Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why are no tears shed for the mice and voles of the world? You kill a hell of a lot of those guys when you plow a field.

It is thusly possible to kill less animals in the process of getting a pound of beef than a pound of wheat (though not if the cows were grain fed, of course!). This only really matters you care about all animals equally, of course, which would get quite silly once you got down to insects and roundworms.

@Albatross: I agree. You can't draw the human soul. However, human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith, all point to something supernatural, beyond the physically explainable human person. Animals do not have this.

@Wrexasaur: Nope, I don't have a problem with hunting. Recreation is a part of life too. People who torture squirrels, have pets and abuse them, etc: this is what I'm talking about. Not that I see a lot of them, but they do exist.

@wvlop: precisely. A perfect example of environmentally friendly, ethical, moral, use of natural resources.

@Manchu: What I said to Albatross.

Given that meat is murder, at least I can devour the (oh so tasty) evidence with some confidence.


That said: Good for you Albatross. Pay attention to your protein intake, watch your vitamins, and talk with your doctor or nutritionist.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why are no tears shed for the mice and voles of the world? You kill a hell of a lot of those guys when you plow a field.

It is thusly possible to kill less animals in the process of getting a pound of beef than a pound of wheat (though not if the cows were grain fed, of course!). This only really matters you care about all animals equally, of course, which would get quite silly once you got down to insects and roundworms.

There is a major difference between killing things as a side effect

vs openly raising animals to be locked up in small areas their whole life till their final moment of death.

Manchu wrote:Look in the mirror. In Catholic tradition, there is no separating soul from body. The sense in which they are distinct is purely academic--like claiming that Heisenbergian precision means that a particle does not in fact have both momentum and position just because both cannot be precisely known simultaneously.

My point was that I don't believe that Human beings have souls. Ideology again.

Nightwatch wrote:@Albatross: I agree. You can't draw the human soul. However, human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith, all point to something supernatural, beyond the physically explainable human person. Animals do not have this.

You are saying that there is some kind of supernatural component to a human being. I agree. But I do not see how the absence of the ability to reason abstractly implies that there is no similar component to other forms of life.

If thats true , then lets have your dog and cat for dinner ,
still a good idea?

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:Look in the mirror. In Catholic tradition, there is no separating soul from body. The sense in which they are distinct is purely academic--like claiming that Heisenbergian precision means that a particle does not in fact have both momentum and position just because both cannot be precisely known simultaneously.

My point was that I don't believe that Human beings have souls. Ideology again.

And THAT is an accurate statement about ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@WvLopp: I have eaten dog (thanks Korea!) and found it to be unpleasant tasting rather than "ideologically" (ahem, culturally) or even emotionally unpleasant. Now if you're talking about killing and eating a pet, I would submit that you are talking about something else. This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

I don't see much of a difference in the killing itself. When you slaughter a cow it's to get the meat, killing the cow is just a means to that end. Similarly, the person plowing a field hopes to have crops, and killing voles is just a means to that end.

The caging of animals is an interesting issue; it makes the "life or death" concept superseded by some sort of system of rights deserved by animals. It's then okay to kill animals, but not to cage for their whole lives, or to beat them, and so on and so forth. Not a philosophy I'd necessarily object to; it seems that it would relate to the "natural condition" of an animal.

@Manchu: Bahaha, how did I know that was going to be brought up? Albeit, in a very subtle manner.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't see much of a difference in the killing itself. When you slaughter a cow it's to get the meat, killing the cow is just a means to that end. Similarly, the person plowing a field hopes to have crops, and killing voles is just a means to that end.

The caging of animals is an interesting issue; it makes the "life or death" concept superseded by some sort of system of rights deserved by animals. It's then okay to kill animals, but not to cage for their whole lives, or to beat them, and so on and so forth. Not a philosophy I'd necessarily object to; it seems that it would relate to the "natural condition" of an animal.

If i fire my gun , and someone ran into the bullets path. Yes i killed the person , but that wasnt the intention.

If i fire my gun at a person solely for purpose of doing the person harm , there is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

@Luna, Orkeo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect

Manchu wrote:I think of ideology as active, programmatic, and intentional. It is not a behavior itself; rather, it is the motivation behind a behavior.

Your behaviour is not always motivated by your OWN personal ideology though, it is often shaped by the ideology of others. In this respect, it's not intentional - or more accurately, it's not shaped by YOUR intent. This concept is absolutely central to the idea of 'hegemony'. When you put your trousers on tomorrow, stop and wonder why.

Man, I come here to fething shoot the breeze! I get enough of this during the day!

I'm going to bed on that note.


p.s.

@Nightwatch - Probably not best to go down that particular 'rabbit-hole' with me. These subjects often end up getting a bit flamey. No real need to bring God into this - you're into it, cool. I'm not. A conversation on the topic will not be constructive, I'm guessing.

