Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

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.

Many wild animals (so long as a food source holds) "cluster up into groups and not wander off barring something that could scare them into a stampede, prefer a life of standing around grazing,". So I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

I'm not denying that an animal can't acted elatedly or feel "joy". But this notion that cows are bred to feel joy over their captive and brief lives is simply fantasy ... unless you chose to provide something beyond your own opinion to substantiate that claim.

 

[Stout]

While I'll agree with you that on-site inspections of your home for the life of the cat is extreme, every other condition you list is a valid condition for anybody wishing to care for an animal to meet.

True Story ...

My wife takes care of a number of feral and stray cats down at the town's waterfront. My coworker, who lives in a very rural area, asked me the other day, "does your wife have any good mouser cat she can give me? The one I had disappeared the other day. I think it got taken by a mountain lion."

"Why would my wife want to give you a cat that you're going to leave out for mountain cats to eat?" I asked.

"It's not that bad," he replied, "that cat lasted for five years. My other cat didn't make it past the first week."



Needless to say, he didn't get a cat. And I didn't pass on his request to my wife. I didn't want her hating an otherwise nice and kind person. But even nice and kind people can be clueless when it comes to caring for animals.

If I want to declaw my housecat because the last cat shredded all my furniture, it should be my decision. If the rescue agency wants to replace my furniture because their policies prohibit me from taking steps to protect my belongings, then maybe we can talk.

Declawing is not something I've ever considered as I've always had outdoor cats and crappy furniture ( and catnip laced scratching posts ) but if the rescue agency is trying to find homes for these rescued animals their focus should be on getting a good home for the animal rather than demanding that people adhere to what they think is "the right thing to do"

You pay up front for shots, spay/neuter so those issues are dealt with. declawing is just gravy. That little old lady who wants a companion cat, why deny her and deny the cat a potential loving relationship over fingers ?

So what is the fate of a waterfront feral cat ? Is it any worse than being a mouser on a farm ? Assuming these cats are written off as pet material, why not give one to rural guy to have as a mouser ? After all, he's going to get one anyway, from somewhere.

 

[citizenzen]

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?

Have you ever considered that forums might be a little ... too intense ... for you?

What I compared and showed a parallel to was an attitude that you shared with slave owners ... that their "property" was content with their lack of liberty and better off living that way.

I didn't say you supported human slavery.

Did you read otherwise?

 

[IDB87]

What I compared and showed a parallel to was an attitude that you shared with slave owners ... that their "property" was content with their lack of liberty and better off living that way.

Sticking with cows:

Do you feel pastured cows, who have acres to roam and graze, and who willingly come in to be milked and leave when done, are comparable to CAFO raised cows?

 

[Kahalachan]

Many wild animals (so long as a food source holds) "cluster up into groups and not wander off barring something that could scare them into a stampede, prefer a life of standing around grazing,". So I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

I'm not denying that an animal can't acted elatedly or feel "joy". But this notion that cows are bred to feel joy over their captive and brief lives is simply fantasy ... unless you chose to provide something beyond your own opinion to substantiate that claim.

It's based on understanding their behavior. The way all biologists and zoologists study animals. Sometimes we actually look into animal brains when we're lucky enough. Otherwise we make fair inferences based on observing their behavior.

I can say with high confidence that cheetahs love to run around. I'm not doing some Vulcan mind meld with it but based on its behavior I would be against putting a cheetah in a pen.

Since there has been no selection pressure in breeding cows to just stand there and die, then I can be against factory farming and prefer a free range approach.

But based on cow behavior they do like to stay in the same small patch of area provided they are getting food. That's what they do. Graze until the food runs out. If the food magically keeps appearing cause us humans provide it for them, they'll stick around.

 

[Dessi]

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.

Because the "at least they had a chance to live" mentality is simplistic and naive. Quality of life matters. Bringing things into existence with negative quality of life is of no benefit to anyone. Breeding animals for slaughter has disvalue and should be avoided for that reason alone.

