|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:11 pm
Grip of Death I don't support animals being property, period. It's just a fluffier word for slavery. If people are aware that we can't really "own" the environment, why can't we be aware that we can't "own" animals? And yes, we certainly aren't supposed to "own" people either.
To me, ownership of animals is the same as ownership of children: you don't "own" them, but you are their caretaker and friend-- the latter more so for the animals than the children (I don't agree with parents who want to just be friends with their children. . . but that's another topic in and of itself whee ).
If you treat an animal well, it gives you unconditional love-- besides, it violates nothing but your wallet. Dogs can be expensive to feed! xd
And yes, "person" > "eventual person".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:54 pm
Talon-chan 2. It is a philosophical concept that is derived from social contract theory (in which only moral agents capable of moral thought and moral actions can participate, which excludes any animal that is incapable of knowing right or wrong). As such, torturing animals is only wrong in so far as doing so is harmful to humans and those animals that are capable of moral thought. Seriously, so many people like to argue with bodily integrity, but so few actually have any basis or understanding of how and why it exists. All it would take is one intelligent pro-lifer to really beat bodily integrity away from most pro-choicers by simply questioning its origins. Only a few pro-choicers, I think, would be capable of making an argument better than "but but but the law says so therefore it MUST be true, even though the law could easily be changed and the current state of the law is not an actual reason to maintain said law." Whoa. I'm reading up on social contract theory right now. THIS is GOOD. If there's anything I'm confused on about it, can I come to you for questions? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:08 pm
Sunegami Grip of Death I don't support animals being property, period. It's just a fluffier word for slavery. If people are aware that we can't really "own" the environment, why can't we be aware that we can't "own" animals? And yes, we certainly aren't supposed to "own" people either.
If you treat an animal well, it gives you unconditional love-- besides, it violates nothing but your wallet. Dogs can be expensive to feed! xd
And yes, "person" > "eventual person".Actually, legally, animals are considered property under the law. Whether it is a "food" animal pig or cow owned by a farmer, or a dog owned by a person... While a decent "owner" can treat their animals ethically, they are under no obligation to do so. A person that, in your mind, who abuses animals can still evade the law because the law is vague enough that animal abuse is taken into context of how rational it is to "abuse" your own property. It's very similar to the sentiments of Black slavery way back in the day. "humane treatment" is still ownership. It sounds like people care about animals, but in actuality, no one can say that care about or cherish animals when they eat them. When a person eats an animal, it does not matter if the animal was raised decently because the animal is still someone's property- someone who felt entitled to 10 minutes of chewing enjoyment on dead corpse versus the animal's will to live a natural life. An example of "humane treatment" is that instead of cramming 7 chickens into a tiny cage for egg production, if a company makes a slightly larger cage, that can be considered "humane". Read "Intro to Animal Rights" by Gary francione for a primer explanation for abolishing the property status of animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:06 pm
I'm vegetarian for the same reason that I'm pro-choice: an effort to minimalize suffering. It's a stance based on pragmatism, after considering the potential harm that would result from restricting women's right to decide if they want to remain pregnant. Bodily integrity is a great thing, but I don't think it's the be-all-end-all of the pro-choice stance. Deformography I actually see the pro-life movement and "animal rights" organizations such as PETA as very, very similar. [...] I don't support the suffering of animals, but I also cannot support what these so-called "animal rights activists" and PETA members are doing/trying to do, especially those who commit terrorism in the name of "animal rights" (sound like anything a pro-lifer has done?). If you mean PETA, say "PETA." Don't say, "animal rights organizations and PETA." It's completely inappropriate to be lumping in other animal rights organizations, including - depending on your definition of "animal rights" - animal welfare groups such as the Humane Society. Deformography I don't see either movement doing anything good for animals, especially vegans because the diet does not do ANYTHING to stop the production and sale of animal products. Your lifestyle is not cruelty-free, you know, and it's not stopping others from using animal products. Wait a minute, wait a minute.... Why are you assuming that vegans don't do other things on the side in order to help animals out? No lifestyle is "cruelty-free" - the very idea is ridiculous, and reminds me of the story of the burning corn and bean husks. The husks below were on fire and it was lighting up the corn plant, so the corn cried down to the husks, "Why are you burning us? What did we do to you? Please, stop!" And the beans replied, "We're sorry, so sorry, but we're burning, too." That doesn't mean there's no point in lessening our impact. The leather and fur industries took a huge hit because of a movement against them in the 1970s and 1980s; you're much less likely to see fur and genuine leather coats in the stores. Similarly, the cosmetic industry is starting to move away from unnecessary animal testing. Dog and c**k fighting is illegal in most areas of the country. Legislation is being proposed in many areas to stop puppy mills. It's because of the new demand for better treatment for chickens and refusals to eat "regular" eggs that eggs from cageless, free range, and grain-fed hens are now available in regular supermarkets. So, against your argument that the diet doesn't do anything, I have two primary points: 1) Boycotts have worked in the past. The concern about chicken eggs is a great, recent example. 2) Even if the diet does nothing at all, wouldn't it be hypocritical if the people who were working to end the suffering of dairy cows sat back at the end of the day and had a big, tall glass of milk? I know what you'd call their position: The only moral abortion glass of milk is my abortion glass of milk. The fact that you don't KNOW what successes the movement has had doesn't mean there haven't been any. Talon-chan Animals think and consciously choose to act just as much as a fetus in the womb thinks and consciously chooses to suck its thumb and "exercise." That is to say, they don't. To date only 4 animals have exhibited self-awareness (which is relevant because to do that implies a brain that is capable of conscious thought on par with humans): The greater apes, dolphins, elephants, and human beings. So while an animal feels pain, I question whether that's actually relevant if the animal lacks the cognative abilities to reflect upon that pain and desire that the pain stops (and is not merely reacting on involuntary reflex). I don't support animal torture, unnecessary animal pain, but I do see a very distinct difference in the moral standing of those creatures that are self-aware and functioning on a higher, abstract plane of thought and those creatures that do not. You'd have a very, very difficult time convincing me that animals which can be trained only react through involuntary reflexes and do not have personal desires and wants. It almost boggles my mind that you're arguing that animals such as cats, dogs, and horses - which demonstrate the ability to anticipate occurrences, show preferences between trusted caretakers, and communicate desires - do not have a cognitive understanding of pain. Talon-chan Scare Tactic Propaganda The answer I've commonly seen is that the animals aren't human, so it doesn't matter. Or they seem to think we need meat to live when (nutrition aside) we don't (the existence of veg*ns proves this). ORLY? I thought that vegans had to go through all sorts of trouble taking artificially created suppliments in order to get the proper nutrition they need The term "veg*an" applies to both vegans and vegetarians of various stripes. Since all she said was that we don't need meat - not that we can do without all animal byproducts - it's kind of irrelevant that vegans need supplements. Talon-chan Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Where does bodily integrity come from? 1. It's a legal thing that animals are not granted. 2. It is a philosophical concept that is derived from social contract theory (in which only moral agents capable of moral thought and moral actions can participate, which excludes any animal that is incapable of knowing right or wrong). As such, torturing animals is only wrong in so far as doing so is harmful to humans and those animals that are capable of moral thought. So if it's based on social contract theory, therefore humans which have a disorder that prevent them from knowing the difference between right and wrong aren't legal persons, either? There have been pushes to get certain species of animals classified as legal persons, in which case they would have as strong a claim to bodily integrity as the rest of us. Moreover, I'd argue with your claim that those are the sole possible bases for bodily integrity. The basis of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is that they are inalienable rights, which good governments recognize and respect and which bad governments do not. The Constitution is not based on social contract theory, because these rights are innate to any individual. They don't depend on there being a relationship to another individual or a system of society or governance; they simply are. From that, there's no reason to assume - except for religious reasons, maybe - that humans have innate rights while other species do not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:37 pm
There's a difference between animal welfarism, and the abolitionist position.
