punkersluta

Greetings, all. Sorry to disappoint any of you for being gone for the amount of time I was gone. However, now to address your concerns...

tronvillain...

Ah, the voice of reason and compassion!

echidna...

If you're interested in Vegetarianism, I highly suggest reading <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com/articles/shouldweeatmeat.html" target="_blank">Should We Eat Meat?</a> -- it includes a brief justification, as well as sections concerning health, tips, quotes, among other things, to Vegetarianism. Of course, the decision and power lies entirely within your own decision.

Mageth...

It is used in the sense that Lucretius used it.

....

The ONLY response you provided was questioning whether or not plants were conscious, and then called the whole of biology and anatomy known by scientists today as an "assumption." If you wish to state that animals have no rights, perhaps the best route to take is to deny that men have rights.

You cannot assume an assumption -- you make something an assumption by assuming it.

I replied by stating that they do not have a brain -- a brain being necessary to produce consciousness.

Sorry to disappoint you, but whether or not an animal concerned the morality of rape or theft or cannibalizing has NOTHING to do with the fact that they still did it, and you have failed to produce one shred of evidence that it is even slightly relevent.

Of course it is not a universally-accepted moral. This is but of extreme obviousness. Furthermore, the evidence I have offered was plea on the grounds of equality of conscious beings on grounds that consciousness holds value, something you have yet to even recognize, let alone debate against. Still, as far as "antique quotes" goes, I already stated that those do not serve as arguments -- your comprehension abilities are appalling.

The difference between watching TeeVee and eating an animal has significant moral differences, and if you think they are equal, I open you to prove how.

Ignorance.

It takes 21 pounds of protein to feed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. This is less than 5 percent! Frances Moore Lappé refers to it as "a protein factory in reverse!" [Resource: "Diet for a Small Planet" by Frances Moore Lappé (New York: Friends of the Earth/Ballatine, 1971), pp. 4-11. (Revised Edition published in 1982.) Original sources are "The World Food Problem," a Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee (1967); "Feed Situation," February 1970, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and "National and State Livestock-Feed Relationships," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin Number 446, February 1970.]

Most estimates conclude that plant foods yield about 10 times as much protein per acre as meat does, and the ratio sometimes goes as high as plant foods yielding 20 times more protein per acre than meat! [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), chapter 10. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

The protein intake of the average American excreeds the generous level recommended by the National Academy of Sciences by 45 percent. Other estimates say that most Americans consume between two and four times as much meat as the body can use. Excess protein cannot be stored. Some of it is excreted, and some may be converted by the body to carbohydrate, which is an expensive way to increase one's crabohydrate intake. [Resource: Francis Moore Lappé, "Diet for a Small Planet," pp. 28-29; see also "The New York Times," October 25, 1974; "Medical World News," November 8, 1974, p. 106.]

If a person eats just wheat, rice, and/or potatoes, the only way they will not get enough protein is if they are starving. [Resource: In the first edition of "Diet for a Small Planet" (1971), Frances Moore Lappé emphasized protein complementarity to show that a vegetarian diet can provide enough protein. In the revised edition (New York: Ballantine, 1982) this emphasis has disappeared, replaced by a demonstration that a healthy vegetarian diet is bound to contain enough protein even without complementarity. For another account of the adequacy of plant foods as far as protein is concerned, see Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Sourcebook," Chapter 2. Original Resources are United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).]

An acre of oats or broccoli produces at least six times more proteins than a field that used animal feed to produce pork, milk, poultry, or beef. The acre of broccoli yields nearly three times as much as pork. Oats produce nearly 25 times as many calories as beef. An acre of broccoli produces 24 times the amount of iron produced by an acre used for beef and an acre of oats produces 16 times the amount of iron as an acre for beef. And an acre used for broccoli produces 5 times more calcium than an acre of land used for milk cows. [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), pp. 90-91. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

In 1974, Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council estimated that if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption -- enough to feed 60 million people. Don Paarlberg, a former U.S. assistant secretary of agriculture, has said that merely reducing the U.S. livestock population by half would make available enough food to make up the calorie deficit of the nonsocialist, underdevelepod nations nearly four times over. [Resource: Boyce Rensberger, "Curb on U.S. Waste Urged to Help World's Hungry," The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Alan Durning, a researcher at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington D.C., has calculated that one pound of steak from steers raised in feedlots costs five pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 35 pounds of eroded topsoil. More than a third of North America is taken up with grazing, more than half of U.S. croplands are planted with livestock feed, and more than half of all water consumed in the United States goes to livestock. [Resource: Science News, March 5, 1988, p.153, citing Worldwatch, January/February 1988.]

