this is a real topic, well suited for what i think this particular forum can be used for in terms of how the freedom to express emotions freely might be appreciated.

let's take one part of this: vegetarianism/ veganism. and i hope it leads to other debates on the topic as well.

i feel safe in assuming that vegans are predominately "leftists". but there's got to be a whole bunch of you ultra-liberals that not only joyfully eat meat, but don't even think factory farming and the abuse of living animals for your inexpensive consumption is even worth considering much.

my personal stance on the subject is one of your average hypocrite. my innate desire to eat meat trumps the part of me that believes virtually all life should be preserved whenever possible.

in a few minutes, for instance, i shall be chopping into small pieces a couple of supposedly humanely raised parts of a chicken, cooking them and eating them.

I can almost say I give zero ****s about the quality of life the chicken I ate for dinner experienced prior to becoming dinner, but I guess I wouldn't want it to be utterly miserable. That said, if a miserable chicken costs $2 a pound and a super happy zen chicken costs $2.99 a pound, I'll buy the cheap one each and every day.

I begin to care more with pigs and cows, and accept that this likely is irrational. I definitely am troubled most by veal when it comes to four legged meals.

Think I'm most concerned with sea life. I buy the tuna that doesn't involve nets that kill dolphins, and I get tilted when I come across stories of Asian whaling vessels and the *******s who kill sharks for their fins. **** those guys.

Why is this? You realize that chickens have nerve cells so they pretty much feel the same pain as you and I? Why would you not pay $1 more so that a chicken didn't live a life of pain and torture?

It's a ****ing chicken.

I go back and forth between which is less humane: animals living in horrible conditions or fishing.

Can you imagine the outrage if we killed cows by holding their heads underwater to drown them? Pretty much what we do to fish.

You know what's inhumane? Cows being milked to make ice cream.

PETA's solution? Milk humans. http://m.wptz.com/PETA-Urges-Ben-Jer...-Milk/26951536

do you not feel a need to rationalize? for me, i must accept the fact that if eating humans was legal, accepted and common, i would not oppose the practice if it meant i was allowed to eat grasshoppers.


"It's a ****ing chicken," is enough for you? do you have any pets? if someone ate your pet or your child and someone said it's just a ****ing dog or a child or your mother, that work as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Gaga

No lumping humans in.

Though, I'd have no qualms eating human flesh in a survival scenario. Like, if a dude was dead, I'd probably be eating him 24 hours into the survival situation. I put cannibalism low on the taboo list, though don't think hunting people or w/e is acceptable.

And I can't imagine bonding with a chicken. Well, at least not enough to think twice before snapping its neck and frying him up. Same can't be said for more conventional pets (dog, cat, etc).

More conventional American pets, you mean? You ethnocentrist.

Would you be ok with setting a chicken on fire? Boiling it alive?

I boiled a lobster alive. Mmmmmm. I think it was a quick death. The melted butter was stolen from mama cow. Mmmmmm. What can I say, I'm only human.

Humans confuse me. How can people be ok with inflicting extreme levels of pain on another being?

Giving birth is pretty painful, but it serves a purpose. Much like an animal serves a purpose by being food to other animals.

a very cheap way out of any moral responsabilities / ethical dilemma

I actually felt bad very briefly, as I didn't realize it was still alive until it jerked very suddenly for about 2 seconds as it went in the water. For the next few minutes I was a bit rattled at that, but then the butter and sweet meat made it all worth it. And it was my birthday

This is why authorities should restrict people. There should be more rules. 90% of posters are pigs that choose chickens to have a horror life. Why is a concentration camp bad and the todays bio-industrie not? There is no difference.

If I take a train, the transporter company tries to make it as comfortable as possible for money reasons. In chicken transport, the companies try to make it as uncomfortable as possible for money reasons. It is crazy. Chicken can NOT be $2..

As a vegetarian, my biggest problem with meat is the way the animals are raised, not how they die (though some of those practices are likewise horrific). I would never kill an animal for food regardless but I'd be much less opposed to the idea if the animals in question got to live their lives as they were meant to instead of spending their entire lives in inhumane conditions before their slaughter. I have far more respect for hunters who kill animals in the wild than I do for people who choose to remain ignorant about where their meat really comes from or how it comes to be on their plates.

Which would you rather kill:

1) cow or spider?
2) chicken or rat?
3) cuddly kitten or a grizzly bear?
4) cute puppy or a gray wolf?

Now, which of the first two would you rather eat? Which of the last two do you think are endangered?

I'm the average hypocrite too, imo it's a tragedy the way we treat/eat animals but I'm just not prepared to go vegetarian in order to support my beliefs. I'm not exactly thrilled about it, but it bothers me less than most other things I do that I believe I shouldn't.

Mat (and others), have you read Peter Singer's writings on speceism? I'm curious what the consensus is amongst politics regs, 90%+ of the people I've spoken to irl about it think it's a fairly offensive concept. Singer apparently also has lots of controversial opinions so that probably contributes a bit. Link: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm

Well, animal rights are actually very close to human rights.

Huge subsidies distort the price of animal products, not to mention increase the amount of resources that are devoted to making them.

People don't need to starve on this planet. Yet we prefer to feed our food to animals so that we can eat them, instead of feeding other human beings who need not die.

ethical chicken is pretty good. Better than vegetarianism if the only concern is animal welfare (or so I claim, it's been much debated in the usual place).

fares pretty well in sustainability arguments as well.

That is no quite correct. While in theory we could feed the starving with all the food we use to feed livestock. But all that feed would not be grown if there was no one to buy it.

The reason so many die of starvation is that they have no money and the first world does not care to solve this problem. Or at the very least its not high on the priority list.

Are you suggesting that a) people starve because we eat meat or b) we would avoid people starving if we didn't eat meat.

Somehow I'm doubtful either are particularly true. Whether we eat meat or not the problem of starvation would remain much the same - I'd conjecture it could easily be solved if humanity was focused on solving it but that simply not the case (and that's a big but different problem)

The fairly obvious difference is that one involves killing humans.