Options

Fundamentalist Militant [Vegetarianism] and [Veganism]

1246718

Posts

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
    What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?

    Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.
    That's a circular definition. Also, otherwise inanimate objects can be made to "flinch."

    But it's a start. I think what you might mean here is, "we can recognize when an animal feels pain when they react in basically the same way I would." Right?

    Many of our machines can feel pain under his definition.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    rational vashrational vash Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    But what I haven't seen from you is some indication of why you think certain animals are okay to eat, and not others. And under what conditions (you mentioned you were against factory farming: why?)

    I am okay eating anything that is:

    a) reasonably safe and tasty
    b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
    c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken

    You are arguing against your own morality, don't you see that?

    rational vash on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
    Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.

    So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.

    I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
    Would you choose not existing over either?

    Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.

    Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
    No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.

    At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?

    It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).

    Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.

    *edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
    See, this I don't buy. At least not wholesale.

    If you were to go to the leaders of the world and say "we're going to cut your populations in half in two generations, but your quality of life will skyrocket so it's for the best", you'd probably be thrown in the Hague. Even if your claims were in fact true, people would still view those citizens who would simply never come into being as having been "killed" by your initiative, even if your philosophical view precluded that.

    I don't see why the same thing wouldn't apply to animals.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.

    Uh, way to completely miss the point. Regardless of the contents of the pie, surely you can understand that it can be a very unpleasant and unwelcome feeling to get something in your eyes?

    But that's not even the horrible thing about it. The horrible thing about it is that the woman already suffers from spine injuries, and she got attacked by three. masked. men. and everyone. cheered.

    You make it sound like a spinal injury matters, that the number of men throwing a single pie matters, and that she was physically assaulted.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken
    So you understand the basis behind vegetarian and veganism.

    They simply define "reasonable" at a lower level than you do.

    Again, frankly, I don't see why you have a problem with vegs, their philosophy at least.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I never said they suffer in the same way. Obviously one is experiencing pain and the other isn't, at least not in a way that is detectable or recognizable by us.
    What constitutes obviously experiencing pain?

    Things that we can recognize, such as flinching to avoid the painful stimulus.

    What? Pain is a feeling. It requires a brain. Brains create pain.

    Seriously, what?
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Throwing pies at people is bad*. I don't think that's related to vegetarianism aside from the obnoxious sensationalism and stupidity of the article referenced in the OP.

    *It is universally ok to throw pies at clowns. They may feel pain but it is funny, so their suffering brings mirth to the masses and is ethical by default.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    most (insects) will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.
    Since when?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Your equating an animal eating other animals with a human killing other humans. Doesn't work.
    Why not? The only argument I've really seen presented is that we can choose not to and survive, which hardly implies some kind of moral imperative. You've admitted that it's fine for predators to eat prey. We're predators. Very, very good predators, true. But we're still just predators.

    We are not special, wonderous beings placed outside the natural world to observe and manipulate it with our benevolence. We're violent, emotional, insinctive dicks who happen to be very, very good at manipulating our environment.

    [Edit]
    sorry, read that as animal kill animal =/= human kill animal. My bad.

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    AtomBombAtomBomb Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
    It was still a dick move, and a dick move by the people who were cheering, as well.

    It's Britain. Throwing pies is what they do. I suspect they do that to distract themselves from the reality of being a formerly influential nation.

    I think the pie thing was mean and a dick move. However, as a hypocritical vegan, I feel no sympathy for the suffering of the plants that died to make the pie.

    AtomBomb on
    I just got a 3DS XL. Add me! 2879-0925-7162
  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.

    That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
    Great, I'm sure most people would agree. What on earth is your point. What on earth does pointing out the potential hypocrisy of practicing vegetarians have to do with the morality of the position itself.

    It's not really potential though. Production of enough food for humans will destroy ecosystems. In fact, converting grasland into a farm is already destruction of an ecosystem. Animals are hurt by it.


    Of course, usually this is brought up with regards to the destruction of "special" ecosystems like rainforests which for some reason are more important. I think it's a decent argument to make, because it's essentially the same as "hey guys factory farms!!!".

    It's perfectly fine to be a vegetarian, it's perfectly fine to not just not eat meat because you don't like it but also because you don't like hurting animals. However, it's hypocritical to feel morally superior to people who don't agree with you.


    And if anyone is going to point out (like you already did) that this is a non-sequitor because you don't think special ecosystems should be destroyed then Guess What? Most of us also don't think factory farms are good or ethical.

    Julius on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
    Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.

    So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.

