[ScientificBoyZClub]

meat is good.
vegan is good.

but just think of all the muted cry s of the plants as you rip them out of the ground incapable of the communication needed to stop you from riping them away from there home and boiling them

You all are foolish people.
You can't even understand MORELS.

When an animal is struggling for life. we should let it go cos it got right to live.
but cos of you eat meat people KILL them to earn money.

Stupidity of mankind is Infinite.
Einstein was correct.

NOW cut your own hand and know the pain of those ANIMALS !!

[Ethos]

GOD sent me to advice and stop you guys not to eat meat.
If you don't listen to me YOU GO TO HELL.

Mr. SBC;

You pictured a Lion, a Tiger, and a Leopard. I just have one question I'd like to have answered:

Are all Lions, Tigers, and Leopards going to Hell?
And what about all birds of prey?
And Bears, Monkeys, Sharks,.......

My goodness, there won't be any room left in Hell for any of us humans will there???

Go out and order up a nice juicy medium rare porterhouse. Believe me, once you enjoy one, you'll change your tune.

[glovesforfoxes]

I've already spoken about veganism to a few people on the forums privately & openly criticise the defense of using animal produce in all forms, including leather, isinglass, honey, dairy, eggs, meat, including that of fish.. anything that has a nervous system, that has the capability to feel pain, should not be made to do so in order to serve human ends. There are several reasons for this:

• The main crux of my argument is this: Using animal products is unnecessary & causes suffering. Suffering for any dog is bad, so why is it not bad when it is a cow? They have comparable levels of intelligence (but I disagree entirely with the idea of using intelligence to determine how well something should be treated) & most likely the same level of sentiency.
• There is no "natural" diet of a human being any more than there is a human "nature". What does that even mean? If you examine many different cultures, historically and recently, you'll find that any recent, Western models of understanding human "nature" are disproved so many times that they can't be applied universally. If human nature is to be an omnivore, then what is the nature of this culture?
  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2005/01/07/stories/2005010700080200.htm
  or indeed large sections of India which are vegetarian or vegan. Our nature is not the same as what we are currently, or what the norm is. Appealing to nature as a justification for a moral issue is a fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
  You still think meat eating is natural? Then go ahead & eat that chicken raw. That's how it's eaten naturally.
• While veganism can be just as healthy or unhealthy as the Western omnivore diet, it certainly promotes good health in Western countries. The only nutritional problems vegans have are vitamin B12 & D deficiency; both can be supplemented. B12 is produced by bacteria which animals carry, which omnis then eat. Vitamin D is a problem in places where there is a lack of sunshine or if your skin is dark.
  The amounts of fruit & vegetables a typical vegan will consume is probably from between 1.5 to 2 times as much as a typical omnivore. Although I hate the whole antioxidant craze, they are full of them, and protect against cancers, obesity, & heart disease - in other words, the health issues most common to Westerners. Meat, milk & eggs on the other hand, are typically consumed in far greater quantities than we are equipped to deal with - leading to the problems that a vegan diet can help fight.
• It is better environmentally. A vegan will use much less land & water than an omnivore, though I appreciate that some areas that are unsuitable for growing crops can be used for grazing animals.
• We have a moral duty to not cause harm to animals. Whether you value them as being similar to humans or not, they at least should have the right of non-interference - in other words, we should leave them alone. Anyone approaching moral would not buy bananas knowing that it supports exploitation of other humans in third world countries for example, because we recognise that inherently that human has a right, at least, to not be exploited. You would not exploit an animal you know & have a friendship with - why does that animal deserve your non-interference, but other animals have no right over their own body?
• There is no question of desertion. What did an animal do, except exist as the animal it is, to live a miserable life? Nothing. It did not choose to be the animal it is any more than you chose to be the animal you are - you could easily have been that animal, & you would not want to be killed. Luck & chance is the reason we are in the position we are & is the same reason that animals are in the position they are in.

I've said this before, & I'll say it again: unfortunately science has been misused to justify moral atrocities. The institutionalised, widespread suffering by animals is the currently the worst moral atrocity. I urge you all to not let science be misused & no longer finance the suffering.

SBC, I wouldn't call omnivores fools, but I'd definitely say their thinking is inconsistent, misguided & hypocritical. Fortunately, things change.. people can change. I do not think people actively want to cause suffering to animals. The link between an omnivore lifestyle & causing suffering is difficult to make for some people, because the moral norm is to use animals.

