EPTSpecie-cism and veganism - Page 5
| Blogs > Tony Campolo |
|
Amnesia
United States3818 Posts
| ||
|
lixlix
United States482 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:37 Saechiis wrote: I think we can all agree that most of us aren't in a direct struggle for survival. The fact that people like their daily meat doesn't mean they require it to stay alive. Your condescending tone also gives me the impression that you're annoyed by the notion that others can withhold from eating meat based on their beliefs, good. TL:DR Don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat. I haven't portrayed vegans as anything nor am I condescending. You should look to yourself if you want a definition of condescension. I mean just read that sentence "don't portray vegans as pretentious people to justify your eating of meat". I didn't realize I had to justify me eating meat. In fact you believing that I have to justify an act that my ancestors, and all the animals that I evolved from did reveals more about the tenuous position of your stance. As to the survival argument, you brought up the alien scenario, not I. The key difference between me and OP is that if there was legislation proposed to outlaw the consumption of meat, OP would probably vote for it, whereas if there was legislation proposed to outlaw vegetarianism, I would vehemently oppose it. I don't even mind vegans spreading the news on their issue. Thats fine. Its when they compare the rights of animals to the rights of humans or make statements as enforced veganism is not an infringement of human rights that I get annoyed. In fact, if enforced veganism is enacted, animals will have more rights than humans. I mean I'm not sure what you're going to tell Mr. Lion. You going to tell him " hey mr. Lion, that baby antelope is in a lot of pain while she's still alive and you're chewing on her leg. maybe you can go for some grass. or maybe you can swiftly kill her then eat her". Nature and animals are cruel. We as humans don't need to add to that cruelty but at the same time, cruelty is often a byproduct of a necessity. The key is obviously whether this need is worth the cruelty. You and the OP happen to think its not, I happen to think it is. Thats all there is to it. There is no need to bring in all this animal rights, racism, etc... in to the argument. Which is what my initial point is abeit in more colorful language. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On February 10 2011 10:01 Saechiis wrote: So basically what you're saying is: Everything you eat is "cruelty" so you shouldn't even try? Seems like a defeatist attitude; make it seem like all food is bad so you don't have to try and be conscious of your foods' origin. No, he points out that things such as "animal rights" are imaginary first world "problems" that completely ignore the existence of real human suffering. The only way to logically argue for something like veganism or "animal rights" is to equate the life of a human with that of a cow (which the OP has done). From this skewed viewpoint, the arguments make sense, but so does that of equating the life of a human with that of a head of lettuce. | ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
I have no problem with veganism, and if eating meat makes you uncomfortable, then by all means, don't. But as of now, I am being accused of being unethical, so I would venture to defend myself. Animals, for the most part, including the ones we eat, are not self-aware. They don't even realize they exist. Death is no different from life to them. They have no free will. Avoiding pain is just a built-in mechanism that can't be specified for them. Humans are different, humans can actively choose to endure immediate pain for payoff later on. Humans can even choose to sacrifice themselves for others. The outcome of eating meat is favorable to one party while neutral to the other, assuming the animal you eat is not self-aware, and has no potential to become self-aware (this protects humans in vegetative states). If you help an animal avoid pain, it's status quo still remains unchanged. The only reason to not eat animals is if you think the end result, the taste and nutrition of meat, is not worth the input of those specific actions, and that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. You, being the intelligent human being you are, are entitled to believe whatever you want, and make decisions for yourselves. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 10:23 lixlix wrote: I haven't portrayed vegans as anything nor am I condescending. So you didn't say these things? On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: You try to push your beliefs on to others and you wonder why you are being attacked ? I have never seen meat eaters push vegetarians to consume meat and yet I am constantly bombarded by vegetarians/vegans who criticize my way of life. Painting OP as forcing you to become vegan when he clearly isn't forcing anyone to do anything. On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: Animals are not human. What are you going to implement next? you going to have some horses run the 100 meters or kangaroos doing the long jump? Ridiculing OP's beliefs. On February 10 2011 06:22 lixlix wrote: An animal's right to not get killed is not