Abolitionists call for the cessation of animals as property to be used.
Welfarism is half-assed "animal rights", and it allows for the so-called "reduction" of animal suffering, but still allows for animals to be treated like property ("Cage free" hens). It's a "step" that makes humans feel good on the inside, but does little for the freedom of animals. As long as people feel entitled to use animal's bodies in the end, the animal will never have personal autonomy to do as it wishes.
Also
vegetarianism and veganism are two different things.
Veganism abolishes all animal and animal by product foods. This includes all meat (pork, chicken, beef, fish, etc), as well as all dairy, and eggs. This also includes honey and by products given by insects. Substitutions for all food products except for cheese can be adequately be made, and in most cases the substitutions taste even BETTER than the nasty dead flesh or pus juice ever did. On the side, many vegans also care about locally-grown, organic, green, fair-trade stuff, and refusing to buy from companies that exploit BOTH animals and humans. Vegan foods such as soy milk/nut milks are fortified with vitamin b12 which is the ONLY vitamin a vegan may need to supplement with. If taking a multivitamin or singular vitamin pill is so "unnatural", then why the hell do so many "omnivores" take them?
vegetarianism? It's a half-assed attempt to "care" about animals, but the truth is that by consuming dairy and eggs, there is greater suffering imposed on the animal than if it was raised simply for meat. Plus, the majority of people in the world are lactose intolerant and milk and eggs are one of the major 8 food allergies that people have. It's good for one's health, the environment, and especially the animals if vegetarians gave up dairy and eggs. I admire how vegetarians are more open-minded and compassionate in general than omnivores, and all it takes is a simple step to cut dairy and eggs cold tofurkey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:25 pm
Grip, not sure if you were responding to me or not, but there are a few things I want to comment on as if you were. Grip of Death This also includes honey and by products given by insects. I think most vegans who don't eat honey or use bee byproducts are operating out of ignorance. First, I'd like to make a distinction between the traditional suppliers for honey - professional but still small to medium scale, non-migrant beekeepers - and commercial pollination operations. The later are the ones who bundle their hives up in trucks and drive them throughout the country to hit pollination season. They're the ones whose hives are stressed out and have, as a result, been suffering inordinately from colony collapse disorder. It's those commercial pollination operations - the ones which pollinate almost all fruits and vegetables which you consume - which have been slowly putting smaller scale honey suppliers out of business. The smaller scale honey suppliers, much demonized by one particular group already mentioned in this thread, don't do most of the things they've been accused of. They don't burn hives as winter approaches (it'd be ridiculous to do so, given how much money and effort it takes to raise a strong colony); they don't clip the wings off queens to prevent them from swarming (beekeepers know better - a laying queen has already had her mating flight and will never fly again); they don't caustically kill bees while doing maintenance on the hive; and they don't take so much honey that the bees starve during winter (when beekeepers feed bees, it's usually to ensure they're getting medication to protect them from mites and other parasitic diseases). So...let me get this straight. Honey, produced by beekeepers who know the individual hives, personally invest a lot of money into their care and upkeep, and don't subject the hives to stress, is a bad exploitative animal product. Fruits and vegetables, produced by large-scale commercial pollinators who subject their hives to stress and are dealing with such high margins that they can easily lose a hive or two without stress, are perfectly fine. ... right. Personally, I see no reason NOT to include honey in a vegan diet. Grip of Death On the side, many vegans also care about locally-grown, organic, green, fair-trade stuff, and refusing to buy from companies that exploit BOTH animals and humans. By sticking this sentence in a paragraph about veganism, you kind of imply that only vegans or mostly vegans are engaged in these efforts. Grip of Death vegetarianism? It's a half-assed attempt to "care" about animals, but the truth is that by consuming dairy and eggs, there is greater suffering imposed on the animal than if it was raised simply for meat. Okay: 1) I have been to numerous beef, pork, and poultry "raising" facilities; I have been to literally hundreds of dairy facilities. "Greater suffering"? I would far, FAR rather be a dairy cow than any animal raised for meat. If you have some reputable sources, I'd be happy to look at them. I'm aware of the fact that if a cow births a young, male calf, he will often be killed and sold as veal so that she can continue lactating to produce milk. 2) I have no problem with people eating eggs from free range eggs, since I don't see how it creates suffering; most chickens no longer have an instinct to incubate their eggs, so they don't suffer when eggs are taken from them. Consequently, the question really is whether we're going to take and use eggs which will be layed regardless, or whether we just let the species go extinct. Given the severity of the extinction event we're already in, I'd rather not do that. Then again, this is a large problem with the abolitionist position in general - many domesticated animals would become extinct, which would seriously disrupt a number of eco-systems. That's why I personally don't feel it's very well thought out. 3) "Half-assed attempt"? I smell classist bullshit. Vegetarianism is comparatively expensive to, if not cheaper than, a meat-consuming diet. However, a healthy vegan diet is significantly more expensive. Not everyone - hell, probably MOST everyone - can't afford to be vegan, particularly if they're spending other money on organic food and environmentally friendly, free trade, and socially conscious products. It's judgmentally asinine to accuse people of making a "half-assed attempt" when you have no idea if they can even financially afford to maintain the diet you're so blithely advocating. What happened to being so socially conscious? Grip of Death Plus, the majority of people in the world are lctose intolerant and milk and eggs are one of the major 8 food allergies that people have. This is also a major gripe of mine, because the argument is logically flawed. The eight major food allergies are soy, wheat, dairy, shellfish, eggs, tree nuts, and peanuts. Can you manage a healthy vegan diet without eating anything on that list?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:23 pm
Grip of Death Sunegami To me, ownership of animals is the same as ownership of children: you don't "own" them, but you are their caretaker and friend-- the latter more so for the animals than the children (I don't agree with parents who want to just be friends with their children. . . but that's another topic in and of itself whee ).
