Nothing wrong with eating horses. Personally though, I do not eat cows and pigs, and would not generally eat horses unless I find myself in a stravation situation. I believe that there exists a kind of hierrachy between sentient animals, and creatures at the level of cat and above should not be eaten. So, deer, horse, dog, dolphins and monkeys should not be eaten. But I do continue to eat chicken and fish, which I consider to be at the lowest end of the sentient animal spectrum (though chicken are above fish). Gerbils, hamsters, and squirrels and rats are borderline creatures, I would refrain from eating them myself, but at the same time am not at all offended if others harvest and eat them. You know, I have sometimes wondered if my general conceptions and ideas regarding this eating scheme of mine makes good sense, logically or ethically. What do you guys think?
No offense, but it makes no sense at all. Animals are animals. A life is a life. It doesn't matter how big they are. How you think one life is worth more than another is beyond me. Do you think midgets and babies are worthless as well?
I must bow down to your great wisdom, Jhunter. "Animals are animals" and "A life is a life", are truly incredible insights to live by. I hope that you do not get sentenced to 20 years to life in maximum security prison for stepping on that leaf beetle on the sidewalk the other day...he was the proud father of 8,000 little leaf beetle children that you just orphaned. I hope you are proud of yourself. Oh, and watch out for the leaf beetle police department, they got a warrant out for you in Beetle City... Sarcasm aside, it is quite clear that there is some kind of hierarchy between living species in the animal kingdom. Do you value a forg's life more than a human being's? Or, let me make it easier for your addled, simpleton mind, would you value the life of a crayfish above that of a dolphin? If you had to make the choice, and it was all up to you, would you rather save a chimpanzee's life or that of a gecko's? What about a dog or a mouse? Are you stumped already? Of course there is some kind of hierarchy between sentient creatures, and this is something that is also felt and not just deduced through reasoning. What I wanted to present in this example is that this concept should be taken into account when deciding which animals would be more appropriate to harvest and eat and which animals have greater sentience and capacity for emotional experience, and therefore perhaps should not be eaten. There are differences.
Your clever attempt to be witty makes no sense at all. I never once said I cared about taking an animals life. You are the one that cares. Once again you are missing the entire point. I have no qualms over killing any animal for food. In fact these ridiculous questions seem like the ones that go on inside your own head. 1. You do not harvest animals. You harvest crops and raise animals. 2. You once again missed the entire point of my post. 3. You are an adult, you should learn how to carry on a civil conversation. Resorting to insults makes you look like a child. 4. You asked for our opinions, if you really didn't want it. Why ask? Or is that you only wanted people to agree with you? P.S. My question about the midgets and babies was actually a serious question and not sarcastic.
Interesting leap you make, Snoopingaround, between a "hierarchy" of animals and permission to eat them. I put it to you that an animal's capacity to suffer (I use the term broadly, as in "have its interests violated") could be what dictates how we should relate to it, rather than an arbitrary sense of who is more important. Jhunter's question about babies is a pertinent one, too. Newborns are less obviously sentient than many fully-grown animals. If sentience is what defines a being's value, I'd sooner eat a baby than a cow or a horse. So, anyway, I see no reason for horse slaughter to be less ethical than cattle slaughter.
It's not too logical...you're depending on your preconceptions about which animals are smart presumably based on your personal experiences with them and stories you might have heard in various media, but really, if such a system even makes sense in relation to whether something should be eaten, it should be more scientific. Fish, for instance, seem to be at the bottom of your list, but octopuses have an almost unrivalled capacity for learning mechanical tasks, and many species of fish are capable of remembering precise locations they've only been to once, and then the whole school thing has to require at least some measure of sentience. Cats and dogs are cute, but relatively stupid, unless you considering (slowly) learning tricks to be a sign of intelligence. I don't think there's any scientific data about whether or not animals have emotions, so again, not really logical to base whether or not you eat them on that. I'm not even sure "sentient" is the best way to describe these animals, since it implies a kind of awareness of consciousness rather than just consciousness itself, and I'm sure it doesn't follow the predictable but outdated model you suggest where mammals are at the top and fish are at the bottom. There's plenty of scientific data that complicates that viewpoint to the point where the whole thesis is questionable...
As you can see, I am not the only one who feels your logic is completely flawed. But, perhaps they as well have, "Addled, simpleton minds?"
I am a vegetarian, and the fact is that the slaughter and eating of American horses was happening for years in filthy, uncontrolled abattoirs for years before this law was passed. In places like France (as far as I know), the horses are raised for their meat and then slaughtered under the 'humane' (always a bit of an oxymoron that one- humane slaughter) conditions that are controlled by the health department and a number of other institutions. In America, however, because it was illegal to slaughter old rodeo, riding and recreational horses, they were shipped in awful conditions to unscrupulous places South of the border, where they were killed without any adherence to the protocol used for cows, chickens, sheep, etc. The fact that the law has been passed, I don't think will mean that any more horses will be killed, it does mean the horses who would have had to sit packed in a container for hours to cross the border and have their throats slit will now die in slightly cleaner, kinder conditions. I'm not happy that we condone the widespread capture and killing of any animal, but sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, which is what I think Obama has chosen. All of those horses would have died anyway, maybe now they can do it with a scrap of dignity. At the end of the day, the choice lies with the individual. If you think it's wrong to eat any kind of meat, then don't buy it. That's the only way greater society will ever truly evolve and reach enlightenment, when we all stop taking more than we need at the cost of the lives of others. This applies to more than just food. Peace.
I partially agree with you. There should be a more precise way in which to define "sentience" and we also should be more species specific in regards to defining which particular animals may potentially have greater sentience or less, rather than just relying on the broad category that they may be classified under. An octopus by the way is a mollusk, not a fish. I am aware of the relative intelligence of the octopus, and would conclude that they possess an appreciable level of intelligence by animal standards. So personally, I refrain from eating octopus, based on my theory. Also, even though there is a dearth of scientific studies in the area of determining animal emotions or senitence (and exact definitions may differ), I believe that it is self-evident that many animals have the capacity to experience emotions, and are indeed "sentient". I have a dog for example, an aussie shepard/ border colie mix named Jessie, and if I had to bet my life on the matter, I would bet that she has emotions and experiences some appreciable level of conciousness. In short, I would very much conclude that she has feelings and is a "sentient" being, and do not need to have scientific data to back up this claim. It is not merely a matter of opinion that many mammals (as well as species categorized under other classes) possess intelligence at different levels. You do not need to have scientific data as back up support for everything, otherwise you wouldn't be able to believe in almost anything, and then how would you get through your day? As to Jhunter's comment, arron89 did not say that my logic was "completely flawed", but rather that my general conceptions regarding the appropriate animals for consumption may be "questionable" as a stated thesis. This is a very scientifc-oriented view to take, and I fully agree with his stance on this matter. I am not entirely sure myself if my eating habits are logically and ethically completely sound. I may even decide to go vegetarian at a future date as an above poster has done. Now I will answer your question regarding midgets and babies. I believe that a baby has a greater inherent right to life than an adult midget does (because he/she is an adult and has experienced life and maturity), but if the midget is also a baby or young child, then they have exactly equal rights to life. Babies in general have a superior value in terms of the necessity of saving their lives as opposed to an elderly person for example. That is, if you were a firefighter and had to save one person from a burning building that was going to collapse, and unfortunately, tragically, you had to decide between an elderly person and a little child or baby as this house was burning to the ground, whom would you save? Your a "life is a life" simpleton nonsense then runs into some problems doesn't it? Personally, I would have to save the child's life. You might make a different decision (which in my opinion would be completely wrong if you chose the senior citizen over the baby). But that is what you believe and so I guess I can respect that everyone has their own opinions.
1. You are seriously missing out. Octopus is delicious. 2. I was talking about animals when I said, "A life is a life," you can clearly tell because I said, "Animals are animals," right before it. The only time I ever said anything about humans was when I asked your opinion on babies and midgets. I have been strictly talking about animals; that is what the discussion has been about. If you didn't have such a simpleton reading comprehension ability maybe you would have caught on to that. 3. You are finally starting to understand the point of my original post. You should be a vegetarian instead of a hypocrite with flawed logic and eating habits.
^Some good points Jhunter. I have actually seriously considered going vegetarian before. I just feel that there is at least some validity to my hierarchy of animal species idea. It makes at least some sense, IMO. One of my concerns though is lack of protein. I am training for MMA right now and am trying to get into having some amateur fights, and I need lots of protein for muscle building. So I intend to hold off on that change of diet for now, and stick to chicken and fish. But then, I may keep including chicken and fish in my diet even after my MMA career, so who knows.
I'm entirely confused by this talk of emotions. Are you talking about higher-order "human" emotions like love, hatred, embarrassment, et cetera? True, there's no consensus as to whether animals can feel these. What about primary responses like pleasure and pain, comfort and discomfort? Animals definitely feel these. Most behaviourist psychology was founded from animals' innate aversion to pain. Why is it more tragic to kill a human, whose love for life is shot through by complex emotional attachments, than a cow, who (as far as we can empirically tell) simply fears for its life and does not want it extinguished? Suppose a human was kept for years in a dungeon, totally deprived of contact with other beings, bereft of language with which to express herself, totally unaware that other beings existed, unaware of the joy of love or the drive of hate; if you then slaughtered that human, who was never allowed to feel emotional reactions greater than those of a non-human animal, would her death be of greater loss than that of a slaughtered cow? Or, indeed, of millions of cows slaughtered en masse? Also, if you watch your diet (as you should be doing anyway, if you're training for MMA), you won't lack anything, no matter what your diet is. From memory, Mac Danzig is a strict vegetarian, and there are a bunch of other MMA elites who don't eat meat either. Beans, grains, soya products and especially lentils are packed with protein. It's really not hard to live a healthy meat-free life when there's a supermarket within shopping distance.
Chug-a-lug a bunch of protein powder? Eat a bunch of beans? There is plenty of non-animal related protein out there. I have numerous vegan and vegetarian friends. They all do fine in the protein department. But I understand weight lifting takes as much protein as you can get. But they also make supplements for protein, so I do not see the problem. I personally don't care if you only want to eat chicken and fish (even for the reasons you have). It is your life, live it how you see fit and more power to you however you decide to live it. Normally I wouldn't comment on someones eating habits. But you brought up the discussion and asked for opinions. Also, I completely understand what you are trying to say about some other animals being more "aware" than others. And I agree with you on that 100%. I know for a fact that every dog that I have ever had, had completely different personalities. The two I currently have couldn't be more different. With the obvious exception of breed tendencies, they are very similar in that fashion. I was never arguing that point. But, I will not be redundant and reiterate my point again, seeing as you understand it now.
Actually, I have found there is a surprisingly large number of vegetarians and vegans in MMA, even among the elite fighters. More so than in the general American population. I’m not a vegan or vegetarian myself but I do think the whole protein thing is a red herring. Even without a bunch of supplements I think even a vegan can get the protein they need by proper planning.
Well it seems the sky's the limit. Is there anything you would not eat is propably a better question?
very true, but as far as food to eat, there is not mutch for boundries out their. i can not think of any right now that i whould not try atlest once.
