Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?

[MetaKron]

Higher vertebrates almost always eat the meat of other species when they eat meat. Having the same rights as other animals means that we can do that too.

 

[James R]

But eating meat is immoral for human beings.

 

[MetaKron]

But eating meat is immoral for human beings.

There is a fringe group that says that. They did not achieve the dominance that they have by peaceful or reasonable means. Their behavior can fairly and reasonably be described as anti-social and as terrorism. Their philosophy is anti-human and Luddite.

This does not constitute proof that eating meat is immoral for human beings.

 

[James R]

There is a fringe group that says that. They did not achieve the dominance that they have by peaceful or reasonable means.

They are hardly dominant. A lot of people still eat meat.

Their behavior can fairly and reasonably be described as anti-social and as terrorism.

Not eating meat is anti-social and a terrorist act?

You really are quite mad, you know.

 

[MetaKron]

Not eating meat is anti-social and a terrorist act?

You really are quite mad, you know.

You know very well that is not the behavior that I was referring to. I was referring to the long list of terrorist acts against homes, businesses, and people. These include setting things on fire and gut-shooting cattle.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy:

So, you just need to take that thought to its logical conclusion.

No human wants to suffer. No human wants to die, either (or, if you prefer, no healthy human wants to be killed and eaten).

As flippant as this may seem, I doubt the thousands of blades of grass I slaughtered when I mowed my lawns, were they capable of expressing an opinion, would desire to be slain.

So, what makes a cow or a pig or a chicken any different? Surely taking such an animal's life for something that is unnecessary is immoral. Is it not?

But it has to die. You remove any future it would have had just so you can satisfy your own pleasure (in killing and/or eating).

See, I draw a line between killing for pleasure and killing for food. I agree, killing for the sake of sport, and killing for the sake of killing, is sadistic and immoral.

Killing to provide sustenance, I personally consider to be at worst, amoral.

Biggest difference: the cheetah must kill to live. The human doesn't have to.

Second big difference: the cheetah does not claim to be a moral animal with a superior capacity for thought, compassion and empathy.

My personal opinion is that as long as the actual killing is done in a humane fashion is no more or less amoral than a cheetah killing for it's food.

From an evolutionary point of view, we have the incisors and canine teeth required to eat flesh, even chimpanzees are demonstrably carnivorous. The difference between us, and cheetahs and chimpanzees, is that we attach a moral value to life and death. But how is that morality intrinsically more right than anything else observed in the animal kingdom?

You admit you do not kill the vast majority of your own meat.

Not quite what I said, but close enough, and yes it was implied. Yes, you're right, while I have not personally been involved in the killing and processing of every piece of meat in my freezer at this time, I can honestly say that I have been involved in the killing and processing of (for example) Cows, Sheep, Deer, Fowl, and Goats.

Based on that, and the fact that although I choose not to do my own dirty work, that is a choice made on the basis of practicality, rather than willingness or distaste, so I consider that at least in that regard it's a choice i've made in good conscince - i'm not someone who considers that meat comes from a packet in the supermarket.

But that's not the reason you should give it up. One reason you should give up is that it is immoral to kill another for your own selfish pleasure.

I don't consider eating meat to be a selfish pleasure. I have, and have had in my child-hood a wide range of allergies that relate to various plants, and plant related foods. As a consequence of that, there are a... Substantial number of vegetables that I can not eat for whatever reason (some i'm still allergic to, others still make me react in some ways at least as if I was still allergic to them). In all honesty I doubt my ability to remain healthy on a vegan diet (even though, ironically I have considered it on multiple occasions, essentially it's to do with (ironically) some of the textures in home kill meat).

But, in all honesty, motivation, in my opinion, is irrelevant The only reason any person should make any choice, is because they are ready to make that choice, and because it's what they want to do.

Another is that meat eating is bad for the environment.

I just wanted to address this point seperately. I don't know if i've mentioned this or not, but I work in local government, for the equivalent (more or less) of the USEPA, i'll admit that I haven't been in the job for very long, but, in my experience, both in the job, and outside of it, the most enivronmentally destructive activity is actually dairy farming. It requires huge amounts of water for irrigation, (substantially more then beef farming), and on top of the cow generated methane, and water usage, you have something like 200 litres per day per animal of water contaminated with bovine faecal material which was traditional simply pumped straight into the nearest water way (traditionally, many dairy sheds did not even seperate out the storm water from the feed pad run off, increasing this further, then there's the wintering sheds and sacrificial paddocks used during the winter).

Another is that the meat industry involves cruelty to animals, which you've already said you do not support.

I can honestly say that if it came to my attention that any of the brand that I eat were responsible for encouraging cruelty, then I would no cease supporting that brand (for example, there's no bacon in my fridge, and the eggs that I have, although from a battery farm, are from a battery farm that is spending millions of dollars to upgrade their sheds in line with new government regulations which require a minimum amount of space per cage - including sufficient for scratching and being a hen, and stipulate a maximum number of birds per cage.

Finally, each animal is an individual, like you, and it is wrong to arbitrarily treat an individual as simply a means to your own ends.

Again, I disagree, I don't consider myself any more immoral for eating meat, than I consider a vegetarian for existing on a vegan diet, or a cheetah for eating a Gazelle, or, for that matter, a Tiger for killing Humans.

Which is a point that I've been pondering, i'll admit, I haven't had the time to read this thread in it's entirety, but has anybody considered the animals that predate on Humans, I know they are scarce, but they are there.

Just out of curiosity James R, in light of your bringing up environmental damage issues. do you eat cheese? Drink Milk? Eat Butter? Consume anything containing dairy products?

 

[Enmos]

Sorry, I could have made that clearer, mostly it was a response to this post:



Fundamentally, I don't see any difference between a person killing a cow for food, and a Cheetah killing a Gazelle for food.

I don't think that starvation should have to come into it.

Killing animals for food as a generalization (as opposed to killing them for sport when you have no intention of eating them) yes, I can agree with that, but eating meat shouldn't be considered as a last resort - unless you've consciously made that choice for yourself.

So you would think it's perfectly alright to kill more than you need ?

And I agree that humans killing animals for food wouldn't be a problem at all, if it weren't for our huge numbers.
If there were as many tigers in the world as there are humans we would recognize the problem and cull them, right ?

 

[voyager]

the law isn't into double standards, and i've seen a few in this thread.
it's not okay for humans to eat meat but it is for animals. double standard one
humans can survive without eating meat, animals can't. double standard two.

the law treats its litigants equally, something that isn't possible when dealing with animal rights.

what happens when a pack of wild dogs kill one of your children, or one of your chickens? can the law ever be fair in these cases?

as our population grows out of its present confines something is going to have to cede.
nature, and animals, will have to cede to human progress.
what about drug testing on animals? you do realize that this testing has benefited untold billions of people. do you have an alternative?

 

[Enmos]

the law isn't into double standards, and i've seen a few in this thread.
it's not okay for humans to eat meat but it is for animals. double standard one

I never said that.

humans can survive without eating meat, animals can't. double standard two.

That's not a double standard. It's a misrepresentation on your part.
Humans can do without meat, but their diet needs to be adjusted so they still get the right nutrients and vitamins.
A shit load of animal species can perfectly survive without eating meat, in fact they would probably not handle meat very well..
Carnivores, and to a certain extent omnivores (including humans), can't do without meat.

the law treats its litigants equally, something that isn't possible when dealing with animal rights.

what happens when a pack of wild dogs kill one of your children, or one of your chickens? can the law ever be fair in these cases?

as our population grows out of its present confines something is going to have to cede.
nature, and animals, will have to cede to human progress.
what about drug testing on animals? you do realize that this testing has benefited untold billions of people. do you have an alternative?

All this is irrelevant.
Halting and eventually reducing the human population is beneficial for both 'sides'.

 

[voyager]

I never said that.

i didn't mean to imply you did.
i was responding to various posts.

Carnivores, and to a certain extent omnivores (including humans), can't do without meat.

i believe james said that humans can go without eating meat.

All this is irrelevant.
Halting and eventually reducing the human population is beneficial for both 'sides'.

reducing the human birth rate to below zero is not a good idea.
drug testing on animals is irrelevent?

 

[Enmos]

i didn't mean to imply you did.
i was responding to various posts.

Ok.

i believe james said that humans can go without eating meat.

And so did I. In the part you quoted I said "to a certain extent".

reducing the human birth rate to below zero is not a good idea.

And your argument for that is ?

drug testing on animals is irrelevent?

Not in the current 'sub'-discussion about eating meat.

 

[voyager]

And your argument for that is ?

a below zero birth rate implies a declining population.
what if we can't get it back up above zero?
yes, it's a "what if" scenario, but it's a valid argument.


plus, don't you agree that we need a turn over of brain power?

 

[Enmos]

a below zero birth rate implies a declining population.

