That has always intrigued me. People eat some butchered cow's meat everyday, but they are disgusted when they hear that the Chinese eat dogs. I'm not really pro puppy-eating, why are we also separating animals into classes.

Dogs are seen as pets, that's why I think it's pretty sickening. Frying up dear old Brooklyn sickens me, and breaks my heart and that's just at the thought of it. Whereas I don't feel anything for cows. At all.

^ Cows are cuter though, and that's a fact!

NO CHANCE!!! Cows are ugly, fat, and gross.

Really?

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.c...0605_01_v6.jpg

What vulgar udders

Precisely!

Altruism is the opposite of selfishness - an utterly unselfish care for others welfare. It's relatively rare because what often looks like altruism actually has selfish motives (if I'm nice to these people, they'll treat me well which is what I want) .. And a nutter is a crazy person!

you don't think a child growing up on a farm would see a cow as a pet?

Altruism is a sham, at least as far as the actual term goes, it's mostly just an excuse for people to be morally imperialistic c*nts.

I believe that everything that a person does is to feel better about himself or herself, a lot of people just don't want to admit this but that is the motivation for all the things that people do, even when you're helping others you're still doing it to feel better about yourself.

Of course it's still good to help others, I'm just saying.

Well I'm from a family of farmers and I certainly have never seen Cows as pets.

Maybe you just didn't get to close to them... I had a Pig named Junior one time... We killed him broke my heart. Id rather killed a Dog I didn't know over that Pig. I tried to talk my dad out of killing it, but it didn't work, he put to much money into it I think. I refused to eat him but he gave him to me anyway telling it wasn't junior till after I ate him.



My Dad always made it a point to keep me from bonding with the animals he knew we had to slaughter. He told me naming something gives it a Soul.

Hey keyleigh!

First, the short answer to your question about your biology teacher: she was wrong. Well-planned vegan diets, which include vitamin B-12, are healthful.

The issue of horse hair for violin bows relates to the larger issue of whether people are allowed to slaughter horses. This has recently been hotly debated here in the U.S. Many people, including myself, feel horses deserve a better end than being slaughtered for flesh and hair after having served humans throughout their lives.

I do not usually try to prevent carnivores from killing other animals...unless the prey is a pet or a human child! :-) I do wish nature were different, though. It may seem fine if you are the cat, but pretty horrible if you are the mouse. I can't forget the mouse, even as I am glad that the cat is alive. I do not want to kill an animal to feed a carnivore, including a cat.

Urban. Hello. :) Yes, I agree with you that it is probably healthier for a carnivorous pet to eat fresh flesh than any kind of canned food, whether it is vegetarian canned food or is the flesh of rendered, slaughtered animals too ill or spoiled to make it into the human food chain.

Considering vegetarian pet food for a cat isn’t something I would do to try to prove a point, but instead to try to reduce my involvement in the hurting of others. If my pet cat could be well-nourished by and enjoy eating vegetarian cat food, I see only positives from that situation. Except for the slaughter-house owners and shareholders.

I actually would have no problem with humans being used as pet food! :) As long as they agreed to this outcome in advance. Better than being saturated with toxic embalming fluids and buried in plastic caskets.

People in the U.S. can buy dog and cat meat, too, #9, and apparently do. Google “Puppymeat.” Why and how we separate animals (including people) into classes of killable and/or edible is a basic question that interests me, too.

Kayleigh, your feelings for a pet animal sound like the feelings I have every time I see a pig or a cow who will be slaughtered. I see them enjoying themselves and know people will end these animals' lives not for need, but for desire.

Should whether we kill an animal or not be determined primarily by how strong people's feelings are for that animal? Or should we use other criteria, too? And let’s say you felt for a wide variety of animals the same way you feel for dogs. How might this change your eating habits? What would you do, surrounded by a world where people felt nothing for dogs, cats, pet birds, piglets, or any animal you cared for? Would you continue to eat them, or would you find another way?

You are very right, mr dave, that children growing up on farms...even farmers...may view cows as a “pet” animals, which I’d say are animals you want to care for for their own sake, not just primarily to benefit people. Just like Cadrian said above when describing the pig he raised and named Junior.

I agree that altruism usually does feel good, and so is self-serving in this respect. The emotional payback I get from being vegan is that I feel I am living more consistently in line with a feeling I’ve had since I was little: I want to be kind to animals. Also, my not eating animals reduces slightly the number of animals raised as livestock, due to supply and demand.

I think one of Chuck Berry's song was named after his pet cow, I think it's Maybellene.

I saw countless cows on farms travelling on the turn pike, as a kid, whenever we seen laying down in the grass my mom would always say "it's going to rain" even til this day I don't know how cows could predict the weather. Even though cows really don't make neat pet, they're kinda popular, in America they're depicted in Country/Folk art, and home decorations etc. I got myself plaid cow stickers to put on my guitar to make look folksy.

