Childhood indoctrination

[littleendian]

This is why I don't get into vegetarian/vegan arguments...

I agree they get messy and hateful sometimes, but they are none the less very, very important because we might be committing a terrible crime and maybe someday our grand children will ask us why we didn't do anything about it.

I think a better discussion is how to change farming practices (put pressure on big Agra) to make them better for the environment and more humane for the animals in question. Trying to convince people not to eat animals or wear leather is very much an uphill battle.
Incidentally, I'm having a lunch date this afternoon with a vegan friend... This may be my reoccurring theme for the day.

There is no such thing as a human slaughter, which defeats "humane animal agriculture" right away. If someone came to me in my twenties and told me he thought that by now I had a decent life and he's now going to kill me now very humanely by bullet to the head and cook me for dinner, I'd tell him to fuck off, and so would any humanely raised cow. They slaughter the animals in their prime because that's when the meat tastes best.

---

Well, do instincts constitute enought argumental power to make a case for legal rights?

They obviously do for severely mentally handicapped people, just because they're reduced to instincts doesn't mean we grant them fewer rights.

Basically the animals are our dumb little brothers and sisters, they don't know shit, they're even dumb as hell often times, but that only makes our responsibility toward them all so much greater. What we're doing now is we're letting hate and cruelty rain down on these innocent creatures. Humans are better than that.

[Whateverist]

Basically just leaving them alone would be sufficient.

That is a right - the right to life.

Other than that, why should we when they are a source of food?

Not only are they an excellent source of food but I hear that human meat just tastes much better if fed a vegan diet before processing.


All kidding aside, I do appreciate the contribution to a cleaner planet which anyone who eats veggie (vegan or not) makes by eating lower on the food chain. Frankly though, if we're concerned for the well being of animals, the greater contribution we could make would be not to utilize so much land to our own purposes. It is loss of habitat that prevents survival of a diversity of species. So the number one contribution we could make toward the well being of other species would be to bring down the human biomass on the planet - a lot. Preserving habitat for other animals gives them a chance to live in the way they have evolved to live, which seems more fulfilling on the face of it. If we're content to winnow down the planet's diversity, it'll just be us, our pets, roaches, mosquitos, rats and whatever other animals that are able to thrive in the conditions we create around us.

[Forbinator]

Oh wow. Suggesting that vegans want equal rights for all animals is a serious strawman argument and oversimplification.

To help you understand, let's make an analogy to humans. I believe that all women should have the right to have free pap smears and mammograms as part of their overall health, but I wouldn't campaign for their rights to have free regular prostate exams. The key here is not equal rights, but equal consideration of interests. There is no evidence to suggest that one gender has more of an interest in being healthy than the other, but there are differences between the genders that would mean their rights should not be exactly equal.

What a ???????? argument, a woman is not in need of a prostate exam - therefor this entire analogy falls appart - other than that:

BREAKING NEWS: Women are also humans!!!!

And interests are the thing which build a case for legal rights. - you are simply playing with words.

The whole point was for it to fall apart, to demonstrate the difference between equal rights and equal consideration of interests. As long as you understand that I'm not pushing for chickens to have free public schooling, but that I am pushing for their interests to be recognised by law (interest in living and not suffering etc.) then my argument served its purpose. You say that I'm playing with words, but I'm using words to demonstrate a genuine difference between two ideas. Some people might talk about it as "equal" treatment vs "equitable" treatment. Equal would literally mean we give prostate exams to both males and females, and equitable would mean we give equal consideration of corresponding interests (i.e. the women get pap smears and mammograms, and the men get prostate exams).

A cow has an interest in continuing her existence, as evidenced by her survival instinct, which is measurable by secretion of hormones in times of stress (catecholamines and corticosteroids) just as for humans. There is no reason why this interest is less valid than the corresponding interest that I have in continuing my existence. Chickens have an interest in having a place to dust-bathe (but I wouldn't advocate equal rights to humans in this regard as we don't share that interest) and humans have an interest in achieving a high school education (again, equal education rights for chickens would be absurd as they don't have this interest).

One thing - We are a different species and on top of the food chain.
We understand our world and learned to use and influence it towards being more benefitial for us.

Other than that - you have your personal right to "respect" interests.
But why should you have the right to infringe others rights to food?

Food chain is a human construct. It says "we can eat animals, therefore we should!" We could justify lots of horrible things with that line of thinking. Men are at the top of the rape chain for example. Your statement about using our surroundings to benefit us can be applied to many other species.

As for your right to food, there is plenty of plant-based food available. If animal-based farming is replaced by crop farming, we actually increase the amount of food available, which is important when so many are starving.

[festive1]

They also breed and raise the animals for the sole purpose of becoming food... There wouldn't be near the number of cattle or chickens in the world today if we weren't raising them for food.

