[LeeE]

Lol - I notice that the thread title has been retrospectively changed.  It now seems that omnivores and carnivores are now fools for having evolved that way.  Who's going to volunteer to tell Bengal Tigers, salt water crocs and Great White sharks that they're just being foolish?

[glovesforfoxes]

We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans (though I disagree entirely with SBCs conduct & reasoning for being pescatarian, he's still doing a good thing) & we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing. I believe we should, for the extensive reasons, many of which are still unchallenged, I have given previously.

I've already stated the logical problems with comparing different species. You have to judge each species on it's own merit, not compare them to humans. In fact, you really need to judge each creature in terms of their own merit, though you can make claims that species X are capable of doing Y, usually, sometimes you will find a member that cannot. That doesn't mean they are no longer a member of that species, it just means that they are a member of species X that cannot do Y.

For example, you could say that all humans are capable of hearing. But a person that can't hear because of a genetic defect is still a person - one quality does not define what a human is. It is many qualities, taken & viewed holistically, that makes a human a human.

Edit: clarification

[nixietube]

We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans... we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing.

Is that the benchmark? Are you certain we are the only species with the capability? What is conscience?

[rosy]

GlovesForFoxes... where do you stand on the question of using animal models for the developement of medical treatments?

[Ethos]

Where do we draw the line? How about the bugs some in the undeveloped world eat? Or maybe, the tiny insects that populate the inside of mushrooms? What about bacteria and germs? For there to be any resolution to this debate, you Vegetarians need to establish the demarcation and then explan why. And what if some of your cohorts disagree about this boundry? If you can't reach a concensous, how can you expect us reason with you?

I'll give you all some advice: You eat what you want, and we carnivors will do the same. Don't come here preaching about our moral depravity because a bug is just as much a life form as a cow or pig. When you can explain why it's OK to eat a bug and not a cow, then maybe you'll garner an audience.

My 2cents..............................Ethos

[glovesforfoxes]

We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans... we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing.

Is that the benchmark? Are you certain we are the only species with the capability? What is conscience?

It's my benchmark. Otherwise you get yourself into all sorts of logical possibilies that are simply unpractical (for example, trying to save every single animal from predation!)

No, I'm not certain. I'm certain that most of our species does, however.

What is conscience? Interesting question.. One that I can't sensibly answer without more thought. I will get back to you. It's shared knowledge what it is, though, without a definition - right? []

Edit: posted like an automatron & forgot there were 2 others posts to reply to!

GlovesForFoxes... where do you stand on the question of using animal models for the developement of medical treatments?

I am anti-vivisectionist, & yes, I'm still studying science. Yes, it still makes me a bit nervous even admitting this to myself.. a lot of vegans come from alternative lifestyles in the first place - I have not. I believe in the power of science, it's beauty, & more importantly, the truth. I have a full commitment to it.

I also have a commitment to doing the right thing & behave as a good citizen, & to reduce pain & suffering to smallest possible I can, even if it is not possible to eliminate - not just around me, but in the world. That's why I also buy fairtrade (yes, I'm a uni student, yes, I'm poor & in debt - but most of my colleagues spend money on drinking, where I spend that little extra spare money ensuring I'm not helping people that exploit, which is far, far more important to me than getting pissed - though of course I have fun & occasionally get drunk!).

I think that background is necessary before I start the argument so you know the context of where I'm arguing from.

Okay, so. Sure the animals used in experiments might yield good results in medicine, cures for cancer, that sort of thing.

However, so could the experiments on Jews that the Nazi doctors performed at Auschwitz in the 2nd world war.

In both of these cases, the doctors were aiming to reveal information about the present in the hopes that they would glean useful information that can be used to save lives.

The problem with both of these things (I don't consider the justifications for them exactly a world apart..) is that they hope to save lives by using animals (or in the case of the Nazis, the Jewish people) as, once again, an end to human means. The animals used for experimentation already are alive, & should be kept that way for reasons I've already stated. Animals are sentient, can feel pain, did not choose to be born that way & thus deserve at the very least the right of non-interference. Believing they are there to serve humans is called "speciesist", in the same way that viewing black slaves as the tool of white people is racist. You are treating them for what they are naturally, for what they cannot help being; it is unjust.

