There are alot of different dietary choices floating around, Jains would seem to have an even more ethical diet than the vegetarians here, but perhaps only by their own standards. Ours haven't expressed such a finicky taste for what plants they would or would not eat and why.

Of course I don't think the Jain dietary decisions are any more or less ethical than our vegetarians, or my own, in actuality, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in order to keep the ball rolling.

I would like to let everyone know that I loved every delicious bite of my sandwich... I think I will go fishing this weekend.

Fish are fair game, iirc.

(April 20, 2012 at 12:32 am)TheJackel Wrote: I would like to let everyone know that I loved every delicious bite of my sandwich... I think I will go fishing this weekend.

Fishing---Mmmmm prawns (shrimp)---we also have some of the best crayfish (lobster) in the world. I have prawns at Xmas ,but never lobster; a decent one can cost over $100.

Sydney rock oysters are world famous too,but few Aussies eat them because of the mercury.

THE best sammie I've ever eaten: a hot pastrami on light rye,from a kosher deli on Seventh Avenue in New York. As far as I know,there are no kosher delis in Adelaide,although I do know of ONE place which sells bagels.

Wow, fresh lobster is far cheaper here, Pad. Prawns are generally crap though.

(April 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I think it's amusing that I am being asked to provide sources to "refute" an argument for which no source has been provided in support of. I'm still reading the report that has been linked from the UN, and I still can't find any support for your moral or ethical argument for vegetarianism there (and forgive me if you aren't the person who linked it, but I hope you are, because if not, you're just saying "prove me wrong".......which would be unfortunate). It's actually a trade paper meant to offer potential solutions to the problems livestock production faces/creates in the first place..... I'm not arguing against your statement that "unnecessary suffering" should be avoided. I'm completely giving that to you. We're beyond that. We are now assigning truth values to your assertions and what constitutes "unnecessary suffering" in the world beyond your argument, the real world. Isn't that exciting? Now, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, I'm glad I'm not a cow. I don't particularly like the way we currently produce beef (just as one example), but I'm not ready to declare beef production unethical or immoral as a whole when I know full well that there are other, much more humane and much more efficient ways of raising cattle (that would require dietary changes, absolutely) already in existence. The issue of their slaughter is a moot point for me, they are rendered completely unconscious if done properly. It's the production that concerns me, personally.

I don't know if you realize this, but the subject you've taken such a single minded stance on is actually immense, this is why I've asked you to offer a solution so we could weigh the pro's and cons against our current system (I actually do this for a living btw, and enjoy it very much, my impartiality in the decisions people make after all relevant information has been gathered is the bread and butter of why I have a business at all). I don't want to straw man you by arguing against practices that you wouldn't sign on-board with, now do I?

What you need to do here is pick a substitute crop (or a range of substitute crops) that would fulfill the gaping hole left in the wake of cessation of livestock production. If you cannot do this, you are shuffling the suffering onto us (we do get consideration here as sentient creatures that should not have to endure "unnecessary suffering", correct)? I could suggest some, but there are reasons that we haven't adopted them in each and every case. I don't know why you seem to think that no one has considered these things.

If you could narrow this down I could give you a very specific list of environmental concerns which would include within them, in each and every case, the suffering of sentient creatures. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is "necessary" or "unnecessary" and how we are to determine which sentient creature we side with when conflict arises...and conflict will arise. This is why I can confidently state that you are going to cause suffering either route you choose, and the route you have chosen may actually cause more suffering (albeit suffering that is hidden to you, or ignored by you) depending upon which route you want to go. Without knowing precisely what solution you're offering, how can I give you the source you want?

That would be step 1, wouldn't it? To base an argument on "unnecessary suffering" you're going to have to demonstrate that whatever suffering you're referring to is actually unnecessary. To leap from "unnecessary suffering" to vegetarianism, you would have to demonstrate that no system of livestock production we have available to us would be able to do it's business without causing said "unnecessary suffering". Those are reasonable requests, are they not?

