quote:

Oh yes they do. With all the calories they're burning while hunting and fighting, and with all their massive energy-burning muscles, high-fat/high-protein foods like meat are vital to their survival. They'd have to eat huge amounts of plants to get those calories. And if most cats, big or small, don't get those important proteins from the meat in their diets, their eyesight will deteriorate. And if they can't see, they can't hunt, and then they starve. Plus, a lion's mouth is filled with fangs and scissor-like molars that are basically useless when it comes to chewing plant matter.

although i agree they need to eat meat, if a lion became veggie they wouldnt need to hunt or fight:

'and now we see the lion, the fierce beast..stalking a juniper bush...isolating it from the pack so it can pounce!'

quote:

I just got that from my biologist sister.

I'm not even a biologist and I know more than your sister. That's really sad. So very sad.

quote:

All "carnivorous" animals, supplement with other things.

The amount of plant matter a carnivore would have to eat in order to survive would make its stomach rupture. If you see cat or dog eating grass, that's usually because they have an upset stomach, not because they're hungry.

quote:

omnivorous

Never heard of that word, had to look it up. I feel so dumb but now that I know the defination, I feel smarter.

Yea for me!!!

quote:

All "carnivorous" animals, supplement with other things.

Sharks, even? Prove to me that all sharks are omnivorous. I know for a fact that bull sharks are, but it says right here that sharks are carnivores. There you have it. Tell your sister she's wrong.

quote:

Hey, I'm an omnivore! Not an herbivore!

Good for you. But you aren't claiming to be a vegetarian.

Don't fight me. I just got that from my biologist sister. All "carnivorous" animals, supplement with other things.

Hey, I'm an omnivore! Not an herbivore!

quote:

Even sharks? And ocras? And crocodiles?

Wouldn't that be a sight to see...a shark eating a green salad.

Humans are omnivores (not herbivores, mind you), yes, but there are still carnivores out there. Why else would the word still be in use?

quote:

Actually, lions do not need to consume meat.

Oh yes they do. With all the calories they're burning while hunting and fighting, and with all their massive energy-burning muscles, high-fat/high-protein foods like meat are vital to their survival. They'd have to eat huge amounts of plants to get those calories. And if most cats, big or small, don't get those important proteins from the meat in their diets, their eyesight will deteriorate. And if they can't see, they can't hunt, and then they starve. Plus, a lion's mouth is filled with fangs and scissor-like molars that are basically useless when it comes to chewing plant matter.

quote:

All truly complete carnivores died off with the dinosaurs.

Even sharks? And ocras? And crocodiles?

I think you should go back to school.

Actually, lions do not need to consume meat. All truly complete carnivores died off with the dinosaurs. There are herbivores, but most things are omnivores. I mean, my hamster's an omnivore. She tore the wings off a fly, and then ate it.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=rue-mcclanahan-pig-farm

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=Turkey-farms



disgusting.

quote:

first of all, if you have actually visited numerous farms, you would know that the farmed animals are not treated humanely, and are subject to brutal suffering, all in the favor of capitalism and economics.

Have YOU visited numerous farms and rangeland? Who are you to question my experiance over the internet? I've been involved in environmental and local land use issues for years now, and in the process have learned a lot about the farming industry, as well as rangeland in the US. I've never seen any "atrocities", although they surely exist in some situations, but it's nowhere near the majority.

quote:

Naive people like to believe that guidelines are set and followed, but as is the case in many other factors of this world, guidelines and regulations are almost never followed.

That's given. But the RATIONAL thing to do would be to call for the enforcement of regulation, not the destruction of the entire system.

quote:

Also, free range guidelines sometimes only require that animals are outside for an hour a day. Hardly humane at all.

Firstly, an hour outside a day is deemed humane for federal prisoners, it's surely humane for animals. Secondly, "sometimes" is vauge wording. I do know that hundreds of thousands of cattle are raised range conditions that are ridiculously free. The fact that cattle rustling is still a major problem is testament to that.

quote:

Also why contribute to this species bias if it is not necessary for our survival.

Tell me, what's wrong with species bias?

quote:

Why would one want to contribute to the suffering in the world, rather that aleviate it? That is inevitably placing your ignorance and the capital market before morals.

