J. Lo and the "Lowdown" on Fur

[Lisa_N]

Catholicvegan:

Dear Mjdonnelly,

You’re correct in that being a vegan doesn’t make you automatically heathier, there are certainly both meat and non-meat eaters who are overweight/unhealthy. However, if you look at percentages, I think you’ll find that more meat eaters than non-meat eaters are unhealthy.

CV there are far MORE meat eaters in this country than vegans so of course you would find more unhealthy meat eaters. It’s one of those ‘do the math’ things. You’d have to do it based on relative proportions and I doubt if there is enough interest in the subject to do such a study.

We were designed to be omnivores and in eating as we were intended to eat, we are far more likely to be healthy than if we eat in a way unintended (meat/cheese diet or vegan). People are most healthy if they eat a good BALANCED diet with protein, carbs and fats. It’s just much harder to find complete proteins in the plant kingdom and face it, for most of us a good steak is much more appealing than broccoli. You’ve got a pretty hard sell job to convince people not to eat meat

Lisa N

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Do you think it matters a bit to a mouse if it’s being tormented by a cat or a person?

So why should we not be cruel to animals? Is it for the animals’ sakes? No. It is for our sakes. It is harmful to humans to be cruel to animals.

 

[aimee]

StJeanneDArc:

Do you think it matters a bit to a mouse if it’s being tormented by a cat or a person?

So why should we not be cruel to animals? Is it for the animals’ sakes? No. It is for our sakes. It is harmful to humans to be cruel to animals.

You make an excellant observation.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Most of the poor people in this world subsist on a diet with very little or no meat, not out of choice but out of necessity. Apart from societies with particular religious objections, there are many people in this world who would be thrilled to have meat just once a year.

I, for one, am quite grateful to live in a place where meat is so cheap and available, and it is a great blessing to be able to eat so richly. As long as we recognize meat (and all food) as a gift from God, I think that puts us in the right frame of mind, both to enjoy with moderation what God has given us, and to share with those less fortunate in whatever way we can.

That said, fasting is and always has been an important part of the Christian tradition. There’s probably a great spiritual benefit to some of the traditional practices that would involve giving up all meat, fish, eggs, and dairy for Lent and at other times throughout the year, and subsisting on one simple meal per day, and giving the food or money that you saved to the poor. It’s sad to say, but that which we can choose to do as a personal dietary preference, or as a penitential practice a few times a year, is a basic fact of life, 365 days a year, for many people.

 

[BOANERGES21]

StJeanneDArc:

Do you think it matters a bit to a mouse if it’s being tormented by a cat or a person?

So why should we not be cruel to animals? Is it for the animals’ sakes? No. It is for our sakes. It is harmful to humans to be cruel to animals.

I would agree, in part, It can be…if that is your sole intention just to inflict suffering. But I don’t believe Christ was being cruel when he helped them fill the net with fish.

 

[Lance]

BOANERGES21:

I would agree, in part, It can be…if that is your sole intention just to inflict suffering. But I don’t believe Christ was being cruel when he helped them fill the net with fish.

Excellent point.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

BOANERGES21:

I would agree, in part, It can be…if that is your sole intention just to inflict suffering. But I don’t believe Christ was being cruel when he helped them fill the net with fish.

Oh, I agree with you fully. My point was that animals are there to meet human needs and don’t have intrinsic rights as such. The only reason we should refrain from cruelty is because it harms us.

I heard a hilarious interview once on the Michael Medved show. He was interviewing a guy from PETA and he asked him if a person would jump on a cow and bite it on the neck in much the same way that a predator would, would that make eating the cow acceptable. The PETA guy said yes! Unbelievable.

 

[aimee]

StJeanneDArc:

Oh, I agree with you fully. My point was that animals are there to meet human needs and don’t have intrinsic rights as such. The only reason we should refrain from cruelty is because it harms us.

I heard a hilarious interview once on the Michael Medved show. He was interviewing a guy from PETA and he asked him if a person would jump on a cow and bite it on the neck in much the same way that a predator would, would that make eating the cow acceptable. The PETA guy said yes! Unbelievable.

I think animals have the right not to be mistreated and we should refrain from being cruel to them…not just because it harms us but harms them as well. Thats not to say they arent’ there for our nourishment/food but that they should be treated kindly and their death should be swift and done so as not to make them suffer.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

aimee:

I think animals have the right not to be mistreated and we should refrain from being cruel to them…not just because it harms us but harms them as well. Thats not to say they arent’ there for our nourishment/food but that they should be treated kindly and their death should be swift and done so as not to make them suffer.

That would not be an animal right aimee, but rather a human responsibility of good stewardship of God’s property.

 

[Scottyp]

It’s simple logic, Scott. The sylogism is something like this:
In the immediate, it’s wrong to be cruel because it inflicts undue pain on the animal. Why is it wrong to inflict undue pain? Because in doing so, we’re being poor stewards.
There are two effects-the immidiate and the broader.

The first is immoral because the second is immoral.

keep in mind though, logically, the first is still immoral.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scottyp:

It’s simple logic, Scott. The sylogism is something like this:
In the immediate, it’s wrong to be cruel because it inflicts undue pain on the animal. Why is it wrong to inflict undue pain? Because in doing so, we’re being poor stewards.
There are two effects-the immidiate and the broader.

The first is immoral because the second is immoral.

keep in mind though, logically, the first is still immoral.

I agree, but it doesn’t address the preposterous notion that animals have rights.

 

[Scottyp]

I guess we can debate how you’re using the word “rghts.” (I know the definition so you don’t have to quote it to me).
But in a certain sense, under the previous logic, we see that it is wrong to be unduely cruel to them–therefore they have a “right” (although properly, it should be seen as “responsibility” on our side) to not have cruelty done to them.

You may want to agrue my use of the word “right” but it seems like six in one, a half dozen in the other to me.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scottyp:

I guess we can debate how you’re using the word “rghts.” (I know the definition so you don’t have to quote it to me).
But in a certain sense, under the previous logic, we see that it is wrong to be unduely cruel to them–therefore they have a “right” (although properly, it should be seen as “responsibility” on our side) to not have cruelty done to them.

You may want to agrue my use of the word “right” but it seems like six in one, a half dozen in the other to me.

I agree with your application of the word and understand your logic. I just feel some people take it to nonsensical extremes.

 

[Scottyp]

Sure, sure, I agree that people do too. We just have to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is some truth at the bottom of the extremism.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Scottyp:

Sure, sure, I agree that people do too. We just have to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is some truth at the bottom of the extremism.

Good discussion. I do think that the words we use are extremely important. There is a difference between acknowledging the stewardship responsibility that humans have and proposing “rights” for animals. Applying the word “rights” to animals leads to the extremism that we see in groups like PETA. Once you start treating animals like people, it becomes acceptable to treat people like animals (or worse, as we see in the case of Terri Schiavo).

 

[Lisa_N]

StJeanneDArc:

Good discussion. I do think that the words we use are extremely important. There is a difference between acknowledging the stewardship responsibility that humans have and proposing “rights” for animals. Applying the word “rights” to animals leads to the extremism that we see in groups like PETA. Once you start treating animals like people, it becomes acceptable to treat people like animals (or worse, as we see in the case of Terri Schiavo).

Also realize most of the PETA folks I’ve heard intereviewed are very proabortion. I find that dichotomy very hard to understand. I am absolutely against inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on any senitent creature. I agree with Aimee that if animals are to be killed for food purposes that their treatment before death be humane and their death quick and painless as possible.

Interesting how some groups opposed the "fetal pain’ bill. They wouldn’t inflict pain on a lab rat but do not mind if an unborn baby suffers excruciating agony as it’s being murdered.

Lisa N

 

[Kira]

I live a few blocks away from a poultry processing outlet and when I see the chickens being transported in huge trucks and stuffed into tiny cages I have to turn my head away. Have seen carcasses in the middle of the road (how they get out of the cages is beyond me) and think to my self that perhaps these chickens were lucky to die before getting to the factory as the fate that awaits them is probably even more horrible. Have no problem with eating meat, although my aim is to go vegetarian, but do have problems with the way food animals and treated before they reach our table. That said, I do not force my beliefs on anyone, but have become more thoughful about the whole subject.

 

[Scottyp]

Lisa, you’re exactly right, they’re being hypocritical, but that’s why we have to hold on to the idea of not being cruel to animals–it weakens the pro-abortion argument when it’s united to animal rights stuff.
If we can use the much smaller issue of being good stewards towards animals and grow that into the much bigger argument of abortion, they come out looking stupid.

We can’t forget though, that Satan uses a basis of truth to twist his lies. Let’s not throw out the truth!