Animal Rights

[Deleted member]

We don't get eaten. We are at the top of the food chain. Ecology 101.

You keep saying we have these herbivore-like qualities. Name them.

We need to eat. Regardless of what you're eating, you're still eating life. This fact isn't really escapable and suggesting a lesser form of life to eat is hypocritical, really.

Plants are living. Animals are living. Food chains are a fact of life and ignoring them is fine, but don't criticize natural instincts and people who embrace them. There is a reason our mouths salivate at the smell of meat.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Humans= Animals

So do humans like getting eaten?

and characteristically herbivorous means we have characteristics of an herbivore 0_0

Who says that humans are equal to animals? We're more sophisticated and intelligent! Just the fact that we are having a debate about eating animals puts us above them. When attack and eat humans, do they think twice about it?

 

[Caturdayz]

I simply meant the humans are animals regardless of our "intelligence".

If we are so intelligent why do people chose to partake in a unhealthy diet that is bad for you, the environment and the animals, its really quite redundant for the "supreme" species.

 

[Deleted member]

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

Why do people eat unhealthy foods? Because they taste good.

Some philosophies, including aspects of my own, involve a great emphasis on self-indulgence. This reverts back to ideas on the meaning of life and things like that. When you know you're going to die anyway, eating really tasty foods isn't so bad, because at least you get to enjoy your time.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

and characteristically herbivorous means we have characteristics of an herbivore 0_0

Tell me, what characteristics do humans have that supports a claim that they are herbivorous and NOT omnivorous?

If we are so intelligent why do people chose to partake in a unhealthy diet that is bad for you, the environment and the animals, its really quite redundant for the "supreme" species.

Firstly,

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=redundant&x=0&y=0

Secondly, what does that have to do with ANYTHING involving animals' rights. But to address your question, who says intelligent people can't do unwise things? "Intelligence" just means we have the capacity for reason. It doesn't mean we apply it perfectly. So when are you going to address my points?

 

[sheepyman]

The way I see it:

- There is no inherent necessity to protect anything not even one's self. One applies acquired morals to everything he/she interprets.
- One protects one's self to satisfy one's life drive.
- Humans are a social and self-destructive creature. To protect one's self, one enters a social contract which protects one and all others as well. This is where the division between humans and animals lies, and fairly plainly humans are not other animals, they are humans.
- To protect that life drive and appease social contract humans consume other things, plants/animals.
- Humans advance human society to maintain dominance in the food chain. They create commodities, which can be used to acquire power, to advance individually. (Commodities is a very broad term in this case)
- People make commodities which, to uphold social contract and allow for humanity's advancement, are tested on ANIMALS. If alternatives are cost inefficient, they're preventing human advancement. Human advancement is more important than animal advancement. This applies to meat industry in a similar way. Human advancement is impeded by starvation or heavy inconvenience.

Basically, we do what we do to promote the advancement, safeguarding and perfection of our civilizations. Thus we destroy animals because they are inconsequential. We use caution because extinction or odd changes in animal equilibriums can harm humanity. What you feel for your pet dog is meaningless and I will eat it if I am hungry.

 

[yossarian22]

Mostly because I am bored, I will try to defend Caturdayz position as he seems unable to do so. Nobody likes a one-sided argument

We don't get eaten. We are at the top of the food chain. Ecology 101.

Eh, when we have weapons perhaps. I, for one, would not like to fight off a mob of hungry piranhas with my bare hands.

You keep saying we have these herbivore-like qualities. Name them.
We need to eat. Regardless of what you're eating, you're still eating life. This fact isn't really escapable and suggesting a lesser form of life to eat is hypocritical, really.

Not really.
Equating a plant to an animal is disingenuous. That we must eat is a fact of life. The amount of pain and suffering we unleash to satisfy this need is certainly not a constant.

As for herbivorous qualities, the molars?

