Vegetarianism: animal rights

Public morality is the foundation of law. If public morality is stifled by powerful selfish individuals who deny adequate education and lives to others at home or abroad then the law will reflect that evil power as in Hitlerism or Stalinism. The great majority of ordinary people want doctor assisted death to be available on demand with legal safeguards.There are societies of activists who spend their money and their time fund raising, and lobbying the politicians. It will not be long before the UK adopts the Oregon or Dutch model I hope and expect.

Animal welfare is not as easy to accomplish because fast food, unlike death, is big business. However what is on our side is self interest because it is more and more apparent that animal food is bad for us, especially cheaply produced animal food.

The ecological crisis will, if it continues longer than international tensions and megadeath, force the issue of vegetarian diets for all; except cats who, I understand, unlike us are not biologically equipped to enjoy vegetable food.

I consider vegetarianism as a light form of phobia towards meat.

I consider vegetarianism as a light form of phobia towards meat.

I used to do that. At least, if by "phobia" you mean something like:
"They probably never liked meat anyway; they're grossed out by the thought of it having been an animal; touchy-feely animal lovers; big heart but not too much rational thinking; naive"

The above about represents the view I had of vegetarians. Would anyone have asked me about vegans back then, I'd said that they were NUTS.

I always, regarding any subject, told people that I'm willing to change my opinions if they bring good arguments and evidence. When I started to think seriously about ethics and did some research on the conditions in the animal industry, I discovered that there are very compelling arguments for veganism. I had to live up to my own words, so I started reducing my consumption of animal products (I had been eating meat daily, lots of it). Initially, I thought it was impossible for me to become fully vegan, but I've managed to do it and it's much easier than I had thought.

So what I'm trying to say is that one should give the issue a serious chance. Some vegans use stupid arguments indeed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't good ones.

Do you understand the exact meaning and use of the term speciesism? It's discrimination based on species membership, and the claim is that this is equally arbitrary, and therefore unethical, than is sexism, racism or heterosexism.

Late-stage alzheimer patients, or human infants, have around the same level of awareness as pigs or cows. Why do we grant the former full protection, while we let the latter suffer for the ludicrous benefits of "taste, tradition or convenience"? Is it because they look different? Have they got the wrong number of legs? Were they born into the wrong body? Where's the morally relevant criterion?

Letting animals suffer unnecessarily is "cruelty to animals", which is illegal. But what does "unnecessary" mean here? We can live perfectly happily and healthy without consuming animal products. Why should it suddenly be okay to inflict suffering on animals when the issue is food? If we allow for an exception there, this would open the gates for all kinds of cruel behavior. How could a meat-eater condemn the bull-fighting traditions of Spain? How could a meat-eater even condemn it when some kids burn their cat for enjoyment?

Yes, people will say that "the animals have it so good, they don't suffer, they're humanely killed"... Bull****. In the US, 99% of animals raised for food purposes come from factory farms. 99%! Even if one happens to live in a country where animals are treated nicer (like I do), just think about transportation. Would we lock human infants in crowded trucks and drive them around for an hour, when conditions are often either pretty cold or pretty hot, when it's dark in the truck and they are scared? It's not uncommon that animals die during transportation, before the actual slaughtering, by the way. We certainly would NOT do this with members of the human species, no matter what sentient state they're in. And that's just ONE single issue where animals suffer in the whole process. And even animals on "nice farms" will have to be transported to their final destination. If we are to take anti-speciesism seriously, veganism is the only option that makes sense.

It's funny how, when you explain this to people, they'll come up with half-baked, desperate excuses. For instance "but if we didn't farm them, there'd be no cows, so we're doing them a favor!"
That's like saying "sure, I slap my kid pretty hard now and then, but it wouldn't exist if I hadn't had it." Also, if one were to apply this kind of thinking consistently, one would be obliged to produce the maximum amount of sentient life on earth. And this has some pretty repugnant implications.

And just to round up: Veganism is much better for the environment too, and it would help to solve world hunger if people stopped feeding insane amounts of grain and soy to animals instead of feeding them directly and about ten times more efficiently, to humans.

That's a short sketch of the case for veganism. I hope you like it.

I consider vegetarianism as a light form of phobia towards meat.

That has the moral equivalence of saying:

"I consider" abolitionism "as a light form of phobia towards" slavery.

"I consider" woman's rights "as a light form of phobia towards" sexism.

"I consider" democracy "as a light form of phobia towards" totalitarianism.

I consider vegetarianism as a light form of phobia towards meat.

That has the moral equivalence of saying:

"I consider" abolitionism "as a light form of phobia towards" slavery.

"I consider" woman's rights "as a light form of phobia towards" sexism.

"I consider" democracy "as a light form of phobia towards" totalitarianism.

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

You're cherry picking. The objection is that generally speaking we don't need animals for food albeit in particular situations. As a general condition it isn't necessary to eat animals. Just because the argument can be made that in survival mode we can justifiably eat animals doesn't mean the analogies don't hold any similarity.

Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

You're cherry picking. The objection is that generally speaking we don't need animals for food albeit in particular situations. As a general condition it isn't necessary to eat animals. Just because the argument can be made that in survival mode we can justifiably eat animals doesn't mean the analogies don't hold any similarity.

Here in Denmark we have very elaborate and hysterical heights of animal welfare, so just because some countries hasn't catched up, it should be a general rule? Navel gazing at ti's best!

Here in Denmark we have very elaborate and hysterical heights of animal welfare,

What does this statement have to do with:

so just because some countries hasn't catched up, it should be a general rule? Navel gazing at ti's best!

I do not understand your reasoning. Please clarify.

Does Denmark use teleporters to get animals into their slaughterhouse?

