Cows need us to eat them

ScumLord

I can understand the health benefits of having a vegetarian diet (although I'm not convinced cutting meat out entirely is a good thing seeing as we're omnivore) but I can't understand the logic behind saying it's cruelty to animals.

First off all domesticated farm animals can and do live a good life (the living conditions of animals on large industrial farms is disgusting but in a normal farm setting it's different, I'm all for organic, did the course an all) they get free medical care, something no wild animal would get. Their protected after and get the best of food, they never go hungry and when the time does eventually come for them it's relatively quick compared to any other predator bar maybe a snake. It's without doubt better than being ripped to peaces by a pack of wild African dogs. Nearly all other animals on the planet don't think ahead they can't imagine whats going to happen to them so don't live in fear of the day they get a bolt through the head. They live a good live.

The 2nd thing is, what would happen to all these domesticated animals if humans didn't eat them? They'd be practically wiped out. No farmer could afford to keep a herd of cattle if he wasn't making money out of it. Cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep would be on the endangered list within no time as mass culling take place and grazing land is replaced by crops. Remember that especially in Europe there is nowhere for these animals to go not that they could survive on their own anymore 1000s of years depending on humans wipes out their ability to take care of themselves.

Then of course there's the upset to the environment. Like I already said Europe has been farmland for 1000s of years, take Ireland, there's practically no wild countryside left. The Eco system has adapted to a farming culture, granted most of it revolves around crop cycles but who knows what kind of damage could be done removing millions of animals from that ecosystem.

Humans are part of the ecosystem not removed from it. There are many species that depend on us doing what we're doing. It's not wrong to be part of that.

Nature Boy

ScumLord wrote:

First off all domesticated farm animals can and do live a good life (the living conditions of animals on large industrial farms is disgusting but in a normal farm setting it's different, I'm all for organic, did the course an all) they get free medical care, something no wild animal would get. Their protected after and get the best of food, they never go hungry

Yes but they pay for it by having to die at a fraction of their life expetency.

ScumLord wrote:

The 2nd thing is, what would happen to all these domesticated animals if humans didn't eat them?

They wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't eat them

ScumLord wrote:

There are many species that depend on us doing what we're doing. It's not wrong to be part of that.

So how did they survive before we existed?

seamus

You're ignoring a critical part of the ideal - not everyone is vegetarian for the same reason. Not everyone who is vegetarian thinks it's an inherently healthier diet. In fact, it can be much less healthy unless you specifically account for the nutrients you're not getting from meat. Some people eat vegetarian because they think it's healthier for them. Others eat vegetarian because they think it's cruel. Others eat vegetarian because they simply don't like the taste of meat.

On declaring that they're vegetarian, 99% of people will be asked "Why?". We have to resist the urge to tell people to **** off and mind their own business (I don't ask you why you don't eat carrots, for example), instead usually opting to explain ourselves. Then you have to argue your point. Most meat-eaters will attempt to argue the case for eating meat, without having done any research into it. Most vegetarians willl let you get on with your meat eating without saying another word. Why are you so threatened by vegetarians? What effect does the composition of someone else's diet have on you? Why do you feel the need to prove that you're right?

ScumLord

seamus wrote:

We have to resist the urge to tell people to **** off and mind their own business

Well that isn't a very nice or sociable thing to do. People are always curious about things that are slightly out of the ordinary. Like I pointed out the post was more so directed at the cruelty to animals position.

nature boy wrote:

Why are you so threatened by vegetarians?

I'm not, just curious, why are you so defensive?

nature boy wrote:

They wouldn't exist in the first place if we didn't eat them

How did we eat them if they didn't exist? The domesticated animal might not exist if things where different but things aren't different. Are you implying it's ok to wipe them out because we created them?

nature boy wrote:

So how did they survive before we existed?

The wild animals that include us in there daily life's probably did get along fine without us at one stage but then they adapted to a human world. Some, maybe most could survive if there was a massive change in our lifestyles but your still going to cause a massive upset, I don't know what would happen but we've made silly mistakes before trying to do the right thing.

Hugh Hefner

I suppose a lot of people see wantingly killing animals to be more cruel than letting nature take its course. They (and this includes me) might believe that, for the sake of things like dignity, self-respect, "the right thing to do", etc., that it is most important not to be involved in killing animals in any way.

pwd

oddly enough cows get on ok in hindu countries

grahamo

ScumLord wrote:

I can understand the health benefits of having a vegetarian diet (although I'm not convinced cutting meat out entirely is a good thing seeing as we're omnivore) but I can't understand the logic behind saying it's cruelty to animals.

First off all domesticated farm animals can and do live a good life (the living conditions of animals on large industrial farms is disgusting but in a normal farm setting it's different, I'm all for organic, did the course an all) they get free medical care, something no wild animal would get. Their protected after and get the best of food, they never go hungry and when the time does eventually come for them it's relatively quick compared to any other predator bar maybe a snake. It's without doubt better than being ripped to peaces by a pack of wild African dogs. Nearly all other animals on the planet don't think ahead they can't imagine whats going to happen to them so don't live in fear of the day they get a bolt through the head. They live a good live.

The 2nd thing is, what would happen to all these domesticated animals if humans didn't eat them? They'd be practically wiped out. No farmer could afford to keep a herd of cattle if he wasn't making money out of it. Cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep would be on the endangered list within no time as mass culling take place and grazing land is replaced by crops. Remember that especially in Europe there is nowhere for these animals to go not that they could survive on their own anymore 1000s of years depending on humans wipes out their ability to take care of themselves.

Then of course there's the upset to the environment. Like I already said Europe has been farmland for 1000s of years, take Ireland, there's practically no wild countryside left. The Eco system has adapted to a farming culture, granted most of it revolves around crop cycles but who knows what kind of damage could be done removing millions of animals from that ecosystem.

Humans are part of the ecosystem not removed from it. There are many species that depend on us doing what we're doing. It's not wrong to be part of that.

I agree! Plus some of these animals are quite tasty! Especially with gravy or stuffing. Its not natural or healthy to be a vegetarian. We're OMNIVORES! Top of the food chain and all you veggies are not getting enough iron or B Vitamins. You probably won't be able to reply to this either as you won't have the energy if your a vegetarian.

