"...the question is not, can they reason?, nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?"
- Jeremy Bentham (philosopher)
quote:
"The animals of the world exist for their own means. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men."
- Alice Walker
I'm a vegan, yes, no animal products. Period. Why? Because so many must animals suffer, for humans gluttony. That's all it is, people are so selfish that they don't care that a animal must go through it's entire life suffering, in the most appaling conditions, to die, simply for someone to stuff themselves on the flesh of a creature that once lived and breathed and felt. The notion that animals are beneath humans is appalling, to me. Give me a single reason why a humans life is any less worthless. Because you can talk? Because you know what you are? Because you walk on two legs? Because you have power over creatures weaker then yourself? Why? A life is a life, a spark, and take away everything, beliefs, position, intelligence, morals, money, power, race, gender, species, and everything's the same, a life that feels, and is worth exactly the same as another. (Okay, I started ranting there, but whatever, uh, where was my point again? Oh yeah...)
I, personally, don't think humans eating meat is wrong. Other wise, is my cat evil for catching and eating a bird or mouse? No, it's normal, and we are omnivores. But the bird lived a perfectly normal, happy, pain-free life, unlike the cattle and poultry that humans consume. If I raised my own animals, and I knew that they had good lives and died painlessly, yes, I would eat meat again. And I am getting chickens soon, and I will have eggs, because I know they will be looked after. But to allow anything to suffer as much as animals bred for consumption do is disgusting.
.:| If I died, would you be okay? Would you forgive me for being too weak? |:.
Well thank you for the compliment Slewinca your not exactly mean either . And now to my post that has been thoroughly refuted. I don't even think I can salvage any of that so it is time to try and make another argument. I want to try and expose my original beef with PETA which was its hypocrisy. I would go and find all of the quotes and everything, but that is a lot of work and I am really really lazy lol so if I am wrong about something just tell me please. PETA on one hand completely disagrees with my viewpoint that animals in the production industry lead better lives than animals in the wild, because they do not get to lead their natural lives in the wild. Alright I can deal with that. I disagree completely but hey thats life. PETA however also does things that prevent other animals from leading their natural lives, because their natural lives are cruel. They trap feral cats put them in a shelter and then euthanize(hope that is the right spelling lol) them, because they are not living a good life. They also encourage the spaying and neutering of companion animals, but that is taking away one of the most primal and natural feelings all animals have which is mating. Does anyone else see that what PETA is doing by trapping and euthanizing animals is exactly what they are preaching against? I am sorry to bring up something over a month old but it just seems to me that PETA likes to play God. They cannot follow their own rules. That at least is my opinion and I am sure a lot of you beg to differ and I will found out why in 3...2...1 lol Have a good one and don't thrash my post to bad please lol
I would have replied last night but it got late in my neck of the woods. Anywho, it's nice to see you back bookie. You were the nicest person I've ever debated with here. Now on to the points you brought up:
quote:
Whether you agree with meat-eating or not seeing a homeless person recieve turkey on Thanksgiving can be quite gratifying.
I'll admit that that is one positive side of this. Surely PETA does not advocate letting hungry people starve. The truth is, if people in this country didn't eat so much meat, there would be a lot more to go around for the hungry/homeless people. So just think about that and maybe donate what would have been your share of meat to the food bank.
quote:
It would be hard to meet the nutrient needs of humans if everyone was vegetarian.
quote:
If everyone switches to vegetables and grains, will there be enough to eat?
Yes. We feed so much grain to animals in order to fatten them up for consumption that if we all became vegetarians, we could produce enough food to feed the entire world. In the U.S., animals are fed more than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of the oats. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth. For more on meat and the environment, go to www.goveg.com/r-mym.html.
Flies in a rural area are quite slow when moving away from a fly swatter, because they do not face that predator as often as flies that are around people quite often.
I know that that was an example and just from personal knowledge, but that's an insect. Many animals such as raccoons and pigeons have adapted themselves very well to human environments and inventions.
quote:
Now I want to discuss the lives that these animals lead before they were killed for human consumption. They were sheltered and they were fed and watered. Okay now it seems to me like we took their basic needs upon our shoulders. I think that doing this leads animals to lead a stress free life. I believe this is something PETA should be completely for because imagine how hard would it be for a chicken to live in the wild. I mean when we feed and shelter these animals what else do these animals have to worry about.
quote:
At least the animals on factory farms are fed and protected.
This argument was used to claim that black people were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered one of society's harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t "wild" to the animals who live there; it’s their home. There they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.
These animals are treated actually very well generally and if they aren't people get in trouble.
