What are peoples views on Vegetarianism, seriously?

as far as shoes I agree with morrissey that it's not that easy. plastic shoes are no good, they are cheap and poorly made and cause athletes foot. I can't wear such feable things. and ordering shoes online from vegetarian shoes is also a problem - fitting is quite problematic without trying them on first.

so, until breathable quality non leather shoes can be bought in regular stores one cannot ask people to stop wearing leather shoes and compare that to meat or even fur - which are absolutely unnecessary. but hopefully such shoes will be available at a larger scale soon.

OK, I'm going to ask a question, now, please understand that it is a genuine question, from someone who doesn't know that much about the subject and is interested in learning more. So no knee-jerk, roof-hitting, jumping-down-my-f***ing-throat. Ok? M'kay!

Why is the fur industry any different from the leather industry (aside from the fact that people don't eat the, erm, fur meat (?) It's just a lot of vegetarians will wear leather, but want to throw actual shit at people who wear fur coats, and certainly wouldn't consider fur shoes (which would probably be well comfy if you think about it) and with my limited knowledge the two things don't actually seem that different.
 
OK, I'm going to ask a question, now, please understand that it is a genuine question, from someone who doesn't know that much about the subject and is interested in learning more. So no knee-jerk, roof-hitting, jumping-down-my-f***ing-throat. Ok? M'kay!

Why is the fur industry any different from the leather industry (aside from the fact that people don't eat the, erm, fur meat (?) It's just a lot of vegetarians will wear leather, but want to throw actual shit at people who wear fur coats, and certainly wouldn't consider fur shoes (which would probably be well comfy if you think about it) and with my limited knowledge the two things don't actually seem that different.

Well, first, lets here what you know about the leather industry and the fur industry, hmm? Care to state some facts? I mean, I assume if you're posing this as a serious question then you have some background knowledge of how leather or fur pelts are obtained?
 
Well, first, lets here what you know about the leather industry and the fur industry, hmm? Care to state some facts? I mean, I assume if you're posing this as a serious question then you have some background knowledge of how leather or fur pelts are obtained?

I know both involve peeling an animals skin off (which isn't good for it apparently).

I promise I am being serious. I want to know and I don't have a great deal of background knowledge about either, that my friend, is why I'm asking.
 
There is no satisfying answer, which I know is your point. Everything you wrote is well-stated and makes strong, indeed almost self-evident appeals to one's rationality. A person wouldn't even have to be "lefty" or progressive-minded to recognize the sanity of what you wrote.

But of course most people are still meat-eaters. So let me ask you a question-- has the very sound argument for going veggie which you've articulated been ineffectual because it is heard but ignored by meat eaters, or because it is not stated by vegetarians?

good question, but I really don't know the answer. I think people are just so used to their ways and it takes too much effort for them to change their lifestyle. it also took me many years from seeing the horrible documentary about factory farming on TV and becoming completely vegetarian. I had to keep confronted with these things over and over again to get more and more disgusted. we are all so used to eating meat - because it was put on our table by our parents, not even by our own choice!

and then there are also a lot of people who really don't care about anything much besides themselves, or who are quite dumb... some of them are lurking around this forum.....

one thing I find absolutely incredible is that vegetarians actually have tu justify themselves in front of meateaters. I mean - why do those who do not support cruelty have to defend their lifestyle to those who eat killed animas? it should be the other way around - and the least I ask of a meateater is thet he leaves me alone and respects my food. but that is often too much to ask!

I find the attitude similar to the attitude of smokers who just will not understand that they are the ones who bother other people. the whole outrage caused by the discussion of outlawing smoking in public places and restaurants comes from a very similar selfish mentality and a refusal to realize that the person that harms others health is the one that has to stop doing that and not the other way around.
 
I find the attitude similar to the attitude of smokers who just will not understand that they are the ones who bother other people. the whole outrage caused by the discussion of outlawing smoking in public places and restaurants comes from a very similar selfish mentality and a refusal to realize that the person that harms others health is the one that has to stop doing that and not the other way around.


There is absolutely no similarity between the two things. For starters, tobacco, (in the UK at least) does not involve killing animals. It's probably a different matter in the USA. Secondly, there was always the option of splitting public places into smoking and non-smoking, which would have been far more sensible. Instead, the government opted to go down the rather offensive totalitarian route. It is a vexation to anyone who believes in equality.

