The best speech you will EVER hear..

[Gavitor]

The only killing that I consider humane is when an animal is sick or injured and about to die anyway and you take them out of their misery. Not when an animal is completely healthy and full of life.

 

The immoral part is taking away a life when there is no necessity to do so.

 

What constitutes necessity? Also If killing something is Immoral simply because it is alive and healthy then it would also be immoral to kill plants since they too are alive. Lets not forget all the bacteria and viruses as well...

 

The difference between humans and pretty much all other life on this planet is our capacity and ability to reason. Morality is a product of reason, since animals lack the capacity to ever be able to reason morality does not apply to them. That doesn't mean we can't empathize with them or treat them in a humane manner.

 

I think its more important to get humans to stop abusing other humans before we worry about how humans treat other animals. Once humans can treat each other well, I'm sure animal cruelty and abuse will fade away as a natural consequence.

[shirgall]

Besides genetics and intelligence, there is no biological difference between humans and animals.

 

 

There certainly is a moral difference, or we would be putting tigers on trial for murder. It makes no sense to put animals on trials for any of their actions, because it's clear they have no capacity for moral choices.

[nathanm]

I'm not against everything the man has to say, I was vegan for a number of years myself.  I just don't share his emphasis and I still think he sounds like a douchebag, which doesn't mean he's wrong, he just sounds like a douchebag.  I think humans need to start treating themselves better before turning to the plight of animals.  Post a story about a cop beating a person to death and you get lots of excuses, post a story about some guy running a dog fighting ring and people are ready to break him on the wheel.  You can't even have a video where a human is being mildly annoying to an animal without smoking-ears style outrage.  But tormenting children…heeelarious stuff.

[Richard_V]

http://www.mfablog.org/indian-city-becomes-first-vegetarian-city

 

A whole city of heartless, psychopathic plant butchers! 

Palitana becomes first city in the world to outlaw animal slaughter and the sale of meat & eggs. 

[Richard_V]

That Youofsky speech is a classic, but I have to say, I prefer Philip Wollen's approach

 

Incredibly succinct and very, very difficult for any rational person to argue with.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I don't know where you got your numbers, for starters. So, don't think I even accept them. Second, how do you know that pasture land is suitable for agriculture? Agriculture, of course, that kills bacteria, animals, bugs, plants, and destroys soil. Then of course, mass agricultural practices cause events like "dust bowls" and rely on weather patterns and droughts not happening.(see Kern County)

 

http://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/Meat/environment.html 

 

I haven't vetted this, but I'm not yet ready to make argument one way or another. So, grain of salt. Still gathering.I'm not going to take a baseless number as a substitute for empiricism, however.

 

First, this is my source: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/A0701E00.pdf

 

Second, you're either not very good at math or you haven't looked at the numbers at all.

 

We currently grow crops on 30% of the land, 19% for direct consumption, 11% to feed animals.

 

That 19% supplies us with 83% of our energy. Which means that if we want to get 100% of our energy from crops we would need to change the 19% into 23%. That's no problem, because we're already using 30% of the land to grow crops. We just need to use more of it for ourselves instead of using it to feed animals.

 

We don't even need to touch the 70% pasture land, you can forget what I said about it, I was trying to make a point but apparently it didn't come across and it's not relevant enough to keep talking about it.

 

Third, I don't really enjoy this discussion. So if you're interested you can check out the report that I just gave you the link to and make up your own mind. But let's just end our discussion here.

 

What constitutes necessity? Also If killing something is Immoral simply because it is alive and healthy then it would also be immoral to kill plants since they too are alive. Lets not forget all the bacteria and viruses as well...

 

The difference between humans and pretty much all other life on this planet is our capacity and ability to reason. Morality is a product of reason, since animals lack the capacity to ever be able to reason morality does not apply to them. That doesn't mean we can't empathize with them or treat them in a humane manner.

 

I think its more important to get humans to stop abusing other humans before we worry about how humans treat other animals. Once humans can treat each other well, I'm sure animal cruelty and abuse will fade away as a natural consequence.

 

Just to be clear, I didn't say it was immoral to kill anything that's alive and healthy, I was specifically talking about animals.

 

By necessity I mean either self-defense or survival. We don't need to kill these animals out of self-defense and we have more than enough plant food so we don't need to kill them for survival either.

