|
On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 05:11 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that. I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way. The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did. I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't. Show nested quote +You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc. I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer. As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does. also, Show nested quote +
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*.
Now you're saying you don't deny that your living conditions affect your views, but that my example of yours being in contradiction to that of the rest of the world is...irrelevant? It might not seem applicable to you on a personal basis, but it is certainly applicable as a counterpoint to your rationale because you seem to have finally admitted that your living conditions contributed to it. I'll leave you to figure that one out.
I really don't know what to say to something like this, you're just so unbelievably stupid. The "11x the suffering" is the icing on the cake, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are you trying to sound like the Buddha of agricultural statistics or something?
I probably should have said Western society instead, because it separates you from all the "ugly" parts of it, including the slaughter of animals, creating the misconception that Westerners are less opposed to killing. I mean seriously, people cry about death penalties and pounds euthanizing animals they can't adopt out and afford to keep. The moment the sheltered, soft Western mind that has only seen death in Hollywood action flicks sees the "innocent slaughter" of animals to put meat on his plate, he looks at his pet dog or cat in horror and cries inside, vowing never again to eat meat to "end the suffering."
As for the article, did you not read it? Do you not know what pasture is? Do you have any clue of what conditions required to maintain high yields of high-nutrition vegetables or even grow some of them in the first place? We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables, but the whole point is that if you only eat a little meat, you don't have to have a factory farm and you can have say your cows or sheep graze on pasture next to your farm which in other scenarios would likely be simply unused. So it seems the article's target audience is probably a lot more intelligent with more knowledge of agriculture and food production than you. My bad, I should have laid it all out in big font and shiny bullet points so you could understand.
For the last bit, you really are thick and full of it, You take one line out of context and respond to it in the most ridiculously stupid way possible. It sure doesn't look like taking meat out of your diet is helping your brain function at all, it's not even funny to respond anymore.
|
On June 05 2011 13:32 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 05:11 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that. I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way. The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did. I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc. I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer. As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does. also,
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*. Now you're saying you don't deny that your living conditions affect your views, but that my example of yours being in contradiction to that of the rest of the world is...irrelevant? It might not seem applicable to you on a personal basis, but it is certainly applicable as a counterpoint to your rationale because you seem to have finally admitted that your living conditions contributed to it. I'll leave you to figure that one out. I really don't know what to say to something like this, you're just so unbelievably stupid. The "11x the suffering" is the icing on the cake, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are you trying to sound like the Buddha of agricultural statistics or something? I probably should have said Western society instead, because it separates you from all the "ugly" parts of it, including the slaughter of animals, creating the misconception that Westerners are less opposed to killing. I mean seriously, people cry about death penalties and pounds euthanizing animals they can't adopt out and afford to keep. The moment the sheltered, soft Western mind that has only seen death in Hollywood action flicks sees the "innocent slaughter" of animals to put meat on his plate, he looks at his pet dog or cat in horror and cries inside, vowing never again to eat meat to "end the suffering." As for the article, did you not read it? Do you not know what pasture is? Do you have any clue of what conditions required to maintain high yields of high-nutrition vegetables or even grow some of them in the first place? We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables, but the whole point is that if you only eat a little meat, you don't have to have a factory farm and you can have say your cows or sheep graze on pasture next to your farm which in other scenarios would likely be simply unused. So it seems the article's target audience is probably a lot more intelligent with more knowledge of agriculture and food production than you. My bad, I should have laid it all out in big font and shiny bullet points so you could understand. For the last bit, you really are thick and full of it, You take one line out of context and respond to it in the most ridiculously stupid way possible. It sure doesn't look like taking meat out of your diet is helping your brain function at all, it's not even funny to respond anymore.
Ad hominem and personal attacks, try to keep it classy man. Don't jump on a dude for making a bad metaphor. (the 11x thing, he didn't mean it as an exact figure, but as an estimation for a large number...)
