Only if someone else did the running over...
And wondered where they fit into the Speciesism argument?
As a straw man I would think.
GrahamS are you joking ?
Is that what vegan cannibals eat?As a straw man I would think.
GrahamS are you joking ?
Not particularly.
They are animals that were bred and killed for my consumption and I don’t even know that they were treated humanely while alive.
And I ate a couple of hundred of them in one sitting. Probably more, there isn’t a lot to them.
I also ate some pork, but that’s just one small part of a pig that probably fed around, I don’t know, forty people maybe?
Which is worse?
You’re [i]literally[/i] stealing food from a baby robin.
Is that better or worse than stealing food from baby rabbits? 😆
Junkyard - lazarus - Block User
Personally i think it goes further as its ok to boil a lobster alive to eat one but only a monster would do this to a [b]kitten[/b]. Its not even consistent within all non human animals.
Typical militant vegan bollocks. Everyone knows mammals that eat meat are not tasty and should be avoided in the food chain, and there's **** all meat on a kitten anyway.
As a farmer of animals for meat I could write an essay on this, and may well do one day. However, I imagine my views would be counter to what many would expect. Unfortunately it is late and I have a cold. 🙁
What gives humans the right to eat other animals?
Do we need to be given the right?
Plenty of animal species would eat us given the chance.
We can, so we do.
(as an omnivorous atheist, trying to ignore any moral angle here)
What gives us the right to eat vegetables or drink water?
GrahamS , which is worse? the pig , I'd eat crustations and fish and analids before a mammal or bird.
Is that not an example of Speciesism though?
GrahamS , which is worse? the pig , I'd eat crustations and fish and analids before a mammal or bird.
So what you're saying is prawn cocktail for the starter and pork chops for mains? I think you're going to struggle to find anything chicken based on the desert menu unless you go turkish - tavuk gö?üsü maybe.
Being the apex predator
humans have never been an apex predator really. (we can destroy shit on a massive scale, fo'shure, but that's not the same thing) example; put a lion* and a human in a room together, who d'you think will walk out? Interestingly, there are some skulls of Australopithecenes that show signs of predation (two canine holes at the back of the neck) showing that we had perhaps a species of big cat that preyed on early humans specifically.
*needn't in reality be an actual apex predator, any large mammal will do.
You’re taking away the human’s main advantage there though nickc: the ability to invent, manufacture and use tools.
You could equally argue that a great white shark isn’t an apex predator because it’s crap on land.
It does make me wonder... if we're evolved to the point where we are the dominant species on Earth, and we can get all of the nutrients we need from plants, why we cause unnecessary suffering to animals. I know that someone will/ has come forward to say that animals taste better, which may be true, but for me that's not a good enough reason. Thinking about the process of how we get dairy milk is really horrible and it opened my eyes to how exploitative this industry is.
It does make me wonder... if we're evolved to the point where we are the dominant species on Earth, and we can get all of the nutrients we need from plants,
You're making a big assumption there - that [i]everyone[/i] is in a position to get all their nutrients from plants. Sizable chunks of the world population struggle to get the nutrients they need at all, let alone pick and choose where they come. Its only really been for a matter of decades that the richest populations get to be that picky (our parents had ration books - I've got a Womans' Weekly recipe book from the 60's and the only 'Diet Recipe' in it is one for gaining weight) and we're in an extremely privileged position to be discussing what foods we're prefer not to eat on the basis of an ever more complex matrix of conflicting ethical criteria.
You can get all the nutrients a human needs from a vegetarian diet - but only in the context of global markets and industrialised production and the petrochemical-fuel Haber-Bosch process along with various preservation processes providing a secure supply of a variety of fresh food throughout the year. You'd struggle to feed yourself through the year, year in year out, with fruit and veg you can grow in your back garden- only being one bad harvest away from famine.
You could equally argue that a great white shark isn’t an apex predator because it’s crap on land.
