(February 5, 2015 at 4:43 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I don't follow. Growing vegetables is a lot easier and cheaper than raising food animals. In fact, you end up having to grow vegetables anyway to feed the animals. I guess it would be true for any people who rely on fishing.

This isn't really a contribution to the topic at hand here, but growing vegetables can be quite time consuming and more difficult than raising many animals. I raise chickens and keep a garden, and the chickens are infinitely easier to deal with on a daily basis. If one is aiming for self-sufficiency, he must indeed grow crops specifically for the animals. I'm content with purchasing feed, though I have considered growing a larger amount of corn for my flock. However, they get a more diverse mix of nutrients with store-purchased feed.

Is this thread necro? Anyway, I want to say something on both sides of the argument.

1) I think the assumption that raising animals for slaughter, killing them, and eating them, reeks of Biblical logic. We are "special," and the needs or wants of other organism are therefore below ours. I don't see any non-arbitrary reason why why should undervalue the suffering or loss of life of animals, especially when it's not necessary in Western countries for a good diet.

2) The assumption that not eating meat will necessarily reduce suffering or loss of life may not hold true. Farming involves loss of habitat, clear-cutting involves direct deaths, and the eating of a cow which is grass fed may actually reduce the NUMBER of lives loss (gophers and birds getting mulched in large farm equipment, etc.)

To be honest, I think the idea of creating a world where nobody eats meat to be over idealistic and actually ignorant. I'll explain why...

Animals are affected by everything we do. If in fact you are living in a house (supplied by gas and electricity), driving a car (again supplied by gas), purchasing material good made in a factory, you're part of the problem too. How much land was taken away to build your house? How much resources do you use everyday that we have to destroy the environment and animal habitats for? But somehow you're better? There's no way the animals are going to escape totally unscathed unless we all went to live naked out in the forest.

I agree that meat should be regulated certainly, the western diet is causing a whole plethora of environmental and ecological issues do to our over-eating of meat. But really it's not realistic (or even good) to completely for-go meat. It's not stopping animals from losing their habitats, natural ways of life or their lives if we stop eating them. In fact it could actually be argued eating them at least gives them a relatively quick death, if killed humanely.

If, in a hypothetical situation, we were to convince everyone to become vegans, that would also create more problems - because we have to grow more fruits, veggies, grain. That takes land, resources, we'd still be pumping those crops full of hormones so we have enough. It doesn't solve the problem.

There's also a difference between slaves and animals. I certainly think animals should have rights and, if we're going to kill them, it should be as swift and painless death as possible. However, slaves are not animals, they're humans. Animals don't possess the intelligence humans have.

I don't have a problem with individuals taking the vegetarian/vegan diet at all, for health reasons or even religious reasons. However this holier-than-thou attitude of "I'm morally superior because you're a meat eater" is tried. You're not suddenly out the picture just because you don't eat meat. If you want to do 100% your part, ditch your house, car, tools, the lot, go live out in the wilderness. While you're out there, just remember you'll be very close to predators who would eat you, but they don't hesitate.

Long post but that's my two cents.

(February 2, 2015 at 3:11 am)Grasshopper Wrote: Slavery- Denies a human being the right to freedom.
Eating animals- Denies an animal the right to life.

Except that there's no such thing as rights for animals. Legally and rationally it is objectively impossible for animals to bear and exercise rights. At most, they'll get some protection. So, you start with a wrong premise - Not to mention you're equating freedom with life

I dislike animal cruelty and it sickens me, I'm using a legalistic conception of rights - Animals don't have intelligence or means to exercise and use rights like we do, not to mention most rights/duties are not applicable to animals. When the dog goes for a walk, he doesn't go because he's exercising the right to move himself, he goes out of instinct and obedience to the owner

(February 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 1) I think the assumption that raising animals for slaughter, killing them, and eating them, reeks of Biblical logic. We are "special," and the needs or wants of other organism are therefore below ours. I don't see any non-arbitrary reason why why should undervalue the suffering or loss of life of animals, especially when it's not necessary in Western countries for a good diet.

The needs and wants of livestock don't go unconsidered, though they are met at varying degrees depending on the production model and specific producer. Some livestock lead shitty, shitty lives, others lead better lives than many human beings. I agree with you, in that suffering and loss of life should not be undervalued just because it's the suffering and loss of life of some other animal - but that in and of itself probably doesn't lead us to the same place, in our conclusions.

Quote:2) The assumption that not eating meat will necessarily reduce suffering or loss of life may not hold true. Farming involves loss of habitat, clear-cutting involves direct deaths, and the eating of a cow which is grass fed may actually reduce the NUMBER of lives loss (gophers and birds getting mulched in large farm equipment, etc.)

Will also decrease human suffering. More cow = less energy required from fossil fuels (from a variety of angles).

@Dys, letys not forget that when a dog causes damage to property no one expects the dog to satisfy the court order for payment to damages - the owner is expected to do so. Rights and liability go hand in hand. Animals have neither rights nor liability. A human being can be incarcerated, their rights can be diminished, for failure to satisfy liability. There just aren't that many animals on earth that can satisfy everything that goes into what we call "rights" - some human beings aren't fully competent...and we explicitly acknowledge that. As you've mentioned, they get protection. I think that any conversation that starts off with an animals "rights" is already DOA. It's a long road from livestock to legal personhood. That's the tough part, so maybe thats why it gets skipped and simply asserted, so often, in opening remarks?