Mentalmiss

grahamo wrote:

I agree! Plus some of these animals are quite tasty! Especially with gravy or stuffing. Its not natural or healthy to be a vegetarian. We're OMNIVORES! Top of the food chain and all you veggies are not getting enough iron or B Vitamins. You probably won't be able to reply to this either as you won't have the energy if your a vegetarian.

Been Veg for more than 30 years.
Had my blood checked about 2 weeks ago. My iron and B vits are perfect. I will send you the results if you doubt it.
PS. I do not approve of or take supplements.
Edited to add that one of the best sources of iron is wild nettles.

rockbeer

ScumLord, would you consider it reasonable to keep a human animal in a prison for most of its life, and then kill it when it suited you?

So why is it OK to treat a non-human animal that way?

Nature Boy

grahamo wrote:

Its not natural or healthy to be a vegetarian

Ok. Carry on...

Why are you even on the Vegetarian forum?

rediguana

One point that I DO agree with is that wild animals rarely meet with a rosy ending. If you don't get pulled limb from limb by a predator, starvation is your unhappy lot.

I don't think the OP came across as being threatened by vegetarians. On the contrary, I think that vegetarians can be overly-sensitive to perceived attacks on their creed. Mitigating that, they DO seem to have to justify their eating habits more so than any other group, and I guess this breeds defensiveness.

In general, animals within the food chain aren't treated well. It's a good thing that vegans / vegetarians keep this debate alive.

TheBigLebowski

ScumLord wrote:

Their protected after and get the best of food, they never go hungry and when the time does eventually come for them it's relatively quick compared to any other predator bar maybe a snake. It's without doubt better than being ripped to peaces by a pack of wild African dogs. Nearly all other animals on the planet don't think ahead they can't imagine whats going to happen to them so don't live in fear of the day they get a bolt through the head. They live a good live.

The 2nd thing is, what would happen to all these domesticated animals if humans didn't eat them? They'd be practically wiped out. No farmer could afford to keep a herd of cattle if he wasn't making money out of it. Cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep would be on the endangered list within no time as mass culling take place and grazing land is replaced by crops. Remember that especially in Europe there is nowhere for these animals to go not that they could survive on their own anymore 1000s of years depending on humans wipes out their ability to take care of themselves.

Then of course there's the upset to the environment. Like I already said Europe has been farmland for 1000s of years, take Ireland, there's practically no wild countryside left. The Eco system has adapted to a farming culture, granted most of it revolves around crop cycles but who knows what kind of damage could be done removing millions of animals from that ecosystem.

Humans are part of the ecosystem not removed from it. There are many species that depend on us doing what we're doing. It's not wrong to be part of that.

I think you're missing a lot of points. Millions of people die of terminal illnesses, others get hit by a car and die a slow death with severe internal injuries. Should we kill everybody quickly now because people like you percieve it as a better death?

The other point you are completely missing is that farm animals would not be on the farms in the first place if people did not want to kill them for food. The farmer wouldn't have to worry about being able to afford to keep a herd of cattle because he wouldn't have one.

There are several sources of good information you should read including an explanation of how cattle farming is a lot harsher on the environment than crops. For instance, it takes 16 kilos of corn, beans, grains, etc, to produce one kilo of beef. The same area of land can feed 20 times as many people eating a vegetarian diet than a meat diet.

Wishbone Ash

Edit:duplicate post

Wishbone Ash

We don't really eat cows here. It's mainly bullocks and heifers. Cows are generally used to supply milk.

TheBigLebowski

And another point OP. You seem concerned at the prospect of animals becoming extinct? How many animals do you think have become extinct since Europe was cut down for grazing? More than 1000 species are becoming extinct every year due to destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats.

rediguana

Wishbone Ash wrote:

We don't really eat cows here. It's mainly bullocks and heifers. Cows are generally used to supply milk.

I think the OP might have just as easily called his post "Bullocks and heifers need us to eat them" and the whole argument would stay the same

Interesting point, though. I've studied (one module of!) Agronomics (is this even what the economics of agriculture is called???) and I still don't know what the difference is between bulls / bullocks / cows / heifers / horses. I'm sure it would be easy to find out.

rediguana

TheBigLebowski wrote:

And another point OP. You seem concerned at the prospect of animals becoming extinct? How many animals do you think have become extinct since Europe was cut down for grazing? More than 1000 species are becoming extinct every year due to destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats.

If that's an accurate figure, it's pretty depressing. In this week's "Economist", there is a story about how the Canadians-clubbing-seal-cubs debate will soon be obsolete, as the melting ice has drowned so many of the cutie pies this season before the clubbers could get to them.

I try to be optimistic (what else can you do?). For those inclined to more roseate views of things, read "The Sceptical Environmentalist" (sorry, I know I'm terribly off-topic here).

Wishbone Ash

rediguana wrote:

I still don't know what the difference is between bulls / bullocks / cows / heifers / horses

Bull=natural bovine male
Bullock=castrated bovine male
Cow=adult bovine female who has given birth to a calf
Heifer=adult bovine female who has not yet given birth

Horse=different breed altogether - equine with solid hoof as opposed to split hoof bovine.

seamus

ScumLord wrote:

I'm not, just curious, why are you so defensive?

I'm not defensive at all. I'm just curious as to why some people, instead of discussing the idea, push a strongly pro-meat-eating agenda. When I read your first post, it immediately made me think of that video from the vegetarian episode of the Simpsons.

ScumLord

Must be all the red meat coursing through my veins.

for the sake of things like dignity, self-respect, "the right thing to do", etc., that it is most important not to be involved in killing animals in any way.

Why? Dignity and self respect aren't things that other animals outside of the higher primates and maybe dolphins can even begin to understand. Why is it wrong for humans to play the part they've always played in the food chain?

We have a relationship with these animals just like lions have relationships with gazelles. Who come it's ok for every other living thing to kill and not us. People have painted humans out to be monsters for doing what we evolved to do. If it wasn't for becoming a meat eater their would be no human race.

