As a cat person I'm as outraged as anyone, but as a vegetarian I feel that carnivores who object to this are not being very consistent. To paraphrase something that Stalin didn't actually say:One cat in a bin is a tragedy. 2 million chickens killed every day is deliciousThe life of a broiler chicken is not a happy one.
60 comments:
You're a vegetarian? No wonder you're depressive.
I'm a vegetarian, and I'm pretty sure I approve of this.
That's some serious flaws in them logics... First off: The only reason to be a vegetarian isn't that the meat industry is cruel to animals. Second: Even if one considers said industry to be cruel, there is a point in differentiating when it comes to intent. I doubt people in the meat industry are working there just to be cruel to animals, whereas the bin-lady seems to have no other reason for her actions than cruelty itself.
Speaking of Stalin...
Is it not interesting that everybody worries about the cat and nobody about the CCTV?
I'm a vegetarian. I was on holidays in South America and didn't have access to meat for 3 weeks and only ate vegetarian food. I have never felt so good before in my life and just decided to never eat meat again.
Pet owners form a emotional bond with their animals. All the pet owners I know think of their pet(s) as part of the family. So throwing a member of the family in a bin caused a lot of upset.
And following on from anon@04:54
What kind of fear does someone live in that they feel the need for CCTV in front of their house?
I was vegetarian (made kosher easier) until end of last year because I was terribly sick and needed protein but every time I bit the chicken I felt like a savage. I mean let's be honest, carnivores are kind of savage.
Throwing a cat in the bin irrespective of dietary preference is criminal. Isn't that what serial killers do as a child, torture animals?
Battery hens on the otherhand are considered criminal in some countries. There are advocacy groups out there like Animal Liberation who lobby for the humane treatment of livestock.
A century or so ago animals had rights in the court of law. So it wasn't uncommon to see a duck or pig testifying in the stand. Those abolished rights should be brought back. That way the cat can get legal representation and press charges.
Jay, I may have 4 CCTV cameras in front of the house but that's the norm in some neighborhoods due to rogue insurance companies or prowling marketing consultants going through your garbage. Forget fear, the world has changed, you need evidence for everything. But Orwellian monitoring is not on.
Well, as a vegan (!), I should say the reaction to this incident (being outraged or being indifferent) does not mean someone is inconsistent (or consistent for that matter). That's totally missing the point. I would never think of accusing the vegetarians of being indifferent, inconsistent, or arrogant.
It's the reasons behind your reaction (i.e. how you justify your behavior) that may put you in an inconsistent state.
If one says "I don't care about the chicken, because I don't like them. I care about the cat because they are furry and adorable." he is just being cruel to chickens, NOT inconsistent (as long as he behaves the same way for other furry and adorable animals).
Although I am a strict vegetarian, bordering on vegan, I believe that man is at the top of the food chain. The fact that I despise cats is irrelevant, I have respect for all life, but there are times when Humanity must forgo the care of animals to survive - this woman no doubt felt that way. After all, we are just animals ourselves.
Or she is a sociopath. But I highly doubt the latter as they compromise a very small part of the population.
Regardless, the presence of CCTV cameras may be commonplace in the UK, but here in Colorado they get a quick shot from out of sight with my large caliber air rifle.
At least that's what we think of big brother here.
MW: But the animals don't care what your intent was. The cat cares that it's stuck in a bin, regardless of why; the chicken cares that it's stuck in a little cage and then slaughtered.
Or to put it another way, apparently the reason she threw the cat in the bin was because "it would be funny". Is killing animals because "it would be tasty" any worse of a reason?
As a vegetarian myself (trying to go vegan) I agree entirely with you, Neuroskeptic. Your post says exactly what I've been thinking.
Neuroskeptic: Arent you being hypercritical based on your job?
All the drugs you blog about and work on have been tested on cute little bunny rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys etc in pre-clinical. All the medical devices you use have been tested in animals, all the surgical procedures have been tested on animals.
How do you justify that? If you boycott meat because of your morals, should you not also boycott all modern medical procedures and drugs?
On a separate point, you keep quoting the worst examples of our industrial food production. Now I am no fan of our modern farming practices either. May I suggest you read "The Omnivore's dilemma" by Michael Pollan. (Meat eaters be warned, after reading this book you might never want to get meat from a supermarket again.)
