When is killing animals right?

[Rabbattack]

I think animals should only be killed for food when you actually need it. If you are able to survive with no or little meat then you should not eat it unless needed. People say we can eat them because they are dumber, but then that means we can eat children and the mentally disabled. We as humans should only kill or consume animals when our survival depends on it. Killing in video games isn't bad because we aren't harming something that is real, developers cannot program pain. Hunting for sport in my opinion is even worse than just eating them because they are making a game of a living thing and making it unnecessarily suffer. We can eat plants and non animals because they do not feel pain to the extent of pigs, cows, and fish. Don't eat it unless you need it. Fish are animals and count as meat, so no arguing about that, it's a fact. Religion isn't an excuse unless it says specifically that you must consume an animal for whatever crazy reason that religion wants you to. Besides religion in my opinion is never an excuse, just take a look at all the other crazy stories out there and compare it to your beliefs. Feel free to leave your opinions.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I think animals should only be killed for food when you actually need it. If you are able to survive with no or little meat then you should not eat it unless needed. People say we can eat them because they are dumber, but then that means we can eat children and the mentally disabled. We as humans should only kill or consume animals when our survival depends on it. Killing in video games isn't bad because we aren't harming something that is real, developers cannot program pain. Hunting for sport in my opinion is even worse than just eating them because they are making a game of a living thing and making it unnecessarily suffer. We can eat plants and non animals because they do not feel pain to the extent of pigs, cows, and fish. Don't eat it unless you need it. Fish are animals and count as meat, so no arguing about that, it's a fact. Religion isn't an excuse unless it says specifically that you must consume an animal for whatever crazy reason that religion wants you to. Besides religion in my opinion is never an excuse, just take a look at all the other crazy stories out there and compare it to your beliefs. Feel free to leave your opinions.

I would like to point out that there is a variety of mental disabilities that do not necessarily equate to one being dumber. But, not exactly part of the conversation.

Anyway, there is a bit of ambiguity in what is 'bad' or 'good'. As an example you brought up, killing in video games is not 'bad' in the sense that objects being 'killed' were never living to begin with. In another aspect, I could say video games are bad due to the behaviors they bring up in life.

As far as I know, legalized hunting is a way for humans to act as the wildlife's local predator. It makes sense to think that an area can only support so much wildlife of a certain type. If a particular species population becomes too large it can consumes much of the local resources and therefore it will starve itself and other species in that area. So, legalized hunting is an attempt to maintain healthy populations that a local area can support. In this aspect, I find it 'right' or justifiable to kill animals to regulate a balanced ecosystem. Continuing off of this sub-topic we have the issue of uncontrolled and unregulated human population. However, I believe many people would agree simply killing humans to maintain population control is not allowable. Therefore, the justification of killing of animals to regulate population apparently is no longer justifiable or 'right' when you apply it to humans.

The point I am trying to make is that your poll options and question I feel attempts to look for "very global" or "all-encompassing" answers to the question of "When is it 'right' to kill animals?" I do not think such an answer exists as I just attempted to explain with paragraph on hunting above. Whenever you ask yourself is it right to kill animals I believe it is (as usually seems to be the case) a scenario-by-scenario decision.

 

[Rabbattack]

I would like to point out that there is a variety of mental disabilities that do not necessarily equate to one being dumber. But, not exactly part of the conversation.

Anyway, there is a bit of ambiguity in what is 'bad' or 'good'. As an example you brought up, killing in video games is not 'bad' in the sense that objects being 'killed' were never living to begin with. In another aspect, I could say video games are bad due to the behaviors they bring up in life.

As far as I know, legalized hunting is a way for humans to act as the wildlife's local predator. It makes sense to think that an area can only support so much wildlife of a certain type. If a particular species population becomes too large it can consumes much of the local resources and therefore it will starve itself and other species in that area. So, legalized hunting is an attempt to maintain healthy populations that a local area can support. In this aspect, I find it 'right' or justifiable to kill animals to regulate a balanced ecosystem. Continuing off of this sub-topic we have the issue of uncontrolled and unregulated human population. However, I believe many people would agree simply killing humans to maintain population control is not allowable. Therefore, the justification of killing of animals to regulate population apparently is no longer justifiable or 'right' when you apply it to humans.

The point I am trying to make is that your poll options and question I feel attempts to look for "very global" or "all-encompassing" answers to the question of "When is it 'right' to kill animals?" I do not think such an answer exists as I just attempted to explain with paragraph on hunting above. Whenever you ask yourself is it right to kill animals I believe it is (as usually seems to be the case) a scenario-by-scenario decision.

I agree that we cannot let the population go out of control, but killing millions animals for peoples money and selfish pleasure is not right. In the past eating animals was more justifiable, as not as much were killed. The thing I don't like about some hunters is that they don't have good reasons for killing that animal and make a game of the dying creature trying to stay alive.

 

[Kamila]

I think animals can be killed only when they are a threat to human health and life.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think animals can be killed only when they are a threat to human health and life.

Or when they have a disease that cannot be cured.

 

[Rabbattack]

Yes, I agree with all the posts here so far. I'm just waiting for someone to post something I'll disagree on.

 

[Calibrate]

I'd like to ask you a different question: What is right and wrong?

 

[Rabbattack]

I'd like to ask you a different question: What is right and wrong?

Wrong is unnecessarily hurting things when there is a better alternative that brings less suffering. If you had the option to save one person or two people from dying, it would be best to save the larger group. If you need to give your life to save one hundred people and you choose not to, then that is wrong as those one hundred could contribute more to society than one ever could. This is assuming they all are good people. Making things experience pain for selfish reasons when you can clearly survive without it is wrong. Unless you're in need of it to survive or stay healthy you should eat it. If you have the choice to stop eating meat because pain and death is not something any living thing wants to experience and you don't choose it, then you are selfish and wrong. You are not selfish if you are in need of it because just like the animal you don't want to feel pain or death.

 

[Claire Diviner]

In life and society, there are no clear cut right and wrongs. One would find right and wrong to be a palette of a variety of grays with not much in the way of black and white. Sure, humans kill for the sport of it, but there are also animals that do the same thing for no reason. Orcas can and will harass other whales, kill said whales, and not even consume them. Cats are pretty notorious for killing things, regardless of how minuscule it may be (an ant, a mouse), but a life is a life, so would they be wrong? Sure, one could argue that they're just animals and don't know any better, but humans are more or less the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that while I don't agree with killing things for what appears to be little to no reason, I can understand that humans aren't right nor wrong for killing other animals if the reason is legitimate, like consumption. While I don't like the idea of killing for sport, it can - as was stated before - help with population control of animals. As for us, we can't hunt ourselves, so we'd have to hope there's some outbreak of giants to hunt us and control our population a la "Attack on Titan". That, or a nuclear war does us in, but I digress.

 

[Rabbattack]

In life and society, there are no clear cut right and wrongs. One would find right and wrong to be a palette of a variety of grays with not much in the way of black and white. Sure, humans kill for the sport of it, but there are also animals that do the same thing for no reason. Orcas can and will harass other whales, kill said whales, and not even consume them. Cats are pretty notorious for killing things, regardless of how minuscule it may be (an ant, a mouse), but a life is a life, so would they be wrong? Sure, one could argue that they're just animals and don't know any better, but humans are more or less the same thing. What I'm trying to say is that while I don't agree with killing things for what appears to be little to no reason, I can understand that humans aren't right nor wrong for killing other animals if the reason is legitimate, like consumption. While I don't like the idea of killing for sport, it can - as was stated before - help with population control of animals. As for us, we can't hunt ourselves, so we'd have to hope there's some outbreak of giants to hunt us and control our population a la "Attack on Titan". That, or a nuclear war does us in, but I digress.

Humans have more control than any other animal could ever have. Animals brains aren't made to make complex choices like us humans. Humans are not like any other animal. Saying humans are the about the same as any other animal is not true. What animal kills for pleasure, wages wars and creates weapons and complex tools. Sure a monkey can smash a nut with a rock but that's not close enough to human tools. We shouldn't be using the excuse that we are the same, more or less to justify things like this. Birds fly, fish swim, humans think.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Humans have more control than any other animal could ever have. Animals brains aren't made to make complex choices like us humans. Humans are not like any other animal. Saying humans are the about the same as any other animal is not true. What animal kills for pleasure, wages wars and creates weapons and complex tools. Sure a monkey can smash a nut with a rock but that's not close enough to human tools. We shouldn't be using the excuse that we are the same, more or less to justify things like this. Birds fly, fish swim, humans think.

While humans have more complex brains, we as a species have been hunting and killing since the day we've emerged from whatever ancestor we descend from. Yes, initially it was for survival, but then we started creating technologies that help better our lives and such and such until we didn't need to kill as often. The problem is that it is in our nature to kill other creatures, if not ourselves, because we had to in the past to eat and survive. Also, plenty of animals wage wars over turf, mating, food, etc.. The termite is a good example, same holds true for most species of ants and other insects. Wolves will fight among other packs for dominance, and apes will fight for supremacy over land as well. As stated previously, orcas and cats can (and actually have) killed because they can; whether for pleasure or otherwise is irrelevant, and to say there are no creature in the world that kills for pleasure given the amount of creatures that isn't human in this world (many that are still undiscovered today) is a bit naive. Humans aren't the only species guilty of these behaviors despite our intelligence, and archeological evidence suggests permanent settlements, agriculture, and social cultures were the seeds of humanity's aggression towards one another, which falls in the same plane as fighting over territory, food, etc.; same as not only apes, but other animals, like big cats, canines, birds, and so on. Just because humans are "more intelligent" than other creatures doesn't necessarily mean we're smart enough to outgrow what has been an essential part of our mind for roughly 50,000 years. Wrong or not, it is nature, even if the means we use to act upon our nature is man-made.

 

[Rabbattack]

While humans have more complex brains, we as a species have been hunting and killing since the day we've emerged from whatever ancestor we descend from. Yes, initially it was for survival, but then we started creating technologies that help better our lives and such and such until we didn't need to kill as often. The problem is that it is in our nature to kill other creatures, if not ourselves, because we had to in the past to eat and survive. Also, plenty of animals wage wars over turf, mating, food, etc.. The termite is a good example, same holds true for most species of ants and other insects. Wolves will fight among other packs for dominance, and apes will fight for supremacy over land as well. As stated previously, orcas and cats can (and actually have) killed because they can; whether for pleasure or otherwise is irrelevant, and to say there are no creature in the world that kills for pleasure given the amount of creatures that isn't human in this world (many that are still undiscovered today) is a bit naive. Humans aren't the only species guilty of these behaviors despite our intelligence, and archeological evidence suggests permanent settlements, agriculture, and social cultures were the seeds of humanity's aggression towards one another, which falls in the same plane as fighting over territory, food, etc.; same as not only apes, but other animals, like big cats, canines, birds, and so on. Just because humans are "more intelligent" than other creatures doesn't necessarily mean we're smart enough to outgrow what has been an essential part of our mind for roughly 50,000 years. Wrong or not, it is nature, even if the means we use to act upon our nature is man-made.

