Why vegans are simply better people

[RandFan]

We have been especially struck with the cheerfulness and contentment of the slaves, and their usually elastic and buoyant spirits.

I think you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole comparing cows to HUMAN SLAVES!

I'm not sure it's hyperbole but it's far from compelling. This would be, IMO, the vegan version of the bacteria argument. While there might be some value to the notion it's a big stretch and, IMO, comes with a cost of not being taken seriously.

I think most reasonable people would not find it reasonable to intervene to save wild animals from other wild animals. We would intervene to save humans from wild animals.

Like it or not, there is a difference between humans who can appreciate their free will and act on their hopes and dreams. That we can strip away a humans desire to be free doesn't alter the perniciousness of slavery. We know that slavery is not good for the flourishing of citizens in general and slaves in particular. We don't know that animal husbandry is axiomatically antithetical to either human societies in general or animals specifically.

That said, I'm not entirely opposed to the comparison but I think you (citizenzen) need to make a better argument. If I were to attempt such an argument I would borrow from Singer particularly something out of Animal Liberation. FTR: This is all JMO.

 

[Kahalachan]

You warn against projecting, yet that's exactly what YOU did. Please explain how you know the state of mind of cows, their level of contentment and how well they accept confinement and impending doom.

That's generally how breeding works. It's rapidly planned evolution to create domesticated animals we want.

We want docile cows that don't mind sitting around grazing. We want loyal dogs that do get along with humans.

Are you trying to tell me that inside every single cow's brain it's just yearning to run and play? Or that the first Aurochs were bred to be aggressive and energetic, yet here we have dumb slow cows today?

 

[citizenzen]

I think you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole comparing cows to HUMAN SLAVES!

It's really less of a comparison of cows to human slaves than it is a comparison of attitudes such as yours to some who advocated for slavery.

 

[RandFan]

I think its a perfectly apt comparison. Interestingly enough, the argument for human slavery is identical to arguments people use for animal agriculture.

Concede your point about the idenity of the arguments. Not a knock down rebuttal though. If there is a fundamental difference between people and other animals then the arguments could very well be valid. I think there are key differences. I think the ethical arguments against animal husbandry that are the most compelling are those that don't attempt to presume that there are no differences between people and other animals.

 

[Furcifer]

Insisting on using animate pronouns for pets == suicide bombing. Got it.

No, it equals "fanatic".

I don't believe for a second most PETA members actually feel this way. I honestly think it's just a "troll" to draw out the real hardcore members who will do stuff for PETA, give money to PETA and encourage more people to PETA.

It's indicative of the fringe element in PETA and not the general ideology of most members.

Does that make more sense?

 

[citizenzen]

Are you trying to tell me that inside every single cow's brain it's just yearning to run and play? Or that the first Aurochs were bred to be aggressive and energetic, yet here we have dumb slow cows today?

I'm not trying to tell you what's going on in a cows brain, you are.

You're the one making claims about what a cow thinks, so I'm simply asking how you know this.

I'm just fascinated that between you claiming to know how a cow thinks and feels and RandFan claiming to know what nonexistence is like, there's a whole new realm of knowledge to share.

Let's get started right now.

 

[RandFan]

Please explain how you know the state of mind of cows, their level of contentment and how well they accept confinement and impending doom.

I think we know far more about the cognitive nature of animals then you suppose. We can monitor stress levels and we know that an animal that is being chased by a predator or having been trapped by a predator exhibits certain behaviors consistent with stress. This was much of the basis for the work don't by Temple Grandin. She has shown scientifically that cows are under less stress using her methods of slaughter than traditional ones. Given that and other work done on the cognitive nature of animal behavior, cognitive abilities and stress I think you need more than an argument from ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

I'm just fascinated that between you claiming to know how a cow thinks and feels and RandFan claiming to know what nonexistence is like, there's a whole new realm of knowledge to share.