If you treat an animal well, it gives you unconditional love-- besides, it violates nothing but your wallet. Dogs can be expensive to feed! xd
And yes, "person" > "eventual person". Actually, legally, animals are considered property under the law. Whether it is a "food" animal pig or cow owned by a farmer, or a dog owned by a person... While a decent "owner" can treat their animals ethically, they are under no obligation to do so. A person who, in your mind, abuses animals can still evade the law because the law is vague enough that animal abuse is taken into context of how rational it is to "abuse" your own property. It's very similar to the sentiments of Black slavery way back in the day.Read "Intro to Animal Rights" by Gary Francione for a primer explanation for abolishing the property status of animals.
I did know some of that. And the bold part is why I get so angry that people who abuse animals get off with what amounts to a slap on the hand. gonk
Thanks, I'll definitely read that. =^ ^=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:07 pm
Tahpenes, I forgive your ignorance on the matter. But you really look foolish trying to "debunk" veganism, just like the "omni" girls Deformology and Talon-Chan did.
It's ironic that the very people who are out to debunk veganism have NEVER even TRIED it. not even honestly for one month. Sit and think about that one.
I'm a vegan and I've never felt more healthier or energetic in my life- infact I am very pissed off for being raised an "omnivore" (which is a mute point, since humans are really physiologically herbivores). I'm sorry that I'm a bit bitter in this topic because there's so much hate and ignorance about vegans, and about animal suffering. People pretend to think they care about animals, but make no mistake- as long as you think it is ok to eat them or the products they make, or use them as commodities, then you can't tell me that you care about animals.
- Why is not eating honey ignorant? All it is is bee barf. Why the hell would people think bee barf is so appetizing except out of a perpetuation of cultural mores? That nutrition is scant and is meant for and designed for the bees themselves in the winter- not for human consumption. Infact, it is dangerous for infant humans to consume honey... which says something. We're not even mentioning the exploitation that occurs to the insects- the fact that they can suffer in pain, the fact that after their honey is removed that they get fed this inferior sugar water that does not meet their full nutritional needs, and the artificial insemination processes. The fact that when processing honey... these bees die and end up in the honey. Real, unprocessed honey would have bee and bee parts in there- yum, ever thought of a bee wing or leg sitting in that honey you just bought?
It's easy to replace honey.. You don't even have to buy agave nectar. You can use a myriad of sweeteners- like maple syrup or molasses that are just as suitable, maybe even more. Not to mention the other sugars out there. Honey is totally unnecessary for human health, it might offer micro nutrients but they are in quantities that are designed to meet the nutritional needs of bees, not humans.
Even "small" animal product and by-product producers are exploiting animals. When an animal is treated as a commodity, it will always be property and it's interests will never be truly honored in consideration. As long as bees are seen as making honey for humans, they will never be free to go where they want, do what they want, choose their own queen, etc etc.
On to the second point:
There's rich vegans and there are poor vegans. But from what I have seen, the more and longer one practices their veganism, the more conscientious a consumer they tend to be, within reason of their budget. Omnivores don't give a flying ******** about being conscientious with their habits- why should they, afterall? They'll consume anything and everything without any real thought to it, just as they do consume any "food" no matter how barbaric it is to the animal or how bad it is for their health. It's the "nature" of "omnivore" attitudes.
The third point:
Dairy cows and egg-laying chickens have their suffering prolonged because not only are their bodies a commodity, the reproductive outputs are too. It's sexism against female animals. They may live longer, but their bodies will waste away from the stresses of producing lactation or menstrual products, before later on they will even get killed off for low-grade meat, leather, etc.
And the animals DO have caring concerns for their babies. If they don't appear to be, well it's likely because they have been tortured and abused for so long and realize that they will never see their children, so they give up. Does it sound that far fetched or "anthropomorphic?" If a human being grew up abused and tortured, don't ya think he/she would not act normally for a human being, or learn to adapt to the abuse? There were studies done on dogs that had learned to accept their abuse, too.
So these animals suffering, torment, and abuse is prolonged in their lives compared to "meat" animals, right?
And all for what... so some human can have 10 minutes of tasting pleasure and convenience? What entitlement!!
Milk has got to be the worst non-food ever, by the way. >.< Hello!!! Milk is given to infants of mammalian species... to prepare them for the largest growth spurt they will EVER have in their adult lives! And after that, mammalian animals will never ever ever need to consume milk again! And in the case of cows... to help a baby cow achieve 1400+ lbs in weight in under 2 years!! And... humans want to drink that? The "milk for weight loss" ads are total bullshit with a capital B!
Are you concerned that a domesticated species would go extinct? Well, seeing as humans created the problem in the first place... -_-
Even so, its the animals LIVES to do what they want, not for us to decide for them. It's patronizing to think that using their bodies as a commodity is a way to "protect" them from "extinction". Animals, like humans, have been known to adapt very quickly to new situations. You're talking about how chaining them up in cages "protects" them against their own extinction, yet humans have NEVER bothered to actually free some of these animals in the wild and observe how they can or can't adapt.
half assed attempt = classist bullshit? no way!
veganism is frugal in a LOT more ways than you can imagine. Vegetarianism, however assessable it may be (only because dairy and eggs are pushed on everyone so much in America), is actually not that cheap as you think, unless you are only thinking about not buying the "fancy" analog products and your pocketbook as the bottom line.
See the soaring milk prices lately? that must be a "delicious" 4-5 dollar gallon of milk you just bought. Looks like white gold, huh? I'm so glad I don't have to bother buying milk anymore. blegh.. and since dairy is in so many "omnivore" "foods", all of those prices will increase too.
It takes less soil and vegetation to feed a human being directly than it does to feed an animal which will then "feed" you. Well, since dairy cows and egg-laying hens have to eat (and actually eat more so, because their condition is prolonged), vegetarians are still taxing the Earth and its resources in a greater way than vegans.
You also don't have to buy the "fancy" analog food stuffs you see at the grocery store in order to get good nutrition. Infact, since analog foods are processed, they may contain less nutrients (unless fortified) than their whole and natural food counterpart. People who buy the processed vegan products do it partially for fun and pleasure- just like omnivore idiots do when they throw puffed-air hydrogenated-oil snacks on their cart or lavish themselves at a restaurant.
I can't live on my own right now, but I am CONFIDENT that as a vegan, I can fulfill my nutrient and food needs on veganism once i am on my own, a frugal and likely poor 20-something. Certainly, a meal of beans and rice is more palatable and cheap than ramen noodles and mac and cheese (what many poor, young 20-somethings tend to consume). It is cheaper in my opinion because a diet of ramen noodles and 1$ greasy mcdonalds sandwiches will send you to the hospital with heart attacks and outstanding bills in the near future, whereas beans and rice, carrots, and celery won't. ^_~
Instead of the government "subsidizing" artery-clogging milk and cheese to poor people (which is really classist, AND racist since minorities are likely lactose-intolerant and discriminately poor), the government should subsidize beans, rice, fruits and veggies.
