I justify my stance in the fact that I know animals feel pain.

I don't know if plants feel pain, but I don't have the attitude that its ok for a deer to eat some grass and think "gee, I'm sure it doesn't matter cause the grass doesn't feel anything" I mean, we don't know. Perhaps since life is a cycle and there are natural prey and predator maybe God has made it so that immobile plants being food for other animals, do not feel pain. But if plants are living and somewhat "conscious" of their demise this would indeed constitute some further thought on the argument of morality and food consumption

 

[Drolefille]

No, not your practices, your thoughts...

"Humans are the only beings with consciousness" pretty much.

As long as you're just going to make things up about the other side of an argument, might as well claim I'm eating babies. Swift would be proud.

 

[Averroes]

at least consider learning to supplement your life style with meat from thing you hunt with your own hands?

Can you elaborate further?