Animal Rights

[Baixinha]

People kill newborns too. They call it stuff like "mercy killing" to make it sound less like "murder". And, you seem to be saying that being vegan is WRONG, and that being vegetarian is WEIRD. I am vegetarian and planning on becoming vegan when I am a teenager and can make that kind of decision. And I don't keep pets. Or go places that treat animals poorly or might. And I am against animal testing. I don't care how "important" the cause is. How can it possibly justify torturing and killing someone who did nothing wrong? Notice that I said SOMEONE instead of SOMETHING. Animals are not things, even though we often treat them that way. Animal testing takes more lives than it saves. And about fur, not only is it cruel and disgusting, it hurts the environment too. It is extremely polluting. And what kind of biased website are you using to get this information? rrgh.

[lilshadowdweller]

People kill newborns too. They call it stuff like "mercy killing" to make it sound less like "murder". And, you seem to be saying that being vegan is WRONG, and that being vegetarian is WEIRD.

 

You are manipulating what I said. Where did I say veganism and vegetariasm is wrong? Where did I say "weird"? You are starting to take things far too personally. I clearly said in an opening post that one can be vegetarism and I understand why one can be. If you are upset by what I said and believe that I'm bashing you in, feel free to report my post and we'll have the moderators judge. But I do not see where I said veganism is wrong, I was merely pointing out the differences between animal rights and welfare. It sounds like a lot of members on this board are for animal welfare. Please try to not get defensive. This is a debate - you mustn't take it personally when someone else thinks differently than you. I have nothing against you.

 

I am vegetarian and planning on becoming vegan when I am a teenager and can make that kind of decision.

 

You have every right to have your own dietary choices.

 

And I don't keep pets.

 

Then perhaps you are an Animal Right's activist. I disagree and I've explained my reasons why. I even gave a description from PETA - a major supporter of Animal Rights.

 

And I am against animal testing. I don't care how "important" the cause is. How can it possibly justify torturing and killing someone who did nothing wrong?

 

Other members seem to have said something different from you. I'm sorry, unlike yourself, I can't find the flaw in the fact that so many cures have been made because of animal testing. Do you refuse to vaccinations which were developed because of animal testing? Here's a list of vaccinations made because of animal testing. Are you aware that people with diabetes live because insulin was the result of animal testing?

 

Eventually, there will be no need for animal testing. And we can rid of it. And I'll embrace it! But until that day, I believe it's needed. Don't get, the cures are made for animals too. You can see a list of vaccinations provided for animals because of animal testing here: http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical/veterinary/animalvaccines

 

 

Notice that I said SOMEONE instead of SOMETHING. Animals are not things, even though we often treat them that way. Animal testing takes more lives than it saves. And about fur, not only is it cruel and disgusting, it hurts the environment too. It is extremely polluting. And what kind of biased website are you using to get this information? rrgh.

 

What was your point here? You said "someone" instead of "something"? Good for you. I respect your opinion. Funny thing is, I don't consider animals "things". ^_^ I don't see where our disagreement comes from there. Also, if you read my whole post (I'm assuming you have), you would have noticed I called both PETA and ANIMAL WELFARE biased websites. Every point you have made basically supports Animal Rights. You don't eat meat, you don't visit zoos, you don't like animal testing. Do you disagree with PETA's own description of Animal Rights?

 

 

Uh...I used PETA. The website you probably used to obtain your views. I think your views are biased, too. We're debating here. Feel free to throw out any pro-animal rights website you have at me. :guiltysmiley:

 

Real fur CAN be environmentally friendly - if done properly. The usual process to make is useable can be damaging. Fake fur is usually made by plastic so not so much. Again, I don't support it.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

You seem to go by one version of rights based on one website done by one group. A group, I might mention, that most people who are for animal welfare think is horrible. PETA has done some terrible, terrible things, and it is full of hypocrites.

 

The difference between animal rights and animal welfare is a fine line. Welfare is more a philosophy of trying to do well; rights are things that you CANNOT break or else you are a terrible person. I don't believe that photographing an animal infringes on its rights because I disagree that those are rights. I believe that an animal has the RIGHT not to undergo torture, but you think that this is welfare instead. No, I genuinely think that it is a right. Just because I don't agree with PETA's ideas doesn't mean I don't think animals have rights.

 

And eating young doesn't mean that animals don't have empathy. There are many human cultures that do things like leave their young behind in the cold and snow. That doesn't mean they don't have empathy. They just have different cultures from ours.

 

I have thought about the pollution factor. Coats made of fur are made in factories too--and don't last as long, I've noticed. They're eaten by moths so fast.

 

As for people who wear fur because they have no alternative--well, we are not those people, and therefore we can pick the better alternative. We're not talking about them.

[lilshadowdweller]

You seem to go by one version of rights based on one website done by one group. A group, I might mention, that most people who are for animal welfare think is horrible. PETA has done some terrible, terrible things, and it is full of hypocrites.

 

Many Animal Right's group believes in this. Not just PETA. But I suppose because the people who are entirely utilitarian are far more vocal about their view, it shouldn't count towards all. :guiltysmiley: I'm glad you dislike PETA, however.

 

 

The difference between animal rights and animal welfare is a fine line. Welfare is more a philosophy of trying to do well; rights are things that you CANNOT break or else you are a terrible person.

 

Exactly. And many people here have voiced in previous posts that they believe eating animals are OK, that they believe their are circumstances where animals rights are accurate.

 

I don't believe that photographing an animal infringes on its rights because I disagree that those are rights.

 

Other AR people may disagree with you.

 

I believe that an animal has the RIGHT not to undergo torture, but you think that this is welfare instead. No, I genuinely think that it is a right. Just because I don't agree with PETA's ideas doesn't mean I don't think animals have rights.

 

You dismiss is entirely because I pointed out PETA specifically? Google search what animals rights means before you come on here and state you're an AR supporter. Perhaps you believe in a different AR sort of view? Keep in mind, my basis is for the highly vocal utilitarian (the extremely strict Animal Right's people) Animal Rights people.

 

You believe that animals should/can have CERTAIN rights, but from you're saying, sounds more like you want animals be comfortable and taken care of. You believe in a certain right. In my opinion, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, while connected, are different. Therefore, I believe you are not specifically for Animal Rights; and if you are, you're probably more on the protectionism (people who don't believe welfare is good but ultimately thing people will continue to use animals but be more kinder) view.

 

If you like, wikipedia provides a fine outlook on animal rights and has plenty of sources for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

 

I've pointed out the differences. Now, we all shouldn't be labeling ourselves anything regardless. But it just makes it easier. For instance, I believe like yourself all animals have a right to feel comfortable. But I think pets should be permitted. Like you, I don't think using an animal on television or for a photo is cruel. Some AR's do.

 

But to what extent do you what to prescribe "rights"?

 

Should we not be permitted to build on animal's lands if we know it houses an animal because that would be cruel? We all agree that we've killed off land before needlessly, but let's say to expand in an area where an animal isn't in danger? Should every individual animal be thought of - Squirrel to mouse? You can see the ramifications.

 

If an animal is over producing, and say endangering an area, should we hunt them? If not, should we interfere to prevent damage from the wild life? But we can't interfere if it would infringe on that animal's rights, even if it's rights were technically taking away anothers - as only humans abide by these 'rights'.

 

Should no one be allowed meat then, regardless if they want a vegetarian/vegan diet or not? What about the poorer countries?

 

Pet over population is a huge problem, and indeed, laws need to be established to prevent the deaths of the unadoptables, but how far should we take it? If we stop all pet suppliers from selling pets, where were the pets come from?

 

And should we spay and neuter all animals? Many AR''s think "yes", but some disagree and feel it's mutilation. How would YOU feel if you had your genitals taken away?

 

If a snake is a devouring a helpless frog, should we interfere because the snakes right to life is being shattered? But that would infringe on the snake's right!

 

You have your own ideas as to what rights you want - but I doubt you agree that they should have the same complete rights as humans?

 

And eating young doesn't mean that animals don't have empathy. There are many human cultures that do things like leave their young behind in the cold and snow. That doesn't mean they don't have empathy. They just have different cultures from ours.

 

First off, I'm not disagreeing that animals don't have empathy. I'm disagreeing with a user who deems all humans evil and all animals pure. Does not everyone agree that most animals display human tendencies? The problem is we personalize them too much to ourselves. They do not think like humans do. This is why they don't feel bad about eating flesh. This is why if they do fight they fight they don't feel guilt. And it's essentially every AR's argument that they are pure. I want to point out that nature and animals are far from perfect. Does that mean they don't deserve protection? No. But many AR people seek to alter the world - they WANT everyone to consume a vegan-based diet, some harsh AR groups (such as Negoitations are Over) literally threaten people over it. This does not mean every AR wants this, but there are some highly outspoken AR's.

 

I have thought about the pollution factor. Coats made of fur are made in factories too--and don't last as long, I've noticed. They're eaten by moths so fast.

 

I'm glad you've considered it. Fur however from animals can be created and be more environmentally friendly. Again, I DO NOT WEAR FUR OR BUY IT. I would vastly prefer people do not kill off animals for fashion. I don't even wear faux fur. But I can see why some people do. Sorry to play devil's advocate but this is a debate, is it not?

 

As for people who wear fur because they have no alternative--well, we are not those people, and therefore we can pick the better alternative. We're not talking about them.

 

We are discussing them. You believe animals should have universal rights, right? So you are against fur regardless of the circumstances? You can't ignore something which is relevant to the conversation. I understand you believe in our countrie(s) it's un needed. But why does that lower the value of the ones in other counties?

[Lozzie]

[Edit: Ouch, sorry for the wall of text guys. D: Guess I got carried away, haha.]

 

I honestly have the blunt belief that animals should be respected. They share the same world that we do, and I've had the 'heated debate' with others over the fact that just becauce we have a certain intelect and morals/are on top of the food chain/whatever, does not give us the right to abuse with these fantastic and beautiful creatures however we like.

 

Yes I am a huge animal lover, and hate to see inhumane harm coming to any creatures. However, that being said yes, I am an omnivore, and I eat meat on normally a daily basis. I am aware of where that same meat comes from, even though some people accuse the majority of people like me who "blindly" buy that same meat in its pretty packaging at the supermarket. I'd shoot and gut my own food if that same food wasn't available to me already dead.

 

I know of multiple hunters, with different views and conflicting opinions on the 'right' way of hunting. But they all believe in the same thing - killing an animal in the quickest and least painful way possible, and making use of everything from it's coat to it's meat. They respect the animals that they kill, and never do it blindly. More often than not they will watch, as opposed to shoot. This I agree with.

 

Now, people that do not respect the animal and kick it around, doing what they want with it without regard for the animal's life or wellbeing? Those people make my blood boil. I've heard of numerous stories, from the fins being cut from live sharks before casting their helpless bodies back into the ocean to the tails being cut from live dogs just for the sake of making mere purses and handbags. Those animals should be dealt with respectfully, instead of being tortured!

 

Whilst that is certainly wrong and there can not be any debate, the debate of lab animals can, in SOME cases be a little more delicate. Yes, it might not seem fair to test chemicals that could have severe impacts on a helpless little animal, but on the other hand, think. Would it be possible otherwise, to have such efficient treatments for serious medical conditions and diseases such as cancer? Yes, these treatments are also tested on people, but the quantity of people that are willing to put their lives on the line for medical advancements is just too little.

In my own opinion, I'd honestly say that murderers and other evil people that are filling up our prisons should be used for these experiments, but unfortunately there are just too many people who would say that is 'inhumane'. Yes, our country would rather spend money on building more jails to house more criminals (that will be released much earlier than they should be for their awful actions - a lot of those people continuing on to commit the same crime) than spare the lives of some lab animals. I believe that to be unfair, but that is just how society is.

 

At least, those lab animals (I am speaking souly medically, I disagree with products such as shampoo and makeup being tested on animals as they aren't for the benefit of anyones life), should they be harmed or die, are doing so for a better cause than the poor animals in the world that are being tortured for a human's greed of some "stylish" furry boots, or a "stylish" handbag (or should I say, for money.)

 

As I've already said, it's a complicated discussion. But I stand by my beliefs. Animals should all be respected and they all have their place on this planet. It's not just ours. It rightfully belongs to them too. I've not even touched the surface of the topic of pets, but it's the same principle. Whether you have a et or not, it demands respect and you should care for it as you would a child - to the best of your abilities to give it the best possible life. If that's beyond your abilities, then I believe that you should not own the animal if you truly care for the creature's wellbeing.

 

Anyway overall, there are awful, awful people out there that commit horrific crimes to animals and even worse, get away with it, and I believe that it should be our top priority to deal with. And although they are certainly by no means as bad as those people, I believe that any extremist groups for animal rights overlook the situations in which animals need help the most, and nitpick about things such as 'having a pet is wrong', 'lab rats for cancer testing should be banned', etcetera. Why don't we all focus on the situations that demand our attention the most, such as those animals out there that are skinned alive; those animals out there that are intentionally beaten; those animals out there that are intentionally harmed and are, probably even right now, in real pain.

[billpika_x8]

PETA is generally classified as pretty extremist. The Mario-Tanooki crap was total... crap. How can a tanooki costume be interpreted as encouraging wearing fur? I'm not a horrible person, but that power-up has been in place for something like 20 years! PETA is usually kinda sensible, but this was just pointless. Animal rights are something worth fighting for. Just pay attention to the important stuff. Like flat out cruelty by fast food chains to obtain meat. :sad01_anim:

[youngrace]

i agree with a lot of lozzie's points, esp with regards to lab animals. i've actually done a ton of these experiments firsthand, and tbh the current lab definition of "cruelty" is EXTREMELY lax. i've had supervisors tell me to not inject animals with as much anesthetic as we were supposed to pre-surgery, because "they might die from anesthetic overdose." in all the 300+ animals i've operated on, not a single one died of anesthetic overdose, but definitely a few woke up during surgery. i can't even imagine what it'd be like, waking up with your cranium missing and metal electrodes being drilled into your amygdala. it's the stuff of nightmares, but it happens on a daily basis for thousands of rats. and nobody really cares, because there are no welfare monitors during surgery, just accountability books that you can fudge the figures on. really terrible.

 

and also the current humane standards for animal slaughterhouses are way too low, especially for poultry. watching a single slaughterhouse video is enough to put me off meat for a good few months.

[Baixinha]

I never eat meat anyways, but the sort of stuff that goes on behind the doors of a slaughterhouse is strikingly similar to the stuff that goes on down in *bleep*. It's absolutely horrific. And the way most people treat "pests" like mice and rats, is almost worse. I think mice and rats are cute! And there's still puppy farms and other things you probably don't even want to hear. End of my rant.

[lilshadowdweller]

i agree with a lot of lozzie's points, esp with regards to lab animals. i've actually done a ton of these experiments firsthand, and tbh the current lab definition of "cruelty" is EXTREMELY lax. i've had supervisors tell me to not inject animals with as much anesthetic as we were supposed to pre-surgery, because "they might die from anesthetic overdose." in all the 300+ animals i've operated on, not a single one died of anesthetic overdose, but definitely a few woke up during surgery. i can't even imagine what it'd be like, waking up with your cranium missing and metal electrodes being drilled into your amygdala. it's the stuff of nightmares, but it happens on a daily basis for thousands of rats. and nobody really cares, because there are no welfare monitors during surgery, just accountability books that you can fudge the figures on. really terrible.

 

My sister works with a lot of scientist (she doesn't do the tests), but even she admits they are cruel. In many cases, no anesthetic is applied. Why? Because it's part of the experiment. They want to see how much they feel. It's often done purposely for results. I doubt they can even properly monitor the mice. If there was welfare involved, it would have to be very limited.

 

Which is why I don't particular like what they have to do. I just believe it needs to be done. Once it's all done, we can entirely rid of. Once we've met the boundries of what we can learn, I'd love for animal testing to become gone forever.

 

And the way most people treat "pests" like mice and rats, is almost worse. I think mice and rats are cute!

 

Me too! I can't understand why people have an aversion to them in the same manner they do for spiders or bugs! I know that they bite wires and can create/spred diseases, but most of them are relatively harmless. They won't try to bite you or even approach you.

[chocolatemonster4]

From an essay I wrote in 8th grade:

What goes on at a farm before an animal actually becomes a hamburger or hotdog is attempted to be hidden by the corporations that produce them, produced strongly against by animal rights activists, and generally ignored by the government. What goes on inside a slaughterhouse is brutal, and workers are often immigrants that have not been trained. It can take as little as 25 minuets to turn live steer into steak, but before the final result, the animal may have been skinned while it is alive, been put live into boiling water to make the skin easier to peel off, or have survived as far as the tail cutter, belly ripper, or the hide puller. Piglets are removed from their mothers after only twelve hours, baby chickens are sent down conveyer belts like they are potatoes, and it is not uncommon to remove 2/3 of a chickens beak or cutting the tails off cows to increase efficiency.

 

Although this is not exactly animal testing, it is just as bad. Shouldn't these animals have rights to? What is done to them is beyond atrocious, and most of the killing is done without the use of anesthesia. Turning animals into food should involve basic rights. This happens to virtually all meat that isn't organic, and the thought of it is just completely awful. At least animal testing for medical purposes may save lives. What is produced from this yields a hoard of medical problems, ranging from cancer to heart disease. And even though animal testing may save lives, there is a good chance it won't. At the hospital where my Dad works, they conduct yearly operations on piglets to improve heart surgery and conduct research. None of the piglets survive. I am completely and utterly against this. I absolutely hate the fact that animals have no choice over what happens to them- it is just completely inhumane. They have emotions, they can feel pain, and we should be their voice. During the Holocaust, doctors experimented on the Jewish in concentration camps to learn more about the human body and diseases. The people were treated like animals, treated horrendously, and had no choice on what happened to them. What went on in those camps is despised universally. But people that of course despise experiments on humans, are fine with experimenting on animals, who suffer just as much pain and have no rights. I just don't understand why animal experimentation is viewed as perfectly acceptable, while human experimentation is one of the most despicable crimes one could commit.

[Vampyre_Demon]

I'll start off by saying I have been a vegetarian for five years. I do eat minimal dairy and eggs, but my goal is that when I get a house, I will have a goat and some chickens and treated them humanly.

 

Sorry for any spelling/grammar errors.

 

I know that you're currently discussing medical treatment. I'm kind of on both sides about that. I understand that it is necessary for medicine and since scientists can no longer legal experiment on people (thank goddess), they have no choice but to use animals. It is my hope that we will be able to come up with a computer program, or something similar that will allow up to find results without using animals. (I also know that some scientist do make sure that they treat their lab animals as humanely as possible and I think that is the best we can aim for right now. If it's not law, it should really be.)

 

But, if it is not aiming for life saving reasons, it should not be tested on animals. That means makeup, lotions, etc.

 

Now, let's move onto meat. Have you real Omnivore's Dilemma? You really should.

 

I do not think that we should be consuming meat at the rate that we are. I'm fine with some meat, but I agree hunting it the best way to get it. Not hunting as sport; I don't even like the idea of hunting with guns. The animal should have as much of a chance as surviving as dying. That is how a herd grows strong. The weak are killing and the strong survive.

The problem is, our way of getting meat is terrible for people, terrible for the environment, and terrible for the animals. Have you driving past a feedlot and been disgusted at the smell? It should not smell like that. There are too many cows in one spot and because there isn't enough grass for them, they are feed thing like corn (and possibly bits of other cows) which their bodies are not made to digest. That makes them sick, and they are given anti-biotic which are then passed to the people who eat them. Because of the feed, the meat is also less heathy. The idea of meat being good for you only come from an animal that is eating it's natural food and exercising. Instead, people are eating fatted cows which fatten them.

These feedlots also destroy the earth. Nothing grows there and the cows waste, if I remember correctly, is actually toxic due to how they feed them. So we are destroy earth that could be feeding people. Another point, which is feeding animals to latter be slaughtered to feed to people wastes food that could be feeding people who are starving. The land for the animals, the land for the feed could all be used to feed more people by growing vegetables and grain than the people being fed with meat.

And don't even get me started on the chickens. The cut their beaks off! So that they don't peck at each other in such closed spaces! And have you seen that machine that like beats the chicken?

 

Um... yeah. So don't eat commercial meat. It's really bad for everyone. If you have to eat meat, research stuff like grass-fed beef, and humanely raised. (Though just because they say that, don't mean it's true. There is no law that defines what 'humanely raised' means. Which is another problem: how we define are meat leaves a lot of wiggle room for people to cheat and lie about how their animals were raised.)

[chocolatemonster4]

That is so true! Meat that may say "all natural" or "raised on a farm" or "quality" on the packaging is just lies. These animals are being raised far from being on a farm.The companies don't care about the welfare of the animals, they just want to make money. And they will put anything on the packaging to make their consumers think that they are buying quality meat, including little pictures of cute farms. I mean, the cows eat corn! Cows are not meant to eat corn! The amount of corn and water used to feed and hydrate the cows is ridiculous! It is a completely unsustainable way of farming, and there is no way that can last forever. That water and food could be used on people who really need it.

From Peta:

Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, they only produce comparatively small amounts of meat, dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals.It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh.

Between watering the crops that farmed animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and slaughterhouses, the farmed animal industry places a serious strain on our water supply. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food.

[lilshadowdweller]

That is so true! Meat that may say "all natural" or "raised on a farm" or "quality" on the packaging is just lies. These animals are being raised far from being on a farm.The companies don't care about the welfare of the animals, they just want to make money. And they will put anything on the packaging to make their consumers think that they are buying quality meat, including little pictures of cute farms. I mean, the cows eat corn! Cows are not meant to eat corn! The amount of corn and water used to feed and hydrate the cows is ridiculous! It is a completely unsustainable way of farming, and there is no way that can last forever. That water and food could be used on people who really need it.

From Peta:

 

Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, they only produce comparatively small amounts of meat, dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals.It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh.

Between watering the crops that farmed animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and slaughterhouses, the farmed animal industry places a serious strain on our water supply. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food.

 

Peta probably isn't the greatest source to quote. They're known to use outdated sources and manipulate stories. But yes. The way animals are raised right now aren't helping the environment OR the poor animals who have to be in them.

 

While I do think PETA has educated a lot of people about the plights regarding animals, I implore you to check out different websites. I also want you to understand that companies which make "vegetarian food" also aren't much different from many meat factories in the profit-making department and often produce pollution as well.

 

 

I'll start off by saying I have been a vegetarian for five years. I do eat minimal dairy and eggs, but my goal is that when I get a house, I will have a goat and some chickens and treated them humanly.

 

Good for you!

 

Have you real Omnivore's Dilemma? You really should.

 

I really should. Thank you for the suggestion!

 

Um... yeah. So don't eat commercial meat. It's really bad for everyone. If you have to eat meat, research stuff like grass-fed beef, and humanely raised. (Though just because they say that, don't mean it's true. There is no law that defines what 'humanely raised' means. Which is another problem: how we define are meat leaves a lot of wiggle room for people to cheat and lie about how their animals were raised.)

 

This is important and makes a huge difference! When I have more money, I intend to find a local farm and see for myself how they care about their animals. I'm in Canada, so I believe our cows aren't fed those hormones and such, but I'm not sure how different our animal protection laws are.

[chocolatemonster4]

Peta probably isn't the greatest source to quote. They're known to use outdated sources and manipulate stories. But yes. The way animals are raised right now aren't helping the environment OR the poor animals who have to be in them.

 

While I do think PETA has educated a lot of people about the plights regarding animals, I implore you to check out different websites. I also want you to understand that companies which make "vegetarian food" also aren't much different from many meat factories in the profit-making department and often produce pollution as well.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you. Now that I think about it, PETA probably does over-exaggerate the facts. But i have read in many books that the rate at which water and food are used on the animals is unsustainable, and although it may not be half the water, it is still a huge amount.

 

I have no doubt that companies that make vegetarian food are just as bad! I haven't really looked into it that much, but I know that egg producing hens are kept in conditions just as bad, if not worse than the chickens killed for meat. Companies that produce vegetarian food, (going a little off topic here) unless organic, use genetically modified ingredients- which are banned in some countries, and have to be clearly labeled in others. America is the only country in the world where the consumer has no idea if the food they are eating contains genetically modified ingredients or not, and the fact that other countries have taken measures to educate the public about it shows that it really does have harmful effects. I would definitely like to learn more about the vegetarian side though, because it is true that most people only look at the meat side of things.

[lilshadowdweller]

Nowadays a vegetarian diet is very easy to maintain! ^^ It's not my personal dietary choice but I understand why someone would want to be a vegetarian. I've considered looking into where my meat is from, too. The thought of the animal suffering does bother me, as I'm sure it bothers many people. We want to be "ethical", unfortunately, these companies enjoy lying to us and can't be trusted at all....

[Vampyre_Demon]

True, though I don't eat 'vegetarian food' (being the fact that I don't eat soy or gluten). But that whole modified food thing is disturbing. We are just so disconnected with our food. I have signed some petitions again modified corn, but there's also problems with the whole food systems. I read an article recently (and I've read/seen other stuff on the subject) about how there are two different agencies for food, one for meat and one for everything else and the problem is that they have different rules, namely about tracking down tainted food. One can check the food before it's on shelves and the other has to wait until people actually get sick before they can pull it. The system needs to be redone. They should be checking these things for salmonella, etc before people are dying.

 

Got off topic a little, I know. But it's important to think about these things, about how the animals are treated and how the food it processed.

[dankesque]

Has anyone here ever read Animals in Translation? It's an incredible book by a woman who has worked for over 30 years with the meatpacking industry, revolutionizing the way the plants handle animals and helping to make the whole process as humane as it's possible to be. She thinks from the animal's perspective, and the plants she helped design work so much better because they take the thoughts and needs of the animals into account. It's a really amazing read for anyone interested in animal emotion and motivation.

 

And regarding animal experimentation... my thoughts are: who's benefitting from experimentation on living things? Humans. So who should suffer for those benefits? Humans. It's going to be ugly no matter how you cut it; there's always going to be inhumane-ness in something like scientific experimentation on live beings. But what's worse: telling people, "Hey, if you commit murder, you agree to become a subject for experiments to better society instead of rotting in a prison or being killed by the death penalty" or forcing that decision on innocents who don't have a choice? Sure, there are always mix-ups in our prison system, people who don't deserve it. But it's a small percentage compared to the 100% of animals who don't deserve the treatment they're getting in labs. Our species has the ability to choose, and it's a sad, sad reflection on our morals to see us choosing to brutalize others in order to avoid the negative side-effects of our advancements.

 

Of course, current laws today make implementing this kind of thing impossible, what with cruel and unusual punishments and all, but it's still my opinion. If I want the benefits of vaccines and cancer treatments, I'd like to at least live up to the choices that need to be made to make those benefits possible.