Free-range pigs -- not so happy

[Joan_M]

(delicious vegan recipes) vegalicious.org/

I do eat lots of vegetables, etc. and use recipes for vegetable dishes. However, I could not stomach those recipes that substitute soy yuch for the meat that would really make the dish great. That’s what I mean. I would make, for example, lasagne with meat, or with, say, lobster, etc., but not a totally vegetarian one, or one with soy. The soy does not taste the least like the meat that it pretends to imitate. Anyway, even if I did make a vegan dish, it would only be to be a side dish to a good steak, or teriyaki chicken!

 

[hockeyfan]

I agree with you, but wonder how much responsibility do consumers have to make sure the meat they purchase is ethically produced?

Certainly there are wholesome farms which raise their pigs with respect for the nature of the animal. But the meat produced by these farms cost significantly more than meat raised by conventional pork industry standards. Should consumers boycott the cheaper pork? Should they organize to publicize the animal abuse involved in mainstream methods? Is there a moral obligation to protest factory farming of animals?

As for the essay posted in the first link, I hope the farmer is able to find a different line of work soon. Cognitive dissonance can be painful. At some point he will have to bite the bullet, and take financial losses if need be. Its been done many times before: clergy quitting their posts because they have become atheist, Planned Parenthood directors quitting because they are now horrified by abortion, career military officers quitting because of a change in their life outlook. There are many such examples. He won’t be alone in making a sacrifice for the sake of his conscience.

Perhaps the word should get out like it did with blood diamonds. Now, if you want to buy a diamond ring like my brother did to get engaged, he was able to get it certified that it did not come from a place where blood diamonds come from. I believe it was a little more expensive but was totally worth it. Perhaps the meat industry should do something similar over animal cruelty. I think people would start buying that kind of meat on a large level. What do you think?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, it’s a brutal world out there in the animal world, but why is that relevant to the question of how we should treat animals? It appears you think we should look to animal behavior for moral guidance.

Far from it.

Right now, most food animals are, in fact, killed in a “kosher” manner. The animal must be unconscious when killed, then immediately bled out completely. I have been in meat processing plants, and that’s how they do it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps the word should get out like it did with blood diamonds. Now, if you want to buy a diamond ring like my brother did to get engaged, he was able to get it certified that it did not come from a place where blood diamonds come from. I believe it was a little more expensive but was totally worth it. Perhaps the meat industry should do something similar over animal cruelty. I think people would start buying that kind of meat on a large level. What do you think?

I will admit that I have not been in every processing plant in the country. The ones I have been in were those of state-of-the-art companies. I have not been in a beef-processing plant, but am told that they’re similar to the pork plants I have been in. If so, then the process I previously described is the same.

 

[spencelo]

Far from it.

Right now, most food animals are, in fact, killed in a “kosher” manner. The animal must be unconscious when killed, then immediately bled out completely. I have been in meat processing plants, and that’s how they do it.

“Painless killing” doesn’t make the practice okay. After all, we don’t think painlessly killing a healthy child in order to extract his organs is okay either.

 

[Joan_M]

“Painless killing” doesn’t make the practice okay. After all, we don’t think painlessly killing a healthy child in order to extract his organs is okay either.

This is nonsense. Animals are not equal to human beings. Animals were provided by God for our use - as domestic animals as well as in the wild; to provide us with meat as well as milk, eggs, wool, horn, and skins.

Do you really think any animal is the equal of a human being?

 

[spencelo]

This is nonsense. Animals are not equal to human beings. Animals were provided by God for our use - as domestic animals as well as in the wild; to provide us with meat as well as milk, eggs, wool, horn, and skins.

This is another reason why I reject Christianity: it appears to endorse or encourage morally absurd views about the treatment of animals.

Do you really think any animal is the equal of a human being?

There are many ways in which an animal can be equal to a typical human being. My view is that their equivalent interests are to be weighed equally, similar to the view that the equivalent interests of people of different races are to be weighed equally.

 

[spencelo]

I do eat lots of vegetables, etc. and use recipes for vegetable dishes. However, I could not stomach those recipes that substitute soy yuch for the meat that would really make the dish great. That’s what I mean. I would make, for example, lasagne with meat, or with, say, lobster, etc., but not a totally vegetarian one, or one with soy. The soy does not taste the least like the meat that it pretends to imitate. Anyway, even if I did make a vegan dish, it would only be to be a side dish to a good steak, or teriyaki chicken!