I'm going to be so happy when the government start interfering with motorists lives, since they do far more damage than smokers ever have. They destroy the environment with their exhaust emissions and the government are now sharpening their knives for them - good. For once I will be in agreement with something the government do, when they impose congestion charges and a whole host of other taxes on motorists. Lets see how people react when they realise it's not just smokers who are being bent over and screwed from behind.
 
OK, I'm going to ask a question, now, please understand that it is a genuine question, from someone who doesn't know that much about the subject and is interested in learning more. So no knee-jerk, roof-hitting, jumping-down-my-f***ing-throat. Ok? M'kay!

Why is the fur industry any different from the leather industry (aside from the fact that people don't eat the, erm, fur meat (?) It's just a lot of vegetarians will wear leather, but want to throw actual shit at people who wear fur coats, and certainly wouldn't consider fur shoes (which would probably be well comfy if you think about it) and with my limited knowledge the two things don't actually seem that different.

the biggest difference is that most animals used for fur are wild animals that have not adapted
to life in tiny cages in the 100 years they have been bred in capitvity. not to say that a chicken is happy in a battery cage
of course, but a mink
or a fox is a wild animal with a very large territory and suffers immensly more under these conditions.
these are results of scientific studies that have led to the outlawing
of fur farms in various countries. In austria for example fur farming is prohibited since 1998.
the government came to the conclusion that fur farming can not be done in a way that respects basic animal
welfare requirements. at the contrary, domestic animals used for meat CAN be kept in a way that resepcts animal welfare requirements.
of course, this is mostly not the case in big factory farms, but animals can be kept in a much more humane way on organic farms.

other than that, it takes about 100 minks or 30 foxes to make a coat. and there are plenty of alternatives
to fur coats like fake fur or any other warm material. fur is only a luxury and fashion item that nobody needs.
and in the year 2006, everybody definitely knows for a fact that fur is not needed to stay warm.
which is not the case for meat yet: most people still are convinced that meat is necessary to live.
so - even if meat, leather and fur are similar: the level of society's conciousness and education does play a part.
that'S why wearing fur in the year 2006 is much much much more selfish and heartless than eating meat or wearing leather shoes - because our culture
has evolved and people have been educated about it for a long time.

it is my opinion that you do not have to be a vegetarian to realize that fur is extremely cruel and be against it.
in fact many meat eaters would not wear fur, thank god. noone has to defend why they find fur cruel but wear lether shoes.
why should they? any realization in that direction, any compassion, is a good thing and not a bad one.
you don't have to be 100% vegan to find certain things more cruel than others.
we have a right to make up our own minds based on the information we get, and we have the right to find certain things worse than others and set priorities.
 
There is absolutely no similarity between the two things. For starters, tobacco, (in the UK at least) does not involve killing animals.


I meant the attitude behind the 'freedom of choice' argument is similar. people do not realize that freedom of choice has to be limited when others are hurt or bothered.

noone is prohibiting smoking - only in those places where others are bothered. and, even though I smoke sometimes, I would never in a million years consider my right to smoke more important that other peoples right to breathe fresh air. I am the one who has to get out of the room, not them - it's so obvious.
 
the biggest difference is that most animals used for fur are wild animals that have not adapted
to life in tiny cages in the 100 years they have been bred in capitvity. not to say that a chicken is happy in a battery cage
of course, but a mink
or a fox is a wild animal with a very large territory and suffers immensly more under these conditions.
these are results of scientific studies that have led to the outlawing
of fur farms in various countries. In austria for example fur farming is prohibited since 1998.
the government came to the conclusion that fur farming can not be done in a way that respects basic animal
welfare requirements. at the contrary, domestic animals used for meat CAN be kept in a way that resepcts animal welfare requirements.
of course, this is mostly not the case in big factory farms, but animals can be kept in a much more humane way on organic farms.

other than that, it takes about 100 minks or 30 foxes to make a coat. and there are plenty of alternatives
to fur coats like fake fur or any other warm material. fur is only a luxury and fashion item that nobody needs.
and in the year 2006, everybody definitely knows for a fact that fur is not needed to stay warm.
which is not the case for meat yet: most people still are convinced that meat is necessary to live.
so - even if meat, leather and fur are similar: the level of society's conciousness and education does play a part.
that'S why wearing fur in the year 2006 is much much much more selfish and heartless than eating meat or wearing leather shoes - because our culture
has evolved and people have been educated about it for a long time.

it is my opinion that you do not have to be a vegetarian to realize that fur is extremely cruel and be against it.
in fact many meat eaters would not wear fur, thank god. noone has to defend why they find fur cruel but wear lether shoes.
why should they? any realization in that direction, any compassion, is a good thing and not a bad one.
you don't have to be 100% vegan to find certain things more cruel than others.
we have a right to make up our own minds based on the information we get, and we have the right to find certain things worse than others and set priorities.