Are you saying we can't change our ways? All I want is for humans to keep killing to a minimum.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Are you saying we can't change our ways? All I want is for humans to keep killing to a minimum.

I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying it will probably take us another 10,000-50,000 years to do so (assuming modern humans are still here and not gone due to extinction or evolution into some other higher being). Evolution of mind and/or culture doesn't happen overnight, or even in several lifetimes after all.

 

[KatKit]

The tremendous suffering we put livestock through is abhorrent, but unfortunately it is effective. Thus, the existing methods are going to stay for quite some time, although there has been considerable progess with meat substitutes and the like... but alas, there is no single study of the longterm effects of a large population utilizing a modern vegetarian diet. Furthermore, allergies for modern meat substitutes exist, so that is another validation for eating meat.

It's true that humans have been hunting for a very long time (to say the least), and it was a quicker way to acquire food than cultivating crops, but it was far less efficient overall. I disagree with the notion that killing animals is in our nature per se. I believe that humanity transcends its humble beginnings, it doesn't revel in them.

As for the topic... I disagree with the first option, obviously. I'm not a psychopath and I wouldn't kill animals 'whenever'. As for the second option, I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't have to rely on meat for survival. In fact, there is an overconsumption of it by a good chunk of the population, and it's counterproductive, as far as health issues are concerned. The third option is interesting for various reasons. I recall watching a documentary of people who essentially search for fresh roadkill. That's a bit extreme but they certainly weren't wasting meat. But I digress... as aforementioned, where I live, meat (and food itself) is generally overconsumed. If more of it was given to people who are starving, in that sense I think it's okay to kill animals for food. The religion option is somewhat laughable. Some religions forbid meat consumption entirely. Others say that it's okay to eat certain types of meat, while restricting others. Which are correct? Why follow it instead of deciding for yourself what is good or not? Do you abide by everything that the religion tells you to do? (Believe me, often times there are some pretty crazy [outdated] rules that are constantly broken and/or overlooked).

Anyway, I am a vegetarian and a pacifist. If given the opportunity, I would never kill an animal, for any reason. However, I understand that harvesting meat from animals isn't obsolete, even though we do have other means of food production. I also comprehend that my own belief system (vegetarianism) is flawed because I can't liken human and animal life on simple biological bases. For example, some animals that people eat have no sense of self-awareness. Now here's where the discussion gets interesting: Is killing animals moral? I say absolutely not. Is it necessary? For the time being. Until then, animals killed for consumption should - at the very least - be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. Afterall, they have pain receptors. Remember this: we (humanity) are capable of providing animals with a better quality of life. How livestock is typically handled should certainly be improved.

 

[JoshCube2]

In my personal opinion, I do not think animal abuse should be illegal since some religions need to kill an animal for a sacrifice. Many people in the U.S. have been arrested for this, yet the police do not get any penalty when they shoot dogs running towards them. The criminal justice system is a sham at the same time for this very reason.

 

[Thor]

I only read the OP, so maybe this stuff below has already been discussed. But... we can only kill for food?

How many violations do most have for all the houseflies/spiders they've killed? Have you never killed an insect/stomped on an ant/whatever? Should we consider ourselves bad people for killing these insects (or others if you never killed an insect), even though they may have posed a threat to us (irrational or rational fear - losing/contaminated food, getting ill from it, don't want the bug bite, etc.)? If you accidentally kill something, should you eat it because otherwise it's wasted?

And can you kill a wolf that's cornered your puppy/cat/pet, even though you won't eat the wolf, and the wolf WILL be killing ONLY for food (because it's hungry)? Can you deny another something that is perfectly legitimate by your starting point (carnivore needs meat) despite you not needing food? Or can we then kill other animals to protect certain animals? Do we then get to start valuing animals differently and make judgments and decisions on the basis of species [aka specieism]? Can we then only kill certain animals, like flies and spiders and deer and wolves, but not dogs and cats [these animals are examples, we could reverse it or kill other stuff and not other stuff]?

Some food for thought. [This pun was not intended when I first wrote it, but then I realized it was a pun and thought it was funny. Make of it what you will.]

 

[Rabbattack]

I've changed my mind about hunting to control population. It's just another stupid excuse to let America stay as violent and disgusting as it already is. Other first world countries don't let citizens have guns and they are fine. The deer are not going to eat our babies. I would rather sacrifice an unhealthy food group to boycott the unnecessary killing of animals than sacrifice a harmless source of entertainment in order to maybe prevent the children from being brainwashed in a less effective way than becoming vegetarian or vegan. When doing anything that could be bad in your mind, ask you self this question, "Is what I'm about to do going to hurt someone". If it does not just involve people, but animals to, ask yourself, "Is it necessary for me to hurt this animal for me or anyone else". It is wrong if you knowingly bring harm to someone or something for selfish reasons, but you can't sacrifice all your life or happiness for just this reason, so it's okay to do little things like picking flowers, or maybe even killing an intruding insect. I think everyone should do what they can or at least put some effort to prevent harm on other living things. Since I live in a first world country, I am not going to boycott paper to save trees, or protest honey for hurting an "insect". Smarter animals like mammals and reptiles should have priority over insects and maybe fish. If I had to choose, I'd eat the dumber one. The dumber one will most likely feel the least suffering when dying.

 

[Stake]

Insect rights >_>....

 

[Rabbattack]

Insect rights >_>....

Screw insects. I don't like them. Going as far as boycotting the production of fly swatters is stupid.

 

[Thor]

It is wrong if you knowingly bring harm to someone or something for selfish reasons, but you can't sacrifice all your life or happiness for just this reason

It's okay to do something wrong if you do it in moderation???... I don't like where my brain is going with this so I'm not going to keep typing...

If given the opportunity, I would never kill an animal, for any reason

Make sure you don't run into a wolf or bear or something...getting eaten sounds awfully painful, especially if someone's offering to shoot it for you...

 

[KatKit]

Hehe, I'll keep that in mind, but it's not a problem, considering my geographical location. It's also a good thing that wolves and bears typically avoid humans anyway. I won't have to worry about getting eaten either. Worse case scenario, the bear would try to maul me.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

This is an interesting subject, I never would of expected to run into this kind of discussion. But in my personal opinion, killing without reason is unjustifiable. But as long as there is a reason, a justified reason for doing so, then let it happen. But I will say this, even if there is a justified reason, I somehow still see it as wrong. I always wish for a better way to go about things that doesn't actually involve death or killing....but such is life, right?

 

[Brother AJ]

Hm, I actually overlooked this topic. This is a subject that is of great interest to me! I actually made a similar topic in the "Proving Grounds" board about the animal rights movement in general which I think your thread touches upon. Check it out if you'd like. We've been having a rather in depth discussion so far:

http://smashboards.com/threads/does-the-animal-rights-movement-deserve-to-be-taken-seriously.353160/

As far as I know, legalized hunting is a way for humans to act as the wildlife's local predator. It makes sense to think that an area can only support so much wildlife of a certain type. If a particular species population becomes too large it can consumes much of the local resources and therefore it will starve itself and other species in that area. So, legalized hunting is an attempt to maintain healthy populations that a local area can support. In this aspect, I find it 'right' or justifiable to kill animals to regulate a balanced ecosystem. Continuing off of this sub-topic we have the issue of uncontrolled and unregulated human population. However, I believe many people would agree simply killing humans to maintain population control is not allowable. Therefore, the justification of killing of animals to regulate population apparently is no longer justifiable or 'right' when you apply it to humans.

This is incorrect actually. Hunting primarily exists today because it is a traditional pastime. "Sport" enthusiasts enjoy the chase and challenge of taking down other animals. It is not necessary for controlling wildlife populations or for most people to obtain sustenance.

The issue here is that wildlife agencies across the world have a financial incentive to sell hunting licenses, and because of this they must continually artificially boost animal populations so that hunters may be able to continue hunting for generations to come. It is not possible for natural breeding to sustain the hunter's desire for, what can only be called, blood lust.

Source: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/27/hunting-isnt-the-answer-to-animal-pests/

So, a good start would definitely be to refrain from artificially boosting wildlife populations for the sole purpose killing of them, but even then I wouldn't suggest that we necessarily must solve the problem of "overpopulation" through lethal means.

If we absolutely feel we must interfere there are many things that could be done other than hunting or killing to maintain animal populations, and this includes the handling of invasive species, such as birth control, deterrents (for when they enter human communities), and relocation.

I think we should keep in mind that generally humans do not know what they are doing when they mess with nature, and so sometimes the best solution is to do nothing. Naturally, when over-population occurs within certain species, it is disease, infertility, and starvation that reduce their numbers. The strong will survive. This is an unfortunate reality, but nevertheless it is how these species continue to grow and adapt based off the process of evolution. Obviously we are not going to be able to save every animal on the planet from starving to death, and these are not even the animals that hunters go for since they prefer strong and healthy trophies.

The point I am trying to make is that your poll options and question I feel attempts to look for "very global" or "all-encompassing" answers to the question of "When is it 'right' to kill animals?" I do not think such an answer exists as I just attempted to explain with paragraph on hunting above. Whenever you ask yourself is it right to kill animals I believe it is (as usually seems to be the case) a scenario-by-scenario decision.

I'm not really sure if hunting is the best example, but I agree that some decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Some people that live in poorer countries must kill animals in order to survive, and so it hard for me to find fault in them doing so. I'm not saying that I know it's "right" to take the animal's life, but still it is difficult to blame people that are in that sort of situation. I should also state that it would be difficult to blame someone for killing and eating a human if they otherwise would've died.

I believe it is helpful to ask ourselves certain questions before we choose to force ourselves or our values upon other animals be it wild or domesticated:

1. Are they really affecting us or themselves to such a negative degree that we must intrude upon their lives?

2. Are we in such a desperate situation that if they are not killed, we will surely die?

Primarily, I believe the only time we should answer "yes" to the second question is in matters of self defense, which is always justified regardless if the attacker is human or not. Although, I think it’s best to resort to non-lethal means of self-defense as a matter of principle, so that resorting to killing an animal will be considered extreme rather than the norm. You can’t say that the animal really knows any better, and so I think it would be just to let them live on if possible.

Or when they have a disease that cannot be cured.

Why must this be an exception where we are to kill other animals? I’m assuming that you are speaking of using animals for medical research?

First, we should ask why it is acceptable in the first place to test on non-consenting animal subjects, but not on non-consenting human subjects. Could not the human be used as an accurate model for disease, and be a way for us to possibly acquire cures for the masses? Sure they could, but we’ve already decided that humans are the sort of beings that we do not treat like that. So, why is it okay to treat animals this way?

Second, can the medical testing that is being conducted on these animals really be deemed as necessary? It certainly is not accurate to say that there has never been an instant in our scientific community where time and money has been wasted on a fruitless matter. I speak of tests, for example, where we examine how starvation, dehydration, and burns affect the body, forcing animals to suffer immensely for information we already know.

