Animal Rights?

[Krookie]

Alright Azarkon, congratulations. You have successfully defeated (mainly by over analyzing posts and putting words in my mouth) a 16 year old in a battle about the inhumane treatment of a bunch of dogs in Srinigar, over an internet forum no less.

[Cantousent]

Aw, come on, Krookie. This is the interet. no one EVAR wins! :Cant's slapping Krookie on the back icon:

[Azarkon]

*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.

[Azarkon]

I'll agree with that, but that's because I live in a society that sees needless slaughter of animals as inhumane and I'm a product of that society.

 

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.

[Sand]

I disagree. Killing animals for food is not for human pleasure but part of the human omnivore diet. Humans were never meant to be vegetarians. That is not how we evolved to be, hence your friends need to take dietary supplements. If they had a well balanced diet of vegetables and meat they would have no need for such supplements. Balance in moderation in a diet is important, going one extreme or another in terms of vegetables and meat is never any good.

[Azarkon]

I disagree. Killing animals for food is not for human pleasure but part of the human omnivore diet. Humans were never meant to be vegetarians. That is not how we evolved to be, hence your friends need to take dietary supplements. If they had a well balanced diet of vegetables and meat they would have no need for such supplements. Balance in moderation in a diet is important, going one extreme or another in terms of vegetables and meat is never any good.

 

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.

[Cantousent]

Your horse is too high for your legs, pilgrim.

 

I've essentially agreed with you on this whole issue, but you're a bit off the wall. Perhaps I didn't use the word "needless" for your liking? haha Okay, Az, you're a great guy, but you've gone a little gonzo on the issue.

 

What constitutes human need has always been a little prickly, right? Do I NEED to drive a car? Can I get by without meat? How cold can I go before I die of hypothermia? I would expect you to be a little more charitable with my comments, but I guess that wouldn't fit your didactic tone, would it?

 

Well, okay. Let's just say that I think most folks can differentiate between animal torture for its own sake and the use of animals as a function of society. ...But, hey, we just need a few more clever rebuttals so you can alienate every single person in the thread.

 

No, no. I'm not really trying to pile it on. I just don't think it's very sporting to take the low road in quoting me when you knew what I meant.

 

Very well, you provided your own substitute and I'll accept it. "I'll agree with that, but that's because I live in a society that sees pointless slaughter of animals as inhumane and I'm a product of that society."

[Tigranes]

I'm sorry I don't have time to contribute properly to the debate, so if warranted, feel free to agree or lambast this post, but I'll just throw one thing in:

 

We don't kill animals just to eat their meat. If that were the case, the issue might be actually fairly simple. But we need animal bodies and whatever is in them for a ton of things in our society - the obvious ones like perfume, perhaps the less obvious ones like tennis rackets. Of course this isn't the picture, and no I'm not out to brand vegetarians hypocrits or idiots at all. The point is - the use of meat is completely and utterly integrated within our society.

 

That means, 'true animal rights', whatever that may be, can only come about on a consistent level if we can answer this fundamental question: what exactly is it about animals that deserve rights? Is it that they are living beings just like humans? Nope, and I'll explain why.

 

As a base example that is NOT a full argument and is largely speculative; trees, vegetables and whatnot are also living things, just like animals. If you refuse to eat meat, but eat vegetables, aren't you only favouring the animals because they look more like us, and we with our limited senses can more easily see the pain they are in? So some vegetarians decide only to eat things that are already dead. Okay. If we extend that logic not just to eating but everything we use natural ingredients for.... what happens to our civilisation if we can't cut down trees until they are dead? Which vegetarian is really willing to hemmorhage humanity to that degree for moral consistency? Nobody.

 

So, the line isn't life. Nobody is arguing for extensive animal rights because animals are alive; it's something else. What is it? What is it particularly about animals, that everyone is raving about animal rights, but plant rights? (I mean, that even sounds stupid to us. It's simply not in our social normative system to talk about plant rights.)

 

I know I sound pretty damn wacko here, but if I can try and communicate something down-to-earth: what exactly is it about animals that deserve extensive rights and protections? It's not that they're living things. Is it that they are closer and more similar to humans in some way? Is it because they make fuzzy eyes at us when we snap up that hatchet? Is it that killing dogs seems inherently more cruel to us than chopping down the rainforest? What? What?

[Krookie]

*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.

 

Seriously, why do people think they're so high and mighty on forums? You'll "let me off the hook"? Really? I'm a "backpedallers". Boy, let me tell you, you're more steadfast than Leonidas and the 300. I'm really glad you "let me off the hook". Really, I don't know what I would have done if I didn't get "let off the hook". Seriously.

 

 

Grow the hell up.

[Azarkon]

Your horse is too high for your legs, pilgrim.

 

I've essentially agreed with you on this whole issue, but you're a bit off the wall. Perhaps I didn't use the word "needless" for your liking? haha Okay, Az, you're a great guy, but you've gone a little gonzo on the issue.

 

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.

 

Seriously, why do people think they're so high and mighty on forums?

 

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.

[Sand]

I don't see eating animals is for pleasure. Its a matter of being a member of a omnivore species.

[LadyCrimson]

No matter how other societies see animal torture, we live in societies (at least the majority of the folks on this board) which see animal torture in an extremely bad light.

I generally subscribe to the notion that we live in a society that sees cruelty to cute, cuddly, humanistic-seeming (chimps) and/or useful work animals in an extremely bad light. Basically, anything we believe can "suffer" where we are able to somehow humanize their expressions and behavior.

 

I don't know many people who are bothered by killing insects, for example, even when it isn't necessary to immediately kill them for personal health. I have known a few, however.

[Sand]

When it comes to chimps there is only a 2% genetic difference between them and us.

[LadyCrimson]

I'm not sure if that was a response to what I wrote or to someone else - if me, I don't think that changes my view's point on human motivations re: cruelty.

Edited March 11, 2008 by LadyCrimson

[Nick_i_am]

I don't see eating animals is for pleasure. Its a matter of being a member of a omnivore species.

 

People would eat a lot less meat if it didn't taste nice.

[Sand]

The same can be said about fruits and vegetables, Nickster.

[Cantousent]

Your horse is too high for your legs, pilgrim.

 

I've essentially agreed with you on this whole issue, but you're a bit off the wall. Perhaps I didn't use the word "needless" for your liking? haha Okay, Az, you're a great guy, but you've gone a little gonzo on the issue.

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.

 

The fact is that virtually anything we do can be considered extreme. We drive cars that pollute the environment. We heat our houses to a comfortable heat level in the winter and cool them in the summer. We argue these topics on a message board using computers that waste electricity. How many people, vegetarian or not, who eat exactly the number of calories they need to live? At some point, any number of human activities are harmful not only to animals but to humanity itself.

 

You bring up the incongruity within the mores of human society? What are you going to tell me next? The Earth revolves around the sun? Light travels faster than sound? Come on, Azarkon, save the speech from the ivory tower for someone younger. I know exactly what goes on in meat packing facilities. Haven't you ever seen the Simpsons? hahaha Seriously, though, I've hunted. I've fished. I've fished far too often. I don't tend to hunt or fish because, frankly, I don't enjoy killing animals. I do, however, enjoy venison. Lobster is great stuff also. Why don't you bring up the shocking news that there is incongruity between my distaste at killing bambi but my pleasure in eating her. (I can just imagine the lewd remarks now!) I don't have any personal animosity for you, but you're a doofus. Challenge indeed!

 

As far as Lady Crimson and Sand, there are religious movements that have and do hold against killing anything. Must be tough to take an anti-biotic. If we classify those "cuddly" animals as human, especially based on similarity of genetics, then we're going to start down a long road. For one thing, nothing would embolden groups like PETA more. How many degrees different from humanity is a dog? How bout a racoon? Once we allow any percentage, then it will always be a question of what percentage.

 

Now, I don't mind having separate rules for "cuddly" animals. That's the way of human existence. As Azarkon said, that's one of the inconsistencies of human behavior. We perceive something and that perception guides us. It's much safer for animals if they are cute and don't taste good. It's a lot better for them.

 

The point is, as long as we don't push past the point where we actually classify these animals as human I'm okay. 'Cause, no matter what we're arguing now, once we open the door for that 2% chimp, we're going to have a lot of strangers in our house.

[Tale]

I used to be a vegetarian. Then I realized I don't actually care about the animals.

[Sand]

Well, Chimps do have some human behavior traits. The able to use tools, to learn language, and so forth. They aren't human, of course, but they are the closest thing to human the animal kingdom has.

[Cantousent]

Well, Chimps do have some human behavior traits. The able to use tools, to learn language, and so forth. They aren't human, of course, but they are the closest thing to human the animal kingdom has.

 

I agree. :Cant's happy to find agreement icon:

 

Plus, it's not like I have anything against chimps.

[Azarkon]

The fact is that virtually anything we do can be considered extreme. We drive cars that pollute the environment. We heat our houses to a comfortable heat level in the winter and cool them in the summer. We argue these topics on a message board using computers that waste electricity. How many people, vegetarian or not, who eat exactly the number of calories they need to live? At some point, any number of human activities are harmful not only to animals but to humanity itself.

 

You bring up the incongruity within the mores of human society? What are you going to tell me next? The Earth revolves around the sun? Light travels faster than sound? Come on, Azarkon, save the speech from the ivory tower for someone younger. I know exactly what goes on in meat packing facilities. Haven't you ever seen the Simpsons? hahaha Seriously, though, I've hunted. I've fished. I've fished far too often. I don't tend to hunt or fish because, frankly, I don't enjoy killing animals. I do, however, enjoy venison. Lobster is great stuff also. Why don't you bring up the shocking news that there is incongruity between my distaste at killing bambi but my pleasure in eating her. (I can just imagine the lewd remarks now!) I don't have any personal animosity for you, but you're a doofus. Challenge indeed!

 

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.

[Tale]

I have something against chimps. They killed my family.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Tale

[Nick_i_am]

The same can be said about fruits and vegetables, Nickster.

 

So? Your claim that eating meat is nothing to do with pleasure is moronic at best. Unsuprisingly.

[Krookie]

Well this thread has gone to hell

[Sand]

The same can be said about fruits and vegetables, Nickster.

 

So? Your claim that eating meat is nothing to do with pleasure is moronic at best. Unsuprisingly.

 

Can't think of a good argument so you resort to insults. Typical.

 

I did not say eating meat is not pleasurable. I said that our species evolved as an omnivore, and eating meat helped that evolution. Pleasurable or not, it is how our species came to be. Read what is there, and not what you want to be there.