Can an animal suffer? If so - is their life worth respecting?

[Taverner]

All this talk of veal keeps taking me back to Peter Singer, who argued that because animals can suffer, it is unethical to kill them for food purposes when we can find other food sources.

He outlines this best in this essay: http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html

He sums up his argument by stating "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering - in so far as rough comparisons can be made - of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account."

His argument has always made me a fence sitter for vegetarianism, and I can only conclude that selfishness keeps me a carnivore.

What are your thoughts?

[napi21]

1. Yes animals suffer and they are worth respecting, but

that means humane treatment while raising them and during slaughter.

I am disgusted by the was veal is raised, and I will never buy it or eat it!

Other animals that are raised for food purposes certainly don't live a great life, but it's nowhere nearly as bad.

[Taverner]

9. But wouldn't death be suffering?

Even if kept under humane circumstances, to end an animals life for sustenance, when we can find alternative means is to inflict unnecessary suffering.

Singer made the argument that what if we replaced humans for animals in this scenario. Certainly we don't have to eat humans, and lets say we buy human meat from a place that treats them humanely - it is still unethical.

This is my conundrum.

[amazona]

19. how is death suffering?

When you're dead, you are not suffering by definition.

The argument you cite is silly. We don't have to eat human meat but some people do have to eat some form of meat or they are prone to serious illness such as pernicious anemia.

[Taverner]

Let's just say you killed me

Humanely...you whipped out a syringe and gave me a dose of opium so high I just smiled, went into a coma and my heart stopped beating.

Although I might have enjoyed my death, you still deprived me of life - which is causing of suffering.

[amazona]

71. it doesn't cause you suffering

Indeed it might have spared you some. Live long enough, and it all goes, the people you love, your mind, your eyesight, your ability to sleep without pain.

As human beings, we do not put the avoidance of suffering as the very highest virtue. The heroin addict who spends his youth high and then checks out in his sleep is to be pitied no matter how ecstatic the the lights going off in his brain. He missed all the beauty, anguish, risk, and adventure of a full life. His drug may have insulated him from pain but at what cost? Few would envy his choice, and most would agree he made a bad one.

I'm not sure where you are going with this argument. Life is suffering, says Buddha, but nonetheless I don't plan to surrender it any time soon if I can help it.

It is wrong for me to kill you for a thrill no matter how humanely but if you are a chicken and it is time for dinner, while it is right for me to respect your sacrifice and the fact that you gave your life for mine, it is also right for me to eat.

[amazona]

72. trying again to delete this double post argh!

sorry about that

[napi21]

24. Why do you say death is suffering?

Of course it CAN be, but it doesn't not HAVE to make any animal suffer.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

42. Except chickens raised for KFC...it's as least as bad, probably worse

http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/index.asp

[flvegan]

60. Not JUST KFC. This is common practice

in most areas of the animal industry.

[Catchawave]

74. Oh that "animal industry" which brings us mad cow, etc....

Probably the biggest reason for bringing animal rights to the mainstream. It's not just a veg*an movement anymore, factory farming is harming humans too ! Just follow the money :(

[livinginphotographs]

80. But on DU, it seems okay to out of one side our mouths

bash Wal-Mart and anyone who shops there as supporting an unethical corporation that rapes the environment, mistreats its workers, and supports the republican party, and out of the other side lament how mean the vegans are being to those poor corporate farms.

[amazona]

82. eh, it ain't the same people

DU is a big tent -- 60 or 70,000 people now. I'm a WalMart shopper with a huge income in the high four figures. So I'm bashing the vegans, especially if I feel they're contributing to the issues of some of my eating disordered friends. The vegans are not WalMart shoppers so they are bashing me for not supporting the protest against WalMart's anti-union stand.

Eh, it's a mess. I think WalMart should have a union, and its people well-paid. I also think I have a tiny income and should eat without having to ask for a hand-out. I couldn't get sufficient calories on my income if I were vegan or vegetarian. WalMart helps me eat well at low cost so how can I completely hate them?

We all come from different places. No one here speaks for DU except the administrators.

[Squatch]

2. Do you think a lion, if given the chance, would respect you?

Methinks not.

Ban lions.

[Misunderestimator]

3. I'd love if we killed no animals... but we should at the very least not

make them suffer unnecessarily during their lives.

[Shell Beau]

5. I agree with you.

I do eat meat, but I research to make sure it comes from humane sources.

[RebelOne]

4. Of course animals suffer.

They are living beings and feel pain just as we do.

[Squatch]

7. How about liver flukes?

[Modem Butterfly]

6. Well sure

But the cruely to veal is often very over-stated.

Donning my flame-retardant suit now.

