Veganism...why?

[Jessy_Fran]

Also, I live near a medical research facility and there have been a number of human deaths there in recent years. One of the bigger cases was caused by medicine (that had actually effected monkeys but not caused any deaths) being given to human volunteers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-380395/Elephant-Man-resist-drug-test-money.html
Yes, that's a link to the Daily Mail site but I can't seem to find anything else right now.

I appreciate that this is not all cases but still. When animal testing doesn't even have an effect on whether the drug is tested on humans, what's the point?

Yeah, that is kind of fucked, but I don't think it discredits animal testing necessarily. Now I want to add the caveat that results of animal tests obviously don't have perfect carry over to humans since there are obviously a few differences between mice and other animals and us, but they can be useful for informing future testing, especially if there are huge issues which arise in that phase.

The big problem with the testing of drugs and other medicines though is that it's big business for pharmaceutical companies, R&D is expensive, potential patents are worth billions, and they aren't above cutting corners and doctoring results to get to them. So I'd agree with you, if companies aren't going to take the animal test results seriously then it's kind of pointless, but the upside is, if the animal testing happened and potential side effects were readily available and known in the research community, they can be used to better fine, regulate, or file suit against companies that willfully ignore them. So I wouldn't say they're totally useless. I agree it's stupid, but prior animal testing can at least be used as evidence that companies may have willfully ignored the dangers.

Like I say, I totally appreciate that that example is not representative of the entire issue and there are things that can't be ignored when this topic comes into discussion.

And yeah, pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money so aren't about to stop any time soon. That isn't me admitting to defeat and I've done my share of protests but BIG companies like AstraZeneca aren't going anywhere while there's a cheap supply of rabbits to test on and people sit back and allow it. I'd like to see alternatives to non-human animal testing being researched into but again, that's not cost effective and all people care about is money really.

Ultimately, I don't want medical animal testing but I'll admit it's a more sensitive area than most topics surrounding veganism. I was merely curious as to others opinions. I don't often get to talk about this

 

[Jammy2003]

I would argue it doesn't...

Because crops directly effect the land on which they're grown. And not all livestock farming requires grain production.

Why does everyone get so hung up...

Because it's kinda important, especially considering that a Vegan is a choice on principle (I assume). And Vegans choices literally have no effect on the meat market. They might do if a sizeable amount of the population shared their pov... but they don't. So the meat market is stronger than ever.

Boycotts don't work. Especially when you're pretty much completely unable to truly boycott everything that you want to.

You say "When it was no longer required...

The alternatives aren't as good. It's that simple.

Most people don't want to be on pills an supplements when the original sources is still so readily available and better for you.

When we finally manage to grow meat in petri dishes, I'll be all for completely axing the livestock market. But until that time, I'm not going to stop eating animals in exchange for a starkly regimented diet of corn and nuts or dietary supplements.

Well for one, I'm big on utilising human...

So your answer is more landshock? Use up more land to produce more crops which have knock-on effects further down the line. And how do we fertilise all these extra crops? Faeces isn't enough. We require bonemeal too, are we to start churning up our dead's bones to fertilise crops?

What about all the other things that animal corpses are turned into? Such as other animal foods? Cats and dogs don't have the option of going vegan. Fish will always need blood flakes.

What about industry? Are you going to completely destroy the glue market, lubricants used in heavy machinery often come from livestock.

Given a few hundred years of slowly phasing it out, sure. We could find all the alternatives we'd need. But it really isn't as simple as you and many others are making it out to be. Livestock by-products are so widely used it's simply not feasible to get rid of them.

Would this be enough...

It would need to be a gradual transition that happens over decades upon decades. Along with all the other reforms we need to do as a species. It's certainly not the most pressing issue we face.

So far better to keep the status...

You knock that wall down and you take society with it. It's the only supporting wall in a crumbling house.

You need to build support structures that support the weight of an entire world and then carefully remove each brick and start again.

Focusing on one brick will make things worse. And like I said, that brick isn't even one the major problems.

I think we've successfully taken that analogy as far as it'll go.

Yes, but as I said, the majority of meat produced is grain-fed, and so the impact of meat farming is larger than that of crops. It doesn't have to be, but the fact is that at the moment it largely is, particularly for the prices we have all come to expect our meat for.

