1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A row over a lamb being sent to market

Discussion in 'Serious' started by C-Sniper, 14 Sep 2009.

  1. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Someone once argued that animals' biggest problem is that they can't scream (in a human way). It would become rather difficult to indulge in a spot of flyfishing if the fish, hook in mouth would rise from the water going: "Ow! OW! Stop it, that HURTS you maniac! I have a family you know?!"

    But despite lengthy debates on the topic we know that fish do feel pain because they have the necessary nociceptor network (right down to the same neurotransmitters that we have in ours) and when these are stimulated by the same stimili that evoke pain in ours, they show rather similar avoidance reflexes and responses. If it flinches like a duck... etc.

    Plants do not have nociceptors, or any structure that remotely works like it. There would be no point: plants cannot engage in avoidance behaviours, being rooted to the spot and all.

    Of course we argue that whereas animals feel pain, humans by virtue of their higher level of (self-)consciousness suffer and that makes for an important distinction. I'm not too convinced; animals display some pretty sophisticated consciousness too. That doesn't stop me eating meat, but it does make me treat it with a bit more respect (don't waste what an animal died for) and reach for the Free Range shelf. Eating (some) meat is human, but treating livestock well and killing it quickly and consuming its body respectfully is humane.

    In any case the emotional, suffering component of pain is a higher psychological function: there are cases of brain injured individuals (pre-frontal lobe or thalamus IIRC) who feel pain but do not experience suffering: they are aware of something hurting but it simply does not bother them --it doesn't even cause a physiological arousal response. Needless to say, plants don't have brains either, nor anything of a sufficient complexity to possibly function as one.
     
  2. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    The slaughter of plants is different because plants have no central nervous system. It is a CNS which allows a creature to suffer. Animals have central nervous systems, plant's do not. That's part of the distinction.


    See the above really. We do have a method of understanding what an animal has a capacity for. Similarly we understand that plants do not have the physical structures neccesary to suffer.

    Again, see above I suppose. I'm not confusing an aesthetic issue with a moral issue. You simply don't understand the argument.

    It's not a laughable objection to the problem of animal rights, but it's one that does turn out to be fruitless. You're assuming that vegetarian and vegan beliefs are hypocritical simply because you do not understand your own, single, argument is flawed.

    edit: You would go and say it better than I ever could Nexxo :D
     
  3. Fod

    Fod what is the cheesecake?

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    5,802
    Likes Received:
    133
    I like meat. I don't have an issue with the slaughtering of animals, as long as they were treated well whilst alive and slaughtered properly. I mostly buy free range meat (it tastes better too!) But frankly I don't eat THAT much. I take umbrage at the western emphasis on a meat based diet, and have been exploring vegetarian and vegan cookery a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that I could quite easily move to a vegetarian diet, given a bit of an improvement in my cooking ability. I'm beginning to treat meat more as a garnish to my food and an easy source of protein than a central part of my diet, although the occasional steak or burger still goes down well :D.

    I honestly think we'd all be a lot better off moving to a low meat diet; the demands placed on farms for cheap and abundant meat are getting unsustainable. Ethically slaughtered animals (yes, meat) can't be produced everywhere.

    As for the the OP, well that was just a perfect exercise really. Kids should not be ignorant about their food!
     
  4. Ryu_ookami

    Ryu_ookami I write therefore I suffer.

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    3,409
    Likes Received:
    158
    I don't think you're stupid and your entitled to you're opinion as I'm entitled to mine. Hell, if you lived near me I'd probably even invite you over for a burger and a beer so that we could chat about the differences. :)
     
  5. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    Aww, thanks Ryu-ookami! And agreed. :) I may or may not have some in-laws not too far from you, so maybe one day. Mine's a veggie-burger! ;)
     
  6. MrWillyWonka

    MrWillyWonka Chocolate computers galore!

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,892
    Likes Received:
    12
    Mammals kill to eat. We are a mammal.

    What's the problem? Is it just because we have superior intelligence that it's wrong to eat meat?
     
  7. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's because we have the capacity to recognise suffering and empathise with others, and because we can easily survive without eating meat.
     
  8. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    Putting animals through inhumane treatment on their way to eventually being slaughtered is wrong, I don't think anyone will disagree with that, but I really can't agree that the act of eating meat is wrong. The human body is adapted to a mixed meat and vegetable diet, this is why we are classed as omnivores.

    And if you are certain we can all easily survive without meat then can I assume that all your nutritional requirements are met from locally grown produce? Or do you include items that aren't native to the UK in your diet?
     
  9. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, I don't restrict myself to locally-grown produce, nor am I certain that everyone can easily survive without meat. I think that most of us can, however. Certainly, I've had no major health problems in the last 23 years.

    Incidentally, my position has nothing to do with 'naturalness' or environmentalism (though I do, separately, support the aims of environmentalists - without fully living up to all the implications, like avoiding upgrading my computer regularly). A lot of the things that we do now are done differently to how our ancestors did them.
     
  10. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    So you're quite happy to turn a blind eye to the impact intensive agricultural farming and the then shipping of the produce around the world has on nature and indigenous wildlife populations? But i'm in the wrong for enjoying eating meat?
     
  11. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not quite sure where your hostility is coming from - I haven't once attacked you or the choices you make. I do indeed have a problem with the environmental damage caused by intensive farming, and by many, many other activities. Do you? I very much doubt whether you fully live up to all the moral standards you hold either. I didn't claim to be perfect (far from it), but veganism is something that I feel I can do, and without a great deal of difficulty in the scheme of things.

    In any case, it takes an awful lot more intensive, environment-damaging farming to produce the crops needed to feed animals that are destined to become meat, and then to raise, kill, transport and process the animals themselves.
     
  12. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    The answer is, you're both wrong. He's just less morally wrong than you are. I'm not insulting you there, and I'm not kidding around.

    Bottom line is, it's immoral to grow an animal, just to kill it for whatever purpose. You wanna eat animals in the wild which have died of natural causes? Go ahead, you're in the moral clear there. But growing an animal to kill it for food, clothing, whatever, is morally wrong. You're using another creature as a means to an end, and furthermore you're denying it the experience of the rest of it's natural life.
     
    MrWillyWonka likes this.
  13. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    So just so i'm clear on this, it's morally wrong for an animal to die to provide useful food or clothing but there's no moral problems with killing a human as long as it's in the pursuit of "justice"?
     
  14. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    +1 to all of that. :thumb:

    My opinion is that both are wrong (except that it's not the animal's death that is wrong, per se - see specofdust's post above re. eating animals that have died of natural causes - but the fact that the animal has been deliberately used and killed by humans).
     
  15. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    So what if we were to, for example, allow herds of cattle to breed naturally and then hunted whatever we wanted to eat with spears? Would that be morally acceptable?

    The only moral issues that arise from the breeding of animals for food or clothing or some other purpose is the treatment of the animals during their lives and the method by which they are slaughtered. Anything else is just an attempt to gain some sort of imaginary moral high ground to justify a decision to stop eating meat and/or using items derived from animal products.
     
  16. tin can

    tin can What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    63
    Likes Received:
    1
    Then we would be killing them unjustifiably, because we would unnecessarily be causing them to suffer and curtailing their lives. So no, that would not be morally acceptable in my opinion, which obviously differs from yours as stated in your second paragraph.

    And I'm done.
     
  17. Ryu_ookami

    Ryu_ookami I write therefore I suffer.

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2004
    Posts:
    3,409
    Likes Received:
    158
    So, no offence meant, all joking aside, where do you draw the line?

    You've said eating meat is out, fair enough, but do you drink milk? After all animal captivity must surely be wrong. I'm asking this from the point of view of someone who has never looked into the vegan side of things.

    Exactly what part or usage of an animal is acceptable, because obviously total free range would just lead to diseases being spread between an uncontrolled population.
     
  18. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    A vegan wouldn't drink milk, or use any animal products. No animal usage is acceptable whatsoever to most vegans. Although us abandoning the animal industry would, unless we worked hard to avoid it, lead to massive deaths among animals - it would be morally preferable to us using the animals as means to our own ends (meat, leather, etc.). Well, at least in my opinion, look into the acts and omissions doctrine if you're curious.

    Not true. The issue of suffering is not the only moral problem. Additionally, there is the problem that we're cutting their lives short. We're denying them their future life. So, other arguments are not just attempts to gain the moral high ground. At least not from me, I eat meat, and would prefer that it was not an immoral act.
     
  19. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,124
    Likes Received:
    56
    Perhaps you'd like to point out some of these additional moral problems that stem from raising animals for food?

    I can't help but think you're anthropomorphising animals here and thinking about them in terms of human thought and understanding of future life. Unless you have some sort of evidence demonstrating that cows, pigs, sheep etc are actually aware of their own lifespan and actively consider their own lives and achievements in terms of that lifespan.
     
  20. thehippoz

    thehippoz What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,780
    Likes Received:
    174
    [​IMG]

    is that chicken.. mmmmm

    I thought vegans are not allowed to give blood though (blood too thin).. they say they are all weak too- like if a guy who just came from the slaughterhouse and loaded up on some goat was to run into a vegan serial killer.. he would be able to easily tie up the vegan and force him to eat chitlins

    sticking to the meat.. if you've ever been to the slaughterhouse, the animals don't even see it comming- they use like this air gun and it shoots a spike into thier head.. they are chewing having fun in the barn and the next thing they know, dead

    I read a case where their were some necks farming turkey's here, and they would abuse the hell out of the turkeys.. kickin em until they were almost dead and stuff- that's not right.. but normal slaughter is not some torture machine- like the pigs get run around and squeel like a pig

    me personally, when I go fishing- I usually wack the head on of the fish to put it out of his misery before filleting.. there's humane ways to do things

    I dunno if you've ever slapped someone you know with a steak too.. good for a laugh

    or what about crab at the buffet? those crabs can't wait for the legs to be eaten, otherwise it ends up in a fat dolphins belly!
     

Share This Page