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

Uh, we're on different pages as usual. I didn't say it was impossible to form emotional bonds with farm animals (although it is questionable that they can do so with us, unlike dogs) but rather that the subject here is about eating or not eating meat regardless of particular relationships. After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

Manchu wrote:After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

What a delicious stranger with a side-order of fries!

And an Iced Tea...

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think of ideology as active, programmatic, and intentional. It is not a behavior itself; rather, it is the motivation behind a behavior.

Your behaviour is not always motivated by your OWN personal ideology though, it is often shaped by the ideology of others. In this respect, it's not intentional - or more accurately, it's not shaped by YOUR intent. This concept is absolutely central to the idea of 'hegemony'. When you put your trousers on tomorrow, stop and wonder why.

This is a tremendous flattening of the word "ideology." As I already said, I can see why you've chosen this word for this concept (thanks for confirming with the inclusion of "hegemony") but I would continue to say that actual ideology is not so pervasive as you suggest. Again, you could easily replace the word ideology used in this sense with a number of other ones. Culture is one. Custom is another. Tradition. Etc, etc, etc.

Man, I come here to fething shoot the breeze! I get enough of this during the day!

S'your own fault, you know what it's like on OffT: overtly ideological!

Manchu wrote:
@WvLopp: I have eaten dog (thanks Korea!) and found it to be unpleasant tasting rather than "ideologically" (ahem, culturally) or even emotionally unpleasant. Now if you're talking about killing and eating a pet, I would submit that you are talking about something else. This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

@Manchu: That would come down to the individiual person. Since I don't want to go to far OT, I'll just say that it does happen on some farms that pets of some sort are put on the table.

As for treatment of animals, when I lived in Southern California I saw plenty of feed lots for cattle. You see those commercials on TV about Real California Cheese and Happy Cows come from California.....ya right. Where I live now I have not seen feed lots(but sure there are some out there) but have seen free ranging cattle.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:This conversation is not about killing and eating animals that you have an emotional bond with but rather animals generally.

Thats like saying cows and pigs are not physically or mentally possible to share a bond with humans.

But i know they can. So how does that theory work then?
It still comes down to what we knit pick to have right to bond with us , the rest can just go die and lay on our plates?

Uh, we're on different pages as usual. I didn't say it was impossible to form emotional bonds with farm animals (although it is questionable that they can do so with us, unlike dogs) but rather that the subject here is about eating or not eating meat regardless of particular relationships. After all, the cow in my hamburger is a complete stranger to me.

We are on the same page machu. Who is the one that chose to have bonds with their pets? We do. And who is the one that chose to have no bonds with the
dead animals in their plate they eat? We do.

Like i said , all humans turns blind eye on things. You , Me , everyone does.

Hi Albatross

I ask myself why i choose not to eat meat.
It is pretty much how you say it it if i have understod you correctly.
As said previously, if that is what you want, all the rest is bunkum.

you are willing to eat strangers?
Xenovore!

@WvLopp: Given my own family's experience of growing up on farms, I am aware that sometimes children think of the animals (especially the baby animals) as pets. But it seems more like having an imaginary friend than having a dog. Dogs are very unique in sharing the a great deal of evolutionary history with homo sapiens.

@Luna: Even if I chose to, I doubt I could form meaningful emotional bonds with all of the world's cattle.

@Manchu
How am I 'flattening' it? 'Ideology' just means a system of ideas and beliefs - you can apply that to the individual or the state. Culture isn't the right word. I'll explain why via PM tomorrow - I REALLY am going to bed this time!

LunaHound wrote:If i fire my gun , and someone ran into the bullets path. Yes i killed the person , but that wasnt the intention.

If i fire my gun at a person solely for purpose of doing the person harm , there is a difference.

I don't think that's a very good analogy. Why does the butcher desire the death of the animal? Wouldn't he rather receive his meat without killing, if he could? And are you declaring that a vole, sitting in his... uh... den or whatever, is putting himself in the path of the plowman's blades by doing so?

I would say a far more analogous situation is this: A robber shoots a random man, so that he can take the money from his wallet. Another robber, desperate to make a getaway with his money, guns down several people who were unknowingly standing in between him and his getaway car. Neither case is more ethical than the other, in both the robber does not particularly wish to kill people but is willing to do so if he gains from doing it. After all, it's not as though the death of voles is an unexpected consequence of the plowing, any more than the death of people is an unexpected consequence of firing into a mass of people to get them out of your way.

p.s try to think of some choices you've made that weren't directly or indirectly motivated by ideology and PM me.

Albatross wrote:

p.s.

@Nightwatch - Probably not best to go down that particular 'rabbit-hole' with me. These subjects often end up getting a bit flamey. No real need to bring God into this - you're into it, cool. I'm not. A conversation on the topic will not be constructive, I'm guessing.

I had hoped myself the thread wouldn't turn that way. I apologize to all people who were hurt/offended at my "Animals have no souls" statement. I meant that their level of being is lower than that of humans, and do not have a soul in the same context. Thus endeth the religious argument. PM me if you care to know my full thoughts on the subject, I can assure you I will answer to well-meaning, pleasantly-voiced questions or statements.
But yes, good for you for trying to give up meat: If there is one thing most of us can agree on it is that we all eat too much of SOMETHING.

Manchu wrote:@Luna: Even if I chose to, I doubt I could form meaningful emotional bonds with all of the world's cattle.

Not asking you to no.

Just the idea that such bond is indeed possible , and the creatures we kill are capable of display all the emtions say a dog or cat do.
May it be 1 , few , or infinite.

Saying not able to bond with all the cows in the world which makes it less painful to look at the sentient being laying in pieces on
the dinner plate is indeed turning a blind eye.

For example , if i take a stray dog you never seen or bonded before , and serve it to you as dinner ,
what would your feeling be? compared to what i asked earlier?

I don't own any pets, so I wouldn't know. Because of the emotional bonds we humans often form with animals, I can imagine that it would be upsetting to eat your pet. Less upsetting to eat someone else's.

Please do! Then there'll be more for me!

@Luna: I actually don't have any remorse for the animal as I look at the steak on my plate. This is why I brought up Mencius. His distinction was between the inclination of the compassionate heart, which is to see itself in all others, and the rational mind, which is to know the difference between one thing and another. The gentleman is both compassionate and rational. These characteristics temper one another. My lack of remorse is not the result of a "blind eye" but rather an open one. Only if I blind myself to the real differences between animals and people will I feel the guilt you seem to be talking about.

Looks like a weak flashlight in the eye...

Before I start responding to people, I’ll just tell you that I don’t eat beef. I used to live in cattle country and I developed something of an affection for cows, and it started to bother me to eat them. I accept this is ridiculous as I’ll happily eat chicken, lamb and all sorts of other animals that don’t deserve to be killed and eaten just as much as cows do.

But it bothers me to eat beef, so I don’t. It’s just my personal choice, and it doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but me. Everybody else should find whatever diet makes sense to them,

Albatross wrote:The other main reason is just my general health - I need to drop a stone or two, plus I've begun to feel bloated and sick after most meals. I've heard that meat can have that effect on your digestive system, and I eat a LOT of it!

Vegetarianism probably won't lead to weight loss, especially if you're used to a high protein diet. In order to feel full you'll end up eating a lot of grains and potatoes and things.

I've known some fat vegetarians in my time.

Nightwatch wrote:Couldn't say it better myself. For health reasons, I think that it's pretty plain that a variety of foods is the best for you. Every day scientists come up with a new way that eating certain foods gives you illnesses, too much of one thing, not enough of another, etc. The world is balanced naturally, perhaps it would be best if we took the hint and ate a wide variety of things, meat and vegetables. That way we get the least sick.

The argument that we should eat meat for health reasons is dubious. The overwhelming majority of people eat far too much meat, and it results in lower life expectancies, especially in men where bowel cancer is such a killer. As a result vegetarians have longer life expectancies.

If you were really specific about having the healthiest possible diet to make sure you lived to 100, then meat would be part of that. But for the rest of us vegetarianism is likely to be at least as healthy as eating meat, if you’re halfway smart about it.

As for ethics, I understand people don't like killing animals, but sustenance is a valid reason.

200 years ago this was probably true, but food science has come a long way. The simple reality is that we can live a healthy life without killing animals. I eat animals, so I’m not condemning anyone else for doing the same, but the argument that animals need to be killed for our sustenance is simply false.

As for religion, I don't know about the rest of you, but mine teaches me that God put animals on earth. So eat them. Just not too much, because that would make them extinct, clearly against His wishes if He made them in the first place. Other religions are similar, some have zero tolerance, others have no view. As long as you follow your beliefs, eating meat is irrelevant(unless it IS one of your beliefs).

Sure, that’s your beliefs and your choice. Other people have their own.

Wrexasaur wrote:There are almost as many problems with eating soy, if you want to talk about impact to the planet, or eco-friendly impact in general. As far as I know there is absolutely no way to actually provide enough fresh foods (which is basically what vegetarianism, specifically veganism) for the entirety of the planet.

No, grains and the like are far less resource intensive than livestock. At the most basic level, instead of eating grain we’re giving it to livestock which we then eat in turn.

Then you can look at the environmental damage and greenhouse gas emissions of livestock.

WvLopp wrote:I like how the native americans used to do it. You killed it, you used everylast part of it. I agree with you that killing animals just to kill them is wrong. We are animal lovers:Horses, dogs, cats, rabbits. But we also like our share of veggies

The idea of Native Americans using every part of the animal is a myth. Modern factory farming, looking to maximise revenue through identifying by-products, is probably a lot more ‘efficient’ than most NA tribes ever where.

Nightwatch wrote:human intellect and the ability to reason, as well as even the existence of religion and faith

You still believe in the human ability for reason? I'm guessing you haven't spent much time on the internet.