I'm just saying, baby steps. I don't foresee a world in which enough people convert to vegetarianism/veganism to put an end to animals being eaten... But I do think change is possible within the industry, with carnivores joining the cause. Letting chickens be free range vs. crammed in a tiny box or an overcrowded coop, unable to stand due to their large breasts, for instance. This would make life better for the chickens, even if they still get eaten in the end, and the meat tastes better. I'm more concerned about the quality of life for the animal, than it being slaughtered and eaten. I think that's a good hurdle to start on rather than trying to convince people "meat is murder."

[Forbinator]

That is a right - the right to life.

Other than that, why should we when they are a source of food?

Not only are they an excellent source of food but I hear that human meat just tastes much better if fed a vegan diet before processing.


All kidding aside, I do appreciate the contribution to a cleaner planet which anyone who eats veggie (vegan or not) makes by eating lower on the food chain. Frankly though, if we're concerned for the well being of animals, the greater contribution we could make would be not to utilize so much land to our own purposes. It is loss of habitat that prevents survival of a diversity of species. So the number one contribution we could make toward the well being of other species would be to bring down the human biomass on the planet - a lot. Preserving habitat for other animals gives them a chance to live in the way they have evolved to live, which seems more fulfilling on the face of it. If we're content to winnow down the planet's diversity, it'll just be us, our pets, roaches, mosquitos, rats and whatever other animals that are able to thrive in the conditions we create around us.

Agreed, but the two approaches are interlinked. We are wasting so much land to produce plant-based food to use to fatten up animals, who shit out 85% of it. Let's feed our food directly to humans, rather than filtering it through animals whose populations are artificially increased for that purpose. Much of the deforestation today is to make way for more and more cattle grazing, as well as crops that will be fed to enslaved animals. 80% of the world's soy is fed to animals!

---

They also breed and raise the animals for the sole purpose of becoming food... There wouldn't be near the number of cattle or chickens in the world today if we weren't raising them for food.

I'm just saying, baby steps. I don't foresee a world in which enough people convert to vegetarianism/veganism to put an end to animals being eaten... But I do think change is possible within the industry, with carnivores joining the cause. Letting chickens be free range vs. crammed in a tiny box or an overcrowded coop, unable to stand due to their large breasts, for instance. This would make life better for the chickens, even if they still get eaten in the end, and the meat tastes better. I'm more concerned about the quality of life for the animal, than it being slaughtered and eaten. I think that's a good hurdle to start on rather than trying to convince people "meat is murder."

Both approaches are necessary together, that is, both welfarism and abolition. If I were being wrongly imprisoned, I would need my family to campaign for two things: 1. my release (abolition) and 2. improvement of the conditions in which I am imprisoned (welfarism).

Only doing option 1 means I get beaten and raped in prison, and only doing option 2 means I have to accept wrongful imprisonment and basically concede defeat.

[littleendian]

Two approaches are interlinked. We are wasting so much land to produce plant-based food to use to fatten up animals, who shit out 85% of it. Let's feed our food directly to humans, rather than filtering it through animals whose populations are artificially increased for that purpose. Much of the deforestation today is to make way for more and more cattle grazing, as well as crops that will be fed to enslaved animals. 80% of the world's soy is fed to animals!

Well, but that would require that many people go back into agriculture because it is much simpler to just grow huge mono-cultures of rather robust but inadible (for humans) soy and then funnel it through cattle which are then eaten by humans. If you would want to use these same lands to grow vegetables digestible by humans then a lot more thought would've to be put and a lot more skill would be involved.

That would be great, just saying it's not quite as easy as simply diverting the flow of soy/corn/grain from cattle to humans. That's information I gathered in a discussion here on these forums, so kudos to atheistforums.org!

---

Both approaches are necessary together, that is, both welfarism and abolition

Arguing with others rarely every convinces anyone of veganism, but I know where the zeal comes from... I think you might find consolation in this: You're already doing a huge part of what you as an individual can do for a more humane planet. Others will follow a good ideal when they see it and when they are ready, all the arguments in the world are not going to convince someone who's hasn't already got the seed in him.

[festive1]

They also breed and raise the animals for the sole purpose of becoming food... There wouldn't be near the number of cattle or chickens in the world today if we weren't raising them for food.

I'm just saying, baby steps. I don't foresee a world in which enough people convert to vegetarianism/veganism to put an end to animals being eaten... But I do think change is possible within the industry, with carnivores joining the cause. Letting chickens be free range vs. crammed in a tiny box or an overcrowded coop, unable to stand due to their large breasts, for instance. This would make life better for the chickens, even if they still get eaten in the end, and the meat tastes better. I'm more concerned about the quality of life for the animal, than it being slaughtered and eaten. I think that's a good hurdle to start on rather than trying to convince people "meat is murder."