as important as my right to grill its filet in butter made from its milk. Stating an opinion as a fact and purposefully describing how you like to eat animals to poke at OP. On February 10 2011 06:53 lixlix wrote: Why don't we go a step further. Aside from not eating any animal products, lets put some cheese out so that family of rats can stave off the winter. Oh sorry, put out some tofu cheese. Maybe we can move that colony of termites in to our attic. That'll really reduce their suffering. After all, what is my right to live in a house compared to their right to survive? I can always sleep in a tent. Its just a simple move. No human rights infringed !! Come to think of it, animals are pretty close to their mom and dads. Maybe when an animal dies, I'll bury it and not disturb its resting ground. Of course, I can't use fossil fuels, might disturb some animals from worshipping their ancestors. All poking fun of OP's beliefs without making a rational point. On February 10 2011 07:09 lixlix wrote: You are using the suffering of humans as examples to push your agenda on animals as well as comparing the suffering of humans of a certain race to the suffering of animals and you fail to see that as racist? Accusing OP of "pushing an agenda" and comparing his veganism to being racist without any rational explanation whatsoever. On February 10 2011 09:17 lixlix wrote: But I'll tell you what, you can eat your vegetables and save your animals and when the aliens show up to breed us, you can impress them with your moral superiority. Condescending tone combined with a ridiculisation of an argument that you couldn't refute otherwise. On February 10 2011 10:30 Offhand wrote: No, he points out that things such as "animal rights" are imaginary first world "problems" that completely ignore the existence of real human suffering. The only way to logically argue for something like veganism or "animal rights" is to equate the life of a human with that of a cow (which the OP has done). From this skewed viewpoint, the arguments make sense, but so does that of equating the life of a human with that of a head of lettuce. First of all, why IS the life and rights of an animal inferior to that of a human? I know most people deem themselves superior and have never considered humans and animals having equal rights, but for the sake of arguing; what makes animals inferior to us? As OP has portayed, most animals have a maternal instinct, they get scared just like us, they communicate with eachother, they have emotions. They're not the empty lifeless shell people are painting them to be. They don't want to die, they don't want to be eaten, they also don't want to be separated from eachother. Secondly, how can you even compare lettuce to a living, thinking and breathing creature? Human suffering isn't any more "real" than animal suffering. Fact is also that humanity CAN in fact solve world hunger. Capitalism is just a system that results in inequality, there's enough food, just not enough people with money and influence willing to help them out. As such it's the same as saying "once I win the lottery jackpot I'll worry about animal rights". On February 10 2011 10:41 Enervate wrote: It's absurd to compare speciesism with racism or sexism, because there are no major functional differences between men and women or people of different races. I have no problem with veganism, and if eating meat makes you uncomfortable, then by all means, don't. But as of now, I am being accused of being unethical, so I would venture to defend myself. Animals, for the most part, including the ones we eat, are not self-aware. They don't even realize they exist. Death is no different from life to them. They have no free will. Avoiding pain is just a built-in mechanism that can't be specified for them. Humans are different, humans can actively choose to endure immediate pain for payoff later on. Humans can even choose to sacrifice themselves for others. The outcome of eating meat is favorable to one party while neutral to the other, assuming the animal you eat is not self-aware, and has no potential to become self-aware (this protects humans in vegetative states). If you help an animal avoid pain, it's status quo still remains unchanged. The only reason to not eat animals is if you think the end result, the taste and nutrition of meat, is not worth the input of those specific actions, and that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. You, being the intelligent human being you are, are entitled to believe whatever you want, and make decisions for yourselves. No-one is being accused of anything. OP has given his reasons for being a vegan and offered these to TL readers for them to consider. The reason is to make people think about these things, not to act morally superior or blame anyone for lack thereof. You don't have to tell me steak is fucking delicious, I know, I'd like to stuff my face with it 24/7. There are also plenty of genuine animal lovers that still eat meat. The point is that people are actually aware of the concerns regarding factory farms. And if even one person decides to cut back a little on the meat, or would buy certified meat instead of the regular, or would even think about these things whilst shopping, than that would already spell succes for OP's beliefs and goals. No-one is pretending to be angels here, I stomp lings every day without shedding a tear and I enjoy nothing more than killing their damned Cows, probably because I'm racist  | ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 10 2011 08:41 Robstickle wrote: I'm sure you think you've made a marvelous point by pointing out that animals can be quite cruel to one another but for the life of me I can't see what it might be. Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel. You missed my point - which is that regardless of how a jaguar kills its prey - say on an average day one million jaguars kill one million pigs. But on top of this we have one billion pigs being tortured on factory farms. It would be better for (A) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs than for (B) one million jaguars to kill one million pigs and one billion pigs suffering. A is better than B, and if we have the opportunity to reduce B then we ought to. And why not simply feed people who are starving with the grain and other food that we produce for the purposes of producing pigs? It would be a lot more economically and environmentally efficient. We just don't because third world environments are being destroyed simply so that cattle can be raised to feed first world countries. I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it. But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 11:49 agarangu wrote: Cruelty is natural. We have a lot of evidence in nature that supports that. I'm not saying that it's right to be cruel, but it happens and will continue to happen whether we want it or not, unless we are willing to stop predators in nature from being cruel. I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it. But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said. Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently. For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4170 Posts
Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it..... And that's far from the only example of that..... | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On February 10 2011 11:49 agarangu wrote: I absolutely agree with you in that it would be better if the suffering didn't happen, and we should attempt to reduce it as much as we can, even if it's impossible to stop it. But I would not feed a human with pig food, simply because he is a human and humans have different protein requirements. It is true that they could eat what pigs eat and survive, but not without weakening their bodies, because they need meat. The fact that vegans are finding alternatives to meat proves that they do, and even if it's true that people from third world countries could live well without it, it would be a lot more expensive than simply giving them meat, I would not be more economically efficient as you said. If you watch Food Inc you'll see that the food that is fed to pigs is mostly made from corn. Your statement that it is not more economically efficient is inaccurate - and the fact that you say vegans are finding meat 'alternatives' - they are not alternatives to substitute what meat provides - but are simply nutrients in their own right. Nuts contain protein. So does meat. You can get it from either source. Nuts are not an alternative to meat - they are a food on their own that just happen to have the same nutrients in them as meat. This doesn't prove humans need meat. All it proves is that both meats and nuts contain protein. It is nowhere near as expensive as giving them meat. Meat is inefficient, because it involves farming vegetables to feed to animals, when the first step can simply go towards feeding the poor. Unfortunately this doesn't happen because producing vegetables for third world countries is not as profitable as producing vegetables for animals which are then sold to first world countries. In many third world countries, fields of grain are grown alongside starving children, but these starving children can't touch it because they can't afford it - it's going towards the meat industry to feed the rich. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency. This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains. | ||
|
Hikko
United States1126 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:25 Lexpar wrote: Speaking of the economical and environmental repercussions of livestock, consider the phrase: everybody poops. A cow needs X amount of calories per day in order to pump blood through its veins and keep its body running. In order to gain weight, the cow needs to consume more calories than this. Even then, it will store calories inefficiently and waste a large amount of the calories through its simple biological inefficiency. This is where that 7 number comes from. The amount of food that you need to fatten a cow up compared to how much meat the cow will actually provide is 7 times less efficient than feeding those grains directly to human beings. I think we can agree that human beings could profit more from those grains. http://wanttoknowit.com/what-do-cows-eat/ Really, cows eat a lot of crap that would never be consumed by people. Here in Florida, most cows generally just graze because the grass is green year round. Most of the land isn't fertile enough for growing crops because it is naturally composed of mostly