Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

"And I repeat myself, we switch over to vegetarian, the bovine species will CEASE TO EXIST. They will go extinct except for the ones in zoos."

So, what, you think we couldn't figure out something for them? Come on. I think the cow population is much better existing only in zoos than the conditions they're in now.

" Hundred cows or one person? I don't know how it's a hard choice."

It doesn't have to be either of them. There is NO reason that you must kill those 100 cows.

"When it all comes down to it, we are so far superior to almost any species of animal that you could argue our right to drive them into extinction at our convenience (could, I won't because I don't believe that helps humans survive better, but still could)."

But you haven't argued that AT ALL. You haven't support that one iota other than just because we could. Besides that, why are we so superior, just because we can talk? Because we're smarter? Why are those the qualities that make us superior? That type of ego centricism makes me ill.

"Find the first person who refuses to kill ants that have infected their home, never killed a spider or roach in his or her life, and would not swat a mosquito or fly, and I show you the only person that has any right to say eating meat is wrong."

Your arguments aren't consistant. First you say we're superior, now you say that all life is equal, so people who kill ants can't say that eating meat is wrong. There's a huge difference between killing ants and killing animals who obviously have some intelligence.

Cows are not intelligent. They are probably about as smart as an ant. I would argue ants are smarter just because they are organized. They all work together where as the cow just sits there and eats...then decides to sleep. Real intelligence there.

Save the ants. Intelligent creatures must not be killed :laugh:

Maybe you should read up on the animals you're talking about before posting in a serious thread like this.

Cows aren't the smartest animals around, no, but they're intelligent enough to be bothered by stressful conditions, they can be trained, they feel pain.

Ants are, for the most part, automatons. The reason they're organized is because of instinct. Hardly a sign of intelligence.

Well duh ants are automatons. They just mindlessly go around and get food and built the hill and tunnel system and blah blah blah.

Intellegence is relative anyways. The fact that ants are organized is intellegence enough for me to put them over the cow even if it is mainly instinct. They build complex colonies, they have a social system of sorts. The way they go out and gather food is rather interesting also. They always seem to be able to find the shortest path to the food source. The leave phermon trails for others to follow.

Being able to feel pain and all that could be racked up to just a more developed nervous system and not true intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

So, what, you think we couldn't figure out something for them? Come on. I think the cow population is much better existing only in zoos than the conditions they're in now.

---

Figure out WHAT for them? If you set them into the wild, they will die. They will be brought down and slaughtered mercilessly by coyotes and wolves. They will fall into large ditches and break a limb, then lie there until death. They will stand around and eat until there's nothing left, then be too stupid to find a new place and starve.
Cows are probably the most PATHETIC and ill-equipped species for independent survival that exist. They are dependent upon us as a species, and it's only fair we get something in return. Fresh milk, a hamburger, the occasional rodeo show, and tough but comfortable clothing- seems fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Your arguments aren't consistant. First you say we're superior, now you say that all life is equal, so people who kill ants can't say that eating meat is wrong. There's a huge difference between killing ants and killing animals who obviously have some intelligence.

---

Actually, my argument is perfectly consistent. I say that all life is not equal, as a matter of my own experience. Then I point out how the concept of all life as equal has no internal consistency. If we're not superior to cows, then how could cows possibly be superior to ants? Cows are beyond ants, and we are beyond cows, it's just that simple.
When it boils down to it, we are just the superior species and they don't have even the potential to be useful except in aiding us the only ways they can.
Besides, cattle are horrible for the environment. They do more damage than we do, on a one for one basis. Keeping the population contained and controlled only helps the rest of the world, in the long run.

"Being able to feel pain and all that could be racked up to just a more developed nervous system and not true intelligence."

How do I know you're really intelligent? your posts are just a more developed nervous system reacting to various stimuli, after all.

Besides, pain and them feeling stressed should be reason enough to stop abusing them.

"Figure out WHAT for them?"

make pastures for them? Figure out a way for them to live in the wild? Be creative. if push came to shove, we'd figure out something.

"If you set them into the wild, they will die. They will be brought down and slaughtered mercilessly by coyotes and wolves. They will fall into large ditches and break a limb, then lie there until death."

