Quote:
This guy harms humans to "help" animals. This guy argues for pure altruism, treating animals as greater than humans. He uses force to do it. I consider this completely immoral. Sure, causing pain for the sake of causing pain is contemptible - but using animals to better your life and the life of your family, not so much.


I dont understanding what are you saying, where/when hes causing pain to humans? If I understand in the beggining of his activism he caused financial damage to producers, other than this nothing was caused or is caused by him, in fact to not consume animal products is better economically is healther to your familiy, because is less resource intensive to produce grains, that the same amount of meat.

Quote:
See, he has never said outside of "animals are our brothers" why it should be immoral. I totally get what he is saying, and I get that he is trying to attach an "ism" to it - the problem is he has supplied no justification for doing so. Speciesism should be put on the level of Nazism why? Because he said so?


One thing because humans have been eating animals for thousand of years. The fact that we have been doing something for a long times does not make it morally right, Humans have been racist and sexist for centuries and we now recognize that racism and sexism are morally wrong.

Quote:
His arguments are terrible. For example, put a kid in a crib with an rabbit and an apple? Kids that age will try to put anything in their mouth. Also, the rabbit will bite the kid - so its not advisable to actually try the experiment.Or "dont use tools, dont use fire". And " Humans learn behavior". Well of course we do in both cases - our faculty of reason is what sets us apart. This guy is basically saying " throw away what makes you human, and then you will find humans eat plants". This is so absurd for making a moral argument regarding animals on so many levels it would take 15 pages minimum to begin to explore all the angles of absurdity.


His argument is only to try to illustrate that we are not naturally eat meaters, like monkey ancestors that were mostly vegetarians. We do not have the natural tools, like mandibules and claws and etcs.. so to sum up is not our natural “nature” to eat milk after been baby e do not need cow milk to survive or to be health. We are brain washed since child to behave according to the majority.

Quote:
Its not even about being inferior necessarily, theres also the sentience aspect. If a pig wrote me a letter asking not to be eaten, I would consider it.


I do not see a logic, it's a moral question, I do not see damage on people eating meat when they have no other option for their survival, we have the choice and the knowlodge to feed healthier and again cheaper, but we for convenience, taste, tradition and etc.. we choose to eat from animals, to cause pain and suffering, do say me that the cow , day by day milk is sucked from their tits is a pleasure to them, we are causing animal pain for our pleasure, and just ignoring this fact.


Quote:
Again, another fail argument - where he was talking about how the diseases borne by plants come from shit. Well, many do. But he was absolutely lying when he implied that the shit in question came exclusively from industrialized farming. This guy knows dick all about agriculture. Of course if he was educated on how the world actually works, he wouldnt hold these extremist views and expect other humans to follow him on pain of incurring his "righteous wrath".


You are again failling to the arguments, usually you will not hear that a guy had a heart attack or other desease from being a vegetarian, like he said others factors include like alchool,stress, drugs. But you see a lot of health problems caused by meat and fat->dairy diet. Why he's an extremist I don't get it. Hes teaching people another reasonable view of our habits towards the use of animals.

Quote:
Whats next for this guy, kill all the humans so animals have their "territory" back? Thats how a lot of PETA people think anyway. These types of people who advocate force to implement their agendas are not good people, and they are not moral people, and they have no case to make that they are standing up for a good cause.


You are been irrational for those arguments, your health will be not decreased, your human enviroment will be be not depleted, in fact it will be inverse.

Quote:
This guy even bashed Descartes, who is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time - by using irrational arguments, unfounded assertions, straw men and red herring comments.


We can feed people well and healther, without resort to billions of animal killing every year
Irrational is what are we doing to the planet, we are consuming too much milk and meat for detrimental of our health and planet resources, the amount of deforastion that is taking place in Brazil to plant soy to feed cattle is imense.


Quote:
Also, the argument about how much animals eat and it is supposedly inefficient is a simplistic argument, that does not cover a great many cases - and in any case is completely irrelevant to the morality issue of eating animals and using animals. "Global Warming" and the danger it does or does not pose, and causes thereof are a different topic altogether and should be treated separately or the thread will go hopelessly off topic.


It's not a assumption, is fact that to produce 1kg of meat is more resource intensive that produce 1kg of vegetables(Around 15 times more intensive). And countries like Brazil are deforesting all forest to produce more grains to feed for cattle. While you can believe that this not affect you in USA it does, we are in the same planet, if we take out amazon forest to plant soy to feed cattle it will have a global impact. While you cannot think like that meat is a luxury, again, if the east countries(india,china and etcs) begin to eat like eurpeans and americans we will need 3 another planet earths.

Quote:
Lastly, he fails to make a case for why the well being of animals should be more important than the well being of humans. To put it in context, think of the well being of your own children or family. Would you seriously deny your children a better life due to the feelings of a cow or pig?


Again, not eating meat is less expensive and more healthier, you still blinded by what you want to see. Honestly I always had eat meat and dairy products/eggs, I always had a common sense that I knew about vegetables products and fruits being healther than meat/milk, After I grow up, I always had the moral awareness that delicious beef steak was with the pain of an animal that was slaved to that I had that delicous pleasure of taste. After many years of just ignoring the true, and inventing excuses like you are inventing, I realize that was not morally right what I was doing.
It's more health and economical advantagous to me do not eat meat and dairy products, I will be saving money in the future, and morally, I do not help to kill animals for my sake of taste. Because there are plenty of alternatives to meat/milk/eggs products.


Animal Ethics: "I tremble for my species when I reflect that god is just." Thomas Jefferson.
[Linked Image from the-kgb.com]