Plants are living. Animals are living. Food chains are a fact of life and ignoring them is fine, but don't criticize natural instincts and people who embrace them. There is a reason our mouths salivate at the smell of meat.

Naturalistic fallacy.
Given the prevalence of murder throughout societies, murder certainly seems to be a fact of life. Should we not criticize these people as well?

Why do people eat unhealthy foods? Because they taste good.
Some philosophies, including aspects of my own, involve a great emphasis on self-indulgence. This reverts back to ideas on the meaning of life and things like that. When you know you're going to die anyway, eating really tasty foods isn't so bad, because at least you get to enjoy your time.

This is a hollow justification.
Many many things feel good. Should we just do them?
****, murder, steal, pillage, the works?

Basically, we do what we do to promote the advancement, safeguarding and perfection of our civilizations. Thus we destroy animals because they are inconsequential. We use caution because extinction or odd changes in animal equilibriums can harm humanity. What you feel for your pet dog is meaningless and I will eat it if I am hungry.

This argument is idiotic, self rationalizing, and chilling.
I can justify genocide out of it. Who is to say that you are not an animal? I feel that you are inferior and therefore should be eliminated. It is for the advancement of our civilization. Sorry mate, but we need to kill you for the good of our civilization.

Hell, why stop at you? Why not entire minorities?

Tell me, what characteristics do humans have that supports a claim that they are herbivorous and NOT omnivorous?

Caturdayz admittedly made an idiotic claim here, but they are not disjoint. I can be omnivorous yet focus primarily on vegetarianism.
But meh, it is a moot point.

Secondly, what does that have to do with ANYTHING involving animals' rights. But to address your question, who says intelligent people can't do unwise things? "Intelligence" just means we have the capacity for reason. It doesn't mean we apply it perfectly. So when are you going to address my points?

erm, what were your points?

 

[Deleted member]

Eh, when we have weapons perhaps. I, for one, would not like to fight off a mob of hungry piranhas with my bare hands.

Okay..so? We have opposable thumbs. They allow for tools. It's ridiculous to think that tools are not an aspect of basic human self-defense.

Equating a plant to an animal is disingenuous. That we must eat is a fact of life. The amount of pain and suffering we unleash to satisfy this need is certainly not a constant.

The meat we eat is bred for slaughter. The animals do not feel pain. They die instantly. You may disagree, but surely farmers have humane standards for making that tasty bacon.

As for herbivorous qualities, the molars?

What about our incisors?

Naturalistic fallacy.
Given the prevalence of murder throughout societies, murder certainly seems to be a fact of life. Should we not criticize these people as well?

Eh. It's not a naturalistic fallacy. I do not think everything that is natural is inherently good. However, eating is an essential human function and we have a natural instinct to eat meat.

This is a hollow justification.
Many many things feel good. Should we just do them?
****, murder, steal, pillage, the works?

It's hollow? I see hedonism as quite virtuous. However, I don't see hedonism as justification to involve harming others.

 

[yossarian22]

Okay..so? We have opposable thumbs. They allow for tools. It's ridiculous to think that tools are not an aspect of basic human self-defense.

I am sure that mob of piranhas will be more than willing to wait for you to make a tool to fight them off.

The meat we eat is bred for slaughter. The animals do not feel pain. They die instantly. You may disagree, but surely farmers have humane standards for making that tasty bacon.

Not really. "Humane" standards only exist because of legislature. Look at the meat packing in the early 1900s (pre Upton Sinclair's The Jungle)

What about our incisors?

Fair enough. It is a moot point.

Eh. It's not a naturalistic fallacy. I do not think everything that is natural is inherently good. However, eating is an essential human function and we have a natural instinct to eat meat.

That is not a justification of anything.

It's hollow? I see hedonism as quite virtuous. However, I don't see hedonism as justification to involve harming others.

Sure it is. A hedonist strives for the largest possible pleasure pain ratio possible. Pleasure at any cost to others is acceptable. Modern hedonism latches onto a pathetic type of idealism of equality and freedom and pretends that it somehow maintains relevance in the world.