No. Your lack of imagination and or lack of understanding of the current status of the cognitive abilities and associated behaviors of animals really is beside the point. If someone tells me they can't imagine quantum effects then it is hardly argument for anything.

 

[citizenzen]

I think we know far more about the cognitive nature of animals then you suppose.

Then by all means share your sources, as I'd find them quite interesting.

 

[Dessi]

I'm not sure it's hyperbole but it's far from compelling. This would be, IMO, the vegan version of the bacteria argument. While there might be some value to the notion it's a big stretch and, IMO, comes with a cost of not being taken seriously.

Isn't that kind of like saying comparisons between napalm and white phosphorous are totally different by a big stretch, because one burns at 2000 F and the other burns at 5000 F?

The only reason why a comparison between animal slavery and human slavery is "quite a stretch" is due to a prejudice against animal suffering, that animal suffering is less important or less profound than anything humans endure.

Really, is there a huge gulf between the suffering of a veal calf and a human slave? Does a human's concept of slavery make his suffering more "valid"? I'd say the difference in suffering is miniscule, both are far far far beyond the level of cruelty that anyone or anything should ever endure.There's nothing vastly incomparable about the two scenarios.

 

[RandFan]

Then by all means share your sources, as I'd find them quite interesting.

Sure. Right. I apologize but to be honest I have very serious reservations about your interest. In any event, there is the work of Temple Grandin. I would recommend the PBS documentary Episode Open hosted by Alan Also who is an opponent of zoos but changed his mind somewhat after looking at the scientific evidence of how we can be confident about an animals level of stress in the wild compared to the old style of zoos and the modern ones.

 

[Kahalachan]

I'm not trying to tell you what's going on in a cows brain, you are.

You're the one making claims about what a cow thinks, so I'm simply asking how you know this.

I'm just fascinated that between you claiming to know how a cow thinks and feels and RandFan claiming to know what nonexistence is like, there's a whole new realm of knowledge to share.

Let's get started right now.

It's the same reason retrievers like to go for a swim. Or sheepdogs love running in circles. We have bred them to be internally motivated to enjoy these activities. Makes training them a lot easier.

Same with cows. They have been bred to be internally motivated to cluster up into groups and not wander off barring something that could scare them into a stampede, prefer a life of standing around grazing, and simply be the cows we know them to be today.

I'm starting to think some animal rights activists are as bad as Creationists in denying the hand evolution plays in determining life.

 

[IDB87]

I think its a perfectly apt comparison. Interestingly enough, the argument for human slavery is identical to arguments people use for animal agriculture.

Why make the comparison at all when the alternative is extinction, which I think you suggested was a more moral approach to some species of animal.

 

[Stout]

I don't mean to be flippant but, well, cool. Your community is one serious exception.

I never take issue with individual decisions and I won't render a judgement either way as to your actions. As for the overall issue your situation highlights, given the serious nature of the very real problem of over population I don't care. I've never heard of such a thing and I suppose it's possible but IMO it sounds like my idea is feasible and it actually argues for me.

And I apologize that I'm being dismissive. I'm not against pet ownership. I think it is a good thing. And I would gladly fight against any proposal to prohibit pet ownership (if the label rubs anyone wrong please substitute any other label for having a domestic animal in your care) The problems you highlight really have nothing to do with my argument. We just need to address those problems and find solutions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And, I have to say, given a choice between your situation and overpopulation I would find it a no brainer to go with your situation. But, given the volume of dogs and cats we destroy each year (3-4 million) I personally would find such a proposed dilemma to be at best academic and could not take seriously any real life claim.

Change the regulations for adopting from shelters.

So it would see,,. that we're an exception. The particular kitten that I/we were looking to adopt was from Los Angeles, 1500 miles away and the rescue agency, in order to meet demand had actually driven all the way down there to pick up the litter from a high kill facility.

Upping the cost of getting a pet from a pet store won't do much for the overpopulation issue as people will just start breeding and selling from their homes. Suddenly, if kittens were worth, say several hundred dollars, I could see residential kitten mills popping up everywhere.