Do milk cows in Denmark never get mastitis?

Are male chicks not being gassed or shreddered in Denmark?

Do Danish slaughterhouses have 0% accident rates for slaughtering?

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

Please read my comment on speciesism again, in my last post here in this thread. There has been a time where blacks weren't considered "equals" to other humans.

Does Denmark use teleporters to get animals into their slaughterhouse?

Do milk cows in Denmark never get mastitis?

Are male chicks not being gassed or shreddered in Denmark?

Do Danish slaughterhouses have 0% accident rates for slaughtering?

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

Please read my comment on speciesism again, in my last post here in this thread. There has been a time where blacks weren't considered "equals" to other humans.

Outside in real life, animals are killed in horrific ways by predetors, go arrest all them predetors and put them in the zoo!

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

Equal in what way? If you take me into slavery, in what way are you taking an equal being into slavery? Obviously, there will be differences between us. For instance, my name, my looks, my age, my sex, my race, and so on, might all be different.

So my question is: in what way are two different beings equal?

(My own view is that any distinction is arbitrary and unjustified, and this applies between species' as well.)

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

If I can think of a situation in which slavery is justified, then does that make slavery morally right? Well, only in that situation. Same with eating meat. If eating meat is morally acceptable in some situation, then only in that situation is it acceptable.

All you have proved from that analogy is that eating meat is permissible in life-threatening situations; that is all.

Outside in real life, animals are killed in horrific ways by predetors, go arrest all them predetors and put them in the zoo!

Animals are not moral agents like we are. They cannot be held accountable for their actions. But they are moral subjects and can be acted upon just like infants or the severely cognitively impaired. So it does matter what we do to them even if we cannot hold them morally responsible for what they do. That is a big difference.

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

Equal in what way? If you take me into slavery, in what way are you taking an equal being into slavery? Obviously, there will be differences between us. For instance, my name, my looks, my age, my sex, my race, and so on, might all be different.

So my question is: in what way are two different beings equal?

(My own view is that any distinction is arbitrary and unjustified, and this applies between species' as well.)

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

If I can think of a situation in which slavery is justified, then does that make slavery morally right? Well, only in that situation. Same with eating meat. If eating meat is morally acceptable in some situation, then only in that situation is it acceptable.

All you have proved from that analogy is that eating meat is permissible in life-threatening situations; that is all.

I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't seem very coherent to me, so I won't bother answering it.

-- Updated Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:38 pm to add the following --

Outside in real life, animals are killed in horrific ways by predetors, go arrest all them predetors and put them in the zoo!

Animals are not moral agents like we are. They cannot be held accountable for their actions. But they are moral subjects and can be acted upon just like infants or the severely cognitively impaired. So it does matter what we do to them even if we cannot hold them morally responsible for what they do. That is a big difference.

Only when humans have abundance of money and food, they will resort to navel gazing thoughts, have sickly thinking that will result in elaborate nonsens at times. People who are poor act more rationally towards the veg vs meat problem, it usually doesn't exist for them, as beggars can't choose.

The Romans became so lazy and decadent that they wouldn't bother chewing their food thus everything was mashed up, the same kind of weird behaviour befalls our decadent western life, as our behaviour and thinking becomes increasingly more irrational, we precive overly obese people as "normal", when it's a very serious abnormal condition, the same I say about the vege thing, Hitler was a vegetarian!

You don't understand the concept of differenciating. Slavery is taken an equal being into possenssion, and forcing it to submission ..etc, when animals isn't the equals to humans.

Equal in what way? If you take me into slavery, in what way are you taking an equal being into slavery? Obviously, there will be differences between us. For instance, my name, my looks, my age, my sex, my race, and so on, might all be different.

So my question is: in what way are two different beings equal?

(My own view is that any distinction is arbitrary and unjustified, and this applies between species' as well.)

In survival situations killing and eating animals wouldn't be considerd inappropiate, contrary slavery isn't nessesary in any situation.

If I can think of a situation in which slavery is justified, then does that make slavery morally right? Well, only in that situation. Same with eating meat. If eating meat is morally acceptable in some situation, then only in that situation is it acceptable.

All you have proved from that analogy is that eating meat is permissible in life-threatening situations; that is all.

I'm sorry, but what you say doesn't seem very coherent to me, so I won't bother answering it.

What? It doesn't seem "coherent" because you don't understand what I am saying, or because you didn't read it?

Only when humans have abundance of money and food, they will resort to navel gazing thoughts, have sickly thinking that will result in elaborate nonsens at times. People who are poor act more rationally towards the veg vs meat problem, it usually doesn't exist for them, as beggars can't choose.

The Romans became so lazy and decadent that they wouldn't bother chewing their food thus everything was mashed up, the same kind of weird behaviour befalls our decadent western life, as our behaviour and thinking becomes increasingly more irrational, we precive overly obese people as "normal", when it's a very serious abnormal condition, the same I say about the vege thing, Hitler was a vegetarian!

Look, that is not an argument. Most of what you just said is irrelevant.

But if you are interested in the facts, then consider this: the UN noted that we should eat a vegan diet for several reasons. One of those reasons was that meat production contributes to the world's hunger as we have to feed the animals food that would be more effective at combating hunger. It is something like 700 calories of grain for every 100 calories of meat.

Look, that is not an argument. Most of what you just said is irrelevant.

But if you are interested in the facts, then consider this: the UN noted that we should eat a vegan diet for several reasons. One of those reasons was that meat production contributes to the world's hunger as we have to feed the animals food that would be more effective at combating hunger. It is something like 700 calories of grain for every 100 calories of meat.

I can't make a sound debate with you. I will stop argue with you.