That depends on your morals. My morals state that suffering if it has a rational cause is usually ok. The eradication of suffering is not high on my priorities list, it's pie-in-the-sky idealism.

quote:

Animals should not be treated this way, or subject to such suffering. And although life may not be fair, it is quite sad that you are OK with subjecting powerless creature to suffering, for your best interests.

Oh well boo hoo that you think it's sad. I have a perfectly rational base for my opinions, as I've laid out previously.

quote:

You said that "Humanity is simply using our advantages as a species." A "natural progression" this may be, but lets not forget that it was also apparently a "natural progression" to enslave african americans and abuse them in the eye of our "advantages."

False analogy. Blacks are humans without a doubt. They are capable of all the same human capacities that Whites, Asians, Hispanics, etc. are capable of. They're of the species Homo Sapien Sapien. A cow is not, and a cow CAN NEVER reach a level of human conciousness or communication. Chickens, fish, pigs, sheep, hell even dogs, all the other "feed" animals of our world are not highly articulate or complexly concious species.

quote:

Also, you should note that lions need to consume meat, we do not.

Then lets use bears as an example. The situation still holds. The morality you speak of exists nowhere in the natural world.

quote:

Although people can manipulate others, why would an intelligent individual want to CONTRIBUTE to the inhumane actions of inauthentic individuals???

Because one does not define "inhumane" in the same manner that you do! Jesus I've tried to tell you people that so many times.
And to continue this point:

quote:

Suffering may be natural, but to try to aleviate it is an attempt to change the world into a moral habitat for all creatures, in which we can say we are proud of, rather than being pessimistic and making it worse.

Look, you never answered the question: Why is the elimination/alleiviation of suffering and pain the hight of morality as you suggest? All you've done is state that "It's moral and logical", but haven't stated WHY.
All your giving me is fluffy feel good opinions. I want a rationale, a moral code based on reason.

Your post is riddled with moral assumptions, and that makes your arguement exceedingly weak.

quote:

Naive people like to believe that guidelines are set and followed, but as is the case in many other factors of this world, guidelines and regulations are almost never followed.

I realized that a looong time ago.

quote:

Why would one want to contribute to the suffering in the world, rather that aleviate it?

Because alleviating their pain costs more money. It's all in the name of profit.

quote:

That is inevitably placing your ignorance and the capital market before morals.

I reserve my morals for humans, thank you.

quote:

and can survive FULLY and HEALTHILY without consuming other animals.

I have been told that time and again, but I honestly don't know what I'd do without steak. Life without meat is...bland. Meat-eating is natural. Live with it.

quote:

Suffering may be natural, but to try to aleviate it is an attempt to change the world into a moral habitat for all creatures, in which we can say we are proud of, rather than being pessimistic and making it worse.

Well, then if I must alleviate the pain of animals, the animals must do the same for me. It's only fair. I won't eat any animals so long as no animals ever cause me harm. Oh ****, that squirrel I just ran over is causing me mental anguish. Guess I have to call off the bargain.

God, how I love doing that.

Strangelove,
first of all, if you have actually visited numerous farms, you would know that the farmed animals are not treated humanely, and are subject to brutal suffering, all in the favor of capitalism and economics. Naive people like to believe that guidelines are set and followed, but as is the case in many other factors of this world, guidelines and regulations are almost never followed. Also, free range guidelines sometimes only require that animals are outside for an hour a day. Hardly humane at all. And there is tremendous proof. Also why contribute to this species bias if it is not necessary for our survival. Also, searing the beaks off of chicks (and other inhumane and disgusting acts) are "cheap". Why would one want to contribute to the suffering in the world, rather that aleviate it? That is inevitably placing your ignorance and the capital market before morals. Animals should not be treated this way, or subject to such suffering. And although life may not be fair, it is quite sad that you are OK with subjecting powerless creature to suffering, for your best interests.

You said that "Humanity is simply using our advantages as a species." A "natural progression" this may be, but lets not forget that it was also apparently a "natural progression" to enslave african americans and abuse them in the eye of our "advantages." Also, you should note that lions need to consume meat, we do not. Thats an inacurate fallacy as of course lions would have slaughterhouses (most likely) however, we have advanced and can survive FULLY and HEALTHILY without consuming other animals.