    I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
    Would you choose not existing over either?

    Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.

    Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
    No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.

    At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?

    It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).

    Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.

    *edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
    See, this I don't buy. At least not wholesale.

    If you were to go to the leaders of the world and say "we're going to cut your populations in half in two generations, but your quality of life will skyrocket so it's for the best", you'd probably be thrown in the Hague. Even if your claims were in fact true, people would still view those citizens who would simply never come into being as having been "killed" by your initiative, even if your philosophical view precluded that.

    I don't see why the same thing wouldn't apply to animals.

    Of course, you'd probably also get in trouble for eating people.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    most (insects) will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.
    Since when?
    If you were to, say, set fire to part of a grasshopper it would still react by freaking out.

    I know this because I was once a young child in the middle of nowhere.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?
    Nervous system then. And there are going to be fuzzy boundary cases.

    Likewise for the debate about "what is consciousness"? I don't think consciousness, or an ability to experience pain, is a binary state (i.e. something you either have or you don't). The structures that create consciousness and pain evolved.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
    Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.

    So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.

    I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
    Would you choose not existing over either?

    Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.

    Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
    No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.

    At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?

    It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).

    Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.

    *edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
    See, this I don't buy. At least not wholesale.

    If you were to go to the leaders of the world and say "we're going to cut your populations in half in two generations, but your quality of life will skyrocket so it's for the best", you'd probably be thrown in the Hague. Even if your claims were in fact true, people would still view those citizens who would simply never come into being as having been "killed" by your initiative, even if your philosophical view precluded that.

    I don't see why the same thing wouldn't apply to animals.

    Of course, you'd probably also get in trouble for eating people.
    In most cultures, yes.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?
    Nervous system then. And there are going to be fuzzy boundary cases.

    Likewise for the debate about "what is consciousness"? I don't think consciousness, or an ability to experience pain, is a binary state (i.e. something you either have or you don't). The structures that create consciousness and pain evolved.
    So you would see it as a sliding scale, with some animals being more animal than other animals?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    It's not really potential though. Production of enough food for humans will destroy ecosystems. In fact, converting grasland into a farm is already destruction of an ecosystem. Animals are hurt by it.
    Right. Most utilitarians like Singer would probably agree that human population should be limited. I certainly believe this.
    Of course, usually this is brought up with regards to the destruction of "special" ecosystems like rainforests which for some reason are more important.
    They're more important because more things and more kind of things live there.
    However, it's hypocritical to feel morally superior to people who don't agree with you.
    I utterly fail to see where the hypocrisy charge comes from.

    I feel pretty confident in saying I am morally superior to Karl Rove. For a variety of reasons. Feeling this makes me a hypocrite?
    And if anyone is going to point out (like you already did) that this is a non-sequitor because you don't think special ecosystems should be destroyed then Guess What? Most of us also don't think factory farms are good or ethical.
    Not sure what your point is here.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    His CorkinessHis Corkiness Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Err, just because the organism is not responding to a harmful stimulus in the way you would expect it to (i.e. by flinching) does not mean it is not feeling pain.
    SCIENCE! More specifically, we know how pain works.
    Not entirely. There's still disagreement as to whether some animals feel pain or not. There are animals (some kind of arthropod that I can't remember, I think) that lack nociceptors (pain-sensing nerves) that undergo consistent chemical activity when pain-causing stimuli are present.

    Obviously plants don't feel pain, and cows/chickens/pigs do, but we haven't been able to draw the line with 100% certainty yet.

    His Corkiness on
  • Options
    AtomBombAtomBomb Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
    Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.

    So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.

    I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
    Would you choose not existing over either?

    Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.

    Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
    No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.

    At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?

    It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).

    Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.

    *edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
    See, this I don't buy. At least not wholesale.

    If you were to go to the leaders of the world and say "we're going to cut your populations in half in two generations, but your quality of life will skyrocket so it's for the best", you'd probably be thrown in the Hague. Even if your claims were in fact true, people would still view those citizens who would simply never come into being as having been "killed" by your initiative, even if your philosophical view precluded that.

    I don't see why the same thing wouldn't apply to animals.

    Your analogy only works if the people in this world you describe were being forcibly impregnated every 9 months until they reached the age where they couldn't carry a child. Small farms aren't really the issue here, they don't really make up a significant percentage. These animal populations are so high because we are force breeding them on a massive scale.

    AtomBomb on
    I just got a 3DS XL. Add me! 2879-0925-7162
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Julius wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.