I have no doubt that the research gleaned from animal experimentation is useful, just like no doubt the information the Germans got was useful, but the ends do not justify the means. Even without inflicting pain, animal research is about using the animal - I have the same problems with this as I do with using humans. Like I've said, there is no great divide between animals & humans. Physiologically, yes, but we all hate pain. I'm not sure if we all hate confinement, but I'll give the animals the benefit of the doubt []

Where do we draw the line? How about the bugs some in the undeveloped world eat? Or maybe, the tiny insects that populate the inside of mushrooms? What about bacteria and germs?

The line is for you to draw for now. Where do you think the line is when it comes to killing things? From your attitude, I guess you think it's pretty good! I draw the line at sentiency & pain, as you will see if you read my previous posts & this one..

I give insects the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pain. Though the evidence for them feeling pain is much weaker than say, fish, or tigers, there is weak evidence. They have a nervous system, & react to stimuli. Whether or not they are conscious or not is a tricky question. I choose to believe they do, but that's all it is - a belief. Some vegans do not mind killing or using insects, but I doubt any would go out of their way to kill them.

That's new to me - there are tiny bugs inside mushrooms? I will have to look into this to see if they have a nervous system. Thanks for making me aware, I won't eat them anymore if I find they shelter life possibly capable of sentiency.

There is zero evidence for sentiency & pain in microorganisms.

For there to be any resolution to this debate, you Vegetarians need to establish the demarcation and then explan why.

Sorry, but vegetarianism means "not eating meat". Veganism means "not eating meat & the products of an animal, or using them as a means to human purposes". We are not a unified group any more than atheists are. You cannot be a unified group of not believing in something, & obviously there is going to be disagreement. That's a great thing.

I have already replied to your point about setting limits. Other people set their own limits, but I base mine on scientific evidence, comparisons, reason & consistently applied ethics.

If you can't reach a concensous, how can you expect us reason with you?

Like I've said, we are not a people with the same beliefs. There are degrees of belief in animal rights & animal welfare, like there are degrees in belief in god/s. We are not one people, do not expect us to be. What vegetarians have in common is that we do not eat animal flesh. That is it.

You can reason with me. My positions are:

Animal abolitionist (campaigning against ALL uses of animals for human means)
Vegan (do not consume or use any product derived from an animal, possibly including insects - personally I avoid any produce that uses pesticides, & all insect derived ingrediants such as the red food colouring made from crushed flies used in the majority of marshmallows, & I will refuse to kill insects, down to the smallest fly or meanest wasp)
Animal rights activist (I work for ALL animal to be granted legal protection)

Edit 2:

I'll give you all some advice: You eat what you want, and we carnivors will do the same. Don't come here preaching about our moral depravity because a bug is just as much a life form as a cow or pig. When you can explain why it's OK to eat a bug and not a cow, then maybe you'll garner an audience.

I missed this the first time around.

I don't believe the majority of people are morally depraved. I believe they are misled, taught to care for some animals instead of all of them for whatever reason, downright lied to, removed from the reality of animal farming & slaughter, & maybe at worse apathetic & anthropocentric. I don't believe anyone that's replied on this thread, for example, could easily murder a dog. The link between financing the killing, slavery & exploitation of animals & morality is a hard one to make - I didn't for 18 years, & after many months thought before I became vegan - I don't expect anyone here to, at least not immediately. Issues of social justice are of the highest importance, since it directly concerns people's, & by extension animal's lives.

I don't believe it's okay to eat a bug or a cow, & I've already exhaustively given the reasons I will not. That's why I garnered an audience with good questions rather than being dismissed as another dogmatic preacher. If you cannot see that, then I apologise - I cannot do much more - I, & my views, are open to the deepest of constructive criticisms. Feel free to start making some if you wish, & please, before you do, make sure you know what I have written & ensure you do not try to straw-man my arguments.

[Ethos]

I didn't think you had an answer........................

[Ethos]

Here's one for the road:All vegetarians are fools

Turn about is fair play,..................Hey?

[glovesforfoxes]

Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily []

[Ethos]

Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily []

Understand my friend, I don't discuss these topics via private message. I thought we were clear about this.

