Conquer Club

Pmc, I understand what your saying,on the flip side, every since history began humans have eaten meat, question what would you consider acceptable for a way to end the life of an animal in order to eat it? If you say nothing, then you should have used a different topic title maybe I LOVE PETA AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS A MEANY. Would have better suited unless you really want a real conversation? Do you?

jgordon1111 wrote:Pmc, I understand what your saying,on the flip side, every since history began humans have eaten meat

Just because we have always done it, does not make it ethically right. We do not have to do it to continue to survive.

jgordon1111 wrote:question what would you consider acceptable for a way to end the life of an animal in order to eat it?

Like most questions on morality there is a spectrum of what is right and wrong, there is not just black and white but everything in between.

It is very wrong to kill and eat a person. It is less wrong to eat factory farmed Chimpanzee. Less wrong again to eat factory farmed pig. Less wrong again to kill and eat a wild deer (assuming a quick death). Less wrong again to eat road kill, since you never deliberately took its life. It is probably not at all wrong to eat farmed (so there is no by-catch) mussels, since they are not sentient.

Precisely where the line between what I would consider acceptable and not is hard to say, but I don't think it matters. The simple answer is that the meat we buy in restaurants and supermarkets is a long way on the wrong side of that line and the simplest way to ensure you are not causing harm is to abstain from it all.

Ok pmc, lets try a different route, do you drive a car or any other mode of transportation, own or thrown away anything plastic,wear shoes? If you answered yes to any of the above. You are either directly or indirectly responsible for the horrid deaths of countless innocent animals who never did anything to you. next question you ever kill a mouse who got into where you live? If you answer no ,wow, you live in a miracle place or a hypocrite which is it?

jgordon1111 wrote:Ok pmc, lets try a different route, do you drive a car or any other mode of transportation, own or thrown away anything plastic,wear shoes? If you answered yes to any of the above. You are either directly or indirectly responsible for the horrid deaths of countless innocent animals who never did anything to you. next question you ever kill a mouse who got into where you live? If you answer no ,wow, you live in a miracle place or a hypocrite which is it?

There are a lot of places that don't have mouse problems dude. Mine does. We use humane traps. Neither situation is miraculous.

Try again.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I eat factory farmed vagina.

With mayo?

Yuck


I usually put a healthy helping of Frank's on there.

jgordon1111 wrote:Ok pmc, lets try a different route, do you drive a car or any other mode of transportation, own or thrown away anything plastic,wear shoes? If you answered yes to any of the above. You are either directly or indirectly responsible for the horrid deaths of countless innocent animals who never did anything to you. next question you ever kill a mouse who got into where you live? If you answer no ,wow, you live in a miracle place or a hypocrite which is it?

My answer is still the same. There is a spectrum of things that are right and wrong, there are other factors like; how certain are we that it is causing harm and how difficult is it to change. I am not perfect, I never claimed to be.

All I am saying is; here is how you can make simple changes and that would help end the great suffering of billions of sentient beings. Next time you go to a burger place, order the veggie burger. Learn a new recipe for a meal that doesn't contain meat and cook it once a week. If you have the money to buy from people who treated their animals better, you could do that. None of these things require you to go live in a hippy commune and shit in a bucket, it is about changing the world for the better in a realistic way.

Army of GOD wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I eat factory farmed vagina.

With mayo?

Yuck


I usually put a healthy helping of Frank's on there.

Real men eat pussy like they eat their steaks: raw.

And dripping with blood.

With the aid of a knife.

... and a lasso?

Duk knows how to party!

Real men make sacrifices to make the lives of others better, regardless of what society tells them to do. Real men eat pussy, not animals.

in canada, eating road kill is against the law. you're just supposed to leave it on the roadside, to rot. it provides entertainment for rubberneckers to slow down and gawk at.

pmchugh wrote:Real men make sacrifices to make the lives of others better, regardless of what society tells them to do.

What do real women do?

Man was intelligently designed as an omnivore. Omnivores eat meat among other forms of sustenance. Would you suggest we all go hunting for wild animals instead of having farmed ones ready made for us? That would cause a lot animals to go extinct, because regulating the hunting of wild animals on such a huge scale (global) would be absolutely impossible. Morally speaking, it is WAY better to eat factory farmed animals than the alternative.

jgordon1111 wrote:Ok pmc, lets try a different route, do you drive a car or any other mode of transportation, own or thrown away anything plastic,wear shoes? If you answered yes to any of the above. You are either directly or indirectly responsible for the horrid deaths of countless innocent animals who never did anything to you. next question you ever kill a mouse who got into where you live? If you answer no ,wow, you live in a miracle place or a hypocrite which is it?

Cockroaches are almost pure protein. Killing them without eating them is a bigger crime.

mrswdk wrote:
What do real women do?

the dishes.

ImaNoid wrote:Man was intelligently designed as an omnivore. Omnivores eat meat among other forms of sustenance. Would you suggest we all go hunting for wild animals instead of having farmed ones ready made for us? That would cause a lot animals to go extinct, because regulating the hunting of wild animals on such a huge scale (global) would be absolutely impossible. Morally speaking, it is WAY better to eat factory farmed animals than the alternative.

I don't believe in intelligent design, but if I did I would not see that as an obstacle. I presume you also believe in free-will, that God gave us the ability to sin and to do good. I don't think that eating a dead animal is by necessity good or evil, but I would argue that there is no good way to do it now that is sustainable. You are completely correct in pointing out that hunting is not a viable means to feed everyone. I believe the solution to this issue is to stop eating meat; it is not needed to live a healthy and happy life.

Also, I would like to point out that animal agriculture plays a significant role in species extinction.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

pmchugh wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

pmchugh wrote: Stopping eating factory farmed meat is just a simple way in which you can have a clear positive impact on society.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the industry is subsidised, so those animals will be mistreated whether you eat them or not.

I am confident that over my life span, me and the other people who abstain from meat will lead to a reduction in the quantity of animals who would have otherwise experienced mistreatment.

A tonne of food is wasted every day, nobody cares. Its awful, but your actions wont make a difference unless you start lobbying for change to system. Supply and demand doesnt work in agriculture/farming. Go talk to Bernie Sanders.

Actually, you are both wrong, but for different reasons.

If you stop eating meat, it will not lead to better treatment. It will lead to more local, small , ethical farmers being put out of business, leaving only the bad guys -- the irresponsible small farmers and the factory farms where profit takes precedence and animals are considered little more than another type of machine. THAT is the primary why the "just go vegetarian" for moral reasons is wrong. A far better solution is to actually buy and support farmers who are doing a good job.

And, that is the part you miss in the supply and demand argument. It does not the same, is not as fluid as machines and so forth. Agriculture always depends more on weather, etc than a machine factory. However, on the local level it operates, and it can and does work to some extent on the larger scale as well. There is a reason why the big food companies have either bought their own fields or contracted with farmers to go grow just for their companies. Standardizing supply is part of that equation.

pmchugh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Not standard.

Castration of male pigs is claimed at 77% in Europe, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114148.htm) Getting numbers for the US seemed harder, all I can see on google is people claiming nearly 100% but without sources.

lol-- earlier you were talking about real and true abuse, which is what I said is rare. Castration as done properly and normally is not at all painful for the animal and makes them calmer/happier. you anthropomorphize and want to call that abuse, but earlier you were talking about true abuse and then you did a switcheroo to castration.

pmchugh wrote:This comes down to; you can not eat meat and be sure none of this happens or you can investigate the specific farm from which your pork comes from to ensure this abuse doesn't happen. I don't care which you do.

Yeah, like I said.. INVESTIGATE.
I can when I know the farmers who raise the animals or raise them myself. You assume a lot that is incorrect. I am not guessing. I know what happens on farms. I admit to having lately bought chicken that likely comes from horrible sources, but my red meat (and some of the birds/fish as well) is either wild caught locally or butchered from a local farmer and by a local butcher, both of whom I actually know.

PLAYER57832 wrote:And here you make the final error, as have most of those above. You start with the assumption that growing animals is abusive and better than growing crops. This is just plain false, because some of he worst environmental damage is actually from crops. Growing cotton in Central California -- growing cotton just about anywhere, in fact. Etc, etc. Heavy use of pesticides, monoculture, etc, etc.... those are real, serious problems that are not solved by just going vegetarien or even organic.

pmchugh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

pmchugh wrote:"The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet".

true, but irrelevant. This is done because currently grain is very, very cheap, not because its necessary or most efficient.

That is the part you have correct, factory farming can lead to laziness, in the name of "efficiency", but its not a requirement.

It is relevant to my point, "Animals are an inefficient use of food crops. If you replace the animals you are eating with crops, you are actually consuming less crops.". Perhaps I should have started, "The typical Animals that we consume" to be more precise.

No, because you were trying to refute my point. I am saying that model needs to be changed. We agree on that. Where I disagree is when you claim that going vegetarian is the better, or perhaps the only way to do that. On that I firmly disagree. I disagree for a few reasons. First, you cannot just substitute crops for animals. Animals have the unique ability to travel on their own. This means they can create food from lands that are generally unproductive, lands that could (for a variety of reasons) never produce crops. Seen that way, they are not competing, they are adding to the food system. Also, as I did say above, animals can consume/make use of food waste/silage/roughage that we cannot or will not eat.

The key is that this does not mean massive productions of huge lots of animals, it means a more holistic and integrated system. Ironically, that is more or less what we have had historically with a few missteps in various times and locations.
here, a public example from a source you can hardly call biased toward commercial agriculture.:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/homestea ... azglo.aspx

pmchugh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:OK, except you just changed terms. See, factory farming and intensive farming are not the same thing. Factory farming is a term used primarily to abusive operations specifically. Intensive farming.. that does not require abuse, and can be beneficial IF done properly. Sadly, they often are not, but going vegetarian is actually counter-productive, because it hurts the smaller farmers more. You need to not just avoid the bad guys, you need to actively support the good guys..and also not that there are "good guys" AND "bad guys" in BOTH vegetable/grain and animal production systems.

I don't believe that you can have scalable means of production that is not harmful. How can you keep chickens in an area where each of them has just larger than an A4 sheet of paper and hope to give them meaningful and joyful lives? How can a small group of human beings adequately look after 8,389 pigs? (average Hog farm size in the US circa 2009)

There you go again, defining the terms in ways that are not real. "Intensive farming" does not mean either raising chickens in a space the size of a large piece of paper OR raising 8,000 pigs together.

Also, your I am not sure where you get those figures, the US agricensus shows an average of just over 3,000 per farm in 2012. (source: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publicatio ... g_Farming/ ) Because the trend is fewer farmers who are growing more, I find it unlikely that 8.000 pigs is a real average today. It might be an average for factory farms, but again.. then would be to have already defined the extreme as standard.

Anyway, when I say "intensive", I mean growing lots of items in a relatively small space. Relatively small means maximum efficiency of space, not just cramming animals together. In fact, cramming them that tightly leads to heavy dependence on antibiotics in animals, heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers in crops. Combining the two leads to a better, more efficient system... but a full explanation requires more discussion. I am just dealing with this one point right now.

I would put a realistic pig count at a few hundred, though with some appropriate, adaptive equipment (things like self-feeders and the like), you might approach 5-600 pigs. My dad never liked to go beyond 200 cows (with 2 full time milkers). My neighbors raised quite a few chickens -- never really knew the count. they were raised in boxes suspended off the ground, but they had room to move around, etc. Those standards have changed and definitely become intensified, but the most recent trend is to reverse that. "Free range" is now a pretty popular term (though sometimes its quite a joke).

The initial point was what is the justification of factory farming. I took the "devil's advocate" position, one I don't truly agree with, saying that it is efficient. Then I said that basic argument is not fully true. Its only true if you think of farms as being no different than machinery production plants, which is where the term "factory farm" came about. If you understand both animals and crops, plus the natural environment, you see that we need them all to work together. That is what yields REAL efficiency. Everything is used, and used wisely. There is little or no waste.. no true waste, because basically everything has a purpose and is used.

pmchugh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

pmchugh wrote:I am not basing my views on a PETA blog either but on rational and sceptical observation of the available materials on the conditions in which our food is raised. You will forgive me for making my own judgements and not simply taking your word for it because you are older than me, or you grew up on a farm or any other credential you wish to claim.

LOL -- fine, but please look at ALL the data, not just what you find conveniently on the internet. I, myself have. I would expect no less. Its just irritating when I see touted as "truth" what I know is simply not truth. Finding truth takes work, though, and following the easy answer satisfies many.. to the harm of the real solutions.

No one is perfect and no one knows everything, but I read some very biased pro-meat sources to encounter opposing points of view. If you have a problem with people basing their choices on lack of information imagine living in a society where most people justify their habits with; "protein tho", "food chain tho", "plants feel pain tho". If everyone looked into the issue seriously there would be much, much less meat consumed in our respective countries.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]The answer is to educate yourself, THEN educate others.
You assume I have not and do not, which is why I took the patronizing tone... and yes, it was not exactly the best tactic, but I am human and do get frustrated by hearing the exact same arguments repeated with very little change except that the information supposedly backing the opinions gets less and less real foundation. I mean, even though I pretty specifically said I grew up on a farm, you still came back with "you cannot know what goes on where you get your meat". Actually, I do.. the good AND the bad. As I noted above, I do buy some meat from cheaper, factory sources. It is not what I wish, but getting into that involves more than the discussion topic here involves. I do a LOT better than most people, actually do buy a LOT of my food from very local sources (what I don't grow myself, that is).

And.. if everyone truly looked at the WHOLE situation, they would eat less meat, but not for most of the reasons you have said, and also, less meat is quite different from "we have to be vegetarian". That difference is pretty huge. Mother Earth -- yes. Peta-no.

pmchugh wrote:

jimboston wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Almost everyone I know does it, and no one I know has ever presented a decent moral argument that supports it.

Can you?

Why?

Do I have to?

No?

OK... then I won't.

There was another recent thread where we went around and around and around on this.
You presume it's a moral problem. You presume too much.

Saying it is not a moral problem is not a good way to avoid answering the question, it actually gives yourself a bigger problem. You now have to explain why it is not a moral problem.

People have went around and around and around on politics, religion and everything else. It is called debate and if you don't want to partake in it then don't hit the submit button. Simples.

I disagree.

I have history and biology on my side.

History - We've been eating meat since forever.

Biology - We evolved to eat meat. Our brains got larger because we had access to meat. My mind and taste buds direct me to eat meat. My body loves it and grows stronger the more I eat. (To a point of course, gluttony is never good... and I have to burn the fat/carbs I eat.)

BTW... I haven't ready all the posts here, but has anyone asked you yet to define the term "Factory Farm"? It seems to me that's a very generic and wide ranging term. At what point does a "Farm" become a "Factory Farm"? What are determining factors? Size? Ownership? Method of production? Please be specific...

Factory Farmed meat is not necessarily bad. Sure, some factories probably have bad conditions. Let's pass laws to make conditions better. That will only make the food taste better and be safer. Let's not ban all "factory farms" because some bad apples.

I don't see why it's our duty to respond to your question. Instead it should be your duty to explain why it's morally wrong, not mine to explain why it's not.

Frankly, it's impossible to prove a negative, so you "win" the argument just by me engaging in it. The only way I can "win" is to NOT play the game. Kinda like Global Thermonuclear War.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, because you were trying to refute my point. I am saying that model needs to be changed. We agree on that. Where I disagree is when you claim that going vegetarian is the better, or perhaps the only way to do that. On that I firmly disagree. I disagree for a few reasons. First, you cannot just substitute crops for animals. Animals have the unique ability to travel on their own. This means they can create food from lands that are generally unproductive, lands that could (for a variety of reasons) never produce crops. Seen that way, they are not competing, they are adding to the food system. Also, as I did say above, animals can consume/make use of food waste/silage/roughage that we cannot or will not eat.

The key is that this does not mean massive productions of huge lots of animals, it means a more holistic and integrated system. Ironically, that is more or less what we have had historically with a few missteps in various times and locations.
here, a public example from a source you can hardly call biased toward commercial agriculture.:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/homestea ... azglo.aspx

We both agree the system needs to change, so our argument is just; what is the best way to do it?

I think your way is unrealistic because industrialisation of the lives of complex sentient creatures places their well-being in direct conflict with profits. You think my way is not efficient enough and that it could harm small farmers?

Would that be a fair summary?

If so, I think that encouraging people who buy the cheapest stuff from the supermarket to buy from small farms is a great idea and you will find that I have done that in this thread already. I don't expect the world to change overnight and I believe that an increase in awareness of the cruelties performed on animals will lead to both more veg*ns and to a rise in the demand for small scale farms with well treated animals.

The answer is to educate yourself, THEN educate others.
You assume I have not and do not, which is why I took the patronizing tone... and yes, it was not exactly the best tactic, but I am human and do get frustrated by hearing the exact same arguments repeated with very little change except that the information supposedly backing the opinions gets less and less real foundation. I mean, even though I pretty specifically said I grew up on a farm, you still came back with "you cannot know what goes on where you get your meat". Actually, I do.. the good AND the bad. As I noted above, I do buy some meat from cheaper, factory sources. It is not what I wish, but getting into that involves more than the discussion topic here involves. I do a LOT better than most people, actually do buy a LOT of my food from very local sources (what I don't grow myself, that is).

To all this I will just say; I think you are straw manning me. I am pretty sure that I did not say what you quoted me as saying.

jimboston wrote:I have history and biology on my side.

History - We've been eating meat since forever.

Biology - We evolved to eat meat. Our brains got larger because we had access to meat. My mind and taste buds direct me to eat meat. My body loves it and grows stronger the more I eat. (To a point of course, gluttony is never good... and I have to burn the fat/carbs I eat.)

History is not a moral argument. Apply that you any other moral situation and you will immediately see that.

Biology would be a moral argument if it was necessary to eat meat to be healthy, but it isn't. Nutrition is never an exact science but it is clear that we can live happily and healthily with a strong body without meat of any kind.

BTW... I haven't ready all the posts here, but has anyone asked you yet to define the term "Factory Farm"? It seems to me that's a very generic and wide ranging term. At what point does a "Farm" become a "Factory Farm"? What are determining factors? Size? Ownership? Method of production? Please be specific...

Factory Farmed meat is not necessarily bad. Sure, some factories probably have bad conditions. Let's pass laws to make conditions better. That will only make the food taste better and be safer. Let's not ban all "factory farms" because some bad apples.

Being specific would be difficult without more knowledge of the exact needs of animals. I included factory farming in the title to indicate I didn't mean a farm where the animals roam free and are given appropriate care. Some simple guidelines would be; if it looks like our stereotypical view of a farm that is probably OK. If it looks like a warehouse then that is not.

i.e. I am saying I don't have a problem with this:



But I do with this:



To be entirely serious of recommending anywhere though, I would have to know the full life-cycle of the animal, from conception to death, to be fully confident that its needs are being met. This is why I am veggie, it is way easier.

I don't see why it's our duty to respond to your question. Instead it should be your duty to explain why it's morally wrong, not mine to explain why it's not.

Frankly, it's impossible to prove a negative, so you "win" the argument just by me engaging in it. The only way I can "win" is to NOT play the game. Kinda like Global Thermonuclear War.

My argument against it is very simple. We must take into consideration the interests of all creatures equally, such that if it could suffer we should act to prevent its suffering where realistically possible. Eating meat is clearly causing great amounts of suffering to complex, social and intelligent animals. We can stop supporting this without causing any great harm to ourselves or others. Therefore, we should not eat any meat unless we are sure that eating it was not supporting that suffering.

Homer!

pmchugh wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain.

Its not a matter of saving money. An injection of anesthetic would actually cause more trauma/harm than the operation.

A piglet squeals when you just come near it. If you hold them the right way, they generally calm down. Farmers typically cut the teeth that become tusks, castrate them and clip their ears or tag them all together in a process that takes just a few seconds total when done by a professional. When released, the pigs stop squealing pretty quickly, so your idea of them being tortured just does not bear up to the evidence. The most traumatic part is the holding. To do an injection properly, you would have to hold them about as long as for the castration. Also, when you numb an animal you put them at risk of serious injury because, unlike humans, they don't understand why the area is numb and unlike young human infants are not just going to lay there, either.


Sooo... what this really is is yet another case of anthropomorphized imagination, not looking at how animals really act, think and feel.