Human 'rights' are not Animal 'Rights'?

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
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. ]
nonsense. We compound the issue by putting a species that was originally a wandering omnivorous opportunistic hunter and put the majority of them in small little apartments in giant cities where the amount of greenery is minimal. NY is probably a far more artificial environment than any chicken cage.

=Fox;2047217]

It's not anthropomorphism, it's just basic empathy.
yet no empathy for lions, killer whales or sharks, apparently, since your post implies a lack of morality in being a meat eater.

Fox;2047217

Yet look at your own quote from Dr. Mensch:

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 really hope that your "Holding up a woman" isn't as sexist as it appears to be. I don't care what sex a researcher is. Apparently you do?

I presume you are referring to the first part of the first sentence in my quote? You apparently missed the SECOND part of that sentence.
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
So yes, hens in cage free have more freedom of movement. They are also sicker and DIE more frequently.

Fox;2047217
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.
And allowing children to have freedom and no restrictions results in ? more seriously, if one allows say, sheep, to be where they want one finds that they by preference tend to hang out all together in a small group. Now I'm all in favor of allowing herdsmen to reintroduce a system of tending where sheep can be brought into a city to graze the grass lawns instead of the use of ecologically unsound lawn mowers.
Factory farming (as opposed to some other techniques) has it's issues and a discussion on what would or would not be better is fine -- but it isn't really related to actual meat eating, since one would still be a meat eater if one kept a largely free roaming flock of chickens on 20 acres and occasionally went out and gathered eggs or killed a chicken for the pot. Asserting that meat eating is morally wrong because of an issue in how animals are handled is conflating two separate issues. Further, asserting human care of domestic animals is morally evil --compared to what? wild zebra have far less life span and health than captive domestic horses, who aren't generally subject to being eaten alive by hyenas or lions. In return, yep, they are usually obliged to wear saddles and being ridden by someone, bits are used to control them and they usually aren't allowed to just go whereever they want to (nor can humans. Playing on the middle of a freeway is not likely to end up well. and most people would charge someone with trespassing if somone decided they'd just like to wander in and occupy any house that appealed to them. Humans are probably one of the most constrained animals on the planet given all the rules and regulations we surround ourselves with).

Fox;2047217
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).
I find that people who assert eating meat is "morally" wrong to be touting a religious view. I wasn't singling you out. See above where you seem to be accusing me of some sexist behavior simply because of the sex of the researcher I quoted (really? I used the quote because it was part of the UC Davis study that refuted the claims made by PETA/HSUS in the California egg proposition. That study -- feel free to read the entirety -- showed that the "free range" chickens were, as the quote shows, less healthy and more likely to die than the chickens that were confined in the existing cages used in California.). As for debeaking -- that is done more often in free range or communal chicken flocks -- individually caged animals don't need to be debeaked. The debeaking is done so they don't attack and kill each other.

I don't happen to be in favor of debeaking, but I'll note that the beak is made of keratin, and it has no nerve endings. The chicken feels no more pain from having it cut than you would from trimming your fingernails. It may LOOK bad and it certainly impinges on the animal's ability to live in the wild, but the assertion that it is painful is erroneous.

Project Beak: Adaptations: Beaks

Fox;2047217
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.
And I can eat meat and recognize that the assertion of suffering (as with the claims about debeaking being "suffering") is often based on illusion by people who don't actually bother to do the research. I can also recognize that eating meat is a separate issue from "how one obtains the meat" -- an entirely different discussion item which should, IMO, be conducted based on actual science and not mistaken "empathy". When you object to bird beaks being removed, do you also object to farriers trimming horse hooves or a shepherd trimming sheep hooves? They are made of exactly the same substance. Have you ever seen a sheep with overgrown hooves or hoof rot? (and yes, it occurs in the wild, so it isn't an artifact of confinement).

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons or possible improvements of animal husbandry, I have no objection. It's an area where improvements can easily be made in many aspects -- as well as one where a lot of misinformation abounds. It is, however, entirely separate from the OP premise that eating meat is inherently "immoral" -which is a quasi religious view. I repeat, there is nothing moral or amoral about eating meat (being a predator), about being a herbivore or about being an omnivore. These are all conditions of biology which is not a moral issue.
 

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
=YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271]Herbivore is not the correct name because we are omnivores, that is why I use the word vegan, we exclude animal products by choice.
And no one denies a "vegan" choice. It's when individuals wish to impose their choice on others or to imply that their choice is somehow more "moral" than that of others that there is objection. There is nothing particularly moral about opting to not eat meat. If technology and modern farming techniques allow some individuals to opt out of eating meat in favor of eating chemicals (artificially created foods) and plants, that's fine. That doesn't therefore mean that the human race ought thereby to opt to follow that choice.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271 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.
Ah, we actually agree on something! :) Yes, predators and prey need to coexist. As for our food -- the latest archaeological and biological research shows that chimps aren't vegetarian, they are omnivores and that the vast majority of human evolution (since Australopithecus apparently) has included meat eating. As for modern farming techniques -- these also are exactly what allows those who opt to be "vegan" to do so. In a more "natural" world (that is, if we lived as we did 30,000 years or so ago), it would not have been possible to have a healthy "no meat" diet. I find it rather disingenuous at best to complain about "factory" farming regarding livestock while depending upon exactly that to allow for one's own dietary choice.


YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271
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.
The planet wouldn't go up in flames if humans disappeared either. So what? Humans ARE part of natural. The assumption that humans are somehow uniquely non natural is just asserting that we are so special that we are "different" in fundamental (as opposed to degree) ways. The fact is that ants farm aphids and there are other "farming" animals that are just as "artificial" as our methods in terms of how the subject animal is managed. Moreover, why should those animals from whom we get our meat be made extinct?

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271
And why should we? Well first I have to thank you for agreeing with me meat isn't necessary for human nutrition.
Nope. you could, theoretically, get all your nutrition via a feeding tube. The technology does exist. It's hardly what I would consider a desirable lifestyle although it is one some individuals endure for medical reasons. My point isn't that one cannot live a "vegan" lifestyle -- but that from an ecological standpoint it makes no more sense than being an omnivore or carnivore. People can also exist as nearly (possibly 100%) carnivores -- as the early whale hunting Eskimo culture shows. I wouldn't want to subsist on whale blubber either, but clearly it could be done.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271
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.
The instant one come up with "eating meat is immoral" one is taking a quasi religious view.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047271
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.
You are entitled to your beliefs (which is where morality issues belong). My objections aren't to any one's individual choice, it is to proselytizing a religion under cover of "philosophy" I have, in fact, done a fair amount of research into the issues of meat consumption. My personal view is that vegan or not, the human impact on the planet can only be lessened by lessening the numbers of humans on the planet. Population control would do far more to lessen the ecological damage imposed by the H. Sapiens species than any choice regarding what that species consumes for food. That is, of course, a separate discussion thread. In the interim, trying to convert the H. sapiens species from being an omnivore into being a herbivore will not appreciably improve the ecological condition of the planet and impose needless restrictions and alterations on the species in question.
 
