Well, what gives an animal the right to kill a human and in some cases devour our flesh?

In the end your greenies beloved nature doesn't give a shit, she has no friends and no enemies she has no mercy. Nature follows one simple law eat or be eaten, kill or be killed under nature's laws only the strong survive and mankind happens to be very strong

quote:

You know DrStrangelove, I've thought about your theory, and it seems to me that it's just a fancy way of saying "might makes right".

In nature, that is exactly what I am saying. Human society, and the interactions between HUMANS is an artificial construct. We have agreed, for the most part, that the unjustified killing of a human being is murder. This explains my stance on abortion, as I am against the intentional killing of another human.

quote:

So what I am asking you is: Why do you believe that the human fetus has a right to life (or that we don't have the right to kill it) and every other living thing doesn't?

In nature, the fetus does not have a right to life. In human society, it does. Nature does not prosecute a murder. Nature doesn't care. Humanity does.

Now, it comes down to this: Animals lack the phyisical capacity and mental ability to communicate with us. We cannot form a coherent society with them, and therefore I see no reason why we can't utilize them as beasts of burden, as pets, or as food.

This is why I take exception to higher primates and the like. They have a fairly strong sense of conciousness.

quote:

Animals abort their young as well, female deer for example can reabsorb a developing fetus when food supplies are low. (Although that may not be technically referred to as abortion, it's pretty much the same thing)

It is NOT the same thing. Abortion involves concious choice and phyiscal action. What you described is a biological reflex, akin to a miscarriage.

quote:

Man may not have always been the hunter, during evolution, we may have very well been the hunted most of the time.

Yep, and then we excercised our power and subdued the other species over time. If the species (not nessecarily the individual) cannot defend itself, then it is open to attack. It's perfectly logical, and not brutal in the least sense.

The destinction you need to see is this:
Eating meat is NOT an act of barbarism. It is the simple harvesting of food. There is no malice or evil intent in killing a cow and eating it. Since the cow otherwise would be open to be killed by predators in nature, then there's nothing wrong with us eating it.

quote:

The way most people eat meat today is closer to a carrion eater than to a true carnivore. Most of society doesn't eat the flesh of freshly killed animals, they eat the flesh of animals killed days, weeks, even months previously.

This is totally irrelevent. We've simply made the process more efficient and sanitary. The preservation and transport of meat is not immoral. You can make a case against factory farms, but not the whole idea of a dispersed meat industry.

I would prefer to eat fresh kill but it's kinda hard to get out of town and kill a deer or two especally out of season

You know DrStrangelove, I've thought about your theory, and it seems to me that it's just a fancy way of saying "might makes right". We are the most intelligent species, and we have proven over thousands of years that we do not have to blindly follow the law of nature. (Which, when you think about it, isn't really a law in the common sense, but more like an anarchy, where anything goes.) We are the most moral animal. We have the ability to choose what we eat when so many other animals don't.
Man may not have always been the hunter, during evolution, we may have very well been the hunted most of the time. http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/hunter_gatherer.htm (Forgive the "biased" link, I just found this article today, luckily enough, and it's really about a book that goes into detail about this theory, and if you want to criticize it, you should look at the book and its author first)
The way most people eat meat today is closer to a carrion eater than to a true carnivore. Most of society doesn't eat the flesh of freshly killed animals, they eat the flesh of animals killed days, weeks, even months previously.

quote:

All animals, humans included, have no natural right to life and therefore are open game.

This puzzles me, because you believe that a fetus has a right to life, don't you? If you believe that theory to be true, then why are you pro-life? We used our always-adaptive brains to come up with ways to kill our young, and the human race has been practicing abortion for a very long time. Animals abort their young as well, female deer for example can reabsorb a developing fetus when food supplies are low. (Although that may not be technically referred to as abortion, it's pretty much the same thing)
So what I am asking you is: Why do you believe that the human fetus has a right to life (or that we don't have the right to kill it) and every other living thing doesn't?

quote:

Yes, we have evolved and should really move away from the concept of eating flesh,

I question that that's even true. The whole idea is based on the concept that killing for food is wrong. I find that ridiculous, and nobody, Slewinca included, has offered a mature or compelling reason why.

