Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[Spymaster]

No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal.

What about mosquitoes?

 

[ddraig]

WTF?

awww
i think it means that if you have a dog and you want to kill it you better have a good reason to kill it because it is self-aware

so by extension, is a sheep/pig/cow self aware?
is your justification of wanting to eat it good enough to justify its death?
clearly you and most others think that

 

[ddraig]

Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?


also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?

it is generally down to the individual no?
apart from it being genrally considered wrong to kill and eat dogs (in this country) as they are on the right/cute side of the animal divide

 

[frogwoman]

why not?

because then you'd have to identify every instance of a human killing an animal as murder, ie someone killing a cockroach

or an animal killing another animal

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?


also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?

We don't need to kill animals to meet our dietry needs. We (the developed world) have the resources and the ability to feed ourselves without killing animals to do so. Therefore, killing animals isn't a necessity. we do it because we want to eat them, not because we need to eat them. Wild animals, on the other hand, have a need to kill other animals, because the alternative is death.

We've evolved to the stage where we shouldn't have to kill other animals in order to eat, yet we still do it, and it's quite apparent that most people don't see this as wrong. This is the part I have a problem with.

 

[andysays]

No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal.

I'd probably argue that it would be 'less wrong' to kill an animal that didn't have the power to reason... but then we'd have to get into a whole other argument.

I'm not trying to assert that it's a black and white thing, that it's wrong to kill anything. I believe that it's wrong to kill something simply because we prefer the taste, and because it's cheaper/easier than providing an alternative solution to our dietry needs.

OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.

 

[Spymaster]

awww
i think it means that if you have a dog and you want to kill it you better have a good reason to kill it because it is self-aware

I think that's exactly what he means, and it's a load of ludicrous pish!

 

[ddraig]

I think that's exactly what he means, and it's a load of ludicrous pish!

so if you wanted to kill a dog you would just off it?
niiiiice

 

[ddraig]

We don't need to kill animals to meet our dietry needs. We (the developed world) have the resources and the ability to feed ourselves without killing animals to do so. Therefore, killing animals isn't a necessity. we do it because we want to eat them, not because we need to eat them. Wild animals, on the other hand, have a need to kill other animals, because the alternative is death.

We've evolved to the stage where we shouldn't have to kill other animals in order to eat, yet we still do it, and it's quite apparent that most people don't see this as wrong. This is the part I have a problem with.

this is exactly what it boils down to

 

[ddraig]

OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.

the ethical justification is the not killing of something
that is where the difference is, who gives a shit (and to what extent) and who doesn't
or whether you think you should even give a shit
fact

 

[Dr_Herbz]

OK, you've clarified what your position is, but you haven't, as far as I can see, given it anything resembling an ethical justification, or not one which really lifts it above being a personal belief or preference. Which is fine as a guide for your behaviour, but doesn't give you any basis to criticise others for believing and behaving differently.

Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That might well be the case, but for me its precisely the view of animals as an economic resource that's the problem here.

All animals are thought of as economic resources, even human animals.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How?, through the medium of interpretive dance?

You sick fuck!!!

 

[Spymaster]

so if you wanted to kill a dog you would just off it?
niiiiice

Are you pissed?

 

[8ball]

That may well be the case, but that would be an example of a flawed ethical system, and would support my earlier comment about elevating the importance of animals risking being anti-human

I don't disagree that it would be shit.

TruXta is taking his time with his example (though maybe he has a life or something).

 

[Spymaster]

the ethical justification is the not killing of something
that is where the difference is, who gives a shit (and to what extent) and who doesn't
or whether you think you should even give a shit
fact

Smoking something?

 

[ddraig]

not yet, few more hours of work first!

 

[8ball]

Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.

It can be perfectly consistent to believe in a special ethical status for humans and still not believe killing animals for food is justified.

 

[Spymaster]

TruXta is taking his time with his example (though maybe he has a life or something).

He's gone for a burger.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds.
I'm not bashing people for liking meat, I'm simply wondering why people can't see that it isn't right to kill another animal to meet our dietry preference, and I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?

You realise that the occasional seal culls were less to do with fur, than with preserving fish stocks in that part of the north Atlantic? The fur was basically a "by-product" of a "human need" to remove several tens of thousands of fish-eating mammals from the food chain at a particular time of year. You might also have noticed that the culls weren't annual, but cyclical. They only took place when the seal population was approaching a saturation point.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds.

Now THIS is truly immoral.

You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.

 

[joustmaster]

why not?

Because of what the word murder means!

NOUN

• 1The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:

 

[Spymaster]

I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.

The only people being attacked on this thread are the omnivores.

 

[andysays]

Your decision to eat meat is a personal preference. It isn't a necessity, therefore, your killing of animals is, in my opinion, unjustified... unless you consider your personal preference of culinary delight sufficient justification for killing an animal... which you obviously do, so there's no point in arguing.

So are all actions based on personal preference or not absolute necessities unjustified?

Eating meat may not be absolutely necessary, but it certainly contributes to the necessity of keeping me alive and in the absence of any genuine ethical argument against, it seems to me to be justified on that basis.

There's no point in arguing in the sense that we're neither of us likely to change the other's position, but if that was the only reason for posting here, this thread would have ended long ago.

I'm not some hippy, tree-hugging vegetarian. I love bacon on toast and I love steak, even though I know it's wrong that another animal has died to satisfy my taste buds.
I'm not bashing people for liking meat, I'm simply wondering why people can't see that it isn't right to kill another animal to meet our dietry preference, and I don't understand why some people get so defensive about this and attack anyone who dares to question their beliefs.

See, I don't think anyone on this thread has accused vegetarians of being tree hugging hippies, or anything of the sort, and far from the meat eaters getting defensive and attacking anyone who dares to question their beliefs (rather than disagreeing, making arguments, and suggesting that coherent counter-arguments should be made in return), I think it's been a few of the vegetarians who have tried that tactic.

 

[8ball]

Now THIS is truly immoral.

You believe that it's wrong and argue fervently against it, yet you do it anyway.

You don't do anything that you have ethical concerns about?

 

[Spymaster]

You don't do anything that you have ethical concerns about?

Not that I feel particularly strongly about. No.

But then my ethical standards are pretty low!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know quite a few people are uneasy about the ethical concerns of eating meat, but do it anyway. For me, my line is further back, but I cross it by eating meat from dubious sources that use practices I think are wrong. What I reject is the suggestion that the only logically consistent position for any meat-eater to take is one that involves mild self-hate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It wasn't so very long ago that slavery was considered acceptable and I'm sure people would have used the same justifications to convince themselves they were doing nothing wrong.

I wonder if slave owners took solace in the fact that they were more developed than their slaves, and considered this adequate justification for using this less developed animal for their own needs?

I'm sure some people even considered themselves to be 'ethical' slave owners, because they didn't beat their slaves, and they gave them plenty of food and a bed and roof over their head.

So... where do we draw the line? Does it have to be a different species, so we can place an emotional barrier between us and them, and convince ourselves that it's OK because they don't look like us, so they probably don't have feelings, and even if they do, what does it matter, because we're the dominant species?

I'm not sure that your point isn't fatuous.
Whatever justifications humans devise for the mistreatment of other humans, it's not particularly apt to deploy that same reasoning with regard to human mistreatment of other species.
Why? Simply because we can't reach the same breadth of argument vis-a-vis the putative rights of another species, because we're unable to empathise except anthropomorphically, and we're unable to hear their side of the argument - we can only make assumptions based on human prejudices. It isn't about feelings or emotions, it's about assuming by default a dominion (one justified for some through reference to the Bible's reference to ownership of the land and the "beasts of the field".
We also need to acknowledge that the era of mass production of meat coincides with, purely instrumentally, the advent of modern capitalism being (somewhat) counterbalanced by industrial solidarities, and the fact that cheap(ish) protein availability means the owners of capital being able to extract more surplus value from you, now that you've been able to extract something more than the minimal table-leavings they wanted to give you, from them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I would kill a million pigs
And I would kill nine million more
To be the man that killed ten million pigs with my bloody chainsaw
La la la lah...

You evil child!