Animal Cruelty *Disturbing Images*

[Ananda]

Up front, I think it is important to say that we are all hypocrites and no one who lives is free of killing to live. Also, I am just presenting some questions to create discussion, not making a case since not all of this is maybe black and white. My hope is that we can discuss the nuance of it rather than just take YES/NO positions.

Animal cruelty is one of the things that we become very upset over if we see someone harming a puppy or a kitten. I doubt any one here would not speak up if we saw a puppy or kitten being tortured. However, when it is out of sight or has some application for us, we tend to just pretend it doesn't happen.

Animals for food and clothing
I'm going to put some disturbing images in here. I was going to put them in spoiler tags, but then that's our regular mode, isn't it? Hide uncomfortable things. [Edit to say that I am pouting spoiler tags for Lorin because the images bothered her too much and she wants to discuss this. Well, spoiler tags don't work...]

Spoiler

Videos:
really hard to watch these
Pigs tortured for life. baby pigs mutilated with no pain killers. Sickening and common, not the exception https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GOYfPl6meU
baby chickens being roughly handled, males thrown away alive and dropped into a grinder ALIVE, females mutilated, tossed around and treated horribly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to
Cows being shoved by forklifts, screaming in pain and then fed to kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4
Life of a meat chicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpbtBgLfl90
Halal slaughter (and kosher, too, I guess) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQJ-FZo1cA

ugh, I was going to get more, but it was making me sick to look at them.

Some animals are treated humanely and lead a good enough life before they are killed humanely. But, many animals are high capacity industrial farmed. It is not common practice as much here as other places like the us, germany and many other places. Many of the animals on our plates had horrible, tortured lives. And, some, even if they lived free, were slaughtered horribly for religious reasons.

Antibiotics are used massively in animals in many places. It is banned here in sweden since 1986, but places like the us it is said that 80% of antibiotics made are used on livestock. Most of that goes into growth feed. These animals are living in such poor conditions that they would die too soon without it. And, that antibiotics is in their system. Which means people eating them are taking does of antibiotics. This has obvious negative affects such as raising resistances to the use not only in ourselves, but in the things the drug is meant to combat.

Religious slaughter practices include Halal and Kosher. Both practices need the animal to NOT be stunned prior to death and to have the throat slit and then to just sort of bleed to death. Since parts of animals go to different places, a lot of animals are killed this way even if the majority of the meat is not used as kosher because other parts are. So, your burger was possibly killed this way despite you never hearing this was a halal or kosher meat source.

Take a look at the videos and you will see that the torture is not the exception case (though some is). Common industry practice is absolutely vicious.

Why don't we ask questions about the way animals are treated for our tables?
Are we willing to pay more for meat and maybe eat a little less of it to stop the extreme torture and cruelty?
Are we responsible for the way these animals are treated because we buy the products and don't want to pay more?
Do we have any moral obligation to other animals to give them a cruelty free life before we eat them?

I am not advocating for veganism or vegetarianism here. Animals can be raised for food in a healthy, non-cruel environment at large scale. Hopefully in the near future, we will have lab grown meats, too. Completely cruelty free meat where no animal was harmed.


Medical Testing

Spoiler

and so on

I don't stop and ask about the medicine I get; if it has been tested on other animals and if so, how was it done. I guess I am not alone in this. And, the argument can maybe be made of the benefits for doing these things. But, what is the price to these poor creatures? Is it worth it? I know, the question to ask me is 'would you care if the medicine would save your child?' The answer is, I don't know. I doubt it. I think I would say to just give my child the medicine. But, this is the same principle for why we don't allow victims of crimes to sentence the punishment: because we are too emotionally engaged.

Is there a line here on animal testing for medical?
Is torturing these animals okay if we cure ebola, cancer, aids?
Is torture okay if we want to make a new type of penis erection pill?
Is torture okay to make a new product for helping cold symptoms?
is torture okay if someone wants to study how a baby monkey reacts to a wire mother and so on?


Animal testing for cosmetic products

Spoiler

I know makeup, lotions, soaps, and so can all be created without animal testing since I do check the labels for this stuff for the most. I also know I don't want to lose vision in my eye because some mascara was toxic.