If you say "Let's all be vegetarians" that leaves the door pretty open, doesn't it? I could say, "Yes, yes, absolutely, lets all be vegetarians and grow watermelons and cabbages, rape this land for the nutrients required. Mine out every mountain and scrape the bottom of every ocean boys, we need that fertility! Fuck every living thing in, on, or under any rock we need, watermelons and cabbages for all!" But I doubt that you would be ok with that (and you don't seem to realize that this isn't as terrible an exaggeration as it may seem at first). Now, you seem to have some misconceptions about livestock as it relates to agriculture, and we can delve into that if you like, but I would just be nitpicking you and I'd rather cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

OK. I will give you an example of what I see as unnecessary suffering. I will use chickens as an example. I think there are about 7 billion broilers consumed each year in the US.

I will describe the suffering of other species in the 'real world' if you like but thought chickens would be a good place to start.

Chickens, reared in sheds that hold 20,000 birds, now are bred to grow so fast that most of them develop leg problems because their immature bones cannot bear the weight of their bodies.

Professor John Webster of the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Science said: “Broilers are the only livestock that are in chronic pain for the last 20 percent of their lives. They don’t move around, not because they are overstocked, but because it hurts their joints so much.”

Professor Webster's view is supported here:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/ahaw100728.htm

The effect is that sometimes their legs collapse under them, causing them to starve to death because they cannot reach their food. Another consequence of the genetics of these birds is that the breeding birds — the parents of the ones sold in supermarkets — constantly are hungry, because, unlike their offspring that are slaughtered at just 45 days old, they have to live long enough to reach sexual maturity. If fed as much as they are programmed to eat, they soon would be grotesquely obese and die or be unable to mate. So they are kept on strict rations that leave them always looking in vain for food.

The birds are kept in such close confinement that they become stressed and this can lead to cannibalism. To stop this, they are debeaked.

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

This causes suffering - acute or chronic pain. In 1993, Ian Duncan, a poultry researcher at the University of Guelph in Ontario, said “there is now good morphological, neurophysiological, and behavioral evidence that beak trimming leads to both acute and chronic pain,” including phantom limb pain.

So, this is an idea of what I mean when I talk about unnecessary suffering. I my world I recognise that although chickens may be quite tasty, this is a trivial reason to exploit these creatures. It is unnecessary. For the sake of argument, let's say I substitue lentils in my diet for chicken. Now please make your arguement of how my consumption of lentils causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

I can give that to you in it"s entirety, now, do you figure that it's impossible to raise chickens ethically? Does this argument somehow lead to ethical vegetarianism, or just a more ethical omnivorism?

(April 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: So, this is an idea of what I mean when I talk about unnecessary suffering. I my world I recognise that although chickens may be quite tasty, this is a trivial reason to exploit these creatures. It is unnecessary. For the sake of argument, let's say I substitue lentils in my diet for chicken. Now please make your arguement of how my consumption of lentils causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

What is trivial to you is not trivial to me. The pain of the chickens is necessary to my non-trivial delight in chicken marsala.

(April 20, 2012 at 4:28 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: So, this is an idea of what I mean when I talk about unnecessary suffering. I my world I recognise that although chickens may be quite tasty, this is a trivial reason to exploit these creatures. It is unnecessary. For the sake of argument, let's say I substitue lentils in my diet for chicken. Now please make your arguement of how my consumption of lentils causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

What is trivial to you is not trivial to me. The pain of the chickens is necessary to my non-trivial delight in chicken marsala.

Then I simply take from that I would not want to know you as a person. I would sugest that you have a Christian-like, Western take on animals, that you believe that you are somehow special, perhaps created in the image of god. I fail to understand how a person can be so flippant. Albert Schweitzer sums up my opinion of you:

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea
of worthless human lives.”

---

(April 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I can give that to you in it"s entirety, now, do you figure that it's impossible to raise chickens ethically? Does this argument somehow lead to ethical vegetarianism, or just a more ethical omnivorism?

Wait. We are trying to have a 'real world' discussion here. I think that you are agreeing with me that chicken 'production' in the circumstances I describe is unethical. Are you saying that there are real world examples of chicken production that involve no pain and suffering?

(April 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm)Scabby Joe Wrote: Then I simply take from that I would not want to know you as a person. I would sugest that you have a Christian-like, Western take on animals, that you believe that you are somehow special, perhaps created in the image of god. I fail to understand how a person can be so flippant. Albert Schweitzer sums up my opinion of you:

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea
of worthless human lives.”

I don't think I would like to know you either, you seem have the very christian tendency to flakily package your own squeamishness as morality, and buttress your hollow attempt to impose your morality with silly little bag of quotes.