Likilolli,

Thank you. That was exactly the kind of detailed response I was hoping for. It was a little biased (as is to be expected due to your commitment to the cause) and I'm not sure I agree with the distinctions you make about why the two industries are different (they are very very similair in my eyes), but the information you provided was concise and I've learnt something, so thanks again.

Kindest reroys,

C
 
Likilolli,

Thank you. That was exactly the kind of detailed response I was hoping for. It was a little biased (as is to be expected due to your commitment to the cause) and I'm not sure I agree with the distinctions you make about why the two industries are different (they are very very similair in my eyes), but the information you provided was concise and I've learnt something, so thanks again.

Kindest reroys,

C


another very evil aspect of the fur industry is that it has largely moved to china because over there requirements are inextistant. I have seen footage of chinese fur farms showing how animals including cats and dogs are skinned alive. it is very hard to believe but true: you can see these completely skinned animals still moving for a few minutes. it is the most horrible thing I have ever seen in my life.
this video can be seen on the peta site, but you don't like peta much - sooo - but check it out - it does not look staged....

not that skandinavian fur farms have larger cages or are very nice - but the brutality in chinese fur farms and their horrendous killing methods cannot be topped by anything much!
 
good question, but I really don't know the answer. I think people are just so used to their ways and it takes too much effort for them to change their lifestyle. it also took me many years from seeing the horrible documentary about factory farming on TV and becoming completely vegetarian. I had to keep confronted with these things over and over again to get more and more disgusted. we are all so used to eating meat - because it was put on our table by our parents, not even by our own choice!

and then there are also a lot of people who really don't care about anything much besides themselves, or who are quite dumb... some of them are lurking around this forum.....

one thing I find absolutely incredible is that vegetarians actually have tu justify themselves in front of meateaters. I mean - why do those who do not support cruelty have to defend their lifestyle to those who eat killed animas? it should be the other way around - and the least I ask of a meateater is thet he leaves me alone and respects my food. but that is often too much to ask!

I find the attitude similar to the attitude of smokers who just will not understand that they are the ones who bother other people. the whole outrage caused by the discussion of outlawing smoking in public places and restaurants comes from a very similar selfish mentality and a refusal to realize that the person that harms others health is the one that has to stop doing that and not the other way around.

Once again I think you stated it really well. You're absolutely correct. Meat-eaters and others who unnecessarily exploit other living beings never have to answer for their actions. Morrissey has often said the same thing about idiot pop stars. They never have to answer for what they say, whereas he's always having to explain himself. It's an astonishing double standard.

I liked the example of cigarette smokers because it gets to the reason I asked my question.

Speaking only of my frame of reference, the States, I can tell you that cigarette smoking in my lifetime, while still a huge industry, has taken substantial beatings in the public's consciousness over the years. Smoking isn't banned, of course, but in a few decades who knows? In places like Los Angeles and New York it is actually against the law to smoke inside restaurants. More than that, if you talk to most cigarette smokers, even the unapologetic ones, they don't actually contend that smoking isn't harmful to themselves. Some dispute that secondhand smoke harms people, but the overwhelming majority of smokers I know actually say "Do you mind if I smoke around you?" They're not just prohibited by law. Now there's a stigma attached to smoking which has started to become internalized even by the most inveterate smokers. True, there's a grey area (as in: lung cancer grey): nobody is quite sure how harmful smoking really is, but we know enough. We know it can be lethal to the smoker, and common sense says if smoke can harm the smoker it can also harm the bystander (even though mere inhaling of smoke isn't exactly how smoking kills). The point is nearly everyone has accepted that smoking is harmful.

How did this happen? How in the world did a small minority of people who were fighting an uphill battle at least as daunting as fighting the fur or meat industries, if not more so, succeed? Big tobacco doesn't mess around, as we all know. (Even my using the stock epithet "big tobacco" to mean the tobacco industry shows how common knowledge of their evil is.) Billions were spent, and still are spent, to discredit the people who want cigarettes off the market. Huge forces have been mustered by the powerful who want us all to think smoking's not bad for us.