If you want to know how farm animals should be raised google "polyface farm". (A farm quoted in the above book as an example of how food animals can be raised responsibly).
I dont eat meat cos it makes me feel like crap, but if I did I would only eat meat from farms like polyface farm.
This post piqued my interest as a vegetarian-leaning (but not strictly vegetarian, mainly for logistical reasons I hope someday can be resolved) human who lives with four cats (i.e., obligate carnivores).
Believe me, it is not lost on me that when I feed my cats chicken (or quail or beef or whatnot) that I am enabling one life to persist through the death of another.
But it would not be acceptable for me for my cats to starve to death, and I can't really fathom what manner of ecological disaster would ensue if all the carnivorous creatures on Earth suddenly became vegetarians.
So, seeing as vat-grown meat isn't quite yet a reality, if I'm going to live with and be responsible for the livelihood of carnivores I am by necessity going to be "patronizing the meat industry", at least to a small extent. That bothers me because of the factory farming and other abusive practices that industry depends on. But it does not bother me that carnivores exist.
I think the central query here really comes more down to that of whether anyone who does not NEED meat to survive (and I have met some humans who, for health/medical reasons, definitely do) should eat it. And in general I would be inclined to lean toward "no", but at the same time I know not everyone can readily access nutritionally complete vegetarian foods. So it's a complicated question, one that's good to think about, but not one I think any human currently alive can possibly hope to be "100% consistent" in their response to.
To the hillybilly he-man, so you sit around all day on your porch with that man bazooka blasting unsuspecting CCTVs? Wow. Lolz.
Man at the top of the food chain..
You know I must've missed the bit when that somewhat tubby to be malnourished woman ate the cat, tussles tooth and nail for scarce scraps daily. Even a worm eating bird is ahead of you in the food chain so may I kindly suggest you stick to tossing salads.
Jay, thanks for the “Polyface Farm”, interesting. I’m going back to being vegetarian when my immune system fully recovers. Here certain families in the suburbs own small-scale farms with hens, eggs and slaughter in accordance to cultural/religious custom perhaps like the Polyface Farm.
For me growing up I’m use to knowing which farm/family my meat/eggs/dairy/bread come from but I’m sure for many consumers it isn’t a lifestyle they are use to. I blame capitalism. A quick fill replaces meals these days and it’s sad.
Govts can enforce chain scale supermarkets to raise the supply standards for humane farming techniques but I hear they won’t budge. The supermarkets are apparently more open to it but can only move so much depending on consumer spending habits. So I think it boils down to the consumer.
A case of people power; informing the public on where produce/ts come from and boycotting those which don’t subscribe to humane practices.
I also just wanted to say both my dogs plump as ever are vegetarian but occasionally they do get a raw chicken wing like me with the occasional cooked chicken breast. People power it can be done.
Believe me, it is not lost on me that when I feed my cats chicken (or quail or beef or whatnot) that I am enabling one life to persist through the death of another.
Since the beginning of animal life on earth THIS is the rule.
Do you really think that just for the sake of our frivolous "sensitivities" we can seriously envision a TOTAL RESHAPING of the whole basis of animal life which has been evolved for at least 500 millions years?
Being a vegetarian entails severe deficiencies in methionine, choline and vitamin B12.
Methionine deficiency can be compensated by eating a lot of sesame seeds.
Choline deficiency can be compensated by eating a lot of soy (4kg a day so you better go for lecithin).
But vitamin B12 deficiency cannot be compensated no matter what (except by synthetic supplements) because NO plant contains vitamin B12 and the symptoms are pretty severe, among others:
If left untreated, vitamin B12 deficiency can result in permanent nerve damage. Symptoms can include numbness and tingling in the hands and feet, unsteadiness, difficulty walking, confusion, depression, memory loss, and dementia.
Probably better than any antidepressant, if you cannot stand a (delicious) slice of fried lamb liver once in while you should at least indulge in oysters or mussels.
Come to think about it maybe that explains why the little one stays up all night just licking and caressing his wing. Gosh could it be he's actually a carnivore? woah..
