Azarkon

No - I was responding to the claim that science doesn't explain why.

The question of "why" cannot be answered because humans demand a human answer. The universe is full of purpose; we simply choose not to see it.

The Internet. Now that's funny.

They aren't real?

Oh Hillary. How good you are at killing your party's chances at the presidency. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...ps_Hillary.html

Well, there's "lol" humor, and then there's more subtle humor - that doesn't make you laugh, but does bring a grin to your face.

Not at all. There are times when I wish I were more Asian, actually, though that term is, of course, meaningless.

I've considered the sociobiology argument before. Would you say that the particular argument, here, is that it's evolutionarily prudent to eat meat, but since the agricultural revolution some tens of thousands of years ago, hunting instincts have become less useful and therefore more barbaric to our "gut reactions?" I accept that as a factor, though I obviously don't consider one's moral impetus to be the same as following one's instincts.

I think there's two issues at stake here, which I might have conflated. The first is, as you say, the matter of practical policy. With regards to this issue, we are in agreement - in fact, I came into this thread to argue specifically that culling animals to protect human beings should not be construed as "cruelty against animals," particularly given the setting, and that moral outrage/judgment was therefore unjustified. I stayed, however, to challenge a more basic assumption, which is that eating animals is not morally equivalent to killing them for pleasure. This particular argument is fundamentally ideological, almost by definition: is eating animals morally the same as killing them for pleasure? I consider this an interesting premise, if established, because it weakens a particular breed of "animal rights" (namely, the stance that it's okay to harm animals for food because it's "necessary," but not okay to harm animals for, say, the pleasure of the hunt, because that's "unnecessary"). However, I'm divided as to what I think is the right answer, in this case. Unlike the policy issue, I'm still working this one out, which is why it might seem I'm flitting between opposite poles. Truth is, I want to understand both sides of the argument, and I currently do not - or at least, am not convinced - that I do. In particular, my gut feeling is that there is a moral difference between eating animals and killing them for sport, but logically, that difference does not seem to hold (at least not in the sense of necessary vs. unnecessary). Hence the cultural conditioning hypothesis. Why is culinary pleasure different than other pleasures? Or is it more than that? I certainly accept your view that as a practical issue, stopping people from eating meat is impractical and out of reach, but that doesn't really answer the moral question. Here, I get the impression that your stance is that morality and practicality cannot be considered separately, which is ironic because that's what I originally came in arguing. Yet, I'm trying to do exactly that: divide morality from practicality, and argue about what should be, rather than what is practical to do. An interesting turn of events, but not unexpected. I am prone to arguing from two different angles - one practical, one philosophical, and the two are not always the same. Whether it makes sense for you to do the same (as in, whether you think morality and practicality can be debated separately), I'm not sure. Maybe we'll just leave it at that.

It is only natural that subjects of the Pax Americana would be interested in its politics. /duck

But it'd be interesting to know how cultural, economic, and educational backgrounds affect the percentages. Without that information, it's hard to judge what the source of this problem is, and we're left scratching our heads.

People are usually asked about their nationalities in a more friendly context than "why, are you Asian?" as if it were a challenge of some kind. You phrased it like I must be Asian or something in order to ask the question; that's why I didn't feel compelled to offer you a proper response. But fair is fair. The answer to your question is **** yeah! Now, you got some rice for me, bitch? Oh look, I've gone out of character

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I just said. I made an observation of the ideological inconsistency inherent to the "morally correct" view of animal rights in the US. You said that I'm pointing out the obvious, and that the incongruity of mores in human society does not at all make for useful discussion because "anything we do can be considered extreme." You don't think that's a cop out? I'm not equating your views with racism. I'm saying that your argument can be made for any number of issues, in which case we'd have nothing to discuss. The policy issue has always been pretty straightforward. Some people agree, and some people think that it's animal cruelty. To argue for one or the other requires taking apart the ideological foundations of the policy. That's what interests me when it comes to animal rights, because ultimately, animal rights as it exists in the modern world is essentially an ideological movement.

