Great video, so very true, but I am confident that a brighter future will come as society is continuing to evolve so it would make sense that Speciesism, alike racism & sexism will fall too.
I think we ought to look towards the animal kingdom itself in order to properly shape our views on speciesism- animals are speciesists themselves, but they do not exploit, overuse, or torture (usually) members of other species, although carnivores still eat meat from other species. I think that eating meat, based on the way that the natural world functions, is not in and of itself wrong- but that it is wrong to treat animals poorly while they are still alive.
@TheAmazingImbecile Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I see your point, but I think we need to be careful when taking the animal kingdom as our model - we are of course humans beings, and the only species capable of moral thought and consideration - as a result we can eliminate as much needless suffering or death as we can. We're clever enough to know we can eat vegan diets, and we and other animals can thrive because of this - as a result, I think we're obligated to do it.
Ah! but we DO discriminate children! We don't let them vote, we don't let them drive, we don't let them make their own decisions. No, I think the "if I have sex with it I consider it equal" is a proper measuring stick.
Erm not quite - it's not discrimination if the difference is rationally justified - would you say it's discrimination to give one person who's better at the job, the job? Of course not. Similarly if one individual doesn't have the characteristics that require the vote (ie an ability to understand societal needs etc) then they shouldn't have it.
All children are equal with adults in the right to live though, as are all animals - hence why we shouldn't draw differences as to who get's the right.
Ah, but I say the differences between humans and animals are such that they justify treating them differently. I don't believe they have a right to live anymore than they do. If you can convince me that non-human animals believe that no animals should be killed, I'll stop killing them.
What on earthm, your argument changes from post to post!
1st of all humans and animals ARE different! Hence why we do treat them differently. But adults and children are different too, on very similar grounds. This doesn't give a reason to kill children if you don't have to!
There are millions of young children in the world who don't understand morality either, this isn't a reason to kill them. The only relevant factor in the right to live, is the ability to consciously exist.
well you've acknowledged that animals are different and deserve different treatment. My opinion is that they are different enough that killing them is not particularly cruel if you raise them humanely. I detest the child comparison because children have the potential to grow. Animals will never be more than animals.
Look up James Herriot. My stance on animal rights is very similar to his. C. S. Lewis is good too. Both ate meat.
Oh ym where to begin...first of all you take you're ethical stances not from the great minds in the area of animal rights but from a fictional TV vet and an author of childrens book!
Some children will also be never more than 'children' this is not a reason to eat them - your though is showing serious fasicts tendencies like this.
Animals certainly do deserve different treatment, as do children - but both definetely do have the relevant characteristics to deserve a right to life obviously.
And also, since you acknowledged that humans and animals are different, you've acknowledged that "speciesism" is right. They are different, so they should be treated differently. The distinction between humans and nonhumans must be acknowledged.
"since you acknowledged that humans and animals are different, you've acknowledged that "speciesism" is right."
That doesn't even make sense mate! It isn't prejudice to point out differences. Prejudice appears when you attribute irrelevant value to differences or similarities - which is what you do when you state physical or intellectual differences are deserving of differences in rights to live (which we know from our knowledge of children is wrong)
What you need to grasp is that creatures (both human and non-human) can be as different as you like, but it is only the ability to live that affects the right to live. Sex, colour of skin, number of legs, wooliness of hair, ability to appreciate fine art - none of this has any bearing on it. Children/babies aren't protected because 'one day they will be people',they are protected because they are individuals deserving of respect themselves. Law recognises this, your argument however fails to.
I feel obliged to point out that nearly all animals protect their young (even if they aren't their offspring), rarely do they protect other species. It is this natural care for children of your species that dictates our treatment of children.
Also, if every living thing deserves the right to life then I expect you to treat plants, insects, and microorganisms as such. Sorry to go for the stereotypical response, but you asked for it.
Again, your argument isn't taking into account our discussion - you're stating general responses to veganism.
Animals also rarely protect members of other families - but this doesn't mean we should only look after our own family. That mutes your first point.
Secondly, you're picking and choosing the definition of living. To live, is different from the biological term being alive. Ie, your body can still live as an organism after death, but you are dead. Plants etc don't live consciously.
Also, most of C.S. Lewis books are philosophical in nature and his best work is definitely the more mature ones such as "The Problem of Pain" (a subject you would find interesting), "The Four Loves" and "A Grief Observed".
The big fallacy you're making here is that children =/= non-human animals. They are inherently different both in their potential and in their relationship to humans.
I couldn't care less about CS Lewis! there is a fairly big reason why his name doesn't appear in the animal rights debate on either side - mainly that his arguments aren't logical one's. he may state random points that he believes, or that sound nice and rounded in literature - but he never approached the issues at the heart of the subject.
Secondly, I have never said children=animals, you've made that up to make me sound 'stereotypical' and so make it easier for you to reject logic.
I have said they are the same as animals in the right to live, which is a fact. Both children and animals consciously experience life (there are no degrees of this, you are alive or dead), as do adult human beings, and so in the right to life they should all be equal. Only bringing in discriminate factors (physicality. intelligence) would change this.
Actually as you stated in the previous comment, there are degrees of life. You draw a line at who gets "the right to live" at animal consciousness, I draw mine at human consciousness.
What about animals with less ability to "consciously experience life"? Let's go with lobsters. They have no brain and are unable to feel pain. Their lives are a series of sensations with no memory or thought.
I added Lewis as an afterthought because I'm reading a Greif observed. Herriot is my main influence.
Again, you are trying to twist the argument by using two definitions. There are degrees of 'life', but not 'conscious life' (which is the important thing obv, as we don't give rights to dead humans) - you are either consiously alive, or you aren't. In this sense white consciousness is no different to black, child is no different to adult, and animal is no different to human. And this is the only relevant factor in the right to live - anything else draws upon unfair bias.
You do make a good point about animals with no brains etc though. I'm no biologist, but I do know that science draws the distinction between animals and plants for it's own categorisations. Morally the categorisations are different-conscious life is all that is deserving of rights.
So though it may be called animal rights,as most animals are consious and so deserving of rights just like humans,I have no doubts that there are some lesser developed 'animals' which aren't consious.
PS. i didn't mean to sound so nasty about CS Lewis, I'm sure his literature has great value - I just get a bit weary of people bringing in 'authority figures' as reasons for things being right!
Personally I have never heard of any great mind in history who I didn't disagree with about at least one thing, so i don't see the value in appealing to them as justification for a position. Of course this doesn't mean he didn't have decent ideas etc.
I say the discrimination is rationally justified based on innate and clearly determinable differences between animals.
James Herriot is NOT a "fictional TV vet", he was a practicing veterinarian for 40-odd years and has been widely accepted by animal rights' groups as one of the most influential people in that field in history. The Humane Society of the United States has an award named after him. So please, don't discredit him with your ignorance.
"I say the discrimination is rationally justified based on innate and clearly determinable differences between animals."
There's nothing rational about your argument so far. Race isn't a rational reason to discriminate in the right to live, neither is intelligence, neither are physical differences. You have pointed out that animals and humans are different, well done, but have pointed out no relevant difference that has an impact on the right to live or the right not to unduely suffer.
I don't think ethics are about reproduction at all - and societal laws and rules (which we are interested in on this issue) aren't about reproduction either. I don't respect other humans just because I could reproduce with them - that's a very crude, illogical way to look at life, and it is neither reflective of reality nor true of our societies current moral reasoning.
Respect for humans is based on acceptance of their ability to experience their own life - and animals have that too.
I love animals, but I have 2 problems with being vegan:
(1) What does one do if and when someone proves that plants are sentient? Starve and only use non-organic material?
(2) The predator - prey relationship has existed for almost as long as life has, certainly as long as animals have. In fact, plant eating animals are predators of plants. I think we need a balance by way of regulation and reform, not prohibition. (My favorite animals are ruthless carnivores: Cats.)
I think you make some really good points to be honest Kirke, nice change from some of the stuff you hear. I'll do my best to answer your questions.1)Sentience depends on a nervous system, which we know doesn't exist in plants - just like we know it does exist in you or I.However consciousness is also important, and it is a bit illogical that it could exist in plants.The problem is we like to say plants are 'alive' - but really they are just organice,not alive ie,conscious,so people get confused.
2)There is nothing wrong with being a predator as such (as you say, predators can eat plants) the problem is that it is wrong for someone with a capacity for morality to cause unnecesary suffering-which we all do,as we don't need to eat animal products to live.The same reason murdering humans is wrong essentially-regardless of the naturality of a behaviour,it can still be immoral.Sexism has existed in most creatures since the dawn of time,doesn't make it right for us,as moral agents,to be sexist
Up until now, the words reason and vegan never really came up in the same sentence, and I have to admit that I was thinking that this conversation could turn sour, but it hasn't, and you seem very reasonable. :)
I think you also make a lot of good points as well. I agree that unnecessary suffering and killing is amoral. Where I think we disagree on is what is necessary. I could give up eating meat, but not drinking milk, blah,blah, blah, etc. But I can agree to disagree. :)
Thanks for your kind comment, I agree it's nice to have a conversation without the sourness!
You could agree to disagree, of course, but at the same time I think these are very real issues. I, on my mountain of research on the issue (I was bought up on a farm so it was a real mountain of stuff I too disagreed with at first), can't find a reason that causing suffering is ever neccesary for the reasons of taste or naturality etc (given that their are far less health issues with vegan diets etc)
I will admit that I haven't done much research, but most everything I have seen has said that not eating animals is healthier. However, my interest in evolutionary history is greater, and I can't get over this paradox:
Without our ancestors getting the protein content from eating animals, humans would never have developed the mental capacity to question whether eating animals is wrong.
Just as the dinosaurs had to die for mammals to flourish, we had to eat meat to become human.
Very true, and a good point. However, we don't need to continue practices just because they helped us get to a good or even great place - there were good things that slavery accomplished, however it had to stop as it is immoral. Similarly vivisection has accomplished good things (though most argue we would have done better with alternatives in last centurey at least), but it doesn't mean we need to use it anymore.
I just think that we didn't get a black president immediately after banning slavery, it had to be done in small incremental steps. Maybe you should shoot for vegetarianism, then when that is accomplished you can take away my delicious milk. :)
Hmm yeah I agree, I think it does have to be done in steps. I guess we just have to remember not to lose sight of what the vital wrong is though - ie the kind of thing Tom Regan approaches in his work, with the problem of welfare instead of rights (can't remeber if I posted the link to that article when talking to you?). It's easy to go wrong ( as almost all animla groups do) if we start seeing it as necessary to take away certain rights but slightly improve living conditions etc.
Well, I suggest continuing the education campaign, and working on regulating and reforming the commercial sector. Because, if I couldn't buy meat at a store (restaurant, etc), I would certainly be a vegetarian because I can't do the killing or cleaning or prepping. But even after all that, why can't I eat cheese or drink milk (the only reason I've ever been told is that is like drinking urine.. had they said blood I might be more inclined to agree.)? Assuming no cows are tortured?
I was a vegetarian for a few months before I went vegan for that very reason - I could imagine a situation where it was okay to consume dairy products! But when I thought about it, I was being pretty idealistic about it (ie it's not realistically possible) and obviously isn't the case int he world we are in.
Dairy's just an issue of taste really - and it's one that doesn't reappear once you've stopped for any period of time. It becomes very disgusting, really quite fast lol!
Also... Even the smallest children ask questions about the world and are conceptually thinking beings. This is why we are most commonly called human BEINGS. If you think animals experience conceptual thinking about the world and emotional pain, then be my guest.
Actually young children don't do this - also scientifically accepted fact. This doesn't develop until after child birth - I've no idea the exact age, but feel free to research and come back to me if you disagree. But I think you'll find, at the very least, a child straight out of the womb is not capable of these thoughts. And fyi all creatures are BEINGS. Yet another seemingly made up point? If your argument rests on all these false values, what have you left?
