Veal

[wacki]

Went to a fancy restaurant tonight. I had veal for the first time, which is referred to by some people as "chained up and tortured baby cow".

Specifics:

Every year, approximately one million calves are confined in crates measuring just two feet wide. They are chained by the neck to restrict all movement, making it impossible for them to turn around, stretch, or even lie down comfortably. This severe confinement makes the calves' meat "tender" since the animals muscles cannot develop.

Published scientific research indicates that calves confined in crates experience "chronic stress" and require approximately five times more medication than calves living in more spacious conditions. It is not surprising then, that veal is among the most likely meat to contain illegal drug residues which pose a threat to human health.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/dairy_and_veal.asp

I really liked the meal. Still I'm not sure how I feal about the incredibly inhuman conditions used to create veal.

So:

[Dead]

Jesus Christ.

WTF is up with all of these stupid animal rights threads. Have these replaced the numerous "how do I talk to girls" threads?

Anyway, shut up you wuss and eat your meat.

[InchoateHand]

Veal is tasty.

Veal is wrong.


Veal is tasy.


Its funny, veal is an afterthought---all these extra calves, what to do with them...why not create a market for veal?

Veal is tasty.

But yes, I share your ambivalence.

[ClassicBob]

You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.

[BusterStacks]

Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you. Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal. Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you. Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal. Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow buster how is this treatment not physically painful? not to mention, what if we had people farms and these people made organs that we used? is that okay because these people wouldn't have existed otherwise?

[[censored]]

Hearing how they are treated, saddens me and if I saw it in person I would be bothered. That being said, I'm not going to stop eating veil. If that makes me hypocrite then so be it.

Stories of war also bother and sadden me, but I do not plan on becoming a pacifist.

[Dead]

Bruiser, STOP.

You eat chicken and dairy products yourself. Animals have to suffer for your food too.

You're like Ted Bundy telling people that murder is wrong and that they shouldn't do it.

I never said that animals don't suffer for my food. But I am okay with them suffering so that I can enjoy it. I'm sure that they're fine with it, too.

[theBruiser500]

here is another interesting thing about veal. pink veal tastes the same as all other veal but getsa better price so veal factories make pink veal. the way to do this is to not let them eat any iron and make them anemic. they can't use iron bars to hold the animal in the crate because he's so desperate for iron that he starts licking the bars to get it.

[theBruiser500]

dead we are just talking here, i am not calling anyone a bad person for how they personally deal with these issues.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you. Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal. Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow buster how is this treatment not physically painful? not to mention, what if we had people farms and these people made organs that we used? is that okay because these people wouldn't have existed otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is the argument of animal activists, and I'm glad you said it. Bruiser, let me convey one very important thing to you:

ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

So, let's talk apples to apples here. Do I think mink farms are ok if they are going to kill the animals and make them into coats? Yes.

[peachy]

its gonna happen one way or another...IMO when we raised our own animals and killed them it was even more brutal and less efficent (although some ways in which they r raised now might be harsher)...but everything has a cost

[theBruiser500]

"ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE."

so what? we could eat woman if they are tasty and justify it as "they are not men", or we could make black people slaves and justify it as "they are different, they are black". it's arbitrary distinction.

[shant]

It sucks that baby cows are so tasty.

[InchoateHand]

I have multiple qualms with Peter Singer, but I'm glad he has reached you this viscerally---he is a smart man, discount at your own risk.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. But people are animals.

[BusterStacks]

no, you are retarded. A person has:

self-awareness
beliefs
preferences
ability to make decisions contrary to instinct
inner monologue
expectance of future trends

An animal has none of these.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to hold back. I can take criticism. Please notice I haven't stated my opinion on the matter yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact argument I use to defend myself against vegans when I eat a nice juicy steak.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.

[/ QUOTE ]

They may be dumb, but I assure you all mammals are smart enough to feel and remember pain.

[InchoateHand]

Just to play devils cognitive neuroscience-advocate, are these, [ QUOTE ]
self-awareness
beliefs
preferences
ability to make decisions contrary to instinct
inner monologue
expectance of future trends

[/ QUOTE ]

Really separate things?

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
I have multiple qualms with Peter Singer, but I'm glad he has reached you this viscerally---he is a smart man, discount at your own risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

what problems do you have with him

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to play devils cognitive neuroscience-advocate, are these, [ QUOTE ]
self-awareness
beliefs
preferences
ability to make decisions contrary to instinct
inner monologue
expectance of future trends

[/ QUOTE ]

Really separate things?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are not. But, I am laying a trap for bruiser's idiocy. Go with it.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact argument I use to defend myself against vegans when I eat a nice juicy steak.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious about this? it seems like an incredibly vaccuous argument to me.

[Hermlord]

Buster,

1) I would like to hear your reply to the original point: veal calf conditions are incredibly physically and psychologically painful. This is not a situation where it's kill or starve; it's causing intense pain for increased sensory pleasure.

