Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 82
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...Page 4 of 43    (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
Awww.....I came too late....

Lemme address some issues I felt were missed;

>>>It takes one acre to feed one cow/maybe two or three sheep - that same acre could support 10 men.

Thats making the leap that all land that is used for Livestock can equally be used for agriculture- and thats simply not true. If animal farming would be banned, large stretches of America would equally be abandoned. Property prices for areas that cannot support agriculture would plummet, and you would force Millions of Farmers on the streets with no way to ever repay their debts, solely because they decided their own morality and offered to voluntarily trade value for value with people who wanted what they sold .

>>>In a world where the population exceeds resources (as we have now) there is no 'excuse'

When has there ever been enough resources equally shared amoungst the world? How would simply stop eating meat resolve that issue? Wouldn't it take more than that to create this "global equality"?

The dirty secret you may not want to throw out there all pink and naked is that, in order for what you say is true, we must accept communism. This is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing- to demand we abandon freedom in lue of giving people their fair share of everyones resources. Otherwise, the farmer should most definately have the freedom to farm whatever he so pleases, to make their his own losses or his own fortune.

The farmer doesn't spend neither societies nor the world's resources on cows- he spends his own resources, in the investment that the cost of the meat will offset the cost of the feed.

>>>There is certainly no 'excuse' for the destruction of rainforests to create 'grazing' for beef cattle.

And what right do you have to dicate to foriegn nations how they may or may not use their own resources? Shouldn't they have the right to representation? Shouldn't they be allowed- nay, entitled with the right to make their own policies for their own country?

>>>Why should we feel differently towards the older person/the cow/the sheep?

Because people are different than cows. Its really that simple. Humanity is exceptional.

Thats not to say we should be creul to cows- but humanity is most definately the superior.


>>>I would think that the reason vegans and vegetarians don't speak out about PETA is simply because they have no idea what they are up to.

I'd have to agree with you there.

>>>I would also think that the crimes that slaughter houses commit not just to animals but also to the environment far outweigh the actions of PETA and other groups that break the law to bring awareness to their cause.

Are.....are you actually justifying terrorism?

>>> If i seen someone abusing an animal i'd want to step in and do something to, who wouldn't?

Wait wait wait....

So there are numerous of laws protecting animals from cruelity on the books. And, rather than actually using these laws, you think the better idea to fight animal cruelity is to randomly rob farms, commit arson to labs, and send death threats to people- some of which do NOT commit any cruelity towards animals, but are rather singled out because they find nothing wrong with slaughter, or find a need for drug testing?

How is vigilatism a better solution? Even when these vigilantes are attacking people who aren't even breaking the law, but rather commit the more horrible sin of not agreeing with PeTA?

>>>we don't allow human slavery any more, so why do we allow animal slavery?

Well, lets see;

Humanity is capible of both rights and responsiblities- I am responsible for my actions and, if the consquences of my actions causes another human being harm, I am capible of understanding this, and have the knowledge to prevent it and the understanding that, if something of the like does happen, I will be held responsible.

Animals cannot comprehend this. Because of that, if humans and animals were found to be equals, our prisons would be overflowing with animals who break and enter, who steal, who rape other animals infront of school- animals cannot survive as equals- that is Disney make-belief garbage.

>>>Why do we allow huge corporations to breed abuse and slaughter animals for profit?

And wouldn't it make more sense to fight for these cruelities towards animals to end, rather than fighting for animal liberation and firebombing labs? You are a victim of your own argument- you take a simple concept, like how Industrial Farming is cruel towards animals, and, rather than fighting for steps to make it less cruel, you fight to have everyone everywhere to stop eating meat. You take that leap, and lose nearly everyone because you would rather use those suffering to push your agenda than to stop the suffering and allow people to make their own dietary choices.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 83
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 7:27:59 AM
So basically, PETA is wrong for committing acts of terrorism that kill humans, but intensive farming is just as bad because they kill animals, and probably worse because they killed more animals? So...innocent people are just as valuable to you as animals...I'll keep that in mind if you and a puppy are drowning in a lake...

I would also argue that people DO feel there is a problem with animal cruelty. That's why the laws are there. Call the cops, report a crime, BAM! Instantly you are doing more than PETA is to help your cause.

As for the "disconnect" it probably has to do with this. If my dog, who is ADORABLE, were to die, I would feel very sad, I wouldn't be able to eat him. However, if I died in my apartment, while my dog would be sad, eventually he would get hungry and start to eat me. This is because he is an animal...who is hungry, and is attached to me because I feed him.

See, pets are animals, and while a dog MAY find remorse for the loss of his owner, a cat is less likely to
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 84
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:10:11 AM
Your argument about land use was already it. It has many good points.

I like your Spider-man reference but I have to say you just don't understand my point. I put as much thought into eating a cow as a hungry wolf would give to eating you. Taking the slippery slope argument of nukes is just ridiculous.

Here's what I don't understand - do you think that if the roles were reversed that animals wouldn't use humans to test for vaccinations, raise us like cattle, etc. etc.?

People DO see a problem which is why Donkey Shows are illegal in the U.S. and if you buy peanut butter to spread on something else besides bread you are breaking a law. We have set up laws to protect animals, but we do it within reason, because they don't have rights. They don't need rights, because they are food, a resource. They'll deserve rights when we deserve rights from them that we don't have to take by force. Until that time, to turn a phrase, they're "fair game".
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 85
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 9:47:00 AM
>>>They are both crimes and should be treated as such.

I don't see how industrial farming is criminal in any interpreation of the law- the only way someone could be so convinced that industrial farming is illegal when it isn't is if they hold a moral standard, and think their morality should be forced onto society through acts of violence. Which is exactly what organsations like PeTA and ALF are doing- committing acts of violence not towards people who break the law, but rather, people who disagree with their beliefs. They're Vigilantes at their best and Terrorists at their worst- and tolerance of either is completely immoral.

