PETA: are you for them or against them?

[Vendetta]

I never say that animals are equal to humans. In fact, a cat is not equal to a frog. Every species is different.
The only way that the holocaust was worse is because humans have a different degree of intelligence and perception. Of course I agree with this.

But that doesn't or shouldn't negate the fact that what we do to non-human animals is still very, very barbaric. Just because one species is less intelligent than us does not mean that it is unaware of pain, that is does not suffer, that it has no understanding or emotions. These animals go through a very high degree of suffering. And unlike the holocaust, it goes on year after year after year with millions upon millions of sentient individuals being bred in captivity, taken away from their mother at a young age and being killed before they reach anything near old age.

This reality should not be ignored. And what I agree with PETA about, from that article, is that the animal situation relates to the holocaust because of our mindset. Because the fact remains that most people still think of animals as something inferior, something that we objectify for our selfish desires. Most people just don't care. And that is just as sickening as the people who did not care about those suffering under the holocaust. A general dismissal of the suffering that every individual victim must undergo due to our selfishness and ignorance.

Madhuri actually humans care about animals we just do so to a degree of values. For instance, no family would fathom grilling their pet dog, but we have no problem baking venison.

 

[Alceste]

Like I said in another thread, it seems for humanity all that counts is how much land we can get, how much money we can get, and how much power (where we have control for ourselves regardless of how bad things get) is wielded. That's what all the wars we've fought in have been about.

Humans wage war for the same reason chimps do.

[youtube]8DTkhp9sv58[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTkhp9sv58

 

[ninerbuff]

My only real observation is that humans seem to be able to sustain themselves on a variety of diets whether that is vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous or even mostly meat-based (and even junk-food based!).
So my argument to most people is that if you can be healthy as a vegetarian, there's no good reason why you shouldn't be except for if you truly do not care about the suffering of others.

Well, I haven't found anything in the plant world that tastes like steak or chicken. To me it's like sex: once you've had it, it's hard not to have it again.

 

[ninerbuff]

Humans wage war for the same reason chimps do.

[youtube]8DTkhp9sv58[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DTkhp9sv58

Well chimps don't screw each other over for a percentage.

 

[Alceste]

My only real observation is that humans seem to be able to sustain themselves on a variety of diets whether that is vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous or even mostly meat-based (and even junk-food based!).
So my argument to most people is that if you can be healthy as a vegetarian, there's no good reason why you shouldn't be except for if you truly do not care about the suffering of others.

Or you don't know how to do it. I was raised in beef country. Vegetarianism, for me, was a lot of pasta and "meat substitutes" like tofu because the only form of cooking I was familiar with was meat 'n' potatoes. I just cooked what I was used to and threw in tofu or wheat protein instead of meat. I didn't know what I was doing - I started at 13. As a kid, I just ate whatever was at the table, except for the meat. When I left home, I cooked whatever I could think of that didn't have meat in it. So, basically, salad with iceberg lettuce, pasta and sandwiches to fill the gap.

In the end, I returned to meat because I was tired all the time. Basically, my diet was nothing but wheat, and I think I may be glucose intolerant. About three years ago, I had a bit of beef at a Vietnamese restaurant because there was nothing vegetarian on the menu, and I was awake - properly awake - for the first time in 15 years. It lasted for almost two weeks.

So, I've realized that there's a right way and a wrong way to cut meat out of your diet. Eating nothing but fettucine alfredo for 15 years is the wrong way.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I haven't found anything in the plant world that tastes like steak or chicken. To me it's like sex: once you've had it, it's hard not to have it again.

Quorn is better than chicken.

 

[Valjean]

We aren't out to "conquer" animals. In fact most will agree that animals have some rights. We have preservations that are directed toward them and help protect them. So if the idea was to just obliterate and completely rule animals, it could have been done.

I think you missed my point, my friend. I'm asking why we do not give animals the same moral consideration as we do other humans. Why do we proclaim our right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but deny it to animals? Is excluding animals from equal moral consideration not the same moral error we made with blacks 200 years ago?