2) The idea that living things are commoditized and treated as objects is abhorrent to me. There is a huge difference between saying that it is OK to eat animals and saying they exist solely at our pleasure for our consumption. You can respond but I will simply never understand this way of thinking. It makes me sad that people feel this way.

Please do not let point 2 skew your answer for point 1.

[BusterStacks]

Wacki, I am not sure I am willing to admit that they are in pain. If a person is in a a room that is tall enough for them to stand up fully as well as lay down, they are not in pain no matter how much it sucks. Same for animals.

[InchoateHand]

I have a lot of respect for Singer's unabashed utilitarianism (read his work on mentally, physically disabled persons), but I am not remotely comfortable with him claiming the role of moral arbiter for the universe. Though he presents his arguments in terms of utility, on closer inspection they reveal a distinct normative trend at odds with his protestations of impartiality.

I would be happy to continue this discussion on a deeper level, but it has been years since I read AL (nor have I dumplicated Michael Pollan's exercise in cognitive dissonance---read AL in a steakhouse---and it is also rather late/early here, so I'm afraid any "insights" I might have would be sub-par.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Buster,

1) I would like to hear your reply to the original point: veal calf conditions are incredibly physically and psychologically painful. This is not a situation where it's kill or starve; it's causing intense pain for increased sensory pleasure.

2) The idea that living things are commoditized and treated as objects is abhorrent to me. There is a huge difference between saying that it is OK to eat animals and saying they exist solely at our pleasure for our consumption. You can respond but I will simply never understand this way of thinking. It makes me sad that people feel this way.

Please do not let point 2 skew your answer for point 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) as I said, I am confident that these conditions are not physically painful. I do believe that they would be psychologically painful TO A PERSON. However, I would be willing to dedend a stance that virtually nothing is psychologically painful to an animal. I know this is not a point that people are comfortable admitting, but I do believe it.

2) You said yourself you will never understand the thinking. I however, do understand it.

[theBruiser500]

wacki, something i want to do is visit a factory farm, i think that would help clarify things in my mind. it is kind of weird when you think about it that we have no experience at all with our entire meat diet. we would naturally feel a lot of sympathy for these animals if we actually had first hand experience with it, i bet much more vegetarnism.

[Dead]

I've visited a factory farm and it only made me hungrier for steak.

I've read a lot of PETA literature and I know exactly how they kill the cows and the pigs. And I still don't care

But maybe I don't think that life is as precious as you seem to think it is. I have no problem with abortion or the death penalty being used a lot.

[Fabian]

I'm not sure what it's called, but have you heard of the kittens that are put into bottles (or something similar) when they are born, to be shaped like the bottle as they grow up?

Do you think that situation is any different from the one discussed in this thread?

[InchoateHand]

Yeah, bonsai kittens. They are real. But of course. Be careful though, don't look into them or Santa will have to go to the raindeer stalls to fill your stocking.

[Hermlord]

Buster, this is simply ridiculous. Veal conditions are absolutely atrocious, well beyond simple confinement. If you concede that calves can feel physical pain, you must conclude that veal conditions induce that. Besides, I challenge you to confine yourself to an enclosure the (relative) size of a veal pen for 10 days, and then tell me it does not induce physical pain. As for mental pain, consciousness etc. is not at issue here. Veal calves act in all manner of erratic, abnormal ways that clearly stem from mental distress.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what it's called, but have you heard of the kittens that are put into bottles (or something similar) when they are born, to be shaped like the bottle as they grow up?

Do you think that situation is any different from the one discussed in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you are an idiot. See here (http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/bonsai.asp)

please don't respond to any of my posts for at least a year. You are so dumb I am worried about people who come in contact with you on a daily basis. btw, PWNED.

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]
no, you are retarded. A person has:

self-awareness
beliefs
preferences
ability to make decisions contrary to instinct
inner monologue
expectance of future trends

An animal has none of these.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, granted. It would be trivial to even begin to argue that, although it could be done (especially for things like self-awareness, preferences, and expectation). But is that really the criteria you go by when deciding on whether or not it's acceptable to eat an animal, or in this case make it live an extremely torturous life? Fundamentally what you're getting at is that you find veal production "okay" because cows aren't as intelligent as humans, which is true... but there are some people that have lower IQ's than dogs, so where do you draw the line?

[BusterStacks]

Someone has a lower IQ than a dog? The burden of proof is on you. Let's see a link, I call BS.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
but there are some people that have lower IQ's than dogs, so where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about between human and not human.

[Fabian]

Are you telling me it's not theoretically possible? And if you are, why does it matter? You can make up any example you want.

[Dead]

Did you ask Zaxx for permission to use his picture as your avatar?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

How about between human and not human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop making sense!

[Fabian]

Who is Zaxx?

[Dead]

A politics troll who is very fat and very Jewish.