 

[The Executive]

What you feel for your pet dog is meaningless and I will eat it if I am hungry.

Way to drive home a point...

 

[sheepyman]

We're arguing whether or not something should be allowed, and in the case of eating and using animals, there are (yes, even if you can justify genocide with PART of the argument) various logical reasons why it should be allowed.

I'm using human survival drive to justify what we do to animals, and using human social behavior (the drive for species survival and self propagation) to justify not eating/killing/testing each other... I don't see what's so wrong.

And yes, genocide is not inherently wrong. We prevent it for the following reason:

- Humans are a social and self-destructive creature. To protect one's self, one enters a social contract which protects one and all others as well. This is where the division between humans and animals lies, and fairly plainly humans are not other animals, they are humans.
- To protect that life drive and appease social contract humans consume other things, plants/animals.

Isn't there a theory of basic human drives? There are various theories but one of them (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have an A) will to survive and thrive and B) will to propagate the species or strengthen it.

The way I see it eating animals and testing on them falls into both of these perfectly.

As for the pet dog comment, what I meant was that if I was absolutely famished and hungry, I would definitely eat your pet dog before I ate you, and I would definitely eat your pet dog (assuming I had access to fire) before I ate a berry. I'm sorry for your loss but my survival is more important, but I'm not sorry to the dog because that's the way of the world and without it there would be no balance.

 

[The Executive]

As for the pet dog comment, what I meant was that if I was absolutely famished and hungry, I would definitely eat your pet dog before I ate you, and I would definitely eat your pet dog (assuming I had access to fire) before I ate a berry. I'm sorry for your loss but my survival is more important, but I'm not sorry to the dog because that's the way of the world and without it there would be no balance.

Yeah, I got you there. Just seemed really unorthodox; it jumped out at me. Yay, I guess.

 

[yossarian22]

We're arguing whether or not something should be allowed, and in the case of eating and using animals, there are (yes, even if you can justify genocide with PART of the argument) various logical reasons why it should be allowed.

Great, so if I accept your argument, I accept genocide.
What a comforting thought

I'm using human survival drive to justify what we do to animals, and using human social behavior (the drive for species survival and self propagation) to justify not eating/killing/testing each other... I don't see what's so wrong.

Because I am doubtful that you can apply such a system consistently.

And yes, genocide is not inherently wrong.

Are you freakin kidding me?
This does not even warrant a response

We prevent it for the following reason:-
Humans are a social and self-destructive creature. To protect one's self, one enters a social contract which protects one and all others as well. This is where the division between humans and animals lies, and fairly plainly humans are not other animals, they are humans.
- To protect that life drive and appease social contract humans consume other things, plants/animals.

What do you mean by "all others". All humans perhaps?
If so, why? There is no real reason to do so. Why not exclude group <X> and systematically exterminate them?
I can force your system into either inconsistency (and thereby make it irrelevant) or force you to defend genocide as something not inherently wrong. Good luck with the last option

Isn't there a theory of basic human drives? There are various theories but one of them (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you have an A) will to survive and thrive and B) will to propagate the species or strengthen it.

The way I see it eating animals and testing on them falls into both of these perfectly.

Why should be listen to our drives? You cannot say that we do not have the ability. Many people are vegetarian.
I also object to B. As individuals, we have a will to propagate ourselves. That just happens to involve the species.
With this modification to B, murder becomes perfectly acceptable. So murdering people falls into both categories perfectly, so why not do it?

As for the pet dog comment, what I meant was that if I was absolutely famished and hungry, I would definitely eat your pet dog before I ate you, and I would definitely eat your pet dog (assuming I had access to fire) before I ate a berry.

What?!
Do you dislike berries that much?

 

[sheepyman]

Why is genocide wrong?

If I were to systematically destroy and kill everyone who was sure to disrupt a perfect peace (assuming a perfect peace was in place) then would you tell me to throw away a perfect world so that someone can live?