I'm not saying we can't. I'm saying it will probably take us another 10,000-50,000 years to do so (assuming modern humans are still here and not gone due to extinction or evolution into some other higher being). Evolution of mind and/or culture doesn't happen overnight, or even in several lifetimes after all.

That’s a rather cynical way to look at it. In a way, the culture has already changed as there are currently hundreds of millions of vegetarians and vegans on this Earth. Furthermore, it’s certainly arguable that to kill other animals is some sort of innate desire within all human beings. Clearly, this is far from the case for many of us as we are disgusted by the sight and smell of meat, and in addition it conflicts with our completely natural feelings of empathy when we realize what it takes to acquire the product.

Even if it WAS true that a desire for meat was an innate quality within all humans, this would not be a valid argument for the continued killing of animals and the consumption of their flesh. Many qualities and emotions within humans can be said to be natural and also have been going on for tens of thousands of years, including a desire to be violent or discriminatory, but simply because this these traits are innate is certainly no reason why we can’t make laws against them or discourage them within society overall.

The tremendous suffering we put livestock through is abhorrent, but unfortunately it is effective. Thus, the existing methods are going to stay for quite some time, although there has been considerable progess with meat substitutes and the like... but alas, there is no single study of the longterm effects of a large population utilizing a modern vegetarian diet.

I think the following links are extremely helpful and relevant in regards to the efficacy of vegetarian and vegan diets:

The Permanente Journal - http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/.../5117-nutrition.html

American Dietetic Association - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

British Dietetic Association - www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf

Dietitians Association of Australia - http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegan-diets/

Dietitians of Canada - http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-.../Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...nativemedicine/dietandnutrition/vegetarianism

Harvard School of Public Health - http://www.dining.harvard.edu/vegvgn

Cleveland Clinic - http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart...food-choices/understanding-vegetarianism.aspx

New York Presbyterian Hospital - http://nyp.org/wellness/showDocument.php?contentTypeId=1&contentId=1876&heading=Vegetarian Diets: The Myths vs. Facts

The Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (UCLA) - http://www.dining.ucla.edu/.../SNAC_pdf/Vegetarianism.pdf

The Perelman School of Medicine (Penn Med) -http://www.pennmedicine.org/enc.../em_DisplayArticle.aspx...

The Mayo Clinic -http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596

http://nutritionfacts.org/.../uprooting-the-leading.../

Walter Willet, the Chair of Harvard’s nutrition department - http://life.nationalpost.com/.../drinking-milk-not.../

Furthermore, allergies for modern meat substitutes exist, so that is another validation for eating meat.

Not really, as there is no evidence that one must eat meat substitutes in order to be healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

As for the topic... I disagree with the first option, obviously. I'm not a psychopath and I wouldn't kill animals 'whenever'. As for the second option, I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't have to rely on meat for survival. In fact, there is an overconsumption of it by a good chunk of the population, and it's counterproductive, as far as health issues are concerned. The third option is interesting for various reasons. I recall watching a documentary of people who essentially search for fresh roadkill. That's a bit extreme but they certainly weren't wasting meat. But I digress... as aforementioned, where I live, meat (and food itself) is generally overconsumed. If more of it was given to people who are starving, in that sense I think it's okay to kill animals for food.

I also disagree that feeding the hungry is a reason to kill animals for food. We could easily just give them non-animal foods, and, in fact, there are many charities that already do this.

Anyway, I am a vegetarian and a pacifist. If given the opportunity, I would never kill an animal, for any reason. However, I understand that harvesting meat from animals isn't obsolete, even though we do have other means of food production. I also comprehend that my own belief system (vegetarianism) is flawed because I can't liken human and animal life on simple biological bases. For example, some animals that people eat have no sense of self-awareness.

What is or is not obsolete is completely up to us. We have to the power to refrain from harvesting meat from other animals if we so choose, thereby making the practice “obsolete”.

As for your next point, are you certain that these animals have no self awareness? It is not unreasonable to liken humans and other animals on biological grounds, after all humans are a species of animal themselves. Consider a chicken for a moment. When a chicken sees that other chickens are being fed the bird will go over to receive food themselves. This is because the chicken realizes that they are not some “other” chicken, and have to feed their own bodies in order to be satisfied. Is this not, in some sense, a type of “self awareness”?

The science on the matter is quite clear actually. It has been shown numerous times that the other animals of this Earth possess behavioral, chemical, and structural features that we also see in human beings. This is especially true when we consider vertebrae such as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. It was Darwin who said that the differences between us and other animals are of degree rather than kind, and I believe this makes sense seeing as we most likely all share a common evolutionary ancestor.

Now here's where the discussion gets interesting: Is killing animals moral? I say absolutely not. Is it necessary? For the time being. Until then, animals killed for consumption should - at the very least - be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. Afterall, they have pain receptors. Remember this: we (humanity) are capable of providing animals with a better quality of life. How livestock is typically handled should certainly be improved.

How is it that you have concluded that killing animals is necessary? Within your own post you stated that, “I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't have to rely on meat for survival.” Does not your latter statement indicate that it isn’t NECESSARY to kill other animals for food, at least within nations such as your own?

I only read the OP, so maybe this stuff below has already been discussed. But... we can only kill for food?

Why is this the sole reason where killing animals is an excused act?

How many violations do most have for all the houseflies/spiders they've killed? Have you never killed an insect/stomped on an ant/whatever? Should we consider ourselves bad people for killing these insects (or others if you never killed an insect), even though they may have posed a threat to us (irrational or rational fear - losing/contaminated food, getting ill from it, don't want the bug bite, etc.)?

I do not attack or harm bugs if I can avoid it, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider someone “bad” for harming insects, as I don’t believe there is anyone that is actually inherently bad or good.

I do consider it immoral or a “bad” action to harm bugs for no reason. I can perhaps understand if they are biting or attacking you, but if they are merely annoying to you I don’t see how you’re justified in ending their life. There are many ways to simply relocate insects elsewhere so that both your interests are served. It’s important to consider that these types of creatures are not harming or bothering you intentionally, but rather are just trying to survive.

If you accidentally kill something, should you eat it because otherwise it's wasted?

Personally, I would not do this because the sight and smell of any dead animal repulses me. In addition, I know that the animal cannot consent to having their remains used in such a way, so because of this I do not consider it my right to choose what to do with their bodies after they pass on. However, this is obviously a much more preferable act than to kill an animal on purpose, and I would much prefer a world where this was the only king of meat that was eaten.

And can you kill a wolf that's cornered your puppy/cat/pet, even though you won't eat the wolf, and the wolf WILL be killing ONLY for food (because it's hungry)? Can you deny another something that is perfectly legitimate by your starting point (carnivore needs meat) despite you not needing food? Or can we then kill other animals to protect certain animals?

Well, first of all, it should be said that we really ought to not have “pets” in first place, but perhaps this a discussion for a different time. I, of course, encourage spaying and neutering programs as well as an end to breeding in general, but the fact remains that these animals are currently here with us and so we must deal with the implications.

In this situation I would avoid killing the wolf if possible, but if I absolutely had to I would certainly kill the wolf to prevent him/her from killing a being that was special to me. I would do the same thing if the wolf was attacking my child. I consider self defense as well as vicarious self defense to be completely justifiable, regardless if the attacker is starving or even a human. Other animals obviously will defend themselves and their companions from carnivores as well, so it’s not really a matter of favoring one species over another, but favoring those we care about over another. I see nothing wrong with the latter.

Do we then get to start valuing animals differently and make judgments and decisions on the basis of species [aka specieism]? Can we then only kill certain animals, like flies and spiders and deer and wolves, but not dogs and cats [these animals are examples, we could reverse it or kill other stuff and not other stuff]?

I think the standard response should be that we ought not to kill ANY animal if we can avoid doing so, but obviously there will be exceptions such as in situations of self defense.

I've changed my mind about hunting to control population. It's just another stupid excuse to let America stay as violent and disgusting as it already is. Other first world countries don't let citizens have guns and they are fine. The deer are not going to eat our babies.

I agree, and spoke in detail about this matter up above. Humans are not necessary to control animal populations. After all, what do you think went on before we were even upon the surface the Earth? The ecosystems were just failing without us? Ha, on the contrary…

I would rather sacrifice an unhealthy food group to boycott the unnecessary killing of animals than sacrifice a harmless source of entertainment in order to maybe prevent the children from being brainwashed in a less effective way than becoming vegetarian or vegan.

I’m sorry, but could you restate this sentence? It didn’t make a lot of sense to me.

When doing anything that could be bad in your mind, ask you self this question, "Is what I'm about to do going to hurt someone". If it does not just involve people, but animals to, ask yourself, "Is it necessary for me to hurt this animal for me or anyone else".

I think it’s time that we started considering other animals to be a SOMEONE as well. They are certainly not objects.

It is wrong if you knowingly bring harm to someone or something for selfish reasons, but you can't sacrifice all your life or happiness for just this reason, so it's okay to do little things like picking flowers, or maybe even killing an intruding insect.

You might want to clarify what exactly selfish reasons are then, because certainly being selfish can contribute to our happiness. Personally, I think it’s misguided to suggest that we must kill animals in order to not sacrifice “all” our happiness.

I think everyone should do what they can or at least put some effort to prevent harm on other living things. Since I live in a first world country, I am not going to boycott paper to save trees, or protest honey for hurting an "insect".

The jury is really still out as far as insects are concerned, although there is certainly a lot of data that points to them being able to suffer. They certainly possess nervous systems. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I would not want to be wrong.

I wouldn’t underestimate their intelligence either, as there are many studies that suggest we’ve misjudged the nature of these little creatures.

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117124009.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...hump-and-bees-get-depressed-the-state-animals

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-the-bees-and-their-brains-size-doesnt-matter

Smarter animals like mammals and reptiles should have priority over insects and maybe fish. If I had to choose, I'd eat the dumber one. The dumber one will most likely feel the least suffering when dying.

First of all, similar to insects, fish are constantly and mistakenly thought to be “dumb”

Sources:

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/are-fish-intelligent-crows-chimps-or-people

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/fish-intelligence-study_n_5503895.html

Also, there is no concrete evidence that being more intelligent causes you to experience greater suffering. It’s possible that many animals experience fear and pain in a much more raw fashion than human beings since they are, for example, incapable of rationalizing their fears away like many humans can.

This is an interesting subject, I never would of expected to run into this kind of discussion. But in my personal opinion, killing without reason is unjustifiable. But as long as there is a reason, a justified reason for doing so, then let it happen. But I will say this, even if there is a justified reason, I somehow still see it as wrong. I always wish for a better way to go about things that doesn't actually involve death or killing....but such is life, right?

What do you see as a justified reason for killing an animal? Could you list several examples please?

 

[ミスティック Speed]

What do you see as a justified reason for killing an animal? Could you list several examples please?

• Rabies or any sort of disease that causes harm to humans or other creatures.
• A kill or be killed situation where if you don't fight back, you could very well loose your own life.
• Risk of starvation, meaning that you must kill something for food.

