# Not using any animal products



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I noticed in another thread that JLP mentions that he does not use any animal products. I do not want to cause that other thread to run too far off topic, so I am starting a new thread.

I am wondering how one goes about avoiding all animal products. What are your shoes and clothes made of? About about the interior of your car? Do you ask that the animal products be removed, or do you simply avoid buying any products that use animals? Do you play/watch sports that use a leather ball (or leather cleats)?

I am not trying to be critical of your assertion - I am just looking around myself and noticing the use of leather and wool everywhere. I think it would be very difficult to avoid using animal products.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

I do not avoid animal products, but some of my good friends do. They definitely differentiate between meat and leather on one side, and milk and wool on the other.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Pleasehelp, I was curious about that, also.

No leather shoes? No leather belts? No leather watchbands? No leather PANTS!?!?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

The definition and mission of veganism (per the original Vegan Society) is:



> A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. [In dietary terms the society defines Veganism as] The practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.


It is hence an ideal that we vegans do our best to live up to, though probably none of us is perfect. To avoid waste, I still use a few of the animal-derived products that haven't yet been cycled out of my life, such as a few pair of shoes that are remaining from many years ago. Their provenance is back in my pre-vegan days, and there would be little point in merely casting them atop humanity's collective rubbish pile. Since I have been a vegan, any new purchase has been entirely cruelty-free. There are many vendors which specialise in such products (like this one: .

Overall, it's a journey as much as a destination. One does one's best, day by day, to remove one's participation from the culture of animal exploitation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Everyone familiar with the jains? This is a religon where the most devoted actually sweep the ground before them to move any creatures less they step on them. One must define the level of life first. When I drink water, I am condemning MILLIONS of protozoa to a chemical death from my stomach acids. Am I tried like Saddam For gassing the Kurds? I try to keep my impact on Earth minimal without inflicting cruelty on my fellow travelers. Do I wear leather? Yes, knowing petrochemical Nikes destroy far more life than a domesticated species that would vanish if not used. But these explanations, excuses, et al are just that. When I do use animal products I follow an old custom of many primal peoples: I thank that animal.Ironically, we have more buffalo today than as of 1900. They are back because of economic opportunity and a superior 'product.' The few wild animals in yellowstone are being slowly reduced by a hypocritical policy without medical or livestock management foundation.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> The definition and mission of veganism (per the original Vegan Society) is:
> 
> It is hence an ideal that we vegans do our best to live up to, though probably none of us is perfect. To avoid waste, I still use a few of the animal-derived products that haven't yet been cycled out of my life, such as a few pair of shoes that are remaining from many years ago. Their provenance is back in my pre-vegan days, and there would be little point in merely casting them atop humanity's collective rubbish pile. Since I have been a vegan, any new purchase has been entirely cruelty-free. There are many vendors which specialise in such products (like this one: .
> 
> Overall, it's a journey as much as a destination. One does one's best, day by day, to remove one's participation from the culture of animal exploitation.


First off, thank you for the link. Have you been pleased with the quality of those shoes? Have you tried their hiking boots? I may look into buying a pair of their hiking boots if they are sufficiently waterproof.

Secondly, would you mind further elaborating on how you avoid using animal products? I know a fair number of Vegans, but I don't know any that avoid the use of wool. I also have often found that such Vegans have cars with leather interiors. You stated in your previous post (in the other thread) that you avoid all animal products, including wool - I wonder what substitutes you have found for suits, carpets, coats, etc.

Finally, what is your objection to using wool? Is the issue that the animals are raised in an inhumane manner, or that the animals would not be bred if not for their wool (and therefore we are not making optimal use of the land)?

Thank you.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

No leather seats in motorcars...no wool either. Hemp is an excellent substitute.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

No wool now either?? What do you wear, a barrel and suspenders....?

MrR


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> No wool now either?? What do you wear, a barrel and suspenders....?
> 
> MrR


Cotton and hemp will be the answer, grown in fields where mice, rabbits, moles, etc. are not killed in the plowing/discing/harvesting or if they are, well he tried not to have them killed, thus preserving the moral highground. Of course, no crop enhancers of petroleum base were used, the goods were transported to processing and then market by oxen...oh wait, that would be exploiting the ox....okay, carried on the backs of willing workers receiving a "living wage"....the workers were all vegans.....


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Because the world is imperfect doesn't mean it's not worth making an effort.



Wayfarer said:


> Cotton and hemp will be the answer, grown in fields where mice, rabbits, moles, etc. are not killed in the plowing/discing/harvesting or if they are, well he tried not to have them killed, thus preserving the moral highground. Of course, no crop enhancers of petroleum base were used, the goods were transported to processing and then market by oxen...oh wait, that would be exploiting the ox....okay, carried on the backs of willing workers receiving a "living wage"....the workers were all vegans.....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Because the world is imperfect doesn't mean it's not worth making an effort.


Ahhh yes, the effort is what makes him so moral. So if I try not to kill someone for stupidity 99 times and am successful at my restraint, does that forgive me the 100th time when I do kill him? No, sometimes just the effort is not what makes one morally superior, sorry.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Are there any issues with insect exploitation? 

Is the use or wearing of silk to be avoided?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Are vegetarians insensitive? I pulled a carrot from my garden once and swore I heard screaming.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Since I have been a vegan, any new purchase has been entirely cruelty-free.


The Interchange just became so much more clear.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Kav said:


> Are vegetarians insensitive? I pulled a carrot from my garden once and swore I heard screaming.


You mentioned Jains, and I believe there are some vegetables (potatoes?) that they won't eat...so perhaps.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> No leather seats in motorcars...no wool either. Hemp is an excellent substitute.


Do they really make non-casual clothes out of hemp? I could see cotton being an alternative in the summer, but I can't imagine a hemp suit for the winter.

Are there any particular manufacturers of cars that market towards people with your belief? I suppose that the carpets in most cars these days are probably synthetic, but what about the steering wheel and shift knob? I understand that in some cases leather is probably unavoidable - but do you know if there are any cars that avoid leather altogether?

Two further questions - (1) Do you avoid listening to music that is performed on instruments that are made of animal parts? (2) Do you oppose human population growth due to the detrimental effects on animals?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

There's a difference between willful murder and incidental mishaps. I wouldn't put accidentally stepping on a bug in the same category as your homocidal attack.

Hell, do what you want and live with it. What do I care?



Wayfarer said:


> Ahhh yes, the effort is what makes him so moral. So if I try not to kill someone for stupidity 99 times and am successful at my restraint, does that forgive me the 100th time when I do kill him? No, sometimes just the effort is not what makes one morally superior, sorry.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> There's a difference between willful murder and incidental mishaps. I wouldn't put accidentally stepping on a bug in the same category as your homocidal attack.