I sure as hell wouldn't. But we don't have a perfect world, so in this situation genocide is not substantiated. Judging which world is perfect and which one isn't is impossible for one person to do anyway, so genocide becomes, while theoretically acceptable under certain circumstances, unacceptable under any real ones.

Why should be listen to our drives? You cannot say that we do not have the ability. Many people are vegetarian.
I also object to B. As individuals, we have a will to propagate ourselves. That just happens to involve the species.
With this modification to B, murder becomes perfectly acceptable. So murdering people falls into both categories perfectly, so why not do it?

I'm not saying we HAVE to eat or use animals, I'm saying it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for that reason. We do indeed have a will to propagate the species. For this reason we choose not to murder, test, or cause serious harm to humans, because we want to increase the number of humans on earth. I don't see a fallacy here. Acts of murder go against our basic drives, but so do many dumb things that people do. Why do people smoke crack if it goes against their will to survive? Why do they smoke cigarettes? The human is more complex than that, but it is not often that you will be able to justify anything bad from wanting to survive and wanting to increase the number of humans on earth. Basically, you have to survive without harming humans, which is the moral system we have in place (more or less) right now.

You have a will to survive, not to eat meat, but if eating meat will allow you to survive, then by all means do it. The reasons why we don't kill eat or test on humans are listed above.

As for not listening to our basic drives... especially those two... Throw humanity away while you're at it.

Killing can be justified, but most often (especially in history) it is not.

My argument is rooted in the fact that we need to survive, propagate, and that we are a social creature who is codependent to meet those two goals.

As for the berry, well, I would rather eat the dog if I was going to die... Because I would die if I only ate one berry.

 

[yossarian22]

Why is genocide wrong?

And here comes an attempt to defend that hapless bit of pretense

If I were to systematically destroy and kill everyone who was sure to disrupt a perfect peace (assuming a perfect peace was in place) then would you tell me to throw away a perfect world so that someone can live?

Yes.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

Then you are too blind to see your own nose (figuratively speaking).

You just annihilated your own "perfect" peace in an attempt to preserve it. Perfect is an absolutely useless term for something like peace anyhow. So even under your "perfect peace" bit falls apart.

But we don't have a perfect world, so in this situation genocide is not substantiated.

Judging which world is perfect and which one isn't is impossible for one person to do anyway, so genocide becomes, while theoretically acceptable under certain circumstances, unacceptable under any real ones.[/quote]
Good god...
You just admitted that your system permits genocide. And I can easily provide an example that still holds in a "real world" scenario.

Asians tend to have a greater number of cases of diabetes (This is just a random example that rolled into my head. It might be true, but that is irrelevant). Diabetes weakens the species as a whole, therefore we will exterminate anybody whose genetics make them more susceptible

I'm not saying we HAVE to eat or use animals, I'm saying it's a perfectly acceptable thing to do for that reason. We do indeed have a will to propagate the species.

No we don't. We have a will to propagate ourselves.
Propagating the species is a consequence of this.

For this reason we choose not to murder, test, or cause serious harm to humans, because we want to increase the number of humans on earth.

We want to increase the number of ourselves on the planet. If murdering, stealing, pillaging, etc furthers this, then we will do it. Just glance at our history. Hell, look at us now. We don't really care about the species as a whole and we never did.

I don't see a fallacy here. Acts of murder go against our basic drives, but so do many dumb things that people do. Why do people smoke crack if it goes against their will to survive? Why do they smoke cigarettes?

Because the will to survive is not as strong as other wills.

Murder does not go against any basic drive. if murdering you will make me safer, my instinct tells me to do it. If cocaine makes me feel better, safer, whatever, my instincts will tell me to do it. Drugs are a terrible example anyways, as they short circuit our bodies

The human is more complex than that, but it is not often that you will be able to justify anything bad from wanting to survive and wanting to increase the number of humans on earth. Basically, you have to survive without harming humans, which is the moral system we have in place (more or less) right now.
~~
As for the berry, well, I would rather eat the dog if I was going to die... Because I would die if I only ate one berry.

