Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Status
Not open for further replies.
so james what do you think of that?

organic meat better for the enviroment than a vegitible diet?
 
I'm curious, then - what is the unequivocable, doubt-annihilating information that has made it morally acceptable to treat plants as inferior to animals, and all the other inequality relations in your hierarchy of species rights and values?

What is the level of "doubt" at which this maxim kicks in?

You've given reasons why you don't think people should kill animals for food. But I haven't heard any justifications for the manifold moral inequality relations in your species hierarchy - and given that you've been emphatic that "it's obvious" is insufficient, that would seem to make you a prejudiced, uncritical speciesist.


yeah
james? is it only when living things are unable to express their "displeasure" at being eaten in a manner that satisfies your seemingly arbitrary, moral aesthetic, that you condone its killing and consumption?

could you elaborate on why plants, clearly alive and "interested" in perpetuating itself, ends up on your plate?

i do see this.....

james said:
It's not that I don't comprehend plant sentience. It is that there is no evidence, as far as I am aware, that plants are sentient. By "sentient", I mean consciously perceiving - in particular consciously perceiving pain and suffering. Both the consciousness and the perceiving are required.


how would you like plants to communicate their sentience to you in order to pass your test of consciousness? what behaviors do they have to exhibit in order to demonstrate your "consciously perceiving"?
 
so james what do you think of that?

organic meat better for the enviroment than a vegitible diet?


i thought his focus was the ethical argument as evinced from this bit of hilarious braggadocio

james said:
People only want that thread closed because they are frustrated that they can't justify themselves on moral grounds. They'd much rather have the thread closed so they don't have to think about the issue. Nobody likes having it pointed out to them that they are less than moral. They shift uncomfortably. They look for an escape, or a scape goat. Confronting it is much, much harder.


there is nothing scientific or logically consistent about an poorly rationalized aesthetic
please move this thread to pseudoscience
 
Last edited:
The intensive part (in land-use, resource consumption, energy usage, etc.) is the industrial aspect of meat production. Stuff like warehouses full of chickens or, in the case of beef, the corn-fattening stage at the end.
I know, this is one of the points I have been trying to make that largely seems to have gone unheeded, for the most part at least. By far and away though, dairying tends to be the most destructive practice.

The cattle industry in my neck of the woods is split into two levels: ranchers, and huge feeding/slaughter/processing/distribution companies. Most of the cattle's lives are spent grazing in desolate backwoods ranches like you picture there, and then once they're mature they're sold off to mega-corporations that truck them thousands of miles away to feedlots, pump them full of corn feed (grown on irrigated, agricultural lands - obviously - and with fossil-fuel derived fertilizers), ship them off to slaughter, then a bunch of refrigerated and frozen shipping all over the continent, etc.
There in lies another rub, doing anything else with that land - the desolate backwoods ranches, as you call them, would require huge amounts of water for irrigation, and so any environmental impact assessment would have to take that into account.

Suffice it to say that all that transport, corn, antibiotics, processing, etc. that accounts for the lion's share of the environmental impact. The upshot is that eating local, grass-fed beef puts said impact into the same ballpark as eating produce (particularly, industrially-produced produce). This is less of an issue in countries that don't have huge industrial corn-growing regions and giant far-flung populations to feed, but do have lots of good pasture-land for cattle. I'd be interested in reading a comparison of the environmental impact of industrial US beef vs. that in New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, etc., if anybody knows of any references. Another issue to consider is the carbon footprint of imported meats.
I don't have any figures (aside from water quality impact, because that's like... my job) at my fingertips, but I do know that there was something of a hue and a cry a while ago, because the UK market has a carbon miles tax on it, or something similar (I forget what it's called, precisely) so the price of NZ Beef and Lamb (in the UK) went up by some ridiculous amount as a reflection of the fact that where London is GMT +00:00 Auckland is GMT +12:00. I've always said it was a mistake on the part of the New Zealand Government to focus so much time and effort on getting into the European and US markets, and that they needed to focus on growing the Asia-Pacific region, but what do I know, I'm just an environMENTAL chemist;).

It seems like the same should go for chicken - industrial warehouses full of corn-fed, antibiotic-pumped flocks vs. backyard coops of chickens wandering around eating worms and scraps. Likewise, industrial fishing/fish farms vs. pulling a fish out of the water yourself and tossing it on the barbeque). The differences between eating industrial meat vs. local meat (and likewise, veggies) are so huge that it seems stilted to present it as a question of meat vs. veggies, rather than industrial vs. not. I.e., I'd hazard that someone eating only local foods (veggies, meat, dairy, whatever) would exhibit a much lower environmental impact than someone eating a vegetarian diet without concern for locality.
Quite, and this is one of the other points I have endeavoured to allude to, with varying degrees of success and dismay from the vegie patch.
 