[Hermlord]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki, something i want to do is visit a factory farm, i think that would help clarify things in my mind. it is kind of weird when you think about it that we have no experience at all with our entire meat diet. we would naturally feel a lot of sympathy for these animals if we actually had first hand experience with it, i bet much more vegetarnism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, please expand on this. This is a huge consequence of modern society. I understand that we all start life unaware of these things, but once you do learn them, how can you continue to participate in them? I really want a solid explanation for people who know commercial meat causes pain, feel that is a bad thing, and yet continue to eat meat. Is it just flat-out laziness? Resistance to change? Or what -- I'm really asking here.

[Fabian]

Ok. No I didn't. This avatar was awarded to me for losing a challenge in the general forum.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me it's not theoretically possible? And if you are, why does it matter? You can make up any example you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is what theoretically possible? bonzai kittens? Sure, but that wasn't your point. You were under the impression that they were real. Dude, don't backtrack. Seriously, you're not saving any face by trying to salvage your point. We all get owned sometimes. this discussion... it's not for you.

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone has a lower IQ than a dog? The burden of proof is on you. Let's see a link, I call BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's estimated smart dog's have the intelligence of a person with an IQ of 40, severely mentally retarded people are categorized by IQ's lower than that

[theBruiser500]

for me, it is laziness and a weak personality. a couple of weeks ago i almost ate meat but was strongly affected by what i had read about it and it was too repulsive for me to eat even after i had it in front of me. now though my strong feelings are fading away, i got a restaurant with friends and i really like eating and there aren't many vegetarian items on the menu...

however, i do think that being 80 or 90 or 95% vegetarian is good. my friend says i'm being hypocritcal or not a real vegetarian when i eat a little meat but if ieat 95% vegetarian then it's effectively the same thing and i don't see much of a difference.

[InchoateHand]

Sure, and there are primates at the mental capacities of a 2-3 year old. If we can kill them, does abortion go to age three?

I love the good-old non-sequitar. Without it, how I could argue (other than ad hominem)?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
for me, it is laziness and a weak personality. a couple of weeks ago i almost ate meat but was strongly affected by what i had read about it and it was too repulsive for me to eat even after i had it in front of me. now though my strong feelings are fading away, i got a restaurant with friends and i really like eating and there aren't many vegetarian items on the menu...

however, i do think that being 80 or 90 or 95% vegetarian is good. my friend says i'm being hypocritcal or not a real vegetarian when i eat a little meat but if ieat 95% vegetarian then it's effectively the same thing and i don't see much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]\

It's called having principles, Bruiser.

If I only kill one person a year then can I lecture you on the evils of serial killing without being a complete hypocrite? No, I can't.

[Fabian]

I had no point, I had a question. The thing I reacted to in your response was this:

"1) as I said, I am confident that these conditions are not physically painful."

It seems reasonable to me that at some point the conditions actually are physically painful, and I wanted to know if you agreed. No points.

[InchoateHand]

You know your argument doesn't make sense, come on Dead, save something of yourself.


Yes Bruiser, minimizing meat intake does make a difference. The world is not all-or-nothing, as you are well aware. Principles are not immutable, and compromise isn't failure.

[theBruiser500]

dead didn't you have just 500 posts a few weeks ago? is that why you're such an angry person, because all you do is spend your time on 2+2?

[Prevaricator]

Very good point.

[Hermlord]

That is a remarkably honest reply...thank you.

P.S. Buster I think you might have missed my last response to you...that's not sarcasm, just based on the message timestamps.

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there are some people that have lower IQ's than dogs, so where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about between human and not human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The rationality behind Buster's point of view is "intelligent enough/unintelligent enough", which isn't one in the same with human/not human.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact argument I use to defend myself against vegans when I eat a nice juicy steak.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious about this? it seems like an incredibly vaccuous argument to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's better to live a short life then to not live at all. It's better to love and lost then to not love at all. Cows would be endangered if it wasn't for human's urge to raise and eat them. They are given a chance to live that they wouldn't have had in a modern vegan society.

Of course that argument only holds water when talking about free range cows. The conditions chickens are raised in are pure torture.

In the end I realize that I'm a meat eater and it will be very difficult for me to stop. I crave meat like a crack fiend. We are at the top of the food chain and life isn't a perfect picture. I mainly use Buster's argument because hippies/vegans can't normally think of a good counterpoint.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm all for exploiting our position at the absolute peak of the food chain, but veal seems [censored] up and wrong. I have never and will never eat veal.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for exploiting our position at the absolute peak of the food chain, but veal seems [censored] up and wrong. I have never and will never eat veal.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I bet the chicken you undoubtedly eat sustains more pain than veal.

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, and there are primates at the mental capacities of a 2-3 year old. If we can kill them, does abortion go to age three?

I love the good-old non-sequitar. Without it, how I could argue (other than ad hominem)?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, hypothetically, if the people killing the primate are making the justification based on the primate's intelligence (or thereof) in comparison to humans, while at the same time, say, protesting 3 y/o abortions... it would either be a) unrational, b) involve another reasoning (ie, a moral distinction between the killing of a human and the killing of a primate) or a combination of both. Point is, Buster didn't make an argument/case for an ethical distinction between humans and cows, instead his reasoning was that species x isn't as smart as species y, thus making the circumstances calves are raised in "okay"

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Buster,

1) I would like to hear your reply to the original point: veal calf conditions are incredibly physically and psychologically painful. This is not a situation where it's kill or starve; it's causing intense pain for increased sensory pleasure.