Suffering, death, nutrition, and hunger are all realities of this world and will continue to be so no matter how advanced we are. All animals, humans included, have no natural right to life and therefore are open game. If I want a steak, I'll kill a cow and cook it, or pay someone to kill it for me.

Because it is natural. Wolves eat rabbits. Foxes eat rats and chickens.

Yes, we have evolved and should really move away from the concept of eating flesh, but I would love watch anyone explain to the hunter-and-gatherers of the nomadic San of Africa, for example, that eating fish and pigs is too animal-like.

I eat meat every day--I don't intend to change that. The only thing is I try to eat more organic things. For example, most of our chicken is so stuffed with hormones that a lot of times the chicken's little feet break because it is unnaturally obese. That is wrong. Animals should not have to suffer to become food or be used for useless things (make-up testing).

If there was a more intelligent species than us, we would be a source of food.

Actually, it was more often done by those who had done it before. Like one of my "brothers" lives on sort of Gentlemen's Farm type of place. In his family, they don't eat store-bought chicken, because both of his parents were raised on farms, and they don't like store-bought stuff. So, they raise and kill their own chickens.

quote:

Does the term "harvesting" upset you?

I'd say that the word used would be referred to as a euphemism, much like the word "meat" when you're talking about the flesh of a dead animal. The term "harvesting" is pretty vague; it can be used for plants, animals, human corpses (like organ harvesting), etc.

Regardless of the word that is used to describe it, it is still killing. And from how you describe the technique used in killing the chickens (being administered by inexperienced youths, might I add), I don't blame that girl for being upset by it.

Oh, and here are the definitions of both words:

har·vest ( P ) Pronunciation Key (härvst)
n.
The act or process of gathering a crop.

The crop that ripens or is gathered in a season.
The amount or measure of the crop gathered in a season.
The time or season of such gathering.
The result or consequence of an activity.

v. har·vest·ed, har·vest·ing, har·vests
v. tr.

To gather (a crop).
To take or kill (fish or deer, for example) for food, sport, or population control.
To extract from a culture or a living or recently deceased body, especially for transplantation: harvested bone marrow.
To gather a crop from.
To receive (the benefits or consequences of an action). See Synonyms at reap.

v. intr.
To gather a crop.

slaugh·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slôtr)
n.
The killing of animals especially for food.
The killing of a large number of people; a massacre: “I could not give my name to aid the slaughter in this war, fought on both sides for grossly material ends” (Sylvia Pankhurst).

tr.v. slaugh·tered, slaugh·ter·ing, slaugh·ters
To kill (animals) especially for food; butcher.

To kill (people) in large numbers; massacre.
To kill in a violent or brutal manner.

Does the term "harvesting" upset you? Because I was on a pioneer reenactment this summer and one of the people in my brother's "family" got really upset when we "harvested" the chickens.

We didn't use the term "slaughter." Cause we weren't. We slit their throats and let them bleed to death. Except for the few that we missed their jugulars and got their windpipes...yeah.

Anyways, this one girl had a hissy fit, because it's not harvesting. It's slaughtering. Apparently.

what??? y'all are actually STILL on this topic???
incredible... (sings) some things in life just never change...

quote:

Originally posted by bella123:

quote:

my parents cooked...oh, I forget the proper name for it, but it was male chicken

Uh...a rooster?

I think she's referring to capon, which is a castrated male chicken.
But I don't think that they come from the egg industry, but I do not know that much about capon production so don't hold me on that.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, xVOICEx, I forgot about this.

quote:

That and, the inhumane ways of dealing with livestock that you mention are not practiced everywhere.

They're practiced very often in commercial, corporate owned agriculture, which is pushing out family farms.

quote:

The animal rights activists go out, find the most horrific examples, and protest against them.

