thecite Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:

Quote:Removing all deliberate and intentional exploitation from our lives is the single most effective action that almost everyone can take. Veganism is certainly not the most we can do to help animals, it is the bare minimum. There is always something more we can do.

It is a fact that our society will always indirectly affect sentient creatures negatively in one way or another, what is important is that as a society we work together and minimise our impact as much as possible.

Effective at accomplishing what? Why is making animals happy important?

This is what the whole thread comes down to.

Veganism is the single most effective action anyone can take in rejecting animal exploitation, and moving our society towards animal rights.
It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. It is not that it is important to us it's that fact that it's important to them. Of course, there are environmental and health benefits as well; but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.

You said ending exploitation is the most effective thing to do (for what you didn't say). So does your reply mean that ending exploitation is the most effective way to end exploitation?

re why it's important: Justifying something subjective with something else subjective does not an argument make.

Being vegan isn't any healthier than eating a balanced meat based diet. Being vegan does mean that you have to expend a lot of effort to avoid malnutrition though.

Raising animals for meat isn't bad for the environment if done properly, or if there was less waste in the food industry as a whole, or if there was less overpopulation. That is no more argument for veganism than it is for birth control or reducing waste.

Tzadeck Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:They would only be successful if they posed no disadvantage, or the advantage (of behaviour that evolved with the altruism) outweighed the disadvantage. Direct advantage from altruism is not altruism.

You're forgetting about genetic mis-firings.

Err no I'm not. My entire reply which you quoted was about that. Genetic mis-firings only survive if they do not pose a disadvantage to the creature, or positive behaviours that accompany them outweigh the disadvantage.

I did say it was theoretically possible for altruism to exist, but any examples in the wild?

thecite Wrote:It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. ................but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.

God told me in Leviticus that I should eat meat. Are you calling God immoral?

You can't just keep stating opinions as fact.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

thecite Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:Effective at accomplishing what? Why is making animals happy important?

This is what the whole thread comes down to.

Veganism is the single most effective action anyone can take in rejecting animal exploitation, and moving our society towards animal rights.
It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. It is not that it is important to us it's that fact that it's important to them. Of course, there are environmental and health benefits as well; but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.

You said ending exploitation is the most effective thing to do (for what you didn't say). So does your reply mean that ending exploitation is the most effective way to end exploitation?

re why it's important: Justifying something subjective with something else subjective does not an argument make.

Being vegan isn't any healthier than eating a balanced meat based diet. Being vegan does mean that you have to expend a lot of effort to avoid malnutrition though.

Raising animals for meat isn't bad for the environment if done properly, or if there was less waste in the food industry as a whole, or if there was less overpopulation. That is no more argument for veganism than it is for birth control or reducing waste.

Veganism is the single most effective action one can take in removing exploitation from their lives, and advancing animal rights. Regardless of what I said, or what you think I said, that is the message I was trying to convey.

Of course you're not going to agree animal rights is important if you don't agree with animal rights. In which case, why did you bother asking the question?
Animal rights is important as a social justice issue. There is potentially no benefit or personal gain involved for humans by awarding animals rights, however there is every gain for animals.

The only thing 'unusual' I consume to balance my diet are B12 supplements, which I don't really need to take considering I drink soy milk anyway. 100 tablets for $21, I take 1 tablet every two or three days, which means they last the good part of a year.
Therefore I'd say I expend practically zero to no effort on "avoiding malnutrition."

That's a lot of 'ifs' to try and support your view on animal agriculture. It is a fact that plant based foods require less water, less land, produce less carbon emissions and waste, and waste far less resources than animal agriculture.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

thecite Wrote:It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. ................but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.

God told me in Leviticus that I should eat meat. Are you calling God immoral?

You can't just keep stating opinions as fact.

I don't bring religion into issues of morality. Jainism says it's wrong to consume animals, are you calling Jainism wrong?

I wouldn't be vegan if I believed animal rights to be nothing more than petty 'opinion.'

I'm feeling the need to wrap this discussion up soon.
The last discussion I had over animal rights lasted eight weeks, I think I'd better avoid that this time and get back to studying.
At the very least, I feel I've given apt food for thought to some people who may have not thought about animal rights before.