Last edited:

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
And no one denies a "vegan" choice. It's when individuals wish to impose their choice on others or to imply that their choice is somehow more "moral" than that of others that there is objection. There is nothing particularly moral about opting to not eat meat. If technology and modern farming techniques allow some individuals to opt out of eating meat in favor of eating chemicals (artificially created foods) and plants, that's fine. That doesn't therefore mean that the human race ought thereby to opt to follow that choice.
Impose means to force. Who tried to impose veganism onto you? I've never heard of people imposing veganism or vegetarianism other than maybe the extremists who exist in every walk of life. What I see a lot is vegans expressing their view and showing awareness, which is nothing wrong at all because we shouldn't consider people raising awareness as negative.

From what you say then I do have an objection with you. I do see not eating meat as more moral than eating meat.

Ah, we actually agree on something! :) Yes, predators and prey need to coexist. As for our food -- the latest archaeological and biological research shows that chimps aren't vegetarian, they are omnivores and that the vast majority of human evolution (since Australopithecus apparently) has included meat eating. As for modern farming techniques -- these also are exactly what allows those who opt to be "vegan" to do so. In a more "natural" world (that is, if we lived as we did 30,000 years or so ago), it would not have been possible to have a healthy "no meat" diet. I find it rather disingenuous at best to complain about "factory" farming regarding livestock while depending upon exactly that to allow for one's own dietary choice.
I still don't see the relevance in this as I've acknowledged the importance of meat. The fact is we are beyond that and we can choose to live differently without losing anything. Whether you want to is up to you, but the fact is we can and to many people it is more moral and less damaging to do so. By the way, if we are to be technical, the nutrients found in meat is what is important and we now don't need that anymore. It simply isn't necessary.

The planet wouldn't go up in flames if humans disappeared either. So what? Humans ARE part of natural. The assumption that humans are somehow uniquely non natural is just asserting that we are so special that we are "different" in fundamental (as opposed to degree) ways. The fact is that ants farm aphids and there are other "farming" animals that are just as "artificial" as our methods in terms of how the subject animal is managed. Moreover, why should those animals from whom we get our meat be made extinct?
You keep mentioning how we are part of nature. Yes, we are part of nature, but that doesn't mean we have to dogmatically treat everything natural as the way to do things or see it as moral. If there is any sort of quasi-religion, then the non-vegan side on Historum has exhibited that trait as well. Stop comparing our cognitive capability with animals. Don't always try to justify your actions based on the actions of animals. If you want and justify your actions based on what chimps do, I am fine with that too.

Why should those animals from whom we get our meat from be made extinct? What animals are you talking about? Definitely not tigers or other carnivores or animals that exist in the wild that could exist with or without us going after them. I am sure you mean domesticated animals that exist because we one domesticated them from the wild? Like chickens? Turkeys? Pigs? No, just because if we stopped eating them that doesn't mean they will go extinct. Heard of Farm Sanctuary? By asking this question you have a pessimistic view on animal life, that the only use we have for them now is to exploit them for nutrition. There are people who would like to care for them. We very rarely eat horses but their population as a domesticated animal is far from being in any sort of danger. We could care for them, feed them, let those with miserable lives dwindle in number, or just not eat them. Sure their numbers of dwindle but they wouldn't go extinct. If one day domesticated chickens ever become extinct then 1) I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep and 2) just go kidnap wild junglefowls and domesticate them, you get domesticated chickens.

Nope. you could, theoretically, get all your nutrition via a feeding tube. The technology does exist. It's hardly what I would consider a desirable lifestyle although it is one some individuals endure for medical reasons. My point isn't that one cannot live a "vegan" lifestyle -- but that from an ecological standpoint it makes no more sense than being an omnivore or carnivore. People can also exist as nearly (possibly 100%) carnivores -- as the early whale hunting Eskimo culture shows. I wouldn't want to subsist on whale blubber either, but clearly it could be done.
You are trying to use extremes to debunk me. I think that isn't going to go far. Feeding tube really? Why don't you just say we can not exist at all and end the discussion? Living on feeding tubes might not be a life that is worth it, why would anyone do that? Would you? If so for what reason? Just because we can? We at the top of the food chain could also nuke every animal into oblivion just because we can. Would you? I ask these because "just because we can" isn't my argument for veganism. Living on feeding tubes takes pretty much your life away.

The instant one come up with "eating meat is immoral" one is taking a quasi religious view.
Highly disagree. Morality is subjective and people have different views on morality. Morality evolves to and what we think was okay may not be okay today. Our views are always changing but that isn't quasi-religious. Claiming that one inserting eating meat is immoral is being quasi-religious you are laying the claim that any insertion of moral claim is a result of quasi-religion. You are the one following the idea, along with several other people, that if its natural it is moral and we should always remain on its path. That itself is called the naturalistic logical fallacy and quite dogmatic and quasi-religious to me.

You could see killing an animal for food as not immoral and bare with that act, either done by others or yourself. But I can't. Maybe I am just too empathetic or too much of a p****y, or maybe I just don't think its right to end an animals life for taste or nutrition that isn't unique. Whatever the case is, I am not quasi-religious.

You are entitled to your beliefs (which is where morality issues belong). My objections aren't to any one's individual choice, it is to proselytizing a religion under cover of "philosophy" I have, in fact, done a fair amount of research into the issues of meat consumption. My personal view is that vegan or not, the human impact on the planet can only be lessened by lessening the numbers of humans on the planet. Population control would do far more to lessen the ecological damage imposed by the H. Sapiens species than any choice regarding what that species consumes for food. That is, of course, a separate discussion thread. In the interim, trying to convert the H. sapiens species from being an omnivore into being a herbivore will not appreciably improve the ecological condition of the planet and impose needless restrictions and alterations on the species in question.
So veganism is a religion? Who crossed you? PETA? Our impact on environmental degradation can be better served by decreased meat consumption (not suggesting any government should enforce anything or impose anything but as a fact itself) instead of decreased humans. The production of plants is cheap, easy, more intensive than meat per acre and produces far less waste and pollution. We easily have enough food, its the improper distribution that is the problem and producing meat adds to the problem and harms the environment more than you'd suspect. The UN itself supports and urges veganism on the basis that consuming meat is a environmental harm and that it is the primary pollutant because it uses 70% of freshwater resources and produces a fifth of carbon emissions, all for in reality for taste, which is subjective. Restrictions and alterations in H. Sapiens? After all we already concluded the same nutrition can be acquired without being an omnivore by choice.
 