Anon, REPENT! In the beginning in the Garden of Eden, Adam did not eat his friends. Jeez. But I do agree Jesus ate fish and maybe he ate oysters and mussels too.
By the waayyy, haven't you ever heard of a nutritious smoothie?
What the hell are mussels and oysters anyway? Do they have brains? I don't recall seeing their eyes. They're just fleshy amoebas right?
Anonymous: Why not just take the supplements? I do. I'm not one of those vegetarians who's big on being "natural" - as others have pointed out, eating meat is natural. Synthetic all the way if it works.
Jay: I don't experiment on animals myself. But point taken. The difference is that experimentation is useful (medical treatments) and necessary (there are no viable alternatives), whereas eating animals is neither... also, something like 100 times as many animals are killed for food as are killed for research.
Yes it's true I'm all natural. I grow my own stash like tomatoes, parsley etc. maybe it's my impending maternal instinct but synthetic stuff scares me. I need to protect my genes.
It's emotional unreason to prefer to kill one lifeform rather then another based on subjective criteria. Plants live, and i'm sure if asked wouldn't be to happy being eaten, likewise for animals.
But given the choice between torn to pieces by predators or slaughtered quickly i prefer the latter and i'm sure so would any preyanimal.
As a mammal i must provide my body with proper nutrients. Based on the digestive system of our species we are better at digesting meat then plants. In fact we are lousy at digesting plants, actually we can't digest plant material at all if it isn't totally mushed.
At best we can directly digest starch, such as nuts or roots but anything else contained in a cellulose container is beyond our capacity.
So eating plants isn't natural to us. So why bother. Only because of the suffering of the preyanimals we cruelly slaughter? Not an argument to me.
As for throwing the cat in the bin thing, that was an act of pure malice. It's not so much it was a cat, any animal would do. Throwing a live chicken in the bin would just as sick.
Cutting it's head off and eating it isn't sick, that's the way this idiotic system we call nature works.
Synthetic all the way if it works.
Yeah, Sure!
Bidding for a Darwin Award?
Eating only plants may not be "natural" but neither is using a computer to argue about vegetarianism...for that matter, neither is raising animals on farms for food. If you want to eat 100% natural meat, you should get working on your spear chucking skills.
As for throwing the cat in the bin being malicious, yes it was, but the cat doesn't care about that - the cat cares that it's in a bin. The chickens and cows and whatever care about what happens to them, not why. Even if they could understand us, I don't think the "edible" animals would be very impressed by the argument that what happens to them is fine, because they're tasty, but the cat in the bin was outrageous because "there was no point to it".
Petrossa, my digestive system digests plants. Last time I checked unless you're projecting Jack and the Beanstalk, plants do not have consciousness so there's no need for moral dilemma.
If Ghandi and a billion people in India can respect animals and be vegetarian, then I'm sure that's something the West can emulate. We just need to evolve culturally.
If you want to eat 100% natural meat, you should get working on your spear chucking skills.
This is a specious argument, I am not talking about "natural meat" and I don't think Petrossa is either, I am talking about meat, period.
Ever heard of the paleolithic diet?
As for the poor "edible animals", remember that WE are on the menu for wolves, tigers, bears, sharks, ants, etc... they don't give a shit of what we feel.
Most especially wolves which have been plaguing peasants for millennia.
@veri
You better check your biology 101. You can't digest cellulose.
And for the consciousness, that's a wholly arbitrary and subjective criterion.
Why shouldn't you eat something that has something (consciousness) that only has meaning to you. It makes no difference objectively.
Objectively they are both life, flora and fauna. So objectively if you can eat the one you can eat the other.
Ghandi was some weirdo from india. What he said or not is of as much consequence as what my postman says.
In answer to one Anonymous I'd like to say I've been vegetarian for 32 years and vegan a lot of that (I'll eat cheeses and milk when travelling and at other's homes and take no supplements unless you count marmite) and I have never suffered any deficiencies.
I'm 6' tall and muscular too, so that trope about the pasty weedy veggie doesn't apply either.
It is perfectly possible to be vegetarian in the developed world.
A balanced ovo-lacto vegetarian diet centered on grains and legumes along with vegetables and seeds gives all the essential amino acids and vitamins.
