Vesica

Am I the only one that keeps hearing Denis Leary's call for Animal Auditions in the back of their heads?

In summary: We are all bloody hypocrits. We only want to save the cute animals so why don't we just have auditions and figure out which are cute enough to spare?

Seraphim

By The Naked Mage :

"So it doesn't have as much right to exist if it doesn't scream when you bite into it?"

My reply : What I meant as Lesser evil is simply this. Two organisms - Plants and Animal, and humans need one. Which should they choose and WHY? I say they should choose Plant lifeforms as source of food, and the reason is :

1. Plants have more diversity than animal species thus suits to become our food supply, animal species (consumable ones anyway) are a few in numbers.

2. Plants require shorter time to plant and harvest (thus contribute to less cost) and with out current technology, we could plant them anywhere we choose to plant (maybe except in Antartica and Artics). You cannot breed a whale in captivity, maybe a smaller animals such as cows, goats, antelopes (they do that in Africa to replace cows) etc.

3. Plants grow much faster and better choice for food supply than animals species. A cow for example will take anywhere around 2 - 3 years to mature to a size where it can be said fit to decorate your dinner table.

Thus, with all this in mind, it is better to choose something that has more beneficial to us than something that obviously wasteful. Even if some of you consider plants have life etc, it is still "lesser evil" to kill a plant than to kill an animal for consumation.

"How nutritional value pertains to the "goodness" or "evilness" of consuming organisms is beyond me."

My reply : Read and try to understand the above. If that task is not possible, then I suggest you continue eating red meat till you becomes like a blimp and your doctor tells you, you have some serious healthy problems. Maybe then the concept of "goodness" and "evilness" of consuming meat could hit you where discussion won't.

"Animals killing people is not an issue of morality. Most animals that can hunt a human don't have any real conception of morals, anyway."

My reply : OH YES it is. I heard varies reports (from CNN, National Geography and Discovery) about creatures such as bears and reindeers entering human territory and forced to be shot in US regions. Even in my country, for the last 6 months, numerous reports of tiger attacks on local rubber farmers had increased.

And trust me when I say Humans make it a BIG issue when someone get chewed by an animal such as a bear or a tiger.

"We have an aversion to being hunted ourselves because it affects our survival as a whole, no matter how insignificantly. "

My reply : Human busy counting populations of whales while they themselves had multiplied like rabbit. Human population now had exceed 6 Billion, survival don't seems to be such an issue here.

Doubting Didymus

That is an extremely weak argument in my opinion. Just because they depend on humans for their species to survive, we therefore have the right to take their guts out and eat their muscles? I don't see the connection.

I say again: I am NOT neccessarily in favour of whaling, I just want to see the arguments for and against. Seraphim is against all animal eating. Some of us are concerned about the methods of killing, some of us are concerned that whales are too intelligent to comfortably eat one, and some of us are concerned that their numbers are not high enough to safely huint them.

I am not convinced on most of these points.
First, populations are apparently now quite high.
Second: whales are not as clever as rats.
For seraphim: if I can eat a cow, I can eat a whale.
But for those of you who are concerned about the method of killing, and possible inhumane treatment, I agree. I think that might be the clincher for me, as a whale is surely a very tricky think to kill humanely.

I should add that I am also skeptical about the population increase that is apparently delivering a whale 'surplus'. That sounds fishy to me, with populations on the brink of extinction just a few decades ago, but I have been granting the premise for the sake of debate.

Seraphim

"I am not convinced on most of these points.
First, populations are apparently now quite high.
Second: whales are not as clever as rats.
For seraphim: if I can eat a cow, I can eat a whale.
But for those of you who are concerned about the method of killing, and possible inhumane treatment, I agree. I think that might be the clincher for me, as a whale is surely a very tricky think to kill humanely."

My reply How Humane you are ... (Dripping with Sarcasm).

If I take this debate to a Theologist (or whatever you guys calls those who follow Religion) and ask them whether they should eat whale meat or not, I believe they will provide better argument than one such as this.

1st - population rate. Population rate of human being also high, does that mean humans should just allow things like disease and war (which we have control over) go uncheck? If they (disease and war) go uncheck, at least some of the problems with overpopulation could be solve.

2nd - Whale are not clever than rats? Says YOU.
To me, that is an arrogant remark. What exactly did made humans so clever? Because they could built things or come out with theories? Humans are no more animals than Apes and Whale are.

"Humans are the ONLY species on this planet who consider THEMSELVES as intelligent" - Spock (forgot the actual name, Leanord something) in Star Trek the Movie.

3rd - my argument against eating meat. Haven't I explain that plants are easier to produce and harvest and better food resources than animal fat. WHAT is your argument that animal meat should still be considered as food? Better make a logical and rational one rather than "it is my choice" crap.

Doubting Didymus

Seraphim, you are not agruing against whaling. You are arguing against eating meat, and that is not the question at hand. Try to stick to the topic.

As for the 'theologist', what would he say? Thou shalt not eat whales? Do you think the bible supports vegetarianism? It demands ANIMAL SACRAFICE, for jabbers sake.

Seraphim

"Seraphim, you are not agruing against whaling. You are arguing against eating meat, and that is not the question at hand. Try to stick to the topic."

My reply : Whale meat, cow meat, goat meat ... what's the difference? You still kill a living, breathing organism and eat their flesh.

And don't change the subject at hand ... I have gave a proper, logical and rational explainations on why plants should be human's source of food. Your turn (you or anyone capable of doing so) to show me why humans should still live in such a barbaric, wasteful and inhumane way as eating meat and hunting helpless creatures such as a whale in such grizzly manner.

"As for the 'theologist', what would he say? Thou shalt not eat whales? Do you think the bible supports vegetarianism? It demands ANIMAL SACRAFICE, for jabbers sake. "

My reply : arrogant and blind as a bat ... your list are characteristics seems to be increasing in an interesting way

Since when a Hindu, Buddhist or a Muslims care for what Bible says?

For your information - both Hindusm and Buddhism support non-meat diet, Muslims eat ONLY a certain meat from a certain species such as cows, goat, camels etc (animals who eat plants themselves) and fishes (but I have YET to see a Muslims eat a whale meat, I should ask in the other forum and tell you guys as well). I don't think Christians could mind following non-violent diet if the rest of the society follows it as well.

ksagnostic

What on Earth are you talking about? I can't imagine any reputable comparative psychologist or coginitive ethologist making a claim like that.

References please.

Doubting Didymus

I'm looking for references on whale intelligence, but I did not mean to phrase it in quite that way. I did not mean to make a definite statement that whales are more intelligent than rats. I do believe that there is not a great deal of difference, however and I know for a fact that a lot of people have strange ideas that whale intelligence approaches our own. Perhaps pigs would have been an even better example, as they are often eaten.

Hold your horses, and I'll see what I can find.

Doubting Didymus

Righty - o.

I am changing my analogy and rewording that part of my argument. While rats ARE intelligent animals, they do not quite compare to cetacians. From what I have seen, the general concensus is that humans lead the stakes by a length or two, and chimpanzees and other great apes rank second. Marine mammals come third, with some dolphins capable of recognising their mirrored reflections. Below this point the concensus breaks down a bit, with some saying elephants, some insisting on parrots and other birds, and a large contingent focusing heavily on pigs.

Whoever is right, it is hard to deny that pigs are clever beasties, many sources placing them as a rival to elephants. There is little disagreement that pigs, while perhaps not as clever as whales, are certainly not far behind.

This will serve to replace my previous argument about rat intelligence, if you will all forgive my flip - flopping the subject. Now, I have no problems eating pork, so the intelligent animal argument does not hold water in my mind. So far, the only objections I have are that whales are not being killed humanely, and I am suspicious of claims that their populations are high enough to safely hunt them.

Seraphim: if your sole argument against whaling is that it is wrong to eat meat, then you have made your point. If that is your only point then you are finished here, as this is not a thread about vegetarianism and will not become one, as evidenced by the intentions of moderators.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

The Other Michael

The OP is I see no problem with pointing out a moral argument for or against whaling that involves vegetarianism in re the morality of whaling for the purposes of meat.

What we'd like to avoid is the devolution of the thread into nothing but a "meat is murder/no it isn't" bickering.

So I think that for making a case from a vegetarian viewpoint we can probably stipulate a lot of the background, just as if someone wanted to argue that a particluar religious creed is against it wouldn't require quoting 15 chapters of their dogma.

I can see possible arguments based on intelligence/sapience, fuzzy animals, no need to kill them for the limited amount of protein, no need to kill them because they don't taste enough like chicken, cetaceans are the true hidden Rulers of the Universe, sufficiency of whale populations, wasteful use of petroleum for the research ships, or probably numerous other things.

Just keep it civil and at least quasi-rational sounding.

thanks,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class