Your question on the allergies is really stupid. It shows me that you have no honest open-mindedness about veganism, you're just a dietary vegetarian is all. anyway, to answer your question, The plant kingdom has a myriad of foods to eat. This is compared to omnivores who center their diet on pig cow chicken pig chow chicken pig cow chicken pig cow fish chicken, etc, and then vegetarians who pour everything with gallons of cheese and milk. So what if you couldn't possibly have wheat, soy, treenuts, or peanuts? There's lots of other things to eat. Don't blame my "argument" on the fact that the Standard American Diet (acronym "SAD", get it?) happens to use loads and loads of these common allergenic foods in the food supply. Maybe the Standard American Diet is designed to kill people earlier...?
To add, it's rare to find people who are allergic to all 8 foods there, but I will not rule out that possibility. Since veganism, i have discovered that infact i AM lactose intolerant (and I'm a white girl, white people aren't supposed to be lactose intolerant, right? EHHH WRONG!! it's racist to be taught that white people aren't lactose intolerant!) and I also have a shellfish allergy, a possible fish allergy, and am wheat-gluten sensitive. I would go to the doctor to find out exactly what I am allergic to, but America is a shitty country with no healthcare for most people, including me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:54 pm
Grip of Death But you really look foolish trying to "debunk" veganism, just like the "omni" girls Deformology and Talon-Chan did. No wonder, since I wasn't trying to debunk veganism. I just was arguing it isn't the panacea you seem to think. Grip of Death It's ironic that the very people who are out to debunk veganism have NEVER even TRIED it. not even honestly for one month. Sit and think about that one. I'm amused you think I've never tried veganism. I have. For several months. I made my own seitan and read labels and carefully made sure I was getting enough of everything I needed, following the suggestions of various vegan groups. I had bookmarked practically every vegan recipe site I could find. I found it completely unworkable on my budget, as I found I was having to spend more than $10 a day on food alone. Consequently I went back to vegetarianism. Grip of Death People pretend to think they care about animals, but make no mistake- as long as you think it is ok to eat them or the products they make, or use them as commodities, then you can't tell me that you care about animals. See, here's my thought, though. If an animal species is domesticated, it has been artificially designed to need humans in some form or fashion. I see no reason why acknowledging the interdependence of humans and certain animals is inherently exploitative so long as they are treated respectfully and without causing them unnecessary suffering. We recognize the interdependence between humans, so why can't we recognize the interdependence between humans and other species? Why are people willing to let cows, turkeys, dogs, and pigs sink or swim? Most of them would sink. Others would become "pest" animals and begin to live short, unhappy, unhealthy lives, and become a burden on the local ecosystem. Anyway, taking an extreme position by saying that because somebody doesn't measure up to YOUR standards that they simply don't care is really just being judgmental. People may care in varying amounts but they still care; alternatively, they may have a different perspective than you. That doesn't automatically their position less valid. Grip of Death Why the hell would people think bee barf is so appetizing except out of a perpetuation of cultural mores? Um...why would people think anything except due to cultural mores? Anyway, raw honey is delicious. The stuff you buy in stores, which has been processed and had stuff added to it, doesn't compare. Grip of Death That nutrition is scant and is meant for and designed for the bees themselves in the winter- not for human consumption. Infact, it is dangerous for infant humans to consume honey... which says something. The reason it's dangerous for infant humans to consume honey is one of the main reasons it's helpful to eat it - honey contains traces of pollen. Parents are told to have their infant children avoid common allergens because if they get an allergic reaction it may be extremely severe. However, for older children and adults, consuming raw, locally-produced honey is strongly correlated with a significant decrease in pollen allergies. Grip of Death We're not even mentioning the exploitation that occurs to the insects- the fact that they can suffer in pain Yes, they absolutely can. But beekeepers try to avoid that as much as possible. Grip of Death the fact that after their honey is removed that they get fed this inferior sugar water that does not meet their full nutritional needs Okay, wait a minute. Beekeepers know that sugar water does not meet their nutritional needs. That's why the vast, vast majority make sure that they leave plenty of honey behind for the colony and only feed the bees in order to ensure they're getting medication (or, sometimes, if it's a really, really bad winter, in which case the colony would probably die without human intervention, anyway). Yes, some beekeepers - just like any other group of people - practice bad, stupid, self-destructive behavior. But this is why people need to take responsibility for their food supply and ask where it came from; ask the people you buy the honey from what their practices are regarding feeding. Grip of Death and the artificial insemination processes. The vast, vast majority of queen bees sold in the United States have not been artificially inseminated. I don't know if it will catch on or not. However, if it bothers you, that's another reason to ask an individual beekeeper about his/her practices. Grip of Death The fact that when processing honey... these bees die and end up in the honey. Real, unprocessed honey would have bee and bee parts in there- yum, ever thought of a bee wing or leg sitting in that honey you just bought? This is a ridiculous idea. When honey frames are taken out of the hive, it doesn't take long at all for the bees which were on the frames to leave and go back to the colony. By the time the frames have been processed (which has to occur by hand, with careful human oversight, by the way, given the differences between comb in individual frames) there are no bees on the frame. It's always possible, of course, that there might be bee parts in the honey. However, I doubt you'd be eating as many bee parts in the honey as you typically eat maggots or fly eggs in mushrooms. Grip of Death Honey is totally unnecessary for human health, it might offer micro nutrients but they are in quantities that are designed to meet the nutritional needs of bees, not humans. Maple syrup is "designed" to meet the nutritional needs of trees, not humans. Frankly, there's only one thing "designed" to meet the nutritional needs of humans - human breast milk. If we only ate things which were "designed" for us, lactating mothers would have to do a heckuva lot of pumping. Grip of Death As long as bees are seen as making honey for humans, they will never be free to go where they want, do what they want, choose their own queen, etc etc. You have no idea how bee colonies operate, do you? First off, if a bee colony doesn't like their queen, they'll make that abundantly clear by surreptitiously raising a new one; if the old queen doesn't find and kill the new queen larvae before she's matured, then some bees will go with the new queen and leave and some bees will stay behind with the old one. This is a "swarm." The new queen and her attendants fly a bit away, usually settling on a tree branch or some other overhand, and look for a new place to build a hive. Human-built hives are the best possible colony site for bees, so that if an empty hive body is set up near a swarm the bees often choose to set up the new colony in the hive body. However, because swarms split the strength in the hive, and often cause BOTH colonies to die, beekeepers try to avoid this. Consequently if they see queen eggs being nurtured by the workers a beekeeper will know the colony is upset and work to correct it. Sometimes this means bringing in a new queen until the workers get one they like. Bees kept by humans are living under almost ideal conditions; they're hardly being mistreated. Grip of Death Omnivores don't give a flying ******** about being conscientious with their habits- why should they, afterall? They'll consume anything and everything without any real thought to it, just as they do consume any "food" no matter how barbaric it is to the animal or how bad it is for their health. It's the "nature" of "omnivore" attitudes. And yet, the growth of organic product markets, a push for locally-grown produce and farmer's markets, financing for alternative energy, and other "green" and environmentally/socially conscious pursuits have all been backed and financed primarily by omnivores. I'm sure you'd find it ridiculous and offensive if somebody said all vegans never shower or something equally asinine and obnoxious. Or, for that matter, that they all went around being self-important and making nasty garbage comments about omnivores. Grip of Death And the animals DO have caring concerns for their babies. Yes, and in most dairy farms female calves, at least, are kept with their mothers. The way male calves are taken away and slaughtered is not good, no, and I'm not defending that. However, making claims that they are under constant abuse and psychological trauma hinders not only an anti-dairy argument, but also people who just want better treatment for cows in general, because you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Grip of Death And all for what... so some human can have 10 minutes of tasting pleasure and convenience? What entitlement!! I wonder how much the person who picks your veggies got paid. Grip of Death Are you concerned that a domesticated species would go extinct? Well, seeing as humans created the problem in the first place... -_- Exactly. We created the problem, so we have an obligation to make sure the species continue. That won't happen, of course, if they're left to fend for themselves. Grip of Death Even so, its the animals LIVES to do what they want, not for us to decide for them. Domesticated animals are not the same as their non-domesticated ancestors. Compare, for example, dogs and wolves. Dogs never reach past a pre-adolescent level of mental and emotional development; an adult dog is not as mature as an adult wolf. Consequently, their packing behavior is different - it lacks the social nuance or structure of a wolf pack. Packing dogs live short, miserable lives, because it's a Lord of the Flies scenario - they're like children. Your argument would have merit if we were talking about wild animals. But we're not. Saying they should be free to live their own lives is like saying the same of toddlers. Grip of Death You're talking about how chaining them up in cages "protects" them against their own extinction No, I'm not talking about cages. I'm talking about humane, organic raising and caring of animals. Did I ever mention cages except to note they're a bad thing? Grip of Death yet humans have NEVER bothered to actually free some of these animals in the wild and observe how they can or can't adapt. Feral dogs. Feral cats. Feral pigs. Great survivability, eh? Grip of Death See the soaring milk prices lately? that must be a "delicious" 4-5 dollar gallon of milk you just bought. I dunno, my half-gallon, organic, free range milk costs $3.85. My family goes through about a gallon every week and a half, which comes out to about $6 a week for milk. Given how much soymilk costs, and how many vegan recipes call for soymilk, I'd rather buy the real thing. Especially since soy is linked to migraines. Grip of Death You also don't have to buy the "fancy" analog food stuffs you see at the grocery store in order to get good nutrition. Infact, since analog foods are processed, they may contain less nutrients (unless fortified) than their whole and natural food counterpart. People who buy the processed vegan products do it partially for fun and pleasure- just like omnivore idiots do when they throw puffed-air hydrogenated-oil snacks on their cart or lavish themselves at a restaurant. Why are you assuming I buy processed food? We get almost all our food at the local farmer's co-op, except for a few things like miso that we need to buy from specialty shops in the city. The only things I make from mix are muffins and cakes, and we eat those so rarely as to be barely worth mentioning. Grip of Death I can't live on my own right now, but I am CONFIDENT that as a vegan, I can fulfill my nutrient and food needs on veganism once i am on my own, a frugal and likely poor 20-something. Certainly, a meal of beans and rice is more palatable and cheap than ramen noodles and mac and cheese (what many poor, young 20-somethings tend to consume). A meal of rice and beans isn't exactly fulfilling all your nutritional needs. Grip of Death Instead of the government "subsidizing" artery-clogging milk and cheese to poor people (which is really classist, AND racist since minorities are likely lactose-intolerant and discriminately poor), the government should subsidize beans, rice, fruits and veggies. Somebody hasn't read the Farm Bill. Yes, there are special provisions for dairy farms, but there are plenty of provisions in there for vegetable and fruit producers, too. Grip of Death Your question on the allergies is really stupid. It shows me that you have no honest open-mindedness about veganism, you're just a dietary vegetarian is all. Hardly. I was trying to comment on your apparent "lack of open-mindedness" about anything other than veganism. You suggested milk and eggs shouldn't be consumed because they were among the top eight allergens, and therefore they're "unhealthy." I was simply countering that some of the staples of a vegan diet were on that list. The fact that many people are lactose intolerant or allergic to eggs is pretty irrelevant. Obviously individuals with those allergies or sensitivities shouldn't be eating those items. Similarly, somebody who's allergic to soy shouldn't be eating soy products. The fact that a food item is a common allergen doesn't say anything about its health. Grip of Death This is compared to omnivores who center their diet on pig cow chicken pig chow chicken pig cow chicken pig cow fish chicken, etc, You know some strange omnivores. Grip of Death and then vegetarians who pour everything with gallons of cheese and milk. Are you only talking about vegetarians who do that? Or are you talking about all vegetarians and snidely implying that all vegetarians do that? Grip of Death So what if you couldn't possibly have wheat, soy, treenuts, or peanuts? There's lots of other things to eat. Don't blame my "argument" on the fact that the Standard American Diet (acronym "SAD", get it?) happens to use loads and loads of these common allergenic foods in the food supply. Maybe the Standard American Diet is designed to kill people earlier...? I wasn't talking about the "Standard American Diet." I was talking about a standard vegan diet, which is loaded with soy, wheat, peanut, and treenut products. Grip of Death (and I'm a white girl, white people aren't supposed to be lactose intolerant, right? EHHH WRONG!! it's racist to be taught that white people aren't lactose intolerant!) What the hell are you talking about? MOST white people aren't lactose intolerant. It's not 100%, though, and I have no idea why you'd assume people would think it was. Grip of Death but America is a shitty country with no healthcare for most people, including me. Yeah, same here. My husband hasn't even been able to get a routine check-up since he was 16... so that'd be about 10 years without a doctor visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:13 pm
Oni no Tenshi 5) Morality aside, veganism is something I could not ever support as a personal choice for me because it's not doing anything to change the bad way that animals are being treated. I would like to see vegans getting together and BUYING OUT those torture farms and moving to more humane treatment of animals. I would like them to put their money and their time where their mouths are and stop it with the emotional ploys and the guilt-tripping of other people. That propaganda is almost as bad as pro-life garbage (especially since MANY of the abuse depicted in PETA propaganda videos are actually perpetrated by PETA MEMBERS to try and shock and guilt people into becoming vegan).
But like with the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice birth control cooperation idea, things with the pamphlet didn't go as I wished. Instead, the pamphlet said, "Eat less meat!" "Arg!" put what I felt mildly.Talon-chan It is a philosophical concept that is derived from social contract theory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:01 am
1) Yes, you were trying to debunk veganism, because you were arguing that vegans who don't eat honey were... ignorant. Honey is an animal by-product, so it is not vegan. You can read more about it here: http://vegetus.org1a. Commercial pollinators do not provide honey; commercial beekeepers do. And yes, they are factory farms. 1b. Commercial raising of cultivated honeybees have been literally destroying the native bees - so eating honey is doing more harm than good. 1c. that we should be focusing on encouraging - not breeding - the populations of other pollinators, rather than trying to breed ones that we're killing off, which is essentially the rape of the Sabines "to preserve the race". Still on the first point- You tried TOO HARD. It's way easy to meet the nutritional requirements on veganism, almost too easy infact. Seitan is just a "meat analog" product, totally unnecessary nutritionally (it's just wheat gluten), but people consume it for fun- but make no mistake, "fake" meat is just a cultural comfort association, albeit a juvenile interest the further one progresses in veganism. It's not necessary to purchase analog products like "fake" meats, tofu, or soymilk and like I said before, the closest the food is to nature and the less processing it has been through, the more nutrients it has. If I had spent more than 10 dollars a day on food, my omni family would throw me out of the house faster than you can say "Batman". I bet not even my omni family spends more than 10 dollars a day to feed one person. I certainly don't. What the hell were you getting, mostly processed, boxed, convenience foods and out-of-season produce? Nutritionally speaking, vitamin b12 is probably the main concern for vegans since it comes from a bacteria that produces it, and it is found in unstable/unreliable amounts in plants. You should also note that plants can absorb B-12 (cyanocobalamin) from healthy soil, but almost all of our soil has been destroyed by conventional agriculture. However, buying fortified vegan products with vitamin b12 in it, or buying a vegan multivitamin or b12 pill easily solves this problem. almost all plants having exceptional amounts of iron.. (not to mention that consuming anything with vitamin c with an iron-rich food helps your body absorb it better). The WHO recommends 400-500 mg/day of calcium even though 150 mg/day has been found to have a LOWER hip fracture incidence than our 1,000 mg/day intake.. (again, intaking a calcium-rich food with a vitamin c-rich food helps absorb intake better. ) ...protein is (one of the most easily-acquired "nutrients" a person can find in any food) found in sufficient amounts of every plant - ALL of the essential amino acids, too... studies have proven that now you no longer have to creatively combine foods together to get all of the amino acids in a day. Still, a variety of foods is better than none. If you ask me... buying processed cheese in packages is very expensive, it adds up fast. Also, a gallon of milk... that's expensive... that's 4-5 bucks right there. My omni family doesn't even finish drinking the milk before it goes bad most of the time. That's expensive. Even so, if consuming animal and animal products for any reason is cheaper on the wallet- it's likely related to the fact that the U.S. government subsidizes these foods in our supply despite the immense energy required to raise an animal for it's commodities. 2) No. Breeding ANYONE solely to use them for your own purposes is unethical, because you are in sole control of their lives, that is, you've enslaved them. Yes, I used the S word. Oh, and I fail to see how using someone for your own purposes is respectful. 2a. Who said anything about letting them sink or swim? We'll keep increasing the population of vegans until gradually breeding domesticated animals becomes zero, and then there won't be any of them to worry about. ^_~ 2b. domesticated animals are ALREADY burdening the ecosystem, and using their bodies perpetuates the mass environmental destruction entailed by the mass concentrations of raising animals for human consumption. 2c. Wah wah wah holier-than-thou wah. Cry me a ******** river. Veganism is the baseline for any reasonable, non-hypocritical morality. Note: for someone who claims to have been vegan, you sure as hell don't know much about it. 3) My omni family has "raw" honey at home. I've even tried it before going vegan. There's no godamned difference between it and regular honey, especially if you're talking about magical "taste" differences... except maybe a few more micronutrients that are, again, scant nutrition if any for humans. any nutritional "benefits" from honey are so scant that you might as well call it empty calories. All they do to raw honey is make sure the buggy bodies and body parts that died in your bee barf has been "filtered" out, but not actually pasteurize it afterwards. 3a. I'm sure rapists just love to rape. But, just because you like something doesn't mean it's ethical. Why can't you accept this? 4) Allergies rarely disappear. Where did you get that from? If anything, if you are allergic to something, you will be allergic from it for the rest of your life and there is no food product or magic trick to allow you to consume anything that is allergenic. Also, most allergies don't appear until early adulthood. 5) Re: beekeepers. Riiiight. Because beekeepers care about a group of someones they think of as a replaceable commodity. 5a. Re: dairy cows. First, in the "health food" community, colostrum is becoming popular to "protect from diseases" - total bullshit really, because it's meant to protect from cow illnesses, just like human colostrum is specific to human illnesses. Before it became popular, calves sometimes could be left with their mothers - at least, until 48 hours have passed, or when the colostrum has given way to what we know as "milk". (However, usually the colostrum is collected and fed to the calves along with the blood of slaughtered cows - no exaggeration.) No "farmer" will allow a calf to take up valuable product - i.e. milk. Thus, calves cannot be left with their mothers (in economic thinking) because they would take up product that could otherwise be sold. Another note: if, say, we were to allow the calves to nurse and milk them, it would result in even worse mastitis, given our massive amounts of dairy consumption in this country. Mastitis is a swelling of the mammary glands - very painful, as any nursing mother will tell you. 5b. YOU STILL EAT DAIRY, a*****e. 5c. even the slaughterhouse workers who are killing the cow you "respect" so much you condemned it to exploitation and death have more of a choice than animals - animals are literally slaves. from http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Hall03.htmQuote: "Only their naïveté is uncaged. Free-range production, by its very nature, could never be affordable to most of humanity; nor could the planet endure all that methane and manure." "Animal welfare laws, even where they could fit, would extend no kindnesses to animals where doing so would substantially cut into profit. And no matter what regulations apply to slaughter, at the bottom line, dead means dead. " Quote: "Throughout the advancement of bigger, better confinement and healthy, sustainable animals, free-living animals are continually pushed to the outermost edges of habitable terrain. Professional campaigners relegate animal rights to the margins of activism just as they relegate the animals who can have rights to the margins of the globe. While they focus on goals such as “improving the living and dying conditions” of animals sold as fast food [10], they let the interests of free animals languish and become invisible. Yet if free-living animals were thought to have a claim to their territory and freedom, then finally, finally, the polluting and resource-consuming ranchers and animal farmers would meet a true challenge! Animal-welfare advocacy deals only with symptoms, in contrast, and will do so infinitely, without ever challenging our permission to use animals. " Quote: "The point of an animal-rights movement isn't to narrowly tailor angst to whatever seems crude and barbaric, preferably done by foreigners. The most difficult, often the loneliest, and yet ultimately the most meaningful activism involves the local vegetarian or humane society or the sing-along at the peace café. The cream in the coffee might seem, to some, unworthy of political action, but the milk of the mothers of others is a good place to begin to interrogate our universal domination of other conscious beings -- indeed, the idea of domination itself. In the cream, we see the experience of a cow whose life consists of pregnancies and separations and whose death is violent, and if animal-rights activism means anything, it involves that cream, that product of deforestation that ruins the earth for animals who could have enjoyed a life of freedom. The cream in the coffee connects us with the polluted streams and the pesticides that poison workers and the land." I am giving this next link… this is from a Farm Sanctuary… a charity that takes care of domesticated animals that would have otherwise gone to become commodities for human consumption. This organization sets out to debunk the myth of “happy meat”. http://peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.htmlQuote: "Most “free-range” offerings are, in reality, mass-produced commodities involving no pastures at all. The egg and dairy industries are notorious for their overall treatment, and the few cast-offs living in sanctuaries were typically found starved, neglected or abused -- common situations for animals raised for human consumption, including on so-called family farms." Quote: "Even when advocates do intervene for free-living animals, activism is meaningless unless it champions a lifestyle free of animal products." 6) on maple syrup: the plant kingdom has no known nervous system and capability to sense pain and remember it. However, animals, including insects, do. Also, by raising animals for human consumption, we "kill" loads and loads more plants than if we directly raised plants for human consumption. Vegans care more than just about animals... 6a. mammals don't require milk at all after infancy, that includes humans. You wonder how much the person who picks my veggies got paid? Why don't YOU wonder how much the person who beats, throws, tortures, and slaughters poor defenseless animals get paid. Here's a hint... they have no health care insurance for one of the most dangerous jobs in the country! 7. Re: dogs. Are you a dog? I didn't think so. 7a. In When Elephants Weep by Jeffery Masson, he quotes a behaviourist who has studied wild dogs and wolves: she says that dogs are much more like the submissives of the pack, so she empathised better with them. Submissive =/= less intelligent. 8. Gilded bars do not make the cage suddenly vanish. 9. Yes, and that is why we must take responsibility for these people and stop breeding them. Are you honestly saying that you want to keep bringing beings into the world who are completely and utterly dependent? So we can use them as toys? 10. I only buy soymilk occassionally, and I have a vegan friend who never, ever buys soymilk and she seems to do quite fine without it. You know, you can just replace any dairy or non-dairy "milk" with just water in a recipe. Water is free, can't beat that! 11. re. a meal on beans and rice. Yes, actually, it is. ********, you could just eat beans out of a can and it would fill a lot of your nutritional needs of the day. You could just eat plain rice and it could work. HOWEVER, if people eat meat, they could not just eat meat in order to meet their nutritional needs. Also, it's funny how you did not mention how poor in nutrients that ramen noodles and mac and cheese boxes are while deriding that a meal of beans and rice will not nutritionally meet my needs. People CAN get away with eating very simple meals out of need. Aside from that, people usually "have" to buy butter and milk for their crappy mac and cheese boxes, which is more expensive too, and loaded with saturated fat. What those AREN'T loaded with is the very nutrients a human body needs. Not to mention that dairy products are cruel. 12. I agree that the "junk-food vegan" diet is indeed unhealthy, and that you do not eat that. but as far as I know, there is no known "standard vegan diet" that you're talking about. But vegan junk food may include a lot of the common allergens, which is easy to just avoid. Also, I wasn't describing "strange" omnivore dietary habits. Omnivores typically consume animal products MORE than once a day, even. Meat is ALWAYS the main course and the emphasis of the meal. There's really a lack of variety for all that it's worth. And my comment that vegetarians load everything with gallons of cheese and milk was taking me back to the times when I read vegetarian cookbooks, and the only recipes that DIDN'T include dairy or egg in them were POSSIBLY salads- but not even the salads are immune when assholes put feta cheese on it! It's as if vegetarians try to compensate too hard by loading their meals with MORE milk and MORE cheese than their omnivore counterparts! eesh! My question for you: I ask, how much your cheese, honey, etc. costs PER POUND. Beans cost, what, $.50/lb., organic wheatberries cost $.69/lb, organic barley costs $.73/lb. And that's not on sale. If you have the money to spend $2+/lb. on cheese for everyday consumption (average serving size 2 oz., or 1/8th of a lb.), you likely have the money to be vegan. To conclude, if you immediately dismiss veganism as "too expensive" by what should be consumed as treats if at all, rather than finding a way to make it work cheaply - if you refused to do your homework to see just how doable and easy veganism is - and if you rely on speciesist assumptions in order to allow herself to exploit other animals with a free conscience, then you were never vegan, and you don’t understand a whit of it. >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:02 am
Quote: Animal Rights are a Feminist Issue: Pro-Choicers Need Consistency Emily Muñoz The vast majority of pro-choicers (in the terms of abortion, contraception, reproduction, and bodily integrity) are meat-eaters, no doubt about it; after all, the majority of the world is comprised of meat-eaters (at the current time, at the least, wink wink). But when it comes to pro-choice (an issue dear to my heart, being a fervent pro-choicer myself), there are ways that the meat-eating section of the movement may be metaphorically shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to their beliefs. A favourite rebuttal of mine for the pro-lifers has always been this: you aren’t pro-life if you support any method that kills either nonhuman or human animals, but support anti-choice ideologies when you come to reproductive choice—you’re pro-birth, period. For quite a while, it escaped me that many pro-choicers are hypocritical in a rather similar way. I will demonstrate this using the two main arguments used to defend abortion—bodily integrity and (philosophical) personhood. First, take the bodily integrity argument—no one has the right to infringe on your bodily integrity, even if they are in danger of dying. It is for this reason that illegalizing abortion would be impossible; because no born human is allowed to infringe on your bodily integrity, giving fetuses this privilege would make born women second-class citizens; second class because they lose their bodily integrity once they begin to menstruate—and because men would not be forced to do the same thing, thus keeping their right of bodily integrity intact. Essentially, it would be the same as though we forced all black humans to be sterilised; because of their genetics, the way they were born, we persecute them, much as we do animals. To strip someone of the right to keep their own bodily integrity, even at the cost of another’s life, would pave the way for many more atrocities in our already atrocity-ridden society. It would open the door for forced blood and kidney “donations”, forever-legal animal testing (the justification of “well, people might die without it”, even though animal testing has been proven to be inaccurate in regards to humans), and—dare I say it?