# Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

Here's the latest health scare for y'all to chew over:



> *A study appears to show an overwhelming link between life-threatening diseases and eating meats, eggs, milk, and cheese
> *
> Middle-aged people who eat protein-rich food are four times more likely to die of cancer than someone who only eats a little, according to a new study.
> 
> ...


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2014)

Like anything really - a balanced diet is the way to increase your chances of a healthy life.  It is well known that we eat too much protein in the west, so this makes sense. I try not to eat too much red meat, but I love eggs and cheese.


----------



## Callie (Mar 5, 2014)

stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharpened carrot is also VER VER BAD


is this news?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2014)

*gets comfy


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2014)

Callie said:


> stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharpened carrot is also VER VER BAD
> 
> 
> is this news?



I think we need a double blind randomised trial to test your carrot hypothesis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 5, 2014)

So we're not allowed to eat fats, sugars, carbohydrates _or _protein now?

That's pretty much all the major components of food out the window then. What exactly _do_ these fuckers expect us to eat?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2014)

Let's all live long, dull lives


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2014)

and here they come!


----------



## Callie (Mar 5, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> So we're not allowed to eat fats, sugars, carbohydrates _or _protein now?
> 
> That's pretty much all the major components of food out the window then. What exactly _do_ these fuckers expect us to eat?


chips are OK and fine for all


chips chips chips


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2014)

Callie said:


> chips are OK and fine for all
> 
> 
> chips chips chips


Especially when cooked in beef dripping.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 5, 2014)

i had large chips earlier, huge and lush


----------



## Callie (Mar 5, 2014)

I dont think they can ever ban chips. They are a worldwide, nutritionally adept foodsource and I am now talking myself into eating chips cos I havent had any dinner.


----------



## mod (Mar 5, 2014)

How come we're all living longer then????


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Let's all live long, dull lives


How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 5, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?


I'll give you my meat when you pry it from my cold, dead hands


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 5, 2014)

Now the fuckers will want to ban eating food in pubs.
 

The Nanny State is coming to get you!


----------



## dessiato (Mar 5, 2014)

The problem with eating any type of food is that sooner or later you will die. Not eating any food will only lead to dying sooner rather than later. Overall the problem with life is that it is an illness curable only by death, after all no one ever survived being alive.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 5, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?



Cutting out things you enjoy is what makes it dull. Obviously giving a rare steak to a vegan won't make their life more exciting.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 5, 2014)

Callie said:


> I dont think they can ever ban chips. They are a worldwide, nutritionally adept foodsource and I am now talking myself into eating chips cos I havent had any dinner.



Chips were actually the very first food to be claimed to be more unhealthy than smoking fags - waaaaay back in the early 1980s!


----------



## Bonfirelight (Mar 5, 2014)

So what they're saying is, smoking is actually only as bad as eating a decent portion of meat and eggs?

good news as a smoker I reckon.


----------



## stavros (Mar 5, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> I'll give you my meat when you pry it from my cold, dead hands



Is this really the thread for sexual advances like that?


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 5, 2014)

oh noes



> *Danger as smug vegetarians approach critical mass*
> 
> http://newstoad.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/danger-as-smug-vegetarians-approach.html





> Britain is in danger of an environmental catastrophe as many vegetarians are rapidly increasing in smugness, to a level approaching critical mass according to television boffin Professor Brian Cox.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Mar 5, 2014)

From the Guardian:
Winkler continues: "The practical consequence for the protein story is that you've got a correlation between food intake and disease, but the food intake data is so poor that any correlation is suspect. Academics sit in front of a computer screen and do data analysis. But they never question the quality of the primary data. I'm not being rude, but my attitude towards that study is contempt."

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-protein-what-can-we-eat-diet-cancer-diabetes


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 5, 2014)

There's people on the comments of that report who appear to believe that prayer cured their cancer. And somewhere, there's almost certainly a study that backs that up, too.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 5, 2014)

Too much of most things is bad for you.

I believe in a balanced diet.


----------



## alpha slappa (Mar 5, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> So we're not allowed to eat fats, sugars, carbohydrates _or _protein now?
> 
> That's pretty much all the major components of food out the window then. What exactly _do_ these fuckers expect us to eat?



Mud? Play doh?


----------



## alpha slappa (Mar 5, 2014)

stupid dogbot said:


> There's people on the comments of that report who appear to believe that prayer cured their cancer. And somewhere, there's almost certainly a study that backs that up, too.



And one that disproves it.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 5, 2014)

alpha slappa said:


> And one that disproves it.



True that


----------



## T & P (Mar 5, 2014)

A bit of a non-story, as per usual with such subject. But quite useful for agenda pushing and point scoring, I guess...


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 5, 2014)

dessiato said:


> The problem with eating any type of food is that sooner or later you will die. Not eating any food will only lead to dying sooner rather than later. Overall the problem with life is that it is an illness curable only by death, after all no one ever survived being alive.


Yes.  Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
Eating tasty food, drinking lots of alcohol and smoking are some of the few pleasures in life which have the beneficial side-effect of helping to curtail the whole dreary episode.

Sadly, nanny-state busybodies are determined that we should all suffer a joyless, tax-paying existence for as long as possible.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 5, 2014)

I eat a lot of cheesemeateggs and I'm very worried. Stories like this don't help.
Had my 40+ health check on Monday and my blood pressure is super high. Doing a cholesterol test next week and another blood pressure check the week after. But I know what they're gonna tell me. Cut down!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 5, 2014)

AnnaKarpik said:


> From the Guardian:
> Winkler continues: "The practical consequence for the protein story is that you've got a correlation between food intake and disease, but the food intake data is so poor that any correlation is suspect. Academics sit in front of a computer screen and do data analysis. But they never question the quality of the primary data. I'm not being rude, but my attitude towards that study is contempt."
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-protein-what-can-we-eat-diet-cancer-diabetes


And this is the NHS assessment of it:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 6, 2014)

How much is too much?

Why is it that whenever you try and pin the experts - doctors and nutriotionistsetc (in my experience at least) - they cannot answer. It's like when you ask how big a portion of fruit is. They just give you the 'how long is a piece of string' answer. Helpful.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Mar 6, 2014)

Doctors are rarely experts in nutrition. Nutritionists are by definition not experts in nutrition. Dieticians however are experts in nutrition. Ask one of them.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 6, 2014)

When will Soylent Green be on the tables?
The ultimate in resource recycling.


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 6, 2014)

Eat what you want in moderation. 
I live on chips and slimfast. The food equivalent of a vodka redbull.


----------



## T & P (Mar 6, 2014)

Eat whatever you want, and do plenty of exercise. Problem solved.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 6, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> How much is too much?
> 
> Why is it that whenever you try and pin the experts - doctors and nutriotionistsetc (in my experience at least) - they cannot answer. It's like when you ask how big a portion of fruit is. They just give you the 'how long is a piece of string' answer. Helpful.


After much research - reading the internet, I find that the Famous Five portions is based on American cooking quantities. In American recipes you will notice that they measure quantities in cups whereas in Britain we use pounds weight or kilograms or fractions thereof. The unit of 'portions' to be used for the WHO guidelines on eating is the half-cup. Try to imagine half a cup of oranges or cabbage, not too difficult.

My research team found that the origin of the Famous Five 'portions' goes back many years and is suspected to have been created by an American fruit and vegetable supplier that was having difficulty selling some of its lines of vegetables. They wanted people to eat a bigger range of fruit and veg to solve their selling problems so lobbied local government in their area to set up a scheme promoting 5 portions of fruit and vegetables as a recommended diet. From that local scheme it got taken up by Central Government and later picked up by the World Health Organisation where it became orthodoxy, and finally picked up by Britain and many other countries. It is a tribute to (or victim of) the power of lobbying.

Anyway - half a cup is the size of a portion. I took a lot of trouble to find that out. In passing I would like to remember the name of the American presidential candidate who said that if he became president he would not eat broccoli as being president he would have the power to make such decisions. He had to withdraw and apologise for that statement when the broccoli growers associations all threatened him with action for damaging their business prospects. That illustrates the power of lobbying in the agribusiness market again.


----------



## gosub (Mar 6, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> So we're not allowed to eat fats, sugars, carbohydrates _or _protein now?
> 
> That's pretty much all the major components of food out the window then. What exactly _do_ these fuckers expect us to eat?




There was a decent Horizon last month on this.  The non carb was v bad, the carb only not so bad and its the mixture that makes you fat.  Everything in moderation, is as always was, the sensible advice


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2014)

no no NO! you have to have as much MEAT as possible to make you NORMAL!!
anyone who says different is different and has to be mocked, put down and ridiculed as much as possible to shut them up, even if they haven't said anything!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 6, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's the latest health scare for y'all to chew over:


 
So it's a high-protein diet for a good many Urbanites from now on, then.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 6, 2014)

ddraig said:


> no no NO! you have to have as much MEAT as possible to make you NORMAL!!


 
I don't think many people believe that, but you can be quite persuasive.


----------



## xenon (Mar 6, 2014)

The radio report said red meat and dairy. Didn't mention eggs, fish or chicken.


----------



## xenon (Mar 6, 2014)

I'm not gonna actually read the report. It will only put me off bacon, sausages, steak all that good stuff. I've not eaten any of that for a fortnight though.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 6, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> And this is the NHS assessment of it:
> 
> http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx





> The warning was raised in a press release about a large study which found that for people aged 50-65, eating a lot of protein was associated with an increased risk of dying.
> 
> However, the study, which assessed the diets of Americans in a single 24-hour period (rather than long-term), found in those aged over 65 that a high protein diet was actually associated with a reduced risk of death from any cause or from cancer. *These differing findings meant that overall there was no increase in risk of death, or from dying of cancer with a high protein diet.*





> The claim in much of the media, that a high protein diet in middle-aged people is “as dangerous as smoking” is unsupported.
> 
> We need to eat protein, we do not need to smoke.





> The headlines suggesting a high protein diet is “as harmful as smoking” was not a specific finding of the study and could be seen as unnecessary fear-mongering. This is particularly of note given that the effects of a high protein diet were found to differ dramatically by age.



Fancy that.


----------



## gosub (Mar 6, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t8r4h


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 6, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> And this is the NHS assessment of it:
> 
> http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx



quoted for IMPORTANCE.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 6, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> quoted for IMPORTANCE.


At least the NHS has not been fooled by the misrepresentation in the Telegraph and Guardian.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 6, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> quoted for IMPORTANCE.


 
Well, importance for anyone inclined to believe every bit of press health-guff that gets farted out.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 6, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, importance for anyone inclined to believe every bit of press health-guff that gets farted out.



quoted because it's a far more balanced review of the paper, as opposed to the click bait crap in the papers.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 6, 2014)

T & P said:


> Eat whatever you want, and do plenty of exercise. Problem solved.



No, eat a mix of foods from vegetables to meat and ensure its not to full of pumped in shit* and if entirely possible cook it yourself. Eat plenty of it but not enough to be sick and do some exercise.

*this is the the hard part, ready meals, takeaways, all use cheap ass crap which tastes delicious but will kill you.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 6, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> quoted because it's a far more balanced review of the paper, as opposed to the click bait crap in the papers.


 
Yeah, not disputing that.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Mar 6, 2014)

How much cheese milk and meat is too much?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 6, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> When will Soylent Green be on the tables?
> The ultimate in resource recycling.



Soylent Green - made from vegans and vegetarians.
Soylent Red - made from omnivores.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2014)

Artaxerxes said:


> No, eat a mix of foods from vegetables to meat and ensure its not to full of pumped in shit* and if entirely possible cook it yourself. Eat plenty of it but not enough to be sick and do some exercise.
> 
> *this is the the hard part, ready meals, takeaways, all use cheap ass crap which tastes delicious but will kill you.


meat is not needed


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 6, 2014)

ddraig said:


> meat is not needed


neither is wine or beer.


----------



## N_igma (Mar 6, 2014)

Meat, two veg and 4 wanks a day sorted.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 6, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> neither is wine or beer.


that wasn't mentioned in what i quoted so what point are you making?


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 6, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> neither is only wine or and beer.


Corrected for you.
I'm just glugging a pint of glorious Oatmeal Stout.  Meal in a glass...


----------



## classicdish (Mar 6, 2014)

Callie said:


> chips are OK and fine for all
> 
> 
> chips chips chips


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 6, 2014)

Those are "fries" - yuck!

These are chips:


----------



## stavros (Mar 6, 2014)

It's OK everyone, don't panic, it was all a false alarm. That sage of reliable health stories the Daily Express has found the truth;






If only Diana had eaten more fatty food....


----------



## moochedit (Mar 6, 2014)

stavros said:


> It's OK everyone, don't panic, it was all a false alarm. That sage of reliable health stories the Daily Express has found the truth;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's good enough for me


----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?



How does posting 148,000 times on a local message board make your life more exciting?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 7, 2014)

Oh, for God's sake.



> *High protein diet not as bad for you as smoking*
> 
> “People who eat diets rich in animal protein carry similar cancer risk to those who smoke 20 cigarettes each day,” reports The Daily Telegraph.
> We have decades of very good evidence that smoking kills and – fortunately for meat lovers – *this latest unhelpful comparison with high protein diets largely appears to be a triumph of PR spin.*
> ...



http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 7, 2014)

> *Are meat and eggs as bad for you as smoking? Only if you twist the facts*
> 
> *Making such a comparison may prevent sound health advice from getting through to the general public*


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...king-only-if-you-twist-the-facts-9171442.html


----------



## gabi (Mar 7, 2014)

Well, apparently necking red wine is actually good for you according to scientists, so I'm off for a merlot or two tonight. To wash down my a lovely rare steak and chips.... Mmmm


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2014)

ExtraRefined said:


> How does posting 148,000 times on a local message board make your life more exciting?


How is that any kind of comparison?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

Humans are really flexible in our diets. Inuit traditionally ate virtually no fruit or veg, but got everything they needed to stay healthy from eating meat and fish, and - crucially - eating all the animal - the liver is important.

Here's a good article on the high-protein diets of various peoples and how they work. It's not just 'meat'. The kind of meat you eat is crucial, how the animal lived, the bits of it that you eat, how fresh it is, how you cook it, etc. As the article points out, you can even get all the Vit C you need just from meat if you don't overcook it.

In other places and times, people have lived healthily on just veg. That flexibility is part of what has allowed humans to colonise the world so widely.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?


Veal schnitzel? Or veal with truffle pasta? It's food of the gods man.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Veal schnitzel? Or veal with truffle pasta? It's food of the gods man.


Doesn't do it for me, sorry.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> Doesn't do it for me, sorry.


Veal from Waitrose is kept ethically. The calves live decent lives before they are killed. Cruelty is not necessary to produce veal.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Veal from Waitrose is kept ethically. The calves live decent lives before they are killed. Cruelty is not necessary to produce veal.


And what percentage of veal eaters do you think buy it from Waitrose, notwithstanding the notion of an 'uncruel' slaughter. But that's another argument,


----------



## 8ball (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Veal from Waitrose is kept ethically. The calves live decent lives before they are killed. Cruelty is not necessary to produce veal.


 
Aren't there a couple of different kinds, called something like 'white veal' and 'pink veal' (white being the crueller and apparently better-tasting one)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> And what percentage of veal eaters do you think buy it from Waitrose, notwithstanding the notion of an 'uncruel' slaughter. But that's another argument,


In my house, 100 per cent. I've only bought veal about five times in my life, and it has always been from Waitrose.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Aren't there a couple of different kinds, called something like 'white veal' and 'pink veal' (white being the crueller and apparently better-tasting one)?


white is practically nonexistent here.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In my house, 100 per cent. I've only bought veal about five times in my life, and it has always been from Waitrose.


That's great to hear, and I'm glad you can afford their prieces, but that wasn't the question I asked.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Aren't there a couple of different kinds, called something like 'white veal' and 'pink veal' (white being the crueller and apparently better-tasting one)?


 
Yes. White veal is crated, pink veal is just a very young animal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> That's great to hear, and I'm glad you can afford their prieces, but that wasn't the question I asked.


I only ever buy it when it is reduced, but thanks for the moronic dig. But even at full price, a nice piece of veal costs little more than a pint of beer in the pub. 

What point are you trying to make here?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 7, 2014)

Waitrose is beside the point tbh. All veal in the UK is pink veal AFAIK, as white veal has been banned for years. Obviously a vegetarian still isn't going to like it but it's not really different from any other meat.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What point are you trying to make here?


 
You're a very bad meat-eating person.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> You're a very bad meat-eating person.


I've bought veal from Waitrose. 

That breaks about four rules all at once.

Didn't have editor down as a 'you shop at Waitrose so you must be rich' moron, but hey ho, evidently he is one.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've bought veal from Waitrose.
> 
> That breaks about four rules all at once.
> 
> Didn't have editor down as a 'you shop at Waitrose so you must be rich' moron, but hey ho, evidently he is one.


I've no idea why you've decided to start making stuff up at this point (or throw around insults), but it really doesn't do you any favours.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> neither is wine or beer.



Oh yes it bloody well is!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> I've no idea why you've decided to start making stuff up at this point (or throw around insults), but it really doesn't do you any favours.


'I'm glad you can afford their prieces'

What do you know about me, my budget and my shopping habits? You think you can tell something because I mention buying veal from Waitrose, which is moronic.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'I'm glad you can afford their prieces'
> 
> What do you know about me, my budget and my shopping habits? You think you can tell something because I mention buying veal from Waitrose, which is moronic.


Are you really so out of touch with reality that you assume that everyone can afford to buy top quality meat from Waitrose?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 7, 2014)

Perhaps there is low blood sugar on this thread. I suggest an orange juice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2014)

editor said:


> Are you really so out of touch with reality that you assume that everyone can afford to buy top quality meat from Waitrose?


I'm in touch with my own reality sufficiently to know that I can only afford Waitrose veal when it is reduced, which it quite often is. Waitrose meat is often reduced to  half price or better. It is my local supermarket, and I pop in there two or three times a week and pick up good bargains. 

Now fuck off.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've bought veal from Waitrose.
> 
> That breaks about four rules all at once.
> 
> Didn't have editor down as a 'you shop at Waitrose so you must be rich' moron, but hey ho, evidently he is one.


sad


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Perhaps there is low blood sugar on this thread. I suggest an orange juice.



Or some meat in their diet.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In my house, 100 per cent. I've only bought veal about five times in my life, and it has always been from Waitrose.



*adds another name to the list*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm in touch with my own reality sufficiently to know that I can only afford Waitrose veal when it is reduced, which it quite often is. Waitrose meat is often reduced to  half price or better. It is my local supermarket, and I pop in there two or three times a week and pick up good bargains.
> 
> Now fuck off.



TBF you can buy veal more widely than at Waitrose, and it's all raised pretty much to the same standard, because it's a "premium" product.
Also, in terms of "pink" and "white" veals, we only sell and rear pink veal over here - that is, the calf is actually weaned and eating grass before it is slaughtered for the table, unlike white veal (which IIRC someone on here has said is also now illegal in the EU) which is still on the teat, crated and usually fed supplementary milk proteins to keep the flesh pale.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> *adds another name to the list*



Of people you'd like to invite you to dinner?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 7, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Humans are really flexible in our diets. Inuit traditionally ate virtually no fruit or veg, but got everything they needed to stay healthy from eating meat and fish, and - crucially - eating all the animal - the liver is important.
> 
> Here's a good article on the high-protein diets of various peoples and how they work. It's not just 'meat'. The kind of meat you eat is crucial, how the animal lived, the bits of it that you eat, how fresh it is, how you cook it, etc. As the article points out, you can even get all the Vit C you need just from meat if you don't overcook it.
> 
> In other places and times, people have lived healthily on just veg. That flexibility is part of what has allowed humans to colonise the world so widely.



That's an interesting article. But I doubt Inuit ate some types of liver, or they'd be dead.  Polar bear liver is toxic to humans due to the massive amount of Vitamin A it contains.  So best avoided really.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 7, 2014)

When I'm taking a sabbatical from alcohol (as I am doing ATM except this one's hopefully going to be for the rest of my days), I always seem to drink a hell of a lot of milk - For one thing I love the taste but I also find (and this is probably entirely a placebo/imaginary type thing) that the drinking of milk seems to sooth the nerves and have a mild anti-anxiety type effect.

Anyway, thinking about milk and alcohol together has got me wondering - Is there/has there ever been an alcoholic drink based on fermented milk? I don't mean an alcoholic drink with milk added to it, I mean something like milk wine or milk beer in which the actual milk (with the possible addition of some extra sugar to boost strength) has been fermented?

Sorry, that has fuck all to do with the OP, but these kind of studies are bullshit anyway and only exist to keep bullshit studymakers in jobs anyway.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 7, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> When I'm taking a sabbatical from alcohol (as I am doing ATM except this one's hopefully going to be for the rest of my days), I always seem to drink a hell of a lot of milk - For one thing I love the taste but I also find (and this is probably entirely a placebo/imaginary type thing) that the drinking of milk seems to sooth the nerves and have a mild anti-anxiety type effect.
> 
> Anyway, thinking about milk and alcohol together has got me wondering - Is there/has there ever been an alcoholic drink based on fermented milk? I don't mean an alcoholic drink with milk added to it, I mean something like milk wine or milk beer in which the actual milk (with the possible addition of some extra sugar to boost strength) has been fermented?
> 
> Sorry, that has fuck all to do with the OP, but these kind of studies are bullshit anyway and only exist to keep bullshit studymakers in jobs anyway.



This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 7, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> This
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis



Thanks

I wish I'd have known about that before I stopped drinking though. Ah well, I'll just have to live with it.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 7, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> When I'm taking a sabbatical from alcohol (as I am doing ATM except this one's hopefully going to be for the rest of my days), I always seem to drink a hell of a lot of milk - For one thing I love the taste but I also find (and this is probably entirely a placebo/imaginary type thing) that the drinking of milk seems to sooth the nerves and have a mild anti-anxiety type effect.
> 
> Anyway, thinking about milk and alcohol together has got me wondering - Is there/has there ever been an alcoholic drink based on fermented milk? I don't mean an alcoholic drink with milk added to it, I mean something like milk wine or milk beer in which the actual milk (with the possible addition of some extra sugar to boost strength) has been fermented?
> 
> Sorry, that has fuck all to do with the OP, but these kind of studies are bullshit anyway and only exist to keep bullshit studymakers in jobs anyway.



Not fermented milk, but I used to know someone in Leeds who drank vodka and milk.  To be honest, it looked disgusting - and confused bar staff no end - but he seemed to like it.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Not fermented milk, but I used to know someone in Leeds who drank vodka and milk.  To be honest, it looked disgusting - and confused bar staff no end - but he seemed to like it.



Did it separate and/or go lumpy?

Tia Maria and milk's quite a nice drink. And it'll stop you getting those little white things on your fingernails that people used to say were a sign of calcium deficiency but probably aren't.


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 7, 2014)

We were stuck in the early hours once, called a taxi place that delivered booze and then made our own Baileys with cheap brandy and chocolate milk. It was disgusting.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 7, 2014)




----------



## mr steev (Mar 7, 2014)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Not fermented milk, but I used to know someone in Leeds who drank vodka and milk.  To be honest, it looked disgusting - and confused bar staff no end - but he seemed to like it.



It shouldn't have confused the bar staff too much, you can make a white russian with milk rather than cream, that's just lacking the liquor

What about milk vodka



> *Black Cow Pure Milk Vodka Bottling Note*
> The creation of West Dorset dairy farmer Jason Barber, Black Cow claims to be the world's first pure milk vodka, made from nothing but pure whole milk. The whey is used for vodka whilst the curds go into Jason's award winning cheeses!



http://www.blackcow.co.uk/


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 8, 2014)

stavros said:


> It's OK everyone, don't panic, it was all a false alarm. That sage of reliable health stories the Daily Express has found the truth;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



64 fahrenheit? FFS Express, that's only 17.7 fucking degrees fucking celsius?

Broken Britain


----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 8, 2014)

Pink veal doesn't count. Proper white veal, for making escalopes and blanquete de veau, is always on the shopping list for my trips to France.


----------



## xenon (Mar 8, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> When I'm taking a sabbatical from alcohol (as I am doing ATM except this one's hopefully going to be for the rest of my days), I always seem to drink a hell of a lot of milk - For one thing I love the taste but I also find (and this is probably entirely a placebo/imaginary type thing) that the drinking of milk seems to sooth the nerves and have a mild anti-anxiety type effect.
> 
> Anyway, thinking about milk and alcohol together has got me wondering - Is there/has there ever been an alcoholic drink based on fermented milk? I don't mean an alcoholic drink with milk added to it, I mean something like milk wine or milk beer in which the actual milk (with the possible addition of some extra sugar to boost strength) has been fermented?
> 
> Sorry, that has fuck all to do with the OP, but these kind of studies are bullshit anyway and only exist to keep bullshit studymakers in jobs anyway.


Didnt your Mongolians drink something like that. On the phone. Can't be asked googling to be honest.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of people you'd like to invite you to dinner?



once eaten veil by choice

twice eaten it by not asking whilst served a meal..

bacon is cheaper


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 8, 2014)

ExtraRefined said:


> Pink veal doesn't count. Proper white veal, for making escalopes and blanquete de veau, is always on the shopping list for my trips to France.



I've got to say I've never really fancied veal. I like meat that's all fatty and tough that you can chew on a bit. Pallid, milk-fed stuff that hasn't seen the light of day doesn't sound all that nice to me. Still, each to their own or some othersuch 



xenon said:


> Didnt your Mongolians drink something like that. On the phone. Can't be asked googling to be honest.



They did, buckaroo answered earlier on.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Humans are really flexible in our diets. Inuit traditionally ate virtually no fruit or veg, but got everything they needed to stay healthy from eating meat and fish,.



And a lot of that, raw.


----------



## DaleyMale (Mar 8, 2014)

*Last time I walked past Brindisa on the opposite side of the road I spotted they were selling legs of ham and chorizo. Champagne & Fromage ALSO sell a lot of meaty things, despite their fragile attempt of a smokescreen by not mentioning it in their name. 

.......Am I the only one that can see that the principal cause of cancer is Gentryfication?  

* this opinion was sponsored by Crayola and brought to you using the letters C, A & T


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 8, 2014)

DaleyMale said:


> *Last time I walked past Brindisa on the opposite side of the road I spotted they were selling legs of ham and chorizo. Champagne & Fromage ALSO sell a lot of meaty things, despite their fragile attempt of a smokescreen by not mentioning it in their name.
> 
> .......Am I the only one that can see that the principal cause of cancer is Gentryfication?
> 
> * this opinion was sponsored by Crayola and brought to you using the letters C, A & T



I was just on the joke thread, but my mind was elsewhere when I opened this thread.

I thought I was still on the joke thread. I read the post above and thought: That's not very funny?


----------



## Yu_Gi_Oh (Mar 8, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> This
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumis



I am totally buying some of that!


----------



## DaleyMale (Mar 8, 2014)

...king Solomon, he never lived 'round here.


----------



## DaleyMale (Mar 8, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I was just on the joke thread, but my mind was elsewhere when I opened this thread.
> 
> I thought I was still on the joke thread. I read the post above and thought: That's not very funny?


Fair-dos, I'll get my coat...


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 8, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Did it separate and/or go lumpy?
> 
> Tia Maria and milk's quite a nice drink. And it'll stop you getting those little white things on your fingernails that people used to say were a sign of calcium deficiency but probably aren't.



It didn't separate at all.  But the poor barstaff used to have to use the milk they'd brought in for their brews, and obviously there was no button on those pre-programmed tills to charge for the milk.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 8, 2014)

Yu_Gi_Oh said:


> I am totally buying some of that!



You _must_. And tell us what it's like.


----------



## sptme (Mar 8, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> You _must_. And tell us what it's like.


I had some when I was in Inner Mongolia. I doesn't taste like milk at all. Its very sour and doesn't taste particularly alcoholic, closest thing I can compare it to is unsweetened grapefruit juice.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2014)

Wait, WHAT?

Pangs of guilt made me pass up several kilos of veal in waitrose tramps buffet the other day and now I find out it's no more or less cruel than other meat?   Dammit, it was practically free.


----------



## stavros (Mar 9, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> 64 fahrenheit? FFS Express, that's only 17.7 fucking degrees fucking celsius?
> 
> Broken Britain



At least they put the price of the "paper" in decimal currency. One step at a time, you know.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 9, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> When I'm taking a sabbatical from alcohol (as I am doing ATM except this one's hopefully going to be for the rest of my days), I always seem to drink a hell of a lot of milk - For one thing I love the taste but I also find (and this is probably entirely a placebo/imaginary type thing) that the drinking of milk seems to sooth the nerves and have a mild anti-anxiety type effect.
> 
> Anyway, thinking about milk and alcohol together has got me wondering - Is there/has there ever been an alcoholic drink based on fermented milk? I don't mean an alcoholic drink with milk added to it, I mean something like milk wine or milk beer in which the actual milk (with the possible addition of some extra sugar to boost strength) has been fermented?
> 
> Sorry, that has fuck all to do with the OP, but these kind of studies are bullshit anyway and only exist to keep bullshit studymakers in jobs anyway.



I had fermented milk in Tanzania - that was almost 25 years ago so I can't remember exactly what it tasted like other than it being sour and rank


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF you can buy veal more widely than at Waitrose, and it's all raised pretty much to the same standard, because it's a "premium" product.
> Also, in terms of "pink" and "white" veals, we only sell and rear pink veal over here - that is, the calf is actually weaned and eating grass before it is slaughtered for the table, unlike white veal (which IIRC someone on here has said is also now illegal in the EU) which is still on the teat, crated and usually fed supplementary milk proteins to keep the flesh pale.


Sure you can. I was simply saying what I knew to be true. But being that I'm totally out of touch with reality, I can't possibly see beyond the privileged status I have as some who enters Waitrose.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 9, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?



You've never been chased by the police helicopter whilst eating bacon on toast?
mmmmmmm... bacon on toast!



littlebabyjesus said:


> Veal from Waitrose is kept ethically. The calves live decent lives before they are killed. Cruelty is not necessary to produce veal.



There's no such thing as ethical veal. What next... ethical genocide?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> <snip> There's no such thing as ethical veal. What next... ethical genocide?


I beg to differ - scratch that - I demand to differ.  

If you're not a vegetarian, there is such a thing as ethical veal, in the same way as there's a difference between using fur, hide, or leather byproducts of the meat industry and using fur, hide, or leather from an animal which doesn't get eaten.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I beg to differ - scratch that - I demand to differ.
> 
> If you're not a vegetarian, there is such a thing as ethical veal, in the same way as there's a difference between using fur, hide, or leather byproducts of the meat industry and using fur, hide, or leather from an animal which doesn't get eaten.



How is it, or could it possibly be construed, that taking a baby from its mother at a few days old and killing it at a few months old, is in any way 'ethical'?

E2A... I love meat. I love a nice steak and I love bacon but I refuse to eat lamb or veal. This doesn't make me in any way better than someone who likes to eat babies but it makes me feel a little less guilty.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> How is it, or could it possibly be construed, that taking a baby from its mother at a few days old and killing it at a few months old, is in any way 'ethical'?<snip>


If you use milk, that calf would be taken from its mother and killed anyway.

Don't try to gross me out, next you'll be telling me about bee vomit (honey) and chicken periods (unfertilised eggs).


