Seal Clubbing

[OldWiseGuy]

U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists | Cornell Chronicle

Although the author is correct in advocating producing beef on improved pasture (grassland) instead of grain (which is poisonous to ruminants in large quantities) much of the article is BS.

 

[nebulaJP]

Being the rank speciesist that I am the owning of animals vs the owning of humans arguments are simply nonsense.

The issue I take with your argument is while it focuses on the failings of livestock handling or how wild animals are harvested in the end those methods are irrelevant to the argument if the issue is that killing animals is wrong. If that is the issue the method does not matter anymore then how I chose to commit a homicide would matter it would remain immoral and illegal no matter how swift the death I delivered was.

Imagine for a moment that neanderthals, species h. neanderthalensis, were still extant upon the earth. Would it be OK to harvest them? If so, why?

There is immoral and then there is immoral. For example, it is immoral to shoot something in the head for profit, and more immoral to skin it alive. Both are immoral. The method may be somewhat irrelevant but not entirely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WgPdNIKYmI

Uploaded on Oct 6, 2009

After going over the peer reviewed data points provided by the Burdon et al. study the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans adopted the "3-Step Process" to guarantee that seals were being killed humanely. The only problem was that the seal hunters must not have been told to execute the 3-Step Process. Four years after adopting the 3-Step Process, statutorily at least, it was confirmed that 100% of the time seal hunters did not complete the full 3 Step Process. What this did was expose the hunt to the critical observation that at least 42% of the time the hunters started skinning seals before unconsciousness was confirmed with The 3-Step Process. See how peer reviewed studies confirmed that although the seal hunt advocates claim the seal hunt may be one of the most regulated hunt on the earth, it actually is one of the most under-regulated animal industries there is.

 

[nebulaJP]

Because all arable land would be needed to replace animal sourced food. We're not just talking about America but the whole of humanity.

Eskimos and others who depend almost entirely on animal food sources, especially fats, for survival would disappear into the greater society.

Even now the rainforests are being cut down for fuel, (to graze cattle), and to produce soybeans for Monsanto. American farmers are still removing tree-lined fenceline 'shelterbelts' to make room for more plantings, of corn especially.

The additional acreage needed to replace protein from commercial fishing would be enormous.

As the nutrient starved soil becomes depleted the protein content of crops will decline, requiring yet more acreage to be cultivated.

Society would change from growth and progress to a scramble for subsistence.

The plain fact is that mankind needs animal sourced foods for survival.

I've said many times in this thread that not everyone can go vegan and have mentioned Inuits specifically.

You will need to provide documentation for your ecological claims. And they are, I would add, irrelevant to this discussion of morality. It is like saying socio-economic concerns of southern slave owners were relevant to the morality of slavery.

 

[Chany]

Because all arable land would be needed to replace animal sourced food. We're not just talking about America but the whole of humanity.

Eskimos and others who depend almost entirely on animal food sources, especially fats, for survival would disappear into the greater society.

Even now the rainforests are being cut down for fuel, (to graze cattle), and to produce soybeans for Monsanto. American farmers are still removing tree-lined fenceline 'shelterbelts' to make room for more plantings, of corn especially.

The additional acreage needed to replace protein from commercial fishing would be enormous.

As the nutrient starved soil becomes depleted the protein content of crops will decline, requiring yet more acreage to be cultivated.

Society would change from growth and progress to a scramble for subsistence.

The plain fact is that mankind needs animal sourced foods for survival.

The majority of land used to raise crops is not intended for human consumption, but rather animal consumption. Referring to bigger industry, the majority of plant agriculture is used to feed the animals that are supposed to feed us. This idea that we will face a major crisis of land use is just plain wrong, considering the vast majority of available land would eventually transfer over from the meat industry.

 

[Chany]

As with most moral arguments, there is no solid logical argument for why something is moral or immoral. It simply depends on the set of axioms upon which your argument rests.

Axiom #1: Humans have different moral status to animals.

If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is not wrong.

Axiom #2: Humans and animals have the same moral status.

If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is equivalent or analogous to murder.

