John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[Darat]

1. Millions of animals are bulldozed live into trenches right now due to the bird flue which only spreads because poulrty is being raised for human consumption.

I've seen culls of chicken and other fowl but not other animals - any links?

2. Every year billions of animals are used up by the the bioindustry.

Even if your scenario would become true, those animals would not suffer more than they would anyway and no more animals would suffer after them.

What do you mean by "bioindustry"?

 

[armageddonman]

We are omnivores. Not herbivores. Omnivores.

But we don't have to eat meat. And we certainly don't need animal proteine in the amounts that are consumed by the average westerner.

We are able to didgest meat well in small quantities, preferably in a denaturated state (cooked).

As I said: even if you don't care about animals, you should care at least about your health.

 

[Freakshow]

But we don't have to eat meat. And we certainly don't need animal proteine in the amounts that are consumed by the average westerner.

We are able to didgest meat well in small quantities, preferably in a denaturated state (cooked).

As I said: even if you don't care about animals, you should care at least about your health.

There's lots of things we don't HAVE to do, that we still do because we want to.

And I eat a very healthy diet, even though it has meat in it. Some meats, when prepared the right way, are very healthy as an addition to a balanced diet.

 

[armageddonman]

I've seen culls of chicken and other fowl but not other animals - any links?

As far as I'm aware it's only birds that are killed right now. Is that not enough?

What do you mean by "bioindustry"?

The industry that processes animals.

 

[armageddonman]

There's lots of things we don't HAVE to do, that we still do because we want to.

Only because I'm able to do something does not mean that it is always right to do it.

And I eat a very healthy diet, even though it has meat in it. Some meats, when prepared the right way, are very healthy as an addition to a balanced diet.

That may be correct for you but millions of people eat far too much meat.

And apart from that, raising animals for human consumption is simply a waste of resources.

 

[Vagabond]

And apart from that, raising animals for human consumption is simply a waste of resources.

This isn't really true. As was pointed out earlier in this thread there is a lot of land that isn't good for anything but grazing animals. It can't be used for anything else. Also, we have no idea whatsoever what the impact might be of a billion people switching to a vegitarian diet. It might cause problems and cause a waste of resources that just aren't forseen.

 

[jj]

But we don't have to eat meat. And we certainly don't need animal proteine in the amounts that are consumed by the average westerner.

We are able to didgest meat well in small quantities, preferably in a denaturated state (cooked).

As I said: even if you don't care about animals, you should care at least about your health.

Really? How do you explain the survival of the Inuit, then? I would hardly describe their diet as "small quantities, ... (cooked)". Would you?

Your first sentence is arguably accurate, but your second seems rather misleading. I think you'll have to show us that more than "small quantities" of meat are undigestable (I presume that's what you meant).

As to the issues of "care about your health" would you like, perhaps, to relate exercise to diet here?

 

[jj]

And apart from that, raising animals for human consumption is simply a waste of resources.

Ah, yes, what would you raise on the high plains, then?

 

[Darat]

Only because I'm able to do something does not mean that it is always right to do it.



That may be correct for you but millions of people eat far too much meat.

And apart from that, raising animals for human consumption is simply a waste of resources.

Out of curiosity if we developed (as it seems we are doing) the ability to "factory" produce flesh e.g. we grow sides of beef or a chicken breast meat from a cell culture would you then start to eat meat? (Albeit in healthy quantities.)

 

[richardm]

Unless you suffer from heavy atavism you have no canine teeth in your head.

What? Of course we do! They are the pointy things next to your incisors. Can't miss them. They're not very long compared to some animals, but that doesn't mean they're not there. It's possible that they reduced in length to facilitate language. There are other adaptations that clearly show man's history as a hunter - large brains (you don't need to be very smart to stalk a blade of grass) and binocular vision are two...

 

[Darat]

What? Of course we do! They are the pointy things next to your incisors. Can't miss them. They're not very long compared to some animals, but that doesn't mean they're not there. It's possible that they reduced in length to facilitate language. There are other adaptations that clearly show man's history as a hunter - large brains (you don't need to be very smart to stalk a blade of grass) and binocular vision are two...

See: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561931/Teeth.html for more facts to get your teeth into.

 

[armageddonman]

Out of curiosity if we developed (as it seems we are doing) the ability to "factory" produce flesh e.g. we grow sides of beef or a chicken breast meat from a cell culture would you then start to eat meat? (Albeit in healthy quantities.)

If it tastes nice, maybe.

 

[RandFan]

We are omnivores. Not herbivores. Omnivores.

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

Even if your scenario would become true, those animals would not suffer more than they would anyway and no more animals would suffer after them.

"No more animals would suffer"? Sorry dude, the vast majority of wild animals would suffer. You can only reduce the number animals that directly suffer as a result of humans. There will always be predators eating hunting and killing other animals. Most of them babies. There will always be animals suffering and dying from the elements. Life in the wild is cruel. That it is doesn't excuse anything humans do. But, if we could get humans out of the business of killing and eating animals you can blithely feel good that animals are not suffering.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But we don't have to eat meat. And we certainly don't need animal proteine in the amounts that are consumed by the average westerner.

We are able to didgest meat well in small quantities, preferably in a denaturated state (cooked).

As I said: even if you don't care about animals, you should care at least about your health.

There is, however, a large difference between arguing that people should eat less meat than they do, which is a pretty defensable argument even to a confirmed carnivore like me, and PETA's stance that people should not use animals for any reason, even something as benign as seeing eye dogs.

 

[rikzilla]

My own dear wife is a vegetarian...but it's only because she's found it easier to regulate her weight on such a diet. Somehow meat doesn't agree very well with her system. I could never do it though. Until someone grows a carrot that tastes like a steak I'm sticking with cows, chickens, hogs, and anything else that grunts, cackles, roots, moos, or honks.

Of course if someone does concoct a carrot that tastes like a steak we can expect other kinds of enviro-nuts to complain about "franken-food" eh??

It's wonderful don't you think? That we live in a country where we can be picky about what we'll eat or not...seems the first necessary item to have in order to complain about the food supply is a full belly. Funny isn't it? How starving people don't protest food.

-z

 

[RandFan]

Funny isn't it? How starving people don't protest food.

-z

So true.

 

[Mycroft]

It always astonishes me how aggressive meat-eaters become when disucssing these topics. Do they feel threatened? Can't they discuss the topic without resorting to ridicule and rudeness?

I personally react to the aggressiveness and emotionalism of some of the anti-meat eaters.

For example; Josh pops in here with highly questionable "facts" and the highly emotional claim that he questions the compasion of anybody who "feasts on dead flesh" before going on to claim that slaughtering animals for food is murder. Murder by the millions, no less.

I have friends who are vegitarian, and that's fine. When I visit them I eat their food without complaint, and when they visit me I make sure they have selections that are acceptable to their diet. If they do it for health reasons, that's great. If they do it for philosophical reasons, I can respect that too even if I don't do the same.

But equating eating animals to murder crosses the border into woowooism, and that's when I will object and poke fun at the lunatic.

There are a lot more reasons than the well being of animals not to eat meat...

Sure there are, and if you want to do that, that's fine by me. I'll even support your right to try to convince me and others to adopt your habits. It's when you start acting like a fruit-cake that I draw the line.

 

[Cain]

So, as moral agents, we should collectively choose to take all the misery out of nature by turning the Earth into one great park, euthanizing all the predators and devoting our energies to caring for the rest of the animals.

Really? It's pretty straightforward. If the elimination of needless suffering is a valid goal, then one should experiment on the tribe of human, one should experiment on the animal, and if one gets the opportunity, to go back in time and kill the baby Hitler. It’s a no-brainer.

[/quote]

Your failure to grasp one of the most elementry points in ethics is astounding: ought implies can. We cannot turn the earth into a great park, we cannot travel back in time to kill the baby Hitler. There's also what is typically called the "law of unintended consquences": Interfering in nature, interfering in the past, could (and probably would) lead to unforseeable outcomes, some of which may aggravate the situation we find ourselves in.

Of course I'm certain all of this will go right over your head -- as it always does.

It doesn't really matter because I'm invoking Godwin's law. You may kindly exit now.

I hate the hypocrisy. In the recent penquin movie the sea lions and vultures are portrayed as cruel. What do you think Penguins eat? They are carnivores too. It's bad to eat "cute" animals but fine to chow down on ugly ones like fish.

Are you identifying any specific case of hypocrisy other than the Penguin movie, which has what to do with vegetarianism I don't know. The biggest hypocrites are the meat-eaters who also claim to be great animal lovers. They find cultures who feed on dogs and cats to be distastful. They don't like the idea of horses being made into glue or dogfood, or other such scenarios.

Freakshow writes:

We are omnivores. Not herbivores. Omnivores.

Yes, but "is" does not imply "ought". Humans are also jealous, violent, and homicidal.

Randfan blathers:

The vast majority of animals in the wild die from predation or the elements. Most animals are killed or eaten shortly after birth. Most of those that survive won't make it to maturity. Life in the wild is survival. Kill or be killed. Eat or be eaten. If an animal gets sick it is likely that it will die painfully. Many of those that don't get sick will face the fear of predators many times in their lives.

Animals raised in captivity can be protected from the elements and from predation. When they get sick they can be treated by veterinarians. Facing death happens but once and long after they have had an opportunity to experience life.

This is yet another stupid, vacuous comparison from an empty headed fool. Life in the wild is not some sort of "baseline" or standard for judgement because our domestication does not preclude that circle of life from carrying on (except in cases when the bioindustry literally impinges on nature).

The same exact argument could be made -- and, incidentally, was made -- with respect to black slaves brought over to America. Living standards for blacks increased dramatically in the last one-hundred years of slavery; moreover, blacks had the opportunity of being saved from Hellfire and eternal damnation by the grace of our savior and one true lord Jesus Christ. Since they were held as property, their owners had an economic incentive to keep them healthy.

 

[Mycroft]

Your failure to grasp one of the most elementry points in ethics is astounding: ought implies can. We cannot turn the earth into a great park, we cannot travel back in time to kill the baby Hitler.

Astonishingly, you miss the point. The thought experiment was in response to your own thought experiment where you said; ” People often quote one PETA lunatic who said that if he could cure all the disease in the world by killing one rat, he wouldn't do it. OK, same situation, but let's replace rat with human.”

We cannot turn the Earth into a great park, we cannot travel back in time, but neither can we (as you suggested) cure all disease by killing one human. If we could then the decision to do so would be an easy one.

There's also what is typically called the "law of unintended consquences": Interfering in nature, interfering in the past, could (and probably would) lead to unforseeable outcomes, some of which may aggravate the situation we find ourselves in.

Which is a bogus argument. The “law of unintended consequences” can come into play for any decision, including a hypothetical decision to change the diet of the world.

This is yet another stupid, vacuous comparison from an empty headed fool. Life in the wild is not some sort of "baseline" or standard for judgement because our domestication does not preclude that circle of life from carrying on (except in cases when the bioindustry literally impinges on nature).

Yet you fail to state what is wrong with the argument.