[Ethos]

Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily []

If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...

[glovesforfoxes]

If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...

Really? Interesting. I thought ATP was ATP, no matter what source it came from, but it seems I am sadly mistaken. Can you enlighten me?

[Ethos]

If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...

Really? Interesting. I thought ATP was ATP, no matter what source it came from, but it seems I am sadly mistaken. Can you enlighten me?

NO, no you don't. I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier post. Unless you have one, I suspect you're trying skirt around it by changing the subject. No matter, the real point here is we Carnivores don't like being called fools. How about it fool.

[Ethos]

Plain and simple, Unless you change the title of this thread, you'll have no more participation from me...................FOOL.

[glovesforfoxes]

I was not the original poster or title chooser of this topic & have actually said that I disagree with the method the original poster used to start & sustain it. I also disagree with his reasons for being pescatarian vegan (if you didn't know, a pescatarian is someone who eats sea-based life, but generally not land - though some may eat chickens, there is no real specific word for eating chickens & sea-based life, besides perhaps flexitarian, which is so broad it means nothing) which seem to be based on, or appeal to religious ideas, at least in part. Mine are based on secular ethics which scientists can appreciate, drawing comparisons to the rights movement against slavery, since it is a poignant example.

Continue insulting me without reading what I have said & I will report you to the moderators.

I am almost finished replying.

Edit: added "& sustain" for clarity, & provided an explanation of pescatarian, & of the motivation of SBCs beliefs

Edit 2: added info about SBC's POV - see below

SBC has since said via PM on another site that he is "pure vegetarian", which is the same as vegan. I apologise to him, & retract that he is a pescatarian.

[Ethos]

I was not the original poster or title chooser of this topic & have actually said that I disagree with the method the original poster used to start & sustain it. I also disagree with his reasons for being pescatarian (someone who eats sea-based life, but generally not land - though some may eat chickens, there is no real specific word for eating chickens & sea-based life, besides perhaps flexitarian, which is so broad it means nothing) which seem to be based on, or appeal to religious ideas, at least in part. Mine are based on secular ethics which scientists can appreciate, drawing comparisons to the rights movement against slavery, since it is a poignant example.

Continue insulting me without reading what I have said & I will report you to the moderators.

I am almost finished replying.

Edit: added "& sustain" for clarity, & provided an explanation of pescatarian, & of the motivation of SBCs beliefs

I see now that you are not the orginial poster of this thread and I surrender my apologies sir. Why I didn't catch this has me quite embarrased. At any rate, you still haven't answered my questions about the standards by which we draw the line. How do we decide which life form it is wrong to injest?

[glovesforfoxes]

I accept your apology [] If you check your email inbox listed on your profile, you will also see why I believe it was wrong of you to ignore me via PM, but that of course is upto you & more ambiguous.

I have already said many times, I finished the edit before; the limits I use are the capability of pain & sentience. If there is both, or even one, or if, in general, their species is capable of sentience & pain for which there is reasonable, if only little evidence for, then animals at least should have the right of non-interference from humans. I do not believe this is sufficient, I believe we do, at the very least, have a duty not to directly or indirectly kill, cause pain, use, exploit, profit from, breed or genetically modify to any animal currently in our care, & actively promote good health to animals that cannot be released into the wild.

Please take care to read next time, & double check!

Edit: I think I have made my case well so far - but philosophy is only half the battle. Emotionally connecting with the animals, appreciating their lives & empathising with them does not necessarily come from agreeing with a philosophical point of view. If anyone is interested in becoming vegan or vegetarian, or hell, even just reducing their intake of animal produce for the sake of justice, the environment, or the health benefits associated with examining your diet closely (but not necessarily, more healthy than a good omnivorous diet!), feel free to message me. I will listen to any worries, questions or comments & give advice to the best of my ability if people want it. It is much less hard & requires less discipline than you'd think. I only hope for the sake of the animals that you do.

[BenV]

Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.

[Karen W.]

Thanks Ben!

[Ethos]

Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.

Thank you sir, and may I also offer my apologies to everyone for causing such a stir. It was not my intent to be disrespectful or insulting but because I felt insulted myself, I lost my usual control.