Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
People don't give a fuck about the rape victims or starving children of the world why should they care about the state that animals are kept in before they're slaughtered for food. Does your steak know it had a good life free of abuse when it's sitting on your plate?
Not that I'm saying we should intentionally mistreat animals before we kill and eat them, but we should absolutely be more concerned about the members of our own species who are hurting, I promise you no cow has ever worried if a human was having a good day.
(all that being said I am a vegetarian because I'm poor and lentils are cheap) I did go to moishes and have a ballin steak a couple days ago tho
However it would still be correct to say that a vegetarian diet does provide several health benefits such as reducing cholesterol and saturated fat intake, and generally increasing dietary fiber intake.
Bzzzt wrong again, boyo. Maybe I have lower cholesterol (not actually certain) but personally I still take in my fair share of saturated fat and not that much dietary fiber. NOT TO SAY ALL VEGETARIAN DIETS ARE LIKE MINE, but I'm just pointing out the presumptuous nature of assuming all vegetarian diets are healthy.
Also, VKCA providing a great segue into the speciesism portion of this topic if anyone wants to grab on.
I don't think the reason human rights are still being violated is because we're all too busy working on animal rights. Humanity ain't a printer, we can do things in parallel.
It also shouldn't really matter if empathy is reciprocated. We human. We feel empathy for fellow mammal (to a certain extent, anyway). People hold themselves to that standard, not the cow's.
What if we took the entire budget of peta and started building schools (wells, rape survivor camps, sustainable agriculture, whatever) in Africa instead of having peta exist? Does anybody disagree that that would be an unquestionably better use of the money?
People (on the internet at least) are usually anti peta so you can sub in whatever animal rights org you like.
Bzzzt wrong again, boyo. Maybe I have lower cholesterol (not actually certain) but personally I still take in my fair share of saturated fat and not that much dietary fiber. NOT TO SAY ALL VEGETARIAN DIETS ARE LIKE MINE, but I'm just pointing out the presumptuous nature of assuming all vegetarian diets are healthy.
There is no need to be so snarky. I am not trying to start a fight here, nor do I mean to be presumptuous. I didn't say all vegetarians have healthier diets in my previous post though! Look, I get that an individual that eats virtually nothing but donuts and french fries would semantically be considered a vegetarian, but vegetarians generally have lower saturated fat and cholesterol intake, all else being equal. Meat is relatively high in both cholesterol and saturated fat, while vegetables are rich fiber sources. That is a fact. You may not be very healthy yourself, but my point is that most vegetarians that I know actually chose to be vegetarians for health reasons. To imply that it is not a factor in one's decision to become a vegetarian is a bit disingenuous.
There is no need to be so snarky. I am not trying to start a fight here, nor do I mean to be presumptuous. I didn't say all vegetarians have healthier diets in my previous post though! Look, I get that an individual that eats virtually nothing but donuts and french fries would semantically be considered a vegetarian, but vegetarians generally have lower saturated fat and cholesterol intake, all else being equal. Meat is relatively high in both cholesterol and saturated fat, while vegetables are rich fiber sources. That is a fact. You may not be very healthy yourself, but my point is that most vegetarians that I know actually chose to be vegetarians for health reasons. To imply that it is not a factor in one's decision to become a vegetarian is a bit disingenuous.
It can be a factor but it is because they, like you, are confusing the cause. Eating healthy comes from paying attention to what you are eating, not from any other mythical source. Certainly, becoming vegetarian helps you be more cognizant of what you are eating, but that is not to say that a vegetarian diet is any way intrinsically healthier than a meat based diet. There are MANY people who can live JUST as healthy lifestyles as vegetarians while eating meat. It has always been disingenuous to imply that not eating meat suddenly means you are living much healthier. It is by no means a magic switch to skinniness.
It can be a factor but it is because they, like you, are confusing the cause. Eating healthy comes from paying attention to what you are eating, not from any other mythical source. Certainly, becoming vegetarian helps you be more cognizant of what you are eating, but that is not to say that a vegetarian diet is any way intrinsically healthier than a meat based diet. There are MANY people who can live JUST as healthy lifestyles as vegetarians while eating meat. It has always been disingenuous to imply that not eating meat suddenly means you are living much healthier. It is by no means a magic switch to skinniness.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. It seems you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I know very well that many people can maintain a healthy diet without being a vegetarian. Nor did I mean to imply that vegetarianism was a "magic switch to skinniness". What I actually intended to communicate was that keeping your cholesterol and saturated fat intake in check while also getting adequate fiber intake are important components of good nutrition, and a vegetarian diet is one viable starting point for accomplishing this. Nothing more. A healthy diet should be maintained by what works best for the individual, it just so happens that for many people the vegetarian route is the most convenient choice for them.
