quote:

---

The bear is absolutely not immoral because she eats meat. She eats meat because she simply could not survive otherwise. She doesn't even have a choice to, or not to eat flesh. We humans on the other hand, have been gifted with the biological choice of diet; We're omnivores. We can eat meat and we can eat vegetables.

---

Actually, bears are omnivores too, and given a bear's average territory or 40+ square miles, there is often ample vegetation to sustain their health. Bears eat meat because they like to, not because they have to.

quote:

---

If most people saw the process of slaughter many eating habits would change.

---

Actually, i'd think that there would be a call for stricter regualtion of the most negligent farms, similar to what happened after the publication of "The Jungle". People would still go on eating all the meat they want. I get leaflets and the like, I ignore them. They're propaganda. I've already chosen my side and collected the facts i need to make my decision.

Lennon (not Lenin, big difference) was good with witty quips.
But of course: "A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire

Nothing against Lennon of course.

"is the bear morally wrong in eating meat? if not why is a person"

The bear is absolutely not immoral because she eats meat. She eats meat because she simply could not survive otherwise. She doesn't even have a choice to, or not to eat flesh. We humans on the other hand, have been gifted with the biological choice of diet; We're omnivores. We can eat meat and we can eat vegetables. However, humans can't live a healthy life off of soley flesh. Vegetables, provide all of the nutrition needed for longevity and health. Due to this fact, the slaughtering of animals for food is not necessary. We all agree that unnecessary suffering is the worst kind. Thus vegetarianism is the answer to minimizing the plethora of unnecessary suffering in the world.



"most people do know where there meat comes from"
This comment is true, technically. People know that meat comes from the flesh of a once living animal. That's about all that the general public knows about their food. I've leafletted information regarding factory farm conditions (which account for about 95% of America's meat products) around D.C.'s most populated areas. You'd be surprised at how little people know about what happens to their food before it gets on their plates. There is a definite sense of separation between the idea of the breathing, conscious, moving animal, and the sirloin steak on the plate. If most people saw the process of slaughter many eating habits would change. In the words of John Lenin, " If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians".

"And the shoe fits you so nicely. You're blithering on about how "AR people do this", but in argumentation stereotyping and prejusdice is a fault. Maybe in your own little world you get to have irrational feelings about groups, but don't bring your crap here. It really does make you look stupid."

actually the one looking stupid is you. you attempt to talk down to people yet your "logic" has no logic. it is not my own little world in anyway. it is obvious that you have no experience first hand in any of the subjects. i have been in the animal business for many years, i have dealt with AR people, animal welfare people, rescues, breeders etc on a first hand basis and i call it as i see it. the majority of AR people have no idea what they are talking about, they twist the truth, and they talk around the subject, just as you are doing. it is that simple.

"Yet you refuse continually to actually point anything out or challenge it."

i have, yoiu refuse to acknowledge it because you know you are wrong.

"How?!!?"

already been explained

"I only respond to what I see. You made a completely irrelevant point, I pointed this out. You're avoiding talking about the real issue here. I didn't put any more words in your mouth than were already there. You can look at the quotes yourself.
Everything I posted responded specifically and directly to a point you made. "

wrong, you had things that were not mentioned or things that are completely different than what i was talking about. you might want to stick to the point.

"What facts?!? You haven't said any!
I'm not interpreting your post, there's nothing to interpret. If you're not getting the right response maybe you should try to be a little more clear or direct"

maybe you just need to learn how to read. and as far as being direct, i think that would fall more towards you. you can't seem to directly answer anything.

"The point is what is morally relevant about a species. You said the capacity to choose to act morally. So I gave you examples of humans that can't morally reason either. We're not talking rocket science. It's not that hard.
Get out of you're little hole. This is the point.
Until you find some measure to adequately differnentiate humans from otehr animals it's nothing more than racism redux."

see what i mean about adding things? once again you add things. i said morality was invented by people. do you disagree? obviously it is that hard for you because you can't seem to follow simple sentences. the rest of what you said is nothing more than babble. if you don't know or understand the differences then you need to go back to school. as far as racist, once again more AR BS.

"So you work in a circus. So what?
Why don't they eat meat?
How frequently do they?
What are you trying to prove?"

first, where did i say i work in a circus? more assumptions on your part. second, you would have to ask the bears that. third, some eat meat quite often some almost never. fourth, my point is just because animals (including us) can live without meat,they choose not to and there is nothing wrong with that. is the bear morally wrong in eating meat? if not why is a person. before you mention the wild, what if a bear in captivity is given both meat and vegetables to eat and it only eats the meat, is it morally wrong then? that is another fault in AR "everything is equal" theories, if it is not wrong for a bear to eat meat, then humans, who according to you are no different than a bear, should be allowed to eat it and not be wrong as well.

"It'd really be nice if I didn't have to walk you thru this:
I said Bears don't amke the moral choice to eat meat or not. You said they do (condradicting yourself in the process). Thus you're now arguing in support of your position that bears are making a moral choice to not eat meat. Why are you doing this? Who knows.
I figure it has something to do with you wanting to flash some irrelevant knowledge off. Of course, I'm admittedly embittered by needing to lay this whole thing out for you and get around your prejudices against animal rights people."

see you made that up as well. you said "Bears don't make that choice. They live in "the wild", humans do not. Most humans will never face needing to kill for food, nor will they ever eat the things they kill"

i don't see morality mentioned any where? so where did you say that? and where am i saying they make a "moral" choice? i said they make a choice whether or not to eat meat. that is all i said. never was morality mentioned. so tell me again how you don't add anything to my posts?
as for the second part of your post, more babble, and nothing more.

"I think you're confusing yourself and you need to pick which arguments you really want to keep going. Either that or read my posts more carfully. I didn't think it was so hard to understand, and again, I'd be glad to explain anything that is confusing."

judging from the above quote, i think it is you that needs to read the posts more carefully.

"I find a morally relevant differance between seeing what you kill and blindly supporting the violence"

BS

"Just like I'd feel better if those in the government calling for war, would suit up and fight with them instead of shouting orders from thousands of miles away."

i'm not saying i support war, but just FYI, many of the people calling for war have been in wars before. IN them, Not thousands of miles away.

"It has to do with informed consent. Whether people would make the same chocies if they were fully informed. I don't think people really know what it takes to put the meat in the store, but if they hunt and killed on their own they would be making a fully informed choice about what it takes for them to eat meat"

ok now it shows that you have no grip on reality. most people do know where there meat comes from. i don't know any people that think there is some magical "meat tree" where some one can go pick a steak off of it. they know animals die so they can have their meat. so yes, they are informed. probably more than you if you believe all the AR lies and exhagerations.

"No, i'm giving you a way out."

i don't need a way out. i think it is you that is trying to find a way out.

" , just that there is a moral differance between doing the killing and blindly funding it"

why?

"That too is relevant. The means of their life and death and whetehr they were allowed to flourish, that is lead the 'good' life for what type of creature they are."

first thing you said that i can agree with.

"You would think that initially, but, like race, this is a superficial concern. What is a morally relevant difference? Without justification all you are is a modern-day racist"

look at that, more name calling when you have been proven wrong. you would not think that initially,you would think that all the time because that is his point. everything is equal and should be treated the same. thus for everything to be equal it should apply to ALL animals, if it can't apply to ALL animals it is flawed.

"Why does it matter that they aren't human? I'd admit I'm wrong if you had shown any reason to beleive that "different species" is any more relevant than "different gender" or different height"."

you would not admit you were wrong no matter what the case was. we both know that.i have shown you why different species is more relevant. you just can't except it.

"But that is the poit, that you're stuck in this mindset that you must separate the species like some KKK person would think you have to differentiate betwen the races.
This is how I'm trying to get you to understad that."

more AR BS. racism has nothing to do with what is being discussed , and the fact that you have to make childish comparisons show you are immature and know you view is not logical. and no it is not the point.

