@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

What we have here is a translation issue: a clear example of how cats and dogs simply do not understand each other's body language.

The dog starts by trying to determine where he stands in the pack hierarchy with regards to the cat, albeit with all his aggressiveness tempered by the humans standing around him and showing some favoritism (or at least protection towards) the cat. When the cat refuses to react in a predictable dog-like manner, the dog takes the cat's glowering stare to mean the cat is the alpha and goes into full submissive mode... and when that doesn't work, he whines in confusion.

Meanwhile, the cat sees all this as the stalking of a potentially hostile carnivore who is significantly larger than it, and has ears back, eyes wide and is ready to swat at its opponent if this strange creature becomes to aggressive.

It's not that cats and dogs dislike each other: they just don't speak the same language. Eventually, the housemates will probably work out a sort of patios between them (more on the part of the dog than the cat) and will come to a more comfortable understanding.

It's not that the cat doesn't want to play; he simply doesn't understand that the dog is making an invitation.

How are Sunfish not giant, floating smorgasbords for carnivorous predators? They're like giant pieces of steak with fins.

The tension was unbearable. I kept waiting for a troll, perhaps a carnivorous animal, or a legion of warriors on a blood rampage.
Could barely watch.

Some days I'm not well.

The jury is still out on vegetarian diets, and they are certainly nowhere near anything like a vaccination for heart disease. You can just as easily be an unhealthy vegetarian as an unhealthy carnivore.

Certainly, most people in the west do eat too much meat, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that meat absolutely has a place in our diet. The problem with most of these studies is that they don't compare like with like. Vegetarians tend to have made conscious decisions about food and health and are more likely to exercise and eat less processed foods. If you compare a vegetarian with a carnivore that eats well and exercises, the difference is much less pronounced.

If you want to be a vegetarian on ethical grounds, that's up to you, and there's certainly an argument to be made that a vegetarian lifestyle is more sustainable (using less land and water, etc)

However, this isn't really relevant to this discussion. If I choose to eat tasty steaks, there's no risk to those around me of catching heart disease.

Reminds me of something from the Ewok movies. (though I think that thing was carnivorous).

Also: Was this in the wild? I'd live there in a second.

Venus Flytraps: Jaws of Death has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Venus Flytrap Devours a Fucking FROG has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Carnivorous plant sundew eating fly time lapse has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

How flesh-eating pitcher plants trap insects has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

David Attenborough: Carnivorous Plants has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Exactly. Everybody knows that their dwindling populations.... er, nope, that's not it. Um, yeah, deer are known to avoid all urban areas and contact with humans... er, nope, that's not it either. They are very bitey. Yep, that must be why. Bitey. And then, carnivorous deer. Good God man, stop with the Doritos!!!

(Really - this earns a "moron"? Moron.)

Bumble bees are not carnivorous, accordingly it would have no reason to deploy a sting other than defensively. As it was not under threat itself, the only conclusion can be that it came to the defense of the trapped bee.

The only real question is the mechanism used to communicate the threat and I would guess that it's pheromone based.

It's a type of pitcher-plant....carnivorous, that prepuce-looking top is simply a flap that probably closes when some bug falls-in.
Khmer: Pong MohaTep (ពងទឹក មហាទេព)


Keep touching it and giggling ladies ....Yeah, just like that!!

@RedSky

I don't know how many times you want me to explain to you that it is not the absolute number of humans on Earth that signifies. In principle a human being costs no more than a large dog to support.* The number of advanced, high energy, modern lifestyles is the figure in question, which you want approximately to quintuple to around ten billion (as recently as fifty to sixty years ago there were fewer than one billion near-modern humans on Earth); that's using a high estimate of the number already at that level, a low estimate of the growth in their resource consumption over the relevant period and a low estimate of total population growth; that's your plan. Or alternatively, to share two billions worth of resources among ten, a burden civilisation cannot bear.

Corporations pollute only so far as we require them to. These are not cigar-puffing fat cats pouring oil on baby seals for the evulz; the fulfilment of the social function we assign them necessarily involves pollution. Expecting to control that effectively with tax incentives is childishly naive.


*Much less if we forego meat. Carnivorous pet ownership by criminals is a substantial driving factor in climate change.

Amongst the diversity of extinct australian megafauna is the Propleopus oscillans, a carnivorous kangaroo. Perhaps this one is just reverting to type. Evolution in progress. Take that, creationists!

Perhaps they only get carnivorous on things wearing black and white, stay out of a tuxedo and you'll be fine.

I'm not sure how anyone could have thought this was a terrible thing? Lions have to eat meat, and animals will have to be killed for all their meals. If it wasn't a giraffe, it would be a cow. Is a giraffe's life more sacred than a cow's life? If so, why? Just because we are used to the idea of cows dieing for our food?

This is real life, and I don't think we should hide it from children. Shooting a giraffe in the head is brutal, but way less brutal than a bunch of lions biting it to death. If people aren't fans of feeding animals meat, then maybe they should be protesting against keeping carnivores in zoos.