Why Animal Rights?

[TheNoNamedOne]

All rights for protection of the weak from the strong start with the premis that suffering and pain due to exploitation is wrong. No one wants the integrity of their body and life violated. Indeed, just as humans will seek to remove themselves from a painful and suffering situation, so will animals -- if they are permitted to do so.

Animal rights are often looked at as being anti human, but that is far from the case. Indeed, enshrining animal rights into society will strengthen the protections for human life from exploitation and abuse. For how could it ever be justified to harvest organs from a live human if a right to protect the integrity of body for human and non-human animals both exist? The right to protect animal life in this case would act as a barrier that would first need to be broken down before an effective or persuasive assault on human integrity of body could be launched.

Animal rights does not mean equal rights with humans. After all, no one is suggesting that animals be given the right to vote, bear arms, or to get a drivers license. Those things are beyond the scope of what protection rights animals need. To underscore that point, we strive for men and women to have equel rights, and we in our laws allow certain rights for one of the sexes -- such as women, and their right to choose to have an abortion. No where do we say men have the equal right to choose to have an abortion in order to qualify as equal rights between the sexes, and yet, our society is not collapsing because of that.

[Fonze]

plants are living organisms too, lets start a group that protects plants from killing veggies. Oh no that would be a double standard and hypocritcal, oh wait we'd fit in perfectly.

[TheNoNamedOne]

plants are living organisms too, lets start a group that protects plants from killing veggies. Oh no that would be a double standard and hypocritcal, oh wait we'd fit in perfectly.

Science, or research by reputable scientists published in respected peer reviewed journals, has not brought any evidence forth that plants are sentient or able to suffer or feel pain.

I have already addressed this issue with P_chan -- or tried to. You can view it at about half-way down at this POST (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3897&postcount=66). You can pick up the issue of plants there if you like (I was hoping to go further on that with P_chan there but he didn't want to), or start a thread calling for plant rights if you believe in that and think it worth investing your time and effort on.

Good luck.

[DougP]

So does the quest for Animal Rights and its participants exclude any possibility of using animals as a source of nutrition?

[TheNoNamedOne]

It would be inconsistent if violation of integrity of body were allowed. After all, we have human rights, and that precludes others from violating the integrity of your body, doesn't it?

Like the OP said, Animal Rights seeks to protect animals from exploitation that would cause pain and suffering and the violation of integrity of body. They would be legally protected from being harmed by us, just as we are legally protected from being harmed by others (for as much as the law and society can provide).

That should give us a pretty good idea of what would not be allowed. More specifically to your question, "Yes."

[DougP]

well if it comes down to it and there's a choice between them and me I know which side I'm going to be on :) Besides I'm with the lions even though they let their prey suffer a bit more than I would like:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

well if it comes down to it and there's a choice between them and me I know which side I'm going to be on...

lol. Well, lifeboat situations of "either the other guy or me" usually occur in a vaccuum where the strong prevail over the weak (except for altruistic sacrifices). But while in this modern society, you are not in a lifeboat situation.

All it is coming down to here is a choice to choose from a sheetload of alternative choices that does not need to entail harming that which you eat.

[DougP]

I look at it from many different angles as well. I do see where animal rights supporters are coming from. I also believe there's a reason why I am an omnivore. I don't think the reason humans have been able to eat meat all this time was to eventually test our integrity. I mean after thousands and thousands of years of being omnivores the human race is just supposed to switch over to being strictly vegetarian? I don't know. I can say these days when I eat meat its already dead. IE the animal has been dead for sometime. I would hate to think that it died in vain. Yes I know I'm part of the vicious circle. But that's the beauty of free will.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Doug, bear with me while I ask you some questions.

Why do we want to protect humans from exploitation that harms them?

[DougP]

For the good of man kind:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

How is that good for man kind?

[DougP]

How is that good for man kind?

Its....protecting man kind from exploitation that harms them..:confused:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Its....protecting man kind from exploitation that harms them..:confused:

Exploitation of the weak by the strong has allowed mankind to progress. So why should we stop that which has worked well for us?

[DougP]

Exploitation of the weak by the strong has allowed mankind to progress. So why should we stop that which has worked well for us?

Wasn't saying we should or should not. Just throwing out a possible reason why some are against the exploitation of people. Then again farming, slaughterhouses and refrigeration have allowed mankind to progress. I guess the same question could be asked about that as well:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Why would you as an individual not want to be exploited?

[DougP]

Hmm, wait... Do I get paid to be exploited?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hmm, wait... Do I get paid to be exploited?

lol. Not if that exploitation entails confining and killing you.

[DougP]

well then I'll have to pass on that one.

[Fonze]

TP is it okay with u for animals to be bread as food and testing?
The reason i say this is cause ur concern shoul be only for pets not all animals.
Also on the question since youv'e said u were a lib i ASSSUME ur okay with embryonic stem cell research or am i wrong or an i being an ASS?

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP is it okay with u for animals to be bread as food and testing?

No. Why?

The reason i say this is cause ur concern shoul be only for pets not all animals.

Why?

If I were concerned only for the welfare of pets, then I would be a Pets Rightist. That would only lead to inconsistency based on selectivity and whims for likes.

Also on the question since youv'e said u were a lib i ASSSUME ur okay with embryonic stem cell research or am i wrong or an i being an ASS?

What part of being for embryonic stem cell research is related to the argument for Animal Rights? If you can relate the two, then I am willing to discuss them. If you are just going to say liberals are wrong for their support of embryonic stem cell research, then go ahead and create a thread for that and I may join that discussion if it interests me.

[Fonze]

ur inconsistency has already shown when you said u'd accept cures found through animal testing.

[TheNoNamedOne]

ur inconsistency has already shown when you said u'd accept cures found through animal testing.

Not at all.

Why don't you reply to my counter argument to you on that point there that was more about me and not the validity of Animal Rights or being against animal testing?

Just a vague declaration like what you have done here does nothing to weaken the case for Animal Rights independent of any short fallings you may feel I have personally exhibited.

[DougP]

Why do animals deserve the same rights and protection as humans do?
Who's to say really?

Just wondering.

[P_chan]

Why do animals deserve the same rights and protection as humans do?
Who's to say really?

Just wondering.

They don't, they're animals.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Why do animals deserve the same rights and protection as humans do?

Well first off, humans are animals, too.

Like humans, animals, too, are a subject of a life. They share with us complex chemical, neurological, and pshycological processes and states. They have emotional lives -- ones that entail fear, excitement, expectations, pain and suffering. They, like us, protect their young and show some mourning for their children or mate's death. Like us, if given a chance, they, too, will remove themselves from threatening situations, or from something that is causing them distress and pain.

What we do to them we do simply because we can. In other words, our treatment of them rests on might makes right. To say it is ok to use that philosophy towards them and not humans (which we do with devastating rammifications) is arbitrary in nature -- if not purely based on the phylosophy of prejudice -- which gives rise to speciesism -- the cousin of sexism or racism which all rests on the same principles.

We ask ourselves, does life have inherent value? If not, then there is no need to care for anything other than what can maximize our status in life at the expense of others. If so, then it is arbitrary to say that only human life has inherent value for there is no basis to believe that only human life has inherent value above all other life in the Universe. Anthropocentrism is based on prejudice for one's group and does not make inherent value exclusive to it only.

Who's to say really?

In the end the courts and legislatures will say. You know DougP, your question was probably asked a thousand times before with a different variable inserted. It read like this:

Why do blacks deserve the same rights and protection as whites do?

And my whole argument above could be grafted to that, in fact it was, with just those same variables inserted to prove otherwise that they, too, deserve the same protections.

[DougP]

In the end the courts and legislatures will say. You know DougP, your question was probably asked a thousand times before with a different variable inserted. It read like this:

Why do blacks deserve the same rights and protection as whites do?
And my whole argument above could be grafted to that, in fact it was, with just those same variables inserted to prove otherwise that they, too, deserve the same protections.

Its not the same argument though. In the above argument that you stated is about humans.

And if we are animals why should we then be held to higher standards then other animals? And if we are held to higher standards then animals does that not mean we are on a different plain then they are? I don't see why I can't eat meat like tigers can. Doesn't seem fair to me. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Finally. Someone who doesn't resort to indignance as a reply to the topic.

Its not the same argument though. In the above argument that you stated is about humans.

Yes, you are right. It is about humans, or it was initially, but there is no reason other than prejudice to say it cannot be used for animals as well -- because animals share with us that ability in which we seek to lessen amongst ourselves by granting rights -- the ability to suffer. Their whole physical make-up like ours allows them to suffer as surely as we can, and it is that want to limit that, if not to eliminate it from exploitation, that rights seek to address and why we establish them.

The march for rights has always followed this ever widening circles:

Family --- clan --- tribe --- race --- (religion) --- (gender) --- nationality

In addition, protection rights for children fall in the mix.

There is no reason to think that animals are exempt from the next barrier -- which will be the species barrier. If you think they are exempt, then I would simply remind you to look at the laws protecting them now which have proliferated within the last 10 or 20 years to protect them. They've gotten their proverbial foot in the door, if you will. You don't think all animal rights and protections are going to stop exactly where they are now, do you?

Up until now the battle has been for human rights in general. But, it has not always been that way. Even at times some humans considered other humans to be non-human. What will it take to usher in an expansive rights protection for animals? Besides many more decades, if not a few more hundreds of years, it will take the necessity of framing the argument to not only human and animal rights, but beings' rights. Once that begins to happen then the issue of human versus animal rights will have been breached and solved just as the different rights between races were solved when the framing of the problem became human rights.

And if we are animals why should we then be held to higher standards then other animals?

Because standards and obligations rest on cognitive ability. We are held accountable to a standard in the treatment of others in which we can understand and attain. That is why amongst ourselves, recognizing different cognitive abilities, we expect more or less from us. A retarded child of 6 who finds his father's gun and shoots his sister will not be held accountable to the same degree as a 19 year old who shoots someone with a gun, be it either accidental or intentional on the part of the latter.

Cognitive ability counts and that is what hold us to a higher standard in the treatment of those with lesser cognitive ability.

And if we are held to higher standards then animals does that not mean we are on a different plain then they are?

IN ability yes. In inherent value. No.

[DougP]

There is no reason to think that animals are exempt from the next barrier -- which will be the species barrier. If you think they are exempt, then I would simply remind you to look at the laws protecting them now which have proliferated within the last 10 or 20 years to protect them. They've gotten their proverbial foot in the door, if you will. You don't think all animal rights and protections are going to stop exactly where they are now, do you?

I can offer you a similar analogy/argument to the laws protecting them(animals) now as you did with the human rights analogy.

Just because laws have been made in favor of animals doesn't mean that they are right no more than laws that made slavery legal in the past were right. Its merely a law imposed reflecting a current growing trend in society.
Much the same as the amendment that made flag burning legal. Laws can and will always change to support the "crowd" in most cases while ignoring other's rights.

I understand the cause to end animal suffering but if it infringes on my "right" to eat meat then I have a problem with that. I believe we as humans can and should be able to continue living as omnivores and still end animal suffering.

[Fonze]

my indignance is not on the subject its on your blind hypocricy

[TheNoNamedOne]

I can offer you a similar analogy/argument to the laws protecting them(animals) now as you did with the human rights analogy.

Just because laws have been made in favor of animals doesn't mean that they are right no more than laws that made slavery legal in the past were right.

You are correct about things being "right" in that the subjective view of society at any given time will decide that. That is just something we cannot change and have to live with. Hopefully, though, most will come to agree that there is an inherent value to life, and not vice versa, and that life shold be protected as much as possible without forfeiting one's own life.

Also, as we try to end suffering, it would be better if in fact we do have set backs in that area, it is done so as "two steps forward, one step back," so that at least progress is always added to. Up until now, there seems to be a constant net gain in progress for stemming suffering.

On the point of slavery, there never were any laws that legalized it. It was a custom that came down through the ages as acceptable. However, we all know there were finally laws, acts, and ammendments to constitutions that made it illegal. So on that point I think you mischaracterized the history of slavery and how it was accepted.

I understand the cause to end animal suffering but if it infringes on my "right" to eat meat then I have a problem with that.

The Movement understands that. History is replete with those who felt privildegded, well ensconced within the status quo, and their anger and resistence to those who came along demanding change. This story is as old as history.

But, do you have any examples of a group demanding change for social protections and rights from exploitation that caused suffering ever losing?

Rights protections are a moral force, that once they begin and are let out of the bag, have always resulted in victory in the long run. Sure, they don't win overnight, but they have always won in the long run. That isn't to say that The Movement for AR will win, but it is riding on the wave and tactics of previous movements that have won, and the trend for winning more and more is picking up.

I don't think you have much to worry about your meat eating be denied you. However, I wouldn't make the same guarantee to your grandchildren or their grandchildren. Already, people are not permitted to eat some forms of meat simply because they want to.

Foi gra has been banned in Chicago and it is under increasing attack in other places as well. Veal Calf as it is now will not be availbable much longer. These are just the first vollies in the Movement that are showing signs of success. Time and strength of orgs will widen the battle lines.

I believe we as humans can and should be able to continue living as omnivores and still end animal suffering.

On the first point, we will agree to disagree. On the second point, we agree wholley, but that leads to another question: How can there be an end to animals suffering when a world population projected to reach 10 billion would require factory farming procedures in order to feed so many people at low prices? Factory farming does cause animal suffering. Or are you willing to accept that traditional small farms become the model of animal agriculture again? How realistic is that in today's corporate world? And to take out mass production of factory farmed beef; what would that do to the price of meat on the economy side?

Are you willing to pay the price of Kobe beef for ground beef. And perhaps 10 times that for a choice piece? If so, then fine, but then economics with supply and demand dictating prices will force meat out of the reach of all those not able to support it. People will be vegetarians by force of the economy.

That sure is one way to lessen the numbers of animals which head off to the slaughterhouse.

Are you fine with that? I imagine you are since you did say we should end animal suffering -- and factory farming has a lot of that.

[DougP]

On the point of slavery, there never were any laws that legalized it. It was a custom that came down through the ages as acceptable. However, we all know there were finally laws, acts, and ammendments to constitutions that made it illegal. So on that point I think you mischaracterized the history of slavery and how it was accepted.