    That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
    Great, I'm sure most people would agree. What on earth is your point. What on earth does pointing out the potential hypocrisy of practicing vegetarians have to do with the morality of the position itself.

    It's not really potential though. Production of enough food for humans will destroy ecosystems. In fact, converting grasland into a farm is already destruction of an ecosystem. Animals are hurt by it.


    Of course, usually this is brought up with regards to the destruction of "special" ecosystems like rainforests which for some reason are more important. I think it's a decent argument to make, because it's essentially the same as "hey guys factory farms!!!".

    It's perfectly fine to be a vegetarian, it's perfectly fine to not just not eat meat because you don't like it but also because you don't like hurting animals. However, it's hypocritical to feel morally superior to people who don't agree with you.


    And if anyone is going to point out (like you already did) that this is a non-sequitor because you don't think special ecosystems should be destroyed then Guess What? Most of us also don't think factory farms are good or ethical.

    Of course, at a certain point you've got to say that you're enough degrees away from killing Francis Bacon to void moral culpability. There's also the argument that switching to vegetarianism reduces the amount of death by the maximum amount possible, which does lead to moral superiority.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2010

    I am okay eating anything that is:

    a) reasonably safe and tasty
    b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
    c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken

    You should probably go with a hierarchy such as

    A. Tasty, and non poisonous.
    B. Not tasty, but I am hungry enough, and it is not poisonous.
    C. Not Tasty, poisonous, but man do you see some cool shit.
    D. Tasty, poisonous, but it is a better death than starvation.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?
    Nervous system then. And there are going to be fuzzy boundary cases.

    Likewise for the debate about "what is consciousness"? I don't think consciousness, or an ability to experience pain, is a binary state (i.e. something you either have or you don't). The structures that create consciousness and pain evolved.
    So you would see it as a sliding scale, with some animals being more animal than other animals?
    I'd say more "conscious" in this case. But yes.

    And some animals are more animal than others. I mean, there are living things that exist on the boundary between protozoans and metazoans, such as sponges. A cnidarian is more of an animal than a sponge is, in this sense.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Vegetarian: "Hurting animals is bad."

    Have you ever hurt an animal in any way in your entire life?

    Vegetarian: "Uhh, probably."

    HYPOCRITE! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME HOW TO LIVE!

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Detharin wrote: »

    I am okay eating anything that is:

    a) reasonably safe and tasty
    b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
    c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken

    You should probably go with a hierarchy such as

    A. Tasty, and non poisonous.
    B. Not tasty, but I am hungry enough, and it is not poisonous.
    C. Not Tasty, poisonous, but man do you see some cool shit.
    D. Tasty, poisonous, but it is a better death than starvation.

    I love the fact that neither of these lists would protect anyone posting on this forum from Protein Shake's hunger.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    I eat meat because I like it, and to crib from Anthony Bourdain, vegetarianism/veganism is largely a luxury that we can afford because we're not in a third world country. I don't really ascribe human sentiments like cruelty, suffering, love, etc, onto animals because they simply don't have the function to really understand that and by all intents and purposes they are not equal to man and womankind and never will. And also that whole pathetic/anthropomorphic fallacy thing.

    With that said, that doesn't mean I hate animals or want them to suffer. I support ethical treatment of animals as pets and as livestock. I went door to door to campaign for the green candidate for governor a few years back specifically because he promised me that Mississippi would make harmful treatment of animals, pets and livestock, as a state crime with huge consequences.

    Every vegetarian I know that I consider a friend is a vegetarian that isn't a dick about it. The type that isn't really defined by their choice in diet. They don't breathlessly whisper "No thanks, I'm a vegatarian" when offered something, they don't make a scene about it in public. It's merely their preference for a certain type of food, whether out of sheer taste or personal reasons.

    Sadly, the other type of vegen/vegetarians I know I don't consider friends. It's obvious that their "empowerment" and "compassion" and "standing up for helpless animals" is just a ruse for attention, even if they do care that much about the issue. It's still guaranteed to come up at least twice a day during any conversation that is even remotely related to food.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    most (insects) will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.
    Since when?

    insects and other "lower" life forms flinch, flee, attempt to hide or fight back, etc etc - all pain responses

    a lobster will hang on to the edge of the tray if you try to tip it into boiling water, and then it will bang around inside the pot and try to escape, frantically.

    you could suggest that they are just elaborate biological machines with no subjective experience of suffering, and that those reactions have simply been fashioned by evolution as the most efficient means of escaping the threat of injury or death

    but that argument cannot be limited to insects in good faith; you could say the same about any animal, including a human

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't have a problem with vegetarians. I do have a problem with vegans. There is nothing wrong with providing protection to animals in return for some of their natural byproducts that would just go to waste. Eggs, milk, wool, honey and others are a fair trade for protection against predators.

