Cows need us to eat them

RE*AC*TOR

If we don't eat cattle, how will they graduate from Bovine University?

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

You're avoiding the question... You used the word perfect originally.

Maybe perfect isn't the best word to use but the main goals of any species is to reproduce and survive. We're excellent at both, better than just about any other animal even with offspring that are very difficult to raise. The human is hands down the greatest animal to ever walk the face of the earth and it's not a stretch to describe them as the perfect animal as there's nothing beyond our reach.

rockbeer wrote:

I didn't say that. I asked whether a perfect species would do these things.

Obviously I think the perfect species would as we do. Your definition of what makes a good animal is different to mine and I don't think your perfect species would last long in the real world.

rockbeer wrote:

Humans do this too. The murder of infants by step-parents is the most common murder of all.

Never heard that stat before. :eek:

rockbeer wrote:

That's a shocking evasion of responsibility.

It's not. It's just a fact, I'm not saying we shouldn't change that and work towards doing allot less damage to our ecosystem it's just a plain fact that we will be a big drain on the ecosystem and we didn't realise this until recently. Give us a break like, now that we know we are changing.

rockbeer wrote:

You seem to fail to realize that you're a member of the only species to have even attempted to invent technology specifically to aid its bloodthirsty compulsions.

mmmmm.. I don't know if that can be held against us, chimps use tools to get termites and I'm almost sure there are examples of other animals using tools to get food, animals that use poison would be another (very lose) example. If other animals could do what we do I think it would be fair to assume they'd take full advantage.

Some prisoners grow to like their prison warders, that doesn't make them any less prisoners.

Maybe it does?? Bring a little light into their life, feel less oppressed???

Maybe the question you need to be asking yourself is how you would feel if they decided to imprison and then eat you.

I don't think I'd like it at all, although it could be happening now and I just don't know it, in which case I don't care. Your still comparing two things that just aren't alike. Cows don't hold funerals they don't cry over missing colleges, if one disappears they don't go off their food they just get on with their lives. Why is it not wrong to kill all living things? Plants are alive. Why is it ok for our immune system to kill bacteria that are just going about their daily business. I trust in mother nature she said eat meat and look where it got us.

Hugh Hefner

ScumLord wrote:

I trust in mother nature she said eat meat and look where it got us.

This seems to be a pretty chilling comment throughout your posts. Mother Nature isn't some intelligent consciousness that you can foist all responsibility for your lifestyle on to. Have you thought what would have happened if early humans didn't eat meat? While I'm sure certain tribes would have died/never gotten going, would you agree that it's highly possible that our "perfect animal" adaptation abilities would have served us well and that humans would have flourished very similarly to the historical truth (differences in culture aside)?

Surely if that is true then it shows that there is no nature-defined right or wrong and that such things are for us to decide.

Besides, I could just as well say that Mother Nature has brought us to a position where we no longer need to eat meat and so it's a moot point.

rockbeer

Not sure why I'm still keeping this going, but what the hell, here's one last reply...

ScumLord wrote:

Obviously I think the perfect species would as we do. Your definition of what makes a good animal is different to mine and I don't think your perfect species would last long in the real world.

Er... you haven't even asked me what my perfect species would be. Sounds like you're making assumptions based on the questions I ask.

I don't have time for ridiculous concepts like 'perfect species'. Evolution imho leads to accidental outcomes based on environmental conditions. We are dominant now but who can say what will be dominant or whether there will be life at all at an arbitrary point in the future.

Your insistence on this kind of thinking in fact separates you from your environment despite your insistence that humanity is a part of it.

ScumLord wrote:

It's not. It's just a fact, I'm not saying we shouldn't change that and work towards doing allot less damage to our ecosystem it's just a plain fact that we will be a big drain on the ecosystem and we didn't realise this until recently. Give us a break like, now that we know we are changing.

"Give us a break" he says. If it wasn't for people like me pointing out the deficiencies in our collective behaviour we'd still be in the dark ages. One day everybody will be veggie and it will be thanks to the like of the visitors to this forum, and your delusional thinking will be a historical anomaly. Remember 20 years ago people used to deny there would be an environmental cost to our behaviour... now everyone likes to pretend they're greener than a snooker table. Some of us were lone voices in the wilderness back then, and now everybody agrees with us. At least from the teeth out. I'd laugh if it wasn't all too pathetically little too hopelessly late to make a difference.

ScumLord wrote:

mmmmm.. I don't know if that can be held against us, chimps use tools to get termites and I'm almost sure there are examples of other animals using tools to get food, animals that use poison would be another (very lose) example.

