carnex said:
1) You assume that I support suffering since I am pro choice on most things, even what food people consume. That is incredibly entitled and reeks of prejudice. In 18 century people who actively opposed slavery have worn cotton.
I count three red herrings in paragraph alone, and I'll tell you what.
1: "You assume that I support suffering since I am pro choice [sic] on most things, even what food people consume." In the novel Thank You for Smoking the main character is a tobacco lobbyist, his son asks him about his job and to better explain it he uses an analogy. He tells him to imagine that they're debating in front of a crowd about which flavor of ice cream is better, chocolate or vanilla. His son picks chocolate (I think, it's been awhile but that's not the point) and his father responds by accusing his son of looking down on people who prefer vanilla, whereas he believes we as Americans should have the freedom to choose which ice cream they like best. His son correctly points out that has nothing to do with the topic, to which his father agrees but adds that being truthful is not his job, the red herring he employs simply works.
Now imagine you and I are having a discussion about animal cruelty and whether people ought to purchase animal products because of the cruelty of the meat industry and ethical arguments against using living creatures for their parts. I take the affirmative, that we should not, and you respond by stating that we ought to have the freedom to eat and wear what we want. That has nothing to do with the conversation, as we've not yet entered the discussion into whether the first question entitles us to ban their use. You aren't arguing in good faith, you're addressing a legal point farther down the line and ignoring the ethical questions that are in front of your face.
2: "That is incredibly entitled and reeks of prejudice" Ironically the preceding sentence demonstrates your entitlement and prejudice. It isn't "entitled" or "prejudiced" to make note of the fact that the meat industry is unimaginably cruel. Your issue isn't with Kai Kuhl, it's with reality.
3: "In 18 century [sic] people who actively opposed slavery have worn cotton." Utterly irrelevant factoid, the personal failings and hypocrisies of other activists does not excuse the hypocrisy of people who admit the meat industry is cruel while supporting them with their dollars.
carnex said:
2) You compare animals and humans. No matter how much I love animals, and despise many human beings that is beyond my understanding.
What's wrong with a comparison? The cruelty of the meat industry is certainly comparable to many atrocities in method and suffering caused. We may place special emphasis on atrocities committed against humans, and that's both understandable and rational, but drawing comparisons between the two is valid.
carnex said:
3) I have seen studies that plants react to harm being done to them. Their activities speed up and they actively sway away from harm at rate available to them. That makes your statement really superficial. Just because it doesn't scream it doesn't mean it's not hurt.
You're referring to ancient and outdated biocommunication experiments, the studies themselves amount to an exploration of the paranormal and are widely dismissed as pseudoscience. Mythbusters even did an episode on the topic and determined it was just that, a myth. The extent to which plants can feel stimuli has been likened to a themometer, the sensation of being eaten cannot be categorized as pain or fear as plants have no consciousness with which to formulate emotions.
tl;dr? This is a silly red-herring to avoid talking about animal rights.
carnex said:
Yea, last one is pretty extreme as an argument and I'm not really serious about it, but it's also true. Two of my walnut trees actually sway away from my spot where my neighbor burns his leaves, grass chippings and trash. They can't do that now, but while trees were young and thin they didn't develop branches on that side and actually lean to the opposite side.
*groan* No, they weren't "swaying away" from your neighbor's firepit they were just swaying.
carnex said:
Then again I see living wold as formed from biological imperatives and everything else as simple construction over it. I see first as neutral, in position that really can't be labeled as good or bad. Only humans can label it so in relation to their believes and well-being. So, human consumption of meat is just part of our natural feeding habit is. But if you don't feel like it, it's your own preference. I'm not gonna judge you, or even notice. But, if you try to force your believes on me, better be armed with some bloody good evidence to support your cause or be prepared to be considered pompous ass.
The question that needs to be asked if humans must eat meat is how much meat do humans need to eat. The answer is far less than what we're eating now. We greatly overconsume meat, even as much as meat with one meal a day is too much but a large number of Americans eat meat two-three meals a day. The human body is not adapted to eating large quantities of meat, and health issues are increasing proportional to the growth of the meat industry. Demand for meat has actually become so large that the meat industry needs to adopt increasingly cruel methods to support itself; actions such as stuffing large amounts of overly fat chickens into a tiny wire-mesh cage and searing off the beaks of chickens to prevent them from pecking the others to death. Or culling all of the male chicks from birth because it's economic to do otherwise.