If you are the kind of vegan or vegetarian that lives on pizza, crisps and biscuits you need worry and I'll agree that many people are ignorant about proper nutrition, but that includes those who eat a diet including meat and HFCS.
The only thing vegans and to a lesser extent vegetarians need look out for is to make sure they get enough B12, lack of which can result in disturbed methionine metabolism as well as the obvious. But many omnivores can have B12 deficiency also including the overweight, pregnant and post-menopausal women and the elderly.
As to your comment about no plant sources of B12, a recent preliminary study showed that a natural Klamath algae-based product supplied adequate B12.
For those of us who like it, Marmite and similar foods has more than enough.
I grew up in the countryside hunting and fishing till the age of 12 when I became vegetarian, and that mainly because I became aware of factory farming.
If I were to ever eat meat again I would stick to game and sustainable fishing.
The choice isn't between an inadequate vegetarian diet and factory farming. If all meat eaters limited it to two or three days a week that would be like almost half the world becoming vegetarian.
Then the meat that is eaten could be limited to ethically reared and sustainable sources. It would be better for the environment and our health and there'd be a lot less animal suffering.
The last 500 million years of evolutionary history is no excuse not to make what improvements we can.
If things are bad now, wait and see how much worse it will get if the Chinese keep moving towards a diet as meat-heavy as in North America and Europe. What to speak of the rest of the world.
If you can't continue eating the amount of meat you do now it won't be because the vegetarians have come and taken it away from you.
Petrossa
And for the consciousness, that's a wholly arbitrary and subjective criterion.
What basis do you have to suppose that all morality isn't ultimately subjective?
I could say that not eating members of our own species boils down to concerns about their consciousness. Sentience is a major factor in moral reasoning.
Ha! Ha! censorship!
I didn't expected that here...
Do you mean this comment?
"This is a specious argument, I am not talking about "natural meat" and I don't think Petrossa is either, I am talking about meat, period.
Ever heard of the paleolithic diet?
As for the poor "edible animals", remember that WE are on the menu for wolves, tigers, bears, sharks, ants, etc... they don't give a shit of what we feel.
Most especially wolves which have been plaguing peasants for millennia."
I didn't delete that, it just never appeared for some reason. But it did appear in my Inbox telling me that you'd said it (which is how I know what it was).
No censorship, Blogger must be playing up.
@Petrossa -
Have you ever eaten an apple? Or a blueberry? What about a carrot or a cucumber?
If you have such problems with food preparation, why not try your chicken wings or hamburgers next month without applying any heat to them and let us know how great your digestive track is at handling meat the way every single other carnivore on the planet does; raw.
Ghandi's beliefs are irrelevant, what is relevant is that hundreds of millions (or more) people subside on plant based diets. Your biology101 lesson does nothing to change this.
- brian
Petrossa shock horror I have a science degree but in your face, these green revolution scientists are hot!!! :D Evolve Petrossa! j/k :)
By the way everyone should care about what Ghandi said, when you can appreciate the meaning of liberty and understand the majority of people in the world, more than 50% can not afford meat as Brian and David have said, then it's easier to look beyond your myopic sphere to the fabric of humanity as a whole.
Isn't that what science is supposed to be about? Serve humanity? So why should scientists bury their heads in the sand counting granules when the brains are there to create sandcastles?
India has some of the most gifted mathematicians in the world. So I don't think it would hurt to ponder on whether clean diets relate to beautiful minds.
No censorship, Blogger must be playing up.
Ah! yes, spam paranoia:
There were two links, one under paleolithic diet and one under wolves.
This last one for wolfcrossing.org
Arent't you comforted that Blogger cares for you? :-)
I would be, except it never manages to catch any of the actual spam...
@david
If eating sentient beings is universally immoral then male lions eating their cubs are the effigy of immorality.
Obviously morality is totally subjective, it's an abstract concept only relevant to homo sapiens. A primate geared towards a mostly meat diet, with a minimum capacity to subsist on roots and nuts.
Our closest cousins, the chimps, hunt monkeys with spears.
Only a predator can ingest sufficient quantities of calories to have lot's of spare time to do other things in but graze,ruminate and digest.