The "natural order" in our world is alive, yet among the people who do not logically analyze situations around them. Although people can manipulate others, why would an intelligent individual want to CONTRIBUTE to the inhumane actions of inauthentic individuals??? The world is not a "nice fluffy place", however, if one has the capacity to understand love and equliaty, one would logically understand that animal rights are necessary to alleviate suffering. Suffering may be natural, but to try to aleviate it is an attempt to change the world into a moral habitat for all creatures, in which we can say we are proud of, rather than being pessimistic and making it worse.

It is inconceivable for someone to unecesarily inflict pain, or kill another animal. Suffering may be natural, but to inflict harm (or death) on anyone, and especially animals who are powerless to stop this, is quite unconsciousable.

Well. I know when I've been pushed out of a conversation. Good day to you all!

quote:

Have you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer? Because that may help to atequately answer your question.

I've not read the book, as I've told you before. The reason being: Singer is a "bioethicist" that has a wacked out rational. Not only does he promote total animal liberation, but he also promotes euthaniasia, widespread infanticide, and the killing of the handicapped. This displays a very very low respect for human life, and I suspect that this flaw will continue on into Animal Liberation. I will probably not find his arguments persuading, and that assumption is supported by all the summarries and reviews of his works that I've read.

Now, onto your other points:

quote:

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'"

I love that little quote, vegetarians and the whatnot give it out all the time. The problem is, a quote from someone is not an argument, and you've done nothing to tell me why suffering is a bad thing, or why animals have a right not to suffer. HUMANS don't have a right not to suffer. It's nowhere in our constitution, and it's nowhere in any successful philosophy in the world. You and I suffer at the hands of other humans every day, throughout our lives. We suffer at the hands of other organisms too.

The reason we live much more comfortable lives is because we have made pacts and treaties within humanity to work together and suppress the chaotic nature of the world. It's been a win-win situation, and that's been true for animals also. The vast majority of "factory farms" are run within regulations, not to mention the huge amounts of animals that are raised free-range. These animals do not live terrible, horrible lives. It's pretty humane, and I've actually visted properly run facilities and ranges.

Now I'm not a huge proponent of concentrated farming due to the environmental impacts and effects on the quality of food, but I also see nothing wrong with searing the beaks off chicks, castrations, etc.

quote:

Should we always be dictated by the natural order of things, even though we have removed ourselves from the fair food chain system (one where we have as much a chance of being eaten as anyone else) a long time ago?

FAIR food chain? There is no fairness in nature, never has been, never will be. There is no fairness in life either. I can list all day things that have happened to me, as well as things that I've done to others, that aren't fair. Of course it's not fair, because everything does not have equal abilities. And we are still in the natural system, although many people fail to see that.

Humanity is simply using our advantages as a species, building cities, sewing and reaping plants, collecting and efficiently slaughtering animals. It's a natural progression, and we're still in large part driven by nature's instinct. You give the lion the same level of conciousness, dexterity, and cultural development as humanity, and you watch how fast they would start rounding up antelope into pens and slaughterhouses.

There is no inherent right not to be stolen from, adultered, or killed. What humanity has done is made a long series of pacts and treaties with one another to prevent these act from occuring because they distrupt society.

The inherent difference between humans and animals is that they cannot make these pacts, with us or eachother. These pacts are the only thing that has ever kept humanity organized, and an enforcable pact between a human and an animal are the only thing that would justify vegetarianism.

The "natural order" is still alive and present throughout humanity. It affects interactions from person to person, all the way up to international politics. Humans can manipulate our behavior in order to improve things for us. It's also possible to change behavior to improve the conditions for animals, however, since there is no benefit to humanity, or the individual man, there is no reason to.

This is why the "suffering is bad" argument is juvenile. It assumes the world is a nice fluffy place. Now, I could go off on a rant why sadism is detrimental, but we both agree on that so there's no point. The issue is suffering and killing in general, not deliberate acts of sadism. If sadism is bad, but suffering and death are natural, I see no reason why we can't just provide humane environments for livestock to live in, up untill the point where we slaughter them, quickly and efficienty. It's perfectly rational.

quote:

so i think that since people can live without meat and still get the same nutrients, why shouldn't we spare animals? if we can avoid giving animals pain with no cost to ourselves, what reason do we have to continue?