Let me rephrase that, I'm wrapping it up here. Send more replies if you wish, but I doubt I'll be responding
Thanks for the discussion.

re1: I asked the question because I am debating for the sake of debate. It is really of no consequence to me what vegans believe as long as they don't resort to terrorism or something. I am firmly in the majority so I am at no risk of having meat ripped from my fridge. Yes veganism is good for the animals (except domesticated ones who can no longer survive in the wild and would likely go extinct, like chickens), but that isn't something that one could convert someone with. Someone who believes in animal rights already believes in animal rights, so they don't need to be converted.

re2: I never used the word unusual. You still have to pay more attention to what you eat than an omnivore. You need to balance your diet using only one group of foods, while omnivores have two groups to balance with.

re3: or means or not and

Solving any single one of those would drastically reduce the impact animal farming has. Plant only agriculture might be more efficient on paper (there would undoubtably be logistics problems that reduce that, plus plant and meat agriculture uses the others waste products in a symbiotic manner), but omnivore agriculture can be sustainable too.

The best way to reduce meat consumption is to regulate the health and safety standards of the industry. Ban potentially unsafe drugs and feeding practices and you'll reduce yield and raise consumer cost. Higher cost = lower demand. On the plus side the cows will be healthier and happier (though still killed in the end) and meat eaters get healthier tastier meat.

You need tangible stuff like that and not just "the cows will thank you for it", circular subjective statements, and issues that can be solved in other easier ways (and aren't even issues to many people - environmental impact).

Thecite,

thecite Wrote:I gave you the definition of sentience

"Definition" is the process of "narrowing down" the essences of an objective meaning of something. Say we want to talk about "personal transportation". And I give you this.

"My definition of personal transportation as a driving force for today's economy would distinguish a car from a truck that carries nothing more than ordinary commercial commodities among which people may find some personal belongings but where there is no awareness that it is the "self" who is being transported."

Just because I said this is a "definition", it doesn't mean it is actually one. This is called a rhetoric. The use of the word "definition" in the sentence is a rhetoric, and the whole sentence itself is a rhetoric. By this "definition", I am just vaguely implying "personal transportation is something that transports an entity that has a feeling of self " which isn't any more specific than the word "personal transportation" itself, if not broader. A rhetoric is a good way of eluding a question, politicians are good at that, but it has no use in constructing your "logic". It just weakens it.

By your "definition", "sentient being" is "an entity that has 'self' and is able to feel pain". Now, you effectively downgraded people who are given anaesthesia in operating rooms to food. I can eat them because they don't feel pain. Right? Freaking NO! Pain isn't a fundamental issue when you talk about what people should eat. Pain is about HOW to kill, not WHAT to kill. And in most cases, meat you eat is already dead.

I just found out that "sentient being" is actually a translation of a Buddhism term 有情(うじょう in Japanese) which means "an entity that has self". This is far more pertinent to the discussion than someone's own version of "sentient being" so let's forget about pain and talk about real "sentient being".

thecite Wrote:you've just complicated it by questioning a relatively simple term, 'self'.

REALLY? Is it simple to you? You may be the next Buddha or Pythagoras. According to western philosophy, animals don't have "self". So that's it. End of conversation. Logically, we can eat whatever animal we want. But as I'm not a philosopher, I'll go on to "sentient beings" or 有情. 有情 is a vague idea, just like normal, non-philosophical version of "self". Some think only animals are 有情, while others include fish, and there are guys who even include plants and bacteria, i.e. all life forms. I have yet to hear a discussion on viruses so it may or may not extend to non life forms in the future but that's another story. And people, in the west and the east, sometimes avoid eating what "they think" is 有情. Vegetarians may eat fish and shrimps, or in some cases even chicken, while vegans have a different idea. There is even more hardcore types who only eat fallen fruits kind of things in order not to "kill" vegetables. And in the most extreme case like some Jains, people don't even drink water to save bacteria and die. It's all based on how they "feel" and there is no "logic" here.

thecite Wrote:what exactly is the magical ingredient that humans possess which grants us moral superiority over all other sentient beings?

In the west and the middle east, it is God. God tells you what you can eat and what you can't. Many people in Japan think they in fact do NOT have moral "superiority". All life forms are equal. That's why they say いただきます before consuming a meal to thank those lives they take to sustain their own. While they should "avoid" killing in general, to what extent is up to individuals, morally speaking. Even Buddha ate meat. People eat human meat in a pinch and kill each other in a war or when defending oneself. Killing and eating of human beings is not an absolute evil per se.

And this is precisely why many Japanese people are pissed at those environmentalists. The majority of Japanese don't even eat whales. I for one have never had it. The market in Japan is only 50 million dollars per year or so, about 0.01% of all meat. So it's not about what they personally want to eat in most cases. It's that "superiority" people don't hold with. Exactly what makes Sea Shepherd "morally superior" to Japanese? These guys can spend a million words on rhetorics but people just KNOW the issue can never be logic, and people just KNOW they think they are superior, so they will never be heard unless they truly change the way they view things.

thecite Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:

thecite Wrote:It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. ................but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.