I wasn't just talking about America alone nor was I refering to just the last 200 years. I'm sure it might have been an unwriten law in some areas/countries but there were laws governing slavery. And probably laws legalizing it in other societies through out history.

But, do you have any examples of a group demanding change for social protections and rights from exploitation that caused suffering ever losing?

NAMBLA

Rights protections are a moral force, that once they begin and are let out of the bag, have always resulted in victory in the long run. Sure, they don't win overnight, but they have always won in the long run. That isn't to say that The Movement for AR will win, but it is riding on the wave and tactics of previous movements that have won, and the trend for winning more and more is picking up.

NAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships. To them what they are trying to accomplish is moraly right. I hope this movement doesn't result in victory in the long run. Just because its a movement does not always mean that what they are trying to accomplish is absolutely moral and right nor does it mean it will benefit all of man kind.

[DougP]

Are you willing to pay the price of Kobe beef for ground beef. And perhaps 10 times that for a choice piece? If so, then fine, but then economics with supply and demand dictating prices will force meat out of the reach of all those not able to support it. People will be vegetarians by force of the economy.

Isn't AUS cattle free roaming cattle?

All in all if I am "forced" to become something other than what I naturally am, an omnivore, than I will feel like animals right's have been placed above my own. Also I eat more chicken and fish than beef. I don't think fish and chickens really have emotions and pain thats on the same level as that of a human.

I can't wait for AI to come around because much of the same argument will arise again.

[TheNoNamedOne]

NAMBLA

NAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships. To them what they are trying to accomplish is moraly right. I hope this movement doesn't result in victory in the long run. Just because its a movement does not always mean that what they are trying to accomplish is absolutely moral and right nor does it mean it will benefit all of man kind.

The point where the example of NAMBLA's fight falters is their assumption that children have the ability to consent to such a relationship -- again one that requires a certain degree of cognitive ability, if not maturity, to protect themselves from exploitaton.

Interesting you should bring this up, because the rights put forth for animals, based on cognitive ability, would add a layer of protection to children from being predated on by those who would try to make such an arrangement as NAMBLA has put forward.

Their movement will fail because exploitation with the real potential of doing harm to a weaker being is inherent within it. The movement for AR, as all other movements against of rights against exploitation, is the antithesis of that of NAMBLA's.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Isn't AUS cattle free roaming cattle?

All in all if I am "forced" to become something other than what I naturally am, an omnivore, than I will feel like animals right's have been placed above my own.

I don't think you will be forced in the traditional sense and meaning of that word, Doug. First of all, the fight will take longer than your life, but certain kinds of meat during your life will probably be removed as a choice for your consumption from you -- as some are now and becoming so.

The thing is, it will be a slow creep, and with each meat choice leaving your menu choice, you will merely substitute it for what is left. Slowly, though, with choice diminishing and prices of meat rising, your meat consumption will decrease based on lifestyle -- wholley separate on what you view as natural for an omnivore -- and by the time when one is eating meat so little because of small choice and high prices, the decision to go meat free, be it voluntary or by final law at some distant time in the future, it will be quite a small jump indeed.

Also I eat more chicken and fish than beef. I don't think fish and chickens really have emotions and pain thats on the same level as that of a human.

I don't want the whole thread to be about just meat versus vegetarianism, but of the phylosophy instead behind Animal Rights.

That said, I agree that emotions and pain of animals, and even amongst humans, are on different levels. But, that does not mean that human emotions and senses necessarily sit at the top in the ability to suffer.

Beagles for example have much more sensitive noses than humans. Forcing them to breath a noxious substance for 2 minutes would be much worse for them than us. Cats, too, have much more sensitive ears than us. Aiming a high pitched sound into their ears could cause more suffering than it would to us.

Furthermore, humans have ways to deal with their emotions during times of suffering. We can give meaning to it while animals cannot, and that meaning can mitigate the suffering. I might submit myself to a painful root canal causing me much suffering, but I would know that it will in fact end within the next 30 minutes and that the pain which was causing me to suffer for weeks would come to an end. Animals on the other hand do not have that ability to reason, causing their fear and suffering to be worse than ours. Their cortizone levels spike significantly when they are denied the choice of flight when confronted with what they view as threatenng to them. We, with giving meaning to our suffering can stay calm.

Many humans also have the source of religion to sooth them. Animals do not. Humans also have the ability to reason about sacrificing themselves for a child or loved one. That can bring comfort to them and mitigate their feelings of suffering. These are all avenues not available to animals for they are trapped in the moment when they are suffering.

So, yes, we have different abilities in emotions and suffering, but that does not mean humans by defalt occupy the highest ring in the ladder of suffering.

[DougP]

The point where the example of NAMBLA's fight falters is their assumption that children have the ability to consent to such a relationship -- again one that requires a certain degree of cognitive ability, if not maturity, to protect themselves from exploitaton.

Interesting you should bring this up, because the rights put forth for animals, based on cognitive ability, would add a layer of protection to children from being predated on by those who would try to make such an arrangement as NAMBLA has put forward.

Their movement will fail because exploitation with the real potential of doing harm to a weaker being is inherent within it. The movement for AR, as all other movements against of rights against exploitation, is the antithesis of that of NAMBLA's.


On that note of congnitive ability: If children, ages 17 and below, are lacking the cognitive ability that adults do and are in as much need of protection from exploitation as animals are than why do they still get sentenced to prison for crimes? How do we really judge cognitive ability? How do we determine what level of cognitive ability does a being have to achieve to deserve protection? Does less mean they deserve more protection? So do people with more cognitive ability deserve less? And at what level of cognitive ability does a being become responsible for the welfare of other beings?

[TheNoNamedOne]

All interesting points about congnitive ability you brought up, Doug. I agree, there probably are some subtle differences on the slide rule of cognitive ability between all ages. But, on the point of Animal Rights, it is not needed for us to thresh out all those differences from 1 years of age to 100 years of age.

I think it is agreed by most that animals do not possess anywhere near the cognitive ability of a 17 year old. For the most part I think we are looking at the ages between 3 and 6. That is what we must concern ourselves with if we are going to use NAMBLA as an example as to what Movement may succeed or not or if it is legitimate based on cognitive ability of the one being exploited or being in a relationship that is one of "consent."

Surely NAMBLA fails as an example in that regard.

As for crimes, of 3 and 6 years old, or retarded persons of that age, they are clearly relieved of criminal culpability for their actions and not permitted to enter into legal binding contracts of their own accord.

Judging cognitive ability may be a problem between the different ages of 16 and 17, but it surely is not in the lower age groups compared to those in the higher groups who understand consent and contracts -- either explicit or implicit. Therefore those with low cognitive abilities are protected from exploitation.

[DougP]

So, yes, we have different abilities in emotions and suffering, but that does not mean humans by defalt occupy the highest ring in the ladder of suffering.

So suffering is hard to gauge. I agree. With that said I believe AR groups aren't taking into consideration the "suffering" that could come of forcing humans to one day give up meat because of their actions. Its not just a veg vs meat issue but you have to admit AR is deeply tied into veganism and vegetarianism. It would seem that ultimately AR groups hope to eventually abollish meat eating altogether. I could be wrong. Would it be ok to still be able to eat meat 500 years from now? I hope so.

The fact is there are deep social and religious connections to eating/ or not eating animal products. Be it meat, milk, or egg.

For example: In Judaism some foods are restricted but others welcomed like
Z'roah (Pesach) -- roasted shank bone, symbolic of paschal lamb eaten in Egypt or Beitzah -- roasted egg, representing offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Now devout Hindus on the other hand are mostly vegetarian; the soul of an ancestor may be in an animal. Some Hindus do not eat eggs. Vegetarianism became established in Hinduism because of Buddhist emphasis on respect for life (400-300 BC).
The cow is sacred, and beef is forbidden; some people (especially lower castes) will eat pork and chicken.
Coconut is also sacred (the three 'eyes' of the coconut represent the three eyes of Shiva).

Many other cultures have also enjoyed the hunt and slaughter of an animal for hundreds of years. Its part of their tradition.

We may or may not agree with their ways of living but who are we to say they are wrong? Or better who are we to tell them what they should or should not eat?

Even the Hindus who for the most part don't eat meat have a saying

"No sin is attached to eating flesh or drinking wine, or gratifying the sexual urge, for these are the natural propensities of humans; but abstinence from these bears greater fruits."

:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

By the way, great post! You are asking all the right questions that are important to propel the discussion.

So suffering is hard to gauge. I agree. With that said I believe AR groups aren't taking into consideration the "suffering" that could come of forcing humans to one day give up meat because of their actions. Its not just a veg vs meat issue but you have to admit AR is deeply tied into veganism and vegetarianism. It would seem that ultimately AR groups hope to eventually abollish meat eating altogether. I could be wrong. Would it be ok to still be able to eat meat 500 years from now? I hope so.

Yes, it is only consistent that if AR phylosophy is against exploitation, they would want that animals not be exploited for meat. I really have no idea in how many years it will take for that to come about. There will be a lot of factors involved -- to include environmental, economics, science, and health. Could be 50, 100, or 200 years. I would hope that it would not be so far as 500.

Forcing through rule of law from elected officials can cause suffering. I agree. But if the net loss of suffering is reduced then that suffering which remains is justified. Surely the suffering that goes into the full economic power of the system of factory farming is much more than one's palate missing a pork chop. Even knocking it down to a one on one situation, the pig suffers more as it is confined throughout its life and castrated without anethesia, and then slaughtered, than one would from being denied a pork chop.

The fact is there are deep social and religious connections to eating animal products. Be it meat, milk, or egg.

Indeed, there are, and I have been planning to open a thread discussion on the issue of religion and animals. I don't mind touching on it here in relation to AR, though.

For example: In Judaism some foods are restricted but others welcomed like
Z'roah (Pesach) -- roasted shank bone, symbolic of paschal lamb eaten in Egypt or Beitzah -- roasted egg, representing offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem.

The God of the Jews and Christians originally had the plan for man to live life as a vegetarian. Meat eating only came about after the fall of man from grace. It is one of the marks of his fall. Meat eating was given as a consession to Noah when after the flood there was no vegetation to eat. Restrictions were placed on the diet of man to remind him that meat was not wholey meant for our consumption and to remind us of a time when it was not they way it was meant to be. The book of Daniel also holds out the reminder to Jews that some time man will return to God's original plan of peace with all creatures as the "lamb will lay down with the lion."

And, Doug, I do have to say thanks for broaching this topic of religion with AR. As for Jews they are over represented in the AR movement.

In fact, many see one of the first AR laws coming from the Jews in the Bible "thow shalt not yolk an oxen and ass together in the field," which was to show man that to do so is cruel, for the ass would suffer due to its weakness in comparison to the bull. There are others as well.

Many other cultures have also enjoyed the hunt and slaughter of an animal for hundreds of years. Its part of their tradition.

Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Tradition is no excuse for continuing something. That is why eventhough slavery seems to have always been with us, it could not withstand the assault against it when it came under reasoned scrutiny.

We may or may not agree with their ways of living but who are we to say they are wrong? Or better who are we to tell them what they should or should not eat?

It is not about a certain group or person telling them they are wrong and it decided so based on that, it is about the respect for not causing suffering and reasoned arguments based on that. That is what puts forth change in the end.

[Muku]

The God of the Jews and Christians originally had the plan for man to live life as a vegetarian. Meat eating only came about after the fall of man from grace. It is one of the marks of his fall. Meat eating was given as a consession to Noah when after the flood there was no vegetation to eat. Restrictions were placed on the diet of man to remind him that meat was not wholey meant for our consumption and to remind us of a time when it was not they way it was meant to be. The book of Daniel also holds out the reminder to Jews that some time man will return to God's original plan of peace with all creatures as the "lamb will lay down with the lion."

That is the first time I have heard anyone attempt to use the Bible as a justification for a person being a vegetarian.

Quite an unusual interpretation of the Bible. But one thing you should remember is the Bible is "man's" interpretation of "God's" word, and you should know if you are going to make posts like this that there is nothing in the Bible that says that man should not eat the flesh of animal's.

This is truly going out on a limb her:rolleyes:e btw.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well, Uchi, then you need to keep an eye out for when I open a thread on AR with Religion as the main point for discussion. Perhaps you may be exposed to something more than your limited reading thus far. There is a good body of comments out there on vegetarianism in the Bible put forth not only by non Christians, but Christians and Jews alike.

[Muku]

It is not about a certain group or person telling them they are wrong and it decided so based on that, it is about the respect for not causing suffering and reasoned arguments based on that. That is what puts forth change in the end.
__________________

Here you are wrong, and personally I think that you post statements like this purely to antagonize the reader, nothing more or nothing less.

Next time instead of eating vegetables I suggest that you "tomogui".共食い:dead:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Back on topic.

[Muku]

Back on topic.
Huh? It is a response to YOUR post here....damn these kind of posts of yours are out of line. A response to YOUR post gets a comment like this?

Keep your butt on topic and posts like this wont occur.

Pot kettle black.

[DougP]

I have a question. Do devout vegans smack a mosquito that has landed on them or do they let it take its filling of blood and leave?

This may not be about vegetarianism per say but I couldn't remember which of the other AR threads this should go in:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I have a question. Do devout vegans smack a mosquito that has landed on them or do they let it take its filling of blood and leave?

This may not be about vegetarianism per say but I couldn't remember which of the other AR threads this should go in:)

One has the right to defend one's self from the violation of integrity of body. I don't let mosquitos feast on me. I try to brush them off rather than squashing them on my body.

By squashing them you could actually force something from the mosquito into your body. Better to brush them away for your own health benefit.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm jumping in here, but has anyone explained the difference between animal welfare and animal rights?

As I understand it (from school and vets and scientist I've worked with), animal welfare embodies the ideal of not causing undue suffering to animals. It does not rule out eating meat or experimenting on animals, but it does require that any and all precautions possible are taken to minimize distress and suffering. This includes proper light and dark cycles, enough space, enriched environments, adequate food, water and shelter, etc.

Animal rights at it's purest level states that a rat is a pig is monkey is a boy, and that they all deserve the same treatment and respect. Animal testing is prohibited, as is raising animals for leather and meat.

[P_chan]

I'm jumping in here, but has anyone explained the difference between animal welfare and animal rights?