—even undermine the basis of legal criminality for rape. It’s a Pandora’s Box that I do not wish to open. Many say that it is because of the legal personhood that the country we (well, in the US—one place where the topic is currently being hotly debated) live in that grants us the right to bodily integrity. But legality itself disproves this: one is not allowed to go around killing non-US citizens on US soil either, even though they do not have US citizenship (and therefore legal personhood; as we have seen from the shining example of the Bush administration, even US citizens do not have US-legal personhood once off US soil). Yet, this is wrong in many peoples’ eyes. Obviously, it is not legal personhood and citizenship that disallows us to kill someone that is biologically autonomous (as nonhuman animals are). With the question of legal personhood and bodily integrity out of the way, the question turns to moral and philosophical personhood. Thought, self-awareness, sentience, and consciousness are frequent aspects of morally and philosophically-defined personhood—as well as biological autonomy—are all characteristics that nonhuman animals possess. When “abstract thought”—a qualifier that we can neither prove that animals have or do not have because of the absolute lack of abstract communication (defined differently than language, which all social animals also possess, including fish, which communicate with various different sounds) available to us—is included in the requirements for personhood, the definer runs the risk of excluding children and some differently-abled people from their definition. Children, and some of the differently-abled, are unable to think in abstract ways, only in subjective ways. While they may be content to rule out the differently-abled as nonpersons, children are, more often than not, something that the definer would be reluctant to exclude. Because of their potential to gain the ability to think abstractly, they are included—but this argument could be used just as well against abortion, as fetuses have that potential and overall likelihood as well, barring their death or accident. So, given the reasoning in the above paragraph, would the pro-choicer that has been paying attention to the narrowing of their arguments say that children are “morally acceptable” to kill? Often, this is not the case. And where it is, I believe I am justified in saying that a psychological diagnosis is needed. What is it, then, that makes it alright to kill nonhuman animals, but not human animals, to the majority of pro-choicers? It’s not legal personhood; even if granted that, fetuses would be legal to evict (and therefore kill), because legal personhood does not include the right to override another’s bodily integrity even if one’s own bodily integrity. It’s not bodily integrity; nonhuman animals possess that as well as born human animals do. It’s not moral/philosophical/existential personhood; nonhuman animals possess that as well—or, in some definitions, cannot be proven not to, and by the same definitions neither do human children. It’s not pure illegality; much of the time any given person will have qualifiers for what may justify murder—such as self-defense, for example. And nonhuman animals, in most cases, are not threatening one’s life. The only characteristic that this leaves is human genetics, which is the basis that many anti-choicers argue upon—that it is unacceptable to kill humans not because they are legal persons, or because they are moral persons, but because they are genetically human. And as such, every major argument defending abortion is stripped of meaning—as long as pro-choicers continue with the inconsistency in their beliefs. How long will it be before the anti-abortion ideology catches on? And how long will my side be the hypocrites?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:43 am
EDIT: Grip, originally I wrote out yet another long post dealing with your arguments, including your factual flaws, logical inconsistencies, absurd claims, and apparent unwillingness to take the world as it is rather than as you wish it could have been. But I've decided you're not worth my time responding to any more, because you sound like a wacko, extremist, religious convert.
You think you've found "the one true path."
You have an "us versus them" mentality.
You don't believe that people outside your little group (ie, non-vegans) are compassionate or reasonable.
You think you're morally superior and more knowledgeable than people outside your little group.
You classify "vegans" as being "anyone who acts and thinks like you," so that if they don't share your opinions they aren't actually "vegan."
You base your perspective on what beekeepers do, what happens on dairy farms, how much a vegan diet costs when not food-sharing with others, and so forth entirely on what other "vegan" sources have told you, without any direct knowledge of your own and all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
You unreasonably expect people to behave in ways that humans just don't behave.
Have fun with that. ShadowIce If people who will never eat meat tries to get the meat industry to change, the meat industry has nothing to gain by listening. But if people who eat meat or would eat meat cares enough to withhold their money from organizations that treat animals poorly, a big impact could be made. I think that having non-meat eaters reach out to people who eat meat is a wonderful idea. Kind of like having Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers come together in an effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies is a wonderful idea. Like I was telling Grip, it's basically been meat-eaters who have been doing the bulk of the work in improving conditions for animals, demanding standard organic labels and definitions, and so forth. So, there are cross-dietary movements. Just not as many as there could otherwise be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:32 am
Grip of Death 4) Allergies rarely disappear. Where did you get that from? If anything, if you are allergic to something, you will be allergic from it for the rest of your life and there is no food product or magic trick to allow you to consume anything that is allergenic. Also, most allergies don't appear until early adulthood. Also, I wasn't describing "strange" omnivore dietary habits. Omnivores typically consume animal products MORE than once a day, even. Meat is ALWAYS the main course and the emphasis of the meal. There's really a lack of variety for all that it's worth. I'm not dealing with that huge, offensive to me, post, but there were a couple points I HAD to debunk. There are different kinds of allergies. I work at a childcare, and there are kids with allergies, some of which developed recently, and a couple that the kids grew out of, for example one child grew out of a gluten allergy. And meat is always the main course? Then what were those bean and cheese burritos I ate? Or hummus? Or the tofu pad thai I sometimes get? Or cheese sandwiches? Or the cheese pizza? Yes, many of those involve an animal product, but not specifically MEAT. I eat a large variety of foods that are available, and I will try anything once. So, not all omnis eat meat all the time. (Oh, and at least half those meals? They get served at the childcare I work at for lunch.) Overall, though, your post is the kind of thing that makes people pissed at vegans. Accusatory, inflammatory, and deliberately derogatory. I don't care how *true* it is, you aren't going to convince anyone like THAT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:33 am
Tahpenes EDIT: Grip, originally I wrote out yet another long post dealing with your arguments, including your factual flaws, logical inconsistencies, absurd claims, and apparent unwillingness to take the world as it is rather than as you wish it could have been. But I've decided you're not worth my time responding to any more, because you sound like a wacko, extremist, religious convert.
You think you've found "the one true path."
You have an "us versus them" mentality.
You don't believe that people outside your little group (ie, non-vegans) are compassionate or reasonable.
You think you're morally superior and more knowledgeable than people outside your little group.
You classify "vegans" as being "anyone who acts and thinks like you," so that if they don't share your opinions they aren't actually "vegan."
You base your perspective on what beekeepers do, what happens on dairy farms, how much a vegan diet costs when not food-sharing with others, and so forth entirely on what other "vegan" sources have told you, without any direct knowledge of your own and all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
You unreasonably expect people to behave in ways that humans just don't behave.
Have fun with that. I just want to say that I agree with you (and I saw your original post).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