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> If you use milk, that calf would be taken from its mother and killed anyway.
> 
> Don't try to gross me out, next you'll be telling me about bee vomit (honey) and chicken periods (unfertilised eggs).



I'm not trying to gross you out, nor am I trying to put myself forward as being morally superior in any way. I'm simply saying that veal, in any form, isn't ethical.
I hold my hands up and admit that I eat murdered animals but I wouldn't try to convince myself that any form of murder can be in any way ethical.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> How does meat and eggs make your life more exciting?


a bacon and egg sarnie would be pretty bland without the bacon and egg.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2014)

free spirit said:


> a bacon and egg sarnie would be pretty bland without the bacon and egg.


You get _excited_ by a bacon and egg sarnie? Oh OK.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> You get _excited_ by a bacon and egg sarnie? Oh OK.


damn right, it's the little things that help get me through the day.

I'm also like a little kid at Christmas when I realise that it's Friday, which is burger day*.


*.yes I have to limit myself to one day a week for burgers or I'd be a right fat git


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> You get _excited_ by a bacon and egg sarnie? Oh OK.


I do. One of the few pleasures I have left these days. I had 2 bacon and egg rolls last night, and thoroughly enjoyed them.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I do. One of the few pleasures I have left these days. I had 2 bacon and egg rolls last night, and thoroughly enjoyed them.


I'm glad you find it so exciting.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I hold my hands up and admit that I eat murdered animals but I wouldn't try to convince myself that any form of murder can be in any way ethical.



People are murdered, not animals.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People are murdered, not animals.



I prefer my definition to that of the lawmakers.

And I refuse to get into a pedantic argument with you, because you talk more shite than any politician or American I've ever listened to.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I prefer my definition to that of the lawmakers.
> 
> And I refuse to get into a pedantic argument with you, because you talk more shite than any politician or American I've ever listened to.



I'm not interested in an argument with you. And you can use any idiosyncratic definition for any word you'd like. You can have a personal definition that 'yes' actually means 'no'.

Won't help much when you try to communicate with others, though.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm not interested in an argument with you. And you can use any idiosyncratic definition for any word you'd like. You can have a personal definition that 'yes' actually means 'no'.
> 
> Won't help much when you try to communicate with others, though.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure you can. I was simply saying what I knew to be true. But being that I'm totally out of touch with reality, I can't possibly see beyond the privileged status I have as some who enters Waitrose.



you need to check the TB thread then.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2014)

Am I the only one who finds it irritating that this kind of individualist neo-Puritan pseudoscientific horseshit gets plastered all over the news while the wider reasons for bad diets and ill health are glossed over if not outright ignored? 

Nope, it's never the fault of the for-profit food industry for either selling heaps of cheap crap or ripping people off for anything half-way decent. Chaotic lifestyles brought about by increasingly demanding and unrewarding jobs (see: increase in zero-hours shitwork) are never to blame. It's all the fault of us individual sinners with our choccy and burger-scoffing proclivities, with the added bonus for the self-righteous that it can't just be dismissed as a load of spiritual mumbo-jumbo made up by a bunch of miserable old men. A new asceticism for a scientific age!

Apart from that, even if there are some facts underlying the arguments of the media's constant stream of neurotic obsession, the tedious sermonising nature of these paeans to live a long and dull life munching rabbit food puts me off regardless, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Since we're living longer as mod pointed out on the first page, the trade-off seems reasonable enough to me at least.

/rant


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Am I the only one who finds it irritating that this kind of individualist neo-Puritan pseudoscientific horseshit gets plastered all over the news while the wider reasons for bad diets and ill health are glossed over if not outright ignored?<snip>


Word.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Isn't it the case that if you eat cheese or drink milk you pretty much (as an omnivore) have an ethical obligation to eat veal? Because of the dairy industry, British boy calves were just disposed of at birth (no good for dairy farming), because Brits had become very resolved against veal.  Now with a slight resurgence of veal consumption, they're more likely to live a bit first.  

Of course, it's not much if a life... But better than newborn cow scrappage, which is what has to happen otherwise, if we are to have milk and cheese.  

Have to say, as an observing omnivore, I find veganism - or at least non-dairy consumption vegetarianism - a more ethically consistent position.  But then I guess vegetarianism isn't simply an ethical choice, and cheese is less squick-making than flesh, so it could be that. But in terms of killing animals to make food, dairy has a pretty high body count.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Nope, it's never the fault of the for-profit food industry for either selling heaps of cheap crap or ripping people off for anything half-way decent. Chaotic lifestyles brought about by increasingly demanding and unrewarding jobs (see: increase in zero-hours shitwork) are never to blame. It's all the fault of us individual sinners with our choccy and burger-scoffing proclivities, with the added bonus for the self-righteous that it can't just be dismissed as a load of spiritual mumbo-jumbo made up by a bunch of miserable old men. A new asceticism for a scientific age!



So true. Nowadays, to eat a healthy diet requires extra money in the pocketbook, lots of research, and lots of time to travel far and wide to scattered stores that actually carry healthy food.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm not trying to gross you out, nor am I trying to put myself forward as being morally superior in any way. I'm simply saying that veal, in any form, isn't ethical. <snip>


Do you drink milk or consume any milk products?  If so, you are complicit in what you define as "murder" whether you eat veal or not.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> So true. Nowadays, to eat a healthy diet requires extra money in the pocketbook, lots of research, and lots of time to travel far and wide to scattered stores that actually carry healthy food.


And it's also the well-documented case that if life is bleak and a constant financial struggle, seeking instant pleasures in the salty/fatty/sugary yum-explosions of processed foods is completely understandable.   My husband mask lovely lentil soup, aromatic with cumin seeds. Does it feel like a treat in the same way a deep pan cheesy pizza does? Nope.  

But we can afford to find gratification in other stuff - a new film on netflix, planning a weekend away, shopping for clothes online.   If you're skint, an oven full of frozen pizza is a few quid of happy.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> And it's also the well-documented case that if life is bleak and a constant financial struggle, seeking instant pleasures in the salty/fatty/sugary yum-explosions of processed foods is completely understandable. <snip>  If you're skint, an oven full of frozen pizza is a few quid of happy.


Yes.  George Orwell said as much.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Yes.  George Orwell said as much.


Indeed.  Road to Wigan Pier, no?   Sweet tea and white bread, iirc.


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Isn't it the case that if you eat cheese or drink milk you pretty much (as an omnivore) have an ethical obligation to eat veal? Because of the dairy industry, British boy calves were just disposed of at birth (no good for dairy farming), because Brits had become very resolved against veal.  Now with a slight resurgence of veal consumption, they're more likely to live a bit first.
> 
> Of course, it's not much if a life... But better than newborn cow scrappage, which is what has to happen otherwise, if we are to have milk and cheese.
> 
> Have to say, as an observing omnivore, I find veganism - or at least non-dairy consumption vegetarianism - a more ethically consistent position.  But then I guess vegetarianism isn't simply an ethical choice, and cheese is less squick-making than flesh, so it could be that. But in terms of killing animals to make food, dairy has a pretty high body count.



I totally agree with the point you and others have made that veal is connected to milk production, and that decrying veal as unethical has further implications which are often not recognised.

But I also think that eating veal (and other meat) *is* an ethically consistent position*, just a differently ethical one to those who claim that killing animals for food is murder. As long as the animals are treated humanely (and yes, I recognise that often they aren't), my ethics are satisfied.

What I personally find far less ethical is, as NoXion has mentioned, 


> the for-profit food industry for either selling heaps of cheap crap or ripping people off for anything half-way decent


and


> that this kind of individualist neo-Puritan pseudoscientific horseshit gets plastered all over the news while the wider reasons for bad diets and ill health are glossed over if not outright ignored


I'd like to think my ethics are more focussed on people, TBH. 

*this isn't a criticism of your point, BTW, more a response to/development of it


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Indeed.  Road to Wigan Pier, no?   Sweet tea and white bread, iirc.


As opposed to the cheap and nutritious alternative of the time, which he also mentioned: Raw carrots (to save on cooking costs), lentil soup, wholemeal bread (very heavy and coarse back then), porridge, and maybe an orange - with the same thing every week.  That doesn't even appeal now, even if it is more or less balanced.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

and we're on to hypocrisy hunting!
almost full house!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

free spirit said:


> a bacon and egg sarnie would be pretty bland without the bacon and egg.


titter
disappointed to see you jumping on that childish bandwagon


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People are murdered, not animals.


awwww, is it a bit too real for you?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> You get _excited_ by a bacon and egg sarnie? Oh OK.



You don't get excited about a nice meal? 

Plenty of people do look forward to what they eat. Simple pleasures in life.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> titter
> disappointed to see you jumping on that childish bandwagon


What's childish? Editor was saying he couldn't see what was exciting about eating meat, and people were describing foods that give them that feeling.


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and we're on to hypocrisy hunting!
> almost full house!



Would you care to expand on that. Who are you accusing of "hypocrisy hunting" and what have they said to justify your accusation?


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> You don't get excited about a nice meal?
> 
> Plenty of people do look forward to what they eat. Simple pleasures in life.


I get very excited about food.  Warm chocolate cake with good vanilla ice cream would excite me.  The amazing tomato gnocchi I has in Rome was definitely exciting (just gnocchi and tomato sauce, but amazing depth of flavour).  And also, something like the pork belly with spiced fig chutney I had at a tapas place in herne hill.  That was exciting too.   Sensory pleasures can be exciting.   Like music or art.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Mar 10, 2014)

this thread just made me think of this tune


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Would you care to expand on that. Who are you accusing of "hypocrisy hunting" and what have they said to justify your accusation?


Me, I think.  Because I said that eating dairy but not meat was ethically inconsistent.  Which it is.  But I also said that I understood that ethics aren't the only thing that drives vegetarianism, so it seems a bit quick to leap to defensive.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> What's childish? Editor was saying he couldn't see what was exciting about eating meat, and people were describing foods that give them that feeling.


all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.

sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
or something less dramatic


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Me, I think.  Because I said that eating dairy but not meat was ethically inconsistent.  Which it is.  But I also said that I understood that ethics aren't the only thing that drives vegetarianism, so it seems a bit quick to leap to defensive.


no, not just you, noticed it with others and your posts are reasonably put


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.
> 
> sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
> or something less dramatic


But cutting something pleasurable out of life is dull, isn't it?  

And having a laugh about a news report like this which seems not only to contradict some other recent findings, (as food scares often do), but also to misrepresent the findings of the scientists involved, is surely fair game.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> But cutting something pleasurable out of life is dull, isn't it?
> 
> And having a laugh about a news report like this which seems not only to contradict some other recent findings, (as food scares often do), but also to misrepresent the findings of the scientists involved, is surely fair game.


yeah of course it is but we don't all hoof lines of coke all day just because it's pleasurable do we! 
everyone has their limits and ethical considerations it is just sad that those who make different choices or could have been brought up that way constantly get ridiculed and attacked and made out like they have the problem as they are not following the 'normal' way or the way of the majority


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.
> 
> sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
> or something less dramatic



Hmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, though that may be because you've chosen not to answer my question directly.

To me it looks like you (and others) have taken the opportunity of a thread which is about the idea that too much meat is bad for you to chirp up with facile "meat is murder" comments, as distinct from actual reasoned argument.

And as such it looks like you're the one who's trying (thankfully unsuccessfully) to shut the thread and ruin it.

Singling out veal (and, horror of horrors, veal bought in Waitrose) is utterly irrelevent to the original issue, which you seem not to have anything coherent or constructive to contribute to...


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

really! maybe you want to read the thread again
i've not mentioned anything about veal and in what way am i trying to shut the thread and ruin it??? by dissenting from the normal defensive/aggressive attacks of many?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

plus (awaits ridicule and being called morrisey!)
if an animal is alive and it gets killed/murdered/ceases to live for you to eat it as meat then ergo meat is why that animal has been killed/murdered/cease to live

is "meat is an animal killed for someone who considers flesh tasty to eat" any better for your palate? or a bit like dancing around the reality maybe


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> plus (awaits ridicule and being called morrisey!)
> if an animal is alive and it gets killed/murdered/ceases to live for you to eat it as meat then ergo meat is why that animal has been killed/murdered/cease to live
> 
> is "meat is an animal killed for someone who considers flesh tasty to eat" any better for your palate? or a bit like dancing around the reality maybe


You're assuming here that the people you are talking to are uneasy about this. I'm sure some meat-eaters are uneasy about the killing of animals, but plenty are not. I'm not. 

Also, the animal's being alive in the first place is conditional on the expectation of killing it.


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> really! maybe you want to read the thread again
> i've not mentioned anything about veal and in what way am i trying to shut the thread and ruin it??? by dissenting from the normal defensive/aggressive attacks of many?



Apologies, I thought it was you who'd been telling us meat was murder. It now appears I confused you with someone else*.

However, you do seem to have been beating this "all meat eaters are nasty bullies who just want to mock us poor vegetarians" drum right from post #4 onwards (getting your retaliation in first...), so excuse me if I don't regard you as having contributed much to the thread


ddraig said:


> *gets comfy





ddraig said:


> and here they come!





ddraig said:


> no no NO! you have to have as much MEAT as possible to make you NORMAL!!
> anyone who says different is different and has to be mocked, put down and ridiculed as much as possible to shut them up, even if they haven't said anything!





ddraig said:


> meat is not needed





ddraig said:


> and we're on to hypocrisy hunting!
> almost full house!





ddraig said:


> titter
> disappointed to see you jumping on that childish bandwagon





ddraig said:


> awwww, is it a bit too real for you?


So do you actually have anything to say about the health issues of eating too much animal protein, or do you just want to continue telling us how much you're being bullied and persecuted?

*ETA I see now you were simply responding dismissively to the person who corrected someone else's "MisM!!!" comment


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

i don't want to pull the "noob" card
but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not _need _to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> <snip>fwiw my extreme view is that you do not _need _to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)


And you don't _need_ the internet - it's a frivolous use of finite resources and energy.  Even so, technopagans still square internet use with their consciences.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i don't want to pull the "noob" card
> but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
> not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not _need _to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)



Few people would claim a need to eat meat. But others have a desire to eat meat and have no problem with the idea of killing animals in order to do so.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2014)

Well strictly speaking you don't _need_ to drink anything but tap water.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And you don't _need_ the internet - it's a frivolous use of finite resources and energy.


pass me my sack cloth!!!

does a living thing have to die for you to get internet??
No?
shit non argument then, sorry greebs


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Few people would claim a need to eat meat. But others have a desire to eat meat and have no problem with the idea of killing animals in order to do so.


i know a lot of people don't have a problem with it.
a lot of people do tho.

why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?
same with pig etc etc
why are people called hippies and weirdos and ridiculed just for not eating something the majority of people do?
what is there to gain for the meat eating majority? why don't they just get on with it seeing as they are in the majority and obviously right?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're assuming here that the people you are talking to are uneasy about this. I'm sure some meat-eaters are uneasy about the killing of animals, but plenty are not. I'm not.
> 
> Also, the animal's being alive in the first place is conditional on the expectation of killing it.



In the case of other humans its generally thought that bringing a life into the world imposes extra duties on those who do to ensure for the protection and wellbeing of that life. What is it about bringing animal life into the world that confers upon humans the right to treat them instrumentally for their own means?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> In the case of other humans its generally thought that bringing a life into the world imposes extra duties on those who do to ensure for the protection and wellbeing of that life. What is it about bringing animal life into the world that confers the right upon humans to treat them instrumentally for their own means?


We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.

I do think we ought to treat the animals we bring into the world in order to eat far better. But it is odd to talk of rights here. What right does a cat have to kill a mouse?


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i don't want to pull the "noob" card
> but if you'd been here a few more years then you would have seen these "arguments" on nearly every vegetarian or cutting down of meat thread for years with the usual suspects (yes including me) going down a predictable path.
> not liking your demanding tone but fwiw my extreme view is that you do not _need _to eat meat to live (subject to a thousand caveats of location, access to shops and transport as well as "enough money to go to healthy places", lack of nutritional knowledge, tradition etc etc etc)



Well, far be for me to challenge decades old Urban tradition with my "demanding tone" 

I agree that we don't "need" to eat meat, but most people chose to do so, and the question of whether and how they might be affected by that seems more relevant here than "won't someone please think of the calves (or the vegetarians)"


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.



No shit sherlock, I was asking you to justify it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No shit sherlock, I was asking you to justify it.


No, you're asking for some absolute where there is none.

I'll turn it round on you - why not bring animals into the world then kill and eat them?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> <snip>does a living thing have to die for you to get internet??
> No?
> shit non argument then, sorry greebs


You're not sorry, you're a troll.

Um, in all probablity, yes.  Are you aware of how much your internet use (no matter how you access it) adds to landfill, the damage caused by mining the raw materials (including pollution of groundwater), not to mention processing them, the exploitation of your fellow human beings all the way along the production and distribution chain, the toxins leaching out again when old computers are "recycled"?  Where did the coltan for your mobile phone come from?  

Get that splintered joist out of your eye.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you're asking for some absolute where there is none.



No I wasn't. You said the objection to killing animals didn't work because we brought some of those animal lives into existence in the first place. I want to know how you got from the 'is' to the 'ought'.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You're not sorry, you're a troll.
> 
> Um, in all probablity, yes.  Are you aware of how much your internet use (no matter how you access it) adds to landfill, the damage caused by mining the raw materials (including pollution of groundwater), not to mention processing them, the exploitation of your fellow human beings all the way along the production and distribution chain, the toxins leaching out again when old computers are "recycled"?  Where did the coltan for your mobile phone come from?  Get that splintered joist out of your eye.


really?! wow! you think i am a troll because i disagreed with you? 
again, hypocrisy hunting
however bad those things are and the mobile phone industry etc ad nauseum
i'll ask you again - does a living animal need to die for you to get the pleasure you derive from eating decomposing flesh?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We confer that 'right' upon ourselves. No god.
> 
> I do think we ought to treat the animals we bring into the world in order to eat far better. But it is odd to talk of rights here. What right does a cat have to kill a mouse?


why is it odd to talk of rights?
a cat killing a mouse is nature, cats are hunters. another non argument
you could say human is/was hunter gatherer but it is 2014 and the majority of us in this country (with the previous 1000 caveats) do not need to do this or consume the product of slaughter by others to survive, they choose to do so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No I wasn't. You said the objection to killing animals didn't work because we brought some of those animal lives into existence in the first place.


I didn't. I merely pointed out that with modern farming, the animal is alive in the first place only because it is going to be killed. I don't move from 'is' to 'ought'. I don't say that we ought to eat meat. There is no moral imperative to eat meat. How do you move from 'is' to 'ought not'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why is it odd to talk of rights?
> a cat killing a mouse is nature, cats are hunters. another non argument
> you could say human is/was hunter gatherer but it is 2014 and the majority of us in this country (with the previous 1000 caveats) do not need to do this or consume the product of slaughter by others to survive, they choose to do so.


Humans are 'nature', too?

And yes, it is odd to talk of rights. It's not necessary for humans to kill animals to eat, but it is necessary for humans to kill animals. Many other animals either take space we need, or eat the same things we want to eat.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

yes
we've evolved


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i know a lot of people don't have a problem with it.
> a lot of people do tho.
> 
> why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?
> ...


Well, we call chicken "chicken" and lamb "lamb", Turkey/duck/suckling pig etc.  so I doubt squeamishness is the whole answer...  But the emotive "drama llama" language here does you no favours as someone wanting respectful debate.  Yes, meat is decomposing.  So are carrots.  Lettuce seems to rot if you turn your back on it, while potatoes can go for months.	It's the nature of organic matter.  Why mention it specifically here and now? And only in relation to meat unless you want to be dismissed as irrational or to provoke people into a polarised argument.


----------



## fredfelt (Mar 10, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Am I the only one who finds it irritating that this kind of individualist neo-Puritan pseudoscientific horseshit gets plastered all over the news while the wider reasons for bad diets and ill health are glossed over if not outright ignored?
> 
> Nope, it's never the fault of the for-profit food industry for either selling heaps of cheap crap or ripping people off for anything half-way decent. Chaotic lifestyles brought about by increasingly demanding and unrewarding jobs (see: increase in zero-hours shitwork) are never to blame. It's all the fault of us individual sinners with our choccy and burger-scoffing proclivities, with the added bonus for the self-righteous that it can't just be dismissed as a load of spiritual mumbo-jumbo made up by a bunch of miserable old men. A new asceticism for a scientific age!
> 
> ...



I get fed up with the poor reporting.  Mainstream media looks for sound bites and tries to get reactions.  The boring reality behind any study of a food group is that it's incredibly hard to work out the effects of a single food or food group.  Any study has to be done over long periods of time on subjects who have varied diets and lifestyles.

I don't think the point of any scientific papers on nutrition is to allocate blame.  If any fault is found it's often in how the paper is reported.

I like you accept that there are often underlying facts in these stories.  However I don't take them as tedious sermonising on how one should eat, or to blame 'sinners' for their choices.  I don't see food scientists are miserable old men, they are just people searching for cause and effect.  The spiritual mumbo-jumbo comes from often well meaning but ill informed people making their living on the back on the understanding which is advanced through science.

Without objective study of nutrition I'm sure the food industry would get away with much more.  Without a body of knowledge to fall back on the limited regulation on the food industry would be much weaker.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't. I merely pointed out that with modern farming, the animal is alive in the first place only because it is going to be killed. I don't move from 'is' to 'ought'. I don't say that we ought to eat meat. There is no moral imperative to eat meat. How do you move from 'is' to 'ought not'?



Don't try to obfuscate please. You were implying that moral objections to killing animals were not valid because those animals were brought into existence by humans in the first place. I want to know why you think your 'modern farming' example is relevant at all. 

Why do I think you ought not to kill animals? Because its wrong to kill - and other wise make suffer and/or treat as means - sentiment beings when its not necessary to do so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> yes
> we've evolved


Well if you're talking about our digestive systems, we're omnivores, and meat is an easy way for us to obtain certain nutritious things we need.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure you can. I was simply saying what I knew to be true. But being that I'm totally out of touch with reality, I can't possibly see beyond the privileged status I have as some who enters Waitrose.



Yes, you certainly lost prolecred points, admitting you shop in Waitrose, even if only to raid the tramp's buffet! 
We're so unprivileged here in Tulse HIll, we don't have a local Waitrose.  I think that the nearest is about 4 miles away.  That's real prolecred, that is!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Well, we call chicken "chicken" and lamb "lamb", Turkey/duck/suckling pig etc.  so I doubt squeamishness is the whole answer...  But the emotive "drama llama" language here does you no favours as someone wanting respectful debate.  Yes, meat is decomposing.  So are carrots.  Lettuce seems to rot if you turn your back on it, while potatoes can go for months.	It's the nature of organic matter.  Why mention it specifically here and now? And only in relation to meat unless you want to be dismissed as irrational or to provoke people into a polarised argument.




In Britain at least, it's largely down to the class system. Pig/sheep/cow are anglo-saxon, Pork/mutton/beef are French. 

Blame the Norman invasion for that one.


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> You get _excited_ by a bacon and egg sarnie? Oh OK.



You OTOH don't get any excitement from a favourite dish? OK Excitement is a bit strong. You get the point though. Most people eat for pleasure at least some of the time, be they meat eaters or vegetarian.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig tedious, abusive, derailing, patronising, claiming victimhood - shambles like a troll, turns to stone in daylight, lives under a bridge...  join up the dots and what do we see?  I'm not hunting hypocrisy, there's no need when all of us indulge in actions which don't perfectly tally with what we claim are our values.

Of course eating a lump of flesh involves killing the animal; cutting a chunk off a live animal would be even more cruel.

BTW enough of the handwringing - plants send pain or distress signals too.  And whatever vegetable matter we eat has been decomposing ever since it was harvested, if not before.  What about the microfauna and microflora which are killed every time you use antiseptics, disinfectants, or antibiotics?  Don't they have a right to life just as valid as yours?

BTW while I remember, vegetable protein isn't always healthy either; pulses and mushrooms can trigger or exacerbate gout.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I get fed up with the poor reporting.  Mainstream media looks for sound bites and tries to get reactions.  The boring reality behind any study of a food group is that it's incredibly hard to work out the effects of a single food or food group.  Any study has to be done over long periods of time on subjects who have varied diets and lifestyles.
> 
> I don't think the point of any scientific papers on nutrition is to allocate blame.  If any fault is found it's often in how the paper is reported.



Hence my mentioning of the media, as opposed to scientists.



> I like you accept that there are often underlying facts in these stories.  However I don't take them as tedious sermonising on how one should eat, or to blame 'sinners' for their choices.  I don't see food scientists are miserable old men, <snip>



Neither do I. It's overwhelmingly the media that like to position themselves as the gurus of this kind of lifestyleist guff.



> The spiritual mumbo-jumbo comes from often well meaning but ill informed people making their living on the back on the understanding which is advanced through science.



The "spiritual mumbo-jumbo" to which I was referring was exclusively concerning pre-modern religious prescriptions as to how one should live, although you're right, these days there there does seem to be a section of society for whom rituals and places of worship have been replaced with faddish diets and health food shops.



> Without objective study of nutrition I'm sure the food industry would get away with much more.  Without a body of knowledge to fall back on the limited regulation on the food industry would be much weaker.



I'm not objecting to research. I'm objecting to the way it's being manipulated by the media.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2014)

xenon said:


> You OTOH don't get any excitement from a favourite dish? OK Excitement is a bit strong. You get the point though. Most people eat for pleasure at least some of the time, be they meat eaters or vegetarian.


Oh, I get pleasure from good food all right. But I can't say I get particularly excited by a sandwich.


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

I am fucking ravines BTW. I've not eaten for 24 hours. <looks in fridge>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You've never been chased by the police helicopter whilst eating bacon on toast?
> mmmmmmm... bacon on toast!
> 
> 
> ...



There's veal that's more ethically-reared than other veal.  Ethicality is relative.  From a bio-ethics point of view, *all* "production" of animals for food is non-ethical, but "pink" veal is no better nor worse than spring lamb, kid or pullet, in that the animal follows the natural life-cycle until slaughter.  That doesn't happen with "white" veal, where the animal is "crated", and where it is solely fed milk and milk proteins beyond the period when it would start weaning.


----------



## Callie (Mar 10, 2014)

xenon said:


> I am fucking ravines BTW. I've not eaten for 24 hours. <looks in fridge>


 is that a bit like sticking it in a bucket?


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ...Why do I think you ought not to kill animals? Because its wrong to kill - and other wise make suffer and/or treat as means - *sentiment* beings when its not necessary to do so.



Just wanted to point out this hilarious Freudian slip so everyone can appreciate it


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i know a lot of people don't have a problem with it.
> a lot of people do tho.
> 
> why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?
> ...



THe beef thing, blame the Normans. There hasn't really been any vegetarian bating on this thread though has there? I mean if anything, it's snearing at meat eaters. The title for a start. Do vegeterians not "scoff" food. And the report itself is highly flawed.

Not that I think eating red meat in particular every day is good.

I've found some peppered mackerel.


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

Callie said:


> is that a bit like sticking it in a bucket?



I'm blaming the autocorrect thingy...


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2014)

I bet scoffing too much milk, cream and cheese is just as bad for you and has similar ethical issues.


----------



## girasol (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're assuming here that the people you are talking to are uneasy about this. I'm sure some meat-eaters are uneasy about the killing of animals, but plenty are not. I'm not.
> 
> Also, the animal's being alive in the first place is conditional on the expectation of killing it.



If I had to kill to eat meat I think I'd be a vegetarian, or at least I'd eat meat even less often than I do now.  Most of us are so far removed from the killing it's sort of abstract.  I don't think about the killing or even the animal when I'm at the supermarket buying meat!   And indeed, most of the meat we eat wouldn't exist if we didn't raise the animal for that purpose.  How many meat eaters have actually seen a pig or a cow be killed, in front of them?  And the whole butchering process?  Two things tend to happen: you either can't bear it or you just get used to it and accept it for what it is.

One thing I insisted on changing in the last few years: we only eat red meat once a week, on Sundays.  The rest of the week is "vegetarian", and we also have fish or chicken once a week.  It's a real issue: the way red meat is produced is so resource intensive we should all try and eat less of it for that reason alone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm glad you find it so exciting.



People get passionate about foods they enjoy.  it's an ineluctable fact of life.  I'm sure that you occasionally rave about a particular vegetarian recipe you've enjoyed, unless you have no tastebuds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> People are murdered, not animals.



Under current law, anyway.
Once the Cowoids of Beta Reticuli invade us and become our new overlords, though, I suspect the law will change...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i know a lot of people don't have a problem with it.
> a lot of people do tho.
> 
> why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?
> ...



Theory I heard a while ago goes like this...



> Most meat names come from Norman French. You can see the similarities in modern French animal names:
> 
> mutton = mouton (sheep)
> beef = boeuf (cow)
> ...



No idea if it's true or not.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

yeah girasol but they have to wash carrots you know, and pack them and freight them!! so ner

and how do you know they don't scream when you chop them up!? eh eh!?
just because you can't hear them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

girasol said:


> If I had to kill to eat meat I think I'd be a vegetarian, or at least I'd eat meat even less often than I do now.  Most of us are so far removed from the killing it's sort of abstract.  I don't think about the killing or even the animal when I'm at the supermarket buying meat!   And indeed, most of the meat we eat wouldn't exist if we didn't raise the animal for that purpose.  How many meat eaters have actually seen a pig or a cow be killed, in front of them?  And the whole butchering process?  Two things tend to happen: you either can't bear it or you just get used to it and accept it for what it is.
> 
> One thing I insisted on changing in the last few years: we only eat red meat once a week, on Sundays.  The rest of the week is "vegetarian", and we also have fish or chicken once a week.  It's a real issue: the way red meat is produced is so resource intensive we should all try and eat less of it for that reason alone.


I've killed chickens. I've also witnessed the killing of a pig and a goat. The pig's death was really nasty - it squealed its head off. It was unpleasant to watch, but I enjoyed eating it. Indeed, I felt obliged not to waste it after that.


----------



## girasol (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've killed chickens. I've also witnessed the killing of a pig and a goat. The pig's death was really nasty - it squealed its head off. It was unpleasant to watch, but I enjoyed eating it. Indeed, I felt obliged not to waste it after that.



Yeah, pig's death is horrendous, seen it too, they sense death is coming  .  Chickens ain't so bad!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> awwww, is it a bit too real for you?



I'm surprised to see you jumping on *that* childish bandwagon.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

xenon said:


> There hasn't really been any vegetarian bating on this thread though has there? I mean if anything, it's snearing at meat eaters.



Indeed. Its certainly happened a lot on past threads, but I've not seen much evidence of it here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

girasol said:


> Yeah, pig's death is horrendous, seen it too, they sense death is coming  .


Yep.

I accept that others may not feel like I do, but for me personally as a meat eater, it was important not to shy away from the reality of killing animals.

tbh I found killing chickens far easier than I had anticipated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> all the posts about not having meat being dull...



Anyone who makes such an ignorant claim has never tried a vegetarian diet. Of course, if you stick to formulaic veggie health-food crap like "just add water" nutroasts, you might find things a bit bland, but it's not as if anyone with an ounce of wit can't add flavour, just as an omnivore will do with boring cuts of meat.