First I would like to agree with whoever on the first page said that conflating racism, sexism, and other systems of human oppression with imaginary animal oppression is offensive and absurd and I'm embarrassed that I actually have to explain this. Yes, this is an anthropocentric perspective (this is the word you want, Celever, not speciesist). While being considered lesser species to humans does result in harm to animals, and more intelligent animals demonstrate emotional pain, every species is 'speciesist' (maybe with a few exceptions? lol)—there is no logical basis behind your distinction, or else we have to conclude all species have equal rights to the other, which is a) logically absurd and unenforcable* b) results in lethal harm coming to many humans because of how dependent we are on animal and plant products to survive (literally survive, but also some people are more dependent on animal and plant products than others for scientific reasons or because they need animals and plants to get by... which therefore introduces more inequality among humans), which should at least give you ethical pause. This is literally how nature works and if you don't like it you can go on a hunger strike and see where that gets you.
Much of our energy at the end of the day comes from plant matter and the entire food chain is dependent on it—you have probably learned this in your biology classes, or if you haven't, you can go to university and find out there—, which you are conveniently ignoring. I assume this is because we cannot prove plants are sentient like animals. Well, can you prove that animals have demonstrable emotional harm from anthropocentrism (not being abused, which is a separate issue that does generally stem from anthropocentrism but is not the whole result of it)? What if some animals are hurt by it and others aren't? Is it okay to eat them and not the animals that suffer? If we're making a distinction between more intelligent and sentient species, then why don't we consider human needs supreme, since, as far as we know, we are the most intelligent and sentient species alive?
Anthropocentrism is dangerous for humans themselves in that we forget we are just one rather impactful part of a delicate ecosystem (impactful in that we have great power to destroy it, not in that we're what makes global nutrient cycles, for example, keep ticking) and we constantly shit on it for our own short-term needs. I feel very strongly that it is important to respect the environment and biodiversity, and at present and in the past, humans have completely fucked with the environment, to their own detriment and everyone else's. It's not dangerous, however, in that it makes us survive. Racism and sexism are dangerous and lead to demonstrable harm and oppression and, while humans in this society tend to at least mentally organise in competing interest groups, nothing much good comes out of them.
So, yes, we should respect the needs of other species as much as possible, for our own good and theirs... but conflating them with human systems of oppression while so much horrific shit happens on a daily basis due to the things you would like to compare speciesism with is naïve. I feel like to do this you have to place so many layers of abstraction over the things humans do to each other to be like 'this is comparable to eating meat'.
eta: FYI there are many arguments involving human social justice for protecting the environment too (which includes animals)
* Although as humans we have more options for deriving vital nutrients than your average animal, is it right, ecologically sensible, or possible to deprive wild animals of their natural diet so that they can stop being speciesist against those lower than them on the food chain?
I personally eat meat, just because I've grown up with it. If I had grown up in a vegetarian household I would probably still be a vegetarian - we are all creatures of habit.
However, there are arguments on both sides that are just plain wrong:
Bad arguments for eating meat:
It's natural because other animals do it: Other animals also never wear clothes and defecate wherever they like, which are clearly not socially acceptable behaviours.
You can't have a balanced diet without meat: Possibly this was true in the past, since vitamin B12 in particular is not naturally found in plant matter, but nowadays it's even being artificially added to breakfast cereals.
Animals feel no pain: They do.
Animals are stupid: So are some humans.
Bad arguments against eating meat:
It's cruel: A free-range chicken, for example, has a decently long life, where it's well-fed and protected, and a painless death. In the wild it would likely be savagely torn apart by a fox.
We have a duty to protect all life on the planet: Firstly, that would include plants to, so it would lead quickly to our own starvation. Secondly, for nearly all the animals we eat are ones that have also been created by humans through selective breeding, even most fish nowadays. So without us they would't exist at all.