Of course you can justify terrible things, just alter timeframes.
My killing of 90% of the population may be bad now but just wait 300 years! There will be hundreds of us in all of our genetic perfection!

 

[whut?]

wow

you are all on some kind of power trip when you think "im teh best dominant species lololol"
egotistical *******s, all of you who say that. I do eat SOME meat, but you mc donalds brainwashed 'average' citizens
have no idea of how much agony is possible on earth for a living breathing creature..animals should NOT be beaten,
NOT be tortured or skinned alive, NOT be used for entertainment, and NOT harvested like twizzlers in factorys.
if you ask "why" then you truly have no insight towards suffering, really you have no idea at all.
ignorant children piss me off, dont purposely try to offend people by saying
"omfg, im gonna eet whatevz i want u cant stop me" no one wants to stop you dumbShit, they want to educate you at least.
So maybe youll realize that chicken nugget wasnt so necessary after all..
But please, dont listen to me, for i am just a 'biased opinionated hippie' or whatever you wish to call me.
I am no different from you or anyone else here though, we are all family.
i wish you brainwashed individuals would realize that the earth connects us,
we should not prey on the powerless with such disregard for life.(but it will never end)

"The meat we eat is bred for slaughter. The animals do not feel pain. They die instantly. You may disagree, but surely farmers have humane standards for making that tasty bacon."

animals dont feel pain? they die instantly? you fail.
animals dont die instantly, there is no magical spell that will make them die.
Having multiple pins shot into your head is not an instant death.
maybe you should do your research before you post, watch this for a start:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967

 

[snex]

you are all on some kind of power trip when you think "im teh best dominant species lololol"
egotistical *******s, all of you who say that. I do eat SOME meat, but you mc donalds brainwashed 'average' citizens
have no idea of how much agony is possible on earth for a living breathing creature..animals should NOT be beaten,
NOT be tortured or skinned alive, NOT be used for entertainment, and NOT harvested like twizzlers in factorys.
if you ask "why" then you truly have no insight towards suffering, really you have no idea at all.
ignorant children piss me off, dont purposely try to offend people by saying
"omfg, im gonna eet whatevz i want u cant stop me" no one wants to stop you dumbShit, they want to educate you at least.
So maybe youll realize that chicken nugget wasnt so necessary after all..
But please, dont listen to me, for i am just a 'biased opinionated hippie' or whatever you wish to call me.
I am no different from you or anyone else here though, we are all family.
i wish you brainwashed individuals would realize that the earth connects us,
we should not prey on the powerless with such disregard for life.(but it will never end)

"The meat we eat is bred for slaughter. The animals do not feel pain. They die instantly. You may disagree, but surely farmers have humane standards for making that tasty bacon."

animals dont feel pain? they die instantly? you fail.
animals dont die instantly, there is no magical spell that will make them die.
Having multiple pins shot into your head is not an instant death.
maybe you should do your research before you post, watch this for a start:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967

your emotions are not an argument, kthx.

 

[manhunter098]

animals dont feel pain? they die instantly? you fail.
animals dont die instantly, there is no magical spell that will make them die.
Having multiple pins shot into your head is not an instant death.
maybe you should do your research before you post, watch this for a start:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967

When something is dead, its opinion of pain no longer matters (Im not even sure if it really matters when its in pain really). And as far as the pain of another species goes, I could care less. When ants eat a wounded animal alive do you think they care about the pain that animal feels? I think not. So why do we need to cease to benefit from animals simply because of their pain?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

"whut?," this is a debate about the legal rights of animals, not about whether it makes people sad that people eat animals. I suggest you read the last two pages of this thread to update yourself with the arguments as they've been laid out.

 

[whut?]