Here's a clue how the activists succeeded. Many people, myself included, started to hear reports trickle in that mmmmmmmaybe smoking was bad for you. And then we sat at someone's bedside while they breathed with the help of a machine in their last miserable months before succumbing to lung cancer. What was it that convinced us? Science. Science convinced us, albeit a popular distillation of hard science. Common sense convinced us, too: the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is right in front of our noses. It's pretty obvious that smoking is harmful. We've all heard about chain smokers who live to be 100, but most people's experiences aren't like that. The exceptions prove the rule. And the "rule" has been accepted by the vast majority of people in this country. Even smokers accept the truth. This isn't just socialization, either. Most people can give cogent, if unspecific, explanations as to why smoking is bad.

If you've read this far, please indulge me in a little leap back to the subject matter. If you are trying to convince people not to eat meat, why in the world would you resort to any argument that goes beyond what science has already proven-- that cutting out meat (and dairy) and eating vegetables pays huge dividends for our health? The number of heart attacks it causes in humans would by itself put it in the same category of smoking as a cause of widescale death. Just as everyone knows someone who's died of lung cancer, we also know old people whose blocked arteries have left them dead or disabled. And there are the related, sound arguments you made above, too. I mean, there is more than enough evidence to turn people away from eating meat just by talking about the health of human beings. As far as compassion goes, fur is already stigmatized and lots of regular types I know also look for cruelty-free bath products. Compassion with regard meat eating is harder, because most people see it as natural and normal.

So with all this being the case, I still find it amazing that anyone would resort to the argument that slaughtering chickens is like the holocaust, or holding the belief that anyone who says human beings are a superior species to badgers is a "racist". I mean, okay, to believe that is fine-- people can believe what they like as far as I'm concerned-- but in the larger scheme of social transformation the public argument for a massive change in how we live should always be based on appeals to people's sense of verifiable, concrete facts and not highly questionable leaps of logic. I'm not going to labor the point, since you and I have already staged this debate in another thread (which you may remember), but as you know I neither advocate cruelty to animals nor buy any of the arguments that animals have the same rights as humans.

I suspect the counter argument would be that what I'm calling "fact" is debatable. The equality of rights between human animals and non-human animals is merely a historical prejudice which will one day be dissolved, just as two hundred years ago non-whites and women were thought inferior. First, I don't think this will happen. I'm happy to debate that but for now I'll flatly say that. At the very least I'll just point out that science has not proven that animals experience any of the higher mental functions humans possess, and I'm fairly sure science has tried to do just that. Second, and this is more important, choosing the more far-flung, less stable, less proven, more controversial argument of compassion for animals-as-equals-to-humans is not desirable from the most basic criterion there is: effectiveness. Arguments that smoking ruins jackets, costs money, makes you freeze smoking outside restaurants, is just the result of brainwashing from the cinema, and causes you to look foolish may all be true arguments but they're not nearly as good as the more immediate one: smoking will kill you, stupid!

The difference being that in debating vegetarianism, while there are secondary arguments that go along with the main argument-- meat is unhealthy for you-- the secondary set of arguments also has the effect of turning the unconvinced away from your argument, in fact exposing you to outright ridicule. It actually militates people into aggressively opposing your position. The history of the failure of the last forty or fifty years of liberal causes in the United States is really the story of that mistake being repeated over and over. The masses still associate Vietnam protestors with Jane Fonda the same way they associate dissenters in the current war with Michael Moore. On a smaller scale, on this site you've got people who sneer at vegetarians because they've been told a day in the meat industry is like 9/11 or that chickens are good mothers. Result? Pissing contests. Entire arguments based on sanity and reason fail because they become distorted into popular positions which argue from the weakest points, not the strongest; make often irrational appeals to people's sensibilities, sensibilities that are in any case way too broad and variegated to be relied upon for massive change; and alienate rather than convince the largest, most critical portion of the population, namely the huge mass of everyday people without whose help our societies will never normalize what will be-- even if it appears as human self-interest-- the enlightened and ethical treatment of animals.
 