A pound of meat requires 50 times as much water as an equivalent of wheat. [Resource: Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Source Book," p.100, based on D. Pimental and M. Pimental, "Food, Energy, and Society" (New York: Wiley, 1979), pp. 56, 59, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1975).] Newsweek has described the loss of water in feeding animals when it said, "The water that goes into a 1000 pound steer would float a destroyer." [Resource: "The Browning of America," Newsweek, February 22, 1981, p. 26; quoted by John Robbins, "Diet for a New America" (Walpole, N.H.: Stillpoint, 1987), p. 367.]

When meat is eaten, it sits heavily in our stomachs, blocking our digestive processes until, days later, we struggle to excrete it. [Resource: In The Lancet (December 30, 1972), the "mean transit time" of food through the digestive systems of a sample group of nonvegetarians on a Western type of diet was between seventy-six and eighty-three hours; for vegetarians forty two hours. The authors suggest a connection between the length of time the stool remains in the colon and the incidence of cancer of the colon and related disease which have increased rapidly in nations whose consumption of meat has increased but are almost unknown among rural Africans who, like vegetarians, have a diet low in meat and high in roughage.]

Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, and George Bernard Shaw lead long, creative lives as Vegetarians. The inhabitants of the Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador live between 123 and 142; these people eat less than an ounce of meat a week. A study of all individuals that lived past 100 in Hungary found that they were largely vegetarian. [Resource: David Davies, "A Shangri-La in Ecuador," New Scientist, February 1, 1973. On the basis of other studies, Raplh Nelson of the Mayo Medical School has suggested that a high protein intake causes us to "idle our metabolic engine at a faster rate" (Medical World News, November 8, 1974, p. 106). This could explain the correlation between longevity and little or no meat consumption.]

Diets designed for health and longevity like the Pritikin plan and the McDougall plan are either largely or entirely vegetarian. [Resource: N. Pritikin and P. McGrady, "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise" (New York: Bantam, 1980); J.J. McDougall, "The McDougall Plan" (Piscataway, N.J.: New Century, 1983).]

The 1988 United States Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health cites a major study indicating that the death rate for heart attacks of vegetarians between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four is only 28 percent of the rate for Americans in general in that age group. For older vegetarians the rate of death from heart attacks was still less than half that of nonvegetarians. The same study showed that vegetarians who ate eggs and dairy products had cholesterol levels 16 percent lower than those of meat eaters, and vegans had cholesterol levels 29 percent lower. The report's main recommendations were to reduce consumption of cholesterol and fat (especially saturated fat), and increase consumption of cholesterol and whole grain foods and cereal products, vegetables (including dried beans and peas) and fruits. A recommendation to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat is, in effect, a recommendation to avoid meat (except perhaps chicken from which the skin has been removed), and cream, butter, and all except low-fat dairy products. [Resource: "The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).]

Studies have found a strong connection between breast cancer and meat intake, and also between eating meat, especially beef, and cancer of the large bowel. The American Heart Association has also been recommending, for many years, that Americans reduce their meat intake. [Resource: The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Many athletes are also Vegetarians. Olympic long-distance swimming champion Murray Rose, the famous Finnish distance runner Paavo Nurmi, basketball star Bill Walton, the "ironman" triathlete Dave Scott, and 400-meter Olympic hurdle champion Edwin Moses were all Vegetarians. Surely, eating meat is not a necessary for being athletic.

Appleby et al. 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 525S:
A 16-year study of 6000 vegetarians and 5000 non-vegetarians in the UK found that the vegetarians generally had lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower death rates for each of the mortality endpoints studied.

Segasothy & Phillips 1999, Q J Med, 92, 531:
The many health-related effects of vegetarian diets are reviewed, such as the cholesterol-lowering effects, the decreased risk for coronary heart disease, the improvement of the condition of heart patients, and the decreased risk of colon and breast cancers.

Kushi et al. 1995, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 1416S:
Evidence strongly suggests that a high intake of plant-based foods, and a low intake of animal products contributes to the excellent health of Mediterranean populations. The high consumption of red meat in Western diets is associated with increased risks of heart disease, some cancers, and urinary calcium losses likely to contribute to osteoporosis.

Kestin et al. 1989, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 280:
The results of two, fat-modified diets, a lactoovovegetarian one rich in plant-based foods, and another in which 60% of the plant protein was replaced with protein from lean meat, were compared. While both diets lowered cholesterol and blood pressure relative to a high-fat diet, the vegetarian diet had a significantly greater cholesterol-lowering effect than the prudent non-vegetarian diet.