The problem with the "farm animals go extinct" argument is that its not obvious why going extinct has any moral implications whatsoever. You're choosing not to breed them, the moral implications aren't as clear as consciously killing things instead. (Case in point: I'm voluntarily childless, I will never have children, you'd likely not charge me with murder for never having children.)

You can't harm a person by not bringing them into existence, you can't even help a person by failing to bring them into existence. Questions of that nature, whether a person benefits or not for never existing are totally nonsensical. The harm of cow extinction isn't really a question of how cows are harmed, but the impact the extinction has on the surrounding environment. Though, since cows don't live in the wild, there's no obvious environmental impact as, say, gazelle suddenly going extinct in the savannahs.

Interestingly, I know several people who are geologists and vegetarians. These people have a very fairly informed perspective on global warming, and are very much aware of the ecological damage caused by factory farming. Their perspective suggests that extinction would have a very positive impact on the environment.

The "extinction" argument really isn't as cut and dry as it seems. If you have a strong argument that extinction, in and of itself, is harmful, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[citizenzen]

If I want to declaw my housecat because the last cat shredded all my furniture, it should be my decision.

If you value your furniture more than your value the companionship of a cat, then don't get a cat. Likewise, if you don't want to hear the sound of barking, don't get a dog.

So what is the fate of a waterfront feral cat ? Is it any worse than being a mouser on a farm ?

The feral/stray cats continue to be fed daily by my wife. And in the years she's been caring for them, she hasn't lost one to a mountain lion yet.

 

[Kahalachan]

If I want to declaw my housecat because the last cat shredded all my furniture, it should be my decision. If the rescue agency wants to replace my furniture because their policies prohibit me from taking steps to protect my belongings, then maybe we can talk.

Declawing is a bit too far for me. And yeah if it's a legal option then I guess it's your decision.

But claws are everything to a cat. It'd be like a toothless dog. Poor thing. Hah hah.

Cats can be trained to claw alternatives and not claw stuff it shouldn't. As soon as I yelled an obscenity my cat knew not to touch that with its claws. Would take a few more tries before my cats got it down, but eventually they'd stick with scratching Kahalachan approved stuff.

I also think pet owners should have responsibility in knowing how a cat thinks. If you discipline a cat for biting a wire, but the wire is always swinging around (major temptation for a cat) then it's sorta your fault. Tape it down and keep it stationary.

When I was little I read tons of books about dogs before proving to my parents I was responsible enough to take care of a dog. If 8 year old me can do this, any adult can.

 

[bookitty]

If I want to declaw my housecat because the last cat shredded all my furniture, it should be my decision. If the rescue agency wants to replace my furniture because their policies prohibit me from taking steps to protect my belongings, then maybe we can talk.

Declawing is not something I've ever considered as I've always had outdoor cats and crappy furniture ( and catnip laced scratching posts ) but if the rescue agency is trying to find homes for these rescued animals their focus should be on getting a good home for the animal rather than demanding that people adhere to what they think is "the right thing to do"

You pay up front for shots, spay/neuter so those issues are dealt with. declawing is just gravy. That little old lady who wants a companion cat, why deny her and deny the cat a potential loving relationship over fingers ?

So what is the fate of a waterfront feral cat ? Is it any worse than being a mouser on a farm ? Assuming these cats are written off as pet material, why not give one to rural guy to have as a mouser ? After all, he's going to get one anyway, from somewhere.

My cousin, the veterinarian supports declawing for similar reasons. She's seen too many healthy, affectionate, otherwise well-behaved cats come in for voluntary euthanasia because the owner didn't have the time/inclination to train them not to claw the furniture. She'd rather see a cat alive and crippled than dead. Of course, what she really wants is to not have to make that choice.

Anecdote: As an occasional foster, I've the only time I've heard people mention declawing is when they expected my immediate approval. As in "cats are so destructive, good thing we can have this one declawed." They hadn't even had the cat in their house yet and they were already giving up. It's nearly impossible to hand over a kitten that you bottle fed for two weeks to someone who doesn't even want to try. I can see where declawing would be a trigger for distrust.

