Human 'rights' are not Animal 'Rights'?

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
except of course that the bird in the wild may be pecked to death or die of disease, etc. Cocks fight in the wild too. In the wild, they spend about 90% of their day looking for food. In domestic flocks, they are bored and once blood is spotted, they will gang up on an injured member of the flock.
Yes, I am aware of that, and yet I still suggested it would be preferable to being de-beaked and locked in a tiny cage.
 
Mar 2014
8,881
Canterbury
I don't think my friends and I are not fortunate, we are just like a vast majority of the people in the world whose body will not be harmed a bit by being vegan. Maybe it is those people from your anecdote that are unfortunate, I do not mean to be beligerent here but why do they have to keep a tight nutritional schedule?
'Vast majority' is definitely over-exaggerating. A large number of people - even vegans - feel less healthy for a lack of meat. 75% of vegetarians (including vegans in the study) go back to eating it, and health reasons are the most commonly-cited reason why. Frankly if someone is of the experience that not eating meat is bad for them, all moral questions about whether they should eat meat or not fade away.

I disagree with you on the nutrition part. If you compare meals with similar calories, vegan and other with meat, vegan meals generally have more vitamins and nutrients. I illustrated why this is the case, I'll reference from another post I made. The relevant part starts at the paragraph above the 2 charts
To get the same amount of calories from vegan foods as you do from meat, you need to eat a lot more (obviously there are exceptions), so of course there'll be more in there.

Could you elaborate on this? No offense this sounds silly because to me vegan food is worth pennies
I guess it depends where you shop, but vegan food does not cost pennies in my neck of the woods. Organic 'premium' brands - i.e. good vegan food - will set you back much more per gram than most meats, and you need to eat a lot of them.
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Your assertion that "same nutrition and taste" is not substantiated, since at least the latter is a subjective issue. Second, how much energy and death result from growing grains, etc for human consumption? You don't think that the corn is grown without killing, do you? One of the reasons for genetically modified plants is so there can be more herbicide and pesticide used on them. How many deer die because the land they lived on has to be used to grow crops? Lions may be obligate carnivores. Wolves aren't. Nor are chimpanzees herbivores (Over and above the killing of monkeys and other prey, they regularly eat ants and termites).
Taste is very subjective. What taste good to one might be bad to another. The point I am making is that there are synthetic meat, for those who crave meat, that have been compared with real meat in blind taste tests and people could taste the difference.

Regarding the lives lost in growing crops. That is very true but I have 2 responses to this:

1) Omnivores and vegans are co-consumers. Whatever happens during the production of grain and corn and soy (the vast majority of which is done to feed animals to feed omnivores anyway), we are jointly responsible. This means we are equal when it comes to harm done right? No. A pound of steak takes up to 2,000 gallons of water to produce and a lot of feed, which comes from soy production, which as you already stated, kills a lot of animals we do not see or think of. The harm done by omnivores, if you want to use that word, is still planets larger than a vegan's.

2) This is the more serious response: we can still grow food without these problems because now we are capable of green manure and vegan farming, without harming other animals. So now we know for a fact a new method is possible for growing food and have been in practice, the problem now is to further develop it. This addresses your concern. We humans are always getting more clever and more developed and like I said multiple times, we've arrived at a point where we may live the same without harming other animals, even in farming.

The assertion that somehow it is "better" to kill corn than to kill cows is a fallacy. A good case can be made to kill cows after they have lived a number of years, but I fail to see how extinction is better than having members of one's species being eaten after being cared for a lot better than how they would have lived in the wild.
I don't get it. A plant has no brains or central or distributive nerves system. Surely you know there is a huge different running a knife through a plant and through a live animal. One screams in pain, the other does not feel and cannot feel.
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
'Vast majority' is definitely over-exaggerating. A large number of people - even vegans - feel less healthy for a lack of meat. 75% of vegetarians (including vegans in the study) go back to eating it, and health reasons are the most commonly-cited reason why. Frankly if someone is of the experience that not eating meat is bad for them, all moral questions about whether they should eat meat or not fade away.
I do not think I exaggerated at all to be honest. I am saying a vast majority of people are capable of being vegetarian and even vegan without health problems. Why do I say I did not exaggerate? Who are the people covered in the study? Americans? Eating Western cuisine, which I never thought was vegetarian friendly. If you go to India where almost half the population are vegetarian the cuisine is very vegetarian friendly and they have been doing it for millennia, its a different story. I agree totally there are problems vegans go through but the problem is not that humans need meat to survive, its about eating right to stay healthy, like I said. I look at the food PETA suggests, I just laugh.