Feel free to ask questions or comment - but I've found once I post such a comprehensive, philosophical attack on the omnivore lifestyle which is consistent with scientific thinking & secular morals people don't often reply. Makes me wonder why, really..

[Bored chemist]

SBC,
Quite a lot of the UK's higher ground is too cold and wet to grow much apart from grass. People can't eat grass so we would starve if we didn't eat animals.

Why does your "moral" crusade want to see me and my neighbours dead from starvation?


By the way I understand morels well enough to know they don't really figure in this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morchella
More importantly I understand the importance of morals and I don't think it's morally acceptable for you to enforce your point of view on the rest of us.
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word).

[Ethos]

SBC,
Quite a lot of the UK's higher ground is too cold and wet to grow much apart from grass. People can't eat grass so we would starve if we didn't eat animals.

Why does your "moral" crusade want to see me and my neighbours dead from starvation?


By the way I understand morels well enough to know they don't really figure in this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morchella
More importantly I understand the importance of morals and I don't think it's morally acceptable for you to enforce your point of view on the rest of us.
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word).

Well said BC,..........well said!

[glovesforfoxes]

It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word)

Unfortunately, since the demands of meat are so high, conditions for animals are rarely good. & since when is killing something & eating it treating it humanely? Yes, it feels no pain after it's dead, but you can use that same argument to justify the killing of humans. One of the reasons killing things is bad is because you're preventing them from feeling where they otherwise could - enjoying the sunshine, food, to be free. Though to be honest, where most animals are killed for food, it's safe to say it's a mercy killing, given that they are raised in boxes..

[nixietube]

It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word)

Unfortunately, since the demands of meat are so high, conditions for animals are rarely good. & since when is killing something & eating it treating it humanely? Yes, it feels no pain after it's dead, but you can use that same argument to justify the killing of humans. One of the reasons killing things is bad is because you're preventing them from feeling where they otherwise could - enjoying the sunshine, food, to be free. Though to be honest, where most animals are killed for food, it's safe to say it's a mercy killing, given that they are raised in boxes..

What are you views on other animals towards the top end of their food chain?  pick any.. say a crocodile drowning its prey.
Drowning doesn't seem like a great way to go to me. Why is that acceptable just because it is not human? Compare that to say a bolt through the brain, a common effective means of dispatch. I know many farmers, they care for their livestock and take pride in their welfare. How many farmers do you know? Not all animals are raised in boxes. You cant tar the entire farming industry with the same brush. The suffering crux of your argument above is flawed. Sadly my expertise is not in nutrition, so I'll leave that to you to investigate yourself. Set aside your bias, and take a look at arguments "from the other side".


You mention honey.. what is wrong with using/consuming honey? Do you know what honey is? 

Where are you with Jesus feeding 5000 with 5 loaves of bread and two fish?

[glovesforfoxes]

What are you views on other animals towards the top end of their food chain?  pick any.. say a crocodile drowning its prey.

The killing is necessary for it's food. A crocodile can't be vegetarian & live. Humans don't need to be predators, they have a conscience, & where there are other means of survival they should be used above all else.

Drowning doesn't seem like a great way to go to me. Why is that acceptable just because it is not human?

It is acceptable because it is free of morality & necessary. The crocodile needs to eat, & does not consider the morality of what it is doing because it can be reasonably assumed it doesn't have a conscience.

Compare that to say a bolt through the brain, a common effective means of dispatch. I know many farmers, they care for their livestock and take pride in their welfare. How many farmers do you know? Not all animals are raised in boxes. You cant tar the entire farming industry with the same brush.

I can tar them with the same brush that they all kill animals; if they kill, they are doing something wrong. Welfare isn't enough. You don't raise a child, then one day decide because it isn't good for serving your ends anymore that it can't live. No. It's wrong. In exactly the same way it's wrong to kill an animal - even if you treat it right while it's alive.

The suffering crux of your argument above is flawed.

Which bit?

Sadly my expertise is not in nutrition, so I'll leave that to you to investigate yourself. Set aside your bias, and take a look at arguments "from the other side".