I do agree with you (as you'll see if you read my posts), but "high nutrition" vegetables? Simple grains and starch crops such as potatoes, corn, rice and cassava are farmed in even the most hostile of environments. In a perfect world, we could get far more vegetable production than meat production for a quarter of the price, but then again, production isn't really the issue.
|
On June 05 2011 13:32 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 05:11 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that. I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way. The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did. I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc. I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer. As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does. also,
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*. Now you're saying you don't deny that your living conditions affect your views, but that my example of yours being in contradiction to that of the rest of the world is...irrelevant? It might not seem applicable to you on a personal basis, but it is certainly applicable as a counterpoint to your rationale because you seem to have finally admitted that your living conditions contributed to it. I'll leave you to figure that one out. I really don't know what to say to something like this, you're just so unbelievably stupid. The "11x the suffering" is the icing on the cake, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are you trying to sound like the Buddha of agricultural statistics or something? I probably should have said Western society instead, because it separates you from all the "ugly" parts of it, including the slaughter of animals, creating the misconception that Westerners are less opposed to killing. I mean seriously, people cry about death penalties and pounds euthanizing animals they can't adopt out and afford to keep. The moment the sheltered, soft Western mind that has only seen death in Hollywood action flicks sees the "innocent slaughter" of animals to put meat on his plate, he looks at his pet dog or cat in horror and cries inside, vowing never again to eat meat to "end the suffering." As for the article, did you not read it? Do you not know what pasture is? Do you have any clue of what conditions required to maintain high yields of high-nutrition vegetables or even grow some of them in the first place? We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables, but the whole point is that if you only eat a little meat, you don't have to have a factory farm and you can have say your cows or sheep graze on pasture next to your farm which in other scenarios would likely be simply unused. So it seems the article's target audience is probably a lot more intelligent with more knowledge of agriculture and food production than you. My bad, I should have laid it all out in big font and shiny bullet points so you could understand. For the last bit, you really are thick and full of it, You take one line out of context and respond to it in the most ridiculously stupid way possible. It sure doesn't look like taking meat out of your diet is helping your brain function at all, it's not even funny to respond anymore.
I'm just going to ignore the personal stabs at my intelligence etc.. in your post so I can explain this to you in a less bias way.
Obviously the conditions I live in affect the way I interpret things. I just said in my previous post that I have never been denying that. The points I have been making were arguing the idea that a vegetarian diet is applicable to the rest of the world, not that my own rationale for vegetarianism applies to the rest of the world *go re read the posts if you don't agree*. Your counter points about how inapplicable vegetarianism is to the rest of the world don't relate to my reasons for not eating meat. That is why they are irrelevant. Just so I can be totally clear, If I don't eat meat for moral reasons, and you point out that people in impoverished settings need meat for protein, that doesn't challenge the validity of my rationale, and is therefore irrelevant. I have been saying this for the past 2-3 comments.
As for the 11x statement issue you have. the comment "11x the suffering" is intentionally ridiculous, I used the comment satirically in order to illustrate the absurdity of the argument the comment was responding to. I recognize that this might not come across easily, since you are just reading a block of text.
As for the affects western culture has on peoples sensitivity to death or murder, I can only speak from experience. Many of the people I know are very insensitive when it comes to the topics of death and suffering and pain. I think most people would agree that Americans and maybe Europeans as well are less sensitive to death than say Asians. I'm sure you've at least heard one news report on the concern that video games desensitize kids to violence. From my experiences it seems people think westerners are less sensitive to violence, death, murder suffering etc.
"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me.
the last paragraph is pretty much just one big insult so ill just ignore it since there aren't any points made in it.
|
"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me.
I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that either:
1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient, in terms of calorie output, than livestock farms - so they're problematic.
or
2- The argument is ridiculous.
Also, if this is an ethical issue, you shouldn't use weak arguments about efficiency as they'll undermine what you want to say.
|
On June 05 2011 16:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that: 1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient than livestock farms so they're problematic or 2- The argument is ridiculous.
Don't tell that to me, tell that to him, but in the future how we obtain our food will become increasingly relevant so I think he has good reason to approach meat production from that perspective. Its probably not a deciding factor at this point though.
|
On June 05 2011 16:09 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:04 Djzapz wrote:"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that: 1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient than livestock farms so they're problematic or 2- The argument is ridiculous. Don't tell that to me, tell that to him, but in the future how we obtain our food will become increasingly relevant so I think he has good reason to approach meat production from that perspective. Its probably not a deciding factor at this point though.
When/if that becomes that problem, jewelers will go down well before cattle farms do 
|
On June 05 2011 15:09 RoseTempest wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 13:32 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 05:11 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that. I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way. The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did. I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc. I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer. As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does. also,
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*. Now you're saying you don't deny that your living conditions affect your views, but that my example of yours being in contradiction to that of the rest of the world is...irrelevant? It might not seem applicable to you on a personal basis, but it is certainly applicable as a counterpoint to your rationale because you seem to have finally admitted that your living conditions contributed to it. I'll leave you to figure that one out. I really don't know what to say to something like this, you're just so unbelievably stupid. The "11x the suffering" is the icing on the cake, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are you trying to sound like the Buddha of agricultural statistics or something? I probably should have said Western society instead, because it separates you from all the "ugly" parts of it, including the slaughter of animals, creating the misconception that Westerners are less opposed to killing. I mean seriously, people cry about death penalties and pounds euthanizing animals they can't adopt out and afford to keep. The moment the sheltered, soft Western mind that has only seen death in Hollywood action flicks sees the "innocent slaughter" of animals to put meat on his plate, he looks at his pet dog or cat in horror and cries inside, vowing never again to eat meat to "end the suffering." As for the article, did you not read it? Do you not know what pasture is? Do you have any clue of what conditions required to maintain high yields of high-nutrition vegetables or even grow some of them in the first place? We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables, but the whole point is that if you only eat a little meat, you don't have to have a factory farm and you can have say your cows or sheep graze on pasture next to your farm which in other scenarios would likely be simply unused. So it seems the article's target audience is probably a lot more intelligent with more knowledge of agriculture and food production than you. My bad, I should have laid it all out in big font and shiny bullet points so you could understand. For the last bit, you really are thick and full of it, You take one line out of context and respond to it in the most ridiculously stupid way possible. It sure doesn't look like taking meat out of your diet is helping your brain function at all, it's not even funny to respond anymore. Ad hominem and personal attacks, try to keep it classy man. Don't jump on a dude for making a bad metaphor. (the 11x thing, he didn't mean it as an exact figure, but as an estimation for a large number...) I do agree with you (as you'll see if you read my posts), but "high nutrition" vegetables? Simple grains and starch crops such as potatoes, corn, rice and cassava are farmed in even the most hostile of environments. In a perfect world, we could get far more vegetable production than meat production for a quarter of the price, but then again, production isn't really the issue.
I've been jumping on him because his only response to everything has been a personal moral rationale, which I've been trying to tell him as you have that it's useless as an argument. Since he's misquoted me, intentionally obscured facts, and apparently just flat out ignored some key points, I believe I have a right to be a irked, though I admit toning it down would be good.
Grains do not offer complete proteins and some just aren't very nutritious at all, corn as an example is even deficient in protein compared to other grains while cassava is practically just starch. Legumes are commonly paired to provide a protein source outside of animal protein but in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, they don't do well and drought-resistant GMO varieties come with strings attached. In some cases issues have arisen from foreign aid causing native farmers to quit farming because they can't sell their produce anymore. When the aid dries up, there's just even less food to go around. It's quite a clusterfuck and yeah, the need for the market to have demand from people who just can't create it is just sad when it comes to these situations.
|
On June 05 2011 16:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that either: 1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient, in terms of calorie output, than livestock farms - so they're problematic. or 2- The argument is ridiculous. Also, if this is an ethical issue, you shouldn't use weak arguments about efficiency as they'll undermine what you want to say.
Land use efficiency is a perfectly valid argument, especially against proponents of vegan diets touting it as the most sustainable and efficient way to feed people. Ethics however are not as if you look at it, it's just middle or upper class people in industrialized nations arguing ethics because they can afford to waste time on it. Meat is a luxury product only if you don't depend on it for protein, which plenty of people who live in (rural) seasonal, or less developed areas (fish, bushmeat, etc) do.
|
Does drinking milk harm animals?
Does eating animals that die of natural causes/old age constitute torture?
What kind of research can be done without killing animals? Will it impede scientific progress?
|
I've been jumping on him because his only response to everything has been a personal moral rationale, which I've been trying to tell him as you have that it's useless as an argument.
Ive said this many times, I am only defending my own rationale. It would make sense to respond to criticism of my rationale, by referring back to it in defense.
