I have to ask: why do you believe that? Do you think that taking a human life should have the same weight as killing a bacterium (which is considered a lifeform by scientists)? And if you decide to assign two different values to those lives, that is, if it's possible for a life to be worth more than another based on some parametres of your choosing, then isn't it also possible for a life to be worth zero? It seems to me that in order to believe all animals should have a right to their life, I would have to first accept the belief that there is something like a fixed value for all life, and I can't really believe that.I believe all animals should have a right to their life.
I think I explained why I believe that animals should have a right to their life in my previous reply when I said "parting from the premise that every being wants to keep living for as long as it possibly can". I've never seen any living thing that wants to die therefore it's safe to assume that it wants to keep its life and what right do I have to take their life if I can choose? We decide to put subjective human value on living organisms at own own peril. Just like most structures in human society, we've been trained to think about nature as a hierarchical food chain (with us on top, anthropocentric much?), when it is in fact a web of life. Every living thing is valuable in its own unique way. That does not mean that we should kill everyone with equal dismissal. Quite the opposite, it means that we should treat all life with equal respect. Yes, including bacteria if we can choose to. For example, I choose to garden organically because I want to promote insects and living organisms in the soil and not kill everything with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers. Of course we can't always prevent killing micro-organisms or even small insects but the question of morality does not arise in circumstances where you don't have the knowledge or choice. As a supposedly evolved human being, in a supposedly advanced and abundant society I no longer need to subvert, breed and take the life other beings for survival, therefore I choose not to. Veganism is about reducing the amount of cruelty and suffering even if it might not be possible to eliminate it completely....why do you believe that?
Do you think that taking a human life should have the same weight as killing a bacterium
This is an extreme comparison of course, bacteria are not complex organisms like the animals humans breed for our own pleasure. As I said, I don't see it as a question of value of a bacterium vs a human, but a question of necessity.
I wouldn't kill anyone unnecessarily. Would you kill, skin and disembowel a cow?
I did answer the question. I'm sorry if it's not the answer you wanted. I'm curious to know what difference will it make to you if I kill an annoying insect in an event that might happen once a year? Will that make it ok for you or anyone else to kill cows, pigs, chickens, lambs and fish everyday, who did nothing to you?
If the need arose I'd eat you. I don't even change my own oil though and there's plenty of people to kill my food for me. Your argument for the value of all life and its desire to live doesn't jive with killing a mosquito out of annoyance but it's not my job to teach vegans about the legitimate arguments against meat.
If the need arose I'd eat you.
If the need arose to that point everyone would be in survival mode. Your argument for the value of all life and its desire to live doesn't jive with killing a mosquito out of annoyance
So for you killing a mosquito and killing a complex organism capable of social bonds, such as a dog or a cow is the same thing? How about killing someone you love? Would that bother you?it's not my job to teach vegans about the legitimate arguments against meat.
Here's 65 reasons. How many legitimate arguments have you got for raping, torturing and killing innocent creatures?
I was also distressed by organicAnt's use of that term. I don't think it's appropriate. I did some research to find out more about what happens to dairy cows. Here is a description in the most objective language I can manage: My source is a family-friendly guide for dairy farmers with cartoon illustrations. This is standard practice to keep the dairy cows regularly pregnant, so they will lactate. There are other practices which make the cows produce more milk than normal, protect the milk from contamination, and dispose of the cow when milk production eventually declines. In my judgement these practices generally increase the suffering of the animal. I strongly suspect that if typical dairy cows somehow had the option of suicide, the rate would be near 100%. I would be very happy to hear evidence to the contrary, that things are not as bad as they appear. tacocat, what do you think? Is providing the cheapest possible liquid protein and calcium source in the grocery store adequate justification for these practices?A farmer tricks a bull into mounting an artificial vagina to collect semen. Later the farmer restrains the cow and inserts his arm deep into her rectum and removes any feces. The farmer inserts an 18-inch (45 cm) long artificial insemination gun into the cow's vagina and guides it through the cervix, using the other hand in her rectum to position the tip of the gun in the uterus. No pain management drugs are used. When a calf is born, it is separated from the cow within a few days to avoid additional stress caused by breaking the close bond that forms between cow and calf.
Okay, thanks for letting me know. How about you, Grendel, any opinion you would like to share? organicAnt told me privately that Hubski members use organicAnt’s inflammatory language as an excuse to avoid a subject they want to ignore. I disagreed, certain that if we speak respectfully, Hubski will come through with thoughtful contributions on a difficult topic.
I have years of experience on sites like 4chan and similar, where it's considered perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour for users to outright insult each other for little or no reason, so I have a relatively high tolerance to inflammatory language by now (though I hold hubski to a higher standard than 4chan, obviously). That said, I've never really researched veganism and I don't feel strongly pro- or against it. I only took part in the conversation in the first place because one of organicAnt's beliefs, that all life is equally worthy of respect, seems flawed to me, and since it's the basis for his argument, I felt it had to be criticised.
Cows used for dairy products are genetically manipulated, artificially inseminated, and often drugged to force them to produce about four and a half times as much milk as they naturally would to feed their calves. These animals are often dosed with bovine growth hormone, which contributes to an inflammation of the udder known as “mastitis”—an extremely painful condition that up to 50 percent of cows used for their milk suffer from. Cows on dairy farms are also routinely mutilated without painkillers by having their horn tissue burned or gouged out of their heads, holes punched in their ears, and part of their tails cut off. Once their milk production declines, cows are sent to a terrifying death in a slaughterhouse to be ground up into hamburger.Like humans, cows produce milk only when they’re pregnant or nursing. In order to keep the milk constantly flowing, farmers artificially inseminate cows over and over, often on devices called “rape racks.” After their calves are taken from them, mother cows are hooked up, several times a day, to milking machines so that the milk meant for their calves can be sold to humans.