> and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption and the various 'jokey' ways people try to shut the thread and ruin it.
> 
> sometimes like a group of bullies surrounding someone different and taking glee in pointing it out and how they are in the winning/dominant/red blooded gang
> or something less dramatic



TBF, I've known veggies do the same thing. It isn't a one-way street, by any means, although the game *is* loaded against veggies, what with them being a minority.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

yup and i've had enough so am out


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Why do I think you ought not to kill animals? Because its wrong to kill - and other wise make suffer and/or treat as means - sentiment beings when its not necessary to do so.



Why?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> plus (awaits ridicule and being called morrisey!)
> if an animal is alive and it gets killed/murdered/ceases to live for you to eat it as meat then ergo meat is why that animal has been killed/murdered/cease to live



Under capitalism, yes. Mass "production" of livestock for food does mean that animals are given life solely to provide food for other animals.
With large animals the equation was *slightly* different before modern capitalism.  More often than not the mutton or beef or chicken or pig you ate was from an animal that had "worn out" and had been slaughtered because it could no longer provide the lambs/milk/piglets/eggs you wanted.  Just as exploitative a relationship, but one that put meat as an *occasional* food on the platters of the working classes, with mostly every edible bit of the beast being utilised.



> is "meat is an animal killed for someone who considers flesh tasty to eat" any better for your palate? or a bit like dancing around the reality maybe



Some people consider the eating of meat dietarily acceptable, others don't.  In terms of "ethical" arguments, neither side makes a good enough argument (IMHO) for me to give one view credibility over the other.  Obviously, vegetarians *and* omnivores will disagree with me.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why are people called hippies and weirdos and ridiculed just for not eating something the majority of people do?



That's not what's been happening on this thread though is it? Quite the reverse. It seems that the whole reason for the thread being set up in the first place was to impugn the eating of meat!

As you say, anyone who's been around here for more than 20 minutes knows how these threads go so there was always going to be a bunfight but in this case it's the _veggies_ that started it!!!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone who makes such an ignorant claim has never tried a vegetarian diet.


But if you're coming to this as someone who loves food, loves exploring new tastes, textures etc then a veggie diet is by definition dull, you're excluding a huge amount of what's available to you.

Veggie food can be as tasty and exciting as anything with meat, sure. But for me it's somewhat akin to visiting a gallery but only being allowed to look at the bottom half of each picture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> yes
> we've evolved



Not enough that we can currently exist on a herbivorous diet without requiring some convoluted protein sources that arguably damage the environment almost as badly as meat production does.
Perhaps in the future this will change, but currently it's merely a case of greater and lesser evil.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what's been happening on this thread though is it? Quite the reverse. It seems that the whole reason for the thread being set up in the first place was to impugn the eating of meat!
> 
> As you say, anyone who's been around here for more than 20 minutes knows how these threads go so there was always going to be a bunfight but in this case it's the _veggies_ that started it!!!


Yep. But we've established a moral equivalence between eating veal and eating cheese. So it's not been entirely wasted.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> But if you're coming to this as someone who loves food, loves exploring new tastes, textures etc then a veggie diet is by definition dull, you're excluding a huge amount of what's available to you.
> 
> Veggie food can be as tasty and exciting as anything with meat, sure. But for me it's somewhat akin to visiting a gallery but only being allowed to look at the bottom half of each picture.


last post, grrr - you are fucking dull
go to terre a terre and see if you see the whole painting or still insist that putting some meat on top will always improve it
i imagine you don't use any of your dull arguments or pathetic points in the earshot or at any of the vegan/vegie stars you respect and work for


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Don't try to obfuscate please. You were implying that moral objections to killing animals were not valid because those animals were brought into existence by humans in the first place. I want to know why you think your 'modern farming' example is relevant at all.



I think it's only relevant from a particular perspective - an "ownership" perspective where property rights are primary.
All moral and ethical justifications and arguments are, however, relative to which side of the argument you're on. 



> Why do I think you ought not to kill animals? Because its wrong to kill - and other wise make suffer and/or treat as means - sentiment beings when its not necessary to do so.



It *can* be wrong to kill, certainly, but you sow the seeds of a problem in your reference to "sentient beings". Sentience with regard to humans doesn't imply ethicality, and for both humans and other animals it only implies an ability to take note of the world around you.  For many people, this makes the mass production of meat/the mass exploitation of other animals for food an acceptable practice. As humans, though, we have a facility to rationalise away many of the ethical conundrums that come from eating other animals, and *some* of those rationalisations will be accurate


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> last post, grrr - you are fucking dull
> go to terre a terre and see if you see the whole painting or still insist that putting some meat on top will always improve it
> i imagine you don't use any of your dull arguments or pathetic points in the earshot or at any of the vegan/vegie stars you respect and work for


There are plenty of meals that can't be made without meat. Even if it's just a ham bone to make the stock for your chickpea stew - you lose flavour if you don't use the bone.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not enough that we can currently exist on a herbivorous diet without requiring some convoluted protein sources that arguably damage the environment almost as badly as meat production does.
> Perhaps in the future this will change, but currently it's merely a case of greater and lesser evil.



I'm guessing a vegan diet with food only sourced from what can be grown in the UK would get very dull!


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are plenty of meals that can't be made without meat. Even if it's just a ham bone to make the stock for your chickpea stew - you lose flavour if you don't use the bone.



On the plus side we have now invented MSG.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

editor said:


> Oh, I get pleasure from good food all right. But I can't say I get particularly excited by a sandwich.









That does it for me. 

Stop press: We're not all the same!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> last post, grrr - you are fucking dull
> go to terre a terre and see if you see the whole painting or still insist that putting some meat on top will always improve it
> i imagine you don't use any of your dull arguments or pathetic points in the earshot or at any of the vegan/vegie stars you respect and work for


Try reading what I actually posted FFS. I didn't say veggie meals are improved by adding meat.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why?



Lots of reasons. here are a few: 1. The lives of others belong to them and are not yours to take away. 2. Taking life often involves physical and psychological suffering. 3. Taking a life deprives the living being of any future positive experiences they may have had. 4. The taking of life deprives that being's family members, associates, dependents etc of the presence of that life. 5. The (non consensual) taking of life is an act of violence that could have negative psychological effects on the life taker.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 10, 2014)




----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

carrot murderer!!!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It *can* be wrong to kill, certainly, but you sow the seeds of a problem in your reference to "sentient beings". Sentience with regard to humans doesn't imply ethicality, and for both humans and other animals it only implies an ability to take note of the world around you.  For many people, this makes the mass production of meat/the mass exploitation of other animals for food an acceptable practice. As humans, though, we have a facility to rationalise away many of the ethical conundrums that come from eating other animals, and *some* of those rationalisations will be accurate



Perhaps 'consciousness' would have been a better term to use. The point I was making was that I think some form of subjective awareness is an important factor in assessing moral status.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

So is it morally wrong to keep cats or dogs or ferrets or other obligate carnivores as pets?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Lots of reasons. here are a few: 1. The lives of others belong to them and are not yours to take away. 2. Taking life often involves physical and psychological suffering. 3. Taking a life deprives the living being of any future positive experiences they may have had. 4. The taking of life deprives that being's family members, associates, dependents etc of the presence of that life. 5. The (non consensual) taking of life is an act of violence that could have negative psychological effects on the life taker.


this only matters when an animal crosses the line into pet territory, they are just "food" and products otherwise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> But if you're coming to this as someone who loves food, loves exploring new tastes, textures etc then a veggie diet is by definition dull, you're excluding a huge amount of what's available to you.
> 
> Veggie food can be as tasty and exciting as anything with meat, sure. But for me it's somewhat akin to visiting a gallery but only being allowed to look at the bottom half of each picture.



I agree, but I also acknowledge that my desire to see both halves of the painting is due to my particular perspective as an omnivore, and that a vegetarian may be entirely content with what we see as their more limited view/palette of dietary colours.
I've walked both sides, and I'm certainly more comfortable as an omnivore, than as a vegetarian, but I'm also happy to admit that I'm an omnivore *because* of convenience (although for me "convenience" actually means that my digestion is part-borked, and that a vegetarian diet over-stimulates my intestines and causes more nasty messes than supplementing my diet with meat proteins does).


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So is it morally wrong to keep cats or dogs or ferrets or other obligate carnivores as pets?



That may well be the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> this only matters when an animal crosses the line into pet territory, they are just "food" and products otherwise


You insist you're not trolling, then you come out with this drivel.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So is it morally wrong to keep cats or dogs or ferrets or other obligate carnivores as pets?


does a cat have a choice of meat or non meat to eat? does a dog? does a ferret?
do you?
why can't you see the difference and that it is a concious choice you make

i know you do and at least admit you have no issue with the slaughter of animals for your pleasure so fair play


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> does a cat have a choice of meat or non meat to eat? does a dog? does a ferret?
> do you?
> why can't you see the difference and that it is a concious choice you make
> 
> i know you do and at least admit you have no issue with the slaughter of animals for your pleasure so fair play



We breed pets for our amusement. If we didn't do so, there would be no need for them to eat meat.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> does a cat have a choice of meat or non meat to eat? does a dog? does a ferret?
> do you?
> why can't you see the difference and that it is a concious choice you make
> 
> i know you do and at least admit you have no issue with the slaughter of animals for your pleasure so fair play



AFAIA cats and dogs can lead healthy lives on vegan based diets.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You insist you're not trolling, then you come out with this drivel.


why is it drivel?
is it not bizarre that there are people who will quite happily treat one kind of animal as a member of their family and nurture it, protect it and cry when it dies whilst simultaneously eating a variety of other animals and even feeding bits of it to the safe one under the table?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Global Stoner said:


> I'm guessing a vegan diet with food only sourced from what can be grown in the UK would get very dull!



I'm not sure it'd be dull (we have a plethora of native herbs to add savour), but I'm fairly sure it'd be labour-intensive and possibly expensive.  That's fine if you can afford the time and energy, not so good if you can't.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AFAIA cats and dogs can lead healthy lives on vegan based diets.


i know that but deliberately avoided it as have seen where that argument goes plus that is an imposition of values onto an animal etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AFAIA cats and dogs can lead healthy lives on vegan based diets.




Nope. Cats require something in meat to be healthy.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure it'd be dull (we have a plethora of native herbs to add savour), but I'm fairly sure it'd be labour-intensive and possibly expensive.  That's fine if you can afford the time and energy, not so good if you can't.


and if there was an industry 10% the size of the meat industry making it easier on economies of scale this would change.
not that you are arguing otherwise obv


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AFAIA cats and dogs can lead healthy lives on vegan based diets.



Generally only once they're full-grown, IIRC, and even then some will not thrive on a vegan or vegetarian diet, even with supplements to aid digestion of non-meat proteins.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Nope. Cats require something in meat to be healthy.



Just did a quick google and it seems the evidence is mixed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just did a quick google and it seems the evidence is mixed.




meat and died food mixed


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and if there was an industry 10% the size of the meat industry making it easier on economies of scale this would change.
> not that you are arguing otherwise obv



I totally agree.
However, as we both know, under capitalism the name of the game isn't "give people what they want", it's "convince them that what they get is what they want, and milk them".  Currently, their best route to our wallets is omnivorousness.  When they believe that they can make more money convincing us to eat a more limited diet we can rest assured the tide will turn, 'cos they always follow the money.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Just did a quick google and it seems the evidence is mixed.



IIRC cats have to be given enzyme supplements, both to help them digest vegetable proteins, and to replace those they usually get from a meat diet.
Dogs are a somewhat different proposition, being that they're more naturally omnivorous anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Lots of reasons. here are a few: 1. The lives of others belong to them and are not yours to take away. 2. Taking life often involves physical and psychological suffering. 3. Taking a life deprives the living being of any future positive experiences they may have had. 4. The taking of life deprives that being's family members, associates, dependents etc of the presence of that life. 5. The (non consensual) taking of life is an act of violence that could have negative psychological effects on the life taker.



Fortunatly for me, I'm a psychopath.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

It's bizarre and wrong to try to feed a cat a vegan diet.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's bizarre and wrong to try to feed a cat a vegan diet.


it's bizarre and wrong to eat the liver of a calf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> it's bizarre and wrong to eat the liver of a calf.


That liver contains a lot of good things that will keep us healthy as part of a balanced diet.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Lots of reasons. here are a few: 1. The lives of others belong to them and are not yours to take away. 2. Taking life often involves physical and psychological suffering. 3. Taking a life deprives the living being of any future positive experiences they may have had. 4. The taking of life deprives that being's family members, associates, dependents etc of the presence of that life. 5. The (non consensual) taking of life is an act of violence that could have negative psychological effects on the life taker.



1) This is subjective in the case of "food animals" and implies that animals have similar "rights" to humans. That in itself is potentially a huge debate but of course meat-eaters and those who are comfortable with using animals as a resource would disagree with you. To me the concept of "animal rights" is a strange one. I believe that as humans we have an obligation not to cause undue suffering to the animals we use or take, but I don't believe that a cow or a sheep has any more "right to life" than a fly or a fish. 

2) Agreed. But once we have elected to use animals as a resource, our commitment should be to minimise this, which many, many, meat eaters seek to do.	  

3) See 1.

4) This could be used as an argument for "ethically sourced" meat. In which case I'd agree with you.

5) Probably more relevant to the taking of human life than the killing of animals for food?

Fair play to you if you disagree with any of the above and have elected not to eat meat or benefit from the use of animals in any other ways. I just think that a blanket "killing is wrong" requires far more analysis than you provided initially.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Wheat farmers kill rabbits to stop them from eating the crops. Very hard to be a farmer and not kill any animals.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> AFAIA cats and dogs can lead healthy lives on vegan based diets.



Not cats, afaia.


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2014)

I thought this thread was about the downside of eating too much red meat and eggs, not about the arguments of being omnivore v vegetarian v vegan?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> is it not bizarre that there are people who will quite happily treat one kind of animal as a member of their family and nurture it, protect it and cry when it dies whilst simultaneously eating a variety of other animals and even feeding bits of it to the safe one under the table?



 No, of course not. 

Some animals are treated as pets and loved, others are eaten. Nothing odd there whatsoever.

It would be bizarre to eat the pet.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Not cats, afaia.


 
Well, if you chemically synthesise taurine and the dozen or so other essential cat-nutrients and balance the rest of the diet carefully you might manage it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> I thought this thread was about the downside of eating too much red meat and eggs, not about the arguments of being omnivore v vegetarian v vegan?


It was, but things have moved on


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

Vegan cats. is one of those paredy things though yeah. People who inflict vegan diets on pet cats, they're just caricatures. I respect vegeterains and vegans choice. All that but they're just pale and week, have some bacon... etc. is teadious. But vegan cats... Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

the real issue with eating too many eggs is you might become eggbound and have to go boots for laxatives. Or administer yourself a coffee enema friedaweed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, if you chemically synthesise taurine and the dozen or so other essential cat-nutrients and balance the rest of the diet carefully you might manage it.


And how much energy would that involve? Pretty wasteful use of resources when what they need is already right there.


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> It was, but things have moved on


It would be nice to be able to discuss the actual basis of the thread without it descending into tangential argument.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's bizarre and wrong to try to feed a cat a vegan diet.



Millions (billions?) of animals killed every year for meat and the best argument you've got to defend it is the horrors of cat veganism. lolz.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> It would be nice to be able to discuss the actual basis of the thread without it descending into tangential argument.


You can't control how discussions evolve.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And how much energy would that involve? Pretty wasteful use of resources when what they need is already right there.


 
Well, there are people who make veggie cat food - not sure what they add to it but you may find the lifespan of your cat is closely related to available wildlife reserves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Millions (billions?) of animals killed every year for meat and the best argument you've got to defend it is the horrors of cat veganism. lolz.


Certainly billions. There are 50 billion chickens in the world. 

I'm just trying to establish something that might be a baseline of minimal ethics. Vegan (certainly no dairy), no leather or wool, no obligate carnivore pets. There's probably more.


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> You can't control how discussions evolve.


I'm not trying to control it - just stating an opinion.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> It would be nice to be able to discuss the actual basis of the thread without it descending into tangential argument.


 
Pfft!  Typical middle-class vying for control of the centre...


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Pfft!  Typical middle-class vying for control of the centre...


Your class analysis is flawed, comrade.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the real issue with eating too many eggs is you might become eggbound and have to go boots for laxatives. Or administer yourself a coffee enema friedaweed


 
Eggbound?  I thought that was when you couldn't leave your egg.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> I'm not trying to control it - just stating an opinion.


I wasn't saying you were. It's just fruitless to object to the path a conversation naturally meanders down


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

cesare said:


> Your class analysis is flawed, comrade.


 
I smell vanguardist elitism...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> I smell vanguardist elitism...




thats probably eggfarts


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Eggbound?  I thought that was when you couldn't leave your egg.



I thought is was something that happened to birds, ie they cannot lay the formed egg for some reason. It can end badly, best avoided.


----------



## Santino (Mar 10, 2014)

Let's try not to turn this into a yolk thread, all white?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Certainly billions. There are 50 billion chickens in the world.
> 
> I'm just trying to establish something that might be a baseline of minimal ethics. Vegan (certainly no dairy), no leather or wool, no obligate carnivore pets. There's probably more.



Demonstrating that principles - if taken to their logical conclusion - would be extremely onerous (if not impossible) does not indicate that those principles are wrong, merely that they are demanding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

xenon said:


> Vegan cats. is one of those paredy things though yeah. People who inflict vegan diets on pet cats, they're just caricatures. I respect vegeterains and vegans choice. All that but they're just pale and week, have some bacon... etc. is teadious. But vegan cats... Fuck off.



I strongly suspect that a cat would supplement its diet with birds etc if the cat's pet fed it a vegan diet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

don't albumention  the war


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> I smell vanguardist elitism...



Go wash under your arms.  The smell will fade.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go wash under your arms.  The smell will fade.




Rightguardist elitism


----------



## Santino (Mar 10, 2014)

Omelette you finish


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I strongly suspect that a cat would supplement its diet with birds etc if the cat's pet fed it a vegan diet.



I think the sort to keep a vegan cat, wouldn't ever let it out. It might get the odd spider. But who cares about aracnids. 

(Yeah I know some peple keep "flat" cats.)


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2014)

do they use a trouser press to squash them?


----------



## Santino (Mar 10, 2014)

Stop carping on


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2014)

xenon said:


> I think the sort to keep a vegan cat, wouldn't ever let it out. It might get the odd spider. But who cares about aracnids.
> 
> (Yeah I know some peple keep "flat" cats.)



I think you could make a case for saying that keeping a cat indoors 24/7, not letting it hunt and express its other natural behaviours, and feeding it a vegan diet is actually less ethical than keeping animals for food in humane conditions and allowing them to do their natural animal thing before they're killed, but in deference to cesare I'll try not to derail the thread any further


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Demonstrating that principles - if taken to their logical conclusion - would be extremely onerous (if not impossible) does not indicate that those principles are wrong, merely that they are demanding.



It also suggests that absolutist arguments don't work here. What about those rabbits who want to eat the grain? Do we just let them and lose our crop, or do we kill them? 

In the absence of a coherent absolutist position that involves no killing of animals at all, it then comes down to which killing you think is justified. The ethical line I draw on this is very different from yours, but it is no less ethical for that. I draw it at the point that says we ought to look after the animals as well as we can and give them decent lives before dispatching them as quickly and painlessly as possible.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> 1) This is subjective in the case of "food animals" and implies that animals have similar "rights" to humans. That in itself is potentially a huge debate but of course meat-eaters and those who are comfortable with using animals as a resource would disagree with you. To me the concept of "animal rights" is a strange one. I believe that as humans we have an obligation not to cause undue suffering to the animals we use or take, but I don't believe that a cow or a sheep has any more "right to life" than a fly or a fish.
> 
> 2) Agreed. But once we have elected to use animals as a resource, our commitment should be to minimise this, which many, many, meat eaters seek to do.
> 
> ...



Animal rights is for me no stranger a concept than human rights. Nor do I see why there is anything particularly strange about saying that fish, flies or cows have a right to life. I would agree with you that reducing animal suffering is an ethical imperative but I don't know what you mean by 'undue suffering'. For me the pleasures that humans enjoy from animal products are too trivial to justify the enormous amount of suffering we afflict on animals for that suffering to be justified.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the absence of a coherent absolutist position that involves no killing of animals at all, it then comes down to which killing you think is justified. The ethical line I draw on this is very different from yours, but it is no less ethical for that. I draw it at the point that says we ought to look after the animals as well as we can and give them decent lives before dispatching them as quickly and painlessly as possible.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Animal rights is for me no stranger a concept than human rights. Nor do I see why there is anything particularly strange about saying that fish, flies or cows have a right to life.


 
Is every animal's right to life equal?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It also suggests that absolutist arguments don't work here. What about those rabbits who want to eat the grain? Do we just let them and lose our crop, or do we kill them?
> 
> In the absence of a coherent absolutist position that involves no killing of animals at all, it then comes down to which killing you think is justified. The ethical line I draw on this is very different from yours, but it is no less ethical for that. I draw it at the point that says we ought to look after the animals as well as we can and give them decent lives before dispatching them as quickly and painlessly as possible.


if more living things with more feelings and crucially eyes are killed for your taste than need to be for your survival then it is less ethical

bite me/sue me/shoot me!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> if more living things with more feelings and crucially eyes are killed for your taste than need to be for your survival then it is less ethical
> 
> bite me/sue me/shoot me!


 
Is the right to life proportional to the number of eyes an organism has?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think you could make a case for saying that keeping a cat indoors 24/7, not letting it hunt and express its other natural behaviours, and feeding it a vegan diet is actually less ethical than keeping animals for food in humane conditions and allowing them to do their natural animal thing before they're killed, but in deference to cesare I'll try not to derail the thread any further


and doing neither of those things is even more ethical by extension of your argument


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is the right to life proportional to the number of eyes an organism has?


One spider = four humans.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 10, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> if more living things with more feelings and crucially eyes are killed for your taste than need to be for your survival then it is less ethical


And the alternative? Is it better that it is never born? Why?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is the right to life proportional to the number of eyes an organism has?


is might right?


8ball said:


> Is every animal's right to life equal?


as the dominant and better equipped animal, you/we get to choose which ones deserve to be spared and which go on your plates. doesn't make it 'right'


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

TruXta said:


>


like a record baby!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It also suggests that absolutist arguments don't work here. What about those rabbits who want to eat the grain? Do we just let them and lose our crop, or do we kill them?
> 
> In the absence of a coherent absolutist position that involves no killing of animals at all, it then comes down to which killing you think is justified. The ethical line I draw on this is very different from yours, but it is no less ethical for that. I draw it at the point that says we ought to look after the animals as well as we can and give them decent lives before dispatching them as quickly and painlessly as possible.



I did stipulate that killing animals could be justified where it is _necessary_. What exactly that means is open to debate. But I think the same principle applies to humans. I think it's sometimes necessary to kill other humans in self-defence for example and it might even be necessary to kill innocent people. It would be unfair to say that the general principle of not killing other humans is flawed because its not an absolute principle. The same applies to animals.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is every animal's right to life equal?



No.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And the alternative? Is it better that it is never born? Why?


so you think it has been born so might as well kill it, at least it has had a bit of a life?

how about not mass producing animals for consumption and letting be more like, natural?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> is might right?


 
Was the question too confusing?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> No.


 
Do you go with something like the Peter Singer view of things?


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think you could make a case for saying that keeping a cat indoors 24/7, not letting it hunt and express its other natural behaviours, and feeding it a vegan diet is actually less ethical than keeping animals for food in humane conditions and allowing them to do their natural animal thing before they're killed, but in deference to cesare I'll try not to derail the thread any further




I'd agree with that.

On the topic though. The page linked by Fractionman IIRC pretty much pours cold water on the misleading tabloid headline. Not that scoffing too much of anything is the key to a  healthy lifestyle either...

What is "too much." You can have guidelines for saturated fats and so on but beyond common sensical ideas about not eating half a pound of sausages every day, it's difficult to give a definitive answer applicable to the population as a whole.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so you think it has been born so might as well kill it, at least it has had a bit of a life?
> 
> how about not mass producing animals for consumption and letting be more like, natural?


Why? What's natural? And what's so great about it?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Do you go with something like the Peter Singer view of things?



I agree with much of what he writes on this topic, but I think that he's too fixated on welfare as the sole metic to assess these questions.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? What's natural? And what's so great about it?


what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?
oh and nature=natural if the similarity of the words weren't clear enough for you to make the link


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I agree with much of what he writes on this topic, but I think that he's too fixated on welfare as the sole metic to assess these questions.


 
What other factors would you bring into it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?
> oh and nature=natural if the similarity of the words weren't clear enough for you to make the link


So no rice or wheat or soya or any of the other domesticated crops. 

It will be a challenge to feed 7 billion humans without them.


----------



## fredfelt (Mar 10, 2014)

I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years.  In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.

Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt.  He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals.  Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents.  I've no problem with him hunting.  If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.

Before I started him on the diet I gave the animal a choice between his regular food or Ami.  He expressed no preference. 

He's a pet.  Of course I put my ethics on him.  In the same way a cat owner feeding their pet factory farmed meat puts their ethics of the food which is fed to their animal.

You may think that feeding your pet vegan food is the act of a loony vegan.  It may well be but I'm not.  I take no issue with eating meat in moderation that's been shown respect during its life.  I'm happy to cook quality free range meat.  My issue is with unnecessary cruelty.  If there were any signs of the cat food being detrimental to Luke's health either to me or to the vet I'd change it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> What other factors would you bring into it?



Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

tbf it sounds like Luke is far from a strict vegan.


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years.  In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.
> 
> Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt.  He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals.  Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents.  I've no problem with him hunting.  If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.
> 
> ...



TBF this doesn't quite fit my idea of what I meant.  Your cat eats meat. You're not curtailing it's natural instincts any more than any non vegan cat food buyer.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So no rice or wheat or soya or any of the other domesticated crops.
> 
> It will be a challenge to feed 7 billion humans without them.


do you defend this?





http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/luncheon-meat-with-faces-just.php

oh and this purile piece will amuse some of the meat defenders here
"look, boobs and bacon!" what's not to like (unless you are a vegi/gay/woman etc)
http://geekologie.com/2009/01/highly-questionable-the-bacon.php


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.


 
Got a long way to go before we manage that with humans tbf.  See where you're going with that, but not sure whether non-instrumentalism kicks in until you're dealing with something pretty-near human, and intrinsic value sounds a bit subjective (at the extreme end possibly just being a cipher for 'cuteness').


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf it sounds like Luke is far from a strict vegan.


why the smug smiley?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why the smug smiley?


 
That's just the regular smiley, though a 'smug smiley' might be a worthy addition to the site.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?



Because natural processes have no interest in the welfare of humans in general. In fact they have no interests at all. Look at the exemplar of natural processes, evolution; in order for it to work, living things must die, often in really horrible ways. I think humans can do better than nature, although that's not a very fashionable viewpoint among some circles.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why the smug smiley?


I like it. It reminds me of all the animals I've eaten.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like it. It reminds me of all the animals I've eaten.


childish prick

am out, again!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Got a long way to go before we manage that with humans tbf.  See where you're going with that, but not sure whether non-instrumentalism kicks in until you're dealing with something pretty-near human, and intrinsic value sounds a bit subjective (at the extreme end possibly just being a cipher for 'cuteness').



I just mean that we shouldn't just treat them as means to our own ends. For me the obsession with 'cuteness' in animals is a reflection of precisely the way we instrumentalise, objectify and anthropomorphise them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> childish prick
> 
> am out, again!


What do you expect when you call someone smug for using a smiling smiley? 

fyi, I used a smiley to indicate an absence of hostility. Such is the versatility of smileys, however, that it's also possible to use the same ones to indicate presence of hostility. Context.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I just mean that we shouldn't just treat them as means to our own ends. For me the obsession with 'cuteness' in animals is a reflection of precisely the way we instrumentalise, objectify and anthropomorphise them.


 
I understand what you mean, but 'autonomy' is a human value and perhaps of only limited relevance to most non-human animal species unless you are just talking about their ability to express natural behaviour patterns.  For example, I think sheepdogs have a much better life than feral dogs, and I would think the welfare angle would more than outweigh any moral negatives from their use as a farming instrument, or their lack of personal career choice.

I agree with what you say re: the 'cuteness' angle, but am now less sure what 'instrinsic value' would mean.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Historically, it is part of the genius of human beings to use other animals instrumentally like this, from transport to beasts of burden, etc. You might say that we ought to move beyond this, but we are only where we are now because of it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> I understand what you mean, but 'autonomy' is a human value and perhaps of only limited relevance to most non-human animal species unless you are just talking about their ability to express natural behaviour patterns.  For example, I think sheepdogs have a much better life than feral dogs, and I would think the welfare angle would more than outweigh any moral negatives from their use as a farming instrument, or their lack of personal career choice.
> 
> I agree with what you say re: the 'cuteness' angle, but am now less sure what 'instrinsic value' would mean.



Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.


Every organism uses the environment around it as a means for its own ends. I see no contradiction between using animals and caring about their welfare at the same time.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.


 
So it sounds like the 'autonomy' angle is mostly kicking in with a very select group of species if we're talking about more than the ability to express natural behaviour (which is obv a valid concern in the case of battery hens for example).

What do you mean by 'intrinsic value'?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Every organism uses the environment around it as a means for its own ends. I see no contradiction between using animals and caring about their welfare at the same time.



I might not necessarily be contradictory but it may nevertheless still be morally unsatisfactory. However, I am doubtful as to whether the welfare of sentient beings will ever truly be cared for in a context where they are reduced to chattel and commodities. Its no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> So it sounds like the 'autonomy' angle is mostly kicking in with a very select group of species if we're talking about more than the ability to express natural behaviour (which is obv a valid concern in the case of battery hens for example).
> 
> What do you mean by 'intrinsic value'?



By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.


 
Thanks.  I can see how it works as something of a rebuttal to the Douglas Adams solution of breeding a cow that wants to be eaten


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.



Bit of a tangent but what's your take on humans getting involved in culling animals for their own welfare or that of other species?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Bit of a tangent but what's your take on humans getting involved in culling animals for their own welfare or that of other species?



It's not something I have very much knowledge about, but given that culls are large scale killings there should be _a very strong presumption against them_ and they should only be used where there is a firm evidence base that their use is (1) absolutely necessary in the sense that no alternative means could have reasonably have been used to achieve the same ends and (2) that the ends to be obtained are proportionate to the level of harm inflicted by the cull. I know that's rather schematic, but I would reject current positions that allow for culls merely on the basis of their economic efficiency without any weight being given to interests of the animals being killed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It's not something I have very much knowledge about, but given that culls are large scale killings there should be _a very strong presumption against them_ and they should only be used where there is a firm evidence base that their use is (1) absolutely necessary in the sense that no alternative means could have reasonably have been used to achieve the same ends and (2) that the ends to be obtained are proportionate to the level of harm inflicted by the cull. I know that's rather schematic, but I would reject current positions that allow for culls merely on the basis of their economic efficiency without any weight being given to interests of the animals being killed.