2) The idea that living things are commoditized and treated as objects is abhorrent to me. There is a huge difference between saying that it is OK to eat animals and saying they exist solely at our pleasure for our consumption. You can respond but I will simply never understand this way of thinking. It makes me sad that people feel this way.

Please do not let point 2 skew your answer for point 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) as I said, I am confident that these conditions are not physically painful. I do believe that they would be psychologically painful TO A PERSON. However, I would be willing to dedend a stance that virtually nothing is psychologically painful to an animal. I know this is not a point that people are comfortable admitting, but I do believe it.

2) You said yourself you will never understand the thinking. I however, do understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an interesting thought, but having had a couple of dogs, I am confident that they (animals) could feel psychological pain.

Do abused animals not become psychologically scarred?

I'm not a big pet lover either btw.

[BusterStacks]

Well, I have a dog that I value very highly. Probably as high as a friend. In all honesty though, I believe that any symptoms you would perceive as emotional scarring from abuse could be explained by a learned avoidance of pain or a natural distrust for all people based on the actions of one.

[pshreck]

Buster, you would admit that animals experience fear? Yell at a dog and often its response seems to be of fear or shame. While you may be right that they dont really comprehend what they feel, what do you think is exactly going on in their head?

[ethan]

The tears from the tortured baby cow are what make it so tender.

Mmmmm....tortured baby cow. I like veal.

edit - I do realize that their treatment is horrible. But they taste good, and I don't much like cows. I'm willing to let my morals slide from time to time for the sake of a good meal.

[Cyrus]

Literally, we are an animal that eats other animals.

Hope this makes you feel better...

[thatpfunk]

Quick story: I was raised a vegetarian. I have never eaten red meat and honestly don't see any reason to. I honestly don't see that strong of a reason not to either however. In high school I began to eat chicken for more protein (needed to gain weight for sports/absurd amount of weight-training, not that interesting).

Now I don't like meat much, but eat chicken and fish occasionally. People have asked me why I don't eat red meat and I have come up with the response, "I don't eat what I peronally wouldn't kill."

I suppose I subscribe to this belief more or less. It is true (I wouldn't really want to kill a pig or cow but wouldn't have much trouble with a chicken o fish). Does this line of thinking hold water?

It doesn't really matter since I have absolutely no urge to eat red meat, I'm just curious about OOT's opinion...

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Buster, you would admit that animals experience fear? Yell at a dog and often its response seems to be of fear or shame. While you may be right that they dont really comprehend what they feel, what do you think is exactly going on in their head?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you are thinking too much like a person. Understand that the fear a dog experiences is due to association. When you yell at a dog and he is scared, it's because loud noises are scary, but more importantly because he will associate that with whatever punishment you have followed up with in the past.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for exploiting our position at the absolute peak of the food chain, but veal seems [censored] up and wrong. I have never and will never eat veal.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I bet the chicken you undoubtedly eat sustains more pain than veal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Chicken are put in a horrible situation, the thing that bugs me about veal is that I'm paying a whole lot more money and going out of my way to support cruelty to animals. With chicken, you don't have much of a choice, or you have to go way out of your way and pay a lot more to get friendly raised chickens. It's the difference between actively supporting and passively supporting cruelty that bugs me.

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact argument I use to defend myself against vegans when I eat a nice juicy steak.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious about this? it seems like an incredibly vaccuous argument to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oddly enough, I agree with bruiser here. This argument really doesn't seem all that convincing. Then again, my argument for eating meat is probably something along the lines of "bummer for the cow, but I'm hungry and steak tastes good."

[BusterStacks]

I would not kill a cow, but steak is delicious.

[Hermlord]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't eat what I peronally wouldn't kill."

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this both moral and rational, except that you now have to justify why you are drawing the line where you are.

[pshreck]

Human fear is not due to association?

Point a gun at a baby (or anyone who doesnt know what a gun is) and see how afraid they get. My dog shakes and cowers when I yell, but is the point you are making is that they are more feeling 'damn I dont want to get hit' and nothing like human fear?

[InchoateHand]

Having personally killed multiple chickens, and assisted in the slaughter of lambs and cows (and goats!) at Hari Raya, your answer is good but not complete. I was also raised a vegetarian, a path I quickly diverged from, returned to in my teen politically-naive years (to the point of veganism) and diverged from once more when I developed a taste for fine food.


If I gave up red meat I would certainly miss it, but not a whole-hell-of-alot. I've given up more compelling things before.

Even though I would be fine participating in the slaughter of a cow, that doesn't (necessarily) justify eating veal given the condiitons the calves are subjected to. That said, I eat veal. Whatever.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for exploiting our position at the absolute peak of the food chain, but veal seems [censored] up and wrong. I have never and will never eat veal.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's funny, I bet the chicken you undoubtedly eat sustains more pain than veal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Your point is that I'm a hypocrite...Guilty! At least I don't eat veal...