No, the act is secondary in your justification above. You said:



BertieW said:


> Because the world is imperfect doesn't mean it's not worth making an effort.


The effort is paramount, not the act in your logic. Now you are switching it to be the act, not the effort. You have to be consistent or the argument falls apart.



BertieW said:


> Hell, do what you want and live with it. What do I care?


Thank you for the permission and I do not know.

Regards


----------



## Jaguar (Feb 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ahhh yes, the effort is what makes him so moral. So if I try not to kill someone for stupidity 99 times and am successful at my restraint, does that forgive me the 100th time when I do kill him? No, sometimes just the effort is not what makes one morally superior, sorry.


You're telling us that you've never done anything just "on principle?" That's a shame, because it is the source of some of the most noble acts, both of commision and of ommision. Simply "making an effort" truly is worthwhile; it is part of reaching toward great things.

I would also argue that your analogy would be better suited if modified to: "...if I try not to kill people for stupidity, and am sucessful in my restraint 99 times out of a hundred..." I would argue that it's better (if not morally superior) to only kill one person than a hundred.

I'd also point out that 'morally superior' is your term. I don't see JLP bashing all of us wool- and leather-wearing denizens.

Regards,
Jaguar

ps. I live on a small farm. Running over animals when ploughing, harrowing, cultivating, spraying, et al. is exceptionally rare. I'm sure I run over insects and some baby mice, but most everything with legs gets out of Dodge because tractors are not particularly silent or light.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Just curious, how do you vegans feel about the principle of universality? What I mean by that is the principle that any moral position is only a good one if everybody in the world could abide by it. So, for example, with vegetarianism/veganism - if everyone in the world was a vegan or vegetarian, the result would be the mass extinction of domesticated animals, and the disappearance from earth of all domesticated crops, leading to massive disruption of the ecosystem, which most people agree would be a bad thing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jaguar said:


> ps. I live on a small farm. Running over animals when ploughing, harrowing, cultivating, spraying, et al. is exceptionally rare. I'm sure I run over insects and some baby mice, but most everything with legs gets out of Dodge because tractors are not particularly silent or light.


I grew up in farm land. Southern Ontario. Let a field go fallow with clover and then go look before you plow it under. Tell me a myriad of small cuddley creatures are not living there.



Jaguar said:


> I'd also point out that 'morally superior' is your term. I don't see JLP bashing all of us wool- and leather-wearing denizens.


Oh really? Why let me use JLP's own words:



> Having guilt pangs from devouring other sentient creatures, are you?


I think we have an ever so subtle insight to his moral characterization of eating meat, do we not?

Or this tid-bit:



> Overall, it's a journey as much as a destination. One does one's best, day by day, to remove one's participation from the culture of animal exploitation.


I do not know, I think inferring we are all part of a culture of exploitation has a certain moral content, do you not?

Let me add another JLP quote in reference to hunting:



> It's barbaric.


I think we have a fairly strong indication of JLP's thought on the moral character of that action, do you not?

Now let us toss in some hypocrisy.



> I would use animal-derivative medication only as a very last resort - and only for a serious condition.


I do not know, but if you can not hang tough with your moral stance when the situation is dire, you really do not seem to buy into them too much. (I will not even bother to mention animal testing and experimentation to develop medications not made from animal products.)

So there you have it in his words, not mine.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Just curious, how do you vegans feel about the principle of universality? What I mean by that is the principle that any moral position is only a good one if everybody in the world could abide by it. So, for example, with vegetarianism/veganism - if everyone in the world was a vegan or vegetarian, the result would be the mass extinction of domesticated animals, and the disappearance from earth of all domesticated crops, leading to massive disruption of the ecosystem, which most people agree would be a bad thing.


Think you are referencing Kant's good old "categorical imperative" there bud.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

The more I read this thread the more I think JLP is pulling our legs.

No wool? Hemp car interiors? plastic shoes?

Please

MrR


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Think you are referencing Kant's good old "categorical imperative" there bud.


Not to mention the fact that if nobody ate animals the world would not be able to sustain its population causing mass starvation and deaths among the human population. I can go on forever.

Basically, IMO, vegetarianism/veganism is immoral.


----------



## Jaguar (Feb 12, 2006)

Ok. Please bear in mind that I spoke of JLP not bashing us with his 'moral superiority.' I did not state nor did I imply that this issue is independent of morals.



Wayfarer said:


> I grew up in farm land. Southern Ontario. Let a field go fallow with clover and then go look before you plow it under. Tell me a myriad of small cuddley creatures are not living there.


I said they get out of Dodge, not that they were never there. Yes, obviously creatures live in fields. When one walks up gently one can see them, typically scampering off ahead. When one drives a 70hp tractor pulling an eight bottom, making all that noise and sending all those tremors through the ground, they scamper off faster. By and large, the animals that get killed are very young or ill. Sneaking up on a woodchuck is a particularly illustrative example, as well as an excercise in futility. Though, I admit I have no valid information about tiny underground voles and such, but it would be unlikely that they would not make any attempt to leave.



Wayfarer said:


> Oh really? Why let me use JLP's own words:


Ok. I haven't got the hang of multi-quote, so I'll put JLP's in quotation marks for the rest of the post.



Wayfarer said:


> "Having guilt pangs from devouring other sentient creatures, are you?"
> 
> I think we have an ever so subtle insight to his moral characterization of eating meat, do we not?


This was in response to certain...dialectical efforts. It is not an insulting statement, nor is it strictly false, so I fail to see the complaint. Of course he makes a 'moral characterization' out of eating meat, or else why bother with any of this? If he didn't feel it was morally wrong, what would be the point? This is beyond obvious.



Wayfarer said:


> Or this tid-bit:
> "Overall, it's a journey as much as a destination. One does one's best, day by day, to remove one's participation from the culture of animal exploitation."
> 
> I do not know, I think inferring we are all part of a culture of exploitation has a certain moral content, do you not?


Of course it has moral content, as per my paragraph above. That is the point. Further, there are many people who do small, non-mainstream things in their life that don't 'matter' in the large-scale sense. I think JLP is going one better.



Wayfarer said:


> Let me add another JLP quote in reference to hunting:
> 
> "It's barbaric."
> 
> I think we have a fairly strong indication of JLP's thought on the moral character of that action, do you not?


As a hunter, I respect his opinion. I once winged a quail (though I am an excellent shot with a scattergun), and when I found it, wounded, the only remaining 'decent' thing to do was to break its neck. It must be admitted by any measure of authenticity that this is pretty barbaric, yet it is a part of hunting that cannot be denied. I can easily understand someone being seriously, morally, put off by that. If they then merrily buy their hamburger in anonymous plastic, it's hypocrisy, as killing floors are not particularly more humane (and I'd argue that paradigm is less humane). If such people abstain to any significant level from meat and animal products, that's practicing what you preach. Regarding the moral character, I'd cite my point above again.

