A few question for Omnivores . . .

Just to throw a nice little wrench into this argument, I quote the following from this L.A. Times article:

Note in particular the bolded bit.

I’d also like to note that while it may come as a shock to some that dead cats and dogs are rendered for use in other animal foods, the main reason this practice exists at all is more the result of pet overpopulation than because of the meat industry.

Furthermore, as of 1997, the FDA imposed a ban on the inclusion of most animal proteins in cattle feed - largely because of the danger of transmitting “mad cow” disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE) - see here for details.

Keep in mind also that in many cases when animals (for example, the pigs and horses mentioned by Mr. Schossler) are used in feed, they are not simply run through a meat grinder and sold off as Purina Cattle Chow[sup]TM[/sup]. They are rendered down into what is essentially a protein powder, which is then added to a feed mixture. So, to argue that cattle are being fed “meat” or cow blood or anything like that is somewhat disingenuous.

Darwin’s Finch -

Point taken. Rendering is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to dispose of animal carcasses, that’s true. But, that doesn’t seem to really excuse the other waste poducts being pumped out by the meat industry. It is much better, though, than the waste being dumped into streams and put into landfills. All slaughterhouse waste is not necessarily rendered, but it’s good that the stuff that’s rendered gets rendered.

There are some programs now looking into using rendered animals as a petroleum feul alternative, popularly known as “biomass energy.” I think it’ great. I’ve written letter to the president, my senator, governor and local house representative
expressing my hope that they will back the funding for biomass energy research.

I think that the mojority of the cost for this research should fall on the meat-raising and dairy industry, but, ironically enough, it all falls on the burdon of the taxpayers. What’s your opinion on that?

The 1997 FDA ban was for cattle, but just because the rules are in place, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Plus, the ban was only for feeding rendered cattle to other cattle. Cattle are still routinely fed other animals. And both pigs and chickens are still force-fed cannibalistic diets.

This is funny, because a long time ago I raised the question of what people thought about the the meat and dairy industry turning these animals into cannibals? Or in the case of cows, natuar herbivores, into omnivores? No one really responded, but I’m still very much interested in what people think? Is the practice cruel? Is it abuse? Is it immoral? I’m not sure what term to use, or in what contect to place the sitation. Any takers?

(Still, though, it seems funny to me that people would actively rather see a cat rendered than live in a vegetarian household. Sorry, I know I said I wouln’t mention the cat again. Sorry.)

Lots of typos in that last post. Sorry about that.

I can’t take seriously anyone who considers “profit” a self-evident evil. The fact that a company is profitable (or wants to be) certainly doesn’t mean it’s a vicious, destructive coven of wickedness. If you believe profits are evil, you may as well hang out with that Kosminal guy on one of his pro-communist threads.

Besides, McDonald’s funds those charitible Ronald McDonald houses. I don’t think that’s mentioned as one of the 7 signs.

Bryan -

Obviously there’s nothing wrong with a complany wanting to pull a profit. There’s nothin evil about making money, inherently.

But, again, obviously, with owning a business should come responsibility. If a company makes a mess, they should clean it up. Same with private citizens. It just makes sense, and it common courtesy.

McDonalds is the largest purchaser of beef in the US, and the second largest purchaser of chicken. They should have some responsibility to insure that their producers are doing the best they can to at least adere to the weak EPA and FDA regulations, much less be environmentally responsibility.

So, reread this, and see is you can caome up with any logistical fallacies:

McDonalds runs charitable Ronald McDonald houses, which in turn makes it okay for them to advertise that hamburgers grow on trees, patronize the hugely polluting meat and industry without putting any pressure on the industry to clean itself up, and indirectly tell children that their parents are bad parents if they don’t take theichildren to McDonalds.

So, by your line of reasoning, it’s okay for the meat industry to pollute the earth so much, because they give so much money to the nice politicians?

Wow, “coven of wickedness.” Them’s fighting words . . .

Too true. We are in agreement.

However, keep in mind that the definition of “a mess,” while often recognizeable universally among the majority of people, is still subjective.

Given the level of scorn you were giving to regulations earlier in this thread, I somehow don’t buy this argument as anything other than tired rhetoric.

Please re-read that and see if you can spot where you are automatically putting your own personal spin on the situation. If you cannot recognize your own bias, there is no hope for you in this debate (note: having a bias is not a bad thing. Being controlled by your bias, however, is).

No, it is neither “okay” or “not okay” for the meat industry to pollute the Earth. It is a completely neutral act of nature that happens. Why is it unnatural for human beings to alter their environment to their liking and benefit?

No. I recognize the bias. But McDonalds running a few charity orphanages in no way excuses the (in my opinion) very little effort they are extending in order to help reduce the amount of pollution which is being creted specifically for them (and those who buy their products.)

I was just trying to refute Bryan Ecker’s point that because they run the Ronald McDonald’s Houses, they were absolved from any further social obligations. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The Gates Foundation gave over $3 Billion in charity and donations, last year, but that doesn’t necessarily stop people from seeing them as . . .well, whatever the plantiffs in the court case consider them.

SPOOFE - Agreed, “mess” is onthing if not subjective. Let’s look at it in terms of feces. (Sorry, best example I can think of.)

If any normal american citizen walk walking his or her dog, and the dog felt a mess on someone else’s private property, they would more than likely feel socially obligated to clean the “mess” up. If theowner of that property saw, and the ownder of the dog showed no intent to clean up the mess, the property owner would almost definitely say something to the effect of "clean up your danm dog’s doo from my property?"Sound reasonable? A person might be more likely to leave a dog pile at a public park, or in a forest preserve, but later on in the day, if someone else stepped in that dog pile, they would more than likely say “damn dog owers who don’t clean up after their own dogs.” In many states, there’s even a fine, or a ticket involved, it you’re caught not cleaning up after your dog.

Okay, now let’s think about the meat industry. They also own animals that produce astronomical amounts of waste. Some of this waste gets rendered, and fed back to the same and different animals. Some of the waste, I would assume, be rendered and used for some sort of fertilizer. But, it’s unable to refute, that some of this waste also gets put into landfills, and into our water sources. Yet, there are really no penalties placed on these companied, due to the weight they pull with politicians.

It just seems like a terrbily unlogical contridiction. Especially when the meat factories are prodcing so much waste that it’s beginning to affect the enironment in less-than-desirable ways.

You said “No, it is neither “okay” or “not okay” for the meat industry to pollute the Earth. It is a completely neutral act of nature that happens. Why is it unnatural for human beings to alter their environment to their liking and benefit?”

Then, would you consider it “neither “okay” or “not okay”” for everyday citizens and companies to make no efforts to keep their environment clean and s free as possible from pollutants? Humans has no responsibility or moral obligation to the earth?

Another question. After reading ovet the thread, I noticed someone mentioned:

“Animals, not being sentient, do not have the rights that accompany that same sentience . . .if we discover that some animal is sentient, then we’d no doubt stop eating it.”

Do other people agree with this? Is it generally accepted knowledge that animals are not, in fact, sentient?

Does anyone know of any studies or any research that endorse the opinion, or prove, that animals are not sentient?

It isn’t. Your example of having your dog crap on someone else’s lawn shows the short-term effects of having feces lying around where they are not supposed to be… the feces will eventually disappear back into the environment, but until that time happens, well… somebody’s got a big lump of shit sitting in his front yard.

But when it comes to the disposed waste from the meat industry, it is set where it will not intrude on anyone else’s private property.

Yes.

However, I would consider it “not okay” if someone else’s pollution spilled over into an area where it was not supposed to go due to their own negligence or inability to follow standard protocols for dealing with that waste.

Now, I wonder what this question has to do with the meat industry, as you’ve already admitted that they follow the guidelines set out by the EPA and FDA. Care to explain why you ask a question unrelated to the subject at hand?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It is generally accepted that most animals are significantly inferior to humans in terms of intelligence, comprehension, emotions, logical capabilities, and anaylitical and deductive capabilities. Some animals rate higher in those areas than others… dolphins and primates, for example, are smarter than, say, cows.

How this ties in to “sentience” is a debate in and of itself, as the condition of being sentient is a debateable point. This piece gives some nice reading about the concept of animal consciousness/sentience.

You might try to find something about Donald Griffin, although his studies are 25 years old by now. Here’s an article discussing his work… although I couldn’t find a more detailed site about his work itself.

For a more contemporary look, I’m sure you’ve heard about Koko, a gorilla that’s been taught to communicate via sign language. Of course, there’s still a huge debate over whether Koko’s communications are a result of intelligence or just constant training.

Of course, there’s a world of a difference between primates and cows (or other livestock), although I didn’t find any sites discussing cow intelligence directly. Keep in mind that the realm of intelligence isn’t divided up into “sentient” and “non-sentient”… there’s a progression on both sides of the scale. Some non-sentient animals can be much smarter than others. Some can even seem - or actually be - semi-sentient.

the great dalmuti

I can’t argue with your moral stand,as everyone has thear own, and I can’t change yours any more than you can change mine.

But as to your enviromental stand agraculture is by far the most enviromentaly damageing industry man has ever devised. Espicaly seeing how as it enables all other industries includeing the meat industry.

There is an enviromentaly sound culture it is called hunter gatherer witch will be all that’s left after the earth can no longer support the population that agraculture now supports.

Sorry about the typo’s buy I am typeing in the dark.
Trying to learn without looking at the keys
.

SPOOFE -

Thanks for your input. Also, you’re like the only person so far who hasn’t tried to “get at me” by saying something like “You make me mad, so I’m gonna go eat a burger.” Thank you for that. Also, thank you for being both civil and polite.

Okay, you said:
“But when it comes to the disposed waste from the meat industry, it is set where it will not intrude on anyone else’s private property.”

This is up for debate. Yes, there are designated places where the waste is supposed to go. Accidents do happen, however, and the waste ocassionally ends up where it shouldn’t. Sure, accidents are a part of life, but when the accident is so large it seriously affects other people or the environment (a la Exxon, or 7-mile island) there should be financial repercussions. The fact is, however, it’s difficult to expect these meat factories, who are so “in” with so many politicians to abide by these rules.

But, you mention “private property.” Who’s property are undeground wells, or the great plains? Well, technically, they’re the individual states’. But, should we go so far to say that legal law should govern our own moral structure? We could, but I would probably choose not to.

Thanks for the interesting info on sentience. As you said, I guess that’s a whole different debate, in which I don’t feel well-versed enough to really contribute to. I was just curious, seeing if the person who wrote about it earlier knew what they were talking about.

You asked:

"Now, I wonder what this question has to do with the meat industry, as you’ve already admitted that they follow the guidelines set out by the EPA and FDA. Care to explain why you ask a question unrelated to the subject at hand? "

Well, it’s farily accepted that these farms seem to consistently “bend the rules” they are supposedly following. As I mentioned before, it’s terrbily unlikely that the rules can be made tighter, because of the strength of the mean and dairy lobby groups.

Yes, I’m considering starting a new thread. I started this one, hoping to get into an environmental debate through the context of meat consumption and production. But, I now realize, that was the wrong way to go about doing things. So, care to help me formulate a question? I’m thinking a simple question, such as "Do humans have an ethical connection to the earth and other creatures? Or possibly "Do you think humans can or will ever evolve to a diet that consumes drastically less meat? “Why should or shouldn’t we care about the state of the envionment?” Maybe “Should McDonalds and other fast food companies be responsible for the environmental damage they are causing?” “Should people who suffer diet-caused heart disease be able to sue fast food companies?”

dalmuti, not everyone agrees with that definition of politeness, and some of us are, quite frankly, offended that we must defend our natural actions on a moral platform over and over again.

Secondly, you can stop playing your violin. No one is going to feel sorry for you. When you ask a loaded question like “What goes through your mind when you eat meat” you are just going to have to accept people not being particularly happy about it. That you continue, on page four, to act stunned about it is stunning to me.

Thirdly, though I have not brought myself to read all four pages of this debate, I have glanced through all of your posts looking for one fucking hyperlink to somewhere besides a site about voluntary human extinction. I have found a few quotes you have offered with proper citations, but certainly not enough to provide support for all the “Well, what do you think about this?” you have offered us. Maybe we should start a brand new thread to discuss the ethics of humans interacting with other animals as a start before we try and delve into the madness of ideological farming and pseudo-pragmatism.

Fourthly, namecalling is not allowed outside of the pit, and I highly doubt anyone here has really attacked you but rather has had issues with what you have said. This is, you might note, a necessary consequence of debate over interesting, compelling, or controversial subjects. Furthermore, you are not the only person in the world to have presented a case against animal husbandry. Many of us omnivores have been subjected to “the other side” (as you might call it, though why we must take sides on the issue is still a mystery to me) more than a few times already.

Fifthly, I will respond to your OP, since apparently your debating is running in cycles of you bringing up points, dropping them, and bringing them up again, maybe I can catch you on a tangent not far from your original post.

What goes through your mind as you’re eating meat, and/or other animal products? There is nothing inherently unique about this situation on which I could distinguish my thoughts, unless the thoughts were about how good the food itself tasted (a thought not limited to the meat experience as I am sure you can imagine).

[H]ow do you justify the fact that a living, breathing animal was killed for the sole reason of satisfying your hunger, which could obviously be satisfied by a plant-based diet? Honestly, I don’t justify it at all, much like I don’t justify breathing, washing my hands, cleaning my toilet, or any of the other behavior (including salad consumption) I engage in which destroys life. Before you think I am equating bacteria with cattle, please see that I have done no such thing. When I feel it necessary to stratify my opinions on life I find that I usually take a stand that says that the more intuitively obvious it is that a creature experiences pain and rudimentary emotions the more careful we should be in its treatment, if only to avoid deliberate torture.

As with all creatures on this great planet, I find it useful to appreciate my own species above others if for no other reason then I can relate to them better. This is also a useful tool for statification of ethics.

Finally, and this may or may not surprise you, I don’t find that any creature, including humans, has any inherent right to live except by popular decree. We very obviously decree this to ourselves because we are the ones who can decree anything. The notion that we can decree such things does in no way imply that everything in our sphere of influence must be handled in some ethical fashion. Eating meat, for me, has absolutely nothing to do with ethics whatsoever. I consider the proposition to be completely amoral. There are, for me, moral considerations in the treatment of animals; I am simply saying that eating them alone isn’t one of them.

In your mind, are animals simply detached from your basic day-to-day ethics and morals? Do you feel guilty? Do you feel as if there are no other alternatives? Again, detatched isn’t exactly the right word. There are ethical and moral concerns regarding animal life for me. Eating them, however, is not one of these. How we kill them: ok. How we treat them as they live: sure. Raising them for the sole purpose of killing them? No problem for me. I have never felt guilt over salivating at the smell of beef. I am actually getting hungry just thinking about it (Pavlov, anyone? ;)).

Finally, I would like to mention that I feel an undertone of conspiracy in your posts. For instance, in your most recent one, “The fact is, however, it’s difficult to expect these meat factories, who are so ‘in’ with so many politicians to abide by these rules.” There may be, in fact, a vast conspiracy in the meat industry that pays off politicians so that legislation regarding their industry is thwarted. Then again, it might just be that, like every other industry in America and the free world (and some not-so-free ones, too) they are trying to avoid legislation, regulation, and so on because abiding by those decrees usually involves losing profits. I assure you that the meat industry is not the only one which has motivations for lobbying politicians, and though I suspect you know this, the tone with which you present the case seems to hold a special place for the meat industry itself.

What can be done to encourage people to eat less meat? How about make vegetables taste better?
I’m not a huge meat eater, although I am a meat eater. And I have friends and family on every end of the vegetarian-omnivore scale, from vegan to “don’t eat red meat” to “ack - vegetables.” The best approach to encouraging ME to eat a healthy diet (and one more earth family than one based on McDonald’s hamburgers) is to acknowledge that there is a whole range of choices - many of them not healthy (I know some vegans who are in horrible health due to their diet - and some meat eaters who are in horrible health due to their diet, you can make bad choices as a vegan just like you can make bad choices as a meat eater - tequila - sans worm - and potato chips may be vegan, but you shouldn’t center your diet around them), but within the healthy scale, there is a lot of food available - much of it better tasting than brown rice and zucchini.

Nothing makes me more contrary and uninterested in hearing the benefits of vegetarianism (or a limited meat diet) than a guilt trip. I’m not interested in cutting meat out of my diet (and yes, I have thought about it, even done it for a while, but it doesn’t fit my lifestyle). I’m also not particularly interested in the guilt trip over the poor furry little cows and fluffy little chickens, since my grandparents worked in a slaughterhouse, my other grandparents were farmers, and animals raised for food are, perhaps surprisingly, meant to be eaten. (BTW, Dalmuti, you’ve managed to associate both sides of my family with the SS in one fell swoop, congratulations.)

Ack - that’s earth friendly, not earth family…

Well, another cup of coffee should fix that.

This thread has been really entertaining. Dalmuti-can you please provide some cites or links to a non-biased source for the information you take as “common knowledge”.

I also like how you skirt around the issue posted by others, by saying they are personally attacking you or uninformed. It seems to me that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or has the moral judgement of satan.

Also you seem to disregard any evidence to the contrary of your opinion.

If this is how you are going to conduct yourself in the debates forum then expect to be, what you call, “attacked” and what I call “assaulted with logical and coherent arguments that differ from your opinion”.

Dalmuti-
I’d like to point out that my respones to your original questions were completely serious. Not having gone shopping in a while, my fridge contained peanut butter, kefir(a baked, yogurt, European thing), and a pack of White Castle burgers. Having had kefire and peanut butter for breakfast, I planned on having the burgers for dinner. It was not meant as a 'Nyah! Nyah! I’m gonna eat meat".

     I have explained my moral standards and how they relate to my diet.

  I have  explained why I will not, and can not go vegan.

Re Spiders-I do not bring this up as a personal attack. I do honestly do not understand how someone can be outraged at the killing of livestock, but kill spiders without any apparent remorse.

  If all  animals, including humans, are equal and have the same rights,  doesn't the spider deserve to live every bit as much all the cows and chickens?

Again I’m not saying ‘Oooh! You kill spiders!’ But the killing of spiders does not seem to fit into your ethical structure.

   My ethics allow for the killing of livestock, but not spiders. I have explained why. To wit: the killing of livestock serves a purpose. Their meat provides nutrients for other living things. Killing a spider serves no purpose. You can remove a spider from your home without killing it. Its death is thus totally unnecessary.

Further, if you feel that humans should share the earth with animals, doesn’t the spider have as much right to be in your house as you do?

   My posts in this thread have been serious and detailed. I request a serious and detailed answer.

My personal opinion is that I’m not happy about it, just as I’m not happy about a portion of my tax dollars going to subsidize agricultural farms.

**

I suggest you read the regulation I linked to. The ban is on all forms of mammalian protein, with specific exceptions, such as that from pigs or horses, or elements such as blood and milk. It’s not just about feeding rendered cattle to non-rendered cattle.

And again, I caution you on your use of “fed other animals”. Having animal protein mixed in with their feed is not the same thing as “eating another animal”, nor does it turn them into carnivores. Carnivores eat meat, which is not synonymous with animal protein.

Possibly wasted effort, but -

Why would it slow down the line? Might it not just shut down some lines and leave the rest unchanged? And of course it would have no effect on pig slaughter, lamb slaughter, or other animals.

I am afraid I am going to have to ask for a cite.

Cite, please.

Cite, please.

Cite, please.

Cite, please.

Cite, please.

Regards,
Shodan

**

That this is the taste of murder, and murder tastes damn good!

**

I smugly consider the fact that anybody who thinks this way is deluding themselves. Every time you move you thousands if not millions of animals, and animals are killed growing plants. I also don’t accept the proposition that plants are automatically worth less than animals. I think a giant oak is worth more than a protozoan.

**

No.

**

No, quite the opposite.

**

No. There’s always alternatives, I simply think that only the very foolish consider pursuing them.

Again, just curious. Thanks. **
[/QUOTE]