As I understand it (from school and vets and scientist I've worked with), animal welfare embodies the ideal of not causing undue suffering to animals. It does not rule out eating meat or experimenting on animals, but it does require that any and all precautions possible are taken to minimize distress and suffering. This includes proper light and dark cycles, enough space, enriched environments, adequate food, water and shelter, etc.

Animal rights at it's purest level states that a rat is a pig is monkey is a boy, and that they all deserve the same treatment and respect. Animal testing is prohibited, as is raising animals for leather and meat.

My these definitions I would have to be for animal welfare, to a certain degree.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Some links on the animal rights v. welfare ideas:

http://www.sover.net/~lsudlow/ARvsAW.htm
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/animal_welfare.htm

Piles more out there. It is useful to define the terms of debate. I think a good many people support animal welfare, but have difficulty with animal rights. Those that support animal welfare would probably want to reduce factory farming, and find workable alternatives. Those for animal rights would want to eliminate animal ownership and use altogether.

http://lib.colostate.edu/research/agnic/welfare.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=339898
http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/aw/rights.php

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'm jumping in here, but has anyone explained the difference between animal welfare and animal rights?

Perhaps briefly somewhere on one of the animal threads. But good to go over it once again. Good job with your explanation of the differences.

As I understand it (from school and vets and scientist I've worked with), animal welfare embodies the ideal of not causing undue suffering to animals. It does not rule out eating meat or experimenting on animals, but it does require that any and all precautions possible are taken to minimize distress and suffering. This includes proper light and dark cycles, enough space, enriched environments, adequate food, water and shelter, etc.

One should also know that virtually all animal rightists do not begin as so. For the most part they all begin as animal welfarists and slowly (or sometimes quite quickly) slide on the spectrum over to AR.

Why do they do this is an important point I think. I think they slide over because of the inconsistency that underlies Animal Welfare -- that unecessary/undue pain not be inflicted upon animals in their use.

They begin to see that the exploitation of them is unecessary and, therefore, there is no level of necessary pain that can be inflicted on them for selfish purposes of exploitation. An oxymoron is built into the term "unecessary/undue."

Now there are many Animal Welfarists who can live with their inconsistency (e.g. I don't want animals to suffer, but will eat them and want factory farms to not cause pain [but the nature of factory farms cannot accomodate that desire] or hypocracy (e.g. save the whales, they are smart. Don't stop killing cows, they are delicious or other example/s etc...), but then again there are many who cannot and want to as much as possible without falling into neurotic reductionism be as consistent as possible in their life philosophy and actions matched to that.

There is no getting around the fact that the ranks of ARists pull heavily from the large body of Animal Welfarists, which when pushed, almost everyone will consider themselves an Animal Welfarist to some degree.

Animal rights at it's purest level states that a rat is a pig is monkey is a boy, and that they all deserve the same treatment and respect. Animal testing is prohibited, as is raising animals for leather and meat.

That is Ingrid Newkirk's statement from a speech she made several years ago, and to some degree that is right, in a legalistic/philosophical way, I don't think that is accurate enough. For in lifeboat situations AR philosophy would allow for a dog to be thrown over before a human occupant if all things were equal.

AR is more better summed up as:

All life has inherent value. Life that is a subject of a life should be given equal consideration of interests from those who are able to do so. Just as one would want another to consider its feelings and not be targeted for exploitation, one should also extend that to another.

There is more to it than this, but I think this is the core of it for normal conditions.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, eelcurb, those are all good links as a source to go to. It would be good if you could pull some points from those that you support or not and bring them here so we can discuss them.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm not sure how far AR will go. Outta sight, outta mind seems to be the norm. Nike hasn't suffered all that much for using Third World sweatshop labor. Neither have many other companies. People will accept the exploitation of other people, as long as it's not in their backyard. They want their relatively cheap goods. In a consumer society, meat is just one more product people want to have at their disposal.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

For example, most people would agree this is wrong (http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20070927/NEWS01/70926011), and the operator should be punished. Many of those same people have no qualms about buying pets at a pet store. IIUC, most reputable breeders sell direct, and not to pet stores. The pet business is competitive and the cheapest suppliers would get a lot of business. The place in the link is the kind of thing that leads to.

[kombu_kid]

It seems to me that while the AR movement is not pushing for animals to vote, bear arms or get a driver's license, there does appear to be some ambiguity as far as "not seeking equal rights with humans" while still insinuating that they are equal as far as their status here on earth with us humans.

Also, when it was mentioned that "enshrining animal rights into society will strengthen the protections for human life from exploitation and abuse", I sure don't see that happening. AR awareness has done nothing but skyrocket over the past 35 years, while we now ponder legalizing partial birth abortions, not to mention that capital punishment has been reinstated, sweatshop labor, human slavery and prostitution, and child labor run rampant.

Heaven help the Chinese citizens if their government could ever sell organs on Ebay.

Do I even need to mention the overcrowding in our prisons, with no protection from getting raped in the ass by another inmate? Human life keeps getting cheapened; and abortion got the ball rolling. You can destroy a living baby human, but don't you dare tie up a dog.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse with the abortion thing.

[pardus]

Animal rights at it's purest level states that a rat is a pig is monkey is a boy, and that they all deserve the same treatment and respect. Animal testing is prohibited, as is raising animals for leather and meat.

She actually said that when it comes to being able to suffer, a rat is a pig... And indeed, we all react the same way when we are sliced up, burned, had our limbs broken, had caustic stuff dripped into our eyes, made to ingest poison, electrocuted, etc. :(

[P_chan]

She actually said that when it comes to being able to suffer, a rat is a pig... And indeed, we all react the same way when we are sliced up, burned, had our limbs broken, had caustic stuff dripped into our eyes, made to ingest poison, electrocuted, etc. :(

I'm just curious, who is "She".

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'm just curious, who is "She".

Ingrid Newkirk.

[P_chan]

So since she's the head of PETA what she says is truth!? So her definition of suffering is the true definition of suffering? When did I start living in crazy town:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

She actually said that when it comes to being able to suffer, a rat is a pig... And indeed, we all react the same way when we are sliced up, burned, had our limbs broken, had caustic stuff dripped into our eyes, made to ingest poison, electrocuted, etc. :(
You may be right, but if so that statement has been twisted by some in the movement to try and extend the same rights to all animals great and small. I quoted no-one; I mentioned the difference in philosophy and approach of the AW/AR sides as I see it.

While I'm sure most animals suffer similar levels of physical pain (tolerance is another issue), emotional pain will vary more depending on ontogeny and phylogeny of the brain.

[pardus]

btw, I should have made it clearer that the latter half of the sentence was my own words.

eelecurb, your breakdown of the differences was pretty accurate. but the "rat is a pig" quote is generally used to ridicule the AR movement, not as a principle of it. I just get tired of hearing it quoted out of context all the time.

As for emotional pain: two thoughts I have are that if you are looking at stuff like ontogeny & phylogeny of the brain, it's much more likely that the emotions will be quite similar, since they are part of more primitive parts of the brain, no?

As well as the fact that when I'm in extreme physical pain, I don't much care if there's also an emotional component or not. It's quite enough to be in physical pain.

[pardus]

You know those parameters that are meant to minimize distress? It's ironic that for animal agriculture, every single one of those parameters is regularly manipulated for profit. The light/dark cycles are manipulated to maximize production and minimize aggression, to the severe detriment of the birds' health. They are starved for 2weeks at a time to bring them into cycle faster. My animal welfare professor says that sometimes pig farms simply stop feeding their pigs because they don't have the manpower over the weekend. Veal calves don't receive any water, so they are forced to drink more of the formula given to them. They also are sometimes chained to their tiny crates so they can't suck on the urine soaked slats, trying make up for certain deficiencies in their diet.

Sows have a drive to root & nest that has been demonstrated to be just as strong as the drive for food, but they're crated for the majority of their lives in farrowing or gestation crates, on concrete floors, unable to reach their piglets as they nurse. Chickens need to establish a pecking order but are crowded in by the thousands into barns or into tiny cages, so in frustration or terror, they peck at one another. So their beaks are soldered off, making their natural urge to peck for food and to explore their environment extremely painful.

These are all "standard industry practices" and therefore not subject to any regulation. In fact, all farm animals are specifically exempted from the Animal Welfare Act in the US.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I see where you're coming from pardus. I was not ridiculing the AR movement, but contrasting it with what AW proponents generally believe. There is plenty of ridicule out there, but I think that comes from some of the antics prominent AR groups pull for publicity, and from celebrity AR-ists who speak and act before they think.

As for your post about factory farming, I agree it's disgusting practice. I have been to the kind of places you mentioned, and can only express disgust at what's being done. I don't think the majority of those in the biz are bad, but have become desensitized through culture and education.

[kombu_kid]

I have a question that I would like an answer to by someone who is familiar with AR/AW's beliefs. If an animal, let's say a cow, could live in perfect conditions like a beautiful green pasture on a hillside with plenty of fresh clean water available, and then this cow were to be executed in a quick, painless manner, would they (AR/AW groups) have a problem with this? If so, why?

If an animal was slaughtered completely painlessly, is there something wrong with that? Do they have a right to life, or a spirit? And if they're slaughtered quickly and painlessly, why should we care? If they're gone, they're gone, right? So taking their skin wouldn't be a problem at that point either, correct?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have a question that I would like an answer to by someone who is familiar with AR/AW's beliefs. If an animal, let's say a cow, could live in perfect conditions like a beautiful green pasture on a hillside with plenty of fresh clean water available, and then this cow were to be executed in a quick, painless manner, would they (AR/AW groups) have a problem with this? If so, why?

If an animal was slaughtered completely painlessly, is there something wrong with that? Do they have a right to life, or a spirit? And if they're slaughtered quickly and painlessly, why should we care? If they're gone, they're gone, right? So taking their skin wouldn't be a problem at that point either, correct?
I think most AW proponents would have little problem with your scenario. Strict AR believers may not like it, however.

The problem is the practical, economic issue. It is much more profitable to fatten cattle in overcrowded, unsanitary feedlots, drive them thru a chute to the slaughterhouse, where they queue up for death. The cattle can hear the cries of the ones about to be killed, smell the shit and the urine and the fear. Smell the blood and guts from the killing floor. It's not a nice way to go. There are minutes of pure torture before the animal is actually "painlessly" put down.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

One of my jobs in the food safety chain back home was to do blood tests on samples sent from abattoirs (slaughterhouses). The veterinarians on station at the abattoir would do tail bleeds while the cattle were queued up in the chute leading to the bolt-gun that would stun them before they were hoisted by their hind legs and had their throat slit. Those samples were sent to us for testing to ensure the cattle were disease free and suitable for human consumption. The test tubes, boxes, and accompanying paperwork were always completely covered in shit, as the cows are in a state of panic while being driven to their deaths. Indeed, that was a prime source of contamination at the slaughterhouse. Hides completely covered in shit. When the hide is stripped to expose the carcass, some bacteria from the manure naturally gets onto the exposed meat. We also swabbed the carcasses at various stages of butchering to see how much bacteria was passed on before the meat was sent to wholesalers and supermarkets.

The painless death bit is largely a myth.

[pardus]

wow, eelecurb, that's some storehouse of knowledge you've got there. Not many people are so familiar with slaughterhouses or factory farms. Thanks for sharing the unvarnished truth.

I've more to say later about the painless myth, too, but basically eelecurb has provided the necessaries. Oh, I have a detail to add here: in one of Temple Grandin's papers, she finds that cows reacted to blood & brain matter with spiked levels of cortisol (= stress!) but did not react to urine or water! So all the blood everywhere would indeed affect them. In case anybody wanted to question that...

[pardus]

I have a question that I would like an answer to by someone who is familiar with AR/AW's beliefs. If an animal, let's say a cow, could live in perfect conditions like a beautiful green pasture on a hillside with plenty of fresh clean water available, and then this cow were to be executed in a quick, painless manner, would they (AR/AW groups) have a problem with this? If so, why?

If an animal was slaughtered completely painlessly, is there something wrong with that? Do they have a right to life, or a spirit? And if they're slaughtered quickly and painlessly, why should we care? If they're gone, they're gone, right? So taking their skin wouldn't be a problem at that point either, correct?

Aside from the "painless slaughter" issue, yes AR has a problem with that. I do not have the right to kill another sentient being unless it is harming me. That's about as direct as it gets for me. I could also say, non-human animals have the right to their own life, to live as they choose.

Essentially, there's the cow going about her business, why would I spy her and say, "Ahah! you are mine! I shall kill you!" She's not my property, she's her own self.

(on a side note, what if one had a painless method of killing her all lined up, and everybody said, ok you are free from wrongdoing because this will be painless. Then as you were executing it, you slipped. oops, no longer painless, are you now wrong? perhaps your morality depends on perfect execution? not trying to ridicule, just extending the thought! and I don't mean "you" to mean anyone in particular)

[kombu_kid]

Great, thanks for the replies! I completely understand the meat companies' thinking on the practicality of slaughtering animals in a non-humane way. I'm sure it's all about profit as usual. What I was "throwing out there" was a scenario, an "IF" scenario if you will, that the cow was slaughtered quickly and painlessly. Let's say the cow was beheaded in a split second by a giant razor-sharp sword while munching grass in said pasture, before it ever knew what happened. Let's just agree on that, if we can.

Okay, next I wonder if this cow has a spirit or being, because if not, what makes it's death even worth worrying about? Okay, it lost it's life to feed and clothe humans, just like animals kill one another for food. What's the big deal? It would seem that it's no more to worry about than scraping moss off a rock and letting it die in the sun. Or is this all this AR/AW hubbub about the torture and pain of the animal?

And also, why should we care? I ask this because if we ourselves make our own laws and answer to ourselves, why shouldn't we tailor all our laws to benefit us, because what is the downside? What are the consequences? If when I die, I'm just gone like the cow, isn't it just smarter to do everything to benefit myself in every way?

And let's just say for the sake of argument that I enjoy watching animals suffer, and I try to make them freak out and scream and endure as much pain as possible before they die in their own shit and urine, all to serve me, to benefit me, and to amuse me. (Sounds pretty sick, doesn't it?)