That's funny, I didn't know the 5-10% of the population made up of vegans and vegetarians in most European countries and the USA, along with the 30% veggie population in India have absolutely no impact on the meat market. How silly of me. That was a pretty unfounded statement you just made there... Of course it has an impact, supply and demand. They won't breed animals they can't then sell. And if they do, they then reduce in response to the drop in demand, which lowers it in the long run.

Something is infinitely better than nothing, and if we can't see eye to eye on that, then I guess we may as well drop it. Pushing for the alternatives to be made makes it easier to continue a lifestyle you believe in.

Why do you keep INSISTING that you have to take pills and supplements? Or that it's some kind of regimented thing that you can only eat about 4 meals and rotate them? That is simply not the case, as I've stated before, and I'm getting you tired of making these unfounded claims. I have yet to see vegans dropping in the street due to malnutrition, therefore it's viable. And you still aren't addressing the fact we need to lower our meat production, just focussing on this view about vegans that it's all or nothing.

You know what I'm personally for? Massive population control or culls. That'd solve a lot of problems if we just shaved off the top 1% of the rich, redistributed the wealth, shaved off the bottom 10% or so of the poor who don't contribute (based on my own countries statistics here, I'm sure this would need to be tailored from place to place) and maybe a good chunk of the old and infirm. Living in an aging population with a proportion of people who don't want to contribute and no guarantee of security in my old age gives me a pretty negative view perhaps, but we have grown beyond our capabilities. We need a serious overhaul to ensure that we don't just quietly die as a species, or there is no going back.

If we start growing it in petri dishes it'll suddenly then be viable to axe the industry? That's pretty curious, what about the crops then? Or all the other bi-products we need to produce from animals?
And seriously? Corn, nuts and supplements? If that's all you eat apart from meat, eggs and dairy, I fear for your health. Particularly as you seem to hate supplements so much.

Dogs can go on a vegan diet I'm told, and in any case, I keep saying that it just needs to be reduced a lot, not wiped out. If we need to grind up the bones of the dead to support the living, then why not? They don't need their bones anymore and apparently we do.

I don't know all the answers, but at least I'm looking. We don't have hundreds of years without looking at alternative technology, in many regards. Times, they are a changin', and we gotta change with them. It takes a gallon of fuel to produce a pound of beef with current intensive farming methods, and the tanks getting a little empty if you hadn't noticed.

Yes, there is significantly more problems than just this. But this thread is dealing with this one, and that's what I'm trying to do. You've gunned down every suggestion I've made without coming up with alternatives yourself. I'm sorry if this post is more aggressive but you're passive attitude of picking holes is beginning to grate on me.

I'd say this house of society is condemned to fall, and so maybe it's time to start thinking about building a new one, instead of just patching this one up. And that means some more drastic changes, yes.

 

[Jessy_Fran]

That attitude right there. Acting like you're doing the world a favor then turning around and playing at being martyrs. What do vegans use to hang themselves on their little crosses, anyway?

It's not the veganism that gets on people's nerves. It's the attitude of the people behind it.

You get attitude when you give attitude. I responsed in a calm manner (maybe a little condescending but it was no worse than your first comment that stated vegans don't know what life is) and you have in turn answered with yet another mocking reply.

With statements like those is it any wonder why vegans get defensive?

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Why is veganism a thing?

I understand that there are moral and nutritional reasons behind vegetarianism, but veganism just seems...unnescary? Is that the word? (EDIT: as so many of you kindly pointed out, unnecessary was the word ) I think we're animals and we have a place on the food chain that must be adhered to, it's our duty as humans to keep the lower species in check. There's no need to divorce ourselves from animals completely when it comes to food. Veganism just seems like vegetarianism taken to an almost sillly extreme to me.

Anyway, if someone could explain this to me it would be much appreciated.

The only sound explanation I've heard came from an ex-vegan. He only got into it because he was dating a vegan, and he got out of it after they broke up. When he explained his former veganism to me, it was something along the lines of...

"I don't give a toss about animals rights or animal cruelty or any of that, I got into it because of my health...and I gotta tell you, when was I a vegan, I felt great. Lots of energy, easy to get out an exercise. Compare that to now? I feel so slow inside, like an un-greased machine."

So, yeah. As someone who is trying to eat more organic foods and less treated/processed foods, and feels physically better as a result, I can see the appeal from that angle. I'd have to try it myself before accepting his testimonial, but I don't think I ever will; I value the freedom to not obsess over my diet too much to bother with something so restrictive.