A cat who lives within a feral waterfront colony will know where the food is and will understand that environment. To take it from there and set it in an unfamiliar environment with unknown (to the cat) and deadly danger is cruel.

 

[citizenzen]

Do you feel pastured cows, who have acres to roam and graze, and who willingly come in to be milked and leave when done, are comparable to CAFO raised cows?

IMO, It's certainly a more benign away to raise them.

BTW, my family raised and slaughtered a cow (and pig) each year to provide meat for the family. We had "acres" of area for the cows to roam, many apple trees for them to enjoy when in season, forest to go into for shelter when it rained.

According to some here that must have been a pretty sweet existence for a cow. Yet despite that, when the electrical fence went down, they'd push through the barded wire and we'd get a call from a neighbor telling us our cow was in their yard or wandering down the road. Even with plenty of grass, grain, alfalfa and apples it still took a lot of strung barbed wire and a stiff jolt of electricity to keeps those cows from wandering off ... to wherever they felt like going.

 

[IDB87]

Quality of life matters.

And my family goes through great monetary pains to ensure their herd has a 'good' standard of life when compared to CAFO cows. It shows in the quality of product they produce.

Bringing things into existence with negative quality of life is of no benefit to anyone.

Define good quality of life for a cow, please.

Breeding animals for slaughter has disvalue and should be avoided for that reason alone.

Regarding cows, to milk them you must get them pregnant. If it was possible to milk them without producing a calf, it would be done. Since it is impossible, the calf should be treated as humanely as possible, or the entire industry should be done away with. I would take the former.

The problem with the "farm animals go extinct" argument is that its not obvious why going extinct has any moral implications whatsoever.

Let a herd out of pasture and it will eat all available food. The size of the herd will be determined by the amount of food available, and I don't think I need to explain to you what happens when there's not enough food, let alone any other variable you could think of. It is really not obvious to you why that is a bad thing?

You can't harm a person by not bringing them into existence, you can't even help a person by failing to bring them into existence.

No, that is not what you are suggesting. You are suggesting having kids, deciding they don't have a great life, and then abandoning them to fend for themselves until their inevitable death. You, at that point, decide the moral high ground is to never again have kids.

The harm of cow extinction isn't really a question of how cows are harmed, but the impact the extinction has on the surrounding environment.

Yes, that is what my family will think. You, as an animal lover, must contend with the moral position of letting cows starve themselves into extinction. If you can live with that, I can maybe get on board.

Though, since cows don't live in the wild, there's no obvious environmental impact as, say, gazelle suddenly going extinct in the savannahs.

It is not obvious to you, no. It takes a bit of abstract thought on someones part to consider the environmental impact domesticated animals have on the environment, but consider this from a green farm point of view:

Cows roam from pasture to pasture eating grass and pooping. The dung fertilizes the soil and creates nutritional feed for chickens and geese who come in after cows are moved onto a new pasture. Foxes like to hunt chickens (which is why chickens and geese will be seen together since they scare the foxes off, typically). If chickens are not available to be hunted by foxes, other woodland animals will be hunted instead.

The repercussions could be analyzed in great depth, but don't be naive to think an animal can just disappear without leaving an impact.

Interestingly, I know several people who are geologists and vegetarians. These people have a very fairly informed perspective on global warming, and are very much aware of the ecological damage caused by factory farming. Their perspective suggests that extinction would have a very positive impact on the environment.

Factory Farming. That is your problem.

For the sake of argument, could you please list the differences between a CAFO and, perhaps to use a local example, Brookford Farm in NH

The "extinction" argument really isn't as cut and dry as it seems. If you have a strong argument that extinction, in and of itself, is harmful, I'd be interested to hear it.

Where would you like me to begin?

 

[Kahalachan]

According to some here that must have been a pretty sweet existence for a cow. Yet despite that, when the electrical fence went down, they'd push through the barded wire and we'd get a call from a neighbor telling us our cow was in their yard or wandering down the road. Even with plenty of grass, grain, alfalfa and apples it still took a lot of strung barbed wire and a stiff jolt of electricity to keeps those cows from wandering off ... to wherever they felt like going.