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
=YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736]Impose means to force. Who tried to impose veganism onto you? I've never heard of people imposing veganism or vegetarianism other than maybe the extremists who exist in every walk of life. What I see a lot is vegans expressing their view and showing awareness, which is nothing wrong at all because we shouldn't consider people raising awareness as negative.
Since it involves current events, I won't elaborate, but in the US, many "guidelines" and food provided and promoted in schools follows the vegan guidelines without any scientific background to it. Since many schools do not permit parents to provide their children with home made lunches, this is both unreasonable indoctrination and force on the most vulnerable of people. "Meatless monday" and other promotions are also quasi religious and as I see it, not that different from when the Catholic church forbade eating meat on "fish days".
YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
From what you say then I do have an objection with you. I do see not eating meat as more moral than eating meat.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that assigning "morality" into what one consumes for food is a quasi religion and I'd love to hear how you believe deer are more moral than tigers.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
I still don't see the relevance in this as I've acknowledged the importance of meat. The fact is we are beyond that and we can choose to live differently without losing anything. Whether you want to is up to you, but the fact is we can and to many people it is more moral and less damaging to do so. By the way, if we are to be technical, the nutrients found in meat is what is important and we now don't need that anymore. It simply isn't necessary.
It isn't "necessary" according to whom? It isn't "necessary" in modern culture to wear clothes either, since it's entirely possible to live indoors and climate control the indoor environment to eliminate the need for clothing of any kind. How much "environmental damage" does the making of clothes entail? (not to mention the semi slave industries of some countries that export clothing like China). Is wearing clothing "immoral"? why not? It isn't "necessary" to have wash machines, or to bathe daily or any number of things. On the other hand, biologically, we are omnivores, which includes eating meat. That one CAN use technology to avoid eating meat in no way requires one to do so nor does it make such avoidance "moral". One can pierce one's body to the point where one glitters, but there's no particular reason to insinuate any morality or lack thereof in the activity.


YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
You keep mentioning how we are part of nature. Yes, we are part of nature, but that doesn't mean we have to dogmatically treat everything natural as the way to do things or see it as moral. If there is any sort of quasi-religion, then the non-vegan side on Historum has exhibited that trait as well. Stop comparing our cognitive capability with animals. Don't always try to justify your actions based on the actions of animals. If you want and justify your actions based on what chimps do, I am fine with that too.
The difference is that biology is actually a science and has no morality involved. I have made no "cognitive capability" comparison on this thread so your comment is a total non sequitur. As for the last two statements, they are contradictory, since chimps are animals, just as humans are. And, since you ask, chimps are very much omnivorous, and meat (particularly insects but also gibbons and other more obvious prey animals) is a significant part of their diet. Are chimps immoral? I submit that the issue there is irrelevant -- morality and immorality has nothing to do with the issue of being omnivorous, carnivorous or herbivorous. Any issue regarding "morality" of any of those three biological conditions is ipso facto religious.

Care and treatment of livestock is a separate issue to consumption.


YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
Why should those animals from whom we get our meat from be made extinct? What animals are you talking about? Definitely not tigers or other carnivores or animals that exist in the wild that could exist with or without us going after them. I am sure you mean domesticated animals that exist because we one domesticated them from the wild? Like chickens? Turkeys? Pigs? No, just because if we stopped eating them that doesn't mean they will go extinct. Heard of Farm Sanctuary?
:lol::lol::lol::lol:I see. so instead of confining them for consumption, it is somehow more moral to have them confined at "farm sanctuary?" And how many animals is "farm sanctuary" going to maintain and breed (because otherwise they do go extinct)? And instead of keeping and preserving bull calves for food consumption at about 2 years for humans it is somehow more moral to dump them out in the wild where the vast majority of calves will die before they are two months? (disease, injury, abandonment and of course, other predators like wolves, bears and cougars in the NA and lions, etc in Africa). How much land are you prepared to set aside for cow preserves in say, the United Kingdom? In Europe? You believe that the sheep will just live long and prosper if they are turned out like mouflon? (and of course, most mouflon lambs don't make it to adulthood). Such a charming decision out of "morality". I'm sure the lambs will agree that dying as the prey of a wolf is SO much more "moral" than dying as food for humans. For me, dead is dead. Once dead, the animal no longer "cares" and who (or what) eats it has no morality involved at all. While it is living, most domestic animals live a much healthier and safer life than their wild counterparts, so the argument that somehow domestication is immoral has no validity either.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
By asking this question you have a pessimistic view on animal life, that the only use we have for them now is to exploit them for nutrition. There are people who would like to care for them. We very rarely eat horses but their population as a domesticated animal is far from being in any sort of danger. We could care for them, feed them, let those with miserable lives dwindle in number, or just not eat them. Sure their numbers of dwindle but they wouldn't go extinct. If one day domesticated chickens ever become extinct then 1) I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep and 2) just go kidnap wild junglefowls and domesticate them, you get domesticated chickens.
Actually, the existence of horses was in doubt when they were supplanted by automobiles and other mechanical devices. It is only the keeping of them as riding animals (which is hardly "natural") that has ensured their continuance. Wild horses do not live anywhere near as well as domestic ones in general -- a wild horse of 7 is a very old horse, whereas 20 or so is common in domestic ones. And of course, the current concept in the US that when that horse dies it cannot or should not be consumed but must be buried as toxic waste is totally devoid of any ecological logic.
Further your comment that you wouldn't "lose a minute of sleep" if chickens became extinct -- yet you bewail their life conditions in farms? so extinct is better? There's a religious twisting of reality -- I'm pretty sure that if the chickens had a vote they would opt to continue as a species. And catching Jungle fowl? You do realize they are an endangered species?
Red junglefowl is listed as 'Endangered' in the Red List of
Grey jungle fowl aren't, but your assertion that if one wanted, one should just catch them presumes that humans can do as they like with animals -- to which I respond that eating them is something that is far less damaging than what you suggest.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
You are trying to use extremes to debunk me. I think that isn't going to go far. Feeding tube really? Why don't you just say we can not exist at all and end the discussion? Living on feeding tubes might not be a life that is worth it, why would anyone do that? Would you? If so for what reason? Just because we can? We at the top of the food chain could also nuke every animal into oblivion just because we can. Would you? I ask these because "just because we can" isn't my argument for veganism. Living on feeding tubes takes pretty much your life away
.

Why would anyone be a vegan? It might not be a life that is worth it. My point exactly. Just because one CAN doesn't mean that it suddenly is a moral imperative to do so.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
Highly disagree. Morality is subjective and people have different views on morality. Morality evolves to and what we think was okay may not be okay today. Our views are always changing but that isn't quasi-religious. Claiming that one inserting eating meat is immoral is being quasi-religious you are laying the claim that any insertion of moral claim is a result of quasi-religion. You are the one following the idea, along with several other people, that if its natural it is moral and we should always remain on its path. That itself is called the naturalistic logical fallacy and quite dogmatic and quasi-religious to me.
Pretty much, yes, any assertion of moral claim is based on subjective feelings and not based on any science. It therefore belongs, in my opinion, in the realm of religion. I'm glad you agree to the fact that people have different views on morality. Physical laws don't have "different views", nor does biology. One can have different interpretations or knowledge regarding history, but these don't actually alter the reality of what did or did not occur at a particular point in time. I have NOT made the claim that because it is natural it is moral. I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that natural functions have no morality attached to them at all. One might as well assert that breathing through one's nose is immoral as to assert that one's biology is moral or immoral.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736 You could see killing an animal for food as not immoral and bare with that act, either done by others or yourself. But I can't. Maybe I am just too empathetic or too much of a p****y, or maybe I just don't think its right to end an animals life for taste or nutrition that isn't unique. Whatever the case is, I am not quasi-religious.
I specifically mentioned scavenging which doesn't entail the individual in question (or any human at all) killing the animal in question. I did that specifically because I separate the methods by which humans keep animals from the actual consumption of them. These are two different things. One is biological, the other an artifact of technology and culture, which is indeed mutable. I'm happy to discuss the various methods by which humans could or should utilize animals which properly belongs to a discussion that could include moral judgments. I see no morality (or immorality) involved in the eating of meat as a biological function.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
So veganism is a religion? Who crossed you? PETA? Our impact on environmental degradation can be better served by decreased meat consumption (not suggesting any government should enforce anything or impose anything but as a fact itself) instead of decreased humans. The production of plants is cheap, easy, more intensive than meat per acre and produces far less waste and pollution.
actually no, plant production isn't ultimately cheaper, easier and it doesn't produce less waste or pollution. Groups like Peta and HSUS (or those destroyers of archaeological sites like Greenpeace) like to assert there is, but they haven't and you haven't provided any serious scientific documentation to show that feeding the world (at what population level?) by plant life alone won't be just as destructive to the planet. And every acre devoted for food for humans only is another that is removed from the use of other animals. Reduction of the human population to more sustainable numbers precludes any draconian methods of finding ways to somehow feed them all.