"On a morally relevant they are the same."

but that is only YOUR opinion.

"But what part of his theories are we discussing......? Vegitarianism!
If we were debating all of his theories we'd have to tlak about world hunger and the writings of Hegel. They are all branches of his same theory, the same rules are applied. But we're not debating those, so stick to the point."

see you can't grasp the fact that all of his animal theories are relevant to this discussion. because that is how he comes to the conclusion that vegetarianism is the "right" thing.

"Completely irrelevant. Regardless, popular opinion of his postion is irrelevant as well. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it wrong."

see what you don't understand is just because you DO accept it does not make it RIGHT either.

"It's an end-round around actually debating his theory. Instead you pick one of the most un-PC parts of his theory and point at it as deviant as if that somehow makes him wrong. There is no argument, you're not arguing against it, you're merely ridiculing it. It's weak.
I don't have to defend it to win the animal rights debate. Or, since you lack argumentation o the animal rights debate, according to your logic, I win this debate too, without ever needing to directly support it. All I do is prove the nucleus of his argument and regardless of how queasy it make you feel, this goes along with it. Deal with it."

no you have not even made a valid point so you have won nothing. you simply feel that because you believe in what he says that both you and him are right. that is the only thing that is weak in this debate.

"So argue about animal rights! Geez, don't argue about the minor branches."

once again running and hiding OR you are to dumb to see the point.

"It's not my job to make your argument for you. You look it up."

you see, i have looked it up and read about it. that is why i know it to be the truth. you however, will not look it up because you know once you do your argument is null and void. many AR people are like you. they will preach and preach, without actually don't their homework on a topic. that is why they always look dumb when presented with the truth.

"Adultery is legal. Is it immoral?
Recreational drug use is illegal. If it harms no one, is it immoral?
Lying is legal, is it moral?
Oral sex between married people is illegal. Is it immoral?
Laws are different everywhere. Whose law do we use?
If murder was legal would it make it moral?
So, I say again, regardless of legal status, what is the difference"

everything you mentioned is considered both morally fine and immoral depending on where you are and who you talk to. so like i said before, you are only stating your opinion on what YOU think is "right". BTW every example you gave is only partially correct.

"Slughterhouses don't eat what they kill"

um yes they do. do they get their meat from the magical meat tree or something?

"Just because the consumer says they value life doesn't mean they really do."

so now your a mind reader too.. WOW

"They don't fully understand their actions"

really, they don't understand them eh? explain?

" If it does, then there is a source of it. If we agree murder is wrong, we work from there. And we're back to right here."

right we agree murder is wrong because the majority of the world believes it to be morally wrong. however the majority of the world believes eating animals is not morally wrong, so what was your point again?

"I would like that."

i'm sure you would. that would be the only way for you to force your childish logic on people.

"What, you think you should get to decide for him?"

you feel YOU should. isn't that what you just said?

"Oh wait, I just did."

no you said what "YOU" think is right or wrong. not what actually is or is not.

"You have done more for animals? Like "train"? Make them entertianment? Make them pets and slaves?"

see you are an AR idiot. i have helped pass welfare laws, rescued, saved the lives of many, saved many from abuse, educated people on the truth, and much much more. slaves huh? you are an idiot. i'm guessing you belong to the joke of the AR movement, PETA.

"Why not?"

because it is not needless killing.

"Even if everyone in the world agreed, it wouldn't amke you right."

you need to get your views straight. murder is wrong because the majority of the world feels it is wrong. and you agree with that. yet if the majority of the world disagrees with you, somehow now they are all wrong? give me a break. talk about weak!

"It's perfectly valid, If what you're saying is that how we use what we kill is what is morally important, then we can kill anything as long as we use it well. I'm jst showing you what you're arguing for. If you don't like it, maybe you should rethink your position."

no you are arguing from an illogical standpoint. humans were never bred for food for one thing. also, it goes back to common logic and the food chain. we are on top and i guess that just makes you mad.. you are also talking morality, so in using your own logic, it would be wrong.. since you like to discuss morality so much, humans invented morals, so that is why we don't eat each other.

"The animals will still die from you eating your cereal as much as the vegitarian eating their veggie burger. Yet for some reason you want ot claim the moral high ground."

once again making BS statements. AR people are the ones that claim to have moral high ground by making claims that animals should not be killed for food. yet millions are killed so they can eat a veggie burger and call ME a killer. i accept the fact that animals are dying for food. i don't go around calling vegetarians murderers. get your facts straight before you talk, it will help you not to look so dumb.

"And very litle of the animal is acually used either. "

once again your lack of knowledge shines through. lets see, they use the bones, the meat, the organs, the hide, the horns if there are any. the hooves are also used.. so what else is there?

"I have little problem coming to grips with being an immoral person. It's not hypocritical"

yes it is when you condemn others for doing the same thing you yourself do!

"Becasue you offer an irrational and unreasoned critique of the animal rigths position, and regardless of whether I agree with you I won't let you be right for teh wrong reasons, out of stupidity rather than logic."

you are the one making irrational and illogical claims and arguments..

" My ability to live up to my own standards is irrelevant."

once again it is completely relevant when you condemn others for acting in a way that is identical to the way you act yourself.

"No christian is without sin or immorality, but they don't quit religion and that they can't live up to the high standards isn't a valid reason to say they're wrong."

your right "IF" they don't go around condemning others for acting as they themselves act. if they do, then they are hypocrites and thus have nothing to stand on when condemning others. and in doing that it makes THEM wrong.

quote:

---

"Great, I see you've mastered stereotyes, gross genrealizations and ad hominem arguments as a method of getting your point across...joy."
if the shoe fits... i have spoken with many AR people and the majority of them do just as you have been doing.. talking around what has been said. they don't seem to see actual logic and facts in topics.. they simply make up their own version of what was said and try and agrue it that way... so no it is not the mastering of stereotypes it is simply drawing from personal experience..

---

And the shoe fits you so nicely. You're blithering on about how "AR people do this", but in argumentation stereotyping and prejusdice is a fault. Maybe in your own little world you get to have irrational feelings about groups, but don't bring your crap here. It really does make you look stupid.

quote:

---

"Why this matters I don't understand. You'd really do this much to avoid actually responding to the man? Pity.
You try to get around actually making a point by taking on the messenger.
Singer didn't brainwash people into murderous rages. At least when you amke a comparison, get your facts straight"
no once again you are trying to aviod what i was saying.. i know much about singer and his so called logic..

---

Yet you refuse continually to actually point anything out or challenge it.

quote:

---

once again it is flawed...

---

How?!!?

quote:

---

you add words to posts that were not there..

---

I only respond to what I see. You made a completely irrelevant point, I pointed this out. You're avoiding talking about the real issue here. I didn't put any more words in your mouth than were already there. You can look at the quotes yourself.
Everything I posted responded specifically and directly to a point you made.

quote:

---

i simply pointed out that you were incorrect in your interpretation of my post... my facts were 100% correct.. i think you know that.

---

What facts?!? You haven't said any!
I'm not interpreting your post, there's nothing to interpret. If you're not getting the right response maybe you should try to be a little more clear or direct.

quote:

---

"However, you don't get the renown, position and stature when you're a know-nothing GA. "
many renowned professors have the same opinion about him that i do.. so then who would be right according to your theory?

---

Point them out. At least they might have logical critiques...

quote:

---

"Infants, the mentally impaired and the elderly, among others, aren't able to morally reason either. You suggest we eat them?"
another example of talking around the point... see you are talking about the same species.. so that would be invalid.. nothing but a cut and paste AR remark.

---

The point is what is morally relevant about a species. You said the capacity to choose to act morally. So I gave you examples of humans that can't morally reason either. We're not talking rocket science. It's not that hard.
Get out of you're little hole. This is the point.
Until you find some measure to adequately differnentiate humans from otehr animals it's nothing more than racism redux.

quote:

---

What are these "many places"? And is this simply a diverse diet or strict vegitarianism?
You said yourself they can't make moral decisions like choosing meat or no meat, now you're saying they do. Which is it?
first if you have to ask this question you don't know much about bears.. i work with exotics both in the wild and in captivity... i have a little bit of experience on this topic... just so you know.. in many areas of the south east black bears almost never eat meat. yet they could very easily.. check it out your self..