That's interesting to hear. I'm curious what environmental factor caused them to want to venture off. So it might not be purely biologically hardwired in their brains to stick to one area.

Every place I've seen with cows has always simply been a fenced off area with maybe 3 rows of barbed wire. Some of them have stronger metal gates. From anyone I've known that dealt with cows, they talk about how docile they are and simply just stand around and graze.

 

[IDB87]

IMO, It's certainly a more benign away to raise them.

Glad we aree.

Yet despite that, when the electrical fence went down, they'd push through the barded wire and we'd get a call from a neighbor telling us our cow was in their yard or wandering down the road. Even with plenty of grass, grain, alfalfa and apples it still took a lot of strung barbed wire and a stiff jolt of electricity to keeps those cows from wandering off ... to wherever they felt like going.

So you feel that since cows wander for whatever reason (curiosity, herd mentality, lack of good food source, etc), they should be abandoned to fend for themselves until eventual extinction?

 

[BravesFan]

Have you ever considered that forums might be a little ... too intense ... for you?

What I compared and showed a parallel to was an attitude that you shared with slave owners ... that their "property" was content with their lack of liberty and better off living that way.

I didn't say you supported human slavery.

Did you read otherwise?

I didn't say you did. The fact that you think that by my being completely fine with cows living on farms so that I might later eat their delicious meaty flesh as being of a similar mentality to those who kept and/or supported slavery of human beings is just beyond ludicrous.

Really, read that again.... You apparently think that cows being on farms are akin to humans held against their will and forced to work in bondage. The cows are food. To a goat grass is food. To a lion an antelope is food. A fellow human being a slave isn't the same ballpark it isn't the same sport even!

I wonder about some animal rights people. Some of this hyperbole borders on self hatred and lunacy.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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

You don't see how that might be a little condescending and/or insulting to humans ? Particularly those who were actually subjected to slavery or something like the holocaust ...

Would you be just as incensed if the Nazis had rounded up all the cattle and sent them to the gas chamber ?

( Did I just Godwin this thread ? )

 

[Kahalachan]

Slavery is wrong cause humans were treated like animals.

Now the comparison can't work. Is someone now gonna say "OMG you can't treat animals like animals?"

 

[BravesFan]

Slavery is wrong cause humans were treated like animals.

Now the comparison can't work. Is someone now gonna say "OMG you can't treat animals like animals?"

That's exactly what I think they ARE saying.

Don't the farmers tell their kids not to name the livestock?

 

[citizenzen]

In any event, there is the work of Temple Grandin.

I've heard of her work. If you're interested, here she is in a TED talk. It's really more about autism, but she does touch on a bit of her work with animals.

Here is an excerpt of one of her papers, Animals Are Not Things, A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological Complexity ...

To discuss whether or not animals should be property, I first have to define what the word property means in a concrete manner. I will limit my discussion to the framework of the U.S. legal system and culture. When I own an item as property, I am allowed to do certain things with it. If I own a cow and a screwdriver I can sell them, give them away, destroy them, experiment on them, eat them, put them in my will, profit from them, or use them in my business. I am also allowed to buy another cow or screwdriver. For example, I am allowed to slaughter the cow or destroy the screwdriver in a stamping press. Although absurd, I could even eat the screwdriver if I ground it into very fine powder. Both the cow and the screwdriver can be used in my business and I can put them in my will. I am allowed to modify cattle by selective breeding and I can modify my screwdriver by painting its handle green.

However, both the laws in the U.S. and our culture put severe restrictions on the kinds of things I can do to the cow and but place no restrictions on the things I can do to the screwdriver. I could be punished for felony animal abuse if I stabbed the cow in the eye with the screwdriver, but there would be no penalty for mangling the screwdriver and slowly destroying it by hitting it with my hammer.