Meyer et al. 1997, American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 117:
The dietary habits of 19,752 Norwegian women and 20,035 Norwegian men were followed for an average of 11.4 years. An elevated risk of fracture was found in women with a high intake of protein from nondairy animal sources (meat, fish, and eggs) when calcium intake was low.

Feskanich et al. 1996, American Journal of Epidemiology, 143, 472:
A 12-year study of 85,900 women indicated that the consumption of animal protein was associated with an increased risk of fracture. In contrast, no such association was found for the consumption of vegetable protein.

Marsh et al. 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 837:
A study of 1600 lactoovovegetarian and non-vegetarian post-menopausal women confirms the theory that the amount and type of protein consumed affects bone mineral loss after menopause. By 80 years of age, the non-vegetarians had approximately twice the reduction of bone mineral density compared to the vegetarians.

Ward & Lopez-Carrillo 1999, American Journal of Epidemiology, 149, 925:
A study of 220 gastric cancer patients in Mexico city along with a control group from the same area indicated an approximately threefold increased risk of gastric cancer for frequent consumption of both fresh and processed meat. An increased risk of cancer was also found to be associated with frequent consumption of dairy products and fish.

Singh & Fraser 1998, American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 761:
A six-year study of 32,051 members of the Adventist Health Study identified both red meat and white meat consumption as important dietary risk factors for colon cancer.

Layton et al. 1995, Carcinogenesis, 16, 39:
Carcinogenic chemicals known as heterocyclic amines are produced when meat and fish are cooked under normal conditions. An evaluation indicates that the consumption of meat and fish products contributes to human cancer risk.

Giovannucci et al. 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 1571:
The dietary habits of 51529 men, age 40 to 75, were examined to understand the relationship between prostate cancer and dietary fat. There was a clear correlation between an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and the intake of animal fat, but not vegetable fat.

Mann et al. 1997, Heart, 78, 450:
The physical condition and diets of nearly 11,000 health-conscious men and women, both vegetarian and non-vegetarian, were followed for an average of 13.3 years to investigate dietary determinants of ischaemic heart disease. It was found that saturated animal fat and cholesterol are the primary contributors to ischaemic heart disease.

Burr & Butland 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 830:
A study of 10896 individuals with a special interest in health foods revealed that death due to ischemic heart disease, over the 10 to 12 years followed, was significantly lower in the vegetarians than in the non-vegetarians.

Snowdon et al. 1984, Preventive Medicine, 13(5), 490:
The connection between the meat-consumption habits of 25153 Seventh-day Adventists and fatal ischemic heart disease was assessed over a 20-year period. Meat consumption was positively associated with this disease in both the men and the women. Furthermore, meat consumption by the men between the ages of 45 and 64 gave them a threefold greater risk of the disease compared to vegetarian men of comparable age.

Turpeinen 1979, Circulation, 59,1:
A study conducted in two hospitals over a 12-year period involved replacing dairy fats by vegetable oils to evaluate the effects on mortality from coronary heart disease. A substantial reduction of deaths due to coronary heart disease resulted.

Melby et al. 1994, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 103:
Blood pressure and blood lipid levels were measured and compared for 3 groups of Seventh-day Adventist African-American adults, including vegetarians, "semi-vegetarians" (1 to 3 servings of meat per week), and non-vegetarians. The vegetarian group had the least cases of hypertension and the lowest serum cholesterol.

The following are quotes from the article "Worrying About Milk" by Will Hively in Discover magazine (August 2000, Volume 21, Number 8).

"The fact that fats in dairy products can contribute to hardening of the arteries and heart disease has long been common knowledge." [Page 46.]

"The bottom line for Campbell [main scientist of article] is simple: 'It's unnatural to drink milk.' Most adults in Asia and Africa, along with many in southern Europe and Latin America, have trouble digesting lactose, the main sugar in the milk of both humans and cows." [Page 46.]

"Campbell argues that the ultimate problem with cow's milk is that nature concocts different formulas of mother's milk for different species. What's good for baby calves isn't necessarily good for human babies or adults. 'Isn't it strange that we're the only species that suckles from another species?' he says. Campebell theorizes that cow's milk unnaturally stimulates enzymes and growth hormones in the human body that increase the risk of various diseases." [Page 46.]

"But his [Campbell's] outlook [that milk was good] changed after he headed overseas in 1965 to serve for 10 years as coordinator of a U.S. AID project in the Philippines, where poverty-stricken children were dying mysteriously from liver cancer believed to be linked to malnutrition. For protein, children depended largely on peanuts, which in the tropics often contain relatively high amounts of aflatoxin, a carcinogen produced by mold growth. To his surprise, Campbell discovered during his tenure in the Philippines that the incidence of liver cancer was especially high among some of the best nourished kids, whose diets were supplemented with powdered milk provided through a U.S.-subsidized program. He was completely baffled until he read about a 1968 research study conducted in India by Madhavan and Gopalan and published in the Archives of Pathology. The study linked milk protein to liver cancer in lab rats." [Page 46, 48.]

"...rats given a brief initial exposure to aflatoxin tended to develop liver cancer when fed casein, the main protein in milk." [Page 48.]

"E. J. Hawrylewicz, a nutritional biochemist and research director at Mercy Hospital and Medical Center in Chicago, performed a somewhat similar series of experiments that reaveled lab rats are more likely to develop breast cancer tumors when fed casein than when fed soy protein." [Page 48.]

"Hawrylewicz agrees with Campbell that a good anticancer strategy is to choose a diet rich in plant rather than animal proteins." [Page 48.]

"Epidemiological research adds a new line of evidence, and in this case it suggest a correlation between milk consumption and at least two kinds of cancer prevalent in Europe and North America: breast and prostate." [Page 48.]

"In Asia, where many people drink no milk whatsoever, among women aged 35 to 64, Campbell found that breast cancer deaths averaged 8.7 per 100,000 as opposed to 44 per 100,000 in the United States.... A comparative study published in 1989 showed that even in Europe, two areas with higher milk consumption--Scandinavia and the Netherlands--also had higher breast cancer rates." [Page 48.]

"In the Physicians' Health Study, researcher tracked 20,885 male doctors over 10 years. Those who consumed at least 2&1/2 servings of dairy food per day were 30 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer than doctors who consumed less than half a serving. A 1999 study of nearly 50,000 subjects, called the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, had found that men who consumed a lot of dairy products had a 70 percent higher risk of prostate cancer. If they also took calcium supplements, their risk jumped dramatically: Those who consumed a total of more than 2,000 milligrams of calcium per day raised their risk of metastic prostate cancer more than fourfold." [Page 49.]

"In general, the Chinese eat a nearly vegetarian diet. Another pronounced difference between China and the West caught Campbell by surprise: the contrasting levels of osteoporosis. Most Chinese were getting their calcium from vegetables and fruits alone. Although they got less than half the calcium recommended by the USDA, their bones seemed healthy. Among women over 50, the hip facture rate appeared to be one fifth as high as in Western nations." [Page 49, 51.]

"Although milk's calcium and other nutrients do promote bone growth, says Campbell, other substances in dairy foods and other animal products--certain proteins and especially sodium--actually leach some calcium from the bone. The Chinese were evidently getting sufficient calcium from dark green vegetables, legumes, and some fruits. And because those foods don't also promote calcium loss, the Chinese might not need to take in as much calcium overall." [Page 51.]

"By the 1990s, nutrition researcehrs had fathered data from different parts of the world and found another suprising correlation: The more calcium people consumed, the more susceptible they seemed to be to hip fractures. People in those countries that consume the highest levels of dairy foods (North America and nothern European nations) take in two or three times more calcium yet break two or three times more bones than people with the lowest calcium intake (Asians and Africans)." [Page 51.]

"In 1997, results of a 12-year study of 78,000 nurses questioned the link between high calcium intake and strong bones. It found that the subjects who drank the most milk--two or more glasses per day--broke more bones than the others. They had a significantly higher risk of hip fracture." [Page 51.]

The only reason chickens may cannibalize is because of the appalling conditions they are put under and the unnaturality of their current state.

I'll quote myself so that, possibly, you will understand what I said before.

...

That's no joke that you can't understand things you read. I said "you would have to respond to your environment to qualify as a life form" -- I did not say in the least that trees are not life forms. Please, read things at least several times before responding.

alek0...

"White humans are not so much better than black humans -- who also enslave each other --, but then why should white humans not enslave a race that enslaves each other?"

Furthermore, I did not state that humans should be so much better than animals. I only made a plea for Vegetarianism on account of the inhumanity of slaughtering conscious beings for the sole sake of pleasuring the pallete of humans.

As I said...

Schroedinger's Kitten...

1. The fact that human teeth may be designed to consume flesh is by no method a writ to actually consuming flesh. It is also true that a gun is designed to kill its target. Does this justify the killing of another human, simply because guns are made to kill? What of provolactics -- does the existence of the condom justify rape, simply because it is made for sex? In fact, to state that something was designed justifies it is so ridiculous, it is unworthy of being dignified with an answer.
2. If it is true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, then do not discriminate. It may be true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, but remember, this is also flesh. In that way, it is just as moral for a human to consume the flesh of a cow as it is for a human to consume the flesh of another human. After all, humans are all covered in a living robe of human flesh. (Quote of Ingersoll.) Since our teeth are designed to eat meat, then they are designed to eat any meat, which justifies cannibalism.