This is strictly a vanity industry. Is it okay to torture animals for vanity products like makeup, lotions, soaps and so?


Overall
Like I said, maybe some of this is not so clear (such as the medical thing if your child needs the medicine or we found cure for cancer), but there has to be limits we are all willing to tolerate. This is hidden in the shadows, though it is all around us in the foods we eat, the leather we wear, the products we buy. We keep it out of mind because it is kept mostly out of sight.

We have some strongly religious people here and I am curious on their take: would the Jesus do this stuff? Not, in abstract, but would the Jesus do all these steps personally?

As I mentioned once already, it really made me sick looking for material for this. But, I participate in this in some ways! How does it make you guys feel?

[SoulBiter]

Its cruel no matter how you look at it.... but sometimes its necessary.

I also dislike the conditions of farm animals raised in a corporate farm. There is no reason to do that except to generate profits at the expense of cruel treatment of animals. I do try to buy meat products where the animals are raised in a much more humane manner. After seeing these I will make more of an effort.

[Avatar]

I go free range myself for what that's worth. I'm not likely to stop eating meat, but I do think awareness is critical. I know a frightening number of people who like to pretend to themselves that their lamb chops grow that way, shrink-wrapped in a Styrofoam tray.

Acknowledge where your food comes from.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'm going to put some disturbing images in here. I was going to put them in spoiler tags, but then that's our regular mode, isn't it? Hide uncomfortable things.

I have no problem with this. This is the Tank and we are adults here. Adults do not shield themselves from reality, even if that reality is gritty, dirty, violent, and/or bloody.

Why don't we ask questions about the way animals are treated for our tables?
Are we willing to pay more for meat and maybe eat a little less of it to stop the extreme torture and cruelty?
Are we responsible for the way these animals are treated because we buy the products and don't want to pay more?
Do we have any moral obligation to other animals to give them a cruelty free life before we eat them?

Most people don't ask questions because they don't want to know. Some people, like the one ridiculous poster I saw on Failbook once, delude themselves--the post read "why do people kill animals for meat? they should go to the grocery store to buy their meat because no animals were killed for meat there". Other people, like me, already know the bloody truth of how this ground beef got onto my table.

We typically pay a little more for chicken or eggs, but "free range" chicken has a better taste and seems...heartier...than regular chicken. Also, the eggs have a thicker shell, indicating a healthier chicken.

We are only tangentially responsible. The primary responsibility belongs squarely on the shoulders of Big Ag, who don't mind the conditions in which they keep their animals as long monthly profit goals are met. In fact, if they could get away with it they would be happy to sell us all USDA Grade B meat (which is still classified as "for human consumption" but no one wants to buy Grade B meat at the store) because then they could relax their standards a little and squeeze out more profit. Strangely enough, the conditions in which they keep the animals leads to reduced profit in the long run--the animals are more sickly and more prone to disease, not to mention what happens if a facility fails a USDA or FDA inspection.

We don't have a moral obligation to give animals a cruelty-free life but only someone who is insane would willingly mistreat an animal even if the animal is destined for the dinner table. Unfortunately, our digestive system is designed in such a way that we cannot receive all our protein needs via plant material only in my non-medical opinion; I am not going to start a "carnivore versus herbivore" flame war here.
Yes, animals have feelings but they don't worry about things like "what if the farmer comes to kill me today?" because animals already have attained a state of Zen enlightenment in which they exist only in the here and now--they don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow; only we humans engage in such nonsense.

The other thing to consider, especially with cows, are all the hormones the animals are given. Leibeschoen has an intolerance to lactose and so she has never had cow milk in more than miniscule quantity here and there. This led directly to her attaining menarchy later than all her friends who have been drinking cow milk for their entire lives.

[Avatar]

It's possible. Hindu's have been doing it for 4,000 years. We couldn't have gotten to the point where we could without it, but as soon as we had established agriculture, it became possible.

I just like eating meat enough that my awareness of where it comes from isn't enough to put me off.

--A

[finn]

To get a view of "meat" farming, you have to look at the definitions (minimums) that define things such as free range and the other terms used to mostly imply that the animals are somehow being reared naturally.

