OK, Stoid, Hunting v. free range beef

Great Debates
61

This is getting weird.

Flowbark
You obviously misread what I wrote. My post was directed at the animal death cost of producing 1kg of useable protein from beef as opposed to from soybean. I never mentioned water pollution and only mentioned habitat alteration on terms of monoculture production. My comment was entirely based on the number of lives lost.
As presented the table is completely meaningless simply because there are no units anywhere. I’d have to see where those figures were collected and what they are based on. Is it per/ha or total world area? Is the habitat alteration figure per/ha or in terms of net loss of biodiversity. Do they really refer to crude protein production? I can see one glaring fault with them. I’m currently undertaking a M.Sc. on the greenhouse contribution of the grazing industry, and far from being a greenhouse emitter grazing is in fact a net greenhouse sink. I can provide you with any number of references for that if you like. Feeding animals does not and has not required habitat to be cleared over the greater part of the worlds surface area, and even if it did my point was that it never produces anything close to a monoculture.

yosemitebabe
**I do not understand why eating plants only is more wasteful to animal life than eating animals and plants. When you eat an animal, that animal has to be fed plants, A LOT of plants, to produce a small amount of food (meat) for you to eat. So when you eat animals, you eat the animal, and (in a sense) all the plants it was fed throughout its lifetime. **
Again you haven’t understand what has been written. Humans need protein. Cattle and sheep can be grazed on land that has not been converted to a monoculture, and still continues to support spiders, prairie dogs, birds etc. This is never the case with bean farms,
Now for the references. According to Burrows, Orr, Back and Anderson (Proceedings 36th Annual Rangelands Congress) to produce one steer I require 2 hectares of native pasture on poor soils and moderate rainfall. On areas capable of sustaining cropping this figure can readily be tripled but I’ll ignore that. This will produce 40kg of protein/year. Soy will yield 415 kg of bean/ha on average according to USDA figures, and on far better land with irrigation and fertiliser. Allowing an upper estimate of 44% protein the figure comes out at 182.6 kg protein/ha. Now to achieve these yields we have, courtesy of the Qld Dpt. Of Primary Industries FactSheets the following deliberate deaths for soybean based on a 1ha plot with 90 cm spacing and 20 cm between plants:

Recommended density when treatment occurs:
Heliothis = 20000 deaths
Green Vegetable Bug 33333 deaths
bean fly = 50000 deaths
I won’t include nematodes here because there are no figures I could find on their numbers. It would be in the millions. I also won’t include the figures for the other 6 insect pests common on soy beans in this are of the world which the recommended spray threshold is 1-3/square metre.
Of course one spraying even for locusts could easily double this figure. This also doesn’t include the non-target species like bees and spiders, or the incidental deaths from habitat destruction (eg the burrowing mammals.) or the need to kill the stored goods pests like moths, borers, weevils mice and rats that aren’t an issue with meat protein. Having discounted those we have:
total of 103333 needless deaths or 566/kg protein produced/death.

Compared with the maximum sustainable parasite loads in cattle of:
45 ticks per animal
1000 buffalo flies/animal
I won’t include nematode here either
Total of 1046 meaningless deaths or 26.15/kg protein/death

Therefore utilising plant protein results in the deliberate deaths of more animals than the utilisation of animal. Saying you eat plant protein to minimise the number of animals killed makes no sense, even if you do get to sleep better at night because you can say you didn’t do it yourself. To sensibly save animal lives you should get as much of your protein as possible from animal sources and reserve the more ‘lethal’ plant foods for carbohydrate sources, where they do become more environmentaly friendly.