You've not seen that well known documentary "Shark-nado", I presume? 😆
Apex predators aren't going to be eaten by something else within it's particular environment. Are there animals that would eat a human given a chance to do so? Yes. Does that happen despite humans obvious and clear technical and mental superiority even today? Yes it does, all the time. We have some clear advantages, but it's only been the last few hundred years or so that industrialisation has tipped the playing field to our advantage, but "mano-a-mano" (so to speak) we're still at a massive disadvantage against a "real" apex predator"
I know that someone will/ has come forward to say that animals taste better, which may be true, but for me that's not a good enough reason.
This is nub really, I'm told bacon sandwiches are yummy, but think about how the process that animal has been through to get to your table. A slave would be super useful right now in my life, but y'know..?
We have some clear advantages,
Our greatest advantage in evolutionary terms has been our partnership with animals. We don't need the teeth and claws, the speed or acute senses of highly specialised predators if we train animals to hunt for us and we don't need to hunt if we domesticate our prey so that they don't run away. And also theres cats for some reason.
Lions and sharks maybe more efficient killing machines - but they have to spend weeks searching for something to eat.
Maccruiskeen, you're quite right - I was referring to the fortunate people who do have a choice in what they eat! That's still a lot of people >300mill in USA, 65mill in UK, same in France etc. The list goes on... That's still a lot of people choosing their tastebuds over animals suffering. It just seems quite uncompassionate and I'm hoping things are gradually changing away from this. You're right that if you eat a plant based diet you do rely on imported food, my tomatoes and aubergines from Southern Europe for example. However, animal agriculture is not free from this. In intensive farms, which are needed if people keep eating the same amount of meat as they currently do, the animals aren't fed grass, often grains or Soya that have been imported from abroad.
curve ball. how many of you new age vegan man bun hipsters are using your phone or laptop on this forum? The factory used to manufacture it is probably doing more damage to the planet than the methane coming out of cattle. Not to mention all the environmental factors such as pollution going into the water system etc. etc. etc.
your electric car still needs a power plant to charge it and a factory to produce it.
your man bun oil is made from baby kittens tears, after which they are ground down in quorn patties.
That's still a lot of people choosing their tastebuds over animals suffering.
Obviously I’d rather that any animals that I eat suffer as little as possible. I think most people (in the UK at least) would agree with that. But I’m still going to eat them.
Likewise I’d rather massive areas of natural habitat weren’t being destroyed for agriculture, fishing, mining, oil, gas, housing, transport etc but like most people I enjoy the fruits of those industries and put my own comfort over the animals suffering.
GrahamS, I'd also prefer if massive areas of natural habitat weren't being destroyed. The leading cause of Amazon rainforest destruction is animal agriculture [url= http://www.rainforestfoundation.org/agriculture/ ]Rainforest[/url]
However, animal agriculture is not free from this. In intensive farms, which are needed if people keep eating the same amount of meat as they currently do, the animals aren't fed grass, often grains or Soya that have been imported from abroad.
We'll this is more the issue really - we eat far too much meat in the west and that problem is being compounded by the developing areas of the world adopting our tastes. For the typical UK omnivore a vegan diet is probably much closer to a sensible level of meat /dairy / omelette consumption than their own.
But you can live in a way where they don't suffer at all - by not eating them! So to say you'd like them to suffer as little as possible isn't quite true (in my opinion but of course I don't know you!)
humans have never been an apex predator really. (we can destroy shit on a massive scale, fo'shure, but that's not the same thing) example; put a lion* and a human in a room together, who d'you think will walk out? Interestingly, there are some skulls of Australopithecenes that show signs of predation (two canine holes at the back of the neck) showing that we had perhaps a species of big cat that preyed on early humans specifically.humans have never been an apex predator really. (we can destroy shit on a massive scale, fo'shure, but that's not the same thing) example; put a lion* and a human in a room together, who d'you think will walk out? Interestingly, there are some skulls of Australopithecenes that show signs of predation (two canine holes at the back of the neck) showing that we had perhaps a species of big cat that preyed on early humans specifically.