 

[Thistlehart]

That attitude right there. Acting like you're doing the world a favor then turning around and playing at being martyrs. What do vegans use to hang themselves on their little crosses, anyway?

It's not the veganism that gets on people's nerves. It's the attitude of the people behind it.

You get attitude when you give attitude. I responsed in a calm manner (maybe a little condescending but it was no worse than your first comment that stated vegans don't know what life is) and you have in turn answered with yet another mocking reply.

With statements like those is it any wonder why vegans get defensive?

Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes. Easy targets and all. Point to you on that one.

Spoiler: Learn to laugh, darling.

I suppose I tend to equate vegans to Christian conversionists. Y'know, telling people how much better their life has become with Jesus (veganism) in their life, in the hope that repeating it at you enough times (and also pointing out how horrible life was without Jesus (hemp underwear)) will make you wonder if your life wouldn't be better to follow suit.

Yes, I've run into them. Yes, their presence is like nettles.

Just gives me an itch I scratch by lashing out. You're justified in saying there's a lot of hate there.

That hate also comes from being raised on a ranch. I tend to react in a ballistic manner to folks condemning (however indirectly) what my family does for a living as evil. And I tend to see veganism as lifestyle built around that condemnation.

 

[Vivi22]

Like I say, I totally appreciate that that example is not representative of the entire issue and there are things that can't be ignored when this topic comes into discussion.

And yeah, pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money so aren't about to stop any time soon. That isn't me admitting to defeat and I've done my share of protests but BIG companies like AstraZeneca aren't going anywhere while there's a cheap supply of rabbits to test on and people sit back and allow it. I'd like to see alternatives to non-human animal testing being researched into but again, that's not cost effective and all people care about is money really.

Ultimately, I don't want medical animal testing but I'll admit it's a more sensitive area than most topics surrounding veganism. I was merely curious as to others opinions. I don't often get to talk about this

It's all good. Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with you on certain aspects of animal testing. If you're going to do it, you damn well better consider the results and give them their due weight. The trouble is that pharmaceutical companies will often rig the results even in human trials. Many will go so far as to give applicants for testing a large initial dose of the drug, much higher than the dose they plan to test, and see if there are any negative side effects. People who do present negative side effects aren't included in the trial. Essentially, they pre-screen to eliminate people who experience side effects so their side effect rates look better. It's a shady business no matter which way you look at it, and stuff like that is a large part of the reason people are only just starting to realize that drugs like statins have much more prevalent and serious side effects than originally thought. Just in time for them to start marketing a replacement as the patents run down probably.

I just had a thought a minute ago though that perhaps lab grown tissues might be the answer to future drug testing concerns, at least where side effects are concerned. We've got people trying to grow meat in labs, so why not human muscle, bone, skin, or brain tissues someday? Something which is organic and technically alive so you can test on it, but not sentient so there's no moral concerns and you can do whatever you want to it? I'm sure pharmaceutical companies would still game the system by trying to grow tissues resistant to side effects, so there would likely have to be regulations requiring tissue samples to be grown be taken from a random and anonymous sample population, but it's still an interesting possibility. All of the benefits of human testing with the exception of one (grown tissue can't tell you where it hurts) with none of the draw backs like potential death or serious medical complications. Perhaps the same idea could even be applied to animal tissues first since certain religious groups might take issue with growing human tissue.

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes. Easy targets and all. Point to you on that one.

Spoiler: Learn to laugh, darling.

I suppose I tend to equate vegans to Christian conversionists. Y'know, telling people how much better their life has become with Jesus (veganism) in their life, in the hope that repeating it at you enough times (and also pointing out how horrible life was without Jesus (hemp underwear)) will make you wonder if your life wouldn't be better to follow suit.

Yes, I've run into them. Yes, their presence is like nettles.

Just gives me an itch I scratch by lashing out. You're justified in saying there's a lot of hate there.

That hate also comes from being raised on a ranch. I tend to react in a ballistic manner to folks condemning (however indirectly) what my family does for a living as evil. And I tend to see veganism as lifestyle built around that condemnation.

Yeah, the militant vegans are awful and I'll admit that I haven't been the best representative but I have reeled myself back in after my initial outburst. I don't enjoy being aggressive and it doesn't achieve anything on the internet anyway!

That's cool, I lash out too having been mocked for my diet for a good part of my life (I grew up in a working class background with friends who weren't exactly understanding) so I totally understand that.

I'm not trying to convert people, just to get points across. I guess I don't do too much of a good job (oops) but ah well... Sorry about that.

Also, hemp underwear? Hardly! That would hurt like hell and wouldn't exactly attract the men

 

[Thistlehart]

Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes. Easy targets and all. Point to you on that one.

Spoiler: Learn to laugh, darling.

I suppose I tend to equate vegans to Christian conversionists. Y'know, telling people how much better their life has become with Jesus (veganism) in their life, in the hope that repeating it at you enough times (and also pointing out how horrible life was without Jesus (hemp underwear)) will make you wonder if your life wouldn't be better to follow suit.

Yes, I've run into them. Yes, their presence is like nettles.

Just gives me an itch I scratch by lashing out. You're justified in saying there's a lot of hate there.

That hate also comes from being raised on a ranch. I tend to react in a ballistic manner to folks condemning (however indirectly) what my family does for a living as evil. And I tend to see veganism as lifestyle built around that condemnation.

Yeah, the militant vegans are awful and I'll admit that I haven't been the best representative but I have reeled myself back in after my initial outburst. I don't enjoy being aggressive and it doesn't achieve anything on the internet anyway!

That's cool, I lash out too having been mocked for my diet for a good part of my life (I grew up in a working class background with friends who weren't exactly understanding) so I totally understand that.

I'm not trying to convert people, just to get points across. I guess I don't do too much of a good job (oops) but ah well... Sorry about that.

Also, hemp underwear? Hardly! That would hurt like hell and wouldn't exactly attract the men

Exactly! Hemp underwear = life without Jesus. Probably not a good joke, but oh well.

And no worries, thinking about the ways this conversation could have developed, and so thinking about responses, has given me a little something to contemplate. With any luck it will improve my attitude, or perhaps give me something more to laugh at.

Thanks for that, at least.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Thats fine. I have no issue with it. As long as other vegies dont have issue with my meat eating....even though us meat eaters eat both meat and veg as a balanced diet. Not veg and back up pills. But we are what we are and make the choices we make. Just dont like the hypocrisy from vegis when i have a steak and they make pointless comments while wearing leather.

Also there are vegis that eat only white meat....chicken and fish. Fuck, i think fish have it worse when it comes to humane killing, being that they suffocate.

 

[Treblaine]

Why is veganism a thing?

I understand that there are moral and nutritional reasons behind vegetarianism, but veganism just seems...unnescary? Is that the word? (EDIT: as so many of you kindly pointed out, unnecessary was the word ) I think we're animals and we have a place on the food chain that must be adhered to, it's our duty as humans to keep the lower species in check. There's no need to divorce ourselves from animals completely when it comes to food. Veganism just seems like vegetarianism taken to an almost sillly extreme to me.

Anyway, if someone could explain this to me it would be much appreciated.

Well it's certainly an interesting challenge.

I'm quite big into systems analysis and what it would take to maintain a self-sufficient society in for example in a bunker that survives a nuclear war or huge meteorite impact.

Veganism is the most efficient way of getting energy from raw sunlight or electrical circuit to nutrition. Feeding animals, food, some will turn into milk and deposit as tissue but most will simply be burned as waste heat or

Now there may be a place for ruminants. Because if you are growing any plants for vegetables and wheat, you can't eat the entire plant, you can eat the grain of wheat but not the straw that is almost entirely cellulouse which passes strait through the body. You can feed this to ruminants (like cows) and extract that energy as milk or beef or veal.
You can also feed rabbits that will breed and grow quickly as a source of meat through rabbit meat is not the most nutritious meat.

But arguably more efficient is to take this waste biomass and compost it to extract the organic nitrogen then ferment it to make ethanol.

Remember, is a closed system running only on say nuclear power (preferably Molten Salt Thorium reactor) or geothermal, you won't have any useful hydrocarbons, turning cellulose into Ethanol might be much more useful that feeding it all to cows and rabbits.

That, I find interesting about veganism. As a systems design challenge of maximum efficiency. Not sympathy for animals, its just why feed them?

What I don't find interesting is vegans being dogmatic, not even eating honey because it "comes from animal" even though keeping and protecting bees benefit bees and the flowers and the energy you are extracting is from the sun as the bees turn the nectar (that plants produce) into honey.

The only real problem with veganism is B12. A "natural" vegan diet there is no obcious way to get B12 into your diet. But vegan foods (like almost all processed Soya products) are easily fortified with B12, which is made using a special yeast a bit like marmite. You do not need much B12, it's a trace chemical needed in the brain, but it's more evidence that in recent history humans were never naturally vegan.

But I still couldn't give up on pancakes. Vegan pancakes... they just aren't the same. Oh and Mayonnaise. No, eggs and milk are just to nice tom COMPLETELY cut out and they are the foundation of any vegetarian diet. Oh, BTW, I'm not vegetarian and if I had to be I'd find it very difficult to be.

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Also there are vegis that eat only white meat....chicken and fish. Fuck, i think fish have it worse when it comes to humane killing, being that they suffocate.

In all honesty, if they eat chicken and fish they have no reason/right to call themselves vegetarian and that's a bit daft.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

snip

That's...a very interesting way of looking at it. Tell me your secrets, oh wise one! That i may see the world the way you do

 

[Jammy2003]

Yes, but as I said...

I take issue with that. Maybe it's the case for the States, but the stringent EU legislation surrounding livestock means that we can't have the majority of our animals grain fed. Most EU cattle grazes.

That's funny...

Yea man, that 5-10% is really driving down the prices of meat. That's why it's a declining market... Oh wait.

Something is infinitely...

Not if it has side effects, how are you not getting this? The livestock trade doesn't end at peoples bellies. It's tied up in tons of things.

Why do you keep INSISTING...

Because to have the same benefits of a balanced diet whilst not eating protein rich foods and a complete lack of iron, you require either a heavily regimented diet or supplements.

I also never claimed Vegans where inherently unhealthy. Just that a Vegan diet isn't as good as a balanced one. You really need to read before you start getting pissy about things I haven't actually said.

Likewise you still haven't addressed the fact that we need to lower our agriculture production.

See, I can do that too.

You know what I'm personally...

Then you're a fool.

That'd solve a lot of problems...

And if we could live off of sunshine and unicron farts there'd be no war.

You point?

and maybe a good...

Oooooo, so edgy.

Living in an aging population...

All valid points, none of which could be resolved with a cull.

I mean, it worked so well for the Nazis.

(Dammit, you made me flout Godwins law in a Vegan debate with your stupid ideas about population culls and farting unicorns.)

If we start growing...

If we could grow everything that is currently used from actual bred livestock... Then sure. It would still take a while to implement. But it would basically be exchanging farms for labs.

That's pretty curious...

See above.

And seriously? Corn...

Nice Ad hominem.

Dogs can go on a vegan diet...

Dogs? As in the carnivorous animals with about 3 meters of gut? I'm sure there must be some way I could file for animal cruelty charges to anyone feeding their dog a vegan diet.

I'm not joking, please tell me who told you this so I can try and get the dog taken off them.

and in any case, I keep saying that it just needs to be reduced a lot...

Which I'm not arguing with. What I'm saying is that it's a small piece of a much larger reform that would all have to happen very slowly over a long period of time. It's also not the most pressing issue on our table.

If we need to grind....

I'm going to put that in the cull the weak and infirm pile. Infact, I'll streamline your proposal.

Old people and invalids are just thrown in a grinder and sprinkled over corn. That's 2 birds one stone man.

I don't know all the answers....

No you're wildly flapping about genocide and other BS on an internet forum.

We don't have hundreds of years...

I'll point out the EU legislation again. The farming industry is anything but stagnant.

It takes a gallon of fuel to produce...

Here we have a more pressing matter, alternative fuels. That's a little higher on the list of priorities. And Seeing farming tends to use a lot less of it than say, running a factory. It's not really a convincing argument to say that 'save the cows, save the world.'

Yes, there is significantly more problems...

They're not alternatives, the people who can actually do something are the ones coming up with alternatives. Not internet warriors.

I'd say this house...

An actual societal collapse would mean there's not much of anything to rebuild with. Patching up and reforming is our only option. Grand talk about rebuilding from the bottom up get's us nowhere. Because in the end it's just grand talk, no substance.

You aren't appreciating the vast amount of cattle grown in the America. Between USA and Brazil, they cover 45% of the worlds cattle production, compared to the EU's 17%. So yes, I'd say that would include enough that (ok, maybe the majority might be a little too far) a huge chunk is grain fed. Enough for cause for concern perhaps?

Yeah, I'd also say 5-10% of the worlds population not eating meat does lower the amount of meat needed to be produced. I never said it was making the market decline or any such thing, simpye the fact that these people don't eat meat means less has to be produced. Am I wrong?

It is tied to lots of things, it is unsustainable in it's current form, therefore we need alternatives. I'm arguing that with you on that point, it's tied into so much that its ridiculous. How are you not seeing that?

Sorry what? "Dried beans and dark green leafy vegetables are especially good sources of iron, even better on a per calorie basis than meat" We all know vegans can't eat those beans and vegetables, it's all corn and nuts! Sorry, couldn't resist that jab.

What I'm telling you is that it doesn't need to be as regimented as you seem to think. And I didn't claim you claimed it was inherently unhealthy, I stated that in every post you keep going on about supplements, but they aren't nesseccary.

Yes, we need to lower all food production, but there is no way to do that without less people. Hence population control. You're right, I was having an outburst and slipping back into a mindset I used to have a few years back, thanks for being triggering. But to be completely honest, it would go a long way to solving a good chunk of the problems it seems at times. How would lowering the population, raising the bar of average contribution to society per person and generally tighting things up societally not help? Admittedly not the best, nor most elegant of solutions, but I still don't see any others being forthcoming from you.

So let me get this right.... crops are unsustainable with the crap etc for fertilisers, and we will grow everything in labs? Are you suggesting we grow shit in labs? Literally?

Dogs can survive fine on a vegan diet (admitedly with supplements), google it if you want sources, I'm tired of presenting information to you only to have it ignored. Well maybe the changes aren't happening quick enough, and more people taking an interest would encourage others to do it a bit quicker. Companies need incentive to change their practices.

What is the most pressing issue? Could you list them in order of importance so they can be dealt with one by one? Or perhaps we can just deal with the simultaniously? I started "flapping" because you are shooting down every point I attempt to make, with no evidence for your claims. You throw endless problems at every possible thing that might happen if things were to change. Stop throwing problems and start telling HOW I'm wrong, and HOW you could do it better.

Nice suggesting I'm an internet warrior, I suppose the degree I'm studying for in Physics, hopefully to work on clean energy sources means I'm doing nothing. The biggest stumbling block I have for working on it? I endlessly wonder if there is any damn point, and if it wouldn't be better of if humanity just died off. Thanks for improving my outlook on that.

 

[Jammy2003]

Ah fair point...

I guess that depends at how we want to look at it.

True, the uber being...

Before I get to my actual point, you are open to name in what meaningful way a cow could surpass me. The whole "IT" things implies that you believe a Cow could actually surpass me at something. So give me something that isn't entirely meaningless.

And even if you aren't the...

I have long since adressed it, but to answer your Question, no, it wouldn't. Because I would still be a human. The fact that this theoretical being would have to be leaps and bounds better then I am isn't enough, I'd have to be as bad as the cow is aswell. The fact that I can do tons of things that a cow never could keeps it from making sense. This is like starting the argument with "Ok, for the sake of argument, turn off your higher brain functions, go" I can't do that and I can't exactly comprehend what that would be like, just as much as a cow couldn't compehend what human thought is.

I get its extrapolation...

What could I possibly learn from this? That it would suck if someone wanted to eat me? Yeah, I can figure that out myself. What you and some others need to learn is that a Cow doesn't have the concept of Life and Death that we have, it makes a huge difference. The entire argument is based, whether it is spoken or not, on humanizing the animal, rolling with this notion that they feel like we do, they don't.

A duck would still have more worth...

Because you can eat them? You can eat humans too. I see no other reason.

And those that aren't? They won't...

Or, in the case of a fellow predator, they'll probably kill and eat you. Most Herbivores would just die seeing as they wouldn't have much to eat and no survival skills for the area. Oh and they also lack the creativity to find a way to survive on the fly. Your solution is essentially that you'd want to be alone. Which quite frankly doesn't cut it.

Human's tend to latch onto other humans...

Nonsense. We are social animals, we are where we are because we function in Groups. Not only would you be turning someone down who would potentially have better ideas of what to do, you're also turning down potential food if all else fails. Not to mention that we Humans have things like Planes with which we can just fly right over those pesky deserts.

I'm try to argue that worth...

I know that you are trying that. The reason you are failing is that you are simply wrong. I am inherently better then any other species at any given thing unless that species is specifically in it's element, in which case I can still easily one up that species with a human invention that will not only allow me to do the same thing, but do it better. I am inherently better, I (as in the human race in this case) am a master of all trades in comparison to the animal kingdom.

That doesn't make you inherently...

Have I mentioned that I consider misanthropes morons?

Why would the...

It was a Twin, it could have easily been very weak in comparison to it's sibling.

Surely survival instinct would...

No, not necessarily, different animals have different behavior when it comes to those things. Many will hide in the absense of their mother. Others will play dead. I don't know what precisely a cow would do, but even if it were normal for them to follow their mother on instinct, it would still have to be able to do it.

And seeing as the calf was still alive...

Well, for one, several days is ambigious. Secondly, who says it would be able to walk after a few days of nuture? You? Since when are you a bovine expert? It would have been relevant to say so earlier if that is the case.

I also made pretty clear, the reason I named is one of many, the calf could have also been mentally retarded, that's happens to animals sometimes too you know.

Personally?
I find zoo's...

Meh, I like Zoos. I just wish they could actually hold the animals as well as possible.

Circuses, particularly with elephant acts...

They still do that? I haven't been to a circus since I was 5 or something and that one didn't have elephants. If yes, I agree, also simply because a Elephant that snaps is fucking dangerous as hell.

Fur farms are pretty damn atrocious.

While I personally don't see the point in wearing real fur, atleast they seem to use the whole animal, that's atleast a minor plus. Still, entirely pointless to have them.

Animal testing...

I'm on the fence here. It's easy to say "Oh, well, not sure about medical, but all that other stuff is bad!" when you realise that all that stuff, including medical, is intertwined. Cosmetics? Your skin is a Organ, you don't want just anything on it. Washing Powders? Same difference. Then you'd also have to take Pet's into consideration, I'm not sure to which degree this kind of thing would be tested or atleast noted, but it would also be nice to know that my theoretical dog won't die if he eats my girlfriends handcreme while we are out.

Because companies have...

Yes, that's generally how things are tested. now, don't get me wrong, if we didn't have to do this, I would be against it. But if the option is "put humans in potential danger for advancement" or "put animals in potential danger for advancement" I'm going to go with the animals.

Rodeo's and bull fighting.
Maybe more but that'll do for now.

I don't really have a opinion on Rodeo's. Bull Fighting on the other hand is stupid. But, both of those things have a cultural value. Not that I consider that worth it. Just sayin'

But the issue is partly here...

Does it matter that it's a double standard? Because if that's what you are worried about, boy do I have a list of double standards that could use your attention alot more then that one.

A lot of people object to whaling and dolphin eating...

Go ahead and show me these people, I've never met or seen them. I have however met people that consider Whales, Dolphins, Dogs, Cats, Rabbits, Cows, Pigs, Chickens, etc. too cute to kill. They tend to be the people the would have this kind of discussion with me. I don't agree with the "too cute to kill" notion, no matter who is saying it, but I honestly have never seen anyone, let alone a MASS of people complain that the problem with eating dolphins and whales is that they are cute. I'm just thinking this might be in your head.

At one point, I was a misanthrope...

It wouldn't inherently invalidate your arguments, it would however end the discussion. I don't waste my time with misanthropes, if your views are that one sided then you don't deserve my attention.

I live in a small town/village...

I ain't no City-folk boooooy.

I have lived in a few small towns myself, for that reason I know that unless your town is really, really, really tiny, the whole "everybody knows everybody" thing is a exaggeration. I'm also not entirely convinced that you hold the elephant thing to any scrutiny. Anyway, I'm sticking to it, that claim is bullshit.

Teaching an ape sign language is difficult...

I don't see what you are getting at here? I you trying to say that the Bonobo simply knows what dog, snake and bite are without it having been taught that? If that's what you mean, bullshit, I don't even have to read the article to know that. If what you mean is that the Bonobo comprehends what the human wants from it after having been taught these words, sure, why not? I didn't say they couldn't, I said that a chimp that wasn't trained by humans and learned some signs from another chimp cannot be assumed to know what it is signing.

Ah, well I've never said to STOP...

I don't disagree with that. I try not to eat too much meat. I ate meat yesterday and today, leftovers from yesterday. Otherwise? All I've eaten beside the leftovers has been vegetables and dairy, which for a few weeks now has been pretty common place, I eat meat maybe twice a week at the time.

Plus as a member...

I agree, we however have far bigger problems then this.

Digesting grass? I don't know, I'm not a cow, I don't know what they consider important My point was, you said that as the creator of the tests, we get to pick what's important. Therefore, the theoretical being would do the same surely? Cows are so fundamentally different to us that abscribing something "meaningful" would be subjective.

If you want an example of a different animal being better at something, whales are better at diving pretty deep down than us, even with technological assistance and all the training in the world.

Why would you have to be as bad as the cow? You argued that no animals come close to being as intellegent as us, in fields that we deem important. You said even if they are less stupid than we thought, it doesn't matter as they don't approach us. If this being was that much better than a singular one of us, then couldn't they have this same attitude?

I don't agree. Based on footage I've seen I believe a cow to have a concept of life and death, I beleive most things do. But I guess that's gonna have to be one of those points we agree to disagree on, as I can't imagine any way you'll change my view on that, and you seem pretty firm on yours. Personally, I find it fun to stretch the brain in new ways by trying, if you don't then fair enough.

Well for one, I can use a birds feathers for a pretty fan? Hmm, harder as I was considering just eating it I guess, though in a desert thirst is more the danger. I keep myself in fair shape, to the stage I fancy my chances of outrunning or killing a good chunk of things that are in this random animal generator, particularly given the number of different insects on the planet

Plus, if we were going for a random person, the chances of them being particularly helpful are low. I consider myself above average (maybe not marvelous, maybe a bit of arrogence there but still) and so there is a bigger chance of them being a burden than a help. Statistically a random animal would be better than a random human, though the extremes mean that human could be more helpful or worse than an animal.

Ah, you are valuing the species as a whole, and all achievements of mankind. I was meaning on an individual basis, based on what that individual knows, does, has done and can do. We are adaptable, so we tend to come out on top a lot yes, but I'm just saying a person has no more value inherently, JUST because they are human. We aren't the chosen race or something is what I mean.

True, there are many different reasons the calf might not have come in, and I don't base my beliefs on a single case but many, as I'm sure you do. But on the whole, herd animals are born ready to go, and for one to remain outside would have required something outside of the ordinary in order for it to not have followed mother into the barn at least once. Endless possibilities, but the most likely thing would have been for it to have gone in.

As there is mostly agreement except testing, I'll respond to that. I do see that, but if it's not vital for saving a human's life, so for cosmetics etc. then its really a luxury, not some life saving treatment. My main problem with the testing is the fact results rarely carry over from animals to humans, and I've seen professionals suggest animal testing has set back medical science about 20 years.

We must live in different communities then, because most people I know are squeemish about eating dolphins and whales, and not simply for the reason they are endangered. Put that down to cultural difference as there isn't really a way to argue that?

True, it is exaggerated, but with my nan having been a town gossip and also having lived in that town all of her life, I heard a lot about some people. But fine, I hold to it, you disagree, that's allowed

Ah, I thought your arguement was that the initial chimp was only using mimicry, and ther others then just copied him. My bad. Na, the article says by watching the mother learning, the child learn just through watching and listening.

Fair enough, we are perhaps similar in that. I just think that the arguement "Well there are bigger problems so why bother with this one?" is a bit of a false one. Yes there is bigger ones, but you don't have to solve problems one at a time, and not everything I can actually change. So much is wrapped up in politics and other BS that it's impossible for me to actually control it. So why not do what I can?

 

[shoddyworksucks]

Humans are animals. There is no magical difference between me and a cow. We both want things and we both suffer. That's all that I think should be required to make a creature worth moral consideration.

It seems like a lot of this argument has more to do with definition (what is life, what are the differences between man and animal, etc.) than anything else. Some would state, as you do, that there is no difference, while others might argue that the capacity for higher cognitive or logical functions is the key. Without an agreed upon definition, this argument can't really go anywhere.

That said, I know plenty of vegans living in Southern California, and they all have their own reasons. Health, personal moral beliefs, etc. I'm not a vegan, but I personally don't care if anyone else is. I have the same attitude towards veganism as I do religion: don't proselytize, moralize, or intrude upon my own day-to-day life. If you feel a moral obligation to follow a vegan lifestyle, then do your thing, just leave me out of it. That said, I don't think I have any vegan friends who cross that boundary. Hell, there are a couple of vegan restaurants I frequent regularly, and having a discussion about it is all well and good since no one is trying to convert somebody.