Herein lies the contradiction with Axiom #2. If you hold some version of Axiom #2 then it should be clear that a lion killing a zebra should be some form of murder and the lion should be tried and locked up. However, this is not the case. Why? Because humans have a higher moral responsibility than animals, which implies Axiom #1. This implies that humans and animals are somehow different which then lends to the idea that killing animals is not necessarily wrong.

Circular reasoning.

The conclusion you draw from the first axiom does not follow. Things having different moral statuses does not equate to an all or nothing mentality. If animals have a different moral status from humans, it does not automatically follow that it is okay to kill them for palate preferrence. One still needs to exhibit a justifiable reason to kill animals for an unnecessary food source.

Your argument surrounding the second axiom is so bad it's not even worth discussing. If you aren't going to even try, then why should I?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The majority of land used to raise crops is not intended for human consumption, but rather animal consumption. Referring to bigger industry, the majority of plant agriculture is used to feed the animals that are supposed to feed us. This idea that we will face a major crisis of land use is just plain wrong, considering the vast majority of available land would eventually transfer over from the meat industry.

I assume that you are referring to the vast areas of marginal western grazing lands, that often require up to fifty acres to sustain one cow.

These lands are not cultivatable.

 

[Chany]

I assume that you are referring to the vast areas of marginal western grazing lands, that often require up to fifty acres to sustain one cow. '

These lands are not cultivatable.

Not grazing, food consumption for animal use. Not all animals can graze/ are allowed to graze. They need another food source, so we transfer crop production to feed them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've said many times in this thread that not everyone can go vegan and have mentioned Inuits specifically.

But you believe that everyone should don't you? Have you watched "Life Below Zero"? Pretty bloody stuff.

You will need to provide documentation for your ecological claims. And they are, I would add, irrelevant to this discussion of morality. It is like saying socio-economic concerns of southern slave owners were relevant to the morality of slavery.

I'm drawing an economic and social conclusion that would result from your idea. You cannot blithely ignore the economic and social effects of widespread veganism.

If veganism was ever mandated in America pot would be legalized as well. Think of all the acreage that would then be devoted to growing it. Veganism would create a huge domino effect throughout society and the economy, not all good.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not grazing, food consumption for animal use. Not all animals can graze/ are allowed to graze. They need another food source, so we transfer crop production to feed them.

True, but that "crop production" is raised specifically for that purpose.

 

[Chany]

True, but that "crop production" is raised specifically for that purpose.

Your point? If it's usable land it's usable land.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just to clarify, what I was getting at with the ‘taste’ question is, most of the killing that goes on in slaughterhouses has little to do with necessity and a lot do do with satisfying the taste buds of humans.

For example, when you buy bacon, are you buying it because you feel it is necessary for your survival or because you enjoy eating bacon?

It’s probably necessary for optimal human health to eat small amounts of animal products 2 or 3 times per month and I would not argue with that. But it is definitely not necessary to eat animal products with every meal or to have “hot dog eating contests” etc. So I’m saying all of this “extra” animal killing is immoral, for the same reason seal slaughter is. The immorality arises from the attitude that human pleasure alone is worth the suffering and death of animals.

Just to revisit your earlier post, which connects what you consider the immoral killing of animals for apparel with killing animals for 'eating pleasure'. Hey, you gotta eat something, why not enjoy it? I don't have meat for dessert, it's the main nutritional part of my meal.

 

[nebulaJP]

But you believe that everyone should don't you? Have you watched "Life Below Zero"? Pretty bloody stuff.

I'm drawing an economic and social conclusion that would result from your idea. You cannot blithely ignore the economic and social effects of widespread veganism.

If veganism was ever mandated in America pot would be legalized as well. Think of all the acreage that would then be devoted to growing it. Veganism would create a huge domino effect throughout society and the economy, not all good.

With no documentation or evidence to support your very specific predictions, your conclusion is (apparently) based on nothing except your own thoughts. My 'idea' is that killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. Is your response to this that it is ecologically necessary and therefore moral? Because if so, that is no different than a slaveholder in 1860 claiming that slavery is moral because it is necessary for the health of the southern plantation economy.

 

[nebulaJP]

Just to revisit your earlier post, which connects what you consider the immoral killing of animals for apparel with killing animals for 'eating pleasure'. Hey, you gotta eat something, why not enjoy it? I don't have meat for dessert, it's the main nutritional part of my meal.

I'm not seeing your point. How about you pretend that a cannibal is about to kill you and prepare you for his dinner: Explain to him why he should care about more than his own enjoyment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not seeing your point. How about you pretend that a cannibal is about to kill you and prepare you for his dinner: Explain to him why he should care about more than his own enjoyment.

You are using unrealistic comparisons. Your position has to stand or fall on it's own merits.

It makes little difference to the animal being killed if the person doing so subsists on its flesh, or eats it for pleasure. So it seems that you are more concerned about the morality of people than the suffering of animals. If this is so there are more important areas of human immorality to decry.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

With no documentation or evidence to support your very specific predictions, your conclusion is (apparently) based on nothing except your own thoughts. My 'idea' is that killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. Is your response to this that it is ecologically necessary and therefore moral? Because if so, that is no different than a slaveholder in 1860 claiming that slavery is moral because it is necessary for the health of the southern plantation economy.

Killing animals is a necessary part of incorporating them into our diets and agricultural system. As pointed out earlier by Sir Albert Howard the inclusion of animals brings health and wealth. That's a good thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your point? If it's usable land it's usable land.

That's a whole different subject.

 

[nebulaJP]

You are using unrealistic comparisons. Your position has to stand or fall on it's own merits.

It makes little difference to the animal being killed if the person doing so subsists on its flesh, or eats it for pleasure. So it seems that you are more concerned about the morality of people than the suffering of animals. If this is so there are more important areas of human immorality to decry.

Please explain this to me. The number of animals killed by humans out of necessity is infinitesimal compared to the number killed for pleasure, taste, tradition, convenience etc. If these billions of animals were never brought into existence, they wouldn’t suffer. This is the reason we spay and neuter dogs and cats, to reduce their numbers and thereby reduce their suffering. So how is this not about animal suffering?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please explain this to me. The number of animals killed by humans out of necessity is infinitesimal compared to the number killed for pleasure, taste, tradition, convenience etc. If these billions of animals were never brought into existence, they wouldn’t suffer. This is the reason we spay and neuter dogs and cats, to reduce their numbers and thereby reduce their suffering. So how is this not about animal suffering?

Animals that are mistreated certainly do suffer, but we try to minimize the suffering of animals killed for food. The same people that enjoy a good steak, and enjoy hunting and fishing, also support laws against animal cruelty. When I hunt deer I don't shoot unless I can reasonably assure a quick kill, as do most hunters.

To broaden the subject even more, the healthiest food we can serve our pet dogs is meat. Would you deny our pets this nutrition?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The conclusion you draw from the first axiom does not follow. Things having different moral statuses does not equate to an all or nothing mentality. If animals have a different moral status from humans, it does not automatically follow that it is okay to kill them for palate preferrence. One still needs to exhibit a justifiable reason to kill animals for an unnecessary food source.

My point was that it is axiomatic. In that, the answer to why it is justifiable to kill an animal for an unnecessary food source is: "Because humans and animals are different".

Why do you think it is okay to cut a rock in two pieces? At some base level, its simply because you think humans and rocks are different. Rocks don't have the same moral status as humans, so its okay to cut them up into pieces. Its amoral.

Your argument surrounding the second axiom is so bad it's not even worth discussing. If you aren't going to even try, then why should I?

Perhaps you could address it to point out my poor logic. My point is that if you attribute higher moral status to humans (because humans can be locked up for murder while animals can't) then you imply that humans are different from animals. It is precisely this differentness which vegans are trying to dismantle. It appears to me to be self-refuting. But perhaps you could explain differently.

Already in this thread we have seen this self-refuting contradiction come up. One poster argues that killing a seal is akin to murder but then in the next moment argues that we don't have to be part of the "predator-prey" natural order because we are different than animals.

Are humans different from animals?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

"We are the apex predator" is no different than "we eat animals because we can" which is no different than a rapist declaring he can rape a woman whom he finds alone and defenseless.

Rape is not part of the "circle of life".

Death is part of life. Death is a consequence of life. Death is not inherently bad or wrong. Death is necessary.


Rape is none of those things so I think the comparison fails.