In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem?  I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans.  Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad.  Is this also a form of discrimination?

I'd rather look at your topic using an evolutionary scale, although some might find that offensive too. At this point in planetary history humans are on the top rung of the ladder; everything below is fair game (pun intended). When another species evolves to be above us on the ladder, who thinks we're perfect for Sunday dinner, the equation will change.

Quote from: SophieSakura on December 15, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem?  I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans.  Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad.  Is this also a form of discrimination?

If you look at older times, people used to live in concert with their surroundings.
It was only after giving logical and male oriented views a dominance that all was looked at as things and treated as such.
There are many viewpoints now coming back to integration and a holistivc view.

If you look at people in general a majority of over 90 % wants to live in peace and pursue a peaceful life.
Its only a minority putting greed before all other. And many of them are tripping over theor own feet... the papers are full of scandals...

Well many people live with animals and consider them fellows... its all possible...

Quote
When another species evolves to be above us on the ladder, who thinks we're perfect for Sunday dinner, the equation will change.

It is very likely that on a extrat errestrial scale there is the same development... a few bad apples and the rest civilizations which evolved beyond separation... living a peaceful life, specializing in special treats... like arts, or healing... like its depicted in old tales, and in some stories...


hugs

I don't own, kill or eat animals for exactly that reason.  The animals that live with us (1 dog, 2 cats) were all rescues; they are adoptees, not property.  They do not have the same intellectual capacity as humans, but I consider the word "inferior" is discriminatory.

I'm a vegan, I don't think that it's justified to use, or deal with other animals without respect, or dignity. Emmanuel Kant said that you could judge someone's morality by how they treat animals. This plays well into observations of narcissists, and pyschopaths as well, whom don't treat people with decency or respect unless they think that they have to. Aristotle said that what he got from philosophy is that he followed the law because it was good, and not because it was the law.

There is no "natural order", or hierarchies in nature, of "more or less evolved", no ladders. To suggest a standard of treatment of others based merely on one's natural abilities, or capabilities (i.e. I can stomp on bugs, because I'm bigger, and capable of doing so, so this is justified and not wrong for this reason, etc) is counter-intuitive, clearly unrepresentative of moral sentiments. One uses one's powers where others lack them unselfishly, to promote equity, justice, and dignity where others cannot, and this is pro-social, and good. Because something is natural doesn't make it good, that's known as the naturalistic fallacy (informal fallacies may be questionable, but they're usually well recognized, and considered).

There's no such thing as "natural", or "the artifical" in the first place, they're just arbitrary categories, what we did a hundred thousand years ago was no more or less in harmony with nature than what we're doing now, the difference is in the power we possess to displace and affect the lives of other species, change the global climate, nuke the world, and such. Too much power, too much population, no viable realistic solutions that don't involve going until we destroy most of or all of the population by mistake, or willingly, and intently destroying most of the population, and dismantling dangerous powers willingly. Both are equally horrific, and without willing participants to stand in line for extinction, or returning to less industrial, smaller lives, the former ends up being the lesser of two evil, and the most likely outcome. I wouldn't think too hard about it, just live your life, be happy, trying to exercise more power than a small creature, concerned with its own life and circumstances needs is what got us into this mess to begin with, it won't get us out of it.

So... yeah... again' it.

Here's your voluntary participants! http://www.vhemt.org/

Antinatalism is unlikely to catch on -- and more importantly is a deeply flawed notion. Schopenhauer, a common hero of those that espouse the position himself fathered an illegitimate daughter with a servant, though she died shortly after. The point is that I doubt that he planned for that to happen, and few do. More ironically is that those that actually have the power and resources to control their reproduction, and plan for children are going to have far fewer children than those whom can't, and don't.

The sexual revolution of the 60s was carried on the back of the birth control pill, and only lost steam in the advent of the awareness and fear of STIs.

Those in first world nations, with emancipated women in control of their reproduction have decreasing populations over all for this reason. Planning and wanting to have children is a luxury, and a power, indicative of areas with controlled, or decreasing population growth.

What realistically would have to be called for, is third world celibacy, and the papal have been singing that tune for centuries, but I hear few humming it... at least by choice.   

Quote from: Elsa Delyth on December 15, 2015, 09:21:54 PM
Antinatalism is unlikely to catch on -- and more importantly is a deeply flawed notion. Schopenhauer, a common hero of those that espouse the position himself fathered an illegitimate daughter with a servant, though she died shortly after. The point is that I doubt that he planned for that to happen, and few do. More ironically is that those that actually have the power and resources to control their reproduction, and plan for children are going to have far fewer children than those whom can't, and don't.

The sexual revolution of the 60s was carried on the back of the birth control pill, and only lost steam in the advent of the awareness and fear of STIs.

Those in first world nations, with emancipated women in control of their reproduction have decreasing populations over all for this reason. Planning and wanting to have children is a luxury, and a power, indicative of areas with controlled, or decreasing population growth.

What realistically would have to be called for, is third world celibacy, and the papal have been singing that tune for centuries, but I hear few humming it... at least by choice.   

people have children to provide for them with age...
so with more education and more abundance for all (spell BRIC... more equal distribution of resources) people are more given to have less children...

by the way there are huge resources that could help... special plants growing very big yet still retaining a lot of nutritients...

and by the way nobody knows what the future brings...
what about peaceful settlements on yet uninhabited planets... in Starship Enterprise all it took was the invention of one certain engine...


hugs

Quote from: SophieSakura on December 15, 2015, 03:38:30 PM
In no way wanting to start an argument, lol, but interested in knowing do people think that discrimination to other animals is a problem?  I mean, we own, kill and eat other animals and treat them like they are inferior to humans.  Though many humans would agree that animals have feelings, they would know that dogs for example can feel happy or sad.  Is this also a form of discrimination?

As humans have evolved we have created a code of ethics that evolve and decide as a species what is acceptable or not.

Not everyone will or can agree with those ethics and that is why they also evolve.

What is ethical to a person in one economey in deciding to breed animals or plants as food, may seem trivial to a subsistence culture where the access to food alone is the driving need to survive.

It is rational to say we will not eat this or that or that we will not pollute with this or that when you live in a modern wealthy society. It is a different ball game when you have a child and are too underfed to produce milk to feed your child. When your prospect of employment to lift your family to a point where they can live is limited because your country has no energy resources - except polluting ones, creates an awkward argument.

The human choice on using resources be they animal, vegetable or mineral comes down to where you are. I'm happy to say I will not eat meat or farm meat; but I have a choice.

In many cases there are no choices.

I'm vegan, and I figure if we can live happy healthy lives without killing innocent animals then why shouldn't we. Animals also want to live happy healthy lives so I think we should leave them in peace. I think just because our brains are more developed than them doesn't give us any right to kill them. I don't think most people would be happy if hyper-intelligent aliens came to earth and ate us all because they though we were stupid compared to them. There is enough suffering in the world I don't to want contribute to more suffering every time I eat food.

And besides Animal agriculture is destroying the planet. It might have been sustainable when there weren't many humans but it has a very large environmental impact when there is 7 billion humans. Watch Cowspiracy if you are interested in the environmental stuff, it's an amazing documentary. But I'm vegan for the animals. The health and environmental benefits are just a bonus.

Also, I read that members of the LGBT community are far more likely to be vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure why that is maybe it has something to do with being able to empathise with other oppressed and marginalised beings or groups of people? Interesting anyway.

Quote from: Rainbow Bay on December 16, 2015, 04:43:03 AM

Also, I read that members of the LGBT community are far more likely to be vegan and vegetarian. I'm not sure why that is maybe it has something to do with being able to empathise with other oppressed and marginalised beings or groups of people? Interesting anyway.

I'd say its also because people are more likely to reflect... on values and what they think about it...


hugs

I'm going to be contrarian and say I don't think discrimination is the right word as I don't believe it properly applies outside the category of human beings.  Additionally, as a species, we are evolved to be omnivorous so I don't think there is a moral wrong in eating meat.

However, there is a great moral wrong in wanton cruelty, particularly where it can be avoided.  Here I think there is flaw in humanity as cruelty abounds in both the treatment of animals and the treating of other human beings.  Cruelty serves no purpose other than selfish convenience, or where the flaw is great, in personal aggrandizement.  Elimination of cruelty towards all living things requires personal empathy and  enlightenment and sadly seems beyond the grasp of a large segment of humanity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess all eating of animal products causes some pain and suffering, and we don't need to do it...

Quote from: Deborah on December 16, 2015, 06:00:04 AM
I'm going to be contrarian and say I don't think discrimination is the right word as I don't believe it properly applies outside the category of human beings.  Additionally, as a species, we are evolved to be omnivorous so I don't think there is a moral wrong in eating meat.

Rock On, Deborah.   

My personal opinion is that factory farms are immoral. Sustainable farming and ranching is very moral.