[Taverner]

12. Check out this article

It's an interesting letter written by the Aforementioned Peter Singer...

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20030608.htm

[Modem Butterfly]

13. Perfect example. Thanks!

[shockra]

85. Here's a fun one.

From Diet for a New America, by John Robbins.

The Farm Animals Concern Trust (FACT) is an organization trying to improve the lot of today's veal calves. In one of their mailers, they made the following charges against the industry.

"Veal calves are:

*denied sufficient mother's milk
*trucked to auctions when only a day or two old
*commingled with sick and dying animals
*sold to veal factories where they are chained for life in individual crates only 22 inches wide
*fed government surplus skim milk
*denied solid food to chew on
*made anemic
*kept in the dark to reduce their restlessness
*plagued by respiratory and intestinal disease
*unable to lie down normally
*deprived of any bedding
*unable to walk at all, let alone romp and play"

A veal producer got hold of the mailer, but didn't know how to counter the statements it made. So he sent the mailer to the editor of the industry's journal requesting an effective rebuttal from the industry experts. The editor of The Vealer USA, a man named Charles A. Hirshy, looked over the charges made by the FACT mailer, and then answered as follows.

"Thank you for the information about FACT. We've read the information and regret that we are unable to counter their statements."

*******
And that's a list without all the gorey details. Many of the calves also go blind, having been kept in complete darkness all the time except for the two times a day when they're fed skim milk (and never given any water, which forces them to drink as much of the milk as they can in an effort to keep from dying of thirst). Calves often die after going blind, which is a big inconvenience to veal producers.

They're also pumped full of massive and constant amounts of carcinogenic drugs in an effort to keep them alive (which still doesn't always work). One of them causes a fatal blood disorder in a significant percentage of humans. Yet the strongest drugs available are needed because the calves are so extremely sick.

They're never allowed to nurse from their mothers, even once, because that would create a bond between cow and calf, and cows will try to break down fences and cause all kinds of "trouble" trying to get to their calf.

[progmom]

8. I am always on the verge of becoming a vegetarian.

This is something I struggle with daily.

[Shell Beau]

11. Me too! It is easier said than done.

Especially when my hubby and everyone else I know are meat lovers!

[Taverner]

14. I agree 100%

And to top it off, I LOVE meat. I love BBQ. I love burgers.

Like I've said, the only excuse I give for being a carnivore is selfishness....

[Shell Beau]

15. I wouldn't say I LOVE meat. I enjoy it sometimes.

I am much more of a veggie person. Not a veggie I don't like. But sometimes I do crave a steak or a burger. It is a decision you really have to think abouthard. I tried it in high school, but I didn't get the nutrients I needed b/c I ate sweets and junk food.

[Taverner]

17. Thing is if you go veg, you really have to rely on eggs and milk

I do think veganism is downright unhealthy - and milking a cow or harvesting eggs is in no way unethical.

Thing is eggs are actually one of the most complete proteins out there. And they can be low fat too - make large omlettes with 1 real egg, and 3 egg whites and you've got a healthy omlette with at least 23 grams of protein.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. Unfortunately, factory farming methods are used in milk and egg production

as well as meat. To make matters worse, the amount of anti-biotics and hormones in eggs and milk (and presumably butter and cream) is considerable.

[progmom]

27. i always buy the cage-free/organic shit

probably doesn't avoid all the problems, but it's my best available option.

[supernova]

28. You can get organic eggs

free of hormones and antibiotics. Just FYI.

If you are any kind of flesh eater (and I mean "you" in the everyman sense), there are alternatives out there to the mass-factory produced animal flesh.

[Taverner]

29. Then don't buy them from those places

You can get GMO free hormone free cage free eggs (vegetarian fed) at Costco even. Same with milk.

I was just arguing that the act of milking and harvesting of eggs does not inflict suffering.

[Shell Beau]

23. Yeah, I love cheese too much to go vegan.

But if I do go veggie, I plan to do it right this time!

[flvegan]

40. Ask my doctor about how unhealthy veganism is.

Of course, it's about eating a healthy, well-rounded diet (as it is with any choice one makes as to their diet).

Besides, if you want to talk about suffering animals, you should see battery hens. AND, veal is a by-product of the dairy industry. Now, if you had your own farm, with free range animals eating a natural diet for them, you'd be doing pretty well ethically.

[Misunderestimator]

20. Me too...

I was a vegetarian for a few years in my twenties... Even now, I rarely eat meat. It's an odd struggle and it's so hard to know where to draw the line. The obvious line for me is at least to avoid meat that you KNOW was gotten by being cruel to the animal it was gotten from... such as veal.

[progmom]

22. sounds like we're on the same page

:pals:

(though my few years of veetarianism was in my teens)

[johnnie]

10. Yeah, they suffer

I didn't eat meat for almost 2 years at one time. It's very hard to do in this country. I know a lot of people were talking about the way calves were raised for veal, but conditions are terrible for mass chicken farms and for beef.
I also think that if half of the people who eat meat had to kill and clean their own animals, they would never touch meat again.
I am not a radical on this stuff though.

[amazona]

16. is this the oyster guy?

He concluded that oysters feel no pain so it was OK to eat them? Very convenient.

Of course, animals suffer and feel pain. My body is an animal too and must be given the correct diet and humane treatment also. It is not selfish to feed your body properly to maintain your health. It keeps you from being a burden on those around you. Not all can maintain a healthy weight on a vegan diet. Anorexia, bulimia, and food hysteria kills, and they kill women preferentially.

I believe we have a duty to treat animals kindly. But nature made some of us such that we have to feed on each other. When the lion lays down with the lamb, it will be because the lion is extinct. And maybe the lamb too.

[Xipe Totec]

18. Too Simplistic to be practical

Lets assume that suffering is the criteria on which to base dietary choices, so we all become vegetarians. What happens then to the livestock? Do they live forever? Do they cease to suffer? If we release these domesticated animals into the wild, what are their chances of survival? Will the wild beasts respect our wishes and allow them to live in peace? What about disease, will illness no longer trouble them?

My point is this: Did you achieve a net reduction in suffering by your noble gesture?

[Taverner]

25. Interesting point

But Singers argument is that by eating meat we are directly inflicting suffering. Letting them into the wild, or just letting them live out their days, there will be less of them and popultions will go down.

There is an environmentalist argument to this as well, as Beef production does take a huge toll on the land, and the land used to grow one cow could be more effectively utilized to raise less damaging crops that would feed more people.

[Xipe Totec]

54. We cannot dodge our responsibility by letting them loose

Setting aside the concern about environmental damage, a point I will not challenge, I believe that our relationship to livestock is not one of predator and prey; it is more symbiotic than that. Livestock are species that have evolved to survive by exploiting symbiosis as an evolutionary strategy. This relationship has been in place for milena and it would take just as long to reverse it, unless we're willing to allow the species to become extinct.

Plus there are other species to consider: Alpine meadow farming preserves biodiversity which would be threatened by the removal of livestock. The meadows would revert to forests and well established meadow species would be displaced. I'm not talking here about industrialized farming, but low scale, low impact farming which is unfortunately more expensive.

Finally, suffering and death are not necessarily the same thing. A being can live and suffer, and a being can die with or without pain. I am all for reducing unnecessary suffering. Death, on the other hand is an inevitable transition.

[Taverner]

58. Again, very interesting point

And I would like to read up on Alpine farming....do you have any good reads or links?

[Xipe Totec]

65. Here are a few links I googled

I heard about this subject recently on NPR related to the issue of farm subsidies. Europeans argue that subsidies to support Alpine farming should be permitted under WTO rules because they serve a biodiversity function that is necessary.

http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-document&issn=0276-4741&volume=022&issue=04&page=0383

http://www.mountainpartnership.org/media/facts/bio_eur.html

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art3/main.html

I was looking for other research material regarding the acreage necessary to grow enough cereal and vegetables to support one human being, versus the equivalent acreage required by using livestock instead. I have heard that the actual environmental impact of supporting humanity using a vegetarian diet might be greater, so I was checking to see if this is validated in the literature. If I find something useful I'll send it along

(on edit this is the better link from the above ones)

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art3/main.html

[Kraklen]

26. Yes. No.

[Shell Beau]

30. So there life isn't worth respecting?

Are you a vegatarian? Your avatar makes me think...

[Taverner]

31. I think the poster just likes saying "Tofurkey"

Have you ever said it? It's fun.

Tofurkey! Tofurkey!

Ok...back to your regularly scheduled program...

:silly:

[Kraklen]

33. Bingo.

It's like saying douchebag.

Douchebag! Douchebag!

[Terran]

35. What about animal suffering that isn't caused by humans?

The food chain is all about eating and being killed and eaten. Most creatures capable of feeling pain are going to suffer to some extent while being killed by a predator. Humans eating meat is just a part of that. Granted, the animals-for-food industry causes a lot of unnecessary suffering in animals such as chickens, which are basically treated as inanimate objects while they're alive.

I do approve of vegetarianism wholeheartedly, because I see it as evolving beyoind the food chain. But at the same time I don't feel guilty for being part of the food chain. I feel that, in an ideal society (much like the one depicted by C.J. Cherryh in her Atevi novels), meat consumption should be rare, obtained "in season" only, and only by hunting, not by mass production.

