You started it by saying "i don't believe in using animals". That statement, whether you see it or not, is very broad and it implies that you disagree with the use of animals period. Regardless of whether there are options or not. That statement implies that if you lived back in that time, you would be campaigning for the using of horses for transport, which is silly. That's why I called it an ignorant statement, it was too bold and too broad.

I really don't understand why you are on this side of the debate.

The debate is asking "is it our moral obligation to stop eating meat now that we can have vegan alternatives".

It's not asking "do you agree with factory farm living conditions".

By your admission, if the meat comes from your local farmer where the animals are treated well and killed humanely then that is acceptable. So your answer to the question of the debate should be NO.

Those principles are there for you to use when dealing with your fellow human beings, because they are the only living things that recognize them and use them just like you.

Animals don't understand morality. But if you want to use that morality to make their lives a little better then by all means, treat them well, and find painless ways to kill them for food. That way, they are still being treated just like they would be treated in the wild (eaten for food) but in a non-torturous way.

You still don't understand the difference between campaigning for better conditions for animals, and campaigning to stop people from eating meat altogether.

You've made this conclusion in your head that just because some places don't treat animals very well then we should all stop eating meet. Is that cause you think the protest is going to trigger new measures in animal welfare? Or do you have a problem with people eating animals regardless of the animals' living conditions?

That's the difference between you and the user "believeyoume". She has a problem with the killing of animals period. For her it doesn't matter how well we treat them, cause she has a fundamental belief that we shouldn't use animals at all, period. You however, seem to be jumping from camp to camp. Every now and again you make a claim as to why we shouldn't kill sentient life for whatever reason. And then you change it by saying "killing them humanely would be fine, but we don't kill them humanely" which is a VERY DIFFERENT approach...

So where exactly is it that you stand on this?

"Because I don't believe in using animals."

Wow that's a very general dismissal of a practice. Are you sure about that? We wouldn't have come so far as a society if we hadn't used anything and everything at our disposal.

If people hadn't used horses and made carriages, we would have never communicated with people that lived far away. If we hadn't used pigeons to deliver mail, you would have to walk for a year to deliver your news to your relatives. If we hadn't used sheep wool to protect ourselves from cold winters, we might not be here today. Your dismissal of those practices is so so ignorant.

"Hens do not lay eggs for human consumption. They lay them to create offspring.

Bees do not produce honey for human consumption. They produce it for food. And they sometimes die (via stinging) to protect it."

Why do hens produce so many eggs, if not for the fact that nature has already taken into account that a lot of them will be eaten or not survive. Why do fish produce millions of eggs when they lay them in rivers? Cause they know that 90% of them will not survive the environment, which includes them being eaten by other animals.

Oh and, should we stop bears from eating honey? After all, the bees don't produce it for consumption, right?

And what makes you think that apples are there for your consumption? As far as we KNOW, the apple is created to protect the seeds inside.

You seem to be so touchy about using animals and yet happily oblivious as to how many humans YOU are using RIGHT NOW. Do you know how many people are "used" everyday to make sure you have electricity, to make sure you have a good show on TV, to make sure you have streets to drive on, to make sure YOUR RUBBISH is collected, to make sure your vegan food is within easy reach for you so you can be all smug and profess to be a "better person"?

Have you any idea how spoiled you sound when you say things like "Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others." We are all "used" in some way or another. Being a postman and delivering letters might be something that the person aspired to do, but they are still paid and "used" to deliver the service even on the days they don't feel like being a postman. Which is why I think your being so young and having no great experience as a working person has a lot to do with your "opinions". When your turn comes to be "used", then come and talk to me again.

Let me remind you that someone else is putting the labor, blood, sweat and tears, in order to produce the products of your vegan diet. YOU are USING those people to produce your food. But you are happily ignoring that, because it's not IN YOUR INTEREST to acknowledge it and PUT AN END TO IT. Right? Instead, you are trying to fulfill your smug desire to be a person of higher morals by concentrating on animal rights. Because, THAT you can live with.

Have no predators to fear? Check.

Who said we don't have predators? We have predators. A human's predator is another human. They may not haunt you for food but loads of them will be more than happy to kill you for many other reasons.

In the wild you can also be eaten by all sorts of other predators.

You see, when you look at it from the other side, our animal predators have no problem at all eating us...

Your response to this so far has been "yes but animals don't understand that it is wrong". In other words, animals don't have the mental capacity to see death from the same "morally unacceptable" perspective you see it from. And yet you are still trying to project your hung ups about death onto them.

You don't think we are part of the food chain?

May I remind you that in the last few weeks, Australia has been preparing the ground to allow crocodile hunting again because the crocodiles, having no predators to fear, have grown in high numbers and have become a danger to all other animals and humans alike.

Well it's a good thing that animals don't have the mental capacity to understand that then. Cause if you take out the "life of suffering", and instead, you create them, subject them to a happy life, then kill them humanely, then there should be no problem.

Your problem is that you are projecting your human cognitive abilities onto an animal that simply doesn't have those abilities. It's like feeling sorry for bears who live in caves.

Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?

The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?

And did you say healthy, cost effective alternatives with less work required and less environmental impact? Is that REALLY true? How many people have the health, the money and the time and work required to grow their own fruit and veg? Their own "variety" of veg to make up for the protein. I mean c'mon! Let's cut the crap here. If everybody had to grow or kill their own food how many people would be vegans exclusively? If you had to choose between digging the land, planting the seeds, watering it for months, using chemicals to make sure it's a successful batch, then harvesting it months later for you to have a plate of beans for dinner... How many would give up and just kill a chicken instead?

The vegans are as hypocritical about food as meat eaters, cause at the end of the day, its always somebody else that has to do the work and provide you with your "morally acceptable" alternatives. You have a problem with the "usage" of animals, but you don't have a problem with the "usage" of other humans to prepare your food. Talk about acceptable morals!

OK so let me get this clear in my head.

You would rather blind people not benefit from the help of a dog that is otherwise well fed, and loved, and trained to do something very useful...

Yeah... Fuck those blind people. Set the dogs free!

You would rather have no pre-testing of drugs on animals whatsoever, and instead inject them to human patients and pray that nothing goes wrong... All those doctors that have used mice to gather data on new drugs are basically idiots.

Yeah... Fuck those cancer patients. Set the mice free!

Also, all those poor third world country farmers should stop using horses and cows to help in agriculture. Their families should stop using the wool off the sheep to clothe themselves. They should also stop milking the cows for milk for their children. We can send them powdered milk and synthetic clothes right?

Yeah... fuck those farmers... and their children. Set the horses and the cows free!

At this point I think it has become evident that we have some HUGE differences in opinion, to the point that I don't think it serves anything to continue the debate. But I am more than thankful to have engaged in it because I truly needed some insight into the mindset behind this debate's slogan. Please don't take this post as an attack towards you. As a human being I love you as much as I love all my neighbors and having different opinions has never made me perceive people with an un-friendly eye. Some of your opinions on other debates have expressed my ideas as well.

LOL

Well what else do you think racism stands for, if not for the belief that one race carries with it an inherent superiority?

You really think that by saying that you are a "specie-ist" you are saying something other than that your species is superior to another species?

And also, having read your response about humans having abolished slavery and persecution of homosexuality etc.... can I just point out that all those issues pertain to how we conduct our affairs within our species, none of them have anything to do with other species, they were a "family" problem. It's not the same thing...

No, a retarded person will never be the same thing as an animal. The genetic standpoint will always be present, and a human is a human regardless.

You called it "speciesism", which is a pretty neat and diplomatic way of admitting that not all life is equal.