Ah I see I didn't think that the slaughtering of horses would be involved. You'd think it'd be a little tail cut or something.

Fair point, though the mouse may have feelings and such. I believe that it should just go with a pyramid of biomass, I've never considered before the little mouse's feelings. But now that I have I still feel that the best interest is for the mouse to be killed by the cat, this may be selfish or whatever. I just believe that it's better that way, regardless or the little mouses feelings, although I do feel slightly sad. I don't feel strongly at all.

To be honest, I don't care much for any other dog other than my own and dogs I'm close to. I just view a Dog as a pet not tasty, whereas cows to me, are tasty... To answer your question I'd continue to eat them as I feel it's in my best health interests to eat animals. Plus I'm only one person. And no matter how many Vegetarians or Vegans or similar people there is, there will always be a million more omnivores.

Well my aunt has sorta pet cows, you can whistle on them and pet them and stuff, they lick you too, which is sorta weird until you get used to it, as much as I adore these cows, I still don't feel that every cow should be a pet, I mean I don't think every cow should be killed for meat. Nor do I hold much against the fact other country's eat Cat, but it would unsettle me to eat a Cat or any other domestic kind of animal.

true

If anyone saw "7 Years in Tibet" with Bradd Pitt- not that great of a movie, but an interesting topic in it.

The monks are trying to build a temple, and it takes them sssooooooo long because they don't want to kill any worms in the dirt they are digging up to establish the temple foundation. Completely impractical.

Well highway traffic is pretty impractical, but I won't suggest destroying the surrounding cars. But you know, that's just me.

I just choose not to eat meat, but that's by choice.

Is there a way of you choosing which is not by choice?

Kayleigh, it sounds like for you the personal relationship you have with a particular animal is what impacts strongly whether you view that animal as someone you want to eat.

I also don't have strong feelings for animals I don't know personally. Similarly, it is easier for me to have stronger feelings for people I know than for people far away with whom I never interact. Except Scottish people. All Scottish people are adorable. ;)

However, knowing that *if* I knew livestock animals better, then I would care for them and want them to live a long and happy life, causes me to wish for them to be treated as well as an animal I consider a friend. When I think of all the animals whom I don't know personally, I feel it is not *their* fault that I don't know them, and so I don't want them suffering on my account. Each animal is an individual; whether I know her or not does not change the importance of her life to herself.

Yes, MAStudent, there is no way to live without killing someone. Every time we build a home, for example, we destroy the nests of field mice (and certainly kill some, too). Whether something is practical or not depends on the person's value system.

The issue of practicality is interesting, because in many ways animal agriculture is *completely* impractical (and unsustainable): people put a whole lot of effort (and time and money) into setting up systems/industries to raise, transport, slaughter, refrigerate, and process livestock animals.

Vegetarianism, in most instances, is much more practical and efficient than animal-eating: you reduce land required for agriculture, you eliminate the massive undertaking of raising billions of confined aniamls, you reduce fresh water consumption, you reduce petroleum use.

Only if land is non-arable (such as grasslands) do I see an "efficiency" argument for raising livestock...but even so, one could raise some cows to take their milk, and raise some chickens for their eggs, and not *kill* the animals but let them live out their days. This seems fair to me, given that people *are* taking something from them. Stealing from someone and then killing her at a young age to me has always seemed doubly cruel. I actually wouldn't be opposed to eating some eggs and drinking some milk from livestock animals if I knew they would be allowed to live out their lifespans in good care.

Vegetarianism is not only practical from an efficiency standpoint, but also good for humanity: you don't support the creation of numerous diseases that originate with animal agriculture, like the swine flu virus and many more. You don't support the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a problem in countries like the U.S. where cramped livestock are fed continual low doses of antibiotics. You don't support the increased risk of heart disease and certain cancers associated with animal-product consumption (especially red meats).

Actually animal farming can be a key part of an ecosystem. What makes animal farming so inefficient is the globalized industry it has become.

Yes, ProggyMan, animal manure can be a good fertilizer, although green manures (in which leguminous plant crops are used to create fertilizer) also work.

The industrialization of animal agriculture, in which large numbers of animals are confined, does result in major problems--I agree with you. For example, it results in massive quantities of fertilizer difficult to spread on fields...and actually spreading the fertilizer in large quantities is harmful to the environment.

Evidence: the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Iowa and other ag states along the Mississippi River create fertilizer runoff that not only frequently kills fish, but also leads to algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by decay, oxygen consumption, and vast underwater areas devoid of life.