Quadraphonics:
I'd hazard that someone eating only local foods (veggies, meat, dairy, whatever) would exhibit a much lower environmental impact than someone eating a vegetarian diet without concern for locality.

Actually more complicated than that.

I read somewhere our farming methods are so carbon-intensive it was actually more ecologically friendly to eat New Zealand apples than ones grown here...in the same article it said French wine is more eco-friendly east of the Mississippi compared to California wines.
(Din't say anything 'bout Texas wines!)

:bugeye: :confused:

If I find stuff grown in my state it's often the best deal for the money...but have you seen how big Texas is?
I think we could fit five or six New Zealands in here...

I understand much of our tomato production...now occurs in Mexico, because of the crackdown on immigration in part.
 
SAM:

Why don't you explain to me why it is ok to kills cattle and eat them?

Same reason it is okay to kill an <insert food source> and eat it.

But if you <insert food source=human being> than you suddenly don't think it's ok. Do you?

Eating is not a moral argument, its what we call a cycle of dependence. Every living thing lives off each other - you have to kill to eat. Noting you eat is non-living to begin with and the process of food production itself is fatal to other organisms which are not eaten.

So let's start with why you don't eat human beings. After all, something has to die for you to eat. So, why not a human being?

You say eating is not a moral argument. But isn't it a moral argument to say "Human beings should not eat other human beings"? Or do you base that decision purely on health grounds, or something else?

All food taboos are due to philosophical reasons or ideological conditioning, but in and of itself, all food sources are equivalent and should receive yes, equal consideration as food sources.

I completely and utterly disagree with you that all food sources are equivalent. And unless you are a cannibal, I don't think you actually hold that position yourself.

You may defend a cow as vigorously as a Jain defends a potato tuber but those are your PERSONAL reasons for eating or not eating some foods.

So, if somebody else decides they want to be a cannibal and kill other humans for food, then that's just fine with you? After all, they have their PERSONAL reasons for eating some foods. Morality doesn't come into it. Or does it?

To a Jain it is as unethical to eat a tuber as it is to eat a cow. If thats how you feel, you're welcome to go that route but to other people potato = food and cow = food.

And so human = food is no different. Right?
 
aduocette:

No James, I know I'm not going to change your mind so it's really not worth putting much effort into it.

I've changed my mind on this issue at least once already in my life. How many times have you changed yours?

But clearly you are WRONG, because even our children don't normally begin to grasp the concept of death until they are about 5, but even at 2 they are FAR more aware of the world and abstract concepts than cows are.

What about Clams James?

What do Clams think about death?
Or Shrimp?

You see it just gets sillier by the minute but you are so full of your own moral superiority it's pretty funny to watch.

I'm not sure about what clams or shrimp think about death, adoucette. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about the brain capacity of a claim or a shrimp, or even about its ability to feel pain. Although, I do think I've seen images of divers cutting clams and they do appear to react in a way that suggests they feel pain.

Given the doubt, it's probably safest to take the moral high road and not eat clams or shrimp.

And likewise you are clearly so convinced you are right and you aren't going to let the facts that virtually none of the rest of the world agrees with you and not a single government's laws, dissuade you.

Have you checked them all? I must say I'm impressed by your diligence, adoucette.

Laws have been wrong in the past, and some are wrong now. You used to have laws that said slavery was hunky dory. Remember? Or, take segregation. Or that there was no rape in marriage. Or ... well, you should be able to find plenty of other examples.

Why don't you explain to me why it is ok to kills cattle and eat them? That's if you can come up with an ethical reason.

It's ok for the same reason it's ok for a dolphin to kill and eat a fish. We evolved as omnivores and so a proper human diet from things you can grow yourself or acquire from locally grown sources requires meat.

That's the Appeal to Nature fallacy again.

Your argument is that because we can eat meat - more specially, because we evolved to be able to eat meat - we should eat meat. Or, to put it another way, it is morally good to eat meat because it's natural to do so.

The fallacy lies in the assumption that everything that is natural is good. I have elaborated on this elsewhere, but you can find further explanation in many places on the web. Look it up.
 
well, I wouldn't eat people because its illegal (just like eating a panda)
But if I were hungry enough and my kids were starving, I'd eat a person. Couldn't kill the person, but I'd eat one
 
Anti-Flag:

killing and suffering - except when put on the spot about other times and reasons that occurs you have no objection to it, so evidently it isn't the killing or suffering that bothers you one iota.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Where, exactly, did I say that killing and suffering doesn't concern me one iota?

Oh, that's right. I didn't.

My argument is based on equal consideration for equal interests. Where interests differ, equal consideration does not apply. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

Thoroughly debunked and dealt with.

Great! Where can I find the dealing and debunking, exactly? Link to the most relevant post, please.

Anti-Flag said:
James R said:
Rather than you inventing straw-man positions for me, let's hear what you think for a change.

Which animals do you, Anti-Flag, think it is ok to kill? And why? In particular, please explain to me why it is ok to kill a cow or a chicken and eat it. Then we'll see if I have any objection.

It's your argument, don't try to deflect just because you can't back it up with anything that holds up to scrutiny.

You have no answer to this simple question? That's so telling. It really speaks volumes.

Many reports and surveys suggest vegetarianism is in fact on the increase.

Ok. I'll take your word for it. Sounds like a positive development.

And the world has never been 50% vegetarian. Reported for continued intellectual dishonesty.

Please link me ONE plausible source that says that the world has never been 50% vegetarian. Because I have one that says it was, and only 25 years ago or so.

If a cow could talk? Geez you really are dropping low now.

Because cows are just like robots, really, I suppose. It's not as if a cow could ever want anything or enjoy anything or perceive anything or - heaven forbid - think anything.

Even to suggest such a thing is low. It's as if cows were more than mere machines or automatons, and as Anti-Flag knows that's all they are in fact.
 
billvon:

Yes, I think cows and black people should be treated exactly the same when it comes to arbitrarily killing and eating them for your own pleasure. In other words, in case you're not clear on this, I think that neither black people nor cows should be arbitrarily killed and eaten for your pleasure.

And why do you think carrots should be treated differently?

I explained earlier.

A carrot does not have a central nervous system. It does not feel pain. It does not conceive of itself as a lifeform that is ongoing in time. It has no sense of a future. It has no desires. It has no brain. It is not conscious. etc.

Blacks (and whites, and asians, and any humans) are humans. Cows are not. That is the distinction. We make it in legal frameworks, when discussing safety, when discussing morality, decisionmaking etc etc. Indeed, it's probably safe to say that everyone in this thread (with the possible exception of yourself) can see the difference between cows and people.

Yes, but you must consider each morally significant issue on its own. You can't have a blanket rule like "All cows have no rights, because they are not human". A right is a recognition of an interest. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to accord equal rights where there are equivalent interests.

In particular, a cow and human being have an equivalent interest in not being arbitrarily killed and eaten.

Not at all. There are objective and morally significant differences between cows and carrots, which I already pointed out earlier in the thread.

Ah, so you are making a "racist (speciesist)" argument.

No. See my reply earlier in the thread to quadraphonics on this point (and probably also below, when I next get to it).

There are a great many valid arguments you can make against eating meat.

Please post three of them, and tell me which ones made you a vegetarian.
 
kira:

I'd probably eat the pig, because the others probably won't make it to civilisation without me, the kid is probably somebody I know or have taken on responsibility for and the camel is our mode of transport which will maximise our chances of survival as a group. Being a life-or-death situation, this is an unfortunate choice to have to make.
 
Gustav:

it is strange that this self-professed moral being cannot even take it upon himself to give plants the benefit of the doubt. i mean, there are questions about the sentience of plants but james insists that any such self awareness be expressed in a manner that he feels comfortable with. it is an aesthetic based not so much on a clear rationale but rather a dogma fueled by the fanaticism and desperation of a hungry man.

If I have no choice but to eat meat or a plant, then I'll choose the plant. It's the lesser of two evils, given your assumptions.

would james eat us if he encountered us at an earlier stage of our evolution? i most certainly think so

Do you have any grounds for that, or are you just trolling?
 
Tiassa said:
We might pause to wonder what James' problem with dogs is that he doesn't recognize the fundamental difference in western culture between the relationships of dogs and people on the one hand, and chickens and people to the other.

I haven't discussed that "fundamental difference" anywhere in this thread, as far as I can recall. So you can hardly comment on what I do or do not recognise in this regard.

But don't let that stop you making stuff up.

And here is the point: James overlooks entirely the relationships that exist between humans in various cultures and the animals in question. It is not a "racist" (i.e., speciesist) argument to note the relationship between a human and an animal? "Yes," James says explicitly, "it is." And then he tells people to "Read this", with this being his comparison of blacks and cows. As there are no questions of relationships to consider, it is easy enough to make black people and cows interchangeable.

You haven't explained how these relationships are morally relevant. Since the issue hasn't been discussed, you're in no position to say I have overlooked it.

But don't let that stop you making stuff up.

So take a look at it syllogistically:

• James says nobody is arguing that people and animals are totally equal.

• James says that black people and cows are argumentatively interchangeable.

____________________
∴ James says that black people are not totally equal to humans.

The second premise here is a straw-man version of what I said. Here, you try to paint me as arguing that cows and black people are generally interchangeable in any argument about anything, for any purpose. My real point, however, involved a specific comparison between racism and speciesism.

For further elaboration on this point, see earlier in the thread. I have been crystal clear about this many times by now. Your wilful blindness cannot save you.

But don't let that stop you making stuff up.

Once you recognize the degree of irrationality and hatred you are facing, it becomes something of a vapid exercise in futility to even bother with it.

Yeah, I'm recognising your irrationality and hatred more and more as time goes on.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in this thread. It's fair enough to simply shrug and chuckle. Just don't make yourself a spectacle by rolling on the floor, hooting with laughter, and pissing yourself in mirth.

You'd like people to thinking you were ROFLing to yourself, wouldn't you? But you know, and I know, that you very much aren't.
 
SAM:



But if you <insert food source=human being> than you suddenly don't think it's ok. Do you?

Not personally, no. But my dietary preferences are guided both by religious and cultural conditioning. However, there are plenty of human beings throughout history who do not make the distinction between human and food, so its a personal preference. A human being to me is what a potato is to a Jain - taboo food. However, even my religion says that if nothing else is available there are no taboos that should impede survival so if I was stuck on the Alps with my dead co-passengers in the crashed plane, they might start looking pretty much like steak and potatoes to me.


So let's start with why you don't eat human beings. After all, something has to die for you to eat. So, why not a human being?

You say eating is not a moral argument. But isn't it a moral argument to say "Human beings should not eat other human beings"? Or do you base that decision purely on health grounds, or something else?



I completely and utterly disagree with you that all food sources are equivalent. And unless you are a cannibal, I don't think you actually hold that position yourself.

Then you're ignoring the fact that there are several human communities where eating human beings or products of their bodies is not taboo.

So, if somebody else decides they want to be a cannibal and kill other humans for food, then that's just fine with you? After all, they have their PERSONAL reasons for eating some foods. Morality doesn't come into it. Or does it?

Sure, I saw a documentary the other day about some tribe that hangs up their dead over fire and melts their body fat in a slow process. The dead are "honoured" by selected tribe members then consuming leaves dipped in the mixture they wipe off the corpse.

Is that immoral? Not according to them.



And so human = food is no different. Right?

Yup - and since we're avoiding speciasism, if you don't think a human beings can be food, try jumping into a river with hungry crocodiles and convince them they are better off as vegetarians.
 
quadraphonics:

You're glossing over the fact that my entire point in that post was that your definition of "speciesism" is ill-defined, and clearly constructed as a rhetorical cudgel.

No. I directly addressed that point, in detail. See above.

And the guy who looks around at, say, the standards of living in different parts of the world, notes that "white" people seem to be doing better in those terms than "black" people, and concludes that black people are inferior to white people, is making a reasoned assertion of superiority. I wouldn't agree with his reasoning, but are we supposed to disqualify him from the category "racist" just because he came up with some reasoning?

Possibly.

The problem is the word "inferior". From your example, it would be reasonable in the absence of contradictory evidence to conclude that black people are in fact inferior to white people in terms of "doing better". What is not justified is the conclusion that black people are inferior in every way to white people, or in all ways that are considered "important" under some set of criteria.

It's not racist to say that, on average, white people enjoy a higher standard of living when compared to black people. That's a statement supportable by reasoned, factual evidence.

If not, then how is it that we're supposed exclude you from the category of "speciesism?" And if you're going to continue to use the term to mean "prejudice" and apply it to those who disagree with you, then how can anyone have a reasoned conversation with you? You're going to reject any reasoning they present and insist that they're speaking from a position of uncritical prejudice, unless they agree with you.

Not at all.

If you read back in this thread, you'll see that where arguments have been presented about differences between species I have addressed them directly. It is only where people have said that humans ought to get special treatment just because they are human that I've raised the issue of speciesism. And in all such cases, I have invited the poster concerned to come up with a better justification. Only a few have even attempted that. Most have chosen to stick their heads in the sand.