If all farmed animals were treated "very well," meat and other animal products would be a lot more expensive. The fact is that the reason animals are raised this way (the cruel ways) is to cut costs and raise profit. And about the "people get in trouble thing"...
quote:
There are virtually no federal laws that protect farm animals from even the most harsh and brutal treatment as long as it takes place in the name of production and profit. The federal Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the treatment of animals for commercial purposes, does not apply to farm animals unless they are being used in research or for exhibition. Moreover, a majority of states have specifically exempted some aspect of the treatment of animals in agriculture from their cruelty laws. It is left entirely to the preference of the individual company how many egg-laying hens are stuffed into each little wire cage, or whether an artificially inseminated sow must spend her entire pregnancy chained to the floor of a cement-bottomed cage.
Technically, the (Animal Welfare) act covers any "live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warm-blooded animal, which (sic) is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes." The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) interprets the act to exclude birds, rats, and mice bred for research, and horses and other farm animals, such as livestock and poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber.
Not to mention that the Humane Slaughter Act is very poorly enforced and doesn't even cover the majority of animals slaughtered in this country; poultry.
quote:
They obviously do not mind having this done to them because they do not try to leave.
What about all those cows who have tried to escape from the slaughterhouse? (some of them go to Farm Sanctuary BTW: www.farmsanctuary.org)
quote:
The animals being killed in most instances felt little if not pain at all. I believe the easiest way to kill catte would be to just put a bullet in their head, but that would not be considered humane either.
Often a captive bolt gun is used to stun cattle for slaughter. It's sort of like a large nail gun except the bolt stays in the machine. There have been many instances of slaughterhouse workers who use the captive bolt guns repeatedly on single cows because they wouldn't go down. Sometimes if the cow isn't stunned properly, they will go down the line conscious and still able to feel pain. This was all documented in the book Slaughterhouse.
quote:
I wish they would respect my right to choose to eat meat.
Almost sounds like a pro-choice argument lol
quote:
Vegetarianism is a personal choice. Why are you trying to force it on everyone else?
From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice. Murder, child abuse, and cruelty to animals are all immoral. Our society now encourages meat-eating and the cruelty of factory farming, but history teaches that society also once encouraged slavery, child labor, and many other practices now universally recognized as wrong.
They were pleading for you to become a vegitarian because of the "wrong" ways of animal slaughter.
That's still trying to make me a vegetarian. A rose by any other name...
quote:
Domesticated animals are not bred specifically for human consumption.
This is what you said. Thus, I corrected you. Yes, we don't breed cats and dogs for food, but we do breed beef cattle, pigs, and chickens specifically for food, and they are domesticated, as shown by your handy little definition (the second number 1 about being of use to humans).
quote: the video's purpose was not to banish meat eating, but to raise awareness of the "wrong" ways of raising and slaughtering animals.
Right. I must have misheard the bit at the end pleading me to become a vegetarian.
They were pleading for you to become a vegitarian because of the "wrong" ways of animal slaughter. If they were to convince you to become an herbivore for different reasons, they would create a video with cute fluffy, sweet animals prancing through a field to convince viewers to love animals rather than eat them. Or they would tell you about some positive effects on the human body that comes from not eating meat. But no, this video shows you the negative sides of supporting animal consumption because of the inhumane killing methods, and to my understanding, nothing more.
1. To cause to feel comfortable at home; make domestic. 2. To adopt or make fit for domestic use or life. 3. 1. To train or adapt (an animal or plant) to live in a human environment and be of use to humans. 2. To introduce and accustom (an animal or plant) into another region; naturalize. 4. To bring down to the level of the ordinary person.
If you would reread my post before negating it, I said that the MOST POPULAR domesticated animals were probably dogs or cats, NOT that they are the only domesticated animals.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. --Albert Einstein
Now I want to discuss the lives that these animals lead before they were killed for human consumption. They were sheltered and they were fed and watered. Okay now it seems to me like we took their basic needs upon our shoulders. I think that doing this leads animals to lead a stress free life. I believe this is something PETA should be completely for because imagine how hard would it be for a chicken to live in the wild. I mean when we feed and shelter these animals what else do these animals have to worry about. These animals are treated actually very well generally and if they aren't people get in trouble. They obviously do not mind having this done to them because they do not try to leave. Even when a cow gets outside of its pen inside of a feed lot it just stands on the otherside of the alley-way eating. The animals being killed in most instances felt little if not pain at all. I believe the easiest way to kill catte would be to just put a bullet in their head, but that would not be considered humane either.
Obviously we have a fundamental difference on how we should treat animals. I believe it is right to eat meat where others obviously don't. I guess that is the way it is always going to be because I am sure Slewinca will not be able to change clpo's mind and vice versa. I respect vegetarians choice to eat whatever they choose even if it is not in the best interest for me, but what upsets me the most is when PETA and other groups try to shove their opinion down my throat because they feel it is wrong. I wish they would respect my right to choose to eat meat.