sand, so you aren't giving up land that would be of any value for other forms of agriculture, aside from a few niche plants. I've never known a human being to go out and graze on just grass, and what isn't grass in the diet of most cows is generally the byproducts of other human productions that is otherwise unusable. | ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:06 Saechiis wrote: Cruelty isn't natural, predators don't kill prey with the intent to hurt them as much as possible. They're trying to kill them as fast as possible so they don't have to spend more energy on securing their prey. Humans are also the only creatures on Earth to judge good things from bad and as such are the only ones with an inclanation to behave differently. For your second part, you'd really rather have people die from hunger than to give them "pigs" food? I've put "pigs" in quotes since it's really just the same ingredients that make their way into bread. Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 13:43 agarangu wrote: Your definition of cruelty based on intention is hilarious. Even is they don't mean to, killing some javelina by destroying their skull is cruel, and completely unnecessary since they could kill them by breaking their neck, expending less energy and with the animal felling a lot less pain. You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is. You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel. On February 10 2011 12:14 Impervious wrote: Are you kidding me? Have you ever watched a cat kill a mouse? It toys with it..... And that's far from the only example of that..... If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world. | ||
|
agarangu
Chile274 Posts
On February 10 2011 15:44 Saechiis wrote: You're saying it's hilarious, but you're not providing compelling evidence that suggests it is. You can say that you find the jaguars' way of killing cruel, you can't however say that makes the jaguar a cruel creature, since it doesn't intend to be cruel at all. Stepping on a cats' tail by accident makes it a regrettable lack of attention, stepping on a cats' tail with the intention of hurting it makes it cruel. Knowing the consequences of an action and still going through with it, is what makes someone's intentions cruel. If have cats, so yes. The cat however isn't playing with the mouse with the intent of torturing it. From a human point of view it's cruel, but right and wrong doesn't exist in the animal world. You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel. Btw... + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/qF6kn.jpg) I mean, aren't plants living organisms? | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On February 10 2011 22:32 agarangu wrote: You missed my point. You are saying that they are cruel because they have the intention of causing pain, but there's no way you could know their intentions, unless you are some kind of a mind reader (or Jesus Christ). Since you can't prove that they have the intention of causing pain, you can't use that definition of cruel. You also can't tell if casing pain makes them fell pleasure. So you can only judge their actions, and their actions are cruel just as much as cat playing with a mouse is cruel. Btw... + Show Spoiler + I mean, aren't plants living organisms? The image is a bit childish, especially since I've already explained in previous posts that lettuce is in no way comparable to living, breathing and thinking creatures. It seems like you've run out of useful things to say and are now just trying to provoke me. It's a pretty transparent attempt though and it isn't working. The comparison with Jesus Christ is also very classy Your entire argument saying that animals are intentionally cruel is baseless and pointless. You're saying that I can't read the mind of animals and as such can't prove that they're not intentionally cruel, how does that proof that they're cruel? The fact that you're implying that animals can judge their own actions as good or bad is only speaking in favor of animal rights. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
| ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
Source: Julian Cribb, the Coming Famine and http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-china-eating-meat-pushing-up-food-prices-eu/64697-7.html Also, I know vegetarian food gets a bad rap, but it really can be just as tasty, if not more so. Tasty vegetarian food: (depending on personal preference) an avocado-eggplant sandwich falafel wrap Thai/Indian curry on rice Tasty food is not: a burger with the meat removed. (ugh) | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
Humans don't benefit the individual pig in the long run, nor are they any good for the ecosystem in any timescale. Even the meat industry won't deny that meat eating consumes a lot more resources per pound of food. 250,000 pounds of manure generated a day, along with the gallons of water and tons of animal feed (not to mention the oil used in generating meat), isn't a small environmental cost. Additionally, it is probably good to exercise caution with the "it's natural" idea. Cannibalism is natural in multiple species, and 1/3 of duck sex is rape. Sure it's natural; hell, it's even natural in human beings. But does it mean that we should do it? The bottom line is that even if you disregard the animal rights frame of mind entirely, eating meat might need a lot more justification than a lot of people here are providing. A lot of false dilemmas are given in this thread regarding "people or animals" when it really isn't a choice between the two. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:39 Hikko wrote: http://wanttoknowit.com/what-do-cows-eat/ Really, cows eat a lot of crap that would never be consumed by people. Here in Florida, most cows generally just graze because the grass is green year round. Most of the land isn't fertile enough for growing crops because it is naturally composed of mostly sand, so you aren't giving up land that would be of any value for other forms of agriculture, aside from a few niche plants. I've never known a human being to go out and graze on just grass, and what isn't grass in the diet of most cows is generally the byproducts of other human productions that is otherwise unusable. A good point, this is the way things should be. Instead of millions or billions of cows on the planet, there should be tens or hundreds of thousands who graze peacefully. Instead, in factory farms they are in fact fed soybeans and corn: food that is cheap to grow (corn especially is subsidized heavily by the US and CAN governments). Again, if there wasn't such a high demand for meat, the same fields could be used to feed starving humans. Of course that wouldn't really happen either: but that's a failing of capitalism. Ever see those adds on TV for cat litter made from corn? Corn is in almost every processed food, and is so heavily subsidized that we let our pets shit on it. Corn is equal in worth to lightly perfumed gravel in our countries, yet we'd rather feed it to cows or let our pets shit on it then sell it at a low price to developing countries. I think that's fucked up. That's an entirely different problem though. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On February 11 2011 07:42 Lexpar wrote: A good point, this is the way things should be. Instead of millions or billions of cows on the planet, there should be tens or hundreds of thousands who graze peacefully. Instead, in factory farms they are in fact fed soybeans and corn: food that is cheap to grow (corn especially is subsidized heavily by the US and CAN governments). Again, if there wasn't such a high demand for meat, the same fields could be used to feed starving humans. Of course that wouldn't really happen either: but that's a failing of capitalism. Ever see those adds on TV for cat litter made from corn? Corn is in almost every processed food, and is so heavily subsidized that we let our pets shit on it. Corn is equal in worth to lightly perfumed gravel in our countries, yet we'd rather feed it to cows or let our pets shit on it then sell it at a low price to developing countries. I think that's fucked up. That's an entirely different problem though. No, that's not the case at all. My mom grows corn & soy beans. You would never ever want to eat field corn without it having gone through manufacturing processes. It's probably the most bland and uninteresting food ever. Having accidentally cooked it a couple of times, I promise you beyond question there is no way you'd mistake sweet corn for field corn. In short, most field corn goes to feeding cows and making breakfast cereal. Furthermore, Sweet Corn is harder to grow than Field Corn - there's no way you can just mass convert that corn to sweet corn and expect that to work. Not only would you not get anywhere near equivalent yields, it would massively raise prices in cereals, oils, and stuff like that. Normally, farmers grow as much sweet corn as makes sense and is realistically possible - growing any more would be difficult because field corn genetically dominates (i.e. field corn + sweet corn = field corn). You'd have to keep the field corn away or you'd slowly but surely end up with less sweet corn every year, which means you'd start having higher costs in terms and hours invested, ignoring financial costs entirely. In effect, your point boils down to saying that cornmeal and other similar manufactured products could be produced to meet all requirements for feeding people if only we didn't raise cattle. I can't find anything to suggest that's actually true - how much time and investment would have to go in to expanding those manufacturing plants to actually get anywhere near that kind of output? Do you have a source? Also, the body requires different types of nutrition to meet needs - while any food is obviously good when you're starving, is this really going to solve the problem? In short, if they could grow enough corn to feed everyone for cheap, don't you think the manufacturers would already have done that? I know for a fact that the farmers like selling stuff and I think it's pretty logical that the manufacturers would love to produce their products for pennies and immediately have guaranteed sales. As far as production goes, Corn is one of the most efficient crops and is getting better year by year. We produce more corn with substantially fewer farms now than we did in the 1930's. We're meeting current demands using similar amounts of raw material to what we used in 1948. See http://ncga.com/files/pdf/071107_SustainabilityFinal.pdf | ||
| ||