---

So you work in a circus. So what?
Why don't they eat meat?
How frequently do they?
What are you trying to prove?

quote:

---

as for the second part of your comment.. where did i say it was a moral decision? see you again are making up your own reality of the comment...

---

It'd really be nice if I didn't have to walk you thru this:
I said Bears don't amke the moral choice to eat meat or not. You said they do (condradicting yourself in the process). Thus you're now arguing in support of your position that bears are making a moral choice to not eat meat. Why are you doing this? Who knows.
I figure it has something to do with you wanting to flash some irrelevant knowledge off. Of course, I'm admittedly embittered by needing to lay this whole thing out for you and get around your prejudices against animal rights people.

quote:

---

they simply make a choice, morals has nothing to do with it... try and keep up...

---

I think you're confusing yourself and you need to pick which arguments you really want to keep going. Either that or read my posts more carfully. I didn't think it was so hard to understand, and again, I'd be glad to explain anything that is confusing.

quote:

---

"If a hunter only eats meat that he hunts and eats the meat he hunts this is more moraly acceptable than the person who simply buys ground chuck in saran wrap."
why? is the deer somehow less dead than the cow?

---

I find a morally relevant differance between seeing what you kill and blindly supporting the violence. Just like I'd feel better if those in the government calling for war, would suit up and fight with them instead of shouting orders from thousands of miles away. It has to do with informed consent. Whether people would make the same chocies if they were fully informed. I don't think people really know what it takes to put the meat in the store, but if they hunt and killed on their own they would be making a fully informed choice about what it takes for them to eat meat.

quote:

---

in saying eating animals in one instance is better than eating them under a different circumstance. you are contradicting your stance that people should not eat animals..

---

No, i'm giving you a way out.
I'm not saying eating meat is right just like I'm not saying oging to war is right, just that there is a moral differance between doing the killing and blindly funding it. A lesser evil.

quote:

---

maybe if you were talking about types of slaughter it might hold water but as it stands it does not.

---

That too is relevant. The means of their life and death and whetehr they were allowed to flourish, that is lead the 'good' life for what type of creature they are.

quote:

---

"We can debate fesibility if that means you accept that morally you agree with me.
And please try to explain your points, your spelling is fine, but i'm not sure these are complete thoughts or sentences and it makes it hard to understand and thus limits the ability to rationally debate.
Your example of the wolves and the deer, translated to humans is that, because one group doesn't eat meat, the other people shouldn't eat meat. This is clearly not the point at all and I don't see where you're getting this from."
have you even read singer?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

the fact that humans are different, black, white, smart stupid, handicapped etc but we all recieve the same rights, and are seen as equal. this is his basis on animal rights. just because animals are different does not mean they should not be given certain rights.. so in looking at the deer wolf statement it makes a perfect point that his idea would work nowhere in nature and no species of animal follows this behavior..

---

We can call animals immoral. It's simple.
But still, if you want to debate feisibility, fine, but you've acepted the principle. But the moral rule against killing stands. Just becasue people don't follow it doesn't make it any less right.

quote:

---

thus if all the wolves in a pack are different but they are treated the same, why should the wolves treat deer any different? should they treat them just as they treat the members of the pack? the concept is flawed because he is talking about different species. a dog is not the same has a kinkajou, and a kinkajou is not the same as a person... etc etc etc

---

You would think that initially, but, like race, this is a superficial concern. What is a morally relevant difference? Without justification all you are is a modern-day racist.

quote:

---

"All whites are white, all blacks are not white, therefore they are not the same nor equal...And when after the Holocaust did we start accepting this thinking as correct?
Call them what names you want, it's bigotry. There was a time when blacks were thought of as no more than animals, property, pets, entertainment.
You still have not demonstrated why his arguments fail (or even answered the pieces of the article I presented)"
i have demonstrated it but you wont allow yourself to admit it... all whites are whites all blacks are not whites.... this point is not a valid argument due to the fact both blacks and whites are humans.. just as chihuahuas and pitbulls are both dogs, yet niether are humans..

---

Why does it matter that they aren't human? I'd admit I'm wrong if you had shown any reason to beleive that "different species" is any more relevant than "different gender" or different height".

quote:

---

you can't make comaprisons within the same species to illustrate his point.

---

But that is the poit, that you're stuck in this mindset that you must separate the species like some KKK person would think you have to differentiate betwen the races.
This is how I'm trying to get you to understad that.

quote:

---

you must say armadillos and whites are the same.. or you are not discussing his point.

---

On a morally relevant they are the same.

quote:

---

"Right, because that makes sense... Anything "based on animals" is special. Having sex with animals isn't what we're discussing and it is of no importance to this. If you want to point out why this has any direct connection to the topic of eating meat, feel free to do so. But all you're doing now is talking bad about someone you don't like in hopes of damaging his charachter when you can't damage his arguments. It's weak."
it is very valid because singers main point is animal rights not just vegetarianism. that is only a part of his actual theory.

---

But what part of his theories are we discussing......? Vegitarianism!
If we were debating all of his theories we'd have to tlak about world hunger and the writings of Hegel. They are all branches of his same theory, the same rules are applied. But we're not debating those, so stick to the point.

quote:

---

thus the fact that he feels animal are so much our equal that we should be able to have sex with them proves his entire animal rights views as a whole are a bit on the odd if not insane side..

---

Completely irrelevant. Regardless, popular opinion of his postion is irrelevant as well. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it wrong.

quote:

---

in only taking a small part of his theory(vegetarianism)which comes to be through his entire view on animal rights is simply picking and choosing.so therefore it is not "weak".

---

It's an end-round around actually debating his theory. Instead you pick one of the most un-PC parts of his theory and point at it as deviant as if that somehow makes him wrong. There is no argument, you're not arguing against it, you're merely ridiculing it. It's weak.
I don't have to defend it to win the animal rights debate. Or, since you lack argumentation o the animal rights debate, according to your logic, I win this debate too, without ever needing to directly support it. All I do is prove the nucleus of his argument and regardless of how queasy it make you feel, this goes along with it. Deal with it.

quote:

---

his view on being vegetarian would not have come about without his entire theory of animal rights, so all points of his theory are valid to this discussion.

---

So argue about animal rights! Geez, don't argue about the minor branches.

quote:

---

"Prove it."
look it up, they react differently to insect bites than they do being cut with sissors. they react when other plants that could threaten their survival grow to near. they respond to food landing on them. they repond diferently to different types of music. a large study was done on that and found to be true.. look it up..

---

It's not my job to make your argument for you. You look it up.

quote:

---

"they reap the profits of their slaugter. Is that any different from a hired killing simply because they didn't do it themselves. "
yes very much so..one, killing animals for food is legal, murder is not.

---

Adultery is legal. Is it immoral?
Recreational drug use is illegal. If it harms no one, is it immoral?
Lying is legal, is it moral?
Oral sex between married people is illegal. Is it immoral?
Laws are different everywhere. Whose law do we use?
If murder was legal would it make it moral?
So, I say again, regardless of legal status, what is the difference?

quote:

---

two, they are killing to eat not killing just to kill. so on and so on.

---

Slughterhouses don't eat what they kill, the consumer doesn't kill what they eat.
Just because the consumer says they value life doesn't mean they really do. Their actions are the telling factor. They don't fully understand their actions, which is why I advocate killing what meat you want to eat.

quote:

---

"It's simply about what is right and what is wrong."
and who defines "right and wrong"? you?