Your argument appears to be something of a "might makes right" one, thats why I brought up "conquerors," as, in human history, it's usually conceded to be wrong for one group to dominate or oppress another just because they're able to.

There have been eras where there the CO2 was much higher than today (think prehistoric) and animals with much larger appetites that ate vegetation by the tons still survived for millions of years. I think we'll be okay.



Get ready for another ice age. Humans adapt. So do animals. It's been that way for thousands of years.

My point is Speed!
Yes, climate changes, and plants and animals adapt -- to slow change. The change we wreak is fast, fast, fast!
Historically the handful of episodes when climate changed as fast as it's changing today have resulted in ecological collapse and mass extinctions. Earth took tens of millions of years to recover.

that he's a domestic terrorist or that he's a fine young man? Most fine young men don't blow up labs or are arsonists.

Stop throwing the "T" word around where it doesn't apply. Nobody was terrified. Rod wouldn't hurt a fly. In fact, had there been a hamster in the building he burned which he was unable to extract the whole operation would have been called off.

On a factory farm, if you've ever been to one, they don't use bolt guns to kill cattle. Normally they are stunned then slaughtered. Same with swine, although CO2 stunning is used on occasion.

News to me, though properly used a bolt gun is about as painless a way to go as you're likely to find.

We'll never agree here on the Holocaust and animal slaughter because we hold opposing views on the degree of humans and animals. I hold human over animal, so my view will always be that the Holocaust was much more horrific than animal slaughter.

I know references to the holocaust cause eyes to roll toward the heavens, but in some situations the analogy is apt.
In most cases the Nazis were just doing their jobs. They weren't being intentionally cruel. They designed their extermination camps and operations to be as efficient and painless as circumstances would allow.
Still, mass euthanasia is mass euthanasia.

Case in point: Had Rod Coronado torn up the tracks to Auschwitz or blown up a tank headed for France, would you still condemn him as a domestic terrorist?

 

[Vendetta]

Your friend should read the End of Food. He'd probably enjoy it.

We don't need to "over-consume". We - like all other life forms - only need to consume enough to survive. We are numerous, so our consumption leads to space-taking, polluting, etc. to the extent that other species have trouble competing. Do we need to eat meat every day? No. Do we need to live in 2000 square foot single family dwellings, often heated by coal? No. Do we need to drive everywhere? No. We can recognize, on the one hand, the basic fact of life that life is a competitive environment - everything has to eat something else to live - while on the other hand acknowledging that over-consumption is a threat not only to the survival of other species, but ultimately to our own.

Yes, a die-off is very likely, but it isn't necessary. The die-off your friend is talking about will occur because we are unwilling to change our habits; because we falsely believe our wanton waste of resources is "manifest destiny"; because we falsely believe we are set apart from (and more important than) the biosphere that sustains us; because we have constructed our society entirely on the ludicrous assumption that infinite human population growth is both possible and desirable.

There are alternatives, of course. We don't need to accept the four horsemen of the apocalypse (war, famine, plague and death) to re-balance the human influence on the biosphere. We could opt for vasectomies and vegetarianism. But we won't.

Well I don't do him justice by paraphrasing the things I remember from that conversation. His views are a bit more extensive, systematic at best so its a bit more complex. I think his point was we cannot stop overconsuming. Our population will continue to increase CO2 levels will build and the planet will continue to get warmer. Because human lifestyle has become generationally complacent, we will continue our path of overpopulation. Going green he says, is not enough. I actually agree. 6.5 billion people on the planet is too many people especially since our social needs have to be met. There is the die off theory as you mentioned and honestly to save our planet especially animals a lot of humans need to die.

 

[Vendetta]

in case of tail, its our ancestors who intended to lose it, as they felt difficult of it.


if our ancestors thought in this manner, we would be still having tail.

I don't think you can actively get rid of a phenotype (tail) a lot of features changed thanks to migration, environment and inter-mixing.

 

[Madhuri]

Madhuri actually humans care about animals we just do so to a degree of values. For instance, no family would fathom grilling their pet dog, but we have no problem baking venison.

That's cultural. A few countries enjoy eating dog.
What and who we care about is something we are trained to think.

Most people are trained to not think about the animal they are eating. A lot of people pretend it isn't so bad. A lot of people also believe that it is their right to kill and eat animals. This is largely due to the Judeo-Christian idea that animals are here for our benefit and use and the ancient Greek idea that animals lack sentience and can be treated in whatever way we please. These are the cultures that have predominantly shaped our western consciousness.

 

[Madhuri]

In the end, I returned to meat because I was tired all the time. Basically, my diet was nothing but wheat, and I think I may be glucose intolerant. About three years ago, I had a bit of beef at a Vietnamese restaurant because there was nothing vegetarian on the menu, and I was awake - properly awake - for the first time in 15 years. It lasted for almost two weeks.

So, I've realized that there's a right way and a wrong way to cut meat out of your diet. Eating nothing but fettucine alfredo for 15 years is the wrong way.

Wow, that is a significant difference!!
I've noticed that different people react to these diets differently. Some people feel much more energetic on a vegetarian or vegan diet and become lethargic when they eat meat.

I have eaten meat a couple of times by accident. The last time I ate two toasted sandwiches full of some mexican mix (beans, salsa) including beef. I thought it was mock-beef because a vegetarian had made it for me. But I found out later that day that it was actual beef. I felt absolutely no physical difference that time or any other time I ate meat.

One of my cousins was brought up vegetarian but decided to start eating meat (peer pressure). He said he hasn't experienced any changes with energy but will feel full longer if he eats meat.

So it really differs from one person to the next.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, I haven't found anything in the plant world that tastes like steak or chicken. To me it's like sex: once you've had it, it's hard not to have it again.

I assume you grew up with it though, right?
Because I've tasted a few different meats and was not impressed by any of them.

What we are brought up eating is generally what we tend to enjoy (like my Italian relatives who cannot tolerate Asian food or really anything that isn't made in Italy, hehe).

 

[ninerbuff]

I think you missed my point, my friend. I'm asking why we do not give animals the same moral consideration as we do other humans. Why do we proclaim our right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but deny it to animals? Is excluding animals from equal moral consideration not the same moral error we made with blacks 200 years ago?
Your argument appears to be something of a "might makes right" one, thats why I brought up "conquerors," as, in human history, it's usually conceded to be wrong for one group to dominate or oppress another just because they're able to.

Well if that were entirely true, then there wouldn't be poor or homeless in America. I know for a fact that are some animals (pets in particular) that get better health care, nutrition, exercise and lifestyle than their owners.

My point is Speed!
Yes, climate changes, and plants and animals adapt -- to slow change. The change we wreak is fast, fast, fast!
Historically the handful of episodes when climate changed as fast as it's changing today have resulted in ecological collapse and mass extinctions. Earth took tens of millions of years to recover.

I guess that I'll have to wait till 2028 to see. Apparently that's when a mass extinction, based on computer models is supposed.

Stop throwing the "T" word around where it doesn't apply. Nobody was terrified. Rod wouldn't hurt a fly. In fact, had there been a hamster in the building he burned which he was unable to extract the whole operation would have been called off.

But he would sink a whaling ship with people on board. If he would have firebombed the capitol, even without people in it, would it still be considered a non terrorist act?

News to me, though properly used a bolt gun is about as painless a way to go as you're likely to find.

I know references to the holocaust cause eyes to roll toward the heavens, but in some situations the analogy is apt.
In most cases the Nazis were just doing their jobs. They weren't being intentionally cruel. They designed their extermination camps and operations to be as efficient and painless as circumstances would allow.
Still, mass euthanasia is mass euthanasia.

We differ on opinions, but I'm sure that's because of the way we view human life and animal life.

 

[Alceste]

Wow, that is a significant difference!!
I've noticed that different people react to these diets differently. Some people feel much more energetic on a vegetarian or vegan diet and become lethargic when they eat meat.

I have eaten meat a couple of times by accident. The last time I ate two toasted sandwiches full of some mexican mix (beans, salsa) including beef. I thought it was mock-beef because a vegetarian had made it for me. But I found out later that day that it was actual beef. I felt absolutely no physical difference that time or any other time I ate meat.

One of my cousins was brought up vegetarian but decided to start eating meat (peer pressure). He said he hasn't experienced any changes with energy but will feel full longer if he eats meat.

So it really differs from one person to the next.

It's only that you need to eat something instead of meat that gives you a similar spectrum of nutrients. You can't just substitute carbs (bread and pasta) for proteins (meat). I intend to start over at some point, but I need to get a handle on the whole idea of legumes and food combination.

 

[ninerbuff]

I assume you grew up with it though, right?
Because I've tasted a few different meats and was not impressed by any of them.

What we are brought up eating is generally what we tend to enjoy (like my Italian relatives who cannot tolerate Asian food or really anything that isn't made in Italy, hehe).

Haha! If you call spam real meat! Though we ate meat in my family, I really didn't start eating "higher quality" meat till I got out on my own. And like you stated, since protein takes longer to digest, many feel fuller longer and doesn't spike insulin like carbs do. For many insulin spiking can cause the craving of more food.

 

[nameless]

I don't think you can actively get rid of a phenotype (tail) a lot of features changed thanks to migration, environment and inter-mixing.

thanks, but to my understanding, we lost it because it became useless when we stood erect.
feel free to correct me ....

 

[Valjean]

Geeze! This thread is hot! I go away half an hour and there's a whole page of new posts.

Well if that were entirely true, then there wouldn't be poor or homeless in America. I know for a fact that are some animals (pets in particular) that get better health care, nutrition, exercise and lifestyle than their owners.

No argument about the pampered pets (or is it the downtrodden poor?) But I'm afraid I'm missing your point in the 1st sentence.

I guess that I'll have to wait till 2028 to see. Apparently that's when a mass extinction, based on computer models is supposed.

Hah! Like the computer models won't change a hundred times before then! This is a whole new area of inquiry.

But he would sink a whaling ship with people on board. If he would have firebombed the capitol, even without people in it, would it still be considered a non terrorist act?

-- It makes no difference weather an animal walks on two legs or four. ALF & ELF respect sentient life. They don't kill or terrorize things. Terrorists use fear of injury, torture or death to cow or coerce -- that's why they're called terrorists.
Sabotage yes. Terrorism no.

We differ on opinions, but I'm sure that's because of the way we view human life and animal life.

Makes for an interesting discussion, though.:yes:

 

[Valjean]

thanks, but to my understanding, we lost it because it became useless when we stood erect.
feel free to correct me ....

As we became more civilized we found it just wouldn't fit right in trowsers.

 

[ninerbuff]

Geeze! This thread is hot! I go away half an hour and there's a whole page of new posts.


No argument about the pampered pets (or is it the downtrodden poor?) But I'm afraid I'm missing your point in the 1st sentence.

You were referring to our morals between human and animal. I referred back that the poor and homeless are treated in some ways worse than animals on a factory farm. While the poor and homeless aren't slaughtered for food, they are forgotten when it comes to health care, food, and even shelter.

Hah! Like the computer models won't change a hundred times before then! This is a whole new area of inquiry.

Won't know that. What if there is a volcanic eruption like Krakatoa? That would totally change the computer models. Or a solar flare event? Like I said, there are invariables that aren't considered in computer models that can change the outcome.

-- It makes no difference weather an animal walks on two legs or four. ALF & ELF respect sentient life. They don't kill or terrorize things. Terrorists use fear of injury, torture or death to cow or coerce -- that's why they're called terrorists.
Sabotage yes. Terrorism no.

Destruction of property by fire (arson) is a felony and if done maliciously by a "rights or extreme group" is viewed as an act of terrorism.
If someone robbed someone without harming them, it's still robbery.

Makes for an interesting discussion, though.:yes:

Yep!

 

[Alceste]

You could say destruction of private property is considered terrorism by law, and by our private property obsessed, paranoid ruling class, but it doesn't satisfy the conscience to define it that way. Who is "terrorized" by a bit of vandalism?

Keep in mind, you can be classified as a terrorist under the patriot act for any speech or action the president deems contrary to his notion of the national interest. Governments are always chomping at the bit to define dissidents as terrorists. Normal people should not take the bait.