On a personal note, I wish hunters in general were less high and mighty about our beliefs, because it reflects badly upon us. (I do not know if you are or are not a hunter, and I didn't look).



Wayfarer said:


> Now let us toss in some hypocrisy.
> 
> "I would use animal-derivative medication only as a very last resort - and only for a serious condition."
> 
> I do not know, but if you can not hang tough with your moral stance when the situation is dire, you really do not seem to buy into them too much. (I will not even bother to mention animal testing and experimentation to develop medications not made from animal products.)


Or perhaps honesty would be a better term than hypocrisy? People who believe "Thou shalt not kill" might kill for their family, if it came to that choice. They might kill to save their own lives. I believe suicide is wrong, yet I can concieve a situation in which I might take my own life. None of us adhere 100% to what we believe. Our beliefs are aspirations, nothing more! Humans are in the business of trying to live up to our beliefs, not of succeeding.



Wayfarer said:


> So there you have it in his words, not mine.
> 
> Cheers


I still don't see that he's being high-and-mighty about 'moral superiority.' I see so much more in every other aspect of life that it is almost neglible on that side of the argument.

That said, I would have preferred responses to the larger, and doubtless more important parts of my earlier post, namely the issues concerning the worth of doing things on principle, or the value of efforts that will never reach a perfect goal, instead of a thorough fleshing out of apparent pedantic trivialites, as it only marginally raises the level of the dialectic if at all.

Regards,
Jaguar


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Good to have a dashed sensible chap like you aboard, Jaguar.



Jaguar said:


> Ok. Please bear in mind that I spoke of JLP not bashing us with his 'moral superiority.' I did not state nor did I imply that this issue is independent of morals.
> 
> I said they get out of Dodge, not that they were never there. Yes, obviously creatures live in fields. When one walks up gently one can see them, typically scampering off ahead. When one drives a 70hp tractor pulling an eight bottom, making all that noise and sending all those tremors through the ground, they scamper off faster. By and large, the animals that get killed are very young or ill. Sneaking up on a woodchuck is a particularly illustrative example, as well as an excercise in futility. Though, I admit I have no valid information about tiny underground voles and such, but it would be unlikely that they would not make any attempt to leave.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Jaguar!

Thank-you for your kind, empathetic, and rational comments. It's refreshing to know that my postings here are being read by thoughtful people.

Edit: Ditto, BertieW and Etienne, too.



Relayer said:


> Are there any issues with insect exploitation?
> 
> Is the use or wearing of silk to be avoided?


Yes, actually. No silk or honey - and organic produce whenever possible. Am I still responsible (directly and indirectly) for the deaths of many insects? Yes. But I go out of my way to avoid it.

But I harbour no ill-will toward vegetarians or vegans who aren't as strict as I am. Anything one can do helps...the more, obviously, the better.

I try to keep as small an ecological footprint as I can, whilst still being a functioning member of our modern society. My own habits have scarcely any impact on a global scale, but that doesn't bother me. We make up our minds and then do our best. Perhaps this is the essence of the meaning of life.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Not to mention the fact that if nobody ate animals the world would not be able to sustain its population causing mass starvation and deaths among the human population.


That's a rather strange statement. As far as I know vegetables are much more efficient in sustaining human life. If I remember correctly, it takes many pounds of grain to produce one pound of flesh (the precise amount depends on the species, chicken is the least inefficient, beef the worst). Actually, I have read people concerned about the current shift from vegetable-based diets to meat consumption in India and China, which has the potential of creating major shortages (the world currently produces much more than needed to feed everybody, but the future could be bleak).

By the way, I am not a vegetarian or a vegan and have no sympathy for that particular cause. But your argument against vegetarianism seems odd to me.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pleasehelp said:


> Do they really make non-casual clothes out of hemp? I could see cotton being an alternative in the summer, but I can't imagine a hemp suit for the winter.
> 
> Are there any particular manufacturers of cars that market towards people with your belief? I suppose that the carpets in most cars these days are probably synthetic, but what about the steering wheel and shift knob? I understand that in some cases leather is probably unavoidable - but do you know if there are any cars that avoid leather altogether?
> 
> Two further questions - (1) Do you avoid listening to music that is performed on instruments that are made of animal parts? (2) Do you oppose human population growth due to the detrimental effects on animals?


I drive a comparatively modest motorcar that is, as far as I know, devoid of any wool or leather. The steering wheel and shift knobs are not made of animal bone, leather, or any other animal part. It seems such motorcars are the rule, rather than the exception, though I haven't bought one in some time, so perhaps things have changed, and leather is now standard.

I avoid listening to most of what passes for music, in general. I listen to old phonographic recordings of baroque, classical, and romantic favourites, and from time to time work on my own languishing classical compositions.

Human population growth is profoundly damaging to our environment, and is perhaps the most symbolic effect of our collective gluttony. It is getting to be a radical situation and will eventually call for ever-more radical measures (such as sterilisation drugs and abortions) if we are to avoid mass die-offs. The first-world militaries are, for the time being, able to help us hoard resources in an age of scarcity, but once oil peaks (_QED_), this advantage of ours will wane shockingly fast. If everyone switched to a vegan diet, the agricultural lands (80 per cent or so) that would be opened up to growing food for humans instead of livestock would enable those currently starving to have regular meals...not to mention the fresh water (in the U.S., 50%) that currently goes to livestock being raised for meat.

Edit: Etienne, quite so. We must have posted at the same time. Wikipedia has an excellent article about environmental vegetarianism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Just curious, how do you vegans feel about the principle of universality? What I mean by that is the principle that any moral position is only a good one if everybody in the world could abide by it. So, for example, with vegetarianism/veganism - if everyone in the world was a vegan or vegetarian, the result would be the mass extinction of domesticated animals, and the disappearance from earth of all domesticated crops, leading to massive disruption of the ecosystem, which most people agree would be a bad thing.


It is hard to make sense of what you propose. I cannot speak for all vegans, but I haven't known any who believe that they would only be 'good' if everyone else were vegan too. That is nonsensical.

I also don't see how you forecase the 'mass extinction' of domesticated animals. Most livestock is bred for the express purpose of being slaughtered. If everyone were vegan, it would be safe to say that such animals would no longer be aggressively bred, but given grazing lands and looked after.

The part about crops disappearing makes me think that your post wasn't serious at all.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Kav said:


> When I drink water, I am condemning MILLIONS of protozoa to a chemical death from my stomach acids.
> 
> Do I wear leather? Yes, knowing petrochemical Nikes destroy far more life than a domesticated species that would vanish if not used.
> 
> When I do use animal products I follow an old custom of many primal peoples: I thank that animal.