All for food. No other species develops technology purely to aid it in carrying out violence for its own sake. Despite the rosy view you take of our progress, militarisation is in fact increasing. Gun ownership is increasing. Military spending is increasing. We are a super-violent species. But that obviously doesn't bother you.

ScumLord wrote:

If other animals could do what we do I think it would be fair to assume they'd take full advantage.

I don't buy this 'if they could they would' argument. That's just another lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better. The fact is, they haven't and we have, so you can't really use your valueless speculations to back up your arguments. The solid evidence we have doesn't support your argument.

ScumLord wrote:

Cows don't hold funerals they don't cry over missing colleges, if one disappears they don't go off their food they just get on with their lives.

How do you presume to know what a cow feels? A mother cow absolutely mourns and pines for its young when they're separated. I've seen more than one cat go into major depression at the death of its companion. Having said that, animals are far better at coming to terms with bereavement than us: they grieve and get over it, while we hang on to our distress and let it poison us.

I guess it helps support your view to deny the emotional capacity of animals but again there's no evidence for your position, just your own speculations plus a long history of human denial and our own assertions of our superiority. Your claims are so arrogant, and ultimately so hollow.

Obviously it suits you to believe what you believe, but the pseudo-science you insist on using to try and back it up is getting old.

ScumLord

hugh hefner wrote:

This seems to be a pretty chilling comment throughout your posts. Mother Nature isn't some intelligent consciousness that you can foist all responsibility for your lifestyle on to.

Sometimes I wonder but it is a process of trial and error to find the best possible solution.

Have you thought what would have happened if early humans didn't eat meat? While I'm sure certain tribes would have died/never gotten going,

Humans have always been omnivore, it was a pre human species that started scavenging on the plans and eventually worked up to hunting and then humans farmed. There where no tribes or decisions to be made when our line of evolution started eating meat. The species that became human have been on the brink of extinction many times the current human race has been on the brink of extinction, if we didn't have meat as a food source we would have died and we would never have grown the brain we have today. That's as close to an evolutionary fact as you can get in evolutionary history.

rockbeer wrote:

We are dominant now but who can say what will be dominant or whether there will be life at all at an arbitrary point in the future.

True but at the moment (and imo including all that's come so far) we're the best.

If it wasn't for people like me pointing out the deficiencies in our collective behaviour we'd still be in the dark ages.

True, true, I'm honestly not having a go at you, I enjoy debating with intelligent people that have opposing views, there's no point debating with someone that agrees with you and I don't assume your just making this stuff up.

No other species develops technology purely to aid it in carrying out violence for its own sake.

"They would if they could" is a valid argument here, every species on the planet will do whatever it takes to survive. All animals have violent streaks, violence has worked for animals all throughout time. Humans are the only species that ever even tried a different way, Law, democracy, God. That there is violence in human society is not surprising that there's so little of it given out technology is amazing. You can say we have WMDs, huge armies, disgusting acts of violence happen ever day in 3rd world countries that's all true but day to day life for the vast majority of people is mundane and lacks violence. Most people in the world are inherently good and will avoid violence if possible just like every other animal.

I guess it helps support your view to deny the emotional capacity of animals but again there's no evidence for your position,

They do all have emotional capacity but it's just not anything like as strong as ours and they can't be judged on our level.

Obviously it suits you to believe what you believe, but the pseudo-science you insist on using to try and back it up is getting old.

What makes you think I'm using pseudo science? I haven't seen any science in your comments, or are you in the creationists camp?

Jimoslimos

I'm a fully signed-up member of the Flesh Ingestion Brigade but seriously ScumLord this has got to be a wind-up. Or else what is your gripe against vegetarians - grew up in a hippy veggie commune without access to luscious lamb chops, sizzling sirloin steaks, etc. leading to deep rooted hatred and resentment perhaps?;)

ScumLord

I have nothing against vegitarians, I never said it was right or wrong or said anything about any vegitraian. All I've said is it's not "wrong" to eat meat, it's good for people (jobs wise and even for education) it can be good for the enviroment (minus industrial famring) and even the animals get something out of it. I don't see where you could get the impression I'm picking on vegitrians.

Nature Boy

ScumLord wrote:

I don't see where you could get the impression I'm picking on vegitrians.

What's a vegitrian?

ScumLord

What's a vegitrian?

It's em.. A vegitarian that.. likes... trians... Duh..

Damn! My loophole for picking on vegetarians is rumbled.

Mentalmiss

ScumLord wrote:

it's good for people (jobs wise and even for education) it can be good for the enviroment (minus industrial famring) and even the animals get something out of it. .

