IceCream Wrote:

masaman Wrote:In any case, if I wanted to change someone's "taste", I wouldn't employ a holier-than-thee-I-will-educate-the-ignorants attitude, or create a money raking TV show.

this is a really important point that most animal activists miss.

it's highly unlikely that you're going to convince most people to totally change their lifestyle on the basis of these ethical concerns. Even if you do, they have to be really solid to stick to it.

But people do make small, significant decisions every day. We can choose to buy ethically farmed meat wherever possible, or have 1 less meal of meat a week. Trying to convince people to make these kinds of small changes to their lifestyle is probably a better route imo. If you really care, and there isn't enough ethically produced meat, or the labeling isn't good enough, try contacting farmers, your MP, your supermarket, and see if you can help change it. Once people have the ability to make small, ethically sound choices, they generally do move in that direction, as long as money isn't too tight, i think.

That's the biggest issue in animal rights today: how do we campaign it?
An opinion gathering more and more popularity is Gary Francione's view that we should only promote Veganism, as it is the moral baseline. He uses the example of rape; although it would be better for a woman not to be beaten before being raped, should we therefore campaign for no beating before raping? Of course not, we campaign only for a complete ban on rape, as the act in itself is immoral.

The other popular view is the traditional idea of using Animal Welfare in order to eventually achieve animal rights. I used to be unconvinced by this argument and agree with Francione, however after reading the views of Martin Balluch, a prominent Austian AR activist, I now agree with this view:
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/ar...dex_en.php
Francione's response:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-ve...welfarism/
Balluch's response to that:
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/ar...dex_en.php

In terms of the most effective way to turn a person vegan, by and large graphic imagery affects people most. Many people have turned vegan after seeing 'Earthlings.'
I agree that philosophical arguments rarely turn a person vegan, however if you combine it with video, it should at least get a person thinking.

masaman Wrote:In any case, if I wanted to change someone's "taste", I wouldn't employ a holier-than-thee-I-will-educate-the-ignorants attitude, or create a money raking TV show.

I certainly don't think one should be pretentious when discussing the issue (I apologise if I've come out sounding that way), but it is a fact that most people have no idea how their food is produced, and have never given the idea of animal rights a thought. I was once one the same. Therefore, those people (including the former me) could be described as nothing other than ignorant.

I assume you mean 'Whale Wars' as the "money raking TV show."
I disagree that there's anything wrong with making such a show, as its primary purpose is to inform a wider audience of the issue. Paul Watson said something like: "We live in a world where everyone only wants to be entertained. If it's not entertaining, no one will take interest in the issue." Whale Wars was an attempt to highlight the issue to an otherwise disinterested audience. 100% of the proceeds go back into the organisation.
Of course, if you hate Sea Shepherd, you'll hate the show.

If suddently an alien species came to Earth, would it be ok (morally acceptable) for them to eat us? I'm sure most would consider it reprehensible and not think, "well, fair's fair I suppose, we do eat cows after all".

thecite Wrote:In terms of the most effective way to turn a person vegan, by and large graphic imagery affects people most. Many people have turned vegan after seeing 'Earthlings.'
I agree that philosophical arguments rarely turn a person vegan, however if you combine it with video, it should at least get a person thinking.

Of course, that also just runs the risk of desensitizing people to graphic imagery. I mean, I've seen the process of making ham in person, from pig to packaging, and yet I have no trouble putting the stuff on sandwiches.

slivir Wrote:If suddently an alien species came to Earth, would it be ok (morally acceptable) for them to eat us? I'm sure most would consider it reprehensible and not think, "well, fair's fair I suppose, we do eat cows after all".

Only if their culture found it morally acceptable. Morals or subjective as hell. Some people (or species) have few, some have many. The only thing we all have in common is that we all draw the line somewhere... excluding some psychopaths.

Wait!? Was that question some kind of koan?

Mcjon01 Wrote:I mean, I've seen the process of making ham in person, from pig to packaging, and yet I have no trouble putting the stuff on sandwiches.