I did a bit of summer work years ago at a free range farm for chickens; the chickens had no feathers, and were housed in a warehouse like structure that was only about 3-4 ft tall and had a roof that could be raised like a lid for feeding and removal of dead birds. The definitions said something like (don't hold me to it, as it was a while ago): the chickens had to be able to run free for at least a couple of hours a day and had to have some natural light. This meant letting them out of the warehouse like coop into a small yard each day for two hours to meet the criteria. Despite the healthy sounding name, they were still grown to "maturity" in a matter of weeks using whatever hormones, growth compounds, steroids and other crap they needed to get size quickly, but stay within the regulations.

Pigs are a similar story, in fact Ananda there is an episode of Borgen (Series 3) that focuses on this as its theme.

The food industry gets free rein to effectively poison the populace of most western countries. They fight tooth and nail (reminiscent of tobacco) to prevent the contents of food being known. Labelling is done in a font size which would usually needs a microscope to see and it is as vague as can be. In Australia we tried to get a simple Red/Amber/Green system up for Salt, Fat and Sugar.....simple??? Not on your life! But we know, if we have 20/10 vision or a handy magnifying glass, that there are 23mgs of E123 per serve(?) ....................... not in the box we are holding, but per serve or per 100 grams or some other equally irrelevant measure. What we WANT to know is the level of fat, sugar and salt. For example, if its fat free great; but is that at the expense of it being in the red zone for sugar?

With many western countries finding that obesity is out of control and more hazardous overall than smoking, you'd think that a RAG report on the three key items in food would be a must. If anyone ever wanted to examine a reason to ban lobbyists and reform the nature of contributions, this would be it! Sugar (in Australia) and Corn (syrup, ethanol, etc) are major contributors to poor diet, yet they are laced into everything. Meat producers, unsustainable fishing practices, the very existence of Trans-Fat, are just a few of a long, long list of black marks against the food production industry.

Frankly for many of theses animals, death is the highlight of their sad existence.

[Avatar]

Agreed about the "free range," which is why I said for what it was worth.

My girlfriend is a vegetarian, and has been for...I dunno...20 years, so it's an issue we often discuss. It has occurred to me that if not for farming, those animals wouldn't be alive in the first place.

Of course, maybe that would be better all round as Finn suggests.

If it's any consolation, I expect the vast majority of humanity to be vegetarian within the next 100 years or so. It's just not cost-effective to consume meat on such a scale.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Micro-farming was making a comeback here in recent years. People in urban areas raising one goat, or one sheep, or a handful of chickens, while also growing vegetables in their back yard. Even if you don't live there, if you can buy an acre of undeveloped land outside a city then you have more than enough space in which to produce enough food to sustain yourself, counting both plant and animal.

Big Ag has had many problems in recent years and people are turning against their procedures given how they treat animals most of the time. Even old-fashioned/old-school farms weren't as brutal as that.

[Ananda]

This is a great short video. It is a woman who is a professional marketer telling people what the truth is with animals and how they spin it an market it. Her main ingredient for making it work, she writes, is 'you'. This is a talk, so not terrible to look at.
www.upworthy.com/no-one-applauds-this-w ... &c=reccon1

[SoulBiter]

IF you look hard enough, you can find actual humane farm raised meat and poultry.

I have some family that goes directly to the farm that raises their cows. The cows live in a pasture. There is no other place for them to be on the farm. Once the cow is picked out, they butcher it that day and if you have the stomach for it, you can watch. You can also buy chickens there and eggs. There are no chickens 'cooped' (LOL) up... they truly are free range. There is a coop, but they choose to go in there for the night to be safe. During the day, they just roam around.

I have a garden in my back yard and a community garden that I grow veggies in. I have a compost pile where I can make my own fertilizer. I can always have a load of manure dropped off. I 'can' my own beans, collards, corn, tomatoes, etc. I blanche and freeze some items. I grow potatoes (sweet and red) and store them. They keep pretty well, along with winter squash.

People can do more, they have to choose to do the work it takes to make that happen. I can tell you, if you dont like working outside, farming and gardening is not for you.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I have a garden in my back yard and a community garden that I grow veggies in. I have a compost pile where I can make my own fertilizer. I can always have a load of manure dropped off. I 'can' my own beans, collards, corn, tomatoes, etc. I blanche and freeze some items. I grow potatoes (sweet and red) and store them. They keep pretty well, along with winter squash.