To get the same amount of calories from vegan foods as you do from meat, you need to eat a lot more (obviously there are exceptions), so of course there'll be more in there.
Uh... no. Look at the chart. The inclusion of meat fills up the calorie intake at little benefit besides protein and iron. That leaves a meal less room for other foods for other vitamins. In a vegan meal, you do not have meat but instead you have a mix of different food items which gives you your non-essential amino acids which forms complete protein which is found in meat but it is because of this mix you get far more vitamins for the same calorie meal.

I don't think I have to eat a lot more... For dinner its always 2 bowls of mixed grains with various vegetables and soy mixed with nuts and seeds. That is not a lot of food.

I guess it depends where you shop, but vegan food does not cost pennies in my neck of the woods. Organic 'premium' brands - i.e. good vegan food - will set you back much more per gram than most meats, and you need to eat a lot of them.
What are the actual vegan foods? Imitation meat? Like I said I always find it hard to make vegan "Western" meals. I eat authentic Chinese or Indian and its always a mash of low-calorie but high vitamin and nutrient meals. Lentils, beans, rice, green leafs like kale, seeds and nuts bought in bulk, apples and other fruits are cheap. They're like a level lower than commodities.

BTW I apologize if I seem belligerent - from previous thread.
 
Last edited:

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
Yes, I am aware of that, and yet I still suggested it would be preferable to being de-beaked and locked in a tiny cage.
define "tiny cage". Most of us humans lock ourselves in voluntarily in cars with seatbelts, in small cubicle offices, in small (and getting smaller) airplane seats. We actually make it illegal to drive with small children in a car without strapping them into a car seat --virtually immobilizing them. We use cribs and playpens. We have fenced yards.

And it isn't about how "we" might feel in the same situation -- that is anthropomorphic. There is no study that shows that the existing approved cages are stressful to the chickens. In fact, the UC Davis study found the free roaming chickens were more stressed -- because they were subject to predators including "might be a predator" bird shadows passing overhead.

I wouldn't want to live in a small underground den curled in a little ball, but wolves seem to find that "just right" and in the wild will go to some lengths to take over or excavate one.

I do not advocate cruelty or being needlessly indifferent to the care and nurture of prey animals -- which is something most predators don't do (there are some that do in addition to humans). And I have no objection to those who want to be vegan or vegetarian or ovio-lacto vegetarian, etc. My objection is presenting a quasi religion as a philosophy and asserting that one choice is more "moral" than the other when it is not. There is nothing immoral about eating meat. There is nothing moral about eating plants. There is nothing moral or immoral about eating both.

One can be destructive and ecologically unsound either way -- for example,
Dust storms in the 1930s Dust Bowl
Much of the Plains had been plowed up in the decades before the 1930s as wheat cropping expanded west. Alas, while natural prairie grasses can survive a drought the wheat that was planted could not and, when the precipitation fell, it shriveled and died exposing bare earth to the winds.
The dust bowl wasn't caused by ranching, but by FARMING plants (wheat). Grazing cattle correctly or even better, returning the buffalo and culling them on a scheduled basis would have been far more ecologically sound.

One can be cruel or inhumane either way -- eliminating deer that might eat the crops, incorrect irrigation (food crops need a lot more water than grazing does), incorrect terracing of mountains to put them in cultivation -- the list can go on and on. There is no "purity" in being vegan. It's a life choice that people can make if they want to, but there isn't any morality in it.
 

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
Taste is very subjective. What taste good to one might be bad to another. The point I am making is that there are synthetic meat, for those who crave meat, that have been compared with real meat in blind taste tests and people could taste the difference.

Regarding the lives lost in growing crops. That is very true but I have 2 responses to this:

1) Omnivores and vegans are co-consumers. Whatever happens during the production of grain and corn and soy (the vast majority of which is done to feed animals to feed omnivores anyway), we are jointly responsible. This means we are equal when it comes to harm done right? No. A pound of steak takes up to 2,000 gallons of water to produce and a lot of feed, which comes from soy production, which as you already stated, kills a lot of animals we do not see or think of. The harm done by omnivores, if you want to use that word, is still planets larger than a vegan's.

2) This is the more serious response: we can still grow food without these problems because now we are capable of green manure and vegan farming, without harming other animals. So now we know for a fact a new method is possible for growing food and have been in practice, the problem now is to further develop it. This addresses your concern. We humans are always getting more clever and more developed and like I said multiple times, we've arrived at a point where we may live the same without harming other animals, even in farming.



I don't get it. A plant has no brains or central or distributive nerves system. Surely you know there is a huge different running a knife through a plant and through a live animal. One screams in pain, the other does not feel and cannot feel.