Well what do you want them to do? Anti-sweatshop activists do the same thing, don't they?

quote:

That's ocmpletely justified, but that could mean there are as little as two or three farms guilty of inhumane cruelty or thousands.

With corporate owned farms, there's a lot more than two or three, since the corporation's standards are pretty much uniform for the suppliers. And practices like killing the male chicks born to egg laying hens are most likely very commonplace in the egg industry today, as are practices like the tail docking and tooth cutting/pulling of baby pigs and the castration of cattle and pigs without painkillers.

quote:

Are you anti abortion by any chance? (sorry, random question, not meant to start a random argument/debate)

Well, I'm somewhat undecided on the whole thing. I see where pro-lifers are coming from, since they're constantly being demeaned by the other side (pro-choicers against pro-lifers, meat heads against animal rights activists). I used to think I was pro-choice, until I saw how similar pro-lifers are to animal rights activists (they're not exactly alike, but they are similar nonetheless) Sometimes I feel torn between the two sides (and my mom being strongly pro-choice doesn't help). Regardless, there are animal rights activists who are pro-life and ones who are pro-choice. PETA, the largest animal rights organization, doesn't take a position on abortion because they are an animal rights organization, and there are already organizations around that are involved in such issues as abortion.

quote:

Do tell me then, where exactly can I get my prized, precious fried chicken? And, before you answer, how do you REALLY know how the animals are treated?

Someplace other than KFC
Investigators have gone into the farms (if they can even be called that) and slaughterhouses to see the living and dying condictions of chickens there. (You can find them all here: http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/investigations.asp as you can see, this isn't limited to the U.S., for the same things have been found in KFC suppliers in other countries) In one slaughterhouse that processed chicken for KFC, the investigator found workers kicking, jumping, throwing and stomping on live chickens. And this plant was considered by KFC to be one of their best ("Supplier of the Year" to be exact). (For more info, click here: http://www.peta.org/feat/moorefield/ ) A former slaughterhouse worker, Virgil Butler, who used to work for a plant that supplies KFC, witnessed many acts of animal abuse: http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/a-tyson1.asp
So yes, there is proof of abuse.

quote:

my parents cooked...oh, I forget the proper name for it, but it was male chicken

Uh...a rooster?

quote:

Member of the NDLC*, est. 2005 (National Democratic-Liberal Coalition)

Is that still even going?

quote:

(FYI, chicks are currently being killed, but for different reasons. When they breed egg laying hens, the males chicks that results are thrown out like garbage or ground up alive for rendering because they are not meat-grade chickens. So there.)

"So there"? Please, let's not be childish.

Also, just a couple weeks ago my parents cooked...oh, I forget the proper name for it, but it was male chicken. So, they are used as food in some cases. That and, the inhumane ways of dealing with livestock that you mention are not practiced everywhere. The animal rights activists go out, find the most horrific examples, and protest against them. That's ocmpletely justified, but that could mean there are as little as two or three farms guilty of inhumane cruelty or thousands.

quote:

And every animal not bred saves one from a dreary existance of confinement, filth and suffering.

Are you anti abortion by any chance? (sorry, random question, not meant to start a random argument/debate)

quote:

A lot of animal rights activists today used to eat meat (including myself), and a lot enjoyed eating it (ditto), but when they learned about the cruelty and the unethicality of producing it, they stopped eating it and switched to humane ways of eating.
Would it be that hard to get your fried chicken at someplace other than KFC?

Do tell me then, where exactly can I get my prized, precious fried chicken? And, before you answer, how do you REALLY know how the animals are treated?

quote:

Humans have been omnivores since the beginning of evolution. We always will be.

Being omnivorous means being able to eat just about anything, right? Well that's why we are able to adapt to different diets. And you keep talking about the stone age, when I'm talking about the here and now, where people eat too much of really crappy food.

quote:

Besides, the reason we don't is because we don't find the nutrients we need in dog or cat.