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]

It's better to live a short life then to not live at all. It's better to love and lost then to not love at all. Cows would be endangered if it wasn't for human's urge to raise and eat them. They are given a chance to live that they wouldn't have had in a modern vegan society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, and slavery was good because otherwise Africans never would have experienced the fun boat ride. It's ironic you would call vegans hippies because that whole spiel up there reaks of new age bullshit. I mean, your whole premise is that life is "sacred" or that these cows are "blessed" and lucky to have been born. Like farmers are affirmative action activists handing out college educations to innercity children without the necessary means for a necessary means. Exactly why would cows be extinct, anyway?

[ QUOTE ]
We are at the top of the food chain and life isn't a perfect picture.

[/ QUOTE ]
really, what food chain is this? I always hear people talking about this "chain" but I can't really see the links... last I checked cows and pigs weren't doing much hunting, and those that were weren't getting preyed upon by humans all too often. If we were ever part of a food chain you can be assured we're far removed from it

[Hermlord]

Buster, you have offered no justification whatsoever for insisting that animals have no emotions or psychological state.

Also, you are still claiming that veal conditions are not physically painful. This is just flat-out wrong, it is not an argument that meat-eaters try to use because it is completely untenable. See my post above, and try a Google search or two (or better yet, go visit a veal farm).

[BusterStacks]

Actually I don't really see what your point is Pshreck. State a thesis and I will approach it. Otherwise your argument is too vague for me.

[pshreck]

Um, I am poking at your thesis. I dont actually have one. I want to know what your argument is of why human and animal fear is so different. One of my arguments is that human fear also comes from association. You can start off with that maybe if you got confused.

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have a dog that I value very highly. Probably as high as a friend. In all honesty though, I believe that any symptoms you would perceive as emotional scarring from abuse could be explained by a learned avoidance of pain or a natural distrust for all people based on the actions of one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's any way to continue this argument. I'll just let it die.

[wacki]

If we were ever part of a food chain you can be assured we're far removed from it

This is a very dumb statement.

It's ironic you would call vegans hippies because that whole spiel up there reaks of new age bullshit

I never said hippies = vegans.

I mean, your whole premise is that life is "sacred" or that these cows are "blessed" and lucky to have been born.

They are, and so is every single buffalo that is still alive and every blue whale that was damn near ran into extinction.


Exactly why would cows be extinct, anyway?

Think before you post please.

[BusterStacks]

fear is too close to instinct for me to feel that this applies to my argument. how about worry?

[Phoenix1010]

I'm not going to write an essay on this thread, though I really want to. I'm glad someone brought up Singer and AL; it's not the last word on the topic, but it's a damn good starting place. The moral arguments and the emphasis on objectivity at the beginning are the best part about the book. If anyone is interested in the issue, and wants to feel qualified to have an educated opinion on the topic, you should read that book at least (Inchoate's comments on it are interesting, because I've always felt exactly the same way). I'll just say that the arguments in this thread are paper thin and easily debunked, and they have been already, read up. It always comes down to a question of morals though.

-Phoenix

[Hermlord]

Wacki, you are claiming

1) That life is sacred
2) That it is better for an animal to live a painful, confined existence as a commodity to be consumed--in other words, as an object--than not to have been born?

I do not understand.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, you are claiming

1) That life is sacred
2) That it is better for an animal to live a painful, confined existence as a commodity to be consumed--in other words, as an object--than not to have been born?

I do not understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 and 2 are not contradictory, if thats what you are implying.

[wacki]

And he obviously missed this sentence:

Of course that argument only holds water when talking about free range cows.

[Hermlord]

You guys are wasting my time....

"I do not understand" = "I do not understand, please explain or elaborate." This is obvious. Stop being a nit.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are wasting my time....

"I do not understand" = "I do not understand, please explain or elaborate." This is obvious. Stop being a nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not implying they are contradictory, then I apologize. But then again if you aren't, then you actually need to pose a question that refers to those two statements.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
no, you are retarded. A person has:

self-awareness
beliefs
preferences
ability to make decisions contrary to instinct
inner monologue
expectance of future trends

An animal has none of these.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with Bruiser here. The things you list are completely arbitrary in relation to whether or not animal torture is acceptable. That's not to say that I agree to disagree with animal torture or veal in particular, but nothing you've said so far (I've only read down this far) has any bearing on the rightness or wrongness of it. You've just created an arbitrary list of human qualities that don't apply to most other animals, but no reason why that list should serve as the standard for whether or not cruelty is acceptable.

An excerpt from 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but, "Can they suffer?"

Also, the idea that non-human animal life isn't sentient is a Western philosophy and is not accepted by all other cultures.

I'm not taking one side or the other here; just stating facts.

GoT

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact argument I use to defend myself against vegans when I eat a nice juicy steak.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a valid argument. The fact that you created something for a specific purpose does not in and of itself justify that purpose. Let's say I decided to have a child with a woman just so I could run tests on it to determine the limits of human pain. Yes, it would not exist had I not had the specific desire to torture it, but that does not necessarily justify my torturing it.

