Cows Happy to be Outdoors

Wikipedia is reliable to the point it shows other points of view, not just those thought of by specific authors of a dictionary or encyclopedia.

You can get several philosophy books by well regarded authors who question the definition of personhood.

If you start to justify your actions based on those of wild animals you may as well start to rape, kill one another, poop in front of one another, walk around naked, etc. As you said yourself, we're superior and the result of that is having stronger morality.

I like to use my superiority for the good - I am superior to mentally disabled human beings as well as young human beings, that doesn't mean that I will abuse them, much the contrary, it means I will give them extra love and compassion.

The use of superiority for oppression is the very definition of tyranny, and the root cause of most atrocities historically committed by humans.

I am proud to act compassionately towards anyone regardless of their mental abilities. So long as they are capable of suffering and having a minimal sense of self and value for his or her own life, I will respect their wishes just as I'd would my own.

Call me old fashioned, but I can't ever justify using Wikipedia as a source.

Webster's dictionary defines a "person" as "human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes"

I don't know if I agree with the selfish aspect of your argument either. Who are we to say that animals that are omnivores wouldn't eat more meat if it were available? Most canine species can live on plants and plant matter, but prefer meat. Does that make them selfish?

I used deer as a specific example because they are wild. They don't have feed, wouldn't receive injections, nor would you be able to castrate the ones that need to be. They aren't raised on a farm where these things could be easily done.

At the end of the day, humans are the superior species. You may not agree, and I am perfectly fine agreeing to disagree. But I believe that as I sit here, using my thumbs to type, that I sit proudly on top of the food chain.

"Person" has a gray definition that is forever changing. A few hundred years ago a black human being was not considered a "person".

From Wikipedia: Various specific debates have focused and continue to focus on questions about the personhood of different classes of entities. Historically, the personhood of animals, women, and slaves has been a catalyst of social upheaval. Today, most living adult humans are usually considered persons, but depending on the context, theory or definition, the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, corporations, sovereign states, estates in probate, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life; and may exclude some human entities in prenatal development or those with extreme mental impairments or injuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

So in that case, murder CAN be applied to a non-human animal.

The malice part is not included in every definition of the word, and I don't agree that murder requires malice. A selfish reason is a reason but not necessarily malicious. Killing an animal in order to eat him or her is selfish at the point that you don't need to do it to survive, you do it because you enjoy the taste. It's your desire to seek pleasure against their desire to live.

Which brings me to your question about hunting. Which is better, to kidnap a girl and lock her up in a cellar for 3 years then killing her, or to just shoot her in the street? I'm sure you'll agree it's the latter but neither are exactly ideal are they?

That girl died for no justifiable reason either way and that's what makes it wrong.

As for population control, there are other ways to control populations that don't involve killing. You can add contraceptives to their feed, or apply injections or perform castrations. However, populations in nature generally control themselves, it's only when human interests are at stake that they are deemed "too populous". Wolves are often hunted because they start killing the cows that you eat.

If human population is out of control (it already is), is it a viable solution to hunt people? Why is that so with non-humans? Speciesism is the reason.

Webster's Dictionary defines murder as such:

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

The key words for me are "person" and "malice"

So I guess for me, I don't consider it murder. Do I think the animals should be abused? No. Should they lead relatively comfortable lives before they become my food? Yes.

I think we agree on the fact that there are things that happen in the industry that definitely shouldn't. And honestly, if an individual is deranged enough to gain some sort of joy from causing animals pain, they should probably seek professional help.

Another question I have for you would be what is your stance on hunting? It's one person and one animal. They've had a chance to roam free, not be caged up, and will ultimately serve as a meal for another animal (in this case, a human). Also, in the case of deer, hunting is a form of population control that allows the animals to flourish and not become over-populated.

Sandman,

Thanks for being understanding. :-)

If the definition of murder is the unnecessary killing of an innocent individual, then yes, it very much is. ;-) But it's not just the killing part that's wrong, it really is the whole process of exploitation, incarceration, mutilation, inadequate transportation and ultimately inadequate slaughter.
I am sure that the slaughter part is very painful, but at that point that animal has suffered a lot more than his or her last moments.

You obviously won't find any videos from the dairy industry showing you the atrocities they commit. And current laws (passed by meat industry lobbyists) makes it illegal or difficult for it to be reported by the media. It is illegal to film inside farms, and you can't get permission from the owners, so these are always undercover videos and thus illegal by nature. A few years ago Oprah was sued simply for saying she wouldn't eat a burger anymore. After that media organisations have become wary of reporting on animal abuse.

To make matters worse, this law here just passed in Utah a few days ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/aggag-bills-threaten-our-_b_1370091.html it makes it even more difficult to expose animal abuse.

If you or anyone want to learn more about the philosophies of animal rights, there's a great documentary called Vegucated which is available on iTunes. It's quite humorous at times and I highly recommend anyone watching it.

This talk by Melanie Joy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vWbV9FPo_Q is also an excellent explanation of the deep meanings of animal rights - WAY beyond "meat is murder"

And if you'd rather read a book, "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safram Foer is a great place to start.

Darn it, I'm self grammar policing myself -- You're = your.

Edward, I respect your choice. If eating only plants is something you choose to do, by all means, go for it. I do enjoy my plants as well, but I also prefer to have some meat in my diet.

You're ideas are well thought out and you obviously are well-learned. Thank you for your restraint and not falling back to the "OMGZ MEAT IS MURDER" argument.

I tried to Google around for more information, but it seems all anti-dairy farm information is from the same 3 or 4 biased sources.

Some good points there Edward. Nice to read some Intelligent feedback unlike [deleted - no name calling pls - editor]

I have studied a LOT about farming practices, and have personally contacted several farms, from organic to family farms and the facts I wrote about were true to them all.

As for calves being left to die, I've seen them, and it's one way that farm sanctuaries get to rescue them - they just pick them up from the field or the side of the road.

Just because something is too atrocious to be true doesn't automatically make it untrue. Much worse things happen.

As for the argument of being an omnivore, let me explain.
Firstly, sharp teeth does not necessarily mean a biological obligation to consume animal flesh. Gorillas and pandas have canine teeth many times larger than ours and are strictly herbivorous. Sharp teeth like ours are better suited for tearing fruits and vegetables than they are at tearing through raw meat.

But that aside, we ARE omnivores. An omnivore is an animal who can survive on either plant or animal matter (mostly insects). The emphasis on EITHER. This is a great survival strategy as in winter months or during drought, it's easier to find animal matter than plant matter. But omnivores, unlike carnivores, are not biologically required to consume animals in order to be healthy.

At the point that there's no biological necessity to consume any one food type, consuming them becomes a choice. I can choose to eat wheat or not, apples or not, crickets or not, dogs or not. Stopping to consume any of those does not mean sudden death or health problems so long as I have other things to eat.

So given the choice between causing suffering to a being equally sentient to me - or not causing suffering, I believe the most moral one is to choose the latter.

If choice is no longer an option, if I'm stuck on an island or lost in a jungle and eating an animal or egg becomes the difference between my life and death - I would likely choose to consume that. But in our society, with the technology that we have to plant almost everything all year long - I have no excuses not to act morally.

Go to any supermarket and right next to the cow's milk you will find almond, soy, hemp, coconut, flexseed, rice or oat "milks". So why would I pick the one that caused the most suffering over the one that caused the least when there's no nutritional benefit or necessity to consume either?

For those thinking about arguing that plants suffer too, please study biology and evolution. In order to experience pain and emotions one needs a brain and a central nervous system.
Pain evolved as a way to signal a bad experience that we want to avoid in future. In order to avoid an experience we need to be mobile so we can move away from it. It would be stupid for any being who can't move to experience pain. Oysters and start-fish are animals and have limited movement - they also lack a central nervous system and like plants are incapable of feeling pain and emotions.