How on earth is it good for Education.
It is not good for the envoirnment and contributes as much CO2 in to the atmosphere as all travelling in the world including air travel.
And please tell me what the animals get out of it.

ScumLord

You don't think there's anything to learn about animals? You don't think being around them 24/7 is going to educate you on animals? Do you realise how much reserch and development goes into maximising farming productivity. Theres more to Organic farming than just using different feed and giving the animals more space, you have to know more about the wild animals in the area and how to provide a habitat for them.

I've answered the rest in previous posts.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

"They would if they could" is a valid argument here, every species on the planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

You haven't in any way demonstrated how random acts of genocide aid our survival.

ScumLord wrote:

They do all have emotional capacity but it's just not anything like as strong as ours and they can't be judged on our level.

What makes you think I'm using pseudo science? I haven't seen any science in your comments, or are you in the creationists camp?

What you are actually saying is you choose not to judge animals on our level. I would argue that the emotional capacity of many species is probably the match of ours: what they lack is language with which to refine their responses and articulate them to us. Therefore we have to guess. You choose to guess that they are so emotionally crippled as to justify your desire to commit violence towards them. I do not. Why not just be honest about this. That's what I mean by pseudo science - your speculations, that are backed by no actual evidence but which serve to justify your violence. I don't pretend to use science, just observation. I would respect your position more if you did the same, but you lose my respect entirely when you make general-sounding but completely unsupportable statements like "they can't be judged on our level". They can. For some of us they are. You make a choice and try to evade responsibility for that choice by saying it's the way of the world.

Sorry my friend - the world is what you choose it to be, and you choose the way of death.

As for me being in the creationist camp - don't make me laugh. Do you think people need superstition to have a conscience?

And to crown it all you claim to agree that it's important for people like me to point out our collectively deficient behaviour. Well bully for you. That's fantastic. Now what are you going to do about taking responsibility for your own?

Nothing, I imagine, if your previous posts are anything to go by.

I hope one day you're imprisoned and given a death sentence so I can remind you how much you're supposed to enjoy it.

ScumLord

I would argue that the emotional capacity of many species is probably the match of ours:

That's just not possible, they don't have the mental capacity to experience emotions in the same way we do. A cows brain is tiny compared to ours emotions and social interactions like those between humans requires large amount of brain power.

That's what I mean by pseudo science - your speculations, that are backed by no actual evidence but which serve to justify your violence.

I've never been violent to an animal in my life. I haven't made any speculations everything I've said is based on what I've heard on human/animal behaviour and evolutionary history. If respected scientific theory isn't good enough for you then there's no hope atall that you'll come out with anything even half ways rational. Instead you'll make up your own theories based on nothing more enlightened than cow goes mooo, dog goes bark.

I hope one day you're imprisoned and given a death sentence so I can remind you how much you're supposed to enjoy it.

And now you've shown your true colours.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

That's just not possible, they don't have the mental capacity to experience emotions in the same way we do.

Are you saying you believe the fear felt by a threatened animal is less intense or less valid than what you
would feel in the same situation?

How on earth would you know that??

As I said before, how do you presume to know what an animal feels? You presume a lot but provide not a shred of evidence for your presumptions.

ScumLord wrote:

I've never been violent to an animal in my life.

As a meat eater (or defender of meat eating) you hide behind the violence committed by others, which is even more reprehensible. At least acknowledge the violence caused to animals by farming, rather than retreating behind this charade of caring and compassion. The two positions are incompatible and you don't have the self-honesty to understand or accept this.

ScumLord wrote:

I haven't made any speculations

I should go and re-read your posts if I were you.

ScumLord wrote:

everything I've said is based on what I've heard on human/animal behaviour and evolutionary history.

Then you show how little you know about these things... as I said before, you are worryingly selective in the facts you allow yourself to consider. There is overwhelming evidence of the suffering experienced by animals in many farming environments, yet you repeatedly deny these facts in favour of your blinkered and rosy-tinted view that 'animals like being farmed'. This is kind of like being a holocaust denier, only as yet without the social stigma. But give it time.

ScumLord wrote:

And now you've shown your true colours.

I was waiting for that. Funny how you seem to think it's OK to support the wholesale imprisonment and slaughter of animals, and even claim that mass genocide is within the acceptable limits of our evolutionary behaviour... but you get all upset when I remark that you might not like to be on the receiving end yourself. This just shows the depth of your inner confusion.

Really, go back and read some of the things you've said about human violence before you start accusing me of anything. You might be shocked at yourself.

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

Are you saying you believe the fear felt by a threatened animal is less intense or less valid than what you
would feel in the same situation?

