ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Player is a better source than all of those.

[tzor]

They have been peer reviewed by other scientists, they have been published and they have been sited by the EU.

Peer review ain't what it used to be. Today it tends to be a circle jerk of colleagues who want to approve someone's work so someone can approve theirs.

Back in the days when people went out of their way to disprove someone's work and realized that it was actually correct, peer review worked.

For the most part science went down the crapper decades ago. It's all about the grant money, baby.

[hotfire]

They have been peer reviewed by other scientists, they have been published and they have been sited by the EU.

Peer review ain't what it used to be. Today it tends to be a circle jerk of colleagues who want to approve someone's work so someone can approve theirs.

Back in the days when people went out of their way to disprove someone's work and realized that it was actually correct, peer review worked.

For the most part science went down the crapper decades ago. It's all about the grant money, baby.

yes because scientists don't wont the recognition (and ego boost) of disproving someone else's work anymore...

[PLAYER57832]

we may return to the good old days of NOTHING being wasted from animals, which is the most respectful thing you can do for any sentient creatures.

On this, I firmly agree.

[PLAYER57832]

Jesus Christ, are you really going to keep peddling the whole "I am a better source than your science-mumbo-jumbo". I don't care if the sources for a published paper are behind scientific journal paywalls, they are a million times better than "first hand testimony" from some random on the internet.

To you, sure. However, you were trying to convince ME. That is quite different. My testimony is superior to your inverifiable links and unsupported opinion.

Provide your own sources, or find someone else in the world who actually agrees with you.

lol-- I asked for YOUR sources.. and yes, i did provide sources. Also someone else posted some agreement, but you divert from the fact that you posted this thread, asked for opinions and have not yet provided a verifiable link to your claims, instead decide to just insult me.

I, at least, did actually explain my thinking. You just provided "black boxes" and expect me to take your word that you have reported them correctly, even though your posts show that you don't seem to be correctly reporting other information. Specifically, you keep providing links that you claim prove your point, only when I go there, I find they do no such thing.

Seems pretty simple to me... you want to say your sources are superior. Fine, just provide them.

On this site you will find a list of organisations which have signed the pledge, including lots of farming and meat industry type folks who would surely have something different to say if this was all nonsense:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-saf ... ion_en.htm

Actually, that link is for a workshop on alternatives to castration. It does appear to have references, but right now, I don't have the time to track it all down. You said it was a list of people/groups opposing castration.. it is not that.

My mistake, I meant to link:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfar ... dex_en.htm

OK, now you are providing something. Might be nice if you had done that before deciding you had the right to ridicule what I am saying.

I have glanced at it, my first step was to find what EFSA even is, etc. Will take more than a couple of minutes to review, so I will hold off on further commentary on this specific issue...

That said, you have sort of bypassed my point about castration which was that even if what you said about castration is fully correct (note, I emphasize you and not the report, the report is yet another issue), then it still does not really contradict my point which was that you are focusing on rather minor issues of discomfort, etc in captive farming and ignoring any contrast to the real world, with wild animals or even real farming alternatives.

Also you have completely ignored, dismissed as irrelevant my primary point, which is that looking at factory farming as if problems with factory farms is exactly equal to problems with eating animals is wrong. ALSO, you ignore the other big point I made which was that when you claim the vegan way is superior on moral grounds, you ignore problems with plant production completely and, ignore real benefits that come from animal production.

[PLAYER57832]

They have been peer reviewed by other scientists, they have been published and they have been sited by the EU.

Peer review ain't what it used to be. Today it tends to be a circle jerk of colleagues who want to approve someone's work so someone can approve theirs.

Back in the days when people went out of their way to disprove someone's work and realized that it was actually correct, peer review worked.

For the most part science went down the crapper decades ago. It's all about the grant money, baby.

yes because scientists don't wont the recognition (and ego boost) of disproving someone else's work anymore...

cannot afford it.

Most of the claims about scientists making money from publication, etc, utterly and totally miss the mark. In the past, most scientific research was done by the government, funded by tax dollars. Having something supported by a private entity, not cycled through independent trusts and such, was almost in and of itself enough to get a paper put on the "highly suspect" list. Tax-supported research and research paid for by independent bodies was the only research that was accepted as valid.

Now, its almost the exact opposite. Interest groups cherry pick research and fund only research that specifically forwards their goals, while considering any non-specific research as "wasteful".

[Beast Of Burson]

If lions had the capacity to factory-farm zebras, they would do so.

Hilarious!

Go Meat! I am a carnivore. Some of my ancestors may not have been, but I AM. And I am damn sure not giving up my Mignon any time soon.
ALL predators eat meat. Man is a predator, along with Lions, Tigers and Bears... oh my!
Herbivores evolved to be food for said predators.
It's natures way.

Even in The Bible, God has people eating/sacrificing FARMED lambs and goats....... sooooo

Duk is right. If it's going to die anyways, I might as well partake in the feast at hand.

[Bernie Sanders]

I get so hungry when I read this thread.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

If lions had the capacity to factory-farm zebras, they would do so.

Hilarious!

Go Meat! I am a carnivore. Some of my ancestors may not have been, but I AM. And I am damn sure not giving up my Mignon any time soon.
ALL predators eat meat. Man is a predator, along with Lions, Tigers and Bears... oh my!
Herbivores evolved to be food for said predators.
It's natures way.

Even in The Bible, God has people eating/sacrificing FARMED lambs and goats....... sooooo

Duk is right. If it's going to die anyways, I might as well partake in the feast at hand.

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

[PLAYER57832]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

I distinctly recall hugh saying it wasn't the killing or eating he was opposed to, but I'm too lazy to search through and quote. However, one of his points was that that you seemed to have mistaken for anti-slaughter iirc was that the livestock wouldn't exist if we didn't breed them into existence (ipso facto), therefore he was, in general, opposed to farming.

The points then to argue should be whether we are justified to breed livestock for the purpose of consumption and other commodities (I believe we are), and how to treat that livestock. Hugh and I seem to differ on what constitutes 'suffering'. As a former farmer, I'm knowledgeable about animals and their husbandry, and I don't consider things like piglet castration to be unduly cruel. We've never had a castrated hog that fell ill or died as a result of castration, nor have they been discomforted more than a day or two--animals, in general, are much hardier than humans.

That being said, I believe points like those should be argued. My response to BoB is in keeping with that. He doesn't help the pro-meat side by referencing the Bible or sacrifices, he only hurts it by looking like a moron.

-TG

[Beast Of Burson]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

Meat has been a staple for many cultures for 1000's of years. We need to Factory Farm for the sake of feeding the billions of people on the planet for starters.

Humans need proteins from the fat in meat. Otherwise you will suffer from lack of proteins vital to the human body. You in no way shape or from would get enough from eating just nuts and soy beans alone. Humans have conditioned their bodies for 10's of 1000's of years to consume animal fats for survival.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn9J2P9MHKAhUpnIMKHQVmBisQFgg3MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbreakingmuscle.com%2Fnutrition%2Fwhy-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health&usg=AFQjCNGT4DAYSaJvJK29noFFUN6rJPpifA&sig2=3ypvVgyY-5Nso-OH4QJT0Q

Your meat being FF'ed in your own country, doesn't just stay in your own country. It gets sent all over the world for all people to utilize. Or at least to neighboring countries with huge populations.

It's a necessity for humanities own survival. If we did not factory farm, we would not even be able to provide for the people of our own countries, let alone the rest of the world.

I want to know if your "morals" bother you that much, do you avoid the meat section at the grocery store KNOWING that it came from FF'ed cattle? I bet you're the first in line at a BBQ when that meat is ready.

[Beast Of Burson]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

I distinctly recall hugh saying it wasn't the killing or eating he was opposed to, but I'm too lazy to search through and quote. However, one of his points was that that you seemed to have mistaken for anti-slaughter iirc was that the livestock wouldn't exist if we didn't breed them into existence (ipso facto), therefore he was, in general, opposed to farming.

The points then to argue should be whether we are justified to breed livestock for the purpose of consumption and other commodities (I believe we are), and how to treat that livestock. Hugh and I seem to differ on what constitutes 'suffering'. As a former farmer, I'm knowledgeable about animals and their husbandry, and I don't consider things like piglet castration to be unduly cruel. We've never had a castrated hog that fell ill or died as a result of castration, nor have they been discomforted more than a day or two--animals, in general, are much hardier than humans.