Further, you are again conflating the method of production with the consumption and they are not the same thing.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2047736
We easily have enough food, its the improper distribution that is the problem and producing meat adds to the problem and harms the environment more than you'd suspect. The UN itself supports and urges veganism on the basis that consuming meat is a environmental harm and that it is the primary pollutant because it uses 70% of freshwater resources and produces a fifth of carbon emissions, all for in reality for taste, which is subjective. Restrictions and alterations in H. Sapiens? After all we already concluded the same nutrition can be acquired without being an omnivore by choice.
since the UN is a political organization and not necessarily devoted strictly to science, any pronouncements on their part is highly suspect. Moreover "we have enough food" -- is a non sequitur -- the subject isnt that we don't have enough food, but which foods are more "moral" than others to consume, which again, I find laughable. The argument regarding carbon emissions of cows was based on grain feeding cattle whereas most cattle are hay fed or range fed -- plants which humans can't consume -- and which are more or less the same foods eaten previously by millions of buffalo (one wonders how the planet sustained all those buffalo farts!) and more or less the same thing eaten currently by the millions of wildebeest in Africa (quick! kill them all to avoid global warming! --sarcasm clearly intended). I've noted that no comparison has ever been done between range cattle and wildebeest in terms of environmental impact, an omission I find very telling in the subjection of science for religious / quasi religious purposes.

Some cultures ban eating of pork or any even toed animal for religious reasons, and I'm okay with that -- as long as their advocates don't try to impose their views upon me. Some cultures consider cattle sacred and that's also not an issue for me -- as long as they don't come here and try to force that view on me. Those are life choices and the "morality" involved is religious. There is no morality in the consumption of meat and there is no immorality in it either. Asserting that there is, and then asserting that this doesn't apply equally to killer whales as to people is making of H. sapiens a special case which I don't concur with. H. Sapiens is every bit as biological a creature as a hyena or a fox and what they have evolved biologically to consume is no more moral or immoral than what foxes eat.
 
Last edited:

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
nonsense.


Okay, it's fairly clear to me at this point that you aren't actually willing to discuss this issue in any honest capacity, and in fact are barely considering what I am actually saying. You insist that you aren't doing anything immoral, but I never accused you of immorality, and even explicitly told you I eat meat myself. You insist that you aren't a sexist, but the issue of sexism never even crossed my mind, and I'm frankly perplexed that you even thought it was an issue. You aren't even really arguing with me, you're creating a phantasmal, PETA-ized Fox in your head and ranting against him. I don't like it, and I don't want to experience it.

I'll say one last thing: as far as beaks go, it's far from clear that no pain or suffering is involved:

Costs[edit]

The costs of beak trimming relate primarily to welfare concerns. These include acute stress, and acute, possibly chronic, pain following trimming. A bird’s ability to consume feed is impaired following beak trimming because of the new beak shape and pain. Most studies report reduced body weights and feed intake following beak trimming, however, by sexual maturity or peak egg production, growth rates are usually normal.[5][15][16] Weight losses were reduced in chicks that were beak trimmed by infrared compared with chicks trimmed by a hot-blade.[17]
The pain of beak trimming[edit]

Whether beak trimming causes pain is a hotly debated concern. It is a complex issue as it may involve acute and/or chronic pain, and depends on the age it is performed, the method of trimming and the length of beak that is removed. Beak trimming in the poultry industry usually occurs without anaesthetic at 1-day of age or when the chicks are very young, but can occur at a later age if an outbreak of feather pecking occurs, and in some cases, birds may be beak trimmed on repeated occasions. Beak trimming is not permitted in the UK on meat chickens that are aged over 10 days.[18]
Acute pain[edit]

The beak is a complex, functional organ with an extensive nervous supply including nociceptors that sense pain and noxious stimuli.[19][20] These would almost certainly be stimulated during beak trimming, indicating strongly that acute pain would be experienced. Behavioural evidence of pain after beak trimming in layer hen chicks has been based on the observed reduction in pecking behavior, reduced activity and social behavior, and increased sleep duration.[21][22][23][24] In Japanese quail, beak-trimming by cauterization caused lower body weights and feed intake in the period just after beak trimming.[16] Beak trimmed Muscovy ducks spent less time engaging in beak-related behaviours (preening, feeding, drinking, exploratory pecking) and more time resting than non-trimmed ducks in the days immediately post-trim. These differences disappeared by 1 week post-trim. At 1 week post-trim the trimmed ducks weighed less than non-trimmed ducks, but this difference disappeared by 2 weeks post-trim.[15] It is, however, unclear if the above changes in behaviour arise from pain or from a loss of sensitivity in the beak.[25] Pecking force has been found to decrease after beak trimming in adult hens[26] possibly indicating that hens are protecting a painful area from further stimulation. However, pecking force did not differ between chicks with or without minor beak-trims at 2 to 9 days of age, suggesting that chicks with minor beak-trims do not experience pain from the beak.[27]
Chronic pain[edit]

Severe beak trimming, or beak trimming birds at an older age, may cause chronic pain. Following beak trimming of older or adult hens, the nociceptors in the beak stump show abnormal patterns of neural discharge, which indicate acute pain.[19][28][29][30] Neuromas, tangled masses of swollen regenerating axon sprouts,[31] are found in the healed stumps of birds beak trimmed at 5 weeks of age or older and in severely beak trimmed birds.[32] Neuromas have been associated with phantom pain in human amputees and have therefore been linked to chronic pain in beak trimmed birds. If beak trimming is severe because of improper procedure or done in older birds, the neuromas will persist which suggests that beak trimmed older birds experience chronic pain, although this has been debated.[33]
That's all I have to say to you. Have a nice day.
 

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Thanks for the good discussion. I am going to address this middle part first:

Pretty much, yes, any assertion of moral claim is based on subjective feelings and not based on any science. It therefore belongs, in my opinion, in the realm of religion. I'm glad you agree to the fact that people have different views on morality. Physical laws don't have "different views", nor does biology. One can have different interpretations or knowledge regarding history, but these don't actually alter the reality of what did or did not occur at a particular point in time. I have NOT made the claim that because it is natural it is moral. I have, in fact, repeatedly stated that natural functions have no morality attached to them at all. One might as well assert that breathing through one's nose is immoral as to assert that one's biology is moral or immoral.
I see no reason why resorting to empathy or feeling or views on morality is religion. Am I following a dogma of absolutes? Am I believe in the existence of unproven facts? No. People have different morality and appealing to one's subjective morality, which can come about as a result of philosophy or critical thinking isn't religion.

