The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (PUBLIC) The Pub Best Speech You Will Ever Hear

The US way of farming and raising cattle may be different then how you do it in Brazil.

Most cattle are raised on grasses and hay. Here in Nebraska they are feed corn not as a main source of food but as a supplement. In fact The Great State of Nebraska produces 300 lbs of corn for every person in the US, so we do not have a lack of corn. Soybeans are not in short supply as we export 1/3 of what we produce. And lets not go into the federal government paying farmers not to produce grain crops.

We have whole factorys that do nothing but process pigs for Japan.

My grandfather died well into his 80s and he was a farmer, and I can tell you he didn't eat like a vegan.

What about the animals that would eat humans? Is that guy in the video going to lecture them about not eating humans?

Everything has a purpose, if all animals we simply put on this earth to live such as us, then why are their bodies viable for us to eat?

Does this also mean you will not take any medications and such that come from animals in one form or another? I personally think that guy is a self righteous crack job. But each to their own!

Mithus, you are confusing the efficiency argument with the morality argument. That is the biggest problem with your approach.

If you want to talk about whether the current paradigm of industrial animal farming makes economic sense, then a discussion can be had. It is true that there are segments of the industry that are inefficient, simply because the overall cost structure allows them to be.

Its your abolitionist/moral approach that fails and makes no sense.

I read the PDF you linked, and AGAIN - the writer says that " The position of the animal rights people is that we have no moral justification for using animals" etc etc... yet supplies no logic on why that should be the case. He says moral significance is independent of cognitive abilities.. but yet again gives no indication on WHY that should be the case.

Its all just how these people "feel" about the matter.

They try to assert that

1) animals have natural rights

2) that humans are morally wrong to deny animals of those natural rights

all without ever explaining why the animals have such rights, let alone why humans should face consequences for abrogating those rights.

Theyre stated purpose is to outlaw using animals. In other words they want to use the force of govt , guns and batons and jails, to ultimately enforce their "feelings" on the rest of mankind. I find this completely abhorrent and utterly despicable.

Derid I do not need say to you what is the moral justification for some people this X is right and some people think that Y is right.. repeating for 10th time now.. Moral justification is: inflicting unecessary pain on animals. If you do not understading what this implies ask your RL friends vegans that you know.

I really loved this quoted sentence:

"And I understand that it’s human nature to find that loophole – that flawed piece of an otherwise logical puzzle – that enables us to dismiss the whole of something as quackery, so we can throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I get that."


As people from 2 centuries ago didnt think that they have the right to own a slave, they think they were morally right and the same goes to other things that at time think as morally right for some many people..it was morally right that women should not have any rights to vote, history show that morals change with time.

I think the some of all of vegans think that enslave an animal to suck heir tits for like 7 years that is around what a milk cow producing lifespan and then using it to produce hambuger is morally not right.. i think this is the argument.. sounds not logic to you?

Also I'm not confunsing morality with efficiency.
Both are 2 different arguments used by vegans

It's several times more efficency to produce 1kg of assorted grains/vegetables/fruits than to produce the not grazzed cattle. Of course it's easier to produce cattle if he just eat bush, but I do not see the billions of chickens eating bush, they eat ration. So if you see the whole video you know how factory farm chickens act, and what they do to them to not canibalize themselves there.

Another thing you guys do not realize, is not that so few people that are adopting vegan style, for example here in Brazil a gov. company that I work and employs a good number of people, in the lunch you have the option to eat "VEGAN" food, soybean "hamburgers" and many options that do no use animal source as food. I'm sure that USA you have restaurants that have this option. The movment of vegans has few people but is growing, 10 years ago if I heard the word vegan I would not have a clue..

I see that is just the begining of jorney that many of you will think that is crazyness, but it's not, like some of you know, I'm taking law school here, the college put an discipline obrigatory: environmental sciences for law school.. I think what the time I saw this as obrigatory .. wtf.-> enviromental science for Law school as obrigatory.. guess what you had to hear for like hours about how meat producing is resource intensive and etcs.. etcs.. how water intensive is to produce 1KGB of meat from (chickesn,pigs,cows etcs) who teached us in the college this discipline: a PhD in Environmental Science

Wolfgand and Helemoto, animal agriculture is a enviromental disaster, and I learned that from this professor above in the college backed up by science, I'm not inventing things, the vegans are not inventing things, I was obliged to course this discipline and overall was after I coursed it I think it was worth of the time, because I learned things that I never thought before..

"Derid I do not need say to you what is the moral justification for some people this X is right and some people think that Y is right.. repeating for 10th time now.. Moral justification is: inflicting unecessary pain on animals."


No, you have not quantified what should be constitued as necessary, nor have you quantified why that statement taken as a whole in fact constitutes a moral justification - it doesnt.

That is the point. Just because you SAY something constitutes a moral justification, does not mean that it does. You have to logically explain WHY "inflicting unnecesarry pain" on animals in fact constitutes a moral issue. You ALSO, to have a real argument, need to fully quantify in very specific and yet universal terms what criteria must be used to classify pain as "necessary" which you and the whole PETA community has thus far failed to do.

And what I have just said thus far is just in response to the beginning of your post. Of course the rest of your post is just a rehash of the same unfounded arguments, so there is no point in discussing their failings further until and unless you can justify your basic premise re: morality of inflicting "pain" on animals.

Because your further arguments presuppose that animals are human, but they are not.

Also, as a footnote - in the past I have been all through this debate, inside and out. I have also debated the topic with PhD holding professors... except in my case it was not a passsive case of me listening and accepting a very one sided point of view, I actually have reasoned the issue out comprehensively and engaged in actual debate.

Needless to say, it was not a debate that I lost. To subsume human will and need to the perceived greater benefit of non human actors, the end result as a society and even a race can be nothing less than the eventual degradation and dissolution of the human race itself. If this is in fact your end goal, as many PETA types do in fact hope for - then subsuming human will and need to non humans indeed makes sense.

Since you are in school, I highly recommend taking some philosophy courses. You should read up on Descartes ( who CrazyGuy ignorantly bashes ), Kant and Hume for starters. Learn what constitutes actual moral philosophy before you buy into some crazy crackpot who gives you nothing more than faux moralism and a means to feel self-righteous.

I also guarantee that as a lawyer, understanding the reasoning and building your critical thinking skills will pay huge dividends in your career.

As you have just admitted, you just recently "learned things you never thought before". Well, before you accept this guy whole-hog, if he has the temerity to bash Descartes - shouldnt you at least do some due diligence ( a term I am sure you have heard by now as you chase your JD) and actually learn a thing or two about Descartes?

I have no doubt that learning Descartes will be good for me, and will help even more my arguments, because as more I rationalize and put the pieces together, more everything makes sense...

again the same key about "isms"...



what this sentence means, please enlight me man!

what is your argument to validate the exploitating of animal, why they cannot be compared to some degree to the same arguments about slavery o black people.. you that studdied so much about phylosophy..

I am big times meat eater, I would never consider going on a vegan diet. I do carefully watch my weight and cholesterol levels, so I do occasionally reduce my consumption of meat to nearly zero. You could probably make a case that reducing meat consumption in western world would net overall health benefits for the population (reduction of obesity, coronary diseases and so on).

Now, my approach to arguing for pro-vegetarian and pro-vegan diets would be that meat is much more energy and labor intensive process than plant food. You could feed a lot more people a vegetarian diet than meat-eating diet and with overpopulation and climate change I can foresee meat becoming an ultra-luxury item within 30 years.

Your arguments use circular logic based on assumption "inflicting /any/ unecessary pain on animals /is bad/."

Your argument, when distilled to its basics, boils down to following - inflicting pain is bad, we should avoid inflicting pain, growing animals for food is inflicting pain, and we shouldn't be inflicting pain so we shouldn't be growing animals for food.

This argument is problematic for two reasons, first you assume that inflicting pain on animals is bad. This assumption requires justification, you could approach it from universal morals point of view, i.e. we are all better off when there is no suffering; or sanctity of sentience and argue that even rudimentary sentience animals posses is precious and stress similarities between humans and animals; or you could abandon morals altogether and compare energy costs and environmental impact of vegan and meat-eating diets.

Second assumption in your argument is that growing animals for food constitutes inflicting pain, your argument that animals that otherwise wouldn't have existed would be better off not existing is questionable and require better justification.

Well, good luck. I hope you use some of the concepts I mentioned here to improve your argument.

Thank you Sinji you sumararized very well,
I would alike to add, your argument, puting aside with the technology advancing and the eviromental question arising about feed billions of people, people will in the future eat meat just for tradition. Some researchers say the taste of a food is more illusionary that you would think, will not be to long for the industries to mimics the same "taste, flavor, smell and meat,hamburger and others food. So in the future people will be eating an hamburger without really eating the real meat and they will do not know the difference.

while Mister Derid tried to complicate too much the arguments

I also have to thank Derid to open my mind to reasearch on Descarts:

He reasoned that if the animals felt pain then what was done to them would be so horrific that God would never allow it. Since God did, in fact, allow it, then it follows logically that dogs and rabbits don’t feel pain. There is no reason to think any other animals do, either. As Descartes went on to argue, animals don’t have souls, and without a soul, you can’t feel pain.

If this is the true about his animal views I do not want ever read more about his machinist theoery, he was a genius, Now I can sleep well eating meat.

I'm going to research more, this must be false about him.. I'm picturing Jetstar now about God.. and their presence on earth..

I know I'm late to the party but I thought I'd chime in.
Actually, milk cows suffer pain from distended bag and utters if not milked regularly. Clearly you've never witnessed a cow that has had a calf die, eagerly jump into the milking stall after not being milked for a couple of days.

Actually plants can be seen in time lapse video moving away from environments that they find unpleasant or harmful and towards healthy environs, just like animals only slower.

There are myriad resources available that show studies that suggest that humans are actually not equipt to digest grains. I'm just sayin.