Your argument assumes the same as Slewinca's. There's a basal assumption that the causing of pain is enough reason to make something wrong. That, as I've been trying to prove, is a false argument.

quote:

I still have yet to hear a decent, well supported argument why animals are equal and have some sort of inherent right not to be eaten.

Have you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer? Because that may help to atequately answer your question. The library might have a copy on hand. Also, see this website for an overview of animal rights: http://www.animal-rights.com

quote:

The "They feel pain" arguement is juvenile. Everything feels pain, it's natural, it's right.

It isn't just that they feel pain, it's that they can suffer from it. As Jeremy Bentham once said, "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'" (and yes, that was in reference to animals)

quote:

Why is killing animals bad?

OK, now some people think that the killing in and of itself is bad, and I'm alright with that, but the thing is that it isn't just the fact that they're killed that's the worst, it's the way they're treated before they're killed. At least the animals that lions killed lived a free life. Most of the animals people eat don't even have that. That is what has changed. In fact, I'd prefer it if those who hunt use the animals they kill as their sole source of meat instead of meat from the grocery store.

quote:

Why should we stop now, nothing has changed except our level of development.

What has changed is the way we treat the animals raised for our plates. Most of the animals raised for food today don't even get to go outside until they are loaded into the truck that goes to the slaughterhouse. Egg laying hens have the tips of their sensitive beaks cut off, piglets have their tails cut off and their teeth pulled or cut out, pigs and cattle are castrated without painkillers, and more.

quote:

What I'm getting at here is the core of your beleif: Why do you think that the pinnacle of morality is to cause the least pain even if it violates the natural order of things?

Should we always be dictated by the natural order of things, even though we have removed ourselves from the fair food chain system (one where we have as much a chance of being eaten as anyone else) a long time ago? One could say stealing is part of the natural order of things, "survival of the fittest" as they say. Or one could argue that we should leave our elderly and our ill out to fend for themselves, for isn't keeping them alive not "natural"? (anyone who has watched a nature documentary knows that the oldest and weakest animals are the most vulnerable to predator attacks, indeed, it is natural selection at work when the weakest animals are killed and the strongest ones live on) One could also say that killing another man because he wants the same woman as you is allowable because animals do the same.
Now, don't think that I am for these things, I am only giving you examples. But I want you to see how the "natural order of things" just doesn't work in our advanced society now. We have evolved greatly in many things, why can't we evolve past unneeded brutality as well?

point: God put animals on earth for people to EAT

I don't eat meat, but not because "we shouldn't". With all the toxins going into our food, vegetables are healthier, in general. Also, I don't eat meat because I don't approve of the treatment of the animals. Just because they're bred to die doesn't give people the right to abuse them to make as much money as possible.

quote:

so i think that since people can live without meat and still get the same nutrients, why shouldn't we spare animals?

And why should we? Animals have survived well enough since the dawn of meat-eating humans.

quote:

The "They feel pain" arguement is juvenile. Everything feels pain, it's natural, it's right.

Why is killing animals bad? Why is eating a NATURAL diet morally reprehensible? Why should we stop the natural process of killing for food? Is it somehow inherently wrong now that we can write and read? Were we evil and ignorant before we evolved? Why should we stop now, nothing has changed except our level of development.

that is a very good point. everything feels pain, and it's a natural diet that the majority of humans follow, and have followed, since our evolution. but one of the things that makes us different from animals is the right to choose and think. so i think that since people can live without meat and still get the same nutrients, why shouldn't we spare animals? if we can avoid giving animals pain with no cost to ourselves, what reason do we have to continue? though i am a vegetarian, i do believe in animal testing. this is because, troubled though i am by it, people need medicine, and this is the only way to test it. we can't do this without causing animals pain, so it must be done. but eating them gives us no benefits we can only get through them. one can eat a vegetarian diet and get exactly the same nutrition. i think eating meat is needless killing.