I agree with this. The effects of the culls of elephants in South Africa are only now starting to be understood - ripping experienced adults from family groups has produced a whole generation of elephants with developmental disorders, still evident even decades later. Elephants are an example of a species whose conscious awareness is certainly sophisticated and extended in ways that are comparable to ours. I would want the welfare and interests of the elephants both as a species and as individuals to be taken into consideration. 

The recent idiotic, pointless, and failed badger cull in the UK is another example of a cull decided upon without a strong enough presumption against it. 

The relative intelligence and self-awareness of the animals is relevant, imo. Elephants are at one end; locusts, say, at another. But there will always be a grey area in between - consciousness isn't just a present/absent quality; it's a sliding scale.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Do you drink milk or consume any milk products?  If so, you are complicit in what you define as "murder" whether you eat veal or not.



I know, and I admitted as much here...



Dr_Herbz said:


> E2A... I love meat. I love a nice steak and I love bacon but I refuse to eat lamb or veal. This doesn't make me in any way better than someone who likes to eat babies but it makes me feel a little less guilty.





Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm not trying to gross you out, nor am I trying to put myself forward as being morally superior in any way. I'm simply saying that veal, in any form, isn't ethical.
> I hold my hands up and admit that I eat murdered animals but I wouldn't try to convince myself that any form of murder can be in any way ethical.



I'm as complicit as anyone else but I'm not going to dress it up as something it isn't, and I stand by my original statement... There's nothing ethical about taking a baby from its mother at a few days of age, confining it in a tiny room and killing it a few months later, just because we think it tastes a bit better if it's (mis)treated that way.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> all the posts about not having meat being dull and the usual shutting down of anything that points to problems with meat consumption



But, the original premise of the thread is flawed; untrue.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> everyone has their limits and ethical considerations it is just sad that those who make different choices or could have been brought up that way constantly get ridiculed and attacked



As a rule, around here, it's the non meat eaters usually doing the attacking, ie, this thread. It often seems that the vegetarians aren't satisfied with the fact that they've found for themselves a diet that seems to give them what they're looking for, nutrition-wise. They [not all, of course] are motivated to go on with constant reminders that theirs is the superior way, not only nutritionally, but morally as well.

I'm not sure who it is they're trying to convince: meat eaters; or themselves.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> <snip>I'm not sure who it is they're trying to convince: meat eaters; or themselves.


Analogy: If somebody has to keep reminding you that they're nice, they're probably not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm as complicit as anyone else but I'm not going to dress it up as something it isn't, and I stand by my original statement... There's nothing ethical about taking a baby from its mother at a few days of age, confining it in a tiny room and killing it a few months later, just because we think it tastes a bit better if it's (mis)treated that way.


Veal farms vary a lot. They can look like this, for instance:







or they can look like this:








For me, the key ethical issue is this - the treatment of the animals while they are alive.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> or they can look like this:


That type of veal production has been banned in the UK since 1990.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why don't they call dead pieces of decomposing cow beef and not cow?




Because most of it isn't cow: it's steer.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Because most of it isn't cow: it's steer.


We don't use the word steer.  Is it different from a bull?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> We don't use the word steer.  Is it different from a bull?



It's a bull with balls removed.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's a bull with balls removed.


  Aha.  Wiki tells me we call that an ox or a bullock.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's a bull with balls removed.


We call those bullocks.

Bulls with no bollocks.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you defend this?



Absolutely not. 

Luncheon meat should have a minimum 90% meat content, imo.


----------



## Callie (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you defend this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
dude, is that a clown?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 10, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> Aha.  Wiki tells me we call that an ox or a bullock.



I live in cowboy country. 

Heifers, steers, dogies, beeves, etc...


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

firstly, fuck right off JC with your shite non answers and carpet bombing 



Greebo said:


> Analogy: If somebody has to keep reminding you that they're nice, they're probably not.


wt actual fuck? what are you implying there? 
i am certainly not nice and haven't claimed to be


littlebabyjesus said:


> Veal farms vary a lot. They can look like this, for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


because it's soooo much easier for the animal to face its death for your plate because it had a few days outdoors an saw some grass.



Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I live in cowboy country.
> 
> Heifers, steers, dogies, beeves, etc...


and you know full well that no one else on here does so maybe think about that when asserting the "correct" answer

callie, i don't know!  tried not to look at it too long


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)




----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I know, and I admitted as much here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's your objection to lamb? They're about as free range as you get. And how delicious!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh and this purile piece will amuse some of the meat defenders here
> "look, boobs and bacon!" what's not to like (unless you are a vegi/gay/woman etc)
> http://geekologie.com/2009/01/highly-questionable-the-bacon.php



Um. 

I don't get the indignation. It's very silly, but I think it's intended to be very silly. It's someone being very silly.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> wt actual fuck? what are you implying there?
> i am certainly not nice and haven't claimed to be



That's why she called it an analogy.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


>


 
That doesn't make it any better.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you defend this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does it need defending?,


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because it's soooo much easier for the animal to face its death for your plate because it had a few days outdoors an saw some grass.



Whoosh!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> callie, i don't know!  tried not to look at it too long


 
I know it's gruesome, but if it makes you any better I can confirm that the clown had a long and happy life before being cooked and longitudinally sliced into a children's sandwich product.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> I know it's gruesome, but if it makes you any better I can confirm that the clown had a long and happy life before being cooked and longitudinally sliced into a children's sandwich product.


And he was killed quickly and humanely after being stunned with a rubber mallet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because it's soooo much easier for the animal to face its death for your plate because it had a few days outdoors an saw some grass.


You're showing editor-sized logic fail on this thread. 

You clearly have different ideas, but for me there are two separate aspects to farm animal welfare: how it is kept through its life and how it is killed. The calves in example 1 from my post pass that first test. And yes, I do think that is important.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And he was killed quickly and humanely after being stunned with a rubber mallet.


DOOOIIIIIINNNNGG!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're showing editor-sized logic fail on this thread.
> 
> You clearly have different ideas, but for me there are two separate aspects to farm animal welfare: how it is kept through its life and how it is killed. The calves in example 1 from my post pass that first test. And yes, I do think that is important.


do what you have to do to justify your choices
the animal still dies needlessly for your tastebuds


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> DOOOIIIIIINNNNGG!


 
You people are SICK!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> the animal still dies needlessly for your tastebuds


That's right. That's the bit I have no problem with.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

and yes i am 'different' have 'different ideas' and am in a minority so will always be on the 'losing' side

so again, this is pointless and only providing enjoyment for the purile majority mob
i was raised a vegi so do take it personally when people say you 'need' meat and round on vegetarians and their choices.
best for all if i try my best to stay out of this thread


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're showing editor-sized logic fail on this thread.
> 
> You clearly have different ideas, but for me there are two separate aspects to farm animal welfare: how it is kept through its life and how it is killed. The calves in example 1 from my post pass that first test. And yes, I do think that is important.



It's also reasonable to assume that if the farmer cares for their welfare in life, as in example 1, he'll do the same when it comes to their slaughter.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's right. That's the bit I have no problem with.


so why give a shit whether it spent its days in a shed or a field?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's also reasonable to assume that if the farmer cares for their welfare in life, as in example 1, he'll do the same when it comes to their slaughter.


ai. a little stroke of their head before you lop it off makes all the difference!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so why give a shit whether it spent its days in a shed or a field?


Ah ok, we're reduced to teenage nihilism. We all die, so why give a shit about anything that's alive? It will be dead eventually.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so why give a shit whether it spent its days in a shed or a field?



Because he wants the animal to be as happy and comfortable as possible during its life.

Why don't you get that?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ai. a little stroke of their head before you lop it off makes all the difference!



Don't be silly. 

There are slaughter practices that meat eaters find acceptable and others that we don't. The point was, of course, that animals treated well in life are more likely to be humanely killed than those that aren't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ai. a little stroke of their head before you lop it off makes all the difference!


There are lots of things that can be done during slaughter to alleviate suffering. I can recommend you read about Temple Grandin's work designing slaughterhouses for cows - by trying to look at the process from a cow's pov, she made a few relatively small adjustments that made a huge difference to the animals' experience immediately pre-death. If you can move them into position to be killed without causing distress, then deliver a bolt to the head that ends consciousness more or less instantly, then you've done the thing right.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

you can stick your recommendations up your blocked passage!


littlebabyjesus said:


> There are lots of things that can be done during slaughter to alleviate suffering. I can recommend you read about Temple Grandin's work designing slaughterhouses for cows - by trying to look at the process from a cow's pov, she made a few relatively small adjustments that made a huge difference to the animals' experience immediately pre-death. *If you can move them into position to be killed without causing distress, then deliver a bolt to the head that ends consciousness more or less instantly, then you've done the thing right*.


from a cow's point of view!  listen to yourself ffs
"and if we paint a daisy on the bit of panelling just before they get a bolt through the head they'll be thinking of daisies and not death, might even taste a tiny bit nicer, mmmm" jesus wept 

bit in bold, "done the right thing"  killing it for food is not the right thing when there are other altrnatives, full stop
aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrghh


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> .... killing it for food is not the right thing when there are other altrnatives, full stop aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrghh



This is the problem.

We do not accept that killing animals for food is wrong or unethical _despite_ there being alternative food sources. It may be (how the animal is treated in life and despatched), but it's not necessarily.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you can stick your recommendations up your blocked passage!
> 
> from a cow's point of view!  listen to yourself ffs
> "and if we paint a daisy on the bit of panelling just before they get a bolt through the head they'll be thinking of daisies and not death, might even taste a tiny bit nicer, mmmm" jesus wept


You're being very silly now. Such things as being able to see the cow in front of you and not having to walk down steep steel tracks keeps the animals calm. Cows are highly social animals and have 'mates' within the herd. If you don't recognise this kind of thing, you can easily cause great distress unnecessarily.

So yes, read Temple Grandin. I can recommend _Thinking in pictures_ as a starting point.

You appear to have something of a mental block on this - you can't recognise that people who eat meat might also care about animal welfare, and that such concern is not simply hypocritical.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is the problem.
> 
> We do not accept that killing animals for food is wrong or unethical _despite_ there being alternative food sources. It may be (how the animal is treated in life and despatched), but it's not necessarily.


"we"


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're being very silly now. Such things as being able to see the cow in front of you and not having to walk down steep steel tracks keeps the animals calm. Cows are highly social animals and have 'mates' within the herd. If you don't recognise this kind of thing, you can easily cause great distress unnecessarily.
> 
> So yes, read Temple Grandin. I can recommend _Thinking in pictures_ as a starting point.
> 
> You appear to have something of a mental block on this - you can't recognise that people who eat meat might also care about animal welfare, and that such concern is not simply hypocritical.


please fuck off telling me about animal welfare, what to read on the subject and it being all ok because the slaughter is made a tiny bit more palatable for you


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What's your objection to lamb? They're about as free range as you get. And how delicious!



It's that they're killed at just a few months old, because they're more delicious at that age.
I believe that if we insist on eating animals, which we do and always will, because pig tastes amazing, then the animal should at least be allowed to live out a half decent life before we put it on our plate.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> "we"



LBJ (I'm sure he'll forgive me for that, given his posts on this thread) and I.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> please fuck off telling me about animal welfare, what to read on the subject and it being all ok because the slaughter is made a tiny bit more palatable for you



In return will you fuck off with your ill thought out, playground standard, moralising?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It's that they're killed at just a few months old, because they're more delicious at that age.
> I believe that if we insist on eating animals, which we do and always will, because pig tastes amazing, then the animal should at least be allowed to live out a half decent life before we put it on our plate.


Try mutton or hogget then, but I think I think your reasoning is specious


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Try mutton or hogget then, but I think I think your reasoning is specious



I agree... mutton isn't nice, which is why I don't eat it... but pig is really nice, as is a nice steak, and they both come from an animal that wasn't killed within a few months of birth.

I'm not saying there's any right age to kill any animal, and this is in no way a holier than thou thing. I'm simply trying to justify, to some extent, my love of bacon sandwiches and medium rare steaks.


----------



## NoXion (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> please fuck off telling me about animal welfare, what to read on the subject and it being all ok because the slaughter is made a tiny bit more palatable for you



The welfare of food animals does actually matter. Stressed animals raised in poor conditions produce crappy meat.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I agree... mutton isn't nice...


 
Mmmm... Jamaican mutton curry...


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I agree... mutton isn't nice, which is why I don't eat it... but pig is really nice, as is a nice steak, and they both come from an animal that wasn't killed within a few months of birth.
> 
> I'm not saying there's any right age to kill any animal, and this is in no way a holier than thou thing. I'm simply trying to justify, to some extent, my love of bacon sandwiches and medium rare steaks.


Most pigs are about 6 months old when slaughtered. Lambs are between 8-12 months old. Chickens are about 42 days old.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's why she called it an analogy.


It is indeed.  

Pray forgive me, ddraig, for having more urgent things to do elsewhere than dancing attendance upon your every utterance.  In fact, I have more urgent things to do on even my most idle of days (that doesn't BTW include today) than to put up with your (in my arrogant opinion) near hysterical drivel.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

Greebo said:


> It is indeed.
> 
> Pray forgive me, for having more urgent things to do elsewhere than dancing attendance upon your every utterance.  In fact, I have more urgent things to do on even my most idle of days (that doesn't BTW include today) than to put up with your (in my arrogant opinion) near hysterical drivel.


i honestly don't understand why you are being this way
i didn't expect an answer from you within a limited time and am aware that you have loads of things to do. sorry for questioning your post. 
sorry you seem to have had a bad day.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig Sweetie, I'm neither asking for nor expecting your sympathy - and I'll thank you to be less patronising (what are you, socially illiterate?).  

There are days when posts like yours on this thread happen to rub me up the wrong way, mainly because you've gone out of your way to give offence as well as to find it.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 10, 2014)

i give up! nice insults Greebo


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> please fuck off telling me about animal welfare, what to read on the subject and it being all ok because the slaughter is made a tiny bit more palatable for you


It was an attempt to get you to understand my pov on this, which is indeed the same as Spy's. 

Reading about the slaughter of cattle and the ways it can be improved, these changes don't just make it a tiny bit more palatable for me - they make an enormous difference, between an animal having a calm and relatively stress-free final day and it having a terrifying one. Cattle are quite stupid animals, but sensitive and emotional ones that are easily upset. Avoiding upsetting them and stressing them out is far more than just a marginal concern for me. 

The bit you clearly don't get is that I am fine with the idea of raising and killing animals to eat. You appear unable to see beyond that point and you are led to a strange place where you simply won't accept that a meat-eater can have genuine concern for animal welfare.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> <snip>oh and this purile piece will amuse some of the meat defenders here
> "look, boobs and bacon!" what's not to like (unless you are a vegi/gay/woman etc)
> http://geekologie.com/2009/01/highly-questionable-the-bacon.php



Christ alone knows why the near-hysterical Puff The Magic Dragon has chosen to post a link to a site featuring a bra made out of bacon.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Christ alone knows why the near-hysterical Puff The Magic Dragon has chosen to post a link to a site featuring a bra made out of bacon.


 
Vegetarian diets may be fine for dogs and humans, but the lack of arachidonic acid sends dragons a bit odd.


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and yes i am 'different' have 'different ideas' and am in a minority so will always be on the 'losing' side
> 
> so again, this is pointless and only providing enjoyment for the purile majority mob
> i was raised a vegi so do take it personally when people say you 'need' meat and *round on vegetarians and their choices.*
> best for all if i try my best to stay out of this thread




and where on this thread has anyone done this ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 10, 2014)

> Reading about the slaughter of cattle and the ways it can be improved, these changes don't just make it a tiny bit more palatable for me - they make an enormous difference, between an animal having a calm and relatively stress-free final day and it having a terrifying one. Cattle are quite stupid animals, but sensitive and emotional ones that are easily upset. Avoiding upsetting them and stressing them out is far more than just a marginal concern for me.


tbh, if you put animals in a confined space, around humans who are driving them from pen to pen then they may get distressed anyway. The killing being quick and efficient is the only thing I would be worried about and from what I've seen it is.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 10, 2014)

fredfelt said:


> I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years.  In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.
> 
> Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt.  He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals.  Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents.  I've no problem with him hunting.  If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.
> 
> Before I started him on the diet I gave the animal a choice between his regular food or Ami.  He expressed no preference.


I'm sorry, but this cracks me up - he expressed no preference, _*It's a cat.*_


----------



## free spirit (Mar 10, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you can stick your recommendations up your blocked passage!
> 
> from a cow's point of view!  listen to yourself ffs
> "and if we paint a daisy on the bit of panelling just before they get a bolt through the head they'll be thinking of daisies and not death, might even taste a tiny bit nicer, mmmm" jesus wept
> ...


The difficulty with this line of argument being that there would barely be any cows alive if it weren't for farming for meat / milk, and those that were alive would be getting ripped apart by wolves / bears / lions etc if left entirely to nature.

So the question becomes whether it's better for farm animals to live a decent life, then be killed relatively humanely at the end of their lives, or for those animals never to have lived at all.

In battery farming, I'd probably support the 'never lived at all' line of thinking, but for free range farming, I reckon the world's a better place because those animals are farmed. Also much of the land they're raised on is unsuitable for other food crops.

I think that battery farming / industrial farming of animals should be banned, and that meat should be viewed a lot more as a special treat to be eaten irregularly rather than somethng to form the basis of every meal.

ps I'm aware that most vegetarians take a different view on this, and respect their right to hold that opinion, just after giving it considerable thought, I find a disagree. I'd hate to see a countryside without sheep, cows etc. almost as much as I hate to think of the animals in the battery farm conditions.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The bit you clearly don't get is that I am fine with the idea of raising and killing animals to eat. You appear unable to see beyond that point and you are led to a strange place where you simply won't accept that a meat-eater can have genuine concern for animal welfare.


I can accept that you have a degree of concern, and powerless as I am to stop people eating meat Id rather farmed animal lives were as pleasant as possible, and their deaths as stress-free as possible...its just about better than the alternatives - but to someone who considers killing animals for food fundamentally wrong, your concern is made totally insignificant by the action of killing. Its not something you can reason your way out of, just as if I killed your family but made sure it happened in a stress-free way it wouldn't satisfy you one bit. It's a fundamental clash of viewpoints that you can't come to a common ground on. Thats why vegi v meat threads always run and run...


Spymaster said:


> There are slaughter practices that meat eaters find acceptable and others that we don't.


You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have *any* idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.



fredfelt said:


> Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt.  He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals.  Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents. * I've no problem with him hunting.  If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.*


Domestic cats kill way too many birds, and I think its the onus of cat owners to put a bell on them, particularly cats out in the country.
Thats the RSPB line: http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/collarthatcat.aspx
"Results show that cats equipped with a bell returned 41 per cent fewer birds and 34 per cent fewer mammals than those with a plain collar. Those equipped with an electronic sonic device returned 51 per cent fewer birds and 38 per cent fewer mammals, compared with cats wearing a plain collar."


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 10, 2014)

I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I've killed, prepared, and eaten animals.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.



Depends can you choose you own method on how you kill the animal

If I could use a trebuchet to kill my own meat, I'd be right up for it...


The health and safety lot might frown but if a man cannot send his intended dinner 40 foot in the air and across the length of a football pitch with some target set up just for pre dinner entertainment well it broken frigging Britain I tells ye...

And it would still be more humane that halal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2014)

ska invita said:


> You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have *any* idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.


This is very true. I admit that I still eat meat where I can be quite confident that the animal wasn't treated well - a chicken curry at a restaurant, for instance. I shouldn't do that. 

But at the same time, these problems go wider, and battery chickens are cheaper, so for some people eating more ethically is more difficult than for others. I agree with freespirit on this that such practices should be banned, and if that means many of us eat less meat, then that's probably a good thing. But only if it's combined with other changes that keep meat available to all, even if it has to be an occasional treat.


----------



## xenon (Mar 10, 2014)

Depends how hungry I was and whether I knew what I was doing. If we're going to have these daft arguments. how many people would use a mobile phone if they had to mine the rare Earth elements themselves.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 10, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I often wonder how many people would be eating meat if they had to kill the animal themself.


well i probably wouldn't, but i'd probably starve if i had to produce any food myself because i work a 60+hour week and sleep all weekend.  

but could i do it?  yeah.  i'm pretty content with my position in the food chain.  i wouldn't kill animals for jollies, but i'm not sentimental. perhaps never really having done the whole pet thing properly has contributed to that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 11, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i am certainly not nice and haven't claimed to be



Was that even an issue?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 11, 2014)

ddraig said:


> and you know full well that no one else on here does so maybe think about that when asserting the "correct" answer



How the fuck would I know whether or not the word 'steer' is used in Britain?

Grab a brain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm sorry, but this cracks me up - he expressed no preference, _*It's a cat.*_



cats express preferences.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> cats express preferences.


As Bakunin is only too aware...


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2014)

As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have *any* idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.



We're often in the situation of having to trust others when it comes to what we consume. You do what you can to find a balance with which you're personally comfortable. In the case of meat it comes down building a relationship with a butcher that you trust, or in supermarkets looking for "free range", "organic", "grass fed", "freedom food"; avoiding cheap poultry etc, etc.

Of course it's not foolproof but I take a similar view to that of Muslims when buying halal products. We should do _the best that WE can_ to uphold our principles and if someone cheats or tricks us then the sin is theirs, not ours.

I'm by no means infallible either. I have a weakness for the occasional Big Mac and often eat in restaurants or at friends homes where I've no idea where the meat came from.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.


You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.

You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat. 

You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.
> 
> You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat.
> 
> You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?


Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?


You have this the wrong way around. I'm not saying that a farmer is morally obliged to keep animals. I'm asking what is morally wrong about doing so. What is morally better about not doing so?


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2014)

Is there a moral difference between killing an animal you've bred and one you've hunted?


----------



## girasol (Mar 11, 2014)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the very important point that red meat is resource intensive and that we should eat less of it for that reason alone.  I made that point early and I shall make it again - this is very important.

Not saying we should all become vegetarians, but not only for health reasons (takes a long time to digest red meat, to much of it is bad for you), and also for environmental reasons, we need to consume less of it.

hehe, check out my attention grabbing bigger font, I bet it will still get ignored...


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Are you morally obliged to have as many children as you can?



and kill them at 6 months old...


----------



## Santino (Mar 11, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> and kill them at 6 months old...


Surely that's better than them not existing at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

girasol said:


> Everyone seems to be ignoring the very important point that red meat is resource intensive and that we should eat less of it for that reason alone.  I made that point early and I shall make it again - this is very important.


True. Although against that must be placed the point that some land is no good for anything other than grazing animals. The Welsh hills are good for hardy hill sheep but not much else.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Surely that's better than them not existing at all.


Apparently...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Surely that's better than them not existing at all.


Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> As a meat-eater, I think the argument that it's ok to kill animals because otherwise they would not even have been born, is utterly utterly asinine.



What do you think is a better argument?


----------



## girasol (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> True. Although against that must be placed the point that some land is no good for anything other than grazing animals. The Welsh hills are good for hardy hill sheep but not much else.



The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows 

edit: some graphs http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/lind/main.htm


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have a field. You plant a crop in it and grow wheat to make bread. You sell the bread.
> 
> You have a field. You graze sheep on it and kill the lambs. You sell the meat.
> 
> You have a need to make an income from your field. That income has to come from harvesting the thing that grows on it - either the crops or the livestock. Is it really morally better for the sheep never to exist than for you to farm them for their meat? Why? On what moral basis?



Something else which needs to be factored into this discussion is the fact that many of the "fields" on which sheep currently graze are not suitable for arable farming, they're too hilly, not fertile enough or whatever. 

In fact, most of the land in Britain which could be efficiently used for growing crops already is, so it's not simply a choice between grazing livestock and growing crops, it's often a choice between grazing livestock and not producing any food at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

girasol said:


> The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows


Sure. And more than growing soya, too.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?



No it isn't... but it's morally better to kill wheat than it is to kill sheep.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No it isn't... but it's morally better to kill wheat than it is to kill sheep.


You have to kill the sheep to produce the income. No income, no sheep.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. And more than growing soya, too.



The majority of which is used for animal feed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The majority of which is used for animal feed.


Yes, it is.

I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

girasol said:


> The rain forest and vast areas of Brazil are (were) good for a lot more than feeding cows



This is true in terms of biodiversity, but not in terms of food production. We can't simply ignore the fact that the existing world population (that's the human population) needs to be fed, and simplistic ideas like "veg good, meat bad" don't help that.

Also, it's worth remembering that in certain areas, eg chalk grasslands, traditional grazing is better for biodiversity than simply allowing it all to turn to scrub.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have to kill the sheep to produce the income. No income, no sheep.


Scum have to rob pensioners to feed themselves.


----------



## girasol (Mar 11, 2014)

This is a really pointless argument: ie. what is morally better to kill?  Some religions never seemed too bothered about this, and they are quite 'moralistic'.  Others see it as a terrible thing, they also adhere to a set of 'morals'.

Killing an animal is really neither moral nor immoral, it's down to personal choice as to how immoral it is.  You can't scientifically measure its morality.

We have eaten meat (or not) for as long as we have been around.  The real moral, but also practical, issue is how we produce the meat and the negative impact the industry is having in the environment.

If we had to raise and kill our own meat this wouldn't be an issue, as we wouldn't impact much.  We would only kill a mammal once a month to feed our relatives - as it used to be.  The mass production of meat is the real issue IMO.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Scum have to rob pensioners to feed themselves.



Only because you've decided they're not allowed to be sheep farmers any more


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

girasol said:


> If we had to raise and kill our own meat this wouldn't be an issue, as we wouldn't impact much.  We would only kill a mammal once a month to feed our relatives - as it used to be.  The mass production of meat is the real issue IMO.


Yes. The amount of meat produced and the way it is produced need to change. And this isn't even a problem of growing human population - in the parts of the world where the population is growing, people don't eat much meat. It's the rich world's consumption habits that are the problem.


----------



## girasol (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. The amount of meat produced and the way it is produced need to change. And this isn't even a problem of growing human population - in the parts of the world where the population is growing, people don't eat much meat. It's the rich world's consumption habits that are the problem.



And so we are back to my point, and why I started eating less meat.  People in rich countries can make a difference, just by eating red meat less often.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Only because you've decided they're not allowed to be sheep farmers any more


And freespirit's point is worth bearing in mind too, imo. After foot and mouth, the fields of South East Wales were empty. No livestock. Speaking selfishly, I far prefer it now that the sheep are all back. But they are only back because of the meat industry.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.



Who judges intrinsic value, though? Who ascribes it?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.



That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> cats express preferences.


How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.



It's certainly true that animals are currently treated primarily as an economic resource (and this means that some areas which would once have been grazed are no longer because it's not considered economically viable).

But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.

If we imagine a post-capitalist society where the profit motive is no longer the main driving force, would you then be happy with animals being used as a resource for human use, or does your objection go further than merely the economic instrumentalism?

And if you object more generally to the use of animals for food, what alternative use can you suggest for those areas which are not suitable for productive human uses other than grazing, and what way of life do you have to offer those currently living in those areas and engaged in that activity?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?


Somehow, by magic, I've worked out that my cat loves tuna, chicken, ham and quorn. He prefers all of these to whiskas supermeat, which lies there going smelly before I throw it out. He also doesn't like sausages, oddly.


----------



## girasol (Mar 11, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?



Simples: by not eating what they don't like?   My cat doesn't like lamb!  Or raw meat.  What a freak  She spent her first few months fending for herself which makes it even more puzzling.

She loves ham, but won't eat sausages either...


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Somehow, by magic, I've worked out that my cat loves tuna, chicken, ham and quorn. He prefers all of these to whiskas supermeat, which lies there going smelly before I throw it out. He also doesn't like sausages, oddly.



Maybe you just need to try a different brand


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe you just need to try a different brand


It's alright, I have done. He's an old fella now - 17 - and has become a much fussier eater over the years. As a youngster, he ate almost everything.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.



I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.


----------



## xenon (Mar 11, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?



Cmon you don't have to be a weird people hating cat fanatic to notice they have preferences for some foods over others. Our family pet cat would much prefer tinned food to dry and pieces of boneless chicken or fish to tinned.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 11, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.


but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'd go further than that. I believe that humans are vastly more important than animals and that if humans can use animals to clothe and feed themselves, they should. The caveats being that the animals should not be needlessly mistreated or endangered as a species.



Yeah, I agree, though I recognise that not everyone shares that view.

I'm trying to point out to them that the idea of all humans ceasing to eat meat has various negative consequences - it's not as simple as it's often presented by those who say "we don't need to eat meat, so we should just stop"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

ddraig said:


> but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided


How so by definition? I guess you're counting the killing as mistreating - but how are they mistreated beside that?

ETA: and there are no moral absolutes here. There are 7 billion of us. It is fantasy to imagine that we can exist on the planet without killing other animals or otherwise reducing the resources available to other animals (which in my book is every bit as bad as killing them) along the way, regardless of whether or not we eat them.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ddraig said:


> but they are by definition mistreated and killed, it can't be avoided



Well that's why I put in "needlessly", as the act of killing an animal itself is arguably mistreatment. 

I don't agree that mistreatment can't be avoided though. It would just be very expensive.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Is it worth pointing out that trolls are omnivorous, that they will eat whatever you feed them and shit it all out everywhere?

We maybe not be able to kill them, but we really don't need to encourage them.

Just sayin'


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it morally better to grow wheat than to keep sheep? If so, why? On what basis?


The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity, eating up everything in their wake and stopping the growth of wild flowers and other plants - a crucial plank in biodiversity.

the second fuck up is the massive subsidy for keeping sheep. A sheep farmer only has them because of the subsidy. I havent thought this through but I think the subsidy should be scrapped and if people want to eat meat they should pay the insanely high full market price for it.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> I'm not defending the global meat industry here. However, there are situations where it is economically (and ecologically, in terms of energy use) sensible use of land to keep animals on it. The Welsh hills being a case in point.


To the tune of millions in subsidy. cant we just have some wilderness in this country?
The amazon forest was just mentioned - we have 1% of our native forests left in this country... the great british countryside is just endless fenced off fields and heavily subsidised sheep <its a load of shite


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity, eating up everything in their wake and stopping the growth of wild flowers and other plants - a crucial plank in biodiversity.
> 
> the second fuck up is the massive subsidy for keeping sheep. A sheep farmer only has them because of the subsidy. I havent thought this through but I think the subsidy should be scrapped and if people want to eat meat they should pay the insanely high full market price for it.


This is total bollocks. Sheep farmers get screwed by the supermarket supply chains that have nearly all their market tied up, and are massively underpaid for their meat. They are ripped off as part of an exploitative system, as surely as cocoa farmers in West Africa or coffee growers in Kenya.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

Santino said:


> Is there a moral difference between killing an animal you've bred and one you've hunted?


Interesting question - I think yes. Paying somebody (including the government through subsidy) to kill and animal for you behind closed doors, then skin it, gut it, debone it, etc, and make it look as  presentable for you as possible is a moral issue... what's a parrallel???.... career politicians sending soldiers to kill and not fighting themselves, nor their own children taking part... that act of deference of the killing does have a moral or at least ethical dimension.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is total bollocks. Sheep farmers get screwed by the supermarket supply chains that have nearly all their market tied up, and are massively underpaid for their meat. They are ripped off as part of an exploitative system, as surely as cocoa farmers in West Africa or coffee growers in Kenya.


and? I should subsidise it through my taxes should I?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ... that act of deference of the killing does have a moral or at least ethical dimension.