GoT

[InchoateHand]

Ahhh...without Bentham we would have no panopticism, or at least, it would be under a different name. I'm not sure that means I like him.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhh...without Bentham we would have no panopticism, or at least, it would be under a different name. I'm not sure that means I like him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Panopticism was around before Bentham. He was one of the first on the subject of utilitarianism.

Edit: Apparently it wasn't. He did not develop the idea of panopticism, but the philosophy was named after his famous prison design.

GoT

[ZeeJustin]

"If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about."
-Troy McClure

[InchoateHand]

No, he was late into the utilitarianism game too...

I meant a Foucauldian panopticism, a la Discipline and Punish or even in keeping with Jacques Alain-Miller's shameless attempt to steal it for the ecole lacanienne. Both try to attribute their specific vision of the panopticon's function to designs of Bentham. Foucault hardly credits Bentham with any real "contribution," he merely uses this imagery to chart the proliferation of discourse surrounding the movement of punishment from "bodies" and "behaviours" to "subjects" and "criminals." But whatever, I digress. It was a throwaway comment at 6 am, and unlike so many here, I don't keep the poker-player schedule. Probably because I'm a middling poker player.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ.

WTF is up with all of these stupid animal rights threads. Have these replaced the numerous "how do I talk to girls" threads?

Anyway, shut up you wuss and eat your meat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Dead.

[West]

The cow presumably wouldn't torture us to make us taste better. And we're smarter than cows.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you. Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal. Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mean seriously, this has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have read in a long time. Or at least the last five minutes.

I do browse the politics forum...

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Buster, you have offered no justification whatsoever for insisting that animals have no emotions or psychological state.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he's never going to, because the best he'd be able to do is stick his head in the sand like an ostrich and tell you that you can't "prove" that they do.

And of course, if you have to choose between "possibly" torturing an animal and one of a million possible pleasures for your taste buds, well, that's a slam dunk, right?

[theBruiser500]

"It's better to live a short life then to not live at all. It's better to love and lost then to not love at all. Cows would be endangered if it wasn't for human's urge to raise and eat them. They are given a chance to live that they wouldn't have had in a modern vegan society.

Of course that argument only holds water when talking about free range cows. The conditions chickens are raised in are pure torture."

Okay, that is reasonable. Buster as far as I can tell was talking about all animals not just free rnage ones, and I thought you were too.

[daryn]

ugh, who are these people RAISING their kids as vegetarian? ultra-liberal hippie douches?

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
"ANIMALS ARE NOT PEOPLE..."
...it's arbitrary distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say lines between species are anything but arbitrary.

I don't blink an eye when eating cows, chickens, baby seals, whatever. The only thing I don't think I would eat is a monkey. Just a little too close to home.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
"If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about."
-Troy McClure

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha, well done ZJ. good post GoT also

[turnipmonster]

uhh, lots of hindus raise their kids vegetarian.

--turnipmonster

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a valid argument. The fact that you created something for a specific purpose does not in and of itself justify that purpose. Let's say I decided to have a child with a woman just so I could run tests on it to determine the limits of human pain. Yes, it would not exist had I not had the specific desire to torture it, but that does not necessarily justify my torturing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make it uber clear I've never made an argument supporting torture. In fact the whole point of this thread is to ask the question "do we have the right to torture animals for narcissistic and ostentatious purposes only?"

I kind of wish I made this pole differently as I have a feeling the results may of been different.

[Bluffoon]

Considering what we humans do to each other, I think that the energy and attention devoted to the inhumane treatmetn of baby cows is pretty much wasted. Lets prioritize here.

[blatz]

I'm vaguley healthy and sensitive, eat only free range eggs (so much tastier, if you look at both kinds at he same time you'll never go back) and I eat the heck out of veal when i go out.

I figure that ever since I've turned to poker for a living, I'm just turning myself into the human eqivalent of veal for whatever alien or beast is lucky enough to get to chew on me. Fair is fair.

Another cruel food that must be tasted is fois gras, fatty goose liver.

Geese are force-fed via a 16-inch metal tube, which is shoved down their throats and attached to a pressurized pump. The liver increases in size about 6-10 times compared to the normal size for a bird. The abdomen expands so much that even moving becomes painful for Gary the goose.

Mmmm...tastes so much better than it sounds.

[tbach24]

http://www.ritilan.com/archives/images/blogimages/peta_sux.JPG

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering what we humans do to each other, I think that the energy and attention devoted to the inhumane treatmetn of baby cows is pretty much wasted. Lets prioritize here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You completely missed my point and provided a piss poor argument. We are spending much more energy creating veal. We are going out of our way to torture these animals and paying much more to eat their meat. It takes much less energy to avoid eating veal.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
uhh, lots of hindus raise their kids vegetarian.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

they also bathe in a river of [censored]

next

[tbach24]

Has anyone seen this pamphlet? It is really sick. They give it to little kids and it has all this crap about how their parents are murderers and want to steal their pets and that they should hide their pets and kill their parents or some crap. PETA is so fucked up.