 

[Brother AJ]

• Rabies or any sort of disease that causes harm to humans or other creatures.
• A kill or be killed situation where if you don't fight back, you could very well loose your own life.
• Risk of starvation, meaning that you must kill something for food.

These all seem quite reasonable. What is your position on how we currently kill animals for food, which by far accounts for the most animals that are killed annually? Do you think that all of us are risking starvation by not eating meat or other animal products?

 

[ミスティック Speed]

These all seem quite reasonable. What is position on how we currently kill animals for food, which by far accounts for the most animals that are killed annually? Do you think that all of us are risking starvation by not eating meat or other animal products?

It's hard to say, honestly. We raise animals up to be killed, it sounds harsh....but aren't we feeding our own species by doing so? Honestly....I believe we could easily make just as many fruits and vegetables if we needed to.

 

[Brother AJ]

It's hard to say, honestly. We raise animals up to be killed, it sounds harsh....but aren't we feeding our own species by doing so? Honestly....I believe we could easily make just as many fruits and vegetables if we needed to.

And you would be correct. As I linked to above, humans are capable of acquiring all necessary nutrients from non-animal derived sources. We may kill animals to feed ourselves, but we do so needlessly. In addition, the sustainability of animal agriculture is extremely questionable:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

Raising animals for food requires much more resources in general than growing plants including water, food, land, energy, etc. We have to grow food for the animals after all, but it would be much more efficient if we used that land to grow food for ourselves. In fact, the majority of crops grown in the US are given to "livestock", not humans. If we were to eliminate eggs and dairy from the menu as well, then the resource savings would be even greater.

Obviously there is more we need to do to care for ourselves and the environment such as reducing our overall population and searching for alternative fuel sources, but subsisting on a plant based diet would greatly improve our situation.

 

[Thor]

Why is this the sole reason where killing animals is an excused act?

I didn't say I believed that, I was applying the conclusion of the OP and going down my own path, seeing where the logic led. I wasn't saying killing animals for food is necessarily justified or the only kind of killing of animals that is justified, only that the OP's conclusion seemed to be "killing animals for food is okay if it's necessary."

Personally, I would not do this because the sight and smell of any dead animal repulses me. In addition, I know that the animal cannot consent to having their remains used in such a way, so because of this I do not consider it my right to choose what to do with their bodies after they pass on. However, this is obviously a much more preferable act than to kill an animal on purpose, and I would much prefer a world where this was the only king of meat that was eaten.

Eh... consent? I would like to ask someone to explain to me why people are so... "obsessed" is a strong word but I'll use it... with "the rights of the dead" [maybe this should just be another topic]. Unless we're trying cryogenics and revival, they're DEAD. Why do they care if they lose their eyes before they're cremated? Will the dead person ever know the difference? In all likelihood, no [I guess it could be religious, but even outside these groups], many still persist in refusing to donate tissue. What's the body being burned? Waste, waste where the eyes could help research on vision, the lungs could help research on those with respiratory problems... I don't think claiming the animal's rights as a dead animal make much sense, because it's dead - we can't somehow change that by not using it as best we can, and we're wasting resources others would dearly want - I think making use of it is a good idea, which is why I posited the question [though if you don't eat animals, don't, but would you condemn others for eating an animal that met this fate?].

favoring those we care about over another. I see nothing wrong with the latter.

Good point. Though... hm... it's life I guess, but that doesn't mean living like that allows for people to commit "bad" acts and feel fully justified in their actions... [person knows family with grave illness, steals money, and another finds him or her, kills them, and takes money - each side favored what they cared about over someone else, and the results were undesirable all around]. There may be some moral problem with this statement, though I don't know that it exists in the original question I asked.

I think the standard response should be that we ought not to kill ANY animal if we can avoid doing so, but obviously there will be exceptions such as in situations of self defense.

This last part was more directed at the logic of disliking certain species and liking others.

Would owning a wood house and putting out termite poison count as self-defense, slaughter, or what? It's not like you can deter them, and living in a bad house can be an existential risk to one's being...

 

[Brother AJ]

I didn't say I believed that, I was applying the conclusion of the OP and going down my own path, seeing where the logic led. I wasn't saying killing animals for food is necessarily justified or the only kind of killing of animals that is justified, only that the OP's conclusion seemed to be "killing animals for food is okay if it's necessary."

Right, it's excusable to kill animals for food only when NECESSARY. That's a very fine distinction to make, so when you asked "we can only kill for food?", I thought you might not be recognizing said distinction.

The OP also said "If you are able to survive with no or little meat then you should not eat it unless needed." I believe the latter applies to a great deal of humans, as it has been shown numerous times that we need not subsist on animal products to survive or even thrive nutritionally.

Eh... consent? I would like to ask someone to explain to me why people are so... "obsessed" is a strong word but I'll use it... with "the rights of the dead" [maybe this should just be another topic]. Unless we're trying cryogenics and revival, they're DEAD. Why do they care if they lose their eyes before they're cremated? Will the dead person ever know the difference? In all likelihood, no [I guess it could be religious, but even outside these groups], many still persist in refusing to donate tissue. What's the body being burned? Waste, waste where the eyes could help research on vision, the lungs could help research on those with respiratory problems... I don't think claiming the animal's rights as a dead animal make much sense, because it's dead - we can't somehow change that by not using it as best we can, and we're wasting resources others would dearly want - I think making use of it is a good idea, which is why I posited the question [though if you don't eat animals, don't, but would you condemn others for eating an animal that met this fate?].

As I said, I would much prefer it if humans ate other animals that died from natural causes or by accident rather than having them killed intentionally. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't potential problems we should be considering in these situations.

Another point, that I failed to bring up last time, is that we must be cautious when eating animals that have died naturally or incidentally because it could possibly encourage or influence the act of killing animals intentionally. In our current cultural climate, eating other animals is as normal as drinking water or breathing air, so being seen eating meat obviously perpetuates the act as being socially acceptable. Even if the animal died of natural causes, assuming you don't announce that this is the case, people will assume your meat was acquired the typical way by forcing an animal to die, and this will in turn continue to normalize the latter practice.

You raise a good point about the "rights" of dead, and possibly using their bodies for our benefit. However, do we not possess ownership of our own bodies? Should we prevent people or their loved from choosing how their remains are used? One might want to consider what implications this would have. Sure, it would be great if everyone was an organ donor, but shouldn't we give them the right to choose whether they want to have their body used in that way?

Obviously, if the deceased were without loved ones, no one is being harmed by you using their lifeless bodies, but there are the principles of honor and integrity to consider here. Should we not care how someone wants their body to be used? What if they could never consent to have it be used in the first place? Is it our right to use them how we please regardless of what the previous owner of the body did or did not want? We should also be aware that animals are SUPPOSED to degrade and be consumed by the Earth, because this benefits our ecosystems overall.

I think there are many things to think about and consider here, but certainly this is not as serious or concerning as taking an animal's life against their will.

Good point. Though... hm... it's life I guess, but that doesn't mean living like that allows for people to commit "bad" acts and feel fully justified in their actions... [person knows family with grave illness, steals money, and another finds him or her, kills them, and takes money - each side favored what they cared about over someone else, and the results were undesirable all around]. There may be some moral problem with this statement, though I don't know that it exists in the original question I asked.

Right, I was saying that it's acceptable to choose your loved ones over another in situations of self-defense and immediate danger, not that you can go and cut someone's organ out of their body if your son needs it to live.

This last part was more directed at the logic of disliking certain species and liking others.

Would owning a wood house and putting out termite poison count as self-defense, slaughter, or what? It's not like you can deter them, and living in a bad house can be an existential risk to one's being...

Liking or disliking an individual is separate from being discriminatory or abusive towards them. To use your example, you may not "like" termites because they can cause destruction, but this does not excuse you from, say, stomping on or torturing a termite that is doing nothing to bother you. I don't personally "like" ants, but that doesn't mean I would hurt them if I could avoid doing so.

It is actually possible to deter and prevent termites by the way, and there is usually a non-lethal solution to similar situations where our interests conflict with other animals.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2092C.html

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/keeptermitesout#.U7Lfv7FcOQI

This isn't to say that I would absolutely object to someone killing termites if there was no other possible way. I believe you are justified in preventing your home from being destroyed, which could also result in your own death for that matter.

 

[Thor]

You raise a good point about the "rights" of dead, and possibly using their bodies for our benefit. However, do we not possess ownership of our own bodies? Should we prevent people or their loved from choosing how their remains are used? One might want to consider what implications this would have. Sure, it would be great if everyone was an organ donor, but shouldn't we give them the right to choose whether they want to have their body used in that way?
Obviously, if the deceased were without loved ones, no one is being harmed by you using their lifeless bodies, but there are the principles of honor and integrity to consider here. Should we not care how someone wants their body to be used? What if they could never consent to have it be used in the first place? Is it our right to use them how we please regardless of what the previous owner of the body did or did not want? We should also be aware that animals are SUPPOSED to degrade and be consumed by the Earth, because this benefits our ecosystems overall.
I think there are many things to think about and consider here, but certainly this is not as serious or concerning as taking an animal's life against their will.

I mean, we don't "own" anything when we die, [if we go for religion: except (if you believe in it) our souls, which implies we transcend earthly possessions anyway and therefore lack need of them]. I guess people may have a claim to how someone's body is used from a family standpoint, but take the case of Lacks, a 1951 women who had cancer and had a biopsy of the tumor. Her cells could replicate without dying in a lab, nearly endlessly, and they were used to find the vaccine to polio, and many others. But in taking the biopsy, they didn't ask for medical permission to use them, and she died without giving consent. Does that make it wrong to use them?

I suppose if someone specifically doesn't want their body used (but family does) it brings up greater issues... I might end up making a forum on this (Really should actually).

Animals are broken down by the digestive system and then those unused nutrients are put back as waste, so they do get consumed one way or another.

I agree with/appreciate [most of] the rest of your post - good to know about deterring termites if I ever build a wood thing. [I may or may not agree with the "Eating animals" stuff, but I really don't know enough about it so I'll simply keep my mostly uninformed opinions to myself.]

 

[Sucumbio]

I notice this topic arises somewhat more often the last decade or so, far more than I would expect. To think there are so many people in the world who are against farm-raised meat and it's consumption. I wonder how things will be in 20 years. If Beef, chicken, pork, fish, etc. will be outlawed as a form of sustenance.

So anyway, I'm in the camp of "kill it but don't be wasteful." I've been in this camp since the notion of this debate came into my mind, maybe when I was 5 or so. It appalled me when I went to visit the battleground of "The Little Big Horn" and I learned of the death squads that went out into the wilderness to slaughter buffalo, with the sole purpose of taking -some- hide, and leaving most of the animal to rot. And it wasn't even for the hide, really, that was just a side-effect. It was for the purpose of starving the Native American tribes who ate them (and note, ate just a handful in comparison to the MILLIONS that roamed, and they were used 100 percent in full from tip to tail - nothing wasted.) Ironically while on this visit the National Park Ranger driving the mini-bus stopped in the middle of the tour mid-road and announced he'd come to a halt because a rattlesnake had parked itself in the road to sun bathe. A man from Tennessee quipped "just run over it, 'Jasper' (his name was Frank), it's just a rattler." Almost immediately everyone on the bus turned to glare at the man in disgust. The park ranger piped up "Well this is a National Park, we leave nature as-is, of course." He honked the horn and it moved and we went on our way. Double ironically the National Park's "non-intervention" policy is why Yellowstone was nearly erased from the map back when the great fire hit. All that underbrush... dried downed limbs, it was like a 10 million acre match box just waiting to go. Triple irony, we all had a steak/chicken dinner that night at the hotel outside the park. Heh...