Last edited:
Here's a clue how the activists succeeded. Many people, myself included, started to hear reports trickle in that mmmmmmmaybe smoking was bad for you. And then we sat at someone's bedside while they breathed with the help of a machine in their last miserable months before succumbing to lung cancer. What was it that convinced us? Science. Science convinced us, albeit a popular distillation of hard science. Common sense convinced us, too: the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is right in front of our noses. It's pretty obvious that smoking is harmful. We've all heard about chain smokers who live to be 100, but most people's experiences aren't like that. The exceptions prove the rule. And the "rule" has been accepted by the vast majority of people in this country. Even smokers accept the truth. This isn't just socialization, either. Most people can give cogent, if unspecific, explanations as to why smoking is bad.

yes, I see your point and it is true that some campaigns have been a backlash more than a success - like peta's holocaust on a plate which caused only hostility over here in austria. peta was attacked at being antisemitic - the fact that this campaign was launched by a jew never got mentioned by the media. but peta wants to be controversial, they believe that bad press is better than no press. I'm not sure I agree with their approach after the holocaust disaster.


but not everybody reacts to the same things. some people will care a lot about health, some not. some will be compassionate. I stopped eating meat because of a gruesome documentary, my friend stopped for health reason and only knew about the cruelty later. so, as morrissey says in this interview: different campaigns work for different people. so everything needs to be tried.

Morrissey's interviews with Peta's Dan Mathews:

http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o-shake-moz85.asp

http://www.peta2.com/OUTTHERE/o-shakemoz.asp



and as far as the health aspect, it is not really in the minds of most people. I meet many more people who do believe meat is absolutely necessary than people who do know that it's bad for you. everybody knows that too much meat is bad for you by now but 'no meat' at all is not something that has been advertised. most people find soy products rather suspicious - the word SOY never fails to get a good laugh and a nasty look on everyone's face even though I can now buy soy versions of everything
in every supermarket - and I often wonder who even buys these products since they are booming like crazy but most people refuse to even taste them.

when you say you don't believe that animals should have the same rights as humans because there is no scientific proof that animals have the same capacity as humans then I must disagree a bit. there is at least scientific proof that animals have conciousness and feel pain. so that should be scientific proof enough to conclude that animals should not be hurt and tortured, they cannot read and write but the can feel. scienctific studies did lead to the rights for great apes - which do exist now.
and animals rights only means 3 things: the right to freedom, life and not being abused. human rights are different, I don't know the exact list but it includes other rights like the right for enough food, the right to vote etc. so, noone is asking equal rights for animals - just the right not to be emprisoned and tortured and killed.

a friend of mine wrote a book about the consciousness of animals and there was a big lecture and discussion with prominent university professors - who agreed to the book but disagreed with the consequence that animals should have these 3 basic rights because they feel and have consciousness. they could not explain why though. it was puzzling. so, it may seem that animals rights are a complete 'outsiders issue' of a few insane militants but that's not true. it's a subject that is being disussed by professors now at universities, which shows that the subject is taken seriously. my friend also sent his book to a green politician here who replied: yes, the time for animal rights has come. this guy is a meat eater thow - so we were surprised.
unfortuately this book is available only in german so far, but it's pretty interesting.
 
Last edited:
so, as morrissey says in this interview: different campaigns work for different people. so everything needs to be tried. ... and as far as the health aspect, it is not really in the minds of most people.

I agree that many different attempts should be made to convert people. I just think more often than not they degenerate into pointless bickering, as has happened on some of these threads.

When you talk of how science has established that animals have some degree of consciousness but there are still many questions, that really speaks to the point I made above. Even if you allow for the possibility that maybe our science hasn't yet completely figured out non-human animal consciousness, and that torturing and killing animals is the same as torturing and killing people, it's still not an open and shut case. Convincing most people not to eat meat or support industries that exploit animals is made much, much more difficult if you make bold claims that are not yet supported by science.

But it's not nearly as difficult to make the more concrete case. Most people have pets-- most people do bond with animals and don't like the idea that they're eating the flesh of living things. They just don't think about it. They push it out of their heads. But going veggie has so many other dimensions to it that you're arguing positively rather than negatively. And I disagree with you-- most people do think about the health issue. They just view it from a distorted perspective that ignores vegetarianism as an option. But a positive argument for vegetarianism is actually much stronger for this reason.

Arguing positively means sitting someone down and saying, "Look, I know it may not be easy to do right away, but you'll get used to being a vegetarian and you'll grow to love it. There are many benefits. You will feel better. You will lose weight. Your skin and hair will look better. As long as you are smart about your nutrition, you will have more energy and you may even live longer. Your cholesterol will be lower. Your blood pressure will fall. You will run less risk of a heart attack when you're older. And on top of all that, you will also cease to support industries that ruin the environment. Best of all, you won't have to take the lives of other creatures".

