Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 ....that bivalves most likely do not feel pain. Bivalves include clams, mussels, etc. Peter Singer wrote " Animal Liberation " and he makes this case in " The Way We Eat, " which I recently read. He basically says that if one is trying to eat ethically, bivalves would be an acceptable choice provided they are harvested " sustainably " (if there is such a thing). What do you think? I ask not because I'm excited to eat these things (as filtrating creatures, they're basically the sewer system of the ocean), but because I'm curious to know how other veg*ns respond to this statement from a notable animal activist. Chandelle -- " The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved. " ~Emma Goldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Hi Chandelle, Ah, I still see them as animals. I think having muscles or non-plant-based connective tissue makes them animals in my mind. Pete can eat them if he likes, but like you said, they're filtering beings - and to me they're animals - so I'll take a pass. Plus, I wouldn't have enjoyed them even when I was a kid and ate meat. It's not like I miss fishy tasting, rubbery stuff passed off as food. :-) Makes me think of the days my uncle used to dive for abalone and tell us it was just like chicken . . . sure, unc, super rubbery, wingless, featherless, weird tasting, toxin-filled chicken. Yumm. (kidding! Those were nights of pb & j dinner for me!) But, I think everyone should make their own decision . . . mine, respectfully, will be to continue to not eat what I feel are animals. :-) Have a great day, Lorraine On Behalf Of chandelle Friday, January 23, 2009 10:15 AM Peter Singer says... ....that bivalves most likely do not feel pain. Bivalves include clams, mussels, etc. Peter Singer wrote " Animal Liberation " and he makes this case in " The Way We Eat, " which I recently read. He basically says that if one is trying to eat ethically, bivalves would be an acceptable choice provided they are harvested " sustainably " (if there is such a thing). What do you think? I ask not because I'm excited to eat these things (as filtrating creatures, they're basically the sewer system of the ocean), but because I'm curious to know how other veg*ns respond to this statement from a notable animal activist. Chandelle -- " The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved. " ~Emma Goldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 To me, it makes no difference. I don't eat meat for a multitude of reasons, and the pain the creatures are in is certainly one of them, but basically for me, it boils down to this: I don't have the right to take anothers' life simply for my own convenience. I don't need animals to live, and life is quite tasty without it, so why bother? My 2 cents... jenni --- On Fri, 1/23/09, chandelle <earthmother213 wrote: chandelle <earthmother213 Peter Singer says... Friday, January 23, 2009, 10:15 AM ....that bivalves most likely do not feel pain. Bivalves include clams, mussels, etc. Peter Singer wrote " Animal Liberation " and he makes this case in " The Way We Eat, " which I recently read. He basically says that if one is trying to eat ethically, bivalves would be an acceptable choice provided they are harvested " sustainably " (if there is such a thing). What do you think? I ask not because I'm excited to eat these things (as filtrating creatures, they're basically the sewer system of the ocean), but because I'm curious to know how other veg*ns respond to this statement from a notable animal activist. Chandelle -- " The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved. " ~Emma Goldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Here's my stance: Bivalves, while not having a central nervous system like ours, have a nerve net. They respond to the pain of having their bodies ripped when their shells are opened by pulling their shells shut....if they are still alive after the shell has been opened, you can poke them and they will move in response. While it's not a ton of evidence, it's enough to convince me that they are, in fact, sentient beings. Being vegan, I do not believe in eating or exploiting sentient beings....regardless of how small or how much evidence I have for it. It's very frustrating when people who do SO MUCH good for the animal rights movement argue that a living creature, for whatever reason, can and should be exploited for our own purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Peter Singer says lots of goofy things, in my opinion. I don't know if I would identify Mr. Singer as an activist, Chandelle: he is an academic and sometimes I feel he is disengaged completely from anything that isn't a theoretical argument. As a vegan for ethical reasons, I would argue that bivalves are not part of the plant kingdom, and no matter how primitive their anatomies might seem to us, we have no idea how they experience pain. What he is saying is filtered through a human's lens and a human's set of values. Maybe it doesn't register in a way that we can chart or recognize. Furthermore, our seas have been decimated and ravaged for human consumption: even the most " sustainable " sea animal husbandry has a big ol' footprint. And the bottom line to me is always that eating animals isn't necessary and it does necessarily inflict harm. Therefore, I abstain. Marla > ...that bivalves most likely do not feel pain. > > Bivalves include clams, mussels, etc. > > Peter Singer wrote " Animal Liberation " and he makes this case in " The Way We > Eat, " which I recently read. He basically says that if one is trying to eat > ethically, bivalves would be an acceptable choice provided they are > harvested " sustainably " (if there is such a thing). > > What do you think? I ask not because I'm excited to eat these things (as > filtrating creatures, they're basically the sewer system of the ocean), but > because I'm curious to know how other veg*ns respond to this statement from > a notable animal activist. > > Chandelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Reading this really makes me sad. I feel that it is justifying the suffering of another being for the benifit of human indulgence. Comments like these lessen the intensity of the cause, and leads to a wider misunderstanding of vegetarians/vegans among those who do eat meat. I am among the group of people who would never consider eating any flesh from any sort of animal, including bivalves. It also brings to light the fact that some people call themselves pesca vegetarians. Eating the flesh of any animal weather furry, feathered, finned or those with a shell means that you are not a vegetarian! I for one, am tired of people assuming that i eat fish when i tell them i am a vegetarian. That is why i refuse to use the term pesca vegetarian and will gladly let anyone who asks or assumes that vegetarians eat some sorts of meat that they unfortunately are missinformed and that to be a true vegetarian you obstain from all meat and leather/fur ect. Sorry for the rant i can get pretty passionate. Also sorry for the spelling errors i have never been a good speller. Amity , chandelle <earthmother213 wrote: > > ...that bivalves most likely do not feel pain. > > Bivalves include clams, mussels, etc. > > Peter Singer wrote " Animal Liberation " and he makes this case in " The Way We > Eat, " which I recently read. He basically says that if one is trying to eat > ethically, bivalves would be an acceptable choice provided they are > harvested " sustainably " (if there is such a thing). > > What do you think? I ask not because I'm excited to eat these things (as > filtrating creatures, they're basically the sewer system of the ocean), but > because I'm curious to know how other veg*ns respond to this statement from > a notable animal activist. > > Chandelle > > -- > " The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; > but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved. " > ~Emma Goldman > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.