"whut?," this is a debate about the legal rights of animals, not about whether it makes people sad that people eat animals. I suggest you read the last two pages of this thread to update yourself with the arguments as they've been laid out.

No, dont try to discredit me through condescending comments, these arguments are predictable and repetitive, im aware of the points made.
"whether it makes people sad eating animals" i never said that, at all. That is so far from my point, its the action of causing unnecessary suffering in a sadistic manner that i stated.

dont compare ants 'eating' a dying animal to humans raising them in factorys just for consumption. You might not know what goes on in slaughterhouses, you probably dont want to know..my point was how unnecessary and inhumane they are,
i was also commenting on the plain stupidity(?) some posters were showing when they say
"uhmm its acceptable so omfg im gonna eat meat anyway, don car where it came frum"
when thats not the issue.

Snex, smex, whatever your name is i dont take anything you say seriously.
Since everytime you reply to me youre always emotionally driven,
youre too biased to be respectful.
oh yeah..."kthx"? hahahaha.

 

[snex]

i have yet to see a coherent argument come out of this "whut?" person. who let him back here anyway? all he does is post insanely long rants that offer no reason for anybody to see his position on a topic, and this one is no different.

"if you ask 'why' then you truly have no insight towards suffering, really you have no idea at all."

that is NOT an argument, its a piss-poor attempt to grab the moral high ground without having to actually defend your position, and nobody back here is dumb enough to fall for it. so either post a coherent argument or gtfo.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

No, dont try to discredit me through condescending comments, these arguments are predictable and repetitive, im aware of the points made.
"whether it makes people sad eating animals" i never said that, at all. That is so far from my point, its the action of causing unnecessary suffering in a sadistic manner that i stated.

There's nothing to discredit. You haven't once made any connection to animal RIGHTS from anything you've said. My statement had no intent to strawman your argument, my point was that this in NOT a debate about slaughterhouse conditions, etc. It is a debate about legal rights of animals. Address that directly or make some kind of connection to it. If you are "aware of the points made" then why don't you go back and actually address one directly instead of just blatantly asserting that they are invalid?

dont compare ants 'eating' a dying animal to humans raising them in factorys just for consumption. You might not know what goes on in slaughterhouses, you probably dont want to know..my point was how unnecessary and inhumane they are,
i was also commenting on the plain stupidity(?) some posters were showing when they say
"uhmm its acceptable so omfg im gonna eat meat anyway, don car where it came frum"
when thats not the issue.

And neither is the issue slaughterhouse conditions unless you provide a legitimate argument that connects it to the legal rights of animals.

Snex, smex, whatever your name is i dont take anything you say seriously.
Since everytime you reply to me youre always emotionally driven,
youre too biased to be respectful.
oh yeah..."kthx"? hahahaha.

You don't even know what his stance on the subject is because all he has done is show your method of argument is invalid; he hasn't argued for any particular position. To say he is biased is putting words in his mouth.

 

[mzink*]

I think he is pushing respect for life, which is why animal rights are put in place. People want to make sure that others respect that all life has worth and shouldn't be abused, however he has blown it way out of proportion.

 

[snex]

respect for "all" life is impossible. youd starve to death.

 

[mzink*]

Respect for life doesn't mean not eating living things. It simply means avoiding unnecessary death or suffering.

 

[snex]

Respect for life doesn't mean not eating living things. It simply means avoiding unnecessary death or suffering.

how do you determine whether or not its necessary? one could argue that since you can live on a diet without meat, ALL meat eating is unnecessary.

 

[mzink*]

Meat has one of the highest biological values to the body. Diets rich in meat are a major factor in the regeneration of the blood and in tissue repair. The human body is designed to digest meat, precisely because it is nearly identical in nature with human flesh and the body requires far less effort to convert it than it does for fruits and vegetables.

