A good-faith effort toward an animal-rights dialog (no cats, Pshreck!)

Hermlord · #1 05-21-2005, 04:07 PM

This is not about veal or killing cats. I am trying to move away from those specific arguments, not continue them.

Animal-rights activists feel that animals are living creatures that can feel physical and emotional pain, and have certain rights. They are not objects that exist to serve humans.

Supporters of meat-eating feel that animals are property, and have no rights. They might or might not feel pain, but that is not relevant because they have no rights.

I understand why animal-rights activists get so upset with meat-eaters. They feel it is a cruel, painful system that perpetrates murder and torture. (Note this does not assume that animals and humans are equal).

I do NOT understand why meat-eaters get so upset with vegetarians. If you think they are crazy, or misguided, why do you expend so much effort arguing with them? When someone tells me their tin-foil hat protects them from the Mind-Rays, I don't try to argue, I smile and nod. Maybe you do the same with vegetarians, but I have had this argument many times (with no mention of cat-killing) and most meat-eaters become very passionate.

1) Why do meat-eaters defend so vigorously if they think animal-rights people are flat-out wrong or crazy?
2) Is there any hope of convincing the other side? If you accept either side's fundamental tenet, the rest of their argument is quite logical. Can/how do you get people to reconsider such basic axioms about their worldview?

Any statements about what animals can/cannot feel (or other fact-based arguments) need a source.

bholdr · #2 05-21-2005, 04:31 PM

Your veiw of the argument is a little dualistic, no? there are many other ideas and justifications behind either side's opinions.

Supporters meat-eating do not necessarily feel that animals have no rights, rather they may believe that those rights, like the rights of man, have limits and/or justifiable exceptions. They may argue that though all living things have rights, that there is a natural order to things, and a genitic inclination towards, and capacity for, eating meat. so, even though animals have rights, emotions, etc, it is not immorl to kill and eat them.

Deer hunting is a telling example. with the removal of predators throughout the american west, deer populations must be strictly regulated. If deer are not selectivly culled, then far more would die in a boom-and-bust cycle of starvation and population explosions. the most efficient (and IMO, humane) method of population control is permitting hunting. therefore, since it is moral to hunt and kill deer in this situation, shouldn't it also be moral to eat the animal once it's dead, rather than waste the resource?

and the logical extension of that idea is that it must not be strictly immoral to eat animals simply because they have feelings, emotions, etc. it's rather a matter of degree, and some people feel that reasons of nutrition, tradition, or even taste are are enough to justify eating meat.

(also, many supporters of meat-eating will point out that the vast majority of meat is born and bred to be eaten, in a way, fulfilling it's purpose)

[ QUOTE ]
I have had this argument many times (with no mention of cat-killing) and most meat-eaters become very passionate.

[/ QUOTE ]

the reason carnivores become offended and defensive is likely that your argument is structured as something of an attack- that is the argument calling them immoral by saying that the reason that one shouldnn't eat meat is primarily a moral one. it should be understandable.

one more thing: [ QUOTE ]
Animal-rights activists feel that animals are living creatures that can feel physical and emotional pain, and have certain rights. They are not objects that exist to serve humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

but, then again, they're not-not objects that exist to serve humans.

Hermlord · #3 05-21-2005, 04:41 PM

OK, you're right -- I wanted to keep a narrower focus on the commercial meat-processing industry. Killing for food, with respect for the life you are taking, is often acceptable to me.

[ QUOTE ]
the reason carnivores become offended and defensive is likely that your argument is structured as something of an attack- that is the argument calling them immoral by saying that the reason that one shouldnn't eat meat is primarily a moral one. it should be understandable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. I try to be as non-confrontational as possible. How do you have dialog with people that you feel are committing a heinous act?

[ QUOTE ]
but, then again, they're not-not objects that exist to serve humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I genuinely have no idea what you mean in the context you stated this.

CallMeIshmael · #4 05-21-2005, 04:44 PM

Havent read any of the other threads, but 2 reasons I have a tendancy to think animal rights people are a little crazy:

1) They have been known to throw blood on people wearing fur. This is ABSURD!

2) At my school, animal rights people held a rally in which they had pictures comparing animal mistreatment to concentration camps. Despite not being Jewish, this was one of the most absurd/offensive things I've ever seen.

EDIT: I completely respect the opinions of anyone who is a vegetarian/vegan. Im just pointing out that some people can be too extreme.

tbach24 · #5 05-21-2005, 04:53 PM

A friend of mine gave me this actual pamphlet as a joke. The contents were EXTREMELY creepy. It was directed towards kids of 4-8 and was basically telling them that their parents were awful people and that they should hide their pets. I'll look for a website of it, but it was so bad.

CallMeIshmael · #6 05-21-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why do meat-eaters defend so vigorously if they think animal-rights people are flat-out wrong or crazy?

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hermlord · #7 05-21-2005, 05:01 PM

In practice, PETA is counterproductive. But that's pragmatics, not ethics.

What is an appropriate response when a large group of people engages in behavior you find despicable? Not "disagreeable" but "cruel and morally reprehensible"?

tbach24 · #8 05-21-2005, 05:03 PM

Well for one thing, giving out these fliers to children is way more despicable than killing animals.

jakethebake · #9 05-21-2005, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was directed towards kids of 4-8 and was basically telling them that their parents were awful people and that they should hide their pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone ever gave this to one of my kids, I would hunt him down and beat the [censored] out of him.

tbach24 · #10 05-21-2005, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was directed towards kids of 4-8 and was basically telling them that their parents were awful people and that they should hide their pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone ever gave this to one of my kids, I would hunt him down and beat the [censored] out of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems far too kind.