Notice how I did not tell anyone how horrible they were for eating animals? If you could show me WHERE I said this, I would give you a nickel.

PJPSYCO...

I do not consider plants non-conscious because they are "autrotrops" -- I consider them non-conscious because they are bankrupt of organs necessary to produce consciousness.

Kachana....

Greetings, again.

I certainly do think so. Of course, the change from a non-Humanist world into a world that embraces equality of all animals may be gradual. The first and most obvious changes would be that they would no longer be used for food, for experimentation, for circuses, and other industries where they are generally abused. Although I do not have a quote on it because I lent the book out, in the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, Singer believes that there should be reservations for the cows that are now being slaughtered. That, once their equality is recognized, they will live freely on plantations. (Of course, although I agree with him, I think their sexual activity should be monitored. You may bring up the objection that this is immoral on the grounds that "individuals have a right to procreate," but I highly disagree. In fact, if someone refuses to have an abortion in certain cases, they themselves may be immoral on account of the fact that they bring a child into a world full of suffering when not necessary. It is true that cows have a right to intercourse, per se, but not a right to overpopulate the world with calves that cannot be fed.)

As far as the conflicts between the animal world (untouched by civilization) and civilization (predominantly human), things should be settled rationally and practically. As to the predators and the prey of the world, their existence keeps each other in good balance. Without the predators, the prey would quickly overpopulate and then have widespread starvation. I don't think that civilization should mess with those kind of natural balances until (1) we have enough dedication from the people and enough resources to make those kinds of changes properly and effectively, providing the prey and the predators with an environment where they are in easy acces of genetically altered foods to fit their bodies. (2) although not necessary for rights, I would find it incredibly pleasing if a method of specific communication was brought up between humans and non-humans. It is true that we can communicate with body and facial expressions, but specific words would be by far helpful. (There has been specific communication among certain primates with humans.)

As far as rights and duties are concerned... Would a government have to hold equal responsibility to other animals as well as humans? "Should a hedgehog have as much of a right to be on a waiting list as a girl needing a transplant?" I do not think that a government has any moral obligation to help those not under the rule of the government. A good government would hold regard for those outside its borders; as the Stoics said something along the lines of, "A good government works for all humanity and not only its citizens." Of course, if a government does not help those outside its borders, I wouldn't call it immoral. If the wolves and the bears and the lions lived without preying on smaller animals, were capable of communication, and paid their taxes, then I would absolutely agree with certain things you've said, such as, "Would you support taxation that gave funding to medical research proportionate to an animal's populations (leaving little left over for humans)?"

Of course, that is not the case today. Also, although it is surely no answer but rather a helpful, guiding principle, I shall quote Henry Stephens Salt...

"As for the demand so frequently made on reformers, that they should first explain the details of their scheme-how this and that point will be arranged, and by what process all kinds of difficulties, real or imagined, will be circumvented-the only rational reply is that it is absurd to expect to see the end of a question, when we are now but at its beginning. The persons who offer this futile sort of criticism are usually those who under no circumstances would be open to conviction; they purposely ask for an explanation which, by the very nature of the case, is impossible because it necessarily belongs to a later period of time. It would be equally sensible to request a traveller to enumerate beforehand all the particular things he will see by the way, on the pain of being denounced as an unpractical visionary, although he may have a quite sufficient general knowledge of his course and destination." -- Henry Stephens Salt, [Animals' Rights, Chapter 1.]

Mecha_Dude...

That would be a morally acceptable solution. As far as my preference goes, however, I would prefer not to eat meat on health reasons. Knowing that you would live significantly longer and healthier, I would choose Vegetarianism on its health merits alone. Of course, as far as technology goes today, they are rather efficient at making soy and Vegetarian products that taste astoundingly similar to meat products.

kctan...

Reacting to the environment IS NOT a qualification for consciousness. To respond to your environment is a qualification needed to be classified as "life." To be conscious, a being must have a brain or a brain-life organ, capable of producing consciousness. In all the history of science, one has never been discovered in any plant.

I believe you fail to understand why I am a Vegetarian. I am a Vegetarian not because of the fact that the dead meat is itself conscious. I am a Vegetarian for the principle of economic boycott. By not paying a business that revolves around carnage, I hope to help bring animal liberation a little closer. By not buying their products, I am harming them. As far as eggs go, there is one fundamental question involved: "Do chickens suffer when forced to make eggs like that in factory farming?" The answer is a scientific -- not a moral or philosophical -- one. As far as my research is considered, in the United States, the conditions in which chickens must make eggs is horrific. Other nations, such as Switzerland, show more affection to the animals, I believe.