In other words, you're making it obvious that most of the quick-fix solutions our society sells to its citizens as ointments, creams, surgeries, fad diets, and miracle pills are largely solved by becoming a vegetarian. All the "problems" that weigh so heavily on people's vanity are addressed with vegetarianism. If no one worried about their weight, how they looked, and how their health was, half our culture would vanish over night, as well as zillions of dollars of annual sales and advertising. The "health issue" is actually on everyone's mind in some way. But vegetarianism has not been put forward as a solution, or not often or emphatically enough, or it is limited to slogans like "Meat Is Murder", which for every person who hears it and gives up meat probably creates five who are hostile to the whole movement.

Perhaps that reaction mainly occurs in America, but with America's size and power everything we're doing wrong in the world could also be turned around into a tremendous good, right? In any case, you would not believe the hostility toward "left-wing" causes like vegetarianism here. I'm not talking about people who say, "No, sorry, I disagree with that, I'm going to keep eating steaks". I mean that the majority of citizens, when confronted with activists (for animal rights, for gay rights, for peace, for the environment), either dismiss them as laughable kooks or, in a shocking number of cases, actually become aggressively hostile. Like many I find those attitudes depressing, but I don't think it's a helpless situation. Their minds can be changed. The question, is what's the best way of reaching these people?

I don't mean to oversell vegetarianism; nothing in life is a miracle fix to make us perfect. But have you ever read an account of a meat-eater who switched to veggies where the person wasn't completely ecstatic about their choice, and listed several benefits they hadn't even thought of when they chose to switch? It's always, "Yeah, I lost five pounds. But I was amazed also at how much more energy I had every day! My wife and I are having the best sex of our lives! And I actually enjoy cooking again!" Et cetera et cetera.

The more these messages get out into the public consciousness, the easier it will be to reform or even eliminate the industries that exploit animals. I'm afraid I think animal testing for science will always be around, but at least if the public were better informed it might put pressure on labs to act with as much restraint as possible. But I've just seen this debate end too many times before it even gets going because one side or the other resorts to holier-than-thou ad hominem attacks. Impersonal arguments in favor of not mistreating animals will do so much more than highly charged assaults that attempt to shame people into acting better. I really do think most people want to treat animals well. They just need to be convinced with the right approach.
 
Last edited:
When you talk of how science has established that animals have some degree of consciousness but there are still many questions, that really speaks to the point I made above. Even if you allow for the possibility that maybe our science hasn't yet completely figured out non-human animal consciousness, and that torturing and killing animals is the same as torturing and killing people, it's still not an open and shut case. Convincing most people not to eat meat or support industries that exploit animals is made much, much more difficult if you make bold claims that are not yet supported by science.

Sorry to disagree, but the idea that animals suffer when being tortured or killed has been broadly supported by science. I could list many sources here, but to be concise, I'll simply say that any paperback/hardback book on the subject of animal rights will have researched this, usually extensively. Also, the idea that animals suffer when having pain inflicted on them is basic common sense. It is my assertion that an individual who doesn't believe that animals suffer is probably a bit backward. They have a central nervous system, and so are able to feel physical pain in the same way as humans. As for mental pain, most birds and mammals, from the dormouse to the higher-level primates are capable of feeling mental anguish. This can be ascertained by simply opening one's eyes and studying their behaviour. A rat, for example, which has roughly the same awareness as a two-year-old child, will chatter it's teeth when fed, or if it is released from it's cage. Animal behaviourists recognise this as being excitement. When rats are kept in their cages for long periods of time, they will tend to sleep extensively and display various other signs of depression, many of which manifest in the rat's physical state. Signs of mental distress are also easy to spot in a variety of other animals, some of which include cats, dogs, primates etc. For someone to study the behaviour of a primate who has been imprisoned in a cage in a vivisection laboratory and say that it is not capable of feeling mental pain/distress is very dubious. Of course, farmyard animals who have been kept in factory farms are another excellent example. Actual video footage of these creatures being physically kicked and hit in slaughterhouses is true horror. Anyone who studies this footage will notice the animals displaying many signs of distress and suffering. They cry out in pain and try to excape the perpetrator of the violence, just like a human would do in the same situation. Other more obscure studies which have looked at the behaviour of relatively small animals such as turkeys and chickens have found that even they have far more intelligence than probably most people realise. Most people probably think that Turkeys simply sit there and wait to be killed, but they are actually highly sociable, docile creatures.