The point of this anecdote of course is to signify what others in this topic have already mentioned... case-by-case. It in no way is meant to be used as an example of "right" or "wrong" killing/intervention/interference. It's just a story that hopefully make you think a bit.

As for farm-raised meat. Yeah, it's horrifying what they do in butcher farms. Gross... absolutely gross. But I don't flinch when I make beef tacos for dinner, because I don't see that happening. Ever. All I see is the package of meat at the store, which finds its way into my frying pan. Had I been raised on a diet of sea weed, then all I'd eat is sea weed. But I was raised on a diet of meat and vegetables and fruit and starches. So by the time I reached an age where I could provide for myself, and could make the decision for myself on what to eat, of course I belong to the category of Human that goes with what he knows. Not everyone is like this. Some are able to break away from tradition - for whatever reason - and try something different. And still further some stick with their choice, and become a "changed" person, either for better or worse. I know people that literally vomit at the sight of meat. It's offensive to them to the extreme that the smell of smokey goodness emanating from the local BK (God, it makes me drool) will cause them visible signs of illness.

Not me, though. Should there be a product that comes out that tastes like meat but isn't meat, yeah I'll eat it, why not. Meat's expensive.

As for "hunting culture" I find that it is indeed an unfortunate past time. I enjoy weapons, guns especially. At shooting ranges. But out in the wild, nah. It's not even fair these days. People go out there with semi-automatic weapons and mow down entire fields of deer that have been tricked or corralled into the area for mass slaughter. There's no real justification for it.

Fishing, fine with me. But laws have been passed to prevent over-fishing, because human fishing outnumbers available fish in a lot of places and the populations are brought to dangerously low levels.

Nutritionally speaking, eating meat is unnecessary, but to me that's beside the point. And we are not the only creatures who kill for sport. (Google shall set you free). Meanwhile there's plenty of things wrong the United States in particular when it comes to meat. The only way for it to change is for people to start getting weened off of meat, and for that to happen, I believe proprietors of "Big Meat" like McDonald's will have to start substituting their meat with non-meat products that still taste and feel and smell, like meat.

 

[Brother AJ]

I mean, we don't "own" anything when we die, [if we go for religion: except (if you believe in it) our souls, which implies we transcend earthly possessions anyway and therefore lack need of them]. I guess people may have a claim to how someone's body is used from a family standpoint, but take the case of Lacks, a 1951 women who had cancer and had a biopsy of the tumor. Her cells could replicate without dying in a lab, nearly endlessly, and they were used to find the vaccine to polio, and many others. But in taking the biopsy, they didn't ask for medical permission to use them, and she died without giving consent. Does that make it wrong to use them?

I suppose if someone specifically doesn't want their body used (but family does) it brings up greater issues... I might end up making a forum on this (Really should actually).

Yea, you should make that topic. It really is a different subject altogether.

Animals are broken down by the digestive system and then those unused nutrients are put back as waste, so they do get consumed one way or another.

I’m sorry, but what was this in response to? It’s not clear to me.

I agree with/appreciate [most of] the rest of your post - good to know about deterring termites if I ever build a wood thing. [I may or may not agree with the "Eating animals" stuff, but I really don't know enough about it so I'll simply keep my mostly uninformed opinions to myself.]

Well, feel free the check out the links I placed within my initial post on this thread. It’s fine to approach an issue with limited knowledge, and that’s why we’re here right? We come to debate forums to discuss and learn from one another, unless you’re a troll of course. Feel free to ask me any questions you wish, or provide me with a challenge if you’d like.

As for farm-raised meat. Yeah, it's horrifying what they do in butcher farms. Gross... absolutely gross. But I don't flinch when I make beef tacos for dinner, because I don't see that happening. Ever. All I see is the package of meat at the store, which finds its way into my frying pan. Had I been raised on a diet of sea weed, then all I'd eat is sea weed. But I was raised on a diet of meat and vegetables and fruit and starches. So by the time I reached an age where I could provide for myself, and could make the decision for myself on what to eat, of course I belong to the category of Human that goes with what he knows. Not everyone is like this. Some are able to break away from tradition - for whatever reason - and try something different. And still further some stick with their choice, and become a "changed" person, either for better or worse. I know people that literally vomit at the sight of meat. It's offensive to them to the extreme that the smell of smokey goodness emanating from the local BK (God, it makes me drool) will cause them visible signs of illness.

Not me, though. Should there be a product that comes out that tastes like meat but isn't meat, yeah I'll eat it, why not. Meat's expensive.

Should it really be our choice not to change if we wish in these sorts of situations though? There are countless individuals that have had to drastically change their life-styles in order to conform to various societal evolutions be it the end of slavery, segregation and marital **** becoming illegal, women being allowed to gain more power in general, etc. What should it matter that someone was raised to be against these evolutions of society, shouldn’t they have to change all the same? Or at least not get in the way of progress? Is it merely tradition that binds us, or is it that we simply don’t consider this issue to be important enough to warrant an adjustment in life-style? I think more often than not it is the latter, as well as the problem of being “inconvenienced” by such changes.

As for "hunting culture" I find that it is indeed an unfortunate past time. I enjoy weapons, guns especially. At shooting ranges. But out in the wild, nah. It's not even fair these days. People go out there with semi-automatic weapons and mow down entire fields of deer that have been tricked or corralled into the area for mass slaughter. There's no real justification for it.

Fishing, fine with me. But laws have been passed to prevent over-fishing, because human fishing outnumbers available fish in a lot of places and the populations are brought to dangerously low levels.

I’m not really certain why you disagree with hunting, but not fishing. Fishing is certainly just as unfair and painful to the creatures, so what is the difference?

Nutritionally speaking, eating meat is unnecessary, but to me that's beside the point. And we are not the only creatures who kill for sport. (Google shall set you free).

Yes, and one could also use this as a justification for hunting. See the inconsistency here? Of course, that other animal’s act in certain ways does not inherently validate humans acting the same.

Meanwhile there's plenty of things wrong the United States in particular when it comes to meat. The only way for it to change is for people to start getting weened off of meat, and for that to happen, I believe proprietors of "Big Meat" like McDonald's will have to start substituting their meat with non-meat products that still taste and feel and smell, like meat.

I’m not sure if I agree that this is the “only” way to achieve a nation where animals aren’t killed for food. I think you’re making it out to be more difficult than it actually is in reality. We do not need perfect replicas of meat in order to stop eating it. There are plenty of nutritious and delicious non-animal foods out there already, but many of us simply aren’t willing or motivated enough to give them the chance. This is why education and campaigns are needed to raise public awareness, and supporting more vegan eateries is a great way to get more people to try these other types of foods.

 

[Sucumbio]

Should it really be our choice not to change if we wish in these sorts of situations though? There are countless individuals that have had to drastically change their life-styles in order to conform to various societal evolutions be it the end of slavery, segregation and marital **** becoming illegal, women being allowed to gain more power in general, etc. What should it matter that someone was raised to be against these evolutions of society, shouldn’t they have to change all the same? Or at least not get in the way of progress? Is it merely tradition that binds us, or is it that we simply don’t consider this issue to be important enough to warrant an adjustment in life-style? I think more often than not it is the latter, as well as the problem of being “inconvenienced” by such changes.

In the case of meat eating, I believe it should be our choice, yes. It's unfair to compare meat eating to slavery or women's suffrage - mainly because one is human vs. animal the other is human vs. human. And I think it is unreasonable to apply the same morals and ethics to animals as you would to humans. Not that I want to get into a long winded debate on the morals/ethics of eating meat, mind you. Just that to treat animals with the same "respect" as humans doesn't sit right with me.

I’m not really certain why you disagree with hunting, but not fishing. Fishing is certainly just as unfair and painful to the creatures, so what is the difference?

Fish don't feel pain. Higher mammals definitely "suffer," but that in itself is not why I disagree with hunting. I disagree with hunting because of the ridiculous -culture- that surrounds it. If we were to conduct ourselves like ancient Native Americans, I'd not mind it. But instead we treat it like a party... now SOME people DO in fact treat hunting responsibly. They take extra care not to be wasteful, they don't disturb the environment to make things easier, and they don't usually use guns (bow hunters). I don't think they're all that bad, but I also think they're so far few in number that they don't count towards the total group of rednecks that I'm obviously referring to when I say "hunting culture."

Yes, and one could also use this as a justification for hunting. See the inconsistency here? Of course, that other animal’s act in certain ways does not inherently validate humans acting the same.

This wasn't meant to justify anything, just a point I was making. Someone above, thought it was you, claimed Humans are the only species to hunt for sport, and this is incorrect, though the term "sport" in this context cannot really be applied to other species, in the most literal of terms, the assertion is correct, it's just that there are other species, such as Dolphins, who do in fact kill other animals, and not for food, or in defense (for no reason that we can figure out, really, so it's been assumed to be "sport" but I think that to be slightly inaccurate a term to use, but for lack of a better term, it's close enough.)

I’m not sure if I agree that this is the “only” way to achieve a nation where animals aren’t killed for food. I think you’re making it out to be more difficult than it actually is in reality. We do not need perfect replicas of meat in order to stop eating it. There are plenty of nutritious and delicious non-animal foods out there already, but many of us simply aren’t willing or motivated enough to give them the chance. This is why education and campaigns are needed to raise public awareness, and supporting more vegan eateries is a great way to get more people to try these other types of foods.

Heh, you assume way too much about the average american. If what you say is true there'd be far more vegetarians out there. No... the reason people eat meat is because it's what's offered. If you go to McDonald's your alternative is a salad. Not to justify with a comedic response, but it holds water "I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat a salad!" People really feel a visceral satisfaction in tearing into meat. It's not just cultural, the sensation in the mouth and teeth and jawbones, esophageal tract, etc... this all plays into it on an evolutionary scale. So in order to break these habits, vegetarianism needs to be introduced at an early age. Babies normally subsist on breast milk/formula until they can upgrade to baby food, which is often times pureed fruits and vegetables. It's not until teeth start forming that meat and other "solids" are introduced. At this stage, one could opt to serve meat substitutes such as tofu. That's a step in the right direction.

As for people my age or older (30-40+) we're not looking to change anything unless medically necessary, and even THEN many don't (look at all the heart patients and cancer patients that still smoke even after the heart attack or stroke or malignant tumor). BUT, if meat alternatives were introduced at a level far more pressing than just 1 little item on the bottom of a long menu, I think people would in fact begin to ween themselves off of meat. Another way would be to jack the price way up, I'm talking 100 bucks a pound kinda thing. Many people would simply say "oh, well heck with that I guess I'll eat tofu burgers from now on). But you face the possibility of civil unrest in this situation, not to mention this whole idea hinges on the economic impacts related to the meat industry (which we're already seeing. Texas' drought has cost America millions in cattle stocks.)