Apparently you've never heard a cow bellow for days on end once she's seperated from her calf. It is not "conceptual" but it is emotional. Beings (by their nature) want to be with their young. Beings (by their nature) wish to continue living. And the point is - killing them is UNNECESSARY! We do not NEED to kill them for "food". We survive fine on a plant based diet - Go Vegan
Hey! Great video! I agree - going Vegan was the best decision I ever made. I feel like my actions are finally consistant with my values. Not to mention I'm much healthier in the process :) Being Vegan is a wonderful lifestyle choice - thanks for reminding us of this :)
Another point... Animals that produce milk need to be milked for their HEALTH. Cows are supposed to be milked, so getting dairy products from them and saying its "bad" is so rediculous it's not even funny.
Again, your poijt is suffering from growing up being taught something, but not knowing the facts. Cows are mammals, and like most mammals only produce milk when they have given birth - to feed their young. They are not as society likes to teach kids 'milk machines,that need to be milked'.Farmers continually artificially impregnate the cows, take the calfs away to be fed on artificial diets,and then pump the mothers full of hormones to make them produce milk.U should really check stuff like this.
Oh, and america has a high heart disease rate not because of meat. That's pure ignorance. America consumes more fast food/oils/peanut/veggie oils then any other country. It's not just meat. You're assuming that I'm argueing for an animal based diet also. Red meat/chicken are very healthy if you eat a healthy ammount and dont cook them in grease and oil. Americas only problem is that they don't know what MODERATION is.
The point is that if vegan diets were cooked in the same ways, they would still herald much, much lower rates of heart disease and the such - as they are naturally much, much lower in cholesteral, a substance which only brings heart disease in humans.I can see how tiny amounts of chicken and fish (kept at clean levels which are impossible to attain in farmed conditions) wouldnt harm a person, but the same can not be said of red meat (the links between beef and colon cancer are well known).
And yes the instances of cholesteral in animal products are pretty much the only instances capable of causing heart disease. vegetables, beans etc can not cause anywhere near the damage that meat, eggs and milk can. Not accepting that is pure ignorance. Again I suggest you look up the health problems with animal products, and through more reliable sources than the FDA. try counter think or somewhere similar. believe it or not, the stuff you hear in the US media probably isn't true.
I ussually assumed it's irrelevent because we should be valued and treated better then animals because we are human. That's the simple reason. I mean once you start making animals and humans equals, your basicly admitting that we're the same as a swarm of misquitoes or a flock of sheep. And if this mindset anchors in people, it becomes easier to justify alot of things...Look at what hitler did. Most people assume the same, that humans are intrinsicly valueable in areas where animals are not.
Yes, but you have to say why we should be valued and treated better for being human, that's the point,and if there is no relevant reason then you are doing it for no other reason than the characteristics of physical groups - whcih is discrimination.
Youre views are much more similar to Hitler's. I am trying to say how all life is valuable, emparting respect on everyone's life. However you are trying to discriminate on irrelevant factors based on physical differences.I suggest reading Regan.
Its not physical characteristics, once again. Animals, yes, they do feel physical pain/pleasure. However, they dont SEE good/evil, they dont have conciences, they dont feel spiritual/emotional pain like we do. If they did they would have had a revolt against humans by now. Animals are driven purely by instinct, not will/concience like humans. Do you honestly think animals are looking and thinking "this is so terrible! Why are they so cruel!" no,because they arent beings with conceptual thoughts.
Well neither are some mentally disabled people, so if you hold these views (that this is the reason humans can abuse animals) then you have to hold that we can do it to the mentally disabled who have this level of thought processes too? I have put this point across to you many times, you don't seem to get it. It's quite a basic logical argument.
Braino: Just seeing your comments now. First I want applaud you for considering going veg. A great book about the harm invovled in dairy/egg production as well as the argument from marginal cases cited below is Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Regarding the health benefits of a plant based diet from an animal researcher who is not a moral vegan check out The China Study by T Campbell (heart disease, diabetes and many forms of cancer are preventable by adopting a good vegan diet).
The question is not "can they reason?" but "can they suffer?". In our own moral obligations we have the responsibility to cause as little harm/pain as possible. We are "civilized". To cause needless suffering is inconsistant with what we profess our values to be. The more we learn the more we learn we are wrong to continue down this unnecessary & cruel path. Man lives fine on a plant based diet -there is no "justification" simply because animals can't "rationalize" why they are being abused.
Tiny ammounts of chicken and fish? Eating chicken and fish every day is very healthy. Look up the mediterranean diet, a diet based on poultry/fish/veggies and dairy...Is probably the healthiest diet possible. And dont even try to say that dairy products are unhealthy for you. I would easily consider cutting red meat out of my diet, but dairy products/chicken/fish wouldnt out of my diet wouldn't do me a single good thing. Fish is known to be one of the healthiest foods.
No eating it every day isn't healthy. The last I heard was suggesting fish once a week to get omega 3, whereas they neglected to say that there are many vegetables that provide much healthier sources of it. At the end of the day fish and chicken maybe healthier than red meat, but it is still the flesh of a creature, and is rotting by the time it gets to your plate. And this is without taking into account the other health problems you will uncover with a search on google.
Also let's not forget the problems with dairy. A look at the White Lies report might help you out here. Adult humans can get very little nutrition from dairy (despite what the dairy companies will tell you), it also is found to be one of the major causes of breast cancer (discovered by the massive 'China Study'), osteporosis, countless kids diseases, as well as links to heart disease..Again I must urge you to actually search for information on this.Look up Proffesor Jane Plant,Colin Campbell...
If I'm honest, I would think we are getting to the stage where the problems with 'healthy' foods such as fish and dairy are getting to the point that we got to with cigarrettes years ago. The research and evidence is being kept from the mass media, and discredited by sponsored scientists so as to keep the relevant industries going. But just as when tobacco companies kept the evidence hidden, it is still there if anyone wants to bother looking for it - theres a lot of genuine research out there.
This is getting really old... All I'm hearing now is "do research" which I have googled your suggestions... And "society is hiding the truth!" Like you're some how on the inside of everything here... You're points are well, and I've been planning to kick red meat/daily consumption of ANY meat from my diet... But vegan is still a bit unneccassary. In what way is milking a cow abusing it? My views similar to hitlers? Hitler discriminated against concience, conceptual thinking people, not animals.
Well fair enough if you have googled them now, you will see that I am not making anything up. It's all stuff you learn when you research the subject, not just things I have made up since going vegan. Milking a cow as abuse, just as milking farmed humans would be - it's the same argument. Unless you point out some relevant different why a cow should have to suffer for a human's badly educated taste buds.
Oh yes, cows suffer SO much when they are milked! I can just IMAGINE The emotional and physical pain they go through! Right... And badly educated taste buds? That's your opinion. If it werent for humans eating meat and living off animals, well...Humans wouldnt even be here in the first place. So you should thank our ancestors for that. your pretty much saying that any animal who lives off of other animals is a speciesist and is "morally wrong"
Again you are showing your ignorance in the issue. Yes, you were bought up to believe cows are milking machines, I get it. However the life of a dairy cow is probably the worst of all farmed animals. PLEASE LOOK IT UP!!
'If it werent for humans eating meat and living off animals, well...Humans wouldnt even be here in the first place.'
The same could be said of human slavery, it doesn't make it morally okay lol!!
And for the last time, moral philosophy is aimed at MORAL AGENTS!!! This is assumed in all creation of moral theory and law!! So it is not a valid arguement to say that animals, young children,or the mentally disabled are acting immorally so long as they have no moral capacity.Howver, as with these groups,it does not give us, as moral agents, just reason to abuse any child, person, or animal.This is very basic philosophy, and you perhaps shouldn't being arguing about morality without it.
Humans would still be here if there were never slavery. I'm hearing the same things over and over. And they aren't as logical as you're making them (the mentally disabled argument) basically, your entire animal rights philosophy is a dehumanizing thought process. You stil haven't told me why speciesism is wrong. Your entire view is based on opinion. This is getting really boring. Not to mention there are several facts that suggest humans are designed to eat animal based foods...
They would also still be here if they hadn't eaten meat, my point is you can't jutify current behaviours by reffering to times when certain things happened.
Yes it is getting boring. I have put many point across to you, countering evryone of yours, and yet you have had no reply, but still maintain you are correct.
My animal rights philosophy simply rests on the assumption that life is important, that's it, you views rests in humans being special for no reason.And that is speciesism.
If you can not justify why you give one race preferable treatment over another,that is racism,and if you can't justify why you give one species preferable treatment over another,that is specieisism.Your only defense would be if you could justify it, point out something that all humans and no animals have,or alternately disallow the disabled from human rights - but you have done neither,so your view is paradoxical and specieisist.That's the point,and you and no one else appears to have an answer.
If people were designed to eat animal based foods - why are millions thriving on plant based diets??? Speciesism is wrong because it always leads to the exploitation of yet another "other".It depends on who can make a profit on who- It just so happens that animals are at the bottom of this "use" & "need" excuse.But "tradition" and past history does not make it right. We were too ignorant decades/centuries ago to make the connection. We do now & we go Vegan as the only logical consistant course.
Cows suffer.Dairy cows suffer emotional stress when their calves are (repeatedly) ripped from them after birth.They are herd animals-imprisoned to confinement, most often never to experience the sun on their bodies or to walk on "grass".They are given drugs in order to produce 10 times the amount of milk nature had intended, leading to painful udder infection.Once they've become "unproductive" they are trucked to a slaughterhouse, facing yet more fear and suffering. Go Vegan.
I don't eat red meat anymore anyways... And millions of people AREN'T. Vegan works for SOME people, alot of people have tried it and it wasn't healthy for them (many reviews of it) It's not exactly a healthy solution for everyone. And there ARE a few key facts about our composition/anatomy that points to our need for animal based foods.
Actually there really aren't,that was a myth that I thought was more or less extinguished now.The only problem I have ever uncovered(that genuinely exists)is one with vit B12.However this is often a problem on animal based diets too,and experts say is a problem encountered through over washing vegetables in modern life-as it's a vitamin we used to get from consuming tiny amounts of soil on our food.& if it happens to b a problem for you,take supplements - don't eat other people or creatures lol
Again...Vegan doesnt work very well for EVERYONE, just some people. And WTF
"Don't eat other people or creatures lol"
What a mature and relevant response! Since eating meat is the same as cannibalism? Just because someone doesnt conform to your guilt trip does mean they have to be insulted so ignorantly.
Perfectly acceptable to say that killing other conscious creatures is as bad as killing creatures of the same species as you - unless you can point out some logical difference that allows for a difference in rights between them...which you haven't... It isn't really confirming to anything if I want to use considered reason rather than habit and tradition in my views.
And 'Vegan doesnt work very well for EVERYONE, just some people'. What a strange statement to make. It is a fair enough point to make, but you forget to mention that a vegan diet would work for far more people than an animal based diet given the massive problems there are with it, and few (if any) there are with vegan diets.
Obesity is a huge problem, heart disease is massive, bowel and breast cancer are rising in huge numbers, at least 70% of adults are lactose intolerant...among others.
No, it's not. Maybe i'm not a dogmatic naturalist who asserts that we ARE the same as every other animal? And once again, animals arent concious, they dont think. Maybe I believe humans have a different purpose then animals, seeings how we think differently and actually have VALUES and objective morals (unlike animals)Oh, and there is confirmed evidence that alot of mentally challenged people DO have concious/conceptual thoughts, it mostly deals with spasms and body movement.
Where on earth are you getting your points from! It is a scientifically accepted fact that animals do think - they don't have self-conscious thoughts is what some believe, but a quick look at evolutionary theory would tell you all animals think, though have stages of developed brains and thought etc.
And your point about the disabled- I am clearly referring to those who don't have those thoughts - and there are many people like that! Again you fail to point out relevant differences.
Cannibalism isnt a norm amongst ANY group of creatures by the way. Very few can thrive on it considering it causes mental problems and health problems very early in the process. Unless you think eating a burger is going to give you schitzophrenia or some other severe mental illness like eating a human. Humans also have chemicals in their intestines used for breaking down a certain type of protien only found in meat. But i guess eating a cow and a human are the same thing?
Erm humans are the only animals that eat meat and suffer from the effects of cholesteral(again heart disease is the biggest killer in all countries that consist mainly of animal based diets). Humans are the only animals that claim they are natural meat eaters, yet have to cook their meat as devouring it raw is harmful and often deadly. So clearly meat eating is something we have developed, else what did we do before we discovered or became able to regularly use fire?