---

You'd feel differntly if you got to be the one? Then we'd get to ask you who dictates what is moral. Unless you want to say morality doesn't exist. If it does, then there is a source of it. If we agree murder is wrong, we work from there. And we're back to right here.

quote:

---

you feel you should have the power to decide what is right and wrong for everyone on the planet?

---

I would like that.

quote:

---

maybe singer? should he be allowed to decide for everybody? maybe me?

---

What, you think you should get to decide for him?
How far do you go down the slide? If no one can acertain what is moral, why is murder wrong?

quote:

---

the fact of the matter is you cannot say that it is right or wrong,

---

Oh wait, I just did.

quote:

---

because it is nothing more than your opinion. just as my opinion differs from yours. in dealing with AR groups i have found i have done more for animals than the AR people who call me a murderer because i eat animals.

---

You have done more for animals? Like "train"? Make them entertianment? Make them pets and slaves?

quote:

---

i feel that if people took cows to a slaughter house killed them and just threw away their bodies, that would be wrong! but to kill them for food is not wrong..

---

Why not?

quote:

---

and the majority of the world(including animal lovers) agrees with me on this.

---

Even if everyone in the world agreed, it wouldn't amke you right.

quote:

---

"So we can kill humans as long as we use their skins and eat the meat we kill?"
once again not a valid argument...

---

It's perfectly valid, If what you're saying is that how we use what we kill is what is morally important, then we can kill anything as long as we use it well. I'm jst showing you what you're arguing for. If you don't like it, maybe you should rethink your position.

quote:

---

"You'd rather we not grow crops?"
see once again, you talk around the issue.. if people say we should not kill animals for food, they have to take into consideration that they themselves are killing animals for food, but in a much more brutal and wasteful way..

---

The animals will still die from you eating your cereal as much as the vegitarian eating their veggie burger. Yet for some reason you want ot claim the moral high ground.
The solution is to not kill the animals, not just point out that they're dying.

quote:

---

it is hypocritical at best.. at least the animal i ate was killed humanely and it was used,

---

Few animals live, let alone die humanely. And very litle of the animal is acually used either.

quote:

---

where as the animals that died for their tofu, or corn, was killed in a painful way and was simply thrown aside.

---

Hey, it's your corn too. And your bread, and your pasta, and so on.
Again, why does that make it right that they die?

quote:

---

"I hate veggie burgers. I'm not a vegitarian."
then you are a hypocrite if you feel animals should not be killed for food..

---

I have little problem coming to grips with being an immoral person. It's not hypocritical. I'm not sayig you can't be immoral too. I think you *are* immoral. You just care.
I would like to train myself to not eat meat, but it's a slow process.

quote:

---

so why are we having this conversation?

---

Becasue you offer an irrational and unreasoned critique of the animal rigths position, and regardless of whether I agree with you I won't let you be right for teh wrong reasons, out of stupidity rather than logic.
We're having this debate because it's a good one to have.

quote:

---

you obviously don't live up to your own moral standards so why should anyone listen to you?

---

Becaue regardless of my personal morality, it's still the moral way to go. My ability to live up to my own standards is irrelevant.
No christian is without sin or immorality, but they don't quit religion and that they can't live up to the high standards isn't a valid reason to say they're wrong.

"Great, I see you've mastered stereotyes, gross genrealizations and ad hominem arguments as a method of getting your point across...joy."

if the shoe fits... i have spoken with many AR people and the majority of them do just as you have been doing.. talking around what has been said. they don't seem to see actual logic and facts in topics.. they simply make up their own version of what was said and try and agrue it that way... so no it is not the mastering of stereotypes it is simply drawing from personal experience..

"Why this matters I don't understand. You'd really do this much to avoid actually responding to the man? Pity.
You try to get around actually making a point by taking on the messenger.
Singer didn't brainwash people into murderous rages. At least when you amke a comparison, get your facts straight"

no once again you are trying to aviod what i was saying.. i know much about singer and his so called logic.. once again it is flawed... you add words to posts that were not there.. i simply pointed out that you were incorrect in your interpretation of my post... my facts were 100% correct.. i think you know that.

"However, you don't get the renown, position and stature when you're a know-nothing GA. "

many renowned professors have the same opinion about him that i do.. so then who would be right according to your theory?

"Infants, the mentally impaired and the elderly, among others, aren't able to morally reason either. You suggest we eat them?"

another example of talking around the point... see you are talking about the same species.. so that would be invalid.. nothing but a cut and paste AR remark.

What are these "many places"? And is this simply a diverse diet or strict vegitarianism?
You said yourself they can't make moral decisions like choosing meat or no meat, now you're saying they do. Which is it?

first if you have to ask this question you don't know much about bears.. i work with exotics both in the wild and in captivity... i have a little bit of experience on this topic... just so you know.. in many areas of the south east black bears almost never eat meat. yet they could very easily.. check it out your self..
as for the second part of your comment.. where did i say it was a moral decision? see you again are making up your own reality of the comment... they simply make a choice, morals has nothing to do with it... try and keep up...

"If a hunter only eats meat that he hunts and eats the meat he hunts this is more moraly acceptable than the person who simply buys ground chuck in saran wrap."

why? is the deer somehow less dead than the cow? in saying eating animals in one instance is better than eating them under a different circumstance. you are contradicting your stance that people should not eat animals.. maybe if you were talking about types of slaughter it might hold water but as it stands it does not.

"We can debate fesibility if that means you accept that morally you agree with me.
And please try to explain your points, your spelling is fine, but i'm not sure these are complete thoughts or sentences and it makes it hard to understand and thus limits the ability to rationally debate.
Your example of the wolves and the deer, translated to humans is that, because one group doesn't eat meat, the other people shouldn't eat meat. This is clearly not the point at all and I don't see where you're getting this from."

have you even read singer?the fact that humans are different, black, white, smart stupid, handicapped etc but we all recieve the same rights, and are seen as equal. this is his basis on animal rights. just because animals are different does not mean they should not be given certain rights.. so in looking at the deer wolf statement it makes a perfect point that his idea would work nowhere in nature and no species of animal follows this behavior.. thus if all the wolves in a pack are different but they are treated the same, why should the wolves treat deer any different? should they treat them just as they treat the members of the pack? the concept is flawed because he is talking about different species. a dog is not the same has a kinkajou, and a kinkajou is not the same as a person... etc etc etc

"All whites are white, all blacks are not white, therefore they are not the same nor equal...And when after the Holocaust did we start accepting this thinking as correct?
Call them what names you want, it's bigotry. There was a time when blacks were thought of as no more than animals, property, pets, entertainment.
You still have not demonstrated why his arguments fail (or even answered the pieces of the article I presented)"

i have demonstrated it but you wont allow yourself to admit it... all whites are whites all blacks are not whites.... this point is not a valid argument due to the fact both blacks and whites are humans.. just as chihuahuas and pitbulls are both dogs, yet niether are humans.. you can't make comaprisons within the same species to illustrate his point. you must say armadillos and whites are the same.. or you are not discussing his point.

"Right, because that makes sense... Anything "based on animals" is special. Having sex with animals isn't what we're discussing and it is of no importance to this. If you want to point out why this has any direct connection to the topic of eating meat, feel free to do so. But all you're doing now is talking bad about someone you don't like in hopes of damaging his charachter when you can't damage his arguments. It's weak."

it is very valid because singers main point is animal rights not just vegetarianism. that is only a part of his actual theory. thus the fact that he feels animal are so much our equal that we should be able to have sex with them proves his entire animal rights views as a whole are a bit on the odd if not insane side.. in only taking a small part of his theory(vegetarianism)which comes to be through his entire view on animal rights is simply picking and choosing.so therefore it is not "weak". his view on being vegetarian would not have come about without his entire theory of animal rights, so all points of his theory are valid to this discussion.

"Prove it."

look it up, they react differently to insect bites than they do being cut with sissors. they react when other plants that could threaten their survival grow to near. they respond to food landing on them. they repond diferently to different types of music. a large study was done on that and found to be true.. look it up..

"they reap teh profits of their slaugter. Is that any different from a hired killing simply because they didn't do it themselves. "

yes very much so..one, killing animals for food is legal, murder is not.two, they are killing to eat not killing just to kill. so on and so on.

"It's simply about what is right and what is wrong."

and who defines "right and wrong"? you? you feel you should have the power to decide what is right and wrong for everyone on the planet? maybe singer? should he be allowed to decide for everybody? maybe me? should i be allowed to make those choices? the fact of the matter is you cannot say that it is right or wrong, because it is nothing more than your opinion. just as my opinion differs from yours. in dealing with AR groups i have found i have done more for animals than the AR people who call me a murderer because i eat animals. and call me an abuser because i train animals.. i feel that if people took cows to a slaughter house killed them and just threw away their bodies, that would be wrong! but to kill them for food is not wrong.. and the majority of the world(including animal lovers) agrees with me on this.

"So we can kill humans as long as we use their skins and eat the meat we kill?"

once again not a valid argument...

"You'd rather we not grow crops?"

see once again, you talk around the issue.. if people say we should not kill animals for food, they have to take into consideration that they themselves are killing animals for food, but in a much more brutal and wasteful way.. it is hypocritical at best.. at least the animal i ate was killed humanely and it was used, where as the animals that died for their tofu, or corn, was killed in a painful way and was simply thrown aside.

"I hate veggie burgers. I'm not a vegitarian."

then you are a hypocrite if you feel animals should not be killed for food.. so why are we having this conversation? you obviously don't live up to your own moral standards so why should anyone listen to you?

quote:

---

first i see you use the AR way of arguing, which is talking around the oint to make your own point... i never said manson was a professor i said an accomplished author.. se what i mean about how you talk around the point..

---

Great, I see you've mastered stereotyes, gross genrealizations and ad hominem arguments as a method of getting your point across...joy.
What one was supposed to get from my response is your attempt at equating Singer and Manson as extremely faulty based on the complete dfference between them.
Either way, if Manson was capable of writing like Singer I would suggest you consider his arguments too.

quote:

---

singer has not killed people BUT the groups that follow his teaching have, same as manson.. manson was never foung guilty of actually killing anyone.. he was guilty of murder through other people.. at least get your facts straight...

---

Why this matters I don't understand. You'd really do this much to avoid actually responding to the man? Pity.
You try to get around actually making a point by taking on the messenger.
Singer didn't brainwash people into murderous rages. At least when you amke a comparison, get your facts straight.

quote:

---

the fact that he is a professor means nothing either.. many proffessors teach classes that have no validity... have you ever seen some of the courses you can take in school i rest my case.. but prove nothing...

---

How true.
However, you don't get the renown, position and stature when you're a know-nothing GA.

quote:

---

"You mean he's tlaking about humans and animals? Yes. that's the point. What is moraly relevant about humans as opposed to other animals?"
first morality was invented by people. the point is no ther animal in nature follows his principle..

---

Infants, the mentally impaired and the elderly, among others, aren't able to morally reason either. You suggest we eat them?

quote:

---

"Bears don't make that choice. They live in "the wild", humans do not. Most humans will never face needing to kill for food, nor will they ever eat the things they kill. We go to grocery stores. If humans still lived as otehr animals do thigns would be much different and eating meat would be acceptable."
first how do you figure bears do not make that choice? do you speak bear? actually they do. in many places bears do not hardly ever eat meat although they could very easily.. as far as the second pert, that is merely your opinion.. the majority of the world disagrees.. so you can't really say what is wrong or right..

---

What are these "many places"? And is this simply a diverse diet or strict vegitarianism?
You said yourself they can't make moral decisions like choosing meat or no meat, now you're saying they do. Which is it?

quote:

---

your logic is flawed as well. what about hunters that eat only the meat they hunt.. is that ok with you? according to your theory it would be..

---

If a hunter only eats meat that he hunts and eats the meat he hunts this is more moraly acceptable than the person who simply buys ground chuck in saran wrap. The problem is averting our eyes because we are allowed to by convienience.
I would say you're still a sick person if you torture and shoot a child, but at least you know what you're doing and what it means (and are aware of the likely consequences probably).

quote:

---

"No, you misunderstand, his argument is not justified by generalizing limited vegitarianism onto all humans. That is the conclusion not the premise"
no you mis understand, his premise revolves around the fact humans are not equal but they recieve the same rights and why should animals be different.. thus my point was a valid one.. the fact is it would not work anywhere in nature... that is why it is flawed... you need to read it i guess because i have read his stuff plenty..

---

We can debate fesibility if that means you accept that morally you agree with me.
And please try to explain your points, your spelling is fine, but i'm not sure these are complete thoughts or sentences and it makes it hard to understand and thus limits the ability to rationally debate.
Your example of the wolves and the deer, translated to humans is that, because one group doesn't eat meat, the other people shouldn't eat meat. This is clearly not the point at all and I don't see where you're getting this from.

quote:

---

"Actually logic is what makes his case. Read the article."
no logic has nothing to do with his case.. his view of things it his only case...and it holds no water... all humans are humans all wolves are not humans there for they are not the same nor equal..

---

All whites are white, all blacks are not white, therefore they are not the same nor equal...And when after the Holocaust did we start accepting this thinking as correct?
Call them what names you want, it's bigotry. There was a time when blacks were thought of as no more than animals, property, pets, entertainment.
You still have not demonstrated why his arguments fail (or even answered the pieces of the article I presented)

quote:

---

"I'd like it if you had proof, but fine, so what? If Einstein screwed his cat would that make relativity any less right?"
well look it up there are word for word transcripts of the article/interview everywhere... as far as the second part, that is invalid.. his theory of relativaty was not based on animals , yet singers is, so for you to believe he is right about his animal theories you have to look at it as a whole, not pick and choose...

---

Right, because that makes sense... Anything "based on animals" is special. Having sex with animals isn't what we're discussing and it is of no importance to this. If you want to point out why this has any direct connection to the topic of eating meat, feel free to do so. But all you're doing now is talking bad about someone you don't like in hopes of damaging his charachter when you can't damage his arguments. It's weak.

quote:

---

"That would be a relevant point, but you didn't make it. The response would be that animals are morally relevant because they have pain centers, brains, and can experience pleasure and pain, therefore it is correct to evaluate moral actions concerning animals (such as killing) but not plants. "
although they have no brains everything else you mention has been shown in plants. different reactions to injury,pleasure(in their own way) so really minus the brain and the fact they don't interact with people like animals do is the only point you have.

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

"The debate is not a practical one of how much effort it would take or anything else, it is a moral debate about whether or not we value life."
yes but you fail to miss the point...

---

And I pride myself on it.

quote:

---

no one places the same value on anything, life included.. the majority of people who eat meat place a high value on life, animal included. they don't just go around killing and torturing animals animals.

---

they reap teh profits of their slaugter. Is that any different from a hired killing simply because they didn't do it themselves. Refer back to your Manson example for people who instruct others to kill.
But you've taken this in some other weird direction. My point is this is not a debate about practicality. Once we establish the correct moral path you either live by it or you are immoral. You can choose to accept that or not, and guess your religion, if you have one, looks at it it's own special way, but it's not about the effort it would take, or the displeasure it would cause your taste buds. It's simply about what is right and what is wrong.

quote:

---

yet when they do kill something they put it to good use...

---

So we can kill humans as long as we use their skins and eat the meat we kill?

quote:

---

unlike the millions of animals killed to produce crops..

---

You'd rather we not grow crops?

quote:

---

so for you to even begin to discuss the value of life you have to take the animals killed to produce your veggie burger as well.

---

I hate veggie burgers. I'm not a vegitarian. And just because animals are killed does not mean we stop making cereal, it means we need to find better ways to harvest crops. Once we establish animals have a moral value it doesn't matter if we kill them everyday, it's still wrong. Murder happens everyday, this however, is unaceptable.

quote:

---

yet i have found vegetarians and vegans dismiss these out of convenience... your views?

---

I never dismissed it, but the conclusion is not to just say "screw the animals, they'll die anyway". What kind of moral beings could we hope our children become if the more killing happens the more it is justified?
The conclusion logically, is then to find ways not to kill animals.

first i see you use the AR way of arguing, which is talking around the oint to make your own point... i never said manson was a professor i said an accomplished author.. se what i mean about how you talk around the point..

singer has not killed people BUT the groups that follow his teaching have, same as manson.. manson was never foung guilty of actually killing anyone.. he was guilty of murder through other people.. at least get your facts straight...

the fact that he is a professor means nothing either.. many proffessors teach classes that have no validity... have you ever seen some of the courses you can take in school i rest my case.. but prove nothing...

"You mean he's tlaking about humans and animals? Yes. that's the point. What is moraly relevant about humans as opposed to other animals?"

first morality was invented by people. the point is no ther animal in nature follows his principle..

"Bears don't make that choice. They live in "the wild", humans do not. Most humans will never face needing to kill for food, nor will they ever eat the things they kill. We go to grocery stores. If humans still lived as otehr animals do thigns would be much different and eating meat would be acceptable."

first how do you figure bears do not make that choice? do you speak bear? actually they do. in many places bears do not hardly ever eat meat although they could very easily.. as far as the second pert, that is merely your opinion.. the majority of the world disagrees.. so you can't really say what is wrong or right.. your logic is flawed as well. what about hunters that eat only the meat they hunt.. is that ok with you? according to your theory it would be..

"No, you misunderstand, his argument is not justified by generalizing limited vegitarianism onto all humans. That is the conclusion not the premise"

no you mis understand, his premise revolves around the fact humans are not equal but they recieve the same rights and why should animals be different.. thus my point was a valid one.. the fact is it would not work anywhere in nature... that is why it is flawed... you need to read it i guess because i have read his stuff plenty..

"Actually logic is what makes his case. Read the article."

no logic has nothing to do with his case.. his view of things it his only case...and it holds no water... all humans are humans all wolves are not humans there for they are not the same nor equal..

"I'd like it if you had proof, but fine, so what? If Einstein screwed his cat would that make relativity any less right?"

well look it up there are word for word transcripts of the article/interview everywhere... as far as the second part, that is invalid.. his theory of relativaty was not based on animals , yet singers is, so for you to believe he is right about his animal theories you have to look at it as a whole, not pick and choose...

"That would be a relevant point, but you didn't make it. "

actually i DID make it.. where were you. you just quoted me?

"That would be a relevant point, but you didn't make it. The response would be that animals are morally relevant because they have pain centers, brains, and can experience pleasure and pain, therefore it is correct to evaluate moral actions concerning animals (such as killing) but not plants. "

although they have no brains everything else you mention has been shown in plants. different reactions to injury,pleasure(in their own way) so really minus the brain and the fact they don't interact with people like animals do is the only point you have.

"The debate is not a practical one of how much effort it would take or anything else, it is a moral debate about whether or not we value life."

yes but you fail to miss the point... no one places the same value on anything, life included.. the majority of people who eat meat place a high value on life, animal included. they don't just go around killing and torturing animals animals. yet when they do kill something they put it to good use...unlike the millions of animals killed to produce crops.. so for you to even begin to discuss the value of life you have to take the animals killed to produce your veggie burger as well. yet i have found vegetarians and vegans dismiss these out of convenience... your views?

as far as DR Strangelove....

sentient:
1) Having sense perception; conscious
2)Experiencing sensation or feeling.

that is the definition...

quote:

---

On Singer: He is a lunatic. Mostly because his "observations" are so disconnected and rediculous. The man is a proponent of legalized infanticide, nuff said.

---

1. 'Lunatic' would assume he has some mental disease. He does not. Insulting him doesn't make him wrong.

2. what is "disconnected" about it? What is "rediculous"?

3. Again, what about his other views makes him any less correct here? Attack the reasoning, not the person.

quote:

---

"Right...he's a lunatic. A lunatic who's a professor at Princetona dn an accomplished author and ethicist"
and that should mean what? manson is an accomplished author...the fact he is a professor also means and proves no validity of his statements. so once again your point?

---

Manson isn't a professor. He is a criminal in prison. He killed people. Singer hasn't. These are relevant distinctions. If you actually had a valid reason, that would be differnt.
This shows that he is respected in his field and as such, has risen in te ranks to a one of respect at a prestigious institution. His arguments deserve more than your contempt.

quote:

---

i have delt with his arguments and it has one fatal flaw.. he is interchanging species..

---

You mean he's tlaking about humans and animals? Yes. that's the point. What is moraly relevant about humans as opposed to other animals?

quote:

---

and in nature it self no other animal would do this... bears can live with out meat, but they chose not too...

---

Bears don't make that choice. They live in "the wild", humans do not. Most humans will never face needing to kill for food, nor will they ever eat the things they kill. We go to grocery stores. If humans still lived as otehr animals do thigns would be much different and eating meat would be acceptable.

quote:

---

it is like saying wolves eat deer. but because a pack treats different wolves the same the pack should also treat deer the same..

---

No, you misunderstand, his argument is not justified by generalizing limited vegitarianism onto all humans. That is the conclusion not the premise.

quote:

---

his perceptions are flawed from the beginning... yes if you are caught up in the "moment" you can really "believe" where he is coming from but once you apply logic to his conclusions they start to fade away...

---

Actually logic is what makes his case. Read the article.

quote:

---

also what was bleeped out was.. how can i say this.. he condones really "LOVING" animals if you know what i mean..

---

I'd like it if you had proof, but fine, so what? If Einstein screwed his cat would that make relativity any less right?

quote:

---

"It might not be practical on a worldwise scale, but we, with our current technology, really don't need to eat meat"
same could be said the other way around... with our technology we could live with out eating plants and only eat meats... there are many supplements that can and do take the place of plants.. the reason i miss posts like this is they will only turn into a childish no your wrong type of argument....

---

That would be a relevant point, but you didn't make it. The response would be that animals are morally relevant because they have pain centers, brains, and can experience pleasure and pain, therefore it is correct to evaluate moral actions concerning animals (such as killing) but not plants. However, there are people who believe in extreme non-violence toward all things and try not to harm any living thing. the Jains.

The debate is not a practical one of how much effort it would take or anything else, it is a moral debate about whether or not we value life.

It's Christmas, I drank too much coffee last night, and now i've been up since 4am, so i'll post a little bit for now, but will post more later.

quote:

---

Actually it is very relevant. she does not need to offer proof as science has already done that for her... the only creature that is currently being debated about on this subject is fish... all the rest mentioned here would fall under that definition...

---

What exactly are we defining sentience as. Too often i see people mistaking sentience for awareness equal to the human level. That all animals are equal in consiousness to humans, that is what i've seen no proof of. I acknowladge that there are varying degrees of awareness in various animals.

On Singer: He is a lunatic. Mostly because his "observations" are so disconnected and rediculous. The man is a proponent of legalized infanticide, nuff said.



Least Harm Principle suggests that humans should eat meat over a Vegan diet

"Right...he's a lunatic. A lunatic who's a professor at Princetona dn an accomplished author and ethicist"
and that should mean what? manson is an accomplished author...the fact he is a professor also means and proves no validity of his statements. so once again your point?

i have delt with his arguments and it has one fatal flaw.. he is interchanging species.. and in nature it self no other animal would do this... bears can live with out meat, but they chose not too... it is like saying wolves eat deer. but because a pack treats different wolves the same the pack should also treat deer the same.. his perceptions are flawed from the beginning... yes if you are caught up in the "moment" you can really "believe" where he is coming from but once you apply logic to his conclusions they start to fade away...
also what was bleeped out was.. how can i say this.. he condones really "LOVING" animals if you know what i mean.. he said that there is nothing wrong with it... came out of his mouth in an interview...

actually you must not be reading my posts because most of what i say is corrections, not simply agreeing with the people i share a common view with...
"It might not be practical on a worldwise scale, but we, with our current technology, really don't need to eat meat"

same could be said the other way around... with our technology we could live with out eating plants and only eat meats... there are many supplements that can and do take the place of plants.. the reason i miss posts like this is they will only turn into a childish no your wrong type of argument....

it seems the only one puposely missing parts of posts is you.. if you notice i said he was wrong in the very next comment.. so how is that wholeheartedly accepting anyones words? maybe you should go back and read it then get back to me...

quote:

---

Dante ... singer is a lunatic and a wacko.. he also believes in *******ity. so what's your point?

---

Right...he's a lunatic. A lunatic who's a professor at Princetona dn an accomplished author and ethicist. If you actually chose to deal with is arguments instead of just slandering him you might learn something. Ad hominem arguments get you nowhere when you're trying to prove a point.

You also fall to the logical fallacy of combining beliefs. So what if he believes in something you don't believe in (regardless of what it is since it was bleeped out)? He has logical support for it ostensibly and all you have is a hatred of him.

You certainly show a positional bias by ushering through every part of people you agree with and none of anyone you disagree with regardless of accuracy or truth. For instance, DS's argument against a vegan diet:

It might not be practical on a worldwise scale, but we, with our current technology, really don't need to eat meat. Millions of vegitarians and vegans survive for their entire lives without eating animals. They still manage a fufilling and productive life. In fact many of our modern heroes chose a vegetarian or vegan diet.

His other arguments on the poor quality of grain we feed to animals and the lack of need for many of our common appliances is correct, but to accept wholeheartedly the word of those who agree with you proves a slant that endagers the respectability and truth of anything you try to assert.

once again most of vegan queen's post is nothing but AR propaganda and twisting of the truth....
the only part i can agree with from a logical standpoint (not an AR standpoint) is that killing a pig and a dog are the same.. both are just as dead in the end.. also yes we should eliminate unnecessary suffering.. but what you fail to realize is in the real world the majority of food animals don't suffer.... FACT.. we have been over this already... many animals do not pass through untouched.. very very few pass through this way.. i agree very few is still to many but at least state the truth...

"This practice is done because, the overpopulated, and disgusting environment of factory farms are so stressful to chickens that they resort to unnatural behavior, like cannibalism."

only one small part of this is even close to the truth.. yes in some farms they are over crowded, but it is a natural behavior. Chickens fight, hence the term "pecking order" if you put a bunch of chickens in a small barn you will have fights... it has nothing to do with cannibalism in any way....BTW debeaking if done correctly is nearly painless...

the only other part that is somewhat BASED on the truth is the statement about hormones.. although your description is not the norm, it can happen sometimes, BUT it is not as common as PETA and other AR groups would like its money donating cult-like disciples to believe... BTW way i noticed you dropped the whole PETA conversation pretty quick.. found out it was true did ya....

as for Midnight rain...
"ive been a vegatarian scince 2nd grade and want to say thanks to you for standing up for whats right!! "

no it is only what YOU CONSIDER RIGHT...that is only your opinion and nothing more..

as for Darkfox
"If it is necessary to use some kind of a gun to put an animal to sleep, I believe this is a perfectly good way to do it. Would you rather they did it while the animal was alive?"

Gunshot is not considered an approved method of common euthanasia.. it is only seen as an approvable way of putting down an animal under certain circumstances ... just thought you should know.....

as far as DR Strangelove
"But then again, we really don't need toilet paper, or refrigeration, or graphing calculators do we? You also must realize (with that quote about percentages) that the grain we feed animals is often the stuff that we can't feed to humans because it is of too poor a quality or the fact that grazing lands aren't fertile enough for crops. And the fact that poorer countries still eat meat as a significant part of their diet is because an entirely vegan diet is impractical at best and impossible at worst."

CORRECT

"You've said repeatedly they are sentient, yet have never offered any real proof. Therefore the second part of your statement is irrelevent."

Actually it is very relevant. she does not need to offer proof as science has already done that for her... the only creature that is currently being debated about on this subject is fish... all the rest mentioned here would fall under that definition...
ALSO the drawing posted is 100% accurate.. millions of animals are killed so we can eat crops... it is a fact..

Dante ... singer is a lunatic and a wacko.. he also believes in *******ity. so what's your point?

OK now to bruce lee....
"Yes strange, we dont need calculators, but generally nothing suffers in the making of calculators, so I fail to see the relevence of your statement."

Really.. nothing suffers? think about all the material that make calculators, how they are made, and then ask that again.. how about animals, the environment, and yes even us (pollution)

"Most farm animals are obviously conscious, as shown in thier behaviour under certian conditions.
The picture at the end of your post is very unrealistic (in content....also the rabbit speaking"

Most farm animals are conscious when? Right before they are slaughtered? yes i agree..
During the slaughtering process? NOPE.. not even close... and how is it shown? what conditions? please go on.... As far as the picture, other than the rabbit talking, it is very very realistic.. but go ahead and ignore the truth if it helps that veggie burger go down a little easier... i love how AR people and vegetarians can somehow ignore the actual needless killing of millions of small mammals, birds, reptiles, etc for their crops, yet whine about the killing of animals where they are actually used.. what is better killing millions of animals only to have their bodies thrown aside or killing animals that are put to good use? answer that one for me....

Yes strange, we dont need calculators, but generally nothing suffers in the making of calculators, so I fail to see the relevence of your statement. Then you go on to the part about sentient animals, there is also no real proof they are not sentient, does this mean that your statement then has no relevence?
Most farm animals are obviously conscious, as shown in thier behaviour under certian conditions.
The picture at the end of your post is very unrealistic (in content....also the rabbit speaking).

"An Animal's Place"
(This will answer the questions about pain and sentience, reading the full article from the NYT Magazine is suggested but not required, I can post the link later. It gives you teh pull of morality since it is so easy to basically comply with.)

...

Even in 1975, when ''Animal Liberation'' was first published, Singer, an Australian philosopher now teaching at Princeton, was confident that he had the wind of history at his back. The recent civil rights past was prologue, as one liberation movement followed on the heels of another. Slowly but surely, the white man's circle of moral consideration was expanded to admit first blacks, then women, then homosexuals. In each case, a group once thought to be so different from the prevailing ''we'' as to be undeserving of civil rights was, after a struggle, admitted to the club. Now it was animals' turn.
That animal liberation is the logical next step in the forward march of moral progress is no longer the fringe idea it was back in 1975. A growing and increasingly influential movement of philosophers, ethicists, law professors and activists are convinced that the great moral struggle of our time will be for the rights of animals.
...
Once thought of as a left-wing concern, the movement now cuts across ideological lines. Perhaps the most eloquent recent plea on behalf of animals, a new book called ''Dominion,'' was written by a former speechwriter for President Bush. And once outlandish ideas are finding their way into mainstream opinion. A recent Zogby poll found that 51 percent of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children.
What is going on here? A certain amount of cultural confusion, for one thing. For at the same time many people seem eager to extend the circle of our moral consideration to animals, in our factory farms and laboratories we are inflicting more suffering on more animals than at any time in history. One by one, science is dismantling our claims to uniqueness as a species, discovering that such things as culture, tool making, language and even possibly self-consciousness are not the exclusive domain of **** sapiens. Yet most of the animals we kill lead lives organized very much in the spirit of Descartes, who famously claimed that animals were mere machines, incapable of thought or feeling. There's a schizoid quality to our relationship with animals, in which sentiment and brutality exist side by side. Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us pause to consider the miserable life of the pig -- an animal easily as intelligent as a dog -- that becomes the Christmas ham.
We tolerate this disconnect because the life of the pig has moved out of view. When's the last time you saw a pig? (Babe doesn't count.) Except for our pets, real animals -- animals living and dying -- no longer figure in our everyday lives. Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there's no reality check, either on the sentiment or the brutality. This is pretty much where we live now, with respect to animals, and it is a space in which the Peter Singers and Frank Perdues of the world can evidently thrive equally well.
...
Singer's argument is disarmingly simple and, if you accept its premises, difficult to refute. Take the premise of equality, which most people readily accept. Yet what do we really mean by it? People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all -- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. ''Equality is a moral idea,'' Singer points out, ''not an assertion of fact.'' The moral idea is that everyone's interests ought to receive equal consideration, regardless of ''what abilities they may possess.'' Fair enough; many philosophers have gone this far. But fewer have taken the next logical step. ''If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?''
...
Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century utilitarian philosopher, that is the wellspring of the animal rights movement. Bentham was writing in 1789, soon after the French colonies freed black slaves, granting them fundamental rights. ''The day may come,'' he speculates, ''when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights.'' Bentham then asks what characteristic entitles any being to moral consideration. ''Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse?'' Obviously not, since ''a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant.'' He concludes: ''The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?'
...
Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century utilitarian philosopher, that is the wellspring of the animal rights movement. Bentham was writing in 1789, soon after the French colonies freed black slaves, granting them fundamental rights. ''The day may come,'' he speculates, ''when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights.'' Bentham then asks what characteristic entitles any being to moral consideration. ''Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse?'' Obviously not, since ''a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant.'' He concludes: ''The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?'
...
Bentham here is playing a powerful card philosophers call the ''argument from marginal cases,'' or A.M.C. for short. It goes like this: there are humans -- infants, the severely retarded, the demented -- whose mental function cannot match that of a chimpanzee. Even though these people cannot reciprocate our moral attentions, we nevertheless include them in the circle of our moral consideration. So on what basis do we exclude the chimpanzee?
To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he's not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he's not white. In the same way we'd call that exclusion racist, the animal rightist contends that it is speciesist to discriminate against the chimpanzee solely because he's not human.
As it turns out, we don't need to eat meat to survive. It very well could be part of the natural order of things, but things have become so unanatural, and for better or worse (I say worse) we have deviated from what you all might call a more "primative" lifestyle of self-reliance and sustinance.
Conditions aren't humane in factory farms. One only needs to visit them, read about the ('Fast Food Nation' is a great read) or look into the availible information. The work is not even safe for the humans there, let alone the animals destined to die.
Sometimes I think it'd be nice if those who wanted to eat meat (myself included) were told to go out and kill and prepare what they wanted. Just because it's normal doesn't mean we should make it convienient.

quote:

---

You talk about the necessity of using a gun, the fact is that in most cases killing an animal is not necessary at all, meat is a luxary. Ever wonder why poorer countries eat less meat and more vegatables than rich countries, because farming animals for their meat is inefficient, only 10% of their enery can be taken in where 100% of a vegatables energy can. We really do not need meat.

---

But then again, we really don't need toilet paper, or refrigeration, or graphing calculators do we? You also must realize (with that quote about percentages) that the grain we feed animals is often the stuff that we can't feed to humans because it is of too poor a quality or the fact that grazing lands aren't fertile enough for crops. And the fact that poorer countries still eat meat as a signifigant part of thier diet is because an entierly vegan diet is impractical at best and impossible at worst.

quote:

---

What's the difference between killing a dog and a pig? These are both sentient beings. For this very reason, we should eliminate all unnecessary suffering

---

You've said repeatedly they are sentient, yet have never offered any real proof. Therefore the second part of your statement is irrelevent.

quote:

---

Also, for instance, male pigs are circumcised (without anesthesia) so they can be more docile, and easier to handle by the factory farm workers.

---

I think you mean castrated. Circumsison (removal of the foreskin) won't affect behavior. And BTW,I (along with millions of other males) was circumcised when i was an infant without anesthesia, and i don't remember a bit of it. Why? Because at that point my brain hadn't developed enough to provide real memory and conciousness, similar to animals. So if the animal really has no REAL consiousness as in humans, and only instinct and conditioning memories, there is no real emotional or mental pain or disorder being inflicted.
It doesn't really matter anyway because castration only inserts a small needle-like device that causes minimal pain. It's only like having a shot. But enough about the phallus...

quote:

---

Farm animal cruelty is... when a chicken's beak is sliced off with a 1500F degree blade( without anesthesia). This practice is done because, the overpopulated, and disgusting environment of factory farms are so stressful to chickens that they resort to unnatural behavior, like cannibalism. The industry's solution to this problem is debeaking( explained previously)


Farm animal cruelty is.... when a broiler hen's body is manipulated by hormones so that her body grows faster that her skeletal/ muscular system can handle. Thus causing prolapse, when her uterus is so heavy, from constant egg-laying that it is pulled from her body and drags painfully on the floor.

---

Please see above statement pretaining to animals conciousness.

quote:

---

i totally support your opionion. its the same thing, we just dont eat dogs. ive been a vegatarian scince 2nd grade and want to say thanks to you for standing up for whats right!! and the whole animal rights thing is just not hurting animals, is that what you meant??

---

We don't eat dogs because it is a cultural taboo. It could also be a fact that dogs aren't really a good meat animal and you can't hunt them because there are not wild populations. And good job on deciding something like that back in second grade when you were ignorant of REALITY.

Bring on the Wheat harvesting combines

84, I dont how understand your idea of abuse works, are you saying that harming something is only abuse when the abuser takes pleasure in it? That does not make much sense. You talk about the necessity of using a gun, the fact is that in most cases killing an animal is not necessary at all, meat is a luxary. Ever wonder why poorer countries eat less meat and more vegatables than rich countries, because farming animals for their meat is inefficient, only 10% of their enery can be taken in where 100% of a vegatables energy can. We really do not need meat.

i totally support your opionion. its the same thing, we just dont eat dogs. ive been a vegatarian scince 2nd grade and want to say thanks to you for standing up for whats right!! and the whole animal rights thing is just not hurting animals, is that what you meant??

What's the difference between killing a dog and a pig? These are both sentient beings , with the capacity to feel pain via tortured. For this very reason, we should eliminate all unnecessary suffering inflicted on them.

Mistreatment of farm animals is this:

Having them go through a conveyor belt procedure of death, in which chickens are electrocuted, throats slit( this is done mechanically which means many animals pass this section un touched, and conscious. Because they are conscious they are aware of the excrutiating pain of being sent to the next station) the station where they are submerged in scolding water.

Also, for instance, male pigs are circumcised (without anesthesia) so they can be more docile, and easier to handle by the factory farm workers.

Farm animal cruelty is... when a chicken's beak is sliced off with a 1500F degree blade( without anesthesia). This practice is done because, the overpopulated, and disgusting environment of factory farms are so stressful to chickens that they resort to unnatural behavior, like cannibalism. The industry's solution to this problem is debeaking( explained previously)


Farm animal cruelty is.... when a broiler hen's body is manipulated by hormones so that her body grows faster that her skeletal/ muscular system can handle. Thus causing prolapse, when her uterus is so heavy, from constant egg-laying that it is pulled from her body and drags painfully on the floor.

How exactly do you mistreat a farm animal? My idea of abuse is taking cruel pleasure in causing pain to others (animals or humans). If it is necessary to use some kind of a gun to put an animal to sleep, I believe this is a perfectly good way to do it. Would you rather they did it while the animal was alive?
Mark

Animal rights extends to cover the abusive treatment that domesticated animals, cats, dogs, rabbits, and, yes, even gerbils, receive everyday. Animal rights can't necessarily extend to livestock. Don't get me wrong! I think cows are cute, too. But the human body requires a supplement of meat and we have to get it from somewhere. Pets are a different matter. What kind of sicko would kill a dog just for the fun of it? Or a kitten for that matter? Who wants to beat the crap out of a dog just because he/she can? I think that is what animal rights extend to. However, this is just my opinion. So I could be wrong.
Mark