Yes, the human is a different animal with a different set of mental tools. Animals feel fear but can't imagine whats going to happen to them in the future. Imagination is unique to humans, we can live in morbid fear of what going to happen to us. Animals are only afraid of whats in front of them If you watch a nature documentary on any herd animal as soon as one of the herd is taken down the rest pretty much go back to their daily business as the danger is over Billy Connolly even joked about it. I don't know if you've ever seen the human brain but it's huge, a cows brain is tiny saying they can have the same mental capacities as us is like saying a fiat punto could keep up with a Ferrari.

How on earth would you know that??

There's been extensive research an animal behaviour, this research is probably crueler than keeping farm animals.

At least acknowledge the violence caused to animals by farming, rather than retreating behind this charade of caring and compassion.

I don't see it as violence, I see violence as attacking something and causing it pain. Domestic animals death is controlled and relatively quick. Industrial farming treats animals like product and can be cruel but it doesnt have to be that way. Death and violence don't always go hand in hand.

and even claim that mass genocide is within the acceptable limits of our evolutionary behaviour...

The history of the human race has allot of violent acts just like the history of every other animal on the planet. Those acts of genocide probably where necessary, we learned from them Europe is united now after experiencing the horrors of 2 major world wars, civil wars and some act of aggression somewhere in Europe for 1000s of years. Who's to say Europe would be in the position it is now if we hadn't gone through those experiences, humans learn by trial and error just like every other animal.

I think a human life is worth allot more than any other animal on the planet. To me human life is almost Sacred but it's not so much the killing of a person that makes killing a human so bad it's the effect it will have on his family and friends. I'm not religious so to me when your dead your troubles are over but your family will have to live with your loss for the rest of their lives I could never put anyone through that pain. Who cries for a cow? does anyone care it's dead, does the cow even care?

Tar.Aldarion

If chewbacca comes from endor, do cows even care?

Most humans are real intelligent.
We are the perfect race.



If you think you're the centre of the universe, you're probably really dense.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

Yes, the human is a different animal with a different set of mental tools. Animals feel fear but can't imagine whats going to happen to them in the future. Imagination is unique to humans, we can live in morbid fear of what going to happen to us. Animals are only afraid of whats in front of them If you watch a nature documentary on any herd animal as soon as one of the herd is taken down the rest pretty much go back to their daily business as the danger is over Billy Connolly even joked about it. I don't know if you've ever seen the human brain but it's huge, a cows brain is tiny saying they can have the same mental capacities as us is like saying a fiat punto could keep up with a Ferrari.

Well, now you're really quoting me out of context. I have never said I think animals have same mental capacity as us. I have argued that some animals may experience a similar intensity of emotions. I agree that imagination is a faculty possessed by few, although I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unique to humans. I've seen a televised conversation between a human and a higher primate (can't remember which variety) using a machine which facilitated communication between them using symbols. The primate was quite capable of holding up its end of the conversation, showing just as much imagination and wit as the human. I still hold that language is the primary differentiator between us and many animals. Language has allowed us to formalize our instincts, emotions, technologies and social interactions in a way that would be impossible without it. Obviously our brain size is significant in this, but as far as I understand it, it's not just a function of the raw size - it's also the development of particular types of structures within the brain. People with learning difficulties have brains just as big as the rest of us but often lack these structures.

ScumLord wrote:

There's been extensive research an animal behaviour, this research is probably crueler than keeping farm animals.

There has... and if you can point me towards specific research that justifies your argument that an animal's fear is less intense or valid than your own then please point me towards it. Otherwise stop quoting 'research' in general.

ScumLord wrote:

The history of the human race has allot of violent acts just like the history of every other animal on the planet. Those acts of genocide probably where necessary, we learned from them Europe is united now after experiencing the horrors of 2 major world wars, civil wars and some act of aggression somewhere in Europe for 1000s of years. Who's to say Europe would be in the position it is now if we hadn't gone through those experiences, humans learn by trial and error just like every other animal.

I think a human life is worth allot more than any other animal on the planet. To me human life is almost Sacred but it's not so much the killing of a person that makes killing a human so bad it's the effect it will have on his family and friends. I'm not religious so to me when your dead your troubles are over but your family will have to live with your loss for the rest of their lives I could never put anyone through that pain. Who cries for a cow? does anyone care it's dead, does the cow even care?

