Do you hate P.E.T.A. ?

We're not torturing animals to be manly... We're not torturing animals at all. We're not punishing animals, beating them, interrogating them or trying to get information out of them, we're killing them and eating them. Thats what it is, lets just keep it to the basics.


Exactly, we are efficient and fast! Both commendable virtues


there is a demand for that many burgers, so there will be a supply to match. Why should we slow down?



If everything was inherently good, then there would be no evil. How could everything be inherently good with any mindset to create evil? If there is an option for an animal to act badly when there is nothing evil or bad, then the animal is not entirely good, nor inherently good,

In any case, to be good is very subjective. If you think that murder is bad, then I could argue that all animals that live are bad; that all influence on the contributions to the deaths of plants and animals is murder within itself.

But no matter if the animal is good or not, the animal is good for eating. Waste is a problem because the consumer did not judge acurately and therefore has wasted money, but respect has no place in the consumption of food. Do you respect your salad for dying to feed you?

WindWip:

1) Have you ever seen the inside of a slaughter house?

2) Have you ever worked there?

I used to work in a meat room and went to a slaughter house often. I have no problem with eating meat - still do. But to keep up with American demand (because no meal is complete in America without meat - and we are basically the only ones in the world that think this - and no it isn't cause were a super power) a LOT of corners are cut.

The first thing you do in a slaughter house for beef is use either a sledge hammer or a pnematic bolt driver and put one right between the cows eyes. That kills them about 60 percent of the time. Most other times is stuns them long enough for the second guy in line to slit thier thoat. But when your going fast - you can miss and not deliver the death blow to the animal. The third gentlemen in line takes the animal off the conveyor belt and hooks thier achillies tendon (after making a small slit) up to a hook where they hand upside down for the remainder of thier stay. About 2 of 10 end up coming to on this hook with thier neck partially slit and a hole in thier head and flail around until they eventually die - terrified and slow.

This is not to mention the condition that that animals are kept in in factory farming settings. Animals are often fed the remains of the other animals that have died. In some cases (a good percentage) veals cows never leave thier pen (which is just a little bigger than them) and thie legs never develop. They live in thier own feces for thier entire short life until they get the bolt to the head like the rest. Here is a site to help you out.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/photos_slaughter.htm

I think the main problem with your post is that you are asking econmical questions - not ethical ones - but you are proposing to answer both types.

1) If there is demand - we MUST fill it - by all means necessary. I am sure you don't feel the same way about hookers, hitmen, and drugs.

2) If an animal kills its prey - it is okay for us to kill our prey by all means necessary. I am sure you see the different between the wanton torture of animals by humans and the 'kill only to eat' mentality of animals. However, you want to remove deontological ethos from this debate entirely.

3) It is still entirely possible to create something inherantly good - and yet have that thing have free will. In fact, the majority of religions believe this about humans. Within free will the person has the ability to do completely good acts or completely bad acts. This gives them the option to do either and they set thier adjenda.

However, you seem to want it both ways. You want Good to be defined so that when a person does it you can recognize it - but for it to be subjective - so that when you choose to argue against what you do (i.e. eat meat) you can. You can only do this is you remove intent of the being. Once you remove that - we do not have enough evidence to even discuss Good or Evil (atleast when concerning human actions). If an animal has the intent of torture for no purpose - it actions are evil or bad (but how often have you seen that in the animal world as in comparison to the human world). We torture while we prepare our food because we do not care - and that makes our actions evil.

4) You say 'respect has no place in the consuption of food'. Odd, that only in a country where there is way more food than we need and over 50% of us are obese that we could say that. The rest of the world that does not have enough large protien souces to consume respects the hell out of thier food when they get some to eat - but this leads me back to my original comment - you are making economical observations - and smuggling in your ethical comments.

Ethics asks not what is going on or what could be going on - it asks what aught we do. Sure in our economy we could simply torture all our animals before we eat them and gain some efficiency, which is what we do - but it doesn't de facto make it ethical.

I do respect the food that I eat because I work my butt off to buy it and provide my family with it. I do not waste much and I hate to see people who do. However, your argument is that because vegans are eating vegetables (which is killing) I should be able to eat anything I want in any method I want. Let me give you a similar argument. You eat steaks. They are made of animals. I should be able to make steaks out of you because you are an animal I can make steaks out of. The argument of yours sounds as silly as the one I have just proposed.

The question is not necessarily what do we do - but what aught or could we do to be more humane.

TF

Double post...

Triple post - stupid server...

TF

I have been inside one, but I have not worked there. It is a grim spectacle. I'm not going to argue with you there, I have seen what it looks like.


You brought a good point. I didn't specify clearly what I stated. A demand does not HAVE to be filled, but it will be filled if there is a worthwhile profit to be made. I mean that because of this demand for meat, which does not inhibit society, a supply will appear to fill it. This industry is a market which promotes the economy and is not detremental to the people.
There is also a demand for hookers, hitmen and drugs, but those are each different discussions for morality and ethical business.


Our society, morals and lifestyles have so greatly seperated us from the animal kingdom that I feel the connection between an animal and it's food is held in an entirely different context than a human and it's midmorning snack, but Ill speak on it nonetheless.
You speak of ethics in this scenario. But why are we being less ethical than other animals? Is it because our cause is less worthy? Other animals will toy with their prey, torture it or release it only to capture it once again for their mere enjoyment.


If they can do evil, how can they be entirely good. Obviously the path of doing evil has some precedence in their conscience, otherwize they would be both completely good and have no free will


Could you possibly reword this? It's hard to make out what you mean. I think I mostly understand what you mean, but it is not entirely clear.

Bear with me, but what if the animal has an intent for the torture? To gain information? To teach their young? Is one wrong and the other right?


I love it! Great point.
The reason that I compare lettuce to cows is because their deaths both have such a minute effect on our society, whereas if someone killed me and ate me there would be many ramifications on our society. People would be terrified that they might be eaten. It would completely disrupt society and the general workings.
I still stand by my point that if you are vegan there is just as much reason for you to not eat meat as there is for you to not eat plants.

Im sorry I didnt get the chance to reply to your entire post, it's fairly late for me. I will get back to the parts which I passed over though

Happy Holidays!

I can't escape the Marines no matter where I go, can I? Eh, oh well.

My hubby is a Sergeant in the Marines, going to Iraq in March. His brother just came back home, and is going back in June (I think).

You really have to treasure the brotherhood/sisterhood that goes on here, but then, you have to keep in mind that these people are your friends because they are Marines.

The moment your out, your out all the way. Theres only one person we've been able to keep in contact with once he got out, and we haven't spoken to him in 2 years.

Sorry for digressing to an older post, I just had to rant a bit!!

Yay, meat on my plate! I thank you for your burger-ness!

Thanks for the reply. Your arguments are cordual and concise - and that is great!

Anyway, the quote above - shows how you want this both ways:

1) You want our society and thier morals to be somehow above other animals by thier nature.

2) You also want to compare us to other animals and thier ethics.

You can't have that both ways. We are ethically superior (perhaps exclusively so) to animals - or we are not. We don't get to kill animals in the way we do - and then compare ourselves to them as a mode of vindication.

Be honest - we kill animals - like or worse than other animals - and we have the capicity to do better - but for whatever reasons choose not to.

This is not, nor has it ever been about, eating animals. It is about unnecessary torture, waste, and destcruction of animals when we do not need to do so.

TF