I have ex-battery hens identical to her except the ends of their beaks were cut off to prevent pecking each other from stress. Ironically they sold their eggs for higher money as organic , even though they were caged, just fed organic food. They had practically no feathers when I got them and their skin was red and inflamed from sitting in the ammonia from their own excrement. I had to spray them with antiseptic to soothe the pain.
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.
If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.
I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.
The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.
For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.
There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.
Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.
I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
I tried your experiment and my cat ran away. But then I opened a can of food and it came back.How little you know when you base everything on feeling not realising you are prey as well and just meat to some. Go hug that tiger and lion when they've not been fed into lethargic yawning and see what happens.
We're all animals and there is a food chain and humans are on top of it for a reason. Yoour cats kill birds for fun and rats and mice too. They play with it and prolong the suffering and enjoy the torture.
Open the door and see if your cats stay or leave forever, you don't imprison pets do you?
Not as easy as it seems but to understand that you need real food and a brain that functions cause surprise surprise the heart is not a brain.
You’re use of the term genocide is a subversion and so problematic. If you insist on it, human genocide would become readily justifiable on the basis that you would inevitably be exterminating perpetrators of genocide. In essence, I’m saying this might sound good to you but you haven’t thought it through.You are talking about flaws and humans as rational animals. If you are going to eat other animals at least have the moral decency of looking at them in the eyes and killing them with your bare hands like the rest of the animals do. If you don't do that you are a participant of organized genocide.
So if I'm vegan I'm actually starving carnivorous animals because there is talk of a law that won't happen until we're all underwater from the rising sea anyway? You're saying that to save the animals I have to eat the animals?There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.
If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.
I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.
The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.
For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.
There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.
Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.
I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
So if I'm vegan I'm actually starving carnivorous animals because there is talk of a law that won't happen until we're all underwater from the rising sea anyway? You're saying that to save the animals I have to eat the animals?
I think you're right that this is a point that has never been made before!
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.
If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.
I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.
The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.
For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.
There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.
Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.
I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
"If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law."
Well, who said we should do that? There are two meanings of equality. If you say all men are equal, one can say: "No some men are stronger than others, some men are smarter, some men are shorter, etc." We can say that for the statement "All animals are equal" the same protest can be applied. Equal doesn't mean we all should be held to the same standards. People have their limitations, and so do animals. We should accommodate for their natural limitations, not treat them like human beings.
Why should the fact that other animals are perhaps incapable of rational thought and morality be an excuse to behave like they do? As you said, "we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned", which is why we're the only animals that have a moral obligation to treat other animals well. Other animals don't have a choice.
Meat is only murder if it's unnecessary. Meat is necessary for obligate carnivores, as they'd die without it. Take a lion and a gazelle. If the lion catches the gazelle, the gazelle suffers, but if the lion doesn't catch the gazelle, the gazelle suffers. Therefore, according to the utilitarian principle of secular morality, the lion is justified in taking the gazelle's life, as in doing so, the lion is preventing an equal or greater amount of suffering from occurring. Meat is not necessary for us, as human beings can thrive on a vegan diet. Plants, however, are necessary for our survival. (As of now, the scientific consensus is that plants are not sentient. Unless that changes, I don't believe they should have any moral consideration, but, for the sake of argument, I'll bite.) You must understand that over half of the crops being produced are fed to livestock animals. So, if you want the best for plants as well as animals, the best option is veganism. Of course vegans still cause suffering. Along with plant deaths, there are many inadvertent crop deaths- small animals like rodents to larger animals like deer who want a nibble of corn. Vegans certainly aren't perfect, but the goal is to reduce suffering.
His mother was vegan too and gave him a hare lip cause of it. Veganism is the way to degeneration.Joaquin has been a lifelong vegan and has supported PETA for decades. It's a cool photo but though I have no problem believing that Joaquin intentions are good, PETA is a celebrity Cult who have killed many healthy animals in past.
It is fascinating.I tried your experiment and my cat ran away. But then I opened a can of food and it came back.
Of course I am ugly. But no matter what he does his hare lip will ruin it whereas I am a perfect specimen of an aryan male.Put a picture of yourself up fella. I bet you are one ugly f***.
The guy had an op on his lip, who gives a shit he's still a looker, still a good actor and still quite bright.
Unlike imcel you, a f***tard who blames lefty types for everything.
The type who still have a 4th graders view of man, you are out of time fella
Put a pic of yourself up fella. You scum bag
Mother instincts are strong in women protecting those with handicaps so in a sense you are normal.I fell for him the first time I saw one of his films.
You and me should form a lethal duo here among all the snowflakes and soyboys.this guys a right joker.what came first the chicken or joaquin phoenix.