That's the idea..

what if we can't get it back up above zero?
yes, it's a "what if" scenario, but it's a valid argument.

lol yea right.. that's not a valid argument until you can show why that would be.
And, besides, it doesn't have to get back above zero.

plus, don't you agree that we need a turn over of brain power?

Explain.

 

[Trippy]

So you would think it's perfectly alright to kill more than you need ?

Come now, that's not what I said now is it? Nor is this implied by anything i've said.

As it happens, when hunting, not taking more then I need is part of my... For lack of a better way of putting it, part of my personal ethic (because it's only through doing that, that sustainability becomes a possibility).

And I agree that humans killing animals for food wouldn't be a problem at all, if it weren't for our huge numbers.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement.
Here's some examples why:
I'd wager there are more fish in the sea, than people on land.
In the country I live in, there are thirty odd sheep for every person, and cows can't be far behind.
If used properly, a single cow will feed a family of 4 for a year, or, alternatively, a single cow will feed more than one person.

However, my point was simply that one should not have to be starving - a medically defined state of physical being - in order to be able to kill for food, or eat meat.

If there were as many tigers in the world as there are humans we would recognize the problem and cull them, right ?

Probably, given what they did in North America to the Wolves, and what they've talked about doing with Sharks in Australia, they even had an annual culling of wild horses here at one stage because of the damage they were causing to the environment - but then, the horses were an introduced pest species (to name a couple of examples).

The culling of animals for (ostensibly) saftey reasons, or the culling of pest species is a seperate issue, and not one I feel like getting into. My point was simply that Humans don't get it all their own way, and there are species out there that are willing to predate on humans.

 

[Enmos]

Come now, that's not what I said now is it? Nor is this implied by anything i've said.

As it happens, when hunting, not taking more then I need is part of my... For lack of a better way of putting it, part of my personal ethic (because it's only through doing that, that sustainability becomes a possibility).


I fundamentally disagree with this statement.
Here's some examples why:
I'd wager there are more fish in the sea, than people on land.
In the country I live in, there are thirty odd sheep for every person, and cows can't be far behind.
If used properly, a single cow will feed a family of 4 for a year, or, alternatively, a single cow will feed more than one person.

However, my point was simply that one should not have to be starving - a medically defined state of physical being - in order to be able to kill for food, or eat meat.

I see you point but, to be fair, I said: "to prevent one self from starving".

"It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative, or to prevent one self from starving to death when there is no reasonable alternative."

Probably, given what they did in North America to the Wolves, and what they've talked about doing with Sharks in Australia, they even had an annual culling of wild horses here at one stage because of the damage they were causing to the environment - but then, the horses were an introduced pest species (to name a couple of examples).

The culling of animals for (ostensibly) saftey reasons, or the culling of pest species is a seperate issue, and not one I feel like getting into.

Don't get me started on pest species

My point was simply that Humans don't get it all their own way, and there are species out there that are willing to predate on humans.

Which is where the first part comes in: "It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative".

 

[MetaKron]

Horses are a species that lived in the Americas a long time ago. They were re-introduced by the Europeans. Deer and buffalo are native to the Americas, and they are the same species as deer and cattle, respectively, from Europe and Africa. There have always been herbivores in the Americas that would outgrow their food supply.

Enmos seems to be saying that you can kill an animal in an "emergency" but not for your daily dietary needs. Almost reasonable, but there are good reasons to use animal products daily. This includes the fact that culling of populations of animals should be an ongoing process that does not wait for population crashes and environmental damage.

 

[MetaKron]

Trippy, I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone is not saving cow manure for use as fertilizer. Where I live they put the dried stuff in plastic bags outside the grocery store and sell it, and of course farmers spread it on their fields by the megaton.

In some ways it may seem like we have pollution and damage, and in other ways it may seem like per person we actually cause less damage than humans did five hundred years ago.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos seems to be saying that you can kill an animal in an "emergency" but not for your daily dietary needs. Almost reasonable, but there are good reasons to use animal products daily. This includes the fact that culling of populations of animals should be an ongoing process that does not wait for population crashes and environmental damage.

No, you misunderstood like Trippy.
I said:

"It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative, or to prevent one self from starving to death when there is no reasonable alternative."

 

[MetaKron]

No, you misunderstood like Trippy.
I said:

"It is not alright to kill or hurt any animal unless it is out of direct physical defense where there is no reasonable alternative, or to prevent one self from starving to death when there is no reasonable alternative."

It's all right with me to do it for my daily meals.

 

[Enmos]

It's all right with me to do it for my daily meals.

You ? You go out and kill animals to eat ?

Anyway, so you can now agree with that sentence ?