I'm throwing this scenario out there because I just can't even begin to fathom how a person can be an atheist yet be into AR/AW. Being an atheist would automatically mean there are no consequences for any of your actions. So "feeling sorry" for any living thing is just an emotion, and a waste of time, not beneficial to oneself.

As an atheist, wouldn't one's entire life be devoted to acquiring and accumulating as much as possible for yourself and your family? You'd be a fool not to! Just like an animal, just like Saddam and his sons.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

And let's just say for the sake of argument that I enjoy watching animals suffer, and I try to make them freak out and scream and endure as much pain as possible before they die in their own shit and urine, all to serve me, to benefit me, and to amuse me. (Sounds pretty sick, doesn't it?)

I'm throwing this scenario out there because I just can't even begin to fathom how a person can be an atheist yet be into AR/AW. Being an atheist would automatically mean there are no consequences for any of your actions. So "feeling sorry" for any living thing is just an emotion, and a waste of time, not beneficial to oneself.

As an atheist, wouldn't one's entire life be devoted to acquiring and accumulating as much as possible for yourself and your family? You'd be a fool not to! Just like an animal, just like Saddam and his sons.
That sounds more like a good many "Christian" capitalists.

I think many atheists respect all life, not only human life. You don't have to believe in a god or many gods to believe in karma. Altruism has been demonstrated to have evolutionary benefits. Volunteerism has been demonstrated to have health and well-being benefits. This has nothing at all to do with a belief in deities.

[kombu_kid]

That sounds more like a good many "Christian" capitalists.

Yeah, possibly. Hmmmm, I didn't know that atheists believed in Karma. I figured they didn't believe in any force that couldn't be proved or shown to absolutely exist. It seems to me that Karma is a force that one would have to believe in and it would serve as that "consequence of one's actions" .

I don't want to drone on here, and I don't want to try to shove a "deity rap" down your's or anyone else's throat (I never wanted to).

Let me just say this: If animal "A" kills animal "B" and eats it, that's okay, that's nature. If a human kills another animal and eats it, it's not right because that human isn't respecting that animal's right to a life, and it could "come back to us" through Karma. Well, aren't we animals too? Or are we elevated above that? And who elevated us? It's almost as though you're saying we're going to be punished for doing what we and other creatures have been doing to each other for billions of years. Come on.

[Fonze]

well put Kombu Kid!

[Fonze]

Essentially, there's the cow going about her business, why would I spy her and say, "Ahah! you are mine! I shall kill you!" She's not my property, she's her own self.



Where do you see free roaming cows in America? They are raised and bread to serve humans. Some are kept as pets and cherished which is fine. As kombu Kid stated it's ok if nature does it but someone we are not part of nature.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Let me just say this: If animal "A" kills animal "B" and eats it, that's okay, that's nature. If a human kills another animal and eats it, it's not right because that human isn't respecting that animal's right to a life, and it could "come back to us" through Karma. Well, aren't we animals too? Or are we elevated above that? And who elevated us? It's almost as though you're saying we're going to be punished for doing what we and other creatures have been doing to each other for billions of years. Come on.
Other animals have been factory farming for billions of years for profit, not for need?:ohmy: News to me.

I think animal husbandry to satisfy basic needs like food, clothing and so on is fine. I don't think factory farming so that there can be mounds of cheap meat at a supermarket, much of which gets spoilt, trashed, or recylced into pet food has anything at all to do with the natural food chain.

[kombu_kid]

I guess my whole point here was to say "hey, the killing of an animal for food....right or wrong?" I say it's okay, it's natural, whether it be 5 or 500. I just don't want to pollute the argument with a bunch of emotion about factory farming, and images in people's mind of broken legs, slit throats, bolts through the brain, slipping and sliding in their own feces and urine, screaming in fear, smelling the blood and death in the air.

All of that may occur in factory farms, and I'm not cold or unfeeling about it. I think it would be great if things improved.

However, that point is not worth arguing about IMO. Either people are willing to pay more for their meat to improve conditions for animals, or they're not. The only interesting argument to me is do these animals have the right to not be eaten by us.

[Asshat]

If a human kills another animal and eats it, it's not right because that human isn't respecting that animal's right to a life, and it could "come back to us" through Karma. Well, aren't we animals too? Or are we elevated above that? And who elevated us? It's almost as though you're saying we're going to be punished for doing what we and other creatures have been doing to each other for billions of years. Come on.

We humans are elevated above the other animals. Who elevated us? Maybe it was the university degree that did it. I don't know any cows or worms with one. Heck I drive pretty badly, but I can out drive any slithering creature out there.

In the end, we humans reign supreme and it is our responsibility to take care of our lesser inhabitant. That may or many not include husbandry and subsequent harvest. We know best after all.

[DougP]

Why is it our responsibility to take care of our lesser inhabitants? Sounds like something we humans assigned ourselves to make us look more important.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Why is it our responsibility to take care of our lesser inhabitants? Sounds like something we humans assigned ourselves to make us look more important.
Remember Spiderman?
With great power comes great responsibility.
Because humans can kill easily and rapidly, does it mean we should or have the right to?

[TheNoNamedOne]

In the end, we humans reign supreme and it is our responsibility to take care of our lesser inhabitant.

Agreed. And I take the term "take care of" to mean its puriant form literally, or to not harm animals (though I know that is not how most people mean it to be).

That may or may not include husbandry and subsequent harvest. We know best after all.

I vote for "may not." <smile>

[iAmtheMovie]

Viable alternatives are not always the ones people want to choose.
Stating viable alternatives does nothing but toss out a personal opinion, rendering rhetoric like "We have a choice to eat other things," useless. I'm all for saving the animals and preserving the ecosystem, (I still indulge in meat) I love the outdoors and the environment, but... I have trouble trying to instill my morals in others without feeling snobbish afterwards.
Our excessive consumption of meat is the problem, not our consumption of meat. The same rule applies to just about every other aspect of consumerism, especially in the United States.

It's Darwinism taken a step (or several steps) too far.

Of course, it's hard not to find what is ostensibly a monopoly on the lives of animals a little disheartening.

I assume you're also an environmentalist, OP?

Good golly, I digress a lot.
I'd make an amazing politician.

[DougP]

Remember Spiderman?

Because humans can kill easily and rapidly, does it mean we should or have the right to?

That doesn't mean that it is our responsibility though. There really is nothing concrete out there that truly says that we humans are responsible for this planet. The idea sounds about as made up as any other religion out there.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hi, iAmtheMovie, thanks for the reply, and welcome to the forum and discussion.

I have trouble trying to instill my morals in others without feeling snobbish afterwards.

Moral relativists, those invested with status quo, and hedonists who want their pleasures, will always seek to paint those who have the strength of character to speak up against them as snobs. Moral absolutists are obliged and compelled to highlight a moral wrong when they encounter it.

At best they will be called a snob, at worst they will be called an extremist because they do not give in to the "it is all relative and depends on the place and time" kind of weak-kneed arguments relativists seek to hide behind. Relativists are forever on the fence and indecisive -- except when it is their arses being pimped open for violation in whatever age they find themselves.

Rape is always wrong. I see no time when it is ok. I am guilty of extremism for not making any room for it.

Our excessive consumption of meat is the problem, not our consumption of meat.

I think it is the commodification of life and speciesism which rests on prejudicial reasoning.

It's Darwinism taken a step (or several steps) too far.

I am always encouraged when I see someone who is a meat eater understand that even for their culinary culture, things have gone too far. Eelecurb seems to hint at the same thing in many of his posts and I have found him to be excellent in discussion on many points related to animals, eventhough we do not share the same base thought on AR.

Of course, it's hard not to find what is ostensibly a monopoly on the lives of animals a little disheartening.

Well said. For me, I would probably describe it in worse terms.

I assume your also an environmentalist, OP?


Yes, I am. The environment is very important to me. However, I know there are more recourses and orgs working on environmental problems than there are those working on AR/animal liberation, so I put my recourses and most efforts to those areas that would help in balancing things out.

[iAmtheMovie]

The only shortcoming I see in most AR advocates' points is when they relate human morality issues to animal ones.
While it's obviously true that modern society would, under no circumstances, allow for rape, murder, etc., of humans, it's a different matter for any species outside of humans just for the fact that they are not humans.

Arguing that killing an animal is wrong because killing a human is wrong is akin to the carriage leading the horse. It'd be comparable to me contending that uprooting a plant is morally reprehensible because killing a human is wrong.
Merely a hypothetical, I don't actually believe that.

Until a resolution can be reached on something like abortion, where people debate whether the human baby is, in fact, a person, it appears unlikely that progress will be made on something that isn't biologically human, despite all of the valid reasoning behind treating animals properly.

Thanks for the warm welcome, by the way! :)

For some reason, I care for the environment considerably more than I care for animals, which is odd because I usually find they go hand-in-hand.

[pardus]

For some reason, I care for the environment considerably more than I care for animals, which is odd because I usually find they go hand-in-hand.

Astute observation. I cut out meat originally because of concerns for the environment - actually, I stopped buying meat but would eat it if it had already been purchased and would go to waste otherwise, since it was leftover and was not contributing to demand very much. Like if noone had eaten it from a lunch spread.

And my concerns were for wildlife, not for domestic animals of any sort, either companion animals or farm animals. Those came later, and now they are my primary concern. But I find that my decisions are overdetermined, because both concerns (plus concern for global poverty) lead me to shun the use of animals. I think it's most effective to consider problems relating to human beings in the context of the rest of our concerns. Everything is interrelated; to try to isolate problems is really problematic.

But ultimately, it's the moral aspect of the issue that takes precedence. And that means considering whether I think that the same principles should apply to other people as well. After a lot of consideration, I'm convinced that if we value justice and responsibility, we need to apply it universally.

Those are not everyone's values, and I have to respect other people's choices. But I can appeal and request earnestly that they reconsider.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

For those concerned about the environment:

Pork's Dirty Secret - A Rolling Stone Article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is _also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters)

America's top pork producer churns out a sea of waste that has destroyed rivers, killed millions of fish and generated one of the largest fines in EPA history. Welcome to the dark side of the other white meat.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I read that article a while ago, E. Everyone should. But many want to stay ignorant to the situation.

It is a very good read.

[pardus]

I was amazed at the part where someone falls into the pig ****, then person after person dies trying to help them get out! Worse than quicksand!

[TheNoNamedOne]

The only shortcoming I see in most AR advocates' points is when they relate human morality issues to animal ones.

Why would you see that as a shortcoming? Shortcoming to who or what? Sure hasn't been hindering the growth of AR.

Moral absolutism is what has been growing the AR movement because people who come to it connect with the moral arguments that cut across the species spectrum.

To use human empathy based on a sense morals humans can understand, and to fight for animal rights because of that, has been the fuel of the movement. You may find that a shortfalling, but it has been no shortfalling for AR. It has grown AR.

[kombu_kid]

Moral absolutism is what has been growing the AR movement because people who come to it connect with the moral arguments that cut across the species spectrum.

If moral absolutism is growing the AR movement, then a pro-choice AR advocate is a hypocrite.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Perhaps so, but hypocracy or the occasional moral shortcomings of a movement's members has never meant its failure. After all, Martin Luther King, a Christian reverend extolling the morals of the Bible, was an adulterer.

Success for the goal, and then after that has been achieved, members attempting to do away with their hypocracy that they drove to the goal with seems to be what most movements do.

Hell, even Lincoln comes across as a bigot and a racist with his own words despite being the figurehead that lead the war to free them (and yes, I know the Civil War had more than just the slavery issue pushing it [but that became a moral underpinning/reason for winning it]).

[pardus]

AR supporters do argue about abortion, it's true. The pro-choice arguments include "sentient beings have rights, and until a certain point in a pregnancy, a fetus is not sentient;" and "once you're born then you're a separate being with rights, but until then you are part of the mother's body." There may be others, too, but I think those are the main ones.

As far as carrying the human morality issues out to the animal issues, I've gotta say that until very very recently, I did not approve of it either. I thought it got in the way of persuading people of how reasonable AR is, and to be honest I wasn't sure that I actually agreed.

But at that point I was very much in the AWelfare camp. After much puzzling over things and discussing things online and studying agriculture & biology at school, I changed my mind. It is a morality issue, and it involves rights violations.

Here's an Einstein quote that I always liked. It doesn't use the language of rights, but it speaks to the underlying attitude, and that's really what morality is, right? "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to
us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the
striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a
foundation for inner security."

[iAmtheMovie]

I'm sure people are aware that rape is wrong. While it's true that it is a pragmatic approach, using an argument stemming from moral absolutism when it pertains to animals is like saying something is wrong simply because it is wrong.
I can't see how it furthers a cause when all it does is reveal what's out already out in the open.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Only wanted to interject, a brilliant 30-year-old article can be found at the following link dealing with the issue the Prosecutor wants to discuss.

Just an excerpt from a longer piece but really interesting.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/clark03.htm

[TheNoNamedOne]

Whoa! Excellent excerpt from that piece, Ian. Thanks for posting it.

I think I had read quotes from Mr. Clark before but never came across a large part of his work on the issue.

[Isaak Brodsky]

The following quote, I think, really represents the center of his points. It's certainly worth discussing.

Honourable men may honourably disagree about some details of human treatment of the non-human, but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early Church. Those who have not made that pledge have no authority to speak against the most inanely conceived experiments, nor against hunting, nor against fur-trapping, nor bear-baiting, nor bull fights, nor pulling the wings off flies. Flesh-eating in our present circumstances is as empty a gluttony as any of these things. Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists. (Clark, 1977)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ian,

I have enjoyed reading your various topics and posts. I appreciate your thoughtful prose and your recommendations for further reading. I hope you continue to share your ideas and insights with us.

Kind regards,

-eel

[TheNoNamedOne]

The following quote, I think, really represents the center of his points. It's certainly worth discussing.

Honourable men may honourably disagree about some details of human treatment of the non-human, but vegetarianism is now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of emperor-worship in the early Church. Those who have not made that pledge have no authority to speak against the most inanely conceived experiments, nor against hunting, nor against fur-trapping, nor bear-baiting, nor bull fights, nor pulling the wings off flies. Flesh-eating in our present circumstances is as empty a gluttony as any of these things. Those who still eat flesh when they could do otherwise have no claim to be serious moralists. (Clark, 1977)

Yes, Ian. Thanks for highlighting this portion. Look at the red highlight. Why wouldn't we want to be serious moralists? I am not sure one can be a wishy washy moralist, can they? Either you are pregnant or you are not? Someone is not "kinda" pregnant, are they?