God told me in Leviticus that I should eat meat. Are you calling God immoral?

You can't just keep stating opinions as fact.

I don't bring religion into issues of morality. Jainism says it's wrong to consume animals, are you calling Jainism wrong?

I wouldn't be vegan if I believed animal rights to be nothing more than petty 'opinion.'

By stating opinions of morality as fact and maintaining blind faith when confronted with reason, you have made Vegan-ism a religion.

thecite Wrote:I gave you the definition of sentience

You gave a definition of sentience. I disagree with that definition, and for what you define as self for that matter.

I just finished reading everything posted here after I left yesterday. I should have read it before I made the humongous post… It seems thecite BELIEVES IN animal rights. See, I told you it's about your feelings, which is by the way, totally cool with me.

One thing though. I'm not saying going vegan is not good but If you live in a modern society, drive a car, live in a house, wear cloths, eat and drink, use electricity, watch TV, connect to the internet, etc. it sure kills tons of "sentient beings" even if you don't eat meat. Going vegan only alleviate 100 bad karmas to something like 90 bad karmas, so it's not that much of a big deal unless you dig a hole, get in there and stop eating and drinking. Don't forget 100s of 1000s of PEOPLE that are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan too. While these wars themselves could have been prevented, some wars are still needed to sustain the society we are part of.

By the way, is the right to keep and bear arms included in animal rights? They sure need that one to protect themselves from farmers. At last, animals can have a common interest they can share with NRA.

IceCream Wrote:thecite:
i didn't watch the video, because frankly, text videos are boring and slowwww. i read that guy's site statements and faqs instead.
it's actually hard to know where to begin on his arguments, because aside from the resources, and damage to the environment ones, which are fine, they are all pretty inconsistent and unjustified. The faqs are even worse, since they are close to all strawmen. He sets up ridiculous statements as opposition, and then knocks them down. I wouldn't take his arguments to heart if i were you.

here's one point that i didn't see raised in this thread, that he raised in his faqs:

Quote:"Question 13: Isn’t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position?

Answer: No, it is not. Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide."

These are the 2 examples he gives, and these are the kinds of logical problems he clearly has.
The first case is clearly not analogous, not least because it's benefits from past exploitation rather than exploitation that is current and ongoing of animals in medical research. (his entire foundation that you can make a sound argument that sentience is the deciding factor in whether something is exploitation or not is also unjustified, i think)

The second case states clearly that "we are not obligated to forego any benefits animal exploitation provides". In that case, why must we become vegan? We could simply agree that animal exploitation is "wrong" and something should be done about it, while tucking into our steak. Sorry, but if you accept his other arguments, the use of animals for medical purposes is exactly the same thing.

I felt I needed to write a response here, as you've completely misinterpreted his explanation.
Firstly, he is in no way condoning the use of animals in medical testing. He's completely against it.
The first example, as you noted, is explaining why is it acceptable to use medicines and medical treatments that were once tested on animals, but no longer are. Many people do in fact try to point this out as hypocrisy by vegans, which makes no sense.

In the second example, he is highlighting the issue of a critically ill vegan being forced to take a medication or medical procedure that is currently tested on animals, or perhaps contains animal products. In such a case where no vegan alternatives were available, the vegan would either have the choice of taking the medication or procedure to their benefit, or facing death or critical physical harm. Of course the vegan would wish that the medicine or procedure in question was developed without animal exploitation, but it is ridiculous to ask them to choose their own death.
He is not arguing, for example, that a vegan can justify taking an aspirin that has been tested on animals. He is arguing a very specific case, that vegans with serious illnesses can justify taking non-vegan medicines or procedures when there is no alternative.
He is in no way condoning the use of animals in medical research.

Now, the point you raised. No one can argue that they must consume animal products such as meat or milk or eggs, to avoid critical physical harm or death. These products are consumed only for enjoyment, and therefore have no relevance to this issue.

His questions are worded professionally, as this is an academic piece of work (the FAQs were published in a section of one of his books). He is not making an attempt to word them how your average person would actually say them. They bring up the argument necessary, and that is all that is required.

IceCream Wrote:sorry, you are wrong. He is just not a very good academic.

I didn't miss the point of what he is saying at all... he just doesn't state it in any way that makes sense. Like most of the questions, he doesn't bother arguing for it, just states an opinion. The problem lies in the lack of justification, given that that view is entirely incompatible with the rest of his views. Why is it suddenly ok to use animals as objects in that case? How far are you allowed to go? What if you won't die, but just have some kind of crippling illness? Is it ok then? There is no MORAL difference (in his definition of the word) between gaining the benefits from using an animal in this way, and using it to derive nutrition value.