*shrug* I'm not going to banter words with a 16-year old kid who's miffed that he lost the last exchange and decided that he hates me as a result. Your future posts will be ignored, from now on, unless they contain actual value.

Why does me being Asian or not affect my desire to know what the numbers are for Asian-Americans? A "representative sample" of Americans that does not include one of the major ethnic minorities seems a little suspicious, particularly as the article seems to go out of its way to divide people into groups. Why not Asian-Americans, then?

Why not?

Err, I'm pretty sure it said 20% for whites and Mexican-Americans. That works out to be around the right number. (Wonder what it is for Asians?)

While I agree that our species evolved as an omnivore, Sand, that argument applies to alot of things. We also evolved by killing people of other tribes, by keeping slaves, and by subjugating women. Those practices eventually lessened or faded away altogether as society developed the means and moral principles to reject them. Why would the same not apply to eating meat? There must be a better reason, no?

So your response to everything is just to accept it for what it is, conceding to human error? I could accept such an argument for practical reasons in real life, but in an ideological discussion, as these discussions always tend to be, it seems a bit unproductive to say, "okay, killing animals is bad but I'm fine with eating them - so what?" It's like saying, in the political thread, "okay, McCain is a warmonger and I'm anti-war but I'm fine with electing him - so what?" or "yeah racism - so what?" There'd be nothing to left to argue, expose, or discuss, then. If what I say seem to be obvious, then you're right, I'm not saying anything particularly profound because I'm preaching to the choir. But I don't think it's obvious - because people are disagreeing with me on grounds other than your sense of duly accepting the status quo - they're disagreeing because they genuinely do not see the contradiction. People actually think that they are morally justified to do precisely what they do (kill animals for culinary pleasure), but pass judgment on those who do something that, for all intents and purposes, serves a greater moral purpose (kill animals to protect humans). You don't think this is worth pointing out? I don't just create straw mans and argue them, Cant. I observe what's going on and comment on it. I wouldn't be in this thread if I thought that the comments and attitudes make perfect sense, and I wouldn't argue the obvious if, in fact, it was obvious. Now, read the thread again and tell me that I'm just stating the obvious. I don't think I am.

Trouble is, I don't think I have. In fact, I've not even begun to really challenge the ingrained notions people have towards meat, like bringing up the practices of the meat packing industry, the chicken factories, the fast food chains, health concerns, etc. Those are the things real conscientious vegetarians bring up when they're debating eating ethics. I'm not a real conscientious vegetarian, but there is the nagging suspicion that what they argue contains elements of truth. What have I said that isn't logically consistent? You mention the analogy between eating meat and driving, but that's not exactly the same, is it? For one thing, automobiles bring real benefits to the productive operations of society (and even then, I do recall some strong arguments on this very board about pollution and global warming having to do with driving), but what does meat-eating do for us? Don't get me wrong - it's not like I refuse to eat meat, nor am I criticizing those who do. The problem, as I see it, is that there are contradictions in what people take for granted - in this case, the moral comfort zone brought about by the assumption that we're not slaughtering animals for the pleasure of eating them, which to me is one of those things that people never put much thought into but which, if they did, becomes incredibly divisive because the notion of sacrificing animal lives for human pleasure is so repulsive to some (hence why vegetarians feel so strongly about their views). The ethics of a society are never perfect, but it helps to know where the weaker links are. I want to push that line of thinking, and all my posts in off-topic are designed to do that. I don't care if people disagree with me - in fact, I want and expect disagreement, because I'm literally looking for it. It's easy to shrug off disagreements and generate some witty comments to make everyone happy, but then what's the point of forums? I do that in real life. High and mighty? Perhaps, but it's only fair to adopt a condescending tone towards those who are condescending others. Here's a general rule about forums - don't expect politeness when you're not polite in turn. That said, this is the Internet - don't take it so seriously.