That happens to ALL ruminants, and they manage. Why are cows so different? Sources?


"They will stand around and eat until there's nothing left, then be too stupid to find a new place and starve."

I haven't heard that before. Evidence?

"They are dependent upon us as a species, and it's only fair we get something in return. Fresh milk, a hamburger, the occasional rodeo show, and tough but comfortable clothing- seems fair enough."

How greedy. Well, you can continue to exploit the weak. I sincerely hope you don't apply these morals to your social life.

"Then I point out how the concept of all life as equal has no internal consistency. If we're not superior to cows, then how could cows possibly be superior to ants? Cows are beyond ants, and we are beyond cows, it's just that simple."

It's not that we're superior, it's that we should develop different ways of dealing with different animals.

I'll use the children analogy. We don't let children vote because they're not intelligent enough. Because of that, we also don't hold them as accountable for their actions.

Adults are not superior, we're just more intelligent, so the rules are different. I apply the same logic to animals.

"When it boils down to it, we are just the superior species"

Are you ever going to back this up, or are you just going to keep repeating it? I assume you equate most intelligent with most superior. Why?

"Besides, cattle are horrible for the environment. They do more damage than we do, on a one for one basis. Keeping the population contained and controlled only helps the rest of the world, in the long run."

They don't do more damage than we do, but they are bad for the environment. That's why a vegetarian diet is more economical. It's better to let the cow's population die from natural causes, let the population decline. see how a small population does in the wild, if not, they can live in zoos.

I actually need to point out how we're superior? I thought it was obvious, something like saying "gravity makes us fall down". Well, let's just start off with the "every religion ever made backs me on this"- well, maybe not completely true, but every one I ever heard of. So, that's one angle I win by default. Except one that believes cows (ironically) are holy, but they still accept using all other forms of animal life.
Second point: darwinian. Survival of the fittest. Us and our six billion, we can live almost anywhere on this planet. Soon, we'll be able to live on other planets. We and our oversized brains have become the one and only dominant force on this world- I think that qualifies us as superior on a darwinian level.
Third point... actually, what third point? I have both logical science and the moral codes of practically every culture ever established supporting me, WHAT MORE DO I NEED!?!

Oh, and to your question about my proof on if cows could survive in the wild, just look at the wild. Every domestic animal known has wild counterparts. You can find wild pigs and chickens and horses and dogs and geese and even SHEEP all descended from domestics, yet running wild.
Except cattle, there are no wild cattle anywhere in the world. The closest equivilant would be buffalo, oxen, or similar creatures. Very tough animals that are capable of fighting back and withstanding terrible weather conditions. So, in all history, no cattle have escaped captivity, or the ones that did all died. Yeah, the former is rediculous, the later is certain, that's all the proof I need. Every animal EXCEPT the cow... right...
And you should go to india and see the so-called "sacred cows" there. The things live on charity, for all intents. They're mal-nourished, sickly, and have a higher mortality rate than ours do, even counting all the ones we kill for food. They don't leave the cities, and the ones that do end up dead. It's disturbing, and that's the closest thing to wild cattle.... yep, they're better off as livestock.

"How do I know you're really intelligent? your posts are just a more developed nervous system reacting to various stimuli, after all."

I can control what I want to do. My fingers are typing like this because I control them. They are not reacting to anything other than my whims. That is the difference. A reaction to something like pain does not require you to think about it. It is just a reaction to a base instinct. The stress I have not read about which is why I didn't say anything about it.

As you told me above "Maybe you should read up on *stuff* you're talking about before posting in a serious thread like this"

"Besides, pain and them feeling stressed should be reason enough to stop abusing them."

Who is arguing against this? By saying this you obviously need to do what women are always bitching at men about..."Listen!" :laugh:

[qq]Besides, pain and them feeling stressed should be reason enough to stop abusing them.[/qq][qq]It's not that we're superior, it's that we should develop different ways of dealing with different animals.[/qq]

Where does this "should" come from? I haven't seen any reason given why human beings should treat animals well.