To me it sounds like you take the issue (morals related to gluttony and meat and vegetarianism) seriously, Ian -- hence no derision of the topic. An important point of that whole essay is unecessary pain/suffering -- pointing to the fact that no suffering is necessary when an alternative exists -- except for the pleasure of the palate. The idea of unecessary pain/suffering is inconsistent with reason and ends up being an oxymoron.

One who values reason and logic applied to morals is obligated to wrestle with these conflicting issues and not resort to lazy thought of justification through pleasure and might -- which all serious moralists do/should reject. It is their prejudice that keeps them from doing so.

Looking forward to your reply, Ian.

[Isaak Brodsky]

You’d likely agree that the responsibility of humans to other humans, to all other creatures and to the environment is immense.

Causing any unnecessary harm presents me with a serious moral dilemma, given my belief that we are stewards of all we survey.

Our carnivorous eating habits in this post-industrial world do harm to creatures. We have even had to design massive machines to systematize slaughter, replacing the local butcher or rabbi to bless the offering for conveyors and pulleys.

The value that we tend to place on mass consumption has somehow blurred our focus on the living creatures that we see as consumable as newspapers, breakfast cereals, or beer.

Even getting people to see the differences in the things we consume is hard, partly because of how our consumable things are packaged. Whatever fits into a shopping cart seems to belong to the same general category.

[DougP]

Are morals subjective or are they objective? What decides if something is immoral..? Laws, opinion, personal convictions, collective reasoning and an overall agreement?

[kombu_kid]

Why wouldn't we want to be serious moralists? I am not sure one can be a wishy washy moralist, can they?

Sure, you can. Just be a pro-choice ARist.

An important point of that whole essay is unecessary pain/suffering -- pointing to the fact that no suffering is necessary when an alternative exists -- except for the pleasure of the palate. The idea of unecessary pain/suffering is inconsistent with reason and ends up being an oxymoron.

Adoption vs. abortion is an alternative that exists--except for the convenience of eliminating "the problem". The idea of a pro-choice moralist is inconsistent with reason and ends up being an oxymoron.

What do you think the percentage is of pro-choice ARists? I'll bet it's over 80%, wouldn't you agree? I see you guys as self-congratulatory sheep with an air of sophistication and smugness because you're on a higher plane than the rest of the "carnivore cro-mags". There's a giant hole in your argument, and that is that it's okay to suck a living human into a machine; face it, you've elevated animals above humans.

One who values reason and logic applied to morals is obligated to wrestle with these conflicting issues and not resort to lazy thought of justification through pleasure and might -- which all serious moralists do/should reject. It is their prejudice that keeps them from doing so.

Forgive me for using your own words as my best argument.

Would you suggest pregnant women be forced to view bloody, dismembered fetuses in a jar before they opt for an abortion, just as you suggested a visit to the slaughterhouse?

[Isaak Brodsky]

Are morals subjective or are they objective? What decides if something is immoral..? Laws, opinion, personal convictions, collective reasoning and an overall agreement?

Our sense of what is moral or immoral is shaped by our personal values and public norms. When our subjective sense of moral choices meets the community's collective, objective sense of what is moral, we sometimes accept and act on the choice or bend our preferences to the public will.

What changes the personal preferences rooted in our individual sense of morality?? Many things cause change. New information is one major cause.

Remember the '70s in the US when cigarette smoking was really en vogue? In the '80s, data from research into the dangers of second-hand smoke began to appear in public discourse and began changing enough people's personal values regarding cigarettes. The '90s saw a more widespread change in attitudes toward cigarette smoking with new laws banning the use of tobacco products in certain public places.

Meat eating will likely go the way of cigarette smoking. Data have been pouring into the public discourse about the dangers of animal fats to human health for some years. Despite the best efforts of marketers, our attitudes our changing.

Seems to me our moral choices are under continual negotiation with public norms and personal values.

How 'bout you?

[Tempestuous]

Forgive me for using your own words as my best argument.

Would you suggest pregnant women be forced to view bloody, dismembered fetuses in a jar before they opt for an abortion, just as you suggested a visit to the slaughterhouse?

Asides from fetuses in jars-
Witness first hand another going through and abortion as well as accompany them a few days as they deal with the aftermath.

Perhaps ultra sound the abortion process as well for them to watch the un-living blob flail and twist in agony.

~K~
I am officially grossed out now.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Sure, you can. Just be a pro-choice ARist.
I haven't seen where TP, or any other strict AR proponents (if there are any others on the forum), has come out as in favor of/supporting abortion. However, he has dealt with all of your questions in the Liberals, Animals Rights, Pro Choice topic.

[Muku]

Asides from fetuses in jars-
Witness first hand another going through and abortion as well as accompany them a few days as they deal with the aftermath.

Perhaps ultra sound the abortion process as well for them to watch the un-living blob flail and twist in agony.

~K~
I am officially grossed out now.
You and me both...:barf::barf:

Pretty graphic description there Temp....:-|

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Graphic description, yes. A moral quandry, yes. But, I have yet to read of any pro AR people on JU forums fighting for pro-choice. So, while definitely a topic for discussion (and I think there is a topic or two dealing with this), it is an empty argument.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Graphic description, yes. A moral quandry, yes. But, I have yet to read of any pro AR people on JU forums fighting for pro-choice. So, while definitely a topic for discussion (and I think there is a topic or two dealing with this), it is an empty argument.

really good points.

abortion is one of those topics that comes loaded with so many feelings. it really radicalizes people.

i agree that it would be incredibly difficult to embrace the AR perspective and yet also support abortion rights.

wonder how peta folks tend to see the abortion issue.

this (abortion) should make another interesting topic in another thread.

maybe it's best, though, to keep both issues separate since they both deserve some focus.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

wonder how peta folks tend to see the abortion issue

www.peta.org/about/faq.asp (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp)

I think TP also mentioned PETA's position in the Liberals, Animal Rights, and Abortion topic.

Here is a good article highlighting the similarities between the two philosophies:

http://www.fnsa.org/v1n4/murti.html

[DougP]

Our sense of what is moral or immoral is shaped by our personal values and public norms. When our subjective sense of moral choices meets the community's collective, objective sense of what is moral, we sometimes accept and act on the choice or bend our preferences to the public will.

What changes the personal preferences rooted in our individual sense of morality?? Many things cause change. New information is one major cause.

Remember the '70s in the US when cigarette smoking was really en vogue? In the '80s, data from research into the dangers of second-hand smoke began to appear in public discourse and began changing enough people's personal values regarding cigarettes. The '90s saw a more widespread change in attitudes toward cigarette smoking with new laws banning the use of tobacco products in certain public places.

Meat eating will likely go the way of cigarette smoking. Data have been pouring into the public discourse about the dangers of animal fats to human health for some years. Despite the best efforts of marketers, our attitudes our changing.

Seems to me our moral choices are under continual negotiation with public norms and personal values.

How 'bout you?

I agree with what you are saying. I think all of it makes sense and would very applicable in a Utopian world. I am also aware of how once movements get rolling they are hard to stop. I am looking at this though through a world wide perspective. Many of the movements that have been cited to support the preclusion that the AR movement will be ultimately successful have not been ultimately successful themselves. Slavery, bondage and child labor are still very much alive in many parts of the world today. Just because its not alive and in our faces in America or other parts of the modern world doesn't mean the movements have wiped them off the map. Show me one movement that has been world widely successful.

Even with the changes to the status quo on smoking. They have made head way in a few countries but there are several places where this idea hasn't even planted a seed yet. From what I can tell its very difficult if not down right impossible to get every human being on the planet on the same page. If it were that easy we would have all been worshiping the same god, not smoking, drug free, vegetarians and free of bondage. So far this looks to be light years away from completion.

Then one has to wonder what if this climate change theory could really become reality? What if we were thrown into another ice age lasting a few centuries? What if it affected most of todays modern societies and they were thrown back into the stone age? I doubt very seriously that it would be conceivable for us all to be vegetarians.

On that note I know from experience just how hard it is to live off the land. Especially when you can't stay in one place for too long, due to climate or other reasons. Its during these moments that the basic hunters instinct that all of us humans possess emerges. You can definitely make it further off of a good kill or bountiful catch then you can foraging for the right plants, berries, nuts etc. In these extreme conditions I've seen even the most devout vegetarian become quite the skilled hunter. It is something that really is in every each and one of us. I would not doubt for a second that something, be it man made or natural, could happen that would send us all back to less than modern times. I don't think that some of the morals that have been discussed in this thread will have any true bearing in a time like that.

Another thing like I mentioned above, is that there are many dark corners of the world where eating meat is quite alive. It is in many tribes, sub cultures part of their way of life. To me and many others it appears that these people are actually living in harmony with the planet more than any of us ever have. Yet, by some of our standards what they are doing is immoral. In fact it would be more moral according to these standards to uproot them from centuries of harmonious life with the earth and plunge them into our world and force them to adhere to our morals. Something about that alone doesn't seem quite moral. I guess morals are really subjective.

[Isaak Brodsky]

excellent points!

yeah, you're right. it is impossible to generalize and induce a valid conclusion when we're talking 'bout the entire planet.

but, you'd probably agree that our attitudes about some social behaviors have shifted since the '70s, which isn't a very long time ago.

has anyone read or watched (new on DVD) guns, germs & steel.

absolutely brilliant theory and dramatization of the spread of populations and emergence of world cultures throughout the globe since ancient mesopotamia.

jared diamond's stuff. if you can get either the book or the dvd, you'll be quite satisfied.

[Isaak Brodsky]

www.peta.org/about/faq.asp (http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp)

thanks for the useful link.

interesting stand on abortion!!

none at all.

i'm bettin' it would benefit neither side (pro-life vs. peta) if they neither publicly accepted nor rejected each other's positions and methods for changing people's ideas about their practices.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

has anyone read or watched (new on DVD) guns, germs & steel.

absolutely brilliant theory and dramatization of the spread of populations and emergence of world cultures throughout the globe since ancient mesopotamia.

jared diamond's stuff. if you can get either the book or the dvd, you'll be quite satisfied.
Excellent book! I read it several years ago. You are indeed well read.:cool:

I actually didn't finish watching the TV segment (I've forgotten if it was Discovery Channel, History Channel, or National Geographic). It was OK, but the book was packed with so much information and so many details that the TV program was bound to disappoint.

That also happens with movies based on novels, I usually find.

Jared Diamond's essay on the origins of the Japanese is also worth a read.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Japan/History/roots.html

[TheNoNamedOne]

Why wouldn't we want to be serious moralists? I am not sure one can be a wishy washy moralist, can they?

Sure, you can. Just be a pro-choice ARist.


Animal Rightists are not Vitalists (i.e. all life has rights). Animal Rights is built on the premise that sentience, pain, and suffering are what make things deserving of rights -- not mere living cells.

For if it were just life cells, then one would have to say that bacteria and such things as AIDS viruses, which also are alive, should deserve rights. But they do not have sentience now, do they?

Therefore, the prochoice or prolife really can't be applied to AR. That said, though, ARists do not hold their beliefs in a vaccuum separate and untouched from other social issues. I think Eelecurb supplied a link to PETA that briefly discusses the issue i.e. that even amongst ARists, abortion and prolife beliefs are both held by each member.

[DougP]

Just to chime in for a second.. when do fetuses start feeling pain? I thought they could feel pain and discomfort prior to birth.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am not sure, DougP. When do they start having sentience?

I sure would not like to scalpel or suck out a 9 month old fetus.

But what about the far end just a second after conception (or even a few days, or weeks later)? Are multiplying cells deserving of rights when sentience and pain and suffering cannot even be registered without the hardware of a brain to process such things from stimuli?

Because the answers are unknown, the obfuscation of abortion does nothing to diminish the moral calling for Animal Rights. Both issues can be spearheaded separately by activists for both causes and neither one or the other discredits the other.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Just to chime in for a second.. when do fetuses start feeling pain? I thought they could feel pain and discomfort prior to birth.
Wikipedia (hard to judge the quality, but seems like a good synopsis) has a entry summarizing the current research and thought on that issue. Some say as early as 9 weeks. Others as late as 26-8 weeks. Many agree on the later number, though some still insist that birth is the start of the perception of pain. The earlier you go, the more debate appears. I've even heard 6-7 weeks by some researchers.

Take a look at the Wiki entry as a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

For many, the argument about animal rights and about the rights of unborn children doesn't rest on the "are they conscious and/or sentient?" question. It is based on the question "do they have the capacity to suffer?" It is clear that higher animals (i.e. mammals and birds) do. Many researchers will agree that babies in the 2nd and 3rd trimester do too.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Most of my thoughts and writings on it deal with "suffering." However, to rest entirely on that I think could still lead to exploitation, for if it could be argued that something is not suffering, then it could still be exploited for utilitarian purposes. Therefore, sentience (though I am not sure that is the major part) does have a part in the argument, for a sentient being has an awareness of its self and a certain amount of sentience is necessary to process the stimuli and the meaning of what it is to suffer and deprived of its urges.

A good deal of the AR argument also rests on ending the property status of animals, for once a claim to ownership of a being can no longer be laid to it by another, abject exploitation (institutionalized force of will onto another) disappears. That is what is sometimes meant and embodied in the moderan animal liberation or abolitionist movement.

Though, adding to what Eelecurb says regarding suffering, it was philosopher Jeremy Bentham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham)(1748~1832), who speaking on AW more so than AR stated:

"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Animal_welfare)? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?"

And indeed, why should any sensitive being capable of suffering not be protected? A respect for parsimony and reason not based on prejudice and fallacies points us in that direction.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Jared Diamond's essay on the origins of the Japanese is also worth a read.
http://www2.gol.com/users/hsmr/Content/East%20Asia/Japan/History/roots.html

Fantastic article from Discover Mag. Beyond Diamond's lucid prose style, this article is dense with theories of modern Japanese origins. He draws on antropological, archaeological and linguistic evidence and theory. He also touches on the politics of ancient origins in contemporary Japan, tying it to present day conceptions of Japanese identity.