Despite never having been so patronized by somebody who repeatedly insists that 'allot' is an English word meaning 'many', you might be surprised to hear that I agree with much of this. However, if you don't mind me saying so, you seem strangely detached from this thing you call 'humanity'. You talk repeatedly about how much humans have learned from this or that experience, yet you yourself personally seem to have learned very little, in that you justify all those horrendous acts as part of our learning experience but on a personal level show an unwillingness to move on from them. Your arguments seem to justify repetitions of these horrors; as though it were necessary to keep killing animals, even though we now know that we can survive, be healthy, produce more food in an overpopulated world and avoid the horrors of factory farming by ceasing to depend on animals for food. You argue that war was necessary in order to learn that war is unnecessary. So what lesson do you learn from the violence inherent in animal farming? That we should keep doing it :rolleyes:

I've been thinking about your accusation of irrationality on my part. I can't help thinking there's a certain irony in this. Let's just step back a moment and sum up our respective positions:

Rockbeer: "I don't know what it's like to be a cow".

ScumLord: "I believe I know what it's like to be a cow. In fact, I'm so convinced I know what it's like to be a cow that I'm prepared to let somebody else imprison and kill it on the strength of my conviction. But not so convinced that I'd do the dirty work myself."

As a further contradiction, you'd have me believe that cows are emotionally advanced enough to enjoy their imprisonment and like the company of their captors, but at the same time have this fortunate emotional block that prevents them from having any valid negative emotional response to their captivity or death. Despite the fact that no animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture.

And you call me irrational.

More a case of Scum "I'm a cow" Lord goes moo perhaps

Tar.Aldarion

The case for primates being so intelligent is such that a political party in spain are trying to give them equal rights as humans.

TerrorFirmer

rockbeer wrote:

As a further contradiction, you'd have me believe that cows are emotionally advanced enough to enjoy their imprisonment and like the company of their captors, but at the same time have this fortunate emotional block that prevents them from having any valid negative emotional response to their captivity or death. Despite the fact that no animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture.

And you call me irrational.

More a case of Scum "I'm a cow" Lord goes moo perhaps

They don't have to be emotionally advanced - if you could realistically use such a phrase - or indeed have any sort of advanced mental capacity to develop a basic attachment or another animal or a human individual. Attachment, and developed mental process are different things. So yes, a cow can develop a recognition and from that an attachment of sorts to its handler, farmer, or whatever. But they do, however, lack the ability to develop advanced emotions like that of fear as a constant presence. As someone said, an animal will fear when approached by a situation, in the present that presents a danger or distress. A cow, however, will not spend its day fretting in the corner of a field thinking about its future.

So in that sense it is totally wrong to compare a cow on a farm to a prisoner, as has been done on this thread. While a prisoner can actively regard his situation, and realistically think - 'I'm going to be here for x amount of time, or life', a cow can or will not think such a thing. Now, as you say, I don't doubt for a second in terms of raw fear cows are no different then humans. But the far reaching effects and complexities of fear are unique to humans.

The primate was quite capable of holding up its end of the conversation, showing just as much imagination and wit as the human. I still hold that language is the primary differentiator between us and many animals. Language has allowed us to formalize our instincts, emotions, technologies and social interactions in a way that would be impossible without it. Obviously our brain size is significant in this, but as far as I understand it, it's not just a function of the raw size - it's also the development of particular types of structures within the brain.

Very true but primates have a great capacity for learning then any other animal, especially those that are commonly featuring in this thread (the cows..?). A primate can be trained to carry out relatively advanced tasks, a cow cannot. You can teach a dog tricks involving repetition and through basic conditioning, but you cannot teach a dog, for example, to fully understand what he's doing and why, or henceforth condition a dog to do something that requires his own initiative on the spot (within reason, I know dogs can do plenty of cool things like learn to open doors, rummage through presses and other funny things, but you know what i mean ). Also, we don't farm primates. Well, some do, in certain areas, but not in the global way that the common animals are. Chickens in comparison, brain wise, can even live with their head cut off as long as the stem is intact. Scumlords arguments are fairly coherent. He's talking (largely) about Chickens and Cows, but you're bringing in other animals that while they would strike an interesting argument to the topic of intelligence in animals aren't hugely relative to the exact discussion at hand, and are far more advanced then those in question.

Good discussion though. From both 'sides'. Although I must say, I do notice a tendacy for the, shall we say for want to creating any further subdivisions, anti-scumlord side to resort to getting a bit personal in some matters! I won't even bother to include my opinion on the rights and wrongs of actually eating animals...I eat them, and that's all I can say!

Tar.Aldarion

I have a question or two fo anybody.
If you are smarter than an animal, are you better than it?
Do you have the right to decide what happens to it? Why?