From the bottom of the food chain to the top, all species eat what they've evolved to eat. A lion has no qualms about taking down a zebra, no matter how cute we might think it is. If some among us choose to eschew animal products, I applaud you exercising your right to choose. In a week I eat fish twice, chicken 2-3 times, and beef once or twice. I consume lots of grains, fruits, and veggies, and I'd appreciate if you didn't go all moralistic over my food choices.

Quote from: diane 2606 on December 22, 2015, 11:14:05 PM
Rock On, Deborah.   

My personal opinion is that factory farms are immoral. Sustainable farming and ranching is very moral.

From the bottom of the food chain to the top, all species eat what they've evolved to eat. A lion has no qualms about taking down a zebra, no matter how cute we might think it is. If some among us choose to eschew animal products, I applaud you exercising your right to choose. In a week I eat fish twice, chicken 2-3 times, and beef once or twice. I consume lots of grains, fruits, and veggies, and I'd appreciate if you didn't go all moralistic over my food choices.

Not every species is an omnivore... meaning being able to live from plants...
humans by the way need plants, a purely non plant based diet would need artificial supplements...

Well its a choice every person should make for themselves imo...
maybe you could see it this way that a chicken spared from time to time might help...
and imo its all in the head... there are so many delicios plant based foods, soups, sandwiches... you get the idea...


hugs

Quote from: Laura_7 on December 23, 2015, 06:52:55 AM


Not every species is an omnivore... meaning being able to live from plants...
humans by the way need plants, a purely non plant based diet would need artificial supplements...

Well its a choice every person should make for themselves imo...
maybe you could see it this way that a chicken spared from time to time might help...
and imo its all in the head... there are so many delicios plant based foods, soups, sandwiches... you get the idea...


hugs

Herbivores live off plants, omnivores eat anything.
Humans need meat, too. An all plant diet requires supplements. 

Hugs, Devlyn

Humans are omnivores, we eat both plants, meat and have evolved that way. We have acids in our stomach designed specificity to digest meat. 

Simplest put it is the way of nature that the top predator in the animal chain eats those below him (depending or not if they are it's pray) and we don't mind when a lion rips apart a deer and eats it in the worst way possible. Cavemen living in prehistoric times and beyond didn't sit there and think that ''oh this might be cruel'' when they were bludgeoning their catches to death before eating them, they did it for survival.

So why, as humans and as animals, do we have this sense that we should be more moral or better to animals when in fact the present day is the best we have ever treated them. Talking in terms of western civilization here, we have developed techniques for instant death and animals do not  have the capacity to sit there and thin ''I'm going to be killed in a week''.

If people want to not eat a natural part of their diet and suffer the consequences (poor immune health, muscle / bone weakness) etc from doing it in the long term then thats up to them.

It is in no way discrimination and in fact you using discrimination makes no sense in this context. If I said, you know what I am only going to eat sheeps with white wool because I just hate them, but the other ones I will live... then maybe 

I agree with Deborah here. There are humane ways of raising animals and slaughtering them and the way some farms treat them is terrible, but I eat meat because it feels right. I know it doesn't feel right for other people and that's totally fine.

There's no moral imperative to eat or avoid meat and animal products.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on December 23, 2015, 09:49:01 AM
Herbivores live off plants, omnivores eat anything.
Humans need meat, too. An all plant diet requires supplements. 

Hugs, Devlyn

There are additionally hypercarnivores, which essentially need non plant food. (Which humans are not   )

Humans do not need meat.
There are millions of vegetarians living a healthy diet without supplements.
Only if going vegan supplements might be needed (ie vit B12 pills), or a strict diet. vegan=no animal products like eggs or honey

Imo the human body is like an engine which can run off lighter food or heavy food.
There are studies showing red meat is not really healthy, for example. Thats why some cultures prefer poultry, others go vegetarian.

One study said people were mostly plant eaters before an ice age, where plants became rare.

Well the ice age is over... there is an abundance of plants, and many are really deliscious.


*hugs*

Quote from: Laura_7 on December 25, 2015, 02:28:30 PM
Only if going vegan supplements might be needed (ie vit B12 pills), or a strict diet. vegan=no animal products like eggs or honey

I have been vegan for nearly 20 years, and the only supplement I take is vitamin B12.  B12 is not a meat product - it is made by yeast and bacteria.  The B12 that meat eaters get in their meat is only there because cows eat grass that they have cr@pped on.  There is nothing in meat that can't be found in non-meat sources.