As far as fishes and shellfish... It is obvious that fishes are conscious beings. They have a brain, which is capable of producing consciousness. I cannot say for the case of shellfish, as I am not familiar with their anatomy, but I have heard individuals from both sides declare it conscious and not conscious.

Pandora...

I've known several reptile keepers who were capable of keeping their pet alive and healthy on fruits and vegetables alone. I suggest trying strawberries and other sweet fruits -- they may be indifferent to the food source at first, but it's worth a try.

"If the use of flesh-meat can itself be dispensed with, how can it be argued that the pain, which is inseparable from slaughtering, can be otherwise than unnecessary also?" - Henry Stephens Salt, Animals' Rights, 1894.

The cathedral of nature can be admired, whether or not it has the animals reared and bred by civilization.

Kachana...

In the USA, there are no standards in slaughter houses. Other nations have implemented such laws, but just as the US lagged behind in liberating African humans, it lags behind in liberating non-human animals. Of course, then, it would be obvious that being killed in a slaughter house is incredibly much more suffering. Bulls are dehorned, castrated, beaten, branded, abused, and then slaughtered. Sometimes the meat is taken from the carcass of the animal while it is still conscious and breathing. Other times it is skinned alive. As far as to which causes more suffering, it is really a scientific question -- not moral or philosophical, but nonetheless not out of my grasp. I think living a life of choice and decision would much better than any other life. Not to burden with quotes, but to quote Ouida...

Ouida - "Freedom of choice and act is the first condition of animal as of human happiness. How many animals in a million have even relative freedom in any moment of their lives? No choice is ever permitted to them; and all their most natural instincts are denied or made subject to authority." ["Fortnightly Review," April, 1892. Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.]

Also, James Thomas...

James Thomas - "It being a very wet Sunday, I had to keep in, and paced much prisoner-like to and fro my room. This reminded me of the wild beasts at Regent's Park, and especially of the great wild birds, the vultures and eagels. How they must suffer! How long will it be ere the thought of such agonies becomes intolerable to the public conscience, and wild creatures be left at liberty when they need not be killed? Three or four centuries, perhaps." [Notebooks of James Thomas. Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 3 in the footenote, 1894.]

99percent...

Whether or not animals are "aware of their existence the way human beings are" is irrelevant. Domestic animals certainly have more mentality than any human infant does, or any senile human, or any insane human. Would you say that human infants should be used as food, experimentation, etc., just because they have a lower mentality? One experiment by a scientist invoved decapitating two monkeys, and then replacing each other's heads. Should we do this to human infants countless times, simply because "they aren't aware"? Or perhaps because "we are superior"? Are these the reasons that you would hold for justifying this sort of act?

Also, the term "volition" or "will" really holds no real foundation. It is too vague to hold any real meaning. As for the concept of Free Will, I find it illogical. However, even if humans have "will," I highly doubt that this gives us a writ to unmatched cruelty.

Kachana...

The difference between humans and animals is significant. If we slaughter 70,000 animals by tying them down, and putting ink in their eyes to make new dyes, is this going to help me to live for an estimated 20 years? How about the decapitating of monkeys? Or how about drugging monkeys and then training them to fly airplane simulations, to see how soldiers would fair during such an attack? Or how about burning the skin off a live pig to see what kind of mark it would make? Not to mention that penocillin is TOXIC to non-human animals. If we had tested it, we would have not used it.

pepperlandgirl...

The only reason that chickens feast on each other is because of the horrible conditions they are put in: they are dosed with high amounts of stereoids, they are put close to each other without any room for even stretching their wings, etc., etc.. If ANY animal was put under these circumstances, they certainly would cannibalize each other without a doubt.

Jon Up North...

What I said earlier in this post...

'Although I do not have a quote on it because I lent the book out, in the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, Singer believes that there should be reservations for the cows that are now being slaughtered. That, once their equality is recognized, they will live freely on plantations. (Of course, although I agree with him, I think their sexual activity should be monitored. You may bring up the objection that this is immoral on the grounds that "individuals have a right to procreate," but I highly disagree. In fact, if someone refuses to have an abortion in certain cases, they themselves may be immoral on account of the fact that they bring a child into a world full of suffering when not necessary. It is true that cows have a right to intercourse, per se, but not a right to overpopulate the world with calves that cannot be fed.)'

SirenSpeak...

The Food Chain is a scientific observation, not a moral foundation. Just because a man is stronger (and therefore "superior") to a woman, it does not give him a moral right to rape her.