I've been a meat eater for nearly 18 years. Only recently have I turned vegan, but I've spent time researching about what goes on in farms, nutrition. The arguments from the other side are morally non-existent or seriously flawed - i.e arguments to evolution. I used to defend it, & I used to think vegetarians were weird. Now I see that they have taken the golden rule & applied it consistently. Treat thy neighbor as thyself. I consider everyone in the world, every sentient creature, my neighbor.

You mention honey.. what is wrong with using/consuming honey? Do you know what honey is?

Yes. Honey is food for bees. Not humans.

http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

In addition to that, bees are often killed near winter time to cut down on costs. This is wrong for the same reason it's wrong as killing animals.

[Geezer]

I consider everyone in the world, every sentient creature, my neighbor.

So, is it more morally defensible to slaughter non-sentient creatures?

"Oh! Whack them. They can't think. What do they care?"

or perhaps,

"I can't think. Therefore I ain't."

[glovesforfoxes]

So, is it more morally defensible to slaughter non-sentient creatures?

"Oh! Whack them. They can't think. What do they care?"

or perhaps,

"I can't think. Therefore I ain't."

Yes, it is more morally defensible. Living things can be differentiated from say rocks since it is their intent to stay alive, ordered, & it has specific mechanisms for doing that. So living things must be treated with more respect than inanimate things, & living sentient things should be treated with even more respect than living things. The belief in animal's capability to feel pain, as well as a belief that you should not enslave a sentient creature to serve you, is the foundation of my veganism.

I can already forsee the problem I think you are about to propose, & that's of people in comas, perhaps? They should be treated with respect because they are, or were, capable of consciousness, as well as the angry family members who are definitely still conscious - you'll see when the lawsuit for assault comes through []

If something cannot percieve the world with a consciousness, how can it feel pain?
This is a question I am still asking myself about plants. I plan to research it once I'm back at university. If I find that they do feel pain, I will learn to forage.

http://www.vegetus.org/essay/plants.htm

[nixietube]

If something cannot percieve the world with a consciousness, how can it feel pain?
This is a question I am still asking myself about plants. I plan to research it once I'm back at university. If I find that they do feel pain, I will learn to forage.

I think this may have been touched on briefly on an earlier podcast, sorry I cant find it, I looked. I think you need to define pain in the context of the plant ( please would a biologist step in here).. aren't there signaling chemicals  (alluded to in your link )which have been identified when the plant suffers damage or attack? Is that "pain" This reminds me of mushroom farming. It was on TV recently.. the exact details to trigger the 'fruit' is not known, but farmers know to cover the soil which somehow tells the fungus to produce. Sounds like fungus abuse to me, dial 999.

That nicely leads me onto another question I ask myself from time to time.. why do we anthropomorphise just about everything? That is we the human race, I suspect we all do it at times, empathy etc and all that non-verbal communication. Probably best left to another thread.

I respect your views gloveforfoxes, but I do not agree with all of them. The fact remains the human race would not have evolved without being carnivores, but I guess that is ok, because there will be a cute argument for that one somewhere on the interwebs.  I will continue to enjoy my ethically, locally sourced meat and dairy products, along with honey. I'll be visiting a good friend who happens to be an apiarist, we'll have a good read of the link you gave re. honey bees, probably over many beers. We'll try keep the laughter down to a minimum to not waken the flora while you forage.

With no ill intent, and strictly tongue in cheek.

[Don_1]

Your point on plants feeling 'pain' is not without ground. Plants do send chemical signals out when under attack. In this way nearby plants of the same species may be able to produce toxins in their leaves/stems etc to protect themselves against a raider.

It is all very well to say consuming meat is unnecessary, but humans have been killing and eating other animals since our ancestors appeared on the Earth. I see no reason to question nature or to alter it.

As one who loves gardening, I could complain that eating my precious plants would be wrong.

[glovesforfoxes]

Yes, we might need to define pain in the context of a plant.. but how can we ever hope to understand or relate to such an experience?

The fact remains the human race would not have evolved without being carnivores

Whether that is true or not (I have good reason to believe it isn't - we are carnivores as the result of intelligence, not the cause of it - just look at our meagre muscles, natural weapons, digestive system adapted to mainly eating vegetation..) it is irrelevant to moral arguments & furthermore is an ethically dubious defense at best. You cannot describe something the way it is & say that is justification for the way it is - it's called the naturalistic fallacy. I am concerned with the present & future welfare & rights of animals, not ones I can do nothing about.