This is just another iteration of the standard "you're all sheeple, I'm a special snowflake" troll premise we see so frequently around here. It depends on the conceit that one can know the minds of others better than they do themselves, and so it is unerringly inflammatory and distracting. If you want to discuss the issues, then this is the last thing you want in your thread.

That's why I have been so careful to ask probing questions to try to get people to clearly express their reasons and not just their prejudices. What I have found, mostly, is that people either don't have reasons or else they use flawed reasoning to justify their meat eating. You can find numerous examples above.

Now, there is something to the observation that many people in a given society will fall in with the prevailing cultural attitudes without giving them much critical thought. But the thetorical tactic of equating the basic attitudes with the uncritical acceptance is a bridge too far - it is not the case that one ceases to be a speciesist the moment one gives some argument to justify one's position, any more than one ceases to be a racist the moment one gives some argument in justification of that. So we can see why that approach backfires: the first thing people do when confronted with such accusations, is to cook up some supporting arguments - which under your definition absolves them of speciesism even if they do not change their position in the slightest.

That's why in the end we must examine the supposedly supporting arguments so carefully. Name-calling won't resolve the issues. It takes a lot of patience, believe me, but fortunately I'm up to the task on this particular issue because I have a good acquaintance with all the usual supporting arguments.

My starting point is that we ought to treat like as like - to give equal consideration to the same (or similar) interests, whether those interests happen to be held by human beings or by an animal of some other species.

That "like as like" qualifier there - it leads to some vexatious aesthetic concerns, if you actually start digging under it.

To put it another way: it's exactly the same principle that everyone starts with. You add in the obvious dissimilarities between humans and various other animals, and you quickly notice that the usual hierarchy of species values expressed by humans tracks them: killing humans is a huge no-no, killing great apes is really bad, killing monkeys is still bad, chickens and cows can be killed but not mistreated, plants and insects can be systematically wiped out for reasons of simple momentary convenience, bacteria and algae don't even merit thinking about, etc.

Which is to say that you're down to a quibble, in the larger scheme of things - you want to move a small set of species a small jump up the hierarchy.

Suppose that we can convince people that killing and eating cows is morally wrong. Just cows for now, not sheep and pigs and fish. I don't think the millions of cows that would avoid being needlessly killed and eaten would "quibble" about that, though you might.

A similar argument: we ought not to even discuss whether to introduce gay marriage laws, because gay people will only ever be a minority of the population. Most of the people who want to marry can marry already, and we're only "quibbling" at the edges by arguing for inclusion of another small(ish) group. So, we're better off just going with the status quo. It's all just too hard and not worth effort (for heterosexuals, in particular).

You're confusing the question of something being obvious or self-evident, with it being mere prejudice. I.e., the exact reason that your example of restrictions on childrens rights is rhetorically attractive, is precisely that such differences are just obvious. They don't require any substantive reasoning, only cursory observation.

The age at which a particular child, or children in general, are capable and equipped to drive is not self-evident to me. Perhaps it is to you. I think that this is a matter that needs to be (and has been) argued out. "They shouldn't drive just because they are children" is prejudice.

All of which gets to why these overblown generalizations are a distraction: everybody here is a speciesist - nobody is taking the position of species equality.

You ought to explain this point to the many meat-eaters arguing in this thread, who are constantly accusing me of taking the position that, for example, a cow is equal to a human being (in every respect, presumably). I, like you, thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently for many it is not.

The differences are only over exactly how superior humans are, and what that amounts to when it comes to food production. And the basis for the general agreement, is exactly the same as in the case of children - it's just plain obvious from observing, say, chickens and humans that the two species are not equal in the relevant sense. We'd never let a chicken drive a car, or own property, or vote in an election, and nobody (including yourself) seems to feel any need to provide any detailed reasoning to support that - which I guess makes everyone here (including yourself) a speciesist even in your prejudicial sense.

I am capable of and willing to provide detailed reasoning as to why a chicken should not vote in an election or hold a driver's licence, if required. In fact, I think I have even had to go to the extent of actually making such an argument for an apparently-confused meat eater earlier in this thread.

In comparison, when I have asked some of the meat eaters here what facts morally distinguish the right of a human not be to killed and eaten from the rights of a chicken or a cow (or, more accurately, the fact that apparently they have no such right at all), not only have the meat eaters not felt the need to give a reason, but when pushed they have been totally unable to give one that stands up to scrutiny. Some of them have even struggled on much easier questions of distinctions between animals and human beings - ones that no doubt you and I would not normally feel require a detailed explanation.