And yes, morally eating a cow and a human is the same difference as between eating a stranger who is human and a family member. Unless you can point out that vital relevant difference between humans and animals that your side of the arguement seems to miss - the argument about animals not being moral agents also excludes young children and some of the mentaly disabled - unless your happy to call them inferior in their right to life?
As for the Hitler thing. He discriminated against living creatures based on irrelevant characteristics. In his case it was humans, discriminating between them on physical characteristics, ignoring the fact they could all suffer and and all deserved to live their lives. Well you do the same with other animals, unless you can point out a relevant difference that makes it okay to cause them, or similarly lesser capable humans, suffering. Something logical that stands up to analysis.
And I dont mean this out of hostility... I think animals do deserve a certain ammount of rights, and they share similarities with us on a certain level, but people have gone way to far saying that we behave exactly like animals.
Braino2000 perhaps you forget the story of evoltuion, and the fact we are animals. All be it we like to think we are far better, but we are still animals. So of course we do behave like animals. What sort of strange factors are you referring to exactrly when you say we aren't animals, or don't behave like them? Does this mean that children, those young enough to be without higher reasoning or moral capabilities, are without the rights of adults too btw? Your views leave a lot to be explained
What? This video isn't saying that, it is saying that humans are badly affected by speciesist language etc, and that animals should have a good deal of rights too - given that they, just like humans, are animals deserving of them.
A view of life that fails to recognise the similarities between animals and humans is one of ignorance, bias and intolerance.
So your saying that if I think humans are more then animals and more important then them, im ignorant and intolerant? Because our moral judgements mean more that means I'm ignorant? I agree that animals should have rights, but giving them the same rights as humans is kind of rediculous.Animals don't have mind/concience like humans do,maybe they have the capacity to be altruistic, but thats about as far as it goes.They arent affected by seeing loved ones hurt like us.
No I'm not, I'm saying that it is ignorant to leave animals out and put humans on a pedestal created by language - one that appears to have very little basis in true reflections of reality.
The moral judgements that humans are capable of do not give us some sort of superiority over animals with most rights. It perhaps means we should have more say in moral matters, but that's about it. It leaves us with no reaosn for believing we have a greater right to life or anything important...
...else we would have to say that some humans have a greater right to life than the severely mentally disbaled, and this just isn't fair.
Humans are conscious experiencing animals, just like non-human animals. All those creatures should have the same basic rights that respects that sentience and consciousness. The illusion or reality of higher intelligence or reasoning skills in humans does nothing to support the idea that they have higher rights in these areas, because of these factors.
Thank you so much for putting this video out there. Great message, and you managed to do it without insulting anyone else or putting in very graphic images (which tend to put people off and think about "those crazy vegan freaks"). This video went straight to my favorites and my Animal Rights playlist. Great job!
I have never seen any evidence that animals are anything more than biological machines. They are nothing more than the sum of the molecules that they are built from.
They exibit no signs of higher thought or free will. They care nothing for right or wrong, and they have no desire to seek truth or to improve themselves. They cannot love.
What is the point of their existence and why should we care for them?
First of all, theres no evidence humans have 'free will' either - determinism appears to be true. And secondly, animals experience emotion, and suffering and happiness, and so many other emotions. we are, as humans, animals after all, so it would be strange that we have evolved into a completely seperate being.
Also, everything you said applies to severely mentally disabled humans too, but we don't just ditch those people and allow them no rights. That would be monstrous to say the least.
free will cannot be proven, but it can be proven that at the very least we have a spiritual aspect to us which can override animal instinct.
Emotion itself is just a chemical reaction, and I don't care that animals experiance it. I don't value it in humans either, but there are many things I do value in humans that are closely linked to emotion. Not everything we "feel" is emotion or chemical. The same cannot be said of animals. They do not experiance happiness in the same sense that we do.
Of course they experience emotion like we do - we are animals!We have evolved from them! We are different in type not in kind, the only thing we have which they don't is, as you said, a sort of higher capacity for some things. But once we start saying individuals who are less intelligent, or we perceive as feeling less emotion, are allowed to be abused by others, the we get into a dangerous place where all sorts of immoral acts against humans and non-humans become justifiable.
the severely mentally disabled are a grey area. I am open to the suggestion that they may not deserve the same rights that we do, but since it is a gray area I'll take no risks.
By the same token, it is theoretically possible that animals such as dolpins or apes have souls. Since I can't get in their heads I can't prove otherwise beyond all shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly unlikely though. They show no signs of it that I have noticed.
The suggestion that mentally impaired humans deserve less respect or rights is just an unfair comment. They did not choose to be born into that state, and they do not deserve lesser treatment just because you perceive yourself to be 'better' than them or something. They can still experience life, suffering, happiness, and all of the things that go along with it, and should not have this taken away because one 'superior' group wants to abuse them for their own use.
and one last thing i forgot to mention, 'the soul' thing. What is the evidence that humans have a soul? And what is the evidence that animals don't? From what i have read of Andrew Linzey's work, at least from a Christain viewpoint, there is no reason to suppose animals don't have souls. And if they didn't, it would be no reason to treat them badly - that would just be a poor moral code.
"at least from a Christain viewpoint, there is no reason to suppose animals don't have souls."
well I of course don't follow christian philosophy, but genesis says all sorts of things along the lines of "he made man in his own image" and "set him apart from the other creatures".
Christian philosophy says animals are god's creation and so should be protected and cared for but human life is far more valuable and so animals can be used to support it.
i also don't know much about it, but i have read much of the only renowned expert on the subject in the world, Andrew Linzey, and i believe he has comes out thinking very much the opposite. Ie, that humans are stewards of God's creation, not that other conscious creatures were made for our benefit etc. Again it's best to look at the literature regarding this to realise the turth, as most christian mainstream thought spouts any rubbish simply to justify peoples own lives via the bible.
Sorry, but animals eating other animals is part of evolution/survival of the fittest philosophy... This video was just vegan propaganda. Are you kidding me? VERY FEW vegans have healthy diets. Its almost impossible to get the proper nutrition unless you buy special protien/synthetic and processed powders/mixes, which are hard on your kidneys and pretty expensive.
That's absolute rubbish. Perhaps a little research on the subject might tell you this. There is nothing particularly strong about the 'survival of the fittest' argument, which is a rule constantly disregarded by humanity in search of morality - any social law would show this. If human's are so superior why would we follow the example set by other creatures anyway? Lol, perhaps we should also eat our young if they are disabled?
Afraid of research? My god relativism gets more loop headed every day. I do believe we are animals, but not like wild animals lower then us. Your saying animals experience the same level on conciousness? Your the one who needs to research. Scientists have found that the most advanced animals besides us may have an occasional conceptual thought but thats it. Animals dont believe in justice/evil/virtue. They dont contemplate the questions and problems we grapple with.
Yes consciousness is consciousness, there is no evidence, and could never be evidence, that one creature experiences life to lesser or greater degrees than any other.Self-consciousness is what you speak of,and these 'higher' thoughts you mention that humans have don't give us superiority in any meaningful way-unless of course children also are lesser creatures than adults?...
..That'superior intellect'line of thought is one that has always failed in reasonable debate,as it also creates divisions between humans in the right to life.After all the mentally diasabled and children who don't fathom justice/evil/virtue are not lesser beings than those of us who do,they still maintain a right to life,and a right to not be abused as much as you or I.& as should animals,if they are creatures which share with us consciousness(not'self-consciousness',but as in experiencing life)
And as for the health thing, most people nowadays who have done any tiny amount of research on the matter will realise that vegan diets are an extremely healthy option. There is nothing you can not get from them, that you can from an animal based diet.They provide people with the near elimination of conditions like heart disease (which may I remind you is the West's biggest killer, while a vegan diet has killed no-one) and several cancers (notably bowel and breast). Please check your facts.
A couple more points, that perhaps you have missed."animals eating other animals is part of evolution/survival of the fittest philosophy". Earlier you stated 'people have gone way to far saying that we behave exactly like animals' yet up there you claim we are just animals. And finally yes,in a sense this video is 'vegan propagandha'(was MLK pro-propagandha too btw?), in exactly the same way as your comments are propogandha - in favour of, well, being afraid of research I guess.Just kiddng!
You may as well say cheetahs/lions are also morally wrong since they kill other animals to eat food. You also keep saying morrally and mentioning all kinds of values/virtues in the video as if they are objective/intrinsic, yet an atheistic philosphy does NOT allow objective morals. Why do you honestly care about all of this if none of it matters in the first place or let alone the long run? And dont try and mix objectivism with atheism/evolutionism.Many atheists have already admitted its failure
No, again it seems you are ignoring the facts. Moral philosophy rests on the assumption that only moral agents respect it. This means that moral agents, those who can respect morality and follow moral laws, are subject to respecting the lives of those who can't (mentally challnged, children, and non-human animals). So your cheetah/lion argument falls down purely on the fact that we are discussing morality. This is simple moral philosophy that even the slightest amount of research would unearth.
And secondly there are several very valid areas of moral philosophy that allow for aethistic moral objectivism. Just because one does not belive in God, it doesn't mean one has to believe in nothing. If we take the same base assumptions, ie, humans deserve to have rights, then break them down and logically analyse why, it becomes pretty obvious that they desreve rights for their animalistic atributes like the ability to feel, experience life and live...
...and not the ability to judge, or act in certain ways. These factors are neither here nor there, and do not give us reason to discriminate on the right to life or to live free from abuse - things that relate only to one's ability to live or feel abuse.
And thirdly, why on Earth would you assume I am an atheist anyway? I certainly am not religious in any sense, but find the same flaws with atheism as I find with religion - both being viewpoints with no real weight on their side.Iam agnostic
Well I assumed you were atheist considering your human/animal evolutionary ideals. Sorry I misjudged, I'm not religious really either, but I too see deep flaws in both sides. However i think a God is very possible.
Once again. Give me some real reason to believe this. Because it's beneficial? What makes something beneficial?
Because it will help us progress in any way?
Why should we progress? You aren't giving me any real reasons to think any of this is wrong... And why do you keep mentioning disabled children? That's irrelevent. And no, atheistic objectivism doesn't work. So many atheists have admitted this its pitiful that minority/non publicized atheists still think they can possess it.
I'm not working in the boundaries of what is right and wat is wrong, simply on the assumption that humans are valuable, and then breaking that down. Once you consider what is valuable/most precious in human beings, the reasoning becomes obvious. Obviously the right to live is more precious than the right to reason, this itself says just exactly that creatures are important regardless of reasoning capabilities - the right to life always trumps other rights etc.
I studied moral philosophy, and there seem to me to be little or no reason why there shouldn't be moral facts while there are things like colour facts, which similarly have little pyhsical presence. But either way it isn't significant to my argument, as I am taking the same assumptions as society already makes (after all, arguments mustbalways make assumptions somewhere) and showing our behaviour to be speciesist - and not actually claiming there to be any moral facts.
And as for the talk of disabled children, it is completely relevant. If you claim human beings can use animals as they have these higher mental capabilities, or self consciousness etc, then you also leave the door open for humans to abuse those humans who are mentally incompetent in these areas. that is why the talk of disabled humans and children come in, as in the classic argument against why humans superiority does not exist in intellectual ways.
meat isn't healthy, its a major cause of most of the west's biggest human killers - heart disease, strokes, cancers etc. Natural carnivores like dogs don't get things like heart disease (as experiments have shown), as their bodies are meant to eat it. The logic behind vegetarianism is as logical as the argument behind opposing racism - its pretty much perfect if you make the assumption that doing the right thing is desirable - look up the animal rights library, and read Regan etc.
doing the right thing? but from an atheistic vegan perspective there is no objective right! you don't believe in any ultimate supernatural value to anyting or any sort of god or other defining force to declare something objectively good. So "good" to you is only a matter of what feels desireable. You feel that it is wrong to hurt animals, but you can't expect everyone else to feel the same way.
well i would think morality relates to the world in some way, and it's not really our own values that make it wrong to kill other humans - and that even if someone else thinks that isn't wrong then they would still be wrong in there assumption.
You dont need a god to asert that moral choices can be wrong or right - just an asumption that things do exist, and that moral facts attach to those things - much like physical facts which also can often seem subjective.