.
A pound of steak takes up to 2,000 gallons of water to produce and a lot of feed, which comes from soy production
, == last I looked, no sheep, cattle, pigs or goats in my entire state are fed soy. And of course, those wildebeests that we don't eat drink water, and eat food too. The difference is that they live -- when we compete with them for the same land for our food, they don't. One of the biggest problems in preserving elephants is their occasional incursions on the local FARMS -- often resulting in a dead elephant.

The issue is where on the food chain we are. As a top predator omnivore, we have a vested interest in having those prey animals alive (so we can eventually eat them). If we are competing with them for land and plants, we have a negative interest in their survival.

It's nice that those in rich countries can afford to import soy or tofu or corn, etc, but for those that can't or prefer not to, there is no immorality and the growing of all those grains (as opposed to simply grazing animals on what's there naturally or what we can't ourselves eat) can be very detrimental to the planet. Erosion: Drive to increase corn acres could damage soil | The Des Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com
Cutworm Management in Corn | University of Kentucky Entomology
Genetically Modified Crops | Mission 2014: Feeding the World
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
., == last I looked, no sheep, cattle, pigs or goats in my entire state are fed soy. And of course, those wildebeests that we don't eat drink water, and eat food too. The difference is that they live -- when we compete with them for the same land for our food, they don't. One of the biggest problems in preserving elephants is their occasional incursions on the local FARMS -- often resulting in a dead elephant.

The issue is where on the food chain we are. As a top predator omnivore, we have a vested interest in having those prey animals alive (so we can eventually eat them). If we are competing with them for land and plants, we have a negative interest in their survival.

It's nice that those in rich countries can afford to import soy or tofu or corn, etc, but for those that can't or prefer not to, there is no immorality and the growing of all those grains (as opposed to simply grazing animals on what's there naturally or what we can't ourselves eat) can be very detrimental to the planet. Erosion: Drive to increase corn acres could damage soil | The Des Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com
Cutworm Management in Corn | University of Kentucky Entomology
Genetically Modified Crops | Mission 2014: Feeding the World
Ah but the point still stands. Vegetarians and omnivores are co-consumers. And it isn't just soy, that isn't the only thing that goes on to feed livestock.

Regarding elephants. What point are you raising here? My point is it isn't necessary to intentionally raise and kill or just go out and hunt animals for food when nutrients can be obtained easily otherwise.
 

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
Ah but the point still stands. Vegetarians and omnivores are co-consumers. And it isn't just soy, that isn't the only thing that goes on to feed livestock.

Regarding elephants. What point are you raising here? My point is it isn't necessary to intentionally raise and kill or just go out and hunt animals for food when nutrients can be obtained easily otherwise.
nonsense. herbivores (give it the correct name) and predators are co consumers as well. Where there are no predators around, they evolve, because where one has "just" plant eaters, the ecology of the local is out of balance. A balanced ecosystem includes predators (ie carnivores) and an omnivore IS a part time carnivore. There is no morality in Nature and the eating habits of animals is part of nature. Humans can decide to mimic cows if they wish -- our digestive system isn't designed for that, but yes, we do have the technology to compensate. For what purpose? Some quasi religious IDEA that eating animal flesh is "immoral" based on nothing scientific. If you object to how domestic animals are managed, that has nothing to do in reality with what happens to an animal once it is dead. We could all become scavengers or simply eat insects or any number of options that wouldn't require domestic animals.

Technology exists to where we can pretty much take off everyone's legs and replace them with bionics but why should we? That we CAN technologically provide nutrition without eating meat -- why should we?
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
define "tiny cage". Most of us humans lock ourselves in voluntarily in cars with seatbelts, in small cubicle offices, in small (and getting smaller) airplane seats. We actually make it illegal to drive with small children in a car without strapping them into a car seat --virtually immobilizing them. We use cribs and playpens. We have fenced yards.
Yes, and then when you start to feel uncomfortable or decide you want to do something else, you exit those enclosures and go about your business. When you can't leave an enclosure if you feel uncomfortable and want to do something else, it's called prison, and we use it as a form of punishment. But even in prison we generally don't subject one another to conditions as extreme as those of factory-farmed chickens.

And it isn't about how "we" might feel in the same situation -- that is anthropomorphic.
It's not anthropomorphism, it's just basic empathy.

There is no study that shows that the existing approved cages are stressful to the chickens. In fact, the UC Davis study found the free roaming chickens were more stressed -- because they were subject to predators including "might be a predator" bird shadows passing overhead.
Yet look at your own quote from Dr. Mensch:

Cage-free systems permit much more freedom of movement and also allow the hens to perform the behaviors that they cannot perform in conventional cages, but hens in cage-free systems also tend to have more health problems and higher mortality than hens in conventional cages. The new enriched colony systems were designed to be intermediate between conventional cages and cage-free systems. They are larger than conventional cages and contain perches, a nesting area and a foraging area. They still do not allow the hens as much freedom of movement as a cage-free system, but they do preserve many of the hen health advantages that are associated with conventional cages.
It seems to me that she very much recognizes the benefits hens derive from freedom of movement, and has tried to put forward a viable third option which grants the hen increased access to them. Holding up a woman who very clearly acknowledges the problematic character of traditional battery cages as some sort of strike against my stated position doesn't make much sense.

I wouldn't want to live in a small underground den curled in a little ball, but wolves seem to find that "just right" and in the wild will go to some lengths to take over or excavate one.
Again, the wolf finds it "just right," until it wants to exit the enclosure, at which time it does. It is very easy to tell if an animal actually wants to do something or not, one simply must allow them a little freedom and observe their actions.

I do not advocate cruelty or being needlessly indifferent to the care and nurture of prey animals -- which is something most predators don't do (there are some that do in addition to humans). And I have no objection to those who want to be vegan or vegetarian or ovio-lacto vegetarian, etc. My objection is presenting a quasi religion as a philosophy and asserting that one choice is more "moral" than the other when it is not. There is nothing immoral about eating meat. There is nothing moral about eating plants. There is nothing moral or immoral about eating both.
I eat meat, so if you think I've got some sort of "quasi religious" objection to eating meat, you're wrong (and it's a shame that you felt the need to project all this onto the few words I wrote on this topic). But I can eat meat while realizing the suffering that many farms inflict upon animals; I don't have to pretend that chickens being debeaked and locked up in small cages is somehow optimal or pleasant for them in order to reconcile myself with reality here.
 
Last edited:

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
nonsense. herbivores (give it the correct name) and predators are co consumers as well. Where there are no predators around, they evolve, because where one has "just" plant eaters, the ecology of the local is out of balance. A balanced ecosystem includes predators (ie carnivores) and an omnivore IS a part time carnivore. There is no morality in Nature and the eating habits of animals is part of nature. Humans can decide to mimic cows if they wish -- our digestive system isn't designed for that, but yes, we do have the technology to compensate. For what purpose? Some quasi religious IDEA that eating animal flesh is "immoral" based on nothing scientific. If you object to how domestic animals are managed, that has nothing to do in reality with what happens to an animal once it is dead. We could all become scavengers or simply eat insects or any number of options that wouldn't require domestic animals.

Technology exists to where we can pretty much take off everyone's legs and replace them with bionics but why should we? That we CAN technologically provide nutrition without eating meat -- why should we?
Herbivore is not the correct name because we are omnivores, that is why I use the word vegan, we exclude animal products by choice. Uh, yes predators and preys need to coexist. That is a fact, but our food aren't exactly preys in the food chain or the ecosystem you seem to be portraying, but manufactured commodities from farms that has only existed for a tiny fraction of time in human existence. What you are talking about isn't exactly all natural, our co-existence with the meat we actually eat is a product of artificial construction and domestication. If we aren't part of the ecosystem and remove the animals from which we actually get our meat, the planet is not going to go up in flames.

And why should we? Well first I have to thank you for agreeing with me meat isn't necessary for human nutrition. At least we could agree in some areas. I already stated why, countless times. To me, hundreds of millions, and increasingly many more people, eating meat is immoral and unnecessary. I understand you don't share that view and I am fine with it. For every single vegan-related discussion I've gotten into on this forum, I am doing it in response to threads and challenges started by other people. I am not proactively starting arguments or threads to convert people to some "quasi-religious IDEA." No, to me that isn't what veganism is. To me veganism is simple, I don't think eating meat is moral at this point and I don't think it is necessary, so I am not going to eat it. Sure there are people like PETA that go around promoting awareness but then goes too far many times by being ridiculously annoying and stupid, but they do not have a monopoly on the concept of not consuming meat or animal products nor should they ever represent the concept or idea. I don't go around converting people, I only provide defense for my lifestyle and dietary choice. Quasi-religious idea? Don't kid me. Somehow I am part of a quasi-religion because I just chose not to eat meat due to my personal moral objections.

Since you mentioned science, I would advise you to look into the implications of meat consumption with regards to the environment, especially when it comes to waste, water usage, and carbon and methane emissions. There exist a scientifically sound environmental argument for excluding meat, especially domesticated and factory farmed meat which forms a majority of the food produced today.
 
Last edited: