Vick and animal rights

[Groucho]

As a semi-vegetarian (I still eat fish) I wonder about how people reconcile the inconsistencies in their opinions about this whole dog fighting incident.

Every day, thousands of meat animals are held in cages where they can't even turn around, and fed unnatural foods to fatten them up, only to be killed when they reach the right age. It is, by any standard, very cruel.

I see people munching down on their hamburgers while saying that it is terrible the way Vick treated those dogs and therefore he should go to jail.

What is the difference in your mind? Are pets different in some way so that things that are cruel to them would not be cruel for food animals? Do you think the food animals don't feel pain?

Not trying to be snide, just trying to start a conversation.

[burntgorilla]

Because people don't think about where their food comes from. I know I don't. And dogs are cuter than chickens. I don't think there's anything more complicated than that in it. Just people not thinking.

[Turenne]

TBH I have this odd feeling that later generations will look back on this generation and condemn us, like we do to past generations for slavery, chauvinism etc, for our supposed repression of animals.

[mataj]

Oh yea? And taking the vegetable life in the most gruesome way possible, by mutilating and cooking the poor vegetables alive, or even eating them alive- that's supposed to be OK with you? You animal!

The only ethical diet in existance is carcassarianism, eating the meat of naturally deceased animals. It is also cheaper, and healthy. The latest research shows, that our distant humanoid ancestors were vultures. Our digestive tract is therefore best suited to carcassarian diet. If you are a carcassarian, there is no need to damage your health and our environment by buying that synthetic junk food in the supermarkets. You just go to a nice healthy walk in the woods on the fresh air, smell around a little bit, and find yourselves a dinner. In the case of necessity, roadkill can serve the purpose as well, despite of the fact, that it's not strictly naturally deceased.

Carcassarianism is the proper answer to humanity's problems, not vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is just a cheap hoax.

[burntgorilla]

I remember seeing Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (a TV cook, yes, that's his real name) find a rabbit on the road and then cooking it. Doesn't really appeal to me. Though he'll eat anything...

[Mirror Lake 444]

The difference is the meat we eat is killed a quickly and humanely as possible vs. condeming dogs to a slow and gruesome death. I will not apologize for something man has been dong since the beginning of time and has to in order to survive. From my expericence as a fish farmer I believe fish are more more aware then chickens, and if you want to come down to the nitty gritty not allowing an animal to breath while you harvest it isn't the best way to go either, but it is pretty much the only option and pefectly acceptable to me.

[Groucho]

I'm refering more to the way many food animals are kept prior to being killed. I can understand the difference between a free-range animal that is later killed and one that is kept in a cage just large enough for it to stand, and then being killed.

Do you think that the torture these animals feel is that much different from the dogs that were forced to fight to the death?

[Atticus]

Oh yea? And taking the vegetable life in the most gruesome way possible, by mutilating and cooking the poor vegetables alive, or even eating them alive- that's supposed to be OK with you? You animal!

The only ethical diet in existance is carcassarianism, eating the meat of naturally deceased animals. It is also cheaper, and healthy. The latest research shows, that our distant humanoid ancestors were vultures. Our digestive tract is therefore best suited to carcassarian diet. If you are a carcassarian, there is no need to damage your health and our environment by buying that synthetic junk food in the supermarkets. You just go to a nice healthy walk in the woods on the fresh air, smell around a little bit, and find yourselves a dinner. In the case of necessity, roadkill can serve the purpose as well, despite of the fact, that it's not strictly naturally deceased.

Carcassarianism is the proper answer to humanity's problems, not vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is just a cheap hoax.how's about this, from Robert Lowell:
Strolling, I yammered metaphysics with Abramowitz,
a jaundice-yellow ("it's really tan")
and fly-weight pacifist,
so vegetarian,
he wore rope shoes and preferred fallen fruit.

[Antipathy]

As a semi-vegetarian (I still eat fish) I wonder about how people reconcile the inconsistencies in their opinions about this whole dog fighting incident.