"At one time, the benevolent affections embrace merely the family, soon the circle expanding includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity; and finally its influence is felt in the dealings of man with the animal world. In each of these cases a standard is formed, different from that of the preceding stage, but in each case the same tendency is recognized as virtue." - William Edward Hartpole Lecky ["History of European Morals," i. 101. Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.]

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a>

For 108,
Punkerslut

Mad Kally

MY EYES!!! MY EYES!!!

kctan

How can we know that plants does not possess a brain ?

The fact that plants do not have a brain resembling that of animals doesn't meant that plants do not possess a "brain".

If an alien with superior technology is standing infront of you & have no brain resembling our own (you can't tell where & what is it's brain), does it qualify as a sentient being or do you classify it as brainless ?

Pomp

punkersluta,

Holy fuck, that was a long post.

You realize, of course, that your argument only holds water to someone who accepts your (and Singer's) somewhat unusual conception of morailty, or something very similar to it. Also, although some else may already have addressed this (I haven't been following very closely), the ability to feel is usually referred to as "sentience," not "consciousness." Consciousness is generally used to mean "self-awareness." Sentience is certainly what Singer bases his appeal for animal rights on.

A few specific comments I'd like to address:

Furthermore, the evidence I have offered was plea on the grounds of equality of conscious beings on grounds that consciousness holds value, something you have yet to even recognize, let alone debate against.

Many of us do not recognize that consciousness and/or sentience hold value because, as subjectivists, we recognize that value is determined by a valuer. There is no reason external to myself for me to value consciousness and/or sentience.

In my view, rights are negotiated agreements made for mutual benefit. Non-human animals, as far as we know, are not capable of such negotiation, so they are incapable of possessing rights. You, of course, are not bound to accept my view. I merely present it here as an example of the many moral theories that do not hold that all conscious/sentient beings have rights as a mere consequence of being conscious/sentient.

As far as the conflicts between the animal world (untouched by civilization) and civilization (predominantly human), things should be settled rationally and practically.

The problem is that the non-human world is not capable of rationality or practicality.

Mageth

It is used in the sense that Lucretius used it.

I thought you weren't using ancient quotes as arguments? NOTE: when you put a quote in a post, it is assumed that you are using it as an argument, or at least to support your argument.

The ONLY response you provided was questioning whether or not plants were conscious, and then called the whole of biology and anatomy known by scientists today as an "assumption." If you wish to state that animals have no rights, perhaps the best route to take is to deny that men have rights.

Wrong. The response I provided in my first post was to say that your assumptions were unfounded, and to infer that you lacked evidence to support your statements. The tree thing didn't come up until much later. Read the posts. Apparently it's "no joke that you can't understand things you read."

You cannot assume an assumption -- you make something an assumption by assuming it.

Er, what's the difference between assuming an assumption and making an assumption by assuming it? Also note that I said you assume your assumption was correct; the "assuming" I was referring to was to the correctness of the assumption, not the assumption itself. Apparently it's "no joke that you can't understand things you read."

I replied by stating that they do not have a brain -- a brain being necessary to produce consciousness.

Can you provide evidence that a brain is necessary to produce consciousness? Note: strong statements like this are seldom, if ever, provable.

And I asked you to define "consciousness," which you have not.

Sorry to disappoint you, but whether or not an animal concerned the morality of rape or theft or cannibalizing has NOTHING to do with the fact that they still did it, and you have failed to produce one shred of evidence that it is even slightly relevent.

You don't disappoint me. You're just wrong. I can reasonably assume, from a lizard's point of view, no lizard has ever raped another lizard. Lizards, as far as we know, have no concept of "rape." Rape only has meaning in a human moral context. So to talk about a lizard raping another lizard is ludicrous.

Of course it is not a universally-accepted moral. This is but of extreme obviousness. Furthermore, the evidence I have offered was plea on the grounds of equality of conscious beings on grounds that consciousness holds value, something you have yet to even recognize, let alone debate against. Still, as far as "antique quotes" goes, I already stated that those do not serve as arguments -- your comprehension abilities are appalling.

I've never said consciousness doesn't have value, nor do I think it. I just don't reach the subjective moral conclusion that therefore I shouldn't eat meat, which you do. You're assuming things I haven't said. Your comprehension abilities are appalling!

And once again, when you include a quote in an argument, it's assumed to be part of the argument. If it's not, then don't include it.

The difference between watching TeeVee and eating an animal has significant moral differences, and if you think they are equal, I open you to prove how.

I didn't say they were equal, did I? Once again, your comprehension abilities are appalling!Watching TV and eating meat don't have to be equal for me to reach the subjective moral conclusion that it's OK for me to do both, in moderation (that's my position).