[Kraklen]

32. No, I'm not a vegetarian. Just have a sense of humor re: avatar

No, their lives aren't worth respecting. Although I'll respect their right to die without to much suffering while I'm killing them.

[Shell Beau]

34. Oookay

[Misunderestimator]

37. "Their lives aren't worth respecting."

I'd like to hear why you feel that way.

[Kraklen]

39. It's an arbitrary decision I've made.

As humans, we have to kill to survive.

Some people only kill plants.

Some people only kill plants, fish, and eggs.

I'm one of those people who only kill plants, fish, birds, and lower mammals. But I'll draw the line at intelligent mammals and lower mammals that I also keep as pets.

[flvegan]

41. Most people don't HAVE to kill animals to survive.

They choose to. Actually, they choose to have others kill for them. Again, most.

[Kraklen]

45. I know. I kill animals because they taste good.

I have others kill the animals for me, but I recognize that I'm responsible for those animals being killed.

[Shell Beau]

43. Most of us feel the same, but you said their lives weren't worth respect!

That is a completely different story!

[Kraklen]

44. No, it'd be hypocritical to eat meat then say you

respect the life of the animal that you just ate. Saying you'd want the animal to be butchered humanely is something else.

[Shell Beau]

48. Well, I am no hypocrite. Thanks for the assumption though!

It is not hypocritical either. If they are treated humanely while they are here.

[Kraklen]

50. That's respecting their comfort, their right to die humanely.

You're still killing them for dining pleasure.

[Shell Beau]

55. Well, regardless of what you say, I respect animal's

rights to live a humane life. You can call me what you want, do whatever it is you do. I've seen you call a few people names here, so I am glad I wasn't left out.

[amazona]

76. I respect the animal that died that I might live

What higher sacrifice? We seem to have whole religions based on the concept that there is no higher gift. They do deserve respect and even honor.

I agree that we can respect animals, treat them humanely, and still eat meat at times. Indeed, the person who hunts or raises meat, egg, or milk animals may have more respect and appreciation for those animals than the vegetarian whose only experience with animals is being owned by a domestic cat. Not in every case but in many cases.

[Misunderestimator]

46. Arbitrary? Your "decision" to not respect the life of animals was ...

arbitrary? Why? I assume it's because it makes you feel better about eating them or something? Regardless of your decision that animals are not worth respecting, they DO suffer from our treatment.

And, no, as humans, we were not actually designed to eat meat, but we made it work out of necessity. It is no longer necessary, but now it is habit. Don't pretend to believe that we HAVE to kill animals to survive.

[Kraklen]

51. Nonsense.

Humans were certainly designed to eat meat. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.

I never said humans have to kill animals to survive. Like I said, I just do it because they're tasty.

[Misunderestimator]

53. Tell me how we were designed to eat meat.

Not without cooking it. And yes you most certainly DID say that humans must kill animals to survive. (On edit... ok, so you qualified it by saying that some people "kill" plants and vegetables and eggs LOL...) :rofl: :eyes:

[Kraklen]

68. Incisors, digestive tract, metabolism, closest living relatives...

facts is facts, comparative biology shows we're omnivores. Claiming otherwise is kind of like being a Creationist. But like I said, that's irrelevant.

Yes, plants are just as much alive as you and me. Just because they're in persistant vegitative states doesn't mean it's not killing them when you eat them.

[Misunderestimator]

69. LOL. You are so way off the subject of your cavalier disregard for animal

welfare... how clever. I'm not going to enable that further by arguing someone who would claim that the existence of incisors proves that we were built to eat the kind of meat we eat (why don't we eat it raw then, like animals do... right through the hide... but whatever). Like a Creationist! That's a hoot... thanks for the laugh :rofl:

Personally... I want nothing whatsoever to do with someone who has no respect for the suffering of animals that we consume, when we have the knowledge and capabilities to make that suffering less. :hi:

[Kraklen]

70. Sushi... steak tartare...

raw meats. How you suspect that cooking meat doesn't mean we evolved eating meat is beyond me.

Hey, it took you awhile to realize plants were alive, so I'm skeptical about just how much of biology you understand.

Oh, and if you'd read my posts, I said I would like it if animals didn't suffer at all.

[Misunderestimator]

75. You didn't read the part about chewing through the hide did you...

You're just making my point for me with the steak tartare... And you didn't read my post where I said that we BECAME meat-eaters out of necessity... you'd rather just sit and spin.

And I read your posts.... and my concern is with the one that says "No, their lives aren't worth respecting" and the other that explains that one as making a conscious, albeit "arbitrary," decision to not respect animals. Remember that? You still haven't really explained it.

[Taverner]

52. At the risk of nitpicking, I don't think humans were "designed"...

...to do anything. However, studies show that part of our cranial evolution occurred because we ate enough meat to sustain brain development, thus making us more "intelligent" (yes, I know this is grey matter, no pun intended.)

However, I also beleive that because we are self aware, we can channel the course of our evolution away from meat eating for a number of reasons, and still keep our big brains.

[barb162]

36. Of course! They have nerve endings, they bleed, they scream in

pain....
Pain = suffering

And of course their lives should be respected. Are we the only species that should be respected? Hell I have less respect for many homo sapiens and the many fucking sociopaths in it that I care more about the animals

[flvegan]

38. Yes, and yes.

When one asks if an animal's life is worth respecting, one is using their own value of what something is worth. It isn't up to you or me or the other guy to define another being's value as it pertains to us. Another being's value should pertain only to that being, and all beings have their own inherent value (worth). We need to remove our own ego from the equation and look at it from a pure standpoint.

[Taverner]

49. I think that's what Singer was trying to articulate

And I was trying to paraphrase...but you put it much better.

As for Veganism - it is downright impossible to assemble the branch chain amino acids necesarry to survive from only plant sources. Rice and beans will make the combination, but with them comes a lot of additional carbs which will cause obesity.

True, most eggs and milk are produced in bad circumstances. However if you get them from the right sources, you avoid that dillemma. Costco sells these products, for about the same price as you'd pay for regular items in a grocery store.

[flvegan]

56. Well, I disagree with one thing:

that plant sources are insufficient to obtain the needed aminos. I'm not going to go Googling for articles, etc, as we could play that game all day.

Where does Costco get their milk and eggs? Are they organic/free range, etc (I really don't know...no Costco near me)?

[Taverner]

57. I forget the exact ranch, but they claim free range chickens

For their eggs. Also vegetarian fed, and cage free. The milk they sell is Horizon Organic. Granted, you have to buy ALOT to get the price break, but I have a toddler, so the milk never spoils.

[flvegan]

64. You certainly are doing a lot more than a great many folks are to

lessen the role they play in the inhumane treatment of animals. Not that it matters to you what I think, but I think that's pretty cool.

[4_Legs_Good]

78. Seriously??? Free range eggs at Costco???

Mine (in So.Cal.) recently started selling organic milk (not Horizon, another brand), so I take them up on that and end up getting it at almost grocery store milk non-organic prices which is awesome! But I only buy organic eggs, which end up running $0.55/egg, which is kinda pricey. I gave up on buying eggs at Costco when I decided I could only go organic (which includes free range/vege-fed/etc.). If they're offering reasonably close to organic eggs, I gotta check it out!

Thanks!!

david

[shockra]

84. Vegetarians have a much lower rate of obesity.

Vegans, even lower than that.

The "carbs make you fat" line was pushed by the meat industry. Animal products are the only sources of cholesterol and the primary sources of saturated fat. They are far more fattening.

I just ran across a good link on the nutrition issue the other day:

http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/healthiestdietofall.htm

Professor Colin Campbell, of Cornell University, organised a massive piece of dietary research called the China Health Study (see later) – one of the most important ever undertaken. When its findings were published he said: “We’re basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant foods and minimising our intake of animal foods. Animal foods are not really helpful and we need to get away from eating them.” (1)

The Official Position

The world’s most important health advisory bodies are now in complete agreement – a balanced vegetarian diet can be one of the healthiest possible. And it seems the fewer animal products it contains such as milk and cheese, the healthier it is. In other words, the closer it is to being vegan, the healthier it becomes. These are some of the health statements that have been made over the past few years. We will expand on each of the terms used later in the guide.

1. The British Medical Association

The BMA was one of the first to distil the growing volume of research on diet and health in its 1986 report (2). It said:
“Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones. Cholesterol levels tend to be lower in vegetarians.” It went on to say that when meat eaters change to a vegetarian diet it can actually lower their cholesterol levels. It concluded by saying that vegetarians obtain all the minerals they need, that folate levels are higher and as a consequence it is a diet suitable for infants.

http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/healthiestdietofall.htm

more...continued at the link: The China Health Study, World Health Organization, The Oxford Vegetarian Study, The EPIC Study (In 1993 the largest ever study of diet and health initiated – the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition), Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the American Dietetic Association...

On the protein question, on the same page:

You occasionally still see references to ‘first class’ and ‘second class’ protein – meat being considered first class and vegetable sources being second. What it really means is that meat contains all the necessary amino acids which make up protein while a vegetarian diet obtains its amino acids from a variety of plant sources. Vegetarians obtain more than enough of all the amino acids and all the world’s health advisory bodies agree on this. So forget all the nonsense about having to eat certain types of foods together (combining) – it’s totally unnecessary (105)

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. Yes, they can. Yes, it's worth respecting. So, kill them without suffering

The Kosher way of slaughering animals - the kill must be clean and as close to instant as possible, to alleviate the suffering.