What kind of water do you drink? It doesn't sound very fresh. But even if you were to drink them, they are vegan because they are in the kingdom of Protozoa, not Animalia.

There are choices of footwear besides leather and Nike, such as those here: https://www.ecomall.com/biz/foot.htm

It is good you thank the dead animal, but I doubt that it does the animal much good. The obvious analogy would be, what if someone killed you, stole all your possessions, but then thanked you posthumously? Would your ghost say, 'you're welcome'?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Indeed.

LOL. A great post to start the day.

But I suspect forum focus will soon shift from animals to congressional subpoenas.



JLPWCXIII said:


> What kind of water do you drink? It doesn't sound very fresh. But even if you were to drink them, they are vegan because they are in the kingdom of Protozoa, not Animalia.
> 
> There are choices of footwear besides leather and Nike, such as those here: https://www.ecomall.com/biz/foot.htm
> 
> It is good you thank the dead animal, but I doubt that it does the animal much good. The obvious analogy would be, what if someone killed you, stole all your possessions, but then thanked you posthumously? Would your ghost say, 'you're welcome'?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jaguar said:


> By and large, the animals that get killed are very young or ill.


Well, if it is the effort or the principle of this, as you and BertieW are putting foward, I would submit the killing of the young and ill is even more dastardly, making the act even more immoral!



Jaguar said:


> Or perhaps honesty would be a better term than hypocrisy? People who believe "Thou shalt not kill" might kill for their family, if it came to that choice. They might kill to save their own lives. I believe suicide is wrong, yet I can concieve a situation in which I might take my own life. None of us adhere 100% to what we believe. Our beliefs are aspirations, nothing more! Humans are in the business of trying to live up to our beliefs, not of succeeding.


This was in reference to JLP saying he would use "animal derived" medications if gravely ill. Again I ask, if one claims to certain aspirations yet gives them up when there is a situation that really tests your mettle, you are just a hypocrite. Sorry, but I believe it is precisely the act of sticking to your principles under pressure that demontrates what a person is made of. I have been in the OR when Jehovah's Witnesses stroked out on the table as they would not accept a blood transfusion and also seen them die slowly from aplastic syndromes and not taking blood. Now there is someone that stuck to their guns. By his own admission, JLP would take the blood in similar circumstances. Sorry, I can not find honour or integrity in that.



Jaguar said:


> That said, I would have preferred responses to the larger, and doubtless more important parts of my earlier post,* namely the issues concerning the worth of doing things on principle, or the value of efforts that will never reach a perfect goal,* instead of a thorough fleshing out of apparent pedantic trivialites, as it only marginally raises the level of the dialectic if at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Jaguar


Please see my thread on pressing "1". You will note the many, many posts that failed to support a principled stand. I am still not pressing "1".

It is cute to see the current love fest and singling supporters out by name. That is a new development and maybe we can have a group hug on each thread where the people backing each other sing kumbiya?

Regards


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I rationalize eating animals because many animals are carnivores themselves. Our cat, for instance, eats nothing but meat and would starve if we put out only vegetables for her. There are other animals that are strictly herbivores. Humans could have been made that way, but we weren't.

But the truth is I love eating meat.

A little tangent to the the furry-critters-being-plowed-under issue: I was talking to a farmer once and asked him about crop rotation and leaving a field fallow, He said, "Sure, I could do that. If you want me on welfare." On the small farms in my state, no fields are left unplanted.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I rationalize eating animals because many animals are carnivores themselves. Our cat, for instance, eats nothing but meat and would starve if we put out only vegetables for her. There are other animals that are strictly herbivores. Humans could have been made that way, but we weren't.
> 
> But the truth is I love eating meat.
> 
> A little tangent to the the furry-critters-being-plowed-under issue: I was talking to a farmer once and asked him about crop rotation and leaving a field fallow, He said, "Sure, I could do that. If you want me on welfare." On the small farms in my state, no fields are left unplanted.


crs, the answer to that will be the following (and I might not get this perfect, it has been a long time since I tortured myself thinking of Peter Singer): Human are moral agents, animals moral recipients (I'm sure that lingo is not quite right). This means it is okay for animals to eat animals, but wrong for people to. Kudos on your honesty.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> It is hard to make sense of what you propose. I cannot speak for all vegans, but I haven't known any who believe that they would only be 'good' if everyone else were vegan too. That is nonsensical.
> 
> I also don't see how you forecase the 'mass extinction' of domesticated animals. Most livestock is bred for the express purpose of being slaughtered. If everyone were vegan, it would be safe to say that such animals would no longer be aggressively bred, but given grazing lands and looked after.
> 
> The part about crops disappearing makes me think that your post wasn't serious at all.


Read Kant. Basically, he proposes that an action is only moral if everyone in the world can engage in that action and the results are still good. Applying that philosophy to veganism, if everyone in the world were to engage in veganism, the results would be disastrous to the environment. It's not saying that vegans have to believe that everyone should be vegan for it to be good, it simply asks the question "What if everyone were vegan? Would the result be good?" The answer, in this particular case, is overwhelmingly - no.

If this philosophy is above your ability to understand it (which your post indicates), well then, there's nothing I can do for you.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Read Kant. Basically, he proposes that an action is only moral if everyone in the world can engage in that action and the results are still good. Applying that philosophy to veganism, if everyone in the world were to engage in veganism, the results would be disastrous to the environment. It's not saying that vegans have to believe that everyone should be vegan for it to be good, it simply asks the question "What if everyone were vegan? Would the result be good?" The answer, in this particular case, is overwhelmingly - no.


I have read Kant. Why do you think everyone being vegan would be disastrous to the environment?

From your previous post:


> What I mean by that is the principle that any moral position is only a good one if everybody in the world could abide by it.


From this little exchange, it seems doubtful whether you understand Kant's categorical imperative or, indeed, grasp the fundamentals of inductive logic. The basic 'maxim' of veganism (as I've implied both here and in other threads) is rooted in deontological (duty-based) ethics. That means it is morally valid without regard to the magnitude of any one individual's impact. Kant wouldn't mind, since according to him, the consequences are immaterial to the moral aspect of the discussion anyway.

With me so far? Good.

If we are to accept Kant's flawed meta-ethical calculus as a premiss, then we must additionally consider the following formulations, firstly:

'Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.'

So - imagine everyone vegan. Nice! Radically reduced CO2 emissions, which equates to reduced global warming; reduced cruelty; more arable land and freshwater available to nourish the human population.

Still with me? Good.

The second formulation: 'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end'.