I personally eat meat, just because I've grown up with it. If I had grown up in a vegetarian household I would probably still be a vegetarian - we are all creatures of habit.
However, there are arguments on both sides that are just plain wrong:
Bad arguments for eating meat:
It's natural because other animals do it: Other animals also never wear clothes and defecate wherever they like, which are clearly not socially acceptable behaviours.
You can't have a balanced diet without meat: Possibly this was true in the past, since vitamin B12 in particular is not naturally found in plant matter, but nowadays it's even being artificially added to breakfast cereals.
Animals feel no pain: They do.
Animals are stupid: So are some humans.
Bad arguments against eating meat:
It's cruel: A free-range chicken, for example, has a decently long life, where it's well-fed and protected, and a painless death. In the wild it would likely be savagely torn apart by a fox.
We have a duty to protect all life on the planet: Firstly, that would include plants to, so it would lead quickly to our own starvation. Secondly, for nearly all the animals we eat are ones that have also been created by humans through selective breeding, even most fish nowadays. So without us they would't exist at all.
I feel like you've oversimplified some of the arguments.
We don't have a duty to protect all life on the planet, obviously. It is rational, however, for us to respect our ecosystems and not artificially create imbalance in them (via introducing new species that are often harmful to biodiversity, or through gross destruction or alteration of important habitats, for example) or overdeplete resources. Some of the consequences we can't even predict; others we're seeing right now (bees). That isn't an argument against eating meat, but it's an argument against infinite growth as well as multiple industries and their practices, which definitely includes the meat industry. So, it is an argument against our meat-eating practices as they currently stand going into the future.
This is a gross oversimplification as well, although I would agree many animals are not stupid. I hope you're not comparing idiots or the intellectually disabled to cows.
I love animals-- plain and simple. Always have, always will. In elementary school, I read every single book in our school library about crusteceans, reptiles, fish, big cats, birds of prey, bees/wasps/ants-- and I would have gotten through MORE if there were more than 8 years of JK-6th.
Nature has always spoken to me very loudly-- and even now, 80% of the vids youtube recommends to me are animal documentaries, and my hobbies are Planted Aquarium Design + Landscape illustrationg and Photography.
I've always felt that animals and people stood on an equal ground as "existences"-- humans, animals, plants, all forms of life-- none being "higher beings".
To take your Squirrel to Human comparison, I've always thought the difference between Squirrel and Human as likenable to the difference between a hand calculator and a super computer-- sure one is way more powerful and sophisticated than the other, but they're both made of the same wires, circuits, nuts and bolts.
There's nothing ethically superior about a Super Computer compared to a Calculator. You don't have a moral obligation to value one over the other.
That said, if you love nature, I would say you also need to learn from it. Ask yourself-- do animals view the lives of all other animals equally?
(An attack party of 10 Japanese hornets can slaughter an entire colony of 3000+ honey bees in 2 hours)
Of course not. The Japanese hornet will decapitate that bee and leave it and its comrades' severed bodies to rot-- to steal the honey, and feed the bee larvae to their own.
Unless the bees can see it first-- surround the scout and roast it to death with their body temperature, preventing any other hornets from finding their nest.
Truly beautiful.
The will to live, the will to fight-- nature's beauty.
As long as animals derive all their own energy from other life forms, conflict is inevitable.
Sure fruitivores and pollinators subsist entirely off of calories freely given by plants*; and grass welcomes grazers as they don't kill grass, while preventing trees from taking over fields. But for grass and grazers to live, tree saplings must die. The fertilized flowers will make seeds of plants that will shade out and kill others. Even for plants, every act of life is violence to some other species.
Kill or be killed; fight or be meat-- it's inevitable. There's no view of "equality" between animals or plants amongst themselves. *Though actually, bees and humming birds are both adroit predators that hunt and kill insects in order to include the proper proteins in their diets
In fact, there's no respect of "species" between animals either. My tribe, my family, ME!! MY GENES!! A species is a temporary meaningless concept for most of nature-- what matters is MY GENES.
@vegetarians--
"But humans are different. Humans are omnivores, we have free will, choice. We can make an ethical decision animals can't."
^But if you believe this, you are inevitably a speciest-- you've already justified yourself with a belief that inherently sees humans as superior beings.
The OP is conflicting himself by trying to hold both views simultaneously. You can see animals as lower creatures ethically deserving of human compassion;
Or you can show animals true respect, by acknowledging that we're no better. More sophisticated yes-- but really, our nature is the same; and whether you are a squirrel or a human, that nature-- wild, ruthless, nature tooth and fang-- is something of true beauty.
You might think that humans' sophistication has given us more "power" and thus greater "responsibility"; but in thinking that you've still failed to escape a human mindset. If you truly view all species as equal, you should also understand the insignificance of humans' power.
Humans will not be the first or last to drive others to extinction.
Humans are also far from the power to "hurt nature" beyond repair-- all the nuclear weapons in the world combined represent destructive power equal to only the tiniest fraction of the power of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs.
Life goes on, nature goes on-- if you are truly not "speciest" then you see no difference in value of life between those species that exist now, and those that will evolve in the wake of human actions.
As a human, as an animal, what truly matters is-- the self.
We must protect nature as it is, because this is the nature and world that most benefit US.
No matter what you believe as an individual, the concept of humans as superior is a necessity-- since it is a requirement traditionally (and even now) for society to function smoothly; to not question the acts of domination over nature that are essential to society and human life, nor the valuation of others (other people) over the lives of animals.
Humans are social animals, and society is a necessity for human life.
Even the idea of "species", is just one that's convenient and something we accept because-- it benefits ourselves. And we are animals.
And a calculator can't connect to the world wide web, that makes a difference too-- but not the kind you're thinking.
You're free to think that a capacity to recognize self makes a difference in our "ethical responsibility" (which is shaky at best), but in doing so you inevitably categorize us as superior (higher) beings to other animals. Cool-- that's the status quo, nothing wrong with that.
I'm just calling out the OP's hypocrisy in taking an ethical view inevitably based on "human superiority" while also claiming to "not be speciest." You either think humans are higher, or you don't.
the two claims are totally distinct though. the capacity to recognise self probably creates an obligation to recognise that self in other beings - although the degree to which you would buy that depends on how far you think that self manifests itself in other species. given that you probably wouldnt kill a human, you already recognise that ethical responsibility. the claim that that responsibility does or does not extend to animals is totally subjective though and up to the individual. if you dont believe in arbitrarily torturing animals then you already recognise this responsibility.
the latter claim is one that revolves around the access to the right to life. again, the line is arbitrary and largely subjective, but if you aren't going around killing humans, the onus is on you to show us why you dont also extend that to other beings.
the calculator analogy is pathetic i dont know why you think it is interesting or relevant or persuasive can you not use it again please
Every time I try to see differently, it only takes a topic like this to make me realize: Most humans are scum.
As usual, I see a plethora of "Animals are worthless," and "Vegetarianism is evil," type posts that seems to plague today's minds. Why should we care about animals? Maybe because people actually DO care about humans. Human problems are actually taken seriously. while animals are just "oh, they are oh-so insignifigant, and humans are oh-so superior that we should let other species die out just because we're THAT ****ING IMPORTANT!" And maybe that's why I care more about animal rights than human rights, because everyone else I meet only cares about humans.
You say animals can do some horrible things? I can name many things we humans do that WAY outdoes anything animals can do. You say we can do good things too? Except not only does the good we do rarely outweigh the bad things, but their usually reversible. Can we do good? Of course. Humans ARE capable of doing good, it's just so few use it. Do I care about humans? Of coarse I do. In fact, I care a lot. But that doesn't mean I will just ignore the awful things that happens to animals just cause I'm human and people think I absolutely HAVE to care more about my species.
So, because humans are so important, that means I shouldn't support banning to keep animals captive for entertainment, or donate to help save a dying species from extinction? Humans are oh-so important that if I were there, I should just allow a poacher to kill an animal for money instead of risking my life to stop that person? Animals contribute to the world too. Bees and butterflies polinate plants. Bats ward off disease carrying insects. Some rats disperse speed about forest floors to help grow trees. As well, prey and preditors all compete to keep a cycle of animals in check, and they often do a better job of keeping each other in check than us human hunters can, which more often than not disrupt the balance and cause animals to overpopulate constantly. I'm not saying we humans are a plague and we cannot help the planet as well, just that animals are important too.
Final Words: Speciesism is evil.
As for vegetarianism, I actually admire people who can commit to that kind of diet. Also, it's not about living a kill-free life, it's about doing as little harm to animals as possible. Even vegetarians often know that kill-free lives are impossible.
Calling something pathetic doesn't do much for your argument. The point is that the fundamental nature of the objects are the same despite difference in sophistication (and I'm asserting sophistication as the main difference-- just a matter of degree).
Mercy, kindness, and even empathy are not something that solely exist in humans.
Also equating "not going on killing sprees" to "recognizing self, or right to life." is pretty silly. Even animals don't usually go on wild killing sprees just because they can. Ok, yes, sometimes predators do out of instinct kill superfluously, but that's exception to the rule rather than the majority. If animals (which you've suggested can't recognize self) don't do random acts of violence, what does 'going around killing things' have to do with the discussion one way or another?
It is just as easy to think that I don't go on a wild killing spree because it doesn't benefit me-- and if you know anything about society, or the workings of social species, you'd understand how it's outright self-destructive to do so.
Not to mention that "good behavior" and "good views" are ingrained in us through raising so deeply through upbringing.
How much of our ethical behavior is "nurture" and how much is "nature"-- it is very hard to distinguish one from the other. How much of it is actually justified through self-thought?
It is a pathetic analogy because difference in sophistication is utterly irrelevant to a claim to life. I am infinitely more sophisticated than you, or a person who is vegetative. This does not mean I have the right to kill you, or eat you, or enslave you, or otherwise own you.
I can say that I am smarter than my dog. This is a true fact. This does not mean that I have the right to kill my dog. This is a separate argument that needs substantiation. You will need to also, in the course of that argument, outline the fundamental characteristics of my dog that mean that it has less of a right to life than I do. This is because, while I am smarter than you, more empathetic than you, and kinder than you, I don't have the right to kill you.
Presumably you don't think I should be able to torture animals. Despite the fact that I am clearly more sophisticated and intelligent than animals, you acknowledge that I owe them some kind of moral obligation. Despite the fact that I am more sophisticated and intelligent than you, I also don't have the right to torture you. This stems from an obligation that has nothing to do with your intellect or other characteristics.
If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start with constructing arguments that deny both of those claims. At the moment you have no claim that is worth considering or discussing because literally everything you said is irrelevant to this discussion and I have no idea why you think they are responsive to the claims in this thread.
"But humans are different. Humans are omnivores, we have free will, choice. We can make an ethical decision animals can't."
^But if you believe this, you are inevitably a speciest-- you've already justified yourself with a belief that inherently sees humans as superior beings.
The OP is conflicting himself by trying to hold both views simultaneously. You can see animals as lower creatures ethically deserving of human compassion;
I think you have really hit the nail on the head here man. I think this is an outright contradiction in their thought. The rest of what you said is more debatable (not that I disagree with you), but this is easily the strongest point.
---
I think there is actually something really true when you get down to the idea that: to a species, the most important thing for them in their own self survival and self interest.
A bit tangentially related, but a bit back SF Debris had a video detailing the the reality of contact with Extraterrestrial Life and what their priorities would be, from the Killing Star:
1. Their survival will be more important than our survival
2. Wimps don't become top dogs
3. They will assume that the first two laws apply to us
Now I don't necessarily agree with this being a general case for the entire universe (I can imagine an alien civilization not following this), but it easily seems to be the dominant way natural selection well... works. We know these rules apply on Earth and are found in nearly every niche, they even manifest themselves into abstractions like economics and even gaming.
Circling back to this discussion, what is this mindset exactly, its spieciest. As much as you might disagree with it on any ethical grounds, this is the model of how a species thrives.
Why does it matter if we regard ourselves as superior beings to other animals? Unless people take it to extremes and kill said animals for few or no reason, what harm is there in that viewpoint?
I don't believe regarding ourselves as superior justifies the mistreatment of animals, but please, please realise, that the animals don't care about speciesism, the concept can't be transmitted to them, and hence literally nobody and nothing is damaged at all by a belief that they are superior to animals.
To the poster above who implied we should risk our life for animals being poached: would you let bacteria ruin your body on the grounds that they're a species too? What about when you sit down and crush a lot of smaller organisms? Have you ever stepped on an ant? You only seem to care about animals we can see, what about those you can't? You're as 'speciesist' as the rest.
