I have never been an animal rights kinda guy

[Taverner]

Not when there's still starvation. I find it hard to muster sympathy for any animal other than dogs, cows and pigs (and cats of course) when there is so much human suffering going on.

Am I bad?

[RevolutionaryActs]

1. ..

:popcorn:

[Taverner]

2. I must be bad - I didn't even get a full elipse

:(

[RevolutionaryActs]

9. Evil

:P

Want some popcorn? :popcorn:

[Taverner]

13. Does it have real simulated butter on it?

:)

[RevolutionaryActs]

15. No, icky.

x(


It's kettle corn. :P

[pdx_prog]

5. I think I will scoot up a chair and join you....

:popcorn:

[RevolutionaryActs]

12. By all means, I'll get the big bag

[Phillycat]

3. Humans are, generally, assholes.

Animals are innocent. So yes, you're bad, at least IMHO.

[Taverner]

6. I dunno about animals being innocent

You're judging animals on a human ethical scale.

Not that humans keep to theirs very well...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Me neither.

What have humans done that other animals don't do?

[Taverner]

11. In truth, I contradict myself by my subject

As in my mind, humans are animals. We can just do a little math, and write things down for future reference.

[datasuspect]

14. and reason

which the math part probably covers.

don't forget opposable thumbs.

[Taverner]

16. But raccoons have opposable thumbs

We really aren't too different than our animal cousins

[datasuspect]

17. and they don't taste half bad either!

[kmla]

58. Even with their opposable thumbs, raccoons still can't work a cell phone very well...

So I guess we're different in that way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. It's the math part that seperates us.

We've already got people who suck at math doing our manual labor.

It's only a matter of time before we're being served Dropout Medallions in a red wine reduction.

[ghostsofgiants]

29. We're good at weasling out of things. that's what separates us from the animals.

Except the weasel, I guess.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. As Dennis Leary once said...

"If hooking a racoon up to a car battery is going to cure AIDS, I've got two things to say about it. The red is positive and the black is negative."

[datasuspect]

8. shit, it's top of the food chain for me

the only thing i wouldn't eat is human. and even then, that might change if my survival depends on it.

[Kutjara]

25. We're only top of the food chain because of our civilization.

Put any one of us (except for that small portion of humanity that still lives by hunting) in a genuine wilderness, stripped of our guns and modern technology, and we'd quickly find ourselves pretty far down the food chain. Somewhere below dogs and larger rodents, is my guess.

[datasuspect]

33. big difference

is the ability to construct complex tools and instruments.

like traps.

[Kutjara]

39. In theory, yes.

But how many of us could really survive in the wilderness with nothing but our wits? I doubt I'd last a week.

[datasuspect]

50. you'd be surprised how much of a motivator hunger is

and how strong the will to live is.

[madinmaryland]

35. Soylent Green!!

[RebelOne]

10. I will not comment on that.

As I will just start a flame war. x(

[Lyric]

18. I feel no shame in being a meat-eater.

You spend enough time going hungry as a kid, you start appreciating food wherever it might come from.

My views on animal rights are mixed. I don't support using animals for cosmetic testing at all, but I fully support animal research for medical purposes. I don't particularly *like* the big industrial farms, but I understand why they exist. I get pretty PO'd at the local crazies who show pictures of horribly deformed and mutilated animals to little kids in order to scare them away from eating meat--but I feel the exact same repulsion and anger toward to anti-choice crazies who show kids photographs of aborted fetuses. I don't like people traumatizing my kid. *shrugs*

I've taken the life of an animal that I intended to eat. I worked for several years in a poultry production plant, and saw precisely what the process was for killing chickens and turkeys. I know where my meat comes from. But I don't find it offensive enough to stop eating meat. More power to the ones who do--their bodies, their choice. My choice is my own, and I refuse to accept the notion that some people have more sophisticated "morals" than I do simply because they don't eat meat and I do.

If my son chooses on his own to become a vegetarian or vegan someday, I'll support him. I'll make sure to have appropriate foods available at family dinners, and I'll respect and defend his choice. But I'll also be absolutely sure that he understands that such respect has to be mutual.

There is nothing I despise more than someone attempting to impose their personal morality upon me.

[datasuspect]

19. best. post. about. this. topic. ever.

exactly, that's the defining characteristic of at least 90% of those who live in accordance with "virtuous lifestyle choices."

they MAKE SURE you know how wrong you are, how you are lesser than them.

they rarely exhibit a "live and let live" approach and ALWAYS seem to have some doctrinal/moralistic axe to grind.

[baby_mouse]

24. Not in my experience, sorry.

I have never met a single vegetarian or vegan who has ever tried to convince me not to eat meat, or even hinted that that might be what they were trying to do. I know many vegetarians, none of them exhibit the characteristics you describe.

[Lyric]

32. Obviously you haven't been accosted by the more militant members of PETA

I particularly remember the "comic book" they put out for kids a while back, titled "YOUR DADDY KILLS ANIMALS!". What a mature and responsible way to reach out to young children. :sarcasm:

[VforVicarious]

38. all i gotta ask is

Who the hell goes fishing in a suit and tie

And dammit, now I want a Fillet O Fish to go with my 24 sack of Krystal's

[baby_mouse]

53. No. I haven't.

Ever.

[flvegan]

28. Ohhhhhh, reeeeallllyyyyy...broadbrush, much?

I've always found it amusing when one takes that big brush and winds up painted into their own silly little corner. Or maybe, and it's only fair to believe that this might be the case, you've met or had interaction with a number of folks, all of whom believe they're living this "virtuous lifestyle choice" that have also had a 9 out of 10 ratio of asshole to non-asshole.

"Rarely exhibit" indeed.

Brilliant.

[datasuspect]

30. you proved my point

and did you notice how i didn't use ad hominem attacks to make my point?

[flvegan]

40. No, actually

your statement, ",,,of at least 90% of those who live in accordance with "virtuous lifestyle choices..." suggests that 100% of us believe that we're living that choice you suggest. We don't. Notice how I made that point in my original statement?

[datasuspect]

48. hard to see that through the gobs of personal attack

but i am not speaking of universals, i am speaking of people with whom i've interacted. that is a smaller subset, once again, apologies for the lack of adequate qualifiers.

i'm not really an all or nothing thinker.

and actually, persons who live in accordance with "virtuous lifestyle choices" aren't the only ones guilty of that type of behavior.

i think it has to do with different people having differing levels of identity formation.

those seeking to discover who they are usually latch on to identity politics in such a way that makes the most rabid muslim fundamentalist look like a freethinker.

i think detachment is the key. disconnecting yourself from yourself to an extent and seeing how infinitesimally small you are in the vast pool of humanity is humbling. realizing the world doesn't revolve around you is also a good thing.

having a deep, abiding sense of who you are, actually KNOWING who you are independent of the labels and identity constructs a person builds around themselves, is probably one of the surest indicators that someone won't use their identity as the barometer or measure of others and the way they should be.

it's all about the live and let live.

i guess i just don't understand people who take themselves so seriously.

[Taverner]

41. I hear you there

I think that's the crux of the argument. Many who choose a lifestyle of vegetarian or veganism do so in a society that has food in abundance. I spent time in Cambodia, shortly after the FUNCINPEC election (Hun Sen's first term) and although their religion, Buddhism, promotes vegetarianism, people ate what they could get. That meant anything. We in the US don't really know what this is like.

[BikeWriter]

55. Good post!

[flvegan]

20. Logic might suggest that

if we took the resources we use to feed animals (crops, land, water, etc) and dedicated that to feeding people, there wouldn't be starvation nor hunger. Not here, not in other countries. Converting a plant calorie into a meat calorie to be fed to people is the most inefficient form of usage.

I'm not telling you what to do, nor am I saying that you're bad. To each his/her own. Just making a point.

Additionally, I don't think that sympathy/empathy needs to have a finite boundary.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. .

:applause:


From an omnivore who totally and completely respects you and what you do.

[buddhamama]

23. i agree

with everything you have said. thank you.

[Lyric]

26. Yes, but how would that affect the farmers

who make their living on livestock? The people in meatpacking plants? Cold storage? Dairies? Ice cream factories?

Other issues to consider: how much farmland is available, unpolluted, fertilized, and ready to produce these crops? The land we use to feed animals doesn't have to be kept as clean and well-tended as the land we use to grow food crops. I lived in farmland country--the vast majority of farmers use cow manure to fertilize their hay and feed corn crops. But that land will be polluted for decades from the chemicals, hormones and germs that live in the manure. We can't use it for food crops until it's clean again. It doesn't take as many people to process grains and vegetables as it does animal foods and byproducts--so what do we do about the massive unemployment that would arise from it?

If we go all the way and get rid of all animal products and animals kept for human "use"--what about the smalltime farmers who use beehives as a way to fertilize their fruit trees? What about work animals, like horses? Will this also encompass rescue animals? Companion animals for the disabled? I'm being serious here. Deciding that it's wrong to use animals for any reason is an easy thing to do--actually living in a society that doesn't use animals for any reason will NOT be easy, and transitioning from one to the other could be an economic and logistical nightmare--especially when we'd be doing so with a rather large percentage of the population protesting it.

It's a very, very complex situation--the "inefficient calorie use" argument is fine and dandy, but it's a massive oversimplification of the matter. I haven't seen a single viable plan for moving the US from a livestock-producing nation to a solely food-crop producing nation. If you know of one, point it out--I'd be happy to read it.

[flvegan]

37. Hey, climb off the fucking ledge, k?

First of all, if you want to take this topic to these heights, I'm your huckleberry. I stand by what I said. If you honestly believe that a tumultuous shift to veganism is going to happen overnight, then puff, puff, give, bro. Cuz that's some good shit you're on.

You stand by the abuse of the environment, the animals, the people in the industry (one of the most dangerous there is...btw), the pollution that's destroying the planet, the global warming that it contributes to...sooner or later I guess that "unemployment" won't matter, will it.

Unemployment. That's a good one.

I don't tell folks what to do with their diet, but I have to make these points from time to time when I get a batshit crazy argument thrown at me.

[Lyric]

43. Most people consider opinions that are contrary to their own

to be "batshit crazy". If you want to address my points with counterpoints, then do it. Don't paint me with the crazy brush and then righteously stalk away.

Why exactly are my opinions and concerns "batshit crazy"?

[flvegan]

47. Batshit crazy

is, as I said, expecting or thinking that overnight, all these jobs would be eliminated...all these issues would arise as the population stopped "using animals" in every way. The industry would evolve, as it has been for some time now.

[Taverner]

31. I've heard that stat

And Cows do burn a lot more energy than they produce (kCal wise)

I would agree with you 100% if you said we aren't producing food efficiently enough - you would be spot on there.

But in terms of sympathy...I just can't feel the same sorrow over a caged chicken that I can over the orphans of Darfur. Or any random Iraqi.

[flvegan]

44. Hey, who said you have to?

You don't have to feel the "same sorrow" for anything. You probably feel "more" sorrow over someone you know personally in a situation than you do another random person in the same, right? Thing is, if one feels sorrow or regret about suffering, the question becomes...what can one do to help alleviate it?

[Taverner]

49. Very Buddhist reply

The sympathy argument has always been one of my arguments against Fundie Xians being full of BS. If they can honestly say they love every man, woman and child on this Earth then wouldn't they go insane worrying about how so many of them are going to spend an eternity in Hell? And wouldn't they have problems with the god that issues that proclimation?

But I digress....

ON EDIT: oktoberain makes a good point about the interdependancy of the Meat industry. Often times the energy-to-gain ratio doesn't take into account all of the products we harvest from animals. Besides the expected (meat, leather) there is a certain amount of mineral harvesting that goes on, as well as the fertilizer industry.

Not having worked in that industry I can't speak intelligently to all the details.

[flvegan]

51. Heh heh...

you could start a whole forum full of new topics from what you just said, and I'm not remotely disagreeing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

61. Not to pick too fine a point here, but...

I've heard this argument before, and I'm not going to argue the merits of plant calories vs. meat calories, etc., as, in theory, I accept that basic premise.

However, I find it to be quite a leap to think that if we switched all meat production to plant production that hunger would magically disappear. There's too much food currently being produced in the US, and folks are still hungry.

The hunger issue is larger than just the base energy cost it takes to produce food. There are a host of other issues that affect food production and distribution including (just to name a couple) transport, politics and agro-economics.

[Pithlet]

27. I think it's possible to care a lot about both. Edit

it's not as if compassion and empathy for either is a finite thing. I personally tend to focus more on human issues. But, I would not want to live in a world where few people cared about animals, and consideration for their wellbeing was never an issue. Animals are living, feeling beings. I've given time and money in support of causes for both humans and animals. I don't see a reason why anyone should have to be focused on one in exclusion of the other, and I don't think that people who focus on one necessarily lack empathy for the other. I'd never focus solely on animal causes, but I am glad there are people who do, to make up the difference.

ETA that I do have the humans come first point of view for some issues, if that's what you're talking about. I support medically necessary animal testing for deadly and debilitating diseases for example, which I know is a very controversial issue for many people who are animal rights minded. And I would put more significance and importance on charities and causes that benefit people. I just don't think that means that animals have to be avoided and excluded altogether.

[Taverner]

34. But my argument is that we can't really empically state that

Animals suffer as we do.

I'll give you that mammals suffer - they are some of the most chemcially complex creatures on Earth.

But Chickens - basically they are solely a reactive mind at work (not the L Ron def of reactive) - they see food, they eat. Pure lizard brain.

[Pithlet]

42. See my edit if you didn't catch it already.

It doesn't directly deal with your reply to me, but it might give you a better idea of where I stand.

We might not be able to absolutely empirically state the absolute degree that each species of animal suffer as compared to how we do. But that doesn't mean that they don't suffer. Yeah, chickens probably don't feel as we do, and very likely don't have the level of self-awareness that we do. But it doesn't mean that they don't suffer or feel pain, and I'm very much against cruel practices in the chicken industry. I agree with the statement, but I don't think it excuses cruelty. I wouldn't place the issue at the same level of importance on my personal scale as, say, child abuse. But, I won't patronize businesses that refuse to do anything about their cruel practices, either.

[Taverner]

45. Agreed. I think an emperical examination of our ethics is in order

It would help us discern what truly is suffering, what is ethical, etc...if we were to study ethics (and the food industry as a good starting point) using the scientific method.

[flvegan]

54. Your chicken statement is untrue.

Suffering is universal. "...suffer as we do..." can't be proven nor disproven, especially when it's quantified in that way.

[Taverner]

64. True - I guess the better qualifier would be

They aren't capable of suffering beyond initial pain-shock responses.

[VforVicarious]

36. I want bacon

and maybe a big fat cheeseburger too. Hell, let's make it two of em.

Better yet, fuck that. I'm going to Krystal's and getting me a 24 sack....all for me.

High Five!

[YankeyMCC]

46. Oh yes, evil incarnate

;)

Come on now, I might not 100% agree with you but that one issue doesn't define good or bad certainly.

It depends too on what you're calling 'animal rights'.

I believe animals have inalienable rights in the same way humans do. They have a right to life and to live within the ecology as happily as they can manage. I believe we, as the dominate species, have some responsibility to keep ourselves from destroying the ecology and do what we can to reduce suffering for all living things.

But we are part of the world ecology and we eat meat, as do many other animals of course. So while like you I will put Humans ahead of animals I will acknowledge that human well being depends on the health of the entire ecology which includes other animals. So for me supporting animal rights isn't about treating animals as equals under the law or refraining from eating them (I'm certainly no vegetarian). Instead it's about being against unnecessary cruelty, over exploitation of resources in the environment, and destroying habitats animals need to pursue their own lives.

[datasuspect]

52. "I believe animals have inalienable rights in the same way humans do."

the right to be covered in gravy foremost among those rights.

[YankeyMCC]

60. Ah...Yup ;)

[youthere]

56. I don't think you're bad...

We raise rabbits, chickens and pigs...for meat (well, and eggs from the chickens). We butcher our own and I can honestly tell you I don't feel remorse or pity when we butcher. We work to feed our family and because the homegrown organic meat tastes darn good. When we butcher we kill the animals as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I don't want to see an animal tortured for "kicks" or out of laziness, malice or vanity but I do support animal testing for medical research. It's unfortunate, but IMO necessary.
If a mouse gets in my house (like it did today for instance) and my dog doesn't manage to get it first I will set a trap and kill it without a second thought. No remorse or pity. Even if the trap doesn't kill it right away.
I know there are plenty on DU who will disagree with me, that's okay..it's their right, but I'm as likely to change my mind about my views on animals as they are. I wish them the best and salute them..to each his/her own.

[LeftyMom]

57. There is not enough beer in the world to make me post to this thread.

Oh wait, I just did. Damn it. :eyes:

[kmla]

59. And if you did drink that much beer - to where you WOULD post on this thread....

...you would probably spend most of your time going to the bathroom, anyway.

:crazy:

[Kashka-Kat]

62. Why do you see it as such an either-or thing?

People vs. animals- false dichotomy.

Cruelty and indifference to others occurs because people make other people into "animals" or "lessers". That is the mechanism by which people are capable of tolerating or inflicting all manner of horrors upon each other..

Does not preclude eating them you know... at least amongst Native American philosophies and farmers practicing organic/sustainable methods.

[Arugula Latte]

63. I have the opposite problem.

Animal suffering usually hits me harder than human suffering. I know it's not rational, but there you go.