Please, find me the post where you explicitly describe why morality is not an acceptable point to base my argument on. I think i've said this 3-4 times now but all of your points address issues that are not part of my reasons for not eating meat. Rose has been the only one to address this point. You also say I misquoted you but I promise I did not alter any of the quotes I used. I pulled them out of the text block because a lot of the info in your posts I dont have fault with, so I take the parts that I do out.
just note that I am not trying to rile you up into anger and if you keep posting I would appreciate comments that dont take personal stabs.
|
if you don't think humans are more special than animals, why aren't wild animals considered immoral for eating meat? Are herbivores morally superior to carnivores?
The answer is simple. Everyone who attaches any level of morality to meat eating is saying that humans are to be held to a higher moral standard and thus are in fact special and better than other animals.
We're just animals. I understand claims about running out of food and worries in that regard, but honestly that is just a bandwagon that most of the "meat is murder" people have started hiding behind because it's actually got things like facts behind it.
There's nothing morally wrong with a person eating meat. It may not be advisable long-term for America's high meat consumption, but that makes it the same level of morality as reducing carbon emissions.
|
On June 05 2011 16:22 johanngrunt wrote:
Does drinking milk harm animals?
Does eating animals that die of natural causes/old age constitute torture?
What kind of research can be done without killing animals? Will it impede scientific progress?
I would say that it is entirely dependent on where you get the milk from. Most milk was probably taken from cows that are just locked up in stalls all day in poor living conditions but it is possible to buy milk that is extracted from cows with decent living conditions.
I don't see how eating something that is dead could constitute torture. By definition, torture needs to inflict emotional or physical pain, but that isnt possible to do on a dead animal.
I think most research is done without killing animals, but a lot of research can be cruel anyway. For example, scientists who study schizophrenia inject mice with LSD every like 15 hours to observe the rats slowly go insane. I think whether or not this is justified is dependent on the good the research produces.
|
On June 05 2011 15:14 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 13:32 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 05:11 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 04:49 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 04:26 Ig wrote:
[
I understood perfectly the difference between eating meat for survival and "pleasure." The problem is you still won't admit that you were only able to think about this because you live in the first world, with more vegan/vegetarian choices, supplements to support it, and essentially an endless supply of whatever food you need whenever you need it. Not everyone has this luxury, so not everyone can actually have a fully vegan/vegetarian diet because of their conditions. You ignore again the fact that a lot of vegan/vegetarian choices that support good nutrition are high quality crops requiring high quality land and a good climate to produce. You're spoiled, we all are, but you just can't admit it and use people in the rest of the world who were able to do what you do without the first world ease so you feel better and more justified.
People with access to milk and eggs also eat meat, I think I'm right. You failed to state the issue of inability to produce food because you simply failed to state it, it's a valid point and one of the reasons some people are in poverty. I should also have mentioned that some of the nice fruits and vegetables you can eat come from third world nations that have plenty of starving people despite the fact that they export food to us.
Yes nearly all meat consumed in our industrialized nations comes from factory farming, but there has been a shift among some people lately and the truth of factory farming is becoming more widely known, prompting calls for more "humane" and sustainable alternative modes of production. These alternative modes are more integrated with the plant part of agriculture and better mimic traditional ways to raise animals. You're ignoring the good alternatives that have been practiced for thousands of years in order to "support" your sheltered rationale.
I don't need to invalidate morality for your rationale, I can invalidate the "benefits" of your choice. My evidence doesn't need to invalidate your "morality" because it's so ambiguous and personal to being with (there's a reason morality isn't usually used as an argument outside of human issues), my evidence invalidates the benefits of your rationale and agenda. Your morality is also once again, a result of you being a privileged, sheltered westerner. My argument isn't bad, I've presented a social and scientific case against you, but you've just completely ignored it, like here you ignored the previous quinoa example entirely and will probably ignore the similar example I put up again. How about I leave it by saying that the balanced vegan diets people have in America today are only possible through modern supplements and access to the wide variety of plant products available to us in the first world, and that based on land use and accompanying economic efficiency due (you completely ignored this in an earlier post), a semi-vegetarian diet is superior for feeding more people. Are you seriously going to once again attempt to say that I don't understand your argument? I do, what I'm trying to say is morality as an argument for not eating animals as said before by others is essentially bullshit. You have nothing but your self-righteousness, though in all honesty I respect your sentiments, I think they're ridiculous and only present because you can't stomach the slaughter. The science and history of agriculture and the domestication and consumption of animals isn't nonsensical, your rationale is.