** Yosemitebabe**
**Please provide a reputable cite that proves that vegetarians are responsible for more animal death than meat-eaters. Bear in mind, unless a meat-eater eats NO veggies, they are also responsible for the death of the bugs and other critters that die during plant farming. So I don’t see your logic here. **
That is because you apparently fail to understand that humans cannot subsist on carbohydrate alone. Utilising plant protein is excessively wasteful of animal life as I demonstrated above. By all means utilise plants as a carbohydrate source and you may break even in terms of deaths/kilojoule, but try to utilise plants as a protein source and you’re fighting a losing battle. Add to this the fact that cropland requires the complete destruction of all aboveground life every 12 months at least, compared to the majority of free range grazing which occurs on natural pastures and you become an absolute mass murderer by utilising plants as a protein source. There was actually a very good paper published in ‘Nature’ on this a few years go, but unfortunately my only copy is at work and I’m now on holidays. I hope the cites above will satisfy you for the next few weeks.
**I can’t get a cite right now, but I know I’ve read many places that the cost of producing a pound of meat vs. a pound of grian for human consumption is amazing. The amount of water and land and pesticide and pollution and general mayhem produced by meat production is just astronomical. I have big problems with this. **
Your sources were almost right. It does require more energy to produce a kilojoule of energy from beef than from grain. The amount of pesticide used is actually a lot less. Of course you should remember that grazing often occurs on land where cropping is quite simply impossible and so this is the only effective way to get food off the land. Grazing is also far more environmentaly friendly. And of course as I demonstrated above there is far less loss of life involved in producing protein from animals than from plants.

62

Yeah, it is kinda. But it’s certainly a nice break from talking about President Elect Gilligan. :wink:

It appears as though you are assuming all meat produced is through grazing poor land. It is my understanding that this is not at all the case. Not even for beef cattle, much less the other animals raised for their meat, such as pigs and chickens. In fact, in factory farming conditions, which is how most pork and poultry is raised, these animals (cruelly) never leave their cages. Hardly grazing. They should be so lucky.

Instead, they are fed a concentrated diet of calorie-dense grain such a soybean and corn, (not to mention the drugs they are given to stave off disease from the wretched conditions they live in.) All that corn and soy and other grain is raised as monoculture, doing all the damage you talk about.

You know what? The business of feeding 300 million people, especially 300 million fat, rich and self-indulgent people, has become very ugly and destructive any way you look at it.

I’m getting depressed.

sigh

stoid

63

Gaspode:
My eyes are glazing over with all you wrote. I’d really appreciate a bottom line from you, and preferably in English this time! :slight_smile: Are you saying that eating meat and plants is less detrimental to the world or ecology overall, compared to JUST eating plants? And, what are you trying to say about vegetarians? What do you presume about the reasons or motivations behind vegetarianism?

I can say this - I feel less “guilt” at causing (thought the eating of plants) and inadvertantly causing the death of some bugs, than I do at eating “higher life forms” (read: mammals). I have made a conscious choice to try to avoid this sort of animal death. This is my choice, and I don’t usually foist it upon anyone. And, I don’t expect it to make sense to everyone. Since I am not nagging other people about it, it doesn’t need to make sense to them. And, of course, I do realize that we all cause the death of animals.

Stoid: You never cease to amaze me. What? What? Am I invisible? How can you just keep on ignoring my posts? It is going to be more and more obvious to everyone here that you are deliberately ignoring ME, the vegetarian. Why?

So, I’ll keep on asking - how can you act all high and mighty with hunters, when you still EAT DEAD ANIMALS? You, enlightened bleeding heart, more feeling and liberal YOU? Where do you get off being so sanctimonious, you dead-animal-eater, you? Hell, I’m a vegetarian, and I won’t look down my nose at (most) hunters. I see most of them as being pragmatic, getting their food the cheap way. I don’t usually trot out the “meat is murder” line either (really - look around this board - you won’t see me doing that.) But I find your blatant blind hypocrisy so unbelievable, I just have to comment on it.

I actually do agree with a lot of what you say (about killing animals - if one feels they must - in a more humane way, etc.) But I do not think you are entitled to the “moral high ground” here, with your “I feel guilty about eating meat, but I’m too lazy to stop” ways.

64

My eyes are glazing over with all you wrote. I’d really appreciate a bottom line from you, and preferably in English this time! Are you saying that eating meat and plants is less detrimental to the world or ecology overall, compared to JUST eating plants?
You could have just asked that rather than requesting cites. The answer is ‘Yes’.

**And, what are you trying to say about vegetarians? What do you presume about the reasons or motivations behind vegetarianism? **
I try not to presume anything. If you re-read my original post you’ll see that I’m saying nothing about vegetarians in general. I’m stating the fact that saying “some of us choose not to EAT the flesh of animals, which does minimize our responsibility for animal death” is a very spurious moral argument with no basis in fact that I can see.

I can say this - I feel less “guilt” at causing (thought the eating of plants) and inadvertantly causing the death of some bugs, than I do at eating “higher life forms” (read: mammals)
Fair enough, but this in no way minimises your responsibility for animal death. As I stated above it actually maximises it. You are simply selecting your victims and ensuring others perform the hard work and unpleasant duties. Hunters select their victims and do the hard work and unpleasant duties personally and in so doing may actually minimise their responsibility for animal deaths. I think you may be on the wrong side if you want to save animals.
Or don’t they count if they aren’t cute and fluffy?
Stoidela
**This is getting weird.
Yeah, it is kinda. But it’s certainly a nice break from talking about President Elect Gilligan. **
I’ll agree with that. I get enough bloody Australian politics without needing to import it.

It appears as though you are assuming all meat produced is through grazing poor land.
I made no such assumption. The potential is there to supply all the protein needs of all the world’s current vegetarians through the use of grazing animals and hunted wild game. I’m simply stating the fact that if anyone is really interested in minimising the deaths of animals they will utilise this protein source in preference to the mass murder that is plant protein. If they are unwilling to do so then they are hardly in a position to condemn hunters for killing far fewer animal and more humanely.
And by the way I agree entirely about intensive farming. It sickens me. But until I am prepared to give up all that I enjoy to ensure that no animals suffer for my pleasure how can I condemn others for hurting animals for their pleasure? I try hard to avoid hypocrisy.

65

Actually, justwannano did understand, as did I. You equated “sadistic fucks that come up with completely insane and useless “experiments” to perform on animals, such as tying down a live and conscious pig and blowtorching it to see …” with hunters. The “sadistic fucks” are not the other end of the spectrum. They are in a catagory all their own, and need not be mentioned further here.

And for godssakes, answer yosemitebabe!

As I said before, I don’t hunt. Not my cup of tea. But I do enjoy the hell out of a rare steak. I don’t think the pleasure of hunting and the enjoyment of the steak are that far removed from each other. As Dennis Leary said, "Not eating meat is a choice, eating meat is an instinct. Why is it enjoyable? If it wasn’t enjoyable, we wouldn’t do it. Hey, if sex was unpleasant for us guys our species would never have survived. IMHO, for whatever reason, there’s supposed to be some enjoyment in it.

66

Actually, you’ve made me realize how I should more accurately charaterize my concerns: I abhor the suffering of any animal, and I desire to preserve all species in their natural state, living free.

My objection to hunting has little to do with preserving the greatest possible number of animals from death. I don’t have a problem with death per se. My problem with hunting is that anyone would enjoy to participate in it.

Two different things.

Well, you giving up anything won’t ensure that a single animal does not suffer. It will only ensure that your conscience would be clear.

I think it behooves those of us who are care about this issue to educate, donate, and do whatever we can do to try and change the situation. I do. The Humane Farming Association is high on my list of charities. ( In fact, all of my chosen charities are animal or environmental related.) I also try to buy only free range meat. Poultry and beef are easy enough, but pork is tricky. I haven’t paid one thin dime for veal in over a decade…the treatment of calves in pursuit of tender white flesh is abominable. ( I do miss it, tho. Veal piccata is delish. I believe I’ve heard that there is somewhere free range veal but I have never seen it.)

Although i was considering another one this year. I got this great catalog…it’s around here somewhere. I’ll have to find it because I can’t remember the name. Anyway, what you do is purchase animals for people… or parts of animals. Or many animals. I think it was called The Ark Project or some such. You give X dollars to provide, for instance, x number of live chickens to a family or village. Or contribute X dollars to go towards the purchase of a draft animal. Very cool, I thought. And the catalog was cool, too.

anyway, I’m spacing out. Off to bed…

(I really gotta stop hanging out here. It’s sucking me dry.)

stoid

67

Really? You meant the way things stand, with factory farming, etc., that it is still less strain on the environment to eat meat and plants than to just eat plants? Most people do not hunt, they get their meat from factory farming sources. I don’t believe that all the atrocities connected with factory farming makes eating meat from a factory farm source in any way preferable to just eating plants. And, what about all the plants (grains) that have to be fed to many of these animals? Like chickens, etc.? You mention “grazing” animals - but what about animals that are not allowed to graze? Do you imply that the average person’s diet (which will include eating meat primarily produced from factory farms, from non-grazing and grazing animals) is still preferable to just eating plants? What about people who eat mostly non-grazing animals?

See, and I kind of agree with you there. I am not willing to kill “higher life forms” (the cute and cuddly kind) so I don’t eat them. And those are my reasons, I am not nagging anyone to follow suit. And if I have to be responsible for the “murder” of bugs, that is fine with me, something is gonna die, I’d rather it be bugs than chickens, or cows. Once again, my reason, my choice, not nagging anyone to follow suit. And no, while I am not crazy about hunting, I do not see it as a terrible evil. Actually, as I have mentioned earlier, it seems less cruel to the animal, who at least had a decent life before they were cut down.

And once again, I see where you are coming from. Your moral code (and Scylla’s) is consistent. What I do not find consistent is someone who eats animals (in the form of cows, chickens, etc.) and yet gets high and mighty and condemns someone else because they kill the animal before they eat it.

68

See? See? She did it again! Ignoring me again!

Everyone else is seeing it, Stoid. You aren’t fooling anyone. You ARE IGNORING THE VEGETARIAN. In a thread about hunting and animal death. Amazing.

What? Are ya chicken? Too chicken to answer my questions? ::making clucking noises:: cluck cluck cluck! CHICKEN! You won’t answer me! Are you too chicken to answer my questions? You are trying to ignore the vegetarian! What a chicken! ::more clucking noises:: cluck cluck cluck!

69

MGibson said it already. Hunting is not about killing. Yeah, killing can be a part of it, but at least in my experience, about half the time the bag is empty at the end of the hunt, and I can still say it was a good hunt. OTOH, I’ve heard of guide services where the game ends up being little more than a farm-raised animal, practically staked out to be shot. That’s not a hunt, that’s just a slaughter, and I’ll have no part in that. Taking a life is not something done lightly…sometimes the most solemn part of a hunt is the kill.

Having said that, Scylla has done an excellent job, and I can’t add much more.

And Stoid, you sound like you don’t mind being part of the suffering of animals, as long as you don’t have to witness it. Eat meat? Wear leather? Mmm-hmmm…so you’re a consumer. Ever been to a slaughterhouse, stockyard, or chicken farm? Even a dairy? Not exactly “a relatively normal and comfortable life, with room to roam…” Never been? I thought not…hypocrite.

70

Yup, I did. Sorry. I made a general point that a vegetarian diet had less harmful environmental impacts than a meat-eating diet. My understanding is that this point of view isn’t especially controversial: this link gives the opinions of 2 PhDs on the subject. http://www.ucsusa.org/less/guide.top.html
You pointed out that monocultural farmland killed more animals (mostly bugs) than grazing does. Sounds plausible, although I might note that 60 million acres are used to grow grain for feeding livestock, in addition to the 800 million acres used for grazing. Both displace natural ecosystems, though range and pasture can support some natural wildlife.

Given that animals emit methane, how is grazing a net greenhouse sink? Just wondering.

In the US about 300 million acres are devoted to cropland, substantially less than the amount devoted to pasture. I don’t know what the worldwide figures are. I also don’t have a clear idea of the extent to which grazing land is ecologically compromised. (Cite: UCS and Statistical Abstract)

71

I don’t see why enjoying killing is wrong. I think too many people do for it to be considered a sickness or aberration.

72

**Yosemite babe
Really? You meant the way things stand, with factory farming, etc., that it is still less strain on the environment to eat meat and plants than to just eat plants? **
Nope those are your words. I mean only what I said. Eating plants and animals in a combined diet is less ecologically damaging and results in the loss of less lives. I never at any stage mentioned factory farming. The potential is there to produce more than enough animal protein without intensive agriculture, but that’s another thread.

I don’t believe that all the atrocities connected with factory farming makes eating meat from a factory farm source in any way preferable to just eating plants.
Fair enough, but I would be very interested in hearing the reasons why you believe that the 3 day lingering death of a poisoned locust is preferable to the restraint of a bobby calf used for veal production.

**And, what about all the plants (grains) that have to be fed to many of these animals? Like chickens, etc.? You mention “grazing” animals - but what about animals that are not allowed to graze? Do you imply that the average person’s diet (which will include eating meat primarily produced from factory farms, from non-grazing and grazing animals) is still preferable to just eating plants? What about people who eat mostly non-grazing animals? **
Again these are your words not mine. I only referred to free-range grazing herbivores. I never implied anything about the average person’s diet, only your diet as stated in your post. My point is simply that if you really want to minimise the number of animal deaths you are responsible for then you would eat meat from grazed livestock. I’d be happy to discuss my pet theories on maximising world agricultural potential in nauseating length on another thread if you have the stomach, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
I see now that a misunderstanding has occurred. Your definition of animals doesn’t include invertebrates or rodents. Again fair enough but it still seems a very spurious moral argument with a huge grey area.

Stoidela
My problem with hunting is that anyone would enjoy to participate in it
Fair enough, but that’s not much of a reason to suggest they should stop. I can’t understand why people get pleasure out of watching Survivor or WWF, but if it gives them pleasure and doesn’t hurt other living things more than my own pastimes then it would be hypocritical of me to expect them to stop, or think it makes them inferior to me.

Well, you giving up anything won’t ensure that a single animal does not suffer.
True. In the same way that not throwing a rock at someone won’t ensure they don’t get hit with a rock. Someone else might still do it, but I can’t be held accountable for the actions of others. Similarly if I do throw a rock at someone I become a hypocrite if I condemn you for doing it. The argument “If I didn’t do it someone else would and I would simply be hurting myself without changing the outcome” has very nasty historical precedents. IIRC it was used along with “Only following orders” at Nuremberg.
You appear to be using this argument to justify why you can engage in activities that bring you pleasure and harm animals while still remaining superior to hunters who do the same. If this is so I can’t support your logic.
You’ve stated that it isn’t actually the killing that disturbs you with hunting. It can’t be causing animals to suffer or you would feel the same way about pest controllers and non-organic farmers who cause far more suffering. I suspect that it might be because you find it disturbing that someone can get enjoyment out of something that you never could. You feel you should be able to empathise with the whole world. If that is the case then supporting any group that campaigns for making the activity illegal is exactly the same as my campaigning for the outlawing of homosexuality on the grounds that I can’t understand anyone getting pleasure out of that act. I would be a hypocrite to do so since the act causes no more harm than my own activities. I can’t see how hunting causes more harm to anything or anyone than your activities.
Do you actually know what it is about hunting you find so repugnant?

73

There seems to be a reputable cite that flowbark gives that refutes this point. Have you read his post? I see you have not yet commented to it.

True enough, but the circumstances you cite seem to be very controlled ones, and do not reflect the reality of what is going on today, and what is going on with most people’s diets. You talk about eating grazing animals. Fair enough, but not everyone eats only grazing animals, and most people do not hunt for their food.

The death of the locust is going to happen anyway, because plants are going to be grown, for the consumption of meat-eaters, vegetarians, and other animals (which will be then killed and eaten by a meat-eater.) If I hold some responsibilty for that locust death, I accept that. I don’t also have to be responsible for the veal calf as well. I choose not to.

:rolleyes: Sarcasm, eh?

Well, I see a misunderstanding has occurred. I never implied that I thought invertebrates were not animals. I said that I did not want to kill “higher life forms” (as in mammals). Yes, I know rodents are mammals, but my general point stands. I know that we ALL kill animals. I just don’t want to be responsible for the death the “higher life forms”, and I do not want to eat their flesh. And like I said before, I am accepting of the fact that I am responsible for the death of bugs. So is everyone. I just prefer not to be responsible for the death of pigs, cows and cattle too.

74

**Flowbark
I made a general point that a vegetarian diet had less harmful environmental impacts than a meat-eating diet. **
Won’t get any argument from me on that one. I was simply stating that an omnivorous diet could quite easily be less environmentaly damaging. I never said that that was the case as things stand.

**although I might note that 60 million acres are used to grow grain for feeding livestock, in addition to the 800 million acres used for grazing. **
Again no argument. I never mentioned anything other than free-range grazing animals. I dislike intensive farming for a range of reasons, and it’s wasteful nature is only one of them.

**Given that animals emit methane, how is grazing a net greenhouse sink? Just wondering. **
I don’t want to hijack this thread though I’d be happy to discuss this elsewhere. Basically the soil carbon is often higher in rangelands compared to croplands. and there is a higher level of aboveground woody biomass.

75

**Yosemitebabe
There seems to be a reputable cite that flowbark gives that refutes this point. Have you read his post? I see you have not yet commented to it. **
Not only have I read and responded to his post, we have seem to have agreed that any argument was based on his misunderstanding of what I wrote (feel free to correct me Flowbark). Do you have any questions Yosemitebabe?

**True enough, but the circumstances you cite seem to be very controlled ones, and do not reflect the reality of what is going on today, and what is going on with most people’s diets. You talk about eating grazing animals. Fair enough, but not everyone eats only grazing animals, and most people do not hunt for their food. **
As I have said at least half a dozen times I never at any stage mentioned non-free-range non-grazing animals except in response to a question like this one. With a brief acknowledgment to other vegetarians I never mentioned the dietary habits of anyone but you. I mentioned your diet because you brought it up and suggested it somehow minimised animal deaths. If you obtained all your protein from free range grazing animals then you would be responsible for less animal deaths than you are now. That is not controlled, that reflects a potential reality, albeit one you are not prepared to embrace.

The death of the locust is going to happen anyway, because plants are going to be grown, for the consumption of meat-eaters, vegetarians, and other animals
But as I have pointed out you can minimise your responsibility by eating the flesh of cattle. That is what you are trying to do by being a vegetarian isn’t it? If you are not a vegetarian for that reason then you are doing it for enjoyment purposes (health, social status, religious reasons etc.). If the fact that an animal is going to be killed anyway justifies killing it in order to enjoy yourself then I can see no reason why you don’t apply the same logic to the death of other animals or to hunting. All animals are going to die one day.

**If I hold some responsibilty for that locust death, I accept that. I don’t also have to be responsible for the veal calf as well. I choose not to. **
Of course if you ate only free-range beef then you could save the lives of thousands of locusts. If that thinking helps you sleep better good, but you are not in any way that I can see minimising your responsibility for the death of an animal. You are still responsible for the death of an animal and the path you now take kills more animals than the one I take or the one Stoidela takes. I would have thought that a person with the animals’ welfare at heart would have chosen to be responsible for the death of one free-range steer, and not been responsible for the deaths of three hundred locusts or the bobby calf. You were trying to imply that you had the animals’ welfare as your foremost reason for choosing to be vegetarian when you said “some of us choose not to EAT the flesh of animals, which does minimize our responsibility for animal death. So there. Hmph”, or am I reading that all wrong?
You seem to me to be ducking your responsibility for animal death, and that is not even near the same thing as minimising it.
**Sarcasm, eh? **
No, no sarcasm intended.

I said that I did not want to kill “higher life forms” (as in mammals)…… I am accepting of the fact that I am responsible for the death of bugs.
You’ve changed your tune from your first posts. You tried to claim, and are still desperately trying to claim, the high ground over Stoidela by saying that your actions minimised animals’ deaths whereas Stoid’s did not! Now you say that you don’t minimise the deaths of animals, only of ‘higher lifeforms’ You have accused Stoid of hypocrisy for being prepared to accept the death of some animals but not others, and now you say that you are all right with killing ‘lower life forms’. You have said that Stoid is lazy for not becoming a vegetarian, but you are not prepared to stop being one now that you can see that you are actually causing the deaths of more animals by being one. You say you agree with Stoid’s comment that animals should be killed humanely, but you have no problem with the fact that your food is delivered after rats have been killed with anti-coagulants. You ask why Stoid thinks he/she is better when he/she doesn’t have to eat animals, then admit you don’t have to kill as many animals as you do, but you do because you don’t want ‘higher lifeforms’ on your conscience. You ask Stoid why it’s better if someone else kills for you, yet you won’t explain why it’s better if someone poisons your rats for you.
If I were looking for a hypocrite here I wouldn’t be facing Stoidela. Stoid is a little uncertain of the reasons for his/her beliefs, but at least he/she admits that. He/she doesn’t attempt to grab the moral high ground by drawing lines in the sand and saying ‘All those who really care about animals are on this side.
What is a ‘higher lifeform’ anyway Yosemitegirl? You of course qualify, but what exactly are your criteria. As far as I can see you seem to be implying that the more similar they are to you the higher they are. This is an artificial distinction with no more logical basis than Stoidelas’ line between hunters and shoppers, but at least Stoid admits he/she’s not certain about why he/she believes what he/she believes and tries to defend it anyway,

Yes, I know rodents are mammals, but my general point stands.
I don’t know how. If you include rodents as acceptable animals to kill then the point hasn’t actually got any legs. You are prepared to kill animals in order to be vegetarian. Being vegetarian causes more animal deaths than being omnivorous therefore the diet hasn’t been chosen for the animals’ benefit. That being the case it is being done for your benefit and enjoyment and you are engaging in an activity that causes cruelty and suffering to animals because you enjoy it. I can’t quite see the original point any more.

I know that we ALL kill animals.
Then don’t try to tell us that your diet minimises the deaths of animals. Don’t try to belittle Stoidela with comments like ** Obviously more bleeding heart than Stoid, who does actually eat the flesh of our little animal friends**. You’re not more anything except maybe more hypocritical.

76

A wild rat is more intelligent than a domestic cow.

77

I propose a compromise:

Mr.Zambezi can only go moose hunting with paintball guns…

…but only if Stoidela goes out and puts goggles on all the moose(s) first. :smiley:

jr8

“I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.”
– A Bit of Fry and Laurie

78

You might be on her list. Right after me…:slight_smile:
I’m pretty impressed that Scylla has stayed off it. I guess if she ignored everyone then she would just be ranting and raving all by her lonesome.
And I just wanted to say that this response here by Mr Zambezi:

Was the funniest thing I have read on this board.

79

I seemed to drop off this one for a little too long, I missed the call to show why animals don’t have any rights.

Rights don’t exist. Period. At least, not in the way you might expect. “All I hear is that because we can do a thing we should…”
What do you think rights are Stoid? Consider this: “Damnit, murder is wrong…we have a right to throw you in jail for murder! We have a right to be safe!” There is no “right” there, other than one created “because we can.”

In case you didn’t notice, “because we can” is the bottom line for everything. Why does the government tax us? Because it can. Not because it should since the government is an amoral structure, and doesn’t have a “should” attached to it. It taxes us because it needs to to survive, and because it can.

Why do people become vegetarians? Because they can. It is a fundamental rule of nature, physics, everything. Not that one can do a thing and so must do a thing, but if one can do a thing and one wants to do a thing, do it. The concept of rights is rule-by-force against anarchy, and shouldn’t be confused with down-and-out morality. They might coincide a great deal, but they are not synonyms.

If people have illusory rights, animals have none at all.

Now, you might argue that we should create animal rights just like we created our own. We have already. Go ahead and push for more, if you want. You can.

80

Gaspode:

Oh, no sarcasm, eh? I don’t buy it, with the “Yosemitegirl” reference. I don’t buy it with the comments you have made here. You exude sarcasm, and a fair amount of thinly veiled contempt, IMO.

OK, fair enough. With your Big Huge Brain, and knowledge of poisoned locusts, you apparently have more specific information at your disposal than I do. My vegetarian stance has been borne out of what I have always been told, and believed, and apparently I have not been incorrect. That a vegetarian diet is more ecology-friendly, and less cruel, (with the inclusion of factory farming) than the typical omnivorous one. And that seems to still be the case, as flowbark cites. And, it is true that minimizing animal deaths is a partial benefit to my vegetarianism, it is not my only reason. And as I have also mentioned before, my “reasons” need only make sense to myself, as I do not usually nag other people to eat the way I do, or make the choices I do. And actually, I am not “nagging” anyone here - “needling” and “mocking” one specific person’s hypocrisy is really more accurate to what I am doing. If I were not, I daresay a hoarde of hunting meat-eating Dopers would be right on me about my “meat is murder” references. But they aren’t. And there is a reason for that, I daresay. And maybe you aren’t privy to all the reasons and history behind it.
My main point is this - I find it ironic that someone who has often had the irritating and condescending habit of being “holier and more liberal, feeling, caring, bleeding heart than thou” won’t take the Ultimate Politically Correct and Bleeding-Heart choice - that of vegetarianism. I find this highly amusing and ironic. And I also find it highly amusing and ironic that this person refuses to acknowledge me. Very funny indeed.