Wow! It has been a while since I was on this board so first I will say Whats up everybody! And now I will go into my post. Meat processing is not exactly the most appealing thing to watch. Any life form being killed can be somewhat discomforting. Watching a fish die out of water can be for some (not myself) quite horrific. What PETA does is play on peoples emotions. It is trying to showcase meat-eating in the worst light that it can. It does not show the positive effects of killing animals for food consumption. Whether you agree with meat-eating or not seeing a homeless person recieve turkey on Thanksgiving can be quite gratifying. The world is not perfect and sometimes actually most times people have to sacrifice something in order to achieve something else. I believe that meat-eating is cheaper economically. It would be hard to meet the nutrient needs of humans if everyone was vegetarian. Also, the economy would go to hell in a hand-basket if no one ate meat. While we dont necessarily enjoy killing animals it is a necessary evil. I don't know anyone who likes to go to funerals, but what if we just left bodies where we found them.
PETA's whole view of how to treat animals is completely retarded to me, but you don't see me going into their offices with a hidden videocamera to uncover some sort of wrongdoing such as the rumors of them roaming around town rounding up stray cats and putting them down. In fact until recently I have not even heard groups going after PETA at all.
And now to the whole self concsious self aware thing. Animals are not as intelligent as humans simply put. Animals have a knack for surviving because they are conscious of the fact that in the animal world they have a lot of enemies. I am going to use an analogy here. I have grown up in a rural area. Flies in a rural area are quite slow when moving away from a fly swatter, because they do not face that predator as often as flies that are around people quite often. I am saying this out of abstract personal knowledge not a scientific journal. The point is animals are good at surviving, but they are not aware of their place in the whole scheme of things.
I also believe that without humans some animals would be extinct. Take for example cattle. If we did not raise cattle for food they would not serve any purpose for us. The only thing they would do is eat food meant for human consumption and take up land that would be needed to feed the human community. If we did not raise cattle the only place for them would be a zoo, which is something that PETA is totally against.
I think we should worry more about human suffering before we start whining about the mistreatment of animals, especially animals that are meant for food.
I'll quote Peter Singer, from his book Animal Liberation (now, don't groan clpo) :
quote:
Among the factors that make it difficult to arouse public concern about animals, perhaps the hardest to overcome is the assumption that "human beings come first" and that any problem about animals cannot be comparable, as a serious moral or political issue, to the problems about humans. A number of things can be said about this assumption. First, it is in itself an indication of speciesism. How can anyone who has not made a thorough study of the topic possibly know that the problem is less serious than problems of human suffering? One can claim to know this only if on assumes that animals really do not matter, and that however much they suffer, their suffering is less important than the suffering of humans. But pain is pain, and the importance of preventing unnecessary pain and suffering does not diminish because the being that suffers is not a member of our species. What would we think of someone who said that "whites come first" and that therefore poverty in Africa does not pose as serious a problem as poverty in Europe?
It is true that many problems in the world deserve our time and energy. Famine and poverty ...all are major issues, and who can say which is the most important? yet once we put aside speciesist biases, we can see that the oppression of nonhumans by humans ranks somewhere along with these issues. The suffering that we inflict on nonhuman beings can be extreme, and the numbers involved are gigantic ... [and] should cause at least as much concern, especially since this suffering is so unnecessary and could easily be stopped if we wanted to stop it. Most reasonable people want to prevent war, racial inequality, poverty, and unemployment; the problem is that we have been trying to prevent these things for years, and now we have to admit that, for the most part, we don't really know how to do it. By comparison, the reduction of the suffering of nonhuman animals at the hands of humans will be relatively easy, once human beings set themselves to do it.
In any case, the idea that "humans come first" is more often used as an excuse for not doing anything about either human or nonhuman animals than as a genuine choice between incompatible alternatives. For the truth is that there is no incompatibility here ... there is nothing to stop those who devote their time an energy to human problems from joining the boycott of the products of agribusiness cruelty. It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh. In fact ... those who claim to care about the well-being of human beings and the preservation of our environment should become vegetarians for that reason alone. They would thereby increase the amount of grain available to feed people everywhere, reduce pollution, save water and energy, and cease contributing to the clearing of forests; moreover, since a vegetarian diet is cheaper than one based on meat dishes, they would have more money available to devote to famine relief, population control, or whatever social or political cause they thought most urgent. ... [W]hen nonvegetarians say that "human problems come first," I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals." Nobel Laureate, Romain Rolland wrote in Jean Christophe: To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God.
And the chimp bit just popped into my mind while I was reading your post. No real reason for it. I don't really even know why I put it there. Ah well. There's nothing wrong with random bits of information, as long as they're right.
Regarding the self-conscious animals, that's all well and good that they do that, but I still don't see what the big deal is. I think we should worry more about human suffering before we start whining about the mistreatment of animals, especially animals that are meant for food.
