A Vegan Proposal

[Raistlin]

I don't understand this argument of "millions of animals are killed clearing land out for crops, so killing millions of more animals for everything else is perfectly fine." Following that logic, it'd be like when we went into Iraq and a US general saying, "Oh, it's inevitable that we're going to kill some civilians...so we shouldn't bother trying to protect them. We're going to have to kill at least five thousand to take the country, so who cares if we kill seventy-five thousand?" It's impossible to cut down all animal deaths, assuredly, however that doesn't make anyone who argues we are killing animals a hypocrite.

Now, I'm not a vegan. I love meat, and I'm not going to stop eating it. I, personally, believe that it's just part of the natural food cycle. However, the arguments against eating meat are still valid and the supposed "logic" to discount them is irrational.

[Calliope]

While you would have it that vegans/vegos give up their right as humans to exploit other living creatures, I would venture that we never had that right in the first place. How does caring for the welfare of another make you a lesser creature?

Prey animals will still be eaten/killed by predator animals, yes.

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

[eestlinc]

if you experience more guilt from eating animals than you experience inconvenience from not eating them, then you should be a vegan.

[The Redneck]

While you would have it that vegans/vegos give up their right as humans to exploit other living creatures, I would venture that we never had that right in the first place.

By non-human mores, we have that right for the simple reason that we are physically capable of it. By any human moral code, we are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong--this immediately seperates us from every other creature on the planet, from one-celled protozoa to bonobos, and with that superiority comes the right to do as we wish.

How does caring for the welfare of another make you a lesser creature?

How does simply refusing to eat meat have anything to do with caring for the welfare of another creature? Apparently, it's not a problem with you if wolves eat cattle, or if mountain lions eat cattle, or if ticks and mosquitos suck them dry--it's only when humans do it that you're dealing with an evil and cruel act? Hell, at least we wait 'til its dead before we start eating.

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

To which I can only comment that you are very, very uninformed about predator animals. My own lesson in "Nature is not pretty, cutesy-fuzzy-wuzzy, or fair 101" came at the age of 12, when I saw the devestation a 10-inch-long mink visited upon my pa's chicken-house (That mink, in fact, is a rather entertaining story all on its own that I may share here someday--we assume it escaped from a farm somewhere.). The fact is that predator-animals regularly kill other animals for entertainment or simply because they can, without regard to whether they need or even can eat the meat.

[eestlinc]

we are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong--this immediately seperates us from every other creature on the planet, from one-celled protozoa to bonobos, and with that superiority comes the right to do as we wish.

We don't know that other animals don't distingush between right and wrong.

[Calliope]

Do your research. Anyone who works at a battery farm will tell you that male chicks are fed alive into a mincegrinder because keeping them alive is unprofitable. In a slaughterhouse situation, cattle are killed via a bolt to the head, on the assumption that an electric shock they are dealt beforehand stuns them enough to ensure that their deaths are 'humane'. They're not, especially as slaughterhouse workers don't ga-run-tee that cattle aren't unconscious before killing them. Fancy eating Saint Bernards or any other number of South Eastern delicacies? Rest assured those animals are skinned alive. We wait until they're dead to eat them, sure, but the deaths are far from humane.

It's not a problem for me if wolves or mountain lions eat cattle, because they are carnivores, and we are omnivores with the ability to survive without eating other animals. We have a choice, they don't.

Nature? What is natural about drinking the milk or eating the flesh of another creature?

As Wes said, your argument is flawed. "Lions and Tigers and Bears kill bunny-wunnies and moo-cows, so we can too! Wait, I mean that we kill them because we are superior to lesser beings, yes"

[udsuna]

Predator animals do not hunt for sport, or greed, or eat more than they need to survive out of gluttony.

WRONG! About as wrong as is possible.

Wolves track, hunt and kill for no appearant reason. They just leave the corpse for carion animals. Best guess? For practice and competition.

Most cats will bring down an animal, and never even kill it. They don't KILL for pleasure, they TORTURE for pleasure, and will continue to torment their victim until it finally dies, then they'll put the body somewhere and forget about it. It seems only the typical African lions are an exception to that rule (but they have a harder time getting food, so that makes sence).

And don't get me started on what animals that are both predator and scavenger will do... ferrets, hyenas, and the like are downright NASTY about their prey.

EDIT: Oh, and I'm a little Illinois farmboy... very familiar with the extent to which slaughterhouses work around here. If I was a stupid cow, unaware of my impending death, I wouldn't mind the slaughter method that cows get. That electric shock they get would drop a bull elephant. Sometimes, it kills the cow in and of itself. The only way a cow could take it is if the machine malfunctioned. And, well, they're just cows. Their whole damned species would be extinct if we didn't protect them.

