I’ve been rolling this thought around for some time and I would appreciate any feedback our resident animal rights activist can give me.

As best as I can tell the two following statements are central tenants of the animal rights movement.
1. Eating meat is a barbaric and murderous act.
2. Humans are animals, and as such they are worth no more as beings than other animals.

Now, consider the following question. Is it cruel and barbaric for a cat to eat a mouse, a pack of wolves to eat a moose, a bear to eat a salmon, a lion to eat a zebra, etc? It seems that either way you answer the question you run into trouble.

If you say no, it is not a cruel and barbaric act for cats to eat mice, etc, then it seems that tenant number 1 can’t be true. You might say “it’s not murder for animals to do this, but it is murder for people to do this.” If this is the case, then it seems that tenant number 2 isn’t true because you are holding people to a higher standard than other animals. Hence, you can’t rationally hold tenants 1 and 2 as being true and answer this question negatively.

If you say yes, it is a cruel and barbaric act for cats to eat mice, etc, then it seems that you are asserting that animals, by their very nature, are cruel because they subsist on flesh. If this is the case then it seems that you really can’t blame people for eating meat, because by virtue of tenant 2 we are the same as other animals, and we can’t help but be cruel and eat meat. You might say “people choose to eat meat, animals do not.” But if you say this, then you can’t really hold tenant number 2 as being true. Hence, you can’t rationally hold tenants 1 and 2 as being true and answer this question affirmatively.

If I am right in saying you can’t rationally answer the above question with either a yes or no, then at least one of the two tenants, and possibly both, must be wrong. That would seriously undercut the basis of the animal rights movement.

I admit I’m not really well versed in the whole philosophy of the animal rights movement, so if you can show me where I’m wrong then I would be grateful. My argument is certainly valid. If it is also sound then it seems the animal right movement is inconsistent.

I agree with you on this, at least somewhat. If humans we animals and are the same as animals, then why can they eat meat yet we cannot? Eating meat is simply the circle of life, one creature losing its life in order for another to keep its. It's a way of keeping every creature alive indefinitely, which would overrun the planet.

However, I do know that some vegetarians don't eat meat because of the way the animal is killed, which is somewhat understandable, though only when the person refuses to only eat meat from a store or some such place. Many food producers treat the animals like s***, so people boycott, in a sense, meat in an attempt to get these producers to stop these barbaric acts. However, if that is the case, should the person not be able to eat meat if they hunt it and catch it themselves? I don't know . . . it all seems odd for me.

As for those people out there who don't eat meat because of a diet or something . . . you are vegetarians - you're people on a diet. You don't refuse to eat meat for any reason other than it's "bad" for you or will not help when trying to lose weight. I mean, what if a diet forbids chocolate? Does that mean that you refuse to eat chocolate because of some noble reason? No, it means that you just don't want to get fat or something.

I've yet to hear a very good argument for not eating meat concerning beliefs or anything like that. I mean, so what if the creature "had parents"? Everything has parents - and we kill plenty of things everyday, whether we want to or mean to or not. It's life - some creatures die in order for others to live. If it was not that way, there would be no room left on earth for all the creatures to survive.

*Awaits redglitter to come in a say we are all cruel worthless scum*

I am a vegetarian. I think killing animals is so wrong. I mean deer. That's different. There are so many deer, that killing a few is OK. The whole cat killing the mouse thing, I agree with you on that though.
~Julia~

Well people have different views on certain statements, i for one think that killing an animal in a nonhumane way (eg skinning alive, strapping explosives to them and watch them explode) is just nasty, and i am actually thinking bout going vegetarian because well...i don't eat much red meat not tha fact that ur eating a dead animal but when u think of it in that sort of way, its kinda gross. And humans are tha so called "high ranking" animal of the animal kingdom today, we are not just something from another planet, thats why scientists believe we are more related to apes..anyway...going out of scientific studies back on tha topic..

Yes it is part of life to kill sumthing living, cat killing a mice, a lion killing an antelope, etc etc they need to do this to live, they can't just change their diet so every living creature can be living free, you just gotta face it, everyone lives, everyone dies thats that, tha fact of life.

What is cruel and what not.

For a human to eat meat is not wrong. Vegeterians are idiots because they think we can live without it. When the first human started eating meat the new proteins reached his brain and a chemical reaction begun. A few 1000 years later this reaction gave us our intelligence. We would not have been the same without meat. And if you stop eating meat, you will also call a hold to the evolution of our brain.

Furthermore, if vegetarains think they won't hurt animals by eating green produce, soja & grain they are so wrong. The highest amount of innocent animal deaths can be found during the harvest when all the little mice, rats, rabbits and more get slashed between the blades of the harvesters.

Eat meat if you want to. Just try to eat something that didn't suffer unnessesary.

I dont think you should call vegetarians idiots

Im sure there are top scientists and brain surgeons etc etc. that are vegetarian. Its personal choice not a matter of intelligence.

other animals eat meat too...are they abusive as well?

I have been a vegetarian for 10 years, my son has been raised a vegetarian, and we are all doing well. So, I know humans don't need to eat meat to be healthy, and that because of the practices in the meat industry one is exposed to all sorts of harmful things if they choose to eat meat. Animals who kill for food do so because they have to and it is natural- they are not breeding their prey in cramped spaces and pumping them full of hormones just so they can't be mass murdered down the line; if they were I would think they were barbaric, too.
Also, I don't believe that humans are exactly the same as animals. Given the choice to save the life of a human over an animal I would, but the animals have the right not to be tortured.