And the chimp bit just popped into my mind while I was reading your post. No real reason for it. I don't really even know why I put it there. Ah well. There's nothing wrong with random bits of information, as long as they're right.
clpo, the point was that some of the animals in the examples knew they were being watched by others (and this has been demonstrated with captive animals as well) and they changed their behavior to affect that. Doesn't that mean that they are at least somewhat aware of their own existance in this world?
quote:
Also, did you know that chimpanzees routinely attack and eat monkeys? Little known fact right there.
I have heard that, didn't Jane Goodall find that out or am I mistaken? And what does this have to do with what we're talking about anyway? Humans (most of them anyway) don't eat monkeys.
quote:
Originally posted by bella123: Easy mac is deeeelicious. *licks lips*
I guess it all depends on your definition of self-awareness, Slewinca. That book obviously displays one perception of what it is. And I have another. To me, self-awareness is what the name implies. To be self-aware, self-aware meaning to be aware that one exists and to be able to recognize oneself when shown a mirror or picture of oneself. That is self-awareness. What you are describing is self-consciousness, a totally different idea. Obviously, a baboon with less-than-perfect chompers would not yawn as much as a baboon with razor-sharp fangs. Why? Why bother? Broken and worn-down teeth are not going to intimidate anyone, as will sharp canines. And how does the chimp figure this out? Why, by finding that yawning does no good, after many times of trying. I don't purport to know the minds of animals, but this seems to be painfully apparent. As for the lions and goats and whatnot, it's still based off trial and error. The animals are not stupid. Chimps know, from previous experience, that if they look at a food source, rival chimps will then know there is food there and it will turn into a free-for-all.
This method of thinking, that self-preservation and intimidation are signs of self-awareness is similar to thinking that because a lone wolf rises to the head of the pack, and thus the rest of the wolves cow before him, the wolves are self-aware. Or that because ants pamper their queen they are self-aware. Self-awareness is all or nothing. Otherwise, you are making humans seem that much less special, and I promise you, special we are. We didn't rise to the top of the food chain for nothing, you know.
Also, did you know that chimpanzees routinely attack and eat monkeys? Little known fact right there.
Now this post will be referring to this comment of yours clpo:
quote:
The point here is that animals are animals. They are not self-aware. They do not look in a mirror and say "Wow, I should probably get that cold sore looked at."
Like I have said before, I have a problem with this thinking. I just think it is plain wrong. (I don't think animals get cold sores anyway) I was looking through my copy of When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffery Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy (A book you should also look into) and I decided to look up self-consciousness. Here is an excerpt on the topic that I found:
quote:
In a diverse range of species, evidence that animals know when they are being observed suggests self-awareness. When a male baboon yawns, his impressive canine teeth are ostentatiously displayed. Observeing wild baboons, biologist Craig Packer found that males with worn or broken teeth yawn less than males with teeth in good condition--unless there are no other males around, in which case they yawn just as often. Chimpanzees have been known to avoid glancing at a food source they know about but other chimps do not. On several occasions, lions in the Serengeti who had caught prey in high grass broke with the usual lion habit of beginning to eat at once. Instead the lion sat down and glanced around for as much as five minutes, as if it had caught nothing. When other nearby lions departed, the lion began to eat. A mountain goat who sees a predator will often walk away calmly and slowly and then, the moment it is out of the predator's line of sight, take off, running at full speed. These animals act as if they were conscious of others perceiving their behavior and want to affect that perception. This level of consciousness might not permit a goat to look into a mirror and think, "That's me," but might show self-consciousness nonetheless. Self-awareness need not be all or nothing.
(emphasis added by me) This can be found in the chapter Shame, Blushing, and Hidden Secrets on page 182.
Topics 
. And now to my post that has been thoroughly refuted. I don't even think I can salvage any of that so it is time to try and make another argument. I want to try and expose my original beef with PETA which was its hypocrisy. I would go and find all of the quotes and everything, but that is a lot of work and I am really really lazy lol so if I am wrong about something just tell me please. PETA on one hand completely disagrees with my viewpoint that animals in the production industry lead better lives than animals in the wild, because they do not get to lead their natural lives in the wild. Alright I can deal with that. I disagree completely but hey thats life. PETA however also does things that prevent other animals from leading their natural lives, because their natural lives are cruel. They trap feral cats put them in a shelter and then euthanize(hope that is the right spelling lol) them, because they are not living a good life. They also encourage the spaying and neutering of companion animals, but that is taking away one of the most primal and natural feelings all animals have which is mating. Does anyone else see that what PETA is doing by trapping and euthanizing animals is exactly what they are preaching against? I am sorry to bring up something over a month old but it just seems to me that PETA likes to play God. They cannot follow their own rules. That at least is my opinion and I am sure a lot of you beg to differ and I will found out why in 3...2...1 lol Have a good one and don't thrash my post to bad please lol
lol
*licks lips* 