"in some way" and "moral facts" are very vague. What if I see no reason to believe that killing animals is wrong? This assumption of yours "an asumption that things do exist, and that moral facts attach to those things ", why do you think you can make such an assumption? and why do you feel that you can push that assumption upon others?
Ok, let me put it this way - and make no assumptions whatsoever. As a general, in society, we agree that humans are worthy of protection and rights. If it can be shown that others animals, too, have the characteristics deserving of some rights, then they too should morally be allowed them. If we say that we shouldnt push our own personal morality as we shouldnt make assumptions, then we shouldnt disagree with murderers, rapists etc -then we should doubt morality, not the extension of it...
...that is animal rights. The ascription of animal rights simply takes what people belive in Western society, and advances it logically and reasonibly. It makes no assumption that moral behaviour should be observed, simply that if it is, and is done in the way it is today, then animal rights as well as human rights should be ascribed - else we are simply ignorant of the facts.
But *why* do we agree that humans are worthy of rights? There has to be a reason, and most find it in their religion, which you seem to lack. I see no *reason* for any of your beliefs just assumptions and feelings. Most have a reason to value humanity but not animals based in beliefs about the soul. They see a clear and fundamental difference and do not observe characteristics worth preserving in animals
well exactly, why do we agree humans are worthy of rights - and yet no other animals. Any justification seems to either assume that humans have souls and animals don't (which even the bible gives Christians no evidence for - see Rev Andrew Linzeys work), or state things which some humans also lack (ie the mentally disabled or the very young). The reason for caring comes from empathy-we know that that ourselves can suffer, or experience life - and so spot it in others - then empathise.
I disagree on the empathy bit and believe there are certain unique qualities that even the mentally disabled posses. They aren't really provable though. I can't imagine how someone could think the way you do but I don't think I'm going to convince you.
can i also ask if you make the same comments on anti-racist videos? Or on videos that speak in favour of human rights, or against poverty for example? Surely the moral doubt you have stretches to this and everything that is 'good' or 'right'.
No of course I don't. I don't have moral doubt. I have a very strong moral beliefs system that I adhere to completely. I just see no logical reason to extend it to include the protection of animals. To me they are no different than plants or even rocks. I could ask you why you don't protect all the innocent rocks that are being destroyed in human construction, but that just sounds silly.
About as silly as protecting animals sounds to me.
well your point about *moral facts* being dubious doubts all morality, not just animal rights. and if you believe there are none, why care for anything at all. Well try reading some animal rights philosophy, its all there in Singer or Regan. They would be fast to point out there's no logical reason to not extend rights to animals. They also point out humans and the other animals can suffer and consciously experience life...
...and that these are the things that matter in morality - not the lines of physical difference in species, or the fascist-esque system of denying rights based on intelligence or reasoning skills.
Rocks, plants and other objects like this can most certainly not suffer or experience a life (if indeed we want to say they possess life, which i definately wouldnt), and therefore deserve no rights that would relate to these charcateristics.
"Rocks, plants and other objects like this can most certainly not suffer or experience a life (if indeed we want to say they possess life, which i definately wouldnt)"
rocks clearly do not possess life, but plants do. Regardless, life itself is not what I value. Life itself is just a natural phenomenon of no more interest to me than other natural phenomenon such as crystals or stalagmites.
"other animals can suffer and consciously experience life..."
Experiencing life is different to possessing 'life' in the sense a plant does. Humans and animals are shown through science to experience life, suffer and all the such that goes along with it. Humans after all are different 'in type, not in kind' to animals, who both in turn are 'different in kind' to plants.
I respect the different in views, but my responses are reason influenced and through research on the moral issue - i myself grew up on a chicken farm with the same discriminatory speciesist views as most others do. It was only when i questioned why i care for humans so far over other animals when i realised there is no basis for it in logic - it is only based in tradition and habit. And such things have no place in modern moral and ethical thought - by their very definition.
I see only one flaw in your logic, and that is that you do not have a logical reason to even value humans, only an emotional one. Your logic seems to come after that emotion and exist to support it.
well thats not only my flaw, that exists for everything within human reasoning - eventually everything is proved by an assumption somewhere, mine, and indeed the rest of the worlds, seem to be the assumption that humans should be valued. I think it's better to assume this than to make up reasons like ' because they have souls' or other bizarre things like this that seem to have little grounding in serious discussion.
I will admit It is the sad truth of logic that it ultimately exists to serve an illogical purpose or assumption. My assumptions are very basic though. I've only assumed that certain concepts or virtues are inherently good if they can be proven to exist(such as free will).
If this is the case, then there should be no place for your talk of the supernatural as this certainly can not be proved. And most of the experts in the area of free will would point out it doesn't appear to exist - and that it seems that determinism is true.
I didn't make up that reason. I see undeniable evidence of qualitative differences between humans and animals which to me seem to defy the laws of nature, thus being supernatural. I also have explored my own being and there found a connection to a spiritual realm.
You may call me delusional, but you can't say that I've made things up just because I want to believe them.
i dont think any qualitative evidence for a useful difference has been mentioned, and in fact this is the one major thing missing from anti-animal rights literature in the past 20 years. The belief in spirtitual reasoning to prove injustice or discrimination is not a fair argument, and has absolutely no place in ethical discussion - except those instances when only the one conscious creature is affected, ie yourself. When hundreds of lives are at stake these beliefs are v.harsh on others.
" dont think any qualitative evidence... mentioned"
personally I think that qualitative differance is blatantly obvious. It is difficult to prove it to those who somehow fail to see it though. I'm working on compiling my thoughts on the matter, but it will likely be at least a few weeks untill I can produce anything solid and convincing.
the 'difference' is blatantly obvious only in the sense that we are taught there is a difference, upon scrutiny there appears to be only one as relevant as race and sex - at least when it comes to suffering. The difference is relevant to who should vote, or have a right to education (of course animals couldnt claim this), but when it comes to suffering an animals claims are equal as it suffers equally. Spiritual matters don't change this.
". The belief in spirtitual reasoning...not a fair argument,"
I'm not sure we have the same definition of spiritual reasoning. I agree that many mainstream religions use a biased and crooked reason to defend their ideas, but that is not the total sum of all reason that involves the spiritual
i would whole heartedly agree with you, i think the realm of the spiritual is perhaps more tangible than people suggest, and of course it can not be proven by scientific fact. but spiritual matters are personal, and should not be allowed to interfere with ethical matters - as others shouldn't suffer because of spiritual views. It is unfair to impart suffering, if reason tells us it is, regardless of whether you think animals or humans live forever through their souls etc.
"regardless of whether you think animals or humans live forever through their souls etc."
It's not a matter of immortality. I don't care whether or not our souls are immortal anywhere near as much as I care about the traits we exhibit as a result of them. Higher thought, the desire to do good, the ability to love an ideal and to go against your instincts in the name of it, love, reason, these things I see in humans but not animals.
Without things like that I see little reason to value something. Without things like that an animal is just a biological computer. We could probably program a robot to experience something like pain and react like animals do. Would animal rights activists suggest that robot had rights? You'll never find a robot that fights its programming or an animal that fights its instincts though.
well i think you have missed the entire concept of consciousness. First of all, it's just as easy to say a human is a slave to it's desires - it will never do something irrational to a desire! Theres no difference between a human or an animal there. Secondly, humans have consciousness only to the degree other animals do! We both experience life, and strive to live and experience happiness- what on earth makes you put humans ahead of animals in these stakes,when of course we did evolve from them?
By the way, if you value creatures purely on a scale of what emotional reactions they have to things etc, would you be in favour of farming and eating a human who felt little emotion -one who was say raised by wolves, and had mental difficulties also?Of course, this human can suffer just as much as any other creature.When it comes to deciding the right thing to do,we should take things like this into account.If someone can suffer, we should respect their suffering-not ignore it on other grounds.
well to be fair these traits can also cause humans to do terrible things, and have insatiable greed - which are much more common results than any good that comes from human behaviour. You just have to look at the environment or policies on even human rights to see that. These traits make humans deserving of respect in the areas they lie, but set out no reason why an animal should suffer ahead of a human-or of course why a human should use another animal for his own ends, at the expense of them.
Actually, something of interest to this conversation might be Andrew Linzey's speech which is available here on youtube. He approaches the area of spirituality and animal rights, especially on that of the soul. It is based on a christian vewpoint, but i think it has a lot of relevance to what we are talking about here - just type in Andrew Linzey speech to the search and it will come up with the right one
Humans are animals and I cannot believe that you would give up meat just to please other people.
"I have a very strong moral beliefs system that I adhere to completely. I just see no logical reason to extend it to include the protection of animals."
Truly compassionate people aren't selective with who they extend their compassion towards. If a being can feel pain, species is irrelevant.
"To me they are no different than plants or even rocks"
"Truly compassionate people aren't selective with who they extend their compassion towards. If a being can feel pain, species is irrelevant."
the problem with that sentance is your use of the word who when referring to animals. I do not see them as people but as objects. I believe that has been made clear already though. Also your second posts seems to have been lost
You can see non-human animals however you like but the fact remains that there's as much evidence for sentience in non-human mammals, birds and crocodilians as there is for sentience in other humans. There are no structural differences between mammalian brains, only differences in size and proportion so, if humans are sentient, there's no way that gorillas and cats aren't sentient.
During slavery, I'm sure there were plenty of White people who viewed Black people as objects. They were wrong.
"There are no structural differences between mammalian brains"
I suggest avoiding the word sentience, as its definition has been abused by sci-fi and such so it can be difficult to understand your meaning. If you refer to something secular, such as ability to feel pain, then I agree. That does not concern me though. I'm interested in the mind and soul not the brain.
Obviously you can't use traditional logic and evidence for questions of the spiritual
Humans aren't anything more than 'biological machines' and 'free will' is theoretically impossible. There is as much evidence for sentience (including love) in non-human mammals and birds as there is for sentience in other humans.
It's funny how the 'righteous', Bible toting, 'God fearing' lunatics are often the most ignorant, closed-minded and bigoted. What a fucking joke you are, I mean that.
imsocool1004 agreed I really liked this ... especially since it was not to graphic. I know some people do not know what happens but ive seen videos and read Peter Singer's book animal liberation. After that its hard to see any more of what humans do. GREAT VIDEO! GREAT MESSAGE! STOP THE SUFFERING AND DEATH!
Great video, so very true, but I am confident that a brighter future will come as society is continuing to evolve so it would make sense that Speciesism, alike racism & sexism will fall too.
deanmullen10 1 month ago
lets kill all the predators on earth so that those poor prey animals can't feel the pain of being eaten...
pleasestopblockingme 8 months ago
I think we ought to look towards the animal kingdom itself in order to properly shape our views on speciesism- animals are speciesists themselves, but they do not exploit, overuse, or torture (usually) members of other species, although carnivores still eat meat from other species. I think that eating meat, based on the way that the natural world functions, is not in and of itself wrong- but that it is wrong to treat animals poorly while they are still alive.
TheAmazingImbecile 1 year ago
@TheAmazingImbecile Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I see your point, but I think we need to be careful when taking the animal kingdom as our model - we are of course humans beings, and the only species capable of moral thought and consideration - as a result we can eliminate as much needless suffering or death as we can. We're clever enough to know we can eat vegan diets, and we and other animals can thrive because of this - as a result, I think we're obligated to do it.
xAnimalxRightsx 1 year ago
Is it discrimination to say that A1 tastes better on steak than on carrots?
Brucetherubbershark 2 years ago
I've no idea what A1 is - but I'm pretty sure that your tastes change with experiences you have. Not much to do with discrimination though...
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
How about this, if you loved an animal, would you have sex with it? If the answer is no, then you have no right to call other people speciesist.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
Haha, umm not quite! Does that also mean people are prejudice against children for not wanting to have sex with them?! Sort it out mate!
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
Ah! but we DO discriminate children! We don't let them vote, we don't let them drive, we don't let them make their own decisions. No, I think the "if I have sex with it I consider it equal" is a proper measuring stick.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
Erm not quite - it's not discrimination if the difference is rationally justified - would you say it's discrimination to give one person who's better at the job, the job? Of course not. Similarly if one individual doesn't have the characteristics that require the vote (ie an ability to understand societal needs etc) then they shouldn't have it.