Well, I'm pretty sure my vegetarian friends would disagree. For one thing, they tend to be healthier But more to the point - like someone said earlier, the "humane" thing to do is never easy. It's not about whether it's expedient or convenient or evolutionarily efficient to consume meat. It's about what we should do when two options are presented, both equally viable. It's viable to adopt a strictly vegeterian diet and never get involved with the breed-to-kill industry. The question is whether you have the the moral impetus to do so. For me, one's moral values must be consistent, even if they are relative. As such, as a meat-eater and an angler, I cannot accept the view that it's okay to eat animals but not okay to cull them for protection or hunt them for sport. If a new scientific discovery is made tomorrow that suggests the animals and fish that I consume are just as self-aware as humans, then I must abandon my current practices immediately, because they'd no longer be consistent with what I hold to be moral.

I guess my opposition comes down to the term need. Despite what Sand claims, my myriad of vegetarian friends do actually avoid meat quite effectively (yes, they take dietary supplements, but none made from killing animals), which suggests that humanity does not, in fact, need to slaughter animals at all. We do so because of tradition - because our ancestors did it, and because cooked (or, in some cases, raw) meat is pleasing to the taste. Well, that poses a problem, because under just about every definition of morality that we've concocted over the ages, there's no clause that states "it's okay to violate your moral principles, so long as it tastes good." Sadly, it's precisely within this contradiction that the majority of people have chosen to exist. Honestly, I'd be alot happier if people would just decide between the two poles: either animals (or just mammals, if you please) are sentient, have feelings, and should not be killed except in times of dire need, or they don't and can be killed any time it serves our purpose to do so. I'm fine with being against pointless slaughtering, but the goals of killing animals for food (in the industrialized world) and killing animals for sport are ultimately the same: they're both done for the sake of human pleasure. It's just so happens that one is easier to give up than the other, because while most people love meat, only some enjoy actually hunting for it. Suffice to say, as an occasional hobbyist angler, I deal with the contradictions intrinsic to the sport constantly. Sure, I eat what I catch, and catch what I eat, but I could just as well buy fish from the supermarket, or forsake it altogether. It's not about "need" - it's about "want" - I enjoy fishing, and enjoy eating what I catch. If the "correct" moral principle is to avoid killing whenever there is no need, then I am guilty as charged. But am I guilty? Most people would say, "no" - yet they go on about how we should be "humane" towards animals and never kill when there is no need to do so. For those people, who buy fish and meat from the supermarket, go home to their pets, and have never had to watch an actual animal die, this contradictory compromise is sufficient because it exists only in the abstract. For me, though, it's just a tad more real.

*sigh* Either I'm too tired today and thus am reading way too much into what people say, or I'm confronted by a legion of backpedallers. Krookie, I'll let you off on this one even though I'm convinced you didn't actually read what I wrote when you objected to the idea that culling animals is better justified than killing them for food. As for killing them "humanely," poison is pretty damn humane - the main objection in that article, if you hadn't noticed, was that "stray dogs without rabies" would also be affected (even though the authorities were intentionally targetting only rabid dogs), not that the particular method used is torturous. Once you've made the choice to do a cull, the method used is almost always chosen for efficiency reasons - if that's still "too cruel," then either the decision to cull was ill-made to begin with, or animal rights people need to take responsibility for every human that dies because no cull was done.

So... Killing animals for the sake of satisfying humanity's taste for meat is more "justified" than killing animals in order to prevent the spread of rabies to humans, a fatal disease from which 27,500 people in India die each year? I'm starting to think I'm arguing with one of those peoples who have their priorities "upside down," so to speak.

But you don't have to kill animals for food. That's the entire rationale behind the conscientious vegetarian movement. I don't think you should dismiss your moral impetus just because you crave the taste of flesh. That's what makes this whole movement inconsistent. Either go all the way, or stop objecting to legitimate culls (next thing you know, you'll be arguing that using arrows to hunt in sub-Saharan Africa is inhumane). There's nothing fundamental about killing animals for food that makes it more "right" than culling animals to safeguard humans. If anything, the latter is better justified.