Food & Animals

[Lucifer]

*tortillas

don't brag about your food if you can't spell it.

[Magi]

The way his post was typed I just thought it was a spambot that forgot the links..

[Light]

What do you believe animals should be given in order that one may say they have (or have had) a good quality of life?

They shouldn't be born into slavery. They shouldn't be bred for slaughter. Think of them as you would a human baby and I don't think it would be difficult to see. Hell, think of it as a dog and most people would understand. If I went and slit a dog's throat, could you imagine the amount of people getting upset? I wonder more why people can't see them equally. Animals like pigs are a lot like dogs, and in some ways better. Having worked with many animals, you get to be able to see and understand different personalities.

Also, the environmental issues you bring up are not simply due to raising/farming animals for human consumption. Humans have been doing this for an exceptionally long time. They exist because:

1) Some of our current farming methods could be improved.
2) Most importantly, the planet's population is ridiculously large now; we need to reduce it drastically.

We wouldn't need nearly as much as we do if it weren't for farming animals. The things I brought up were due to animal agriculture. We may be able to improve on them by getting better at certain things, but the reason for it happening is still due to the farming of animals. With what you've brought up there though, there's so many areas it effects that we can't really stem into that topic. Our overpopulation has caused a huge number of issues. Even on the topic of animals there's an alarming amount of damage we've done.

[sinewav]

If I went and slit a dog's throat, could you imagine the amount of people getting upset?

I guess that depends on whether or not you were going to eat the dog. Slitting an animal's throat sounds horrible, but really, it's one of the better ways to go. The amount of suffering that wild animals go through is spectacular, especially prey.

[Light]

I guess that depends on whether or not you were going to eat the dog. Slitting an animal's throat sounds horrible, but really, it's one of the better ways to go. The amount of suffering that wild animals go through is spectacular, especially prey.

It's really hard to make a point about causing less suffering when they're bred to be murdered. Most wild animals will get to live out at least most of their life. They would get to be free, away from torture. They wouldn't constantly be raped. We're not helping them by raising them, putting them through hell, and killing them. The amount of suffering they go through for a preference of taste or texture for a species that has the ability to feed themselves without causing nearly that much harm is pretty spectacular.

There are about 150 billion animals slaughtered yearly for food. I don't know where I may find numbers on the amount of wild animals that die each year, but even if it comes close, why is it okay because they die so much in the wild? Why would it be okay to double the deaths, and how would that be good.

If you're simply talking about a "humane" way to murder animals, then sure I guess there's worse ways you could do it. Not doing it the worst way possible doesn't make it good, though.

[sinewav]

The amount of suffering they go through for a preference of taste or texture for a species that has the ability to feed themselves without causing nearly that much harm is pretty spectacular.

You keep going back to these incorrect points. We eat animals for nutrition first, then taste second. Again, a healthy, well-rounded and nutritious diet, free of animal products, is a first-world luxury - not something capable for the entire species. Hopefully that will change one day.

...why is it okay because they die so much in the wild?

Circle of life, man. I don't know how else to explain it. Our morality begins and ends with humans. The way we treat animals is based purely on our emotional health. We owe absolutely nothing to any other species outside of our own benefit. There is no divine commandment telling us one way or another.

BTW, you really need to keep the science/nutrition arguments away from the ethical ones. Your points need to be sound for ethical reasons, not by introducing incomplete science. Veganism at its heart is ethics, not nutrition.

[Light]

You keep going back to these incorrect points. We eat animals for nutrition first, then taste second. Again, a healthy, well-rounded and nutritious diet, free of animal products, is a first-world luxury - not something capable for the entire species. Hopefully that will change one day.

While you live in a first world country, and many parts of the world don't eat meat because it's more expensive, this point you keep trying to make seems pretty pointless. If you're just talking about processed foods, maybe, but eating vegan is not just about eating a bunch of processed patties. Also, you don't need meat for a healthy diet. It's a want, not a need.

Circle of life, man. I don't know how else to explain it. Our morality begins and ends with humans. The way we treat animals is based purely on our emotional health. We owe absolutely nothing to any other species outside of our own benefit.

The "circle of life" doesn't tend to involve breeding for slaughter. That's exploitation. And it's true, we don't owe other species anything. We also don't owe other humans anything.

There is no divine commandment telling us one way or another.

I never said there was, and I don't believe there is. It's my opinion that enslavement, rape, torture, and slaughter is wrong. Doing it to another species isn't any better than doing it to your own.

BTW, you really need to keep the science/nutrition arguments away from the ethical ones. Your points need to be sound for ethical reasons, not by introducing incomplete science. Veganism at its heart is ethics, not nutrition.