All children are equal with adults in the right to live though, as are all animals - hence why we shouldn't draw differences as to who get's the right.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
Ah, but I say the differences between humans and animals are such that they justify treating them differently. I don't believe they have a right to live anymore than they do. If you can convince me that non-human animals believe that no animals should be killed, I'll stop killing them.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
What on earthm, your argument changes from post to post!
1st of all humans and animals ARE different! Hence why we do treat them differently. But adults and children are different too, on very similar grounds. This doesn't give a reason to kill children if you don't have to!
There are millions of young children in the world who don't understand morality either, this isn't a reason to kill them. The only relevant factor in the right to live, is the ability to consciously exist.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
well you've acknowledged that animals are different and deserve different treatment. My opinion is that they are different enough that killing them is not particularly cruel if you raise them humanely. I detest the child comparison because children have the potential to grow. Animals will never be more than animals.
Look up James Herriot. My stance on animal rights is very similar to his. C. S. Lewis is good too. Both ate meat.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
Oh ym where to begin...first of all you take you're ethical stances not from the great minds in the area of animal rights but from a fictional TV vet and an author of childrens book!
Some children will also be never more than 'children' this is not a reason to eat them - your though is showing serious fasicts tendencies like this.
Animals certainly do deserve different treatment, as do children - but both definetely do have the relevant characteristics to deserve a right to life obviously.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
And also, since you acknowledged that humans and animals are different, you've acknowledged that "speciesism" is right. They are different, so they should be treated differently. The distinction between humans and nonhumans must be acknowledged.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
"since you acknowledged that humans and animals are different, you've acknowledged that "speciesism" is right."
That doesn't even make sense mate! It isn't prejudice to point out differences. Prejudice appears when you attribute irrelevant value to differences or similarities - which is what you do when you state physical or intellectual differences are deserving of differences in rights to live (which we know from our knowledge of children is wrong)
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
What you need to grasp is that creatures (both human and non-human) can be as different as you like, but it is only the ability to live that affects the right to live. Sex, colour of skin, number of legs, wooliness of hair, ability to appreciate fine art - none of this has any bearing on it. Children/babies aren't protected because 'one day they will be people',they are protected because they are individuals deserving of respect themselves. Law recognises this, your argument however fails to.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
I feel obliged to point out that nearly all animals protect their young (even if they aren't their offspring), rarely do they protect other species. It is this natural care for children of your species that dictates our treatment of children.
Also, if every living thing deserves the right to life then I expect you to treat plants, insects, and microorganisms as such. Sorry to go for the stereotypical response, but you asked for it.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
Again, your argument isn't taking into account our discussion - you're stating general responses to veganism.
Animals also rarely protect members of other families - but this doesn't mean we should only look after our own family. That mutes your first point.
Secondly, you're picking and choosing the definition of living. To live, is different from the biological term being alive. Ie, your body can still live as an organism after death, but you are dead. Plants etc don't live consciously.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
Also, most of C.S. Lewis books are philosophical in nature and his best work is definitely the more mature ones such as "The Problem of Pain" (a subject you would find interesting), "The Four Loves" and "A Grief Observed".
The big fallacy you're making here is that children =/= non-human animals. They are inherently different both in their potential and in their relationship to humans.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
I couldn't care less about CS Lewis! there is a fairly big reason why his name doesn't appear in the animal rights debate on either side - mainly that his arguments aren't logical one's. he may state random points that he believes, or that sound nice and rounded in literature - but he never approached the issues at the heart of the subject.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
Secondly, I have never said children=animals, you've made that up to make me sound 'stereotypical' and so make it easier for you to reject logic.
I have said they are the same as animals in the right to live, which is a fact. Both children and animals consciously experience life (there are no degrees of this, you are alive or dead), as do adult human beings, and so in the right to life they should all be equal. Only bringing in discriminate factors (physicality. intelligence) would change this.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
Actually as you stated in the previous comment, there are degrees of life. You draw a line at who gets "the right to live" at animal consciousness, I draw mine at human consciousness.
What about animals with less ability to "consciously experience life"? Let's go with lobsters. They have no brain and are unable to feel pain. Their lives are a series of sensations with no memory or thought.
I added Lewis as an afterthought because I'm reading a Greif observed. Herriot is my main influence.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
Again, you are trying to twist the argument by using two definitions. There are degrees of 'life', but not 'conscious life' (which is the important thing obv, as we don't give rights to dead humans) - you are either consiously alive, or you aren't. In this sense white consciousness is no different to black, child is no different to adult, and animal is no different to human. And this is the only relevant factor in the right to live - anything else draws upon unfair bias.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
You do make a good point about animals with no brains etc though. I'm no biologist, but I do know that science draws the distinction between animals and plants for it's own categorisations. Morally the categorisations are different-conscious life is all that is deserving of rights.
So though it may be called animal rights,as most animals are consious and so deserving of rights just like humans,I have no doubts that there are some lesser developed 'animals' which aren't consious.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
PS. i didn't mean to sound so nasty about CS Lewis, I'm sure his literature has great value - I just get a bit weary of people bringing in 'authority figures' as reasons for things being right!
Personally I have never heard of any great mind in history who I didn't disagree with about at least one thing, so i don't see the value in appealing to them as justification for a position. Of course this doesn't mean he didn't have decent ideas etc.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
I say the discrimination is rationally justified based on innate and clearly determinable differences between animals.
James Herriot is NOT a "fictional TV vet", he was a practicing veterinarian for 40-odd years and has been widely accepted by animal rights' groups as one of the most influential people in that field in history. The Humane Society of the United States has an award named after him. So please, don't discredit him with your ignorance.
thegillotine09 2 years ago
"I say the discrimination is rationally justified based on innate and clearly determinable differences between animals."
There's nothing rational about your argument so far. Race isn't a rational reason to discriminate in the right to live, neither is intelligence, neither are physical differences. You have pointed out that animals and humans are different, well done, but have pointed out no relevant difference that has an impact on the right to live or the right not to unduely suffer.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
I don't think ethics are about reproduction at all - and societal laws and rules (which we are interested in on this issue) aren't about reproduction either. I don't respect other humans just because I could reproduce with them - that's a very crude, illogical way to look at life, and it is neither reflective of reality nor true of our societies current moral reasoning.
Respect for humans is based on acceptance of their ability to experience their own life - and animals have that too.
xAnimalxRightsx 2 years ago
I love animals, but I have 2 problems with being vegan:
(1) What does one do if and when someone proves that plants are sentient? Starve and only use non-organic material?
(2) The predator - prey relationship has existed for almost as long as life has, certainly as long as animals have. In fact, plant eating animals are predators of plants. I think we need a balance by way of regulation and reform, not prohibition. (My favorite animals are ruthless carnivores: Cats.)
kirke420 3 years ago
I think you make some really good points to be honest Kirke, nice change from some of the stuff you hear. I'll do my best to answer your questions.1)Sentience depends on a nervous system, which we know doesn't exist in plants - just like we know it does exist in you or I.However consciousness is also important, and it is a bit illogical that it could exist in plants.The problem is we like to say plants are 'alive' - but really they are just organice,not alive ie,conscious,so people get confused.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
2)There is nothing wrong with being a predator as such (as you say, predators can eat plants) the problem is that it is wrong for someone with a capacity for morality to cause unnecesary suffering-which we all do,as we don't need to eat animal products to live.The same reason murdering humans is wrong essentially-regardless of the naturality of a behaviour,it can still be immoral.Sexism has existed in most creatures since the dawn of time,doesn't make it right for us,as moral agents,to be sexist
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Up until now, the words reason and vegan never really came up in the same sentence, and I have to admit that I was thinking that this conversation could turn sour, but it hasn't, and you seem very reasonable. :)
I think you also make a lot of good points as well. I agree that unnecessary suffering and killing is amoral. Where I think we disagree on is what is necessary. I could give up eating meat, but not drinking milk, blah,blah, blah, etc. But I can agree to disagree. :)
kirke420 3 years ago
Thanks for your kind comment, I agree it's nice to have a conversation without the sourness!
You could agree to disagree, of course, but at the same time I think these are very real issues. I, on my mountain of research on the issue (I was bought up on a farm so it was a real mountain of stuff I too disagreed with at first), can't find a reason that causing suffering is ever neccesary for the reasons of taste or naturality etc (given that their are far less health issues with vegan diets etc)
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I will admit that I haven't done much research, but most everything I have seen has said that not eating animals is healthier. However, my interest in evolutionary history is greater, and I can't get over this paradox:
Without our ancestors getting the protein content from eating animals, humans would never have developed the mental capacity to question whether eating animals is wrong.
Just as the dinosaurs had to die for mammals to flourish, we had to eat meat to become human.
kirke420 3 years ago
Very true, and a good point. However, we don't need to continue practices just because they helped us get to a good or even great place - there were good things that slavery accomplished, however it had to stop as it is immoral. Similarly vivisection has accomplished good things (though most argue we would have done better with alternatives in last centurey at least), but it doesn't mean we need to use it anymore.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I just think that we didn't get a black president immediately after banning slavery, it had to be done in small incremental steps. Maybe you should shoot for vegetarianism, then when that is accomplished you can take away my delicious milk. :)
kirke420 3 years ago
Hmm yeah I agree, I think it does have to be done in steps. I guess we just have to remember not to lose sight of what the vital wrong is though - ie the kind of thing Tom Regan approaches in his work, with the problem of welfare instead of rights (can't remeber if I posted the link to that article when talking to you?). It's easy to go wrong ( as almost all animla groups do) if we start seeing it as necessary to take away certain rights but slightly improve living conditions etc.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Well, I suggest continuing the education campaign, and working on regulating and reforming the commercial sector. Because, if I couldn't buy meat at a store (restaurant, etc), I would certainly be a vegetarian because I can't do the killing or cleaning or prepping. But even after all that, why can't I eat cheese or drink milk (the only reason I've ever been told is that is like drinking urine.. had they said blood I might be more inclined to agree.)? Assuming no cows are tortured?
kirke420 3 years ago
I was a vegetarian for a few months before I went vegan for that very reason - I could imagine a situation where it was okay to consume dairy products! But when I thought about it, I was being pretty idealistic about it (ie it's not realistically possible) and obviously isn't the case int he world we are in.
Dairy's just an issue of taste really - and it's one that doesn't reappear once you've stopped for any period of time. It becomes very disgusting, really quite fast lol!
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Also... Even the smallest children ask questions about the world and are conceptually thinking beings. This is why we are most commonly called human BEINGS. If you think animals experience conceptual thinking about the world and emotional pain, then be my guest.
braino2000 3 years ago
Actually young children don't do this - also scientifically accepted fact. This doesn't develop until after child birth - I've no idea the exact age, but feel free to research and come back to me if you disagree. But I think you'll find, at the very least, a child straight out of the womb is not capable of these thoughts. And fyi all creatures are BEINGS. Yet another seemingly made up point? If your argument rests on all these false values, what have you left?
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Apparently you've never heard a cow bellow for days on end once she's seperated from her calf. It is not "conceptual" but it is emotional. Beings (by their nature) want to be with their young. Beings (by their nature) wish to continue living. And the point is - killing them is UNNECESSARY! We do not NEED to kill them for "food". We survive fine on a plant based diet - Go Vegan
beaelliott 3 years ago
Hey! Great video! I agree - going Vegan was the best decision I ever made. I feel like my actions are finally consistant with my values. Not to mention I'm much healthier in the process :) Being Vegan is a wonderful lifestyle choice - thanks for reminding us of this :)
beaelliott 3 years ago
Another point... Animals that produce milk need to be milked for their HEALTH. Cows are supposed to be milked, so getting dairy products from them and saying its "bad" is so rediculous it's not even funny.
braino2000 3 years ago
Again, your poijt is suffering from growing up being taught something, but not knowing the facts. Cows are mammals, and like most mammals only produce milk when they have given birth - to feed their young. They are not as society likes to teach kids 'milk machines,that need to be milked'.Farmers continually artificially impregnate the cows, take the calfs away to be fed on artificial diets,and then pump the mothers full of hormones to make them produce milk.U should really check stuff like this.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Oh, and america has a high heart disease rate not because of meat. That's pure ignorance. America consumes more fast food/oils/peanut/veggie oils then any other country. It's not just meat. You're assuming that I'm argueing for an animal based diet also. Red meat/chicken are very healthy if you eat a healthy ammount and dont cook them in grease and oil. Americas only problem is that they don't know what MODERATION is.
braino2000 3 years ago
The point is that if vegan diets were cooked in the same ways, they would still herald much, much lower rates of heart disease and the such - as they are naturally much, much lower in cholesteral, a substance which only brings heart disease in humans.I can see how tiny amounts of chicken and fish (kept at clean levels which are impossible to attain in farmed conditions) wouldnt harm a person, but the same can not be said of red meat (the links between beef and colon cancer are well known).
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And yes the instances of cholesteral in animal products are pretty much the only instances capable of causing heart disease. vegetables, beans etc can not cause anywhere near the damage that meat, eggs and milk can. Not accepting that is pure ignorance. Again I suggest you look up the health problems with animal products, and through more reliable sources than the FDA. try counter think or somewhere similar. believe it or not, the stuff you hear in the US media probably isn't true.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I ussually assumed it's irrelevent because we should be valued and treated better then animals because we are human. That's the simple reason. I mean once you start making animals and humans equals, your basicly admitting that we're the same as a swarm of misquitoes or a flock of sheep. And if this mindset anchors in people, it becomes easier to justify alot of things...Look at what hitler did. Most people assume the same, that humans are intrinsicly valueable in areas where animals are not.
braino2000 3 years ago
Yes, but you have to say why we should be valued and treated better for being human, that's the point,and if there is no relevant reason then you are doing it for no other reason than the characteristics of physical groups - whcih is discrimination.
Youre views are much more similar to Hitler's. I am trying to say how all life is valuable, emparting respect on everyone's life. However you are trying to discriminate on irrelevant factors based on physical differences.I suggest reading Regan.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Its not physical characteristics, once again. Animals, yes, they do feel physical pain/pleasure. However, they dont SEE good/evil, they dont have conciences, they dont feel spiritual/emotional pain like we do. If they did they would have had a revolt against humans by now. Animals are driven purely by instinct, not will/concience like humans. Do you honestly think animals are looking and thinking "this is so terrible! Why are they so cruel!" no,because they arent beings with conceptual thoughts.
braino2000 3 years ago
Well neither are some mentally disabled people, so if you hold these views (that this is the reason humans can abuse animals) then you have to hold that we can do it to the mentally disabled who have this level of thought processes too? I have put this point across to you many times, you don't seem to get it. It's quite a basic logical argument.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Braino: Just seeing your comments now. First I want applaud you for considering going veg. A great book about the harm invovled in dairy/egg production as well as the argument from marginal cases cited below is Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Regarding the health benefits of a plant based diet from an animal researcher who is not a moral vegan check out The China Study by T Campbell (heart disease, diabetes and many forms of cancer are preventable by adopting a good vegan diet).
Locrian08 3 years ago
The question is not "can they reason?" but "can they suffer?". In our own moral obligations we have the responsibility to cause as little harm/pain as possible. We are "civilized". To cause needless suffering is inconsistant with what we profess our values to be. The more we learn the more we learn we are wrong to continue down this unnecessary & cruel path. Man lives fine on a plant based diet -there is no "justification" simply because animals can't "rationalize" why they are being abused.
beaelliott 3 years ago
Tiny ammounts of chicken and fish? Eating chicken and fish every day is very healthy. Look up the mediterranean diet, a diet based on poultry/fish/veggies and dairy...Is probably the healthiest diet possible. And dont even try to say that dairy products are unhealthy for you. I would easily consider cutting red meat out of my diet, but dairy products/chicken/fish wouldnt out of my diet wouldn't do me a single good thing. Fish is known to be one of the healthiest foods.
braino2000 3 years ago
No eating it every day isn't healthy. The last I heard was suggesting fish once a week to get omega 3, whereas they neglected to say that there are many vegetables that provide much healthier sources of it. At the end of the day fish and chicken maybe healthier than red meat, but it is still the flesh of a creature, and is rotting by the time it gets to your plate. And this is without taking into account the other health problems you will uncover with a search on google.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Also let's not forget the problems with dairy. A look at the White Lies report might help you out here. Adult humans can get very little nutrition from dairy (despite what the dairy companies will tell you), it also is found to be one of the major causes of breast cancer (discovered by the massive 'China Study'), osteporosis, countless kids diseases, as well as links to heart disease..Again I must urge you to actually search for information on this.Look up Proffesor Jane Plant,Colin Campbell...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
If I'm honest, I would think we are getting to the stage where the problems with 'healthy' foods such as fish and dairy are getting to the point that we got to with cigarrettes years ago. The research and evidence is being kept from the mass media, and discredited by sponsored scientists so as to keep the relevant industries going. But just as when tobacco companies kept the evidence hidden, it is still there if anyone wants to bother looking for it - theres a lot of genuine research out there.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
This is getting really old... All I'm hearing now is "do research" which I have googled your suggestions... And "society is hiding the truth!" Like you're some how on the inside of everything here... You're points are well, and I've been planning to kick red meat/daily consumption of ANY meat from my diet... But vegan is still a bit unneccassary. In what way is milking a cow abusing it? My views similar to hitlers? Hitler discriminated against concience, conceptual thinking people, not animals.
braino2000 3 years ago
Well fair enough if you have googled them now, you will see that I am not making anything up. It's all stuff you learn when you research the subject, not just things I have made up since going vegan. Milking a cow as abuse, just as milking farmed humans would be - it's the same argument. Unless you point out some relevant different why a cow should have to suffer for a human's badly educated taste buds.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Oh yes, cows suffer SO much when they are milked! I can just IMAGINE The emotional and physical pain they go through! Right... And badly educated taste buds? That's your opinion. If it werent for humans eating meat and living off animals, well...Humans wouldnt even be here in the first place. So you should thank our ancestors for that. your pretty much saying that any animal who lives off of other animals is a speciesist and is "morally wrong"
braino2000 3 years ago
Again you are showing your ignorance in the issue. Yes, you were bought up to believe cows are milking machines, I get it. However the life of a dairy cow is probably the worst of all farmed animals. PLEASE LOOK IT UP!!
'If it werent for humans eating meat and living off animals, well...Humans wouldnt even be here in the first place.'
The same could be said of human slavery, it doesn't make it morally okay lol!!
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And for the last time, moral philosophy is aimed at MORAL AGENTS!!! This is assumed in all creation of moral theory and law!! So it is not a valid arguement to say that animals, young children,or the mentally disabled are acting immorally so long as they have no moral capacity.Howver, as with these groups,it does not give us, as moral agents, just reason to abuse any child, person, or animal.This is very basic philosophy, and you perhaps shouldn't being arguing about morality without it.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Humans would still be here if there were never slavery. I'm hearing the same things over and over. And they aren't as logical as you're making them (the mentally disabled argument) basically, your entire animal rights philosophy is a dehumanizing thought process. You stil haven't told me why speciesism is wrong. Your entire view is based on opinion. This is getting really boring. Not to mention there are several facts that suggest humans are designed to eat animal based foods...
braino2000 3 years ago
They would also still be here if they hadn't eaten meat, my point is you can't jutify current behaviours by reffering to times when certain things happened.
Yes it is getting boring. I have put many point across to you, countering evryone of yours, and yet you have had no reply, but still maintain you are correct.
My animal rights philosophy simply rests on the assumption that life is important, that's it, you views rests in humans being special for no reason.And that is speciesism.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
If you can not justify why you give one race preferable treatment over another,that is racism,and if you can't justify why you give one species preferable treatment over another,that is specieisism.Your only defense would be if you could justify it, point out something that all humans and no animals have,or alternately disallow the disabled from human rights - but you have done neither,so your view is paradoxical and specieisist.That's the point,and you and no one else appears to have an answer.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
If people were designed to eat animal based foods - why are millions thriving on plant based diets??? Speciesism is wrong because it always leads to the exploitation of yet another "other".It depends on who can make a profit on who- It just so happens that animals are at the bottom of this "use" & "need" excuse.But "tradition" and past history does not make it right. We were too ignorant decades/centuries ago to make the connection. We do now & we go Vegan as the only logical consistant course.
beaelliott 3 years ago
Cows suffer.Dairy cows suffer emotional stress when their calves are (repeatedly) ripped from them after birth.They are herd animals-imprisoned to confinement, most often never to experience the sun on their bodies or to walk on "grass".They are given drugs in order to produce 10 times the amount of milk nature had intended, leading to painful udder infection.Once they've become "unproductive" they are trucked to a slaughterhouse, facing yet more fear and suffering. Go Vegan.
beaelliott 3 years ago
I don't eat red meat anymore anyways... And millions of people AREN'T. Vegan works for SOME people, alot of people have tried it and it wasn't healthy for them (many reviews of it) It's not exactly a healthy solution for everyone. And there ARE a few key facts about our composition/anatomy that points to our need for animal based foods.
braino2000 3 years ago
Actually there really aren't,that was a myth that I thought was more or less extinguished now.The only problem I have ever uncovered(that genuinely exists)is one with vit B12.However this is often a problem on animal based diets too,and experts say is a problem encountered through over washing vegetables in modern life-as it's a vitamin we used to get from consuming tiny amounts of soil on our food.& if it happens to b a problem for you,take supplements - don't eat other people or creatures lol
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Again...Vegan doesnt work very well for EVERYONE, just some people. And WTF
"Don't eat other people or creatures lol"
What a mature and relevant response! Since eating meat is the same as cannibalism? Just because someone doesnt conform to your guilt trip does mean they have to be insulted so ignorantly.
braino2000 3 years ago
Perfectly acceptable to say that killing other conscious creatures is as bad as killing creatures of the same species as you - unless you can point out some logical difference that allows for a difference in rights between them...which you haven't... It isn't really confirming to anything if I want to use considered reason rather than habit and tradition in my views.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And 'Vegan doesnt work very well for EVERYONE, just some people'. What a strange statement to make. It is a fair enough point to make, but you forget to mention that a vegan diet would work for far more people than an animal based diet given the massive problems there are with it, and few (if any) there are with vegan diets.
Obesity is a huge problem, heart disease is massive, bowel and breast cancer are rising in huge numbers, at least 70% of adults are lactose intolerant...among others.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
No, it's not. Maybe i'm not a dogmatic naturalist who asserts that we ARE the same as every other animal? And once again, animals arent concious, they dont think. Maybe I believe humans have a different purpose then animals, seeings how we think differently and actually have VALUES and objective morals (unlike animals)Oh, and there is confirmed evidence that alot of mentally challenged people DO have concious/conceptual thoughts, it mostly deals with spasms and body movement.
braino2000 3 years ago
Where on earth are you getting your points from! It is a scientifically accepted fact that animals do think - they don't have self-conscious thoughts is what some believe, but a quick look at evolutionary theory would tell you all animals think, though have stages of developed brains and thought etc.
And your point about the disabled- I am clearly referring to those who don't have those thoughts - and there are many people like that! Again you fail to point out relevant differences.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Cannibalism isnt a norm amongst ANY group of creatures by the way. Very few can thrive on it considering it causes mental problems and health problems very early in the process. Unless you think eating a burger is going to give you schitzophrenia or some other severe mental illness like eating a human. Humans also have chemicals in their intestines used for breaking down a certain type of protien only found in meat. But i guess eating a cow and a human are the same thing?
braino2000 3 years ago
Erm humans are the only animals that eat meat and suffer from the effects of cholesteral(again heart disease is the biggest killer in all countries that consist mainly of animal based diets). Humans are the only animals that claim they are natural meat eaters, yet have to cook their meat as devouring it raw is harmful and often deadly. So clearly meat eating is something we have developed, else what did we do before we discovered or became able to regularly use fire?
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And yes, morally eating a cow and a human is the same difference as between eating a stranger who is human and a family member. Unless you can point out that vital relevant difference between humans and animals that your side of the arguement seems to miss - the argument about animals not being moral agents also excludes young children and some of the mentaly disabled - unless your happy to call them inferior in their right to life?