It seems many of these replies aren't too experienced with animal rights debates.
The two initial arguments presented are rarely the same two held by one person, for the reasons you stated: they contradict. There are many different reasons for being a vegetarian, and therefore critisizing the practice as a whole will never cover everything.
I've narrowed it down to three main reasons, two of which are altruism and the other is for the self. For the Animals, earth, and health.
Humans do not need to eat animals to be healthy; even if protein is hard to come by (which it presently isn't) then americans eat more than is needed for protein consumption. There are many problems presented by eating meat in this society, including all those lovely cholesterol-induced , and most food-borne diseases. I won't talk about cultures that I don't know about, but I've always seen killing as a last resort. If it's not kill or be killed, then it's live and let live.

The meat industry is also disgustingly pollutant, and uses up many resources. Our people are starving and our livestock is well fed. Their excrement pollutes our air and groundwater.

For the animals, as I mentioned, it's unnessesary. I won't pass judgement on those who have no other option, including carnivorous animals, but we don't need to kill. Some people have preached some flawed theories about "freeing the animals" which I haven't heard complete versions of, so I can't tell you too much about. Another solution, which is much more simple, is to not breed them in the first place. I naturally hold myself and my kind above others, but I still hold sympathy to undeserved pain. I don't expect an instant revolution of full liberation; i'm just not doing my part to make this world a crap-hole.

Just to clarify, some of my opinions may not be mainstream among animal liberationists. I speak for myself; i'll argue against vegetarians just as much if not more than meat-eaters. I'm a vegan of a couple years, and that's cool for me. Not my buisness what you do, but I'm still going to talk about it.

*contains opinions, go look for facts on your own if you want them)

I am a vegetarian, not originally by philosohpy but for health reasons(its likely that if you got hangover-like experiences every time you ate meat you'd stop too).

That said I find that my chosen lifepath values life more than anything, life means options and this is what it looks to me like the universe is trying to make for itself. Any sort of death, accidental or other, stymies potential. But, the fact that is a natural part of life cannot be disregarded without severe problems with logic, so to me the option becomes:

Eat meat if you want to. Just try to eat something that didn't suffer unnessesary.
--watcher(earlier in this thread)

My personal choice, which I shall not be pushing on anybody against their will, is not to eat meat at all. But I DO eat fish and eggs, and I DO use money(which is always coated in blood if you look at it in any detail), all I can really do is minimise the damage at this point. Personal choice, in every action.

Ideally I would like to have no farming, no meat growing plants, and no captive life-forms what so ever. Freedom allows for the greatest amount of options, and is thus(to my mind) the only sensible solution. And before you start screamin.. this scenario IS possible with a little help from technology(and earthshattering changes in the way society conducts itself).
There already IS a society that bases its existence on this kind of behaviour, the aboriginees of australia, but I am not saying I'd like to see a return to the campfires. What I AM saying is that it is possible to let the plants and animals grow and breed as they will, and instead of farming animals and plants we could use technology to harvest from the naturally occuring stock of both plants and animals. Yes, this would require massive changes in the way food and other goods are being distributed. yes, this would require a very detailed knowledge of the needs of the total population of the entire eart. Yes, it would be difficult and costly.. infact it would probably require a change of the economic systems that was so profound we wouldn't recognise them afterwards. But, if the will is there, it IS possible.

Life is the only thing that matters, because life is potential options. If you wish to determine a difference between animal life and human life(even though humans are animals), that difference would have to be found in the options that are available. A human life, in most cases, has a greater potential for creating new options for life to utilise than most non-human life(at least those we know of so far) and could be considered to be of greater use to the universe for that reason(if you accept the premise that options is what the universe wants anyway).

Like jazzgeek(long live charles mingus btw) pointed out, the two statements in the start of this thread are not generally held by the same person precisely because they are contradictory(as brav zulu argues). BUT, there are extremists everywhere(I am sure I can be counted to be one myself) so nothing can be discounted.

Life has rights, and the first rights of every life(human or not) are(very broadly): Choice and existence. Taking away either is an infringement of that lifes rights, but it has to be done because every animal needs to feed..and so far our technology has not provided us with an easy enough way around killing for survival for it to be immediatly practical to implement(so it isn't, thanks to our economic systems). But, it is my personal opinion that all us lifes should do our best to keep from infringing on ANY other lifes rights.
To me it looks like all you can really do is personally choose very carefully what you do, know the consequences of these choices and not be afraid of looking those consequences squarely in the eyes and Doing something about what you see as wrong. Individual choice, always, determines the course of society as a whole.

This is a good question, which makes animal rightists to wriggle a little bit. I aksed them similar questions in other AR forums, but they banned me as a result. I learned that this is a kind of new religion with its own ideology. Any serious reasoning and logic does not work. They have many forums, all like tentacles of a religious group targeting broad audience, from kids with their pets to emotionally sensitive feinthearted mature people to spread their views. They call rabbits "boys', "girls and "spouses" and use this kind of wording quite seriously not thinking that all thoseu boys and girls normally die fiolent death being caught by hawks and foxes... This is nothing but a new slimy religion. You cannot argue with them. I am in this forum, because I found a few posts of people free from this AR religion.

" dont think you should call vegetarians idiots

Im sure there are top scientists and brain surgeons etc etc. that are vegetarian. Its personal choice not a matter of intelligence"

I disagree the reason I disagree is the fact you do not see people that eat all over the place saying that eating vegies is bad for you. In fact all I ever see is vegetarians preaching and being the problem child, I do not care that you do not eat meat, so why would it bother them if I did????? Because they feel that they have to push their beleifs on others.

Do not tell me how to live my life and I will not tell you how to live yours

its okay for animals to do what they need to do to survive.. they do not do it out of greed, they do it because they need too. they are not being selfish and greedy and taking advantage of their power by eating other animals.. we are because we dont need to eat them to survive.