ScumLord, would you consider it reasonable to keep a human animal in a prison for most of its life, and then kill it when it suited you?

chalk and cheese, do "bovines" know their prisoners? could they even comprehend what a prison is? Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, I couldn't hold a person prisoner and kill them when it suited me, no.

How many animals do you think have become extinct since Europe was cut down for grazing? More than 1000 species are becoming extinct every year due to destruction of tropical rain forests and related habitats.

Well Europe changing over to farming wouldn't have happened all that quickly so most animals would have had time to adapt but some where lost as the environment changed but that's done it's happened can we justify doing it again, knowingly this time to animals that have served us well for thousands of years.

We are part of the ecosystem a very big part at this stage, animals that could find a place in our society flourished. Species wise that could only be seen as a good thing, lots of animals have cruel or unusual symbiotic or even parasitic relationships with other animals and we're no different. Why is that bad it's just natures way. In the end there will probably be a big pay back to mother nature for giving us such free rain.

Peanut

ScumLord wrote:

.. If it wasn't for becoming a meat eater their would be no human race.

That is highly questionable at best. Species have gone through various meat-eating & non-meat eating adaptations through history, if you look at other non-human primates you can quickly see that being (mostly) vegetarian is no obstacle at all to development or sustainability of that species.

ScumLord wrote:

chalk and cheese, do "bovines" know their prisoners? could they even comprehend what a prison is? Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, I couldn't hold a person prisoner and kill them when it suited me, no.

Where do you draw the line? At how dumb looking an animal is?...
Is is ok to rear gorillas for food?

Humans are just clever & slightly less hairy animals...! (for the most part..)

I think this debate is interesting because it seems to go back to old religious beliefs of humans needing to feel special & dominant over other life. Of course, we are (pending giant space ant invasion :rolleyes: ), but I'm sure that doesn't mean that we have to be assholes to all other life sharing the planet.

ScumLord

if you look at other non-human primates you can quickly see that being (mostly) vegetarian is no obstacle at all to development or sustainability of that species.

You just have to look at the belly of say a chip to see the difference meat makes to an animal. Chimps have huge guts, necessary to process a vegetarian diet. We don't, guts require a large proportion of your energy intake to support them a switch to meat shortened the gut meaning their was allot of energy left over which went to the brain.

Chimps show very human like behaviour when eating meat. Chimps are the 2nd smartest primate and the only other one to eat meat. It requires more skill to catch and eat meat and it required leaps in intelligence to find the left over meat on a carcass when our traditional food supply first ran out. Meat from what I've been told was a big contributing factor to the development of the modern human.

I think this debate is interesting because it seems to go back to old religious beliefs of humans needing to feel special & dominant over other life. QUOTE] This is actually the thinking behind my argument. Taking us out of the food chain is like saying we're above all this nature lark, we don't need to rely on instinct and what went before because we know best. People have become disconnected from their food and then shocked when they find out whats actually involved in the natural process.

but I'm sure that doesn't mean that we have to be assholes to all other life sharing the planet.

We must be the only animal that ever existed on this planet that felt bad about eating a meal. We're not bad, we do have compassion for other animals something which every other animal lacks. We are different and it has to be said the perfect animal so we are dominant but we can't survive on our own we are part of a system if we pull ourselves out of the system it collapses and then we die.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

chalk and cheese, do "bovines" know their prisoners? could they even comprehend what a prison is? Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, I couldn't hold a person prisoner and kill them when it suited me, no.

So are you saying if a group of humans could be conditioned to live in imprisonment in such a way that they didn't know what was happening to them that this would be OK because they didn't understand their condition?

ScumLord wrote:

We are ... the perfect animal

You're quite funny scumlord. Do you really believe this?

Hugh Hefner

ScumLord wrote:

Why? Dignity and self respect aren't things that other animals outside of the higher primates and maybe dolphins can even begin to understand.

Dignity and self-respect don't depend on other people, or on other animals. They're not relative, just subjective. So whether other species understand it or not means nothing.

Why is it wrong for humans to play the part they've always played in the food chain?

Well, first we have to see whether or not that "part" is wrong on its own. I would argue that humans don't need to kill animals to survive, we don't even need to kill them to be fully fit and healthy. We have a choice and the fact is that people eat animals because they prefer to, and that, I would argue, is wrong.
Also, I would say that doing something wrong for a long time doesn't make it okay to continue.

We have a relationship with these animals just like lions have relationships with gazelles. Who come it's ok for every other living thing to kill and not us. People have painted humans out to be monsters for doing what we evolved to do.
If it wasn't for becoming a meat eater their would be no human race.

One could argue that again it is an issue of choice. Lions, etc. have no choice but to kill for food if they want to live. Aswell as that Lions and other animals, as you said earlier, don't have the brain function to understand the gravity of their actions. They are more based in instinct. Humans do understand their actions and their choices.

My own personal opinion is that, apart from the excuse of not understanding their actions, it is not okay for every other living thing to kill. I don't believe that survival is a good enough reason to kill. Therefore I certainly don't think that the luxury of eating meat is.

TheBigLebowski

Have you ever seen a lion trying to drive a massey ferguson? Disastrous...
They dont have a choice. We do.

Schlemm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

We don't really eat cows here. It's mainly bullocks and heifers. Cows are generally used to supply milk.

A dairy farmer will replace about 20% of his herd every year, and some of these cows will finish as beef but it's cheaper meat and winds up in restaurants, etc.

Not a vegetarian myself but I think that we should demand higher standards in farming especially in the area of intensively reared pigs and chickens. Buycotts will make a bigger impact than boycotts on farming practices (just look at organic veg), and many farmers and most of the new welfare legislation takes an anthropocentric view of animal welfare, ie, that good welfare should be practiced because consumers demand it. IMO people who eat meat and demand higher standards in the meat industry (as well as better labelling laws) will make a bigger impact on farming practices than those who don't eat meat and who don't campaign for better welfare.

Even if you're not going to eat meat, animals will still be slaughtered for it for the forseeable future. Whatever your reasons for going veg are, animals will still be farmed for meat. Regardless of our diet, we should all know how animals wind up on our plates and we should change some of the practices out there, especially for chickens and pigs.

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

You're quite funny scumlord. Do you really believe this?