[eestlinc]

well, cows are what they are because we domisticated them.

[DocFrance]

They're not a whole lot different than undomesticated buffalo, though.

[eestlinc]

well yes, I doubt they'd be writing poetry in their wild state.

[The Redneck]

We don't know that other animals don't distingush between right and wrong.

And we don't know that thunder isn't really angels bowling, either.

Actually, we do, in both cases, through the simple power of observation.

Anyone who works at a battery farm will tell you that male chicks are fed alive into a mincegrinder because keeping them alive is unprofitable.

Given a number of options for killing, being crushed instantly is far swifter and more humane than what animals are guaranteed to suffer in the wild.

In a slaughterhouse situation, cattle are killed via a bolt to the head, on the assumption that an electric shock they are dealt beforehand stuns them enough to ensure that their deaths are 'humane'. They're not, especially as slaughterhouse workers don't ga-run-tee that cattle aren't unconscious before killing them.

In Georgia, at least, the cattle are killed by means of a machine that's basically a pneumatic hammer--it delivers approximately 3000 foot-pounds of pressure to the animal's skull, instantly. You could run an elephant through that machine, assuming it would fit into the stall, and it would be dead before it knows it.

Fancy eating Saint Bernards or any other number of South Eastern delicacies? Rest assured those animals are skinned alive.

Most of them are actually killed quickly--not because it's more humane, but simply because it's more efficient. However, this differs from American slaughterhouses (and those of most of the world) because of the common Asian belief that adrenaline makes the meat taste better and thus a painful or fearful death (in Korea, where I spent a year, they beat one dog to death in front of the others, then get to work and slaughter the rest) results in better meat. I don't agree with it myself; thus why I didn't eat dog while I was over there (except once, and they didn't tell me what it was until after I tried it. I disliked the taste intensely, but that's probably because the stuff was mixed with kim'chi, which is the vilest concoction known to man.).

It's not a problem for me if wolves or mountain lions eat cattle, because they are carnivores, and we are omnivores with the ability to survive without eating other animals. We have a choice, they don't.

And is it a problem for you when they kill unnecessarily? When they kill an animal for practice, or when a mountain lion kills an entire pen of sheep, or kills a deer, eats its fill, and goes out hunting again while the rest is left to rot?

Nature? What is natural about drinking the milk or eating the flesh of another creature?

Everything. Nature is not kind, fair, or cutesy-wootesy.

As Wes said, your argument is flawed. "Lions and Tigers and Bears kill bunny-wunnies and moo-cows, so we can too! Wait, I mean that we kill them because we are superior to lesser beings, yes"

Actually, I was rather careful to differentiate between "by non-human mores" and "by any human moral code". For animals, it's fine to kill other animals and eat them. For humans, it's also fine. Animals are different than humans, and thus we have different reasons than they.

If you weren't such an abrasive ass, Redneck, I would give you a high five for that one.

Considering recent actions taken, I will respond to this in the only manner allowed:

THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!

[jrgen]

There is no universal right and wrong and no living being including humans can tell the difference between two imaginary things, which are impossible to define. Morals differ greatly depending on the surroundings and have absolutely nothing to do with being human. All forms of life seek nothing but survival and morals are merely a way to stay within the norms of your current society and that way be more likely to survive.

[Raistlin]

Redneck - first you argue that we can eat animals because we're superior, now you're arguing that we can do it because other animals do it. Which is it?

[Wuggly Blight]

as long as they aint forcing there views on me, I dont care. Boohoo humans eat meat so do hundreds of other species, protest to them too.

[The Redneck]

Raistlin--

Redneck - first you argue that we can eat animals because we're superior, now you're arguing that we can do it because other animals do it. Which is it?

As mentioned above.....

Actually, I was rather careful to differentiate between "by non-human mores" and "by any human moral code". For animals, it's fine to kill other animals and eat them. For humans, it's also fine. Animals are different than humans, and thus we have different reasons than they.

Jrgen--
Wrong. Completely false. If you say that the sky is green when it's really blue, then you're wrong--it's not green for you and blue for me, it's blue and you're wrong. Likewise, if you say that, for the most common example, murder is not wrong, then it's not fine for you and wrong for me--it's wrong, and you're incorrect. It may be people in certain "surroundings" don't see something as right or wrong, but reality is what it is, not what people would like it to be or claim it is.