Every day, thousands of meat animals are held in cages where they can't even turn around, and fed unnatural foods to fatten them up, only to be killed when they reach the right age. It is, by any standard, very cruel.

I see people munching down on their hamburgers while saying that it is terrible the way Vick treated those dogs and therefore he should go to jail.

What is the difference in your mind? Are pets different in some way so that things that are cruel to them would not be cruel for food animals? Do you think the food animals don't feel pain?

Not trying to be snide, just trying to start a conversation.I agree that it is highly hypocritical for a society which tolerates the cruelty of battery farming to then prosecute and imprison people for cruelty to pet animals. I think the distinction we make is that the cruelty inflicted on food animals is seen as an unfortunate side effect of the rearing process and, as such, is deemed necessary. Whereas the actions of those involved in the rearing and training of fighting dogs is deemed not only as unnecessary, but also as unspeakably cruel... and deliberately so.

Of course the truth is that very little of the cruelty inflicted on food animals is actually necessary either; and I would much rather see those inhumane methods of animal rearing outlawed, than seeing any relaxation of cruelty laws.

[Antipathy]

Oh yea? And taking the vegetable life in the most gruesome way possible, by mutilating and cooking the poor vegetables alive, or even eating them alive- that's supposed to be OK with you? You animal!Oh come now… the cruelty of killing vegetables is possibly the most asinine argument which anti-vegetarians regularly trot out. It is even more ridiculous than the PETA argument that animals should be accorded the same level of respect and rights as human beings – which is saying something. Of course no-one really believes in the sanctity of vegetable lives, it's just a silly proposition used in a rather obvious manner to pour scorn on vegetarian ethical beliefs.

The simple fact of the matter is that we all have to eat, but we all draw a line which we would prefer not to cross when it comes to what we are prepared to eat. For most people in the world it is fellow human beings; for most people in the West, it is pet animals. And still other people – myself included – don't like the idea of eating any mammalian flesh. Get over it!

The only ethical diet in existance is carcassarianism, eating the meat of naturally deceased animals. It is also cheaper, and healthy. The latest research shows, that our distant humanoid ancestors were vultures. Our digestive tract is therefore best suited to carcassarian diet. If you are a carcassarian, there is no need to damage your health and our environment by buying that synthetic junk food in the supermarkets. You just go to a nice healthy walk in the woods on the fresh air, smell around a little bit, and find yourselves a dinner. In the case of necessity, roadkill can serve the purpose as well, despite of the fact, that it's not strictly naturally deceased.

Carcassarianism is the proper answer to humanity's problems, not vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is just a cheap hoax. From having read some of your posts in the R & P forum I assume you are an atheist; am I right? In which case, there is no objective reason why eating recently deceased human flesh should be a problem for you either; but I bet you wouldn't! Not unless there was no alternative. So, for the sake of discussion, imagine living in a world where cannibalism is the norm and you are ridiculed for being squeamish about it… that is not dissimilar to the idiotic way in which vegetarians are treated by some meat-heads. :(

Again, we all have to eat, but we are fortunate enough in the West that we can afford to choose to stay behind our chosen line. What I find odd is that it's not so much what people choose to do (i.e. eat meat) which is criticised, so much as it is what they choose to not do (i.e. not eat meat). :shrug:

[mataj]

Oh come now… the cruelty of killing vegetables is possibly the most asinine argument which anti-vegetarians regularly trot out. . . . A-ha, ridiculing, and making excuses, are we?

No matter how you turn it, vegetarianism is murderous. Taking life is taking life, even if it's vegetable life. If you respect life, there is no excuse for being a vegetarian. Only the carrionarian diet is perfectly ethical, because it takes absolutely no life at all.

For most people in the world it is fellow human beings; for most people in the West, it is pet animals.Myself, as well many countrymen of mine (*), eat pet animals too- at least the tasty ones. Foal steak with green pepper... Yummmm :p

From having read some of your posts in the R & P forum I assume you are an atheist; am I right?Yea, I'm Atheist most of the time. Only occasionally I believe into Cthulhu Mythos, just to keep my religious synapses busy.

In which case, there is no objective reason why eating recently deceased human flesh should be a problem for you either; but I bet you wouldn't! Not unless there was no alternative. So, for the sake of discussion, imagine living in a world where cannibalism is the norm and you are ridiculed for being squeamish about it… that is not dissimilar to the idiotic way in which vegetarians are treated by some meat-heads. :(So, Atheism is supposed to lead to cannibalism... Damn, that's the worst slippery slope I've had in years!


_________________________________________
(*)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2005/sep/10/ljubljana.slovenia.guardiansaturdaytravelsection/print
"the Slovenians share the English love of horses but for different reasons"

http://www.chow.com/stories/10298
"That’s why, say, Slovenians are able to swallow foal carpaccio: horses didn’t show up in their third-grade history textbooks."

http://www.hot-horse.si/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Slovenia/Mestna_Obcina_Ljubljana/Ljubljana-688015/Restaurants-Ljubljana-Hot_Horse-BR-1.html?frdir=yes
http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/Slovenia/Mestna_Obcina_Ljubljana/Ljubljana-688015/Restaurants-Ljubljana-Hot_Horse-BR-1.html?frdir=yes
Local horseburger chain.

[steveksux]

Just wanted to point out that I really love children.


They taste like chicken!

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

I couldn't eat a whole one.....

[Antipathy]

No matter how you turn it, vegetarianism is murderous. Taking life is taking life, even if it's vegetable life. If you respect life, there is no excuse for being a vegetarian. Only the carrionarian diet is perfectly ethical, because it takes absolutely no life at all.

...

So, Atheism is supposed to lead to cannibalism... Damn, that's the worst slippery slope I've had in years!*Sigh* If the decision about what life one "respects" is to be extended indefinitely down the food chain, then why not extend what it is "acceptable" to eat all the way up the food chain to us?

Of course I'm not suggesting that atheism leads to cannibalism - quite the opposite in fact, but I'm sure you knew that. My point is that as an atheist you shouldn't, in theory at least, believe that eating human flesh is taboo - but still you DO. The reason is empathy. Some people only have it for their fellow beings, but others have it for fellow creatures. No-one but a fool has it for plants!

[mataj]

*Sigh* If the decision about what life one "respects" is to be extended indefinitely down the food chain, then why not extend what it is "acceptable" to eat all the way up the food chain to us? Carrionarians don't have to extend neither up, nor down the food chain what is acceptable or not. They take no life, period (well, except maybe same maggot here and there, but they are considered collateral damage). Carrionarism respects ALL life, and takes none.

Of course I'm not suggesting that atheism leads to cannibalism - quite the opposite in fact, but I'm sure you knew that. My point is that as an atheist you shouldn't, in theory at least, believe that eating human flesh is taboo - but still you DO. The reason is empathy. Some people only have it for their fellow beings, but others have it for fellow creatures. No-one but a fool has it for plants!Biological discrimination! Shame on you!

Tell that to some plant loving ol' lady, if you dare!

[Antipathy]

Carrionarians don't have to extend neither up, nor down the food chain what is acceptable or not. They take no life, period (well, except maybe same maggot here and there, but they are considered collateral damage). Carrionarism respects ALL life, and takes none.Hmm... aside from the fact that there probably would only be enough carrion to feed a very tiny fraction of humanity, it would also create an environmental catastrophe if too many people took it up as their food source, as very few of the natural carrion eaters would be able to compete with humans. So, what you're advocating would likely lead to a mass extinction of species. You eco-terrorist you!

Anyway, I'm sure you're only joshing me but if it makes you feel better please carry on with your carrion carry on. :)

[IDK]

The difference is the meat we eat is killed a quickly and humanely as possible vs. condeming dogs to a slow and gruesome death
You've either redefined humane, or have no clue what the conditions are like in the typical slaughterhouse.


I will not apologize for something man has been dong since the beginning of time and has to in order to survive.
Man has hunted since the beginning of human life, followed by free range farming, followed by mass drugging and slaughter (read torture) of many of the animals we eat.

I'm not a vegetarian, but to say that we have to cage, drug and slaughter animals in order to survive is a flat out lie. We don't have to, all the nutrition minus the fat of a steak is available in a vegetable. Meat is not a major part of my diet because of this, but I do enjoy it. When I do get the meat, I think of the necessity of growth hormones and the cages and the torture, and buy animals that actually WERE raised humanely.

So, think before you say we have to eat McDonald's and Ruths Criss Steaks to survive because you know we don't, and you know that it's actually healthier if we keep it at a minimum.

[Dangerrmouse]

But it tastes so good!

[mataj]

Hmm... aside from the fact that there probably would only be enough carrion to feed a very tiny fraction of humanity, it would also create an environmental catastrophe if too many people took it up as their food source, as very few of the natural carrion eaters would be able to compete with humans. So, what you're advocating would likely lead to a mass extinction of species. . .. . . which would in turn yield enough carrion for everybody.

Anyway, I'm sure you're only joshing me but if it makes you feel better please carry on with your carrion carry on. :)I'm just modestly proposing an immaculately ethical diet.

[IDK]

. . . which would in turn yield enough carrion for everybody.

I'm just modestly proposing an immaculately ethical diet.

But you're fully aware of the absurdity of your proposition. Maybe you're doing it out of boredom?

If we're to take your advice then we must also forfit cotton clothing, or hemp clothing or whatever, also any wood within our homes and carpeting.... We'll have to avoid plastics due to the hazards involved in extracting oil from the earth and on and on and on....

This is a discussion on the ethics of animal abuse, right? The original post was pointing to the irony of those who chastise Vick over a steak dinner at some chain restaurant. I believe the ethical concern is that both Vick and those who provide the steak are actively torturing a creature which knows fear and pain (along with a variety of other emotions) in an undoubtedly inhumane manner. If you can provide some example of a plants' sense of self preservation, emotional fear or physical pain, maybe your argument would make sense.

[Dangerrmouse]

Just because you are not equipped to perceive it doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

"When A Plant Screams!
The United States Department of Agriculture has learned that plants "scream" chemically when attacked by caterpillars. Corn plants, for example, release a chemical signal when mixed with the saliva of the caterpillar. This signal attracts wasps which lay their eggs in the caterpillar, eventually killing the caterpillar and saving the plant. If the leaf is cut or injured in some other way, the chemical signal is not emitted. Only when the caterpillar saliva mixes with the damaged portion of the leaf is the signal given off.

Because of this elaborate system, a wasp can seek out caterpillars in a huge corn field and stop large scale damage. James Tumlinson, of the USDA says soybeans and cotton plants have a similar defense against pests. We are only beginning to understand how many natural protective mechanisms are built into the environment to help us and protect us. Some pesticides may kill the wasps and not the caterpillars, defeating the system designed to protect the plants. There is much to learn about the design of living things--a design so complex that we maintain it cannot be a product of chance.

--Source Popular Science, October, 1993, page 33. "

[CVN76]

As a semi-vegetarian (I still eat fish) I wonder about how people reconcile the inconsistencies in their opinions about this whole dog fighting incident.

Every day, thousands of meat animals are held in cages where they can't even turn around, and fed unnatural foods to fatten them up, only to be killed when they reach the right age. It is, by any standard, very cruel.

I see people munching down on their hamburgers while saying that it is terrible the way Vick treated those dogs and therefore he should go to jail.

What is the difference in your mind? Are pets different in some way so that things that are cruel to them would not be cruel for food animals? Do you think the food animals don't feel pain?

Not trying to be snide, just trying to start a conversation.

Vick didn't kill them for food to sustain himself. He also allegedly hung them and when some survived the hanging, he held them underwater until they died.

BTW, I had steak tonight for dinner, but about your fish eating...
Fish Farms:
Now that commercial fishing has all but emptied our oceans of target animals, the seafood industry has turned to raising fish in contained fish farms. These farms raise millions of fish in netted cages in coastal waters. Confining so many fish in small areas leads to extreme fecal contamination, deadly diseases, parasite outbreaks, and the depletion of wild fish stocks. You may be surprised to learn that many of the fish in supermarkets today come from these farms—for instance, 80 percent of the salmon sold in the United States. This means that if you eat fish, you may be supporting horribly cruel fish farms that are even worse for the environment than commercial fishing....

Continued: http://fishinghurts.com/environmentalConcerns2.asp

[IDK]

Just because you are not equipped to perceive it doesn't mean it doesn't happen...

"When A Plant Screams!
The United States Department of Agriculture has learned that plants "scream" chemically when attacked by caterpillars. Corn plants, for example, release a chemical signal when mixed with the saliva of the caterpillar. This signal attracts wasps which lay their eggs in the caterpillar, eventually killing the caterpillar and saving the plant. If the leaf is cut or injured in some other way, the chemical signal is not emitted. Only when the caterpillar saliva mixes with the damaged portion of the leaf is the signal given off.

Because of this elaborate system, a wasp can seek out caterpillars in a huge corn field and stop large scale damage. James Tumlinson, of the USDA says soybeans and cotton plants have a similar defense against pests. We are only beginning to understand how many natural protective mechanisms are built into the environment to help us and protect us. Some pesticides may kill the wasps and not the caterpillars, defeating the system designed to protect the plants. There is much to learn about the design of living things--a design so complex that we maintain it cannot be a product of chance.

--Source Popular Science, October, 1993, page 33. "

You've pointed out an evolutionary defense mechanism, now can you point to the neurons which allow the plant to fear the caterpillar, and the nerves which transmit pain?

Even if I admit that the culling of millions of corn stalks is indeed immoral, it is still an undoubtedly better solution to this ethics problem. We need to survive and if it can be done in a manner that is healthier and pain free, why not do it? Any argument against this just doesn't make sense...

And to that end, eating meat does kill plants. The millions and millions of tons of grain fed to livestock each year has to be killed, right? So either way, you're killing plants. Trump card. Why don't we stop killing the animals and feed all that grain to the people who are starving?

[ptac4x4]

Why don't we stop killing the animals and feed all that grain to the people who are starving?

Why don't we reduce the world population? It would put less stress on the environment and lower energy demand. If the world population keeps rising, could be just years away from Soylent Green?

[IDK]

Why don't we reduce the world population? It would put less stress on the environment and lower energy demand. If the world population keeps rising, could be just years away from Soylent Green?

Solyent green... Recycling eh? i like your thinking...

[Mirror Lake 444]

I'm refering more to the way many food animals are kept prior to being killed. I can understand the difference between a free-range animal that is later killed and one that is kept in a cage just large enough for it to stand, and then being killed.

Do you think that the torture these animals feel is that much different from the dogs that were forced to fight to the death?


If you're referring to chickens having raised them I don't have a problem with their confinement. It has to be done to economcially produce them profitably and frankly they're not much smarter or aware than your average rock. You're trying to compare the way you would feel to a chicken which makes no sense in my mind. Do you have any idea how stupid chickens are? Do you have any idea what they will do to another chicken if something is wrong with it and they are free to roam? I will tell you what they will do. They will peck at it and when they draw blood there is a frenzie to peck that chicken to death. That is why many free roaming birds raised domestically have their beaks cllipped or are confined individually.

Higher forms of animals I do have a problem with being confined. Especially intelligents ones that have a social nature. What I see in the local zoo or even some people that have dogs grieves me. I see dogs chained to a dog house, fed and watered but ignored otherwise. I have to wonder why idiots like that even have a dog.

[Mirror Lake 444]

You've either redefined humane, or have no clue what the conditions are like in the typical slaughterhouse.


Man has hunted since the beginning of human life, followed by free range farming, followed by mass drugging and slaughter (read torture) of many of the animals we eat.

I'm not a vegetarian, but to say that we have to cage, drug and slaughter animals in order to survive is a flat out lie. We don't have to, all the nutrition minus the fat of a steak is available in a vegetable. Meat is not a major part of my diet because of this, but I do enjoy it. When I do get the meat, I think of the necessity of growth hormones and the cages and the torture, and buy animals that actually WERE raised humanely.

So, think before you say we have to eat McDonald's and Ruths Criss Steaks to survive because you know we don't, and you know that it's actually healthier if we keep it at a minimum.

Sorry but you're talking to someone that has had experience in this area from the farm, to slaugthering animals, to having been a meat cutter. Your arguments smack of someone that does not.

1.) Animals don't live in slaugterhoues. It's a final destination and it's not profitable to keep them there very long and stressing animals by keeping them there would be counterproductive.

2.) There is no drugging of animals before slaughter or in the process of slaugthering. It is stricly prohibited. No residue of any drug that could be used in slaughtering is allowed in an animal destined for human consumption. The only thing I know of that is used here in the U.S. with pork is gas but tht is not a drug.

3.) Mass production of animals for consumption is not only necessary to meet demand for large populations it is the the only way to do it economically. The days of family farms where people raise a little of this and a little of that for self consumption or to sell a little are over.

4. If it bothers you to eat animals produced this way don't eat them. BTW the growth hormone thing is vastly overplayed. Selective breeding is far more effective and safer. In fish farming (at least here in the states) it is strictly prohibited. Why do you think there is such an outcry about Chinese raised fish? It's because thy are using chemical that are stricly prohibited here. If I raise fish for consumption on my farm I am severely limited on things I can use to treat disease or do anything else.

5. One more thing... If the way we raise animals was as terrible and as stressful as some make it out to be there would be constant disease problems of which there are not. Stress is the primary reason for disease and it's counterproductive to allow your animals to be stressed. You may ask why e.g. chickens are not stressed by being in cubicles and that is because of domestication. The chickens that could not tolerate this were removed by attrition long ago.

[IDK]

1.) Animals don't live in slaugterhoues. It's a final destination and it's not profitable to keep them there very long and stressing animals by keeping them there would be counterproductive.
Besides the point? Simple mistake on my part, it slipped my mind. I've seen scare videos which tried to persuade me not to eat meat because of the accidents caused when shipping animals to a slaughterhouse. It was a poorly thought out and constructed video.


2.) There is no drugging of animals before slaughter or in the process of slaugthering. It is stricly prohibited. No residue of any drug that could be used in slaughtering is allowed in an animal destined for human consumption. The only thing I know of that is used here in the U.S. with pork is gas but tht is not a drug.
Ever hear of Posilac, or artificially manufactured bovine growth hormones? If you don't believe it to be a drug, then that's simply an argument in semantics and is again, besides the point.


3.) Mass production of animals for consumption is not only necessary to meet demand for large populations it is the the only way to do it economically. The days of family farms where people raise a little of this and a little of that for self consumption or to sell a little are over.

The only reason it is necessary is because of the demand. That's the point I'm trying to make. The only reason these animals need to be mass produced is because people prefer fattening beef steaks to fulfilling protein-rich vegetables.

If the majority of the world were to switch to vegetarianism or veganism because they realized the benefits, I seriously doubt it would cause the world to collapse. Instead, lives would be lengthened, overall health would increase and this mass production of farm animals would become obsolete.

Again, to say that we need to cage, drug and torture animals in order to survive is a flat out lie. It's unnecessary, as are places like McDonald's. We don't need to change the way we raise our livestock, we need to change the way we feed our bodies. Any argument against this suggestion is just ludicrous. What is there to lose????? Nothing.


4. If it bothers you to eat animals produced this way don't eat them. BTW the growth hormone thing is vastly overplayed. Selective breeding is far more effective and safer. In fish farming (at least here in the states) it is strictly prohibited. Why do you think there is such an outcry about Chinese raised fish? It's because thy are using chemical that are stricly prohibited here. If I raise fish for consumption on my farm I am severely limited on things I can use to treat disease or do anything else.

I don't believe it's overplayed. Posilac is a drug used to increase milk production and it is banned in nearly every developed country in the world. In the US, however, 22% of all cows are injected with this fully legal drug (54% of cows in herds greater than 500). However, the last few years have shown that artificially "improving" livestock is not going to be a serious issue for very long.

5. One more thing... If the way we raise animals was as terrible and as stressful as some make it out to be there would be constant disease problems of which there are not. Stress is the primary reason for disease and it's counterproductive to allow your animals to be stressed. You may ask why e.g. chickens are not stressed by being in cubicles and that is because of domestication. The chickens that could not tolerate this were removed by attrition long ago.

All I am trying to say is that we don't need lock these creatures up and treat them the way we do. It's not necessary if we shifted our eating habits and became healthier. Regardless, I believe we will learn this far in the future someday. Until then, I'll continue to feed my body before my taste buds (though I can cook some damn good vegetarian dishes).

[Mirror Lake 444]

I commend your compassion for animals but you are sadly misinformed. I tried.

[Aradia]

Do you have any idea what they will do to another chicken if something is wrong with it and they are free to roam? I will tell you what they will do. They will peck at it and when they draw blood there is a frenzie to peck that chicken to death. That is why many free roaming birds raised domestically have their beaks cllipped or are confined individually.

Do chickens not harass each other within the cages? (I ask this having seen reports that chickens are often kept two to four in a cage - is that inaccurate?) Also, I'm still concerned about the issue of the wire floor of a cage which will deform a bird's feet (which is why they tell you to keep special perches for pet birds in a cage). And let me say that as a vegetarian I really value your point of view on this. :flowers:

[Mirror Lake 444]

Do chickens not harass each other within the cages? (I ask this having seen reports that chickens are often kept two to four in a cage - is that inaccurate?) Also, I'm still concerned about the issue of the wire floor of a cage which will deform a bird's feet (which is why they tell you to keep special perches for pet birds in a cage). And let me say that as a vegetarian I really value your point of view on this. :flowers:


I'm curious how many animal rights activists and "vegetarians" wear clothes made out of animal products? No leather shoes or belts, etc. etc. ?

[IDK]

I'm curious how many animal rights activists and "vegetarians" wear clothes made out of animal products? No leather shoes or belts, etc. etc. ?

I have a fake gator skin belt. Does that count? Hell I can't afford anything but second hand goods (hand-me-downs) and garage sale stuff anyway. For the record, I'm not a vegetarian. I just feel people should know what they are supporting with their money. I keep it to a bare minimum, and don't ever feel any malice towards my fellow omnivores.

[Mirror Lake 444]

Whether you want to admit it or not eating the flesh of your "fellow omnivores" is something our species has adapted to for melenia. In fact seems to me I learned from a nutrition class in college that a true vegatarian would have serious nutrition problems. Isn't a fish an animal?

[IDK]

Whether you want to admit it or not eating the flesh of your "fellow omnivores" is something our species has adapted to for melenia. In fact seems to me I learned from a nutrition class in college that a true vegatarian would have serious nutrition problems. Isn't a fish an animal?
It is, which is why I wouldn't consider them to be vegetarians (actually, they're called pescetarians). Our bodies have evolved to digest the protein from animals and that's how I justify eating it occasionally. Our bodies haven't, however, evolved to digest all the chemicals and nitrates etc that are present in many of the foods we eat. That's possibly why some people (including myself) feel physically ill when we eat meals that are highly fattening or primarily meat, like a large steak dinner.

My aunt is a nutritionist, and she does eat meat in her balanced diet, but her daughter is a vegetarian who gets all the proteins she needs through her diet. My brother is a vegan and is in far better physical shape than I could ever hope to achieve. Perhaps the nutritional deficiencies will become apparent over time? I guess we'll see.

[Aradia]

I'm curious how many animal rights activists and "vegetarians" wear clothes made out of animal products? No leather shoes or belts, etc. etc. ?

Very many choose not to wear such materials, I'm sure you'll find. Personally, I don't wear (real) leather jackets, but it's rather difficult to find quality shoes and belts without some kind of leather in them. But I usually make do with cheap plastic sneakers and belts from Pay Less and such.

May I ask why you chose not to answer my questions about the conditions chickens are raised in? They were honest questions, I wasn't trying to criticize you - I just assume you would know more about the subject, having been in the industry.

[steveksux]

It is, which is why I wouldn't consider them to be vegetarians (actually, they're called pescetarians). Our bodies have evolved to digest the protein from animals and that's how I justify eating it occasionally. Our bodies haven't, however, evolved to digest all the chemicals and nitrates etc that are present in many of the foods we eat. That's possibly why some people (including myself) feel physically ill when we eat meals that are highly fattening or primarily meat, like a large steak dinner.

My aunt is a nutritionist, and she does eat meat in her balanced diet, but her daughter is a vegetarian who gets all the proteins she needs through her diet. My brother is a vegan and is in far better physical shape than I could ever hope to achieve. Perhaps the nutritional deficiencies will become apparent over time? I guess we'll see.I heard there were 7 amino acids necessary for us to synthesize protein from our diet. Animal proteins contain all 7. Plant sources of protein do not. You can get everything you need from plant sources, but you have to mix and match them correctly to get all 7 amino acids at the same time to do the trick. So there's no reason we HAVE to eat animal proteins to satisfy our diet, even though obviously we evolved to do so. You just have to be careful how you go about it to prevent problems.

I also heard that growing kids need more fat in their diet than adults, and a strict vegetarian diet tends to provide lots of protein without the fat and can be a problem.

Curious if anyone knows if this is valid info or just urban legends?

Randy

[Blueangel]

As a semi-vegetarian (I still eat fish) I wonder about how people reconcile the inconsistencies in their opinions about this whole dog fighting incident.

I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian and have been for 27 years.
I also had a pet pit bull cross for 15 years who's mother had escaped from some creep who was breeding her for fighting.

I can only come to the conclusion that certain people who are agressive to others will have absolutely no concern about being cruel to animals too.
I can't equate that with eating meat though. On that score, each to their own. I've made my choice and I'm happy with it.

One thing that does concern me is that I've witnessed people who are normally passive become quite hyped up immediately after eating processed meat. I'm inclined to attribute that to the artificial enzymes that are fed to mass process meat production animals.

One of the more disturbing stories that recently broke in the UK was regarding the quality of 'steak' being served by a major British pub/food chain...

Ordering a steak in a British pub may acquaint you with an exotic animal you have never heard of nor seen. An undercover investigation has found that many of the prime cuts that one might have assumed came from a British cow actually come - at least partly - from a humped oxon-like creature living in Africa and Brazil.

The zebu is often cross-bred with European cattle to make them survive tropical conditions and has a reputation of producing poor meat.

The discovery that DNA from it rather than a Hereford or Aberdeen Angus is filling the stomachs of diners at British pubs was made by an ITV programme to be screened tonight, Undercover Mum. In the programme, a former undercover policewoman, Nina Hobson, visited 15 pubs belonging to two of Britain's biggest pub groups, JD Wetherspoons and Greene King's Hungry Horse chain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2881422.ece

[Mirror Lake 444]

Very many choose not to wear such materials, I'm sure you'll find. Personally, I don't wear (real) leather jackets, but it's rather difficult to find quality shoes and belts without some kind of leather in them. But I usually make do with cheap plastic sneakers and belts from Pay Less and such.

May I ask why you chose not to answer my questions about the conditions chickens are raised in? They were honest questions, I wasn't trying to criticize you - I just assume you would know more about the subject, having been in the industry.

Because I thought I already answered this in another post. I have raised chickens for food and for their eggs and they are literally as dumb as a rock. And not only do I not think growing them in cages is cruel (although we didn't raise them in cages) the ones raised for their flesh have such short life spans your concern is over the top IMHO. The chickens we had were ready for slaughter within a matter of weeks.

I treat the animals I raise with respect but I don't believe in Anthropomorphism. If one thinks eating other animals is so dispicable how to you explain animals that are strictly carnivores and always have been? Even my trout I raise will have liver problems if there is not enough animal protein in their diet or too many carbohydrates.