Which is what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> and? I should subsidise it through my taxes should I?



Have a look at what price sheep farmers are given for their meat and what price it is sold for. Last time I looked into this, the figure was that doubling the price paid to the farmer would add about 5 per cent to the price of the meat in the shop. This isn't done, and the farmer is underpaid, due to his/her position in the chain and lack of leverage. In a similar way, adding a penny to the price of a chocolate bar would double the income of a cocoa farmer. Farmers are ripped off for marginal profits to the supermarkets.

Those taxes do not subsidise farmers. They subsidise supermarkets. In a similar way, housing benefit subsidises landlords, not tenants.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Which is what?


You think about it and decide - ive made my decision. I gave a parallel with politicians getting others to do their killing.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 11, 2014)

farmers get subsidised left right and centre and still moan
too few crops too many crops too dry too wet moan moan oh yeah i'll take the subsidy and keep on producing stuff that's not needed, kerching, moan moan moan


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have a look at what price sheep farmers are given for their meat and what price it is sold for. Last time I looked into this, the figure was that doubling the price paid to the farmer would add about 10 per cent to the price of the meat in the shop. This isn't done, and the farmer is underpaid, due to his/her position in the chain and lack of leverage. In a similar way, adding a penny to the price of a chocolate bar would double the income of a cocoa farmer. Farmers are ripped off for marginal profits to the supermarkets.
> 
> Those taxes do not subsidise farmers. They subsidise supermarkets. In a similar way, housing benefit subsidises landlords, not tenants.



Im confused - what are we arguing about it? My position is I hate all the fucking sheep everywhere, and I hate paying for them to be there, and I hate people slaughtering and eating them - whats yours again?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

ddraig said:


> farmers get subsidised left right and centre and still moan
> too few crops too many crops too dry too wet moan moan oh yeah i'll take the subsidy and keep on producing stuff that's not needed, kerching, moan moan moan


i sympathise with farmers to a certain extent - we need farmers and they take their cue from government and are often paying out shit loads to aristocrat land owners. Kick out the aristos, bring in small scale farming, cut back on all the animals


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity, eating up everything in their wake and stopping the growth of wild flowers and other plants - a crucial plank in biodiversity.
> 
> the second fuck up is the massive subsidy for keeping sheep. A sheep farmer only has them because of the subsidy. I havent thought this through but I think the subsidy should be scrapped and if people want to eat meat they should pay the insanely high full market price for it.



I appreciate the fact that you're engaging in the argument and not simply saying "meat is murder", but I'm afraid you're wrong on this.

Sheep are generally good for biodiversity - many areas only contain wildflowers including various rare species because they are grazed or mown for fodder. If such areas which are currently grazed or mown cease to be managed in this way then the wildflowers will be choked out by higher growing grasses, and in many cases eventually the area will be replaced by scrub, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. To some extent the subsidies for sheep are to encourage bioversity, because it would otherwise not be economically viable to continue.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 11, 2014)

e2a to ska
i used to symapthise with them and agree that small scale farming better


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Im confused - what are we arguing about it? My position is I hate all the fucking sheep everywhere, and I hate paying for them to be there, and I hate people slaughtering and eating them - whats yours again?


I hate the exploitative practices of capitalism that lead to farmers being ripped off. I like all the fucking sheep everywhere and think farmers should be paid a fair price for farming them. I eat meat, and enjoy it. I have killed and eaten animals before, and have no problem with it. I don't do so regularly because I live in a city. I do a different job, and pay others to do the farming bit for me.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> You think about it and decide - ive made my decision. I gave a parallel with politicians getting others to do their killing.



That parallel is a nonsense on several levels. You'd seriously compare the personal abrogation of the preparation of meat to the killing of humans????

We contract other people to do all sorts of things that we are unable or unwilling to do ourselves. Where is this "moral or ethical dimension" that is particular to meat production?


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> To the tune of millions in subsidy. cant we just have some wilderness in this country?
> The amazon forest was just mentioned - we have 1% of our native forests left in this country... the great british countryside is just endless fenced off fields and heavily subsidised sheep <its a load of shite



We're getting further and further away from  the original theme of this thread, but WTF, it's still interesting...

We have, unfortunately, lost all our wilderness in this country, and now it's gone, it's gone for good.

The next best thing are the semi-natural habitats created by traditional management techniques including grazing and mowing. If we get rid of sheep and other livestock we will inevitably lose them as well, either because the land will be deliberately used for something else, or if that's not viable because of the succession of new habitats.

Would you prefer that all the sheep were gone and you had areas of rank grass or scrub (which are not particularly biodiverse and which we already have plenty of)?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> We have, unfortunately, lost all our wilderness in this country, and now it's gone, it's gone for good.


it'll grow back in a minute if we let it. Likewise we can reintroduce all kinds of species. We can also stop sheep eating up all the wild flowers at a snip too.

"Would you prefer that all the sheep were gone and you had areas of rank grass or scrub (which are not particularly biodiverse and which we already have plenty of)?"

Not sure what you mean by rank grass or scrub, but yes, hills have their own biodiversity which invludes many wild flowers and teh like and leave the sheep off the hills and they'll come right back, and they are necessary for insect in tern provide food for birds etc...


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That parallel is a nonsense on several levels. You'd seriously compare the personal abrogation of the preparation of meat to the of killing humans????
> 
> We contract other people to do all sorts of things that we are unable or unwilling to do ourselves. Where is this "moral or ethical dimension" that is particular to meat production?


we're talking about killing living mammals here, and an individuals personal relation to it - so yes there is a parrallel - not the exact same thing, but a close parallel.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I like all the fucking sheep everywhere and think farmers should be paid a fair price for farming them.


rather than a countryside full of fenced off fields and sheep we could have an island of fantastic biodiversity and wild spaces and still be self-sufficient in food

lunch break is over - back to work


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> rather than a countryside fully of fenced off fields and sheep we could have an island of fantastic biodiversity and wild spaces and still be self-sufficient in food
> 
> lunch break is over - back to work



Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.

Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> we're talking about killing here living mammals here, and an individuals personal relation to it - so yes there is a parrallel - not the exact same thing, but a very close parallel.



It's not at all close. Nothing like it.

If a meat eater thought that killing animals was immoral or unethical *but still paid someone else to do the killing *then you may have a point.

I could change the oil in my car but I don't because it's fucking messy, inconvenient, someone else is better equipped and trained to do it than me, and I'd rather be doing something else.

I contend that the majority of meat eaters have little or no issue with the animals being killed, they'd just rather not do it themselves. For many people, killing and prepping an animal would be a deeply unpleasant task but there's no moral or ethical issue unless the act that they endorse, itself, is immoral or unethical in their view.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.
> 
> Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".


 
Largely true, though I'm not sure what you mean when you say wilderness 'cannot be restored'.  Do you just mean it would be different to what came before?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

really should be working...


Spymaster said:


> If a meat eater *thought* that killing animals was immoral or unethical *but still paid someone else to do the killing *then you may have a point.


by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Unfortunately "wild" (and I put it in quotes because nowhere in Britain is wild anymore and genuine wildness cannot be restored) or unmanaged does not necessarily equate to more biodiverse.
> 
> Getting rid of traditionally managed habitats which have developed over centuries will result in a loss of biodiversity, though it might give the superficial appearance of more "wildness".


okay, i think i see where youre coming from - im talking about a more biodiverse but managed natural environment


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions.


You're making a series of massive assumptions here, though. In cultures where the majority of people are still actively involved in raising animals for meat, there is no massive outbreak of vegetarianism in reaction to it. Most people get on with the killing and cooking and eating.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're making a series of massive assumptions here, though. In cultures where the majority of people are still actively involved in raising animals for meat, there is no massive outbreak of vegetarianism in reaction to it. Most people get on with the killing and cooking and eating.


...i'll be back this evening! have to do some work... Anthropological examples including attitudes to killing of animals isnt really something i can be bothered to get into here tbh.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

8ball said:


> Largely true, though I'm not sure what you mean when you say wilderness 'cannot be restored'.  Do you just mean it would be different to what came before?



Yes, that's what I mean.

We can (and should where appropriate) do things to improve biodiversity and recreate approximations of traditional or even "wild" landscapes, but that's not the same, IMO, in restoring wilderness, and we should be skeptical of anyone who claims it is.

Such improvements and recreations are no substitute for conserving that which is still valuable, so for instance we should not allow traditional grassland to be ploughed over on the false basis that substitute habitats can be recreated elsewhere.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> really should be working...
> 
> by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one


 
<strokes beard>

Fair point, though _just_ having insight into that part would be insufficient without similarly intimate knowledge of the processes involved in other food options.  Just as someone traumatised by the experience of WWII might be bringing different insights to someone traumatised by the Holocaust.

<edit - that's a truly shit analogy which deserves ignoring at best>


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> okay, i think i see where youre coming from - im talking about a more biodiverse but managed natural environment



OK, that's fair enough.

I would suggest that the word wild is inappropriate there, but also that livestock can (in some situations) have a part to play in that management.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

There's nothing worse for the land than modern, intense farming methods and overproduction of meat.

Cattle are kept in slatted sheds during the winter months and their shit and piss drops through to a massive underground tank. The slurry from these tanks is then spread onto the land, and it kills just about everything in the soil, including the worms and microbes necessary to keep land healthy. Then there's the problem of fecal E.coli and other goodies entering the water table, which is really good for our health.

Another side of aggressively farming animals that people choose to ignore.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Human interventions have also created rich environments. Hedgerows in Britain are a good example.

tbh I'm far more sanguine about this. I support a Severn barrage to generate electricity because I think such things are necessary. It would destroy a large area that is important for many species of birds. Many birds would die. But it would also create a new environment in which other species would thrive. Entirely human-created, but not ecologically useless necessarily.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The biggest problem with sheep is that they are bad news for bio diversity<snip>



Great news for my sex life though.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Great news for my sex life though.



There you go, sheep are good for biodiversity (when used appropriately and not allowed to overgraze) *and* good for Frances' sex life. It's win-win.

(although I'm sure someone will come back with complaints about subjecting animals to inhumane and distressing conditions...)


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2014)

ska invita said:


> by removing themselves entirely from the act their/your thoughts on the morals and ethics of the killing are greatly affected - it becomes a theoretical exercise removed from experience. Experience is a huge component of creating moral and ethical opinions. Just like someone traumatised by the experience of war might not be so keen go and start one



Well you're barking up the wrong tree a bit with me personally as I've killed hundreds of animals, and whilst I'd agree that experiences can inform personal ethics I don't believe that they're crucial to general morality. By and large, people know that the meat on their plate came from an animal, and that the animal was killed to put the meat there. Sure there'd be some who would quit meat after witnessing a slaughter, but most carnivores have at least seen the imagery and chosen to continue eating meat and using animal products.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> There's nothing worse for the land than modern, intense farming methods and overproduction of meat.
> 
> Cattle are kept in slatted sheds during the winter months and their shit and piss drops through to a massive underground tank. The slurry from these tanks is then spread onto the land, and it kills just about everything in the soil, including the worms and microbes necessary to keep land healthy. Then there's the problem of fecal E.coli and other goodies entering the water table, which is really good for our health.
> 
> Another side of aggressively farming animals that people choose to ignore.



I don't think anyone here is arguing that modern industrialised farming is perfect, but there are ways of producing meat which are better for animal welfare, biodiversity and human health (which where we came in).

The good news is that the same changes can have benefits in all these areas.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't think anyone here is arguing that modern industrialised farming is perfect, but there are ways of producing meat which are better for animal welfare, biodiversity and human health (which where we came in).
> 
> The good news is that the same changes can have benefits in all these areas.


Yep. There is common ground here - which is precisely that almost every poster agrees that current farming practices can be both morally wrong and have various other bad consequences, and would like to see changes even if that means that most people end up having to eat less meat than they might otherwise choose to eat. That's a pretty big thing for everyone to agree on, imo.


----------



## Dr Jon (Mar 11, 2014)

Here we go - apex of civilisation:
Black pudding ice cream


Tripe Tiramisu and Cow-Heel Cornetto coming soon?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

I thoroughly approve of black pudding, tripe and cow heels in all their forms. 

If you kill an animal, you should pay respect to the animal by eating all of it.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's certainly true that animals are currently treated primarily as an economic resource (and this means that some areas which would once have been grazed are no longer because it's not considered economically viable).
> 
> But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.
> 
> ...



My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property. I see no reason why I should have to come up with proposals for alternative jobs for sheep farmers any more than I have to suggest alternative career paths for bear baiters or new hobbies for fox hunters.

As an aside, I very much used to be of the school of thought that the slaughter of animals for food was ethically acceptable provided that it is done 'humanely'. However having spent a while scrutinising that assumption I have come to the conclusion that it is indefensible, both in principle and as an achievable empirically reality. On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences. Nobody on this thread has seriously attempted to address this question, though LBJ hinted that the lower cognitive capacities of some species provides the justification - a claim that I have a great many problems with. Empirically, I think the idea of a 'humane' meat industry is on a par with calls for 'ethical' capitalism - it is a fantasy. Once you establish a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends, the thought that Bs interests will ever be adequately protected is a dangerous illusion. As I said earlier, it's no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences.


Do I think it's ok to end the life of an animal so that I can eat it? 

Yes, with certain provisos. 

Second point about cognitive abilities is a tricky one. I will kill a fly simply because its presence is annoying me. I care not one jot about its life for itself. Somewhere up the line, I start caring about the creature's welfare. Where exactly? It's a fuzzy line.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do I think it's ok to end the life of an animal so that I can eat it?
> 
> Yes, with certain provisos.



I'm aware that's your view, I don't know what your reasons for it are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm aware that's your view, I don't know what your reasons for it are.


There are no reasons beyond the opinion. Yes, I think it's ok to kill animals for food. There are lots of things I think it is not ok to do, such as killing animals for fun or making animals suffer while alive to make the food taste different (such as with foie gras), but 'for food' is a reason that I think is valid. 

If you're after a level of reasoning beneath this, there simply is none. 

I also don't accept that 'palate preferences' are necessarily trivial.


----------



## andysays (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property. I see no reason why I should have to come up with proposals for alternative jobs for sheep farmers any more than I have to suggest alternative career paths for bear baiters or new hobbies for fox hunters.
> 
> As an aside, I very much used to be of the school of thought that the slaughter of animals for food was ethically acceptable provided that it is done 'humanely'. However having spent a while scrutinising that assumption I have come to the conclusion that it is indefensible, both in principle and as an achievable empirically reality. On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences. Nobody on this thread has seriously attempted to address this question, though LBJ hinted that the lower cognitive capacities of some species provides the justification - a claim that I have a great many problems with. Empirically, I think the idea of a 'humane' meat industry is on a par with calls for 'ethical' capitalism - it is a fantasy. Once you establish a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends, the thought that Bs interests will ever be adequately protected is a dangerous illusion. As I said earlier, it's no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.



Thank you for clarifying your position.

I'm afraid that I find your reduction of meat eating to killing animals for trivial palate preferences as so ridiculous that it suggests no sensible exchange of views or discussion is likely to be possible.

I would also question whether it is, as you seem to be suggesting, humanity which has established a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends; it's actually evolution which has done this.

Many other species have evolved on the basis of eating other animals - it's a totally natural part of the process of living and dying. Is there some reason why you think humans should not interact with the natural world in the way they have evolved to do? And if so, are there other species which should, similarly, go against their natural evolved instincts?

It's not for meat eaters to justify their position, TBH, it's for those who claim it's unethical to justify that position, and neither you or anyone else has come close to doing that here. You're welcome to choose whatever personal ethical position you like, but unless and until you persuade me that I should adopt it, I will happily continue what I consider a perfectly natural and ethical way of behaving.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are no reasons beyond the opinion. Yes, I think it's ok to kill animals for food. There are lots of things I think it is not ok to do, such as killing animals for fun or making animals suffer while alive to make the food taste different (such as with foie gras), but 'for food' is a reason that I think is valid.
> 
> If you're after a level of reasoning beneath this, there simply is none.
> 
> I also don't accept that 'palate preferences' are necessarily trivial.



Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thank you for clarifying your position.
> 
> I'm afraid that I find your reduction of meat eating to killing animals for trivial palate preferences as so ridiculous that it suggests no sensible exchange of views or discussion is likely to be possible.
> 
> ...



I have tried to justify my position, I've answered a number of questions in which I've tried to clarify my position and support it with reasons (both today and yesterday). You might not think my responses have been adequate but at least I've given it a go. The defenders of meat eating on this thread have by-and-large refused to justify their positions (look at LBJs post above for example, which at least has the virtue of being honest) or just issued arbitrary statements like saying the views of those that disagree with them are 'so ridiculous' that they are not worth engaging with, or taken refuge in moral relativism. Your claim that defenders of the status quo don't have to provide reasons for their position is pretty reactionary tbh. Everybody, either in the minority or majority, should be able to defend their views, whether or not they're popular.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 11, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?


I would.  If they were free-range farmed and dispatched with minimum distress.  I wouldn't wear fur, because I don't like the way it feels, but I've no problem with it if it's not farmed in battery conditions.  

I would also eat a kitten if I was reliably informed that they tasted nice and it had been farmed well.  

My ethics are not aesthetic.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 11, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> I would.  If they were free-range farmed and dispatched with minimum distress.  I wouldn't wear fur, because I don't like the way it feels, but I've no problem with it if it's not farmed in battery conditions.
> 
> I would also eat a kitten if I was reliably informed that they tasted nice and it had been farmed well.
> 
> My ethics are not aesthetic.



That's what I'm wondering, whether the cut-off point, for some people, is defined by the level of cuteness.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Many other species have evolved on the basis of eating other animals - it's a totally natural part of the process of living and dying. Is there some reason why you think humans should not interact with the natural world in the way they have evolved to do? And if so, are there other species which should, similarly, go against their natural evolved instincts?



This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I have tried to justify my position, I've answered a number of questions in which I've tried to clarify my position and support it with reasons (both today and yesterday). You might not think my responses have been adequate but at least I've given it a go. The defenders of meat eating on this thread have by-and-large refused to justify their positions (look at LBJs post above for example, which at least has the virtue of being honest) or just issued arbitrary statements like saying the views of those that disagree with them are 'so ridiculous' that they are not worth engaging with, or taken refuge in moral relativism. Your claim that defenders of the status quo don't have to provide reasons for their position is pretty reactionary tbh. Everybody, either in the minority or majority, should be able to defend their views, whether or not they're popular.


Problem is that in the end I think your project is unachievable. I don't think there is a 'first principles' position that can be worked out from the bottom up in this way. I just don't think ethics are absolute like this. As with many of our opinions, we often work out why we think as we do _after_ we've realised what our position is. In my case, the position that I'm ok with killing animals for food in principle arises in me without my knowing exactly the process by which I arrived at it. But after carefully reviewing it, I find that I'm ok with it.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?


Amongst both Buddhists and Hindus you'll find plenty of meat-eaters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?


This is the point at which I came in on this. We humans are characterised by our flexibility and plasticity. We can thrive on many kinds of diet, which are shaped by circumstance and culture. I certainly don't think people _should_ eat meat. However, the existence of cultures in which meat is not eaten in no way negates the validity of cultures in which meat is central. It doesn't produce a _should not_.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Amongst both Buddhists and Hindus you'll find plenty of meat-eaters.



I know, you'll find plenty of vegetarians too.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I know, you'll find plenty of vegetarians too.


Why even mention it then? There are and have been veggies all over, just as there have been meat-eaters. Religion rarely comes into it, Jains possibly excepted.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Problem is that in the end I think your project is unachievable. I don't think there is a 'first principles' position that can be worked out from the bottom up in this way. I just don't think ethics are absolute like this. As with many of our opinions, we often work out why we think as we do _after_ we've realised what our position is. In my case, the position that I'm ok with killing animals for food in principle arises in me without my knowing exactly the process by which I arrived at it. But after carefully reviewing it, I find that I'm ok with it.



What's unachievable about not eating meat? And even if the full implications of my position aren't achievable that doesn't suggest that movement towards them wouldn't be desirable. I agree that morality isn't worked out purely in the abstract, but that doesn't imply that reasoning and first principles can be elided altogether. There needs to some sort of 'reflective equilibrium' between our general principles and our lived experience. Without the former we run the risk of our intuitions merely being confirmation biases and without the latter we are just unthinking dogmatists.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 11, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Why even mention it then? There are and have been veggies all over, just as there have been meat-eaters. Religion rarely comes into it, Jains possibly excepted.



In my experience you're statistically more likely to be a vegetarian if you're Hindu (although I agree that this is a very diverse group) or particularly buddhist than if you're not - and I gave it as an example because these traditions go back thousands of years, demonstrating long pedigree, that there are other examples doesn't affect my point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What's unachievable about not eating meat? .


Nothing. What is unachievable, imo, is to produce a line of reasoning that will seal the argument. While eating meat may not be universal to humans, using animals instrumentally has a long and nearly ubiquitous history. We certainly wouldn't be the species we are without it.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nothing. What is unachievable, imo, is to produce a line of reasoning that will seal the argument. While eating meat may not be universal to humans, using animals instrumentally has a long and nearly ubiquitous history. We certainly wouldn't be the species we are without it.


 
The 'instrumentalism' angle is quite interesting.  I wonder whether this is a kind of anthropomorphism.  While we can tell with some confidence whether an animal is suffering, and whether it can behave in accordance with its nature, we can't say much about whether they care, or should care about whether they are used instrumentally by another species.

I think we could be imposing our own cultural values on animals when deciding it is in their interests to 'protect' them from this.  It's not like a respect for human individual autonomy is even a universally respected value among humans.

edit:  this isn't specific to eating meat, btw, where i see more potential ethical issues than LBJ does, but in terms of any instrumental use of animals


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?



<<responding to a question posed to another poster who may well disagree with me>>

Totally.

If there is a market for baby seal fur, and baby seals could be harvested with minimal suffering and without causing endangerment, I see no ethical discrepancy between wearing it and eating it.

Jeff Robinson is the most reasonable (anti-meat) poster that we've seen on U75 for years, and worth debating with, imo.




			
				Jeff said:
			
		

> My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property.



Here we have a fundamental difference of opinion which ska invita identified earlier.

I see humans at the top of the food chain. Unless we're swimming in the ocean or fucking about in swamps and jungles, we're less likely to be predated than chickens, deer, bison, or anything else.

That's just how nature has developed.

The majority of (non-Hindu/Bhuddist/baptised Sikh) humans use animal derivatives or eat meat. We can further divide the "HinBhudSikhs" by asking which are comfortable with using animals as beasts of burdon or other suppliers, but not as food. Then we're left with the moral conundrum "if we use them to pull our carts or take their milk, why not eat them?"

Then we can play the tired old "Who's The Hypocrite?" game

You've been asking for meat eaters to justify their position, but with respect, we're the ones who are following what seems to be the law of nature in predating/dominating/farming the less developed species. The development argument, touched on by LBJ earlier, cuts two ways. You'll say that we should find a way to exist without exploiting animals. I say we should find a way to minimise our impact whilst using/exploiting the earths resources in as sustainable way as we can agree to.

It falls to you to convince us to do otherwise since we're not telling you to commodify animals. You're telling us not to.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property...



Instead of killing rats and other pests, we should have to take them to court and prove our case, maybe get them locked up for spreading disease.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Instead of killing rats and other pests, we should have to take them to court and prove our case, maybe get them locked up for spreading disease.


Contributory negligence if you don't store your food in rodent proof containers?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You've been asking for meat eaters to justify their position, but with respect, we're the ones who are following what seems to be the law of nature in predating/dominating/farming the less developed species. The development argument, touched on by LBJ earlier, cuts two ways. You'll say that we should find a way to exist without exploiting animals, I say we should find a way to minimise our impact whilst using/exploiting the earths resources in as sustainable way as we can agree to.
> 
> It falls to you to convince us to do otherwise since we're not telling you to commodify animals. You're telling us not to.



It wasn't so very long ago that slavery was considered acceptable and I'm sure people would have used the same justifications to convince themselves they were doing nothing wrong.

I wonder if slave owners took solace in the fact that they were more developed than their slaves, and considered this adequate justification for using this less developed animal for their own needs?

I'm sure some people even considered themselves to be 'ethical' slave owners, because they didn't beat their slaves, and they gave them plenty of food and a bed and roof over their head.

So... where do we draw the line? Does it have to be a different species, so we can place an emotional barrier between us and them, and convince ourselves that it's OK because they don't look like us, so they probably don't have feelings, and even if they do, what does it matter, because we're the dominant species?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

You want emotive arguments?

Ok.

My brother and sister are both type 1 diabetics and have been for 40 years plus. Back when they became diabetic, insulin was produced from pigs. Human insulin production was only developed much later.

If humans didn't treat animals instrumentally, I'd have grown up an only child. *

I'll kill the pigs myself if it means saving human lives. I'm afraid a lot of these arguments giving equal weight to animal and human lives are total bullshit, and the consequences of such beliefs are monstrous. 

*Mind you, I'd have had my own room, and wouldn't have had to wear my brother's hand-me-downs.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

oh ffs, completely different ball game


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh ffs, completely different ball game


No. It's not. Animals had to die to keep my siblings alive. That's that. Kill a pig or lose a brother or sister.

As for comparing this to human slavery, that's the most moronic argument on this thread.

ETA: it's a pretty insulting argument, too. Don't let slavers off so bloody lightly.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. It's not. Animals had to die to keep my siblings alive. That's that. Kill a pig or lose a brother or sister.
> 
> As for comparing this to human slavery, that's the most moronic argument on this thread.


now stop being hysterical!
you are presuming disagreement


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> now stop being hysterical!
> you are presuming disagreement


I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.


did you read my post?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.



Sounds like the worst action movie ever.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> did you read my post?


I'm not replying to your posts directly. I'm replying to the idea that it is somehow wrong to treat other animals instrumentally, as a means to a human-directed need. I put it to anyone making that argument that it can be very wrong _not to_ use other animals instrumentally.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

try not quoting them in your replies then


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You want emotive arguments?
> 
> Ok.
> 
> ...



Is there any other way to argue about the ethics of something than with an emotive argument?

What if I was homeless and hungry, and I decided to eat someone's pet dog. Would this be OK, because I had more of a right to live than the dog, or would it be wrong, because I could probably have found an alternative source of food? Where do we draw the line? 

Considering we're the most advanced species on the planet, shouldn't we be working towards alleviating the need to kill other animals for our needs, rather than working in the opposite direction? I say 'needs' but it really isn't a need, it's a 'want', because we don't need to eat meat, we just choose to do so because it's a tastier alternative but with the knowledge and technology we have today, we could easily manufacture tasty, nutritious food, with no animal ingredients. Granted, it might cost a little more to do so but isn't that what we should be working towards?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

This goes back the the judgement that meat is simply a 'trivial palate preference', rather than a large part of human culture, the result of accumulated knowledge about hunting techniques, husbandry techniques, butchery techniques and cooking techniques. I'm _comfortable_ with eating meat.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Lots of things used to be a large part of human culture. The Catholic church used to be a large part of human culture and just 400 years ago they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake because he refused to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe.
Just because we've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean we have to stand by it. We do have the ability to change and do things differently.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll kill a million pigs to save my siblings if that's what it takes.


 
Well I would kill a million pigs
And I would kill nine million more
To be the man that killed ten million pigs with my bloody chainsaw
La la la lah...


----------



## ska invita (Mar 12, 2014)

i cant seem to quote...

but yeah, and war is a human tradition too
weird justification


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This goes back the the judgement that meat is simply a 'trivial palate preference', rather than a large part of human culture, the result of accumulated knowledge about hunting techniques, husbandry techniques, butchery techniques and cooking techniques. I'm _comfortable_ with eating meat.


give yourself a pat on the back, go on!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'. 

There is a mess of confusion here.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.
> 
> There is a mess of confusion here.


stop being a disingenuous prick
people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
get a grip


----------



## ska invita (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.


i never said that - theres a whole spectrum of opinions on the subject, from vegans who do so as a beauty/diet fad to Animal Liberation folk


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> stop being a disingenuous prick
> people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
> get a grip


I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful. 

fwiw I didn't justify eating meat by pointing out its embedded nature in culture, but I did question the judgement of such a thing as 'trivial' by doing so.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

So we've now had examples of human slavery, war, and burning people at the stake brought up to (somehow, I really don't see how) support the idea that eating meat is unethical.

I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> stop being a disingenuous prick
> people said they are long held human traditions (and it doesn't make them right), no one is comparing them like for like
> get a grip


 
I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without.  It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.

Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So we now have a comparison of the culture surrounding killing and eating animals with a) slavery, and b) war. That comes after an evaluation of meat-eating as a 'trivial palate preference'.
> 
> There is a mess of confusion here.



The confusion is with you. People aren't drawing direct comparisons with slavery and war, they're merely pointing out that the analytic structure of the arguments advanced in favour of meat eating could equally apply to these things, suggesting that those arguments can't do the work you want them to. And yes, the pleasure derived from eating meat in advanced societies is a trivial interest in contrast to the interest the animal has in staying alive, because all of the animal's interests are dependent upon being alive.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

woot! almost full house


littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful.
> 
> fwiw I didn't justify eating meat by pointing out its embedded nature in culture, but I did question the judgement of such a thing as 'trivial' by doing so.


so you are still sitting there with fingers in ears (or over eyes) ignoring posts??
i never used to get why posters had such an issue with your style but it now makes more sense


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without.  It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.
> 
> Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.


thankyou


----------



## ska invita (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> So we've now had examples of human slavery, war, and burning people at the stake brought up to (somehow, I really don't see how) support the idea that eating meat is unethical.
> 
> I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...


no hitler wasnt

its to do with killing mammals, and your opinion on hierarchies of life / where to draw the line on killing other mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism etc

ive got a meat eating friend who I think said it best when he said that there is no good argument for eating meat, all the logical argument is against it, but he's going to do it anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> And yes, the pleasure derived from eating meat in advanced societies is a trivial interest in contrast to the interest the animal has in staying alive, because all of the animal's interests are dependent upon being alive.


 
I think the bit before the second comma is what the whole argument centres on (and I personally think it has some merit, depending on the animal involved perhaps) though I suspect after the second comma there may be some embedded anthropomorphism that is worth examining.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without.  It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.
> 
> Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.


That's not quite true. If you re-read the post bringing up slavery, you will see that it is making a very direct comparison, suggesting equivalences.


----------



## iROBOT (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...


He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.

That makes sense.

(Hitler didn’t give a toss about animal welfare, he wanted to produce a master race and he knew eating meat in the quantities that most people do is not very conducive to building a strong "volk")


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think the bit before the second comma is what the whole argument centres on (and I personally think it has some merit, depending on the animal involved perhaps) though I suspect after the second comma there may be some embedded anthropomorphism that is worth examining.



I'm not sure it is anthropomorphism, its basic biology isn't it?


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think ddraig is right here - the comparisons with war and slavery were just references to bad things that are embedded in human culture and that many agree we would be better off without.  It was just making the point that being a long-held tradition, in and of itself, should not be taken to add significant moral value to a practice.
> 
> Which could be argued over, but I don't think it is confused.



You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.

Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What if I was homeless and hungry, and I decided to eat someone's pet dog. Would this be OK, because I had more of a right to live than the dog, or would it be wrong, because I could probably have found an alternative source of food? Where do we draw the line?