You didn't suggest just because something is natural it is moral? No? You kind of are. You are saying because natural functions have no inherent morality being attached to them then humans cannot make subjective moral arguments against basic functions. This implies that the act of eating meat, because it is natural, cannot ever be challenged by subjective morality. It cannot be wrong because it is at a position incapable of ever being challenged. Well I argue we could. Science is what is and morality is what ought to be. We could always, with our cognitive abilities and empathy, argue against our nature.

Since it involves current events, I won't elaborate, but in the US, many "guidelines" and food provided and promoted in schools follows the vegan guidelines without any scientific background to it. Since many schools do not permit parents to provide their children with home made lunches, this is both unreasonable indoctrination and force on the most vulnerable of people. "Meatless monday" and other promotions are also quasi religious and as I see it, not that different from when the Catholic church forbade eating meat on "fish days".
You claim veganism is a quasi-religion due to its moral argument and you mention Meatless Monday. By mentioning Meatless Monday as an argument to suggest veganism is a quasi-religion you actually demonstrate, for a fact, you do not actually understand what Meatless Monday is and I will show both this and the fact that Meatless Monday does not further your argument an inch.

Meatless Monday is not related to veganism other than obstaining from meat for one random day. It started out in WW1 as an effort to help the war and now is actually done for the purpose of helping to improve health by means of lowering cholesterol and saturated fat (this is a scientific fact unless you watch to argue meat does not contain high cholsteral and saturated fat) and reducing carbon emissions and pollution (this is also a scientific fact unelss you want to deny the meat production is one of the biggest, if not biggest, pollutants and cause of waste). Meatless Monday is NOT based on moral arguments. If Meatless Monday is done for the purpose of morality or caring for animals, THEN you have an argument here because it makes zero difference between eating meat everyday and just eating meat on 6 days but you don't because that isn't what Meatless Monday is. This point you brought up is completely irrelevant.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that assigning "morality" into what one consumes for food is a quasi religion and I'd love to hear how you believe deer are more moral than tigers.
Do not ask me to argue for something I do not believe in. I do not believe a deer is more moral than tigers. It is funny how you ask me this question because I do not think you even read my posts! I have stated again and again that we yes we are part of nature but we are NOT other animals and we shouldn't justify all of our actions based on the actions of animals. Just because something is natural or animals do it doesn't mean we HAVE to do it and just because something is natural doesn't meant it is inherently right. I said before, that is called the naturalist fallacy. We aren't tigers and we aren't deers.

I also get the feeling that you think I think vegans are more moral than non-vegans, hence why you asked me to argue why a deer is more moral than a tiger. I do not think this at all! I do not think vegans are any more moral than non-vegans and I do not think I am more moral than any non-vegan.

It isn't "necessary" according to whom? It isn't "necessary" in modern culture to wear clothes either, since it's entirely possible to live indoors and climate control the indoor environment to eliminate the need for clothing of any kind. How much "environmental damage" does the making of clothes entail? (not to mention the semi slave industries of some countries that export clothing like China). Is wearing clothing "immoral"? why not? It isn't "necessary" to have wash machines, or to bathe daily or any number of things. On the other hand, biologically, we are omnivores, which includes eating meat. That one CAN use technology to avoid eating meat in no way requires one to do so nor does it make such avoidance "moral". One can pierce one's body to the point where one glitters, but there's no particular reason to insinuate any morality or lack thereof in the activity.
Respectively, I have no need to answer the first question you posed because you already agreed with me meat isn't necessary by acknowledging in the previous posts that a vegan lifestyle is compatible with humans.

Keep in mind a fundamental difference between all of your analogies with veganism. In veganism, you aren't contributing to killing animals for their flesh, an act with a violent intention. I am sure that if I buy a pair of sneakers or clothing that has harmed people if the company that employs slave-like conditions in developing countries like China. If I can act to improve things I would, like just not buying from Nike. I am also sure that if I buy a kg of beef 2,000 gallons of fresh water was required to produce that morsel of meat and it contributes very negatively to the environment and that an animal had to be raised in horrible conditions and the pain of dehorning and slaughter. If I can act to improve things I would, like just not buying meat? I said on other thread veganism isn't a dogma, vegans know perfection cannot be achieved and that there are many problems and contradictions in life. What we seek to do is do the less harm and cause the least amount of unnecessary suffering.

If you don't want to wear clothing - no problem. If you want to but don't like the supposed suffering it causes on a Chinese kid, boycott Nike.

The difference is that biology is actually a science and has no morality involved. I have made no "cognitive capability" comparison on this thread so your comment is a total non sequitur. As for the last two statements, they are contradictory, since chimps are animals, just as humans are. And, since you ask, chimps are very much omnivorous, and meat (particularly insects but also gibbons and other more obvious prey animals) is a significant part of their diet. Are chimps immoral? I submit that the issue there is irrelevant -- morality and immorality has nothing to do with the issue of being omnivorous, carnivorous or herbivorous. Any issue regarding "morality" of any of those three biological conditions is ipso facto religious.
First let me address the "contradiction" part. Maybe the way I conveyed my message wasn't correct. This is what I mean: we should not justify our acts on that of animals. If you want to do so, I am "fine with it" as its your freedom. That is what I mean.

Yes chimps and humans are all animals. But I think you should know that we are exceptional and we are capable of so much more than other animals. Again, why seek to justify what we do based on what animals do, on what nature is like, or on what we have done in our evolutionary journey? Every life supposedly shares a common ancestor and evolution isn't a ladder or a sequence separated by steps, it is a continuum so there are things we could do, but won't, that could count as natural.

Care and treatment of livestock is a separate issue to consumption.
The two has become generally inseparable because modern day care and treatment of livestock must serve a growing demand, which is a result of consumption.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:I see. so instead of confining them for consumption, it is somehow more moral to have them confined at "farm sanctuary?"
Whether it is moral or not has zero relevance. I am merely providing an argument as to why such animals would not go extinct if we did not eat them.

And how many animals is "farm sanctuary" going to maintain and breed (because otherwise they do go extinct)? And instead of keeping and preserving bull calves for food consumption at about 2 years for humans it is somehow more moral to dump them out in the wild where the vast majority of calves will die before they are two months? (disease, injury, abandonment and of course, other predators like wolves, bears and cougars in the NA and lions, etc in Africa).
First I don't think we should just dump them. I am fine with people gradually decreasing their meat intake so that less and less animals are being harmed and killed. However, assuming I am all for the idea of just dumping them in the wild and if you want me to answer this then yes I do think it is more moral: the process could be ended in 2 months as you suggest whereas not dumping them serves to keep alive a meat industry that does the exact same cruel things over and over and over, again and again and again. If you want to measure by bodycount, dumping results in the death of X (X being the number of domesticated animals) whereas not dumping results in the continued torture and death of a number whose limit is only stopped if the industry is to stop.

How much land are you prepared to set aside for cow preserves in say, the United Kingdom? In Europe? You believe that the sheep will just live long and prosper if they are turned out like mouflon? (and of course, most mouflon lambs don't make it to adulthood). Such a charming decision out of "morality". I'm sure the lambs will agree that dying as the prey of a wolf is SO much more "moral" than dying as food for humans. For me, dead is dead. Once dead, the animal no longer "cares" and who (or what) eats it has no morality involved at all.

How much land? What do you think I am supporting the idea of just removing all of these animals and give them all happy lives a few escaped animals enjoy on farm sanctuary? No. Again, when I mentioned farm sanctuary I am merely providing an argument as to why not eating domesticated animals will NOT cause them to go extinct.

While it is living, most domestic animals live a much healthier and safer life than their wild counterparts, so the argument that somehow domestication is immoral has no validity either.
This is false. First we accept the fact that factory farmed animals have much worse life than wild counterparts. Now all we need to do is compare the number of factory farmed animals and animals domesticated on cage-free or pristine farms.

13 Stunning Facts About The Rise Of Industrial Meat Farming In America - Business Insider

Factory farmed animals far outnumber animals raised in "good" conditions or family farms.

Actually, the existence of horses was in doubt when they were supplanted by automobiles and other mechanical devices. It is only the keeping of them as riding animals (which is hardly "natural") that has ensured their continuance. Wild horses do not live anywhere near as well as domestic ones in general -- a wild horse of 7 is a very old horse, whereas 20 or so is common in domestic ones. And of course, the current concept in the US that when that horse dies it cannot or should not be consumed but must be buried as toxic waste is totally devoid of any ecological logic. Further your comment that you wouldn't "lose a minute of sleep" if chickens became extinct -- yet you bewail their life conditions in farms? so extinct is better? There's a religious twisting of reality -- I'm pretty sure that if the chickens had a vote they would opt to continue as a species. And catching Jungle fowl? You do realize they are an endangered species?
Red junglefowl is listed as'Endangered' in the Red List of
Grey jungle fowl aren't, but your assertion that if one wanted, one should just catch them presumes that humans can do as they like with animals -- to which I respond that eating them is something that is far less damaging than what you suggest.
It seems you'd rather live long as a caged object which no one other than people like me cares about than to live free.

No I would not lose a single minute of sleep. There are millions of species that has already gotten extinct, do you think I care if domesticated chicken becomes extinct? Believe me, there are people who'd rather not live than be born in a burial gown or live like this: by the way this is cage-free chicken.




Why would anyone be a vegan? It might not be a life that is worth it. My point exactly. Just because one CAN doesn't mean that it suddenly is a moral imperative to do so.
Just because one CAN is not my argument for veganism. I don't know if I should repeat or you could perhaps actually read my post.




I specifically mentioned scavenging which doesn't entail the individual in question (or any human at all) killing the animal in question. I did that specifically because I separate the methods by which humans keep animals from the actual consumption of them. These are two different things. One is biological, the other an artifact of technology and culture, which is indeed mutable. I'm happy to discuss the various methods by which humans could or should utilize animals which properly belongs to a discussion that could include moral judgments. I see no morality (or immorality) involved in the eating of meat as a biological function.
This part is quite similar to the above the one above.

actually no, plant production isn't ultimately cheaper, easier and it doesn't produce less waste or pollution. Groups like Peta and HSUS (or those destroyers of archaeological sites like Greenpeace) like to assert there is, but they haven't and you haven't provided any serious scientific documentation to show that feeding the world (at what population level?) by plant life alone won't be just as destructive to the planet. And every acre devoted for food for humans only is another that is removed from the use of other animals. Reduction of the human population to more sustainable numbers precludes any draconian methods of finding ways to somehow feed them all.

Further, you are again conflating the method of production with the consumption and they are not the same thing.
Now this is an environmental debate. I like where this is going.

I don't think its rational to argue producing a pound of beef isn't more and damaging than producing a pound of plants. The beef comes from a cow that must be feed and the process is longer and more energy-intensive. You need more water and animal feed. Oh yeah every land devoted for humans is taken away from animals, that's shooting meat production in the leg because meat production does the more. I am not going to post any sources for the reason I am going to state below:

since the UN is a political organization and not necessarily devoted strictly to science, any pronouncements on their part is highly suspect. Moreover "we have enough food" -- is a non sequitur -- the subject isnt that we don't have enough food, but which foods are more "moral" than others to consume, which again, I find laughable. The argument regarding carbon emissions of cows was based on grain feeding cattle whereas most cattle are hay fed or range fed -- plants which humans can't consume -- and which are more or less the same foods eaten previously by millions of buffalo (one wonders how the planet sustained all those buffalo farts!) and more or less the same thing eaten currently by the millions of wildebeest in Africa (quick! kill them all to avoid global warming! --sarcasm clearly intended). I've noted that no comparison has ever been done between range cattle and wildebeest in terms of environmental impact, an omission I find very telling in the subjection of science for religious / quasi religious purposes.
I guess finding the UN suspicious is enough. The entire FAO is debunked. If I were to post a source it is just suspicious or unscientific. How about this, I will concede here and admit defeat. Let's wait and see and watch the sustainability of our meat industries.

Millions and wildebeest and buffaloes? That is nothing compared to the 5 billion or so domesticated cattle, hogs, pigs, goats and sheeps. There's 1.3 billion domesticated cattle. There are tens of millions of factory farmed cattle in the US that don't live long as these millions of wildebeests and tens of millions more are replaced when the previous batch are slaughtered for food, and they are exponentially growing in number, that are constantly pumping out manure to be dumped into the ecosystem.

Some cultures ban eating of pork or any even toed animal for religious reasons, and I'm okay with that -- as long as their advocates don't try to impose their views upon me. Some cultures consider cattle sacred and that's also not an issue for me -- as long as they don't come here and try to force that view on me. Those are life choices and the "morality" involved is religious. There is no morality in the consumption of meat and there is no immorality in it either. Asserting that there is, and then asserting that this doesn't apply equally to killer whales as to people is making of H. sapiens a special case which I don't concur with. H. Sapiens is every bit as biological a creature as a hyena or a fox and what they have evolved biologically to consume is no more moral or immoral than what foxes eat.
Oh I agree I am fine with all as long as they don't impose it on me. The thing is vegans aren't forcing or imposing veganism on people.
 
Last edited:

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
=YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217]Thanks for the good discussion. I am going to address this middle part first:
I see no reason why resorting to empathy or feeling or views on morality is religion. Am I following a dogma of absolutes? Am I believe in the existence of unproven facts? No. People have different morality and appealing to one's subjective morality, which can come about as a result of philosophy or critical thinking isn't religion.

You didn't suggest just because something is natural it is moral? No? You kind of are. You are saying because natural functions have no inherent morality being attached to them then humans cannot make subjective moral arguments against basic functions. This implies that the act of eating meat, because it is natural, cannot ever be challenged by subjective morality. It cannot be wrong because it is at a position incapable of ever being challenged. Well I argue we could. Science is what is and morality is what ought to be. We could always, with our cognitive abilities and empathy, argue against our nature.
Nope. I'm of the view that nature is inherently amoral. Morality is a human construct which derives from, in my view, religious or quasi religious beliefs. One can certainly decide to act on those beliefs, and certainly if one does, then one has views as to the morality (or immorality) of some action/ inaction. But it has, in my view, nothing to do with the actual biology or nature of things. Hence, I no more consider a deer moral (or immoral) than I do a lion. Chimpanzees are not immoral murderers because they occasionally kill (and eat) other chimpanzees. Morality has nothing to do with it. As humans we can decide on a moral precept "thou shalt not kill" (a precept every single human generation has violated in greater or smaller degrees) but that is based on a religious or quasi religious stance as a rule (it can be based on pragmatic self serving evaluation of trade off analysis, but usually, it isn't).

Thus, I don't find being a herbivore to be immoral or moral compared to being a carnivore.

=YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
You claim veganism is a quasi-religion due to its moral argument and you mention Meatless Monday. By mentioning Meatless Monday as an argument to suggest veganism is a quasi-religion you actually demonstrate, for a fact, you do not actually understand what Meatless Monday is and I will show both this and the fact that Meatless Monday does not further your argument an inch.

Meatless Monday is not related to veganism other than obstaining from meat for one random day. It started out in WW1 as an effort to help the war and now is actually done for the purpose of helping to improve health by means of lowering cholesterol and saturated fat (this is a scientific fact unless you watch to argue meat does not contain high cholsteral and saturated fat) and reducing carbon emissions and pollution (this is also a scientific fact unelss you want to deny the meat production is one of the biggest, if not biggest, pollutants and cause of waste). Meatless Monday is NOT based on moral arguments. If Meatless Monday is done for the purpose of morality or caring for animals, THEN you have an argument here because it makes zero difference between eating meat everyday and just eating meat on 6 days but you don't because that isn't what Meatless Monday is. This point you brought up is completely irrelevant.
Meatless monday is a government sponsored program that imposes it's view on children. During WWII, foregoing meat "for the war effort" and certain religions promote "don't eat meat on this day". Some hold to fasting for certain periods. All of these are, in my view, quasi religious. The argument that one is "healthier" if one isn't a strict carnivore -- certainly. we are omnivores, not like felids, who are mostly obligate carnivores. Moderation in diet (don't overindulge in any food) is an obvious health suggestion -- but note that one doesn't have "No soda Sunday" despite the clear indications that sodas are bad for one's health. Therefore I view the assertion that the "meatless monday" is intended to be a healthy recommendation as so much propaganda. One might equally say "eat fish on Fridays" and so assert that eating fish once a week is a good thing (and fish has many nutrients that are indeed very beneficial compared to red meats, for example). But one doesn't see the Government doing that, does one?

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
Do not ask me to argue for something I do not believe in. I do not believe a deer is more moral than tigers. It is funny how you ask me this question because I do not think you even read my posts!
Of course I read your posts. And I presume you do me the courtesy of reading mine. How we each interpret the other's posts may be something else entirely.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217

I have stated again and again that we yes we are part of nature but we are NOT other animals and we shouldn't justify all of our actions based on the actions of animals. Just because something is natural or animals do it doesn't mean we HAVE to do it and just because something is natural doesn't meant it is inherently right. I said before, that is called the naturalist fallacy. We aren't tigers and we aren't deers.
And that is a major difference in our points of view. I don't separate humans from other animals. We are perhaps smarter; we certainly have better technology, but gene wise and biology wise, we are just animals like any other and our biology is just as amoral.

Now one can opt to despise certain methods of farming -- these are artifacts of human culture and therefore mutable. The methods of farming weren't brought up in the OP. They can differ widely from completely indifferent to any suffering / pain of animals (which actually even under a completely non empathetic system is very counterproductive, as animals under stress don't produce as much as ones that aren't.) to people who keep chickens as pets and eat only the unfertilized eggs. I'm happy to discuss this issue (both from a historical standpoint -- since this is a historical forum -- and up to modern technology) but it wasn't the subject of the OP. And that's why I object to the methods involved in domestication being conflated with the biology of being omnivorous or carnivorous - or herbivorous.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
I also get the feeling that you think I think vegans are more moral than non-vegans, hence why you asked me to argue why a deer is more moral than a tiger. I do not think this at all! I do not think vegans are any more moral than non-vegans and I do not think I am more moral than any non-vegan.
I think both you and fox tend to combine the act of eating meat with how it's obtained -- which can vary quite widely. I consider some farming techniques to be very inhumane and some are quite justified.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
Respectively, I have no need to answer the first question you posed because you already agreed with me meat isn't necessary by acknowledging in the previous posts that a vegan lifestyle is compatible with humans.

Keep in mind a fundamental difference between all of your analogies with veganism. In veganism, you aren't contributing to killing animals for their flesh, an act with a violent intention
.
You certainly are contributing to killing animals in return for food for yourself. Don't delude yourself that crop growing doesn't result in dead animals. It might be a "step removed" from actually killing an animal oneself - but the percentage of people who do that (or for that matter, have any direct involvement in the production of what they eat) is very small. Do you think that pesticides don't kill? That cultivating land doesn't kill? One of the prohibitions in the Mojave desert conservation area is "no plowing" -- because it can kill burrowing ground squirrels. Or converting wetlands to use as orchards? Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Farmers Plowing Wetlands - Los Angeles Times Irrigation that kills off snail darters or delta smelt? The Man-Made California Drought - House Committee on Natural Resources

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217

I am sure that if I buy a pair of sneakers or clothing that has harmed people if the company that employs slave-like conditions in developing countries like China. If I can act to improve things I would, like just not buying from Nike.

I am also sure that if I buy a kg of beef 2,000 gallons of fresh water was required to produce that morsel of meat and it contributes very negatively to the environment and that an animal had to be raised in horrible conditions and the pain of dehorning and slaughter. If I can act to improve things I would, like just not buying meat? I said on other thread veganism isn't a dogma, vegans know perfection cannot be achieved and that there are many problems and contradictions in life. What we seek to do is do the less harm and cause the least amount of unnecessary suffering.
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g2060/build/g2060.pdf

https://cropview.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/how-much-water-do-crops-need/

Corn requires it takes 9500 litres to 15,000 litres (2500-4000 gallons with 5000 gallons potentially) of water per bushel. As for soybeans about 3 times as much water and 2 times for wheat per bushel respectfully
Plenty of natural poll cattle. And plenty that are raised with horns for the horned variety. The " an animal had to be raised in horrible conditions " is untrue. No they don't. In fact, raising an animal in horrible conditions tends to be counterproductive -- stressed animals don't gain weight and are less healthy than non stressed ones. Try reading Temple Grandin. As for dying in horrible conditions? compared to what? Everything living dies. Killing an animal for human consumption with a minimum of stress is advantageous as again, stress tends to cause hormone production which can adversely flavor the meat -- even those who care nothing about how an animal feels may take care simply out of economic self interest. Further, it doesn't stress a chicken to eat its eggs. One cannot have a useful discussion if all livestock caring is lumped together and a blanket assertion made that it is "horrible" .