Just remember, those that choose to be vegetarians make conscious decisions to eat something that's obviously different (there's never been a tofu burger that tasted JUST LIKE a regular burger, if you thought so, your taste buds are defunct). So when it comes to mass change, the best way to do it is subversively. I think McD's would actually do well to change the QPwC to a vegetarian substitute, so long as it tasted like it should. I don't even think people would be mad if they found out later on down the line "oh by the way you're not even eating beef right now."

 

[Brother AJ]

In the case of meat eating, I believe it should be our choice, yes. It's unfair to compare meat eating to slavery or women's suffrage - mainly because one is human vs. animal the other is human vs. human. And I think it is unreasonable to apply the same morals and ethics to animals as you would to humans. Not that I want to get into a long winded debate on the morals/ethics of eating meat, mind you. Just that to treat animals with the same "respect" as humans doesn't sit right with me.

The point I was trying to make is that tradition itself or how one was raised does not inherently justify anything. The problem here, of course, is that you and many others think that eating animal products is not something that needs to change, but we ought to question why it must continue in a way that doesn’t appeal to tradition.

Why must other animals not be treated with the same or similar respect that we give humans? It’s not as if I said that all of our experiences were exactly the same, but I don’t see why we can’t compare humans to other animals. We are ALL animals after all, and are also capable of suffering, so I think there are certainly relevant comparisons to make here.

You even said it was unnecessary to eat meat, so why must we continue killing other animals against their will if we do so needlessly?

The discussion does not need to be long winded, but it would be nice to know where you are coming from. You did come to debate did you not? Just feel free drop out if it gets to be too much.

Fish don't feel pain.

I’ve read many other studies that indicate otherwise. Fish react to pain much like we do, and in addition have been shown numerous times to be of considerable intelligence.

Sources:

http://www.fair-fish.ch/files/pdf/wissen/pain_in_fish.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/fish-are-smart-and-of-cou_b_5545914.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...xperience-pain-way-humans-better-treated.html

http://animalrights.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=animalrights&cdn=newsissues&tm=103&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=6&bts=25&zu=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

http://animalrights.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=animalrights&cdn=newsissues&tm=117&f=00&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=6&bts=25&zu=http://www.livescience.com/animals/090430-fish-feel-pain-too.html

Even if you want to say that the matter is inconclusive, I would still suggest that we ought to give fish the benefit of the doubt as we are liable to do far more damage if we are wrong. It’s really simple to leave fish alone when we have no real need to catch them.

Higher mammals definitely "suffer," but that in itself is not why I disagree with hunting. I disagree with hunting because of the ridiculous -culture- that surrounds it. If we were to conduct ourselves like ancient Native Americans, I'd not mind it. But instead we treat it like a party... now SOME people DO in fact treat hunting responsibly. They take extra care not to be wasteful, they don't disturb the environment to make things easier, and they don't usually use guns (bow hunters). I don't think they're all that bad, but I also think they're so far few in number that they don't count towards the total group of rednecks that I'm obviously referring to when I say "hunting culture."

Using a bow can make it even more difficult for a hunter to kill an animal, and raises the possibility that their “target” will die a slow death. If it’s unnecessary to hunt, and I’m willing to admit that there are SOME that must either hunt or fish to survive, I don’t see why we must question whether it is done “responsibly” or with a better attitude.

Why is it so difficult to simply leave animals to their own devices? If they are not actively trying to harm you, then what can be the excuse for choking out their life when you don’t need to?

Heh, you assume way too much about the average american. If what you say is true there'd be far more vegetarians out there. No... the reason people eat meat is because it's what's offered. If you go to McDonald's your alternative is a salad. Not to justify with a comedic response, but it holds water "I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat a salad!" People really feel a visceral satisfaction in tearing into meat. It's not just cultural, the sensation in the mouth and teeth and jawbones, esophageal tract, etc... this all plays into it on an evolutionary scale. So in order to break these habits, vegetarianism needs to be introduced at an early age. Babies normally subsist on breast milk/formula until they can upgrade to baby food, which is often times pureed fruits and vegetables. It's not until teeth start forming that meat and other "solids" are introduced. At this stage, one could opt to serve meat substitutes such as tofu. That's a step in the right direction.

As for people my age or older (30-40+) we're not looking to change anything unless medically necessary, and even THEN many don't (look at all the heart patients and cancer patients that still smoke even after the heart attack or stroke or malignant tumor). BUT, if meat alternatives were introduced at a level far more pressing than just 1 little item on the bottom of a long menu, I think people would in fact begin to ween themselves off of meat. Another way would be to jack the price way up, I'm talking 100 bucks a pound kinda thing. Many people would simply say "oh, well heck with that I guess I'll eat tofu burgers from now on). But you face the possibility of civil unrest in this situation, not to mention this whole idea hinges on the economic impacts related to the meat industry (which we're already seeing. Texas' drought has cost America millions in cattle stocks.)

Just remember, those that choose to be vegetarians make conscious decisions to eat something that's obviously different (there's never been a tofu burger that tasted JUST LIKE a regular burger, if you thought so, your taste buds are defunct). So when it comes to mass change, the best way to do it is subversively. I think McD's would actually do well to change the QPwC to a vegetarian substitute, so long as it tasted like it should. I don't even think people would be mad if they found out later on down the line "oh by the way you're not even eating beef right now."

You do realize that many companies have been sued for falsely advertising their products as “real meat” before, correct? It’s odd to me that you’re placing the responsibility on a fast food chain that is one of the largest suppliers of factory farmed meat in the nation. Yes, part of the problem is that these animal foods are offered in the first place, but it is also because this is what the consumers DEMAND to be served. Factory farms exist partly because it wasn’t otherwise possible to provide large populations with vast amounts of cheap meat without them. If we want more focus on non-animal foods, then we need the public to WANT them to be more prominent which would in turn influence companies to provide for them.

The "food chain" comment is a statement that is made from ignorance, not to mention that there is much more satisfying vegan foods than salad. In true food chains there is no actual "top", it is just various organisms mutually benefiting one another within an ecosystem. This is NOT the current relationship we have with other animals, as they're kept within enclosed spaces and are unable to run away, as well as physically altered through various drugs and genetic engineering.

In addition, I think you would have a very difficult time proving that a desire for meat is an innate quality of human beings or anything more than cultural. Clearly, this is far from the case for many of us as we are disgusted by the sight and smell of meat, and in addition it conflicts with our completely NATURAL feelings of empathy when we realize what it takes to acquire the product.

Even if it WAS true that a desire for meat was an innate quality within all humans, something ingrained within us through evolution, this would not be a valid argument for the continued killing of animals and the consumption of their flesh. Many qualities and emotions within humans can be said to be natural, including a desire to be violent or discriminatory, but simply because this is true does not mean we shouldn't make laws against such things or stop discouraging them within society overall.

Yes, when it comes to the question of how we are to actually create change things get a tad more complicated, but education and making demands for what we want has proven effective in the past. Feeding kids more veggies is good, but parents have to want to do this too obviously. I wouldn’t say that the vegan education movement has really been that strong as of late, but progress is still slowly being made. There are more vegetarians/vegans every year including those that within your age group. Things are changing gradually, and people are beginning to realize that the point here isn’t to have the option to order a veggie burger on the menu, but rather to free animals from their unnecessary suffering. This is what we need to speak to the public about. Honestly we need only get to a certain point in order for mass change to be possible:

http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902

“Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the SCNARC @ Rensselaer (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.”

 

[Rabbattack]

Hm, I actually overlooked this topic. This is a subject that is of great interest to me! I actually made a similar topic in the "Proving Grounds" board about the animal rights movement in general which I think your thread touches upon. Check it out if you'd like. We've been having a rather in depth discussion so far:

http://smashboards.com/threads/does-the-animal-rights-movement-deserve-to-be-taken-seriously.353160/


This is incorrect actually. Hunting primarily exists today because it is a traditional pastime. "Sport" enthusiasts enjoy the chase and challenge of taking down other animals. It is not necessary for controlling wildlife populations or for most people to obtain sustenance.

The issue here is that wildlife agencies across the world have a financial incentive to sell hunting licenses, and because of this they must continually artificially boost animal populations so that hunters may be able to continue hunting for generations to come. It is not possible for natural breeding to sustain the hunter's desire for, what can only be called, blood lust.

Source: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/27/hunting-isnt-the-answer-to-animal-pests/

So, a good start would definitely be to refrain from artificially boosting wildlife populations for the sole purpose killing of them, but even then I wouldn't suggest that we necessarily must solve the problem of "overpopulation" through lethal means.

If we absolutely feel we must interfere there are many things that could be done other than hunting or killing to maintain animal populations, and this includes the handling of invasive species, such as birth control, deterrents (for when they enter human communities), and relocation.

I think we should keep in mind that generally humans do not know what they are doing when they mess with nature, and so sometimes the best solution is to do nothing. Naturally, when over-population occurs within certain species, it is disease, infertility, and starvation that reduce their numbers. The strong will survive. This is an unfortunate reality, but nevertheless it is how these species continue to grow and adapt based off the process of evolution. Obviously we are not going to be able to save every animal on the planet from starving to death, and these are not even the animals that hunters go for since they prefer strong and healthy trophies.

I'm not really sure if hunting is the best example, but I agree that some decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Some people that live in poorer countries must kill animals in order to survive, and so it hard for me to find fault in them doing so. I'm not saying that I know it's "right" to take the animal's life, but still it is difficult to blame people that are in that sort of situation. I should also state that it would be difficult to blame someone for killing and eating a human if they otherwise would've died.

I believe it is helpful to ask ourselves certain questions before we choose to force ourselves or our values upon other animals be it wild or domesticated:

1. Are they really affecting us or themselves to such a negative degree that we must intrude upon their lives?

2. Are we in such a desperate situation that if they are not killed, we will surely die?

Primarily, I believe the only time we should answer "yes" to the second question is in matters of self defense, which is always justified regardless if the attacker is human or not. Although, I think it’s best to resort to non-lethal means of self-defense as a matter of principle, so that resorting to killing an animal will be considered extreme rather than the norm. You can’t say that the animal really knows any better, and so I think it would be just to let them live on if possible.


Why must this be an exception where we are to kill other animals? I’m assuming that you are speaking of using animals for medical research?

First, we should ask why it is acceptable in the first place to test on non-consenting animal subjects, but not on non-consenting human subjects. Could not the human be used as an accurate model for disease, and be a way for us to possibly acquire cures for the masses? Sure they could, but we’ve already decided that humans are the sort of beings that we do not treat like that. So, why is it okay to treat animals this way?

Second, can the medical testing that is being conducted on these animals really be deemed as necessary? It certainly is not accurate to say that there has never been an instant in our scientific community where time and money has been wasted on a fruitless matter. I speak of tests, for example, where we examine how starvation, dehydration, and burns affect the body, forcing animals to suffer immensely for information we already know.