In otherwords, basic observation of animal body language and behaviour should lead people to the conclusion that animals are capable of a varying range of mental states, ranging from contentment to extreme distress. And basic common sense should tell everyone that they are capable of physical pain. Animals in slaughterhouses can be heard screaming for miles around - they make those noises for a reason.

But it's not nearly as difficult to make the more concrete case. Most people have pets-- most people do bond with animals and don't like the idea that they're eating the flesh of living things. They just don't think about it. They push it out of their heads. But going veggie has so many other dimensions to it that you're arguing positively rather than negatively. And I disagree with you-- most people do think about the health issue. They just view it from a distorted perspective that ignores vegetarianism as an option. But a positive argument for vegetarianism is actually much stronger for this reason.

Arguing positively means sitting someone down and saying, "Look, I know it may not be easy to do right away, but you'll get used to being a vegetarian and you'll grow to love it. There are many benefits. You will feel better. You will lose weight. Your skin and hair will look better. As long as you are smart about your nutrition, you will have more energy and you may even live longer. Your cholesterol will be lower. Your blood pressure will fall. You will run less risk of a heart attack when you're older. And on top of all that, you will also cease to support industries that ruin the environment. Best of all, you won't have to take the lives of other creatures".

I have tried all of this, believe me. I have tried the softly-softly approach and it simply does not work, in the alarming majority of cases. It appears that a mental block comes into places. I believe that the most successful way of converting someone to vegetarianism, and the method which converted me, is to continuously expose meat-eaters to the reality of slaughterhouses, until one day the penny drops. It takes more time with some people that others, because each individual has a varying degree of conscience, but I can practically guarantee that the majority of people do not know the extent of the violence which takes place behind the scenes. I can guarantee that most people simply are not aware that some truly vile things are going on in slaughterhouses in both Europe and the USA. Members of PETA who have seen real video footage and actual photographs will know what I am referring to.

But vegetarianism has not been put forward as a solution, or not often or emphatically enough, or it is limited to slogans like "Meat Is Murder", which for every person who hears it and gives up meat probably creates five who are hostile to the whole movement.

I agree with this. So actually, meat-eaters are just as guilty of having a knee-jerk reaction to things as vegetarians. Their hostility stems from fear, ignorance or any other such basic psychological reaction humans have when they are confronted with something they do not like. These people can avoid the truth, but 'meat is murder' still stands as a statement of fact.

Perhaps that reaction mainly occurs in America, but with America's size and power everything we're doing wrong in the world could also be turned around into a tremendous good, right? In any case, you would not believe the hostility toward "left-wing" causes like vegetarianism here. I'm not talking about people who say, "No, sorry, I disagree with that, I'm going to keep eating steaks". I mean that the majority of citizens, when confronted with activists (for animal rights, for gay rights, for peace, for the environment), either dismiss them as laughable kooks or, in a shocking number of cases, actually become aggressively hostile. Like many I find those attitudes depressing, but I don't think it's a helpless situation. Their minds can be changed. The question, is what's the best way of reaching these people?

Brain transplant? America is not a very liberal country. I have no delusions that vegetarianism is going to go mainstream in the USA any time soon. The entire political system is flawed, never mind right-wing individuals.


The more these messages get out into the public consciousness, the easier it will be to reform or even eliminate the industries that exploit animals. I'm afraid I think animal testing for science will always be around, but at least if the public were better informed it might put pressure on labs to act with as much restraint as possible. But I've just seen this debate end too many times before it even gets going because one side or the other resorts to holier-than-thou ad hominem attacks. Impersonal arguments in favor of not mistreating animals will do so much more than highly charged assaults that attempt to shame people into acting better. I really do think most people want to treat animals well. They just need to be convinced with the right approach.

The reason that vivisection is still around today is that the government have always neglected to invest enough money in the numerous other methods of scientific research. I believe that if the government had invested more money in these methods, cures would have been found for many more diseases. It is a little known fact that many scientific advancements have been made without using animals, it's just that they aren't as widely publicised. It is a matter of cost. Animals are cheap and economical, so the government have neglected other scientific methods of finding cures for diseases. The reason that many animal rights activists become 'emotive' or 'heated' when debating the matter is through sheer frustration at not getting a fair enough hearing. Too often they are silenced or simply shouted into submission by the overwhelming majority, who throw insults and demeaning put-downs their way. These animal rights activists feel backed into a corner and hopeless, so all too often they lash out, either verbally, or in some cases, physically. Society as a whole needs to cultivate a more open-minded approach to a wide variety of issues.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to disagree, but the idea that animals suffer when being tortured or killed has been broadly supported by science.