IMO the only way to reduce the population of unwanted pets is to launch a massive public education program WRT to spay/neuter your pets. Of course that won't deter those who don't want to pay the associated costs, nor those who think it's cruel to deny an animal the right to reproduce and want little fluffy to experience the joys of motherhood.

Personally, I'd rather be in this situation too. The point I was trying to make is that pet stores aren't the evil that some people make them out to be, at least not around here. Every one ( pet stores ) that I talked to was opposed to the whole idea of kitten mills and said they only take kittens from individuals who have a litter and are trying to find homes for the kittens.

The pet stores were open about this costing them business as there's a kitten ( early summer ) and told me they could, it they wanted, have a full stock at all times if they wanted but chose not to. I was looking late spring, needing to adopt by early may because there's nobody around much from june to september and I didn't want to say to the new kitty. "here's your new home..see ya in 8 hours"

Such is the advantage to working from home, kitty would have had constant companionship and supervision for a month before being left alone with the other cat and the cat door he regularly uses.

So the rescue agency ended up wasting my spring as I was waiting for this kitten for weeks before they told me I couldn't have it. The pet store did have kittens as they had an out of season litter come in but I ended up casting my lot with the agency i thought was "doing good" only to take it in the gonads for ideological reasons.

Eventually I ended up with a year and a half old cat that's no stranger to being outside with the cars and raccoons that every cat needs to learn about. I only just managed to get this one too. The rescue agency I got her from told me I had to pick her up by the end of September as she's all black, and they don't give black cats to anyone in October. Something to do with halloween, they say.

 

[RandFan]

Its not a stretch at all. You own stuff made by slaves, mostly child slaves, there's no way you can avoid that fact if you live in an industrialized society.

The only reason why a comparison between animal slavery and human slavery is "quite a stretch" is due to a prejudice against animal suffering, that animal suffering is less important or less profound than anything humans endure.

Really, is there a huge gulf between the suffering of a veal calf and a human slave? Does a human's concept of slavery make his suffering more "valid"? I'd say the difference in suffering is miniscule, both are far far far beyond the level of cruelty that anyone or anything should ever endure, there's nothing vastly incomparable about the two scenarios.

Okay, now you are changing the parameters of what it is we are talking about. I have no illusions about animal suffering. I'm talking about the abilities of the animal with and without human intervention/interference compared to people with and without human intervention/interference.

Human slaves, regardless of their disposition, lose something very valuable. The ability to exercise their free will. When humans are not slaves we find that they often act in ways that their masters would not want them to. Choosing to sleep in rather than work. Choosing to put off making money for a time to get an education. Humans, without intervention will pursue disparate goals in pursuit of happiness.

Animals don't choose to become midwives or technicians, doctors or lawyers, charity workers or investment bankers. They don't choose between a formal education, informal education or no education at all. There is no evidence that animals think about their future at all or that they can, like humans, appreciate the future. Happiness for them is avoiding predators, avoiding hunger and starvation and avoiding problems associated with the elements.

If you want to discuss suffering, well, that's easy. You and I will find easy consensus. If you want to compare the appreciable life of a slave and that of a pet or zoo or in captivity in general then you've got a bit more difficult job ahead of you.

 

[citizenzen]

Sure. Right. I apologize but to be honest I have very serious reservations about your interest.

I'm sorry to see that you're so cynical and seemingly knowledgeable that you can discern my motivations and character. I, again, am not so clever to think that I know much of anything about the people behind their posts.

But thank you for the links. I will check them out.

 

[RandFan]

So it would see,,. that we're an exception. The particular kitten that I/we were looking to adopt was from Los Angeles, 1500 miles away and the rescue agency, in order to meet demand had actually driven all the way down there to pick up the litter from a high kill facility.

Upping the cost of getting a pet from a pet store won't do much for the overpopulation issue as people will just start breeding and selling from their homes. Suddenly, if kittens were worth, say several hundred dollars, I could see residential kitten mills popping up everywhere.

IMO the only way to reduce the population of unwanted pets is to launch a massive public education program WRT to spay/neuter your pets. Of course that won't deter those who don't want to pay the associated costs, nor those who think it's cruel to deny an animal the right to reproduce and want little fluffy to experience the joys of motherhood.

Personally, I'd rather be in this situation too. The point I was trying to make is that pet stores aren't the evil that some people make them out to be, at least not around here. Every one ( pet stores ) that I talked to was opposed to the whole idea of kitten mills and said they only take kittens from individuals who have a litter and are trying to find homes for the kittens.

The pet stores were open about this costing them business as there's a kitten ( early summer ) and told me they could, it they wanted, have a full stock at all times if they wanted but chose not to. I was looking late spring, needing to adopt by early may because there's nobody around much from june to september and I didn't want to say to the new kitty. "here's your new home..see ya in 8 hours"

Such is the advantage to working from home, kitty would have had constant companionship and supervision for a month before being left alone with the other cat and the cat door he regularly uses.

So the rescue agency ended up wasting my spring as I was waiting for this kitten for weeks before they told me I couldn't have it. The pet store did have kittens as they had an out of season litter come in but I ended up casting my lot with the agency i thought was "doing good" only to take it in the gonads for ideological reasons.

Eventually I ended up with a year and a half old cat that's no stranger to being outside with the cars and raccoons that every cat needs to learn about. I only just managed to get this one too. The rescue agency I got her from told me I had to pick her up by the end of September as she's all black, and they don't give black cats to anyone in October. Something to do with halloween, they say.

Thanks. I understand your points. I don't think pet stores are evil. I think them unnecessary. At best, IMO, your example highlights some of the advantages of pet stores to solve some problems but in the end doesn't change my mind. But that's cool.

 

[IDB87]

Really, is there a huge gulf between the suffering of a veal calf and a human slave?

Yes.

From personal experience:

My family are dairy farmers (I swear I've posted this before). I don't think I need to explain to you how cows make milk, but the calf is inevitable. Now either my family can raise the calf to full, inflating their herd to levels beyond sustainability, or they can sell it as veal. The second option is usually always taken. I don't know where you get your idea that baby calves suffer, maybe from seeing CAFOS, but from birth until death, my family makes sure the calf is as comfortable and well fed (with nutritional food) as possible and is slaughtered in a humane way.

Now if you think my family should pack up the farm and do something else, maybe grow corn or beets instead, you should suggest that to them, as well as the hundreds of other families in the area that do the same. But I don't think it's very kind of you to suggest that what they do is in any way shape or form analogous to slavery, considering the alternative to domesticating cattle is to let them go extinct.

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry to see that you're so cynical and seemingly knowledgeable that you can discern my motivations and character. I, again, am not so clever to think that I know much of anything about the people behind their posts.

But thank you for the links. I will check them out.

I will apologize for the cynical nature of my post. I'm sorry. I'm trying to extend to everyone the principles of charity for philosophical argument. I often fail but I do try.

FWIW: I did find the following provocative.

I'm just fascinated that between you claiming to know how a cow thinks and feels and RandFan claiming to know what nonexistence is like, there's a whole new realm of knowledge to share.

I apologize if I read sarcasm into that. Perhaps it's not best to revisit past discussions or find a better way to address your incredulity. Perhaps not. I'll leave it to you to decide and accept the error is mine.

 

[BravesFan]

It's really less of a comparison of cows to human slaves than it is a comparison of attitudes such as yours to some who advocated for slavery.

Ahh so now it's me who is some sort of problem eh? Because I eat critters (like many other critters) i'm a problem and akin to slave masters? You don't find that a bit rude? What possible outcome do you wish to come from this point you are making? That by being exceedingly rude to me that you will somehow awaken me to the good of your cause?

Pardon me if I choose to allow you to eat what you want while you allow me to eat what i want.