His conclusions seem to me to be the most reasonable.

Of course, my response here is totally off topic.

If you want to start another thread dealing with cultures and identities, I'm for it.

[okisteve]

Great article. I really like how Jared Diamond makes connections. He is widely critiqued, but he has the guts to publish his ideas even if admittedly speculative and backed by little solid evidence.

Like Arabs and Jews, Koreans and Japanese are joined by blood yet locked in traditional enmity. Interesting. Does your wife find less discriminatory attitudes here in Okinawa than on the mainland? My wife (from mainland Japan) has always been very sympathetic to Koreans.

[Tony Stacks]

So other animals have the right to kill and eat other animals but humans don't have the right to eat other animals?

That is pretty unfair.

Now I'm sure being a vegetarian is a more healthy diet choice but it's just that a choice.

Now I love animals and I like a juicy steak on my plate too.

[Tony Stacks]

Now I am against abuse of animals.

Now as long as animals are given good food, clean water and are killed in a humane way than I think that is enough for meat eaters and vegans to find a comprimise.

[pardus]

Would you suggest pregnant women be forced to view bloody, dismembered fetuses in a jar before they opt for an abortion, just as you suggested a visit to the slaughterhouse?

yes, why not? (don't forget that this is taking place inside a woman's body; when does it become "not her body," and therefore something she has no say over? that's one thing that makes it different from AR)

To me and many others it appears that these people are actually living in harmony with the planet more than any of us ever have. Yet, by some of our standards what they are doing is immoral. In fact it would be more moral according to these standards to uproot them from centuries of harmonious life with the earth and plunge them into our world and force them to adhere to our morals. Something about that alone doesn't seem quite moral. I guess morals are really subjective.
I'd agree that many of these people are more in touch with earth's rhythyms than most ARAs. I don't think it'd be moral at all to uproot them & plunge them into our society, or to impose our values on them. I'd ask that we enter into a mutually respectful dialogue, and ask if it is really true, even now, that they cannot survive without killing.

There's a poster on an AR forum who is mostly (?) American Indian, and she actually gets offended when people assume that her culture is "in tune with Nature." At this point, she says, they're eating meat off styrofoam plates and using high-powered rifles and have no excuse not to be vegan. Her big thing is the "noble savage" myth. (That's just "by the way" info, though)

[pardus]

Most of my thoughts and writings on it deal with "suffering." However, to rest entirely on that I think could still lead to exploitation, for if it could be argued that something is not suffering, then it could still be exploited for utilitarian purposes. Therefore, sentience (though I am not sure that is the major part) does have a part in the argument, for a sentient being has an awareness of its self and a certain amount of sentience is necessary to process the stimuli and the meaning of what it is to suffer and deprived of its urges.

A good deal of the AR argument also rests on ending the property status of animals, for once a claim to ownership of a being can no longer be laid to it by another, abject exploitation (institutionalized force of will onto another) disappears. That is what is sometimes meant and embodied in the moderan animal liberation or abolitionist movement.

TP, that's very true about AR seeking to end the property status of animals. In fact, I'd say that the AR rests on these four words: Animals are not property."

I've come more & more away from the "suffering" aspect of it, because it's an unnecessary and insufficient argument. Compelling as all hell, of course, and definitely what got me into it! But I can't control the suffering of another animal, and I have no business trying to adjudicate "this is an acceptable amount of suffering for you."

I can, however, limit as far as possible the harm that I do to another sentient being. And that eliminates my culpability in that being's suffering. I don't have to worry about it, because I'm not causing it.

Sooo many people hide behind their intentions, and say, "I'm eating cheese, but I don't mean for the calf to be whisked off to a veal crate and for the cow's body to be abused and for both of them to be shipped off to a slaughterhouse. That just happens, but they're supposed to do it differently. So I'm not causing the suffering."

Abolitionism is not as compelling on the face of it, but it cuts through to the heart of the matter. The reason they're suffering "unnecessarily" is because we insist on exploiting them. All we have to do is stop acting like we own them. They'll still suffer but not at our hands.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Abolitionism is not as compelling on the face of it, but it cuts through to the heart of the matter. The reason they're suffering "unnecessarily" is because we insist on exploiting them. All we have to do is stop acting like we own them. They'll still suffer but not at our hands.

Agreed, Pardus. Ownership speaks to absolute power, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

What so-called "right" is ownership over a being with its own will to do something stems from? Why it stems from the defunct and rejected reasoning of "might makes right."

And we all know that can only be supported and continued to be applied through prejudice based on anthropocentrism -- all wholey not supported by reason when not applied arbitrarily.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Great article. I really like how Jared Diamond makes connections. He is widely critiqued, but he has the guts to publish his ideas even if admittedly speculative and backed by little solid evidence.

Here's a fun interview he had with Steven Colbert:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=87258&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml%3Fstart%3D301&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

[TheNoNamedOne]

Funny interview. lol.

[ryukyuboi]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN0731748320071208?rpc=92

PETA boycotting M&Ms!

[TheNoNamedOne]

What is the trend in law for AR? More and more protections coming about. I have been saying that, and here in USA Today it is highlighted again:

Animal rights groups pick up momentum (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-27-animal-activists_N.htm)
By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY

The growing influence of animal rights activists increasingly is affecting daily life, touching everything from the foods Americans eat to what they study in law school, .... Animal activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) say they are seeing a spike in membership as their campaigns spread.

And spread they have to countries around the world with regional chapters.

"There's been an explosion of interest" in animal welfare issues, says David Favre, a Michigan State University law professor and animal law specialist. "Groups like the Humane Society of the United States and PETA have brought to our social awareness their concerns about animals and all matter of creatures."

And it was nice to see PETA's campaign against the Abbey Monks that resulted in them giving up egg producing. 50 years of tradition is no excuse to stay in the business of cruelty -- or to not be targeted because of that.

The monks were targeted because their chickens were kept in battery cages, the nation's most common method of egg-farming but a practice many animal rights advocates consider cruel.

Father Stan Gumula, abbot of Mepkin Abbey, said the monks were reluctant to give up the egg business. "The pressure from PETA has made it difficult for (the monks) to live their quiet life of prayer, work and sacred reading," he said.

As AR membership grows more businesses will be persuaded to change, and laws protecting animals will grow in number.

Animal welfare organizations are riding a wave of popularity. The Humane Society says it has 10.5 million members or supporters, up from 7.4 million five years ago; during the same period, PETA says its rolls have doubled to 1.8 million.

[Tony Stacks]

I like animals and I commend Vegetarians and Vegans for their diets and the fact that they can stick to something so hard. I for one could not be vegan maybe vegetarian.

But I think we have just as much right to eat animals as all the other animals do. Lions and tigers eating animals is okay but we're wrong for doing it?

I think their should be strict regulations on animals living conditions and the way they are killed and it should be done fast and humane. Preferably kosher which was designed to be humane.

Any excess cruely including but not limited to kicking, hitting, branding, killing an animal in front of other animals would mean charges against those responsible.

The animals should have a clean and safe place to live, clean water, food and medical care.

Would this be enough? Can we eat meat and use animal products without being cruel? I think it can be done.

[Tony Stacks]

Agreed, Pardus. Ownership speaks to absolute power, and absolute power absolutely corrupts.

What so-called "right" is ownership over a being with its own will to do something stems from? Why it stems from the defunct and rejected reasoning of "might makes right."

And we all know that can only be supported and continued to be applied through prejudice based on anthropocentrism -- all wholey not supported by reason when not applied arbitrarily.


Well I think owning animals benefits the animals when they are pets. I had dogs and they were part of the family. Hell, the had a better life than I do, get to just sit back and relax, get fed 3 times a day, play, go for walks. Sounds like a pretty good life don't you think?:first:

[kombu_kid]

If, let's say, killing animals for consumption were outlawed, wouldn't it stand to reason that we wouldn't need to maintain the population of all these types of animals on the planet? Would ARists agree to small animal preserves around the world, with let's say, a worldwide total of 5000 of each type of animal?

OR.....would the ARists position be more of a.....let's maintain a worldwide HUMAN population of 5000 in small HUMAN preserves, while letting the worldwide animal population to blast off and thrive anywhere they want, traipsing through downtown Manhattan?

Why do I feel like I know the answer?:)

Do I get an AR brownie button now?:D

[DougP]

Father Stan Gumula, abbot of Mepkin Abbey, said the monks were reluctant to give up the egg business. "The pressure from PETA has made it difficult for (the monks) to live their quiet life of prayer, work and sacred reading," he said.

When I see an entry such as this it gets me thinking. Thinking that there is a blurred line between persistent negotiation and harassment. Hard to say where this case falls into. I suppose if I believe in something strong enough and feel as though others are immoral for not abiding by my life style there is hope that through constant harassment, prodding, and property sabotage I can eventually persuade them. Granted that it is indeed the higher and moral way of life that I am attempting to coerce others into, at least by the standards of many. All in all if you can get enough people to back an idea and way of life you can make it law... even Christianity. So Christian fundamentalists out there, you should take a page or two from PETA's SOP on how to change the world.:D It just might be working.

[TheNoNamedOne]

When I see an entry such as this it gets me thinking. Thinking that there is a blurred line between persistent negotiation and harassment. Hard to say where this case falls into. I suppose if I believe in something strong enough and feel as though others are immoral for not abiding by my life style there is hope that through constant harassment, prodding, and property sabotage I can eventually persuade them.

You mean like people wanting change who resort to disrupting businesses by having sit-ins at restaurants? All those poor mom and pop diners must have lost a lot of money during those and felt they, too, were targets of harassment.

Granted that it is indeed the higher and moral way of life that I am attempting to coerce others into, at least by the standards of many.

Appeal to the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority), DougP, is a fallacious argument, or quite simply a fallacy. I would suggest that virtually all social movements that have succeeded in advancing protections and rights all began with a minority who set out and began rocking the status quo.

By the standards of many at one time, blacks should have never been freed, given civil rights, women should not have been given suffrage, gays should still be discriminated against, etc...

All in all if you can get enough people to back an idea and way of life you can make it law... even Christianity. So Christian fundamentalists out there, you should take a page or two from PETA's SOP on how to change the world.:D It just might be working.

DougP, I think you have your observations backwards. It is the ARists who are behind on the power curve, and it is they who are taking pages from history on how to go about achieving protections for animals. They have been looking at and adopting strategies from a wide variety of sources i.e. from governments, revolutionaries (even the Sons of Liberty), and private orgs (religious or secular). The mix is complex and the movement and its strategies are quite dynamic taking from history and modifying those lessons to today.

Hey, what is it when the U.S. parks an aircraft carrier battle group in the Strait of Taiwan? Looks like a certain degree of intimidation, doesn't it?

[DougP]

You mean like people wanting change who resort to disrupting businesses by having sit-ins at restaurants? All those poor mom and pop diners must have lost a lot of money during those and felt they, too, were targets of harassment.

No not quite. Not at all actually. I don't see how mom and pop businesses that made money during these sit ins(if that's what you're saying) seem to relate to monks having their peaceful prayer time disturbed.


Appeal to the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_majority), DougP, is a fallacious argument, or quite simply a fallacy. I would suggest that virtually all social movements that have succeeded in advancing protections and rights all began with a minority who set out and began rocking the status quo.

By the standards of many at one time, blacks should have never been freed, given civil rights, women should not have been given suffrage, gays should still be discriminated against, etc...

Ok, let me rephrase that, not saying they're the majority now and certainly not saying that they ever were. But I am saying that maybe some day they might be and that might coincide with bringing about the changes that AR is ultimately hoping for. Unless you think that those goals will still be met while ARist and AWist are the minority.



DougP, I think you have your observations backwards. It is the ARists who are behind on the power curve, and it is they who are taking pages from history on how to go about achieving protections for animals. They have been looking at and adopting strategies from a wide variety of sources i.e. from governments, revolutionaries (even the Sons of Liberty), and private orgs (religious or secular). The mix is complex and the movement and its strategies are quite dynamic taking from history and modifying those lessons to today.

Hey, what is it when the U.S. parks an aircraft carrier battle group in the Strait of Taiwan? Looks like a certain degree of intimidation, doesn't it?

What I wrote above seems to go with this as well. I'll also give you an E-cookie for pointing out that Christians are anything but a minority when it comes to western countries, Europe, and their legislative branches respectively. Of course the ARists are a minority in this playing field. Which is why I think that the fundamentalists could take a page or two out of their book. Learn from the unconventional warfare and take into note what kind of force multiplying tactics they're using. After all if a minority group such as AR can make waves this big in the name of a moral way of life, imagine what Christianity could do with their sheer size utilizing the same game plan.:thumbup:

[TheNoNamedOne]

I like animals and I commend Vegetarians and Vegans for their diets and the fact that they can stick to something so hard. I for one could not be vegan maybe vegetarian.

Not so hard after you adjust to it. But, I thought the same way as you once about it looking so hard.

But I think we have just as much right to eat animals as all the other animals do. Lions and tigers eating animals is okay but we're wrong for doing it?

Lions and tigers are fully beholden to their passions, and they must kill and eat a certain diet in order to survive. We on the other hand are not beholden to our passions and we can survive on a modern veg*n diet -- and survive quite optimally may I add.

Humans limit their Darwinian "rights" of might by laws in order to try to prevent suffering where it can be prevented. Because that is recognized, ARists are just expanding the circle of beings that could fall under further legislated rights.

[The_Zach2681]

I'm high on life, baby...

and scotch, of course.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think their should be strict regulations on animals living conditions and the way they are killed and it should be done fast and humane. Preferably kosher which was designed to be humane.

Are you willing to pay a large increase in prices for that view, Tony? Economies of scale is what allows for cheap prices. The faster the production line, the cheaper the end product will be. Chickens on conveyor belts, or just about to be put on them, see the other chickens hanging and squawking. They, like cows, pigs, sheep, etc... can hear the distress and smell the urine and feces of their terrified kind.

Any excess cruely including but not limited to kicking, hitting, branding, killing an animal in front of other animals...

But knowing that that all goes on, why continue supporting such a system with your wallet? Rewarding it with profit does little to affect change.

...would mean charges against those responsible.