No known herbivore exists (existed) that had the spare time to develop a large, for survival mostly useless brain.
Only homo sapiens has a brain with a capacity larger then needed for the survival of the species.
Crocodiles out-exist us by 200 million years, yet they have the brain the size of a testicle.
I'm not a betting man, but i'd still take a bet that we as a species will never reach 2 million years, let alone 200 million. Vegetarian or not.
@Petrossa
Obviously morality is totally subjective
If you believe that morality is subjective then why did you criticise veri for using consciousness as a criterion, because in you're words 'that's a wholly arbitrary and subjective criterion.' That is incoherent.
Just because something is subjective doesn't make it arbitrary either. Consciousness is one of the more warranted criteria when it comes to forming moral judgements and can be supported using reason.
If you disagree then give your reasons and offer an alternative system of judgement you think is warranted.
@David
I'm not much into philosophy, staring at my bellybutton i gladly leave to others.
So it's very simple. Using a subjective criterion for making a decision is everyone's right, putting it out there is morally superior is absurd.
The criterion itself is subjective and the value system it is transposed to is subjective.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, i find a nice hump of steermuscle tissue a thing of beauty and very tasty too.
If you don't think so, by me guest.
I eat daily 400 grams of raw italian piemont steersass. Keeps me strong and healthy. Though excrement for the steer, but that's nature.
@Petrossa, morality might be a human construct but so is criterion, subjective, objective consensus etc. etc. Morality is still considered arguably unique to humans and true there could be many reasons as to why but one of the oldest arguments is that consciousness, self-awareness etc. is what separates man from beast. We don't label things with 'biasness' or 'superiority' in philosophy like they do in science, different school of thoughts are to be respected.
Enjoy your calories. :)
@Petrossa
Personally, I have a particular take on this that means the subjective/objective dichotomy could turn out to be a limited and partial understanding.
So, while there are certains things that only arise when minds enter the picture, such as awareness, pain and suffering, thriving, etc. and are therefore classified as subjective, minds themselves are part of the cosmos.
Just as under certain circumstances matter arises and takes on certain configurations I see no reason not to think the same for minds and qualia.
Recognising the fact of suffering is not qualitively the same as being unconcerned to increase that suffering.
I also recognise that there are those for whom sensual gratification takes precedence over such concerns, to the extent that such concerns fade in comparison. With the convenient use of a naturalistic fallacy or two.
It also seems self-evident that such a stance could not be the basis of an ethical system that promotes general well-being.
Hopefully, one day technology will be able to supply the same sensual gratification without entailing the same suffering and it will become moot.
@veri Sure different schools of thought can be recognized. I'm not so sure about 'respected' though. If someone wants to believe that eating plants is a good thing, sure go ahead. Only I fail to see were the 'respect' comes in. Respect, as in esteem, is value judgment. I don't value the new-age/veggie idea's very highly. To me they are neutral. No better or worse. Just different.
@david
I'm glad to hear you openminded about 'sensual gratifications'. But you have it the wrong way around.
Your supposition is that carnivores eat meat because they fulfill a sensual need. The overwhelming reason why carnivores eat meat is because it's highly nutritional.
Consequently eating meat satisfies. Biofeedback.
The overwhelming reason why carnivores eat meat is because it's highly nutritional.
A poor reason from someone who is not an obligate carnivore.
However, I'd argue that hunger is a sensual need that serves a function.
The mere existence of hunger doesn't make all means to satisfying that hunger equal.
Anyway, this could go on forever so I'll leave it at that. There is not much point in trying to use reason to argue someone away from a position that they haven't arrived at by way of reason in the first place.
Anyway, this could go on forever so I'll leave it at that. There is not much point in trying to use reason to argue someone away from a position that they haven't arrived at by way of reason in the first place.
BWAHAHAHA!
The pot calling the kettle black.
Just as long as it's a pot of vegetable stew, I'm happy with that.
Silly me. I missed that whole thing about moral sentiments.
1) Teeth: Incapable of grinding cellulose cellwalls
2) Stomach: Only one. Low Ph inconsistent with bacterial life which thrives on cellulose. No fermentation possible.
3) Intestinal tract: Short, the part which serves in herbivores to ferment plantmaterial is a mere bud.