While it can be argued that livestock animals are a good source of manure, the irony is that much of the cropland on which manure is spread is being used to produce corn and soybeans to feed...the livestock. Much of the protein and energy in the crops is then burned up by the livestock animals. Only a fraction of the original number of calories available in the plants ends up as calories in the flesh consumed by people. Very little of the cropland around me in Iowa is used to grow plants for direct human consumption. The pollution Iowa produces is due primarily to the livestock (and ethanol) industries. Since I live with this all around me, it is hard to forget.

What you're railing against is the globalization and industrialization of the food industry. As Michael Pollen says: "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much."

Erica, if you look away from possible ecological problems that might result from overtaxing populations and so on and look at it purely from a moral standpoint - how do you feel about hunting compared to slaughtering farm animals?

Definitely, plant-based diets (even with some animal products) are preferable to the typical developed-world diet heavy on animal flesh and fats and processed carbohydrates.

And the industrialization of the food industry does bother me...you are very right. For example, it is very difficult to eat locally here in Iowa, where we have the best topsoil in the world, because the government system of subsidies supports the planting of corn and soybeans to the exclusion of almost all other vegetables and fruits. Some locations have an excuse (poor soil) not to produce local crops for human consumption; Iowa has none.

If I had to choose, Tore, I would prefer people to hunt wild animals (preferably using their bare hands :) ) rather than raise and slaughter captive animals. This would reduce the consumption of animals and be better for humans and ecosystems alike. And the life experience of the wild animals would be closer to the life of freedom that I would prefer for any animal.

On the positive side of hunting, at least the animals have had a chance to be free, make decisions for themselves, and have a greater variety of experiences (closeness with family members and friends; the chance to forage, to relax in the sun, etc.). On the negative side, killing with bow and arrow or gun hurts them (before killing them)...and usually is completely *unnecessary* unless you are an eskimo or live in an impoverished country where you are essentially a hunter-gatherer.

Slaughtering farm animals...the actual slaughter...however, is often far from humane. Poultry are many times not stunned; even cows sometimes end up conscious while being dismembered. Pigs get boiled alive. And the life before the animals get to the slaughterhouse (if they make it...many die or are killed young) is often miserable: egg-laying hens stacked up in tiny cages in continual darkness for their whole lives, for example. I feel killing an animal suddenly through hunting would be preferable to the callous, methodical, mechanized slaughterhouse...but not killing them at all would be morally the best! :)

Thanks for asking, Tore!

Thanks for the answer :) And I agree with your reasoning!

I ate a chicken strip yesterday, after stopping all kind of meat for more than 2 weeks :(
I was too drunk to notice what I was eating.

No. It's not murder.

We are omnivores. We are simply surviving.

^ what he says.

Plus when I eat meat I've never ever thought to myself that it used to be a living thing. Or about how it's life was.

It'll sound nasty, but I just like to get stuck in, I don't ponder about and think about if it had a good life. I just eat it...

Just playing devil's advocate.
If you don't think about it, it doesn't make what you're doing alright.

But it does make it a hell of a lot easier.

These animals are going to die anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's just survival on our part. Like I said, we are omnivores. Why do people worry so much about other species? I mean I'm all for saving extinct animals etc but when you've got genocide, corrupt governments, disease and famine (plus a bunch of other crap) threatening your own species. You better take care of that first.

Have no mistake, if an animal (omnivore or carnivore) feels hungry it won't have any moral dilemma about eating you.

Can't remember what movie it was but there was this horror movie where this vegan chick saved a dog near the start. Later on she was cut open and as she lay there dying with her guts hanging out, the dog started to eat her. The irony amused me.

I'm sorry Amandria, but you mean to say what I'm doing is wrong?

Captain Awesome, do you mean eating animals was a behavior necessary for survival in the past when our ancestors were gatherer-hunters? Or do you mean it is a survival mechanism required now in some developing countries where poor people are desperate for food and so will eat anything? Or do you mean that eating animals is a survival requirement in the developed world today, such as in the U.S., Canada, and most of Europe?

Since I survive fine without eating any animal parts at all, I would argue that eating animals is *not* required for survival. If it were, then I would be dead. Since I am alive, I am living proof that eating animals is not an issue of simply surviving.

Certainly, all animals, including humans, will die. Yet this fact doesn't mean we decide to eat every species of animal, including humans. Like you note, even you feel we shouldn't eat endangered animals. Why the hesitancy there? I assume it is because you value these animals' lives for some reason. So, you acknowledge animals' lives matter to you in some instances. If you increase the depth and breadth of that feeling, then my guess is you probably end up feeling similar to how I feel about animals. We don't differ so much, perhaps, in the type of feelings we have, but in how strong or broad they are.

You suggest that caring about humans should take priority over caring for other species. I would argue that people have enough time and money to care for both human and non-human animals, and often caring for non-human animals improves the lives of humans, and vice versa.

Yes, most non-human meat-eating animals won't hesitate to eat a human if able. Even humans don't hesitate to eat other humans under certain cultural, historical, and economic conditions. This doesn't mean we have to copy that behavior.

You ask a basic and important question: "Why do people worry so much about other species?" I worry because I care about what their experience of life is like. I want them to enjoy living life as long as they can and I don't want to interfere with their one chance to enjoy life.

Captain Awesome, if you happened to be a different species than I, our species classification wouldn't determine for me whether or not I should kill and eat you. What would matter to me is that you have the capacity to enjoy living and so I wouldn't want to end that for you. If you were an alien, for example, I wouldn't automatically eat you! :)

So, I am thinking that the issue here is not that you don't care about different *species,* but rather that you feel concern only about animals that have certain capabilities.

What do you do, though, when both human and non-human animals have these capabilities, and the differences aren't qualitative but quantitative?

For example, parrots are long-lived and can count and even talk; dogs respond to verbal commands; many animals have oxytocin and brains that appear to give them the feelings of love, based on analogy with humans. Many animals respond positively to anti-depressants that work on humans, suggesting they experience similar psychological troubles. What makes you draw a protective line around only humans, saying that only their experience of life and their feelings matter?

The comment I amde about endangered animals was more a case of helping their species survive. Regardless of whether they taste good or not, I don't want to watch an entire species vanish overnight because of stupid decisions on part of my own species (or any other reason).

I do find this interesting and have questioned my own limits before (almost on a weekly basis as there is always something in the news about meat and vegans etc). For example I have to pet dogs (which some Vegans would despise me for - having pets). And I could tell you right now I wouldn't willingly eat dog meat. I find the methods of which dogs are killed/cooked etc in asian countries to be disgusting (especially when they're skinned alive). However this is only because the animals are domesticated and I have developed a bond with my "pets" to the point of them being treated like members of my family. And yet I condone the mass slaughter and consumption of cows? I can already tell you If I had a cow as a pet for a year, when It came to killing it I wouldn't be able to (unless I was at gun point or something). But then I wonder if you can really develop a bond with such an animal. Dogs are incredibly intelligent and very similar to humans in some ways(as you've already stated) that is why you can develop such a strong bond with them. Perhaps it's easier for me to kill something that has no awareness or understanding of what's actually going on.

You don't stop a lying eating a gazelle and offer him some tofu. Why should I be stopped from enjoying a nice piece of steak.

As for surviving. Again there is things you get from animal meat and animal products which supplements are no alternative for (unless consumed in a ludicrous amount). However we've already had this debate and It was clear neither of us were going to change our mind.


I'm not drawing a protective line around only humans. I'm just saying our own species should be our priority. We can't worry about and protect every single species in our world. We're only human, we can only do so much. Humans come first, then everything else(usually endangered animals then the rest).

If you worry are about the human race "surviving", the only threat to humanity is its own greed. I guess if we can lay off ruining nature for a year or two, maybe we can buy some time to keep our dear Earth from burning.
Plus, it doesn't seem like they'll be enough food resources in the next few years, which brings me to my point: Humans can't survive on their own.

It's generally the "fate" of every rapidly increasing population such as our own that they eventually reach a point where they deplete/don't have enough resources, get stressed from being too many lumped together, easily spread diseases through the population and other negative effects so that the numbers drop. Sometimes, population growth stops increasing and "stabilizes" and other times, they crash leaving only a relatively few survivors compared to population height numbers.

The crash scenario is most easily illustrated for us if you imagine billions of people eating all the food there is to eat .. and then starve to death.

I think there's a fair chance we're heading for such a scenarion and shifting diet to plants may increase the amount of time it takes until we get there. That alone wouldn't solve the problem, though, we can still deplete edible plant resources. What we need is to live sustainably, but what's sustainable with a world population of 7 billion people is not necessarily sustainable in a world with 14 million people.

In other words, veganism is not a solution to that problem. You'd need something more extravagant like a way to control the world population and keep it from increasing to the point where we're too many .. for example by controlling how many kids families have. On a global scale, that's a near impossible political task. Divided nations and all that aside, we're not exactly bees working in the best interests of the collective hive.

edit :

Well, Erica is ;)

lol yeah because global warming was entirely our fault :rolleyes:

I'm not worried about the human race surviving I'm just ashamed to be a part of it's species. We've got people starving, being murdered, raped, enslaved etc and we're worried about people eating cows? give me a break.

I don't know if meat is murder, but I almost died laughing when the weird uncle hit Napolean Dynamite in the face with the steak and knocked him off his bike.

naa .. meat is good..
i love chicken though
and steak is good also..

Why are you ashamed of being part of our species? You don't think people are beautiful? Don't you like to talk to people?

As a species our only problem is that we're cowards, and the few who rule are left alone because of that. But you should cherish being part of humanity because it is the greatest thing to be able to laugh and have fun with another member of the species