That’s a rather cynical way to look at it. In a way, the culture has already changed as there are currently hundreds of millions of vegetarians and vegans on this Earth. Furthermore, it’s certainly arguable that to kill other animals is some sort of innate desire within all human beings. Clearly, this is far from the case for many of us as we are disgusted by the sight and smell of meat, and in addition it conflicts with our completely natural feelings of empathy when we realize what it takes to acquire the product.

Even if it WAS true that a desire for meat was an innate quality within all humans, this would not be a valid argument for the continued killing of animals and the consumption of their flesh. Many qualities and emotions within humans can be said to be natural and also have been going on for tens of thousands of years, including a desire to be violent or discriminatory, but simply because this these traits are innate is certainly no reason why we can’t make laws against them or discourage them within society overall.


I think the following links are extremely helpful and relevant in regards to the efficacy of vegetarian and vegan diets:

The Permanente Journal - http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/.../5117-nutrition.html

American Dietetic Association - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

British Dietetic Association - www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/vegetarianfoodfacts.pdf

Dietitians Association of Australia - http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/vegan-diets/

Dietitians of Canada - http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-.../Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspx

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...nativemedicine/dietandnutrition/vegetarianism

Harvard School of Public Health - http://www.dining.harvard.edu/vegvgn

Cleveland Clinic - http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart...food-choices/understanding-vegetarianism.aspx

New York Presbyterian Hospital - http://nyp.org/wellness/showDocument.php?contentTypeId=1&contentId=1876&heading=Vegetarian Diets: The Myths vs. Facts

The Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center (UCLA) - http://www.dining.ucla.edu/.../SNAC_pdf/Vegetarianism.pdf

The Perelman School of Medicine (Penn Med) -http://www.pennmedicine.org/enc.../em_DisplayArticle.aspx...

The Mayo Clinic -http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vegetarian-diet/HQ01596

http://nutritionfacts.org/.../uprooting-the-leading.../

Walter Willet, the Chair of Harvard’s nutrition department - http://life.nationalpost.com/.../drinking-milk-not.../

Not really, as there is no evidence that one must eat meat substitutes in order to be healthy on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

I also disagree that feeding the hungry is a reason to kill animals for food. We could easily just give them non-animal foods, and, in fact, there are many charities that already do this.

What is or is not obsolete is completely up to us. We have to the power to refrain from harvesting meat from other animals if we so choose, thereby making the practice “obsolete”.

As for your next point, are you certain that these animals have no self awareness? It is not unreasonable to liken humans and other animals on biological grounds, after all humans are a species of animal themselves. Consider a chicken for a moment. When a chicken sees that other chickens are being fed the bird will go over to receive food themselves. This is because the chicken realizes that they are not some “other” chicken, and have to feed their own bodies in order to be satisfied. Is this not, in some sense, a type of “self awareness”?

The science on the matter is quite clear actually. It has been shown numerous times that the other animals of this Earth possess behavioral, chemical, and structural features that we also see in human beings. This is especially true when we consider vertebrae such as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. It was Darwin who said that the differences between us and other animals are of degree rather than kind, and I believe this makes sense seeing as we most likely all share a common evolutionary ancestor.


How is it that you have concluded that killing animals is necessary? Within your own post you stated that, “I am fortunate enough to live in a country that doesn't have to rely on meat for survival.” Does not your latter statement indicate that it isn’t NECESSARY to kill other animals for food, at least within nations such as your own?


Why is this the sole reason where killing animals is an excused act?

I do not attack or harm bugs if I can avoid it, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider someone “bad” for harming insects, as I don’t believe there is anyone that is actually inherently bad or good.

I do consider it immoral or a “bad” action to harm bugs for no reason. I can perhaps understand if they are biting or attacking you, but if they are merely annoying to you I don’t see how you’re justified in ending their life. There are many ways to simply relocate insects elsewhere so that both your interests are served. It’s important to consider that these types of creatures are not harming or bothering you intentionally, but rather are just trying to survive.

Personally, I would not do this because the sight and smell of any dead animal repulses me. In addition, I know that the animal cannot consent to having their remains used in such a way, so because of this I do not consider it my right to choose what to do with their bodies after they pass on. However, this is obviously a much more preferable act than to kill an animal on purpose, and I would much prefer a world where this was the only king of meat that was eaten.

Well, first of all, it should be said that we really ought to not have “pets” in first place, but perhaps this a discussion for a different time. I, of course, encourage spaying and neutering programs as well as an end to breeding in general, but the fact remains that these animals are currently here with us and so we must deal with the implications.

In this situation I would avoid killing the wolf if possible, but if I absolutely had to I would certainly kill the wolf to prevent him/her from killing a being that was special to me. I would do the same thing if the wolf was attacking my child. I consider self defense as well as vicarious self defense to be completely justifiable, regardless if the attacker is starving or even a human. Other animals obviously will defend themselves and their companions from carnivores as well, so it’s not really a matter of favoring one species over another, but favoring those we care about over another. I see nothing wrong with the latter.

I think the standard response should be that we ought not to kill ANY animal if we can avoid doing so, but obviously there will be exceptions such as in situations of self defense.


I agree, and spoke in detail about this matter up above. Humans are not necessary to control animal populations. After all, what do you think went on before we were even upon the surface the Earth? The ecosystems were just failing without us? Ha, on the contrary…

I’m sorry, but could you restate this sentence? It didn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I think it’s time that we started considering other animals to be a SOMEONE as well. They are certainly not objects.

You might want to clarify what exactly selfish reasons are then, because certainly being selfish can contribute to our happiness. Personally, I think it’s misguided to suggest that we must kill animals in order to not sacrifice “all” our happiness.

The jury is really still out as far as insects are concerned, although there is certainly a lot of data that points to them being able to suffer. They certainly possess nervous systems. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, as I would not want to be wrong.

I wouldn’t underestimate their intelligence either, as there are many studies that suggest we’ve misjudged the nature of these little creatures.

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117124009.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...hump-and-bees-get-depressed-the-state-animals

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-the-bees-and-their-brains-size-doesnt-matter


First of all, similar to insects, fish are constantly and mistakenly thought to be “dumb”

Sources:

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/are-fish-intelligent-crows-chimps-or-people

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/fish-intelligence-study_n_5503895.html

Also, there is no concrete evidence that being more intelligent causes you to experience greater suffering. It’s possible that many animals experience fear and pain in a much more raw fashion than human beings since they are, for example, incapable of rationalizing their fears away like many humans can.


What do you see as a justified reason for killing an animal? Could you list several examples please?

I don't really think that much when I write so I'm sorry if I came out wrong. I agree with everything you said. I apologize for talking trash about fish and bugs. I can never get anything down right.

I want to hear your opinion on vegans.

It's okay to do something wrong if you do it in moderation???... I don't like where my brain is going with this so I'm not going to keep typing...



Make sure you don't run into a wolf or bear or something...getting eaten sounds awfully painful, especially if someone's offering to shoot it for you...

I'm not going as far as saying murder or **** is ok in moderation. It's impossible to avoid doing bad things towards other living things, so if you accidentally step on a butterfly no one should call you "evil" for it.

About being allowed to kill animals, as long as you are not being wasteful, for who ever said that. AJ already explained that it takes more crops to feed your meat than it does to feed yourself, so have fun being a liar.

I learned a lot about the unnecessary killing of animals from a youtuber called Onision. Check his channel out for some enlightenment on many topics. I worship him as much as I worship Kira, they are my gods and I won't stop for anything to spread the word.

 

[Sucumbio]

The point I was trying to make is that tradition itself or how one was raised does not inherently justify anything. The problem here, of course, is that you and many others think that eating animal products is not something that needs to change, but we ought to question why it must continue in a way that doesn’t appeal to tradition.

I may agree except that there's nothing "traditional" about today's meat industry. If we were to follow with tradition, we should all of us that eat meat be raising our own livestock and slaughtering our own animals. Or if you want to reduce tradition to just the last 200 years instead of the last 15,000 years, we would then look at the local butcher. The invention of the giant industrialized meat machine is so recent that it cannot be considered true tradition. Now I realize what you're saying. I can't let the fact that I was raised in a meat eating family to justify my own personal choice in continuing to eat meat. I don't, however, need to justify it because I find nothing wrong with it. I find nothing wrong with it because it's never been a problem for me before (that's why I invoked how I was raised) and it continues to be a non-issue. If meat prices were to suddenly skyrocket, then yes, it would become a huge issue. Or if meat suddenly became dangerous to eat, as in the USDA disappeared and meat started coming to our local grocers all tainted and stuff, yeah big issue. But as of now, no issue.

Why must other animals not be treated with the same or similar respect that we give humans? It’s not as if I said that all of our experiences were exactly the same, but I don’t see why we can’t compare humans to other animals. We are ALL animals after all, and are also capable of suffering, so I think there are certainly relevant comparisons to make here.

You even said it was unnecessary to eat meat, so why must we continue killing other animals against their will if we do so needlessly?

The discussion does not need to be long winded, but it would be nice to know where you are coming from. You did come to debate did you not? Just feel free drop out if it gets to be too much.

I put these together because I take issue with these statements in the same way. Animals are not deserving of anything special. Nor are humans. We make a decision as a society to respect one another. We cannot enter into such a contract with animals because they lack the ability to do so. Therefore, it is up to us to decide if an animal is deserving of our protection. In other words we decide for them. In the instance of farm-raised meat, the decision is simple. We've decided to breed animals so that we may eat them. The only reason(s) you've given why this should be stopped center on the idea of "animal suffering." "Humane" ways of harvesting meat have been devised in order to 1.) speed the process 2.) placate unusually sensitive individuals such as yourself 3.) increase productivity. I mean no offense, of course. Empathy toward fellow humans is hard enough without trying to find people that share empathy with non-human lifeforms, be they trees, plants, animals, birds fish or even insects. The point is that you should acknowledge your stance as being one based not in a position of logic, but that of emotion. You have assigned a very human trait (duress, suffering, etc.) to another species without any way of knowing how similar the physical states are. If the cows were so horrified of their existence, they'd say so. But they don't. They've been bred into a relatively short life with one purpose, which is become our food. I know it sounds horrible but there's no precedent for it to be considered as such. Not without expecting me to be believe that cows are more human that we realize. I cannot justify your stance just because cows have two eyes like we do, etc. Perhaps if you could give me a reason to bring an end to the meat industry that DIDN'T center on the suffering of animals, we could get somewhere.

Even if you want to say that the matter is inconclusive, I would still suggest that we ought to give fish the benefit of the doubt as we are liable to do far more damage if we are wrong. It’s really simple to leave fish alone when we have no real need to catch them.

Why is it so difficult to simply leave animals to their own devices? If they are not actively trying to harm you, then what can be the excuse for choking out their life when you don’t need to?