Actually, it's a nutritional choice as well. Not every vegan is an ethical vegan. You obviously couldn't care less about the well being of another species, and you continue to make nutritional based arguments without evidence. I've yet to see a real reason we need meat. You keep going back to it being a first world luxury, but that's garbage. If anything, the meat consumption is more of a first world luxury than anything. Even if it was, it's a meaningless argument about whether or not we need it.

If you even care to do the slightest research on the environmental impacts of farming animals, you would see what I wrote above plus tons more. When it comes to nutrition, you can find where to get proteins, vitamins, etc. without meats. It's actually healthier to get most of them directly than second hand through another animal.

[ConVicT]

it's prolly had a good life compared to gettin' ate before you can walk properly -_-

Like I said there.
There are many types of animal that have litters and are lucky if even one of many make it to be fully grown.
Not even just that, the one's that are for slaughter wouldn't have had a life at all because they would never have been born. I think if they could chose to live for 6 months to a year, or not at all (if they could), they'd choose life.

[sinewav]

While you live in a first world country, and many parts of the world don't eat meat because it's more expensive, this point you keep trying to make seems pretty pointless.

No. We covered this before. Not being able to purchase meat does not mean you are healthier because of it. Again, we in the developed West are blessed with an abundance and variety of foods we can eat all year long. In most parts of the world there are hard choices to make, and sometimes farming animals is the right one, I'm sorry to say. Personally, I can't afford a lifestyle that is both healthy and vegan. It's still too expensive for my income bracket and believe me I've looked into it. You are quite lucky to have enough money to do it.

Also, you don't need meat for a healthy diet. It's a want, not a need.

We have already established this is untrue. It is a generalization about human nutrition.

The "circle of life" doesn't tend to involve breeding for slaughter.

Unfortunately it does. Most of your arguments are bordering on the Natural Fallacy. There are amazing, documented tales of cruelty between animals, and humans are no exception.

It's my opinion that enslavement, rape, torture, and slaughter is wrong. Doing it to another species isn't any better than doing it to your own.

It's a little more complicated than that. We have a symbiotic relationship with domestic animals. It's not wrong to raise them and kill them for food. Living things eat other living things. I'm sure everyone here agrees that some factory farming practices are horrible. That should be the focus of your argument, but be careful of the Slippery Slope.

When it comes to nutrition, you can find where to get proteins, vitamins, etc. without meats. It's actually healthier to get most of them directly than second hand through another animal.

Holy shit, thanks for proving my argument about first world luxuries. We can get these proteins and vitamin packed foods through advanced infrastructure, novel farming practices, and successful trade negotiations with other nations. What kind of farm and climate would you need to grow all the things you need at home? Also, did you even read the article Word posted? Nutrition derived from animals is different than from plants. I also know about the environmental impacts. This also does not add to your case. You need an ethical argument that isolates the true wrongness of eating animals (if there is such a thing, but I doubt it).

You obviously couldn't care less about the well being of another species....

Here is the thing that makes my blood boil about you f'ing morons. Everyone that eats an animal is Hitler, right? Go f'k yourself. Here is a little game I like to play called Headlines vs The Truth. Ready?

Headline:
SINEWAV ENDORSES ANIMAL CRUELTY

Truth:

• sinewav studied Buddhism for several years and his whole worldview is based around reducing the suffering of living beings. It's his default position.
• sinewav was a vegetarian for over a decade before reintroducing small amounts of meat to his diet for health reasons. Yes, you read that correctly, health reasons. Not all people have the same nutritional needs.
• sinewav does not kill animals, not even insects, not even roaches. Hes has strict catch-and-release policy and annoyingly imposes this on those around him.
• sinewav volunteers to help animals. Also, people trust him so much that they fly him across the country to watch their pets.

I don't care about animals, right you idiot?

[Light]

it's prolly had a good life compared to gettin' ate before you can walk properly -_-

Like I said there.
There are many types of animal that have litters and are lucky if even one of many make it to be fully grown.
Not even just that, the one's that are for slaughter wouldn't have had a life at all because they would never have been born. I think if they could chose to live for 6 months to a year, or not at all (if they could), they'd choose life.

This would get into a completely different topic, and it looks like I know where you'd fall. In short, the animals would never have been conceived, and they would not have to live a life of torture before their death. It's like being born into death row where you get beaten, chained down, and put in a lot of pain before they finally decide to put a bolt in your head. No, I would not prefer they be born.

It's not wrong to raise them and kill them for food

I don't care about animals, right you idiot?

It seems you only really care about some animals, or we have a completely different definition of what caring means.