AWists and ARists are always trying to get more strict laws and more stringent punishments for violators in areas of raising and slaughtering. I hope that with your above opinion on this, you will applaud those efforts when you come across them.

[P_chan]

I like animals and I commend Vegetarians and Vegans for their diets and the fact that they can stick to something so hard. I for one could not be vegan maybe vegetarian.

Yeah, go them:rolleyes:

It's nice to have the luxury of choice.

[Tony Stacks]

Are you willing to pay a large increase in prices for that view, Tony? Economies of scale is what allows for cheap prices. The faster the production line, the cheaper the end product will be. Chickens on conveyor belts, or just about to be put on them, see the other chickens hanging and squawking. They, like cows, pigs, sheep, etc... can hear the distress and smell the urine and feces of their terrified kind.



But knowing that that all goes on, why continue supporting such a system with your wallet? Rewarding it with profit does little to affect change.



AWists and ARists are always trying to get more strict laws and more stringent punishments for violators in areas of raising and slaughtering. I hope that with your above opinion on this, you will applaud those efforts when you come across them.


I may be a meat eater but there is no need to be cruel. Eating animals is one thing but senseless abuse is just wrong.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The animals should have a clean and safe place to live, clean water, food and medical care.

Would this be enough? Can we eat meat and use animal products without being cruel? I think it can be done.

It is a contradiction to think one can not be cruel when taking the life of an animal for one's pleasure when that animal doesn't want to give up its life. If I wanted to impose my will on you until you were 30, but went about it deceptively nice, and then at 30 ended your life prematurely, after having controlled all your social life, would you consider that not cruel?

Rights are about recognizing intrinsic value in life and giving equal respect to those beings which are a subject of a life; it is that those beings which are a subject of a life are not merely treated as a thing for the sole purpose of utility to another.

So, no. What you state to offer would not be enough in the final view of those seeking animal rights. We do not want bigger cages; we want empty cages. Just as human slaves did not want longer chains; they wanted broken chains.

[The_Zach2681]

I say we all join together, a la The Island of Dr. Moreau (book, not the ******* wierd 90's movie with Brando)

It'll be a hell of a day when we're all manbearpig's! Now that's equality!!!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well I think owning animals benefits the animals when they are pets. I had dogs and they were part of the family.

Ownership does not benefit animals. It reduces them to things of utility. If an animal is lucky enough to get an "owner" that is malevolent and does not treat them as things of utility, they will in all probability have a good life. But that they can at anytime by circumstances be at the mercy of an "owner" who operates merely under the aspect of "owner" and "owned," then animals will always be at risk for abuse in the widest possible sense.

The Animal Liberation Movement is about ending ownership of animals. It is also referred to as Abolitionism.

Hell, they had a better life than I do, get to just sit back and relax, get fed 3 times a day, play, go for walks. Sounds like a pretty good life don't you think?:first:

Sure does. But you did not need to be designated as their "owner," and they did not need to be designated as "owned" in order to have that life if your family was offering it to them out of their own kindness. Guardians are not owners of those beings they have responsibility for. Perhaps the difference seems blurry, but it is a clear legal and philosophical one that has huge ramifications for both parties in the relationship.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ownership does not benefit animals. It reduces them to things of utility. If an animal is lucky enough to get an "owner" that is malevolent and does not treat them as things of utility, they will in all probability have a good life. But that they can at anytime by circumstances be at the mercy of an "owner" who operates merely under the aspect of "owner" and "owned," then animals will always be at risk for abuse in the widest possible sense.

I think you mean benevolent here.

[retributionnk]

Rights are about recognizing intrinsic value in life and giving equal respect to those beings which are a subject of a life; it is that those beings which are a subject of a life are not merely treated as a thing for the sole purpose of utility to another.

I'm curious about your views here, so please allow me to pick your brain. You basically believe that all lives should be held in the same high (or low, as the case may be) regard, correct? Why do you feel that all life should be regarded in the same way, where taking lives, or using living things as a utility is cruel? Do you think that humans should have any more regard for life than other animals? Do you think that we, as humans, have a responsibility to be the 'great protector' of other species? If so, why?

Sorry for the slew of questions, I just really want to understand the core of your view on this subject. None of the above questions were meant to be patronizing in any way.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think you mean benevolent here.

Oops. That's right. Thanks.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Feel free to continue the discussion on a book or script using Animal Rights as a theme here (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3583). Thank you. -- TP

[kombu_kid]

Ownership does not benefit animals. It reduces them to things of utility. If an animal is lucky enough to get an "owner" that is malevolent and does not treat them as things of utility, they will in all probability have a good life. But that they can at anytime by circumstances be at the mercy of an "owner" who operates merely under the aspect of "owner" and "owned," then animals will always be at risk for abuse in the widest possible sense.

Uh, okay TP...just how does the title "owner" vs. "guardian" do one iota of difference how someone treats their pet? Unless we're talking about cows or chickens being raised for slaughter, what kind of "utility" is being taken from a dog or a cat or a pet hamster? What kind of "utility" can one get from a dog or cat?

And ownership doesn't benefit animals? Well then, if I leave my gate open and let my dog run out in the street....then I'm not responsible if he gets hit? How about taking my dog or cat to the vet if they're sick? Or responsible for getting their shots? Your arguments sound sensible at first glance, but, unless I'm missing something, I'm just lost here. If I'm not the owner of my dog, then how could I be responsible for that dog not having a license?

Please.....somebody tell me how an animal can suffer abuse, or further abuse, simply by changing a word of "owner" to "caretaker" to "guardian". If laws are in place to protect animals from cruelty or neglect, just how does a title change anything?

[The_Zach2681]

Feel free to continue the discussion on a book or script using Animal Rights as a theme here (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3583). Thank you. -- TP

JU Forum Rule 901

901. The grand overlord of JU, L. Ron Hubbard, smiles upon good order in forums. However, overly anal enforcement of forum guidelines will ultimately result in a tragically narrow number of forum-goers due to the complete absence of appreciation for satire or humor. Hail L. Ron!!!

[TheNoNamedOne]

JU Forum Rule 901

901. The grand overlord of JU, L. Ron Hubbard, smiles upon good order in forums. However, overly anal enforcement of forum guidelines will ultimately result in a tragically narrow number of forum-goers due to the complete absence of appreciation for satire or humor. Hail L. Ron!!!

Zach, I didn't mind the first couple posts using satire, but after that it was becoming a derailment, and it was apparent you were going to continue on with it. I, therefore, created a thread for you to explore those themes further. YOu are even invited to create your own thread with your own OP using satire and humor if you wish.

IF you have anything more to say about this, take it to the Forum and Feedback category. Do not reply to this post or address moderation in this thread. Thank you. -- TP

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sorry for the delay in replying, Retri.

I'm curious about your views here, so please allow me to pick your brain. You basically believe that all lives should be held in the same high (or low, as the case may be) regard, correct?

Yes, like Gandhi.

Why do you feel that all life should be regarded in the same way, where taking lives, or using living things as a utility is cruel?

Because I think that all beings that are a subject of a life (i.e. sentient with desires and the ability to suffer physically and emotionally) are deserving of egalitarian respect and have intrinsic value. I reject speciesism and see no evidence that anthropocentrism is a valid universal truth.

Do you think that humans should have any more regard for life than other animals?

I am not sure by what you mean here. I think you may have left out a word or two, that if included would clarify the question. Here are the two choices, one of which may be the one you mean:


Do you think that humans should have any more regard for human life than other animals?

Do you think that humans should have any more regard for life than other animals do?


Which question? Thanks in advance.

Do you think that we, as humans, have a responsibility to be the 'great protector' of other species?

No, in the sense that we should not try to stop lions from attacking zebras.

Yes, in the sense that we should simply leave animals alone to themselves, and those that refuse to do so, should be prosecuted.

If so, why?

I say yes in the latter instance because we are a people of laws, and once if AR is ever relized, we would have the duty to enforce those laws.

Sorry for the slew of questions, I just really want to understand the core of your view on this subject. None of the above questions were meant to be patronizing in any way.

I didn't view them as patronizing. I welcome questions on serious discussion when offered in a serious style. Thank you. Please feel free to ask more questions.

[retributionnk]

Do you think that humans should have any more regard for human life than other animals?

Do you think that humans should have any more regard for life than other animals do?


The second was my intended question. It didn't make any sense to me when I reread it. Woops.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I don't think it is a choice of "should." It just IS so.

But, I think it is so because we have a higher degree of ability to empathize, sympathize, and show compassion than animals. We not only have a higher degree of ability to do display those within and toward our own species, but we have the ability to do so inter-species wise, and DO display that. We have the ability to philosophize about life, morals, and what those mean -- hence we have a higher responsibility to respect/regard life and accept that it has intrinsic value of itself not dependent soley upon utility.

But all animals regard their lives with as much importance as we do our own, in as much as they can show it in their struggle and attempt to stay alive and avoid death. In that sense they regard their own life as important as we regard our own. No being wants to lose its life.

[DoctorP]

How do you think the first animal killed by a human actually died? I mean how do you think it came about? Was it because the guy just went out and in a blind rage killed some animal because he was hungry and wanted to see what it tasted like? Or, do you think that perhaps he killed it because the animal was about to kill him?

If you believe the first to be true, then I could understand how you think AR'ist views are correct. More then likely it was the second scenario and eating the animal was an afterthought...still the killing of the animal was indeed a natural act and a normal reaction. We are simply at an evolved form and do the killing in different ways (which should probably be modified).

Now, if AR'ist arguments were more along the lines that we have evolved as a species, and no longer need to kill animals, then I would be more along their way of thinking. Instead they lean more towards a Christian thinking of it is wrong to kill...which makes me tend to block them out more.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Now, if AR'ist arguments were more along the lines that we have evolved as a species, and no longer need to kill animals, then I would be more along their way of thinking. Instead they lean more towards a Christian thinking of it is wrong to kill...which makes me tend to block them out more.
Could you point out to us to where in the Bible it says it is wrong to kill animals, or what Christian denomination holds to this line of thinking?

[DoctorP]

Could you point out to us to where in the Bible it says it is wrong to kill animals, or what Christian denomination holds to this line of thinking?

Thou shalt not kill...I'm pretty sure is in there somewhere, but I don't read the Bible. Perhaps you could read it and get back to me.

[Asshat]

Could you point out to us to where in the Bible it says it is wrong to kill animals, or what Christian denomination holds to this line of thinking?

All of the individuals TP listed in the other thread- originators of SPCA in the mid 1700's based their views of humane treatment of animals on their religious convictions. It was during this time that England was experiencing a resurgence in religion which spurred the idiology.

[Tony Stacks]

The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" "kill" is a mistranslation.

[DoctorP]

The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder" "kill" is a mistranslation.

Thank you Tony, same meaning. Perhaps you could provide a link for Eele?

[Tony Stacks]

Thank you Tony, same meaning. Perhaps you could provide a link for Eele?

Quick Examples
killing but not murder
A soldier in Iraq who killing a terrorist / enemy in a fire fight is not murder.

Killing an animal for food, clothing and killing that animal in the fastest and most humane way possible is not murder.

A Policeman who killing a suspect in the line of duty is not murder.

Defending yourself from someone trying to kill you first

murder
serial killing
killing for no reason

[DoctorP]

Tony...I would say that this definition fits : to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

[Tony Stacks]

Tony...I would say that this definition fits : to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder


Thanx
.................................................. .................................................. .........................

[macker]

Listen here....

Animal rights activists are such inconsiderate bastards...
It's much easier to kill and skin (or vice versa if you so like) an animal thats trapped in a cage than to go out everyday and hunt down the little bastards..

[hankypanky]

i guess that blows inhumane all to shit, when my old man lived on a turkey farm and cut off their heads and let them run until they ran out of blood. gobble, gobble, gob, go, gggggggg........:D

[Tony Stacks]

i guess that blows inhumane all to shit, when my old man lived on a turkey farm and cut off their heads and let them run until they ran out of blood. gobble, gobble, gob, go, gggggggg........:D

Actually they don't feel it, it's just nerve endings that make them run.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ingrid Newkirk interviewed by Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=162598

[Maggie]

lol. Well, lifeboat situations of "either the other guy or me" usually occur in a vaccuum where the strong prevail over the weak (except for altruistic sacrifices). But while in this modern society, you are not in a lifeboat situation.

All it is coming down to here is a choice to choose from a sheetload of alternative choices that does not need to entail harming that which you eat.

Respect and consideration for all animal life, including humans should be taught and treated as a moral issue. It should also come naturally to any moral and ethical person.

When an animal is deliberately injured by youths and children, the reaction is usually "how mean, they shouldn't be allowed to do that" but it's forgotten in moments. Pulling the legs off a human, and deliberately torturing and injuring for fun, is viewed as abhorrent and abnormal, and invokes an entirely different reaction.

I can't imagine anyone agreeing that it should be allowed.

If humans want to kill for food, then give them a spear and let them function on the same level as their prey.

Compiling large numbers of edible animals and killing them at leisure or when needed cannot be defended except for the excuse that "I like to eat meat".

I'd like my neighbours house, but no one is going to let me throw him out and take up residence there.

"I want" and "I like" doesn't in any way excuse the destruction of huge quantities of animals, which have the right to live a natural life.

I'm not saying that animals are equal to humans, I AM saying that we do NOT have the right to use them in any way we choose.

As the dominant species we have a responsibility to the environment and the animals that share this planet with us. We have abused that responsibility beyond belief.

Maggie

[Maggie]

i guess that blows inhumane all to shit, when my old man lived on a turkey farm and cut off their heads and let them run until they ran out of blood. gobble, gobble, gob, go, gggggggg........:D

If they have to die that's by far a better death then hanging upside down on a conveyor belt. Maybe getting stunned, if anyone can be bothered, and then getting their throats cut and bleeding to death.

Maggie

[Maggie]

So does the quest for Animal Rights and its participants exclude any possibility of using animals as a source of nutrition?

The title of Animal rights cover a whole spectrum of opinions, from the fanatical to the people who abhor cruelty and choose not to kill to eat.
Personally I have to answer yes to your question.

As a fellow animal that's my right :)

Maggie

[Maggie]

How do you think the first animal killed by a human actually died? I mean how do you think it came about? Was it because the guy just went out and in a blind rage killed some animal because he was hungry and wanted to see what it tasted like? Or, do you think that perhaps he killed it because the animal was about to kill him?