That being said, I believe points like those should be argued. My response to BoB is in keeping with that. He doesn't help the pro-meat side by referencing the Bible or sacrifices, he only hurts it by looking like a moron.

-TG

Explain where he talked about castrating being cruel. And where he said anything about using animals for other commodities. He simply asked, Morally justify why you EAT FF'ed meat.

Talk about a moron. I think you just wanted to admit to all you like fondling pig balls.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

Meat has been a staple for many cultures for 1000's of years. We need to Factory Farm for the sake of feeding the billions of people on the planet for starters.

Humans need proteins from the fat in meat. Otherwise you will suffer from lack of proteins vital to the human body. You in no way shape or from would get enough from eating just nuts and soy beans alone. Humans have conditioned their bodies for 10's of 1000's of years to consume animal fats for survival.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjn9J2P9MHKAhUpnIMKHQVmBisQFgg3MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbreakingmuscle.com%2Fnutrition%2Fwhy-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health&usg=AFQjCNGT4DAYSaJvJK29noFFUN6rJPpifA&sig2=3ypvVgyY-5Nso-OH4QJT0Q

Your meat being FF'ed in your own country, doesn't just stay in your own country. It gets sent all over the world for all people to utilize. Or at least to neighboring countries with huge populations.

It's a necessity for humanities own survival. If we did not factory farm, we would not even be able to provide for the people of our own countries, let alone the rest of the world.

I want to know if your "morals" bother you that much, do you avoid the meat section at the grocery store KNOWING that it came from FF'ed cattle? I bet you're the first in line at a BBQ when that meat is ready.

Meat is not necessary for survival in the first world. A vegetarian diet is sufficient to get all essential amino acids, and one does not get "protein from fat in meat." Fats and and proteins are molecules not related to each other. Fats are lipids, proteins are polypeptides, and there is no mechanism in the body to change fats directly into proteins.

Explain where he talked about castrating being cruel. And where he said anything about using animals for other commodities. He simply asked, Morally justify why you EAT FF'ed meat.

Talk about a moron. I think you just wanted to admit to all you like fondling pig balls.

Read through the thread. It's not my fault you haven't the attention span to do so.

-TG

[Dualta]

There is no moral justification for factory farming. I would go further and argue that there is no moral argument for killing and eating any animal, on the basis that it is not necessary for physical or mental well-being. If you believe that is is wrong to kill an animal for its pelt on the basis of it being cruel and unnecessary, you have to concede that it is wrong to kill an animal for its flesh because we know it is unnecessary. Or course, if it was me and a chicken on a desert island, the chicken would be fucked (metaphorically speaking, or course). In a nutshell, if it is entirely possible to be healthy and happy without causing harm to anyone or anything, which it is, why would you choose otherwise, other than self defense or you being a cunt?

If you are truly interested in this issue, this is required viewing. Set aside an hour and 30 minutes and educate yourself properly:

[PLAYER57832]

OP's argument isn't that eating meat is bad, but that allowing needless suffering of the animals is.

If you're gonna enter the discussion, at least understand the topic.

-TG

Actually, the OP has pretty much said that to eat meat means animals suffer, and has pretty well rejected any other suggestions. The initial point, the point we were asked to debate was that factory farming is bad, asking us to justify why we would eat meat with that given. Then he went to all killing of animals is bad. He has put in that not eating meat is healthy, but not pushed that point. He has ignored comparisons of harm to plant cultivation and also pretty well dismissed non-factory animal husbandry/ranching, etc.

I distinctly recall hugh saying it wasn't the killing or eating he was opposed to, but I'm too lazy to search through and quote. However, one of his points was that that you seemed to have mistaken for anti-slaughter iirc was that the livestock wouldn't exist if we didn't breed them into existence (ipso facto), therefore he was, in general, opposed to farming.

The points then to argue should be whether we are justified to breed livestock for the purpose of consumption and other commodities (I believe we are), and how to treat that livestock. Hugh and I seem to differ on what constitutes 'suffering'. As a former farmer, I'm knowledgeable about animals and their husbandry, and I don't consider things like piglet castration to be unduly cruel. We've never had a castrated hog that fell ill or died as a result of castration, nor have they been discomforted more than a day or two--animals, in general, are much hardier than humans.

That being said, I believe points like those should be argued. My response to BoB is in keeping with that. He doesn't help the pro-meat side by referencing the Bible or sacrifices, he only hurts it by looking like a moron.

-TG

I agree that they are worthy of debate. Its just that limiting the debate to specific parameters is basically a back-handed way of saying you "win". Limit opposition and sure.. almost any argument can make sense. I don't see the biblical argument as valuable, even though I certainly read the Bible, etc., but I fail to see how it is truly destructive, unless you mean that any biblical discussion tends to go into a hole. (but those topics can just be spun off onto their own, too).

And, I get pretty tired of "gee I found this link", even a journal link.. and so therefore nothing else anybody has to say can be of any value, particularly when the link is either not what the poster claims or is not available for others to read. Sometimes we have no choice but to cite sources that might as well be private (cannot be brought up here as a link, anyway). I have done that several times myself, BUT if you do that, you have to acknowledge that it does make your citations somewhat suspect, not just claim "Oh, I have this link so anyone trying to object is obviously an idiot" as the OP and others pretty well did here.

[PLAYER57832]

If you are truly interested in this issue, this is required viewing. Set aside an hour and 30 minutes and educate yourself properly:

How about a summary? A half hour is a long time.... (particularly, in my case, since I suspect it is not something I want my younger kids to see/hear).

Aside from that, how about comparing what happens on farms to what happens in nature. The basic problem with your argument that eating animals is just plain wrong, period, is that it sets us apart from the world around us, rather than connecting us. Doing that in the name of compassion does not make it less destructive.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between factory farming and more traditional farming. It is possible to have mass-production farming that is compassionate.

[tzor]

Meat has been a staple for many cultures for 1000's of years. We need to Factory Farm for the sake of feeding the billions of people on the planet for starters.

No we don't.

Meat production in developed countries is way over the norm and consumption of meat is way over the norm for a proper diet. That doesn't mean we should go from too much meat to no meat at all, but that the quantity of meat should be reduced and the quality of meat be increased.

Dietary Requirements of a Medieval Peasant

The European medieval diet was largely determined by social class. For the majority of the of the people, peasants, a large portion of their daily diet was made up of grains such as wheat, rye, oats or barley(carbohydrates). The grains were boiled whole in a soup or stew, ground into flour and made into bread, or malted and brewed into ale. Estimates from the late Middle Ages indicated that a gallon of ale a day was not unusual, but the actual alcohol in the drink was low. Protein was usually provided legumes such as beans, peas or lentils, fish where available, or on very rare occasions, meat such as poultry, pork, or beef. Additional nutrients were provided by seasonal vegetables and fruits. The peasant's diet rates high on modern nutrition standards. But seasonal fluctuations in food availability and poor harvests often caused long periods of very poor nutrition.

From Jeffrey L. Singman, Daily Life in Medieval Europe, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999, P. 54 - 55.

A prosperous English peasant in the 14th century would probably consume 2 - 3 pounds of bread, 8 ounces of meat or fish or other protein and 2 -3 pints of ale per day. The bread was usually mean of rye, oats, or barley. Meat was expensive and usually only available on special occasions. Often eggs, butter, or cheese were substituted for meat. Vegetables such as onions, leeks, cabbage, garlic, turnips, parsnips, peans and beans were staples. Fruits were avaiable in season.

I believe the following chart shows that in the United States it is more like 12 ounces of pure meat and that's ignoring any "other protein" in the diet. SOURCE

Total meat consumption in the U.S., E.U., and developed world, FAOSTAT, 1961–2003

So clearly we can cut down drastically and not hurt ourselves, especially given our general sedimentary lifestyle.

[Serbia]

Every time I see this thread, I ask myself in my best John Oliver voice, "why is this still a thing?"

Bollocks.

[PLAYER57832]

It's a necessity for humanities own survival. If we did not factory farm, we would not even be able to provide for the people of our own countries, let alone the rest of the world.

I want to know if your "morals" bother you that much, do you avoid the meat section at the grocery store KNOWING that it came from FF'ed cattle? I bet you're the first in line at a BBQ when that meat is ready.

OK, first, I think you have us mixed up. Tailgunner and I are not against eating meat. We both are among those saying that the OP is at least partially wrong in characterizing basically all farming as cruel.

Tzor pretty well addressed the diet issue. Again, I am NOT anti-meat, but its simply not true that we need meat. I do have to add one point, though. Maybe you just miswrote, but fat is not a good protein source. The muscle fibers, the "meat" in meat is where the protein is found. Fat provides mostly calories, with some nutrients. Many of those nutrients, the "Omega" vitamins (more than one), in particular, are found in grass fed animals/organically raised animals, but not so much in factory farmed animals.

MY position is contrary to the OP, because though I do object to factory farming (for a whole range of reasons), I DO think we can and should grow animals for food and other things (leather, wool, etc.). I think we need to reduce the amount of meat we eat in "the west", but meat should definitely stay a big part of our diets, in my opinion. However, that is not because we HAVE to eat meat to live healthy, its for a lot of other reasons.

Per the transport, etc... again, I don't think you understand my position at all. I am for long term sustainability. One reason I am against factory farming is that it just is not sustainable. It may produce lots for a time, then what? What happens when, as HAS happened in much of CA, the land is no longer arable due to saltification, other issues. Its not just the farmers that suffer, but those places that depend on cheap supplies of food do poorly.

This is a little bit of a side note, but parts of south America highlight this pretty well. In many cases, US agricultural interests have come in with very cheap wheat, etc. They put local farmers out of business. In the short term, people get more food cheaply and it seems "all good". However, then things change and imports become more expensive or inhibited in some way. The base agriculture has been decimated and hunger is the result.

Large factory farms are more "efficient" when everything works well, but are also much more at risk for some big problems. Weather issues, pollution issues, diseases.. when they hit, they hit BIG. The result is that small farms are often truly more efficient in the very long term.

[PLAYER57832]

Set aside an hour and 30 minutes and educate yourself properly:

Uh, my proper education includes being able to read where it says "this DVD is not to be copied, shared or otherwise distributed without permission".


I did seem to catch "PBS" in the link.. how about telling me the name of the program and I can probably find it directly and legally.... assuming I have not already seen it, that is.

[Dualta]

The basic problem with your argument that eating animals is just plain wrong, period, is that it sets us apart from the world around us, rather than connecting us. Doing that in the name of compassion does not make it less destructive.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between factory farming and more traditional farming. It is possible to have mass-production farming that is compassionate.

It doesn't set us apart from the world around us at all. I can't see the rationale of your statement. Vast swathes of the animal kingdom eat only plants. Also, for all of written history, there are examples of cultures all over the world which were basically vegetarian, with some being very strict indeed. Even today, hundreds of millions of people around the world, in India, Asia and elsewhere, eat only plants.

On your second point, whilst there is a difference between traditional farming methods and factory farming, it is certainly not huge. They are fundamentally the same in terms of their abusing and killing animals. The only real difference is the scale.

And on your final point, there is absolutely nothing compassionate about raising and killing animals unnecessarily. Forgive me, but this argument betrays your ignorance of what happens in animal agriculture. The only way to treat animals well is to leave them alone, unless they need help.

The documentary I linked above is called Earthlings, and the makers have made it freely available to watch online, so we can assume that they don't mind us watching it from YouTube.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic problem with your argument that eating animals is just plain wrong, period, is that it sets us apart from the world around us, rather than connecting us. Doing that in the name of compassion does not make it less destructive.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between factory farming and more traditional farming. It is possible to have mass-production farming that is compassionate.

It doesn't set us apart from the world around us at all. I can't see the rationale of your statement. Vast swathes of the animal kingdom eat only plants. Also, for all of written history, there are examples of cultures all over the world which were basically vegetarian, with some being very strict indeed. Even today, hundreds of millions of people around the world, in India, Asia and elsewhere, eat only plants.

I already acknowledged that a plant diet is possible. I also said that most "westerners" eat too much meat, particularly red meat.

BUT, while you want to point to cultures that eat only vegetables, you also have to admit there are a good many indigenous, fully self-sufficient and sustainable cultures that eat meat heavily -- the Inuit, the Masai, etc. Crops work well in temperate climates, but in more severe climates meat is the more sustainable, practical option. That is, those cultures do eat some plant matter, but there is no way to grow enough crops to survive there.

The "setting us apart" gets more complicated. I can only touch on it right now.. can get into it more later if you like, but there is a huge difference between going and "visiting" animals here and there, being a tourist/observer and leading a lifestyle that literally depends upon knowing animals and their habits to survive. Also, when things are not necessary... its easy for them to become without value. Ironically, the OP gave such an answer earlier (at least I think it was the OP, might have been someone else in a similar thread) where he stated that he did not care if an entire species died.

It has become popular to consider hunters villains in some groups, but the real truth is that it was hunters, not "tree hugging conservationists" who established the first wildlife refuges. That point is not coincidental.

On your second point, whilst there is a difference between traditional farming methods and factory farming, it is certainly not huge. They are fundamentally the same in terms of their abusing and killing animals. The only real difference is the scale.

Not even close. Not even close. I touched on this above. I can get into it in more detail later.

And on your final point, there is absolutely nothing compassionate about raising and killing animals unnecessarily. Forgive me, but this argument betrays your ignorance of what happens in animal agriculture. The only way to treat animals well is to leave them alone, unless they need help.

Ignorance? Did you happen to miss the point where I said I grew up on farms, have more than a few basic classes in agriculture? I also worked as a field biologist for several years. And, sorry, but a lot of what is put out by some groups like PETA, etc as "standard agriculture" are not at all standard, but cases of extreme abuse put out as if they were standard. I am not saying you are doing that. There IS room for debate here, but real debate does require honesty. Like I said, I will look at that video, maybe tomorrow, or when I have time.

The documentary I linked above is called Earthlings, and the makers have made it freely available to watch online, so we can assume that they don't mind us watching it from YouTube.

Actually, that last assumption is wrong, because the makers have clearly stamped it with the standard copywrite warnings. At any rate, I will look it up. Sounds like something I have seen before, but won't hurt to review it.

[Dualta]

I already acknowledged that a plant diet is possible. I also said that most "westerners" eat too much meat, particularly red meat.

I was making the point to refute your assertion that not killing and eating animals disconnects us in some way from the world around us. I hold my point to be salient above yours.

BUT, while you want to point to cultures that eat only vegetables, you also have to admit there are a good many indigenous, fully self-sufficient and sustainable cultures that eat meat heavily -- the Inuit, the Masai, etc. Crops work well in temperate climates, but in more severe climates meat is the more sustainable, practical option. That is, those cultures do eat some plant matter, but there is no way to grow enough crops to survive there.

Again, I was making the point to refute your assertion that not killing and eating animals disconnects us in some way from the world around us, but seeing that you're making the point about the Inuit and Masai, let me make the point that in the modern world, with technology and wealth what they are, it would be no longer necessary for these people to hunt, herd and kill animals if the political will was there to help them develop their societies.

The "setting us apart" gets more complicated. I can only touch on it right now.. can get into it more later if you like, but there is a huge difference between going and "visiting" animals here and there, being a tourist/observer and leading a lifestyle that literally depends upon knowing animals and their habits to survive.

I'd like to hear read your arguments regarding this point. I'm not at all convinced that your point is strong, so I'm interested in what informs it.

Also, when things are not necessary... its easy for them to become without value. Ironically, the OP gave such an answer earlier (at least I think it was the OP, might have been someone else in a similar thread) where he stated that he did not care if an entire species died.

If the only value someone holds of living creatures is a monetary one, then he's a complete wanker.

It has become popular to consider hunters villains in some groups, but the real truth is that it was hunters, not "tree hugging conservationists" who established the first wildlife refuges. That point is not coincidental.

Nonsense. It was hunters and corporate greed that caused the need for refuges. Which refuges are you referring to? Let's see some meat on the bones of this assertion.

Did you happen to miss the point where I said I grew up on farms, have more than a few basic classes in agriculture? I also worked as a field biologist for several years. And, sorry, but a lot of what is put out by some groups like PETA, etc as "standard agriculture" are not at all standard, but cases of extreme abuse put out as if they were standard. I am not saying you are doing that. There IS room for debate here, but real debate does require honesty. Like I said, I will look at that video, maybe tomorrow, or when I have time.Regarding the documentary. If you had watched it, you'd remember.

For someone who grew up on a farm and worked as a field biologist for years, you show an extraordinary level of ignorance about what goes on on farms regarding the abuse of animals. Maybe you think it's perfectly ok to castrate bulls and piglets without anesthetic. Maybe you think it's ok to cut the ears and tails from piglets and cut out their teeth, also without anesthetic before caging them in dark, filthy sheds, living day in day out in their own shit and piss, or having someone ram a fistful of frozen sperm up a cow's vagina, only to remove the resultant calf at birth so people can drink the milk meant for the calf, and then milk the cow until it is spent 10 years before its time, or debeak chicks and burn their severed beaks against a roasting iron, or crush or suffocate day-old male chicks in egg factories because they're of no monetary value to the shareholders (I won't call the cunts 'farmers') while the females are forced to endure short, tortured lives in tiny cages being pissed on and shit on by other birds above them. All of these practices are industry standard and represent severe abuse of innocent animals, all for financial gain, and it is fucking obscene. Name one of the above as being not industry standard, and I will prove you wrong. Animal agriculture is by its very nature cruel, brutal and completely lacking in compassion, and if anyone consumes meat, eggs or dairy knowing any of the above, then they're nothing but a cunt, and I have no compunction whatsoever in saying that. They're no better than someone who hunts for fun. At least the hunter has the courage to do the killing himself.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

For someone who grew up on a farm and worked as a field biologist for years, you show an extraordinary level of ignorance about what goes on on farms regarding the abuse of animals. Maybe you think it's perfectly ok to castrate bulls and piglets without anesthetic. Maybe you think it's ok to cut the ears and tails from piglets and cut out their teeth, also without anesthetic before caging them in dark, filthy sheds, living day in day out in their own shit and piss, or having someone ram a fistful of frozen sperm up a cow's vagina, only to remove the resultant calf at birth so people can drink the milk meant for the calf, and then milk the cow until it is spent 10 years before its time, or debeak chicks and burn their severed beaks against a roasting iron, or crush or suffocate day-old male chicks in egg factories because they're of no monetary value to the shareholders (I won't call the cunts 'farmers') while the females are forced to endure short, tortured lives in tiny cages being pissed on and shit on by other birds above them. All of these practices are industry standard and represent severe abuse of innocent animals, all for financial gain, and it is fucking obscene. Name one of the above as being not industry standard, and I will prove you wrong. Animal agriculture is by its very nature cruel, brutal and completely lacking in compassion, and if anyone consumes meat, eggs or dairy knowing any of the above, then they're nothing but a cunt, and I have no compunction whatsoever in saying that. They're no better than someone who hunts for fun. At least the hunter has the courage to do the killing himself.

I know tons of people who have chickens. None, including us, has ever debeaked them or put them in "tiny cages." Nor have I forced pigs into "dark, filthy sheds," or cut off tails and ears. Every animal we ever raised had it a far cry better than any animal in the wild. I grew up mucking stalls, how many wild animals get their den cleaned regularly, their injuries tended to, ailments medicated, etc? Your post is so far off base from what Player and I have been saying it's absurd.

Seriously, are you saying that simpy by owning a chicken and collecting and using the unfertilized eggs, one is guilty of such heinous cruelty? C'mon dude, separate fact from fiction here.

Again, I was making the point to refute your assertion that not killing and eating animals disconnects us in some way from the world around us, but seeing that you're making the point about the Inuit and Masai, let me make the point that in the modern world, with technology and wealth what they are, it would be no longer necessary for these people to hunt, herd and kill animals if the political will was there to help them develop their societies.

And you're commiting a logical fallacy of human exceptionalism by arguing that humans are removed from natural tendencies. The most evolutionarily successful organisms are those that utilize the widest range of resources. Dukasaur was correct in his quip about the lions.

-TG