Ah - it seems Kant wasn't a Republican or a libertarian. We see that universal veganism remains strong here, since by being vegan you are reducing your ecological footprint, thus respecting the needs of your fellow humans as well as the rights of animals.

Onward to the third formulation:

'So act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends'. Sure - cleaner earth, no more genocide of animals. Seems like a nice kingdom of ends to me.

Funnily enough, Kant himself, even though he did not view animals as being morally significant, still condemned mistreatement of them:

'If [man] is not to stifle human feelings, he must practice kindness toward animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of man by his treatment of animals.' -_Lectures on Ethics_


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Like I said before - if we were all to become vegans, it would cause the extinction of domesticated species who cannot live in the wild (you really think we're going to let these things graze on their own and live happily on their own in the grazing lands?) The extinction of domesticated animals and the increased farming we're going to have to engage in will lead to massive disruptions of the ecosystem. It's much crueler to the species, in my opinion, to eradicate it completely then to kill one every now and then to eat it. It's my opinion that vegetarianism and moreso veganism is a privilege of modern affluence. 

I do not support "cruelty" towards animals, but I guess we just have a different definition of cruelty means.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> ....no more genocide of animals.


Ah yes, no bashing of us meat eaters what so ever Jaggy.....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Odor, something to check into is the marginal to non-arable land that cattle is often grazed on. They are producing food meat on land that would not be sustainable for farming, hence actually taking more land out of productive food use. This goes for millions of acres in areas of the Southwest where I live and vast areas in other continents. Think of the cattle herding nomads in places like Mongolia, etc.

Regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Odor, something to check into is the marginal to non-arable land that...


Wish I could do more research on the topic, but I do have a job after all that puts significant constraints on the use of my time, taking away from the important activity of having internet debates on all sorts of interesting topics


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Wish I could do more research on the topic, *but I do have a job after all that puts significant constraints on the use of my time, *taking away from the important activity of having internet debates on all sorts of interesting topics


Heh, why do you think I delegated the research to you?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

odoreater said:


> Like I said before - if we were all to become vegans, it would cause the extinction of domesticated species who cannot live in the wild (you really think we're going to let these things graze on their own and live happily on their own in the grazing lands?) The extinction of domesticated animals and the increased farming we're going to have to engage in will lead to massive disruptions of the ecosystem. It's much crueler to the species, in my opinion, to eradicate it completely then to kill one every now and then to eat it. It's my opinion that vegetarianism and moreso veganism is a privilege of modern affluence.
> 
> I do not support "cruelty" towards animals, but I guess we just have a different definition of cruelty means.


(Yet) Again:



> Animals fed on grain and those which rely on grazing need more water than grain crops [1]. According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. . In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [3]


 Thus your 'increased' farming claim directly contradicts science and economics.

It is extremely unlikely that everyone in the world would become vegan, but if such a miraculous event occurred, it would hardly be a great burden to permit the contemporary population of meat-raised animals to live out the remainder of their lives in peace, and die natural deaths. Additionally, your opinion that such a natural death is 'more cruel' than the slaughterhouse is divorced from both reason and experience.

I also notice that you completely ignored my refutation of your feeble Kantian argument - as well as my second invitation to you to support your claims of environmental apocalypse in the universal veganism scenario.

More food for thought:



> A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, compares the CO2 production resulting from various human diets. They find that a person switching from the typical American diet to a vegan diet would, on average, reduce CO2 production significantly more than switching from a Toyota Camry to a hybrid, Toyota Prius. [1] Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other serious environmental harms, as well as various health issues such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and others [2].


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I also notice that you completely ignored my refutation of your feeble Kantian argument - as well as my second invitation to you to support your claims of environmental apocalypse in the universal veganism scenario.


I thought by writing "I have a job, yada yada yada" that you would get the picture that I don't really wish to engage in any kind of debate that would require research, etc. If you have the time to sit there citing sources, websites, studies, whatever, it looks pretty stupid if I just argue off the top of my head while taking 5 minute breaks from a job that, like I said earlier, imposes a significant constraint on my time (for those that don't know, I'm an associate at a big law or biglaw firm and I work associates hours).

If you want to be a vegan, fine, no skin off my back. I believe in the principles of "do what thou wilt" and you have every right to be a vegan. I just happen to think that it's silly.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

odoreater said:


> I thought by writing "I have a job, yada yada yada" that you would get the picture that I don't really wish to engage in any kind of debate that would require research, etc. If you have the time to sit there citing sources, websites, studies, whatever, it looks pretty stupid if I just argue off the top of my head while taking 5 minute breaks from a job that, like I said earlier, imposes a significant constraint on my time (for those that don't know, I'm an associate at a big law or biglaw firm and I work associates hours).
> 
> If you want to be a vegan, fine, no skin off my back. I believe in the principles of *"do what thou wilt"* and you have every right to be a vegan. I just happen to think that it's silly.


Do what thou wilt. Isn't that from Aleister Crowley?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

odoreater said:


> The extinction of domesticated animals and the increased farming we're going to have to engage in will lead to massive disruptions of the ecosystem.


I do not quite follow you. The extinction of "domesticated" species is not a significant loss to biodiversity. Farming would be reduced (not increased) if all humans refrained from eating meat, an additional benefit to the environment.

I do not know what it means to be cruel to a species, but I do know what it means to be cruel to individuals. No individual animals would be slaughtered in such a shift.

I do not support vegetarianism but your arguments against it are rather strange.


----------



## Il Canzoniere (Feb 19, 2006)

So would vegans support an immediate ban on all medical research and drug testing that involves animals?


Il Canzoniere


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Il Canzoniere said:


> So would vegans support an immediate ban on all medical research and drug testing that involves animals?
> 
> Il Canzoniere


I can't speak for all vegans, but I myself would, yes.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I can't speak for all vegans, but I myself would, yes.


Thats brilliant....

Let's sacrifice human life to save animals. Perhaps you could volunteer to be a test subject JLP, in liu of Chee-chee the monkey.

MrR


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

I am an animal. I eat meat. God can judge me as he will.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Thats brilliant....
> 
> Let's sacrifice human life to save animals. Perhaps you could volunteer to be a test subject JLP, in liu of Chee-chee the monkey.
> 
> MrR


'Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.'

_*-Professor Charles R. Magel

*_


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> 'Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.'
> 
> _*-Professor Charles R. Magel
> 
> *_


Gee, perhaps he meant they're physiologically similar while not morally similar.

MrR


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> Gee, perhaps he meant they're physiologically similar while not morally similar.
> 
> MrR


'Those who argue that painful experimentation on animals should be halted, or at least curtailed, maintain that pain is an intrinsic evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply not morally permissible. Pointing to the words of the nineteenth-century utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, animal welfare advocates claim that the morally relevant question about animals is not "Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer ?" And, animals do in fact suffer, and do in fact feel pain. The researcher who forces rats to choose between electric shocks and starvation to see if they develop ulcers does so because he or she knows that rats have nervous systems much like humans and feel the pain of shocks in a similar way. Pain is an intrinsic evil whether it is experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal.

Moreover, it is argued, the lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of respect. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to act rationally. Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or sexism. The right to be treated with respect rests, rather, on a creature's being a "subject of a life," with certain experiences, preferences, and interests. Animals, like humans, are subjects of a life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain.'

From:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm a vegetarian and have been one since 1993.

But I still have horrific recollection of a time, many years ago, when I was a young scientist who regarded animals as disposable. We performed many experiments, and did our best to respect the animals (given what we perceived them to be: subject to our whim). But let's just say the process of extracting a rat's brain for dissection and centrifuge should not be left to the tender mercies of a novice. What a nightmarish scenario. It still makes me sick to contemplate. I can see it all quite vividly: The tiny body twisting as we perfused the blood over a sink, replacing it with formaldahyde; cracking into the skull to extract the small brain itself. The rest is best left unsaid.

I still have colleagues in the field but I can never get near the vivisection table again. A clinical horror.



JLPWCXIII said:


> 'Those who argue that painful experimentation on animals should be halted, or at least curtailed, maintain that pain is an intrinsic evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply not morally permissible. Pointing to the words of the nineteenth-century utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, animal welfare advocates claim that the morally relevant question about animals is not "Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer ?" And, animals do in fact suffer, and do in fact feel pain. The researcher who forces rats to choose between electric shocks and starvation to see if they develop ulcers does so because he or she knows that rats have nervous systems much like humans and feel the pain of shocks in a similar way. Pain is an intrinsic evil whether it is experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal.
> 
> Moreover, it is argued, the lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of respect. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on an ability to reason. An insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet he or she may not be able to act rationally. Nor does a right to be treated with respect rest on being a member of a certain species. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race, those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or sexism. The right to be treated with respect rests, rather, on a creature's being a "subject of a life," with certain experiences, preferences, and interests. Animals, like humans, are subjects of a life. Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain.'
> 
> ...


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

BertieW said:


> I'm a vegetarian and have been one since 1993.
> 
> But I still have horrific recollection of a time, many years ago, when I was a young scientist who regarded animals as disposable. We performed many experiments, and did our best to respect the animals (given what we perceived them to be: subject to our whim). But let's just say the process of extracting a rat's brain for dissection and centrifuge should not be left to the tender mercies of a novice. What a nightmarish scenario. It still makes me sick to contemplate. I can see it all quite vividly: The tiny body twisting as we perfused the blood over a sink, replacing it with formaldahyde; cracking into the skull to extract the small brain itself. The rest is best left unsaid.
> 
> I still have colleagues in the field but I can never get near the vivisection table again. A clinical horror.


If the research led to innovations in medicine and science that in turn saved human lives, does that not make such actions morally permissible?

I think some people have difficulty diffrentiating between humans and animals.

MrR


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> If the research led to innovations in medicine and science that in turn saved human lives, does that not make such actions morally permissible?
> 
> I think some people have difficulty diffrentiating between humans and animals.
> 
> MrR


And yet others have difficulty differentiating between deontological and teleological ethics. Pray tell, who has the moral authority to arbitrarily sacrifice one sentient being for another, without consent?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> And yet others have difficulty differentiating between deontological and teleological ethics. Pray tell, who has the moral authority to arbitrarily sacrifice one sentient being for another, without consent?


So you are coming down firmly on the side of deontology then and rejecting teleology?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

And pray tell us you've personally inspected working conditions at a hemp farm? Did the foreman make a sexual inuendo to a struggling mother of 3? Was the porta potty regularly serviced? Ethics and personal morality can spin into a abbyss even smaller than the elements of physics. " This is the real world muchachos, and we are in it."- B. Traven


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

No wool? What a lovely wardrobe that must make.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> No wool? What a lovely wardrobe that must make.


https://www.downbound.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PWT-E-SC4

"Here's a tip for wearing stylish organic hemp wedding and business attire: let the wrinkles live naturally-they are part of hemp's attractive character!"

Riiight.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Can you smoke it after you wear it?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Pointing to the words of the *nineteenth-century utilitarian, *Jeremy Bentham....


Well it took awhile, but I knew it would come out. Keep in mind this thread is an offshoot of the Deer Hunting thread where I said right from the start:



Wayfarer said:


> This argument of morality or ethics being tied to veganism *always breaks down to a pretty weak argument based on utility *in a Singeresque style.


God, the old boy knew where it was headed from the starting line.

Cheers


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Pray tell, who has the moral authority to arbitrarily sacrifice one sentient being for another, without consent?


If you believe that the life of a rat is as important as the life of a human being than I can no longer carry on a meaningful discussion with you.

Perhaps you should seek an immediate psych eval; both for your break from reality and for your narcissism.

MrR


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> https://www.downbound.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PWT-E-SC4
> 
> "Here's a tip for wearing stylish organic hemp wedding and business attire: let the wrinkles live naturally-they are part of hemp's attractive character!"
> 
> Riiight.


"You've got organic good looks, but this vegan organic hemp suit jacket is what you need to jack up your style at any wedding or business function."

Paired together with pleather shoes explains why JLP has little to contribute to the main forums.

MrR


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Kav said:


> And pray tell us you've personally inspected working conditions at a hemp farm? Did the foreman make a sexual inuendo to a struggling mother of 3? Was the porta potty regularly serviced? Ethics and personal morality can spin into a abbyss even smaller than the elements of physics. " This is the real world muchachos, and we are in it."- B. Traven


Yes; No; and Yes.

As for your 'real-world' truism, you seem to be widely missing the point that we humans have a large amount of control over the quality of life in it.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> https://www.downbound.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PWT-E-SC4
> 
> "Here's a tip for wearing stylish organic hemp wedding and business attire: let the wrinkles live naturally-they are part of hemp's attractive character!"
> 
> Riiight.


It's not a garmet I would choose to wear, but it is still more ethical than wool:

'In Australia, the most commonly raised sheep are merinos, who are specifically bred to have wrinkled skin, which means more wool per animal. This unnatural overload of wool causes animals to die of heat exhaustion during hot months, and the wrinkles also collect urine and moisture. Attracted to the moisture, flies lay eggs in the folds of skin, and the hatched maggots can eat the sheep alive. In order to prevent this condition, called "flystrike," Australian ranchers perform a barbaric operation-_mulesing_-by carving huge strips of skin and flesh off the backs of unanesthetized lambs' legs and around their tails. This is done to cause smooth, scarred skin that won't harbor fly eggs, yet the bloody wounds often get flystrike before they heal. Under the threat of an international boycott of Australian wool products, wool-industry officials have said that they will find an alternative to mulesing and will phase out the practice by 2010.(4) One farmer-who successfully protects his sheep from flystrike by using a combination of fly traps, chemical sprays, breed selection, and grazing management-attributed the industry's resistance to giving up mulesing to "a bit of old-boys'-club arrogance in a once-grand industry that is now struggling a bit."(5)'

'Sheep are sheared each spring, after lambing, just before some breeds would naturally shed their winter coats. Timing is considered critical: Shearing too late means wool loss. In the rush, many sheep die from exposure after premature shearing.
Shearers are usually paid by volume, not by the hour, which encourages fast work without regard for the sheep's welfare. Experienced shearers clip more than 350 sheep in one day, and that pace is maintained for up to four weeks.(6,7)'

'When sheep age and their wool production declines, they are sold for slaughter. This results in the cruel live export of millions of sheep every year to the Middle East and North Africa. In January 2006, in conjunction with Animals Australia, PETA conducted an undercover investigation to expose the handling and slaughter conditions endured by sheep who are exported to these destinations from Australia.

'Contrary to claims made by the Australian government and live-export industry that animals are treated humanely, investigators found that sheep and cows were dragged off trucks by their ears and legs and left to die in barren feedlots. They were bound and thrown into the trunks of cars, and they were slaughtered in prolonged and cruel ways that are illegal in the United States, Europe, and Australia.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> If you believe that the life of a rat is as important as the life of a human being than I can no longer carry on a meaningful discussion with you.


You've yet to prove that you're even capable of carrying on a meaningful discussion. Yet, I'll give you one more chance to do so:

If your contention is that some animals are more valuable than others, due to (presumably?) their intelligence, then I'm sure you have volounteered to be killed for your organs when someone more intelligent than you needs them in a medical emergency. Right? Because surely you aren't being a hypocrite...God forbid.



MrRogers said:


> "You've got organic good looks, but this vegan organic hemp suit jacket is what you need to jack up your style at any wedding or business function."
> 
> Paired together with pleather shoes explains why JLP has little to contribute to the main forums.
> 
> MrR


It is sad that you have chosen the low road in every post of yours on this thread.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Vegan, head to toe:


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> 'Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.'
> 
> Professor Charles R. Magel


That's an incredibly weak argument. You can do experimentations on eggs, for example, for some eye products, or on some other substitutes. yet nobody, as far as I know, denies that there is a fundamental difference between a living mammal and an unfecundated egg.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> That's an incredibly weak argument. You can do experimentations on eggs, for example, for some eye products, or on some other substitutes. yet nobody, as far as I know, denies that there is a fundamental difference between a living mammal and an unfecundated egg.


To what eggs do you refer?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> To what eggs do you refer?


Hen egg yokes are used for some experimentations because they are similar to the cornea. Many tests are conducted in vitro as well. In all those cases you could have the same soundbite you used for animal experimentation (we experiment on that because it is similar to the human cell or human cornea, yet we have few qualms killing an unfecundated hen egg or, erm, a few proteins?).

You'll find quite a lot of documentation on https://www.frame.org.uk


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Hen egg yokes are used for some experimentations because they are similar to the cornea. Many tests are conducted in vitro as well. In all those cases you could have the same soundbite you used for animal experimentation (we experiment on that because it is similar to the human cell or human cornea, yet we have few qualms killing an unfecundated hen egg or, erm, a few proteins?).
> 
> You'll find quite a lot of documentation on https://www.frame.org.uk


The original quotation refers to animals, to natural animal products such as hen eggs. If they are obtained in a cruelty-free environment, they would seem acceptable for vital medical research (as opposed to frivolous experiments). I also support stem cell research.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Yes, your quotation was refering to animals. But the argument is, to put it charitably, very weak. The very same point could be made for any way to conduct an experiment.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> It's not a garmet I would choose to wear, but it is still more ethical than wool:


Not ALL wool collection is cruel, and I didn't see a comprehensive survey of shearing practices around the world on their site.

I visited the Peta mall in hopes of finding a decent looking vegan suit to no avail. The two clothing orientated store links seem to carry nothing but sweatshirts, t-shirts and running shoes, emblazoned with animal rights propaganda. Classy.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> If you believe that the life of a rat is as important as the life of a human being than I can no longer carry on a meaningful discussion with you.
> 
> Perhaps you should seek an immediate psych eval; both for your break from reality and for your narcissism.
> 
> MrR


"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."
Ingrid Newkirk, PETA


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

fenway said:


> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."
> Ingrid Newkirk, PETA


I wouldn't eat rat, dog, or boy - but I sure love pig. Mmm.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> .....but I sure love pig. Mmm.


MURDERER and CANNIBAL!!!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

odoreater said:


> I wouldn't eat rat, dog, or boy - but I sure love pig. Mmm.


I agree with that sentiment. No one call convince that me the good Lord did not create the pig primarily for our dining pleasure.

(Bar-B-Q means pork)


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Yup. I agree. In fact, I think it's why He probably sent Jesus back to Earth - to let us know to stop mucking around and start eating pig. In that regard, one can almost say that Jesus gave us Bar-B-Q - and Taylor Ham.


----------



## Il Canzoniere (Feb 19, 2006)

JLP,

Is HRH The Prince of Wales committing as heinous an act of murder every time he goes fox hunting and takes the life of a fox, as when any given serial killer takes the life of a human being? 


Il Canzoniere


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I will be eating pork chops later today. However, only G. Gordon Liddy eats a rat.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> 'Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.'
> 
> _*-Professor Charles R. Magel
> 
> *_


'Ask the experimenters why they experiment on crash test dummies, and the answer is: 'Because the crash test dummies are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on crash test dummies, and the answer is: 'Because the crash test dummies are not like us.' Crash test dummy experimentation does not rest on a logical contradiction.'

-pleasehelp

I think that people can make strong arguments against testing on animals, but I do not think that Prof Magel's argument holds water.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

crs said:


> I will be eating pork chops later today. However, only G. Gordon Liddy eats a rat.


"Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R and R was cold rice and a little rat meat."

Captain Willard
- Apocalypse Now
​


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

fenway said:


> "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."
> Ingrid Newkirk, PETA


Perhaps exterminators should be given life sentences for the thousands of "murders" they commit annually.

A rat, a pig, and a dog are not human beings

MrR


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hey JPLW, anyone ever share the old prase 'You can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar?' -OOPS! that would be cruel to the flies. Anyway, the tone of your posts spoils all merit of argument they may contain. I believe FAILURE is listed in the same online reference you kindly provided me for hypocrite.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> Not ALL wool collection is cruel, and I didn't see a comprehensive survey of shearing practices around the world on their site.


Giving the sheep organic feed does not mean that the process isn't cruel. There is nothing on that site that says they don't injure sheep or eventually sell them off to be slaughtered. 'Organic' egg farms still kill off the majority of male chicks during the breeding process, for example.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Il Canzoniere said:


> JLP,
> 
> Is HRH The Prince of Wales committing as heinous an act of murder every time he goes fox hunting and takes the life of a fox, as when any given serial killer takes the life of a human being?
> 
> Il Canzoniere


Yes, indeed.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It seems no one is even maintaining the pretense of being serious anymore here, so I'm ending my participation in this thread.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> It seems no one is even maintaining the pretense of being serious anymore here, so I'm ending my participation in this thread.


 
I thought that your first post was "All aboard the silly train!", no?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I think most reasonable and rational people have a hard time taking anyone seriously who believes that killing rats is on par with killing people. That's such an absurdly silly argument that there is no way it can be seriously addressed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Serious?*



JLPWCXIII said:


> It seems no one is even maintaining the pretense of being serious anymore here, so I'm ending my participation in this thread.


Let me see....a person that claims to be minor landed royalty, worships well dressed English royalty that wears wool by the ton, constantly bemoans the passing of monarchy and the "end of civilization" around 1910 or so, participates in an online forum dedicated to being well dressed yet deems wool and leather immoral.....yeah, what is up with you people answering JLP in less than 100% seriousness?

Cheers


----------



## a.dickens (May 10, 2006)

I have been observing the posts of JLP for a while and have thought them to be _mildly_ rational. I do not agree with his points, but hey, let the man not eat animal products, let him not use oil, let him not hunt. But what got me was his saying (modified to a visual format)

is equal to

That is really hard to take seriously. I really hope he wasn't serious. JLP, I really hope you weren't serious.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Humans, putatively the most advanced, enlightened species on the planet, should lead by example. Instead, we create nuclear weapons and religious extremism.

Small wonder we abide slaughterhouses. It's what we're good at.



MrRogers said:


> Perhaps exterminators should be given life sentences for the thousands of "murders" they commit annually.
> 
> A rat, a pig, and a dog are not human beings
> 
> MrR


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Humans, putatively the most advanced, enlightened species on the planet, should lead by example. Instead, we create nuclear weapons and religious extremism.
> 
> Small wonder we abide slaughterhouses. It's what we're good at.


Who exactly would we be leading by our example? You think if humans stopped eating meat that lions would somehow follow our lead and stop eating zebras?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

It is often civilizing to rise even a little above our biological urges.

In lieu of that, however, I think the Golden Rule has a lot to be said for it. We treat the physically and mentally handicapped kindly because we might have been created so ourselves. Even those of us who are fit today might still become crippled, addicted to something nasty, or trapped in Alzheimer's at some point down the road.

But it would be stretching the point to say that any of us runs a real risk of becoming a brook trout.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I meant lead each other by example, not the lions. I don't expect them to stop eating zebras, but my neighbour might lay off the chicken.



odoreater said:


> Who exactly would we be leading by our example? You think if humans stopped eating meat that lions would somehow follow our lead and stop eating zebras?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes, I think you've hit upon it in your first line. In a forum that aspires to gentlemanly style, one wouldn't think this concept so hard a sell.

I don't expect anyone necessarily to adopt my path (not eating any meat), but that Golden Mean you reference seems like a reasonable idea. Yet many people I encounter are appalled to contemplate any change that might inconvenience them, even while reducing another creature's suffering. That seems utterly corrupted to me.



Concordia said:


> It is often civilizing to rise even a little above our biological urges.
> 
> In lieu of that, however, I think the Golden Rule has a lot to be said for it. We treat the physically and mentally handicapped kindly because we might have been created so ourselves. Even those of us who are fit today might still become crippled, addicted to something nasty, or trapped in Alzheimer's at some point down the road.
> 
> But it would be stretching the point to say that any of us runs a real risk of becoming a brook trout.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Hunters can help feed the hungry:

https://www.nypost.com/seven/11122006/sports/how_hunters_can_feed_the_hungry_sports_ken_moran.htm


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Fogey said:


> Giving the sheep organic feed does not mean that the process isn't cruel. There is nothing on that site that says they don't injure sheep or eventually sell them off to be slaughtered. 'Organic' egg farms still kill off the majority of male chicks during the breeding process, for example.


So? (Could you potentially be being just a little bit anthropomorphic and applying human attributes to non-human animals?)


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Yes, I think you've hit upon it in your first line. In a forum that aspires to gentlemanly style, one wouldn't think this concept so hard a sell.
> 
> I don't expect anyone necessarily to adopt my path (not eating any meat), but that Golden Mean you reference seems like a reasonable idea. Yet many people I encounter are appalled to contemplate any change that might inconvenience them, even while reducing another creature's suffering. That seems utterly corrupted to me.


In applying the Golden Rule:

If I were mentally or physically handicapped, I would still expect people to treat me with some decency and respect.

If I were a brook trout, I would expect someone to catch me and eat me.

If I were a pig, I would expect someone to spit roast me.

I treat others as I would expect to be treated if I were in their position.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

More to the point, if there were a race of 4,000 lb brook trout, I wouldn't blame them for trying to eat me. Hence my willingness to eat trout. 

Come to think of it, I've eaten shark.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Concordia said:


> More to the point, if there were a race of 4,000 lb brook trout, I wouldn't blame them for trying to eat me. Hence my willingness to eat trout.
> 
> Come to think of it, I've eaten shark.


Shark is very tasty. I have also eaten gator.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I wonder if there are stories out there about vegans or vegetarians being eaten by alligators or sharks or something like that. That would be comically ironic.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

*JLP/Fogey = HYPOCRITE!!*



Fogey said:


> No leather seats in motorcars...no wool either. Hemp is an excellent substitute.


I was researching old posts RE: dinner jackets and stumbled upon a reply of JLP/Fogeys to one such thread in which you state that you own a WOOL dinner jacket that you often wear at home or out to dinner (See reply #20)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=47817

Normally I do not go out of my way to call someone out in such a manner but when I saw a post of yours, in your own words, stating that you wear a Wool DJ, I could not pass up the opportunity to point out to all that you are a true hypocrite and that all of your replies in this thread as well as the "deer season" thread are unsubstantiated lies and fabrications.

I also doubt that this wool DJ is the only wool article of clothing that you own.

MrR


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Wow. Owned.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

No worries. Any intersection of JLPogey and reality are purely coincidental. It will not even slow him down.

Regards


----------