I don't mind killing that way.

[shockra]

81. Kosher isn't any better.

From John Robbins' book "Diet For A New America"

You may think, when you hear a phrase like "ritual slaughter," or "kosher slaughter," that this refers to a better kind of killing. You may think, as I did, that the act is done with respect for the dignity of the animal, and concern that it suffer as little as possible. You may think, as I did, that kosher ways of slaughter are more compassionate than "ordinary" slaughterhouse deaths.

This was, doubtless, the original purpose at the time when this code of slaughter was conceived, and its standards probably produced the most humane and hygienic form of killing then available. But today, to kill the animals this way produces something far removed from the original intent of these laws. Orthodox Jewish and Moslem dietary laws forbid consumption of meat from animals which are not "healthy and moving" when killed. Religious orthodoxy today interprets this to mean that kosher meat must come from animals who have not been stunned before being killed. They must be fully conscious when it's done. Further, in order to qualify for the kosher stamp of approval, the animal must have its throat slit in a particular way. The consequences of this interpretation of kosher slaughtering are a travesty for the poor creatures involved.

You see, the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 requires, for sanitary reasons, that no slaughtered animal may fall in the blood of a previously slaughtered animal. What this means, in practice, is that animals must be killed while suspended from a conveyer belt, rather than while lying on the floor.

Stringing up an animal before delivering the final blow doesn't cause it any pain if it has already been rendered unconscious. But when an animal must be conscious when killed, as kosher regulations stipulate, and also must have its throat cut in the particular way kosher law requires, the animal is forced to undergo an enormous amount of extra pain:

more...

http://www.animalsrighttolifewebsite.com/kosher_slaughter.htm

Exposé of Glatt Kosher Slaughterhouse

Kosher slaughter is supposed to be kinder and faster than other slaughtering methods. The knife used to cut animals’ throats is supposed to be so sharp, they barely feel the cut. Done properly, says the head of the Israeli Rabbinate’s international shehita (slaughtering) supervision department, Rabbi Ezra Raful, the animal should lose consciousness 30 seconds after both major blood vessels are simultaneously severed, immediately cutting off blood to the brain.

However, in 2004, a PETA undercover videotape of slaughtering practices at AgriProcessors – an Iowa slaughterhouse that is the largest producer of glatt kosher meat (the highest standard of kosher) and the only plant allowed to export kosher meat to Israel – showed a very different picture. A ritual slaughterer is seen slitting the throats of steers placed individually in a rotating drum, after which another man rips open each animal’s neck with a hook. The pen continues to rotate and the animal, its windpipe hanging out, is dumped on the floor, but continues to move and slowly and shakily manages to stand.

more...

http://www.chai-online.org/slaughter.htm

[DrGonzoLives]

59. God, YES, let's open a FEW MORE FLAMEFESTS!

:eyes:

[Taverner]

61. would you rather us post kitten pics all day?

[DrGonzoLives]

63. Whatever

If you feel the need to be all self-righteous, go for it.

[bridgit]

62. sure they suffer, in their way...

they suffer as well post traumatic stress ~

[Dastard Stepchild]

66. Yes and yes....

A short and sweet answer for you. :)

[Lilith Velkor]

67. All life is worth respecting, but ya gotta eat.

[Nikia]

73. They are probably killed more humanely than some predators kill

Their prey. As far as how animals are raised, we do need to consider how livestock should be raised. I went to a rural school in Ohio in high school where several of my friends belonged to farm familes. they treated their animals humanely, but many factory farms do not.
As I understand it, death is not considered as harsh to animals as humans (besides the human=superior arguement) because livestock animals do not think very far into their future or have a good concept of self identification and life like humans do. This is probably more true of chicken than cows and more true of fish than chicken and completely true of insects.
Besides the whole disgust factor, eating insects could be a good alternative source of animal protein. They are a good source of complete proteins. They don't seem to mind living in extremely cramped quarters. By their nature, they are death machines who seem to care nothing about their own lives. Many species eat them. We could too.

[Dave Reynolds]

77. A quick kill

is not suffering, IMO.

Poor kill technique will induce pain.

[livinginphotographs]

79. All the people talking about "humanely killed"

are completely missing the point that Singer was making regarding the consideration of another creature's ability to suffer and the choice that humans have as far as allowing another animal the "privilege" of living. But god forbid I disagree with the fundie meat-eaters, lest I be called a "fundy vegan" or be accused of trying to "convert" them.

[smbolisnch]

83. Why is that?

If you disagree with a meat eater you are automatically trying to "convert" them. I don't get that defensive attitude. And for the record, there is no such thing as being "humanely" murdered :eyes:

[friesianrider]

90. Don't you dare talk about being a vegetarian!!

You're guaranteed to be called a sanctimonious asshat who is "preaching" :eyes:

This board sucks for vegetarians, which is a shame. People on here can truly become such mobs of assholes when it comes to vegetarians.

[NMMNG]

86. Yes, yes

Those questions aren't difficult to answer.

[Catholic Sensation]

87. here's my thought:

meat tastes good. Self righteousness from vegetarians is no different than religious right self righteousness, this shit is stupid and annoying.

[CubsFan1982]

88. A-fuckin'-men.

Bravo.

[friesianrider]

94. "Meat tastes good"

Meat taste good to man. So I eat. Tastes yummy in belly. Yum.

Wow, how intellectually superior of you! Jesus must be so proud.

[Catholic Sensation]

95. Jesus must be so happy you basically called all non vegans

cannibals too. Since you've made yourself look utterly ridiculous tonight though, I'll let you off easy and simply call you a hypocrite, as your vegetables aren't harvested without animals being killed either.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catholic Sensation]

99. YOUR POSTS ARE BANANAS

B A N A N A S

That's the extent of my replies to you regarding this issue, because you ain't no holla back girl.

[friesianrider]

100. Snizzap! That post probably took...

...as much time to write as the uber-intellectual "I eat what tastes good." Meat good, I eat.


That was even more brilliant! Your turn. Go.

[Catholic Sensation]

104. You won't get to see the tears I cried

behind these hazel (okay Brown) eyes...

Why did you even bother replying to my post? You only made yourself look ridiculous as i realized a serious discussion with you is impossible and therefore posted something nonsensical. What's your excuse for being unintelligent?

TO THE WINDOW, TO THE WALL!

[friesianrider]

106. LOL

Someday, Catholic Sensation, I hope to be as intelligent as you. Maybe then I can realize the wisdom behind "I eat what tastes good." It truly gave me chills.

Your turn now. Go. I'll let you have the last word.

[Catholic Sensation]

110. the wisdom is what's called "instinct"

animals eat what tastes good, and considering in a post below this you said "carnivores are offensive" that means you find cats and most dogs offensive. Why do you hate cats and dogs?

[friesianrider]

118. Um no.

It's called being an animal - and if humans are considered nothing more than animals you know what THAT means. Fried fetus time! ;)

Cats and dogs do not have the capacity to choose a different diet. Humans fo. That is why we are supposedly so much more intellectually superior than they are, and how we justify eating them.

[Catholic Sensation]

121. WHAT WAS THAT LAST WORD STUFF!?

YOU LIED TO ME!

[friesianrider]

125. My bad.

Go ahead, I'm heading to beddie-byes. I've had about as much progressive talk as I can stand for one night!

Sweet dreams, CS! :hi:

[KitchenWitch]

101. Your logic is lacking

Most humans, even if they are carnivores, would NOT eat a human fetus, regardless of flavor. Your assertion that we would is not only pointless, but extremely offensive.

I have no difficulty accepting that you make different dietary choices than I do. It appears as if you do not have the same acceptance of dietary choices which are different than yours.

Be a vegan, be the very best vegan you can be, but do not wear leather shoes, do not eat gelatin, make sure that you eat only plant matter. But do not make assumptions about people who eat differently than you.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

102. Amen !

A-freaking-men !

[friesianrider]

105. Welp...

Carnivores are extremely offensive to me. Guess we're even, huh?

So are the anti-veg clan that sits around DU harassing and targeting anyone who dares to suggest meat is wrong. And if a vegetarian responds with hostility and anger, then they're the bad guy. That logic makes SOOO much more sense. :eyes:

But whatever. Clearly, this isn't the board for vegetarians, so I'll find somewhere else to be. No problem from my end :) Have a great night.

[KitchenWitch]

108. Since more people are omnivores than vegans

You may want to find that deserted mountain to be a hermit, so you can no longer be offended by people.

[friesianrider]

113. No, just be around people...

who aren't the way many on this board are would suit me just fine. For every nasty post I got a PM of support from others who feel the same way, but are afraid to post for obvious reasons. And that's okay with me. :shrug:

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

109. Nobody is attacking you .

Yes I eat meat - when I go to Wendy's I always get the number 4 Biggie Sized because thats what I like . You might get a Ceasar Salad because that's what you like . Let each be , don't try and try with logic that does not make any sense to bring those of us down who like meat . If you are vegan its all good - stop trying to prove a point , its long gone .