And how would you know what nutrients are in dog/cat flesh? For all we know, it could have more nutrients than chicken.

quote:

And, because let's face it, my black labrador is just cuter than a chicken. She just is!

Regardless of how they look, both animals have the same capacity to feel pain and suffer and have the same desire to avoid pain and the same will to live. What you just described is what Peter Singer refers to as speciesism; think racism, but with different species. I don't mean that to be an insult, I'm just pointing out that that way of thinking is somewhat faulty.
Oh, and I've seen bunches of newly hatched chicks (I live in the country), and I think they're cuter than 10 black labradors

quote:

Tell that to the puppies in puppy mills, or the dogs and cats that act as drug mules. All animals are treated unreasonably bad, which is an unfortunate downfall to mankind.

I am aware of that, but puppy mill dogs aren't castrated without painkillers, branded, etc. But I wish more people would realize the similarites between the factory farming of, say, pigs, and puppy mills. (Pigs are just as smart, and even smarter than dogs, so it's a correct comparison)

quote:

It'll never happen. It is nearly engrained in our DNA to be omnivores.

Our minds have no say in the matter then?

quote:

and yes, eventually, livestock (especially those animals with the notorious reputation to over-reproduce) would become a problem. And then instead of being the industrious people we've become and using the killed animals for good (making clothing, food of their carcasses) we'd just be wasting them.

That would be a matter of opinion, since such animals would most likely go to a sanctuary (like Farm Sanctuary for example: www.farmsanctuary.org ), and people who eat dogs and cats in other countries may say that we're wasting the dogs and cats that we euthanize in shelters or in veterinary clinics when we could eat them instead.

quote:

That was rather pretentious. Eating meat does not make one inhumane. In point of fact, it makes one remarkably human.

I did not say that it made the person inhumane, just that the diet is inhumane, that's all. I was not name-calling. And I would say that the ability to choose a vegetarian diet makes us remarkably human as well.

quote:

And what, do you suppose, would happen to the millions of chickens KFC slaughters for our consumption? Do they get set free into the wilderness to live like the hippies of the animal world? Nope. They'd be wasted and gone.

I already said that if consumption of meat were to decrease, they (meaning the farmers) would breed less animals. No farmer in their right mind would breed a bunch of animals if the demand didn't match the amount. And every animal not bred saves one from a dreary existance of confinement, filth and suffering. And besides, KFC currently does not have animal welfare standards for their suppliers equal to the ones that McDonalds, Burger King and Wendy's have, and they're not going to do a thing about it unless we speak up and tell them that we aren't going to eat there until they clean up their act.

quote:

It's so selfish and so annoyingly American to disregard meat.

Go tell the Hindus and Buddhists that
But seriously, how is it selfish to think ethically about what we eat? Not to mention the treatment of the workers in slaughterhouses, which in some cases violates their human rights.
http://www.goveg.com/workerRights.asp

quote:

There are millions of children, women and men who starve every day because they cannot live off the bad land and filmsy plantlife in their area.

...and because their governments and the governments of richer countries don't help them. Lack of food isn't the main cause of world hunger, war and corrupt government contributes quite a bit to the problem of effective food distribution. World hunger is a more complex problem than most people think.
I'm not advocating depriving the hungry people of developing nations of food, and neither are animal rights advocates. Why do you think it is annoying to suggest that we, as people living in a rich nation, should reduce our large consumption of meat so that perhaps we'll have more to give the hungry? (A meat-eating diet is very wasteful of grain and water)
http://www.goveg.com/worldHunger.asp

Just curious, but are you involved with Heifer International? From the sounds of it, I think you would like them.

quote:

Originally posted by Slewinca:
Animals do a lot of things, some things that we know humans shouldn't do, like kill each other, steal and rape. The animals who eat other animals have little choice, but we do. We have way more choices as to what we eat than any other animal.

Not really. It's the natural order for the dominant species to kill the less dominant. It isn't our fault that we evolved into higher thinking beings (however flawed we may be), nor is it our duty to even out the odds.

quote:

You know, plants have protein too. And more often than not, people who eat meat get more protein than they need.