 
I think if you were homeless and starving and the only possible thing left available to you to eat was someone's pet dog, then yes, you would be justified.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.
> 
> Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.


 
I haven't the foggiest where you are going with this.  Aren't all of these arguments based on particular actions being 'bad'?  If not, what criteria are you using?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

iROBOT said:


> He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.


 
That wasn't a serious point - andysays was just satirising the quality of some of the arguments on this thread.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful.



Why do you think the comparison is not useful? It might be that there are problems in straightforwardly applying intra-species ethics to inter-species cases, but it might also be problematic to assume that ethical norms in relation to non-human animals and entirely distinct from the ethical norms that govern the relations between humans. I think its interesting to start from the assumption that the ethical obligations to all animals are the same and _then _think about what factors might justify differential standards. FWIW i think there clearly are differential standards but they are not so great as to justify meat eating in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.
> 
> Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.


I would go further than that. The comparison with slavery as suggested here is pretty offensive.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite true. If you re-read the post bringing up slavery, you will see that it is making a very direct comparison, suggesting equivalences.


 
Yeah, there was a bit there - bad speed-reading on my part.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite true. If you re-read the post bringing up slavery, you will see that it is making a very direct comparison, suggesting equivalences.



The comparison wasn't between the two acts, the comparison was between the justification behind those acts.



andysays said:


> You know, if the only arguments people had been able to muster against, for instance, slavery was that it was a "bad thing", then I suspect slavery would still be as widespread in human practice as it once was.
> 
> Similarly, if all that vegetarians can come up with to support their position is that it's a "bad thing" (and that is really all anyone has said here) then I'm confident that meat eating will also be a fairly widespread part of human practice for some time to come.



What other argument is there?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think its interesting to start from the assumption that the ethical obligations to all animals are the same and _then _think about what factors might justify differential standards.


 
I think there are a lot of traps to fall into if you take that route.  It may be _interesting_ to start from the assumption that our ethical obligations to plants are the same, but I'm not sure it's the most effective way of approaching the issue.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm not sure it is anthropomorphism, its basic biology isn't it?


 
No.  Basic biology has nothing to say about the 'interests' of members of any particular species.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

Even if miraculously everyone agreed that we should stop eating meat right now, there'd still be the question of what to do with the billions of animals currently being reared for consumption. Would it be more ethical to slaughter them all right away or let them live out their lives, necessitating a lot of food production that could otherwise be used for people?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think there are a lot of traps to fall into if you take that route.  It may be _interesting_ to start from the assumption that our ethical obligations to plants are the same, but I'm not sure it's the most effective way of approaching the issue.



why not?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> No.  Basic biology has nothing to say about the 'interests' of members of any particular species.



How can you have interests if you're not alive?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> why not?


 
Because we start off burdened by a great many unjustifed assumptions, dumbly follow where they lead, and then have to work backwards in order to prune the massive logical tree of half-assed conclusions.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I haven't the foggiest where you are going with this.  Aren't all of these arguments based on particular actions being 'bad'?  If not, what criteria are you using?



Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.

I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.

I also note that arguments which fail to make the distinction between the two classes of behaviour and ethics frequently run the risk of ignoring what is special or particular about humanity and can (and I'm not saying that anyone here is explicitly or deliberately doing this) end up being anti-human.

And as I've pointed out before, the very fact that this thread, ostensibly about human health, has gone off on to this huge tangent about the ethics of killing animals for meat suggests that many people don't really care that much about the issue of human health - it's easier to simply dismiss all those meat eaters as bad people who, presumably, deserve to be unhealthy and die early.


----------



## Enviro (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm not sure it is anthropomorphism, its basic biology isn't it?



It's too basic. If all animals fulfilled their ongoing requirement of being alive 'in order to maintain the satisfaction of their interests' then we'd end up in a situation that was unsustainable due to the number of living entities consuming all the food and drinking all the water...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How can you have interests if you're not alive?


What interests are you talking about here, though? There are species of eagle that always produce two eggs, and the second chick is invariably pecked to death by its elder sibling a few days after hatching. This second chick is an insurance policy in case the first egg doesn't develop properly. If the first chick didn't peck the second one to death, it is likely that neither would survive to fledge. So what are the second chick's interests here?

There are limits imo to the gene-centred approach, but one biological way to look at this is to look at how it explains evolution from the point of view of genes. The chick shares 50 per cent of its genetic material with its sibling, so it can be said to be in its 'genetic interest' to be pecked to death so that its sibling has a chance of survival.  Applying this to domestic livestock, it might be in an animal's _genetic interest_ to be eaten and enjoyed so that the next generation is reared. 

In short, I don't think biology can answer this kind of question.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

Humans aren't special.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> How can you have interests if you're not alive?


 
Humans can have interests that override their interest in being alive, such as anyone who has ever died for any cause, or for another person.  Anything we say about an animal's 'interests' needs to be justified or is mere projection. 

As it happens, I'm inclined to think the 'being alive' case is a pretty persuasive one when you make it in terms of animals (I think the degree of embedded anthropomorphism is probably low there).  I'm less convinced about arguments relating to autonomy, self-determination and non-instrumentalism as a human would understand these things.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.


 
Best argument for eating meat so far.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> Because we start off burdened by a great many unjustifed assumptions, dumbly follow where they lead, and then have to work backwards in order to prune the massive logical tree of half-assed conclusions.



The whole point is to work out which assumptions are justified and which are not.


----------



## xenon (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think if you were homeless and starving and the only possible thing left available to you to eat was someone's pet dog, then yes, you would be justified.



TBF he did say in his scenario, there were alternatives to Fido. 

His scenario actually demonstrates how culturally embedded meat eating is. We don't tend to eat dogs in the UK but there is nothing inherently wrong with eating dog, over any other meat. If he'd said pet pig rather than a dog, he'd have a slightly more focussed argument. But the objection would chiefly be that he has eaten something beloved by another human. Not that eating the animal itself is morally wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The whole point is to work out which assumptions are justified and which are not.


 
In that case you're not starting from those assumptions.  You are starting before them.


----------



## Enviro (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.



Name another species which has a capability for language (to the extent that it allows storage of information over 1000's of years) even approaching that of humans?

Don't get me wrong, on one level I believe we are very much the same as all other living entities, but on another level, do we not have capabilities far beyond that of any other species inhabiting Earth in terms of our potential and abilities?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

xenon said:


> TBF he did say in his scenario, there were alternatives to Fido.


 
Fair enough, from the 'homeless and hungry' but I inferred a certain degree of desperation.  I guess the question would be over how desperate do things have to get before that would be justified.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would go further than that. The comparison with slavery as suggested here is pretty offensive.



TBH it's too ridiculous for me to actually find it offensive.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

Enviro said:


> Name another species which has a capability for language (to the extent that it allows storage of information over 1000's of years) even approaching that of humans?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, on one level I believe we are very much the same as all other living entities, but on another level, do we not have capabilities far beyond that of any other species inhabiting Earth in terms of our potential and abilities?


What makes that special in ethical terms? And how does that relate to us eating meat or not?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.
> 
> I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...



Classic attack on the straw man... I don't believe it's right to kill animals, therefore I believe all humans should die an agonising death... Really?


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.



Then why shouldn't we kill and eat animals? - after all, lots of other animals do that, and no one, as far as I can see, is attempting to argue that there's anything unethical there.

Humans are special, at the very least in that they are the only species which actually has a concept of ethics to argue over


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Then why shouldn't we kill and eat animals? - after all, lots of other animals do that, and no one, as far as I can see, is attempting to argue that there's anything unethical there.
> 
> Humans are special, at the very least in that they are the only species which actually has a concept of ethics to argue over


We should, just like we kill (and very occasionally eat) humans. Unless you're a 100% pacifist surely one can tolerate the murder of animals the same way we tolerate the murder of humans.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Classic attack on the straw man... I don't believe it's right to kill animals, therefore I believe all humans should die an agonising death... Really?



and that again is too ridiculous a reduction and distortion of what I said for me to find it offensive...


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Again. it's about the quality of the argument - it's not enough to simply say that something is bad, you have to actually say why.
> 
> I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> ...


 
There's plenty of agreement that we need to be careful about the limits of where ethical considerations apply in terms of the species involved, and just about everyone agrees a like-for-like comparison with slavery cuts no mustard.

And this thread is actually about a fluff story ostensibly about human health which can be happily ignored since it is of little or no value so I see no reason why it shouldn't go off on a tangent about the ethics of killing animals.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think if you were homeless and starving and the only possible thing left available to you to eat was someone's pet dog, then yes, you would be justified.



I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> We should, just like we kill (and very occasionally eat) humans. Unless you're a 100% pacifist surely one can tolerate the murder of animals the same way we tolerate the murder of humans.



What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.

It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.
> 
> It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.


 
Meat is Manslaughter?


----------



## yield (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.


http://blog.soylent.me/ Link appears to be real.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I suggest that we need a different argument or reason to justify ethical pronouncements about human/animal behaviour than the ones we use to pronounce on human/human behaviour, which is why all the stuff about slavery etc is utterly irrelevant here as far as I'm concerned.



Absolutely.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Meat is Manslaughter?



Meat is (or at least can be, providing certain humane conditions in rearing and slaughter are met) justifiable killing.

(I actually thought that's what The Smiths should have called their 2nd album, but that fucking Morrissey always thinks he knows best...)


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.



Why not?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.
> 
> It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.


Oh please "I can't tolerate" boo fucking hoo. What's the ethical difference then?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why not?


Why are we special? We think we are, that's no good reason in itself. Special in relation to what?


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Oh please "I can't tolerate" boo fucking hoo. What's the ethical difference then?





The ethical difference derives from the fact that only humans are capable of ethical decisions, and our dealing with non-ethical beings are of a different kind to our dealings with ethical ones.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal.
> 
> It's a real shame there are a number of people on this thread who are unable or unwilling to recognise the differences, linguistic, legal and ethical, between killing a human and killing an animal.



Because some ponce in a wig has decided on a definition of murder, then everyone else should subcribe to that definition?

My definition of murder is killing any animal without justification. I don't believe  "Because it tastes better than Quorn" is sufficient justification.

What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.


----------



## Enviro (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> What makes that special in ethical terms? And how does that relate to us eating meat or not?



I'm no expert in ethics but clearly there are some differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom which could lead one to think that humans are "special" whatever that means.

FWIW I'm a smoker and an omnivore. Maybe that makes me less "special" than some animals? 

I recognise the reductionist ethical viewpoint that any life is a life and all lives are equal ... but then what about vegetable rights? I don't see groups of people protesting farmers harvesting their crops...


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> The ethical difference derives from the fact that only humans are capable of ethical decisions, and our dealing with non-ethical beings are of a difference kind to our dealings with ethical ones.



That's not an argument. That's just you saying it is so. Why does the capacity for making ethical decisions (granting such a thing actually exists) have an ethical import as to how we treat animals?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> That's not an argument. That's just you saying it is so. Why does the capacity for making ethical decisions (granting such a thing actually exists) have an ethical import as to how we treat animals?


 
For a start, we don't prosecute tigers for animal cruelty.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> For a start, we don't prosecute tigers for animal cruelty.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial
http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/03/27/bugs-and-beasts-before-the-law/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.


You keep saying this, even to people who have told you that they have killed animals to eat and are fine with it.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Unless you're a 100% pacifist surely one can tolerate the murder of animals the same way we tolerate the murder of humans.



Don't say that. Animals cannot be murdered. It's impossible, emotive, drivel.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial
> http://publicdomainreview.org/2011/03/27/bugs-and-beasts-before-the-law/


 
I think you need to read that one at least as far as the fourth word.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because some ponce in a wig has decided on a definition of murder, then everyone else should subcribe to that definition?
> 
> My definition of murder is killing any animal without justification. I don't believe  "Because it tastes better than Quorn" is sufficient justification.
> 
> What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.



I think you'll find it's not just


> some ponce in a wig


but pretty much every coherent human system of ethics and legality which uses that definition and makes that distinction, but you're welcome to play Humpty Dumpty if you like.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Don't say that. Animals cannot be murdered. It's impossible, emotive, drivel.


Killing then. The point remains the same.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> That's not an argument. That's just you saying it is so. Why does the capacity for making ethical decisions (granting such a thing actually exists) have an ethical import as to how we treat animals?



I'm afraid it's not just me saying so.

As far as I'm aware, all systems of ethics which don't start from a religious justfication include the idea that our ethics as humans depend on our recognising that all other humans also have that capacity, and that our ethical system has to be based on that.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think you need to read that one at least as far as the fourth word.


I think you need to read a bit further. Our current situation where animals are strictly separate from humans, legally speaking, is not the historical norm.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm afraid it's not just me saying so.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, all systems of ethics which don't start from a religious justfication include the idea that our ethics as humans depend on our recognising that all other humans also have that capacity, and that our ethical system has to be based on that.


Nice moving of the goal-posts there. As well as another non-argument. Again, why does the supposition that some humans (because all don't it seems) have the capacity for ethical reasoning mean that we should treat humans differently than animals?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> I think you need to read a bit further. Our current situation where animals are strictly separate from humans, legally speaking, is not the historical norm.


And they were wrong from our point of view. No possibility of mens rea. Perhaps another animal could be socialised by humans to the extent where it recognises some basic human concepts of right and wrong and then could be held accountable. I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I know of no successful case where it's been done.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't accept that the ethics that deal with human–human interactions, such as those that are relevant to war or slavery, can be extended unproblematically to other animals. The comparison is not useful. .



That's putting it mildly.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Our current situation where animals are strictly separate from humans, legally speaking, is not the historical norm.


 
Are you saying you were actually being serious with post #580?


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think you'll find it's not just
> 
> but pretty much every coherent human system of ethics and legality which uses that definition and makes that distinction, but you're welcome to play Humpty Dumpty if you like.



Would it make you feel better if I didn't use the word 'murder'? If I call it something more palatable will it change the fact the animal is dead, and was killed simply because we believe we have the right to kill it?

Semantics have no bearing on the morality of the act, yet you seem to be using it to somehow strengthen your argument...


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Nice moving of the goal-posts there. As well as another non-argument. Again, why does the supposition that some humans (because all don't it seems) have the capacity for ethical reasoning mean that we should treat humans differently than animals?



Can I suggest that if you really want an answer to that question you go and read a book about ethics. It's not one which I feel qualified (or inclined, TBH) to attempt to answer on this thread ATM.

Sorry if that appears to be a cop out - it's really not meant to be.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> What I can't tolerate is the casual use of the word murder to describe killing an animal..



Also, they won't address the concept of killing what we consider to be 'pest' animals like rats.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Semantics have no bearing on the morality of the act, yet you seem to be using it to somehow strengthen your argument...


 
You mean semantics don't have a bearing on whether euthanasia is morally wrong?

And by 'euthanasia', I mean 'paedophilia'.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Can I suggest that if you really want an answer to that question you go and read a book about ethics. It's not one which I feel qualified (or inclined, TBH) to attempt to answer on this thread ATM.
> 
> Sorry if that appears to be a cop out - it's really not meant to be.


I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> Are you saying you were actually being serious with post #580?


Yeah. You're extrapolating from the current situation and trying to make that sound like the historical norm, when that is patently false. Historically animals have been treated in various ways, sometimes in ways that are more commensurate with how a society treats humans, sometimes not (as currently). In other words, you're going from is to ought. Never go from is to ought.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Would it make you feel better if I didn't use the word 'murder'? If I call it something more palatable will it change the fact the animal is dead, and was killed simply because we believe we have the right to kill it?
> 
> Semantics have no bearing on the morality of the act, yet you seem to be using it to somehow strengthen your argument...



it's not a question of semantics. there is, I believe, an important ethical and moral distinction here which you and others appear not to recognise.

i've attempted to indicate* (in an admittedly curtailed and therefore ultimately inadequete way) where my ethical position is based. What ethical system are you using which persuades you that killing animals should be regarded exactly the same as killing humans?

*post 587 and others


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?


 
That's a good point to make regarding speciesism, and has been addressed on this thread to some degree already.  That doesn't mean the term 'murder' applies to choking a chicken <cough> for your dinner, though.  Not by quite an immensely, unimaginably long shot.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> That's a good point to make regarding speciesism, and has been addressed on this thread to some degree already.  That doesn't mean the term 'murder' applies to choking a chicken <cough> for your dinner, though.  Not by quite an immensely, unimaginably long shot.


Christ, people do get hung up on this bit of wordage. Killing then. The point is the same, wrt an ethical debate.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Yeah. You're extrapolating from the current situation and trying to make that sound like the historical norm, when that is patently false.


 
The historical norm being defined by certain incidents in Medieval Europe in the 13th to 18th centuries I suppose?  Actually - where did I extrapolate _anything_ to try and make it sound like a historical norm?


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?



I personally take the position that because most humans demonstrate the capacity for ethical reasoning, we should treat all of them as if they do, simply by virtue of their humanity, whether or not they have demonstrated that capacity or are capable of demonstrating it.

Will that do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?


We're special because we choose to be. There's little else to it. Some quite horrific treatment is still doled out to some humans by virtue of their presumed inferiority - children born with no cerebral cortex, who are often though of not to have any consciousness worth considering. I think that's mistaken in that case, but I also think that the conscious awareness of other animals can often be greater by many measures than that of some humans.

But we extend the concept of human rights even to humans who can have no idea what rights are. Some would extend these rights to unborn foetuses. I wouldn't, but there is often no deep reason that can be given for these things. There is an element of expediency in any ethical system.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> The historical norm being defined by certain incidents in Medieval Europe in the 13th to 18th centuries I suppose?  Actually - where did I extrapolate _anything_ to try and make it sound like a historical norm?


Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans. It's true for most societies historically. Whether that conception was based on religion or not is besides the point.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> it's not a question of semantics. there is, I believe, an important ethical and moral distinction here which you and others appear not to recognise.
> 
> i've attempted to indicate* (in an admittedly curtailed and therefore ultimately inadequete way) where my ethical position is based. What ethical system are you using which persuades you that killing animals should be regarded exactly the same as killing humans?
> 
> *post 587 and others



I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.


----------



## iROBOT (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.


I have the perfect restaurant for you then....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/nigerian-hotel-serves-human-meat-report-article-1.1616311

The problem with meat is you never know _quite_ what you're eating.......


----------



## TruXta (Mar 12, 2014)

And on that note I'm off to get some dead rotting meat for lunch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.


That cannot possibly work.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans.


 
Hmmm.  Not really from what I've seen.  The historical norm is more like seeing a particular chosen in-group of humans as having special status, then clumping out-groups and animals on a more comparable level. 

Take the Hebrew word for 'murder' as used in the Commandments - this was a term particularly concerned with the killing of a fellow Jew.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. *The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans*. It's true for most societies historically. Whether that conception was based on religion or not is besides the point.



Can you cite any (just one will do) examples of a society which treats animals as ethically the same as humans?


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.



OK, do you believe that every self-aware animal (assuming for the moment we as humans can judge that accurately) has the same right to life, and if not, how would you distinguish between them?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Why are we special? We think we are, that's no good reason in itself.



The ability to reason; develop law; invent and use advanced tools, communications, travel; create fair societies () ...... that list is endless.

Animals aren't even capable of joining this discussion to assert their so called "rights". Comparatively speaking they're total fuckwits!

Humans are *incredibly* "special".


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Can you cite any (just one will do) examples of a society which treats animals as ethically the same as humans?


 
I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'.  Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past.  I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups.  Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans.

Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'.  Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past.  I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups.  Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans.
> 
> Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?


I would think that modern India comes close with certain attitudes towards lower-caste people compared to attitudes towards cows.

These little fellas at the Karni Mata temple are considered sacred, believed to be reincarnations of past monks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals.



One reason to do so is that we are humans. What underlies our existence, our endeavour, at a fundamental level? If one discards religion, then what we are left with, is each other. The way I see it, the higher good is the promotion of human happiness and well being. There are good reasons to treat other organisms with respect and consideration; but their interests [if that word is even applicable] are subordinate to ours, where they conflict.

I agree, humans are nothing special. But neither are animals, by the same argument. We are all just organisms within a planetary environment, struggling to stay alive, and often the well-being of one type of organism will mean hardship for another.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'.  Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past.  I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups.  *Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans*.
> 
> Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?



That may well be the case, but that would be an example of a flawed ethical system, and would support my earlier comment about elevating the importance of animals risking being anti-human


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 12, 2014)

Killing animals isn't murder ffs.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

you will be silenced Dr_Herbz 
don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Killing animals isn't murder ffs.


why not?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you will be silenced Dr_Herbz
> don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
> doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad


Wow. You've been oozing passive-aggression from your very first post on this thread.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

again, if you *read *the post i said "better than me"
which is true, i put my hands up to making a bit of a mess of it
you just blunder on it seems


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you will be silenced Dr_Herbz
> don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
> doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad



Grow up, ffs.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Grow up, ffs.


no, YOU grow up!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, do you believe that every self-aware animal (assuming for the moment we as humans can judge that accurately) has the same right to life, and if not, how would you distinguish between them?



No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal. 

I'd probably argue that it would be 'less wrong' to kill an animal that didn't have the power to reason... but then we'd have to get into a whole other argument.

I'm not trying to assert that it's a black and white thing, that it's wrong to kill anything. I believe that it's wrong to kill something simply because we prefer the taste, and because it's cheaper/easier than providing an alternative solution to our dietry needs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 12, 2014)

.


----------



## kittyP (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.



You what now?


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.




Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?


also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.



WTF?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal.



What about mosquitoes?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> WTF?


awww
i think it means that if you have a dog and you want to kill it you better have a good reason to kill it because it is self-aware

so by extension, is a sheep/pig/cow self aware?
is your justification of wanting to eat it good enough to justify its death? 
clearly you and most others think that


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

mentalchik said:


> Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?
> 
> 
> also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?


it is generally down to the individual no?
apart from it being genrally considered wrong to kill and eat dogs (in this country) as they are on the right/cute side of the animal divide


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why not?


 
because then you'd have to identify every instance of a human killing an animal as murder, ie someone killing a cockroach

or an animal killing another animal


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

mentalchik said:


> Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?
> 
> 
> also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?



We don't need to kill animals to meet our dietry needs. We (the developed world) have the resources and the ability to feed ourselves without killing animals to do so. Therefore, killing animals isn't a necessity. we do it because we want to eat them, not because we need to eat them. Wild animals, on the other hand, have a need to kill other animals, because the alternative is death.

We've evolved to the stage where we shouldn't have to kill other animals in order to eat, yet we still do it, and it's quite apparent that most people don't see this as wrong. This is the part I have a problem with.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal.
> 
> I'd probably argue that it would be 'less wrong' to kill an animal that didn't have the power to reason... but then we'd have to get into a whole other argument.
> 
> I'm not trying to assert that it's a black and white thing, that it's wrong to kill anything. I believe that it's wrong to kill something simply because we prefer the taste, and because it's cheaper/easier than providing an alternative solution to our dietry needs.



OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> awww
> i think it means that if you have a dog and you want to kill it you better have a good reason to kill it because it is self-aware



I think that's exactly what he means, and it's a load of ludicrous pish!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I think that's exactly what he means, and it's a load of ludicrous pish!


so if you wanted to kill a dog you would just off it?
niiiiice


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> We don't need to kill animals to meet our dietry needs. We (the developed world) have the resources and the ability to feed ourselves without killing animals to do so. Therefore, killing animals isn't a necessity. we do it because we want to eat them, not because we need to eat them. Wild animals, on the other hand, have a need to kill other animals, because the alternative is death.
> 
> We've evolved to the stage where we shouldn't have to kill other animals in order to eat, yet we still do it, and it's quite apparent that most people don't see this as wrong. This is the part I have a problem with.


this is exactly what it boils down to


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.


the ethical justification is the not killing of something
that is where the difference is, who gives a shit (and to what extent) and who doesn't
or whether you think you _should _even give a shit
fact


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.



Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.



All animals are thought of as economic resources, even human animals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?



You sick fuck!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so if you wanted to kill a dog you would just off it?
> niiiiice





Are you pissed?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> That may well be the case, but that would be an example of a flawed ethical system, and would support my earlier comment about elevating the importance of animals risking being anti-human


 
I don't disagree that it would be shit.

TruXta is taking his time with his example (though maybe he has a life or something).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> the ethical justification is the not killing of something
> that is where the difference is, who gives a shit (and to what extent) and who doesn't
> or whether you think you _should _even give a shit
> fact





Smoking something?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

not yet, few more hours of work first!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.


 
It can be perfectly consistent to believe in a special ethical status for humans and still not believe killing animals for food is justified.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> TruXta is taking his time with his example (though maybe he has a life or something).



He's gone for a burger.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds. 
I'm not bashing people for liking meat, I'm simply wondering why people can't see that it isn't right to kill another animal to meet our dietry _preference_, and I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?



You realise that the occasional seal culls were less to do with fur, than with preserving fish stocks in that part of the north Atlantic?  The fur was basically a "by-product" of a "human need" to remove several tens of thousands of fish-eating mammals from the food chain at a particular time of year.  You might also have noticed that the culls weren't annual, but cyclical.  They only took place when the seal population was approaching a saturation point.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds.



Now THIS is truly immoral. 

You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why not?


Because of what the word murder means! 

*NOUN*

1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.



The only people being attacked on this thread are the omnivores.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.



So are all actions based on personal preference or not absolute necessities unjustified?

Eating meat may not be absolutely necessary, but it certainly contributes to the necessity of keeping me alive and in the absence of any genuine ethical argument against, it seems to me to be justified on that basis.

There's no point in arguing in the sense that we're neither of us likely to change the other's position, but if that was the only reason for posting here, this thread would have ended long ago.



Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds.
> I'm not bashing people for liking meat, I'm simply wondering why people can't see that it isn't right to kill another animal to meet our dietry _preference_, and I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.



See, I don't think anyone on this thread has accused vegetarians of being tree hugging hippies, or anything of the sort, and far from the meat eaters getting defensive and attacking anyone who dares to question their beliefs (rather than disagreeing, making arguments, and suggesting that coherent counter-arguments should be made in return), I think it's been a few of the vegetarians who have tried that tactic.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Now THIS is truly immoral.
> 
> You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.


 
You don't do anything that you have ethical concerns about?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> You don't do anything that you have ethical concerns about?



Not that I feel particularly strongly about. No. 

But then my ethical standards are pretty low!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

I know quite a few people are uneasy about the ethical concerns of eating meat, but do it anyway. For me, my line is further back, but I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong. What I reject is the suggestion that the only logically consistent position for any meat-eater to take is one that involves mild self-hate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> It wasn't so very long ago that slavery was considered acceptable and I'm sure people would have used the same justifications to convince themselves they were doing nothing wrong.
> 
> I wonder if slave owners took solace in the fact that they were more developed than their slaves, and considered this adequate justification for using this less developed animal for their own needs?
> 
> ...




I'm not sure that your point isn't fatuous.
Whatever justifications humans devise for the mistreatment of other humans, it's not particularly apt to deploy that same reasoning with regard to human mistreatment of other species.
Why? Simply because we can't reach the same breadth of argument _vis-a-vis_ the putative rights of another species, because we're unable to empathise except anthropomorphically, and we're unable to hear their side of the argument - we can only make assumptions based on human prejudices.  It isn't about feelings or emotions, it's about assuming by default a dominion (one justified for some through reference to the Bible's reference to ownership of the land and the "beasts of the field".
We also need to acknowledge that the era of mass production of meat coincides with, purely instrumentally, the advent of modern capitalism being (somewhat) counterbalanced by industrial solidarities, and the fact that cheap(ish) protein availability means the owners of capital being able to extract more surplus value from you, now that you've been able to extract something more than the minimal table-leavings they wanted to give you, from them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well I would kill a million pigs
> And I would kill nine million more
> To be the man that killed ten million pigs with my bloody chainsaw
> La la la lah...



You evil child!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know quite a few people are uneasy about the ethical concerns of eating meat, but do it anyway. For me, my line is further back, but I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong. What I reject is the suggestion that the only logically consistent position for any meat-eater to take is one that involves mild self-hate.


 
Though you personally feast on kebabs making the self-hate inevitable anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

iROBOT said:


> He also loved dogs, therefore (to take the implied logic in your post) all dog lovers are evil.
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> (Hitler didn’t give a toss about animal welfare, he wanted to produce a master race and he knew eating meat in the quantities that most people do is not very conducive to building a strong "volk")



Not quite accurate. He also believed that a strong _volk_ was a product of a strong agrarian peasant culture.  In Germany at that time (and in the preceding century) that meant a lot more grain farming and horticulture than large-scale livestock production.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> Though you personally feast on kebabs making the self-hate inevitable anyway.


Indeed. But I don't need any more.  

I doubt many of us live up to the ideal version of ourselves that we imagine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Humans aren't special.



Nope, just inventive and self-centred.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Now THIS is truly immoral.
> 
> You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.



Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?



ViolentPanda said:


> You realise that the occasional seal culls were less to do with fur, than with preserving fish stocks in that part of the north Atlantic?  The fur was basically a "by-product" of a "human need" to remove several tens of thousands of fish-eating mammals from the food chain at a particular time of year.  You might also have noticed that the culls weren't annual, but cyclical.  They only took place when the seal population was approaching a saturation point.



Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.

A quick search of Google reveals that in Namibia, over 85,000 seal pups are killed anually for their fur, and a further 6,000 adult bulls are killed for their balls.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.



(resists joke about "you've already eaten your wife's pussy")


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.


It's nothing to do with 'rights'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?
> 
> 
> 
> Which boils down to the same premise... that we have a right to choose which animals live or die, based on our culinary preference. We like fish, seals like fish, we believe we have more of a right to those fish, therefore we kill the seals.



In fact, in the Canadian culls (the ones that garnered so much publicity) it wasn't about "culinary preference", it was about availability of protein in a tundra, and man's unwillingness to share that availability.



> A quick search of Google reveals that in Namibia, over 85,000 seal pups are killed anually for their fur, and a further 6,000 adult bulls are killed for their balls.



Entirely different cull, for an entirely different set of circumstances.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong.



There's a light-years difference between the occasional lapse of a conscientious omnivore into poorly sourced meat, and someone coming on here to vehemently argue against meat-eating whilst scoffing bacon sarnies and rib-eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Because some ponce in a wig has decided on a definition of murder, then everyone else should subcribe to that definition?
> 
> My definition of murder is killing any animal without justification. I don't believe  "Because it tastes better than Quorn" is sufficient justification.
> 
> What you're attempting to do is place that emotional barrier between you and the meat you eat. You distance yourself from them in every way possible, so as not to feel guilty about killing/eating them.



What is "justification", at the end of the day?  It's just an argument for an action.  What special validity does it have?
The answer, of course, is that everything resolves to perspectival arguments centred around such hard-to-measure things as "morality", "need" and "preference".
We justify in order to absolve ourselves ("I eat an omnivorous diet because soya gives me IBS"), or in order to implicate others (I don't eat an omnivorous diet, and people who do smell of wee"). What we're *not* doing is presenting anything more solid than our own individual perspectives.