If you believe the first to be true, then I could understand how you think AR'ist views are correct. More then likely it was the second scenario and eating the animal was an afterthought...still the killing of the animal was indeed a natural act and a normal reaction. We are simply at an evolved form and do the killing in different ways (which should probably be modified).

Now, if AR'ist arguments were more along the lines that we have evolved as a species, and no longer need to kill animals, then I would be more along their way of thinking. Instead they lean more towards a Christian thinking of it is wrong to kill...which makes me tend to block them out more.

I doubt that man first killed and then ate his kill. I believe they were scavengers firstly and later learned how to kill for food once they'd already discovered meat was a food source.

I've never heard anyone who believed in animal rights quote thou shalt not kill, using the Bible as an example. It also says somewhere in the Bible that God gave man dominion over the animals he created.

Animal rights have nothing to do with religion, or I personally don't believe it has or should. Buddhists believe in animal rights as a way of life so Christianity doesn't feature there.

Animal rights has more to do with respect for all life and a hate of unnecessary cruelty and suffering.

Maggie

[Maggie]

They don't, they're animals.

So are we. How would you like to be served? With or without garlic.

Maggie

[Maggie]

Its not the same argument though. In the above argument that you stated is about humans.

And if we are animals why should we then be held to higher standards then other animals? And if we are held to higher standards then animals does that not mean we are on a different plain then they are? I don't see why I can't eat meat like tigers can. Doesn't seem fair to me. :)

There's no reason to suppose we are on a different plain than animals........except of course, that we go in for genocide on a fairly regular basis, unlike 90% of animals, excluding humans, who kill to eat to live.

I've never seen a Tiger using an SA80 (mark two).

Maggie

[Maggie]

btw, I should have made it clearer that the latter half of the sentence was my own words.

eelecurb, your breakdown of the differences was pretty accurate. but the "rat is a pig" quote is generally used to ridicule the AR movement, not as a principle of it. I just get tired of hearing it quoted out of context all the time.

As for emotional pain: two thoughts I have are that if you are looking at stuff like ontogeny & phylogeny of the brain, it's much more likely that the emotions will be quite similar, since they are part of more primitive parts of the brain, no?

As well as the fact that when I'm in extreme physical pain, I don't much care if there's also an emotional component or not. It's quite enough to be in physical pain.


Who decides how much pain an animal suffers during experiments and factory farming?
I assume scientists, who have at last managed to agree that the world isn't flat.

In years to come I would hope that they will have progressed enough to truly evaluate an animals suffering.

We are so motivated by money that we allowed a terminal disease to emerge simply in order to save a few more pence. Then we were lied to by Government Scientists until they couldn't cover up the true facts any longer.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis has killed hundreds of people and will kill many more. I don't know a single person who has died from Aids, but I do know someone who has died from BSE. My friend most certainly suffered a great deal before he died.

I wonder what we will next create from abusing nature that will come back and bite us in the arse.

Maggie

[EpicTrainwreck]

When they stop being so tasty, I'll start respecting them more.
The same goes for women.

[kombu_kid]

Pulling the legs off a human, and deliberately torturing and injuring for fun, is viewed as abhorrent and abnormal, and invokes an entirely different reaction.

I can't imagine anyone agreeing that it should be allowed.

How many democrats, whom I'd guess most ARists identify themselves as, are pro-choice and are in favor of partial birth abortions?(although obviously not for fun, but neither is slaughtering for fun) As TP stated before, ARists officially don't take a stand on abortion, I'm guessing because it either makes obvious how hippocritical they are, or alternatively, they're so worried that somebody might call them right-wing or religious wackjobs. It's hard for me personally to take serious the whole AR thing when you guys can't even put your freakin' foot down on something so obvious.......the murder and dismemberment of fellow humans. The democrats just put a happy face on it.......pro-choice.

[kombu_kid]

I AM saying that we do NOT have the right to use them in any way we choose.

Tell me, then.....if the majority of the world believes in the consumption of meat......then who are YOU and your group to state who "has the right" to do what? You mean there aren't a small group of tree-huggers somewhere who are determined to outlaw cutting down trees?.........who believe that the public "has no right" to the use of trees?

Your group might want to change the world's thinking on the consumption of meat, but hey, until you become the majority........the meat-eating majority is determining "what the rights are".

[Maggie]

It seems to me that while the AR movement is not pushing for animals to vote, bear arms or get a driver's license, there does appear to be some ambiguity as far as "not seeking equal rights with humans" while still insinuating that they are equal as far as their status here on earth with us humans.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse with the abortion thing.

Don't apologise for disagreeing with abortion. A life is a life. A foetus is alive from the moment it begins to grow.
This is only MY personal opinion, but an unborn child deserves the same rights as any other form of life.

If you don't want to have a baby, keep your legs closed, or use one of the many readily available contraceptives.

I'm sorry my posts are all lumped together here, but I can only post when most members are asleep, and I have time to use my computer.

Maggie

[FDokinawa]

I really want to reply to this.. but whats the point. It's like running head first into a wall.. kinda looks fun, but you know you shouldnt do it.. and if you do.. it gets you nowhere.

So yea, have fun in your hippy world.. I'll eat all the meat you dont.

[Maggie]

Your group might want to change the world's thinking on the consumption of meat, but hey, until you become the majority........the meat-eating majority is determining "what the rights are".[/QUOTE]

Firstly, I'm not a member of any group.

Secondly, weight of numbers does not determine what is right.

Being in a majority only means that there are a lot of people who agree. It doesn't mean that their beliefs are correct, just as being in a minority doesn't mean you're wrong.

A lot of us are in the privileged position to have a voice and to be able to choose. Many people don't have that choice and that's wrong too.

Under-privileged people need protection, especially children, who have no defence against abuse

Why is it so hard to accept that pain and suffering only matters when it affects us. It's wrong whatever venue it occupies, be it people, children or animals.

Oh, trees are pretty important too :)

Maggie

[Maggie]

I really want to reply to this.. but whats the point. It's like running head first into a wall.. kinda looks fun, but you know you shouldnt do it.. and if you do.. it gets you nowhere.

So yea, have fun in your hippy world.. I'll eat all the meat you dont.

Excuse me, but I'm not a bloody hippy. :D

Maggie

[FDokinawa]

Excuse me, but I'm not a bloody hippy. :D

Maggie

haha.. tell yourself whatever you want..

hip·py n., pl. -pies.
A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.

[kombu_kid]

Firstly, I'm not a member of any group.

All right, but the thread title is Animal Rights, so I consider anyone on that side of the argument to be an ARist.

Secondly, weight of numbers does not determine what is right.

Hmmmm, okay. But you'll have to agree that the public's attitudes towards eating meat will have to be swayed for anything to change. And another thing that I believe is at the heart of the argument is:

A. Are you against the pain & suffering that the animals must endure prior to their slaughter?........as well as the taking of their life merely for humans' benefit of a tasty meal? Because I can relate to easing their suffering, or eliminating it, but I never got how we have no right to eat another animal, when it has been like that forever.......and animals have done it since day one also.......and they sure as hell don't do it painlessly either.

To me, it just seems like another endless quest for perfection in life.......which will never happen. The only thing that will happen is that people, the public, us, will gradually have one thing after another taken away from us "for the good of society" or because a small group believes "that's what right". I don't think I need to list all the things I'm thinking of.......you can pretty much figure it out.

But the quest to reduce the suffering of animals prior to their slaughter? Sure, I'm down with that........why wouldn't anyone be?

[Maggie]

haha.. tell yourself whatever you want..

hip·py n., pl. -pies.
A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.

Just because I'm opposed to cruelty doesn't make me a hippy.

I'm a Company Secretary.

I have never been a hippy.

I have never worn long creased skirts made from cheese cloth, and stuck wilted flowers in my hair.

I have never been to any outside pop concert, or worn bells around my neck. I wasn't at Woodstock.

Even though I live only 30 odd miles from Stonehenge I have never found a load of big stones balanced on top of each other interesting enough to go and look at.

And more importantly I have NEVER been a pacifist.

Maggie :)

[Maggie]

All right, but the thread title is Animal Rights, so I consider anyone on that side of the argument to be an ARist.



[Hmmmm, okay. But you'll have to agree that the public's attitudes towards eating meat will have to be swayed for anything to change. ]
.

Myself and many others can try to influence the public. We can try to convince them that killing to eat is unnecessary and in our eyes wrong.

The Public will make up their own minds, provided it's within Government Guide lines. Freedom is no longer on offer and hasn't been for a very long time.


[A. Are you against the pain & suffering that the animals must endure prior to their slaughter?........as well as the taking of their life merely for humans' benefit of a tasty meal? Because I can relate to easing their suffering, or eliminating it, but I never got how we have no right to eat another animal, when it has been like that forever.......and animals have done it since day one also.......and they sure as hell don't do it painlessly either.]

A). Yes I'm very much against the pain and suffering of animals before slaughter, but I'd prefer them not to be slaughtered.

[To me, it just seems like another endless quest for perfection in life.......which will never happen. The only thing that will happen is that people, the public, us, will gradually have one thing after another taken away from us "for the good of society" or because a small group believes "that's what right". I don't think I need to list all the things I'm thinking of.......you can pretty much figure it out.]


No. We will never have perfection, it's an impossibility, so it isn't worth striving for. We don't even know what perfection is.

We will have, and are already having our civil liberties slowly and surely sucked away, and the Animal Rights Issue, is very small fry compared to what we are steadily loosing.

It won't be the ARists who restrict you rights.

Myself and many others can try to influence the public. We can try to convince them that killing to eat is unnecessary and in our eyes wrong.


[But the quest to reduce the suffering of animals prior to their slaughter? Sure, I'm down with that........why wouldn't anyone be?

Why not indeed

Maggie

[kombu_kid]

We will never have perfection, it's an impossibility, so it isn't worth striving for. We don't even know what perfection is.


It won't be the ARists who restrict you rights.

Maggie, I think for you to say "it isn't worth striving for", it is not truthful in that each fanatical group, whether it be vegans, the anti-gun crowd, the tree-huggers, and all the liberals who slam the brakes on home construction sites for some stupid endangered tse-tse fly's habitat collectively march towards pinching away pieces of our freedoms and rights........each group thinking "what we're doing is right, even though the majority of the public doesn't think so".

We will never have perfection, and maybe we don't know what it is......but for more & more true believer fringe groups, the STRIVING is what makes them get out of bed in the morning. "It won't be the ARists who restrict your rights".......one question: Can I eat meat now? Will I be able to in the Utopia of your mind?

Knock yourself out in your quest for your personal Utopia. But please, let's be honest here.

[Maggie]

Maggie, I think for you to say "it isn't worth striving for", it is not truthful in that each fanatical group, whether it be vegans, the anti-gun crowd, the tree-huggers, and all the liberals who slam the brakes on home construction sites for some stupid endangered tse-tse fly's habitat collectively march towards pinching away pieces of our freedoms and rights........each group thinking "what we're doing is right, even though the majority of the public doesn't think so".

......but for more & more true believer fringe groups, the STRIVING is what makes them get out of bed in the morning. "It won't be the ARists who restrict your rights".......one question: Can I eat meat now? Will I be able to in the Utopia of your mind?

Knock yourself out in your quest for your personal Utopia. But please, let's be honest here.


I think I am being honest.

Perhaps I would have been better saying that it wont be the ARists who Remove your rights.

I believe in Animal Rights, but I'd have to be stupid to think that whatever I do will make a noticeable difference as things stand now.

Perfection can never be possible, because everyone's idea of perfection is different, and yours will be entirely different to mine. What's the point in striving for something as intangible as perfection.

Explain perfection to me.

I'm not a fanatic, but I can "work" towards making as much difference as possible, in any way I can. Perfection isn't practical, but I can do my dambdest to make as much practical difference as possible.

I can only do as much as I can do to change as much as I can change, in order to improve the treatment of animals and to persuade as many people as possible to agree with me.

People also have rights and will make their own decisions based on the information they have access to. It isn't up to me to demand they don't eat meat all I can use is education and persuasion.

But unnecessary and deliberate cruelty is a different matter altogether, and I don't know anyone who would agree that cruelty is acceptable, or stand by and allow it to go on.

Maggie

[kombu_kid]

Explain perfection to me.

Okay, let's say perfection to you (on this subject) would be that no animals are treated badly, killed to be eaten, malnourished, punished, chained up or penned up, diseased......you get the idea. You strive for that, right? Sure, it can never be achieved as far as every animal, when you/your group make new successes and hit higher numbers or percentages, you then set your goals higher......always keeping your eye on that target of "no animal left behind". (that was a joke......ya gotta be American to get it maybe).....which I would call "perfection".

I'm just saying perfection is always the goal.......isn't the rich man's goal an infinite amount of money? He doesn't say "$5 billion's the goal, nothing more than that". Or, the drunk jarhead doesn't say "just 10 strippers tonight and 10 beers".......they hit one plateau, then raise the stakes and shoot for the next.

I can respect what you're trying to do, but I loves mah barbecue chicken & carne asada.:D

[Maggie]

Okay, let's say perfection to you (on this subject) would be that no animals are treated badly, killed to be eaten, malnourished, punished, chained up or penned up, diseased......you get the idea. You strive for that, right? Sure, it can never be achieved as far as every animal, when you/your group make new successes and hit higher numbers or percentages, you then set your goals higher......always keeping your eye on that target of "no animal left behind". (that was a joke......ya gotta be American to get it maybe).....which I would call "perfection".

I'm just saying perfection is always the goal.......isn't the rich man's goal an infinite amount of money? He doesn't say "$5 billion's the goal, nothing more than that". Or, the drunk jarhead doesn't say "just 10 strippers tonight and 10 beers".......they hit one plateau, then raise the stakes and shoot for the next.

I can respect what you're trying to do, but I loves mah barbecue chicken & carne asada.:D

You're in good company then.
So does my husband. He chooses what he wants to eat, and I 'ain't divorced him yet.

He does all the cooking, cos I'm absolutely crap at it. He makes me lovely Vegan meals, while he's cooking his roast beef.

We agree to differ.

He argues far better than me

Maggie :)