The cow has legal protections that a screwdriver does not have. These legal protections only apply to live animals that have a well developed nervous system.* Science has shown that animals such as mammals and birds feel pain in a manner similar to humans. Insects, viruses and microbes are not able to feel pain or suffer. More research is needed to determine the extent that fishes and amphibians feel pain. Present research shows that they do experience fear. Fear is very aversive and animals should be shielded form situations that cause great fear. Fear will cause a great rise in stress hormones. Animals such as dogs also need to have environmental enrichments. Melzack (1954) and Burns (1955) found that puppies kept in barren kennels became hyperexcitable and had abnormal EEG patterns which indicated extreme arousal.

When the structure of the brain and nervous system is studied, there is no black and white line between people and higher mammals such as chimps, dogs or cows. The genome project has shown that humans and mice share many genes (Gunter and Dhand, 2002). In mammals 30 to 40% of all genes are involved in nervous system development and function. The basic design of the nervous system and the neural mechanisms that process fear and pain are similar in humans and other mammals (Rogan and LeDoux, 1996). Colpaert et al. (2001) reported that rats will self medicate themselves with pain killers to relieve pain in arthritic joints.. Pain and fear both cause suffering. As nervous system and brain complexity increases the welfare needs of the animal increase and become more complex, but all animals that have sufficient nervous systems complexity to suffer from either pain or fear need basic welfare protections. Animals with complex brains also have greater social needs and a need for greater environmental enrichment.

With the framework outlined above, I can argue that animals can be property and still have a high standard of welfare. However, I will argue very strongly that animals need many protections because they are not things like a screwdriver. As the phylogenetic tree of animal species is climbed, protection from suffering must be increased. Chimps would require more protection and need different kinds of protection than frogs to insure that they would not suffer. Chimps have a more complex brain than frogs and a rich social life. As nervous system complexity increases, the animal needs increasing amounts of protection from society to insure that it does not suffer from pain, fear or a lack of environmental and social stimulation. Even though the phylogenetic tree is not linear it moves along its various branches from less complex nervous systems to more complex. Comparative physiology and psychology has shown that there is a broad range of nervous system complexity. As complexity increases a brain forms in the head of the animal that becomes increasingly complex. Different animals can be ranked in order of brain complexity. For example, ranking from less complex to more complex would be clams, lobsters, fish, birds, mice, dogs, apes, chimpanzees and people. There are some animals that are approximately equal in nervous system complexity such as dogs and pigs. Both rats and chimps should have equal protection from pain and fear, but the chimp may need additional protection to insure that it has adequate social stimulation. Chimps have a greater need for social and environmental stimulation than rats but new research indicates that even mice need social stimulation to prevent abnormal stereotypic behavior (Bohannon, 2002). Simple environmental enrichments such as materials to burrow in and several compansions are probably adequate for a rat, but a chimp needs much more.

Animals are not things, but there is probably a point where legally protecting an organism from pain and fear should cease. From my knowledge of neuroscience, I can be reasonably sure that oysters, flu viruses and bacteria do not need legal protection to prevent people from being cruel by inflicting pain and fear. Advocating for the rights of oysters is something I think is silly.**

In conclusion, animals can be property and still have many laws and other protections to insure their welfare. Changing language based concepts like property are only important to animals if changes in rhetoric cause people to treat animals better. I have little interest in rhetoric unless it provides actual changes where the animals live. All my life I have worked, making concrete improvements out in the field.​

* There's a little something for the "what about bacteria?" crowd.
** Again, a little something for the "what about bacteria?" crowd.

 

[Rat]

Fortunately, declawing is not legal over here, or indeed in a lot of Europe. Even before it was banned, it was more or less unheard of. Same goes for ear cropping and other similar mutilations.

 

[citizenzen]

So you feel that since cows wander for whatever reason (curiosity, herd mentality, lack of good food source, etc), they should be abandoned to fend for themselves until eventual extinction?

I don't believe I said that at all.

I would not advocate releasing all livestock to "fend for themselves". That would be incredibly destructive and cruel to animals to have to survive in a world they aren't suited to survive in. If I were to advocate anything, it would be a reduction in meat consumption along with raising of awareness for increased animal welfare.

There is no quick fix for dealing with millions upon millions of livestock (in the United States) or the people habituated to exist on them. Like most things, the only solution is found through time, education and social progress.