The fact we can 'destroy shit' on a massive scale proves we are the Apex predator.
there is no guarantee that the human would be killed in every single encounter with a Lion. Predators still get killed from time to time by their prey or in pursuit of their prey, the key is in most encounters the predator wins. In most encounters between humans and lions, lions lose.
And your point about Australopithises is incorrect. The fact we evolved beyond australopitises proves they were the apex predator of their time.
Ironically in the context of this debate, the key to our evolution from clever ape to intelligent human was the point when we started eating meat. Our earliest Ape ancestors were vegetarian, and like most vegetarian animals in nature spend most of their time grazing and eating. When we started eating meat, we suddenly had time on our hands therefore time for our brains to start developing and that was the difference. Our evolutionary key was that we had capable brains, that were being constrained and held back by our leaf eating diet, but once we broke free from that there was nothing stopping us.
But you can live in a way where they don't suffer at all - by not eating them!
Yup, but that only prevents the suffering of the animal I’m not eating. And then only if enough of us don’t eat it that it never exists in the first place.
Unfortunately though other animals will still suffer to produce whatever else I put on my plate and eat in my nice warm house with all the other comforts of modern living.
The uncomfortable truth is that nature is competition and humans “win” by putting their own needs before other life. Not a particularly happy thought 🙁
I checked the defintion of apex predator and none contained the aabiity to destroy shit on a massive scaleThe fact we can 'destroy shit' on a massive scale proves we are the Apex predator.
this does not prove we are the apex predator not least because we dont then eat the lion - do you have any knowledge of what you are discussing? I gave up reading.In most encounters between humans and lions, lions lose.
I think i am able to cooperate to get a win win situation for me and other things who share the planet with me*. All humanity could do this.The uncomfortable truth is that nature is competition and humans “win” by putting their own needs before other life.
* in general we are not trapped in some scenario where its us or them to be alive tomorrow. Humanity makes choices to breed it, to kill it to make food in the least efficient manner[ plant matter to make meat matter] with poor morality, mass slaughter,suffering and with a huge environmental costs [ 1/3 of CO2 for eg] just because its tasty- this is a choice you make Graham. Saying nature makes you is just not true its YOUR choice.
But you can live in a way where they don't suffer at all - by not eating them!
Animals we eat don't have to suffer. Most in this country don't. They live a very nice life, get pampered by vets whenever they need to be, get regularly managed in terms of deseises and parasites, and are killed an a humane way. So I don't consider the animals I eat as having suffered as I make sure I buy good quality meat from non intensive producers with the highest possible welfare standards...and we have the highest standards in the world. Far better than any European country (European farmers think we're bonkers I the lengths we go to for animal welfare) and certainly better than the US/Americas, and certainly a better life than an animal in the wild that has to keep a constant eye open for a predator that could be jumping out at them at any time.
There is a double benefit for people and animals in spending more on meat that has not been reared in an intensive way. It tastes much nicer so therefore you need less of it.
The best thing for animal welfare is to encourage a market for it. Look at Veal for example. Due to the animal welfareists 'success' in destroying the veal industry in this country just leads to thousands of male cows being shot in the head within seconds of their birth as they have zero value. The Veal we have in this country is rose veal (not sure we ever had domestic white veal in the UK did we?), so not the cruel white veal where animals were kept in small boxes in the dark in rural France. So want a better life for male cows? then eat more rose Veal.
Of course welfare standards can always be improved, and I'm all for that. But the non-intensive standards in this country are pretty good.
Having said all that, we eat far too much meat anyway. There is no need to eat meat every day.
his does not prove we are the apex predator not least because we dont then eat the lion - do you have any knowledge of what you are discussing? I gave up reading.
Evolution. 99.9% of species that have ever lived are extinct. So we've not done too bad and proves on balance we have been more successful than our predators.
^^. The Gish gallop. Let's address them one at a time.
I think i am able to cooperate to get a win win situation for me and other things who share the planet with me*.
Maybe you [i]could[/i], but you don't. Your existence, like the rest of humanity, causes animal suffering.
All humanity could do this.
I seriously doubt that. At least not without massive slashing the population to a fraction of the current size and giving up on pretty much all modern comforts.
graham I have no idea what the point of your post is you seem to have ignored my points
this is still not 100% true and if it is it is still no need to maximise the suffering. You can "win" in less murderous/suffering ways - that is a fact- so its still your choice how you "win".The uncomfortable truth is that nature is competition and humans “win” by putting their own needs before other life.
The fact we can 'destroy shit' on a massive scale proves we are the Apex predator.
The fact that you wrote this suggests you're conflating "apex predator" with arguably "most successful animal" Those things aren't necessarily the same thing, and I think my slightly pedantic argument is probs not what the thread needed. Apologies.
Evolution. 99.9% of species that have ever lived are extinct. So we've not done too bad and proves on balance we have been more successful than our predators.
Seems we're doing even better of late:
[img] 
[/img]
Let's hit the magic 100 to prove who is boss.
In my experience, any question along the lines of 'do have the right to eat meat' just ends up polarised, such that half the people go away assuming that it is perfectly natural to go away and continue eating eat meat 10-15 times a week
Daniel Quinn's book, Ishmael, poses I more interesting way to look at this, I think
What gives us the right to go out and systematically kill (1) any animals that want to eat the same animals we want to eat, (2) any animals that wish to eat the same food source that the animals we want to eat eat themselves?
In other words, it may be perfectly reasonable for a human to eat a sheep, but it's probably not very nice for us to go out killing foxes just because they also like sheep, or killing rabbits because they like the crops that we are growing to feed our sheep.
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Law_of_Limited_Competition
http://greathinkings.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/law-of-limited-competition.html
If we stopped doing all that, sure, we could go on eating meat, but it would be a much rarer occasion, as it generally was 1000s of years ago
This is my thinking. It's quite easy to buy good meat from producers who care about and take good care of their livestock. I do it every week. Yes they get slaughtered in the end, but despite all the stories you see of abuse etc there are still places out there who carry this part out humanely and with respect for the animals. I'd much rather eat less meat but good quality than lot's of intensively farmed crap. I adopt the same approach with vegetables. Buy from local producers where I know how they have been grown. People who complain about meat being eaten yet buy lot's of fruit and vegetables from places they have no idea of what went into growing them are hypocrites and can **** right off trying to lecture me on my morals.Animals we eat don't have to suffer.
Wobbliscott, I'm sorry but contrary to what many people believe, the animals farmed in the UK really aren't pampered and do suffer terribly on a huge scale. This includes animals on farms that are labelled as high welfare. I watched this film about it the other week and it was a real eye-opener [url= http://www.landofhopeandglory.org ]Land of hope and glory[/url]
there are still places out there who carry this part out humanely and with respect for the animals
So your argument is a slaughter house is a place of humane respect for animals. Its a slaughter house - the name tells you what it is.
You will be telling me there are humane torture chambers where they carry it out with respect
Junkyard - lazarus
there are still places out there who carry this part out humanely and with respect for the animalsSo your argument is a slaughter house is a place of humane respect for animals. Its a slaughter house - the name tells you what it is.
Yes, however slaughterhouses are a practical neccesity and much more humane than starvingtodeathhouses, or indeed eatenalivehouses
Note: Videos contain graphic footage of things that happen in nature.
You can kill animals humanely yes. Do you disagree with the definition? I'd much rather rear and slaughter livestock in a humanely fashion than have none of these animals at all or worse, leave them to nature where they will suffer a great deal.So your argument is a slaughter house is a place of humane respect for animals. Its a slaughter house - the name tells you what it is.
Is this where I insert one of your straw man, ad hom, cite or some other such phrase or do I just tell you to stop talking pish.You will be telling me there are humane torture chambers where they carry it out with respect
Death is never "humane", we can only make it as humane as possible in order to eliminate unnecessary suffering. I have seen more animals die than I care to remember and have never felt that it could have been made any more humane.
No its where you try and comprehend the point made to you instead of shooting the messenger.Is this where I insert one of your straw man, ad hom, cite or some other such phrase or do I just tell you to stop talking pish.
Hopefully the farmer helped you understand.