I don't really know how to came to that conclusion, but that is rarely true. Humans have been omnivores since the beginning of evolution. We always will be. Our bodies are smarter than we think; if we need ruffage, we will get it. However, if we need meat, we will ingest some. Those who don't? As long as your diet is balanced, no harm, no foul. It isn't natural, but it's perfectly normal. Some great species have gone it. The stegosaurus being a personal favorite.

quote:

If dogs and cats were raised for the same purpose (actually, they are in some parts of the world), that wouldn't justify doing it, right?

It would, because we never would've domesticated them if we were going to raise them for consumption. Besides, the reason we don't is because we don't find the nutrients we need in dog or cat. And, because let's face it, my black labrador is just cuter than a chicken. She just is!

quote:

The cruelty and inhumane living condictions suffered by farmed animals are so bad that if cats and dogs were in their place, the people in charge of running the factory farm would be charged with animal cruelty and would probably go to jail.

Tell that to the puppies in puppy mills, or the dogs and cats that act as drug mules. All animals are treated unreasonably bad, which is an unfortunate downfall to mankind.

quote:

And since society as a whole isn't going to go vegan in a day, the reduction would be gradual, so there is no need to worry about overpopulation of livestock.

It'll never happen. It is nearly engrained in our DNA to be omnivores. There is nothing wrong with being a vegan. The problem is convincing America to do follow suit. It would damage the economy, and yes, eventually, livestock (especially those animals with the notorious reputation to over-reproduce) would become a problem. And then instead of being the industrious people we've become and using the killed animals for good (making clothing, food of their carcasses) we'd just be wasting them.

quote:

A lot of animal rights activists today used to eat meat (including myself), and a lot enjoyed eating it (ditto), but when they learned about the cruelty and the unethicality of producing it, they stopped eating it and switched to humane ways of eating.

That was rather pretentious. Eating meat does not make one inhumane. In point of fact, it makes one remarkably human.

quote:

Would it be that hard to get your fried chicken at someplace other than KFC?

And what, do you suppose, would happen to the millions of chickens KFC slaughters for our consumption? Do they get set free into the wilderness to live like the hippies of the animal world? Nope. They'd be wasted and gone.

It's so selfish and so annoyingly American to disregard meat. There are millions of children, women and men who starve every day because they cannot live off the bad land and filmsy plantlife in their area. They would sell their souls for a few goats, cattle, etc. Yet we're wasteful enough to say, "We don't need meat! We just raise cattle to paint pictures on their backsides! You're starving? Grow some plants!" It isn't that simple. Meat helps people survive.

Thanks EarthGoddess for taking care of flyingonthesewings for me

quote:

It's part of nature. Snakes eat rats. It's how it works.

Animals do a lot of things, some things that we know humans shouldn't do, like kill each other, steal and rape. The animals who eat other animals have little choice, but we do. We have way more choices as to what we eat than any other animal.

quote:

We need the things that are in meat. It has things like protein that we have to have.

You know, plants have protein too. And more often than not, people who eat meat get more protein than they need.

quote:

And besides, chicken and livestock? What are they rasied for?

If dogs and cats were raised for the same purpose (actually, they are in some parts of the world), that wouldn't justify doing it, right?

quote:

I am sorry, but I feel no guilt what-so-ever about eating meat because they are not endangered and will be killed otherwise.

As I have said multiple times before, this issue and others like it (like fur) are not extinction issues, they are animal cruelty issues. The cruelty and inhumane living condictions suffered by farmed animals are so bad that if cats and dogs were in their place, the people in charge of running the factory farm would be charged with animal cruelty and would probably go to jail.

quote:

Say, the price for chicken goes down; the farmer will drown all of his newborn chicks because they would be eating grain that cost money without making profit.

How on earth did you come up with that conclusion? When people started eating less beef, did they drown cattle? When people realized the horrible cruelty involved in raising calves for veal and stoppe