 

[snex]

Meat has one of the highest biological values to the body. Diets rich in meat are a major factor in the regeneration of the blood and in tissue repair. The human body is designed to digest meat, precisely because it is nearly identical in nature with human flesh and the body requires far less effort to convert it than it does for fruits and vegetables.

so? that doesnt make it "necessary." we can synthesize most of the nutrients we need and take them as pills.

 

[mzink*]

Eating meat is part of the food chain, if there were no meat eaters certain animals would be overpopulated, would over graze, and cause mass starvation. It's all one big circle, its how nature balances itself.

 

[snex]

Eating meat is part of the food chain, if there were no meat eaters certain animals would be overpopulated, would over graze, and cause mass starvation. It's all one big circle, its how nature balances itself.

in the 3.8 billion year history of life on earth, humans have only been a significant player for a few thousand years - everything operated just fine without us. if anything, its our eating habits that have ruined the "balance" of nature to begin with.

 

[mzink*]

How have our eating habits ruined the balance of nature? If you mean by over slaughter and such then that is where respect for life comes into play, and those who don't have any respect for life. For the 3.8 billion years of life, eating meat has been necessary and good for the body, it still is. My point is that you can still eat meat and respect life. Just as herbivores eat plants, it is a balance to nature. Life consumes life and benefits from it.

 

[snex]

my point is that you are using an entirely arbitrary definition of "necessary" that is based on your own subjective preferences.

to a sociopath, torturing animals just for the fun of it would be "necessary."
to a vegan, using animal products at all is "unnecessary."

 

[mzink*]

I see you're point. A fault on my part.

 

[randypanda]

Well, I am and will remain a meat eater. It provides some proteins that most vegetables can not. While I think that having some meat in your diet is good for having a healthy body, I say everything within reason. Also, I think it is more appropriate to slaughter a cow or other type of livestock that has had at least a few years to experience life, while I think that it is distasteful to kill a young cow that is kept in a small space for the entirety of it's young life, and is killed without ever being able to breathe fresh air.

 

[blazedaces]

Seriously guys, can't we try to have a conversation about animal rights without committing an appeal to emotion or appeal to nature fallacy?

-blazed

 

[randypanda]

Seriously guys, can't we try to have a conversation about animal rights without committing an appeal to emotion or appeal to nature fallacy?

-blazed

I'm sorry, I suppose my last post is pretty much my feelings about the subject

 

[Johnthegalactic]

so? that doesnt make it "necessary." we can synthesize most of the nutrients we need and take them as pills.

Hello everyone, 1st off, my mother is not a vegetarian, but she was not eating alot of high iron foods(red meats), and had suffered from an iron deficiency, some type of anemia. She began taking these pills of nutrients(iron) and one day she punctured one, it had the stench of rotting blood on it, and discovered it was made from the blood of animals.
That is just a 1st hand account of how many supplements are created from animal products.

Also, what about the places where people cannot afford a bottle of pills or are even unable to acquire them, hunting an animal is much easier.

2nd, in nature animals such as lions, tigers and bears(oh my) eat other animals, it is a natural process, and there is nothing wrong with it.

3rd, animals are not humans, we are above them, whether by evolution or creation, we are the top species, we are the rulers of this earth, and will devour it's spoils one family dinner at a time.

 

[blazedaces]

2nd, in nature animals such as lions, tigers and bears(oh my) eat other animals, it is a natural process, and there is nothing wrong with it.

3rd, animals are not humans, we are above them, whether by evolution or creation, we are the top species, we are the rulers of this earth, and will devour it's spoils one family dinner at a time.

Seriously guys, can't we try to have a conversation about animal rights without committing an appeal to emotion or appeal to nature fallacy?

-blazed

Your first point wasn't too bad, but I just posted this not two posts before yours...

-blazed

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

this kind of seems more like a vegetarian Vs. carnivore debate than animal rights. others animals eat other animals would we stop them if we where to make eating meat illegal? I'm not sure what the people defending animal rights want but thats what I've gotten from it so far. ( I didn't read the whole thing just the 1st and last 2 pages.)