It's a fact that all animals suffer. It's a fact that this suffering can be reduced, and it's a fact that I'm doing all I can to reduce it. That's all I know.
I wasn't implying anything. I certainly wasn't calling you insane/delusional/unrealistic/
Perhaps now I do feel "holier than thou," though, since I've managed to not attack you. I feel pretty damn good about my debate and my conduct. You've just been rude.
But, really, this is just enough now. Do both of us need to have the last word?
Which I've been saying. I'm glad you agree. I've had enough.
Again, I simply choose to not cause suffering and death in my life. Of course life is painful; to make it more so for yourself or others is sadomasochistic and cruel, in my opinion. This opinion does not make me delusional or living in my own reality. I don't believe I ever said anything about your opinions making you delusional. I try not to use personal attacks/judgments in what should be an impersonal argument.
I find it very self-righteous of you to believe that you are absolutely right here, with no room for other opinions or other thought processes. I'm quite done with this.
We're really just running circles. I clearly don't think meat should be a main dish, a side dish, an ingredient, a... drink? (Ew.) Or any animal by-products. I've thoroughly stated my opinions on animal ab/use, as have you. Neither of us seem to be swaying, and it seems that both of us want the last word.
So... good debating with you? Or shall we continue?
That's still declaring that their lives exist solely for your benefit.
Let me modify my statement then:
When other options are available, I don't believe in using animals.
One of the primary suggested causes of CCD: malnutrition. Another huge cause: commercial beekeeping. Commercial beekeepers rent their hives to farmers to pollinate their plants, causing unrest to the hives. Also, commercial hives are constantly shifted arrive, causing stress.
It is absolutely impossible to feed the world on a truly free-range diet. I've already mentioned this.
What I meant is that we don't exist solely for the benefit of others.
Modern technology has made it unnecessary to use animals. In our past, there weren't other options; now there are. We don't need carrier pigeons; we have telephones. We don't need wool; we have synthetics. In most places. Where there are no options, there are no options. But considering that you are using you a computer and have access to the internet, I'd say you have options.
Your argument about how humans are "used" is unsound and, quite frankly, angsty. We are lucky enough to choose our jobs and how we are "used"; I've been working since I was twelve, although I do have rather a lack of experience and I'm always looking for more knowledge, experience, and information. I don't profess to be a better person or to know everything; I accept that I'm ignorant in some areas, as we all.
Nature always provides more than it has to; that's how species are a success. But do you think that before commercial fish farming/netting was invented, fish laid less eggs? Before factory farms caged chickens, they laid less eggs?
I'm finding your argument rather judgmental and offensive. Maybe you should rethink the personal attacks and concentrate on the debate.
There is no predator curbing the human population significantly. That is what I meant.
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.
This is exactly my point. Non-humans don't have the ethical and moral principles to choose to not cause suffering. We do. If we forsake those principles, what does that make us?
That sounds a lot like another species... what is it called... oh, right, humans!
Have no predators to fear? Check.
Grown high in numbers? Check.
A danger to all other animals and humans alike? Check.
So, here's an easy way to curb the numbers... let's hunt them!
Because I don't believe in using animals.
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.
Cows do not produce milk for human consumption. They produce it to feed their young.
And while cows don't mind being milked, they might mind being mechanically raped to become impregnated so they'll begin to produce milk, then having their babies taken from them to go their separate ways (if they're female, they'll have the same fate as their mother; if they're male, they're turned into veal), then being hooked up to machines that cut their udders and fill the milk with blood and pus. And, actually, the US allows more pus in milk than any other nation, I believe.
And the free-range bullshit... no way. That's still using an animal.
Animals, human and non-human, do not exist to serve others.
Let's think of another overpopulated species, shall we? How about... humans? Let's breed them, take away their young, mechanically rape the females, cram them together without access to the outdoors or even light, inject them with hormones, deny them everything that is natural, cause them suffering throughout their shortened lives, kill them brutally, eat them because they taste good, and then they won't be overpopulated!
I also don't believe in breeding, so, no, all human-sustained species would die out.
The spiders and insects example only works because they adhere to a food chain. Humans absolutely do not, since we have the ability to eat anything, anytime.
Your argument is ludicrous.
Oh, and netting for tuna doesn't guarantee that only tuna will be caught in the net. All fish who are amongst the tuna will be caught, too. Endangered fish. Any fish that happens to be there. Then they'll be left to suffocate.
And, like I said, nobody is checking that free-range meats/animal by-products are actually free-range. Personally, though, as a vegan abolitionist, I wouldn't care if the calves were cuddled and sung a lullaby to before bed. I still don't agree with killing them. /shrug
Fish suffer. Bush people aren't crammed together so tightly that their skin is rubbed off.
As far as environmental concerns, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Governmental Panel on Climate Change, says, "Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there. In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity." Essentially, ceasing to eat meat is the most effective way that a consumer can help the environment.
Death is a part of life. Eating is a part of life. Causing suffering and death don't have to be.
Oh, no, that wasn't a response to eating you. I don't particularly want to eat you. I'm just saying that my lifestyle was chosen to cause as little suffering as possible.
No, I don't. Nor do I wear wool, leather, silk, or other animal-produced products. I don't eat honey, gelatin, or milk by-products such as casein.
I am vegan.
Net fishing kills not only fish, but every living creature caught up in the nets. It ravages ecosystems, destroys the ocean floor, and is generally terrible for the planet. Netting for shrimp, for example, is the most environmentally destructive animal agriculture practice there is.
Commercial fish farming is nothing like schools of fish. Nothing.
I honestly hope that I don't "figure it out someday," if it means thinking like the rest of the meatheads (not supposed to be an offensive term, just one generally used amongst vegans to refer to omnis). If it means believing that life is not equal, that causing suffering and death is okay, then I hope I don't figure it out.
Can't you accept that my opinion is not wrong? That it's my opinion? Why does that make me delusional, or misled?
Dammit, I wish CD made it so you could see what people were opposing or favouring... I don't remember what I've said and, having arrived home from AC/DC at 5am this morning and not getting much sleep, I'm too tired to look for it.
Hrm. Maybe I will later.
Possibly less unsanitary than meat that comes out of a slaughterhouse. Workers have testified to dropping meat on the ground, spitting on it, and often mixing meats to get the right portion sizes; e.g., mixing horse leftovers generally used for dog food into ground beef.
Yummy. :P
Guide dogs are often mistreated. I'll never forget the time I saw a blind person being guided on a sweltering summer day across a crosswalk by a dog limping to be walking on the asphalt. After seeing that, I did some research and found that many guide dogs suffer similarly. Blind people can absolutely manage without dogs.
Medical testing on animals, as I said, brings no conclusive results. There are other ways. It is not necessary to torture a human or a non-human for these purposes.
And, no, my mindset clearly only pertains to those who have the resources to lead the sort of lifestyle I choose to lead. Hopefully, in the future, this will be everybody. But obviously not now. (Powdered milk, by the way, is not vegan.)
The purpose of veganism is not to harm anybody. Not the blind, not the cancer patients, not the farmers, not the animals. It is to help as many people as possible.
And, yes, I agree that it's just a different opinion/mindset, and neither of us will convince the other, although I hope something I've said makes sense. Good debating with you!
It is the same thing if you believe that all sentient life, regardless of species, is equal. Like I do.
And, yes, I am mildly speciesist, despite my efforts not to. Just as I suppose I'm mildly racist; walking down a New York street at night alone or with a friend and seeing a large black guy up ahead of me is scary. If it was a white guy, I might not be quite as scared. So, yes, despite efforts not to discriminate, I do. I try not to. It's all I can do.
I do believe in abolishing guide dogs. I've never considered the matter of police dogs, but as I don't believe in breeding, I suppose that line of working animal would also eventually come to extinction. I am absolutely against researching on animals for any reason. Testing on non-humans gives no indication whatsoever of potential effects on humans. There are far more humane ways of testing drugs; on groups of cells, for example. Animal testing is absurd.
No, I do not believe it is acceptable to use cows for milk or sheep for wool in areas that it can be avoided. I believe that all sentient life is equal and none of it is meant to be used for any purpose other than its own life.
Meat-eating is a long tradition that, yes, we know a lot about. But only in (relatively) recent years has nutrition information really been available. So while we know a lot about meat-eating, we know a hell of a lot about veganism, too.