I don't doubt these scientific studies you cite for a single moment.

Where I find fault is in the moral argument which relies on these scientific facts to blur the distinction between animals and human beings. Scientific research suggests that animals have feelings, can feel fear, suffer incredible mental stress. On the other side of the ledger, science and philosophy since Darwin has shortened the distance between humans and animals considerably, and in some cases there is no longer much distance at all.

Still, none of this means animals must be protected as humans are protected. There's still a leap from saying an animal is more than just a block of wood to saying "meat is murder". As soon as you try and make the argument that a life is a life is a life, and the same rights should apply to all, whether a four-legged furry beast or a two-legged hairless ape, most people will hit the "Ignore" switch in their brains. Why? Brainwashing and ignorance, perhaps, but the common sense test you propose (one I like, too) also works against that argument. Animals suffer and are killed every day-- by other animals. Life feeding on life is part of the natural order. No one calls a lion felling a zebra a "murder". The average person might love a cat or a dog but in general they do not look at all animals and think of them as equals in any way, shape or form. An irrational double standard, but true. Except for George Clooney apparently, a cat is more loveable than a pig, and between a pig and a rat-- forget it.

Even if what you believe could be solidly, irrefutably proven (and I know you think it can be), you're still going right to the heart of a person's most primal instincts and saying, "No, it's not like that at all". I realize the danger of saying that's not the best way to reach people. After all, the Civil Rights movement was predicated on doing just that, hitting people exactly where they had assumed they were most unchangeable. But that movement succeeded because humanity, despite its terrible crimes, had in the last few centuries established numerous political and social models that are supposed to guarantee equality between humans. To guarantee equality between humans and animals is so much more of a fundamental shift.

Surely you feel this, as you consider yourself enlightened-- a human being who has evolved significantly further than the masses who insist on living like neanderthals. I think you get cavemen to stop being cavemen by introducing common ground and building a consensus. (Figuratively speaking, of course. Actual cavemen require things like two-by-fours over the head to change their ways, a tactic it sounds like maybe you've tried.) Brain transplants for my fellow Americans aren't required. I think there's a dreadful number of idiots who will never be worth a damn, but the vast majority of people are decent, or want to be. They can be changed.

I don't question your difficulties in converting people. I'm sure you've tried. But in my opinion showing people slaughterhouses attempts to tap their sense of shame, and that is just the very, very last thing you can do in modern culture if you want real change. The average American didn't give a damn about Bush's horrendous war in Iraq no matter how many stories they heard about shameful atrocities like Abu Ghraib or entire civilian families bombed. But they started to care when they started paying more for gas. Suddenly there was common ground. People who were against the war from the beginning could finally say to them, "Look how bad Bush has been", and finally they were being heard. The Democrats won last month because they pointed out that gas was more expensive, not because they won the battle of ideas and proved that war in Iraq was wrong, or that war in general is wrong. But you know what? I don't know how much Bush's defeat at the polls will help in Iraq or at home, but it will help. Look at Donald Rumsfeld's swift exit.

I know this attitude is deeply cynical. I'm not saying the situation is right-- in fact, it's deplorable, and anyone with half a brain looks at America and weeps-- but I'm talking purely from the standpoint of what might work. In one sense I'm sure you'd agree: it doesn't matter if people stop animal cruelty because they believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite them with a fork, just so long as the animals stop dying. The American public is a huge, lumbering beast of burden. Fat, foul, smelly, narrow-minded, and a hair's breadth away from being totally blind, deaf, and dumb. Right now that beast is slowly shuffling along toward its demise. But despite this I still think that because those things are true it's just as possible to get the stupid creature to turn around and go the other direction.
 
Last edited:
seriously
i do not have a serious view on the matter
except maybe
i dont eat cows much
cuz i like cows alot
after working on a dairy 'farm'
but fish taste too good
and pigs are horrible
and when i was 8 geese attacked me

therefore they got it coming to them

chickens, hmm, i eat less than most
cuz, well chicken farms
aRE TERRIFYINg
ive been to one
i know
:eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom