NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your views on it? I am a vegan and I support animal rights (obviously). Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

You're confused. Animals don't have rights. Animals have the right cooking temp, or sauce to dip them in.

"Animal rights" is a bit broad. What rights are we talking about? I mean, call me speciesist, but I don't think they should get the vote.

I think we should treat animals as humanely as possible. That said, I'm still going to have my milk, eggs and bacon on Sunday morning, and my fish, chicken, pork and beef with grains, fruits and veggies like the omnivore I am.

And, no, I don't agree with anyone who uses force to get his or her point across.

I oppose to killing animals for fur, or sports, but hunting for food is apsolutly natural

I oppose to killing animals for fur, or sports, but hunting for food is apsolutly natural

If I want a fur coat or seal fur gloves, then why shouldn't it be able to?

2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
It's simply a matter of fighting the symptoms of capitalist decay and not the source (private property), and by it's very definition it is reactionary and not progressive because it seeks to uphold the crumbling edifice of the old system by curbing some of it's excesses.

Why the hell would I support a group that burnt down my Agriculture hall, on my campus, ruining tens of thousands of manhours of my research, and cost my university millions of dollars in repair work?

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

It's simply a matter of fighting the symptoms of capitalist decay and not the source (private property), and by it's very definition it is reactionary and not progressive because it seeks to uphold the crumbling edifice of the old system by curbing some of it's excesses.

The current system is fine. Or it will be when we get the old farts out of power and people that aren't completely corrupt in power. The first step will be getting rid of lobyists, then expanding the system to let other parties in(other than the communist one of course, old habbits die hard), and we errect a giant statue of Senator McCarthy in Red square.

I respect someone's decision not to eat or use animal products, but I get hella pissed when they don't respect my decision to eat meat or drink milk or wear coats made from tiger fur. And I certainly think that ALF (and ELF, for that matter) and PETA and other groups that use scare tactics and violence to get their point across should just curl up and die.

The current system is fine. Or it will be when we get the old farts out of power and people that aren't completely corrupt in power. The first step will be getting rid of lobyists, then expanding the system to let other parties in(other than the communist one of course, old habbits die hard), and we errect a giant statue of Senator McCarthy in Red square.

Lol, more libertarianism crazies.

'HEY WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE CAPITALISM, NAWW WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE BUREAUCRATIC CORPORAT-WHATSANAME THING'....

Lol, more libertarianism crazies.

'HEY WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE CAPITALISM, NAWW WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE BUREAUCRATIC CORPORAT-WHATSANAME THING'....

I'm not Libertarian. I'm an Indepenent. I have my own views, and infact will be conducting an anti-voting campaign this fall.

It's simply a matter of fighting the symptoms of capitalist decay and not the source (private property), and by it's very definition it is reactionary and not progressive because it seeks to uphold the crumbling edifice of the old system by curbing some of it's excesses.

Must you turn every single thread into a Communism debate?

I'm not Libertarian. I'm an Indepenent. I have my own views, and infact will be conducting an anti-voting campaign this fall.

Giving up your democratic right to vote, thus ensuring you have even less say in your government. How enlightened.

Voting for the sake of voting is bad.

To have rights implies an understanding of what rights are and the attendant responsibilities. Insofar as I know, animals do not have this understanding, white-light, fluffy, silly-season writers notwithstanding. They should, however, have protections. They should not be subjected to cruelty, neglect or abandonment.

Omnivore that I am, I will eat the meat of certain animals, but I do not eat veal and, as much as as possible, I avoid factory-raised animals.

My personal take on vegetarians is simple - if they are vegetarian (I include both lacto-ovo and vegan) because they prefer the diet or for personal health considerations fine. If they attach some sort of moral superiority to it, then they're lying to themselves.

Must you turn every single thread into a Communism debate?
That is because I think and analyze in the dialectical materialist method, according to th socioeconomic science of Marxism-Leninism. So my views come into all discussion. While as a petty liberal you treat ideas like an apple to fall off a tree, or a nice watch, it's nice to have on and say to your friends 'hey im a libertarian' but it ultimately means nothing and had no basis in reality.

You Skyland, are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, you think your views are 'individual', 'profound' and 'special', and because you don't use the Marxist tool of self-criticism you think your views are original.

Difference being, my views are based in real conditions, yours in some Utopian fantasy-land.

That is because I think and analyze in the dialectical materialist method, according to th socioeconomic science of Marxism-Leninism. So my views come into all discussion. While as a petty liberal you treat ideas like an apple to fall off a tree, or a nice watch, it's nice to have on and say to your friends 'hey im a libertarian' but it ultimately means nothing and had no basis in reality.

You Skyland, are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, you think your views are 'individual', 'profound' and 'special', and because you don't use the Marxist tool of self-criticism you think your views are original.

Difference being, my views are based in real conditions, yours in some Utopian fantasy-land.

Flip that last part around. Marxism is a failed concept.

Giving up your democratic right to vote, thus ensuring you have even less say in your government. How enlightened.
It matters naught who you vote for, because all support the old system. The 'state' exists so the decaying and dying mass of old capitalism can be propped up by force.

Flip that last part around. Marxism is a failed concept.
No, by economic definition and reality the only system that can 'fail' is capitalism because it is a decayed and dying system which can only be propped up by the dictatorship of the ruling class.

No, by economic definition and reality the only system that can 'fail' is capitalism because it is a decayed and dying system which can only be propped up by the dictatorship of the ruling class.

what evidence do you have that things are decayed and dying?

what evidence do you have that things are decayed and dying?

The losses incurred by capital and private property on the working class, manufacturers shutting down leaving entire towns basically wastelands of warehouses. Open your eyes.

The losses incurred by capital and private property on the working class, manufacturers shutting down leaving entire towns basically wastelands of warehouses. Open your eyes.

Do you think you could try to stay on topic instead of turning every thread you see into a screed supporting a system that has been demonstrated to be unworkable? Or did you sleep through the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent resurrection of Russia as a nascent capitalist society?

That is because I think and analyze in the dialectical materialist method, according to th socioeconomic science of Marxism-Leninism. So my views come into all discussion. While as a petty liberal you treat ideas like an apple to fall off a tree, or a nice watch, it's nice to have on and say to your friends 'hey im a libertarian' but it ultimately means nothing and had no basis in reality.

You Skyland, are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, you think your views are 'individual', 'profound' and 'special', and because you don't use the Marxist tool of self-criticism you think your views are original.

Difference being, my views are based in real conditions, yours in some Utopian fantasy-land.

No, the utopian fantasy land is the one where Communism works. Doesn't Communism teach that the government will eventually dissapear? Now that's what I call a fantasy.

Last time I checked, Communism does not grant the ability to read minds. I don't think most of my views are at all original, but neither are yours. Originality is not a measure of validity.

You have no idea why I hold the values that I do, and you view all things rigidly through a single leans of narrow fanaticism, then have the nerve to berate me for lacking "self-criticism".

You have no idea why I hold the values that I do.
Nor do I care, anyone who lacks the dialectical method by definition uses the idealist one, and bases claims and understanding on fantastical crap that comes out of their head, not reality and real conditions for real people.

I said this before, I do not care of the specifics of what you believe, it's ultimately irrelevant, you serve either labor or capital, their is no alternative to this.

I believe that animals should not be subject to cruel treatment. However, it's pretty far fetched to say that non-sapient animals have any sort of "rights" as would be expected of human beings.

For that reason I simply can't stand Animal Liberation as embodied by the terrorist-supporting PETA and terrorist ALF.

I support hunting/killing of animals for food, fur, pest control (foxes, deer, rabbits and badgers are pests) etc. but not for sport (though making pest control into a sport seems like a jolly good idea to me)

In general, animals have rights up to the point that those rights inconvenience me, I'm higher on the food chain and smarter than they are. If we as a species had bothered to pay much attention to animal rights of the sort espoused by moral vegans, PETA, ALF et. al. we wouldn't have made it out of the first ice age no matter how many cute animated creatures with celebrity voices pitched in to help.
Species survival trumps all other considerations.

Also, I submit for evidence against comprehensive animal rights that: Veal is delicious.

It matters naught who you vote for, because all support the old system. The 'state' exists so the decaying and dying mass of old capitalism can be propped up by force.

And with Comunism, the state would cease to exist?

Oh, wait...

Andaras, Skyland Mt, 1010102, you've all gone off-topic. Back specifically to animal rights, please.

If you want to explore the notion that the capitalist syystem is in decline and animal rights supporters are a symptom of it, start a new thread.

Why the hell would I support a group that burnt down my Agriculture hall, on my campus, ruining tens of thousands of manhours of my research, and cost my university millions of dollars in repair work?

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Right fucking on!:hail:

Animals have the right to remain delicious

Only that which can exert rights has rights.

Ultimately, there is a difference between humans and all other animals. Humans have rights because we say we do. If animals are granted rights, it is because we say they have them, not because of any actual, recognizable attribute of the animal.

It would be best not to refer to such things as rights, as they are not held by the anmal, but are actually treatment regulations imposed on ourselves.

If I want a fur coat or seal fur gloves, then why shouldn't it be able to?

And if I want to live in your house, then why shouldn't I be able to? 'Cause it's just not right

The losses incurred by capital and private property on the working class, manufacturers shutting down leaving entire towns basically wastelands of warehouses. Open your eyes.

What belongs to everybody is owned by nobody! Trust me I know wnat I am saying:D

Only that which can exert rights has rights.

That's rather faulty thinking isn't it? Would you deny a disabled person rights because they "can't exert them"? What exactly do you mean by this statement?

I think we should treat animals as humanely as possible. That said, I'm still going to have my milk, eggs and bacon on Sunday morning, and my fish, chicken, pork and beef with grains, fruits and veggies like the omnivore I am.

And, no, I don't agree with anyone who uses force to get his or her point across.

What Katganistan said, with an added "If you kill an animal, use everything as efficiently as possible" caveat. No point in wasting skin or fur or something like that if it can be used for clothing or something.

Tricky subject... personally, I've turned more or less vegetarian recently. Not because I'm having moral issues with killing animals, but I do have serious issues with the way many of these animals are treated for the time they're alive.

And I do think this is the issue that animal rights movements need to address first and foremost : we make animals suffer incredibly just to be able to buy a chicken for less than 2 Euros, and to pay the same price for our eggs now as my great-grandmother charged in the 1930s (around 20 cent, or 40 pfennig back then, per egg). Foodprices regarding animal products are ridiculously - and sometimes artificially - low, and to be able to maintain them animals are kept in appaling conditions.
Personally, I've got a massive problem with that, and I think we need laws to prevent people from treating animals in such a way.

Only that which can exert rights has rights.

Ultimately, there is a difference between humans and all other animals. Humans have rights because we say we do. If animals are granted rights, it is because we say they have them, not because of any actual, recognizable attribute of the animal.

It would be best not to refer to such things as rights, as they are not held by the anmal, but are actually treatment regulations imposed on ourselves.

Humans have rights because other humans given them to them.
Human society grants rights, not individual humans. And it's most certainly not up to the individual human to just claim any right he/she feels like. That's not how rights work.

Andaras, Skyland Mt, 1010102, you've all gone off-topic. Back specifically to animal rights, please.

If you want to explore the notion that the capitalist syystem is in decline and animal rights supporters are a symptom of it, start a new thread.

My apologies. I was mearly responding to others, and it was not my intention to derail the thread.

On the topic of animal rights, I recognize that while there's less of a biological imperative to protect another species, and that it is natural for us to be predators, it is also better not to cause needless suffering. So I would oppose, for example, factory farms(at least in theory).

I raise fur rabbits. if any PETA pukes come nosing around my place they're going to meet a hell of a lot of high velocity lead coming at them!

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

So you are saying that God wants me to be a cannibal because he also made people out of meat?

Rights are conferred to people. Animals are not people.

Rights are conferred to people. Animals are not people.

Rights are only conferred to people because people decide only to confer them to other people.
That notion can be changed.

living things cannot be someones property, I think that would be fairly obvious by now

though I do have a little nagging voice in my head going I do not support violence no matter how you try to justify it, for instance I think it would be dandy to make nap time a legal right in the UK however killing people would be effort and thus defeat the point

also Spain is already going at it (sneaky bastards) (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

I'd have to express a slight disagreement with ALF. While supporting animals is laudable, starting fires because animals are used for (vital) medical research is not.

To have rights implies an understanding of what rights are and the attendant responsibilities. Insofar as I know, animals do not have this understanding, white-light, fluffy, silly-season writers notwithstanding. They should, however, have protections. They should not be subjected to cruelty, neglect or abandonment.

Omnivore that I am, I will eat the meat of certain animals, but I do not eat veal and, as much as as possible, I avoid factory-raised animals.

My personal take on vegetarians is simple - if they are vegetarian (I include both lacto-ovo and vegan) because they prefer the diet or for personal health considerations fine. If they attach some sort of moral superiority to it, then they're lying to themselves.

This is preety much what I feel. Certian animals are and shall always be food to me, and for that matter clothing.

I take a similar line to Hugh Fernly-Whitingstall on the use of animals. It seems wrong to kill an animal just for it's skin, it seems wastefull not to eat the blighter too.

As to 'rights' vs 'protection', I think that certian animals show enough sentiance for them to indeed have certian rights, but of course it is very easy to ampraphmorphis in cases, so we need to tread carelful, with intelegence and a minimum of emotional attachment.

Having said that though, it is certainly for emotional reasons that I belive this.

Life, and the right to it, is the single higest order of the day, I do not belive that we have the right to take the life of anything that exhibits a certian level of senitiance.

It's tightrope sorta situation though, and we really do need to know more on the workings of the brain.

Humans have rights because other humans given them to them.
Human society grants rights, not individual humans. And it's most certainly not up to the individual human to just claim any right he/she feels like. That's not how rights work.

On the contrary, rights are claimed FROM society. We take what we can from society, and the amount we can take varies with the strength of the government and the society it is generated from.

For example, we are currently attempting to wrest from "society" a right to privacy. It is in the collective interest of society and government that we not have such; thus it is up to individuals to force such an action.

That's rather faulty thinking isn't it? Would you deny a disabled person rights because they "can't exert them"? What exactly do you mean by this statement?

Any being that cannot exert rights doesn't really have any. Yes, that does include people too disabled to do so.

We can create "rights" for such beings, but functionally they are merely rules of treatment.

Any being that cannot exert rights doesn't really have any. Yes, that does include people too disabled to do so.

We can create "rights" for such beings, but functionally they are merely rules of treatment.

That is codswhallop though really innit?

Rights are offten enshrined in laws, and the law states in this country(for example) that an unborn fetues has the right to life after 28 weeks. Now how can a 29 week old fetus excert it's right to live?

Generally, animals that are treated better, do, actually taste better. My family has this bizarre habit of "Hobby Farming" in their retirement, very small scale stuff. Less than two score of cattle usually, some chickens, four or five pigs and a huge garden.

The lean meat from my Uncle's farm beats the pants off of the expensive meat from the fridge at Kroger.

What are your views on it?

Generally supportive. My one major difference with the "die hards" on the subject is that I'm willing to accept medical animal testing, at least sometimes... though I do find it rather more morally ambiguous than many of its supporters acknowledge.

Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

Since all kinds of groups can claim the ALF label, and they have been involved in a wide variety of actions, I have no consistent answer.

We can create "rights" for such beings, but functionally they are merely rules of treatment.

That's all rights are.

if its made of meat and ends up on my plate, im eating it no matter what it went through. if its bred to be more meaty than usual and end upon my plate, then thats its purpose in life and i dont care how its treated. As for battery chickens living in cramped conditions, i couldn't care less since i don't like chicken, it's too dry and tasteless.
On the topic of animal testing, the only alternative to animals are animal rights extremists.

oddly enough, this reminds me of what someone said once:
<Matt> We vegetarians love the environment. carnivores are sick freaks.
<Frank> How can vegetarians possibly love the environment, you keep eating all the fucking plants .

I cannot form a moral argument, in this day an age, justifying me and our society eating meat especially since I and we can survive without it. So I'll just have to eat meat, and feel oh.. so wrong, but yet soo right. :p

It's simply a matter of fighting the symptoms of capitalist decay and not the source (private property), and by it's very definition it is reactionary and not progressive because it seeks to uphold the crumbling edifice of the old system by curbing some of it's excesses.

Are you seriously getting your knowledge of the animal rights movement today from a book written a century and a half ago?

The radical elements of the animal rights movement actually tend to be decidedly anti-capitalist, and with a revolutionary inclination... yes, they seek to curb "some of [capitalism's] excesses", but so do virtually all anti-capitalists, Marxists included, except for irrelevant ranters who would rather incessantly repeat "revolution" than actually work to get things done.

That is codswhallop though really innit?

Rights are offten enshrined in laws, and the law states in this country(for example) that an unborn fetues has the right to life after 28 weeks. Now how can a 29 week old fetus excert it's right to live?

No, it's the reality of the situation. The fetus has no right to live; we are prohibited from ending it's existence.

However, in fact there is no "right to life". Aside from some flowery language in the Declaration of Independence, no one has ever really claimed such.

No, it's the reality of the situation. The fetus has no right to live; we are prohibited from ending it's existence.

That's what a right to life is--that prohibition.

That's all rights are.

No. I can fight for and emphatically exercise my right to free speech, impose myself upon those who would deny my freedom of (or from) religion, in short, exert and impose my rights upon society. They are what we force society to acknowledge as ours, and not subject to society's whims.

I only eat Vegetarians.

Well up to a certain point yes

That's what a right to life is--that prohibition.

No, a right to life would be the power to impose your continued existence upon those who would deny it. We don't actually possess that power.

On the contrary, rights are claimed FROM society. We take what we can from society, and the amount we can take varies with the strength of the government and the society it is generated from.

For example, we are currently attempting to wrest from "society" a right to privacy. It is in the collective interest of society and government that we not have such; thus it is up to individuals to force such an action.

Not quite. You try and get society to give you the right to privacy, yes. But that does in no way mean that society cannot turn round and revoke that right again.

Society has to reach a consensus on what rights the individual should have. Yes, the individual can speak up and ask for more rights, but unless they can rally a good number of other individuals, it's unlikely society will agree to that right.

Basically, in order to give rights, each individual in a society has to curtail his/her own rights by a little bit. So they all need to consent.

No. I can fight for and emphatically exercise my right to free speech,

Yes, and you can fight for your "right" to be dictator too, and your "right" to rape and murder. So? The physical powers a person has are utterly beside the point. True, we are sometimes justified in using force to defend our rights, but this is subsequent to a determination of what those rights actually are, making our actual capacity to exercise such a defense irrelevant... and does not always hold.

In any case, the animal rights movement isn't about protecting the right to free expression of animals.

impose myself upon those who would deny my freedom of (or from) religion,

Not obviously so... the present US government violates my freedom from religion all the time (every time I use its theist currency, for instance), but this is hardly a reason for revolution.

Rights can be independent of any right to defend them. A right states that you are entitled to a certain kind of treatment. A right to exercise violence is separate from the rights it may defend, and requires a different justification.

They are what we force society to acknowledge as ours, and not subject to society's whims.

And when society guns you down while you're defending your rights? Have they done wrong? Or does your failure disqualify you from the right treatment you demanded?

No, a right to life would be the power to impose your continued existence upon those who would deny it. We don't actually possess that power.

Actually, we do. It's called "self-defense."

You probably imagine that a right to something implies that it is always possible to do, but nothing of the sort is the case.

No. I can fight for and emphatically exercise my right to free speech, impose myself upon those who would deny my freedom of (or from) religion, in short, exert and impose my rights upon society. They are what we force society to acknowledge as ours, and not subject to society's whims.

So all those who cannot fight for their rights do - per definition - have none?

I'm thinking disabled people, small children, very old people, etc.

No, a right to life would be the power to impose your continued existence upon those who would deny it. We don't actually possess that power.

Give those foetuses guns!

No. I can fight for and emphatically exercise my right to free speech, impose myself upon those who would deny my freedom of (or from) religion, in short, exert and impose my rights upon society. They are what we force society to acknowledge as ours, and not subject to society's whims.

I think you are confusing 'rights' with 'having the personal power to..." - you cannot impose your rights on society unless you have the power to do so. If sufficient of society want the same right as you then the society may force government to enshrine it somehow, using their collective power.

'Rights' allow the less powerful to be enfranchised e.g. right to vote allows everyone to have a say in government. The state can back up the less powerful by using its power as an equalizer e.g. Police protecting people's right to possess property.

This is why (back OT) animal rights are sometimes seen in such an emotive light, as we have complete power over them (barring unfortunate incidents where we are unprepared), and they have no collective recourse to influence us.

No, it's the reality of the situation. The fetus has no right to live; we are prohibited from ending it's existence.

However, in fact there is no "right to life". Aside from some flowery language in the Declaration of Independence, no one has ever really claimed such.


Then I claim such. Really then this boils down to semantics(again) doesn't it.

You say 'prohibitation', I say 'right', meh we are both talking of the same act.

Being a member of PETA, I believe that animals have only one right: to die as frequently as possible and not be eaten.

You're confused. Animals don't have rights. Animals have the right cooking temp, or sauce to dip them in.

/winner

What are your views on it? I am a vegan and I support animal rights (obviously). Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

You know, it really bothers me that people are wasting their time with chickens and cows when there's famine and genocide in various parts of the world. Also, the ALF and their ilk deserve the same treatment as Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, PETA needs its tax exempt status revoked immediately.

Such nonsense shouldn't be tolerated.

I shoot game birds (Pheasant, grouse, duck etc) for fun. And I do it because it is fun to do, and the environmental and financial benefits from the sport far out weigh a few dead birds. I support the hunt, for about the same reason.

I shoot pests, because they need shooting.

I come from a family of farmers in the North East of England and Borders. Domestic animal welfare is a high priority, we do not treat our animals cruelly. If we did, wouldn’t they try to escape? Cattle especially could quite easily escape if they wanted to, but they try to escape so ergo, they must be happy.

I believe animals don’t have rights, I think humans come above animals so if we need to keep 2,000 chickens in a shed the size of my living room so eggs are 5p cheaper, then so be it.

You know, it really bothers me that people are wasting their time with chickens and cows when there's famine and genocide in various parts of the world.

So we should never advocate for anything other than stopping such famine and genocide?

Do you follow this policy yourself?

Also, the ALF and their ilk deserve the same treatment as Al-Qaeda.

That's insane. The organizations are not remotely comparable. The ALF makes an effort to avoid killing people. Al-Qaeda makes an effort to commit mass murder.

So we should never advocate for anything other than stopping such famine and genocide?

Do you follow this policy yourself?

I'm saying that their priorities are out of order. With all of the problems facing the world today, these people focus on something that is ultimately inconsequential.

That's insane. The organizations are not remotely comparable. The ALF makes an effort to avoid killing people. Al-Qaeda makes an effort to commit mass murder.

Terrorism is terrorism, as far as I'm concerned. The actions of the ALF are simply inexcusable.

I'm saying that their priorities are out of order. With all of the problems facing the world today, these people focus on something that is ultimately inconsequential.

Obviously they don't agree with you that the suffering of animals is "inconsequential."

Why should they?

Terrorism is terrorism, as far as I'm concerned.

What is "terrorism"? What about it makes it a problem?

The ALF did not make much effort not to kill people when they sent a bomb filled with razor blades and nails to an exec at an animal research lab. They decapitated him and killed his family.

Source?

And recall, again, that the ALF is radically decentralized... just because people who claim the ALF label do something doesn't mean every ALF group supports it.

Animal rights peddlars need to be strung up and force fed raw dog until they expire.

Guilt by association, hmm?

Do we strike a nerve?

What are your views on it? I am a vegan and I support animal rights (obviously). Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

I believe in having respect for your source of food, flora or fauna in origin. I think it's extremely unhealthy for there to be a disconnect in your mind between an animal as a living thing, and the meat that finds its way to your table. That sort of attitude fosters very poor decision making when it comes to anything that touches on your food source.

I try not to buy too much mass-farmed meat...I prefer my meat wild. That being said, I eat very little meat overall, maybe twice a week at most. Clearly I haven't died from lack of animal protein.

I don't think that Western society treats animals in a healthy manner. Either we're packing them into assembly-line slaughter houses, or we're freaking buying them little sweaters and feeding them sirloin steaks.

Obviously they don't agree with you that the suffering of animals is "inconsequential."

Why should they?

I used the word inconsequential because, at the end of the day, if a chicken or other animal is stuck in a crappy little cage, no harm is done to a person. I'm not saying that it's a total waste of time to care about animals if one wishes, but some people go to such ridiculous lengths and do absurd and possibly dangerous things.

What is "terrorism"? What about it makes it a problem?

Define terrorism now? Interesting challenge. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to say that an act of terrorism is an action that incites terror within a particular group of individuals or the general public. Now I'm well aware that the ALF attempts to avoid casualties, human or otherwise; however, this does not mean that their actions do not constitute terrorism, since violent acts against property can and do arouse fear in people.

As for what makes it a problem, that should be obvious, and I believe I've already answered that question.

I used to be a vegan, I eat meat now, meat and cheese, all day long, tacos FTW!

I don't support some of the more wacky "animal rights" crap, I mean, I own cats, they are my pets. I eat animals, and I use medication and medical treatments that were tested on them, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

I don't think animals should be abused, or tested on for frivolous things like make-up or shampoo.

What are your views on it? I am a vegan and I support animal rights (obviously). Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

The cheapest way to remove the animal right phenomenon is not to give rights to animals, but to just crush the animal right movement.

It is not that I particularly eat meat, and I honest could care less without them so long as no one else can have them either. I simply don't enjoy being around people who decided to put animals as their "in group", while other human beings, who is doing real work in saving lives, as "out group". Maybe if they stop attacking animal shelters and laboratories, I will take them a little more seriously.

In terms of animal liberation, after an animal right activist liberated an animal, they will

1. Kill it (through freezer or gas chamber)
2. Keep it and raise it (unlikely)
3. Free it

Option 1 explains itself

Option 2 isn't animal liberation.

Option 3 is by far the most disastrous. You can't free an animal into any existing ecosystem without disrupting it's habitat. You save an animal, you put it out into the wild, it either

1. Dies
2. Destroy existing animals in the habitat.

So, can the animal right sympathizers show a little mercy to the poor animals and stop mass murdering them?

I used the word inconsequential because, at the end of the day, if a chicken or other animal is stuck in a crappy little cage, no harm is done to a person.

So? What's the moral difference?

One entity suffers, another entity suffers... why should we care more for one than the other?

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to say that an act of terrorism is an action that incites terror within a particular group of individuals or the general public.

One that is intended to, or one that merely happens to?

As for what makes it a problem, that should be obvious,

No, it isn't. Lots of things cause terror. You haven't given a reason why inspiring terror is never a legitimate tactic--what about law enforcement inciting terror to deter crimes?--and you certainly haven't provided any basis for not making a distinction between acts of property destruction that might cause fear and acts of mass murder that are intended to intimidate and terrorize.

The cheapest way to remove the animal right phenomenon is not to give rights to animals, but to just crush the animal right movement.

Strange... opponents of animal rights complain about how animal rights advocates neglect human rights, yet somehow a good number of them always seem to advocate repressive methods against the people who disagree with them.

I think such people have angry reactions to rational arguments they find inconvenient but can't substantively contest.

I simply don't enjoy being around people who decided to put animals as their "in group", while other human beings, who is doing real work in saving lives, as "out group".

Do such people actually exist?

Maybe if they stop attacking animal shelters and laboratories, then liberate them into freezers or gas chambers, I will take them a little more seriously.

Euthanasia is probably a preferable alternative to animals being kept in horrific conditions. Animal rights advocates, for good reason, tend to put concern for welfare and suffering above a mystical reverence for life.

You can't free an animal into any existing ecosystem without disrupting it's habitat.

That's plainly not true. Animals are successfully released from captivity all the time.

Of course, it has to be done knowledgeably, with information about their proper habitats and about their potential effects on the ecosystem... but that's not an argument against animal liberation, but rather for doing it a certain way.

Animal rights activists are less concerned with the animal and its probable "rights" than they are about forcing everyone else to adhere to their rather rigid set of morals and values. If they have to use force in order for this to happen, they will.

They are also less concerned with the welfare of the animals in question, and they certainly are not above using animal products for their own purposes. This is not, after all, about the animals. It is about control.

Let's look, for example, at PETA. Here's a quote from the President of that group:

"PETA's publicity formula -- eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth."

Another quote:

Bruce Friedrich, one of PETA's most prominent leaders, says in a speech readily available on the Internet 'I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.'"

Doesn't much sound like they're interested in animal rights or even animal welfare.

That's the difference. Give up meat if you choose. Don't use animal products if you choose. But don't support "animal rights", because that's just a catch-all phrase for radical activism. Support animal welfare, where all the animals are treated as animals, and given the care they should have.

You'll notice I didn't say "treated humanely". Anthropomorphizing animals is one of the quickest routes to turning into one of the animal rights freaks. Animals aren't humans - treat them as animals and they'll generally be far happier. Besides, dressing up your dog or cat (while it may be hilarious) isn't nice. :rolleyes:

That's plainly not true. Animals are successfully released from captivity all the time.

Of course, it has to be done knowledgeably, with information about their proper habitats and about their potential effects on the ecosystem... but that's not an argument against animal liberation, but rather for doing it a certain way.

Exactly, you can't free animals in "ANY" habitats. You need actual zoologists and environmentalist to deal with small quantities of release. You can't just break into a lab, steal animals away, than release them into the nearest cluster of trees. You have to study the local environment to see rather or not it can sustain the animals so it can both live and not destroy everything else that's there. The problem is that even one mistake is a big deal. You release the wrong animal in the wrong area and it can devastate the whole ecosystem. So unless it's done by specialist, it will cause more harm than good.

Strange... opponents of animal rights complain about how animal rights advocates neglect human rights, yet somehow a good number of them always seem to advocate repressive methods against the people who disagree with them.

I think such people have angry reactions to rational arguments they find inconvenient but can't substantively contest.

I didn't talk about human rights in my argument. It was purely an utilitarian observation in helping the most amount of animals in relation to cost.

Euthanasia is probably a preferable alternative to animals being kept in horrific conditions. Animal rights advocates, for good reason, tend to put concern for welfare and suffering above a mystical reverence for life.

This is the worst part of your argument. And what right do they have in deciding when to end an animal's life than a corporate farm CEO? The only problem here is that the CEO at least admits to what they are doing, where as animal right activist hide behind the barrier of "liberation" while commit "murder" in their own definition. Horrific conditions does not necessary mean the animal wants to die. And I bet you if you put it in front of a cliff it won't jump down and kill itself (if it actually does so in it's own will then fine). It is only Euthanasia if the animal even have a choice. If you bust it out of a shelter and put it down, that is just killing by any standards.

I'd have to express a slight disagreement with ALF. While supporting animals is laudable, starting fires because animals are used for (vital) medical research is not.

So that is what Gordon Shumway is up to nowadays.

I believe animals don’t have rights, I think humans come above animals so if we need to keep 2,000 chickens in a shed the size of my living room so eggs are 5p cheaper, then so be it."Humans come above animals" doesn't equal "animals should be treated as cruelly as possible for human benefit".

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.


If God didn't want us to eat animals, we wouldn't have evolved canine teeth, and our appendix wouldn't be vestigal.


Nor would animals taste good.

Anyone who has ever owned pets knows that animals prefer the food they have evolved to eat. The cat is not interested in your salad and the guinea pig will not eat fish.

I didn't talk about human rights in my argument. It was purely an utilitarian observation in helping the most amount of animals in relation to cost.

Then it was just propagandistic nonsense, not an outright contradiction. Forgive me.

Direct action like releasing animals into the wild are a tiny part of animal rights activities.

This is the worst part of your argument. And what right do they have in deciding when to end an animal's life than a corporate farm CEO?

Unlike the corporate farm CEO, they are not raising animals in horrific conditions for slaughter and consumption... they are taking animals already here and euthanizing them, when there are no humane alternatives.

This is not a practice special to PETA. The Humane Society euthanizes millions of animals every year.

The only problem here is that the CEO at least admits to what they are doing, where as animal right activist hide behind the barrier of "liberation" while commit "murder" in their own definition.

Right--the CEO is out for profit and doesn't give a shit about the welfare of animals, while the animal rights activist, whatever you think about their methods, is trying to do what's best for the animals.

No moral equivalence.

Horrific conditions does not necessary mean the animal wants to die. And I bet you if you put it in front of a cliff it won't jump down and kill itself

No, but suicide as a conscious choice is probably beyond the cognitive capacity of most animals. We are left with a decision that is by necessity paternalistic, and I tend to think the people who advocate euthanasia (which, by the way, is not a universal view in the animal rights movement however fond you people are of guilt by association) have a more realistic assessment of the value of life than the people who oppose it.

It is only Euthanasia if the animal even have a choice.

Actually, euthanasia refers to the method of killing ("good death") and not to any consideration for autonomy involved.

If you bust it out of a shelter and put it down, that is just killing by any standards.

First, source that this actually happens?

Second, of course it is "killing", but that's evading the issue.

"Humans come above animals" doesn't equal "animals should be treated as cruelly as possible for human benefit".

No, they shouldn't, but there also shouldn't be anything stopping it either.

Animal rights activists are less concerned with the animal and its probable "rights" than they are about forcing everyone else to adhere to their rather rigid set of morals and values.

Pretty much all of us believe that we should be forced to abide by some rules--why should the animal rights movement be any different?

This argument is really disingenuous: if we really believe that animal suffering counts morally, we have strong reasons to advocate legislation based upon that fact. That's the real issue.

They are also less concerned with the welfare of the animals in question, and they certainly are not above using animal products for their own purposes. This is not, after all, about the animals. It is about control.

Rhetorical paranoia and guilt by association.

Let's look, for example, at PETA.

...obviously representative of anyone who happens to support animal rights....

Here's a quote from the President of that group:

"PETA's publicity formula -- eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth."

This gets four Google results, all from seemingly antagonistic sites, and none of which providing context.

But let's take it at face value. So what? Outrage is always how political movements work. Truth is nice... but truth doesn't get anything done all alone.

It's "true" that blacks and whites should be treated equally, it's "true" that segregation was horrible... but it took outrage to end it. And that's one example of many.

Bruce Friedrich, one of PETA's most prominent leaders, says in a speech readily available on the Internet 'I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow.'"

Doesn't much sound like they're interested in animal rights or even animal welfare.

I don't know how that quote is supposed to prove that... it shows only that he's interested in a world without the institutions that profit off of animal suffering. Which is perfectly in line with both animal rights and animal welfare.

That's the difference. Give up meat if you choose. Don't use animal products if you choose. But don't support "animal rights", because that's just a catch-all phrase for radical activism.

More scare-words--"radical activism"--but little content.

Support animal welfare, where all the animals are treated as animals, and given the care they should have.

"Animal welfare" doesn't go far enough... but more importantly in the immediate context, people who support "animal welfare" tend to engage in convenient, arbitrary distinctions that only obscure attempts to improve the conditions of animals.

Thus, for instance, they campaign against "animal abuse" when it comes to pets, but are hesitant to condemn meat-eating and the abuses that accompany it... their notion of "necessity" is slanted toward some so-called "needs" over others. Why is a taste for eating animals for food any more worthy of consideration than a taste for watching them fight each other to the death?

You'll notice I didn't say "treated humanely". Anthropomorphizing animals is one of the quickest routes to turning into one of the animal rights freaks. Animals aren't humans - treat them as animals and they'll generally be far happier. Besides, dressing up your dog or cat (while it may be hilarious) isn't nice. :rolleyes:

Actually, you'll find agreement from animal rights advocates about much of that. Animal rights isn't about "anthropomorphizing" animals, it's about erasing the arbitrary moral distinctions we make between humans and animals. Differential treatment based upon actual physical differences is in a different category.

I believe in having respect for your source of food, flora or fauna in origin. I think it's extremely unhealthy for there to be a disconnect in your mind between an animal as a living thing, and the meat that finds its way to your table. That sort of attitude fosters very poor decision making when it comes to anything that touches on your food source.

I try not to buy too much mass-farmed meat...I prefer my meat wild. That being said, I eat very little meat overall, maybe twice a week at most. Clearly I haven't died from lack of animal protein.

I don't think that Western society treats animals in a healthy manner. Either we're packing them into assembly-line slaughter houses, or we're freaking buying them little sweaters and feeding them sirloin steaks.

I lose all respect for anyone who has a sweater-wearing dog.

Then it was just propagandistic nonsense, not an outright contradiction. Forgive me.

Direct action like releasing animals into the wild are a tiny part of animal rights activities.

Unlike the corporate farm CEO, they are not raising animals in horrific conditions for slaughter and consumption... they are taking animals already here and euthanizing them, when there are no humane alternatives.

This is not a practice special to PETA. The Humane Society euthanizes millions of animals every year.

Right--the CEO is out for profit and doesn't give a shit about the welfare of animals, while the animal rights activist, whatever you think about their methods, is trying to do what's best for the animals.

No moral equivalence.

No, but suicide as a conscious choice is probably beyond the cognitive capacity of most animals. We are left with a decision that is by necessity paternalistic, and I tend to think the people who advocate euthanasia (which, by the way, is not a universal view in the animal rights movement however fond you people are of guilt by association) have a more realistic assessment of the value of life than the people who oppose it.

Actually, euthanasia refers to the method of killing ("good death") and not to any consideration for autonomy involved.

First, source that this actually happens?

Second, of course it is "killing", but that's evading the issue.

Talk about propaganda nonsense when you try to justify killing an animal base on your feelings of what's best for them?

Yes direct release is small, which points to 2 conclusion
1. Most of the liberated animals are killed
2. There is still no evidence that the one that are released are done properly.

I am not here to justify a corporate farm CEO, who earns profit while providing food across the country. I simply said that they are a bit more honest in committing the level of killing. Animal Right activist as you put it, are fully aware that "suicide as a conscious choice is probably beyond the cognitive capacity of most animals", which means 4 things

1. Animal doesn't think like human, they do not create abstract worlds or fantasize about how they will be better off being dead.
2. It is debatable that animal even have the concept of time, of past and future, or consciousness in general.
3. Most animals will not kill itself, no matter the abuse being taken place.
4. Animal are NOT, I repeat NOT, people too. Something that animal right activist like to advertise. This doesn't mean animals are therefore free to be treated as a non living product, but it also means that we cannot impose human standards of what's best for them either.

This view of imposing what is "best" for them is no different than pet owners dressing up their pets, not because the pets wants to be dress up, but because the owner wants to project their emotions onto them. Now this is not to say that this is particularly destructive. Free ranch farming and improve environments of industrial farms for example isn't a problem, but to say that something needs to die because you think so on the egotistical extreme.

Aside from the overhead cost for meat, I have little problem with improving the standards of industrial farms. It at the very least improve the quality of our food supply.

This of course brings to the question of Humane Society vs PETA. While the Humane Society practice euthanasia, they also admit that the reason this is done is because they simply do not have the space or resources to keep them all, and therefore do so in a most painless manner. The function of the Humane Society is therefore, not only as a mean to save some animals, but to also clean up the streets, and reduce the amount of wild animal reproduction in urban areas. PETA on the other hand, call for animal liberation, kills animals, while going around causing huge property destruction and eventually end up doing the same thing. If they have a function it is that of terrorism.

What Katganistan said, with an added "If you kill an animal, use everything as efficiently as possible" caveat. No point in wasting skin or fur or something like that if it can be used for clothing or something.

^This.

I'm not going to stop eating animals and I don't think we're going to stop having leather products and the like any time soon. But I think the animals we do use should be treated well while they are alive, killed in a humane way, and used as efficiently as possible. Native peoples did it for generations - they used basically every part of an animal they killed. There is absolutely no reason that we cannot do the same.

I shoot game birds (Pheasant, grouse, duck etc) for fun.


See, this I don't really understand, Pheasants sure, at this point, if people suddenly stopped hunting them, they would become a pest in fairly short order. But Ducks, Grouse and most other game birds are also delicious (pheasant may well be delicious also, but I haven't had any), and shooting them for fun seems like a waste. TBH, I don't really see the economic advantages to such behavior over hunting such birds for food.

Soheran: 'moral distinctions' between animals and humans are not arbitrary, they are based on, among other factors, Strong biological/genetic disposition towards one's own species, and our own, objectively superior intellect and social structure, Animals don't have equal rights because on every level they are less deserving of those rights and less able to comprehend the difference it would make to them were they to have said rights or not.

Now to my mind, that doesn't excuse excessively cruel or capricious behavior towards animals, but it's more of the fact that such behavior is as utterly valueless as the other extreme (that animals deserve equal rights to humans) and in a larger sense is like abusing a good tool (or, maybe more germaine, a good dog). Animals, the environment et. al. are and will remain useful for humanity if not outright vital to our continued survival. Misusing the environment is only about as useful and 'morally correct' as not using it at all, that is to say, not at all useful or morally correct.

Generally supportive. My one major difference with the "die hards" on the subject is that I'm willing to accept medical animal testing, at least sometimes... though I do find it rather more morally ambiguous than many of its supporters acknowledge.

I think the issue is that, once we decide that there should be prohibitions on how animals are treated - that they shouldn't be harmed without justification, for instance, we get into the tricky discussions of what is and is not justifiable.

For some, the need for medical testing is so obvious that it seems silly to them to argue that it isn't justified. Same goes for food reasons. I think most people agree that killing something specifically for a luxury clothing item (ie. certain types of fur) is less justifiable, although some still think it is. And so on...

Do such people actually exist?

Yes -those who attack doctors and scientists.

That's plainly not true. Animals are successfully released from captivity all the time.

Animals that are not too socialized to humans and who belong in that particular habitat are released from captivity - but it is done carefully and the animal is generally monitored for a while to make sure that it is behaving as it should and surviving in the wild.

Wanton release of animals would be dangerous. Some of them would be too socialized to human contact and care and wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. Some - particularly lab animals have often been transported or genetically altered (making them dangerous within the ecosystem), meaning that they would not belong in the ecosystem in question.

Of course, it has to be done knowledgeably, with information about their proper habitats and about their potential effects on the ecosystem... but that's not an argument against animal liberation, but rather for doing it a certain way.

The problem is that, from what I've seen, the types of people extreme enough to want to go and release animals from laboratories and the like don't give that kind of thought to these questions.

They also don't seem aware of the fact that many lab animals - particularly rodents - would simply have to be destroyed if we weren't going to continue using them. They don't belong in any ecosystem because they have been bred and genetically altered for traits that you simply don't find in the wild.

Note: I'm not saying that no animal rights activists consider these things. But the ones who are actually out there breaking into labs and the like certainly don't seem to.


I lose all respect for anyone who has a sweater-wearing dog.

I had a dog we put clothes on once. But it was because she had horrible allergies and was scratching herself to the point that all her hair fell out and she was scabbing and stuff. And it wasn't a sweater, because she would have torn that up in a few minutes.

For some, the need for medical testing is so obvious that it seems silly to them to argue that it isn't justified.

But they'd be less eager to say the same about experimenting on, say, unwanted human infants. The "obviousness" here is mostly a product of their willingness to make arbitrary distinctions.

In any case, the animal liberationist argument that thinking about this in the utilitarian way is misguided, that the fundamental truth here is that animals are not human property to be used even for the "greater good", has some merit to me.

Normally I'd go on about rights being dependent upon responsibilities etc. but I think I found an exception

http://www.hahakiri.com/wp-content/uploads/_AnimalsHaveTheRightTo.jpg

I think we should treat animals as humanely as possible. That said, I'm still going to have my milk, eggs and bacon on Sunday morning, and my fish, chicken, pork and beef with grains, fruits and veggies like the omnivore I am.

And, no, I don't agree with anyone who uses force to get his or her point across.

^ This. I try to buy meat and animal products that haven't come from factory farms, I don't buy fur, I buy products that were not tested on animals, and I support measures to toughen the penalties for animal abuse - but I don't feel that continuing to be the omnivore that I am naturally is wrong, or that being a violent jerk is ever a good way to make an argument.

But they'd be less eager to say the same about experimenting on, say, unwanted human infants. The "obviousness" here is mostly a product of their willingness to make arbitrary distinctions.

I don't know that it's completely arbitrary, although it is often based on potential. Those unwanted infants have the potential to develop much greater understanding of what's going on than, say, a cockroach.

There is a reason that there are different levels of justification needed depending on the animal being used. The restrictions on experimentation with animals that are more aware - even if using them as young animals - are much stronger than those with less capacity for understanding.

In any case, the animal liberationist argument that thinking about this in the utilitarian way is misguided, that the fundamental truth here is that animals are not human property to be used even for the "greater good", has some merit to me.

It has some merit, but it doesn't convince me. Maybe that makes me an awful person, but I don't think so. I do approve of the restrictions that keep the suffering of such animals to the minimum possible level, and I can honestly say that I hate euthanizing the animals when it is my responsibility to do so. But, in the end, I think it is justified.

I think we ought to afford some protections to species like cetaceans, primates, and pachyderms.

I'm a carnetarian, however, and ain't nobody getting me to give human rights to beef, mutton, pork, poulty, or seafood.

See, this I don't really understand, Pheasants sure, at this point, if people suddenly stopped hunting them, they would become a pest in fairly short order. But Ducks, Grouse and most other game birds are also delicious (pheasant may well be delicious also, but I haven't had any), and shooting them for fun seems like a waste. TBH, I don't really see the economic advantages to such behavior over hunting such birds for food.
We do either eat them, give them away to people who will or sell them to the game dealer. Sorry, I sort of forgot this when writing the post. However the primary reason is because it is fun, if you have ever only shot clays then you know it is fun, well shooting real birds is a lot harder so more of a challenge and in turn, more fun.

Pheasants aren’t truly wild; they are bought, reared and fed by the farm/estate/shooting syndicate. They are then released into the wild and only 20% - 40% are shot. The same can be said for some grouse, but not many.

Financially, shooting pheasant and grouse can cost an absolute fortune which brings money into an area, and the large estates employ many people in a area were the jobs are scarce and there are about 5 people per square mile. The money is then used to preserve the habitat of the birds so that next year, there are still birds to shoot, habitat that is also home to many other species. Grouse moors in particular are one of Britain most unique finest habitats for many species, and if it wasn’t for the grouse shooting they would be cleared as they are completely unprofitable to keep unless you are shooting over them.

As for ducks, well they taste brilliant, cost a fortune in the shops and its not like we shoot all of them, very few in fact.

And as for the hunt, well in my area which is still fairly traditional, so the local large land owner is His Grace, the Duke of Northumberland rather than some large corporation’s like it is down south. He encourages the hunt as an active pest control system, has more or less the same advantages of pheasant shooting, and is jolly good fun as well. Unlike the corporations who are more interested in the mega bucks.

i did not climb to the top of the food chain to eat carrots(quote)

I support moderate animal rights, though obviously a lot of human rights like would make no sense. I do eat meat, though I'm opposed to unnessissary crualty to obtain it, such as in factory farms(already stated this as my other nation).

In response to the OP's question about the ALF however, they are thugs and terrorists, and their methods are as unacceptable in defense of animal rights as they would be in defense of human rights. Unless you think animal rights are more important than human rights, in which case you are a fanatic and there's probably no point trying to reason with you.

What are your views on it? I am a vegan and I support animal rights (obviously). Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front (It is a real group, not just a fake group in an NS issue)?

I support Animal rights. I also support Animal lefts. :p

The ALF is a dangerous organization that has a history of firebombing, intimidation/threats of violence, and other criminal acts. If ALF were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth, I wouldn't shed a tear. In fact, I'd probably cook a steak in celebration (perforated with a Deni Meat Tenderizer, then marinated for 1-2 days, finally cooked to slightly pink in the center, it's able to be cut with plasticware).

No, they shouldn't, but there also shouldn't be anything stopping it either....because?

What are your views on it?
"Medical testing fine, product testing bad"
I am a vegan
Why do you hate plants?
and I support animal rights (obviously)
Well yes, so does everyone to an extent, I'd think.
Do you agree with the Animal Liberation Front
No, they're a terrorist group and should be treated as such.

I am in favor of animal rights but realize the futility of pushing against the tide, so I've settled into apathy. I think hunting for sport is idiotic and wasteful. I respect members of the ALF and ELF for risking themselves for what they believe in without putting other people in danger.

Conversely, I have nothing but disdain for people that kill protected or endangered species, and think the penalties for doing so should be much, much harsher than they currently are.

I respect members of the ALF and ELF for risking themselves for what they believe in without putting other people in danger.

You staunchly have declared supporting Israel against Palestinian-based terrorism, yet here you are openly supporting domestic American terrorists on their criminal activities.

Or is it only terrorism when people die and Muslims are involved?

In any case, the animal liberationist argument that thinking about this in the utilitarian way is misguided, that the fundamental truth here is that animals are not human property to be used even for the "greater good", has some merit to me.

The utilitarian argument has been greatly simplified, here (unfortunately, it often is, even by those who proclaim themselves utilitarians).

Respect and proper care make up a large part of utilitarian philosophy, a tool or resource that is misused quickly loses its utility, a true utilitarian would seek to extend utility by treating their tools and resources properly.
by the same token, a tool that is disrespected quickly becomes a dangerous liability, true utilitarians respect their tools and resources to avoid endangering themselves or others.

Utilitarians should respect animals and treat them well, but also recognize that animals have utility for human use, such as food and fur etc.

I had a dog we put clothes on once. But it was because she had horrible allergies and was scratching herself to the point that all her hair fell out and she was scabbing and stuff. And it wasn't a sweater, because she would have torn that up in a few minutes.

Not you, personally. But that's a good reason why.

The utilitarian argument has been greatly simplified, here

Not really. Read my post again. I'm familiar with various utilitarian reasons for "respecting" animals, both ones that actually take into account animal suffering and ones that don't. But the issue I raised is whether we have the right to use animals in the first place.

Not really. Read my post again. I'm familiar with various utilitarian reasons for "respecting" animals, both ones that actually take into account animal suffering and ones that don't. But the issue I raised is whether we have the right to use animals in the first place.

We do, because they aren't human.
At the most basic level, we, as humans, must hold ourselves as a species above other animals, it's a matter of survival.

The fundamental right of all organisms is to take any action to benefit the species, non-human animals can, and do, do this, often enough taking advantage of humanity in the process.
We are no different from them in this, much of the time, the relationship is even mutually advantageous, in exchange for a few hundred deaths out of every thousand, domesticated cows are fed, protected from disease and predators and have been allowed to flourish on land that you might put to use for growing vegetables. Pigs, rabbits and sheep have been carried to virtually every corner of the planet and have experienced numerous population explosions in return for providing food, clothing and medical research (not personally a fan of cosmetics research though).
In that light, who's using who exactly?

The extreme animal rights movement is nothing more than a poorly disguised, specialized version of the naturalist fallacy.

We do, because they aren't human.
At the most basic level, we, as humans, must hold ourselves as a species above other animals, it's a matter of survival.

The fundamental right of all organisms is to take any action to benefit the species, non-human animals can, and do, do this, often enough taking advantage of humanity in the process.

And you have the audacity to accuse the animal rights movement of engaging in the naturalistic fallacy?

In that light, who's using who exactly?

I don't know--probably the group that thinks protecting animals from natural deaths (for a while, anyway, because ultimately everything dies) makes imprisonment, exploitation, and mass slaughter an acceptable bargain.

:rolleyes:

And you have the audacity to accuse the animal rights movement of engaging in the naturalistic fallacy?


Feel free to explain why claiming that we ought not treat animals like resources to be used isn't an appeal to nature at any time now.


I don't know--probably the group that thinks protecting animals from natural deaths (for a while, anyway, because ultimately everything dies) makes imprisonment, exploitation, and mass slaughter an acceptable bargain.


Because the bubonic Plague, Mad Cow disease, Avian Flu, Simian Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome and countless others I could name aren't enough of a trade off (not to mention plenty of more direct unpleasantness that goes on, or has)? Don't make it sound like all the death and destruction is flowing one way.

The act of treating animals in a strictly utilitarian way is hardly unique to humans, or do you imagine predators ought to become vegans as well, and that parasites and symbiotes should learn to look after themselves for a change? Humans are different only in that you are a party to our various symbiotic and parasitic predator/prey relationships, rather than an outside observer.

Not to mention that those imprisoned and slaughtered have bought priceless returns for those that live, If we weren't eating them and drinking their milk, cows would have been driven from grazing land centuries ago to make room for farms, they would only exist in zoos if they had even survived to modern day, sheep and deer may have been exterminated even earlier for their highly destructive behavior. Predators once killed to protect animals which humanity has 'exploited' would be allowed to thrive, and who could guess the effect of un-retarded predatation on an herbivore population vying with humanity for fertile land.
No, obviously a vegan, non-animal exploiting humanity is universally beneficial to all those creatures we would otherwise exploit. After all, extinction and endangerment are better than imprisonment and exploitation.

Feel free to explain why claiming that we ought not treat animals like resources to be used isn't an appeal to nature at any time now.

For the same reasons saying we shouldn't treat humans like resources to be used isn't.

Because the bubonic Plague, Mad Cow disease, Avian Flu, Simian Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome and countless others I could name aren't enough of a trade off (not to mention plenty of more direct unpleasantness that goes on, or has)? Don't make it sound like all the death and destruction is flowing one way.

Right--the exploitation of animals harms both us and them.

Do you imagine that this is a reason to keep it?

The act of treating animals in a strictly utilitarian way is hardly unique to humans,

Did I say it was? I think this is just another version of the naturalistic fallacy you like accusing others of.

or do you imagine predators ought to become vegans as well,

I think there's a case to be made that predation for survival needs is not morally problematic. Want to hunt for food? Go ahead.

Humans are different only in that you are a party to our various symbiotic and parasitic predator/prey relationships, rather than an outside observer.

Last time I checked, no other animal on the planet had factory farms or testing laboratories... and no other animal on the planet is destroying the habitats of other animals as human beings are.

And even if we ignore all that, it still remains true that the fact that we are a party makes a moral difference. We must not mistreat other entities. But we are not absolutely required to ensure that no one else mistreats other entities.

Not to mention that those imprisoned and slaughtered have bought priceless returns for those that live, If we weren't eating them and drinking their milk, cows would have been driven from grazing land centuries ago to make room for farms, they would only exist in zoos if they had even survived to modern day,

There's a case to be made that extinction would be preferable... but more to the point, you can't justify one kind of human mistreatment of animals with another kind.

Some of us are concerned for habitat destruction, too.

Predators once killed to protect animals which humanity has 'exploited' would be allowed to thrive,

Again, this doesn't particularly bother me.

After all, extinction and endangerment are better than imprisonment and exploitation.

You seem to have very narrow standards for judging animal welfare--survival and population size.

I don't think this is how we should (or do) conceive of human welfare... and I'm not sure there's any important difference here that justifies the distinction.

For the same reasons saying we shouldn't treat humans like resources to be used isn't.

So the lifestyles of humans should be lowered to give more life to animals?

Right--the exploitation of animals harms both us and them.

Do you imagine that this is a reason to keep it?

Some species are valuable for consumption (ie cows) others are important for the environment because they help stabalize it. Other species can be hunted to a point without any impact. Other species can be studied to find solution to many things for humans. But alot of species are not that important for the world. If we black rats different rats would fill their role in the environment. What is the harm of that?

I think there's a case to be made that predation for survival needs is not morally problematic. Want to hunt for food? Go ahead.

Farming can be much better than hunting as the farmer makes sure the population replaces itslef to keep life going. The lands health is also in the best interest of the farmer. If a species just hunts without farming an entire species may be removed. Cats in Australia are a great example.

Last time I checked, no other animal on the planet had factory farms or testing laboratories... and no other animal on the planet is destroying the habitats of other animals as human beings are.

Of course. Humans are the dominant species. The dominant species sets the pace for all others. That isnt unique. What is unique is that we are global.

And even if we ignore all that, it still remains true that the fact that we are a party makes a moral difference. We must not mistreat other entities. But we are not absolutely required to ensure that no one else mistreats other entities.

Is testing on animals and causing their death a mistreatment if this saves human lives. Whilst pointless harm to animals should be condemned a lot of animal testing occurs for a very good reason. Humans dont want to be lab rats. Humans are treated as more important than animals and rightly so. It is in the interest of our species to do this. If not the human race would reach the conclusion to remove itself as that would allow the most non human life on Earth.

Again, this doesn't particularly bother me.

We are a predator. The top predator. Our ancestors ate meat to survive. Whilst with a better understanding of the human body people can live without meat there is still a natural part of us to do so.

You seem to have very narrow standards for judging animal welfare--survival and population size.

I don't think this is how we should (or do) conceive of human welfare... and I'm not sure there's any important difference here that justifies the distinction

realizing that the top part was meant for another person I would agree that survival and population size are important in judging a species well being. I would also add genetic diversity and condition. But I see human condition much more important than any animal. In the end it must be homo sapiens looking after homo sapiens because another species is not going to look after us.

Feel free to explain why claiming that we ought not treat animals like resources to be used isn't an appeal to nature at any time now.

Because the bubonic Plague, Mad Cow disease, Avian Flu, Simian Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome and countless others I could name aren't enough of a trade off (not to mention plenty of more direct unpleasantness that goes on, or has)? Don't make it sound like all the death and destruction is flowing one way.

The act of treating animals in a strictly utilitarian way is hardly unique to humans, or do you imagine predators ought to become vegans as well, and that parasites and symbiotes should learn to look after themselves for a change? Humans are different only in that you are a party to our various symbiotic and parasitic predator/prey relationships, rather than an outside observer.

Not to mention that those imprisoned and slaughtered have bought priceless returns for those that live, If we weren't eating them and drinking their milk, cows would have been driven from grazing land centuries ago to make room for farms, they would only exist in zoos if they had even survived to modern day, sheep and deer may have been exterminated even earlier for their highly destructive behavior. Predators once killed to protect animals which humanity has 'exploited' would be allowed to thrive, and who could guess the effect of un-retarded predatation on an herbivore population vying with humanity for fertile land.
No, obviously a vegan, non-animal exploiting humanity is universally beneficial to all those creatures we would otherwise exploit. After all, extinction and endangerment are better than imprisonment and exploitation.

You be surprise how much people believe it's better for them to kill the animals themselves and call it liberation, than to let medical labs and animal shelters exploit them.

As far as the claim of natural goes, consuming yes, farming maybe, industrial farming probably not. We have turn what is natural into an abomination that is degrading our food supplies. Tinkering their genetic makeups, the use of the 120 days tightly packed corn diet to reach marketing weight, and the continuous injection of growth hormones and antibiotics are far from what the word "natural" means. So the claim to evolution or naturalism can only be apply to free ranch animals at best.

We do selectively choose which animals to farm. That is a form of genetic engineering. We also directly choose the genes.

When farming on an industrial scale antibodies are added as the consumer requests meat at a
cheaper price (therefore they can eat more) or a larger amount (again to eat more). For the sake of a profit and to use less land it makes sense to select the parts that make the animal grow faster. As long as the land can support them ill all for it.

It was the ability of the natural human mind that started this as it allows more people to live. It is also questionable wether this has an overall negative or positive impact upon the environment. Unless humans are called unnatural this process it also natural.

Also whilst the lives are shorter it dosnt mean they have a lesser life. If so should we be trying to artificially extend the life of all thoes insects that only live for a week?

It was the ability of the natural human mind that started this as it allows more people to live. It is also questionable wether this has an overall negative or positive impact upon the environment. Unless humans are called unnatural this process it also natural.

We all know the practical use of industrial farming.

But if we run under the assumption that all human actions, as they are constructed by the human mind, are natural, and therefore justified, then you will have to use that same logic to justify each and every human actions that has been taken.

So you are left with 2 choices

1. Claim all human actions, including industrial farm, are natural, thereby effectively eliminate any levels of justification. Unless of course you are also willing to justify Nazi Germany, A Bomb, slavery, child molesters, each and every single rapists and murders, and anything else that might come up.

2. Withdraw the claim that all human actions are natural. Accept the difference between a man made construct versus that of nature. That what is known as industrial farm today is a man made construct run by modern drugs, genetic engineering, and machineries. It is an engineering marvel of modern human creation to maximize production. Of course this will also mean that it is thereby subjected to the many questions of morality due to it's many unnatural properties.

I will respond to the rest of your statement accordingly once you decided which position you want to take.

That's plainly not true. Animals are successfully released from captivity all the time.

Of course, it has to be done knowledgeably, with information about their proper habitats and about their potential effects on the ecosystem... but that's not an argument against animal liberation, but rather for doing it a certain way.

Tbh, I can't really see a chicken surviving nature without human help.

But the issue I raised is whether we have the right to use animals in the first place.

Ants have been known to tame aphids by protecting them for their secretion nectar, and even go as far as to store their eggs during winter to hatch in spring, a full sized rearing cycle. There is an entire array of animals that have a mutual dynamic with one another where each uses the other, and all if it naturally occurs.

To what point, is there in asking the question of rights, if it is a natural occurrence in the ecosystem? Will you be asking if we have a right to breathe next?

To what point, is there in asking the question of rights, if it is a natural occurrence in the ecosystem?

because is does not equal ought?

Tbh, I can't really see a chicken surviving nature without human help.

True. Animals that have been so bred as to be unable to survive in the wild are a more difficult case.

Foodprices regarding animal products are ridiculously - and sometimes artificially - low, and to be able to maintain them animals are kept in appaling conditions. Personally, I've got a massive problem with that, and I think we need laws to prevent people from treating animals in such a way.

The problem is, even if you can get a country's farmers to treat the animals right and let the prices go up because of that, someone, somewhere will be out of your control and take advantage of it.

Ants have been known to tame aphids by protecting them for their secretion nectar, and even go as far as to store their eggs during winter to hatch in spring, a full sized rearing cycle. There is an entire array of animals that have a mutual dynamic with one another where each uses the other, and all if it naturally occurs.

I like and hate ants, they're like little people.

I I respect members of the ALF and ELF for risking themselves for what they believe in without putting other people in danger
Without putting people in danger my arse. More than once have they left bombs under scientists' cars, not to mention that their bullshit has stopped people from carrying out medical reseach which could save lives.

If they really cared, they'd volunteer themselves for medical research, instead of complaining about how bad the scientists are.

But if we run under the assumption that all human actions, as they are constructed by the human mind, are natural, and therefore justified, then you will have to use that same logic to justify each and every human actions that has been taken.

How does "justified" follow from "natural"? Does natural = moral?

Without putting people in danger my arse. More than once have they left bombs under scientists' cars, not to mention that their bullshit has stopped people from carrying out medical reseach which could save lives.

If they really cared, they'd volunteer themselves for medical research, instead of complaining about how bad the scientists are.

Seconded on that.

Animal rights activists are nothing more than terrorists.

The problem is, even if you can get a country's farmers to treat the animals right and let the prices go up because of that, someone, somewhere will be out of your control and take advantage of it.

There always is.
The fact that there is a declaration of human rights which has been signed by nearly all countries on the planet, doesn't mean that every human being is actually guaranteed those rights.
All we can do is making sure that they're not being abused in our respective countries.

I haven't read the whole thread, so someone might have already mentioned this, but animal rights activists at UCSC (my alma mater) made headlines (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_10080054?source=rss) for targeting two researchers for with firebombs Saturday morning. Activists left bombs on a researcher's front porch and in another's car on campus. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

These are the kind of extremists that always pissed me off at Santa Cruz. I have no problem with someone chaining themselves to a tree (I might laugh at them, but whatever), but the use of violence and terrorism in the name of any "cause" is wrong.

For the same reasons saying we shouldn't treat humans like resources to be used isn't.

no, saying we should or shouldn't treat Humanq' as resources has nothing to do with the naturalist fallacy, there are obvious moral implications that have nothing to do with naturalism, whereas extreme animal rights by definition involves placing the 'natural world' above human interests.


Right--the exploitation of animals harms both us and them.

Do you imagine that this is a reason to keep it?

because of course all of these diseases were a direct consequence of humanity exploiting animals... oh wait.
the bubonic plague was caused by rats exploiting humans, whereas Avian Flu may have (may still) decimated the native population of birds without human intervention that would not have come had there not been significant danger of a jump to humans based on the human/poultry relationship.



I think there's a case to be made that predation for survival needs is not morally problematic. Want to hunt for food? Go ahead.

but not farm or test pharmaceuticals? These may be considered just as necessary for survival as hunting. though I suppose if you don't mind treating humans as resources we could test pharmaceuticals on people, and everyone could go ahead and hunt for their meat, though without farms capable of maintaining larger populations than would otherwise exist, I think that might not last long.


Last time I checked, no other animal on the planet had factory farms or testing laboratories... and no other animal on the planet is destroying the habitats of other animals as human beings are.

no other animal may participate in activities you might recognize as factory farming or testing, but that doesn't mean analogues don't exist, the Ant/Aphid relationship has already been brought up, and elsewhere in the animal kingdom birds plant their eggs in other species nest's, killing the original eggs, and countless predators derive useful bacteria from eating certain animals, you are seeing these actions by non-humans as inherently less cruel than when Humans perform similar activities, and that is where you start down the roud of the naturalist fallacy.


And even if we ignore all that, it still remains true that the fact that we are a party makes a moral difference. We must not mistreat other entities. But we are not absolutely required to ensure that no one else mistreats other entities.

Why do we have to ensure that we don't mistreat other species while the other species bear no such relationship to us? or do you think the rats had a moral imperative to prevent spreading the Bubonic plague to us?


There's a case to be made that extinction would be preferable...
There I think is the essential difference between us, I cannot support an extinction as preferable to any of the cruelties that my be caused by responsible utilization of animals, Forced extinction is the ultimate cruelty and can only be justified if it prevents another extinction (namely, ours).


Some of us are concerned for habitat destruction, too.

I never said I wasn't, but our current methods of farming are far less destructive of the environment than methods designed to maximize plant production rather than plant and animal production.


Again, this doesn't particularly bother me.

it should. Especially considering in the situation that follows the excerpt, these predators would be preying on a much reduced population.


You seem to have very narrow standards for judging animal welfare--survival and population size.

At least I consider survival and population size, you seem to be perfectly content with the idea of welfare being a few dozen examples of a species cared for in a zoo while the rest starve and die of diseases humanity has no imperative to cure or prevent.


I don't think this is how we should (or do) conceive of human welfare... and I'm not sure there's any important difference here that justifies the distinction.
We are human, They are not, that is the essential difference. Except for their usefulness, we have no imperative to care for them in any way, and I don't think you quite realize how bad things would be for the animal kingdom if we stuck to eating plants and being indifferent to animals.

because is does not equal ought?

And what is ought then? Isn't even more arrogant to divorce one's self from the very thing that keeps you alive? All life, without exception, is dependent on death or harvested life, even so called vegans.

Giving up your democratic right to vote, thus ensuring you have even less say in your government. How enlightened.I'm great with him giving up the right to vote. And hope more of his ilk would follow suit.

Seconded on that.

Animal rights activists are nothing more than terrorists.
No, that's a very sweeping statement. There are peaceful animal rights activists as well, and whilst I somewhat disagree with them regarding medical trials etc., the fact that they don't go around digging up peoples' family graves, or sticking bombs under peoples' cars means that I see them in a better light than the ALF et al.

How does "justified" follow from "natural"? Does natural = moral?

Did you even read the rest of my post or did you just completely miss the fact that I am criticizing someone for using natural as a basis to construct industrial farm? I thought it was pretty obvious that I was explain how you "can't" use natural to justify human actions.

Tbh, I can't really see a chicken surviving nature without human help.It depends on the type of chicken. There are populations of chickens that escaped into the the wild and do quite alright. I wouldn't expect much of a modern meat-chicken though, the type that grows so fast it can barely stand a few weeks after it's born.

Tbh, I can't really see a chicken surviving nature without human help.

They seem to be doing quite well in Southern Asia (http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Gallus_gallus.html)...

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

He made us out of meat also. Do you really want to pursue that road?

I Agree with Kat's assessment for the most part, except for the eating meat bit. Vegetarian.

No, that's a very sweeping statement. There are peaceful animal rights activists as well, and whilst I somewhat disagree with them regarding medical trials etc., the fact that they don't go around digging up peoples' family graves, or sticking bombs under peoples' cars means that I see them in a better light than the ALF et al.

Not really. I consider anyone who does so little as to chain themselves to a tree a terrorist. Sure he isn't hurting anyone, but he stands in the way of progress.


I probably wouldn't generalize so much if there weren't dumb shits who blow up hospitals because they have lab rats laying around.

Not really. I consider anyone who does so little as to chain themselves to a tree a terrorist. Sure he isn't hurting anyone, but he stands in the way of progress.So what; is anyone terrified of him? No. He doesn't strike terror in the hearts of people, nor tries, hence he's no terrorist.
And who's to say removing all trees from the face of the planet is progress? Maybe the reverse is progress. Such arbitrary nonsense. What's so great about progress anyway? Aging and dying is "progress"; most people don't seem to fond of that.

We're designed to eat meat as well as other things, it's good for us, we should eat meat.

We're designed to eat meat as well as other things, it's good for us, we should eat meat.But not too much.

But not too much.

But then we shouldn't eat too much of anything.

But not too much.

That's like everything though, you can't have too much of anything.

For example. (http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/01/14/woman-dies-from-drinking-too-much-water.htm)

That's like everything though, you can't have too much of anything.

For example. (http://chemistry.about.com/b/2007/01/14/woman-dies-from-drinking-too-much-water.htm)

You can have too much of something, your own quote proves that.

Yes, I suppose that statement was a bit underspecified. But we don't need to eat nearly as much of it as we do on average.

You can have too much of something, your own quote proves that.

I meant you can't have too much of anything before it gets bad for you.

The whole concept of 'animal rights' is based upon the presumption that since animals are living things, they can suffer, correct?

What about plants? Plants are alive. Hell, you can fucking strangle any plant with leaves to death (Paint every leaf on a tree with a coat of paint and eventually, it will die from asphyxia and/or lack of food). Who says plants don't suffer? How do you know the lettuce your eating didn't feel pain when being uprooted? Are you going to stop eating plants too?

What about mushrooms? Same goes for them too. How do you know they don't feel pain when cut, or when being chewed?

What about all the bacteria (which are indeed, alive) you ingest that are on your veggie-pizza? Or hows about every time you inhale? They die, thanks to you.

So...why don't we stop eating on the possibility these things feel pain/suffering?

Did you even read the rest of my post or did you just completely miss the fact that I am criticizing someone for using natural as a basis to construct industrial farm? I thought it was pretty obvious that I was explain how you "can't" use natural to justify human actions.

The person you were responding to pointed out that human actions are natural. They didn't, however, use "natural" as an equivalent to "moral." Your post did and suggested that, in order to determine morality, we have to declare human actions to be unnatural.

You created the dichotomy. I'm just wondering why.


So what; is anyone terrified of him? No. He doesn't strike terror in the hearts of people, nor tries, hence he's no terrorist.

I don't know about that. People might be terrified that the treesitters at Berkeley are going to throw feces at them....

Seriously, though, I don't consider people like that terrorists. =)

The whole concept of 'animal rights' is based upon the presumption that since animals are living things, they can suffer, correct?

What about plants? Plants are alive. Hell, you can fucking strangle any plant with leaves to death (Paint every leaf on a tree with a coat of paint and eventually, it will die from asphyxia and/or lack of food). Who says plants don't suffer? How do you know the lettuce your eating didn't feel pain when being uprooted? Are you going to stop eating plants too?

What about mushrooms? Same goes for them too. How do you know they don't feel pain when cut, or when being chewed?

What about all the bacteria (which are indeed, alive) you ingest that are on your veggie-pizza? Or hows about every time you inhale? They die, thanks to you.

So...why don't we stop eating on the possibility these things feel pain/suffering?

Have you considered Jainism?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jainism.htm

Especially read the part about Ahimsa.

The whole concept of 'animal rights' is based upon the presumption that since animals are living things, they can suffer, correct?

What about plants? Plants are alive. Hell, you can fucking strangle any plant with leaves to death (Paint every leaf on a tree with a coat of paint and eventually, it will die from asphyxia and/or lack of food). Who says plants don't suffer? How do you know the lettuce your eating didn't feel pain when being uprooted? Are you going to stop eating plants too?

What about mushrooms? Same goes for them too. How do you know they don't feel pain when cut, or when being chewed?

What about all the bacteria (which are indeed, alive) you ingest that are on your veggie-pizza? Or hows about every time you inhale? They die, thanks to you.

So...why don't we stop eating on the possibility these things feel pain/suffering?

Because the concept of suffering as we understand it is predicated on the presence of a nervous system.

The person you were responding to pointed out that human actions are natural. They didn't, however, use "natural" as an equivalent to "moral." Your post did and suggested that, in order to determine morality, we have to declare human actions to be unnatural.

You created the dichotomy. I'm just wondering why.

Actually You created it.

Because he said human action are natural, which in itself means nothing. I said IF natural = moral, then you have to use it to justify every other human action. Since most of us would agree that not every human action is morally justifiable, rather or not human action is natural have no meaning and is independent to morality. It is a proof that natural = moral must be false.

I don't think I can explain it anymore clear than that.

I said IF natural = moral, then you have to use it to justify every other human action.

In other words, you brought up such a dichotomy.

I'm just wondering why anyone would make that assumption.

(Note: I did read your post at first as suggesting that you personally made that assumption. I see now that it wasn't saying that, so I do apologize for that).