His questions are in no way academically worded, and neither are they intended for academics:

Question 6: If we did not exploit animals, we would not have society as we now know it. Does this fact not prove that animal use by humans is morally justified?

Question 7: By equating speciesism with racism and sexism, don’t you equate animals, people of color, and women?

Question 8: Hitler was a vegetarian; what does that say about vegetarians?

etc. I highly doubt that any kind of academic would ask questions remotely similar to these.

Neither does he justify veganism rather than vegetarianism at any point. He writes use of eggs and milk off as "silly" (in his manifesto thingy). He states that it is exactly the same thing because it is all part of the same farming process. However, the meat and veal industry are not necessarily connected in any way. One could easily exist without the other.
While eating eggs and milk is may indirectly contribute to an unethical farm, it is in no way the same thing. He is perfectly fine with indirectly harming animals when it comes to other things.

Now, i suppose you will reply, "oh, but it's all part of the same thing, the ownership of animals". Well, sorry, but this view of ethics is also entirely unjustified and unfounded. He seems confused about what the status of morality is, stating in one breath that it's not an opinion, and in the next sentence that we decided them. Similarly he decides that farming is on the same level as "slavery" and "sexism"... while totally failing to look at the critical differences between animals and humans here. While most of us can empathise with an animal's pain, since it certainly seems the same as our own, we can't empathise with animals on totally the same level as we do humans. They may have a drive to live, but they have no understanding of what the purpose of the farm is, or their own death. So putting death on the same level as pain makes no sense here. Of course we are more horrified about death camps than farms, because we can imagine how the people must have felt, knowing they could be killed any time someone chose.
Interests alone cannot, and do not, provide a stable enough basis for any rights theory. In fact, this "sentience" thing being about pain, itself has logically nothing to do with an "interest" in living.

His arguments are so baseless it's incredible he can call himself an academic. He just doesn't question his central tenet - rights themselves, and what they might be based on, ever, as far as i read.

Honestly, i think going too far with animal rights themes does way more harm than good.

There is completely a difference. No one in our society can claim that there is no alternative to animal products to gain their nutritional requirements. The only basis they can justify their actions on is petty pleasure. On the other hand, there certainly are many serious illnesses where the only current treatment is non vegan.

They are worded in an academically respectable manner. They are worded in a discussion type manner, rather than a debate style. Therefore, obviously they sound unbelievable as questions that your average meat eater would actually raise.

He equates speciesism, sexism, racism and hetero-sexism all as unjustifiable forms of discrimination. He makes no opinion on whether one is worse than the other.

It seems you are quite confused as well. I have no idea what to reply to from that jumbled response of yours (with all do respect).

Apart from eggs, milk etc simply being part of animal ownership, he does highlight other reasons why they are no different. He says it in his book, but I was unable to find the reference. But for example, from one of his pamphlets:"There is no meaningful distinction between eating flesh and eating dairy or other animal products. Animals exploited for dairy, eggs, or other products are treated as badly if not worse than ‘meat’ animals, and they end up in the same slaughterhouseafter which we consume their flesh anyway."

His theory starts from a logical assertion, so he doesn't need to start from the ground up. The assertion, that we already all believe in protecting animals' interests. He asserts that there is no difference between death and pain, despite the fact that we sympathise more with pain. This is a quote from one of the FAQs: "The harm of death to a sentient being is that she or he will no longer be able to have conscious experiences. If you kill me painlessly while I am asleep, you have harmed me because you have deprived me of having further experiences as a sentient being that I, by virtue of the fact that I have not chosen to commit suicide, wish to have."

Most of the arguments you have with lack of clear explanation etc, would be evaporated if you took the time to read his book: "Introduction to Animal Rights." - As that is the form in which his theory is meant to be presented.

Now, I seriously need to get back to studying.

thecite Wrote:It seems you are quite confused as well. I have no idea what to reply to from that jumbled response of yours (with all do respect).

With all do respect?

I just love it when people use phrases like this.

Anyway, If you can't see why there'd be room for confusion in the statements she quoted then there's no point in really arguing any further.


If it can confuse a person of IceCreamian level intelligence then there really is problem. Cuz average Joes like me don't stand a chance .@_@.

On a language related note... it's supposed to be "with all due respect". Guess it often gets pronounced both ways (and written that way) cos the word can be pronounced the same as "do".

Due can be pronounced differently?

Well yes in between words it can, since there'd be some sort of a merge/assimilation between the front vowel [j] in due and the lateral r in respect. And it takes more effort to pronounce due 'correctly' anyway.

But back on topic, I guess I really don't have to respond at all since ice, tzadeck, jarv have pretty much said what I would say.

Though I'd like to paraphrase a little on what Tza was saying, what you're doing is basic line drawing. Which is not unlike what religious people do.

"Hmm I'll chose not to include insects"
"Oh oh but I'll include X type of animal because (insert invalid reason here)"
This is quite similar to "Oh I'll pray on the Sabbath" "But I won't kill my wife if she looks at another man" or whatever absurdities come form the bible or other such texts.

I believe the reason for this is, if you decide to include insects then you won't be able to eat plants because eating a plant denies an insect the possible (right) to eat some of that plant. Hey I could use this same mentality to animals too. And yes as Iceice correctly pointed out, humans are humans today precisely because of our chosen diet millions of years ago which lead to our brains being the brains they are. Had we chosen to eat greens turn to page 9843958435 for that (I miss those chose your own adventure books!).

I have already tried read some of Peter Singers work, but I put his shit down because it was rubbish, as Tzadecks pointed out. Also, as others have said I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians, I just hate it when they assume their choice is based on moral/ethical grounds. It's a dietary choice ( and a healthy one at that). Boycotting I also don't disagree with either. If you decide to boycott a certain milk brand or meat company (or all of them!) because you know of the unethical/poor treatment of animals, by all means I wouldn't mind joining along too! but I've said it once and said it again, It's a 99%ly dietary choice.


I've been away cause I've had sporadic sleeping habits and I cant think or sleep right. I only manage to get a few hours sleep a day, only to wake up with a headache which is begging me to stop writing this post.

asdasdasd

thecite Wrote:No one in our society can claim that there is no alternative to animal products to gain their nutritional requirements. The only basis they can justify their actions on is petty pleasure.

Arggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

These claims have to be supported by some evidence.

No one in our society can claim that there is no alternative to vegetables to gain their nutritional requirements. The only basis they can justify their actions on is because they hate babies, and minorities.

thecite Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:Okay, I read it. It's the exact type of ethical argument I was criticizing.

What animal rights argument style do you find most convincing then? I find Singer's far less convincing than Francione's. Reagan's style is fairly convincing, however quite verbose.

I made some claims, already, in a post that you obviously never read (and that I already told you to refer back to). How do I know you never read it? Because I criticized a type of ethical argument in that post. Then, you presented me with an argument that is perfectly representative of the type of ethical argument I criticized, without addressing or even mentioning my criticisms.

om nom nom

[ファブリス]

Draak Wrote:Has anyone watched this show? Its awesome. Its a bunch of environmentalists chasing the japanese whaling fleet off the coast of Antarctica in order to prevent them from whaling. (...)
I found that really interesting.

Lol, I just watched South Park episode "Whale Whores" and came here to post the link and realized that there was a show.

Check it out, the end is pure gold.

There are episodes like that with double messages in them, that remind me just how awesome this show is!

PS: that South Park ending also reminded me about the ending of Night of the Living Dead, where Barbara look at the men shooting a zombie that they hung on a tree, presumably for fun, and thinks to herself "Well we're not that different from them, after all". ^^

Jarvik7 Wrote:

om nom nom

Oh god, The Onion videos get me everytime. "A new report states Al-Qaeda is still a thing."

maybe before australian bogans go and board boats, crash into the hull of whaling vessels then claim they were "attacked by the japs", they should come back to australia and have a look at the country and all the environmental injustices already occuring here...

As an australian, i hereby give my personal permission for the japanese sailors to sink as many of these anti-whaling boats as they can. Too many treehuggers hanging around other treehuggers thinking they have way more public support than they do. Their antics are frankly embarrassing.

zigmonty Wrote:As an australian, i hereby give my personal permission for the japanese sailors to sink as many of these anti-whaling boats as they can. Too many treehuggers hanging around other treehuggers thinking they have way more public support than they do. Their antics are frankly embarrassing.

What are trees? Are they those green plastic things we decorate with lights before Christmas? Do people actually hug those? Why? It could be dangerous I think.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:As an australian, i hereby give my personal permission for the japanese sailors to sink as many of these anti-whaling boats as they can. Too many treehuggers hanging around other treehuggers thinking they have way more public support than they do. Their antics are frankly embarrassing.

What are trees? Are they those green plastic things we decorate with lights before Christmas? Do people actually hug those? Why? It could be dangerous I think.

Good point, well made.