It's not anthropomorphism when you compare animals & humans: humans are animals. There is no massive, great divide between humans & animals. They are all animals. We happen to have millenia of acculmulated knowledge because of paper, & as a result, civilisation. Humans seem to think they are in a special place above animals because we're more intelligent. Negatively judging an animal for lacking as much intelligence as a human is like a bird judging a human for lacking as many wings as a bird. It's nonsensical. As far as I'm aware, that's a lot less anthropomorphic than you claim..

You have to impregnate cows to get calves to get milk (usually artificially, with a giant rod) so effectively the cows are continually raped. Then the calves are seperated from their mothers - a process which causes the mother emotional pain. This is without mentioning stereotyping behaviour of caged animals, the cruel process of debeaking, the various diseases farmed animals suffer..

You simply cannot have ethical meat, milk or egg. Or honey. The animals own their bodies & have right over their produce simply because they produce it & are aware of it, just like you have right over your organs & muscles & are, no doubt, aware of it. & don't tell me about free range produce, because it suffers the same flaw: viewing animals as property, instead of as animals.

We should be the responsible stewards of animals - not the theives of their produce. First it was the rights of black people, women, gays, & if history is anything to go by, animals are next. Then this holocaust can be stopped.

Edit: reply to Don_1.

Well, if you think tradition is above the morality of inflicting pain, there is nothing I can say to convince you.

Edit 2: baby cows are calves, not foals []

[Geezer]

You have to impregnate cows to get foals to get milk.

Wow! That would be rather remarkable  []

Seriously, the point about plants indicates that the whole thing is shades of grey. We can try to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say it's OK to kill some living things for food and not others. But if we are going to take the real moral high ground, we really should not kill any organisms for food, or "steal" milk from cows, etc.

[glovesforfoxes]

I agree. That is the highest moral ground. Unfortunately, it is not sustainable for a human to live as a fruitarian. Perhaps as a forager, though, as I've already said - no killing plants or stealing from them. We can minimise suffering by not eating animals, since they're on a higher trophic level & eat many plants themselves. I am committed to minimising the negative consequences on others through existing.

Reducing the population size would be a good way for all of humanity.

[glovesforfoxes]

But I have canine teeth, and this and other scientific/medical evidence tells me that I'm supposed to eat meat.  I can't deny this scientific evidence; however, I admit that I could not work in a slaughterhouse or go hunting.

I've already commented on the naturalistic fallacy several times. If you think there is something wrong with the naturalistic fallacy, discuss that, but I've already replied to the idea of appealing to nature as a justification for eating meat: it isn't one for reasons I've stated before.

But that's not an excuse to be a vegan.

Isn't it? Doesn't that show that you're actually repulsed by such things, but have been socialised to see it in a better light? It's a lamb dressed as mutton.

Of course, you can argue that both the repulsion & the attraction are the result of incorporating norms into emotional responses [] One consistent emotional response to the same product would be.. well.. consistent. I choose repulsion.

I might not be able to withstand the gore of a surgical operation, but I would want that operation performed on me.  In the same way, I'll buy meat in a store, but don't ask me to turn a live animal into a deli item.  I don't even like to deal with the dead flesh of a store-bought fresh whole chicken, although I'll carve a cooked one.

This is disanalagous - the purpose of the surgical operation is to save life, slaughter obviously is not.

Pure vegans must eat a careful diet to ensure they receive the nutrients that they don't obtain from meat and other animal products.

They don't need to, in the same way many people don't need to reduce their intake of saturated fat & salt in order to reduce their chances of various heart diseases. They do if they want to be reasonably healthy, though. I've heard off vegans who live off dark chocolate & crisps. Vegans don't need to be particularly health conscious any more than the general population does.

How are uneducated people in other countries (or our own) convinced to ignore their appetite for meat, and how are they educated to eat a vegetarian diet?  How do vegans justify telling starving people not to eat animals? We're not talking about substituting textiles for animals pelts as a means of clothing ourselves.  We're talking survival.

I don't ignore my appetite for meat. I grew up in a family with fairly traditional ideas about food; 3 good, big meals a day are necessary, milk is good for you, meat is necessary & tasty, etc. I have turned myself off to animal produce by meditating & imagining the animals suffering as part of my own - a Buddhist practice, & an effective one in developing compassion.