That you don't like the arguments, or that you have managed to troll participants here into arguing such poorly, doesn't mean that the arguments don't exist out there. I'll leave anyone interested to spend 30 seconds on Google....

It's really not my fault if other participants argue poorly. Am I supposed to argue both sides of the issue? Am I supposed to do their work for them?

I really wish that some of them would spend 30 seconds on Google and produce something at least moderately coherent on the topic.

What I seem to get instead is mostly accusations that I'm clinically insane and/or a zealot with a special type of religious belief and/or that I'm a troll for daring to raise a moral question that some people feel uncomfortable about.

I.e., how are we to know that you didn't come by your own position through uncritical prejudice, and then later marshall some justifications in defense of that? Certainly, that would be the usual way that vegetarians (and people in general) operate. And it would make your charges of speciesism as applicable to you as to anyone.

I'd venture that most people come to their moral opinions via an emotional route rather than a reasoned one. Sometimes they become aware of an issue via reasoned arguments, but to actually change your own views in the area of morality requires more commitment than just an intellectual one, I think.

I always think of the quote (don't know who said it) that goes along the lines of: you can't argue somebody out of a position that they haven't been argued into.

Many people adopt stances on moral issues without any critical thought at all. Call that prejudice or gut feeling or whatever. Smart people, especially those who strive for harmony and consistency in their views and opinions, then often do go on to marshall justifications. The best are also open to changing their minds if the justifications they find don't pass muster. And they try to avoid confirmation bias as far as possible.

I hope that, however I arrived at my views on vegetarianism, they are now solidly grounded in valid, reasoned justifications, and that I'm somewhat past the point of "uncritical prejudice". I'm content to let intelligent readers judge that for themselves.

Nobody is fudging anything there - the relevant sense of "equality" was obvious throughout. You're just injecting a canned talking point in some kind of cheap blogsmanship maneuver. I'll thank you to drop this line of distraction, and also delete your subsequent accusations of mistakes on my part, which you addressed to others. That sort of thing being a petty, personal attack, and an exceedingly cheap and childish one at that.

Oops! There you go again. Why does every post of yours have to end with a petty personal attack? You often start off so well, but after a while it's as if you just can't contain yourself any more. Of course, I have noted your snide remarks scattered at various points throughout your post. I choose to rise above those, for the most part.

I'm curious, then - what is the unequivocable, doubt-annihilating information that has made it morally acceptable to treat plants as inferior to animals, and all the other inequality relations in your hierarchy of species rights and values?

I don't actually give plants zero moral value, and I'm not sure if I'd consider every plant to be inferior to every animal either.

You'll probably need to be more specific. But, I'm afraid you might be disappointed if I don't have a single awe-inspiring fact that will make this issue a no-brainer for you. Some things are inherently complicated.

You've given reasons why you don't think people should kill animals for food. But I haven't heard any justifications for the manifold moral inequality relations in your species hierarchy - and given that you've been emphatic that "it's obvious" is insufficient, that would seem to make you a prejudiced, uncritical speciesist.

What, specifically, do you want to know about my "manifold moral inequality relations"? Which ones in particular are you referring to?
 
Asguard:

so james what do you think of that?

organic meat better for the enviroment than a vegitible diet?

I think that if it is true (which is a big "if") then it might still not outweigh moral considerations involved in killing and eating animals. After all, animals are also part of the environment.
 
Source: The New York Times
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html
Title: "The Carnivore's Dilemma", by Nicolette Hahn Niman
Date: October 30, 2009

These factory farms are also soy guzzlers and acquire much of their feed overseas.
in the case of chicken farms here in indiana the above quote is 100% wrong.
the main diet of these birds is locally grown crushed corn.
In animal farming, much of the methane comes from lagoons of liquefied manure at industrial facilities, which are as nauseating as they sound.
although this isn't 100% wrong it IS misleading.
there is no lagoon associated with the local farms, it is stored inside the chicken houses or more appropriately warehouses. when full it is trucked off somewhere (don't know where).
the stench from chicken farms is practically nonexistent.

i know about chicken farms because we have 3 of them here locally, i used to work at one of them.
they sell eggs and chickens by the semi load, an 18 wheeler.

edit:
for anyone wishing some info about these local farms,
rose-acres.
jen-acres.
and
cort-acres.
i must point out that there is no such thing as a "free range" chicken on these farms.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top