There are many delicious vegan meals out there. I suggest you try them. vegalicious.org/

 

[po18guy]

“Painless killing” doesn’t make the practice okay. After all, we don’t think painlessly killing a healthy child in order to extract his organs is okay either.

What an odd belief.

 

[spencelo]

What an odd belief.

What’s odd about it? From where I’m standing, the belief that animals are mere human commodities is not only odd, but downright absurd.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So What! He’s one pig farmer and it is only his opinion. Much like my opinion that animal activists are more concerned with the welfare of an animal than the welfare of a child.

I hear this a lot but I have never heard a rational basis (or any basis, for that matter) for that assertion. Why would caring about the welfare of animals automatically mean that someone cares less about children? That’s kind of a random and cruel thing to say about someone.

 

[po18guy]

What’s odd about it? From where I’m standing, the belief that animals are mere human commodities is not only odd, but downright absurd.

You came here with an anti-animal-consumption agenda. By that very act, you have placed yourself outside of the mainstream. By equating or comparing animals with humans, you are ever further toward the fringe.

I truly wonder what your universal, or even regionally accepted standard for ethical treatment is - and what type of thinking that is based on. To make your bold assertions, you must have a standard.

Besides, who here has advocated for the unethical treatment of animals? Shouldn’t you be lighting up your governmental representative’s phone line instead?

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is another reason why I reject Christianity: it appears to endorse or encourage morally absurd views about the treatment of animals.

There are many ways in which an animal can be equal to a typical human being. My view is that their equivalent interests are to be weighed equally, similar to the view that the equivalent interests of people of different races are to be weighed equally.

As a “nontheist”, which one takes to be one who has no particular belief in any god, one would not think you would have any particular beliefs about the value of human, animal or plant life or, indeed, anything, other than what you just worked out for yourself. That, necessarily, seems to me to be where a “nontheist” would be. One is one’s own moral yardstick, in other words.

But for at least some “theists”, there is an order of things not determined subjectively. The creator of that order is said to be God. For Christians, that God is believed to have expressed His will concerning certain things, either directly or indirectly, and the proper treatment of animals is one of those things.

So, in addressing Catholics, which most people are on CAF, it’s rather as if an astrologer is explaining his position to an astronomer. The foundational bases for one’s point of view are entirely different and, in fact, alien to each other.

You will never persuade a true Catholic that animals are equivalent to people. I’m not entirely sure, then, why you are even presenting it here, because your foundational takeoff point is alien. You might extol the virtues of a vegan diet for other reasons and gain adherants, but not for that one.

 

[spencelo]

I truly wonder what your universal, or even regionally accepted standard for ethical treatment is - and what type of thinking that is based on. To make your bold assertions, you must have a standard.

My standard is very simple: do good, and avoid doing harm. What is that based on? There are many complicated theoretical answers to that, but the explanatory point must stop somewhere - the same is with theism.

Besides, who here has advocated for the unethical treatment of animals?

People who see no problem with hunting, bullfighting, or factory-farming.

Shouldn’t you be lighting up your governmental representative’s phone line instead?

That actually wouldn’t be as helpful. But when there is important legislation on the line, I’ll be sure to do that.

 

[spencelo]

You will never persuade a true Catholic that animals are equivalent to people.

I don’t believe I need to do that. By principles that Catholics already accept, they ought to be against the numerous ways we treat and harm animals.

 

[adrift]

Real and honest: mcaf.ee/tosh4

“What I do is wrong. I know it in my bones, even if I can’t yet act on it. Someday it must stop. Somehow we need to become the sort of beings who can see what we are doing when we look head on, the sort of beings who don’t weave dark, damning shrouds to sustain, with acceptance and celebration, the grossly unethical, solely for shallow sensual pleasure. Deeper, much deeper, we have an obligation to eat otherwise.”

It is hardly “honest” to proclaim that you know that something is “wrong” and do it anyway.

Morality is not something that an animal can decide. There is some morality that we can see from natural law. If we shouldn’t eat meat, than no animal should. I know that is a ridiculous statement but those who promote eating of animals as being immoral are ridiculous. They go to such extreme lengths as to give animals human qualities which demeans the animals as well as themselves. This “farmer’s” statement is comical a bunch of gibberish that makes not sense. “damaging shrouds to sustain” Give me a break. He strung a bunch of meaningless words together trying to sound intelligent but instead made fool of himself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t believe I need to do that. By principles that Catholics already accept, they ought to be against the numerous ways we treat and harm animals.

But you have not presented them; certainly not as universals. Your position and, as you acknowledged, your argument, is based on your belief that animals and humans are equivalent. You believe that because you believe it. How you came to it is entirely subjective. Most definitely, you did not derive that from any Catholic source, because it’s directly contrary to Catholic belief.

It certainly could be stated from a Catholic point of view that needless cruelty is immoral, but not that all killing of animals for food is immoral. To arrive at the latter, one has to adopt a non-Catholic view of nature and man’s place in it. That is why one’s position that animal life is equivalent to human life, and everything that flows from that foundational basis, can never be persuasive to a Catholic who knows very much about his faith.

One can certainly posit arguments against using animals for food by anthropomorphizing animals; attributing to them human attributes that they don’t actually have. Some people do attempt to make arguments based on that kind of foundation. But the ones I have seen people make are flawed because the proponents usually have little or no real experience with food animals and (so far, always) none with the actual processing of meat.

Lacking accurate information, then, most people who make the argument have no real foundation for it.

I have occasionally seen people argue in favor of vegetarianism or veganism based on health issues or as personal disciplines. As to the latter, one can only encourage them to be careful in ensuring that their diets are actually adequate. If so, it is a choice an adult is free to make. Health arguments are generally based on assumptions that might, but do not necessarily, support the propositions.

Possibly you can do better. We’ll see.

 

[jenwha]

QUOTE=BlueEyedLady;9822705]I hear this a lot but I have never heard a rational basis (or any basis, for that matter) for that assertion. Why would caring about the welfare of animals automatically mean that someone cares less about children? That’s kind of a random and cruel thing to say about someone.

I totally agree. Why is this comparison always made? I think animal lovers are pretty aware that animals are not people.

I am a Catholic and believe 100% in giving animals love, compassion,and freedom to live without pain or cruelty. I don’t believe in treating them cruelly in any way. Yes God gave us “dominion” over the animals. I get that. Animals are also God’s innocent creation.

What else I know is that the way I experience God the most on this earth is through his beautiful innocent animals. Because of this, I am not inclined, nor do I agree with anyone cutting off chicken’s beaks in mass, killing them with guns, keeping them together in disgusting small spaces until they go insane, etc. To have dominion over them is not in my opinion to torture or abuse them. Sorry but I"m just crazy that way.

I look at my beautiful innocent dogs…who feel emotion just as I do, who are hungry just as I am, who thirst just as I do, who BLEED and feel pain just as I do…who I love in my life just as much as any human…who are God’s creatures who He made and loves…and I just can’t see myself shooting one for the fun of it and cutting off his head and putting it up on my wall as a trophy. I find that behavior to be deviant atrocious, and generally mentally defective.

Does it not occur to anyone that one of the reason us crazy animal lovers feel the way we do because animals are completely innocent? They cannot sin. They are pure. Because they don’t sin, some of us hold them in a very high regard. Domesticated animals give pure, unconditional love, even when humans abuse them, and in that regard, they have something over us humans. They also have no voice. They cannot run and scream to the police when they are being mistreated. Because of that, we as higher moral beings have a responsibility to protect them and generally not cut on them and kill them and perform experiments on them. WE have to be their voice. Remember when Jesus said “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me?” Argue with me all you want that he just meant people. I will smile and know differently in my heart who God has spoken to time and time again on this matter.

Who are any of you to say that I am wrong just because “they are not people.”

If serial killer hunters want to hunt, great. Go for it. I won’t and never will. It’s a free difference of opinion. But no one has any right to tell any animal lovers such as Spencelo and myself that we are bad, weird, or crazy for this. I think we are possibly more perceptive and a heck of a lot more gentle in our hearts than all the nayasyers on here.

And I have a feeling God would appreciate our gentle hearts and feelings on this matter for wanting to protect and love His creation. Conversely, is it a sin for others to blow an animal’s head off? Maybe not, but I personally think it implies a serious mental defect.

Just a thought.

 

[po18guy]

To the atheist, who believes that all life is accidental, and being a product of our age of non-judgmentalism (except for Spanish bullfighting), I can see where one’s compass would lead off in a strange direction. However, pain cannot be measured, and I maintain that plants suffer just as much, perhaps even more, proportionately, than animals, since plant death is a much slower process after harvesting.

 

[po18guy]

Come to think of it, as to the thread title, there are quite a few members here who have renounced atheism. Is it thus proclaimed false?