For those thinking about arguing that a plant-based diet is unhealthy. You're talking to a very healthy man whose blood-work comes out perfect every time. I'm clearly well and alive and so are millions of others like me.
If animal protein was required for good health, I'd be in hospital, not typing this on my computer at home.

Maybe it's the lack of meat that makes them angry.

Eh, I'm ready to start ignoring the animal rights commenters. Whenever I try to engage them in polite conversation about their concerns, they ignore me. I think that many just want to be angry, rather than persuasive.

Oh, and meat tastes soooooo good.

If I were meant to eat only plants, I'd have flat teeth that grind plant matter. But, wouldn't you know it, I have these sharp, pointy teeth in the front of my mouth that are used for TEARING FLESH. I am an omnivore. I was born an omnivore. I will always be an omnivore.

You guys realize that you are fighting over a video of cows frolicking in a pasture, right? A video... of cows... frolicking... Some of you guys take life too seriously.

Sandman.
Everything in moderation, even consuming sentient beings. Why, becouse they taste good eh!
I wouldn't sell my soul for a mouthfull of Umami.
You sir are a prime example of the depths humanity have unfortunatly sunk to.

Everything in moderation. Red wine is good for you, but it's not good for you if you drink 3 bottles at a time.

If anyone bothers to read health reports, red meat is not healthy for your body! Even it was I wouldnt eat beef or pork. Kinda of like eating your dog or cat! Whats the difference?

Male calves are most often simply left to die? What an absurd claim, Edward Sanchez. Makes me disregard everything else you said as well.

Also, before getting your panties in a bunch, find me an independent study showing me otherwise and I will stand corrected.

Anytime I see the "sources" or "facts" put forth by people spouting this garbage, it's a few isolated incidents. I agree, the people abusing the animals should be shut down. But for every case, there's at least one counter-case. It's using a few bad examples to cast a generalization over the entire industry. That doesn't make it a "fact".

Antibiotics are murder. Simple. Only the unenlightened would think otherwise.

Meat is murder. Simple. Only the unenlightened would think otherwise.

It's not "propaganda" if it's true. Just because you don't want to look at the reality of it doesn't make it false.

I grew up on a family farm where we raised cattle. We give them all the food and shelter they need, protect them from predators, make sure they're healthy and well looked-after -- and in return, we get to eat them.

I'm opposed to the mistreatment of animals, and any farmer (factory farm or otherwise) who mistreated his animals would lose my respect. But it's important to remember that they are in fact animals, not people. I see no contradiction between enjoying seeing cattle frolic happily in the pasture, and enjoying cattle on my plate. That's the circle of life.

Well, Edward Sanchez is a buzzkill. Take your PETA propaganda elsewhere, you're harshing the buzz of those happy cows.

Aww, happy cows. Very cute... pass the steak sauce please :D

I'm happy to see their moment of happiness - sadly 99% of their lives are filled with sadness and pain.

1- Dairy cows are forcefully impregnated through a system officially called "r*pe rack" - a man inserts his hand down her *nus to push her uterus down and then inserts a syringe with sp*rm through her v*gina.

2- She's pregnant for 9 months, in confinement, and when she finally gives birth her calf is immediately taken away from her - she'll howl for days calling for her baby.

3- If the baby is a male, he'll be either sent to the veal industry where he'll be confined and fed a low iron diet so his meat is soft. Or he'll be shot de*d - or, most often, he's left to die.

4- If the baby is a female, she's grown to be a dairy cow herself and suffer the same fate as her mother.

5- A dairy cow produces 12x more milk than she would naturally with her baby. Giving milk is painful, ask any woman, being s*cked several hours a day 12x more than she does naturally is very painful.

6- Free living cows can live up to 25 years, but dairy cows only live about 6 years and in that time period she'll have 4 babies taken away from her. She is then sent to slaughter to be made into cheap meat.

Videos like this make us smile because we care, because we have empathy - but the sad part that happens 99% of the time is always hidden from the public.

Yay, animals being happy to be alive! Let's let them enjoy their frolicking and cut down on the burgers, mkay?

All that running around is going to produce lots of milkshake. They sure looked happy.