You don't like to see industrial farms? Fight for them to be abolished, don't fight for meat to be abolished. You cannot claim that both are illegal, so both should be removed, because clearly only one is illegal- the actions PeTA and other organsations do, not the actions that industrial farms do.

>>>Without public support there is no reason for change.

Do you honestly believe PeTA and ALF, through their actions and their beliefs, are creating a positive change in our society?

>>>There is a disconnect between people and animals, which seems odd as people have pets and wouldn't think of hurting their pet and can see how their animals suffer if mistreated.

Even further odd considering how you associate Pet-lovers with the organsation that believes owning pets to be immoral.

>>> When valuable land is used for other purposes such as bio fuels tobacco and cattle people do suffer, just not in your back yard.

Is it your property? What do you care how they use it? And to claim you have a right to someone elses property for the good of society IS communism- theres no two ways about it.

>>> The only reason meat is eaten to the point it is today is because it is cheap and produced in mass quantities.

And I suppose when food becomes expensive and rare- thats when we will reach that pinnicle so many vegans worship- global equality.

Seriously, what kind of person see's food being inexpensive as a negative?
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 12:56:38 PM
"I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect."
~Temple Grandin

Grandin is considered a philosophical leader of both the animal welfare and autism advocacy movements. Both movements commonly cite her work regarding animal welfare, neurology, and philosophy. She knows all too well the anxiety of feeling threatened by everything in her surroundings, and of being dismissed and feared, which motivates her in her quest to promote humane livestock handling processes. Her business website has entire sections on how to improve standards in slaughter plants and livestock farms. In 2004 she won a "Proggy" award, in the "visionary" category, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

One of her most important essays about animal welfare is "Animals are not Things," in which she posits that animals are technically property in our society, but the law ultimately gives them ethical protections or rights. She uses a screwdriver metaphor: a person can legally smash or grind up a screwdriver but a person cannot legally torture an animal.

As a proponent of neurodiversity, Grandin has expressed that she would not support a cure of the entirety of the autistic spectrum.

"Animals Make Us Human," By Temple Grandin
"Animals In Translation," by Temple Grandin

Temple Grandin is a professor at Colorado State University.
She received her bachelor's degree in psychology from Franklin Pierce College, her master's degree in animal science from Arizona State University in 1975, and her Ph.D. in animal science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.

Dr. Grandin is a designer of livestock handling facilities and a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University. Facilities she has designed are located in the United States, Canada, Europe, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries. In North America, almost half of the cattle are handled in a center track restrainer system that she designed for meat plants. Curved chute and race systems she has designed for cattle are used worldwide and her writings on the flight zone and other principles of grazing animal behavior have helped many people to reduce stress on thier animals during handling.

She has also developed an objective scoring system for assessing handling of cattle and pigs at meat plants. This scoring system is being used by many large corporations to improve animal welfare. Other areas of research are: cattle temperament, environmental enrichment for pigs, reducing dark cutters and bruises, bull fertility, training procedures, and effective stunning methods for cattle and pigs at meat plants.

She teaches courses on livestock behaviour and facility design at Colorado State Univeristy and consults with the livestock industry on facility design, livestock handling, and animal welfare.

She has appeared on television shows such as 20/20, 48 Hours, CNN Larry King Live, PrimeTime Live, the Today Show, and many shows in other countries. She has been featured in People Magazine, the New York Times, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, Time Magazine, the New York Times book review, and Discover magazine. Interviews with Dr. Grandin have been broadcast on National Public Radio. She has also authored over 300 articles in both scientific journals and livestock periodicals on animal handling, welfare, and facility design. She is the author of "Thinking in Pictures", "Livestock Handling and Transport," and "Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals." Her book "Animals in Translation" was a New York Times best seller.

Her aim is to educate people throughout the world about modern methods of livestock handling which will improve animal welfare and productivity.

"The Emotional Lives of Animals," by Marc Bekoff

"Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect" by Marc Bekoff, Forward by Jane Goodall

Marc Bekoff is Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and is a Fellow of the Animal Behavior Society and a former Guggenheim Fellow. In 2000 he was awarded the Exemplar Award from the Animal Behavior Society for major long-term contributions to the field of animal behavior. Marc is also regional coordinator for Jane Goodall's Roots & Shoots program, in which he works with students of all ages, senior citizens and prisoners, and also is a member of the Ethics Committee of the Jane Goodall Institute. He and Jane co-founded the organization Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Citizens for Responsible Animal Behavior Studies in 2000.

These authors are both educated in science, and are highly ethical.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 87
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 2:14:42 PM
That hurt. Why do you think I read books by an Autistic person?
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 88
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 3:09:07 PM
Ummm, because its amazing that they can write considering they are or were autistic?

Dude, don't worry, I thought it was funny, so no worries, lol.

Seriously though, probably because you or someone you know is autistic. I'm impressed that you and that author are now functional though...kudos.

And autistic animals do taste different, they all taste like a unique world of sight and sound...yummmmmm!
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 89
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 6:10:45 PM

monalee1-Posted: 1/15/2009 304 PM
Verzen, I have taken biology classes and I have read the bible.... in Eden we were not given meat to eat but after the flood God allowed it and it drastically shortened our life span.. as I stated before, this is what I believe, warmly Mona

This made me go back and check...
It seems God prefers meat ( well before the flood):

Genisis4:3  ¶And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Not that it has any bearing on the philosophical questioned originally posted.

But it is one point in the question that everyone seems to want to discuss anyway.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 90
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:26:22 PM
Damnit Raz, you beat me to it!

Nonetheless, something you've missed;

>>>When did i say that i condoned the actions of PETA?

Lets just step back and look at the context- maybe I confused you by not including more of your statement;

You Said;

Without public support there is no reason for change. PETA and other organizations fight to bring the issues into public light in hopes that they see the injustices that exist.

At which I said;

Do you honestly believe PeTA and ALF, through their actions and their beliefs, are creating a positive change in our society?

It honestly looked to me that you were claiming that PeTA and "other organizations", through both their actions and their beliefs, are making a positive change in society- so I asked you if you stood by your stance. Your response seems rather contradictory.

>>>Its about paying the real cost of food. Nutrient rich food is better for you

Ah, but unhealthy food is inexpensive, because its mass produced. And why is it mass produced?

Because people want it.

If people stopped buying potato chips and started buying rice cakes, they'd be alot more healthy- but shouldn't that really be up to the individual to decide? Aren't you playing social experiments with people at that point? And we both know you cannot make expensive food cheaper- that wouldn't make sense- they are less mass produced because there is less of a demand and less resources, at higher prices- for example, organic food isn't more expensive arbirtarily- its because more of the food is thrown away because it doesn't have the chemical protection to endure more hardships.

So you'd have to raise the price of food- all food, to the cost of your health foods. People who could barely survive off food now, do not survive. That is the reality of what you are promoting here.

Is it possible that won't happen? Yes- but keep that close to your heart whenever you wish to control peoples lives by controlling the cost of food- by arbitarily raising the cost of food, not because the food itself is more expensive to make, but rather with the goal in mind to force people to accept what they do not want- whenever you play with the cost of food in hopes of forcing people to better themselves, you will kill people.


That sounds like a pretty interesting person Ideoform- I'm kinda curious as to what methods, exactly, for slaughter does Grandin suggest that pleases both PeTA and the slaughterhouse........


>>>The marketing practices and demand for corn fillers and fructose-laden products has nothing to do with vegetarianism.

The movement to have all farmland converted into agricultural sites certainly has a role to play into that. By promoting that all farming be plants only, they promote more and more of products like corn surup to be embraced.
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 91
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:39:35 PM
PETA actually has the slaughter part fairly well perfected. Despite a vastly superior budget to humane societies, they claim to be unable to afford to house excess animals which they "rescue" for "adoption". Instead, they invest in large freezers, and euthenise animals within minutes of rescue.

PETA members poison dogs at dog shows. PETA is not actually interested in animal welfare or any of the trivial little good deeds they like to advertise with - their agenda is more or less to exclude humans from any kind of animal contact, and they will lie and deceive, and in fact persecute animals in any way which will further this agenda. Just ask the sea kittens about truth in advertising :)

Mind you, it doesn't stop the organization from killing ACTUAL kittens slated for "adoption", nor PETA members from poisoning other people's kittens, nor does it stop snakes, osprey, sharks, bears, etc from eating "sea" kittens.

An organization of clever morons feeding on a gullible and irrational public.

For those who feel that we are entitled to continue to abuse animals and our precious natural resources, I beg you to educate yourself rather than listening to the media, the meat and dairy industries, and the pharmacuetical companies that profit from your ignorance and sickness. It's a continuous cycle. You buy a big Mac, and they all profit. Buy a veggie falafel, and none of them profit

Fertilizers, pesticides, genetic modification of crops, derivation of pharmaceuticals from novel plants and the quest to find those compounds. That veggie falafel is not even vaguely free of the financial influence. Not. One. Bit.
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 92
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 9:05:37 PM
Yes, it would likely lead to the gradual, if not sudden, deaths of millions of humans. Wouldn't bother ME any :)

By the way, labelling all manufactured aspects of food production as "poisons" does not make it so. I can think of a half dozen logical fallacies involved in that little bit of misleading advertisng, not least of which is "appeal to emotion".
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/3/2009 9:31:53 PM
You seem like a nice person Wonderful, but you've basically made some statements seemingly without having gone over some of the more salient points that were already discussed. Still, while your obvious bias is showing without addressing any of the points previously made, let me go through and demonstrate why many of your points are fallacious and the evidence you supply is...erm...bad.

The China Study is a book written by a PETA LOL, just kidding, that's not all I've got to say. A quick review of the literature within the China Study reveals Campbells bias as well. While he made some great advancements linking casein to cancer, he then makes an illogical leap in tying in Casein to "nutrients from animal-based foods...". This is a patently ridiculous assumption, a mistake which no self-respecting scientist should make. Still, its above par for a PETA supporter, lol. Ok, ok, he isn't really a PETA supporter, he's superficially linked in this article:

*sigh* It's late and I just don't feel like going through the rest of your evidence, but suffice to say that you might want to consider investigating the other side of the argument.

Just to go over the point ad we have said repeatedly, animals get rights when animals start advocating for humans and are able to take responsibility for their actions. Until that time, consider that economically there is no demand for health products - only cheap food, meat is NOT unhealthy if you eat a balanced diet according to the gross majority of scientific research available, and that the environmental impact from farming is not going to be mitigated by forcing people to switch from cows to veggies, the farm's still there and not everyone in the world is going to eat corn and wheat if you stop us all from eating meat.

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He protests the killing of animals - sharks, wolves, tigers, lions - all of which could care less if he lay dieing in the street and would likely kill him themselves given the opportunity. Then he kills his fellow humans to prevent those humans from killing animals to feed, clothe, and research medical advancements that the killer takes advantage of while he protests. Elsewhere, millions of other animals are being killed by still other animals because animals recognize each other as food, and don't feel remorse for being hungry and being 'natural'. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills himself so easily and so violently to protect thankless animals when he would be better off figuring out a faster way to advance the species out of the need to kill animals in the first place. "
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 94
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/4/2009 9:29:04 AM
Algernon's Story

Or, Why care about what animals feel, or think or communicate before we eat them.

Here's the story of a real rat. His name was Algernon. He was my lab rat in college. I was majoring in Psychology, and at my particular University, Behaviorism was the norm. Behaviorism says that it doesn't matter what is "inside the box" of people's heads (or animals) because we can't really know that, we can only study behavior. Which is the evidence of "something" inside the box, but we don't have to know what it is to study it.

Algernon was a white lab rat bred to be practically identical to all the other white lab rats my class was using, so any differences in behavior we noted would be supposedly entirely due to how we treated them and experimented on them.

The rats were in little wire cages stacked on top of each other with numbers on the front, a water bottle and a small amount of food pellets for them to eat. They could see and smell each other but not touch each other. We were to reduce the food until they all were hungry based on a formula that was called a starvation diet, then they went without food for a day so we could experiment with hungry rats. The hunger was the motivator for them to do what we wanted to train them to do.

We were rewarding them with a single food pellet for pressing a bar in another cage while we took notes. There was a specific process called "shaping" that we were all supposed to be learning. So us students were being "shaped" too.

I felt sorry for my rat. I wasn't supposed to name him because we weren't supposed to think of them that way so we could be objective when we called them by the numbers we had given them. Of course, I thought the number was a name, too. But I had just read the book "No Tears for Algernon" and thought I'd be cute and name him that to be a bit rebellious. I started feeding him in between other classes. I brought him real food, like lettuce. He seemed to really love the real food--but that was "inside the black box" so I couldn't be sure except that I knew he was very hungry, and I saw him eating it very fast.

Anyway, my rat should have been the slowest to press the bar in the group of rats. The days we all got our rats, most students put on these heavy gloves to pick up their rats so they wouldn't be bitten. Algernon let me pet him when I fed him, so he let me pick him up easily, and then I would pet him and talk to him. My classmates made fun of me talking to a rat. Other classmates picked their rats up by their tails like we were taught to (to avoid the "friendliness" part.) I made fun of them because of their squeeling and even screaming a bit when they reached in to get their rats and the rats struggled.

So I cuddled Algernon a bit, watching all this. My professor frowned at me and said my rat would do poorly because we didn't have as much time to do the "shaping." So, Algernon goes into the testing cage. He looks around curiously exploring everything, touches the bar, sniffs the food pellet, takes his time eating it. Then goes and looks around some more and then looks at ME. I cheer him on. I get teased. (MY shaping isn't going so well.)

This goes on for a few minutes, and pretty soon he's eating about 5 pellets and grooming himself. So I look at how the other rats are doing, thinking I can learn something from all the other behaviorist experts who are doing it "the right way."

Next to me, a student's rat is in a corner, fur all ruffled up, head down. I ask, "So how many pellets has he eaten?" She says he hasn't eaten any because he had stayed in the corner the whole time so far.

On the other side, the rat is going in circles, around and around, looking nervous or angry about something (although, I am not supposed to presume such a feeling inside its "black box".) I ask the student how many pellets his rat has eaten and he says something like, "I don't give a shit, he's just bit me when I put him in there. This rat is F***** crazy, he just keeps going in circles." This is the guy who put him in by lifting it by the tail like we were told to.

The next day, I give Algernon a special treat of seeds and fruit. He's not hungry at all when he goes into the cage. We talk a bit, he goes into the cage, looks around, gets comfortable, and saunters over to the bar and then LOOKS AT ME. I cheer him on, I get teased again. He proceeds to push the bar about ten times. The other rats still haven't found the bar yet. Some are just starting to get "closer" to the bar, though. This is the shaping part--we were supposed to give them a pellet for just looking at the bar at first, then for getting "closer."

The next time, I do the same thing. He goes right over to the bar, looks at me, and proceeds to push the bar about 20 times. I cheer him on. I get teased. But everyone comes over to watch. He pushes the bar another 20 times. I have only rewarded him with a few pellets. He looks at me. I think he is enjoying this, but I am probably only "projecting" my feelings onto him. I know I certainly am enjoying this. He proceeds to push the bar another 30 times before cleaning his fur. I take him out of the cage, and give him a bit of bananna. I talk to him. My professor is furious. He says I have "ruined" the experiment.

The next day, nobody is watching anyone else's rat. Algernon is the star. He is pushing the bar as fast as he can, to cheers and whoops. He pushes the bar 100 times, and I have to stop him and give him a rest. The experiment is over. He only had to do 100 times to get one pellet to "prove" how shaping works. He didn't need that one pellet. I had given him an entire apple that morning.

I was reprimanded by my professor, and my grade was docked for feeding my rat and not keeping him on the standard starvation diet during the experiment. I complained that my rat completed the experiment, did the shaping, and I had learned how to do the shaping even though he wasn't "motivated" by hunger. The professor said I had disrupted the class (just because everone was watching my rat, not because I was acting disruptive during class) and was a bad example to the other students, and my grade was reduced.

I asked to keep Algernon when the experiment was over. The professor said it was against the rules because the students tended to loose track of them and they got into the University's sewers. I was going to sneak in and steal him (the professor told me I would be accused of stealing University property if I did) but because I had spoken to my professor about it, he had expedited the process of killing all the rats used in the experiment by the standard method of putting them all into a black plastic bag and gassing them.

There were lots of tears for Algernon. He did a very good job of being a lab rat for me.

So my experience with Behaviorism, was that I got really good at shaping animal behavior. I got on the Dean's list that year. I used that to get a scholarship, and I used the scholarship to buy a motorcycle.

Thank you for the motorcycle, Algernon. It drove me really nice to my Physics class, where there are few parking spots.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 95
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/4/2009 9:42:27 AM
>>> because you want their food? lol... No because advertising creates the need for their product.

Oh, I get it- people aren't buying a product because they want it- they buy it because they don't want it, and just don't know any better- they're brainwashed.

Good thing we've got people like you looking out for the common man and telling them what they do and do not want.

>>>Never in the history of man has there been as much meat consumption as there is now, why?

Because meat is the most inexpensive its been in centuries? Because the population is the highest it's ever been? Because in former generations, there was a system of classes that negated the chance for your family to be able to afford meat on a regular basis?

>>>With your thinking i should get what i want.