    The above quote is from the first page, but nobody seemed to address it so I wanted to make a comment.

    Animals farmed for their products are sometimes (not always) kept in similarly poor conditions to animals raised for meat. For example, a dairy cow may be kept in a tiny stall where she can barely move and never see sunlight. In order to produce milk in the first place, the cow was impregnanted, but she never even got to see her calf: she was immediately put to work producing milk, and the calf was either slaughtered or placed in a field/shed with a group of similarly orphaned calves. Females from this group would grow up to become dairy cows themselves; males would be slaughtered for meat.

    So there's actually a bit more to it than "we take the stuff they make anyway in exchange for protection, which is better than eating meat cause nothing dies". The meat industry is built around the idea that we take whatever products we can extract from animals, and kill them whenever it's convenient. If you want to become a vegetarian on moral grounds, you're sort of obliged to become a vegan too, at least for products like milk and eggs.

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    AtomBomb wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
    Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.

    So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.

    I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
    Would you choose not existing over either?

    Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.

    Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
    No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.

    At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?

    It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).

    Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.

    *edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
    See, this I don't buy. At least not wholesale.

    If you were to go to the leaders of the world and say "we're going to cut your populations in half in two generations, but your quality of life will skyrocket so it's for the best", you'd probably be thrown in the Hague. Even if your claims were in fact true, people would still view those citizens who would simply never come into being as having been "killed" by your initiative, even if your philosophical view precluded that.

    I don't see why the same thing wouldn't apply to animals.

    Your analogy only works if the people in this world you describe were being forcibly impregnated every 9 months until they reached the age where they couldn't carry a child. Small farms aren't really the issue here, they don't really make up a significant percentage. These animal populations are so high because we are force breeding them on a massive scale.
    The human population has exploded as well, and shows no real signs of slowing down.

    And an argument could be made (I don't know if I would personally) that most animals if given optimal breeding environments would reproduce at rather huge rates, not unlike those being shown in factory farms.

    For a significant portion of the population of humanity, we're living in as near perfect conditions for having tons of kids as have ever existed, and we're doing just that. Is the assumption that other animals (that likely lack the foresight we supposedly have and the ability to actually manage resources) would do any different?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »

    I am okay eating anything that is:

    a) reasonably safe and tasty
    b) not an endangered or protected species (such as whale)
    c) grown in a way that reduces the animal's suffering to a reasonable level (such as free-range anti-biotic chicken

    You should probably go with a hierarchy such as

    A. Tasty, and non poisonous.
    B. Not tasty, but I am hungry enough, and it is not poisonous.
    C. Not Tasty, poisonous, but man do you see some cool shit.
    D. Tasty, poisonous, but it is a better death than starvation.

    I love the fact that neither of these lists would protect anyone posting on this forum from Protein Shake's hunger.
    Sure it would. People aren't tasty.

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Vegetarian: "Hurting animals is bad."

    Have you ever hurt an animal in any way in your entire life?

    Vegetarian: "Uhh, probably."

    HYPOCRITE! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME HOW TO LIVE!
    I have to agree that this sort of response is pretty goosey.

    But it's a defensive reaction to having ones worldview challenged. We see it in everything from religious debate to fashion blogs. Welcome to humanity, a mass of unreasonable savages.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    most (insects) will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.
    Since when?

    insects and other "lower" life forms flinch, flee, attempt to hide or fight back, etc etc - all pain responses

    a lobster will hang on to the edge of the tray if you try to tip it into boiling water, and then it will bang around inside the pot and try to escape, frantically.

    you could suggest that they are just elaborate biological machines with no subjective experience of suffering, and that those reactions have simply been fashioned by evolution as the most efficient means of escaping pain

    but that argument cannot be limited to insects in good faith; you could say the same about any animal, including a human
    Well, yeah. Determining whether something is capable of pain how it is normally used isn't going to be that simple, but I don't think it is completely impossible except maybe with a few species on the boundary. For the vast majority of animals we harm, they aren't going to be on that fuzzy boundary of being capable of pain or not capable of pain (or on a pain spectrum or however you want to use it).

    Couscous on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    I love the fact that neither of these lists would protect anyone posting on this forum from Protein Shake's hunger.

    To be fair given the choice of starving to death or a Protein Shake it is a very tough call.
    :winky:

    Detharin on
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Really, you can tell how seriously to take the OP as soon as you see the claim that cayenne pepper=pepper spray. Even a second of thought should tell you that not all things that contain capsaicin are pepper spray, and that any sort of pepper has a lower capsaicin concentration than pepper spray. Really, it's the same as claiming that they threw an equivalent to a mace because bread contains some iron.
    It was still a dick move, and a dick move by the people who were cheering, as well.

    It's Britain. Throwing pies is what they do. I suspect they do that to distract themselves from the reality of being a formerly influential nation.

    Put some cayenne into some whipped topping and then shove it into your face.

    It's going to hurt.

    What those assholes did amounts to assault on this woman for writing a book they probably haven't even read.

    And you're defending them.

    Really, if it's okay to assault people for not liking their opinion, then you got a long stretch of road ahead of you if you're gonna turn around and expect your argument against eating animals to do any good.

    Sheep on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Most insects lack a brain as we know them, yet most will also show some sort of pain response if damaged.

    Where do they fall?
    Nervous system then. And there are going to be fuzzy boundary cases.

    Likewise for the debate about "what is consciousness"? I don't think consciousness, or an ability to experience pain, is a binary state (i.e. something you either have or you don't). The structures that create consciousness and pain evolved.
    So you would see it as a sliding scale, with some animals being more animal than other animals?
    I'd say more "conscious" in this case. But yes.

    And some animals are more animal than others. I mean, there are living things that exist on the boundary between protozoans and metazoans, such as sponges. A cnidarian is more of an animal than a sponge is, in this sense.
    COMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL TO FOLLOW:

    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?
    Wouldn't that depend on the mental disability? I would have no problem eating a brain dead person.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Do we expect the mental disability to affect taste, or texture at all?


    Seriously though, the best thing to do is tell the normal guy you are going to eat him, if he protests saying we should eat the disabled guy instead then we can safely say he is a horrible human being and feel guilt free devouring him.

    If he accepts his fate eat the mentally handicapped guy. Since you know he wont run or fight save him for later.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    throwing a pie filled with cayenne pepper into someone's face is physical assault

    throwing a pie into someone's face as a political act, no matter what it's made of, is juvenile and pointless. it is a good sign of being an idiot.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Sheep wrote: »
    I eat meat because I like it, and to crib from Anthony Bourdain, vegetarianism/veganism is largely a luxury that we can afford because we're not in a third world country.
    Umm. Meat is expensive, actually.

    I mean, depending on where you live (steppes or the Arctic, for example) meat may be the only available food, which is why I don't fault 18th-century Inuit for not being vegetarians. But today I don't think it makes sense to say veg-ism is a luxury.
    I don't really ascribe human sentiments like cruelty, suffering, love, etc, onto animals because they simply don't have the function to really understand that and by all intents and purposes they are not equal to man and womankind and never will. And also that whole pathetic/anthropomorphic fallacy thing.
    Human beings are animals.

    We evolved from primates. Our closest cousins are chimpanzees. Do you think chimpanzees feel pain and suffering?

    Do you have pets? I have had cats and dogs; it seems blatantly obvious that they not only feel pain but emotional and social bonds.

    I'm comfortable saying that humans have a significantly deeper capacity for suffering, because our emotional and social bonds are more complex. But I don't like this hard-line distinction between "humans" and "everything else."
    Every vegetarian I know that I consider a friend is a vegetarian that isn't a dick about it. The type that isn't really defined by their choice in diet. They don't breathlessly whisper "No thanks, I'm a vegatarian" when offered something, they don't make a scene about it in public. It's merely their preference for a certain type of food, whether out of sheer taste or personal reasons.

    Sadly, the other type of vegen/vegetarians I know I don't consider friends. It's obvious that their "empowerment" and "compassion" and "standing up for helpless animals" is just a ruse for attention, even if they do care that much about the issue. It's still guaranteed to come up at least twice a day during any conversation that is even remotely related to food.
    I think this distinction applies to any position.

    There are atheists who never mention it, and there are atheists like me who can be obnoxious about it. The behavior of proponents of such positions is not a reflection on the truth-value of those positions, though.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Would eating a normally developed person be better or worse from a moral perspective than eating a person with a mental disability?
    Wouldn't that depend on the mental disability? I would have no problem eating a brain dead person.
    It would depend only insomuch as we determined that it did.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Also, I support eating whatever animal you want. Cats, dogs, rats, baboons, whatever. All equal game.

    Sheep on
Sign In or Register to comment.