Okay, this is together because it's yet another unfathomable reason. Don't do it because I don't have to? Does this mean that every time mankind advances in technology we immediately should stop what it is we were doing? We don't NEED to take boats across the Atlantic anymore, we have planes now. You do see the issue I take with this logic, yes? So how about a reason to stop fishing other than, because it's not necessary anymore. How about a scientific study that says Tom Huck goes to the fishing hole 'round the bend and causes the end of the world. I'd buy that.

Oh and fish is good for you too. "Brain food" as they used to say. A much better alternative to red meat and pork.

You do realize that many companies have been sued for falsely advertising their products as “real meat” before, correct? It’s odd to me that you’re placing the responsibility on a fast food chain that is one of the largest suppliers of factory farmed meat in the nation. Yes, part of the problem is that these animal foods are offered in the first place, but it is also because this is what the consumers DEMAND to be served. Factory farms exist partly because it wasn’t otherwise possible to provide large populations with vast amounts of cheap meat without them. If we want more focus on non-animal foods, then we need the public to WANT them to be more prominent which would in turn influence companies to provide for them.

So you've admitted that people want meat, to the point that an entire industry had to change to meat that need, and you expect all these people to suddenly decide "oh, we don't want that anymore, because all those cows must be suffering so badly, and I feel their plight." Seriously, this is ridiculous. Instead, why not point out how deforestation leads to global warming and THAT is a real issue. Just so we can have burgers. I can get behind this.

Clearly, this is far from the case for many of us as we are disgusted by the sight and smell of meat, and in addition it conflicts with our completely NATURAL feelings of empathy when we realize what it takes to acquire the product.

Well there it is. Your "natural" feelings of empathy. Disgusted by the sight and smell. I never did understand this attitude. I mean, what DO you have to do to "acquire the product." Not a damn thing. Get in the car, go to the store, and buy the ****. Do you have to painstakingly raise them from calves? Herd them into giant warehouses and kill each one, one at a time. Strip them of flesh, carve them of meat and bone, no. None of that. And yet you'll sit back and judge the end result as if you're too good to purchase it because of what it took to get there. You have to be privileged in the first place to think like that.

And no, I'm not afraid to debate. I just didn't want -this- subject to go the way of the Dre. See, a past regular here tried this same topic and his best argument was "Stop the suffering of animals, it's unethical, it's immoral blah blah blah" please. There is no moral or ethical standpoint. Animals are a-moral. They are non-ethical. They are just living breathing creatures who serve no purpose but to propagate so that their link in the chain of life may continue. Wild animals that is. Farm animals? They DO serve a purpose. Their purpose is to be consumed. Do you think it horrifying when animals farm? They may not build like we do, but they still harvest. They conserve for a later day. Entire carcasses can be stored and eaten on for weeks. I think that it's far more valuable to the human to use farms - dedicated locations - than to just let all the animals roam around unchecked. We have cities, we have structures, we have inter-structure, we have civilization. And we have food-growing places that dedicate themselves to meeting the very real need of the populace.

(I don't think you're in the wrong, btw. Einstein himself believed we as a species would not truly progress until we stopped eating meat. My issue is your plan of attack. Instead of trying to build empathy in people and appealing to their emotions, try instead to focus on the dangers of eating meat. Categorically prove that allowing the meat industry to continue as it is will lead to irreversible disaster, the same as with the climate change crisis.)

 

[Rabbattack]

I may agree except that there's nothing "traditional" about today's meat industry. If we were to follow with tradition, we should all of us that eat meat be raising our own livestock and slaughtering our own animals. Or if you want to reduce tradition to just the last 200 years instead of the last 15,000 years, we would then look at the local butcher. The invention of the giant industrialized meat machine is so recent that it cannot be considered true tradition. Now I realize what you're saying. I can't let the fact that I was raised in a meat eating family to justify my own personal choice in continuing to eat meat. I don't, however, need to justify it because I find nothing wrong with it. I find nothing wrong with it because it's never been a problem for me before (that's why I invoked how I was raised) and it continues to be a non-issue. If meat prices were to suddenly skyrocket, then yes, it would become a huge issue. Or if meat suddenly became dangerous to eat, as in the USDA disappeared and meat started coming to our local grocers all tainted and stuff, yeah big issue. But as of now, no issue.







I put these together because I take issue with these statements in the same way. Animals are not deserving of anything special. Nor are humans. We make a decision as a society to respect one another. We cannot enter into such a contract with animals because they lack the ability to do so. Therefore, it is up to us to decide if an animal is deserving of our protection. In other words we decide for them. In the instance of farm-raised meat, the decision is simple. We've decided to breed animals so that we may eat them. The only reason(s) you've given why this should be stopped center on the idea of "animal suffering." "Humane" ways of harvesting meat have been devised in order to 1.) speed the process 2.) placate unusually sensitive individuals such as yourself 3.) increase productivity. I mean no offense, of course. Empathy toward fellow humans is hard enough without trying to find people that share empathy with non-human lifeforms, be they trees, plants, animals, birds fish or even insects. The point is that you should acknowledge your stance as being one based not in a position of logic, but that of emotion. You have assigned a very human trait (duress, suffering, etc.) to another species without any way of knowing how similar the physical states are. If the cows were so horrified of their existence, they'd say so. But they don't. They've been bred into a relatively short life with one purpose, which is become our food. I know it sounds horrible but there's no precedent for it to be considered as such. Not without expecting me to be believe that cows are more human that we realize. I cannot justify your stance just because cows have two eyes like we do, etc. Perhaps if you could give me a reason to bring an end to the meat industry that DIDN'T center on the suffering of animals, we could get somewhere.



Okay, this is together because it's yet another unfathomable reason. Don't do it because I don't have to? Does this mean that every time mankind advances in technology we immediately should stop what it is we were doing? We don't NEED to take boats across the Atlantic anymore, we have planes now. You do see the issue I take with this logic, yes? So how about a reason to stop fishing other than, because it's not necessary anymore. How about a scientific study that says Tom Huck goes to the fishing hole 'round the bend and causes the end of the world. I'd buy that.

Oh and fish is good for you too. "Brain food" as they used to say. A much better alternative to red meat and pork.



So you've admitted that people want meat, to the point that an entire industry had to change to meat that need, and you expect all these people to suddenly decide "oh, we don't want that anymore, because all those cows must be suffering so badly, and I feel their plight." Seriously, this is ridiculous. Instead, why not point out how deforestation leads to global warming and THAT is a real issue. Just so we can have burgers. I can get behind this.



Well there it is. Your "natural" feelings of empathy. Disgusted by the sight and smell. I never did understand this attitude. I mean, what DO you have to do to "acquire the product." Not a damn thing. Get in the car, go to the store, and buy the ****. Do you have to painstakingly raise them from calves? Herd them into giant warehouses and kill each one, one at a time. Strip them of flesh, carve them of meat and bone, no. None of that. And yet you'll sit back and judge the end result as if you're too good to purchase it because of what it took to get there. You have to be privileged in the first place to think like that.

And no, I'm not afraid to debate. I just didn't want -this- subject to go the way of the Dre. See, a past regular here tried this same topic and his best argument was "Stop the suffering of animals, it's unethical, it's immoral blah blah blah" please. There is no moral or ethical standpoint. Animals are a-moral. They are non-ethical. They are just living breathing creatures who serve no purpose but to propagate so that their link in the chain of life may continue. Wild animals that is. Farm animals? They DO serve a purpose. Their purpose is to be consumed. Do you think it horrifying when animals farm? They may not build like we do, but they still harvest. They conserve for a later day. Entire carcasses can be stored and eaten on for weeks. I think that it's far more valuable to the human to use farms - dedicated locations - than to just let all the animals roam around unchecked. We have cities, we have structures, we have inter-structure, we have civilization. And we have food-growing places that dedicate themselves to meeting the very real need of the populace.

(I don't think you're in the wrong, btw. Einstein himself believed we as a species would not truly progress until we stopped eating meat. My issue is your plan of attack. Instead of trying to build empathy in people and appealing to their emotions, try instead to focus on the dangers of eating meat. Categorically prove that allowing the meat industry to continue as it is will lead to irreversible disaster, the same as with the climate change crisis.)

So if I went up to you and killed you for food you'd be fine with that because you would serve the purpose of giving me sustenance. Animals don't want to die, nothing wants to die, so why don't we stop thinking about ourselves. If humans are so much more important than animals why don't we stop eating meat and give that 70% of crops and 50% of water to people who actually need it, we would end up with much more than we get from the meat. Explain how eating meat is better than not eating it and why we aren't allowed to use "ethical" as a reason. They don't want to die and letting them not suffer doesn't hurt anyone and instead gives us more resources for far more important things. IS BEING ETHICAL BAD? I didn't know that caring for living things other than yourself was bad. You are one arrogant person aren't you?

 

[Sucumbio]

Uh... if an animal went up to me and -tried- to kill me for food, I would defend myself. Duh... I don't blame them for doing it, of course. Now if a person did it, for food... I'd be more worried about wtf is wrong with that person, lol. Unless it's some crazy survival situation it doesn't even compute why people would eat people, so I'm not sure what you're trying to compare, but it sounds like apples and oranges.

As for what animals want, they "want" nothing. They react to stimuli, they follow their genetic programming, but they don't have desires or wants like humans do. You need an intellect to achieve even just basic desire, let alone complex ones. So, no I don't think it's unethical to harvest a living creature for sustenance. Far from it, I find it to be perfectly okay, so long as you're not wasteful (waste not want not and so forth). Not killing animals is okay too, if that's what YOU desire, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to agree with your beliefs, even though you may find that some do. There's no precedent for it. I'm still waiting actually to see if we get something in this topic for once that says "this is the reason you should not eat meat" that doesn't start with "it's mean to the animals."

 

[lanbobyonson]

I realize this is a super serious thread but I have to say it.
Killing animals is okay when it's the Super Metroid run at AGDQ/SGDQ.

 

[Rabbattack]

Uh... if an animal went up to me and -tried- to kill me for food, I would defend myself. Duh... I don't blame them for doing it, of course. Now if a person did it, for food... I'd be more worried about wtf is wrong with that person, lol. Unless it's some crazy survival situation it doesn't even compute why people would eat people, so I'm not sure what you're trying to compare, but it sounds like apples and oranges.

As for what animals want, they "want" nothing. They react to stimuli, they follow their genetic programming, but they don't have desires or wants like humans do. You need an intellect to achieve even just basic desire, let alone complex ones. So, no I don't think it's unethical to harvest a living creature for sustenance. Far from it, I find it to be perfectly okay, so long as you're not wasteful (waste not want not and so forth). Not killing animals is okay too, if that's what YOU desire, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to agree with your beliefs, even though you may find that some do. There's no precedent for it. I'm still waiting actually to see if we get something in this topic for once that says "this is the reason you should not eat meat" that doesn't start with "it's mean to the animals."

Are you blind or something it's already been stated that it's a waste of crops and water. If you eat meat then you can't say you are not wasteful. So if I killed a mentally ******** person and ate him, it wouldn't matter because they don't have wants and desires? Why is it so unimportant to protect animals, gaining more in return.