PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Belz...]

I've encountered many people who are firmly against using animal testing for medical research, yet happily eat meat. People who rant about how horribly we treat animals, while munching on fried chicken and BBQ pork ribs.

I don't see a hypocrisy there, so long as the slaughtering/research is done in the most humane way that is reasonably expected.

 

[luchog]

Until the neo-luddites get their way, because, you know: Technology is bad and is destroying the world.

Oddly, the people who are against eating animals are very often also anti-technology; unless of course it's technology that they personally happen to like or depend on.

 

[Cain]

1. If it was an isolated incident perhaps we would not have a 9 page thread. So saying "one dog" is disingenuous.

The thread has been fueled not so much by any alleged pattern in this area as a referendum on PeTA for statements and practices over the years.

3. This thread is about peta. Thus I have made clear my position on peta. I have not given you my opinion on puppy mills, windmills, or General Mills, because those are not the subject of this thread.

I realize you want to do an awful, awful dance where you make this line of the discussion about one thing, and then about something else whenever it suits you, but I'm afraid that will not work. My comment, which you apparently want to discuss, was that opponents who describe PeTA's views as ridiculous hold even more ridiculous views. This was mentioned in the context of arguments against animal rights.

Now you want to say you're an opponent of PeTA, and then you volunteer some incoherently worded background about yourself -- you're a supporter of animal rights, or welfare, or something -- and then ask if you're ridiculous. Do you still want an answer?

 

[Cain]

Why?

Other than "it feels bad", that is.

By now you should know why, but each time these threads crop up your amnesia kicks in again. I guess I'm condemned to remember all of your awful reasons for opposing animal rights, while you can blissfully forget all of my good reasons. Such is life.

 

[luchog]

I don't see a hypocrisy there, so long as the slaughtering/research is done in the most humane way that is reasonably expected.

Whu? How is that even relevant to anything I said?

 

[luchog]

If we can survive on a vegan diet with the aid of technology, then we aren't obligate omnivores.

I really want to see your chain of reasoning on this, because it's flatly wrong.

Are you ever going to address this? How do you justify your comment?

It's like saying that "because we have dialysis machines, humans never needed kidneys". It's just that nonsensical.

 

[Meed]

Well, technology allows us to feed any animal plant matter and protein, even carnivores. Ergo, they are not carnivores. By your post's logic, that is.

I don't agree that that follows from my post's logic.

Are you ever going to address this? How do you justify your comment?

It's like saying that "because we have dialysis machines, humans never needed kidneys". It's just that nonsensical.

If I haven't responded to something within a few days I could see posting a reminder, but if it's been a mere 5 hours you can probably assume a response is coming and hold off.

I didn't say "humans were never obligate omnivores", so I'm still confused as to what your confusion is.

 

[Belz...]

By now you should know why, but each time these threads crop up your amnesia kicks in again.

I don't keep track of every individual poster's opinions. Sorry, you're just not that important to me, personally. If you'd like to answer my question rather than decry my lack of consideration for your personal feelings, perhaps this could become a conversation.

Whu? How is that even relevant to anything I said?

You seemed to highlight hypocrisy. Did I misunderstand your post?

I don't agree that that follows from my post's logic.

You said that humans being able to, thanks to technology, skip meat meant that they are not obligate omnivores. I pointed out that since we can feed wild animals similar products, they are not obligate carnivores either. It's an illustration of a flaw in your argument, namely that being able to use tech to change what we are able to do doesn't change our nature, anymore that being able to travel in motorised wheelchairs means we're no longer bipeds.

 

[Meed]

You said that humans being able to, thanks to technology, skip meat meant that they are not obligate omnivores. I pointed out that since we can feed wild animals similar products, they are not obligate carnivores either.

Meat eating animals can't choose to go vegan. And I'm not sure how easily such an animal would be able to survive on a vegan diet of the type that a human would do well on. So I would be inclined to call them obligate omnivores / obligate carnivores.

It's an illustration of a flaw in your argument, namely that being able to use tech to change what we are able to do doesn't change our nature

It's not even an argument, it's just a disagreement about definitions. Our technological capabilities are part of our nature and they produce changes in our environment. "Omnivorous/carnivorous/herbivorous" is a function of both body and environment, in my view.

 

[luchog]

I didn't say "humans were never obligate omnivores", so I'm still confused as to what your confusion is.

Yes, actually, that is what you said. That may not be what you meant, but it is exactly what you said, and I'm not the only person who noticed that, if you read the rest of the thread.

Humans are, and always have been, and barring some major physiological changes, always will be obligate omnivores. The fact that we can substitute one source of an essential nutrient with another created through the use of modern genetic engineering technology does not change human physiology; any more than the fact that we can create dialysis machines mean that humans do not need their kidneys. "Choosing" a different diet does not change human physical reality, it merely means that extraordinary efforts are required to make up for the deficiency of a particular diet.

It also helps to keep in mind that not everyone in the world has access to the same resources and technological products as privileged First-World denizens. Technology is not a replacement for physiology yet.

Incidentally, there are people who insist on trying to raise their dogs and cats, both obligate carnivores, on purely vegan diets. It works about as well as one my reasonably expect (ie. not very well at all).

"Omnivorous/carnivorous/herbivorous" is a function of both body and environment, in my view.

You'll excuse me if I prefer actual medical science over your "view".

 

[Belz...]

Meat eating animals can't choose to go vegan.

You're moving the goalposts. That was never part of your original argument, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter! Woah. Sorry about that.

And I'm not sure how easily such an animal would be able to survive on a vegan diet of the type that a human would do well on.

As well as we, I'd think. If we can produce food that has all the proteins and nutrients they need from plant matter, why increase animal suffering by allowing beasts to kill each other?

 

[luchog]

You seemed to highlight hypocrisy. Did I misunderstand your post?

As I noted, my comments were more about squeamishness and irrationality, than hypocrisy.

People get upset when "cute" animals are killed, yet have no problem eating meat. Mainly because they are so dramatically removed from the nature of what they are doing, that they cease to understand it. They are acting not from ethics, but squeamishness. If they were experienced with how the meat they eat is produced, even under the best of circumstances, they would either be less squeamish about the facts of nature, or would stop eating meat. I've personally watched both happen.

 

[Belz...]

Gotcha.

 

[Meed]

I didn't say "humans were never obligate omnivores"

Yes, actually, that is what you said. That may not be what you meant, but it is exactly what you said

It isn't what I said. What I said, from post #361:

"we aren't obligate omnivores"

"Aren't" is present tense.

The fact that we can substitute one source of an essential nutrient with another created through the use of modern genetic engineering technology does not change human physiology

Indeed. Nor would "there are no non-animal sources of B12 in our environment" say anything about human physiology. So clearly it is not physiology alone that is relevant, but the relationship between the body and the environment. In an environment in which non-animal sources of B12 are available, we are not obligate omnivores. In my view. Granted, not all humans have access to B12 supplements, so some do need to rely on animal products.

But this is merely a definitional disagreement and of no importance substance-wise.

any more than the fact that we can create dialysis machines mean that humans do not need their kidneys. "Choosing" a different diet does not change human physical reality, it merely means that extraordinary efforts are required to make up for the deficiency of a particular diet.

I can buy a year's worth of B12 for 10-15 dollars. I wouldn't call that an extraordinary effort. Much less work/resources go into it than go into a year's worth of animal food products.

It also helps to keep in mind that not everyone in the world has access to the same resources and technological products as privileged First-World denizens.

Granted. I addressed impoverished people and hunter/gatherers earlier in the thread.

Incidentally, there are people who insist on trying to raise their dogs and cats, both obligate carnivores, on purely vegan diets. It works about as well as one my reasonably expect (ie. not very well at all).

I don't know the research on that, but if it doesn't work well then that works against Belz...'s claim.

You'll excuse me if I prefer actual medical science over your "view".

I hope you have a nice day.

You're moving the goalposts. That was never part of your original argument, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter! Woah. Sorry about that.

Again it's a definitional disagreement, not an argument. And clarifying is not moving the goalposts (not that there even are any goalposts).

As well as we, I'd think.

luchog seems to disagree. I don't have a view to offer myself, not having looked at the research.

 

[Belz...]

Again it's a definitional disagreement, not an argument.

On which definition? "Obligate"?

 

[luchog]

I can buy a year's worth of B12 for 10-15 dollars. I wouldn't call that an extraordinary effort. Much less work/resources go into it than go into a year's worth of animal food products.

And where did that year's worth of B12 come from? Just because it's not an extraordinary effort for you, that doesn't mean it wasn't for someone. I think anyone with half a brain can agree that modifying an organism using advanced technology to do something that it could not do before is an extraordinary effort.

A whole lot more work and resources went into making it available than you appear to understand, or be willing to address.

I hope you have a nice day.

And with that it's clear that there is no fruitful discussion to be had here, as I've found it's never worthwhile trying to debate science with people who prefer beliefs to facts.

 

[Desert Fox]

With regard to meat, I expect that meat will eventually be vat grown but one must realize that this will cause numbers of livestock animals to plummet. Without reason to have them, they become uneconomical.

U.S. Equine Population During Mechanization of Agriculture and Transportation:

1900 21,531,635
1905 22,077,000
1910 24,042,882
1915 26,493,000
1920 25,199,552
1925 22,081,520
1930 18,885,856
1935 16,676,000
1940 13,931,531
1945 11,629,000
1950 7,604,000
1955 4,309,000
1960 3,089,000

http://www.americanequestrian.com/pdf/US-Equine-Demographics.pdf

 

[Cain]

I don't keep track of every individual poster's opinions. Sorry, you're just not that important to me, personally. If you'd like to answer my question rather than decry my lack of consideration for your personal feelings, perhaps this could become a conversation.

Where did I decry lack of consideration for my personal feelings? You should try to read for comprehension. If nothing else, you may not have to ask the same questions over and over again.

 

[Belz...]

And where did that year's worth of B12 come from? Just because it's not an extraordinary effort for you, that doesn't mean it wasn't for someone. I think anyone with half a brain can agree that modifying an organism using advanced technology to do something that it could not do before is an extraordinary effort.

I find it unfortunate that our future seems to be to eat pills and supplements.

 

[quadraginta]

With regard to meat, I expect that meat will eventually be vat grown but one must realize that this will cause numbers of livestock animals to plummet. Without reason to have them, they become uneconomical.

U.S. Equine Population During Mechanization of Agriculture and Transportation:

<snip>http://www.americanequestrian.com/pdf/US-Equine-Demographics.pdf

They'll need vat grown dairy, too.