Of course. I suppose it all depends on what your definition of perfect is but the human has the tool set to make it dominate over every other animal.

Our brain is the biggest obvious advantage but our bodies are also unique and allow us to have an amazing range of skills. Our skin is fairly unique (at heat control) our hands are just hands down the best set of paws available on the market today. We're still only really beginning to find the limitations of the human body just look at what free runners can achieve as well as other martial arts. Then of course there's the human social network that makes us practically invincible.

Overall the human is the best all rounder, would you really want to be another animal, think of all that you'd lose.

Hugh Hefner wrote:

We have a choice and the fact is that people eat animals because they prefer to, and that, I would argue, is wrong.
Also, I would say that doing something wrong for a long time doesn't make it okay to continue.

Right and wrong isn't something that exists outside of human society, I don't think it's as simple as saying we have a choice. If one of the choices leads to paying more, job losses and the downfall of more than one species of animal.

hugh hefner wrote:

Humans do understand their actions and their choices.

We do (at least should, I think that people in city's might be too far removed from nature to understand their food) respect our animals, we did eat them out of necessity throughout history, some tribes couldn't survive without their cattle and will often go hungry themselves to ensure the animal survives. We give the animals good lives and (did) only take what we needed.

hugh hefner wrote:

My own personal opinion is that, apart from the excuse of not understanding their actions, it is not okay for every other living thing to kill. I don't believe that survival is a good enough reason to kill. Therefore I certainly don't think that the luxury of eating meat is.

But this is a kill or be killed world it's just the way nature works. Nature has decided thats the best way to run things we're the only animal that thinks otherwise and really that instinct only poped up to protect ourselves and ensure a more harmonious social group. It's not "wrong" or a bad thing to kill.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

Of course. I suppose it all depends on what your definition of perfect is but the human has the tool set to make it dominate over every other animal.

So in your mind dominant=perfect?

Scary.

Were dinosaurs perfect too?

Seems to me that we're perfect at being human (well, some of us ), just as cats are perfect at being cats and sloths, sloths etc. Perfect as a relative concept between different species makes no sense at all to me I'm afraid.

To put it another way, would a 'perfect' species commit genocide, destroy its environment and act without respect towards the 'lesser' species it dominates?

ScumLord wrote:

Our brain is the biggest obvious advantage but our bodies are also unique and allow us to have an amazing range of skills. Our skin is fairly unique (at heat control) our hands are just hands down the best set of paws available on the market today. We're still only really beginning to find the limitations of the human body just look at what free runners can achieve as well as other martial arts. Then of course there's the human social network that makes us practically invincible.

Overall the human is the best all rounder, would you really want to be another animal, think of all that you'd lose.

No one is denying the dominance of humans under the prevailing geographical conditions. Of course this is all entirely irrelevant to the discussion, and so far from evidence for our 'perfection' as to be laughable.

You haven't answered the question of whether it would be OK to imprison and then kill humans if they could be conditioned not to understand their predicament. Which is highly relevant because it is of course how all domesticated animals came to be domesticated. Have you ever seen someone 'break' a wild horse? (The term 'break' is spot on) Have you ever stumbled across a wild boar in the woods?

No wild animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture. Yet you talk as though the cows just wandered up to us one day and asked if they could please live in our nice looking fields.

So I ask again, if you would not treat a human that way, why is it acceptable to so treat other species? And as somebody else said, where do you draw the line?

P.S. You really do live in a fantasy world if you think we only take the animal life we need to. Have you heard of overfishing? Do you know that around 30% of food is wasted in the developed world? What about all the animals we have hunted to extinction? You're worryingly selective in your treatment of the facts.

ScumLord

So in your mind dominant=perfect?

Scary.

Well there is truth in that (not exactly where I was heading but..) If an animal is spreading and becomes a dominant species it is obviously better than the other animals in it's enviorment.

The human body is in my mind the best configuration of the mamal body there is. We can outrun just about any other animal (under the right conditions I'm not implying that any one of us could hop of the couch and outrun a lion) we're in the same league as dogs for sustained effort over great distances. Our methods of comunication are unmatched. we can climb and swim better than most and in some instances nearly as good as animal evolved specifically for the task. We can put ourselfs in the mindset of all other animals and predict there behavior which makes us the best hunters on the planet. If you can think of another animal that you'd rather be I'd like to hear it.

To put it another way, would a 'perfect' species commit genocide, destroy its environment and act without respect towards the 'lesser' species it dominates?

You think all these things are unique to humans??? There not and like I said we're the only animal that shows respect for our prey. Allot of other animals will kill the young of others just so there's no competition. When a new alpha male comes into a group he's first action is usually to kill the young of the last male. Ants go on massive conquests killing everything they come across it's only their small size that stops them cuasing major damage. We're just big, we do things on grand scales so it becomes obvious the effect we're having on the world.

No wild animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture. Yet you talk as though the cows just wandered up to us one day and asked if they could please live in our nice looking fields.

Domestic animals where forced into the realtionship but farm animals do like their farmer. If you ever see a farmer walk into a field (just the farmer mind not anyone that walks into the field) every animal in the field comes over to him. They allow the farmer to treat them, milk them and shear them. They buck alright but they do basically sit still until their let go.

So I ask again, if you would not treat a human that way, why is it acceptable to so treat other species? And as somebody else said, where do you draw the line?

I don't think it's realivant. Each animal treats it's own species diferent to every other species. Lions don't go around eating lions, you get sick from eating your own species. Maybe it would make more sense if you said an alien species came to earth would I eat them? If they asked me not to I wouldn't. You draw the line at your own species basically is the way nature has set things up. I wouldn't eat any of the higher primates though I think there to inteligent and would understand what was happening to them.

P.S. You really do live in a fantasy world if you think we only take the animal life we need to.

That's why I put the inverted commas in that sentence. Throughout time the entire animal was used, lately industrial farming has spoilt us and we're wasting allot of the carcas (like the bear in America who'll eat the eggs out of salmon and throw the rest of the fish away because there's so many). I don't like industrial farming and would always go for local organic meat. Industrial famring is an abuse of the system and dosn't really help anyone.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

Well there is truth in that (not exactly where I was heading but..) If an animal is spreading and becomes a dominant species it is obviously better than the other animals in it's enviorment.

You're avoiding the question... You used the word perfect originally. Shall I take your refusal to use it again as a retraction?

ScumLord wrote:

You think all these things are unique to humans???

I didn't say that. I asked whether a perfect species would do these things. Once again you haven't answered the question. Are you a politician by any chance?

ScumLord wrote:

There not and like I said we're the only animal that shows respect for our prey. Allot of other animals will kill the young of others just so there's no competition. When a new alpha male comes into a group he's first action is usually to kill the young of the last male.

Humans do this too. The murder of infants by step-parents is the most common murder of all.

ScumLord wrote:

We're just big, we do things on grand scales so it becomes obvious the effect we're having on the world.

That's a shocking evasion of responsibility. You seem to fail to realize that you're a member of the only species to have even attempted to invent technology specifically to aid its bloodthirsty compulsions.

ScumLord wrote:

Domestic animals where forced into the realtionship but farm animals do like their farmer.

Some prisoners grow to like their prison warders, that doesn't make them any less prisoners.

ScumLord wrote:

I don't think it's realivant. Each animal treats it's own species diferent to every other species.

Of course, but no other species enslaves other species or members of its own. In that we are, I think, unique.

ScumLord wrote:

Maybe it would make more sense if you said an alien species came to earth would I eat them?

Maybe the question you need to be asking yourself is how you would feel if they decided to imprison and then eat you. Based on your arguments, you should accept this arrangement gratefully. Who knows, you might even grow to like them over time

ScumLord, please apply your magnificent human intelligence to learning how to use a spell checker.

Tivoli

wonder if panda tastes nice, bet if it did the extinction problem would be sorted thanks to every farmer in the planet trying to raise them

RE*AC*TOR

If we don't eat cattle, how will they graduate from Bovine University?

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

You're avoiding the question... You used the word perfect originally.

Maybe perfect isn't the best word to use but the main goals of any species is to reproduce and survive. We're excellent at both, better than just about any other animal even with offspring that are very difficult to raise. The human is hands down the greatest animal to ever walk the face of the earth and it's not a stretch to describe them as the perfect animal as there's nothing beyond our reach.

rockbeer wrote:

I didn't say that. I asked whether a perfect species would do these things.

Obviously I think the perfect species would as we do. Your definition of what makes a good animal is different to mine and I don't think your perfect species would last long in the real world.

rockbeer wrote:

Humans do this too. The murder of infants by step-parents is the most common murder of all.

Never heard that stat before. :eek:

rockbeer wrote:

That's a shocking evasion of responsibility.

It's not. It's just a fact, I'm not saying we shouldn't change that and work towards doing allot less damage to our ecosystem it's just a plain fact that we will be a big drain on the ecosystem and we didn't realise this until recently. Give us a break like, now that we know we are changing.

rockbeer wrote:

You seem to fail to realize that you're a member of the only species to have even attempted to invent technology specifically to aid its bloodthirsty compulsions.

mmmmm.. I don't know if that can be held against us, chimps use tools to get termites and I'm almost sure there are examples of other animals using tools to get food, animals that use poison would be another (very lose) example. If other animals could do what we do I think it would be fair to assume they'd take full advantage.

Some prisoners grow to like their prison warders, that doesn't make them any less prisoners.

Maybe it does?? Bring a little light into their life, feel less oppressed???

Maybe the question you need to be asking yourself is how you would feel if they decided to imprison and then eat you.

I don't think I'd like it at all, although it could be happening now and I just don't know it, in which case I don't care. Your still comparing two things that just aren't alike. Cows don't hold funerals they don't cry over missing colleges, if one disappears they don't go off their food they just get on with their lives. Why is it not wrong to kill all living things? Plants are alive. Why is it ok for our immune system to kill bacteria that are just going about their daily business. I trust in mother nature she said eat meat and look where it got us.

Hugh Hefner

ScumLord wrote:

I trust in mother nature she said eat meat and look where it got us.

This seems to be a pretty chilling comment throughout your posts. Mother Nature isn't some intelligent consciousness that you can foist all responsibility for your lifestyle on to. Have you thought what would have happened if early humans didn't eat meat? While I'm sure certain tribes would have died/never gotten going, would you agree that it's highly possible that our "perfect animal" adaptation abilities would have served us well and that humans would have flourished very similarly to the historical truth (differences in culture aside)?

Surely if that is true then it shows that there is no nature-defined right or wrong and that such things are for us to decide.

Besides, I could just as well say that Mother Nature has brought us to a position where we no longer need to eat meat and so it's a moot point.

rockbeer

Not sure why I'm still keeping this going, but what the hell, here's one last reply...

ScumLord wrote:

Obviously I think the perfect species would as we do. Your definition of what makes a good animal is different to mine and I don't think your perfect species would last long in the real world.

Er... you haven't even asked me what my perfect species would be. Sounds like you're making assumptions based on the questions I ask.

I don't have time for ridiculous concepts like 'perfect species'. Evolution imho leads to accidental outcomes based on environmental conditions. We are dominant now but who can say what will be dominant or whether there will be life at all at an arbitrary point in the future.

Your insistence on this kind of thinking in fact separates you from your environment despite your insistence that humanity is a part of it.

ScumLord wrote:

It's not. It's just a fact, I'm not saying we shouldn't change that and work towards doing allot less damage to our ecosystem it's just a plain fact that we will be a big drain on the ecosystem and we didn't realise this until recently. Give us a break like, now that we know we are changing.

"Give us a break" he says. If it wasn't for people like me pointing out the deficiencies in our collective behaviour we'd still be in the dark ages. One day everybody will be veggie and it will be thanks to the like of the visitors to this forum, and your delusional thinking will be a historical anomaly. Remember 20 years ago people used to deny there would be an environmental cost to our behaviour... now everyone likes to pretend they're greener than a snooker table. Some of us were lone voices in the wilderness back then, and now everybody agrees with us. At least from the teeth out. I'd laugh if it wasn't all too pathetically little too hopelessly late to make a difference.

ScumLord wrote:

mmmmm.. I don't know if that can be held against us, chimps use tools to get termites and I'm almost sure there are examples of other animals using tools to get food, animals that use poison would be another (very lose) example.

All for food. No other species develops technology purely to aid it in carrying out violence for its own sake. Despite the rosy view you take of our progress, militarisation is in fact increasing. Gun ownership is increasing. Military spending is increasing. We are a super-violent species. But that obviously doesn't bother you.

ScumLord wrote:

If other animals could do what we do I think it would be fair to assume they'd take full advantage.

I don't buy this 'if they could they would' argument. That's just another lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel better. The fact is, they haven't and we have, so you can't really use your valueless speculations to back up your arguments. The solid evidence we have doesn't support your argument.

ScumLord wrote:

Cows don't hold funerals they don't cry over missing colleges, if one disappears they don't go off their food they just get on with their lives.

How do you presume to know what a cow feels? A mother cow absolutely mourns and pines for its young when they're separated. I've seen more than one cat go into major depression at the death of its companion. Having said that, animals are far better at coming to terms with bereavement than us: they grieve and get over it, while we hang on to our distress and let it poison us.

I guess it helps support your view to deny the emotional capacity of animals but again there's no evidence for your position, just your own speculations plus a long history of human denial and our own assertions of our superiority. Your claims are so arrogant, and ultimately so hollow.

Obviously it suits you to believe what you believe, but the pseudo-science you insist on using to try and back it up is getting old.

ScumLord

hugh hefner wrote:

This seems to be a pretty chilling comment throughout your posts. Mother Nature isn't some intelligent consciousness that you can foist all responsibility for your lifestyle on to.

Sometimes I wonder but it is a process of trial and error to find the best possible solution.

Have you thought what would have happened if early humans didn't eat meat? While I'm sure certain tribes would have died/never gotten going,

Humans have always been omnivore, it was a pre human species that started scavenging on the plans and eventually worked up to hunting and then humans farmed. There where no tribes or decisions to be made when our line of evolution started eating meat. The species that became human have been on the brink of extinction many times the current human race has been on the brink of extinction, if we didn't have meat as a food source we would have died and we would never have grown the brain we have today. That's as close to an evolutionary fact as you can get in evolutionary history.

rockbeer wrote:

We are dominant now but who can say what will be dominant or whether there will be life at all at an arbitrary point in the future.

True but at the moment (and imo including all that's come so far) we're the best.

If it wasn't for people like me pointing out the deficiencies in our collective behaviour we'd still be in the dark ages.

True, true, I'm honestly not having a go at you, I enjoy debating with intelligent people that have opposing views, there's no point debating with someone that agrees with you and I don't assume your just making this stuff up.

No other species develops technology purely to aid it in carrying out violence for its own sake.

"They would if they could" is a valid argument here, every species on the planet will do whatever it takes to survive. All animals have violent streaks, violence has worked for animals all throughout time. Humans are the only species that ever even tried a different way, Law, democracy, God. That there is violence in human society is not surprising that there's so little of it given out technology is amazing. You can say we have WMDs, huge armies, disgusting acts of violence happen ever day in 3rd world countries that's all true but day to day life for the vast majority of people is mundane and lacks violence. Most people in the world are inherently good and will avoid violence if possible just like every other animal.

I guess it helps support your view to deny the emotional capacity of animals but again there's no evidence for your position,

They do all have emotional capacity but it's just not anything like as strong as ours and they can't be judged on our level.

Obviously it suits you to believe what you believe, but the pseudo-science you insist on using to try and back it up is getting old.

What makes you think I'm using pseudo science? I haven't seen any science in your comments, or are you in the creationists camp?

Jimoslimos

I'm a fully signed-up member of the Flesh Ingestion Brigade but seriously ScumLord this has got to be a wind-up. Or else what is your gripe against vegetarians - grew up in a hippy veggie commune without access to luscious lamb chops, sizzling sirloin steaks, etc. leading to deep rooted hatred and resentment perhaps?;)

ScumLord

I have nothing against vegitarians, I never said it was right or wrong or said anything about any vegitraian. All I've said is it's not "wrong" to eat meat, it's good for people (jobs wise and even for education) it can be good for the enviroment (minus industrial famring) and even the animals get something out of it. I don't see where you could get the impression I'm picking on vegitrians.

Nature Boy

ScumLord wrote:

I don't see where you could get the impression I'm picking on vegitrians.

What's a vegitrian?

ScumLord

What's a vegitrian?

It's em.. A vegitarian that.. likes... trians... Duh..

Damn! My loophole for picking on vegetarians is rumbled.

Mentalmiss

ScumLord wrote:

it's good for people (jobs wise and even for education) it can be good for the enviroment (minus industrial famring) and even the animals get something out of it. .

How on earth is it good for Education.
It is not good for the envoirnment and contributes as much CO2 in to the atmosphere as all travelling in the world including air travel.
And please tell me what the animals get out of it.

ScumLord

You don't think there's anything to learn about animals? You don't think being around them 24/7 is going to educate you on animals? Do you realise how much reserch and development goes into maximising farming productivity. Theres more to Organic farming than just using different feed and giving the animals more space, you have to know more about the wild animals in the area and how to provide a habitat for them.

I've answered the rest in previous posts.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

"They would if they could" is a valid argument here, every species on the planet will do whatever it takes to survive.

You haven't in any way demonstrated how random acts of genocide aid our survival.

ScumLord wrote:

They do all have emotional capacity but it's just not anything like as strong as ours and they can't be judged on our level.

What makes you think I'm using pseudo science? I haven't seen any science in your comments, or are you in the creationists camp?

What you are actually saying is you choose not to judge animals on our level. I would argue that the emotional capacity of many species is probably the match of ours: what they lack is language with which to refine their responses and articulate them to us. Therefore we have to guess. You choose to guess that they are so emotionally crippled as to justify your desire to commit violence towards them. I do not. Why not just be honest about this. That's what I mean by pseudo science - your speculations, that are backed by no actual evidence but which serve to justify your violence. I don't pretend to use science, just observation. I would respect your position more if you did the same, but you lose my respect entirely when you make general-sounding but completely unsupportable statements like "they can't be judged on our level". They can. For some of us they are. You make a choice and try to evade responsibility for that choice by saying it's the way of the world.

Sorry my friend - the world is what you choose it to be, and you choose the way of death.

As for me being in the creationist camp - don't make me laugh. Do you think people need superstition to have a conscience?

And to crown it all you claim to agree that it's important for people like me to point out our collectively deficient behaviour. Well bully for you. That's fantastic. Now what are you going to do about taking responsibility for your own?

Nothing, I imagine, if your previous posts are anything to go by.

I hope one day you're imprisoned and given a death sentence so I can remind you how much you're supposed to enjoy it.

ScumLord

I would argue that the emotional capacity of many species is probably the match of ours:

That's just not possible, they don't have the mental capacity to experience emotions in the same way we do. A cows brain is tiny compared to ours emotions and social interactions like those between humans requires large amount of brain power.

That's what I mean by pseudo science - your speculations, that are backed by no actual evidence but which serve to justify your violence.

I've never been violent to an animal in my life. I haven't made any speculations everything I've said is based on what I've heard on human/animal behaviour and evolutionary history. If respected scientific theory isn't good enough for you then there's no hope atall that you'll come out with anything even half ways rational. Instead you'll make up your own theories based on nothing more enlightened than cow goes mooo, dog goes bark.

I hope one day you're imprisoned and given a death sentence so I can remind you how much you're supposed to enjoy it.

And now you've shown your true colours.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

That's just not possible, they don't have the mental capacity to experience emotions in the same way we do.

Are you saying you believe the fear felt by a threatened animal is less intense or less valid than what you
would feel in the same situation?

How on earth would you know that??

As I said before, how do you presume to know what an animal feels? You presume a lot but provide not a shred of evidence for your presumptions.

ScumLord wrote:

I've never been violent to an animal in my life.

As a meat eater (or defender of meat eating) you hide behind the violence committed by others, which is even more reprehensible. At least acknowledge the violence caused to animals by farming, rather than retreating behind this charade of caring and compassion. The two positions are incompatible and you don't have the self-honesty to understand or accept this.

ScumLord wrote:

I haven't made any speculations

I should go and re-read your posts if I were you.

ScumLord wrote:

everything I've said is based on what I've heard on human/animal behaviour and evolutionary history.

Then you show how little you know about these things... as I said before, you are worryingly selective in the facts you allow yourself to consider. There is overwhelming evidence of the suffering experienced by animals in many farming environments, yet you repeatedly deny these facts in favour of your blinkered and rosy-tinted view that 'animals like being farmed'. This is kind of like being a holocaust denier, only as yet without the social stigma. But give it time.

ScumLord wrote:

And now you've shown your true colours.

I was waiting for that. Funny how you seem to think it's OK to support the wholesale imprisonment and slaughter of animals, and even claim that mass genocide is within the acceptable limits of our evolutionary behaviour... but you get all upset when I remark that you might not like to be on the receiving end yourself. This just shows the depth of your inner confusion.

Really, go back and read some of the things you've said about human violence before you start accusing me of anything. You might be shocked at yourself.

ScumLord

rockbeer wrote:

Are you saying you believe the fear felt by a threatened animal is less intense or less valid than what you
would feel in the same situation?

Yes, the human is a different animal with a different set of mental tools. Animals feel fear but can't imagine whats going to happen to them in the future. Imagination is unique to humans, we can live in morbid fear of what going to happen to us. Animals are only afraid of whats in front of them If you watch a nature documentary on any herd animal as soon as one of the herd is taken down the rest pretty much go back to their daily business as the danger is over Billy Connolly even joked about it. I don't know if you've ever seen the human brain but it's huge, a cows brain is tiny saying they can have the same mental capacities as us is like saying a fiat punto could keep up with a Ferrari.

How on earth would you know that??

There's been extensive research an animal behaviour, this research is probably crueler than keeping farm animals.

At least acknowledge the violence caused to animals by farming, rather than retreating behind this charade of caring and compassion.

I don't see it as violence, I see violence as attacking something and causing it pain. Domestic animals death is controlled and relatively quick. Industrial farming treats animals like product and can be cruel but it doesnt have to be that way. Death and violence don't always go hand in hand.

and even claim that mass genocide is within the acceptable limits of our evolutionary behaviour...

The history of the human race has allot of violent acts just like the history of every other animal on the planet. Those acts of genocide probably where necessary, we learned from them Europe is united now after experiencing the horrors of 2 major world wars, civil wars and some act of aggression somewhere in Europe for 1000s of years. Who's to say Europe would be in the position it is now if we hadn't gone through those experiences, humans learn by trial and error just like every other animal.

I think a human life is worth allot more than any other animal on the planet. To me human life is almost Sacred but it's not so much the killing of a person that makes killing a human so bad it's the effect it will have on his family and friends. I'm not religious so to me when your dead your troubles are over but your family will have to live with your loss for the rest of their lives I could never put anyone through that pain. Who cries for a cow? does anyone care it's dead, does the cow even care?

Tar.Aldarion

If chewbacca comes from endor, do cows even care?

Most humans are real intelligent.
We are the perfect race.



If you think you're the centre of the universe, you're probably really dense.

rockbeer

ScumLord wrote:

Yes, the human is a different animal with a different set of mental tools. Animals feel fear but can't imagine whats going to happen to them in the future. Imagination is unique to humans, we can live in morbid fear of what going to happen to us. Animals are only afraid of whats in front of them If you watch a nature documentary on any herd animal as soon as one of the herd is taken down the rest pretty much go back to their daily business as the danger is over Billy Connolly even joked about it. I don't know if you've ever seen the human brain but it's huge, a cows brain is tiny saying they can have the same mental capacities as us is like saying a fiat punto could keep up with a Ferrari.

Well, now you're really quoting me out of context. I have never said I think animals have same mental capacity as us. I have argued that some animals may experience a similar intensity of emotions. I agree that imagination is a faculty possessed by few, although I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unique to humans. I've seen a televised conversation between a human and a higher primate (can't remember which variety) using a machine which facilitated communication between them using symbols. The primate was quite capable of holding up its end of the conversation, showing just as much imagination and wit as the human. I still hold that language is the primary differentiator between us and many animals. Language has allowed us to formalize our instincts, emotions, technologies and social interactions in a way that would be impossible without it. Obviously our brain size is significant in this, but as far as I understand it, it's not just a function of the raw size - it's also the development of particular types of structures within the brain. People with learning difficulties have brains just as big as the rest of us but often lack these structures.

ScumLord wrote:

There's been extensive research an animal behaviour, this research is probably crueler than keeping farm animals.

There has... and if you can point me towards specific research that justifies your argument that an animal's fear is less intense or valid than your own then please point me towards it. Otherwise stop quoting 'research' in general.

ScumLord wrote:

The history of the human race has allot of violent acts just like the history of every other animal on the planet. Those acts of genocide probably where necessary, we learned from them Europe is united now after experiencing the horrors of 2 major world wars, civil wars and some act of aggression somewhere in Europe for 1000s of years. Who's to say Europe would be in the position it is now if we hadn't gone through those experiences, humans learn by trial and error just like every other animal.

I think a human life is worth allot more than any other animal on the planet. To me human life is almost Sacred but it's not so much the killing of a person that makes killing a human so bad it's the effect it will have on his family and friends. I'm not religious so to me when your dead your troubles are over but your family will have to live with your loss for the rest of their lives I could never put anyone through that pain. Who cries for a cow? does anyone care it's dead, does the cow even care?

Despite never having been so patronized by somebody who repeatedly insists that 'allot' is an English word meaning 'many', you might be surprised to hear that I agree with much of this. However, if you don't mind me saying so, you seem strangely detached from this thing you call 'humanity'. You talk repeatedly about how much humans have learned from this or that experience, yet you yourself personally seem to have learned very little, in that you justify all those horrendous acts as part of our learning experience but on a personal level show an unwillingness to move on from them. Your arguments seem to justify repetitions of these horrors; as though it were necessary to keep killing animals, even though we now know that we can survive, be healthy, produce more food in an overpopulated world and avoid the horrors of factory farming by ceasing to depend on animals for food. You argue that war was necessary in order to learn that war is unnecessary. So what lesson do you learn from the violence inherent in animal farming? That we should keep doing it :rolleyes:

I've been thinking about your accusation of irrationality on my part. I can't help thinking there's a certain irony in this. Let's just step back a moment and sum up our respective positions:

Rockbeer: "I don't know what it's like to be a cow".

ScumLord: "I believe I know what it's like to be a cow. In fact, I'm so convinced I know what it's like to be a cow that I'm prepared to let somebody else imprison and kill it on the strength of my conviction. But not so convinced that I'd do the dirty work myself."

As a further contradiction, you'd have me believe that cows are emotionally advanced enough to enjoy their imprisonment and like the company of their captors, but at the same time have this fortunate emotional block that prevents them from having any valid negative emotional response to their captivity or death. Despite the fact that no animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture.

And you call me irrational.

More a case of Scum "I'm a cow" Lord goes moo perhaps

Tar.Aldarion

The case for primates being so intelligent is such that a political party in spain are trying to give them equal rights as humans.

TerrorFirmer

rockbeer wrote:

As a further contradiction, you'd have me believe that cows are emotionally advanced enough to enjoy their imprisonment and like the company of their captors, but at the same time have this fortunate emotional block that prevents them from having any valid negative emotional response to their captivity or death. Despite the fact that no animal voluntarily subjects itself to capture.

And you call me irrational.

More a case of Scum "I'm a cow" Lord goes moo perhaps

They don't have to be emotionally advanced - if you could realistically use such a phrase - or indeed have any sort of advanced mental capacity to develop a basic attachment or another animal or a human individual. Attachment, and developed mental process are different things. So yes, a cow can develop a recognition and from that an attachment of sorts to its handler, farmer, or whatever. But they do, however, lack the ability to develop advanced emotions like that of fear as a constant presence. As someone said, an animal will fear when approached by a situation, in the present that presents a danger or distress. A cow, however, will not spend its day fretting in the corner of a field thinking about its future.

So in that sense it is totally wrong to compare a cow on a farm to a prisoner, as has been done on this thread. While a prisoner can actively regard his situation, and realistically think - 'I'm going to be here for x amount of time, or life', a cow can or will not think such a thing. Now, as you say, I don't doubt for a second in terms of raw fear cows are no different then humans. But the far reaching effects and complexities of fear are unique to humans.

The primate was quite capable of holding up its end of the conversation, showing just as much imagination and wit as the human. I still hold that language is the primary differentiator between us and many animals. Language has allowed us to formalize our instincts, emotions, technologies and social interactions in a way that would be impossible without it. Obviously our brain size is significant in this, but as far as I understand it, it's not just a function of the raw size - it's also the development of particular types of structures within the brain.

Very true but primates have a great capacity for learning then any other animal, especially those that are commonly featuring in this thread (the cows..?). A primate can be trained to carry out relatively advanced tasks, a cow cannot. You can teach a dog tricks involving repetition and through basic conditioning, but you cannot teach a dog, for example, to fully understand what he's doing and why, or henceforth condition a dog to do something that requires his own initiative on the spot (within reason, I know dogs can do plenty of cool things like learn to open doors, rummage through presses and other funny things, but you know what i mean ). Also, we don't farm primates. Well, some do, in certain areas, but not in the global way that the common animals are. Chickens in comparison, brain wise, can even live with their head cut off as long as the stem is intact. Scumlords arguments are fairly coherent. He's talking (largely) about Chickens and Cows, but you're bringing in other animals that while they would strike an interesting argument to the topic of intelligence in animals aren't hugely relative to the exact discussion at hand, and are far more advanced then those in question.

Good discussion though. From both 'sides'. Although I must say, I do notice a tendacy for the, shall we say for want to creating any further subdivisions, anti-scumlord side to resort to getting a bit personal in some matters! I won't even bother to include my opinion on the rights and wrongs of actually eating animals...I eat them, and that's all I can say!

Tar.Aldarion

I have a question or two fo anybody.
If you are smarter than an animal, are you better than it?
Do you have the right to decide what happens to it? Why?


If an advanced alien race came to Earth and just viewed us as just another animal, since they were so much more advanced, is it morally ok in your opinion for them to do whatever they want to us?