If an advanced alien race came to Earth and just viewed us as just another animal, since they were so much more advanced, is it morally ok in your opinion for them to do whatever they want to us?

rockbeer

HavoK wrote:

They don't have to be emotionally advanced - if you could realistically use such a phrase - or indeed have any sort of advanced mental capacity to develop a basic attachment or another animal or a human individual. Attachment, and developed mental process are different things. So yes, a cow can develop a recognition and from that an attachment of sorts to its handler, farmer, or whatever. But they do, however, lack the ability to develop advanced emotions like that of fear as a constant presence. As someone said, an animal will fear when approached by a situation, in the present that presents a danger or distress. A cow, however, will not spend its day fretting in the corner of a field thinking about its future.

I wouldn't disagree with you.. but my post was trying to point out the contradiction in ScumLord's argument - he wants it both ways. On the one hand he justifies farming because animals 'like it' and enjoy the company of their handlers. Thereby validating those emotions in support of his argument. But he won't give any validity to the proven distress and fear they experience at certain points in the agricultural cycle. So which is it? Are they beings with valid emotional responses or not? There are studies that show all kinds of animals to have much more complex social interactions and conventions than we ever thought possible - largely, I suspect, because it's quite a recent thing for humans to have moved beyond wanting to kill everything and started to learn about it instead. I fully expect it to be 'discovered' (i.e. some scientist finally got a grant to study it) that cows (or whatever) have some striking and previously unsuspected capabilities. Most of which were probably bred out of them as part of the domestication process.

To me it's irrelevant to speculate whether or not a cow has a concept of 'future'. I'm not trying to make them out to be our equals on an emotional level. I'm more interested in our own willingness to subject them to unnecessary distress and fear to satisfy our own desires and our unwillingness to deal with the reality of this. Many people these days are horribly detached from where their food comes from, which allows the horrors of industrial farming to go largely unchecked. Not to mention the physical consequences for animals of such activities, which w've hardly touched on here. Humans habitually justify this in terms of those animals being 'lesser' than us. I, like others, would ask does the fact that they are intellectually lesser give us the right to treat them this way? In my view patently not - but I don't expect you to agree with me. What I do expect is some honesty about it. To eat animals is one thing. To argue it's somehow in their interests to be eaten is quite another, and stinks of a desire to avoid the truth of your choices and make yourself feel better about it.

HavoK wrote:

So in that sense it is totally wrong to compare a cow on a farm to a prisoner, as has been done on this thread. While a prisoner can actively regard his situation, and realistically think - 'I'm going to be here for x amount of time, or life', a cow can or will not think such a thing. Now, as you say, I don't doubt for a second in terms of raw fear cows are no different then humans. But the far reaching effects and complexities of fear are unique to humans.

I already put this to ScumLord and he declined to answer... maybe you will address it instead... no wild animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture or imprisonment. All domesticated animals had to be 'broken' to be that way. And many animals are known to become severely depressed in captivity. They aren't that stupid - of course they understand their predicament. So in my view it's perfectly valid to argue that the imprisonment of animals is similar to that of humans. To achieve it you must deprive the animals of the freedom that is their birth right. If a bunch of aliens could condition humans not to understand our predicament, would it then be morally acceptable to imprison and kill us for food? In my view, if you answer 'no' to this question and yet support animal farming you are in a state of denial and/or unresolved contradiction.

Few meat-eaters provide a straight answer to this question.

HavoK wrote:

Very true but primates have a great capacity for learning then any other animal, especially those that are commonly featuring in this thread (the cows..?).

Of course. But there are (at least) two reasons why a discussion of primates is significant and relevant. Firstly ScumLord attributes qualities exclusively to humans which are in fact also shared by primates. Secondly, and related, once you accept that those characteristics are not unique to humans, you have to draw a line. So where is that line drawn, and based on what? Science? Belief? Speculation? If ScumLord can't provide proper evidence for his arguments then I have to conclude he bases his choices on speculation, which is fine but he seems unable to be honest about that. I don't think it's up to me to prove he's wrong - he, after all, is the one advocating the killing. Let him prove he's right.

For too long, in my view, humans have seen ourselves as separate and 'other' than the rest of the natural world. By recognising how close the primates are to us in behaviour and intellect we are forced to abandon this position, which in turn requires us to re-examine our relationship with the rest of the natural world.

Also, you may not be aware that mature primates are regularly slaughtered and the young captured as pets as part of the clearing of areas of rainforest. It's anticipated that Gorillas will be extinct in less than a decade... Yet more evidence of our disrespect for other forms of life. Is it really possible to claim a respect for life and yet advocate the rearing of animals in captivity specifically for slaughter? Once again I think there's a contradiction in this position. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of killing for food - most animals do this and it's clearly a natural function. But rearing animals for slaughter is a whole other thing. No longer animals with whom we share the planet, but meat on legs.