I know thats what you're asking for- and the fact that the average consumer would rather eat potato chips than rice cakes means that you should force society to eat what it doesn't want in an attempt to make he foods that you, crazylilting, want to eat, and want to be more inexpensive.

I personally love Crispers- its not a chip, its not a cracker, its just tastey as hell- but because my beliefs are not widespread, they can be rather expensive. Should Iforce everyone in town to buy Crispers so the price will go down for my own comfort? How is that at all a free society?

>>>Or is it only the meat eaters that get what they want?

Mass Produced foods are inexpensive because they are popular, and mass purchased. Complaining that these people get a discount because when the store buys it they can be certain it will be sold by the end of the week is like complaining the the stars in the night sky is too bright- grow up and deal with it, because thats freedom-its not that meat eaters 'get what they want'- its that consumers do

Nonetheless, I find it appalling that you completely sidestepped the very real possiblity that what you are promoting may cause people to die- you said several times that the price of food should reflect the cost, but in your ivory tower you don't seem to realise some people NEED food to be at a low cost in order to survive, or keep their children well fed. And you claim this is ethical- ethical that your beliefs will leave people starving in their own homes, because rather than buying a scarch-ridden package of hamburger helper and a lb of beef, they have to go hungry because the cost of food in increased to punish society for not buying what you want them to buy.
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/4/2009 1:11:04 PM
Wow...advertising is brainwashing.

As a copywriter, I find that particularly funny.

Marketing IS about creating a need in some areas, but in other areas its just about brand recognition. Ultimately marketing is about finding a demographic and targeting it with the need you created (after all, the need is no good unless it has an appeal to a demographic). While you could conceivably market dog turds, the fact is that that product will have little to no appeal to almost ANY demographic. However, you might be able to sell it to manufacturers of organic fertilizer - by showing them how your dog turd meets their needs.

This is powerfully different from what you are proposing. You are saying that these companies choose to market a product which they brainwash people into buying, as opposed to the reality that these companies identified a demand for a product and have found ways to make their brand preferential to other brands.

See, its demand which drives the marketing, and while marketing can greatly effect the demand it can't create demand out of thin air. Marketing only identifies demand and then potentially popularizes it. The sort of Machiavellian picture you paint of marketing is just unrealistic. If marketing was really as powerful as you claim than PETA is hiring the wrong people, don't you think? Vegans and vegetarians are obviously ignoring a powerful tool in your arsenal to save the wittle animals, tsk tsk.

Food is in demand because people eat food, and they will never stop eating food until they die. People eat food because they get hungry, because it is pleasurable, and meal times can be seen as a time for family togetherness. People like unhealthy food because it is delicious, often easily accessible, and very inexpensive (like wondrous Ramen). People don't eat at Wendy's because they are brainwashed, they eat there because they can get a burger, some fries, and a drink for 3 and change. People don't eat at McDonald's because they are "programmed" to, they eat there because they can get a McRib during their lunch break and not have to get out of their car. Delicous + Convenient = Appealing. That's why if you study marketing at all you'll know that McDonald's went through its "blue period" because they couldn't keep up with the demand, so they had to market LESS EFFECTIVELY.

Things are not quite as you paint them, from what I've observed you have a penchant for conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", "Corporations", and "Advertising". You might want to look into the extreme nature of your views and ask yourself if you are being a bit dogmatic. Not that vegetarianism is wrong if you want to lessen the harm to animals, but that all of the other reasons you use to justify your beliefs might come from a different sort of brainwashing...

After all, health food stores, vegan organizations, and "naturalistic promoters" aren't doing this for free either. Many of them make as much if not MORE than the people they oppose. Just a little food for thought
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 97
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/4/2009 6:50:40 PM
>>> Because of how we have been trained to think about it.

You hear that Tomo and Raz? We don't believe we have a right to decide our diets because we really do, but rather, because we are programmed to think that way! And only crazy can save us from making our own decisions in life! Thank you crazy!

>>>While i have been programed one way you have been programed in another way.

Did....did you just say you have been brainwashed by other vegans and vegetarians?

What makes you any more qualified to judge our dietary choices then?

>>> I became repulsed by the thought of meat and animal by-products

Although, clearly, you are not replused by the idea of using animal by-products- otherwise, you wouldn't own a car(tires contain animal by-products), but I suppose we shouldn't expect you to follow the same beliefs you feel is okay to demand others to follow.

>>>However I started eating eggs again. At first it felt wrong, but after some time i don't think about eating them at all i simply eat them.

And thats actually an interesting statement, in the context of brainwashing and programming. Many cults, for example, demand their followers feel guilt- that they destory their self-esteem in order to better control them- to better program their morality onto them. Do you find no relation to that and the guilt vegans demand people feel when they eat meat?

>>> i've been advocating for paying the true price for the products you eat.

Exactly- you are advocating that people should be punished by paying more than what is nessary in order to give YOUR preferences a better chance. If you were simply sasified with the preferences of others, there would be no arugment- my argument is that it is immoral to raise the cost of food to enforce *your* moral standard.- by saying that people who enjoy the taste or price of meat, or genetically altered veggies, or of unhealthy foods MUST pay more for their foods, you are demanding that your moral standard be applied to all of society- and people who disagree aren't free to simply disagree- THEY MUST PAY FOR THE CRIME OF DISAGREEING WITH YOU.

>>>Why should thousands of people who once lived in the rainforest be out of their homes and life style just so big countries like the usa and uk can exploit their land for meat?

You said earlier that you buy tracks of land to preserve- I have no issue with this- you are free to do with your property as you wish- but equally, people who DO own other parts of the rainforest, it is entirely their choice to run their property as they see fit- not to mention its incredibly assinine to say that I should have to pay more for my food because Brazilian citizens choose to use their resources.

>>>It is profiting from exploitation and you are partly responsible with your attitude and your choice to buy these products.

Care to explain who, exactly, is exploited?

The people who own the land voluntarily convert it to farmland- the farmer who farms the land voluntarily raises cattle on it- the grocery store who sells the food voluntarily chooses to sell it- and the person who buys it from the grocery store and eats it does so on a voluntary basis. Where is the exploitation?

>>>without exploiting less developed countries by luring them into exploiting their own natural resources

Its my understanding that these countries are democratic, and their democracies are run by grown adults, capible of making decisions for themselves- was I misinformed? How are they exploited? Are they incapible of looking at the pros and cons of a situation and making their own decisions about their own countries resources?

>>>What are they going to do when all their soil is depleted and desertification begins to happen their?

Are you kidding me?

Have you ever heard of soil turning? Manure? And since America converted itself its forests into farmland centuries ago, shouldn't it happen here before there?

And, AGAIN, why aren't these countries capible of deciding that for themselves? Why do you insist on babying other countries, turning them into victims where none exist?

>>>Ivory Tower... lol... I didn't even make enough money to pay taxes last year, so i think your barking up the wrong tree.

I didn't mean you are rich- I meant you have everything those people do not have because your ancesstors developed your country- everything you have that these countries do not have isn't because Germany and France babied your country and protected you from making mistakes. You claim the only way for these countries to develop is to oppose all development- to fight the use of their resources, and say that anyone who dares to use these resources should be chastized- meanwhile, you use the very resources you condemn being extracted. You would not have that computer, that car, that home, or the power that runs it and keeps you warm if someone didn't take action and use some of your resources, which you buy with great pleasure and glee.

And from that point of privilige, you tell people that they shouldn't use their resources, and claim you should protect them from themselves by attempting to make the resources they do attempt to profit off of worthless.

>>>Show me how people cutting down on meat consumption will kill them.

I never said that- I said increasing the cost of food will kill them.

>>>but we managed. Some times barely, but we did.

And my argument is, if the kind of standards you are demanding now existed when you were a child, you may not have managed.
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 98
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/4/2009 10:48:07 PM
The only reason there are organizations like PETA is because all along our the modern mechanized food chain we created for ourselves and our civilization, there is incredible massive waste of resources.

Corn -- huge percent goes to feeding cattle. How much one cow eats per day can feed a family of 6. Anyway, this cow will eat the same stuff for a year or so.
a percentage of the corn used in feed will go directly to waste. Storing all that grain somewhere results in some rotting and spoilage. This is all calculated in the cost of producing meat, all this spoilage.

While the cow is growing, there will be sickness and injuries due to crowding. Some of them will die even as calves. In nature, this is taken care of by wolves and other animals. In factory farms, dead cows just get dumped somewhere out of sight.

Then the meat itself is processed. A percentage of all meat that makes it to the grocery -- some will go bad before it's sold -- another inefficiency. Not only did the animal live and die in a cage and may have suffered, but in the end, its meat just spoils in some container somewhere we never get to see. The chain is full of these grossly wasteful practices.

If the meat gets bought and eaten, about half of it goes to waste -- again! think about all those half eaten burgers, hot dogs, mistaken orders, half eaten steaks... Go to any state fair and witness the horrendous waste as people dump half eaten food into bins.

The question is, are we going to make this system better or are we just happy the way it is? I like a steak, but the way it is brought to me... currently, it is unacceptable. I only buy from reputable sources now. Not huge factory farms.

There are those who will say the system is fine, they don't want to know all the details and would just happily go on living without knowing. Your pride demands you keep to your opinions even as the world changes. You have made your stance and would like to keep it that way even in the face of evidence. Fine. Do that. Make fun of people who are at least making an effort (though sometimes misguided) to change things. Laugh at them the way you laughed at those "recycling nuts". Remember that?
But make no mistake. This will wash up on your back yard one day. It always does.
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 99
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/5/2009 9:24:40 AM
Lmao! Screw order of appearance, I've got to address one thing before any others, because you seem to be making a theme out of this;

... why is reading such a challenge for you?

Seems like you're projecting;

>>>First off i became vegan without knowing any other vegans so i wasn't brainwashed into it.

You said you were brainwashed- not me.

>>> I am already subsidizing your diet and that is hardly right.

This is the first time you mentioned subsidzing, so its no wonder we didn't understand each other.

>>>So again i ask you if you increase the cost of food to reflect it's true cost how will this kill people?

I've already stated that. Several times.

>>>So again i ask you if you increase the cost of food to reflect it's true cost how will this kill people?

You never asked that.

>>>I'm sorry i must of missed my quote on demanding you to change your diet can you dig that up for me?

That was not in reference of forcing your family to become vegan may cause your family to die- it was a reference of you forcing the cost of food up to enforce a morality could cause your family to die.

Maybe when you are able to read posts properly, I'll start doing it.

Or maybe thats related somehow.....
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 100
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/5/2009 7:26:03 PM
Well, I'm finished work, so now I can address Crazy's posts fully, rather than pointing out the hypocritical stance of complaining that I'm not reading their posts while they refuse to read mine;

>>> Why do you passionately fight with me if you are free?

Because I believe your beliefs infringe on my rights. You wish to arbirtarily apply a charge to food because you deem it ecologically unsound, while claiming that argiculture is somehow ecologically sound. You exaggerate the dangers of the food processes you oppose, while downplay the dangers of the food processes you support- and claim it should be law.

>>>Number two the more you don't do something the less that behaviour feels right.

And speaking of failures in logic, that is the worst failure in logic i've seen all week. Imagine if people applied such logic to anything else, what absurbities would be considered perfectly sane- that if you shower with water less and sand more, that showering with sand would feel right- that if you don't resist the urge to murder, the more murdering would feel right. There is nothing such a leap in logic that couldn't be justifed- esspecially when we are discussing FEELING right

What does that even mean? Feeling right? People do heroin to feel right- does that mean doing heroin is right?

>>>Anyone who denies that they are partly shaped by the world around them is either on crack or in serious denial.

He says while, two sentences earlier, claims that his decision to become a vegatarian was not shaped at all by the world around him, and that he came to that decision completely devoid of and in direct contrast of his surroundings.

>>>So it isn't up to me to try and convince you that your behaviours are not all of your own doing, it is you who either needs to accept it or get your head out of the sand and realize it.

I always love that logic- that my beliefs are wrong, and the fact that I do not agree with you PROVES that my beliefs are wrong.

>>> I am not a bully trying to change other peoples minds.

But you are asking for legal changes to the price of food, with the unstated premise of making the food you enjoy either more inexpensive, or forcing all foods to be equally as expensive as your perfered food. And by asking the law to step in, while you yourself are not bullying anyone, you are attempting to hire bullies to do your dirty work. If it was a voluntary system- where people can choose to pay more for their meat with the understanding that that extra cost would go towards saving the rainforest, then I would have to agree- but you are not arguing that(not to mention, why would people need to have the meat involved to contribute to charity? Couldn't they do that freely on their own, without the meat?)

>>>lol because both can't happen at the same time?

Why not? Why can't you perserve the forests you bought while the forests other people bought are to be converted into farmland? This isn't a black or white issue- you can both preserve land and use land at the same time- and if not, then why is it unreasonable to ask that, if you want all the land to be perserved that YOU pay for the actions you demand take place?

>>>And no it's not ok for one person to tear down a rain forest to profit from it and destroy the lively hood of thousands of people.

.....While creating jobs for Tens of Thousands if not hundreds of thousands or millions of other people.

And why isn't it okay? They own it- the people of the country democratically choose it- who are you to dictate how another country, of which you do not live in, on property you do not own, should run their resources?

>>>Why bother arguing if all you want to do is try and mock and make fun?

I was not making jokes in that response- we are discussing the ethics of converting rainforest to farmland- you cannot simply scoft, say I'm wrong and thats all there is to it- if you believe something to be true, present your reasons- not your disgust that you have to do something as vulgar as justify the beliefs you are attempting to project on an entire country.


>>>Have you ever heard of the dust bowl or tornado alley?

Oh snap Raz- right you are. Luckily, though, we have the foresight and knowledge to prevent such a thing from happening again.

>>>So please explain to me how I am not paying the cost of my meats?

From my understanding, Crazy is arguing that we should have to pay for the ecological damage any farming does to the enviroment. Well, not any- simply the farming they personally disagree with. The damage that comes from increased agriculture because of an increased demand of veggies and increased demand in ineffienct methods such as organic production should be ignored- all other methods, though, should pay for their crimes.

That been said, there are huge questions left unexplained and untouched- like how will the money in this tax be put to use? How will it prevent ecological damage, and how will it repair any existing ecological damage?

It seems intent takes preference over results in this situation- so long they they expect good things to happen, how they actually work or if they even work at all, and all the negative consquences that come with these actions, doesn't matter

>>>So explain how you are subsidising us and also how we are not paying the true cost of the foods we eat, or your argumemt will be void of any substance.

This is an exceptionally well put point- and the only reason I am responding to it is because Crazy, for the last two pages, has ignored or failed to address the points made by any other users- and I feel that point demands attention. :peace:
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 101
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/5/2009 8:18:09 PM
>>>Who did you plagiarize this from ???

If I had to guess, I'd say it came from Peter Singer, of the book "Animal Liberation"- he seems to argue alot about "Speciesism", which seems to be the thesis of what that user posted about....
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/5/2009 8:38:35 PM
Human Chow

This concept has happened. A man who runs a bakery in our area used to work for large food manufacturers as a biochemist did the research that created it while working as a food scientist for Tenneco Corporation and the Quaker Oats Company. He studied the nutritional deficiency syndrome called Kwashiorkor in Columbia that is caused by protein deficiency in starvation victims. He then went on to create protein in a lab setting to end starvation and in particular end this disease. But once it was created, the product was "terminated" because ending starvation in the world was not profitable.

He then went on to do some of his own research and started this local bakery based on his findings.

He wrote a small book about his experiences working in the food industry and revealed the convoluted politics of food in it. He says the food industry determines what you eat and how much you eat, by manufacturing foods that create cravings.

Its called "Beating the Food Giants" by Paul Stitt. He put the entire book on this site:

"Paul Stitt gives a first hand account of the inside workings of the giant food companies of America. He tells how they program you to crave certain foods, to overeat every day, to make you feel stuffed but hungry, and how this "mad energy" of the food industry is destroying you and what you can do about it."

Here's a quote from the introduction:

"Our 50 year national experiment of letting the giant food companies dictate what we eat, how often we eat and how much we eat, which began in 1945, is now beginning to reveal its full effect.

We are now a nation where 90% of the people cannot pay their own lifetime medical expenses. Lifetime medical expenses are now so great that no one else can pay them either — neither employers nor government nor any other group.

We can live without cars, computers, fancy homes and new clothes every month, but we can't live without being healthy. We Americans brag about having the cheapest food bill on Earth, but is it so cheap when it's impossible to pay the sickness cost of consuming "cheap" food. In actuality it's not so cheap—on a per-pound, per- week, or per-lifetime cost, a diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and a little meat is far cheaper than the junk food the Food Giants grind out and force down our throats.

In other words, the do-gooders of this world have it all wrong. "Health" care is not expensive — it's free. Because a healthful diet is less expensive, short term and long term, than an unhealthful junk food diet.

Sickness care is bankrupting our country and is leading the way in destroying our way of life and our culture. Staying healthy is by far the least expensive way to live — and the most fun. Why choose any other? Why become a burden to your family and society?"

Here's another quote about some research on food that was done at Quaker:

"It contained a report on a study in which four sets of rats were given special diets. One group received plain whole-wheat kernels, water, vitamins and minerals. Another group received Puffed Wheat, water, and the same nutrient solu­tion. A third set was given water and white sugar, and a fourth given nothing but water and the chemical nutrients. The rats which received the whole wheat lived more than a year on the diet. The rats who got nothing but water and vitamins lived for about eight weeks, and the animals on a white sugar and water diet lived for a month.

But Quaker's own laboratory study showed that rats given vitamins, water and all the Puffed Wheat they wanted died in two weeks. It wasn't a matter of the rats dying of malnutrition; results like these suggested that there was something actu­ally toxic about the Puffed Wheat itself. Proteins are very similar to certain toxins in molecular structure, and the puffing process of putting the grain under 1500 pounds-per-square-inch of pressure, and then releasing it, may produce chemical changes which turn a nutritious grain into a poisonous substance. And Quaker has known about this toxicity since 1942. "
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 103
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/5/2009 9:42:59 PM
>>>But once it was created, the product was "terminated" because ending starvation in the world was not profitable.

And whats happened to it? Why hasn't Stitt simply make it again?

>>>We can live without cars, computers, fancy homes and new clothes every month, but we can't live without being healthy.

And I suppose Mr Stitt gave up cars, computers, fancy homes, and new clothing to be healthy?

More importantly, though, is that that claim is strictly false. People can live without being healthy- its called being obese. Being unhealthy does not mean you are dead- it simply means you are not in the prime of your health.

>>>We Americans brag about having the cheapest food bill on Earth, but is it so cheap when it's impossible to pay the sickness cost of consuming "cheap" food.

Without examining the math, I cannot say for certain, but it seems that Mr. Stitt is assuming that everyone has to pay for everyones bill- and that is simply not the case- some people have no problem paying bills, since they are so few and infequent- some people have no problem paying bills, since they have the money to spare- and yes, sadly, some people cannot pay because of either budget or because of serious extended medical treatment- it looks from that statement that he's grouped everyone together, combined the sum, and said we cannot all pay for everyones medical expenses, so no one will receive medical treatment- and that is simply a socialist spin that doesn't apply to our society. Many people can and do seek medical treatment successfully.

>>>results like these suggested that there was something actu­ally toxic about the Puffed Wheat itself.


Suggested? May? Its been over 25 years! Wheres the proof?

Also, while looking into this guy(no Wikipedia entry? Really?), I found the offical site for the book you presented;

The man who gets the best grade of all in fooling people is the president of Budweiser. He makes over $16,000,000 for making products that relieve your inhibitions, then makes you fall asleep even while driving a car at high speeds.

HAHAHA! Is he saying people are drinking and driving, and its the alchoal, not the driver, thats to blame? Haha! Oh, how the times have changed....
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/6/2009 11:00:09 AM

"humans truly aren't moral"

If humans aren't moral, then is any moral question just fakery?

Another way to ask the OP's question is:
Is it moral to care about the suffering of animals?

Or is any suffering that might happen to anything other than a human not a moral concern?

Perhaps we can have a separate "morality" (even though it's fake by your standards) for how to discuss caring about animals well-being or suffering.

And a separate "morality" that only exists for discussing human well-being and suffering.


"Your argument is from morality, mine is from biology. Morality dose not impinge on biology in any way, they are entirelly seperate arguments."

Is it scientific to discuss morality? If you only discuss morality in scientific terms, then you are never going to come to any moral conclusions. Only scientific ones.

But you can use science to discuss morality by using data to support claims as to whether animals do indeed experience suffering or not, or have emotions or not, or feel pain or not. However, it is non-scientific to call pain suffering. People can experience pain during sex and feel pleasure.

Is the experience of suffering then, only something that a being that is self-aware can be said to experience?

Is the self-aware being the only one that gets to decide this?

Morality is totally voluntary. You can't force someone to be moral, only to behave as if he/she is moral.

My personal morality, chosen voluntarily by me, has led me to feel that the worst evil is preventable suffering. My experiences with suffering, both personal suffering, and from observing the suffering and death of others, both human and non-human, is that pain can be born, and great inconvenience, disease, distress and all kinds of trials. But in the effort of doing so, morality is revealed by how it is dealt with and why.

You know the true measure of a man/woman by what he or she is willing to die for. Animals have died rescuing their human. I have seen humans die rescuing their animal. In Christianity, Jesus said that you must give up your life to save it. I think that what he meant was that in a spiritual sense, morality is only truly born in a man or any being, when he, she or it demonstrates giving up life itself (the ultimate pain) for something that means something beyond survival.

As a parent, I know the feeling of wanting to trade places with a dying child. I would have done so in a minute. This is my measure as a moral being. It might be a biological drive also. But when people march off to war to protect a country, a family, a way of life, that is also a measure.

The bond between humans, their family their community, is priceless. This bond exists between species also. It is a circle where our lives and survival intertwine. We cannot exist truly without the others.

Paul Stitt invented a protein that could be made from one of the world's most abundant resources; methane. We could stay alive on protein made from methane. But is this really living, or is it just survival? I would rather appreciate the life force given up for me by the plants and animals that went before me in this world than try to live a sterile life devoid of these complex, emotional relationships.

Yet to see this only in terms of biology, survival and science is to miss an entire realm of awareness, consciousness and being in this world. To claim that you must shut off your emotions to eat dinner, to sustain your continued relationship with this world, is an unsatisfying solution to me.
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 105
view profile
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/6/2009 11:13:35 AM
"Facts are generally overesteemed. For most practical purposes, a thing is what men think it is.
When they judged the earth flat, it was flat. As long as men thought slavery tolerable, tolerable it was.
We live down here among shadows, shadows among shadows."

~John Updike
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 106
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 2/6/2009 12:36:19 PM

By extension of the speciest argument, eating anything that is or has been alive is wrong. Any atempt to limit it, is purelly arbitrary.

so the slippery slope argument the OTHER way, would be, if it's OK to eat the flesh of mammals, why exclude the flesh of homo sapiens, on some arbitrary basis?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >