Who can deny Moz was right?

[Vegan]

As a vegan I can tell you my stance is the following. The ONLY reason to harm/kill another sentient being is for self defense (or if one is in the unlikely situation where the only food available to stay alive is animals- that's the way they roll themselves). No eating, no wearing, no enslaving, no testing on, etc... Complete abolition. Humans are not more important than other animals.

 

[countthree]

As a vegan I can tell you my stance is the following. The ONLY reason to harm/kill another sentient being is for self defense (or if one is in the unlikely situation where the only food available to stay alive is animals- that's the way they roll themselves). No eating, no wearing, no enslaving, no testing on, etc... Complete abolition. Humans are not more important than other animals.

Excellent

 

[Calamine Lotion]

You are confused.

Enlighten me.

 

[Kenmare]

As a vegan I can tell you my stance is the following. The ONLY reason to harm/kill another sentient being is for self defense (or if one is in the unlikely situation where the only food available to stay alive is animals- that's the way they roll themselves).


Though I do not quibble with your personal ethics, it's not as unlikely as you'd think, even in 2016. I'm living in Northern New England, where the seasons are Winter, Mudseason, Summer, and Winter. Many are in an urban setting or in a situation where they can't access arable land in the amount it'd take to feed their families. For many reasons--geographical (the nearest market is a three-hour drive away and is not vegan-friendly) and economical--there are hundreds of people who hunt not for sport, but for subsistence. In some states, sport hunters' illegal kills are seized to provide protein to food banks. Is it ideal? No, but most of these people are compassionate and responsible hunters (not an oxymoron), who are more mindful of what they consumer than those who think that meat is "born" in little styrofoam trays. Very different mindset than royals on a foxhunt.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

I see that perspective and I suppose there is a distinction to be made. Eating meat on a daily basis (essentially taking pleasure in the taste of animal death) certainly resonates as worse in an immediate sense. And I eat meat (moderately, not a huge fan) but I can certainly appreciate that point of view.

Apropos animal testing, different drugs or variations of the same drug are being tested all the time, so it can be tricky. It depends on the drug. I suppose taking a standard Tylenol today does not reflect current extensive animal testing but taking some new anti-depressant quite likely would.

Being a vegan in the truest sense of the word would definitely be very difficult. It almost seems that a vegan could not exist in an urban environment and must embrace a natural lifestyle in a more rural area where self-sustainability is actually possible.

But that leads me to think: if I was raising animals on my own small family farm, I wouldn't see the detriment in consuming dairy. It doesn't do any harm. I get that factory farms are horrific and the hormones and shit etc. in the milk at those places is all nasty. But using drugs tested on animals is worse than consuming dairy in my books.

well what happens to the animals being tested is certainly very sinister, and more sinister than what would happen to dairy cows on ones own family farm, and everything in me protests at the cold calculated application of science upon living beings, but at the same time the benefits to humans is better. i mean, whats more important, consuming dairy, or drugs that could save, or have a huge impact on the quality of, a persons life?

i suppose if one were a pure vegan one would say that all life is the same--why should a rabbits life be sacrificed for a human life? and i appreciate that in one sense animals and human beings are all equals. we're all just living beings thrust down here on this earth. we're all capable of love and affection, and fear and suffering, and we all just want to survive and be happy (supposedly). but to subscribe wholly to this belief, to deny that there is a component to humanity that makes it different to animal life, seems to me not so enlightened and serene as it does an argument against the spark of the divine in humans, a denial of the human experience, and a resignation to a hand to mouth existence. to me, it is exactly that: a resignation. the fact is, human beings have a potential that animals will never have. animals are abandoned to their lot, their potential capped--and isnt this what makes them so great? they're just happy with the little things. but humans are not like that (how can anyone pretend that they are?): humans have the divine ability to transcend themselves--through science, through art, through meditation, even just the unique ability humans have to contemplate themselves contemplating themselves, is a way of transcending their lot. many humans may never utilize this potential but it's there and who knows how far it can go, and because of this, i feel like every human should be given the best chance: that life, and the ability to function mentally should be preserved at all costs, because that life, that cognizance is a vehicle for something divine. that doesnt mean im okay with animal testing. but i accept it if there is simply no other way around it.

and even purist vegans would have to admit, i would think, that at times in our human history, our ancestors have had to eat meat as a way to survive. to deny that, is to deny your origins. to admit it without reluctance (which is the only appropriate approach, in my mind), is to be in admittance of the fact that there are certain times when it is necessary to take the life of animals. the only thing that makes eating or wearing animals wrong today is that it is no longer necessary. it is to me, the casual taking of life that makes it wrong. but once upon a time when it was necessary it wasnt wrong. and even though it's distressing to think about animal testing, i dont think testing on animals is done in such a casual or abitrary way as to make it wrong (except in the cases of testing for cosmetics or dyes or cleaning products or whatnot, because none of those things are essential).

 

[Layne]

well what happens to the animals being tested is certainly very sinister, and more sinister than what would happen to dairy cows on ones own family farm, and everything in me protests at the cold calculated application of science upon living beings, but at the same time the benefits to humans is better. i mean, whats more important, consuming dairy, or drugs that could save, or have a huge impact on the quality of, a persons life?

i suppose if one were a pure vegan one would say that all life is the same--why should a rabbits life be sacrificed for a human life? and i appreciate that in one sense animals and human beings are all equals. we're all just living beings thrust down here on this earth. we're all capable of love and affection, and fear and suffering, and we all just want to survive and be happy (supposedly). but to subscribe wholly to this belief, to deny that there is a component to humanity that makes it different to animal life, seems to me not so enlightened and serene as it does an argument against the spark of the divine in humans, a denial of the human experience, and a resignation to a hand to mouth existence. to me, it is exactly that: a resignation. the fact is, human beings have a potential that animals will never have. animals are abandoned to their lot, their potential capped--and isnt this what makes them so great? they're just happy with the little things. but humans are not like that (how can anyone pretend that they are?): humans have the divine ability to transcend themselves--through science, through art, through meditation, even just the unique ability humans have to contemplate themselves contemplating themselves, is a way of transcending their lot. many humans may never utilize this potential but it's there and who knows how far it can go, and because of this, i feel like every human should be given the best chance: that life, and the ability to function mentally should be preserved at all costs, because that life, that cognizance is a vehicle for something divine. that doesnt mean im okay with animal testing. but i accept it if there is simply no other way around it.

and even purist vegans would have to admit, i would think, that at times in our human history, our ancestors have had to eat meat as a way to survive. to deny that, is to deny your origins. to admit it without reluctance (which is the only appropriate approach, in my mind), is to be in admittance of the fact that there are certain times when it is necessary to take the life of animals. the only thing that makes eating or wearing animals wrong today is that it is no longer necessary. it is to me, the casual taking of life that makes it wrong. but once upon a time when it was necessary it wasnt wrong. and even though it's distressing to think about animal testing, i dont think testing on animals is done in such a casual or abitrary way as to make it wrong (except in the cases of testing for cosmetics or dyes or cleaning products or whatnot, because none of those things are essential).

The difficult position that vegans find themselves in is insisting that all beings are equal or that humans are not more important than animals and yet still reaping the benefits of animals. Like I said, it's pretty much unavoidable that every human being will benefit from the past exploitation of an animal for some reason at some point in their life.

I find strict veganism then to be just a bit too extreme. I respect those who have regard for animals and it is important to expose the disgusting state of the factory farming industry and it is important to adapt our culture to less meat-eating tendencies. There is no disputing that meat is relatively unessential and that the meat we eat can even be harmful. All of this is important in shaping a healthier and more moderate and intelligent culture with regard to nutrition and lifestyle etc.

I just don't tend to buy in to any extreme or absolute beliefs. I really don't know that we can get people to believe that humans are not superior to mosquitoes because... they just are. And I don't think that everyone has to buy in to a radical vegan lifestyle. But I do see value in implementing principles of moderation and there is certainly tons of value in a lot of the awareness that vegetarianism and veganism bring to important cultural, nutritional, and health issues.

I wonder about plants though. What is the veganist argument with regard to plants and their equality to humans?