Considering that most people have never seen the process, and probably never will want to see it again, I think that risk is pretty small.

Another risk is that people will simply believe that farming and killing the animal without any pain is acceptable. However, many of the most dedicated vegans and AR activists started out by seeing these images; it certainly has the most effect.
Like Martin Balluch said, we're social animals, not logical animals. It's natural for a human to respond to images of suffering, and relatively uncharacteristic to take any interest in philosophical arguments.

thecite Wrote:Considering that most people have never seen the process, and probably never will want to see it again

True. However, I think your conclusion that this would ultimately result in a large portion of people to actually consider veganism is horribly flawed. The most likely response would probably be more along the lines of "Hahaha, ewww, gross!" with no change in behavior, with a small percentage of people switching to some level of vegetarianism for a while before fizzling out, and an even smaller percentage from that group actually becoming true believers.

We might be social animals, but our empathy pretty much extends as far as other humans, and things we think are cute.

Mcjon01 Wrote:

thecite Wrote:Considering that most people have never seen the process, and probably never will want to see it again

True. However, I think your conclusion that this would ultimately result in a large portion of people to actually consider veganism is horribly flawed. The most likely response would probably be more along the lines of "Hahaha, ewww, gross!" with no change in behavior, with a small percentage of people switching to some level of vegetarianism for a while before fizzling out, and an even smaller percentage from that group actually becoming true believers.

We might be social animals, but our empathy pretty much extends as far as other humans, and things we think are cute.

Graphic videos accompanied by a vegan or vegetarian message have been around for quite some time now. Obviously most people who view the videos don't change, people are stubborn after all. However, many people do change, which makes it by the far the most effective way of introducing a person to the issue.

Exactly. Also there's the whole (let's call it) lifestyle inertia thing. The overwhelming majority of people fail hard when it comes to making substantial (or often insubstantial) changes in their lifestyle unless forced to. This is why most people can't lose weigh, quit smoking, learn languages, get in shape, etc etc.
edit: this was a response to McJon

I really think though that humankind ought to lose it's dependance on animal products merely for reasons of efficiancy and robustness as a species. Breeding animals for food is massively inefficient, can cause epidemics, requires cheap labour willing to do dirty jobs nado nado. If it's decided animal protein is needed for optimal health then we should develope the technology to grow it in a lab. Are we gonna take our pigs and chickens to Mars?

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:Why is it OK to kill vegetables? insects? bacteria?

Because these life forms are not sentient, there's no logical reason to give these lifeforms rights.

What kind of "logic" give sentient lifeforms rights?

you say

"They are sentient therefor they have rights therefore you can't eat them."

And Indians say

"They are cows therefor they are gods therefor you can't eat them."

I don't see any logic in ether of them. Though if you believe in it I respect it. Do you believe in it?

Jains would think you are killing too much. Shouldn't you try harder?

nadiatims Wrote:If it's decided animal protein is needed for optimal health then we should develope the technology to grow it in a lab.

It's interesting you mention that. 'In-vitro meat' is an upcoming technology which could fill this void:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

I certainly don't think animal products are needed for optimum health, and end up having a negative effect in most cases. It's extremely easy to live healthily off a plant based diet. As for B12, it's fortified in most processed vegan foods these days, and one can always supplement it if they feel the need.

masaman Wrote:What kind of "logic" give sentient lifeforms rights?

Sentient animals, including humans, all possess many of the same basic interests: food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep.

Therefore, sentient life forms deserve rights for exactly the same reason humans deserve rights. We have the same interests, and possess a life that is uniquely our own.
The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'

IceCream Wrote:

masaman Wrote:In any case, if I wanted to change someone's "taste", I wouldn't employ a holier-than-thee-I-will-educate-the-ignorants attitude, or create a money raking TV show.

this is a really important point that most animal activists miss.

it's highly unlikely that you're going to convince most people to totally change their lifestyle on the basis of these ethical concerns. Even if you do, they have to be really solid to stick to it.

But people do make small, significant decisions every day. We can choose to buy ethically farmed meat wherever possible, or have 1 less meal of meat a week. Trying to convince people to make these kinds of small changes to their lifestyle is probably a better route imo. If you really care, and there isn't enough ethically produced meat, or the labeling isn't good enough, try contacting farmers, your MP, your supermarket, and see if you can help change it. Once people have the ability to make small, ethically sound choices, they generally do move in that direction, as long as money isn't too tight, i think.

Some people like it flashy. With that kind of money they are spending on anti whaling propaganda, they can easily compensate these poor fishermen who's doing it to support their family so they can live without killing whales, and everybody will be happy. But what are they gonna do if they don't have anything to protest?

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:What kind of "logic" give sentient lifeforms rights?

Sentient animals, including humans, all possess many of the same basic interests: food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep.

Therefore, sentient life forms deserve rights for exactly the same reason humans deserve rights. We have the same interests, and possess a life that is uniquely our own.
The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'

You are confusing me. So if you are a vegetable in a hospital bed, you don't have a right? Can I eat you?

"food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep."
Are all of them the requirement? or just some? if so how many and which ones are the requirement to have the rights?

masaman Wrote:

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:What kind of "logic" give sentient lifeforms rights?

Sentient animals, including humans, all possess many of the same basic interests: food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep.

Therefore, sentient life forms deserve rights for exactly the same reason humans deserve rights. We have the same interests, and possess a life that is uniquely our own.
The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'

You are confusing me. So if you are a vegetable in a hospital bed, you don't have a right? Can I eat you?

Gary Francione, a prominent Animal Rights philosopher, has a response to this question on his site, which I will paste here as it is far more concise than what I can come up with:

Question: Do nonsentient humans, such as those who are irreversibly brain dead, have a right not to be treated as things?

If a human is really nonsentient–not conscious or aware of anything at all and will not regain consciousness or awareness of anything–then, by definition, the human cannot have an interest in not suffering (or in anything else). In such a situation, a compelling argument could be made that it is morally acceptable to use the organs of such a human to save others–and it is common practice to do so if the human has previously agreed to donate her organs or if the family consents.

We should, of course, be concerned about whether an ostensibly brain-dead human really does lack all cognitive activity. We ought also to be sensitive to the concerns of those related to the comatose human; they may oppose the instrumental use of the human for various reasons, such as religious opposition to organ transplantation. But humans who are really irreversibly brain dead are really no different from plants; they are alive but they are not conscious and have no interests to protect. According such humans a basic right not to be treated as the resources of others makes no sense.

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:

thecite Wrote:Sentient animals, including humans, all possess many of the same basic interests: food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep.

Therefore, sentient life forms deserve rights for exactly the same reason humans deserve rights. We have the same interests, and possess a life that is uniquely our own.
The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'

You are confusing me. So if you are a vegetable in a hospital bed, you don't have a right? Can I eat you?

Gary Francione, a prominent Animal Rights philosopher, has a response to this question on his site, which I will paste here as it is far more concise than what I can come up with:

Question: Do nonsentient humans, such as those who are irreversibly brain dead, have a right not to be treated as things?

If a human is really nonsentient–not conscious or aware of anything at all and will not regain consciousness or awareness of anything–then, by definition, the human cannot have an interest in not suffering (or in anything else). In such a situation, a compelling argument could be made that it is morally acceptable to use the organs of such a human to save others–and it is common practice to do so if the human has previously agreed to donate her organs or if the family consents.

We should, of course, be concerned about whether an ostensibly brain-dead human really does lack all cognitive activity. We ought also to be sensitive to the concerns of those related to the comatose human; they may oppose the instrumental use of the human for various reasons, such as religious opposition to organ transplantation. But humans who are really irreversibly brain dead are really no different from plants; they are alive but they are not conscious and have no interests to protect. According such humans a basic right not to be treated as the resources of others makes no sense.

I'm not interested in some guy's response to something. I'm asking you if I can eat you if you are a vegetable in a hospital bed.

masaman Wrote:"food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep."
Are all of them the requirement? or just some? if so how many and which ones are the requirement to have the rights?

Definitions vary, but I consider the only requirement necessary to be regarded a sentient being is the ability to be consciously aware of pain. A being that is consciously aware of pain values its life on at least some level.

Please read Francione's response, it answers your question.

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:"food, water, comfort and avoidance of pain, love/ bonding, sleep."
Are all of them the requirement? or just some? if so how many and which ones are the requirement to have the rights?

Definitions vary, but I consider the only requirement necessary to be regarded a sentient being is the ability to be consciously aware of pain. A being that is consciously aware of pain values its life on at least some level.

Please read Francione's response, it answers your question.

Sorry, it doesn't. Can you elaborate a bit more about "consciously" "aware" "pain"?

what is the definition of consciousness?
what is the definition of awareness?
and what is the definition of pain?

And if you are a vegetable in a hospital bed, can I eat you?
I want to know what YOU personally think about this. Not some famous guy's opinion.

masaman Wrote:what is the definition of consciousness?
what is the definition of awareness?
and what is the definition of pain?

To sum up in detail:

"My definition of sentience as the consciousness of pain would distinguish sentient beings from beings that have nothing more than nociceptive neural reactions in whom tissue damage may cause reflex actions but where there is no perception that it is the "self" who is in pain." - Francione's definition of sentience, one of the best ones I have read to date.

Me personally? I would probably prefer to have my organs donated to someone else, rather than meaninglessly consumed. I'm sure my family wouldn't enjoy seeing someone feast on my flesh too much either.

Oh MY! It's 3!!. Please think it over. I'll come back tomorrow.

masaman Wrote:Oh MY! It's 3!!. Please think it over. I'll come back tomorrow.

I've answered all of your current questions.

If marooned on a desert island and given the choice of companions, would you chose:
A: a serial killer
B: a vegan

If you chose A, most likely you will be butchered in your sleep, but at least the guy would have had interesting stories to tell before he killed you.
If you chose B, you will most likely take your own life within a few weeks due to mental torture and have to endure the embarrassment in the afterlife of having spent the last few weeks of your mortal existence with the world's biggest pussy.

I have been a vegetarian for the last 15 years. I was a vegan for a while as well. Although I agree with the spirit behind becoming vegan, being around vegan's was a real eye opener. In Hawaii there is a lot of support for what ever variation of vegetarianism you choose. So when I made the transition to being vegan I sought out the company of those who were already on the path as kind of guides. I assumed they would be the most compassionate loving people on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. The typical vegan I met was antisocial, bitter, elitist and incapable of relating to other humans on anything other than a superficial level. They took love for animals to the Nth degree because of an inability to relate to other human beings.

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:what is the definition of consciousness?
what is the definition of awareness?
and what is the definition of pain?

To sum up in detail:

"My definition of sentience as the consciousness of pain would distinguish sentient beings from beings that have nothing more than nociceptive neural reactions in whom tissue damage may cause reflex actions but where there is no perception that it is the "self" who is in pain." - Francione's definition of sentience, one of the best ones I have read to date.

Me personally? I would probably prefer to have my organs donated to someone else, rather than meaninglessly consumed. I'm sure my family wouldn't enjoy seeing someone feast on my flesh too much either.

Gaaa, I couldn't sleep but this is the last one today.

OK. So you don't want me to eat you even if you are a vegetable.
Do you want me to not eat whales even if they are a vegetable? Or is it OK?

And you didn't give me any definition actually but this one is more fundamental so let me ask you this,

What is the definition of "self"?

masaman Wrote:What is the definition of "self"?

I would say that 'self' only applies to a sentient being, in which case you only need to understand the meaning of 'sentient', which I've already stated.

bodhisamaya Wrote:The typical vegan I met was antisocial, bitter, elitist and incapable of relating to other humans on anything other than a superficial level. They took love for animals to the Nth degree because of an inability to relate to other human beings.

I may not be the most outgoing person, but I certainly don't consider myself to be socially defunct.