fulop78

I wonder what it is that you seek. Was it a big mistake? Hindsight is 20/20? 'she even said that "she didn't deserve me." I don't like to kick someone when they're down, so I didn't agree, though she was right.' yet you came again and again, so it's not really hindsight. Did you ever ask yourself why you do it? What is in it for you? What is your worth if you stop doing it? Get out and get help. If I were you (and I've been in a similar situation) I'd cut all connection and I'd find a good therapist.

So what exactly is the difference? And how are moral objects different from amoral objects? Also, assuming that animals are moral objects, is it OK to kill them for food in case there are plenty other food choices that do not involve killing and other abuse of animals?

FDR2987 3:26:45 Stef says: It is immoral to have children that you can not feed. right. Well, i should say: it's immoral to have and keep children that you can not feed in the same way that it's immoral to bring a pet home from the animal shelter and starve it to death, right? It's just wrong. Anyone care to explain from UPB standpoint how starving an animal to death is immoral?

I did not want to let your effort go unanswered. Still, current numbers do not support your idea to let all the lovely bovines roam and graze. Perhaps that wasn't your idea, now it sound more like let as many as possible roam and graze. I have never heard of Carol Adams and sure she sounds quite crazy. I don't think her ideas are at all representative for vegans or veganism. "some animal consumption is required for optimal human health and development. We evolved to eat animals, not plants, and especially not grains. This is incontrovertible biological fact. Our endocrine system and metabolism are calibrated to hunt large wild animals" - this I don't agree with. Just look at other great apes' diet. There is also a lot of research that says otherwise (here for example http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/). If we really did evolve to eat animals why is killing one so difficult, why seeing a carcass does not make you salivating? I also appreciate the discussion but I think we're getting way off topic here. I'll have a more thorough red of UPB and be back with questions.

Are all humans capable of understanding UPB and able reason? Are there various degrees to this ability, some perhaps bordering on not able. What makes them moral agents if they are not able to understand and reason? If it is inapplicable, how can it be applied on human animal interaction, saying not immoral?

I agree that IQ tests are flawed. Any test that gives you a simple number for something extraordinarily complex is flawed. Still, from my experience, IQ is quite good (and the best we have for now) to determine a someone's ability to reason. I doubt your experience or anyone's really is much different. We're getting off topic here though. I think most people are not capable to understand the concept of morality as you understand it. That does not mean we can use them as food source or forced labor or whatever.

So far I have read Albert Ellis (REBT), Arthur Janov (Primal), Alice Miller, Daniel Mackler, Konrad Stettbacher, Jean Jenson (I already posted a link to this blog https://therapyagainstabuse.wordpress.com/) and Jay Earley (IFS) and their approach to therapy. I recommend reading all those books. Some would argue that REBT uses intellectualizing to suppress emotions. And that those emotions do not just disappear but get pushed even further into subconscious a continue to cause trouble. You don't deal with those emotions and you don't heal the underlying trauma. I tend to agree. It may work just perfect for others though. Due to my childhood I have great difficulty trusting people and being open, non manipulative and non judgmental. The one therapist I went to (she was recommended to me by a friend who studied psychology) did not address my trust issues, perhaps she did not know how to address them. So I decided to part out ways after about 6 months. She seemed upset, but maybe I was projecting. Anyway, I did not find much value in seeing her. So self-therapy is the way for me at least for now. I believe a good therapist can help.

Only if you define suffering as response to injury. You don't really know there is pain involved, where as in animals it is evidently true. IQ is quite good for determining the capability of abstract thinking, if you know better please enlighten me. The most mentally handicapped person's brain of course works quite differently that a healthy man's brain and no two human brains work exactly the same, I'm not sure what your point here is. I am saying that all people are basically animals. And also that you can not do whatever you want with animals. Would you consider it immoral to cage, artificially impregnate, slaughter and eat a great ape? If not what is your reason for not eating them? Is it really just preferential? Would you argue with other people to stop eating them? Unnecessary animal suffering is not convincing enough for you obviously. I have no other argument at this time. You probably don't even consider it an argument. So I have to give up for now and look for holes in UPB or my thinking.

Of course they respond their environment. They live. Does that equal mind and ability to suffer? Does it means they are closer to a cow than a cow is to a human? Is a tribesman from equatorial guinea (average iq 59) really capable of higher reasoning? If not, can you therefore cage him, artificially impregnate females, slaughter babies and eat their flesh and call it aestethics? I don't know where exactly to draw the line on what is OK to kill to eat. Most of you just seem to be sure it's all except humans (or to be precise higher reasoning). Are you going to change your diet to fruits and nuts? I think I'd be alright with that.

Prove it? Like empirically? Can anyone? Well only if you give me the power. More or less current data: beef head count in US is 95 million. All grassland and non-forrested pastures in US is about 600 million acres. Beef cow needs 2-4 acres of good pastures throughout the grazing season. On bad pasture it may go up to 30 acres. Requirement for milk cow is much higher. And there is also winter. So unless my basic math is way off you'd need all of the land and them some for 95 million. And the consumption is as always rising. Free market would dictate but there is no free market to be seen anywhere and there won't be anytime soon, I'm afraid. Surely it would solve many problem and meat consumption would be vastly reduced in my opinion. You see, a lot of the land used to grow corn, soy, wheat is to feed the cows with grain. The land requirement for grain fed cow is much lower that for a grazed cow. Government is bad - I am not denying that. I very much appreciate your apology, it can be a hard thing to do (for me it is most of the time). I see ethical veganism as an outgrowth of humanism. Feminism originally was too. What do you know about marxism? Have you read his works? I am asking because most people just use the term as a general pejorative. Can you elaborate on your assertion? It can not be universalized because there is an underlying assumption that animals are mere things. Not even elephants or dolphins that speaks nor our primate cousins deserve any moral defense. And it was about 6 millions years ago when we were the same animal as them. Well, to bad they are not evolved enough to reason cogito ergo sum, emotions, grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, play, altruism, use of tools, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory, and language is just not enough. How is UPB universal when it completely ignores all but human preferences? I will have to read and understand the book but there is something wrong (and it could be me of course, but I doubt it is just me). Simple answer. Yes, I already made my choice not to consume animal products. Is it really a good source when it makes your acne break out? Isn't that contradictory? May I suggest coconut oil?

Show me a central nervous system in a plant. Show me it's brain and how the pain centers light up on emr scan. Cows don't eat grain ... right, so where does 40-50% grain production goes to? What exactly are you suggesting here? For every litre of milk produced a cow needs to drink at least three litres of water. For high performing cows that’s 150 litres of water every day – if you reduce the amount of water you reduce the amount of milk a cow produces. http://www.delaval.com/en/-/Dairy-knowledge-and-advice/Cow-comfort/Drinking-areas/ Sure it is a lot less than is used to grow grain (they don't eat) to feed them. If you stop feeding them grain ... well, there is not enough pastures for all of them. In future, would you please refrain from mockingly speculating what I am going to tell you next?

1) That is a conservative estimated average for US&EU cow factories. Why is it meaningless? That is how much grain we currently feed them. They eat hay and grass in addition to that. Water consumption is huge too. And the overuse of antibiotics is outright dangerous.

(I already replied to this, not sure why it is not showing) I am not a PETA advocate, there may be financial incentive. But huge? In comparison with what? Surely not milk and meat industry financial incentive. Still, those videos show what they show. That is the reality of what happened then and there. Is it not an industry standard for milk cows to be separated from their child right after birth? Do they not mourn for weeks thereafter? How is one quite skeptical about that? What does it even mean? For UPB an animal is a thing, not a moral agent. Therefore no argument can be made for animals within that framework. You can do whatever to animals and there can not be anything morally wrong with it. I can not accept that. I have to check the premises UPB is based on.

I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to. I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice. It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious. As I said above, I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I don't have an argument for animals that can be evaluated by UPB. I don't think UPB allows such argument to be made. I don't quite see where you are going. Can this poor afghan goat herder change his conditions? Do you survive there also by eating his goats? Does he eat goat products only? Things can grow in a lot of places, but its is easier to run away and survive with a herd of oats than with a field of half grown crops. Just an idea. 'Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water.' - there. How would it make it anything but a constructed scarcity. Is a local farm nature enough for you? Can I work in the farm for food? Do you need to cut a wast amount of choices to prove your point? In future would you please refrain from calling people you don't agree with disconnected from reality?

I agree with you that there is monetary incentive for PETA and perhaps other groups too. Still, those videos are not staged. What happened in those pictures happened and you can not deny it. You can not deny that milk cows get their babies taken away from them and thereafter they mourn for weeks. To UPB animals are things - not a moral agent that you can do anything to without any consequences. No argument for animals can be made with such premises. I will have to dig deeper into UPB to find where exactly it goes wrong if anywhere. Though I'm afraid I will not find much about animals. In a way I agree that human to human interaction is much more important (from human perspective). Also can anyone explain how does self ownership argument not work for animals? Yes, it may be about my childhood. It may be about yours too. I'm not sure where that leads us. Also I appreciate your very civil answer.