I'll elaborate a bit on the land use and economic efficiency: it's because animals can be raised on forage (unsuitable for human consumption) and pastureland, which is not land you can effectively grow vegetables or many grains on. You're making use of land you wouldn't have used in a manner that is natural (grazing) leading to greater economic efficiency due to the ability to use more of the resources available to you to feed more people. Keyword there: feed more people. I just don't have the energy to keep reading this. I wasn't going to bring this up because I believe you are wrong in most of your statements about vegetarianism being impossible in impoverished settings but you have outlasted my will to argue with you. Even if I concede the point about vegetarianism being inapplicable to impoverished settings, I don't live in an impoverished setting, so it has no effect on my reasons for not eating meat. The points you make about vegetarianism being unethical also apply equally to meat eating. As far as the land efficiency goes, I was only pointing out that the article didn't contradict my point about economical efficiency. I understand that small amounts of meat can be used to maximise food output of land. I never disagreed with that. I never said it was impossible, nothing is "impossible," but the fact remains that some people just don't have the ability to produce all the high quality vegetables needed to sustain a vegan/vegetarian diet while the production of others goes to support the culinary choices of your rationale while people in their nations starve. You can keep saying your living conditions don't affect your views, but I'll just say you're in denial because they do. It's easy for you to think "oh I just won't eat any meat" because you don't have to, you have easy, reliable access to all the high quality plant products needed and supplements to support a vegan diet as well. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that? Everything applies to everything, you're learning, but your morality and rationale doesn't apply to everything, not even close - hence the issue with using it as an argument in any way. The article didn't contradict your point because the writers are probably actually knowledgeable on the topic, and the target audience should probably be intelligent enough to assume what I told you because the article implies it, instead of attempting to use the lack of mention as a counterpoint like you did. I am not saying my living conditions don't affect my views. I am saying your points about the applicability of vegetarianism to rural or impoverished settings isn't relevant to my rationale because I don't live in one of those settings and do in fact have access to the things those people don't. You can't stomach the slaughter because you've been taught Western ideals on life and are sheltered from both the slaughter and the rest of our food production so you have no clue of how it gets to your table, hence why you're fixated now on factory farming It isnt that I can't 'stomach' the slaughter but it makes me feel guilty. I don't think western ideals on life make ppl more sensitive to killing than ideals in other parts of the world. If anything most people would say westerners are less sensitive towards killing etc. I focused on factory farming because that is how most meat is produced, its the reality of the situation. I understand that there are alternative ways to breed cows and the bad allocation of grains isn't innate in the production of meat. I was never trying to make the point that meat consumption is wrong because its taking food away from people. I was making the point about the amount of grains cows consume because people were telling me that plants suffer as much as cows do. So I made the point that when you eat a portion of meat, the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants, because of the grains the cows eat along with the suffering of the cow, so eating would be worse anyway if plants suffer. As for the article, I am saying that the article does not make (or imply) the point that it takes more food to feed people with meat than it does with grains. Producing meat is not food efficient because it consumes more food than it produces. The article does not contradict that. If you think it does pls, pm me the info from it that does. also,
probably because you just watched half of Food Inc and apparently ignored everything else in the documentary. How many times will you deny that?
lol wat? I don't think I ever denied only watching half of food inc. but I will deny it now. I watched the whole movie *in theaters*. Now you're saying you don't deny that your living conditions affect your views, but that my example of yours being in contradiction to that of the rest of the world is...irrelevant? It might not seem applicable to you on a personal basis, but it is certainly applicable as a counterpoint to your rationale because you seem to have finally admitted that your living conditions contributed to it. I'll leave you to figure that one out. I really don't know what to say to something like this, you're just so unbelievably stupid. The "11x the suffering" is the icing on the cake, what kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Are you trying to sound like the Buddha of agricultural statistics or something? I probably should have said Western society instead, because it separates you from all the "ugly" parts of it, including the slaughter of animals, creating the misconception that Westerners are less opposed to killing. I mean seriously, people cry about death penalties and pounds euthanizing animals they can't adopt out and afford to keep. The moment the sheltered, soft Western mind that has only seen death in Hollywood action flicks sees the "innocent slaughter" of animals to put meat on his plate, he looks at his pet dog or cat in horror and cries inside, vowing never again to eat meat to "end the suffering." As for the article, did you not read it? Do you not know what pasture is? Do you have any clue of what conditions required to maintain high yields of high-nutrition vegetables or even grow some of them in the first place? We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables, but the whole point is that if you only eat a little meat, you don't have to have a factory farm and you can have say your cows or sheep graze on pasture next to your farm which in other scenarios would likely be simply unused. So it seems the article's target audience is probably a lot more intelligent with more knowledge of agriculture and food production than you. My bad, I should have laid it all out in big font and shiny bullet points so you could understand. For the last bit, you really are thick and full of it, You take one line out of context and respond to it in the most ridiculously stupid way possible. It sure doesn't look like taking meat out of your diet is helping your brain function at all, it's not even funny to respond anymore. I'm just going to ignore the personal stabs at my intelligence etc.. in your post so I can explain this to you in a less bias way. Obviously the conditions I live in affect the way I interpret things. I just said in my previous post that I have never been denying that. The points I have been making were arguing the idea that a vegetarian diet is applicable to the rest of the world, not that my own rationale for vegetarianism applies to the rest of the world *go re read the posts if you don't agree*. Your counter points about how inapplicable vegetarianism is to the rest of the world don't relate to my reasons for not eating meat. That is why they are irrelevant. Just so I can be totally clear, If I don't eat meat for moral reasons, and you point out that people in impoverished settings need meat for protein, that doesn't challenge the validity of my rationale, and is therefore irrelevant. I have been saying this for the past 2-3 comments. As for the 11x statement issue you have. the comment "11x the suffering" is intentionally ridiculous, I used the comment satirically in order to illustrate the absurdity of the argument the comment was responding to. I recognize that this might not come across easily, since you are just reading a block of text. As for the affects western culture has on peoples sensitivity to death or murder, I can only speak from experience. Many of the people I know are very insensitive when it comes to the topics of death and suffering and pain. I think most people would agree that Americans and maybe Europeans as well are less sensitive to death than say Asians. I'm sure you've at least heard one news report on the concern that video games desensitize kids to violence. From my experiences it seems people think westerners are less sensitive to violence, death, murder suffering etc. "We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. the last paragraph is pretty much just one big insult so ill just ignore it since there aren't any points made in it.
I'm going to have to make a personal attack by saying you know some unsympathetic bastards  .
Our culture desensitizes us to violence by both separating us from it and making it commonplace in the media, but I'm sure you'd agree that when it comes to animals being slaughtered for meat, there's a reaction because a lot of people have pets. As an example, I've had dog meat before in China, and some people here are truly appalled that I would eat a dog, but a pig is just as intelligent as a dog and these same people would readily eat bacon. I know this is off on a tangent but it applies when referring to our culture of selective concern.
I've only made specific statements on how vegan/vegetarianism aren't possible for some people, though many manage such diets with fewer resources and market choices than what we have. They are related because the choices available to you allow you to easily justify such a rationale because you won't need to worry about having to have some meat in say a year with a weak bean harvest; it's just as you said yourself, you simply don't need meat for protein so you don't eat it (ignoring the ethical part). It does challenge your rationale in a way because your specific rationale is only possible if you're affluent or in an industrialized nation, and we're the minority in the world.
You really shouldn't state something so ridiculous then, it really does just make you look bad and the satire doesn't come across very well, especially if you've been called out on misinformation by the party it's meant for. Animal suffering is also something you just shouldn't touch on, I mean there are orcas, who people would certainly say are sentient, that play with seals before killing and eating them. They don't even need to eat the seals sometimes, they just do it. What the hell do you say to that then? It's both "natural" and also in a way, disturbingly "cruel and human" at the same time. Yeah they're carnivores, but as I said they don't exactly always do it when hungry.
What I would like to say is that even though it's a purely ethical issue for some people like you, it shouldn't be because that makes the argument stupid and unable to progress, as ours has been, and makes it very ambiguous due to all the different viewpoints. I can't say I don't respect your choice since depending on where you live it can be a hard one with a stigma attached, but I don't agree with your rationale from an agroecological and anthropological stance.
|
On June 05 2011 16:20 Ig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:04 Djzapz wrote:"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that either: 1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient, in terms of calorie output, than livestock farms - so they're problematic. or 2- The argument is ridiculous. Also, if this is an ethical issue, you shouldn't use weak arguments about efficiency as they'll undermine what you want to say. Land use efficiency is a perfectly valid argument, especially against proponents of vegan diets touting it as the most sustainable and efficient way to feed people. Ethics however are not as if you look at it, it's just middle or upper class people in industrialized nations arguing ethics because they can afford to waste time on it. Meat is a luxury product only if you don't depend on it for protein, which plenty of people who live in (rural) seasonal, or less developed areas (fish, bushmeat, etc) do.
It's really late and this whole thing is in my second language so maybe I'm getting confused but land efficiency just seems silly to me. Doesn't matter which way you look at it.
Some people would say that vegetables take less energy and therefore it's more efficient to just produce vegetables, some say that meat is the best way to give people the proteins they need anyway... but in the end, capitalism foils those crazy weird plans.
My point is that it doesn't matter that it's inefficient right now as the system as a whole is inefficient in terms of food production - what percentage of the land is actually used for it?
Whatever a person may think about efficiency, if they consider that just growing veggies is more efficient, for instance. So, you have vegetables (very efficient), meat (not very efficient). Let's assume that's fine for now. What if I want to include jewelers in there? Why couldn't I? They don't produce any calories but they're operating a legitimate business, what are you gonna do? So you have: vegetables production (efficient), meat production (not very efficient) and jewels production (0 efficiency).
So while vegans seem to think that growing only vegetables, why do they only criticize meat producers when there's all these other businesses "wasting" land that could otherwise grow food?
As for using the argument the other way around against vegans, I'm not convinced but maybe you're right. (sorry if this contradicts anything I said earlier in the post, I need to go crash)
|
On June 05 2011 16:41 Eknoid4 wrote:
if you don't think humans are more special than animals, why aren't wild animals considered immoral for eating meat? Are herbivores morally superior to carnivores?
The answer is simple. Everyone who attaches any level of morality to meat eating is saying that humans are to be held to a higher moral standard and thus are in fact special and better than other animals.
Wild animals aren't capable of recognizing wrong actions, you cant be immoral if you have no understanding or knowledge that what you are doing is wrong, just like an infant wouldn't recognize he/she is doing something wrong by pulling someones hair. Herbivores aren't more morally concious either because they aren't acting on a moral basis.
|
On June 05 2011 16:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:20 Ig wrote:On June 05 2011 16:04 Djzapz wrote:"We all know meat requires more energy to produce than vegetables" This is in essence the point I was defending. I haven't been trying to undermine the articles validity by saying that the ratio of land to food is less important than the ratio of calorie input to output. I was merely clarifying that a minor point I made about the situation still held true. Its great that you know a lot about agriculture and farming and that you encourage land efficient farms but this is also not a central point to my reason for not eating meat. It is an entirely ethical issue for me. I don't know how that's even an argument... Land efficiency is cute and everything but we can easily look at meat like any other luxury product and either come to the conclusion that either: 1- Samsung's factories are much less land-efficient, in terms of calorie output, than livestock farms - so they're problematic. or 2- The argument is ridiculous. Also, if this is an ethical issue, you shouldn't use weak arguments about efficiency as they'll undermine what you want to say. Land use efficiency is a perfectly valid argument, especially against proponents of vegan diets touting it as the most sustainable and efficient way to feed people. Ethics however are not as if you look at it, it's just middle or upper class people in industrialized nations arguing ethics because they can afford to waste time on it. Meat is a luxury product only if you don't depend on it for protein, which plenty of people who live in (rural) seasonal, or less developed areas (fish, bushmeat, etc) do. It's really late and this whole thing is in my second language so maybe I'm getting confused but land efficiency just seems silly to me. Doesn't matter which way you look at it. Some people would say that vegetables take less energy and therefore it's more efficient to just produce vegetables, some say that meat is the best way to give people the proteins they need anyway... but in the end, capitalism foils those crazy weird plans. My point is that it doesn't matter that it's inefficient right now as the system as a whole is inefficient in terms of food production - what percentage of the land is actually used for it? Whatever a person may think about efficiency, if they consider that just growing veggies is more efficient, for instance. So, you have vegetables (very efficient), meat (not very efficient). Let's assume that's fine for now. What if I want to include jewelers in there? Why couldn't I? They don't produce any calories but they're operating a legitimate business, what are you gonna do? So you have: vegetables production (efficient), meat production (not very efficient) and jewels production (0 efficiency). So while vegans seem to think that growing only vegetables, why do they only criticize meat producers when there's all these other businesses "wasting" land that could otherwise grow food? As for using the argument the other way around against vegans, I'm not convinced but maybe you're right. (sorry if this contradicts anything I said earlier in the post, I need to go crash)
Within the realm of agriculture and food production, land use efficiency is actually a serious issue because of the limited arable land in large parts of the world along with degradation of arable land in others. Greater land use efficiency involves maximizing output on what land you have while preserving and maintaining it's ability to sustain agriculture, and sometimes finding ways to use land you wouldn't have before.
Of course when you include other industries it becomes just ridiculous, but within, it's really not ridiculous at all.
|
On June 05 2011 16:50 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:41 Eknoid4 wrote:
if you don't think humans are more special than animals, why aren't wild animals considered immoral for eating meat? Are herbivores morally superior to carnivores?
The answer is simple. Everyone who attaches any level of morality to meat eating is saying that humans are to be held to a higher moral standard and thus are in fact special and better than other animals.
Wild animals aren't capable of recognizing wrong actions, you cant be immoral if you have no understanding or knowledge that what you are doing is wrong, just like an infant wouldn't recognize he/she is doing something wrong by pulling someones hair. Herbivores aren't more morally concious either because they aren't acting on a moral basis.
most animals most certainly have the ability to recognize things they are/aren't allowed to do, though.
Know how many times i've walked into my kitchen and seen my cat instantly jump off the table and hide from me before i even notice it?
You are answering "yes" to the question "Are humans morally superior to animals?" with your logic, by the way. Don't underestimate something just because it doesn't speak english.
Murder and violence and unfairness existed before morality and we pick and choose when they're wrong based on what works for us. You're just as self-centered as someone who eats meat if you think you can suddenly decide that what has been done ever since life was self-aware is wrong because you have trouble dealing with it. Murder and violence and unfairness will all outlive morality, too. Because they are actually fundamentally natural and morality isn't.
|
On June 05 2011 16:50 Laerties wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:41 Eknoid4 wrote:
if you don't think humans are more special than animals, why aren't wild animals considered immoral for eating meat? Are herbivores morally superior to carnivores?
The answer is simple. Everyone who attaches any level of morality to meat eating is saying that humans are to be held to a higher moral standard and thus are in fact special and better than other animals.
Wild animals aren't capable of recognizing wrong actions, you cant be immoral if you have no understanding or knowledge that what you are doing is wrong, just like an infant wouldn't recognize he/she is doing something wrong by pulling someones hair. Herbivores aren't more morally concious either because they aren't acting on a moral basis.
So as long as you don't believe what you're doing is wrong it can't be immoral?
|
On June 05 2011 16:56 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:50 Laerties wrote:On June 05 2011 16:41 Eknoid4 wrote:
if you don't think humans are more special than animals, why aren't wild animals considered immoral for eating meat? Are herbivores morally superior to carnivores?
The answer is simple. Everyone who attaches any level of morality to meat eating is saying that humans are to be held to a higher moral standard and thus are in fact special and better than other animals.
Wild animals aren't capable of recognizing wrong actions, you cant be immoral if you have no understanding or knowledge that what you are doing is wrong, just like an infant wouldn't recognize he/she is doing something wrong by pulling someones hair. Herbivores aren't more morally concious either because they aren't acting on a moral basis. So as long as you don't believe what you're doing is wrong it can't be immoral?
BOOYEAHHHHHHH.
Unless you believe in objective morality,this is a conclusion you will have to reach if you dig deep enough into the rabbit hole, though.
|
@ig,
After reading your post it seems that we really don't disagree on that much other than morality being used as a basis for argument. I dont disagree that meat can be economically, agriculturally, and socially beneficial in many scenarios. And it seems that you think vegetarianism is more applicable than I initially interpreted.
I'm not sure there is another way to describe why I don't eat meat. I could just say that eating meat makes me feel guilty and bad about what I am doing, so I don't eat it, but that implies that I am making the moral distinction between eating meat and not eating meat. I cant agree that my moral stance isnt valid because I see it as me acting on my emotions, which is pretty much everyones reason for doing most things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