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
As for the Hitler thing. He discriminated against living creatures based on irrelevant characteristics. In his case it was humans, discriminating between them on physical characteristics, ignoring the fact they could all suffer and and all deserved to live their lives. Well you do the same with other animals, unless you can point out a relevant difference that makes it okay to cause them, or similarly lesser capable humans, suffering. Something logical that stands up to analysis.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And I dont mean this out of hostility... I think animals do deserve a certain ammount of rights, and they share similarities with us on a certain level, but people have gone way to far saying that we behave exactly like animals.
braino2000 3 years ago
Braino2000 perhaps you forget the story of evoltuion, and the fact we are animals. All be it we like to think we are far better, but we are still animals. So of course we do behave like animals. What sort of strange factors are you referring to exactrly when you say we aren't animals, or don't behave like them? Does this mean that children, those young enough to be without higher reasoning or moral capabilities, are without the rights of adults too btw? Your views leave a lot to be explained
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Its sickening that there are people out there who want to put animals above humans. If that's your view of life then so be it.
braino2000 3 years ago
What? This video isn't saying that, it is saying that humans are badly affected by speciesist language etc, and that animals should have a good deal of rights too - given that they, just like humans, are animals deserving of them.
A view of life that fails to recognise the similarities between animals and humans is one of ignorance, bias and intolerance.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
So your saying that if I think humans are more then animals and more important then them, im ignorant and intolerant? Because our moral judgements mean more that means I'm ignorant? I agree that animals should have rights, but giving them the same rights as humans is kind of rediculous.Animals don't have mind/concience like humans do,maybe they have the capacity to be altruistic, but thats about as far as it goes.They arent affected by seeing loved ones hurt like us.
braino2000 3 years ago
No I'm not, I'm saying that it is ignorant to leave animals out and put humans on a pedestal created by language - one that appears to have very little basis in true reflections of reality.
The moral judgements that humans are capable of do not give us some sort of superiority over animals with most rights. It perhaps means we should have more say in moral matters, but that's about it. It leaves us with no reaosn for believing we have a greater right to life or anything important...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
...else we would have to say that some humans have a greater right to life than the severely mentally disbaled, and this just isn't fair.
Humans are conscious experiencing animals, just like non-human animals. All those creatures should have the same basic rights that respects that sentience and consciousness. The illusion or reality of higher intelligence or reasoning skills in humans does nothing to support the idea that they have higher rights in these areas, because of these factors.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Thank you so much for putting this video out there. Great message, and you managed to do it without insulting anyone else or putting in very graphic images (which tend to put people off and think about "those crazy vegan freaks"). This video went straight to my favorites and my Animal Rights playlist. Great job!
punkveganwizrocker 3 years ago
I have never seen any evidence that animals are anything more than biological machines. They are nothing more than the sum of the molecules that they are built from.
They exibit no signs of higher thought or free will. They care nothing for right or wrong, and they have no desire to seek truth or to improve themselves. They cannot love.
What is the point of their existence and why should we care for them?
waldoman7 3 years ago 2
First of all, theres no evidence humans have 'free will' either - determinism appears to be true. And secondly, animals experience emotion, and suffering and happiness, and so many other emotions. we are, as humans, animals after all, so it would be strange that we have evolved into a completely seperate being.
Also, everything you said applies to severely mentally disabled humans too, but we don't just ditch those people and allow them no rights. That would be monstrous to say the least.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
free will cannot be proven, but it can be proven that at the very least we have a spiritual aspect to us which can override animal instinct.
Emotion itself is just a chemical reaction, and I don't care that animals experiance it. I don't value it in humans either, but there are many things I do value in humans that are closely linked to emotion. Not everything we "feel" is emotion or chemical. The same cannot be said of animals. They do not experiance happiness in the same sense that we do.
waldoman7 3 years ago 2
Of course they experience emotion like we do - we are animals!We have evolved from them! We are different in type not in kind, the only thing we have which they don't is, as you said, a sort of higher capacity for some things. But once we start saying individuals who are less intelligent, or we perceive as feeling less emotion, are allowed to be abused by others, the we get into a dangerous place where all sorts of immoral acts against humans and non-humans become justifiable.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
the severely mentally disabled are a grey area. I am open to the suggestion that they may not deserve the same rights that we do, but since it is a gray area I'll take no risks.
By the same token, it is theoretically possible that animals such as dolpins or apes have souls. Since I can't get in their heads I can't prove otherwise beyond all shadow of a doubt. It is incredibly unlikely though. They show no signs of it that I have noticed.
waldoman7 3 years ago
The suggestion that mentally impaired humans deserve less respect or rights is just an unfair comment. They did not choose to be born into that state, and they do not deserve lesser treatment just because you perceive yourself to be 'better' than them or something. They can still experience life, suffering, happiness, and all of the things that go along with it, and should not have this taken away because one 'superior' group wants to abuse them for their own use.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
and one last thing i forgot to mention, 'the soul' thing. What is the evidence that humans have a soul? And what is the evidence that animals don't? From what i have read of Andrew Linzey's work, at least from a Christain viewpoint, there is no reason to suppose animals don't have souls. And if they didn't, it would be no reason to treat them badly - that would just be a poor moral code.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
"at least from a Christain viewpoint, there is no reason to suppose animals don't have souls."
well I of course don't follow christian philosophy, but genesis says all sorts of things along the lines of "he made man in his own image" and "set him apart from the other creatures".
Christian philosophy says animals are god's creation and so should be protected and cared for but human life is far more valuable and so animals can be used to support it.
JustThink00 3 years ago
i also don't know much about it, but i have read much of the only renowned expert on the subject in the world, Andrew Linzey, and i believe he has comes out thinking very much the opposite. Ie, that humans are stewards of God's creation, not that other conscious creatures were made for our benefit etc. Again it's best to look at the literature regarding this to realise the turth, as most christian mainstream thought spouts any rubbish simply to justify peoples own lives via the bible.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Sorry, but animals eating other animals is part of evolution/survival of the fittest philosophy... This video was just vegan propaganda. Are you kidding me? VERY FEW vegans have healthy diets. Its almost impossible to get the proper nutrition unless you buy special protien/synthetic and processed powders/mixes, which are hard on your kidneys and pretty expensive.
braino2000 3 years ago
That's absolute rubbish. Perhaps a little research on the subject might tell you this. There is nothing particularly strong about the 'survival of the fittest' argument, which is a rule constantly disregarded by humanity in search of morality - any social law would show this. If human's are so superior why would we follow the example set by other creatures anyway? Lol, perhaps we should also eat our young if they are disabled?
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Afraid of research? My god relativism gets more loop headed every day. I do believe we are animals, but not like wild animals lower then us. Your saying animals experience the same level on conciousness? Your the one who needs to research. Scientists have found that the most advanced animals besides us may have an occasional conceptual thought but thats it. Animals dont believe in justice/evil/virtue. They dont contemplate the questions and problems we grapple with.
braino2000 3 years ago
Yes consciousness is consciousness, there is no evidence, and could never be evidence, that one creature experiences life to lesser or greater degrees than any other.Self-consciousness is what you speak of,and these 'higher' thoughts you mention that humans have don't give us superiority in any meaningful way-unless of course children also are lesser creatures than adults?...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
..That'superior intellect'line of thought is one that has always failed in reasonable debate,as it also creates divisions between humans in the right to life.After all the mentally diasabled and children who don't fathom justice/evil/virtue are not lesser beings than those of us who do,they still maintain a right to life,and a right to not be abused as much as you or I.& as should animals,if they are creatures which share with us consciousness(not'self-consciousness',but as in experiencing life)
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And as for the health thing, most people nowadays who have done any tiny amount of research on the matter will realise that vegan diets are an extremely healthy option. There is nothing you can not get from them, that you can from an animal based diet.They provide people with the near elimination of conditions like heart disease (which may I remind you is the West's biggest killer, while a vegan diet has killed no-one) and several cancers (notably bowel and breast). Please check your facts.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
A couple more points, that perhaps you have missed."animals eating other animals is part of evolution/survival of the fittest philosophy". Earlier you stated 'people have gone way to far saying that we behave exactly like animals' yet up there you claim we are just animals. And finally yes,in a sense this video is 'vegan propagandha'(was MLK pro-propagandha too btw?), in exactly the same way as your comments are propogandha - in favour of, well, being afraid of research I guess.Just kiddng!
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
You may as well say cheetahs/lions are also morally wrong since they kill other animals to eat food. You also keep saying morrally and mentioning all kinds of values/virtues in the video as if they are objective/intrinsic, yet an atheistic philosphy does NOT allow objective morals. Why do you honestly care about all of this if none of it matters in the first place or let alone the long run? And dont try and mix objectivism with atheism/evolutionism.Many atheists have already admitted its failure
braino2000 3 years ago
No, again it seems you are ignoring the facts. Moral philosophy rests on the assumption that only moral agents respect it. This means that moral agents, those who can respect morality and follow moral laws, are subject to respecting the lives of those who can't (mentally challnged, children, and non-human animals). So your cheetah/lion argument falls down purely on the fact that we are discussing morality. This is simple moral philosophy that even the slightest amount of research would unearth.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And secondly there are several very valid areas of moral philosophy that allow for aethistic moral objectivism. Just because one does not belive in God, it doesn't mean one has to believe in nothing. If we take the same base assumptions, ie, humans deserve to have rights, then break them down and logically analyse why, it becomes pretty obvious that they desreve rights for their animalistic atributes like the ability to feel, experience life and live...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
...and not the ability to judge, or act in certain ways. These factors are neither here nor there, and do not give us reason to discriminate on the right to life or to live free from abuse - things that relate only to one's ability to live or feel abuse.
And thirdly, why on Earth would you assume I am an atheist anyway? I certainly am not religious in any sense, but find the same flaws with atheism as I find with religion - both being viewpoints with no real weight on their side.Iam agnostic
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Well I assumed you were atheist considering your human/animal evolutionary ideals. Sorry I misjudged, I'm not religious really either, but I too see deep flaws in both sides. However i think a God is very possible.
braino2000 3 years ago
Once again. Give me some real reason to believe this. Because it's beneficial? What makes something beneficial?
Because it will help us progress in any way?
Why should we progress? You aren't giving me any real reasons to think any of this is wrong... And why do you keep mentioning disabled children? That's irrelevent. And no, atheistic objectivism doesn't work. So many atheists have admitted this its pitiful that minority/non publicized atheists still think they can possess it.
braino2000 3 years ago
I'm not working in the boundaries of what is right and wat is wrong, simply on the assumption that humans are valuable, and then breaking that down. Once you consider what is valuable/most precious in human beings, the reasoning becomes obvious. Obviously the right to live is more precious than the right to reason, this itself says just exactly that creatures are important regardless of reasoning capabilities - the right to life always trumps other rights etc.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I studied moral philosophy, and there seem to me to be little or no reason why there shouldn't be moral facts while there are things like colour facts, which similarly have little pyhsical presence. But either way it isn't significant to my argument, as I am taking the same assumptions as society already makes (after all, arguments mustbalways make assumptions somewhere) and showing our behaviour to be speciesist - and not actually claiming there to be any moral facts.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
And as for the talk of disabled children, it is completely relevant. If you claim human beings can use animals as they have these higher mental capabilities, or self consciousness etc, then you also leave the door open for humans to abuse those humans who are mentally incompetent in these areas. that is why the talk of disabled humans and children come in, as in the classic argument against why humans superiority does not exist in intellectual ways.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
if this all comes down to emotions we are all screwed.
becuase emotion can not be "proven"
but if you are acting on "emotions" ti become a vegan
that makes "vegan" a cult
becuase you are moving to action with only emotions and you logic only follows your emotion
also their is NO logical idea to go vegan since eating meat is healthy and me were made to eat meat and vegies in balance
Royicethepkmnmaster 3 years ago 3
meat isn't healthy, its a major cause of most of the west's biggest human killers - heart disease, strokes, cancers etc. Natural carnivores like dogs don't get things like heart disease (as experiments have shown), as their bodies are meant to eat it. The logic behind vegetarianism is as logical as the argument behind opposing racism - its pretty much perfect if you make the assumption that doing the right thing is desirable - look up the animal rights library, and read Regan etc.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
doing the right thing? but from an atheistic vegan perspective there is no objective right! you don't believe in any ultimate supernatural value to anyting or any sort of god or other defining force to declare something objectively good. So "good" to you is only a matter of what feels desireable. You feel that it is wrong to hurt animals, but you can't expect everyone else to feel the same way.
So you see, the vegan philosophy is hypocritical
JustThink00 3 years ago
well i would think morality relates to the world in some way, and it's not really our own values that make it wrong to kill other humans - and that even if someone else thinks that isn't wrong then they would still be wrong in there assumption.
You dont need a god to asert that moral choices can be wrong or right - just an asumption that things do exist, and that moral facts attach to those things - much like physical facts which also can often seem subjective.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
"in some way" and "moral facts" are very vague. What if I see no reason to believe that killing animals is wrong? This assumption of yours "an asumption that things do exist, and that moral facts attach to those things ", why do you think you can make such an assumption? and why do you feel that you can push that assumption upon others?
JustThink00 3 years ago
Ok, let me put it this way - and make no assumptions whatsoever. As a general, in society, we agree that humans are worthy of protection and rights. If it can be shown that others animals, too, have the characteristics deserving of some rights, then they too should morally be allowed them. If we say that we shouldnt push our own personal morality as we shouldnt make assumptions, then we shouldnt disagree with murderers, rapists etc -then we should doubt morality, not the extension of it...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
...that is animal rights. The ascription of animal rights simply takes what people belive in Western society, and advances it logically and reasonibly. It makes no assumption that moral behaviour should be observed, simply that if it is, and is done in the way it is today, then animal rights as well as human rights should be ascribed - else we are simply ignorant of the facts.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
But *why* do we agree that humans are worthy of rights? There has to be a reason, and most find it in their religion, which you seem to lack. I see no *reason* for any of your beliefs just assumptions and feelings. Most have a reason to value humanity but not animals based in beliefs about the soul. They see a clear and fundamental difference and do not observe characteristics worth preserving in animals
JustThink00 3 years ago
well exactly, why do we agree humans are worthy of rights - and yet no other animals. Any justification seems to either assume that humans have souls and animals don't (which even the bible gives Christians no evidence for - see Rev Andrew Linzeys work), or state things which some humans also lack (ie the mentally disabled or the very young). The reason for caring comes from empathy-we know that that ourselves can suffer, or experience life - and so spot it in others - then empathise.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I disagree on the empathy bit and believe there are certain unique qualities that even the mentally disabled posses. They aren't really provable though. I can't imagine how someone could think the way you do but I don't think I'm going to convince you.
JustThink00 3 years ago
can i also ask if you make the same comments on anti-racist videos? Or on videos that speak in favour of human rights, or against poverty for example? Surely the moral doubt you have stretches to this and everything that is 'good' or 'right'.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
No of course I don't. I don't have moral doubt. I have a very strong moral beliefs system that I adhere to completely. I just see no logical reason to extend it to include the protection of animals. To me they are no different than plants or even rocks. I could ask you why you don't protect all the innocent rocks that are being destroyed in human construction, but that just sounds silly.
About as silly as protecting animals sounds to me.
JustThink00 3 years ago
well your point about *moral facts* being dubious doubts all morality, not just animal rights. and if you believe there are none, why care for anything at all. Well try reading some animal rights philosophy, its all there in Singer or Regan. They would be fast to point out there's no logical reason to not extend rights to animals. They also point out humans and the other animals can suffer and consciously experience life...
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
...and that these are the things that matter in morality - not the lines of physical difference in species, or the fascist-esque system of denying rights based on intelligence or reasoning skills.
Rocks, plants and other objects like this can most certainly not suffer or experience a life (if indeed we want to say they possess life, which i definately wouldnt), and therefore deserve no rights that would relate to these charcateristics.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
"Rocks, plants and other objects like this can most certainly not suffer or experience a life (if indeed we want to say they possess life, which i definately wouldnt)"
rocks clearly do not possess life, but plants do. Regardless, life itself is not what I value. Life itself is just a natural phenomenon of no more interest to me than other natural phenomenon such as crystals or stalagmites.
"other animals can suffer and consciously experience life..."
I see no reason to believe that.
JustThink00 3 years ago
Experiencing life is different to possessing 'life' in the sense a plant does. Humans and animals are shown through science to experience life, suffer and all the such that goes along with it. Humans after all are different 'in type, not in kind' to animals, who both in turn are 'different in kind' to plants.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
but the argument is beginning to seem pointless. I thank you for remaining civil and respectful despite our differances.
Also though I do not respect animals I respect humans to no end and if humans such as yourself prefer that I do not eat animals...I will consider it.
JustThink00 3 years ago
I respect the different in views, but my responses are reason influenced and through research on the moral issue - i myself grew up on a chicken farm with the same discriminatory speciesist views as most others do. It was only when i questioned why i care for humans so far over other animals when i realised there is no basis for it in logic - it is only based in tradition and habit. And such things have no place in modern moral and ethical thought - by their very definition.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I see only one flaw in your logic, and that is that you do not have a logical reason to even value humans, only an emotional one. Your logic seems to come after that emotion and exist to support it.
JustThink00 3 years ago
well thats not only my flaw, that exists for everything within human reasoning - eventually everything is proved by an assumption somewhere, mine, and indeed the rest of the worlds, seem to be the assumption that humans should be valued. I think it's better to assume this than to make up reasons like ' because they have souls' or other bizarre things like this that seem to have little grounding in serious discussion.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
I will admit It is the sad truth of logic that it ultimately exists to serve an illogical purpose or assumption. My assumptions are very basic though. I've only assumed that certain concepts or virtues are inherently good if they can be proven to exist(such as free will).
JustThink00 3 years ago
If this is the case, then there should be no place for your talk of the supernatural as this certainly can not be proved. And most of the experts in the area of free will would point out it doesn't appear to exist - and that it seems that determinism is true.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
"make up reasons "
I didn't make up that reason. I see undeniable evidence of qualitative differences between humans and animals which to me seem to defy the laws of nature, thus being supernatural. I also have explored my own being and there found a connection to a spiritual realm.
You may call me delusional, but you can't say that I've made things up just because I want to believe them.
JustThink00 3 years ago
i dont think any qualitative evidence for a useful difference has been mentioned, and in fact this is the one major thing missing from anti-animal rights literature in the past 20 years. The belief in spirtitual reasoning to prove injustice or discrimination is not a fair argument, and has absolutely no place in ethical discussion - except those instances when only the one conscious creature is affected, ie yourself. When hundreds of lives are at stake these beliefs are v.harsh on others.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
" dont think any qualitative evidence... mentioned"
personally I think that qualitative differance is blatantly obvious. It is difficult to prove it to those who somehow fail to see it though. I'm working on compiling my thoughts on the matter, but it will likely be at least a few weeks untill I can produce anything solid and convincing.
JustThink00 3 years ago
the 'difference' is blatantly obvious only in the sense that we are taught there is a difference, upon scrutiny there appears to be only one as relevant as race and sex - at least when it comes to suffering. The difference is relevant to who should vote, or have a right to education (of course animals couldnt claim this), but when it comes to suffering an animals claims are equal as it suffers equally. Spiritual matters don't change this.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
". The belief in spirtitual reasoning...not a fair argument,"
I'm not sure we have the same definition of spiritual reasoning. I agree that many mainstream religions use a biased and crooked reason to defend their ideas, but that is not the total sum of all reason that involves the spiritual
JustThink00 3 years ago
i would whole heartedly agree with you, i think the realm of the spiritual is perhaps more tangible than people suggest, and of course it can not be proven by scientific fact. but spiritual matters are personal, and should not be allowed to interfere with ethical matters - as others shouldn't suffer because of spiritual views. It is unfair to impart suffering, if reason tells us it is, regardless of whether you think animals or humans live forever through their souls etc.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
"regardless of whether you think animals or humans live forever through their souls etc."
It's not a matter of immortality. I don't care whether or not our souls are immortal anywhere near as much as I care about the traits we exhibit as a result of them. Higher thought, the desire to do good, the ability to love an ideal and to go against your instincts in the name of it, love, reason, these things I see in humans but not animals.
JustThink00 3 years ago
Without things like that I see little reason to value something. Without things like that an animal is just a biological computer. We could probably program a robot to experience something like pain and react like animals do. Would animal rights activists suggest that robot had rights? You'll never find a robot that fights its programming or an animal that fights its instincts though.
JustThink00 3 years ago
well i think you have missed the entire concept of consciousness. First of all, it's just as easy to say a human is a slave to it's desires - it will never do something irrational to a desire! Theres no difference between a human or an animal there. Secondly, humans have consciousness only to the degree other animals do! We both experience life, and strive to live and experience happiness- what on earth makes you put humans ahead of animals in these stakes,when of course we did evolve from them?
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
By the way, if you value creatures purely on a scale of what emotional reactions they have to things etc, would you be in favour of farming and eating a human who felt little emotion -one who was say raised by wolves, and had mental difficulties also?Of course, this human can suffer just as much as any other creature.When it comes to deciding the right thing to do,we should take things like this into account.If someone can suffer, we should respect their suffering-not ignore it on other grounds.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
well to be fair these traits can also cause humans to do terrible things, and have insatiable greed - which are much more common results than any good that comes from human behaviour. You just have to look at the environment or policies on even human rights to see that. These traits make humans deserving of respect in the areas they lie, but set out no reason why an animal should suffer ahead of a human-or of course why a human should use another animal for his own ends, at the expense of them.
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
Actually, something of interest to this conversation might be Andrew Linzey's speech which is available here on youtube. He approaches the area of spirituality and animal rights, especially on that of the soul. It is based on a christian vewpoint, but i think it has a lot of relevance to what we are talking about here - just type in Andrew Linzey speech to the search and it will come up with the right one
xAnimalxRightsx 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can't find it
JustThink00 3 years ago
Humans are animals and I cannot believe that you would give up meat just to please other people.
"I have a very strong moral beliefs system that I adhere to completely. I just see no logical reason to extend it to include the protection of animals."
Truly compassionate people aren't selective with who they extend their compassion towards. If a being can feel pain, species is irrelevant.
"To me they are no different than plants or even rocks"
-continued in next post
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
"Truly compassionate people aren't selective with who they extend their compassion towards. If a being can feel pain, species is irrelevant."
the problem with that sentance is your use of the word who when referring to animals. I do not see them as people but as objects. I believe that has been made clear already though. Also your second posts seems to have been lost
JustThink00 3 years ago
You can see non-human animals however you like but the fact remains that there's as much evidence for sentience in non-human mammals, birds and crocodilians as there is for sentience in other humans. There are no structural differences between mammalian brains, only differences in size and proportion so, if humans are sentient, there's no way that gorillas and cats aren't sentient.
During slavery, I'm sure there were plenty of White people who viewed Black people as objects. They were wrong.
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
"There are no structural differences between mammalian brains"
I suggest avoiding the word sentience, as its definition has been abused by sci-fi and such so it can be difficult to understand your meaning. If you refer to something secular, such as ability to feel pain, then I agree. That does not concern me though. I'm interested in the mind and soul not the brain.
Obviously you can't use traditional logic and evidence for questions of the spiritual
JustThink00 3 years ago
Humans aren't anything more than 'biological machines' and 'free will' is theoretically impossible. There is as much evidence for sentience (including love) in non-human mammals and birds as there is for sentience in other humans.
It's funny how the 'righteous', Bible toting, 'God fearing' lunatics are often the most ignorant, closed-minded and bigoted. What a fucking joke you are, I mean that.
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
-This was in response to that clown Waldo. Jesus, what a fucking shithead.
I don't have a fucking 'soul', moron. Consciousness is a material process carried out by the neurons in our brains.
AfricanPrince 3 years ago
Nice video, good message, great job!
Rorski1 3 years ago
imsocool1004 agreed I really liked this ... especially since it was not to graphic. I know some people do not know what happens but ive seen videos and read Peter Singer's book animal liberation. After that its hard to see any more of what humans do. GREAT VIDEO! GREAT MESSAGE! STOP THE SUFFERING AND DEATH!
gpokriff2 3 years ago 2
great video
Imsocool1004 3 years ago 3