As for your quesion about starving people, it is irrelevant in this country, & in many. If we stopped eating meat, there would be much, much more food to go around anyway - currently, in terms of food, the third world countries subsidise our way of life. The soya used to feed animals can be used to feed people instead - it's of no less quality. If you have an understanding of trophic levels you'll understand this.

Let's not conveniently blind ourselves to other animal "crimes".  Humans cause plenty of animal deaths, and not just for food.  Washing our hands kills millions of bacteria.

The difference, as I've already said, is sentience.

Just because we can't hear them scream doesn't mean they don't feel the pain.  Has anyone calculated the (perhaps) millions of pounds of bacteria killed yearly for the sake of "washing our hands"?  If I remember correctly, we torture yeast to produce alcohol.

It is reasonable to assume animals have a similar existance to our own, in terms of pleasure & pain, since we have a very similar nervous system. It is not to assume plants or microorganisms do.

We gladly kill mosquitos.  Whether we walk, ride bikes, drive cars or fly in planes, we kill animals for the right to transport ourselves ... the right to walk in the woods, the right to sleep away from where we work, the right to go out with friends for a dinner and a movie, the right see the autumn foliage in the fall, and the right to live on the opposite coast (or another country) from where the rest of our relatives live so we "must" fly home for the holidays.  We're not even talking about eating to survive.  This is merely our exercise of free will.  Shoes squish bugs, cars cause road kill, airplanes strike birds, etc.  The bug splatter with car windshields and radiators alone is legendary, and we surely kill plenty of animals in the making of "bug guts removal chemicals" or simply windex or windshield washer fluid just to keep our cars "pretty".  Humans have run entire rivers dry -- rivers that don't even reach the sea anymore!! -- and killed off their many different animal populations just for the sake of filling our swimming pools, running the water while brushing our teeth, or watering our well-manicured lawns.  The number of flying insects driven to die around the millions (or is it billions) of streetlights and other outdoor lights.  Let's not pretend we live in a cutsy hobbit world except for eating meat.

The intent of an action matters. Accidentally killing a dog is not the same as murdering it; the same goes for all animals, including humans.

I agree with your point about transport. I don't own a car or fly.

I don't know the source for this morality of animal non-suffering.  Animals must not suffer, but are humans allowed to?

Depends. Do you think a King deserves the suffering of not having such extravagant food, considering it needs to be used by his fellow peasants? If you don't, well.. then I cannot convince you, no matter what I say. It might be painful for that King initially, but he'll get over it. The peasants don't get over being hungry.

Or do such proponents also advocate human euthanisia as well as for animals?  Is non-suffering the ultimate goal?  Is that all there is to life?

Not sure what you mean about euthanisia.

It is my goal. I will persue animal rights & try to secure them until the day I die. I'm currently teaching myself about past rights movements & educating myself in the best way of going about it. Until then, & no doubt afterwards I will talk to people about animal rights, starting with veganism. It matters.

It might not be everyone's goal. Everyone is interested in justice, because it concerns desertion, fairness, basic rights. From this I think everyone could be interested in animal rights, presented correctly.

By the way - I am also for human rights. I buy fairtrade. I am volunteering next year for a counselling service.

Edit: oops.. changed "agree" to "argue"!

[Geezer]

Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.

[glovesforfoxes]

Me too! []

[Don_1]

Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.

Stop horsing around.

[glovesforfoxes]

After thinking about what you say & stand for Don, I've thought about another criticism you might be able to relate to better..

It is all very well to say consuming meat is unnecessary, but humans have been killing and eating other animals since our ancestors appeared on the Earth. I see no reason to question nature or to alter it.

Does that give me liscence to find a turtle, kill it, & eat it?

No. It doesn't. These appeals to nature essentially miss the point of veganism/animal rights movement - you can argue against every single change by arguing that it wasn't like that in the past. If that change is good, you should fight for it. If it isn't, you should accept it with grace if possible, or fight with all you can against it.

For example, I believe the conservative govt. plan to uplift a ban on hunting. Honestly, I hope they do try to go ahead with it, because it will bring animal rights back into the news in a major way. It means I can get a £70 ticket to go to London, & protest against it, & other forms of unnecessary animal cruelty & use. I will do everything I can to protest it - hunger strikes if it becomes necessary. My temporary pain I can deal with. The pain & death of the thousands of animals that will suffer when hunting is legalised again I cannot accept.