HavoK wrote:

Good discussion though. From both 'sides'. Although I must say, I do notice a tendacy for the, shall we say for want to creating any further subdivisions, anti-scumlord side to resort to getting a bit personal in some matters!

Well I think in fairness there's been a bit of personal abuse on both sides - although nowhere near as much as there could have been. I think ScumLord took me up wrong in one instance when I was being ironic. But when somebody starts defending genocide it's pretty hard to hold back.

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

but my post was trying to point out the contradiction in ScumLord's argument - he wants it both ways. On the one hand he justifies farming because animals 'like it' and enjoy the company of their handlers. Thereby validating those emotions in support of his argument. But he won't give any validity to the proven distress and fear they experience at certain points in the agricultural cycle.

I never said they like it, I just said they don't know any better as far as their concerned farming is life and that's just the way life is. Every animal on the planet depends on an other animal to live. My whole argument was domestic animals, now, depend on us eating them. If we don't they'll have no place in the system they have no freedom to run to.

, I suspect, because it's quite a recent thing for humans to have moved beyond wanting to kill everything and started to learn about it instead.

That's no really a fair statement we don't kill our domestic animals out of enjoyment, it is out of necessity.

Many people these days are horribly detached from where their food comes from, which allows the horrors of industrial farming to go largely unchecked.

I agree completely, I live in a farming community and there's a chicken farm on the outskirts of town, the smell out of the place is disgusting they must be living in there own filth. I've seen the chickens too the tv doesn't do the miserable state of these creatures any justice. On the other hand I've been on organic farms and seen healthy chickens it's completely different. Normal chickens are actually fun to be around and it's obvious from interaction that their a far more content animal.

Humans habitually justify this in terms of those animals being 'lesser' than us. I, like others, would ask does the fact that they are intellectually lesser give us the right to treat them this way?

I don't think other animals are "lesser" than humans, every animal is important to an ecosystem remove one and the whole thing can collapse or at least cause a major upset. If we stop eating meat that's exactly what will happen, domestic animals would have nowhere to go so would have to be culled on a massive scale. This would put millions of people out of work and upset the now natural seasonal cycle that exists in Europe.

We are a large part of nature now any change we make to our normal habits will have a world wide impact.

Firstly ScumLord attributes qualities exclusively to humans which are in fact also shared by primates. Secondly, and related, once you accept that those characteristics are not unique to humans, you have to draw a line.

Your guilty of taking me up wrong aswell, I love primates, Chimps are my second favorite animal after humans then maybe bonobo monkeys a close 3rd. They do share allot of characteristics with us especially the aggressive chimps (who show very human like behaviour when eating meat). The primates have fairly unique mental abilities NOT common in the rest of the animal kingdom, you can't compare a chimp and a cow just like you can't compare a human and a cow we (primates) will react much different the cows will.

But rearing animals for slaughter is a whole other thing.

Ya know, I'm not to sure this is true. I think ants keep other insects for food and then of course there's parasites. Dolphins know so much about their prey the prey is no more free than if it was on a farm.

But when somebody starts defending genocide it's pretty hard to hold back.

Farming is not genocide, that's way over the top.

Domestic animals depend on the human race for survival, these kind of dependencies are common throughout the animal kingdom. Industrial farming is disgusting but it doesn't have to be that way, we should respect our prey we always have in the past. You might think killing for food is wrong but that's just the way nature works. I don't think your ever going to agree and start eating meat but there's nothing wrong with the rest of us eating meat.

kraggy

grahamo wrote:

I agree! Plus some of these animals are quite tasty! Especially with gravy or stuffing. Its not natural or healthy to be a vegetarian. We're OMNIVORES! Top of the food chain and all you veggies are not getting enough iron or B Vitamins. You probably won't be able to reply to this either as you won't have the energy if your a vegetarian.

YOU might be an omnivore, but i for one am not.

I wish people would cease claiming that the human race in its entirety is omnivore.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

Farming is not genocide, that's way over the top.

I wasn't saying farming is genocide - the term genocide applies only to humans. You have in fact defended this abhorrence a number of times throughout the thread. If I can remind you:

"We're just big, we do things on grand scales so it becomes obvious the effect we're having on the world. "

"Obviously I think the perfect species would (commit genocide) as we do."

"every species on the planet will do whatever it takes to survive. All animals have violent streaks, violence has worked for animals all throughout time."