4) No alternate systems to get nutrition out of plants. (eating your own crap, regurgitating and re-chew)
Conclusion: Homo sapiens is in his nature a carnivore who can digest starch/fruits as a sidedish.
That's called reason.
What's not reason but pure emoting:
Poor little animals suffering getting
slaughtered so i'll eat highly prepared vegetarian foods with additives to make up for the low essential vitamin content. Then sit back and feel very righteous.
One word, cooking.
A simple method that not only processes food but is a good candidate for our success.
Homo sapiens isn't a carnivore. Let's see you eat your meat without cooking and we'll soon find out.
Who elevated pure reason as the final arbiter?
Empathy is also an important ingredient of humanity's ability to form moral values.
It seems there might be a small percentage of people who lack it, namely psychopaths, and there are others that fall on a spectrum.
Perhaps one day just as blind people don't drive we won't consider seriously the ethical musings of those who fall below a certain threshold of empathic capability.
If we can grow meat, that we could pobably make healthier, in a vat to satisfy those who wish to eat it and thus avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals everyone will win.
Of course there might be some whose enjoyment of meat is diminished because an animal hasn't suffered in the process but I think we would have as little problem disregarding that as a 'right' as we do the desire for a psychopath to torture animals and humans out of an inability to otherwise obtain gratification.
One word, cooking.
Sure, sure, cooking vegetables good, cooking meat baaad!
See Paleolithic Diet:
There are races of people who are all slim, who are stronger and faster than us. They all have straight teeth and perfect eyesight. Arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, depression, schizophrenia and cancer are absolute rarities for them. These people are the last 84 tribes of hunter-gatherers in the world. They share a secret that is over 2 million years old. Their secret is their diet- a diet that has changed little from that of the first humans 2 million years ago, and their predecessors up to 7 million years ago. Theirs is the diet that man evolved on, the diet that is coded for in our genes. It has some major differences to the diet of "civilization".
Who elevated pure reason as the final arbiter?
C'mon!
You did!
Moving the goal posts, pure "morality" I guess...
Who elevated pure reason as the final arbiter?
C'mon!
You did!
Then you'll be able to show where I did. Just trying to use reason in formulating arguments doesn't mean I believe reason alone counts when it comes to moral calculus.
I mentioned cooking because Petrossa is applying hypocritical standards in the four points which imply that unless one can live like a herbivore on raw unprocessed food then it doesn't count.
The meat diet of people in the world today would be unsustainable without intensive factory farming, feeding antibiotics, and in the U.S. the use of various growth hormones, to animals that have been bred so far away from their ancestors that they have difficulty reproducing and giving birth without human intervention.
So I laugh at any attempt at coming of as more 'natural' than thou.
As for your paleo diet, not only could it not sustain the population of the world today, it is just one more in a series of crank diets that has no scientific evidence for it apart from speculation as to the diets of our pre-agricultural ancestors, for whom we have difficulty knowing what their life expectancy really was. Linking to some family physician is not scientific evidence. The plural of anecdote is not data.
I won't apologize for the fact I am for extending our ethical concerns beyond our own species even if this is derided as emoting.
I'll also point out that throughout my posts I have tried to be pragmatic about meat eating.
I'm perfectly aware that it has played a major part in human civilization and adapting to a meat eating diet was an important factor in our evolution. But appeals to tradition or past practice don't hack it.
I know that the forces of nature are impersonal and animals don't live in some idyllic state, but often die horrific deaths through predation, starvation and disease.
On balance I think that animals could still have a net increase in well-being by being cared for, given medical treatment, and protected from other predators, with the trade-off that they would be exploited for food.
I'm not the one setting up false dichotomies or looking to outlaw all meat eating under every circumstance.
So stop attacking your strawmen and stick to what I'm actually concerned with, which is looking to minimize the suffering we inflict on other sentient beings where possible.
I'm not a fan of hedonism and the possibility of being hooked to a machine with unlimited hedons.. kind of too naughty if you ask me but I must say it's a befitting category for a meat guzzling carnivore.
David you're too hot, please.. the shirt needs to go :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXx_PEhN_8
@Neurosceptic: It's the fact that you don't seem to care about the intent that worries me.
There are around 95% non-vegetarians in the world, from what I can find online, and I'd say (without knowing) that a vast majority of those people are opposed to cruelty to animals. According to your logic here, intent doesn't matter, which means that people should either a) accept cat-bin-ladys behavior as fine and stick to eating meat, or b) reject cat-bin-ladys behavior and go vegetarian. I for one would say that the world is a better place for both kittens and broiler chickens because most of the meat-eaters aren't (according to you) consistent, because bad as the world might be for livestock everywhere, it could be a lot worse. Which they would be if people were (according to your moral measuring cup) consistent.
I would argue that people are consistent, and that you're over-generalizing. Being cruel to animals with the intent of being cruel for it's own sake, and the feelings that might bring along, is not the same thing as being in the non-vegetarian food industry. Most people have no problem making this distinction, and I sincerely hope that you can see that difference, even if you consider both of them morally wrong.
I can appreciate the difference, sure. I'm just saying it's a purely psychological one, that makes no rational sense.
If people said "I don't agree with putting cats in bins because I don't like purposeless cruelty to animals, although I have no problem with much worse things being done to animals, on a much larger scale, for food" - I'd be happy. Because then they would be admitting that their objection was nothing to do with how much suffering the acts actually cause.
However what people generally say is "I don't agree with it because I don't like to see an animal suffer", which is simply wrong. if they really meant that, they'd be vegetarian. What they mean is what I said in the paragraph above.
I just want people to be open about it.
Also I'm not suggesting that non-vegetarians are being deliberately deceptive when they say they don't like animal suffering, but rather that they haven't thought through the implications of their own words.
Imagine that I always said how I didn't like action movies, but last week I went to see The Expendables and Salt and whatever and came out saying how good they were.
In that case I do, in fact, like action movies, at least some of them.
I'm saying that non-vegetarians don't, in fact, oppose animal suffering, at least sometimes.
Then you'll be able to show where I did.
Here:
There is not much point in trying to use reason to argue someone away from a position that they haven't arrived at by way of reason in the first place.
Doesn't this mean that your position is based on reason and using only reason you would win the argument?
So I laugh at any attempt at coming of as more 'natural' than thou.
Is this a deliberate strawman or are you a bit comprehension impaired?
I am not advocating "natural" as some mystical argument (I am no treehugger) I am mentioning paleo diet because it is evolutionary justified and it works.
As for your paleo diet, not only could it not sustain the population of the world today
Moving the goal posts again, this is not what I am talking about, what I am talking about is: What is the healthier diet, meat based or vegetable based?
it is just one more in a series of crank diets that has no scientific evidence
Pure bollocks and wishful thinking, I choose that link not as an authority argument but because it is the most comprehensive with respect to all the various points about the paleo diet.
If you are fond of authority arguments dig you own against the paleo diet.
This might become an awkward and pedantic discussion because I have a lot of scientific references to your liking (or rather disliking...)
So stop attacking your strawmen and stick to what I'm actually concerned with, which is looking to minimize the suffering we inflict on other sentient beings where possible.
This NOT MY PROBLEM, IT'S YOURS!
Getting hot under the collar as veri said, eh?
What the hell is a paleo diet? What was their life expectancy? 10? Weren't we hairy like Lucy back then? Monkies eat bananas plus I'm sure there's more herbivore in our evolutionary history than carnivore. Dinosaur that book should be banned.
Hey veri, blowing a fuse too?
... should be banned.
Ohhh! longing for the good times, Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
You wish I was blowing your 'fuse.' Am SURE YOU ARE longing for the good times. Keep preaching dinosaur.
Keep preaching dinosaur.
I am not "preaching" (I am not a religious nutjob like some
...), nevertheless if you ask for:
Bread kills you!
What did you say to me? Oh that is SOOO TYPICAL, am I the one with the looney dinosaur diet and bread killing conspiracy?! You know what this is just embarrassing. I'll take Yesu, you on the otherhand, take your meds. Don't touch me. I'm out.
Anathema! Anathema!
Yeah, so typical, I really enjoyed that, thanks, really. :-D
(I hope you didn't click my link, devil inside)
Vegans will love this, by Monbiot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation
Post a Comment