As to the original point, I eat animals, but I really think that they are crossing the line with the treatment of these creatures. Animals do have feelings, do feel pain, and this is just a really trashy way to treat them. I ate veal once (unknowingly) but will never eat it again. I also really jsut don't like meat at all tho.

[theBruiser500]

what are you talking about daryn, what is crazy about being vegetarian?

[Hermlord]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering what we humans do to each other, I think that the energy and attention devoted to the inhumane treatmetn of baby cows is pretty much wasted. Lets prioritize here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and let's ignore rape and theft until murder is abolished. This is a common argument but it does not really work.

Violence to animals is not totally separate from other forms of violence. It is not about distinguishing animals from humans; it is about distancing actions from their consequences. Once you say "I know this cow suffered, but whatever, it's on my plate now" it is that much easier to say "I know the sweatshop kids that made my shirt are suffering, but whatever, it's on my back now." Once you no longer have to look someone in the eye to kill them, it's that much easier to just say "f[/i]uck it, let's just carpet-bomb the bastards."

Disassociation from consequences.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
uhh, lots of hindus raise their kids vegetarian.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

they also bathe in a river of [censored]

next

[/ QUOTE ]

and let's not forget the whole killing the girl children thing.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
what are you talking about daryn, what is crazy about being vegetarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

meat tastes good and, contrary to nitwit beliefs, is good for you.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what are you talking about daryn, what is crazy about being vegetarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

meat tastes good and, contrary to nitwit beliefs, is good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

jake care to base that off anything? vegetarians live 7 years longer on average than meat eaters. and don't give me bullshit about how that is not because vegetables are healthier but because vegeterians live healthier life styles. that must be a part of it but what are the odds really, that all 7 years of life expectance gained is because of that correlation, not the SIMPLER explination that vegetables are healther than meat.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
jake care to base that off anything? vegetarians live 7 years longer on average than meat eaters. and don't give me bullshit about how that is not because vegetables are healthier but because vegeterians live healthier life styles. that must be a part of it but what are the odds really, that all 7 years of life expectance gained is because of that correlation, not the SIMPLER explination that vegetables are healther than meat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where your stats come from or what the sample is so it's pretty much impossible for me to argue this.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know where your stats come from or what the sample is so it's pretty much impossible for me to argue this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that is my response to most arguments from vegans/vegetarians as well.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
This severe confinement makes the calves' meat "tender" since the animals muscles cannot develop.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a weird use of quotations on tender. Are you using the term tender sarcastically, i.e. it isn't tender?

OOC, what's the difference between veal and white veal?

I'm kinda curious what free-range veal would taste like. They don't offer it in stores, but if it's close to traditional veal, that would be a much better alternative.

Edit: Anyone know if lamb is kept in similar conditions?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a weird use of quotations on tender. Are you using the term tender sarcastically, i.e. it isn't tender?

[/ QUOTE ]

The block of text is in bold and under an url for a very good reason.

[daryn]

you mean A url

[pshreck]

you mean a URL

[daryn]

nah, i don't usually capitalize here

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal;

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't participated in a debate for quite some time. I'll note here that I do eat "white" veal (not sure what the difference is) and lamb almost exclusively when I'm cooking red meat.

Anyways, I don't know if I agree with your logic here. I don't think ownership of an animal allows you, morally, to torture it, and I don't believe that intentionally breeding an animal for a specific purpose makes said purpose good or bad.

Whether or not this is indeed torture, I don't know. I just don't find that statement to be a good contribution to the debate, if there is one.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
you mean A url

[/ QUOTE ]

Just confirmed this on MS word. WTF??? Why is it "an umbrella" when it's "a url"?

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that he's being very non-confrontational about this (at least in the original post).

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you mean A url

[/ QUOTE ]

Just confirmed this on MS word. WTF??? Why is it "an umbrella" when it's "a url"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? 'url' starts with a y sound, meaning a would be used before it and not an.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
you mean A url

[/ QUOTE ]

Just confirmed this on MS word. WTF??? Why is it "an umbrella" when it's "a url"?

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't pronounce url like it's a word, you say the letters, U R L.

pronouncing the letter U makes a Y sound. YOO.

so, a yoo are el

an umbrella

[Hermlord]

It is insane and immoral to torture and murder an ANIMAL just to make a better-tasting dinner for a HUMAN. Get it?

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
It is insane and immoral to torture and murder an ANIMAL just to make a better-tasting dinner for a HUMAN. Get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, upset that I am ignoring the other thread?

Let it go, you freaking nutcase.

[wacki]

http://www.learn4good.com/languages/evrd_grammar/articles.htm

[censored], well I just looked it up. I always thought it went off the letter. Can you tell I didn't pay attention in english class? Straight C's baby ohhh yaaa. Math, chemistry, biology , computer science, accounting, and similar classes are different matters though.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It is insane and immoral to torture and murder an ANIMAL just to make a better-tasting dinner for a HUMAN. Get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

ugh, who are these people RAISING their kids as vegetarian? ultra-liberal hippie douches?

[/ QUOTE ]

My mom was diagnosed with leukemia and wanted to live as healthy as possible (I hadn't tried fast food until 5th grade at a friends house). She also was a hippie but that was before I was born.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
It is insane and immoral to torture and murder an ANIMAL just to make a better-tasting dinner for a HUMAN. Get it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are retarded.

Go kiss a tree.

[turnipmonster]

I agree, it's really silly to be incredulous about raising your kid vegatarian. there's absolulely nothing wrong with it at all, just a choice. personally I don't think there's anything wrong with other people eating meat or raising their kids to eat meat, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with not eating meat and raising your kid vegetarian.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]

they also bathe in a river of [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

what a comeback. how about this, I personally know plenty of hindus who've never eaten meat and they're otherwise normal , healthy people. again, what's the problem, other than your own preconceived notions and predjudice about what people should eat, with raising your kid on a diet that has worked for millions of people over many thousands of years?

--turnipmonster

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a weird use of quotations on tender. Are you using the term tender sarcastically, i.e. it isn't tender?

[/ QUOTE ]

The block of text is in bold and under an url for a very good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, noticed that afterwards, sorry dude.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you mean A url

[/ QUOTE ]

Just confirmed this on MS word. WTF??? Why is it "an umbrella" when it's "a url"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same reason you use "a" urinal.

Different pronunciation of the u.

[DavidC]

Bump: What is white veal?

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
ugh, who are these people RAISING their kids as vegetarian? ultra-liberal hippie douches?



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they're people who don't want their kids to be unhealthy, fat and dying of cancer.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ugh, who are these people RAISING their kids as vegetarian? ultra-liberal hippie douches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they're people who don't want their kids to be unhealthy, fat and dying of cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they should have given them better genes since this has a lot more to do with cancer, heart disease, cholesterol levels, and many other things than does eating meat.

Or are you saying that eveyone that eats meat is unhealthy, fat and will die of cancer.

Clearly your statement is just retarted.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, I will hold off on what I would like to post simply because it's you. Think of this though, those animals would not exist if they were not for veal; It's not like they are ruining an otherwise enjoyable life for an animal. Furthermore, animals have neither reason nor self-awareness, thus we can infer that unless something is being done that is physically painful to them, this treatment is acceptable from even the most compassionate standpoints if taken at a purely scientifc level.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has always been an assinine opinion.

I'm not saying you're an ass for having it; everyone's got flaws. But it makes zero sense, and in your case, it's not even internally consistent.

Without sense, an animal could not so much as stand up, much less react to pain. This B.F. Skinner/(Descartes? or Spinoza?) crap is pure horseshyt. But at least Descartes, if my memory isn't screwy, had internal consistency in his written ideas. He felt it was okay to dissect animals alive, without even using anesthetic, because they were mere machines and could not feel pain. Buster, you're describing them as lacking awareness yet still saying we should use whether they have pain as some sort of consideration. Forget the presumptuous silliness and inanity of declaring that they have no awareness; here your argument simply makes no internal sense in even the most obvious way.

If an alien race came to earth, they might say the same thing about us, and have just as much reason to ill treat and eat us.

Again, I think this argument is clearly assinine, but if you're smarter than the average bear, than you can understand that I don't mean that to say you're an idiot or a terrible person; just clearly dead wrong.

[Phoenix1010]

You've got your work cut out for you if you're going to debunk every assinine argument in this thread... I'm not even going to bother.

[wacki]

True, but Buster is a respected poster. I tend to ignore the idiots or posters I don't know and respond to those that I do know/respect.

[snorer]

[ QUOTE ]

Then they should have given them better genes since this has a lot more to do with cancer, heart disease, cholesterol levels, and many other things than does eating meat.


[/ QUOTE ]

ohhh... well I guess this explains why obesity, heart disease, and high cholesterol are so much more prevalent in the US. I mean, it's not like we are a melting pot of genetics or anything.

I guess just coindcidentally, all the Europeans with the BAD GENES migrated to the US while the ones with the GOOD GENES stayed behind. Decades later our health epidemic all makes sense... it has nothing to do with our shitty diets and overall bad approach to health, the burden is on inheritance!

I think the same thing goes for living under powerlines, too.

Find a long time vegan with high cholesterol and/or heart disease and your argument might be able to hold a little water.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then they should have given them better genes since this has a lot more to do with cancer, heart disease, cholesterol levels, and many other things than does eating meat.


[/ QUOTE ]

ohhh... well I guess this explains why obesity, heart disease, and high cholesterol are so much more prevalent in the US. I mean, it's not like we are a melting pot of genetics or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. But you're talking about eating to escess. And eating a bunch of total crap. You're not taslking about eating meat. I could eat totally vegan and be just as unhealthy. I could eat donuts and candy every meal of my life. I still wouldn't be healthy.