Ignorance.

No, differing interpretation of the evidence. Once again, your comprehension abilities are appalling!

&lt;list of long quotes snipped, since you've declared they aren't an argument there's no need for me to consider them!&gt;

The only reason chickens may cannibalize is because of the appalling conditions they are put under and the unnaturality of their current state.

Another unfounded assumption. Evidence, please? Well-fed yard hens with nice cozy coops will kill each other.

Further, male wild fowl (the ancestors of chickens) will fight, sometimes to the death. What do you think those spurs on roosters' legs are for?

I'll quote myself so that, possibly, you will understand what I said before.

It's not an argument.

Once again, if you put a quote in your argument, it's assumed to be part of your argument.

That's no joke that you can't understand things you read. I said "you would have to respond to your environment to qualify as a life form" -- I did not say in the least that trees are not life forms. Please, read things at least several times before responding.

With a little better reading skills, you would have recognized the irony in my response. I knew at first reading you don't really consider plants as not being life forms.

Here's what you said:

"Trees REACT to their environment, which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. If you had the slightest education in biology, you would understand that you would have to respond to your enviroment to qualify as a life form..."

I'll admit I misinterpreted it at first glance. The change from react to respond threw me (not to mention that the gratuitous insult blurred my vision). I at first assumed you were somehow differentiating between trees reacting and conscious animals responding, and had inadvertently left out "conscious" as a qualifier for "life form." Hence my ironic response, to point out your poor wording.

A clearer, more correct way to write it would be:

"Trees respond to their environment, which has little or nothing to do with consciousness. [snip gratuitous, unwarranted, unmerited insult] By our current definition of life, something has to respond to its enviroment to qualify as a life form..."

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

PJPSYCO

Punkersluta,
My argument was that just because you can't relate to the way plants live, doesn't mean that they don't deserve equal treatment. You are demoralising them because they don't have neurons. I said that this is your failing, that you can't see life unless it is like you, and then you demonise me for not being able to seperate myself from plants. Conciousness does not make one a living being.
For your information it's not "autotrophism" it's autotrophism. Autotrophism is the ability to create food with out the consumption of other life forms. Plants, fungi, etc do it with photosynthesis, through special symbiotic organisms called chloroplasts. Autotrophs found that cells with cell walls were idea. All their cells are specialised toward the ideals of more solid cell structure which led to the immoblile beings we interact with. The lack of mobility makes it so tht don't have to reason, or really plan ahead. It however does not make them any less a living being, or any less deserving of equality.

bonduca

Actually, I grew up on a small farm. The chickens ran free in a large grassy enclosed area, or in a large enclosure with sand and gravel. They were certainly not given steriods.

However, they would peck any chicks or other full-grown chickens that had unusual markings, a bit of unidentified matter stuck to them, or a wound. If they drew blood, or opened the wound further, they would continue to all take turns pecking at one chicken until they would kill it over a period of hours or a couple of days, unless humans intevened.

Chickens are real bastards.

tronvillain

punkersluta:
Actually, that post was a fairly concise summary of my position:

1) You compared me to racists and sexists. Fuck you.

2) You want me to assign animals a higher value because of their "consciousness", but the value I assign already takes that into account.

"Anyway, fuck your plea for vegitarianism. I see no reason to care more about animals than I already do."

alek0

Punkerslut,

there is one very good argument against cannibalism: prions.

I don't think that there exist universal morals and ethics. I've read Peter Singer's work, and on some things I agree with him, especially some things on factory farming and animal testing. On other things, such as abortion, I strongly disagree.

I grew up in ahouse full of pets, and now I have two cats. It is my personal beleif that animals like cats and dogs do have some degree of sentience. I know that anecdotal "evidence" is not valid, but I am fairly sure that cats have some idea of the future, i.e. when I take out my suitcase and start packing they know I'd soon go on a trip and they meow like crazy and don't let me out of their sight. Needless to say, I pack quickly just before going to the airport
But I disagree with the idea that humans are so much above animals so that they should accept it is morally wrong to eat them.

Your argument is basically "Pig is a sentient being and it is just as good as we are, but you must not eat a pig even though pig would eat you just given a chance if you are wounded and cannot defend yourself, because you are morally higher than the pig." For the record, I know people who've bought a pig originating from Bosnia during the war, and found a wedding ring inside it. Needless to say, they had strong doubts on the diet of that nice fat pig, and didn't eat it...

Pseudonymph

Kally...It is well known that in later years, meat(esp red meat) is hard on the heart.

It causes heart disease and contributes to the presence of plaque in the arteries.
Plus it is a high fatty food, that dosent help blood pressure.
hope that helps!
Peace