 

I understand your reasoning with regards to morality. But I don't think it matters whether these animals can reason or not, what matters is that they're sentient (unlike plants and bacteria) and that we don't need to kill them. In my view, being moral simply means that you don't cause unnecessary suffering and death to sentient beings.

 

You may not agree with my use of the word moral, but I don't want to get into a discussion about that because I think it distracts from the main point, so feel free to call it empathy or kindness or whatever word you think applies best.

 

I think your last point is interesting and I would like to ask a question about it. Since animal abuse is directly linked to child abuse I think it's reasonable to assume that the jobs provided by the meat industry attract people who have been abused as children. Do you not think that buying that meat and thereby paying these people to kill animals is encouraging unhealthy behavior in them?

[dsayers]

You may not agree with my use of the word moral, but I don't want to get into a discussion about that because I think it distracts from the main point, so feel free to call it empathy or kindness or whatever word you think applies best.

 

A suggestion if I may. I'm of the mind that the quickest way to fail at persuading others is to overstate your case. As such, if you're talking about something subjective, such as empathy or kindness, it's best not use objective terms such as moral. It comes across as stating opinion as fact for the purpose of preempting dissent/scrutiny. Similarly, to be able to to cite numerous, specific numbers and then balk on precision in terminology lands as lacking integrity. You have a good cause and a convincing presentation. Don't drop the ball by being so careless with the concept of morality, especially amid a crowd of people who have a clear perception of it.

 

Also, while its a great cause, those who have pointed out that human mistreatment is more important and remedying it will remedy mistreatment of animals make a very strong, objective point.

[MagnumPI]

So, I guess this is just a dogma thread now? Agree with the UN, admit you're a rapist, and murderer, and let's end it at that.I found an interesting counter point, from a similar type of person to the speaker in the OP. Feminist, liberal, emotion based argument type. But this one was actually forced to learn something about the topic due to health.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WemanmrAYvg

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I think this guys passion is fantastic. He is trying to sell the idea in a positive way which is a welcome change from the anti-human, anti-capitalist propaganda many have used. The problems I have are with the first part (mostly before he shows the animal cruelty video) were concepts like "murder" are used as if it's self-evident. I ate meat up until a few years ago (and have since occasionally eaten fish) but I was not a murderer. If someone's going to call me a murderer then they need to prove that. 

Also there's nothing that actually proves eating meat in and of itself is wrong. It's animal cruelty that's wrong. 

I'm am maybe 97, 98 percent vegan (though not A vegan) and I can testify that the health benefits he mentions are true. 

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

How can grazing heal land? by Wilma Keppel

Conventional wisdom says grazing damages land -- yet the same land a few cattle or sheep damage today often supported thousands or millions of wild grazers less than 200 years ago.

John Mix Stanley, circa 1855

Working as nature's seeders, mulchers, and composters, bison helped build North America's deep prairie soils. They were aided by tens of millions of elk, deer, pronghorn antelope, and other grazers.

Explorers' accounts tell of lush grass, flowing springs and rivers, and abundant game in areas that today are damaged or turning to desert. If grazing damaged land, nature could never have built those landscapes in the first place. What's going on?

 

http://managingwholes.com/grazing-heals-land.htm

Cows Save the Planet, and Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth

by Judith D. Schwartz

 

http://www.westonaprice.org/book-reviews/cows-save-the-planet-by-judith-d-schwartz/

 

Many of you have seen Allan Savory’s TED talk, in which he explains the principles of managed intensive grazing as a method of reversingdesertification (http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html).

As many of our members know, managed intensive grazing (also known as cell grazing, mob grazing, and holistic managed planned grazing), involves moving a herd of animals (usually cows, but also sheep, pigs, goats and poultry) regularly and systematically to fresh rested areas with the intent of maximizing the quality and quantity of forage growth. Properly managed herds can bring renewed fertility to pastures in any area of the world, but the system is especially beneficial to marginal or “brittle” lands that go many months without rainfall. Herds trampling the soil, fertilizing with urine and manure, and then moving on, can reverse the process of desertification that occurs when when there are too many animals on the land, or not enough of them.

[prolix]

[Gavitor]

Just to be clear, I didn't say it was immoral to kill anything that's alive and healthy, I was specifically talking about animals.

 

By necessity I mean either self-defense or survival. We don't need to kill these animals out of self-defense and we have more than enough plant food so we don't need to kill them for survival either.

 

I understand your reasoning with regards to morality. But I don't think it matters whether these animals can reason or not, what matters is that they're sentient (unlike plants and bacteria) and that we don't need to kill them. In my view, being moral simply means that you don't cause unnecessary suffering and death to sentient beings.

 

You may not agree with my use of the word moral, but I don't want to get into a discussion about that because I think it distracts from the main point, so feel free to call it empathy or kindness or whatever word you think applies best.

 

I think your last point is interesting and I would like to ask a question about it. Since animal abuse is directly linked to child abuse I think it's reasonable to assume that the jobs provided by the meat industry attract people who have been abused as children. Do you not think that buying that meat and thereby paying these people to kill animals is encouraging unhealthy behavior in them?

 

The problem with mixing animals with morality is how do you hold an animal morally accountable?

 

I agree that we shouldn't torture sentient beings, But I still don't see how killing them or eating them is wrong especially since most carnivores would have no problem doing the same to us.

 

Is it wrong for an animal to eat a human? If so why?

 

Is killing an animal for food unhealthy behavior? Your question presumes that it is. Why do you think it is and what is unhealthy about it?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

The problem with mixing animals with morality is how do you hold an animal morally accountable?

 

 

We don't and we don't hold the mentally ill morally accountable either. Those who lack the intellect to be held morally accountable still have interests in living in comfort. If they are sentient and look after themselves then they also have self ownership.

Is killing an animal for food unhealthy behavior? Your question presumes that it is. Why do you think it is and what is unhealthy about it?

 

Killing is the same action, what you do afterwards with the remains isn't implicitly morally relevant.

 

Evidence does support that those engaged in repeated killing of animals are emotionally harmed.

One extensive study suggests the form of psychological damage 

suffered by slaughterhouse workers. In Perpetration-Induced Traumatic 

Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing, Rachel M. MacNair

describes Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress ("PITS") as a form of post-

traumatic stress disorder that results "from situations that would be traumatic 

if someone were a victim, but situations for which the person in question was 

a causal participant," i.e., where the person suffering from PTSD has those 

symptoms because he was involved in creating the traumatic situation.

MacNair describes the symptoms as including drug and alcohol abuse, 

anxiety, panic, depression, increased paranoia, a sense of disintegration

dissociation or amnesia, which are incorporated into the "psychological 

consequences" of the act of killing.

A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016401

[AustinJames]

Until humans stop abusing each other, humans will abuse animals.  If humans learn to stop abusing each other, abuse of animals will stop as well.  To try to stop humans abusing animals before humans stop abusing other humans, while noble, is illogical.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Until humans stop abusing each other, humans will abuse animals.  If humans learn to stop abusing each other, abuse of animals will stop as well.  To try to stop humans abusing animals before humans stop abusing other humans, while noble, is illogical.

Not everyone is into abusing people, some of us are naturally more empathic than others and just need information. Some people go vegan when exposed either to the facts about animal use or the philosophical arguments. I did.

[Soren]

Some people are very much against abusing animals but have no problem abusing humans. Hitler being the prime example.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Some people are very much against abusing animals but have no problem abusing humans. Hitler being the prime example.

 

So there are some more crazy people with mixed up ethics, just they happen to be polar opposites in their ethical inconsistencies.

[powder]

I think this kid gives a really good speech about being a vegie:

 

[AustinJames]

Not everyone is into abusing people, some of us are naturally more empathic than others and just need information. Some people go vegan when exposed either to the facts about animal use or the philosophical arguments. I did.

That is a commendable decision.  I was just sharing why humane treatment of animals is not my primary focus in philosophy.  I think greater good can be done focusing on humane treatment of children.  If you disagree with my reasoning, I'm glad.  I'm glad that there are people with different priorities in philosophy; kind of like I'm glad that not every doctor is an oncologist.  We need individuals with different skills and interests in the war against evil.

[Soren]

So there are some more crazy people with mixed up ethics, just they happen to be polar opposites in their ethical inconsistencies.

 

Ethical inconsistancies, you mean like vegans who have no moral problems eating a living organism if it dosen't feel pain the same way they themself do?

I was merly point out that killing and eating animals which some vegans consider "abuse" of animals. Might not be considered bad by a well treated child/adult.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

That is a commendable decision.  I was just sharing why humane treatment of animals is not my primary focus in philosophy.  I think greater good can be done focusing on humane treatment of children.  If you disagree with my reasoning, I'm glad.  I'm glad that there are people with different priorities in philosophy; kind of like I'm glad that not every doctor is an oncologist.  We need individuals with different skills and interests in the war against evil.

 

Children and animals are violated for much the same reasons, they are vulnerable, they don't have a voice and there is a culture of denial. I think the struggle is on parallel lines.I do think there is much merit to the argument that if children are treated kindly then they are more likely to grow up as sensitive individuals who, one would hope, treat animals with compassion. I also advocate for children and my partner and I blog on http://ethicalparents.com/ regarding raising children peacefully.  

Ethical inconsistancies, you mean like vegans who have no moral problems eating a living organism if it dosen't feel pain the same way they themself do?

 

 

I guess you are referring to plants or insects? An isolated nerve cell in a Petri dish could "feel pain", I don't think that has any moral connotations. The question is whether the organism in question has interests of its own that it's aware of, and whether it is practical to take this into consideration? 

[Gavitor]

I guess you are referring to plants or insects? An isolated nerve cell in a Petri dish could "feel pain", I don't think that has any moral connotations. The question is whether the organism in question has interests of its own that it's aware of, and whether it is practical to take this into consideration? 

 

How do you feel about eating insects?

 

Are animals aware of their own interests?

 

What about plants that eat insects/animals?

 

How do you determine if an organism is aware of its own self interest and doesn't just act on impulse or instinct?

[cynicist]

I'm not sure how this argument (which is fundamentally anti-nature) is any different than the religious argument that we are born sinners and must repent for our innate evil. The more sentient something is the more reservations I have about eating it but I have to agree with others that overstating the case is just going to turn people away from the message entirely.

 

Rather than making it into a moral argument and trying to guilt others into changing their behavior, why not post more about the benefits of a plant-based diet? I'd be a lot more interested in that than flawed reasoning about how god wouldn't put animals on the planet to be murdered by us...

 

(oh perfect example here. I didn't watch past the 2 minute mark out of disgust, but judging by ProfessionalTeabagger's post there was actually some really interesting information about diet in the video) 

 

I think this kid gives a really good speech about being a vegie:

 

Damn, he makes a good case...

[Soren]

I guess you are referring to plants or insects? An isolated nerve cell in a Petri dish could "feel pain", I don't think that has any moral connotations. The question is whether the organism in question has interests of its own that it's aware of, and whether it is practical to take this into consideration? 

Allright. Well I think that is a good way to say why we should not eat humans, as I don't see many "books" on the subject of grass eating made by cows.

[yagami]

I would respond to this but I and im sure many other have already had this debate several times on the board. You really should do a search for these things first. You probably will get a lot if not all your questions answered that way. Here is a debate I had with someone you can look at. My first post is unrelated but from then on im talking about the whole animal rights thing. Hope this helps. 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40851-vegetarianvegan-questions/page-6

[AustinJames]

I do think there is much merit to the argument that if children are treated kindly then they are more likely to grow up as sensitive individuals who, one would hope, treat animals with compassion.

 

Is it possible to treat animals with compassion, and also eat them/confine them?  Is there anything different, morally, between enslaving a dairy cow and enslaving a human?  The current state of the industry notwithstanding, is it possible to raise animals for food in a humane manner?

[fractional slacker]

1. Is it possible to treat animals with compassion, and also eat them/confine them? 2. Is there anything different, morally, between enslaving a dairy cow and enslaving a human?  3. The current state of the industry notwithstanding, is it possible to raise animals for food in a humane manner?

1. Yes, just as it is possible to be cruel to animals that aren't confined regardless of whether you eat them later.

2. There needs to be the involvement of two moral agents to bring in a moral judgement. 

 

3. "Is it possible to raise an animal in a humane manner?" What is the definition of humane manner? 3a. "Is it possible to kill an animal in a humane way?" Again how would you define humane? 

[Richard_V]

For anyone who wants to open their eyes to the reality, here are some examples of the typical treatment animals suffer on large-scale farms. 

 

 

Pig torture: 

http://www.peta.org/videos/mother-pigs-and-piglets-tortured-in-a-north-carolina-factory-farm-2/

http://www.walmartcruelty.com

 

Veal calf torture: 

http://www.cratedcruelty.ca

 

Dairy cow torture: 

http://www.sliceofcruelty.com

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy/

 

Sheep torture:

http://investigations.peta.org/australia-us-wool/

 

Fur farm torture:

http://www.peta.org/videos/a-shocking-look-inside-chinese-fur-farms/

 

[shirgall]

The treatment of animals depicted is not an argument against eating animals nor for giving them equal rights as sentient, moral people.

[FriendlyHacker]

It's a bit silly to talk about animal abuse and compare how free they are in the wild, when anyone who spends 5 minutes in the wild knows you are surrounded by suffering and animals fighting to the death for survival.

 

Which reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/3C8FDDs-iQs?t=44s

 

Call it speciesism, but in no way I think the life of other animals are worth more than humans, and if people need to eat to survive, they should eat animals, unless vegetarians actually come up with a solution for world wide hunger, instead of raising their flags with their rich friends who can stuff their faces with as much tufu they want, it will sound like empty rethoric to me.

[Richard_V]

The treatment of animals depicted is not an argument against eating animals nor for giving them equal rights as sentient, moral people.

 

The disgusting treatment of animals is the reason most people become vegan and stop consuming animal products. 

[shirgall]

The disgusting treatment of animals is the reason most people become vegan and stop consuming animal products. 

 

It may be a reason, but it's not an argument. There's plenty of value in understanding why it's disgusting and to do things to make it less disgusting but it doesn't change our fundamental nature as omnivores. There are plenty of things that disgust some people and delight others but either thing has no bearing on whether a thing is universally preferable.

[Richard_V]

It may be a reason, but it's not an argument. There's plenty of value in understanding why it's disgusting and to do things to make it less disgusting but it doesn't change our fundamental nature as omnivores. There are plenty of things that disgust some people and delight others but either thing has no bearing on whether a thing is universally preferable.

 

My argument is this: 

 

In the society we live in, it is completely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to live a healthy life. *(see below)

it is therefore unnecessary to fund the exploitation, torture and killing of animals.

Funding the exploitation, torture and killing of animals is something one chooses to do based solely on one's taste for animal flesh, secretions and skin. 

 

 

 

*This has been proved time and time again by independent nutritionalists. The British National Health Service also agrees. 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx

[shirgall]

In the society we live in, it is completely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to live a healthy life. *(see below)

it is therefore unnecessary to fund the exploitation, torture and killing of animals.

Funding the exploitation, torture and killing of animals is something one chooses to do based solely on one's taste for animal flesh, secretions and skin. 

 

 

You are continuing to use charged language when the fundamental issue is the killing of animals... which all animals do to other living things as a course of natural living. Feel free to watch a lion eat the genitals off of a living wildebeest (because it tastes good) and tell me *that* is necessary because lions don't know better, but the harvesting of cattle (designed to kill animals with minimum stress because it makes the meat taste bad) is not.

 

I have no problem with people having empathy and compassion for animals, but empathy and compassion are not moral arguments.

 

By the way, the link you cited says

 

 

Vitamin B12 is only found naturally in foods from animal sources. Sources for vegans are therefore limited and a vitamin B12 supplement may be needed.

 

Where are they getting their B12? There's a lot of hand-waving here.

[Richard_V]

You are continuing to use charged language when the fundamental issue is the killing of animals... which all animals do to other living things as a course of natural living. Feel free to watch a lion eat the genitals off of a living wildebeest (because it tastes good) and tell me *that* is necessary because lions don't know better, but the harvesting of cattle (designed to kill animals with minimum stress because it makes the meat taste bad) is not.

 

I have no problem with people having empathy and compassion for animals, but empathy and compassion are not moral arguments.

 

By the way, the link you cited says

 

 

Where are they getting their B12? There's a lot of hand-waving here.

 

Lions are carnivores. They do not have a choice. Their physiology dictates that they must eat meat. 

 

In this society, we can have vitamin B12 in products like nutritional yeast (which is also delicious by the way)

http://www.vegkitchen.com/nutrition/nutritional-yeast-a-great-source-of-b12-and-other-b-vitamins/

 

 

Organic vegetables (grown in natural, nutrient dense soil) will have natural B12 within the trace soil embedded in their skin -- another reason why it's always good to eat your organic fruit and veg with the skin on. 

 

Nori seaweed is a great natural source of Vitamin B12:

http://www.naturalnews.com/035138_nori_vitamin_b-12_iodine.html

 

A lot of people are unaware that livestock are frequently given B12 supplements - which means meat eaters are often getting it 2nd hand through meat.