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
If you don't want to wear clothing - no problem. If you want to but don't like the supposed suffering it causes on a Chinese kid, boycott Nike.
It isn't just Nike. My point is that one can wear clothes that aren't made by slave or child labor and one can eat meat that wasn't the result of inhumane treatment of the animal involved. The mere act of eating meat is amoral. The care and management of livestock may be humane or not. They are two distinct issues.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
First let me address the "contradiction" part. Maybe the way I conveyed my message wasn't correct. This is what I mean: we should not justify our acts on that of animals. If you want to do so, I am "fine with it" as its your freedom. That is what I mean.

Yes chimps and humans are all animals. But I think you should know that we are exceptional and we are capable of so much more than other animals. Again, why seek to justify what we do based on what animals do, on what nature is like, or on what we have done in our evolutionary journey? Every life supposedly shares a common ancestor and evolution isn't a ladder or a sequence separated by steps, it is a continuum so there are things we could do, but won't, that could count as natural.



The two has become generally inseparable because modern day care and treatment of livestock must serve a growing demand, which is a result of consumption.



Whether it is moral or not has zero relevance. I am merely providing an argument as to why such animals would not go extinct if we did not eat them.



First I don't think we should just dump them. I am fine with people gradually decreasing their meat intake so that less and less animals are being harmed and killed. However, assuming I am all for the idea of just dumping them in the wild and if you want me to answer this then yes I do think it is more moral: the process could be ended in 2 months as you suggest whereas not dumping them serves to keep alive a meat industry that does the exact same cruel things over and over and over, again and again and again. If you want to measure by bodycount, dumping results in the death of X (X being the number of domesticated animals) whereas not dumping results in the continued torture and death of a number whose limit is only stopped if the industry is to stop.

How much land are you prepared to set aside for cow preserves in say, the United Kingdom? In Europe? You believe that the sheep will just live long and prosper if they are turned out like mouflon? (and of course, most mouflon lambs don't make it to adulthood). Such a charming decision out of "morality". I'm sure the lambs will agree that dying as the prey of a wolf is SO much more "moral" than dying as food for humans. For me, dead is dead. Once dead, the animal no longer "cares" and who (or what) eats it has no morality involved at all.

How much land? What do you think I am supporting the idea of just removing all of these animals and give them all happy lives a few escaped animals enjoy on farm sanctuary? No. Again, when I mentioned farm sanctuary I am merely providing an argument as to why not eating domesticated animals will NOT cause them to go extinct.



This is false. First we accept the fact that factory farmed animals have much worse life than wild counterparts. Now all we need to do is compare the number of factory farmed animals and animals domesticated on cage-free or pristine farms.

13 Stunning Facts About The Rise Of Industrial Meat Farming In America - Business Insider

Factory farmed animals far outnumber animals raised in "good" conditions or family farms.
we accept the fact that factory farmed animals have much worse life than wild counterparts.
== "we" do? nope. don't do that at all. Evidence please, that zebras are better off than horses or mouflon are better off than sheep.


YouLoveMeYouKnowIt;2048217
It seems you'd rather live long as a caged object which no one other than people like me cares about than to live free.

No I would not lose a single minute of sleep. There are millions of species that has already gotten extinct, do you think I care if domesticated chicken becomes extinct? Believe me, there are people who'd rather not live than be born in a burial gown or live like this: by the way this is cage-free chicken.






Just because one CAN is not my argument for veganism. I don't know if I should repeat or you could perhaps actually read my post.






This part is quite similar to the above the one above.



Now this is an environmental debate. I like where this is going.

I don't think its rational to argue producing a pound of beef isn't more and damaging than producing a pound of plants. The beef comes from a cow that must be feed and the process is longer and more energy-intensive. You need more water and animal feed. Oh yeah every land devoted for humans is taken away from animals, that's shooting meat production in the leg because meat production does the more. I am not going to post any sources for the reason I am going to state below:



I guess finding the UN suspicious is enough. The entire FAO is debunked. If I were to post a source it is just suspicious or unscientific. How about this, I will concede here and admit defeat. Let's wait and see and watch the sustainability of our meat industries.

Millions and wildebeest and buffaloes? That is nothing compared to the 5 billion or so domesticated cattle, hogs, pigs, goats and sheeps. There's 1.3 billion domesticated cattle. There are tens of millions of factory farmed cattle in the US that don't live long as these millions of wildebeests and tens of millions more are replaced when the previous batch are slaughtered for food, and they are exponentially growing in number, that are constantly pumping out manure to be dumped into the ecosystem.

Oh I agree I am fine with all as long as they don't impose it on me. The thing is vegans aren't forcing or imposing veganism on people.
Bison: Buffalo Tales: The Near-Extermination of the American Bison, Native Americans and the Land, Nature Transformed, TeacherServe, National Humanities CenterEstimates of numbers range widely. Some thought (clearly in error) that there were hundreds of millions of even billions; others estimated (far more reasonably) numbers at from 30 to 1000 million in A.D. 1500.
Farm Marketing - AgEBB
The total number of cattle and calves in the U.S. on January 1, 2014, was 87.73 million head,

So pretty comparable numbers, I'd say. so how much water did all those bison drink? probably the same as all those cattle. How much farting did all those bison do? probably the same as the cows.

Comparing numbers of existing domestics to existing wild numbers is an error since they have largely supplanted their wild counterparts. But the biomass is actually pretty similar. The real destruction and threat to wild animals is being supplanted by people and driven away from food by people who want to live -- and farm there. Hence my comment about dead elephants. People who are starving do occasionally eat elephant, but mostly elephants are killed not for food but because of a fad in ivory and because they are intruding on areas where people live and destroy those people's crops.




regarding the photo, lots of people seem to find this quite acceptable:


this is also "free range" chickens:


and so is this:


and so is this (note how they are all hanging together?)
 

Lowell2

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,541
California
=Fox;2048072]Okay, it's fairly clear to me at this point that you aren't actually willing to discuss this issue in any honest capacity, and in fact are barely considering what I am actually saying. You insist that you aren't doing anything immoral, but I never accused you of immorality, and even explicitly told you I eat meat myself. You insist that you aren't a sexist, but the issue of sexism never even crossed my mind, and I'm frankly perplexed that you even thought it was an issue. You aren't even really arguing with me, you're creating a phantasmal, PETA-ized Fox in your head and ranting against him. I don't like it, and I don't want to experience it.

I'll say one last thing: as far as beaks go, it's far from clear that no pain or suffering is involved: That's all I have to say to you. Have a nice day.
I'm basing my view on this:
Minor beak trimming in chickens leads to loss of mechanoreception and magnetoreception

We concluded that minor beak trimming at a young age did not result in pain in young domestic chicks, but instead led to impaired function of the magnetoreceptors and mechanoreceptors of the beak.
I'll note that putting tags in beaks is done by the the US govt as part of the conservation process. They also put tags in wings -- which if you don't do it exactly right really does hurt.
Bird Banding Laboratory


I'm not in favor, by the way, of debeaking (and I don't care for wing tags either), since there are other methods to effectively prevent birds pecking each other but I don't find that the hype is justified.

And again, it has nothing to do with actually eating meat, but in how humans handle various animals. A bird killed by quickly wringing it's neck probably feels less pain than being crushed in the jaws of a fox or coyote. One can choose to have meat that is humanely produced, or even have a pet chicken and eat only eggs it lays (that also counts in the category of meat eating) and only eat the chicken after it dies of old age.