[friesianrider]

115. What I am taking issue with

Is the way people here attack vegetarians UNPROVOKED. Then when someone like me is equally offensive, then it's a big to-do and everyone is so outraged and jumps on the mob bandwagon.

I can respect anyone's preferences if you can respect mine, I promise.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

119. Re-read everything you typed and have a good night .

[friesianrider]

122. No thanks...

I already did, and I WILL have a good night, thanks for your well wishes - same to you.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

126. Uh huh ...

[CubsFan1982]

96. Wow.

You just blow me away with the perfect combo of intellectual superiority and smug self-righteousness. You're a perfect example of what I would call a "lefty freeper". A freeper, but with ideologically opposite views but the same amount of intellectual dishonesty.

[friesianrider]

98. So clever!

And YOU blow me away with your intellectual superiority. You eat what tastes good. How philosophical and morally superior of you! Seriously, you must be very proud of yourself.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friesianrider]

107. Please

The bullshit a few inconsequential people like you spewed tonight is hardly hellfire. But to neanderthals like you, I'm sure you were a legend in your own mind.

[CubsFan1982]

112. Yeah, and you're so enlightened.

Enlightened people don't get off on starting flamewars, pal.

Oh, and if you're the definition of enlightened, then I'm happy to remain an ignorant "Neanderthal".

[friesianrider]

116. Well that you are my friend.

An ignorant Neanderthal. At least I got you to admit it...my work is done ;)

[Catholic Sensation]

117. She's in the thesaurus entry for "enlightened" actually

under antonyms...

[friesianrider]

120. And...

I would be banned if I told you where YOU were in the thesaurus.

Jesus must be so proud of you! You're such a good Catholic!

[Catholic Sensation]

128. in fact I'm a terrible catholic, and that's what makes me a good liberal

I'm 100% pro-choice and pro gay rights and believe in complete gender equality. According to the rules of the Catholic Church, these are anathema.

[CubsFan1982]

123. Really?

I found her under "self-absorbed asshat". But I think I have a different thesaurus. :D

[friesianrider]

127. Hmm...

And you must be under "insensitive dickhead "...are there THREE thesauruses out there?

Good night Cubs, hope you get what you deserve in this life or the next. Karma's a bitch, my friend!

[CubsFan1982]

129. I hope I get a nice juicy cheeseburger.

And soon, I'm starvin'!

[AntiCoup2K4]

89. Can animals suffer? Ask the canine version of Morrisey sitting behind me

The dog is constantly upset about one thing or another (I'll never dog sit over the 4th of July weekend again)

[Seabiscuit]

91. Yes, they can suffer, and yes we should "respect" them, but

there is no "because... therefore" link. I don't know why *some* vegetarians are always trying to find some wacky justification for their preferences, which usually involves morally vilifying anyone who eats meat, seafood or poultry. As a carnivore I find that more than just a little offensive.

[friesianrider]

93. As a vegetarian, I find carnivores more than just a little offensive.

Especially their oh-so intelligent IN YOUR FACE I'll-eat-a-live-squirrel-and-enjoy-every-moment-of-it-so-fuck-you-and-your-bullshit-beliefs retorts. So clever.

Guess we're even then, huh?

I know I don't need "wacky" justifications for my veg preferences, for me it is a question of morality: what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

So sorry you are offended! :sarcasm: I'm sure you'll get over it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

114. I'm still curious about the caging an animal up for the entirety of life,

not giving it a chance ever to go where it wants to, forcing it to entertain you when you feel like it, maybe even labor for you, carry you around, and perhaps help you win medals, spending its life in a pen ever and constantly your absolutely slave -

and how that's okay, but not penning up an animal for the purpose of later eating it.

Either way, you are denying the animal its life.

If you're gonna be so-and-mighty about how you so respect animals, then you shouldn't have pets, which are nothing more than slaves,and you should be out protesting zoos, and you should be protesting horse racing, dog racing, circuses, and anything else that involves the forced and intentional jailing of animals.

As I see it.

[drhilarius]

130. Indeed...

I wonder how the horse feels about its rider. Must not be too comfortable having a saddle (made of leather, perhaps?) strapped to your back, a bit shoved into your mouth, and some 100-200 pound person jamming its heels into your ribs.

[KitchenWitch]

124. Who is being IN YOUR FACE on this

It is not the carnivores, take a look in the mirror...

[BikeWriter]

92. Peter Singer is an insufferable asshat.

[Vektor]

111. Absolutely - and I agree with most everything Singer says. He's brilliant.

One of my very favorite writers and thinkers. He "gets it." Most do not.

[Moderator]

131. Locking

This discussion has run it's course