You seem to think you can avoid personal responsibility for anything by hiding behind what you loosely identify as characteristics of the species (and those of other species). Since we humans don't all share those characteristics, you're clearly wrong to define them as common or use them as excuses, and by so doing you only undermine your own argument yet again. If the attributes you identify were characteristic of all humans there would be no pacifists and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Why do you feel the need to have not just all of humanity but the whole of nature on your side to validate your choices? Seems to me you can't feel too secure about them.

ScumLord wrote:

Your guilty of taking me up wrong aswell

I don't think so. You described certain qualities as "unique to humans" (your words not mine). I demonstrated that your statement was false. Why can't you even once admit you were wrong about something?

ScumLord wrote:

I think ants keep other insects for food and then of course there's parasites

So are you now saying that ants and parasites have the mental capability of humans? To quote your own argument back at you, there's obviously no comparison between the behaviour of those creatures and ours... but if you insist, allow me to rephrase: Rearing mammals for slaughter is a whole other thing.

ScumLord wrote:

You might think killing for food is wrong but that's just the way nature works.

If you bother to read my posts carefully enough you'll see that I specifically state that I DON'T think killing for food is wrong. What humans do to other species (and each other) goes way beyond killing for food. If you can't see that there's no point in carrying on this discussion, which I think is exhausted at this point for me anyway.

ScumLord

Kraggy wrote:

YOU might be an omnivore, but i for one am not.

I wish people would cease claiming that the human race in its entirety is omnivore.

The human race IS omnivore, just because you choose not to eat meat doesnt change the fact that your gut can digest both meat and veg.

Rockbeer: The whole problem I have with your argument and others with similar arguments is that you paint the human out to be this violent, evil creature that just spreads hate and destruction throughout the world. I don't think this is true atall.

Nature is all about survival of the fittest, the most aggressive and dominant animal always come out on top. No mercy is ever shown. It's not surprising that the human race has a history of violence (that doesn't automatically assume I'm supporting genocide by the way, just stating a fact) what is surprising is that we have compassion and that we'd even consider the plite of our food. There have been and still are terrible atrocities but that's not the norm for the species. We're a social animal and interacting peacefully with each other is what allowed us to advance to the stage we're at today. We wouldn't be in the position we are today with European Unions, air travel, medical research if we where constantly at each others throats.



It's very noble to say we shouldn't eat meat or imprison animals to ensure a food supply but the practicalities of doing those things make it impossible. Right and wrong only exists in the mind of people, maybe it is wrong to do these things (I don't think it is) but killing an animal that has no clue whats going on to ensure food, work and money is the better of two evils, the other evil being people dieing or living in poverty. I know, industrial farming takes advantage of the poor and all the money goes to the top but that's why I support organic farming.

kraggy

ScumLord wrote:

The human race IS omnivore, just because you choose not to eat meat doesnt change the fact that your gut can digest both meat and veg.

The fact that my gut can digest both meat and veg does not make me omnivorous.

An omnivore is someone who EATS meat and vegetation, NOT someone who CAN DIGEST meat and vegetation.

Get your facts straight before you go labelling me and others as something we're not.

ScumLord

That just doesn't sound right, by that definition a lion that that would be feed a vegetable supplement is no longer a carnivore.

Being carnivore or omnivore is a body adaptation, lions don't choose to eat meat they have to.

There's more information here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore What do you call someone who eats words???


Your an omnivore that choses to eat only veg.

Tar.Aldarion

If it is the case that the animal in question can digest vegetables better than meat, it can be called a herbivore, this is the case with us. Some herbivores can digest meat, it depends on your definition of omnivore.

4zn76tysfajdxp

This is why I eat meat:

(1) It's delicious.

(2) It's impossible and hypocritical to be a vegetarian unless I grow my own crops.

How, you ask?
Think of the pesticides used to keep your cabbages and wheat bug free. The pellets used to kill snails and slugs who trespass on your food. We (meat eaters) raise cows in a safe secure environment where they’re killed for our culinary delight. You spray insects with chemicals to keep them from eating your vegetables. At least we use (and eat) what we kill, and we’re not even the ones with a moral objection to it! Not forgetting rabbits, badgers and hares who are killed as a result of your vegetarian diet. Think about it, what happens to them when you decide to use their meadows to grow your crops? They lived there their entire lives, you think they set up shop in a neighbouring burrow like a fu©king Disney film? No, they die in some foreign environment they’re unfamiliar with, murderers.
The only thing you can do about it is to grow your own crops and cultivate your own food to ensure NO animal gets killed for you to live your life. Which is impossible anyway, find out what “tallow” is.

Hugh Hefner

You're confusing not wanting to eat meat with not wanting to kill animals.