Me, I eat an omnivorous diet.  I don't apologise for doing so, and I don't mock vegetarians or vegans for their dietary quirks, either (being fully-aware that an omnivorous diet is also a quirk).  When it comes to "ethics", I view both sides of the coin (and have killed and butchered animals, then eaten them), and realise fully that mass production of livestock for consumption is horrific and unsustainable.  I also realise that without a massive die-off of human animals to reduce the pressure on food-production, that "cheap" animal protein will be with us for as long as it's necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> For a start, we don't prosecute tigers for animal cruelty.



We should, the arrogant stripey bastards!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.



Whither "self-awareness" and "sufficient justification"? They're movable feasts. Take your stance to the logical conclusion, and we all become Jains.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Yes... I'm a hypocrite, and I hold my hands up and admit to it. Am I not allowed allowed to hold a belief unless I adhere to that belief?



We're all guilty of hypocrisy somewhere to some extent, but you're taking the piss out of it.

Gertcha.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> There's a light-years difference between the occasional lapse of a conscientious omnivore into poorly sourced meat, and someone coming on here to vehemently argue against meat-eating whilst scoffing bacon sarnies and rib-eyes!





Spymaster said:


> We're all guilty of hypocrisy somewhere to some extent, but you're taking the piss out of it.
> 
> Gertcha.



I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.

Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles? 

And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> this is exactly what it boils down to



Unfortunately, under present capitalism, for some people (particularly poor urban-dwellers), a diet with no recourse to animal protein is unaffordable, and for some of us, also medically-unadvisable.  Back in the day, we poor folks used to keep chickens, or a communal piggy.  Nowadays, cheap meaty supermarket pabulum has taken its' place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Not that I feel particularly strongly about. No.
> 
> But then my ethical standards are pretty low!



I didn't know you were a double-glazing salesman!


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... I also realise that without a massive die-off of human animals to reduce the pressure on food-production, that "cheap" animal protein will be with us for as long as it's necessary.



And this is something which any purely abstract "ethical" discussion fails to take into account. In the real world, simply ceasing to eat meat isn't possible without causing significant human suffering and (in some cases) death.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.
> 
> Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?
> 
> And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?



Don't be an even bigger bellend.

I'd have let it slide if you were just mildly opposed to meat production, or just didn't care to think about it. But the fervour with which you've argued against meat, followed by the revelation that you're a meat-muncher yourself makes you something of an unprincipled wanker in my book.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.
> 
> Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?



The former is (according to you) about "taste preferences".  The latter is about the social benefit to be accrued from ensuring that addicts have clean works.  They're not really comparable, unless you have a brain tumour.



> And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?



I'd contend that as men, we have a right to an opinion on abortion, but that given the asymmetry of effect abortion has on males as compared to females, male opinion should *always* be subsidiary to female opinion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd contend that as men, we have a right to an opinion on abortion, but that given the asymmetry of effect abortion has on males as compared to females, male opinion should *always* be subsidiary to female opinion.


I was going to agree, but I don't. I don't think anyone - male or female - has, the case of abortion, the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons. A woman doesn't have that right either.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be an even bigger bellend.
> 
> I'd have let it slide if you were just mildly opposed to meat production, or just didn't care to think about it. But the fervour with which you've argued against meat, followed by the revelation that you're a meat-muncher yourself makes you something of an unprincipled wanker in my book.



My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments... I see yours is, too.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments....



So you don't actually believe the guff that you've been posting here?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was going to agree, but I don't. I don't think anyone - male or female - has, the case of abortion, the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons. A woman doesn't have that right either.



I'm not talking about "the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons".  As I made *very* plain, I'm talking about the right of a male to voice *any* opinion on abortion (thats _pro_ *or* _anti_) being subsidiary to the right of a female to do so.  The right to an opinion, not the right to attempt to dictate behaviour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> My user tag is the basis for most of my arguments... I see yours is, too.



So he likes to wank Cockneys, so what?  It's a dirty job, and not many people want to do it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not talking about "the right to tell a woman not to have one for moral reasons".  As I made *very* plain, I'm talking about the right of a male to voice *any* opinion on abortion (thats _pro_ *or* _anti_) being subsidiary to the right of a female to do so.  The right to an opinion, not the right to attempt to dictate behaviour.


Fair enough. I don't agree. I don't think my opinion is subsidiary to that of an anti-abortion woman.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So you don't actually believe the guff that you've been posting here?



What I believe is irrelevent. I'm merely arguing a point. I don't have to agree or disagree with that point in order to argue it, just as a lawyer doesn't have to believe in the innocence of his/her client in order to defend them.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough. I don't agree. I don't think my opinion is subsidiary to that of an anti-abortion woman.


 
I think when the value of an opinion is determined by who happens to be holding it, then we're in the shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> What I believe is irrelevent. I'm merely arguing a point. I don't have to agree or disagree with that point in order to argue it, just as a lawyer doesn't have to believe in the innocence of his/her client in order to defend them.



I think some measure of projection has leaked into your arguments, though. Others are not as conflicted about eating meat as you appear to be.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> Humans can have interests that override their interest in being alive, such as anyone who has ever died for any cause, or for another person.  Anything we say about an animal's 'interests' needs to be justified or is mere projection.
> 
> As it happens, I'm inclined to think the 'being alive' case is a pretty persuasive one when you make it in terms of animals (I think the degree of embedded anthropomorphism is probably low there).  I'm less convinced about arguments relating to autonomy, self-determination and non-instrumentalism as a human would understand these things.



Notice that I am not using any substantive concept of interests here, I'm merely stipulating that being alive (leaving aside the metaphysics of what exactly that means) is a necessary precondition for having interests. Individuals may choose to risk or end their lives, but they need lives to choose to forfeit in the first place. 

On the point concerning what position to begin with when considering ethical orientation towards non-human animals, I think starting from an assumption that they should be treated the same as humans and then considering if there are any arguments that refute that assumption is the most logical way to approach the subject. Its interesting to note that (nearly?) everybody on this thread agrees that (at least some) animals have moral status - i.e. some degree of welfare interest that should be protected. And everybody agrees (maybe not truxta!) that humans have moral status. The question then becomes what differences are there that justify differential moral treatment. Its interesting to explore what these differences are and whether they really can be evoked to justify the killing of animals for meat. I'm yet to hear anything even remotely compelling that does this (though I am prepared to be proven wrong) so I have arrived at the conclusion that eating meat must be wrong (save in situations of necessity). The problem with starting from the position that all non-human animals are in a sui generis category of moral concern is that allows individuals to smuggle in all sorts of assumptions and appeals to tradition and authority without providing any reasons for their position. 

I'm afraid I won't be able to address anymore points or questions on this thread - its diverted far too much of my time already! It's been interesting though... I could discuss this one forever!


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *The problem with starting from the position that all non-human animals are in a sui generis category of moral concern is that allows individuals to smuggle in all sorts of assumptions and appeals to tradition and authority without providing any reasons for their position*.
> 
> I'm afraid I won't be able to address anymore points or questions on this thread - its diverted far too much of my time already! It's been interesting though... I could discuss this one forever!


 
Re: the bit in bold.  I think that is a danger, but it just means you have to watch out for that sort of thing.  Just as starting from an assumption of equivalence can allow people to smuggle in ropey anthropomorphisms.

It's been one of the better threads on this (even though not the subject of OP) in that there's been some actual communication.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'm afraid I won't be able to address anymore points or questions on this thread - its diverted far too much of my time already! It's been interesting though... I could discuss this one forever!



Some interesting posts.


----------



## iROBOT (Mar 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not quite accurate. He also believed that a strong _volk_ was a product of a strong agrarian peasant culture.  In Germany at that time (and in the preceding century) that meant a lot more grain farming and horticulture than large-scale livestock production.


Well yes, there was a whole "ecosystem" of ideas that eating less meat was a part of.

Agreed and thanks for the expansion.


----------



## iROBOT (Mar 12, 2014)

Just to add this thread. 

Dr Joy, a leading advocate of treating (all) animals with respect.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's nothing to do with 'rights'.


because you say so sonny? 


ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, under present capitalism, for some people (particularly poor urban-dwellers), a diet with no recourse to animal protein is unaffordable, and for some of us, also medically-unadvisable.  Back in the day, we poor folks used to keep chickens, or a communal piggy.  Nowadays, cheap meaty supermarket pabulum has taken its' place.


yes that is why i added those caveats very early on and believe i repeated them


Spymaster said:


> Don't be an even bigger bellend.
> 
> I'd have let it slide if you were just mildly opposed to meat production, or just didn't care to think about it. But the fervour with which you've argued against meat, followed by the revelation that you're a meat-muncher yourself makes you something of an unprincipled wanker in my book.


"I'd have let it slide"! charly bog potatoes mod mad


littlebabyjesus said:


> I think some measure of projection has leaked into your arguments, though. Others are not as conflicted about eating meat as you appear to be.


no, they have been arguing a point, just because you don't agree with or able to get your head around it it does not mean it is projection


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> charly bog potatoes mod mad



Been on the tofu juice again, Thraigo?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 12, 2014)

I read it as some sort of anti-Irish racism from Puff The Magic Dragon.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

It's the most sense he's posted on this thread, tbf.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

ddraig said:


> no, they have been arguing a point, just because you don't agree with or able to get your head around it it does not mean it is projection


you have no idea which bit I'm referring to, do you? More than once, herbz referred to people wilfully distancing themselves from the reality of meat production to ease their consciences. He addressed that to, among others, me and spymaster, two posters who have said that we have killed animals and ate them and had no problem doing so.

Mate, you criticise my posting style, yet your passive aggression is still oozing out uncontrollably.

And your prophesy on page one has not come true. The only people whose eating habits have been criticised are the omnivores. The only poster whose criticism has even been coherent is Jeff r.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The only poster whose criticism has even been coherent is Jeff r.



I dunno. Thraigo did come out with this gem:



ddraig said:


> no no NO! you have to have as much MEAT as possible to make you NORMAL!!


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you have no idea which bit I'm referring to, do you? More than once, herbz referred to people wilfully distancing themselves from the reality of meat production to ease their consciences. *He addressed that to, among others, me *and spymaster, two posters who have said that we have killed animals and ate them and had no problem doing so.



I'm sorry, I forget where I addressed that to you. Could you point out on the thread where the bad man touched you, so I know what context it was in and how to avoid it next time?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I'm sorry, I forget where I addressed that to you. Could you point out on the thread where the bad man touched you, so I know what context it was in and how to avoid it next time?


ddraig at least has the virtue of honestly believing the stuff he's coming out with. You? You're just boring.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

That's what I thought


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Playing devil's advocate on here is an arrogant thing to do. You're simply not that clever or interesting.

There is a reason why people generally ask permission to do so. 'May I play devil's advocate for a moment' is the kind of thing people say. It is asking people to indulge you. It's the polite thing to do.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Playing devil's advocate on here is an arrogant thing to do.



He wasn't though:




			
				Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I believe that it's wrong to kill something simply because we prefer the taste ...






			
				Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life ....



Quite clearly stating his beliefs.

He's just confused.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Playing devil's advocate on here is an arrogant thing to do.


 
I don't see what the issue is with it, even is he was.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Playing devil's advocate on here is an arrogant thing to do. You're simply not that clever or interesting.
> 
> There is a reason why people generally ask permission to do so. 'May I play devil's advocate for a moment' is the kind of thing people say. It is asking people to indulge you. It's the polite thing to do.



I was neither playing devil's advocate, nor am I confused. I know exactly where I stand, it just seems that you two don't have the mental capacity to deal with it... not my problem.
Feel free to argue amongst yourselves or pat each other on the back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't see what the issue is with it, even is he was.


Whining isn't a good look for trolls, though. The likes of dwyer at least recognise that.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Whining isn't a good look for trolls, though. The likes of dwyer at least recognise that.


 
I don't think playing devil's advocate is trolling in itself.  Maybe if you've chosen anti-semitism or something as your topic, but it was a debate with two opposing views and neither is one I think most would find offensive.  Plus, he could just be a bit conflicted.  I think I'm a bit conflicted about eating meat, at least when it comes to mammals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I was neither playing devil's advocate, nor am I confused. .


So is this the truth or is the post where you said you were playing devil's advocate the truth? 

I'll stop poking the troll now. Should have done so a while ago.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

iROBOT said:


> Just to add this thread.
> 
> Dr Joy, a leading advocate of treating (all) animals with respect.




I especially like the bit where she talks about 'carnism' being justified by the 'dominant culture' and then in the next breath has a pop at Neanderthals.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't think playing devil's advocate is trolling in itself.  Maybe if you've chosen anti-semitism or something as your topic, but it was a debate with two opposing views and neither is one I think most would find offensive.  Plus, he could just be a bit conflicted.  I think I'm a bit conflicted about eating meat, at least when it comes to mammals.



I also smoke cigarrettes, although I know they are bad for me and I believe the sale of tobacco products should be banned.*

*runs for cover and waits for LBJ's head to explode because he can't make sense of it.



littlebabyjesus said:


> So is this the truth or is the post where you said you were playing devil's advocate the truth?
> 
> I'll stop poking the troll now. Should have done so a while ago.



Again, you seem to be making things up as you go. Could you point out where I stated  I was playing devil's advocate? Not where you thought I said it but where I actually said it?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I also smoke cigarrettes, although I know they are bad for me and I believe the sale of tobacco products should be banned.*


 
Yeah, I drink too much, so I'm calling on the Government to ban alcohol.
The petition isn't going too well...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> Could you point out where I stated  I was playing devil's advocate? Not where you thought I said it but where I actually said it?



Then why mention your tag?

It's what you meant and you know it. You disingenuous scrote.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Then why mention your tag?
> 
> It's what you meant and you know it. You disingenuous scrote.


 
Yeah, combined with #685 it looks pretty unambiguous.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Then why mention your tag?
> 
> It's what you meant and you know it. You disingenuous scrote.



I mentioned tags so I could point out that you are indeed a Cockney Wanker... simples. 

Again, if you don't have the mental capacity to fathom something so simple... not my problem, and maybe you shouldn't be entering into a debate if you feel the need to personally attack someone when you can't come up with anything constructive to add to the debate... Sad little boy.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I mentioned tags so I could point out that you are indeed a Cockney Wanker... simples.



Of course you did. 

This backpedaling is fooling nobody.



> ... come up with anything constructive to add to the debate



No point. The debate was over when Jeff Robinson left the thread.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Of course you did.
> 
> This backpedaling is fooling nobody.



I made my stance crystal clear from my first post and throughout the thread. If you can't see that, again, not my problem.

The fact that you feel the need to question the sincerity of my stance, and use this as your final rebuttal, speaks volumes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 12, 2014)

Ah, you didn't totally flunk troll school, then. Get caught, so deflect, move the focus away from your fuck-up. 

It never works, you know. To think that it might is to show a disdainful disregard for other posters' abilities.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, you didn't totally flunk troll school, then. Get caught, so deflect, move the focus away from your fuck-up.
> 
> It never works, you know. To think that it might is to show a disdainful disregard for other posters' abilities.



You do realise that accusing someone of trolling when they aren't/weren't, in fact, trolling, just makes you look like a cunt?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 12, 2014)

newsnight right now! bbc2


----------



## free spirit (Mar 12, 2014)

is there owt vaguely interesting in this thread? I'm assuming not from this page.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

free spirit said:


> is there owt vaguely interesting in this thread? I'm assuming not from this page.


 
No spoilers - you're going to have to read it.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 12, 2014)

8ball said:


> No spoilers - you're going to have to read it.


nah, don't think I am tbh.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 12, 2014)

free spirit said:


> nah, don't think I am tbh.


 
I think you are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> We don't need to kill animals to meet our dietry needs. We (the developed world) have the resources and the ability to feed ourselves without killing animals to do so. .



What about the rest of the world, ie, most of humanity. Most of humanity doesn't live in the developed world.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

Enviro said:


> I'm no expert in ethics but clearly there are some differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom which could lead one to think that humans are "special" whatever that means.


as an aside, that hierarchical classification of life/death has a direct parallel with eugenics - "Life unworthy of life" to coin a phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What about the rest of the world, ie, most of humanity. Most of humanity doesn't live in the developed world.


it is one of the caveats


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> as an aside, that hierarchical classification of life/death has a direct parallel with eugenics - "Life unworthy of life" to coin a phrase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life



I reckon you just activated Godwin's there!


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon you just activated Godwin's there!



Already been done:



andysays said:


> ...I think this may be the point in the thread where I point out that, as we all know, Hitler was a vegetarian...



Do keep up


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> Do keep up



Aye.

But I think you've got to do some pretty serious theoretical gymnastics to parallel killing humans with killing animals under any circumstances. There's a fundamental failure there as only the loopiest AR types would claim that animal lives are anywhere near as important as people's. If we accept that, the eugenics comparison falls at the first hurdle.

It's a position that usually gets wheeled-out in vivisection debates.


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Aye.
> 
> But I think you've got to do some pretty serious theoretical gymnastics to parallel killing humans with killing animals under any circumstances. There's a fundamental failure there as only the loopiest AR types would claim that animal lives are as important as peoples. If we accept that, the eugenics comparison falls at the first hurdle.



Yeah, well it appears that there are those on this thread who have argued that at least some animal lives are as important as humans, by making the criterion for importance self-awareness. I suppose that allows them to argue that there are degrees of self awareness, and that humans are more important than, say, dogs, but I would suggest that the difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

Arguing that humans are in a different category doesn't mean we can't also say that animals are important, of course, just that it's a different order of importance.

Or maybe I don't really mean any of that and I'm just being "devil's advocate". It's so hard to tell these days...


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> But I think you've got to do some pretty serious theoretical gymnastics to parallel killing humans with killing animals under any circumstances. There's a fundamental failure there as only the loopiest AR types would claim that animal lives are as important as peoples. If we accept that, the eugenics comparison falls at the first hurdle.


I agree its not the same thing - though i have a huge amount of sympathy with that position put by AR people, and act in my day to day like I believe it - though of course i would save the life of a human over that of an animal if faced with a choice of one over the other. That situation hasnt hasnt come up yet.

I think it is worth bearing it in mind though, as at the heart of the subject is a value system that quanitfies life, and eugenics programmes do occupy similiar philosphical territory. Its all good stuff to muse on though.

Another thing we havent touched on I dont think (I havent read the whole thread) is human biology. Monkeys are a mixture of herbivores and omnivores, depending on the species. Our simean ancestors are omnivores, but its worth noting that meat forms only a tiny percentage of their diet, and is most often eaten after killing another monkey and eating it in a ritualistic, fuck you i just killed you, fashion, or very occasionally in a scavenging way.  Our short intestine and other organs are evolutionarily designed for a non-meat diet. Evolutionarily speaking flesh can be eaten in small quantites, but its not good for our systems - our systems arent designed for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Our short intestine and other organs are evolutionarily designed for a non-meat diet. Evolutionarily speaking flesh can be eaten in small quantites, but its not good for our systems.


This isn't true. Humans have flexible dietary potential, as my link earlier to Inuit all-meat-and-fish diet explained. There are lots of ways for humans to eat healthily, and we can withstand quite happily diets with up to 40 per cent protein content.

I'm not saying that we _should_ eat meat - we can thrive without it. But there is no biological reason whatever why we _should not_. And a bit of meat mixed with lots of veg can be positively good for us. Meat's a good way of providing various vitamins and minerals.

I used to know someone who lacked certain enzymes in his stomach and could not eat meat. He couldn't digest it. He had a genetic makeup that precluded animal (and some other forms of) protein from his diet. But most of us do have the enzymes - we have evolved to be able to digest meat.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

Couldn't we have just left it at 'it's probably a good idea for everyone to cut down meat consumption as it's not environmentally sustainable to produce this much meat?'

Anyway, to any vegans on here how do you deal with killing germs around your home? Has this already been dealt with? I've often wondered that. If vegans think it's wrong to kill a living thing what's their position on germs, flys and so on?


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I agree its not the same thing - though i have a huge amount of sympathy with that position put by AR people, and act in my day to day like I believe it - though of course i would save the life of a human over that of an animal if faced with a choice of one over the other. That situation hasnt hasnt come up yet.
> 
> I think it is worth bearing it in mind though, as at the heart of the subject is a value system that quanitfies life, and eugenics programmes do occupy similiar philosphical territory. Its all good stuff to muse on though.
> 
> Another thing we havent touched on I dont think (I havent read the whole thread) is human biology. Monkeys are a mixture of herbivores and omnivores, depending on the species.* Our simean ancestors are omnivores, but its worth noting that meat forms only a tiny percentage of their diet*, and is most often eaten after killing another monkey and eating it in a ritualistic, fuck you i just killed you, fashion, or very occasionally in a scavenging way.  Our short intestine and other organs are evolutionarily designed for a non-meat diet. Evolutionarily speaking flesh can be eaten in small quantites, but its not good for our systems - our systems arent designed for it.



I have a vague recollection that one of the things which allowed our simian ancestors to evolve into the species we are today was eating an increased amount of protein in meat and so developing larger brains.

I agree that much of this debate is worth having, but I'm going to bow out for now because I've got IRL things to do which I've been neglecting.


----------



## gabi (Mar 13, 2014)

I've asked Christians and other assorted religious nutters a similar question. If we all have souls, and we all go to heaven/hell... Can you imagine the sheer quantity of fucking mozzies up/down there? I've personally accounted for thousands of the fuckers.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> I have a vague recollection that one of the things which allowed our simian ancestors to evolve into the species we are today was eating an increased amount of protein in meat and so developing larger brains.
> 
> I agree that much of this debate is worth having, but I'm going to bow out for now because I've got IRL things to do which I've been neglecting.


a viscious lie put out by the meat lobby!
My preferred theory is that its the ingestion of psychoactive naturally occuring plantlife that created the evolutionary boost.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> I have a vague recollection that one of the things which allowed our simian ancestors to evolve into the species we are today was eating an increased amount of protein in meat and so developing larger brains.
> .


Very speculative, that, mind. And there are counter-examples. Elephants have developed large brains on a veggie diet.

You're on safer ground saying that humans' omnivorous potential gave them a greater flexibility and ability to exploit different strategies, and that this may have been a selection pressure for larger brains. Human brains have actually shrunk a bit in the last few hundred thousand years. (These pressures work both ways, in fact - larger brains leading to a selection pressure for more flexible dietary abilities: if you now have the ability to hunt animals, the genes coding for enzymes to digest meat will be selected.)


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

gabi said:


> I've asked Christians and other assorted religious nutters a similar question. If we all have souls, and we all go to heaven/hell... Can you imagine the sheer quantity of fucking mozzies up/down there? I've personally accounted for thousands of the fuckers.



Yeah and they're all waiting for ya, gabi. 







'Go on it's ok. Just stick your hand through those pearly gates...'


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> I'll give you my meat


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This isn't true. Humans have flexible dietary potential, as my link earlier to Inuit all-meat-and-fish diet explained. There are lots of ways for humans to eat healthily, and we can withstand quite happily diets with up to 40 per cent protein content.
> 
> I'm not saying that we _should_ eat meat - we can thrive without it. But there is no biological reason whatever why we _should not_. And a bit of meat mixed with lots of veg can be positively good for us. Meat's a good way of providing various vitamins and minerals.
> 
> I used to know someone who lacked certain enzymes in his stomach and could not eat meat. He couldn't digest it. He had a genetic makeup that precluded animal (and some other forms of) protein from his diet. But most of us do have the enzymes - we have evolved to be able to digest meat.


oh ffs
there may not be a biological 'reason' but the majority of people who are vegi do it for an ethical reason.
in your opinion am i not feeding myself properly and also did my parents bring me up wrongly by not eating meat?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> You do realise that accusing someone of trolling when they aren't/weren't, in fact, trolling, just makes you look like a cunt?



Surely that will depend entirely on the perception of the "audience" of the thread. What makes you assume that the "audience" will take/has taken your part?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I agree its not the same thing - though i have a huge amount of sympathy with that position put by AR people, and act in my day to day like I believe it - though of course i would save the life of a human over that of an animal if faced with a choice of one over the other.



Are you a veggie/vegan, Ska?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Couldn't we have just left it at 'it's probably a good idea for everyone to cut down meat consumption as it's not environmentally sustainable to produce this much meat?'
> 
> Anyway, to any vegans on here how do you deal with killing germs around your home? Has this already been dealt with? I've often wondered that. If vegans think it's wrong to kill a living thing what's their position on germs, flys and so on?


oh "carrots have got feelings too, so ner " , "how do YOU know that brocoli doesn't scream when you are boiling it??! eh eh, got you there!" shit argument


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> in your opinion am i not feeding myself properly and also did my parents bring me up wrongly by not eating meat?



What the fucking fuck are you on about?

LBJ has said on several occasions that meat is not necessary for a healthy diet.

If anything it's you who's been disrespectful of OUR parents who fed us meat as you've said that eating it is WRONG.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Are you a veggie/vegan, Ska?


Yeah lazy vegan - eat the odd egg and avoid dairy as best I can.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh ffs
> there may not be a biological 'reason' but the majority of people who are vegi do it for an ethical reason.
> in your opinion am i not feeding myself properly and also did my parents bring me up wrongly by not eating meat?


What bit of 'we can thrive without meat' are you struggling with?


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

ok badly worded
do you consider yourself healthier than me by the fact that you eat meat and i don't?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

When you're in a hole .....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ok badly worded
> do you consider yourself healthier than me by the fact that you eat meat and i don't?


What bit of 'we can thrive without meat' are you struggling with?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Couldn't we have just left it at 'it's probably a good idea for everyone to cut down meat consumption as it's not environmentally sustainable to produce this much meat?'



Part of the "argument" that gets ignored is in how many Euro-cultures meat-eating is still seen to signal a degree of "having enough", because as recently as 5 decades ago, eating much meat every day, unless it were the cheapest cuts or mince in small portions, wasn't part of working-class culture in the way that it supposedly became from the '60s-onward in Europe. You need to remove that cultural perception (and the similar one in the US, where the steak is worshipped) before you'll be able to make a convincing argument about reduction of consumption.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What bit of 'we can thrive without meat' are you struggling with?


so you can't just say no?
maybe you do consider yourself a healthier supreme being!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

'I'm opposed to the death penalty for any kind of murder.'

'So you wouldn't support the death penalty for Ian Huntley for murdering those girls?'

'I just told you that I'm opposed to the death penalty for any kind murder.'

'So you can't just say no?'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh "carrots have got feelings too, so ner " , "how do YOU know that brocoli doesn't scream when you are boiling it??! eh eh, got you there!" shit argument



I wasn't talking about carrots  I'm not even trying to trip you up as I couldn't a flying fuck what you put in your mouth or not. The question I'm asking remains. Some vegans I know don't even eat honey because 'it's stealing from bees' which does make me chuckle but ok. Every vegan dodges this question though and I wonder why? If you do in fact swat flies, kill germs and so on why? I agree with you that the 'carrots have feelings' argument is a crass one but why is the flies/germs one? They are very much animals and not plants. So why is a chicken spared but not a bluebottle?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> When you're in a hole .....



Then your behaviour should be dictated by what sort of hole you're in.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Honey is an animal product like dairy - that's why (some) vegans are against it.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> Honey is an animal product like dairy - that's why (some) vegans are against it.



Yeah I know why they don't use it. I guess it depends on your reasons for being a vegan. Most vegans I've met say it's because killing and using animals is wrong. Fine. How far does that extend though? If it doesn't extend to germs, flies and so on why not? They're just as alive as a chicken is.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh ffs
> there may not be a biological 'reason' but the majority of people who are vegi do it for an ethical reason.


The majority of vegetarians live in India. They do it for the same reason that British eat bangers and mash: because that's how they were raised.

There is a disturbing tendency in this discussion to act as if the people of the wealthy nations, are the only people. Most of the people in the world don't live there. Zero consideration is being paid to how life is lived in the poor but populous countries.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah I know why they don't use it. I guess it depends on your reasons for being a vegan. Most vegans I've met say it's because killing and using animals is wrong. Fine. How far does that extend though? If it doesn't extend to germs, flies and so on why not? They're just as alive as a chicken is.


I prefer veganism to vegetarianism. Yes, you can point to some hypocrisy as you say with flies etc but but nearly so much as the half way moralising dairy eaters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I prefer veganism to vegetarianism. Yes, you can point to some hypocrisy as you say with flies etc but but nearly so much as the half way moralising dairy eaters.


There's no hypocrisy if you consider that there is some cut-off point below which an animal does not have sufficient subjective awareness to deserve moral consideration. Even if it's necessarily a fuzzy line.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I prefer veganism to vegetarianism. Yes, you can point to some hypocrisy as you say with flies etc but but nearly so much as the half way moralising dairy eaters.



I'm really not trying to say 'ner ner you're a hypocrite' as I said, it's entirely up to you what you stick in your mouth or not and is none of my concern. Why are dairy eaters more hypocritical though? What is the difference between burning thousands of live animals in your toilet with industrial strength cleaner and taking calves away from their mother? I just can't get why one is worse than the other and I'm somehow complicit in brutal murder for one thing but not the other. I'm not saying you're accusing me of that but I have met vegans who have.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's no hypocrisy if you consider that there is some cut-off point below which an animal does not have sufficient subjective awareness to deserve moral consideration. Even if it's necessarily a fuzzy line.



So it's the awareness factor more than the actual killing? That's a fair point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So it's the awareness factor more than the actual killing? That's a fair point.


I'm not saying that this idea isn't fraught and infinitely contestable. It is.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I'm really not trying to say 'ner ner you're a hypocrite' as I said, it's entirely up to you what you stick in your mouth or not and is none of my concern. Why are dairy eaters more hypocritical though? What is the difference between burning thousands of live animals in your toilet with industrial strength cleaner and taking calves away from their mother? I just can't get why one is worse than the other and I'm somehow complicit in brutal murder for one thing but not the other. I'm not saying you're accusing me of that but I have met vegans who have.


If (big if, some vegetarians just don't like the taste/texture of meat)  the vegetarian standpoint is not eating meat because of an ethical stand on killing and expropriation from animals, then I find that much harder to accept than the vegan standpoint because dairy eating/leather wearing vegetarians are just a little bit ethical.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

As has been pointed out, if you drink cow's milk, you might as well eat veal. Ethically, they are equivalent. 

In fact, you could make the case that to drink milk and not eat veal is less ethical than drinking milk and eating veal.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> If (big if, some vegetarians just don't like the taste/texture of meat)  the vegetarian standpoint is not eating meat because of an ethical stand on killing and expropriation from animals, then I find that much harder to accept than the vegan standpoint because dairy eating/leather wearing vegetarians are just a little bit ethical.



Yeah that's a fair point too. I guess like most things it's personal preference and personal reasons for doing such things. Some do really make me chuckle though, like the bee thing and I could never understand the problem with eating eggs? Chickens lay eggs anyway so no harm is done to the chicken at all, leaving aside horrendous farming practices of course!


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah that's a fair point too. I guess like most things it's personal preference and personal reasons for doing such things. Some do really make me chuckle though, like the bee thing and I could never understand the problem with eating eggs? Chickens lay eggs anyway so no harm is done to the chicken at all, leaving aside horrendous farming practices of course!


I actually "get" the bee thing  We're going to regret our bee labour expropriation at some point, if not already. Oh, and eggs are chicken periods.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah that's a fair point too. I guess like most things it's personal preference and personal reasons for doing such things. Some do really make me chuckle though, like the bee thing and I could never understand the problem with eating eggs? Chickens lay eggs anyway so no harm is done to the chicken at all, leaving aside horrendous farming practices of course!