Both approaches are necessary together, that is, both welfarism and abolition. If I were being wrongly imprisoned, I would need my family to campaign for two things: 1. my release (abolition) and 2. improvement of the conditions in which I am imprisoned (welfarism).

Only doing option 1 means I get beaten and raped in prison, and only doing option 2 means I have to accept wrongful imprisonment and basically concede defeat.

Example: I had a friend growing up whose father was a poultry farmer. He was moving turkeys from one house to another when it started to rain. He lost somewhere around 1/3rd to half the turkeys because they put their heads back and drowned... Me thinks an animal this stupid should probably be eaten because they could never survive on their own. I'm not concerned with turkey-rape happening in those overcrowded houses... I do think they shouldn't be in over-crowded conditions, but they're definitely at least a few notches down from being intelligent, emotional creatures worthy of "every life is sacred" status.

[Forbinator]

Two approaches are interlinked. We are wasting so much land to produce plant-based food to use to fatten up animals, who shit out 85% of it. Let's feed our food directly to humans, rather than filtering it through animals whose populations are artificially increased for that purpose. Much of the deforestation today is to make way for more and more cattle grazing, as well as crops that will be fed to enslaved animals. 80% of the world's soy is fed to animals!

Well, but that would require that many people go back into agriculture because it is much simpler to just grow huge mono-cultures of rather robust but inadible (for humans) soy and then funnel it through cattle which are then eaten by humans. If you would want to use these same lands to grow vegetables digestible by humans then a lot more thought would've to be put and a lot more skill would be involved.

That would be great, just saying it's not quite as easy as simply diverting the flow of soy/corn/grain from cattle to humans. That's information I gathered in a discussion here on these forums, so kudos to atheistforums.org!

---

I thought humans could eat soy (as well as corn and grain). :p But either way, I acknowledge that we can't eat grass so I get your point. We need to grow different stuff, which requires careful re-cultivation of land, and it isn't something that will happen overnight. But more people demanding more vegan food over time will make a difference (supply and demand etc).

Both approaches are necessary together, that is, both welfarism and abolition

Arguing with others rarely every convinces anyone of veganism, but I know where the zeal comes from... I think you might find consolation in this: You're already doing a huge part of what you as an individual can do for a more humane planet. Others will follow a good ideal when they see it and when they are ready.

Thankyou for that. I think the key is to just gently keep mentioning it to people. Part of the issue is that people see veganism as some crazy hippie movement, so the more it can be mentioned in a mainstream setting the more normalised it may become. If I argue too much I will probably come across as a dick (if I haven't already).

---

Example: I had a friend growing up whose father was a poultry farmer. He was moving turkeys from one house to another when it started to rain. He lost somewhere around 1/3rd to half the turkeys because they put their heads back and drowned... Me thinks an animal this stupid should probably be eaten because they could never survive on their own. I'm not concerned with turkey-rape happening in those overcrowded houses... I do think they shouldn't be in over-crowded conditions, but they're definitely at least a few notches down from being intelligent, emotional creatures worthy of "every life is sacred" status.

"Sacred" is a religious terminology, but I think the key here is whether there is a survival instinct. For example, if they see a predator, how do they react? This might be more reliable than thinking about how they react to artificial situations that endanger their lives. I'm assuming that wild turkeys (who can actually fly because they haven't been genetically selected for excessive growth) aren't actually faced with decisions about which man-made shed to walk in and out of.

[Aractus]

Oh wow. Suggesting that vegans want equal rights for all animals is a serious strawman argument and oversimplification.

From the PETA Website:

• In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.
  

And:

• Silk is the fiber that silkworms weave to make cocoons. To obtain silk, distributors boil the worms alive inside their cocoons. Anyone who has ever seen worms startle when their dark homes are uncovered must acknowledge that worms are sensate—they produce endorphins and have a physical response to pain.
  

Here's a picture of Silkworm:

[Something completely different]

They obviously do for severely mentally handicapped people, just because they're reduced to instincts doesn't mean we grant them fewer rights.

Not true. I did my Zivildienst in a Einrichtung für Geistig Behinderte.
Most of them have more than just simple instincts. Why would a 50 year old man who cant read pretend to read? In most cases the subconcious mind simply has the bigger influence on a persons actions.
Other than that, even those which are reduced to instincts still have parents which want them to be kept alive and love them


And did I mention that handicapped people are humans and not animals.

Basically the animals are our dumb little brothers and sisters, they don't know shit, they're even dumb as hell often times, but that only makes our responsibility toward them all so much greater. What we're doing now is we're letting hate and cruelty rain down on these innocent creatures. Humans are better than that.

hate and cruelty????

I simply want to eat. Other than that, most slaughterhouses are legaly bound to keep pain inflicted on animals at a minimum.

Take a look arround. Do you see a pack of wolves who politly considere a deer`s needs and therefor asks the herd politely for a carcas?