I cannot iterate strongly enough how much we want to get out of the apartment and into a house with a decent-sized back yard so we can do some of these very things.

[paulcoz]

We don't have a moral obligation to give animals a cruelty-free life ... but only someone who is insane would willingly mistreat an animal even if the animal is destined for the dinner table.

Why don't we have a moral obligation to give non-human animals a cruelty-free life?

Do we have a moral obligation to give human animals a cruelty-free life? If so, why?

Why would a person who mistreated an animal (human or non-human) be insane?

Unfortunately, our digestive system is designed in such a way that we cannot receive all our protein needs via plant material only in my non-medical opinion; I am not going to start a "carnivore versus herbivore" flame war here.

LOL @ non-medical opinion. Says who? I have been vegetarian for 14 years. I personally know of people who have been vegetarian since birth. There are plenty of video testimonies on Youtube and elsewhere, posted by people who contradict this assertion. Unfortunately for your argument, we are still alive! Most of those who claim that we NEED to exploit animals are those who either profit or gain pleasure from doing so.

Where do (animal) herbivores get their protein?

Yes, animals have feelings but they don't worry about things like "what if the farmer comes to kill me today?" because animals already have attained a state of Zen enlightenment in which they exist only in the here and now--they don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow; only we humans engage in such nonsense.

According to this argument - infants, those born with severe irreparable brain damage, some mental defectives and the senile have also attained a Zen state of enlightenment, in which they exist only in the here and now. They don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow. Therefore, killing them with a captive bolt gun before slitting their throat is a non-issue (?). They are unaware that you intend to kill them today or tomorrow. 'Don't know what's coming to them' = FAIR GAME. Yes?

[sgt.null]

paulcoz - do assign an animal the same significance as a human? I believe in treating animals as humanely as possible. but we are at the top of the food chain.

[paulcoz]

"paulcoz - do assign an animal the same significance as a human?"

sgt.null, I believe in treating like cases alike. I am against prejudice and inconsistently applied arguments.

I simply observed that someone's stated reason for giving less consideration to the welfare of animals, logically implies that we should give less consideration to the welfare of some humans. The specific feature he cited ('animals don't know what is coming to them') is not unique to animals. Human infants do not know if someone intends to kill them. Nor do the senile. So, their killing is less wrong? I am only considering the implications of the argument in more than one case.

There may be other SOUND reasons for treating humans and animals differently. All I am saying is that the one cited doesn't account for someone's beliefs. If they do believe in human rights, that is.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Why don't we have a moral obligation to give non-human animals a cruelty-free life?

The care of wild animals is not our concern and wild animals can be awfully cruel to one another. Animals which we raise for food are our concern and if you are raising an animal with the express goal of slaughtering it to consume at some point in the future it is illogical and irrational to abuse that animal.

Do we have a moral obligation to give human animals a cruelty-free life? If so, why?

Many people do have a self-imposed moral obligation against being cruel to other humans. On top of that, every nations has laws against cruelty committed against other people as well as cruelty against animals. Of course, those laws do not stop cruelty; rather, they only define the punishments for being caught after having committed the cruelty in the first place.

Why would a person who mistreated an animal (human or non-human) be insane?

Simple--being cruel to other living beings is not "normal". Psychiatrists have varying classifications of this mental disorder based on the severity and type.

LOL @ non-medical opinion. Says who? I have been vegetarian for 14 years. I personally know of people who have been vegetarian since birth. There are plenty of video testimonies on Youtube and elsewhere, posted by people who contradict this assertion. Unfortunately for your argument, we are still alive! Most of those who claim that we NEED to exploit animals are those who either profit or gain pleasure from doing so.

lol at anecdotal evidence which is equally non-medical in nature.

Where do (animal) herbivores get their protein?

From the food they ingest.

According to this argument - infants, those born with severe irreparable brain damage, some mental defectives and the senile have also attained a Zen state of enlightenment, in which they exist only in the here and now. They don't worry about yesterday or tomorrow. Therefore, killing them with a captive bolt gun before slitting their throat is a non-issue (?). They are unaware that you intend to kill them today or tomorrow. 'Don't know what's coming to them' = FAIR GAME. Yes?

See above about moral and/or legal obligations against ending the lives of other human beings, whether they can acknowledge their fate or not.

For future reference, if you are going to quote me then quote me. I don't hide from my own words.

Although humans are animals (given that we are neither plant nor mineral), animals are not humans and thus we treat them differently. Begin vegetarian or vegan (of any variety) is a choice just like being a carnivore is a choice. If those who are not carnivores want carnivores to respect their choice of food then non-carnivores must reciprocate and respect the choice of food that carnivores make.

Now....please feel free to jump in on the other threads, as well. We want all viewpoints here--the more the merrier.

[Avatar]

It is perfectly possible (these days) to obtain all the protein (and most other dietary requirements) from plant matter and animal products that do not require slaughter. It does require some intelligent combining of different things in order to "fix" certain nutrients to benefit from them, but it is possible.

The Hindu's have been vegetarian for 4,000 odd years. (From birth is a different story, but only insofar as it would certainly require breast-feeding at first, so not vegan anyway. )

That said, it has only been possible since the advent of sustained agriculture. It may be possible to be entirely vegetarian today, but only because our distant (and pre-historic) ancestors weren't.

If our little proto-hominid hadn't been an omnivorous and opportunistic scavenger, and his descendants hadn't been hunters willing to fight and kill for every scrap of fat, well, we wouldn't have the luxury of being able to be vegetarian today.

We don't "need" to exploit animals for food, (well, you and I don't, there are still plenty of subsistence communities who do) but I just love meat, so...

--A

[paulcoz]

Hashi,

I'm not expecting any kind of agreement between us on this issue.

My ethics are guided by the consistent application of principles to those who can intelligibly be regarded as individuals: those who have a subjective EXPERIENTIAL life which can fare better or worse for them. Those who can conceivably be regarded as 'somebodies', distinct from mere objects.

When we take actions detrimental to the welfare of these individuals without adequate justification, we wrong them. If this were not the baseline for moral significance, we could not rationally accord rights to ALL human beings regardless of their intelligence, moral capacity, ability to communicate, ability to be self-directing, sensitivity to pain and the like. I reject any prejudice which favours one group - racism, sexism and inevitably species-ism.

Judging by your comments, your ethics are guided by adherence to societal norms (?). This means accepting intuitions and consequences, regardless of their rationality.

The care of wild animals is not our concern

Care of? I agree.

and wild animals can be awfully cruel to one another.

They can. Human beings can also be awfully cruel to one another. I'm not sure how this relates to our determining the basis of any obligations we have to others?. Lion (carnivore) preys on wildebeest. Cow (herbivore) does not. Murderer takes the life of a young child. Other human does not. Are you suggesting that we should highlight examples of behaviour in others only when that supports our preferred lifestyle? If someone wants to justify the abuse of innocent children, they can simply point to the actions of child molesters and murderers and note that 'humans prey on humans'? Blame the innocent for the actions of predators?

That's about as sensible as this argument gets.

Animals which we raise for food are our concern and if you are raising an animal with the express goal of slaughtering it to consume at some point in the future it is illogical and irrational to abuse that animal.

Likewise, people whom we want to keep as labour (or sexual) slaves are our concern and if we are raising a human being with the express goal of exploiting or slaughtering 'it' in order to profit in the future, it is illogical to abuse that human. It may be reprehensible (and ethically indefensible) to view another individual as our own property and plaything, but it's not illogical given assumptions of self-interest...

Many people do have a self-imposed moral obligation against being cruel to other humans. On top of that, every nations has laws against cruelty committed against other people as well as cruelty against animals. Of course, those laws do not stop cruelty; rather, they only define the punishments for being caught after having committed the cruelty in the first place.

Many people once thought that human slavery was justifiable. Did that make it so? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. It is only in recent times that (western) leaders have started to claim that the winners of elections in foreign countries must respect the rights of individuals in order to obtain legitimacy. In reality, the application of this principle is applied cynically and selectively in accordance with self-interest.

With regards to cruelty - a person who kills a human in accordance with the practices applied to the humane (eg. NOT cruel) slaughter of animals commits no crime? If this is false equivalency, why? Animal advocates do not dismiss the differences between human and non-human animals, only differential treatment given like qualities.

Simple--being cruel to other living beings is not "normal". Psychiatrists have varying classifications of this mental disorder based on the severity and type.

Cats play with mice. This is normal. Devil's advocate - Why are humans held to higher standards?

lol at anecdotal evidence which is equally non-medical in nature.

LOL @ non-medical in nature. It's obvious to me that if vegetarians and vegans live to the same age or more as carnivores, then their protein uptake is adequate, else this has little to do with a person's overall health and longevity. If they could not obtain protein from plants rather than animals (as you claim), the people who don't eat animal products would be dead! If some carnivores endure cancer, is this indisputably the result of their diet? I don't think so.

Where do (animal) herbivores get their protein?

From the food they ingest.

Exactly. So any claim that humans can't obtain protein directly from non-animal (plant) sources is bogus.

See above about moral and/or legal obligations against ending the lives of other human beings, whether they can acknowledge their fate or not.

That doesn't answer my question. You sought to justify the killing of animals by saying that they are unaware of the intention to kill them and will suffer less (mental anguish?) before their death. The same argument can be applied to some humans. I'm not challenging your conclusion per se (humans are more deserving). I'm challenging your stated reason for reaching that conclusion. This is the fallacy of many of the 'reasons' for condoning the exploitation and abuse of animals: they can apply equally to humans. They undermine human rights.

"For future reference, if you are going to quote me then quote me. I don't hide from my own words."

Ok. I have quoted people in the past and sometimes found that they view such quotation and opposition as personal attacks.

Although humans are animals (given that we are neither plant nor mineral), animals are not humans and thus we treat them differently.

Most humans may in fact treat them differently. But, WHY? We are not the same in all respects, but neither are many people. On what grounds do people treat animals differently. In the absence of a reason which is unique to one group or the other, there is no justification!

Begin vegetarian or vegan (of any variety) is a choice just like being a carnivore is a choice. If those who are not carnivores want carnivores to respect their choice of food then non-carnivores must reciprocate and respect the choice of food that carnivores make.

Is being a racist or paedophile a choice like being a carnivore? If so, stop acting like people whose prejudice or actions IMPACT ON OTHERS are doing anything wrong.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'm not expecting any kind of agreement between us on this issue.

Not a problem--the Tank is not about reaching consensus or agreement on an issue; rather, it is about giving voice to all sides of an issue (as long as there are enough people talking about it).

Judging by your comments, your ethics are guided by adherence to societal norms (?). This means accepting intuitions and consequences, regardless of their rationality.

Not by any means. Societal norms are to be questioned, especially if they are irrational. Not necessarily set aside--some societal norms are a good thing--but definitely questioned.

This is the fallacy of many of the 'reasons' for condoning the exploitation and abuse of animals: they can apply equally to humans. They reject human rights.

Should animals receive the benefit of other human rights? Shouldn't they have the right to vote and get married to whomever they please? No, of course not because things we call "human rights" are the things which most rational people would classify as "the minimum standards of behavior towards one another so that we are not harming one another without remorse". That is a clumsy way to phrase it, I admit, but it gets the point across. Until animals can enjoy art, music, or a good joke like we humans do they will never be equal to us and thus our rights trump theirs.

Ok. I have quoted people in the past and sometimes found that they view such quotation and opposition as personal attacks.

That won't happen here. Yes, those are empty words on a screen but feel free to browse through the threads here and look for yourself. Caveat: the farther back in time you go the less true that becomes; there was a time in the past when, apparently, things got quite ugly from time to time. Things are different now.

Is being a racist or paedophile a choice like being a carnivore? If so, stop acting like people whose prejudice or actions IMPACT ON OTHERS are doing anything wrong.

Racist? Yes, it is a choice. Pedophile (darned Americanized spelling differences) is sometimes a choice and sometimes a classifiable mental disorder for which there typically is no cure, only a lifetime of therapy and having someone keep an eye on you. Being a carnivore does not directly negatively impact anyone else so there isn't anything wrong with it.

I'm just glad the topic didn't die--a lot of people feel really strongly about this issue. Paul and Linda McCartney wouldn't guest star on The Simpsons unless Lisa became vegan; that was years ago and Matt Groening honors that choice to this day even though Linda died years ago.

[paulcoz]

Should animals receive the benefit of other human rights? Shouldn't they have the right to vote and get married to whomever they please? No, of course not because things we call "human rights" are the things which most rational people would classify as "the minimum standards of behavior towards one another so that we are not harming one another without remorse". That is a clumsy way to phrase it, I admit, but it gets the point across.

No, animals should not have the right to vote or get married. These are not matters which concern them. In the case of voting, if they had this right would they take advantage of it? I doubt it. Would having this right change their life for the better? No. Now some questions for you:

Should people who are so brain damaged (or otherwise mentally affected) that they are incapable of making sense of the world around them, yet alone understanding political issues or actually engaging in the act of voting, have the right to vote? Wouldn't this be as pointless as giving a pig the right to vote? Should men have the right to an abortion, if we grant this right to women? Wouldn't that be pointless, given that men do not have a womb? Would we be sexists for not giving the latter right to men? Please read...

Peter Singer, Australian philosopher:

Recognizing... [that there are differences between the members of various groups]... is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to... [all of them].

The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should do so will depend on the nature of the members of the two groups. The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.

Unlike the rights to voting and getting married, animals like humans have a 'stake' if you like (a direct interest) in being given the right to not be regarded and treated like someone else's property. They have the same 'stake' (direct interest) in being given the same prima facie right to life, that we accord mostly without exception to humans. This would make their life fare better than the life they live not having this right.

Without the right to life, any other rights we might have are meaningless. Are these not therefore "the minimum standards of behaviour" that we owe to those who can conceivably be regarded as 'others'? Somebodies.

Until animals can enjoy art, music, or a good joke like we humans do they will never be equal to us and thus our rights trump theirs.

There are some humans who cannot enjoy art, music, or a good joke. Are they also not equal to those who can? Do the rights of people who can appreciate these things, trump theirs? If you are sincere about the application of this principle, you apply it equally to ALL individuals who either do or don't fulfil the criteria.

Otherwise you appear inconsistent, angling for a pre-decided (and favoured) outcome.

That won't happen here. Yes, those are empty words on a screen but feel free to browse through the threads here and look for yourself. Caveat: the farther back in time you go the less true that becomes; there was a time in the past when, apparently, things got quite ugly from time to time. Things are different now.

Glad to hear it.

Racist? Yes, it is a choice. Pedophile (darned Americanized spelling differences) is sometimes a choice and sometimes a classifiable mental disorder for which there typically is no cure, only a lifetime of therapy and having someone keep an eye on you.

When I ask if paedophilia is simply a CHOICE, I of course mean a lifestyle choice that should be condoned and tolerated in our society? In the way that we tolerate the pursuance of hobbies and the like?

The point I was trying to make is that engaging in prejudice of any kind (and applying principles inconsistently) does take away one's moral authority to object when someone else indulges a prejudice in order to justify something you disappove of. You can't complain about having to live by rules that you validate through your own actions.

Being a carnivore does not directly negatively impact anyone else so there isn't anything wrong with it.

This is simply NOT true. Animals are negatively impacted in that their experiential lives would fare better if carnivores chose otherwise. The same applies to people who are exploited.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I will never equate animals with humans. People > animals and I can't make it any more plain than that.

Sure, people in a coma are less responsive than any animal but we still recognize those people as humans and only the family members get to decide when it is time to let go of their loved one, presuming any DNRs or physician directives are not in place. My wife and I have one--if I wind up in a coma she knows to pull the plug and/or terminate me right away.

Men already have the right to receive an abortion. The fact that they may not need to due to physical inability to be carrying a fetus is irrelevant.

The people who cannot enjoy art, music, or a good joke are either brain-dead, suffer from a dissociative disorder or more severe cases of autism, or just don't know how to have a good time and relax. All of these people are still human beings--we can clearly identify them as human by looking at them and their parents were human beings--and thus enjoy equal rights as anyone else.

I am definitely consistent: people > animals, as I state above. Yes, that is my chosen outcome and I support it

Why are you bringing people who are exploited into the discussion? We are discussing cruelty to animals and its relation to food choice, not things like human trafficking (which had its own thread at one time). The only way those two could be linked would be for animals to be equal to humans. Is that the position you are espousing?