Well the egg thing is exactly because of the fact that millions of day old chicks are killed because they are male and can't lay eggs.
And because some vegans think its wrong to keep and use animals at all, whether they are killed or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I actually "get" the bee thing  We're going to regret our bee labour expropriation at some point, if not already. Oh, and *eggs are chicken periods*.


This is the 'yuck' factor in becoming a vegan. I wonder how important it is in making the decision - the veggies I've known who still craved meat (normally bacon) have often been the ones who didn't keep it up.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I actually "get" the bee thing  We're going to regret our bee labour expropriation at some point, if not already. Oh, and eggs are chicken periods.





Greebo said:


> If you use milk, that calf would be taken from its mother and killed anyway.
> 
> Don't try to gross me out, next you'll be telling me about bee vomit (honey) and chicken periods (unfertilised eggs).


20 page rolleyes.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the 'yuck' factor in becoming a vegan. I wonder how important it is in making the decision - the veggies I've known who still craved meat (normally bacon) have often been the ones who didn't keep it up.


Aye there's a yuk factor for some people. Those people wouldn't fancy the practice of bleeding live animals (a little bit of blood) for sustenance either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> And because some vegans think its wrong to keep and use animals at all, whether they are killed or not.


This is a potentially logically consistent ethical pov, imo. Hard to live by, mind.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> 20 page rolleyes.


Useful sustenance in periods. Don't tell me you'll only eat chicken periods


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah that's a fair point too. I guess like most things it's personal preference and personal reasons for doing such things. Some do really make me chuckle though, like the bee thing and I could never understand the problem with eating eggs?



If you want a proper laugh look up "peace fruitarians". I don't think there are many of them and from what I gather it's rarely a permanent diet, but these guys won't even eat fruit if it has to be picked. Only if it's already fallen from the tree. Something about "coexisting in peace with all living things" and taking branched fruit would be nicking it, or cause the tree pain by cutting it off. 

As you say, each to their own. Doesn't mean we can't have a giggle though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Yeah I know why they don't use it. I guess it depends on your reasons for being a vegan. Most vegans I've met say it's because killing and using animals is wrong. Fine. How far does that extend though? If it doesn't extend to germs, flies and so on why not? They're just as alive as a chicken is.



Is it ok to use cow manure as fertilizer? It's an animal byproduct. Silk is an animal byproduct.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> <snip>Oh, and eggs are chicken periods.


I said that on the first page!


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I said that on the first page!


Merely reinforcing your original point


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

> The camel is used for several purposes for which its role is essential. It is used as a beast of burden for transporting goods and people as well as for providing milk. Milk is often the only regular food source for its owners. The camel's meat, wool and leather are also widely utilized. In some parts of East Africa, the animal is bled regularly and its blood consumed fresh or mixed with milk. The camel is universally highly valued and provides social standing for its owner.



http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0755e/t0755e01.htm


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's no hypocrisy if you consider that there is some cut-off point below which an animal does not have sufficient subjective awareness to deserve moral consideration. Even if it's necessarily a fuzzy line.



In this case, you could say it's a buzzy line.

You could make a rational argument for using honey but not milk on the basis that bees are not robbed of all their food supply by the (appropriate) removal of honey, but there's no real way of farming milk on all but the most occasional basis without having to kill unwanted calves.


----------



## mr steev (Mar 13, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Silk is an animal byproduct.



Silk isn't a byproduct. The lava are killed to get the silk. All the vegans I know/knew who had a problem with honey and wool etc boycotted silk too


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Is it ok to use cow manure as fertilizer? It's an animal byproduct. Silk is an animal byproduct.


In the first case, probably yes, as long as you're not rearing cattle to get the manure.

Silk, except for matka silk (which is only ever taken from empty cocoons) is probably one of the least okay of animal byproducts because you have to boil the pupae alive to produce it.  OTOH it's more ecologically sustainable than using petrochemicals to make a substitute which isn't even as thermally efficient, light, or durable.

A lot of the time, the choice is between resources from plants and animals which are alive now (and still just about replaceable) and those which died and rotted centuries ago and which take a lot longer to replace than the rate at which they're used.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I actually "get" the bee thing  We're going to regret our bee labour expropriation at some point, if not already. Oh, and eggs are chicken periods.



They are indeed chicken periods and they taste delicious scrambled with mushrooms and toast


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> They are indeed chicken periods and they taste delicious scrambled with mushrooms and toast


Fungus penises and wheat (endo)sperm.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Silk, except for matka silk (which is only ever taken from empty cocoons) is probably one of the least okay of animal byproducts because you have to boil the pupae alive to produce it.  OTOH it's more ecologically sustainable than using petrochemicals to make a substitute which isn't even as thermally efficient, light, or durable.



Didn't know that. 

Cheers.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fungus penises and wheat (endo)sperm.



Mmmmmmmm! Delicious. I think I need to get lunch on


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

why the need for the grin DC? 

ahhh non vegans arguing about how hypocritcal or not vegans are, there MUST be something they do, i demand to know their flaw, we must expose them!
obviously a few sensible posts since.
JC, you are wrong, again

am about to leave for work trip and may not be able to get on here til late tomorrow or sat so carry on and i look forward with joy to seeing the brilliant 'arguments' when i get back


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why the need for the grin DC?
> 
> ahhh non vegans arguing about how hypocritcal or not vegans are, there MUST be something they do, i demand to know their flaw, we must expose them!
> obviously a few sensible posts since.
> ...


What was the emotive phrase you used for meat? 'Decomposing animal flesh'? Something like that. You started this particular game.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What was the emotive phrase you used for meat? 'Decomposing animal flesh'? Something like that. You started this particular game.


is meat decomposing animal flesh? yes or no answer


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> am about to leave for work trip and may not be able to get on here til late tomorrow or sat ....



You take your time, Thraigo. As long as you like.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

Everything we eat is decomposing, surely.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

yes it is


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You take your time, Thraigo. As long as you like.


why are you being a dick like fwances and messing with my user name?  
please don't, ta


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> is meat decomposing animal flesh? yes or no answer


Luckily for life on Earth, all animal and plant matter decomposes, so why bring it up?

Except honey, which can last for thousands of years. Honey is _superfood_.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

If "decomposing" can be applied to everything we eat, we can just take it as a given and don't need to insert it for emphasis.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Luckily for life on Earth, all animal and plant matter decomposes, so why bring it up?
> 
> Except honey, which can last for thousands of years. Honey is _superfood_.


because you made a point about it and called it emotive language
simple question
are you in training to be a politician?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

Much meat is improved by an element of decomposition.

That said, Thraigo was using the term emotively as per "murder" of animals etc,.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> because you made a point about it and called it emotive language
> simple question
> are you in training to be a politician?


No, you brought it up, repeatedly, earlier in this thread. You. Brought. It. Up.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> If "decomposing" can be applied to everything we eat, we can just take it as a given and don't need to insert it for emphasis.


so decomposing flesh isn't worse than decomposing veg and fruit then?


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> so decomposing flesh isn't worse than decomposing veg and fruit then?


It depends on your point of view.

edit: The bag of slimy rotting coriander that I found yesterday was much more decomposed and inedible than the relatively fresh chicken breasts. Ethical arguments to one side.

Sorry Greebo I edited that after you liked it


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you brought it up, repeatedly, earlier in this thread. You. Brought. It. Up.


oh ffs
yes i did, you made a point and i challenged your point that is all
frustrating poster is frustrating!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Much meat is improved by an element of decomposition.
> 
> That said, Thraigo was using the term emotively as per "murder" of animals etc,.


are you constantly in the playground cunty?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh ffs
> yes i did, you made a point and i challenged your point that is all
> frustrating poster is frustrating!


Stop ffsing me. 

You started this game by using emotive language. People are now (gently) taking the piss out of such characterisations.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

no ffs, you are difficult and yet again this is pointless!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stop ffsing me.



That made me lol!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Point out where people have been attacking vegans, please? 

And perhaps you'd like to point out where I've attacked your eating habits, or even implied such an attack. 

You're all over the place.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 13, 2014)

bit close to fisting innit


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

I think I might have attacked vegetarians (in a wishy washy sort of way) but I definitely didn't diss vegans.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

Only meat eaters have been seriously attacked on this thread and they have generally responded rationally and in good spirit.

_Someone_ (no names mentioned), has spectacularly (intentionally?) misread many of the posts here and gone out of their way to take (and give) offence!


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

I definitely attacked the non-meateating vegetarians tbf


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I definitely attacked the non-meateating vegetarians tbf



They deserved it.


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I definitely attacked the non-meateating vegetarians tbf



Yeah, I don't mind the meat-eating vegetarians, it's the non-meating ones I can't stand


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)




----------



## Doctor Carrot (Mar 13, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why the need for the grin DC?



Because it's funny finding chicken periods delicious? Don't be so sensitive! You're the type of vegan, it seems to me anyway, that's constantly on the attack about what other people shovel into their gob and on the defend about what you shovel into yours. 'Ewww, you eat decomposing flesh you murderer!' Yeah cesare made the chicken period point but she/he didn't do it in a hostile manner, just pointed it out.

All your posts I've read so far have an air of hostility in them, chill out.

Now this is a joke, I only mean it is a joke so don't get offended.

How can you tell if someone's a vegan?



Spoiler



Don't worry they'll fucking tell you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

I think I'd miss cheese the most if I were vegan. No more vintage cheddar. No more stilton. No more smelly camembert.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

I'd miss foie gras and shooting defenceless animals.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't think there's anything I'd particularly miss as a vegan but I'd hate to spend all my time trying to find places to eat, reading the small print on everything, and making sure I ate enough fucking marmite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Ah, extra marmite would be a consolation, tbf. I'd get through tubs of the stuff.

(((Canadian vegans.)))


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

When my b/f stopped being a vegan, it was the cheese on a pizza that he found really hard to digest rather than the fillet steak, btw.


----------



## xenon (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't think vegans should be expected to justify the non perfect application of their ethics. Unless they're preaching at you.  We all have compromised ethics at some point. Availability of options and convenience dependant.

Hell, I'm not even pretending to be ethical in my choices half the time. I like meat from the local butcher because it tastes nicer, doesn't shrink and means I don't have to go into the god awful local Asda.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

xenon said:


> I don't think vegans should be expected to justify the non perfect application of their ethics. Unless they're preaching at you.  .


Absolutely. But that second sentence is rather important.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

xenon said:


> I don't think vegans should be expected to justify the non perfect application of their ethics. Unless they're preaching at you.



Well we've had one geezer on here preaching to us whilst stuffing his face with filet mignon!


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> When my b/f stopped being a vegan, it was the cheese on a pizza that he found really hard to digest rather than the fillet steak, btw.


yeah, the dairy industry is horrible, but personally i find cheese makes me flemmy - i particularly noticed the difference when i stopped eating it and now if i have a little bit here and there it is strange to digest. feel it in my throat immediately. Buy plain pizza bases (2 for £1) and just put tomato puree on it + loads of toppings, you dont notice the lack of cheese.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yeah, the dairy industry is horrible, but personally i find cheese makes me flemmy - i particularly noticed the difference when i stopped eating it and now if i have a little bit here and there it is strange to digest. feel it in my throat immediately. Buy plain pizza bases (2 for £1) and just put tomato puree on it + loads of toppings, you dont notice the lack of cheese.


Dairy has always made me a bit nauseous (probably don't have enough lactase or summat) so I don't bother with milk and yoghurts etc, and only have a little bit of cheese sometimes. I feel much better for it. I also don't get as snotty


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

cesare said:


> I don't think there's anything I'd particularly miss as a vegan but I'd hate to spend all my time trying to find places to eat, reading the small print on everything....


I cant be arsed with that endless checking all the ingredients - i just give it my best shot, but lifes too short and hard enough as it is for that level of commitment. Thats where i draw the line.


----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

There's loads of hidden lactose in ready meals and canned soups too. I guess they have to find a use for all the lactose they skim off the skimmed milk ie feed it back to us and charge us for it.


----------



## xenon (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well we've had one geezer on here preaching to us whilst stuffing his face with filet mignon!


Herbs? Actually fair play to him for having a go. I think he probably does believe a bit of what he was saying though. Bit too much self hating meat eater coming through. He should enjoy his steak or give it up IMO.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yeah, the dairy industry is horrible, but personally i find cheese makes me flemmy - i particularly noticed the difference when i stopped eating it and now if i have a little bit here and there it is strange to digest. feel it in my throat immediately. Buy plain pizza bases (2 for £1) and just put tomato puree on it + loads of toppings, you dont notice the lack of cheese.



My main problem with cheese is that nowadays it goes straight to my waistline. Cheese for me seems to have this magical property of putting 1 pound on me for every _half_ pound I eat of _it_.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> I cant be arsed with that endless checking all the ingredients - i just give it my best shot, but lifes too short and hard enough as it is for that level of commitment. Thats where i draw the line.


And we're not just individuals. We live in a wider society and process. We shouldn't necessarily even expect to be able to live up to our ethical standards if the wider society doesn't. We chip away at it the best we can, but some changes need to come at a level higher than the individual.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> My main problem with cheese is that nowadays it goes straight to my waistline. Cheese for me seems to have this magical property of putting 1 pound on me for every half pound I eat of _it_.


Eat celery. It takes more energy to digest it than it contains. You can munch yourself thin.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We chip away at it the best we can, but some changes need to come at a level higher than the individual.


True - God needs to get her shit together frankly


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Eat celery. It takes more energy to digest it than it contains. You can munch yourself thin.



Why can't curry and beer be like that?


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We chip away at it the best we can, but some changes need to come at a level higher than the individual.


And those changes will only come when enough individuals collectively demand them. There is no external paternalistic figure: neither god nor government.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> And those changes will only come when enough individuals collectively demand them. There is no external paternalistic figure: neither god nor government.


Sure. I'm not advocating quietism. But you yourself use the word 'collectively'. I'm afraid I have limited faith in such things as 'consumer choice' as engines of change. There are far too many ways in which that 'choice' is manipulated and controlled - and it is far easier to be ethical (whatever your given definition of the word) when you have money. Free range and organic for the rich, and what for the poor? Baked beans?

Often the only way to effect real change is to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chains.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Eat celery. It takes more energy to digest it than it contains. You can munch yourself thin.


False. Ice cubes/slush is the only thing that does that - takes calories to heat up, doesn't provide any calories in return.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> False. Ice cubes/slush is the only thing that does that - takes calories to heat up, doesn't provide any calories in return.


Hmmm. Sources appear to agree that a stick of celery contains about 6 calories of energy, but disagree as to how to measure the energy taken to digest it. The question of how much energy it takes to digest it is a tricky one, as eating celery with other things may reduce the overall energy needed to digest it due to the high fibre in celery. But eating a stick of celery on its own may indeed require more than 6 calories. Chew thoroughly to be on the safe side. 

This is the best link I've found on a brisk search. 

http://sciencehastheanswer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/negative-calorie-food-science-myths-and.html


----------



## souljacker (Mar 13, 2014)

Celery is fucking horrid though.


----------



## spanglechick (Mar 13, 2014)

Dr_Herbz said:


> I don't believe I have to be a vegetarian in order to argue the point.
> 
> Do you believe I should have to be a heroin addict in order argue that heroin addicts should have access to clean needles?
> 
> And I guess I'm not allowed an opinion on abortion, because I'm not a woman?


 
false analogy.

it's like arguing vehemently that abortion is wrong, while having chosen with your partner abortion in the past and being content to do so again if the situation arose.

sorry - thread moved on, but I can't resist a flaw in reasoning.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

souljacker said:


> Celery is fucking horrid though.


Chop finely and use instead of onion in fried onion dishes <gourmet tip (that no one believes me on )


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sure. I'm not advocating quietism. But you yourself use the word 'collectively'. I'm afraid I have limited faith in such things as 'consumer choice' as engines of change.


Yes but they do have some effect - in relation to vegetariansim the range of vegetarian options in resteraunts and food shopping outlets is enormous compared to what it was even in the 90s - that has been driven at least partially by demand


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Yes but they do have some effect - in relation to vegetariansim the range of vegetarian options in resteraunts and food shopping outlets is enormous compared to what it was even in the 90s - that has been driven at least partially by demand


True. Free range eggs would be another example. But other things are far harder to influence. 

For instance, the practice of transporting animals large distances for slaughter, on what are unnecessary and cruel journeys, is controlled largely by supermarkets, which have stitched up the supply chain. Obtaining meat that has not been through this process is difficult and expensive, and will remain so for as long as the supply chain is monopolised by these national companies. Often the farmers themselves, however ethical they may be, have little choice.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

The local food thing is really interesting I think...transition towns and all that...it can feel a bit middle class food snobby, but it neednt be - I know people who have started big food growing projects on their estate, and they're taking over more and more land between the blocks each season...connecting directly with food is the thing, and even though id rather that didnt include animals, id rather it was happening in that direct way. food can be a good way of community building.

My family kept a few pigs to eat scraps and the memory of a skin hide hanging on the washing line one day stays with me (i wasnt shocked by it, just a strong memory). Now i come to think of it those pigs didnt have much room and wouldve had a pretty shit life. Not quite as shit as those battery pigs that are out there though  poor fuckers


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 13, 2014)

TruXta said:


> False. Ice cubes/slush is the only thing that does that - takes calories to heat up .....



So just eat frozen curries?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So just eat frozen curries?


Or celery from the fridge.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 13, 2014)

... you dont need scientists when you've got rappers


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Mar 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Often the only way to effect real change is to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chains.


Sure. But the only way to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chain is if enough individuals collectively desire it. What are you, some kind of vanguardist? There is NO external authority which can impose socialism upon us.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

Greebo said:


> In the first case, probably yes, as long as you're not rearing cattle to get the manure.
> 
> Silk, except for matka silk (which is only ever taken from empty cocoons) is probably one of the least okay of animal byproducts because you have to boil the pupae alive to produce it.  OTOH it's more ecologically sustainable than using petrochemicals to make a substitute which isn't even as thermally efficient, light, or durable.
> 
> A lot of the time, the choice is between resources from plants and animals which are alive now (and still just about replaceable) and those which died and rotted centuries ago and which take a lot longer to replace than the rate at which they're used.



Silk larvae:









Housefly larvae:






What is it that I'm missing here?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> <snip> What is it that I'm missing here?


How should I know?  Bear with me, it's been a really long week.  I was neither having a go at people for using silk, nor for choosing not to, I was just explaining why vegans certainly wouldn't use it and some vegetarians might prefer not to use it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

Greebo said:


> How should I know?  Bear with me, it's been a really long week.  I was neither having a go at people for using silk, nor for choosing not to, I was just explaining why vegans certainly wouldn't use it and some vegetarians might prefer not to use it.



My question is, people get upset because someone is boiling the next phase of the first; but we buy pesticide by the drumfull in order to wipe out the second.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> My question is, people get upset because someone is boiling the next phase of the first; but we buy pesticide by the drumfull in order to wipe out the second.


Okay, it might be because silk is perceived as being a luxury, while disease prevention is perceived as a necessity.  Anyway, caterpillars are cuter than maggots.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm thinking of it in terms of the right to life of other organisms, that some posters have  been talking about. The right to life that another organism possesses is dependent upon whether or not the death of that organism promotes human well-being: is that it?

So, fly larvae are ok to kill because it means less disease for humans; but not silkworms, because getting material for clothing isn't good enough?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2014)

Yes, unless you're a Jain, in which case it's not even okay to kill fly larvae.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Sure. But the only way to change the patterns of ownership and control of the supply chain is if enough individuals collectively desire it. What are you, some kind of vanguardist? There is NO external authority which can impose socialism upon us.


I think I must have been expressing it badly. My fault. But individual choices within a market are not going to be enough. Structurally, they can never be enough.

'ethical meat' will have the premium for its enhanced ethicality. 'unethical meat' will be priced at a level that those at the bottom end of the wage scale can afford. Such people will not be able to afford to be ethical. And the market will be structured such that both exist - wherever the cheapest meat is unethical, wages will be set at a level such that those at the bottom will (on average) only be able to afford unethical meat.

Individual choices by consumers can never eliminate cheap, unethical protein until such a point is reached that the poorest can demand better wages. In fact, the existence of cheap protein is a contributory factor towards those low wages.

You cannot address issues such as animal rights without addressing the issue of human rights and the exploitation of humans.

This is not about an external authority. It is about the fact that certain social conditions can only be changed by collective effort. Individual consumer choices cannot effect such changes.

I am talking here about cumulative, aggregate behaviour. At the individual level, there will be those who do not buy unethical meat even though they are poor. But asking poor people as an aggregate to sacrifice for the sake of ethicality far more than richer people have to is not realistic. As an aggregate, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to buy unethical meat - because it's cheaper. You cannot solve the problem of unethical meat without first solving the problem of human poverty.

imho animals rights people who do not understand this are lacking in their political outlook. You need to empower people to make better choices. A dose of socialism would do that. And yes, socialism can only come from us, from below. But it comes from collective action, not from an aggregate of individual choices. That's why unions exist.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Okay, it might be because silk is perceived as being a luxury, while disease prevention is perceived as a necessity.  Anyway, caterpillars are cuter than maggots.


this
and is it not because it is an animal byproduct and they are sometimes farmed for it?
so that is where the objection comes from iirc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2014)

silk worms are always farmed. They are a domesticated species that does not exist in the wild.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think I must have been expressing it badly. My fault. But individual choices within a market are not going to be enough. Structurally, they can never be enough.
> 
> 'ethical meat' will have the premium for its enhanced ethicality. 'unethical meat' will be priced at a level that those at the bottom end of the wage scale can afford. Such people will not be able to afford to be ethical. And the market will be structured such that both exist - wherever the cheapest meat is unethical, wages will be set at a level such that those at the bottom will (on average) only be able to afford unethical meat.
> 
> ...


again the caveats of who is able to access and afford choices
also do you not agree that 'AR people' won't also give a massive shit about and be active in human rights issues too?
if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat they can and should fuck the right off!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2014)

ddraig said:


> again the caveats of who is able to access and afford choices
> also do you not agree that 'AR people' won't also give a massive shit about and be active in human rights issues too?
> if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat the can and should fuck the right off!


Fair play, ddraig. My post wasn't aimed at you at all. However, I have known ar people who didn't give too much of a shit about human affairs.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 14, 2014)

i know it wasn't aimed at me and didn;t think so
not long got in from north Wales after a few strong ciders on journey back! hic


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2014)

ddraig said:


> <snip> not long got in from north Wales after a few strong ciders on journey back! hic


Fair dos - that area could drive anyone to drink at times.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> silk worms are always farmed. They are a domesticated species that does not exist in the wild.


The silk worm, and the moth, existed in the wild before humans had anything to do with it.The reason for farming them is that unless you did, you'd need to live near a very heavily infested mulberry tree to get enough silk for more than a small hanky.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 14, 2014)

Greebo said:


> The silk worm, and the moth, existed in the wild before humans had anything to do with it.The reason for farming them is that unless you did, you'd need to live near a very heavily infested mulberry tree to get enough silk for more than a small hanky.


Their ancestors existed in the wild. but like sheep and cattle, they are a domesticated species.

Regardless of what you think of the ethics, the 5,000-year history of silk production is, imo, a remarkable example of human ability to bend nature to their needs.

I'm pretty sanguine about boiling insects alive, tbh. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't bring myself to have concern for the insects' wellbeing.


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 14, 2014)

Some silkworm cocoons earlier:


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Yes, unless you're a Jain, in which case it's not even okay to kill fly larvae.



I don't think any Jains have been contributing to this thread so far.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

ddraig said:


> if someone preaches to the less well off about what they should and shouldn't eat they can and should fuck the right off!



The rights of animals are therefore contingent upon the relative social/economic status of the humans who might or might not kill them;  not on some inherent right to life that pertains to animals.


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The rights of animals are therefore contingent upon the relative social/economic status of the humans who might or might not kill them;  not on some inherent right to life that pertains to animals.



No, I think it's more that the troll's arguments are contingent on how much of the byproduct of _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ he has consumed


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, I think it's more that the troll's arguments are contingent on how much of the byproduct of _Saccharomyces cerevisiae_ he has consumed



'It's a troll!.'

Fallback position for the weak-minded.


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> 'It's a troll!.'
> 
> Fallback position for the weak-minded.



Or perhaps a considered opinion after reading his "contributions", engaging with him and deciding that he's not actually interested, even if he were capable, of coming up with anything coherent.

(the latest example, in case you need me to spell it out, is that he throws his hands up in horror at the idea of silk worms being exploited by being farmed and their byproducts used, but is more than happy to endulge in alcohol, the byproduct of fermentation using, and then killing, yeast)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Or perhaps a considered opinion after reading his "contributions", engaging with him and deciding that he's not actually interested, even if he were capable, of coming up with anything coherent.




"It's a troll!"


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> "It's a troll!"



So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?



The latter! It's his schtick. Johnny Tangent


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> So, would you like to engage with the substance of what I've actually said, either just now or previously, or are you too reduced to spouting content-free nonsense?



The substance of what you said is, I'm a troll.

Now you want reflection on.... what?

You want a discussion, grow up first.


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The substance of what you said is, I'm a troll.
> 
> Now you want reflection on.... what?
> 
> You want a discussion, grow up first.



The substance of what I've said is that is incoherent and hypocritical for someone to bemoan the use of the byproducts of one species (silk worms) while endulging in the byproducts of another (yeast used in fermentation). This, combined with his various other "contributions" over the course of the thread, leads me to the conclusion that he is simply trolling, that he has nothing of any value to the discussion.

I haven't come to that conclusion about you yet but, you know, I'm certainly moving in that direction...


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> The substance of what I've said is that is incoherent and hypocritical for someone to bemoan the use of the byproducts of one species (silk worms) while endulging in the byproducts of another (yeast used in fermentation). <snip>


Is yeast more similar to a plant than to an animal?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I don't mind the meat-eating vegetarians, it's the non-meating ones I can't stand



It's piscetarians I loathe, the pisc-taking cunts!


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Or perhaps a considered opinion after reading his "contributions", engaging with him and deciding that he's not actually interested, even if he were capable, of coming up with anything coherent.
> 
> (the latest example, in case you need me to spell it out, is that he throws his hands up in horror at the idea of silk worms being exploited by being farmed and their byproducts used, but is more than happy to endulge in alcohol, the byproduct of fermentation using, and then killing, yeast)


are you talking about me here? 
if you are please quote where i've thrown my hands up in horror about silk worms?
and another bit of hypocrisy hunting there
oh and wheat does me in so you are wrong there too
appreciate if you stop making wild assumptions and accusations


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Is yeast more similar to a plant than to an animal?



Yeast is classed as a fungi, so neither animal or plant.

If anyone wants to argue that the use of byproducts from animal processes and the killing of those animals to exploit those byproducts (eg silk, honey, etc) is immoral, unethical, whatever, but doing so with fungi (or plants) is not (in other words, that there is something special about all animal life which doesn't apply to non-animal life, and which means we shouldn't exploit any animal life in any way*), then I'd be interested to read such an argument.

ETA *but we can do so freely with any other form of life


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's piscetarians I loathe, the pisc-taking cunts!


Nice word play, but they're pescatarians.


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

ddraig said:


> are you talking about me here?
> if you are please quote where i've thrown my hands up in horror about silk worms...





ddraig said:


> this
> and is it not because it [silk] is an animal byproduct and they [silk worms] are sometimes farmed for it?
> so that is where the objection comes from iirc



So just to clarify, is it OK to use silk worms and their byproducts or not? And if not, why not?



ddraig said:


> ...appreciate if you stop making wild assumptions and accusations



Says the one who's been making wild assumptions and accusations since the thread began...


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's piscetarians I loathe, the pisc-taking cunts!





Greebo said:


> Nice word play, but they're pescatarians.



You would have got away with it too, VP, if it hadn't been for that pesky "pecatarians" pedant


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 15, 2014)

Everyone draws their line. It would be as bonkers to draw the line at yeast as at plants, imo. Some kind of nervous system involving differentiation of tissues must surely be a prerequisite. 

The 'what is it like to be...' question is relevant here, I think. Not easy to answer.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> So just to clarify, is it OK to use silk worms and their byproducts or not? And if not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Says the one who's been making wild assumptions and accusations since the thread began...


so how is that in anyway "throwing my hands up in horror"?  it was actually asking for a clarification. so what you claimed was incorrect.
reel it in please


----------



## andysays (Mar 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Everyone draws their line. It would be as bonkers to draw the line at yeast as at plants, imo. Some kind of nervous system involving differentiation of tissues must surely be a prerequisite.
> 
> The 'what is it like to be...' question is relevant here, I think. Not easy to answer.



Yes, everyone draws their line, but if they want it to be more than just their own line, if they want to criticise others for drawing a different line and make wild accusations of them for doing so, they need to have some coherent and justifiable basis for doing so, otherwise it's just hot air.

And some plants have some kind of nervous system involving differentiation of tissues, so this is not a basis for differentiating.


----------



## fredfelt (Mar 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think I must have been expressing it badly. My fault. But individual choices within a market are not going to be enough. Structurally, they can never be enough.
> 
> 'ethical meat' will have the premium for its enhanced ethicality. 'unethical meat' will be priced at a level that those at the bottom end of the wage scale can afford. Such people will not be able to afford to be ethical. And the market will be structured such that both exist - wherever the cheapest meat is unethical, wages will be set at a level such that those at the bottom will (on average) only be able to afford unethical meat.
> 
> ...



I've just dropped back into this thread and I found your post interesting.  I have things in common with your way of thinking but I see things differently.

Individual choice is enough for me.  By that I mean the motivation for doing something does not have to be that you are wanting social change as a result of your actions.  It's enough for me that I'm fortunate enough to largely let my actions follow my principles.  My actions create my world.  

Thinking of bedding your actions for the purpose of collective good lets you fall into traps.  For example

"You cannot solve the problem of unethical meat without first solving the problem of human poverty."

Therefore I will do nothing.  It's not my problem.  It's the problem of society.

The truth is that you can solve the problems of unethical meat in circumstances you have control of.  This enough motivation for me to attempt to make my consumption patterns 'ethical'.

Also personally I feel that (a minimum level)respect for animals should be absolute.  Socialism may well help raise people living standards but you don't need socialism to implement minimum standards.  Sure in a global capitalist world you have your problems setting these standards but wider society still has some tools to use to raise animal welfare without first waiting for a revolution.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> You suggest that are some ways of killing animals you find "unacceptable", suggesting you wouldnt accept it... do you feel like you have *any* idea what death an animal you eat has had? I'd hedge my bets it was even the animal it said on the packaging, never mind if it had been killed in some kind of blissful stress-free way. The only way you can know is to see it for yourself.


Leicester survey finds half of meat product samples contained DNA of wrong animals, reinforcing fears of widespread meat contamination
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ts-contained-dna-wrong-animals-council-survey


----------



## yield (Mar 18, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Leicester survey finds half of meat product samples contained DNA of wrong animals, reinforcing fears of widespread meat contamination
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ts-contained-dna-wrong-animals-council-survey


Continuation of an earlier study. Not sure if I could be a vegetarian tbh. 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/a-third-of-food-is-mis-labeled.320379/


----------