Especially if human beings are no better than animals. If we're no better than animals, then I say you can't justify expecting anything from us other than animalistic behavior. No one answered my question. If I go out in the woods, track down a slow or wounded animal, and kill it with my teeth, is that moral? If not, why not? If not, do you think that every carnivore on the planet is also immoral? If it is moral, then how is killing animals in a more humane way NOT moral? We're held to a higher standard because we're "not better, just different". In what way are we different, that justifies holding us to a higher standard?

When I hear people talk about stopping animal cruelty, I am reminded of people talking about homosexuality. Some people think that being gay is "evil". Some people think that killing cows for food is "evil". I find neither to be a question of morality, because neither deals with harming human beings.

If anyone comes back with "Well, I don't see any reason why humans should treat humans well" I'm going to say it's a faulty analogy. Comparing animal rights to baby rights (which has AGAIN been done in this thread), or to the rights of black people, is an invalid analogy in the extreme.

This has come down to definition. Does morality apply to animals? It's an arbitrary choice. I say no because animals are not sentient, animals don't have intelligence on par with human beings, and animals probably don't have emotions in the same sense that human beings have them. You say yes, because animals feel pain. I see no reason why either opiniion is better than the other. They're just different.

"Well, let's just start off with the "every religion ever made backs me on this"

Every religion ever made up by humans? Yeah, not very convincing.

"darwinian. Survival of the fittest. Us and our six billion, we can live almost anywhere on this planet. Soon, we'll be able to live on other planets. We and our oversized brains have become the one and only dominant force on this world- I think that qualifies us as superior on a darwinian level."

So we're the most fit. I don't think that's better. There are more chinese people than whites on this planet. Does that make them better than us? I doubt you'd apply that logic there.

"Oh, and to your question about my proof on if cows could survive in the wild, just look at the wild. Every domestic animal known has wild counterparts. You can find wild pigs and chickens and horses and dogs and geese and even SHEEP all descended from domestics, yet running wild.
Except cattle, there are no wild cattle anywhere in the world. The closest equivilant would be buffalo, oxen, or similar creatures."

That's not proof. You're making HUGE assumptions here. This says nothing about cattle to support your view. It's all speculation.

"So, in all history, no cattle have escaped captivity, or the ones that did all died."

Care to back that up?

"As you told me above "Maybe you should read up on *stuff* you're talking about before posting in a serious thread like this"

It was meant light-heartedly. The part about you being unintelligent, obviously. My point was that you said the cow's signs of intelligence were nothing but instincts, basically, and shrugged them off as not signs of "true" intelligence (what does that even mean, anyway?). I was just pointing out that you can do that to ANY signs of intelligence. How skeptical do you want to be? I interpret a cow's behaviour, and the fact that it's a large mammal as having a fair amount of intelligence. I don't even think this is debatable, honestly. They don't react on only instincts, ie, they can be taught.

"Who is arguing against this? By saying this you obviously need to do what women are always bitching at men about..."Listen!"

Eating of animals/keeping them in most farm conditions = abuse.

"Where does this "should" come from? I haven't seen any reason given why human beings should treat animals well."

The should is my personal belief. I think we should treat animals well for the same reason why we should treat other human beings well. I think it's the ethical thing to do. It's wrong to hurt the weak for our gain, and it's wrong to cause unnecessary pain. I apply those things to animals as well.

"If we're no better than animals, then I say you can't justify expecting anything from us other than animalistic behavior. No one answered my question."

Actually I have addressed that point, just not directly responding to you.

We know the animal feels pain from that animalistic behaviour, and more than that, we know it's unnecessary! We know we can live perfectly healthily without killing, but we do it anyway. That's wrong. Animals aren't intelligent enough to know that.

Other carnivores aren't immoral because they don't understand.

"If it is moral, then how is killing animals in a more humane way NOT moral? We're held to a higher standard because we're "not better, just different". In what way are we different, that justifies holding us to a higher standard?"

If there was no other way to survive other than eating meat, it would be moral. For one thing, animals are not held and treated humanely in slaughter houses for the most part. Go to to PETA's website and download some videos if you want to disagree with me there. The quality that holds us to a higher standard is our knowledge. We know we're causing harm, and we do it all anyway.

"I find neither to be a question of morality, because neither deals with harming human beings."

So you don't think it's immoral to say, drown kittens? I mean, I don't think I could judge a cat as being moral or immoral when killing a mouse, but when someone is abusing one it most certainly is wrong.

"This has come down to definition. Does morality apply to animals? It's an arbitrary choice. I say no because animals are not sentient, animals don't have intelligence on par with human beings, and animals probably don't have emotions in the same sense that human beings have them. You say yes, because animals feel pain. I see no reason why either opiniion is better than the other. They're just different."

Yeah, it is largely opinion at this point, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

They aren't sentient beings, no, but I don't think that means we should take advantage of them and hurt them. It's still wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

No one answered my question. If I go out in the woods, track down a slow or wounded animal, and kill it with my teeth, is that moral? If not, why not? If not, do you think that every carnivore on the planet is also immoral? If it is moral, then how is killing animals in a more humane way NOT moral? We're held to a higher standard because we're "not better, just different". In what way are we different, that justifies holding us to a higher standard?

---

I will answer your awesome question.

I think it is moral. You went out for food and killed the food in a very awesomely barbaric way. Kudos to you. While there is nothing immoral about it I would have to question your sanity if you actually did such a thing :laugh:

Umm... why are we drowning the kittens? If there was a reason for it, aside being a sadistic freak, then drowning said kitty cats isn't immoral. If the kittens had rabbies or distemper, then drowning them is a good idea- but you'd have to burn the corpses to be sure. Kinder than just tossing the live ones in the fire.
With rabies, it wouldn't even be safe to touch them- you'd have to burn the clothes you wore when disposing of them. And don't you even DARE say that a deadly virus deserves better- not dying is the best reason to kill something.
And why do you need all this "backing up"? These things are based on dispersed factual data, you can find the info for yourself. I'm not the one who needs to prove I'm right, you're the one who needs to prove I'm wrong. You find the example of cattle living in the wild, and I gave you the only known one, and showed how even it wasn't working. Look up stuff on the cows in india. We know you have the internet- and you seem smart enough to do basic research. Why should I do your job?
Animals are animals, people are people, and maybe I'm speciest. I'll consider any equal species an equal, and all inferior species inferior. I see no reason to cause undo harm, but why go out of my way to help something that wouldn't bother to help me?

"Umm... why are we drowning the kittens?"

I was talking to Unne, because he said morality doesn't apply unless it deals with human pain or something like that.

"And don't you even DARE say that a deadly virus deserves better- not dying is the best reason to kill something."

For christ's sake, no one is that left wing. :P I work in a lab, which means I kill bacteria all the time, and work with lab rats and such.

"And why do you need all this "backing up"?"

Because I don't believe you.

"These things are based on dispersed factual data, you can find the info for yourself. I'm not the one who needs to prove I'm right, you're the one who needs to prove I'm wrong."

No, generally in life you're expected to back up your own opinions. If you don't, I'm fine with ignoring you.

"Animals are animals, people are people, and maybe I'm speciest. I'll consider any equal species an equal, and all inferior species inferior."

Heh, speciest. Sure.

"I see no reason to cause undo harm, but why go out of my way to help something that wouldn't bother to help me?"

Because that's what compassion is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

No, generally in life you're expected to back up your own opinions. If you don't, I'm fine with ignoring you.

---

That's just a little hypocritical. You should be expected to back up why animals deserve as good as people. There are NO known wild cattle in this world, that's a simple fact. Animals feel sensations like pain, that, too is fact.
And you work in a LAB!?! You know as well as anyone that your rodents are used and thrown away. Is a rat less deserving than a cow? Frankly, most mice are provably smarter than most bovines. A cow can't learn to run a maze.
Any species that wants equality should EARN it. Humanity had to against itself... a sad series of events over the last ten thousand years or so. We're not even done with that process still. And when we are, then MAYBE other lifeforms can be on the list.

Is this about PETA anymore or just the morality? I keep coming back to see this thing I created spiraling bigger and bigger.