Manifesto7 Osaka. June 01 2011 11:00. Posts 22830 PM Profile Blog Quote # Hitler invades another TL thread.
If someone wants to try again, remake.
What a legend, he is already dead yet is still carrying out invasions. And speaking of Hitler: Hitler was a vegetarian; what does that say about vegetarians?
It says nothing more than that some evil people may also be vegetarians. The question itself is based on an invalid syllogism: Hitler was a vegetarian; Hitler was evil; therefore vegetarians are evil. Stalin ate meat and was himself no angel. He was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. What does that say about meat eaters? Just as we cannot conclude that all meat eaters have anything in common with Stalin beyond meat eating, we cannot conclude that all vegetarians have anything in common with Hitler beyond vegetarianism. Furthermore, it is not certain that Hitler actually was a vegetarian. And in any event, the Nazi interest in reducing meat consumption was not a matter of the moral status of animals but reflected a concern with organic health and healing and avoidance of artificial ingredients in food and pharmaceutical products that was linked to the broader Nazi goals of “racial hygiene.”
Another version of this question is that since the Nazis also favored animal rights, does this mean that animal rights as a moral theory is bankrupt and attempts to devalue humans? Once again, the question is absurd. In the first place, the question is based on a factual error. The Nazis were not in favor of animal rights. Animal welfare laws in Germany restricted vivisection to some degree, but they hardly reflected any societal preference for abolishing the property status of animals. After all, the Nazis casually murdered millions of humans and animals in the course of the Second World War, behavior not compatible with a rights position, human or otherwise. It is no more accurate to say that the Nazis supported animal rights than it is to say that Americans support animal rights because we have a federal Animal Welfare Act.
But what if, contrary to fact, the Nazis did advocate the abolition of all animal exploitation? What would that say about the idea of animal rights? The answer is absolutely clear: it would say nothing about whether the animal rights position is right or wrong. That question can be settled only by whether the moral arguments in favor of animal rights are valid or not. The Nazis also strongly favored marriage. Does that mean marriage is an inherently immoral institution? The Nazis also believed that sports were essential to the development of strong character. Does this mean that competitive sports are inherently immoral? Jesus Christ preached a gospel of sharing resources on an equitable basis. Gandhi promoted a similar message, as did Stalin. But Stalin also devalued human beings. Can we conclude that the idea of more equitable resource distribution has some inherent moral flaw that taints Jesus or Gandhi? No, of course not. We no more devalue human life if we accord moral significance to animal interests than we devalue the lives of “normal” humans when we accord value to certain humans, such as the severely retarded, and prohibit their use in experiments.
The above was from www.abolitionistapproach.com - for those who don't know, there are two main camps in veganism.
1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
If you visit animal rights forums, it is like visiting a religious forum arguing for and against Catholicism versus Protestants, rather than Christians versus atheists. Regardless, let us continue the debate - whether between animal rights activists, or animal rights activists and meat-eaters.
Here are some common questions and answers, in order to bring the debate to a newer level than the previous threads and avoid repetition. I do not necessarily agree with all of the propositions, however they are a good starting point for us to expand on the discussion:
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?
It is irrelevant whether animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights. We do not require that humans be potential devisers of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights. For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.
If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.
The issue is not whom we care about or value most; the question is whether it is morally justifiable to treat sentient beings–human or non-human–as commodities or exclusively as means to the ends of others. For example, we generally do not think that we should use any humans as unconsenting subjects in biomedical experiments, even though we would get much better data about human illness if we used humans rather than animals in experiments. After all, the application to the human context of data from animal experiments–assuming that the animal data are relevant at all–requires often difficult and always imprecise extrapolation. We could avoid these difficulties by using humans, which would eliminate the need for extrapolation. But we do not do so because even though we may disagree about many moral issues, most of us are in agreement that the use of humans as unwilling experimental subjects is ruled out as an option from the beginning. No one suggests that we care more about those we are unwilling to use as experimental subjects than we do about the others who would benefit from that use.
Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.
Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.
We certainly could develop drugs and surgical procedures without the use of animals, and many would prefer we do so. Those who object to animal use for these purposes, however, have no control as individuals over government regulations or corporate policies concerning animals. To say that they cannot consistently criticize the actions of government or industry while they derive benefits from these actions, over which they have no control, is absurd as a matter of logic. And as a matter of political ideology, it is a most disturbing endorsement of unquestioned obeisance to the policies of the corporate state. Indeed, the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan “love it or leave it,” uttered by the pseudo-patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War.
Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely. Animal by-products are used in a wide variety of things, including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics. But the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation. The individual who is not stranded in a lifeboat or on a mountaintop always has it within her power to avoid eating meat and dairy products, products that could not be produced without the use of animals, unlike drugs and medical procedures, which could be developed without animal testing.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
Every form of discrimination in the history of humankind has been defended as “traditional.” Sexism is routinely justified on the ground that it is traditional for women to be subservient to men: “A woman’s place is in the home.” Human slavery has been a tradition in most cultures at some times. The fact that some behavior can be described as traditional has nothing to do with whether the behavior is or is not morally acceptable.
In addition to relying on tradition, some characterize our use of animals as “natural” and then declare it to be morally acceptable. Again, to describe something as natural does not in itself say anything about the morality of the practice. In the first place, just about every form of discrimination ever practiced has been described as natural as well as traditional. The two notions are often used interchangeably. We have justified human slavery as representing a natural hierarchy of slave owners and slaves. We have justified sexism as representing the natural superiority of men over women. Moreover, it is a bit strange to describe our modern commodification of animals as natural in any sense of the word. We have created completely unnatural environments and agricultural procedures in order to maximize profits. We do bizarre experiments in which we transplant genes and organs from animals into humans and vice versa. We are now cloning animals. None of this can be described as natural. Labels such as “natural” and “traditional” are just that: labels. They are not reasons. If people defend the imposition of pain and suffering on an animal based on what is natural or traditional, it usually means that they cannot otherwise justify their conduct.
A variant of this question focuses on the traditions of particular groups. For example, in May 1999 the Makah tribe from Washington State killed its first gray whale in over seventy years. The killing, which was done with steel harpoons, antitank guns, armor-piercing ammunition, motorized chase boats, and a $310,000 grant from the federal government, was defended on the grounds that whaling was a Makah tradition. But the same argument could (and is) made to defend clitoral mutilations in Africa and bride-burning in India. The issue is not whether conduct is part of a culture; all conduct is part of some culture. The issue is whether the conduct can be morally justified.
Finally, some argue that since nonhuman animals eat other nonhumans in the wild, our use of animals is natural. There are four responses to this position. First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegetarians. Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than our imagined “cruelty of nature” would have us believe. Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animals products. Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow their example? Fourth, it is interesting that when it is convenient for us to do so, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal, as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.
By equating speciesism with racism and sexism, don’t you equate animals, people of color, and women?
Racism, sexism, speciesism, and other forms of discrimination are all analogous in that all share the faulty notion that some morally irrelevant characteristic (race, sex, species) may be used to exclude beings with interests from the moral community or to undervalue interests in explicit violation of the principle of equal consideration. For example, speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between “them” and “us” that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animals rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.
A related question that often arises in this context is whether speciesism is “as bad” as racism or sexism or other forms of discrimination. As a general matter, it is not useful to rank evils. Was it “worse” that Hitler killed Jews than that he killed Catholics or Romanies? Is slavery “worse” than genocide? Is non-race-based slavery “worse” than race-based slavery? Is sexism “worse” than slavery and genocide, or is it “worse” than slavery but not worse than genocide? Frankly, I am not even sure what these questions mean, but I suspect that persons considering them assume implicitly that one group is “better” than another. In any event, these forms of discrimination are all terrible, and they are terrible in different ways. But they all share one thing in common: they all treat humans as things without protectable interests. In this sense, all of these forms of discrimination–as different as they are–are similar to speciesism, which results in our treating animals as things.
Finally, there are some who argue that in saying that some animals have greater cognitive ability than some humans, such as the severely retarded or the extremely senile, we are equating those humans with animals and characterizing them in a disrespectful way. Again, this misses the point of the argument for animal rights. For centuries, we have justified our treatment of animals as resources because they supposedly lack some characteristic that we have. But some animals have such a “special” characteristic to a greater degree than do some of us and some humans do not have that characteristic at all. The point is that although a particular characteristic may be useful for some purposes, the only characteristic that is required for moral significance is sentience. We do not and should not treat those humans who are impaired as resources for other humans. And if we really believe that animals have morally significant interests, then we ought to apply the principle of equal consideration and not treat them as resources as well. The argument for animal rights does not decrease respect for human life; it increases respect for all life.
Where do you draw the line on who can have rights? Do insects have rights?
I draw the line at sentience because, as I have argued, sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community. Are insects sentient? Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure? I do not know. But the fact that I do not know exactly where to draw the line, or perhaps find drawing the line difficult, does not relieve me of the obligation to draw the line somewhere or allow me to use animals as I please. Although I may not know whether insects are sentient, I do know that cows, pigs, chickens, chimpanzees, horses, deer, dogs, cats, and mice are sentient. Indeed, it is now widely accepted that fish are sentient. So the fact that I do not know on what side of the line to place insects does not relieve me of my moral obligation to the animals whom I do know are sentient.
As a general matter, this question is intended to demonstrate that if we do not know where to draw the line in a matter of morality, or if line drawing is difficult, then we ought not to draw the line anywhere. This form of reasoning is invalid. Consider the following example. There is a great deal of disagreement about the scope and extent of human rights. Some people argue that health care and education are fundamental rights that a civilized government should provide to everyone; some people argue that health care and education are commodities like any other, not the subject of rights, and that people ought to pay for them. But we would, I suspect, all agree that whatever our disagreements about human rights–however unsure we are of where to draw the line–we most certainly agree, for instance, that genocide is morally wrong. We do not say that it is morally acceptable to kill off entire populations because we may disagree over whether humans are entitled to health care. Similarly, our uncertainty or disagreement regarding the sentience of ants is no license to ignore the interests of chimpanzees, cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals whom we do know are sentient.
If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
If we shift from a meat-based agriculture to a plant-based agriculture, we will inevitably displace and possibly kill sentient animals when we plant vegetables. Surely, however, there is a significant difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally doing them harm in the course of planting vegetables, an activity that is itself intended to prevent the killing of sentient beings.
In order to understand this point, consider the following example. We build roads. We allow people to drive automobiles. We know as a statistical matter that when we build a road, some humans–we do not know who they are beforehand–will be harmed as the result of automobile accidents. Yet there is a fundamental moral difference between activity that has human harm as an inevitable but unintended consequence and the intentional killing of particular humans. Similarly, the fact that animals may be harmed as an unintended consequence of planting vegetables, even if we do not use toxic chemicals and even if we exercise great care to avoid harming animals, does not mean that it is morally acceptable to kill animals intentionally.
A related question is: why don’t plants have rights given that they are alive? This is the question that every vegetarian gets in the company of meat eater. These meat eaters may be otherwise rational and intelligent beings, but when confronted with a vegetarian, their discomfort with their diet often rises to the surface in the form of defensiveness.
No one really thinks that plants are the same as sentient nonhumans. If I ate your tomato and your dog, you would not regard those as similar acts. As far as we know, plants are not sentient. They are not conscious and able to experience pain. Plants do not have central nervous systems, endorphins, receptors for benzodiazepines, or any of the other indicia of sentience. Plants do no have interests; animals do.
If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
No. The basic right not to be treated as a thing means that we cannot treat animals exclusively as means to human ends–just as we cannot treat other humans exclusively as means to the ends of other humans. Even though we have laws that prevent people from owning other humans, or using them as unconsenting biomedical subjects, we generally do not require that humans prevent harm to other humans in all situations. No law requires that Jane prevent Simon from inflicting harm on John, as long as Jane and Simon are not conspirators in a crime against John or otherwise acting in concert, and as long as Jane has no relationship with John that would give rise to such an obligation.
Moreover, in the United States at least, the law generally imposes on humans no “duty to aid” even when other humans are involved. If I am walking down the street and see a person lying passed out, face down in a small puddle of water and drowning, the law imposes no obligation on me to assist that person even if all I need to do is roll her over, something I can do without risk or serious inconvenience to myself.
The point is that the basic right of humans not to be treated as things does not guarantee that humans will aid other humans, or that we are obligated to intervene to prevent harm from coming to humans from animals or from other humans. Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources. It does not necessarily mean that we have moral or legal obligations to render them aid or to intervene to prevent harm from coming to them.
Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?
Many humans like to eat meat. They enjoy eating meat so much that they find it hard to be detached when they consider moral questions about animals. But moral analysis requires at the very least that we leave our obvious biases at the door. Animal agriculture is the most significant source of animal suffering in the world today, and there is absolutely no need for it. Indeed, animal agriculture has devastating environmental effects, and a growing number of health care professionals claim that meat and animal products are detrimental to human health. We could live without killing animals and could feed more of the world’s humans–the beings we always claim to care about when we seek to justify animal exploitation–if we abandoned animal agriculture altogether.
The desire to eat meat has clouded some of the greatest minds in human history. Charles Darwin recognized that animals were not qualitatively different from humans and possessed many of the characteristics that were once thought to be uniquely human–but he continued to eat them. Jeremy Bentham argued that animals had morally significant interests because they could suffer, but he also continued to eat them.
Old habits die hard, but that does not mean they are morally justified. It is precisely in situations where both moral issues and strong personal preferences come into play that we should be most careful to think clearly. As the case of meat eating shows, however, sometimes our brute preferences determine our moral thinking, rather than the other way around. Many people have said to me, “Yes, I know it’s morally wrong to eat meat, but I just love hamburgers.”
Regrettably for those who like to eat meat, this is no argument, and a taste for meat in no way justifies the violation of a moral principle. Our conduct merely demonstrates that despite what we say about the moral significance of animal interests, we are willing to ignore those interests whenever we benefit from doing so–even when the benefit is nothing more than our pleasure or convenience.
If we take morality seriously, then we must confront what it dictates: if it is wrong for Simon to torture dogs for pleasure, then it is morally wrong for us to eat meat.
Hitler wasn´t a vegetarian. He considered himself one, however he ate meat at times, therefor he can´t be called one. Simple as that, I wish people would stop bringing this up over and over again.
On June 03 2011 19:16 Andorra wrote: Hitler wasn´t a vegetarian. He considered himself one, however he ate meat at times, therefor he can´t be called one. Simple as that, I wish people would stop bringing this up over and over again.
It is not simply as that. I think you can be a vegan even if you eat meat at times.
You can be heterosexual even though you sleep with men sometimes.
It is irrelevant to a discussion in vegans though..
On June 03 2011 19:16 Andorra wrote: Hitler wasn´t a vegetarian. He considered himself one, however he ate meat at times, therefor he can´t be called one. Simple as that, I wish people would stop bringing this up over and over again.
Noone was bringing up Hitler. Mostly because you are the first one to post in this thread. Also you completely miss the point. It doesn't matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not. He might also liked strolls in the park. That in no way means that people going for strolls in the park are evil.
Also from the OP
Manifesto7 Osaka. June 01 2011 11:00. Posts 22830 PM Profile Blog Quote # Hitler invades another TL thread.
If someone wants to try again, remake.
Someone remake again please. Hitler invaded another thread. Damn you Hitler!!!
I think the crux of this discussion is simply weather or not you believe humans and animals are equal or if you think humans are superior/worth more (choose whatever wording). If you believe them to be equal then I think your arguments stick, if you think animals are less then humans then they don't.
I recently read a letter to the editor in a vegetarian's magazine about a mother cow who hid one of her twin calves whilst giving up the other for the farmer to take to the slaughterhouse - a saddening choice between losing both or just one (the parent being able to save only one child dilemma). I will add it to the OP once the editor e-mails me a scanned version. The story was basically that the farmer knew the cow had given birth, and she was intelligent enough to know that they would be taken away from previous births.
It's also a common misconception that all vegans eat dust and are skinny and die.
I just ate a huge mushroom potato pie (It was meant to be for like 5 people but i chowed down on that bad boy). No animals involved. I've actually gained weight since going vegan.
The desire to eat meat has clouded some of the greatest minds in human history. Charles Darwin recognized that animals were not qualitatively different from humans and possessed many of the characteristics that were once thought to be uniquely human–but he continued to eat them. Jeremy Bentham argued that animals had morally significant interests because they could suffer, but he also continued to eat them.
Old habits die hard, but that does not mean they are morally justified. It is precisely in situations where both moral issues and strong personal preferences come into play that we should be most careful to think clearly. As the case of meat eating shows, however, sometimes our brute preferences determine our moral thinking, rather than the other way around. Many people have said to me, “Yes, I know it’s morally wrong to eat meat, but I just love hamburgers.”
I think this sums up the problem best.
You are imposing your morals on a logical argument. Everyone's morals can be different, and yours is no more universal than mine. Hence, it is impossible to use morals in a logical argument without there being a conflict of interest.
If a variable X is equal to 5 for me and 7 for you, no matter how many times you calculate 3x+2, your answer will always be different than mine. Variable X is morality, mine is different and hence any discussion on 3x+2 is moot until X is universally defined.
My morals? I don't think its morally wrong to eat meat, and I love my hamburgers. Meat taste good and I don't care for animal rights, but I don't go out of my way to harm animals. If I apply that formula to all your above arguments, my conclusion is the complete opposite in every case.
Regrettably for those who like to eat meat, this is no argument, and a taste for meat in no way justifies the violation of a moral principle.
On June 03 2011 21:47 Jombozeus wrote: I don't think its morally wrong to eat meat, and I love my hamburgers. Meat taste good and I don't care for animal rights, but I don't go out of my way to harm animals. If I apply that formula to all your above arguments, my conclusion is the complete opposite in every case.
That's not true though, because by paying the industry to slaughter the animals after having kept them in cages, you are in effectively 'going out of your way' to harm them. Is there any different from killing an animal on the street (what I presume you mean by saying going out of your way to harm one) and killing one in a factory? It's like paying someone to lock up a pet dog in a cage for the duration of its life and then slitting its throat at the end for food.
Edit: For an example of what I mean by keeping a dog in a cage, see the 10:50 mark of this video:
The pigs and chickens that are kept in cages have worse conditions than the dogs above.
While i feel it is super bad to torture animals because you are bored, the moral thougt of eating meat is not because you like killing, rather meat in itself is a viable source of nutrition which is a good adition to your daily intake of food.
The argument against meat farms i feel are somewhat good since i feel an animal should be an animal and this will not happen in a confined space inside a barn.
The argument against killing i feel is just stupid since if you wouldnt have humans hunting the ecosystem would kill itself in lack of predators (yes, mans fault). It is OK to kill an animal to the same extent that it is OK for predators to kill an animal (for nutrition and clothes and all other things you can do with the carcass). As for the whole vegan-movement it is with a heavy heart i see lots of energy wasted on a cause witch won't have a good outcome if either side wins. It is like i feel with fascists, they see the problems in society (though diffrent problems) but are unable to see the source, which is extremly good for those who like to have the system as it is today.
I'm a meat eater and will never stop eating meat. Our entire civilization was brought up on ingesting the flesh of animals; even our cloths continue to grow on animals skins. We would not have survived without other species that we could use and manipulate to our advantage. Working animals like horses and Oxen played a large role and were still used as food. Eating meat is being human, it represents thousands of years of history, thousands of years of intelligence, and thousands of years of evolution. I believe people need to grow some thicker skin when it comes to killing animals. Fifty years ago you would have killed a chicken and helped skin one easily by the age of 10. You may have hunted with your father and his friends, or with friends of your own. This is something the average city boy does not experience anymore and its an important skill to have. Sure, make a big deal about the living conditions, the method of killing, but at the end of the day that meat is going onto someones plate, feeding a child, a poor family, or the president at the united states --- And that's whats important.
IMO it's all very simple. Humans have evolved and adapted to eating animal flesh.It tastes good and is very nutritious. Science agrees that animal protein is far superior to any other type of protein.
I feel animals should live a happy life before they die. They should also live a healthy life, because their health is passed on to us. I strongly dislike animal suffering.
Edit:
OP, you claim "If we take morality seriously, then we must confront what it dictates: if it is wrong for Simon to torture dogs for pleasure, then it is morally wrong for us to eat meat". This is absurd. Do you not see the difference between Simon peeling the flesh off an animal for some sick pleasure compared to a cow grazing on pasture happily for years until it is swiftly killed with a gunshot wound to the head to feed someone?
For those who point to science as a source of "proof" that meat-eating is good, you should go out and read Michael Pollan's "In Defence of Food", which shows that the science behind what we eat is pseudo-science at best, and industry-backed lies at worst. Another very good read with regards to eating animals is "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Saffran Foer.
In general I feel there is not necessarily a problem with eating meat (even though I do not), there is mainly a problem with the industrial process with its lack of regard for animals, humans, and the environment. Again, the above mentioned two books will give you a good view of this. The way in which humans (at least in the "West") go about producing hamburgers is literally unsustainable.
The question whether eating an animal is morally justified is one that is much harder to answer than the question whether the way we currently eat animals is morally justified.
On June 03 2011 21:47 Jombozeus wrote: I don't think its morally wrong to eat meat, and I love my hamburgers. Meat taste good and I don't care for animal rights, but I don't go out of my way to harm animals. If I apply that formula to all your above arguments, my conclusion is the complete opposite in every case.
That's not true though, because by paying the industry to slaughter the animals after having kept them in cages, you are in effectively 'going out of your way' to harm them. Is there any different from killing an animal on the street (what I presume you mean by saying going out of your way to harm one) and killing one in a factory? It's like paying someone to lock up a pet dog in a cage for the duration of its life and then slitting its throat at the end for food.
Edit: For an example of what I mean by keeping a dog in a cage, see the 10:50 mark of this video:
The pigs and chickens that are kept in cages have worse conditions than the dogs above.
Sensationalist videos don't shock me.
And going out of my way constitutes that I consciously put extra effort, out of the ordinary, to achieve a means. Which would be untrue of your above hypothetical situation. I don't think nitpicking words (and failing at it, too), is a good way to make your argument. Considering that you haven't responded to any of the other major points in my rebuttal, there's not much else for me to discuss.
I don't have problem with eating meat and i eat is myself. But i think its inhuman that animals are being "manufactured" just to be eaten when they are year old. Also, i think people saying that "civilization is build on eating meat" idiots, because even 50-100 or so years ago it was not the case. People ate mostly vegetables and meat was usually eaten on special occasions. But people nowdays don't give a fuck about anything. So meh.
On June 03 2011 23:27 Tomkr wrote: For those who point to science as a source of "proof" that meat-eating is good, you should go out and read Michael Pollan's "In Defence of Food", which shows that the science behind what we eat is pseudo-science at best, and industry-backed lies at worst. Another very good read with regards to eating animals is "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Saffran Foer.
In general I feel there is not necessarily a problem with eating meat (even though I do not), there is mainly a problem with the industrial process with its lack of regard for animals, humans, and the environment. Again, the above mentioned two books will give you a good view of this. The way in which humans (at least in the "West") go about producing hamburgers is literally unsustainable.
The question whether eating an animal is morally justified is one that is much harder to answer than the question whether the way we currently eat animals is morally justified.
To be honest, i don't think anybody really believes it is ok with animal farms in the animals perspective. However, this has nothing to do with eating meat since there is shops (atleast in sweden) that sell meat hunted in the forest.
You can be heterosexual even though you sleep with men sometimes.
Dunno what planet you're on, but you are considered homosexual/ bi-sexual if you sleep with a man..what the fuck...there is no "oh I just did it but I'm still straight", in any way possible.
And, sorry to come at this thread wrong, but IMO you're trying to justify being a vegan a little too much, as it really doesn't matter what you think, it's just a choice, and I can assure you people will never, ever stop eating animals/meat nor give them the same rights.
(Btw, the stalin/hitler thing, how is that in any way relevant? At all? What does their natural preferences of food have anything to do with what they did within their life? Really?)
Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I like that we keep trying- but both sides of this argument get heated too quickly. Pretty soon we'll be arguing about Hitler again and calling eachother immoral douche nozzles. Enjoy the tranquility while it lasts!
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
This is the spark that lights the flame of my righteous fire. It's my birthday today, so instead of politely informing you about how you are wrong on all these points, I'll just let you live in your sad little world were nothing matters and no one does anything. Fair?
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
What about refusing to use slaves in a society where slavery is the norm?
I dislike taking part in these shitfests but I am genuinely interested in how you can think like this.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
This is the spark that lights the flame of my righteous fire. It's my birthday today, so instead of politely informing you about how you are wrong on all these points, I'll just let you live in your sad little world were nothing matters and no one does anything. Fair?
Fair enough I forgot to put that it was my opinion, but looking at it from a strictly logical stand point what don't you agree with?
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
Just because I used a strong word to prove my point doesn't mean I think every vegan or vegetarian has an agenda. Although I still think that the fact that since your consciously denying yourself a type of food is personal suffering. If it wasn't personal suffering, no matter how small, I don't think you would even relaise you were a vegan/vegetarian and wouldn't label your self as one. You would just say you don't like meat.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
What about refusing to use slaves in a society where slavery is the norm?
I dislike taking part in these shitfests but I am genuinely interested in how you can think like this.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to animals as slaves or something?
On June 03 2011 23:27 Tomkr wrote: For those who point to science as a source of "proof" that meat-eating is good, you should go out and read Michael Pollan's "In Defence of Food", which shows that the science behind what we eat is pseudo-science at best, and industry-backed lies at worst. Another very good read with regards to eating animals is "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Saffran Foer.
That's a convenient argument that all scientific studies done on food are pseudo-science and "industry-backed lies". Granted, that stuff happens, but claiming all studies are fraudulent is denial(or cherry picking studies to suit your belief system).
BTW, I haven't read this guys' books and probably never will, but I am looking at an hour long youtube video of him right now. He's a pretty smart guy and I agree with him on most everything he has said. However, he is partially incorrect on a few subjects and his viewpoints are not ground breaking. Processed food is bad, tell me something I don't know.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
What? I'm no vegetarian/vegan, but this is illogical. You're saying you can't understand why else they'd do it besides being martyrs? What if they don't want to eat meat. Damn martyrs!
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
Just because I used a strong word to prove my point doesn't mean I think every vegan or vegetarian has an agenda. Although I still think that the fact that since your consciously denying yourself a type of food is personal suffering. If it wasn't personal suffering, no matter how small, I don't think you would even relaise you were a vegan/vegetarian and wouldn't label your self as one. You would just say you don't like meat.
I don't deny myself meat, deny implies I want it. I find meat disgusting.
And no I don't label myself as a vegan to highlight my suffering. I do it because I'm proud of it. What I call myself is irrelevant.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
What about refusing to use slaves in a society where slavery is the norm?
I dislike taking part in these shitfests but I am genuinely interested in how you can think like this.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you referring to animals as slaves or something?
He drew a parallel between animals and slaves. Which is reasonable because both animals and slaves are beings whose own welfare is disregarded in place of their owner's interests.
If we become herbivores, I'd think our population problem will escalate. Eventually we'd either have to engineer a super predator that feeds on humans or occupy another planet.
I mean all herbivores in the wild are prone to predators at least some time in their lives. If we're going to live naturally, we'll need to be prone to predators too. As of now, no creature is truly a threat to us as we have guns to blow their heads off before they even come close.
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
No. The basic right not to be treated as a thing means that we cannot treat animals exclusively as means to human ends–just as we cannot treat other humans exclusively as means to the ends of other humans. Even though we have laws that prevent people from owning other humans, or using them as unconsenting biomedical subjects, we generally do not require that humans prevent harm to other humans in all situations. No law requires that Jane prevent Simon from inflicting harm on John, as long as Jane and Simon are not conspirators in a crime against John or otherwise acting in concert, and as long as Jane has no relationship with John that would give rise to such an obligation.
Moreover, in the United States at least, the law generally imposes on humans no “duty to aid” even when other humans are involved. If I am walking down the street and see a person lying passed out, face down in a small puddle of water and drowning, the law imposes no obligation on me to assist that person even if all I need to do is roll her over, something I can do without risk or serious inconvenience to myself.
The point is that the basic right of humans not to be treated as things does not guarantee that humans will aid other humans, or that we are obligated to intervene to prevent harm from coming to humans from animals or from other humans. Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources. It does not necessarily mean that we have moral or legal obligations to render them aid or to intervene to prevent harm from coming to them.
First bolded part is a redicolous argument if I ever saw one. Legal or not you have an obligation to help that person and you know it.
Second bolded part is good too. While I concede that it doesn't necessairly mean that we should lend aid, I will say that we should end a constant war between sentient beings, as that is really what your entire argument rests on (evident in the rest of you post which I didn't quote). Like humanitarian intervention, however selective or poorly executed it might be, so should animals be helped.
Or you could, of course, like me, realize that we're humans, animals have no rights (and lost out to evolution) and meat is really good.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
This is the spark that lights the flame of my righteous fire. It's my birthday today, so instead of politely informing you about how you are wrong on all these points, I'll just let you live in your sad little world were nothing matters and no one does anything. Fair?
Fair enough I forgot to put that it was my opinion, but looking at it from a strictly logical stand point what don't you agree with?
Okay TL birthday over. Thanks korean time.
My post was a little nasty. I don't really mean to be that harsh. It was mean to say that you live in a "sad little world"- but It's how your view points make me feel.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad, or make me feel good, so I'll do what you asked and explain why- logically- your points don't make sense to me.
Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr.
This is untrue, but I understand why you think it. Most vegetarians and vegans live very full and fulfilling lives. The vast majority of us spend very little of our time suffering. Why I think you believe we are martyr's is because a vocal minority of vegans see themselves that way. The complain about few vegan choices at restaurants, they insist their friends and family cook for them at parties and social events, etc. It's my personal belief that I shouldn't inconvenience people at all because of my vegan choice. I don't tell people I am a vegetarian unless it comes up in conversation, or they're wondering why I won't eat a certain food. Some people see vegetarianism as part of the fiber of their being, of who they are- when the introduce themselves they bring it up. I see why these people would make you think that we are all martyrs who seek attention. Again, it's a vocal minority.
It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one.
This is a big one, but a diet low in saturated and trans fats, high in vitamins, minerals and protein is beneficial to almost everyone. Of course you can be an unhealthy vegan... lots of pasta and white bread is vegan... fatty spreads and oils are vegan. Being an unhealthy vegetarian is even easier with your access to butter, creme, and eggs, which open up a whole world of pastry sinfulness. Similarly, you can be an extremely healthy vegan/vegetarian. There are a few big misconceptions about the vegan/vegetarian diet.
1: You can't be healthy!
"The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is 'healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases'."
2: Certain nutrients are only found in meat!
Partly true. B12 vitamins and omega fatty acids are most easily found in meat. There are vegan alternatives, but they are unconventional in the American diet, and therefore seen (unfairly) as an unrealistic dietary alternative by many. For instance, Omega fatty acids are easiest to find in nuts and seeds for a vegan (flax particularly), whilst B12 vitamins are only found in fortified soy products and nutritional yeast. Do you have to go out of the way to get these nutrients? Yes. Is it impossible, or even difficult? No.
3: Vegan food is bland and boring!
Untrue. Like meat based cuisine, vegan and vegetarian food has the potential to be incredibly boring and bland, but skilled chefs and dedicated home cooks can make delicious meals with it.
It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one.
Supply and demand. For every 100 people who stop eating half a cow a year, 50 cows will (eventually) not be manufactured in a year by major factory farms. The correlation might not be immediately evident, but it makes zero financial sense to produce product that there is not a demand for. "But you're only 1 person!". Thats like saying" why vote? You're only one person." A lot of individuals getting together under one philosophy is how change is made. Maybe not quickly, but it's impossible not to.
Why does every Vegan thread devolve into "Vegans are superior/I like meat". Maybe rather than having a bunch of reason why you should be vegan having something like I like to eat this and I respect peoples choices not to be vegan if you wish to keep a vegan thread open.
On June 04 2011 00:27 hoganftw wrote: If we become herbivores, I'd think our population problem will escalate. Eventually we'd either have to engineer a super predator that feeds on humans or occupy another planet.
I mean all herbivores in the wild are prone to predators at least some time in their lives. If we're going to live naturally, we'll need to be prone to predators too. As of now, no creature is truly a threat to us as we have guns to blow their heads off before they even come close.
Are you saying vegetables make us healthier, less dying, more population? Veganism will turn us into sex gods? Or if we turn vegan Jaguars will own us? Please elaborate on your first sentence
A funny thought struck me when frogurt said he's proud of being a vegan. This implies, to me, that he thinks he's superior for being one.
The thought that struck me then was what would happen once/if everyone stopped eating food? Would the "first" vegans/vegetarians start saying "well, we were here first, we are better than you"?
People need to learn that the unhealthy overconsumption of meat needs to stop.
I love my steak or a nice chicken breast, but it might as well be that by accident I don't eat meat for 2 or 3 weeks just because i cooked other stuff.
Trying to make everybody vegetarian is ridiculous, but what needs to stop is the industrialization of animals. Nothing wrong with a 40 cows or pigs running around happy in a large fenced area and one day there is a "bizz" behind the ear and its all over. Its just the animal cruelty and the cruel conditions of mass production I am appalled by. I think it is important that kids in a young age go out to a farm with their school and see an animal being happy and all and then being killed and parted. So they learn that meat comes from living animals who deserve respect and that meat is just not something you stuff your face with "cause its tasty and fun"
On June 04 2011 00:32 Aldehyde wrote: A funny thought struck me when frogurt said he's proud of being a vegan. This implies, to me, that he thinks he's superior for being one.
The thought that struck me then was what would happen once/if everyone stopped eating food? Would the "first" vegans/vegetarians start saying "well, we were here first, we are better than you"?
NO IT DOESN'T.
Some people are proud of being gay, doesn't imply they are superior to heterosexuals. Some people are proud of their religion, they can wear a cross on their neck, but it's not elitism until they stick a bible down your throat.
Sorry i had to unleash the fury of the caps lock but when I say "I'm not saying i'm better than you" and it's replied with "yes you are" I'm going to have to get the capital letters out of their glass emergency case.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
Just because I used a strong word to prove my point doesn't mean I think every vegan or vegetarian has an agenda. Although I still think that the fact that since your consciously denying yourself a type of food is personal suffering. If it wasn't personal suffering, no matter how small, I don't think you would even relaise you were a vegan/vegetarian and wouldn't label your self as one. You would just say you don't like meat.
I don't deny myself meat, deny implies I want it. I find meat disgusting.
And no I don't label myself as a vegan to highlight my suffering. I do it because I'm proud of it. What I call myself is irrelevant.
What do you find disgusting about it? I find insects disgusting. But if it was put into something that I couldn't recognise and tasted nice I would gladly eat it, even if I knew it was insects. But I'm guessing you wouldn't do the same with meat?
You might not be doing it to highlight your suffering. But why is it that not eating meat is the only type of food that needs it's own name?
On June 04 2011 00:32 Aldehyde wrote: A funny thought struck me when frogurt said he's proud of being a vegan. This implies, to me, that he thinks he's superior for being one.
The thought that struck me then was what would happen once/if everyone stopped eating food? Would the "first" vegans/vegetarians start saying "well, we were here first, we are better than you"?
NO IT DOESN'T.
Some people are proud of being gay, doesn't imply they think are superior to heterosexuals. Some people are proud of their religion, they can wear a cross on their neck, but it's not elitism until they stick a bible down your throat.
Sorry i had to unleash the fury of the caps lock but when I say "I'm not saying i'm better than you" and it's replied with "yes you are" I'm going to have to get the capital letters out of their glass emergency case.
On June 04 2011 00:36 Ojahh wrote: People need to learn that the unhealthy overconsumption of meat needs to stop.
I love my steak or a nice chicken breast, but it might as well be that by accident I don't eat meat for 2 or 3 weeks just because i cooked other stuff.
Trying to make everybody vegetarian is ridiculous, but what needs to stop is the industrialization of animals. Nothing wrong with a 40 cows or pigs running around happy in a large fenced area and one day there is a "bizz" behind the ear and its all over. Its just the animal cruelty and the cruel conditions of mass production I am appalled by. I think it is important that kids in a young age go out to a farm with their school and see an animal being happy and all and then being killed and parted. So they learn that meat comes from living animals who deserve respect and that meat is just not something you stuff your face with "cause its tasty and fun"
Do you have difficulty finding shoes as a vegan? Even sneakers have animal by products in them never mind dress shoes. Paul McCartney had difficulty finding them, have they gotten easier to find since?
On June 04 2011 00:32 Aldehyde wrote: A funny thought struck me when frogurt said he's proud of being a vegan. This implies, to me, that he thinks he's superior for being one.
The thought that struck me then was what would happen once/if everyone stopped eating food? Would the "first" vegans/vegetarians start saying "well, we were here first, we are better than you"?
NO IT DOESN'T.
Some people are proud of being gay, doesn't imply they think are superior to heterosexuals. Some people are proud of their religion, they can wear a cross on their neck, but it's not elitism until they stick a bible down your throat.
Sorry i had to unleash the fury of the caps lock but when I say "I'm not saying i'm better than you" and it's replied with "yes you are" I'm going to have to get the capital letters out of their glass emergency case.
Hey, chill. I just said it was a funny thought that struck me and that it, TO ME, implied superiority when stated on its own. I didn't read all your posts thoroughly and I am sorry if I have offended you.
On June 04 2011 00:39 ComaDose wrote: Do you have difficulty finding shoes as a vegan? Even sneakers have animal by products in them never mind dress shoes. Paul McCartney had difficulty finding them, have they gotten easier to find since?
I've had tremendous difficulty... I've worn canvas shoes (converse or other brands) to job interviews and weddings because I couldn't find the right pair any pairs of good looking formal shoes that weren't leather based.
On June 04 2011 00:31 frogurt wrote: Are you saying vegetables make us healthier, less dying, more population? Veganism will turn us into sex gods? Or if we turn vegan Jaguars will own us? Please elaborate on your first sentence
Well, producing vegetables is a lot cheaper than producing livestock. If we were to go full vegan, it'd be a lot easier to feed the masses. It could be possibly healthier too, as veggies and fruits have vitamins, which most people tend to not care about.
Jaguars won't own us. They may kill one or two people a year, but that hardly puts a dent into our numbers. If we ever were to go full vegan and let's say, our population just kept rising; it'd be almost impossible to keep our numbers down without doing something "inhumane".
Thus scientists will either have to find ways of living on other planets or create a super predator that is capable of denting our numbers.
On June 04 2011 00:31 frogurt wrote: Are you saying vegetables make us healthier, less dying, more population? Veganism will turn us into sex gods? Or if we turn vegan Jaguars will own us? Please elaborate on your first sentence
Well, producing vegetables is a lot cheaper than producing livestock. If we were to go full vegan, it'd be a lot easier to feed the masses. It could be possibly healthier too, as veggies and fruits have vitamins, which most people tend to not care about.
Jaguars won't own us. They may kill one or two people a year, but that hardly puts a dent into our numbers. If we ever were to go full vegan and let's say, our population just kept rising; it'd be almost impossible to keep our numbers down without doing something "inhumane".
Thus scientists will either have to find ways of living on other planets or create a super predator that is capable of denting our numbers.
This is one of the funniest and interesting interpretations of the "what if we all went vegan" question I've ever read
Theres a correlation between overall wealth and the amount of kids you have. The poorest % of society have more kids than the richest %. In our perfect world where everyone is vegan, can we also have everyone be upper middle class? Cool. Problem solved
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
You do realise that let's say tommorow the entire world wakes up vegan the first course of action would be to mass murder all cows, chickens, sheeps, pigs and many more animals right?
Or did you think animals like domesticated cows can take care of themselves? You want someone to walk up and down and feed them maybe? Not really sure who would do that because the only reason we feed them at the moment is so they grow and a profit gets made on them.
Excluding wild variants entire breeds of cows would have to be exterminated just because they no longer serve a purpose and keeping them alive for no reason is pointless.
The picture that pops in your head when you think of pigs or cows are animals that can't survive without humans looking after them. The only reason these strange breeds exist is because humans made them through selective breeding.
If people stop eating meat then these animals have pretty much lost their entire purpose. They can't survive without people and people no longer have a reason to take care of them. Slowly eradicating an entire breed of animals doesn't seem much nicer then the horrible treatment they receive in some facilities.
But let's be realistic, how would you take care of this problem? Of all these billions of animals that we don't need but can't survive without humans looking after them. Take into account how there is no profit in them anymore and how you need to drastically expand the ammount of land they require if you want to stop keeping them in mass facilities.
are we talking vegetarian, like in not eating meat, or vegan, as in I don't eat anything coming from animals, and maybe even I don't wear animal clothing.
because especially in the Vegan group there are the people who just don't like the taste or lost their taste seeing the disgusting conditions of mass production and that is understandable, but but I found the most vocal and outspoken Vegans are the kind of people who wouldn't even eat an egg from the chicken out of their on garden, or wear the wool of sheeps that you can collect with out causing the sheep any distress. If OP is one of the later, there is no point further arguing cause such people are to determined to prove a point.
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
On June 04 2011 00:39 ComaDose wrote: Do you have difficulty finding shoes as a vegan? Even sneakers have animal by products in them never mind dress shoes. Paul McCartney had difficulty finding them, have they gotten easier to find since?
There are alternatives to leather shoes, the problem is actually because the majority of people don't care where their shoes come from so the demand for non-leather alternatives (such as microfiber) aren't as profitable, therefore not mass-produced in order to be cheap enough for consumers.
For anyone who is interested, leather is explained from the 3:50 mark in this video:
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
You're in the meateating camp. You can't eat meat and then call yourself a vegan/vegetarian.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
You do realise that let's say tommorow the entire world wakes up vegan the first course of action would be to mass murder all cows, chickens, sheeps, pigs and many more animals right?
Or did you think animals like domesticated cows can take care of themselves? You want someone to walk up and down and feed them maybe? Not really sure who would do that because the only reason we feed them at the moment is so they grow and a profit gets made on them.
Excluding wild variants entire breeds of cows would have to be exterminated just because they no longer serve a purpose and keeping them alive for no reason is pointless.
The picture that pops in your head when you think of pigs or cows are animals that can't survive without humans looking after them. The only reason these strange breeds exist is because humans made them through selective breeding.
If people stop eating meat then these animals have pretty much lost their entire purpose. They can't survive without people and people no longer have a reason to take care of them. Slowly eradicating an entire breed of animals doesn't seem much nicer then the horrible treatment they receive in some facilities.
But let's be realistic, how would you take care of this problem? Of all these billions of animals that we don't need but can't survive without humans looking after them. Take into account how there is no profit in them anymore and how you need to drastically expand the ammount of land they require if you want to stop keeping them in mass facilities.
You do realize that let's say tomorrow the entire wold wakes up a cannibal, the first course of action would be the mass murder of all humans, right?
Or do you think your friends and family can take care or themselves? You think someone will walk up and down and feed them? Not really sure who would do that, because the only thing we'll need them for tomorrow is subsentence.
Excluding celebrities, entire groups of blue and white color workers would have to be exterminated, as their original purpose would be trumped by their delicious taste and savory texture.
I'll stop now. I just think it's silly that you try to discredit an entire philosophical movement because you can think of an impossible hypothetical situation that would pose problems for it.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
You do realise that let's say tommorow the entire world wakes up vegan the first course of action would be to mass murder all cows, chickens, sheeps, pigs and many more animals right?
Or did you think animals like domesticated cows can take care of themselves? You want someone to walk up and down and feed them maybe? Not really sure who would do that because the only reason we feed them at the moment is so they grow and a profit gets made on them.
Excluding wild variants entire breeds of cows would have to be exterminated just because they no longer serve a purpose and keeping them alive for no reason is pointless.
The picture that pops in your head when you think of pigs or cows are animals that can't survive without humans looking after them. The only reason these strange breeds exist is because humans made them through selective breeding.
If people stop eating meat then these animals have pretty much lost their entire purpose. They can't survive without people and people no longer have a reason to take care of them. Slowly eradicating an entire breed of animals doesn't seem much nicer then the horrible treatment they receive in some facilities.
But let's be realistic, how would you take care of this problem? Of all these billions of animals that we don't need but can't survive without humans looking after them. Take into account how there is no profit in them anymore and how you need to drastically expand the ammount of land they require if you want to stop keeping them in mass facilities.
Wrong. All you've done is shown your economic ignorance. Livestock animals are only constantly bred on a repeated cycle BECAUSE of Western demand for fast food. If everyone became a vegan say one month from today and no more cows and pigs were artificially inseminated and chickens killed literally weeks after they're born, you'd find that a large percentage of animals on farms would have disappeared due to being slaughtered for food in that month.
Everyone is entitled to there own opinion, no one is better than anyone else. Eat meat, don't eat meat, don't drink milk... whatever. This thread is basically about a vegan who wants to change peoples views, and it won't work. Just starts arguments, why is this even allowed on this website?
Q: By equating speciesism with racism and sexism, don’t you equate animals, people of color, and women?
That's kind of insulting. Why would we do that?
Q: If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
I think it's more important to say that if we become vegetarians, we'll stop breeding cows and stuff so their population will pretty much go extinct or almost. Meh!
Q: If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
A: This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.
I get the feeling that you don't know what "logic" is. Also, calling it "morally indistinguishable" is only true if you presume equality, and I completely disagree with the idea that "animals are people too" (figuratively speaking, if you want.)
I value a human much more than I value an animal, and therefore I'd much rather see medicine tested on animals. "The end justifies the means", IMO, when the means are significantly less evil (again, in my opinion) than what would have happened if we hadn't done those unfortunate things. It sucks, but really medicine saves enough lives that I'm fine with the lesser evil. If they were tested on unwilling humans, I would be angry.
__
The point that I always bring up though is this one - and I don't know if it applies to anyone who's posted in this thread but here goes. To the vegetarians/vegans who take a position where they claim to have the moral high ground, you should consider that you've merely chosen a battle among many. Most of you, in the west, still work and make an amount of money that could easily be qualified as "ridiculous". Here, we live well above "comfort".
While you get out of your way to only eat veggies despite the acquired functions of your digestive system, kids die in Africa and you don't bother to donate very much. Pollution is rampant - you probably drive, maybe short distances when you're lazy like the rest of us. With the money you used to buy that PS3, you could have done so much more...
I agree - eating meat may not be optimal in that it's a shame that animals die - sometimes in very horrible ways that have shaken me up, although that is not the norm. However, as westerners, we do an incredibly amount of "bad" things, and I don't believe that eating meat is a particularly terrible one. Why choose that battle over poverty and diseases in Africa?
I think that most moral arguments from vegetarians and vegans are very, very weak and that's why you guys need to ***appeal to emotion all the time with sick videos*** and weird premises that don't really work. Note that I have basically appealed to emotion in my post (sort of), and it's because I believe this is all the debate really is - for the most part.
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
The abolitionist approach is a rights-based approach that identifies the core issue of violence inflicted on innocent sentient beings as rooted in the fact that these beings are considered property, commodities, and “things” under the law. This property, commodity, and thing status is at the root of our “moral schizophrenia” regarding nonhuman beings. As long as nonhuman beings are considered “things” or commodities that we own instead of beings like us who have important interests in their lives, we will continue to torture and kill them by the tens of billions while we acknowledge that it would be horrific if someone did such things to young, orphaned children (despite the striking similarities in mentality, sentience, and innocence among nonhuman beings and young children). Therefore, the abolitionist approach as currently conceived advocates a single right for innocent sentient nonhumans: the right not to be property. But as long as we continue to consume the flesh and bodily fluids of these beings, this one right can never be achieved. Therefore, the only way we can break the socially-sanctioned perpetual holocaust and moral schizophrenia and work toward achieving the one right for nonhumans is to go vegan and encourage others to do the same. Therefore, as both a moral and practical matter, vegan education is the only activity that makes sense if our goal is to achieve a minimum standard of decency and civilization regarding nonhuman beings.
The new welfarist approach, in contrast to the abolitionist approach, is a utilitarian-based approach and a bizarre and confusing hodgepodge of traditional welfarism and “animal liberation” philosophy. On one hand, new welfarists want to “liberate” animals from the tyranny of “factory farms”. On the other hand, new welfarists (amazingly) see regulating the perpetual holocaust as one way to achieve such “liberation” (despite 200 years of welfarism resulting in ever increasing cruelty, both in the severity and the mind-boggling numbers of victims). New welfarists engage in ‘vegan’ education, but because treatment rather than use is the primary issue for them, new welfarists generally see veganism as a (temporary?) “boycott of cruelty” and as merely a(n) (optional?) “tool to reduce suffering” rather than as a minimum standard of decency.
The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions and a Permanent Non-profit Business Cycle: Welfarists “Versus” Industry’s Strength
Industry’s strength is its financial wealth and power, which translates into media, advertising, and information power, as well as political and legislative power. Industry’s weakness is that it is morally deplorable and environmentally disastrous (the eco-disaster will become ever more obvious as huge Asian markets increase demand for animal products). We cannot defeat an opponent of industry’s size and power by mostly avoiding their weakness and attempting to take on their strength, yet this is exactly what the new welfarist movement tries to do.
With welfare reform campaigns, the new welfarist movement seeks to at least weaken industry through legislation, and more ambitiously, legislate and regulate industry away. Most new welfarists call their approach the “two track” approach, and they believe that regulations are an integral part of ‘dismantling’ the giant. One track for them is ‘vegan’ education (albeit ‘vegan’ being merely a ‘boycott’ or ‘tool’); the other is welfare regulation.
But this approach of making welfare regulation a substantial part of eliminating animal agriculture plays to industry’s strength by 1) taking them on where they’re strong (in politics, legislation, and deal-making; see above), 2) diverting resources from the attack on where they are weak (diverting from vegan education), and 3) reinforcing the legal structure and regulated property rights paradigm that animal exploitation is founded upon.
As long as animals are considered property and commodities, it is impossible to balance their interests fairly against human interests. This is not “merely legal theory”, as some new welfarists claim it is (although even in legal theory alone the property status problem is overwhelmingly supported as insurmountable due to the legal trumping power of property rights over regulations, as a matter of the inherent hierarchy of legal concepts [which have very real consequences]).
Rather, we also have overwhelming empirical evidence that this is the case by observing the endless efforts over centuries to regulate chattel slavery, which remained viciously cruel to its very end. As additional evidence, animal welfare laws have been attempting to regulate use for 200 years now, and animals are treated more cruelly and in greater numbers now than ever.
Although we don’t need a slave history scholar to vouch for the utter failure of slave welfare laws and reforms, there is a preeminent non-vegan slave history legal scholar, Alan Watson, who entirely agrees with Gary Francione 1) on this historical empirical fact and 2) that the property status problem will prevent meaningful change in the use and treatment of animals until it is abolished. To quote Professor Francione in Animals As Persons (p. 162), “The interests of slaves will never be viewed as similar to the interests of slave owners. The interests of animals [who] are property will never be viewed as similar to those of human property owners.”
More and more regulations add a regulating structure to animal exploitation supported eventually by more bureaucracy, more inspector jobs, and more ‘legitimacy’ to the entire enterprise, entrenching animals ever deeper into property and commodity status. It’s true that more regulations put short-term profit margin pressure on industry, but industry is very resilient and has a number of options to restore the profit margins, including moving to less restrictive legal jurisdictions (including other international jurisdictions).
On top of regulations reinforcing the property/commodities paradigm, we should ask, what message do these welfare regulation campaigns send to the public? The message, when the regulations are promoted by so-called animal ‘rights’ organizations, is that animals are here for us to exploit and kill, we just have to do it more ‘humanely’ by regulating it more. Also, once the welfare law, regulation, or agreement is made (but usually not enforced), the false public perception is that we are exploiting and killing more ‘humanely’ (so you can feel a little better; after all, there are ‘inspectors’ looking after every animal as if she were his own daughter). Does it shift the paradigm at all? No, it obviously doesn’t. In fact, people feel better than ever about animals as commodities.
What motivation does a new welfarist organization have to do these campaigns? Victories! And the ‘victories’ lead to more donations, permanently supporting the organization’s basic business cycle. If the campaign is directly ‘against’ a particular exploiter, such as in the case of KFC Canada and PETA, PETA will actually do a public relations campaign on behalf of the exploiter as part of the deal. PETA wins with a ‘victory’ to brag about to their donors, leading to the endless cycle of more donations and campaigns. KFC Canada wins PETA approval. The customers win being happily duped into believing that KFC’s chickens are treated ‘humanely’. The animals? Well, PETA, KFC Canada, and KFC’s customers just struck a great deal; what more do you want?
Consider the case of HSUS (a traditional welfarist organization) and Farm Sanctuary and California’s Proposition 2 in November of 2008. HSUS and Farm Sanctuary bragged about getting Prop 2 passed, which doesn’t come into effect until 2015, and when and if it does, will not result in a significant decrease in suffering (especially compared to the public perception of the decrease). Further, if some exploiters don’t like Prop 2, they will merely relocate to another state or to Mexico and ship the product into California. For more on welfare and single-issue campaigns that are so popular with new welfarist organizations, see Picking the Low Hanging Fruit: What Is Wrong with Single-Issue Campaigns?
It is interesting to note that HSUS and PETA sell their welfare reforms to industry based on how profitable they will be for industry to implement, essentially acting as strategic advisers. Some of the welfare reforms, like “controlled atmosphere killing” and crate elimination, are things industry was planning on doing anyway for profitability. For solid evidence of the industry-welfarist partnership in action, see the various links in Four Problems with Welfare in a Nutshell.
Ultimately, as Gary Francione has said countless times, it is a zero-sum game. Every effort made and every dollar spent by a vegan or a pro-vegan organization on welfarism is effort and a dollar directed away from vegan education. Vegan education efforts are causally connected to welfare concerns, but the reverse is not true. Welfare concerns are not causally connected to vegan education. Only vegan education itself creates new vegans. Currently, far too much money and effort of the animal movement goes toward welfarism (for abolitionists, no resources should go to welfarism).
For more reading on this, the following are some links:
Gary Francione’s analysis of Prop 2
Gary Francione’s reply to new welfarist Martin Balluch
The Great ‘Victory’ of New Welfarism
The Industry-Welfarist Partnership
The Road to Justice Is Paved with Creative, Non-violent Vegan Education: Abolitionists Versus Industry’s Weakness
I stated in the previous section that the animal agriculture industry’s strength is its wealth and size, which results in political, legislative, media, and deal-making power. Its weakness is that it is morally deplorable and environmentally disastrous, and that vegan living is deeply satisfying, delightful, and healthy. Most people, however, are unaware of exactly what industry does; how cruel it is both in intensity and magnitude; what speciesism is and how identical it is to racism, sexism, heterosexism and other prejudices; and how, why, and in what specific ways industry is so disastrous to the environment. Most people are also unaware of how delicious and satisfying vegan food is, especially in 2009, with more options available than ever. The possibilities for education are immense, if only we would direct more resources toward them.
There are three (or four, depending on how you count them) prime areas of vegan education, which combined, would provide overwhelmingly strong, positive reasons for insisting on the permanent elimination of animal agriculture, and to which industry and the general public has no adequate rebuttal (“but they taste good” sounds absurd in light of these three areas of vegan education).
The Moral Issue
Two people of approximately similar intelligence, but of different race or sex should be granted equal consideration regarding their important interest in a university education based solely on their similar intelligence. The irrational cultural prejudice of racism and sexism ignores the morally relevant similarity of intelligence in favor of recognizing the irrelevant difference of race or sex.
In the same way, two beings of approximately equal sentience, but of different species should be granted equal consideration regarding their important interest in not being enslaved, exploited, or slaughtered based solely on their similar sentience. The irrational cultural prejudice of speciesism ignores the morally relevant similarity of similar sentience in favor of recognizing the irrelevant difference of species.
We are not very deep into moral philosophy here. Indeed, a dim-witted 10 year-old should not have any problem comprehending the moral argument above. Why doesn’t the animal rights and vegan movement broadcast this basic and irrefutable argument constantly over years, like a well-known advertisement, until it becomes part of the general public’s collective psyche, as a major component of vegan education? Industry’s only reply would be to restate their irrational prejudice. Granted, in our era, the public generally shares industry’s bigotry on the matter, but over time, it should be increasingly difficult to embrace the prejudice in any serious discussion. Eventually, the truth of the matter will weigh heavily on the conscience of decent people, and change will result, perhaps more rapidly than most of us might think likely today.
The Environmental Issue
As set forth in my blog essay entitled On the Environmental Disaster of Animal Agriculture and the important links therein, it is obvious that animal agriculture is the single worst enemy of the environment and a sustainable future.
As animal agribusiness grows into Asian and other markets, adding three billion or more people as customers and quadrupling the number of animals bred, raised, and slaughtered from the current number of approximately 50 billion annually, it is clear that the long-term effects (perhaps even the short-term effects) will bring the Earth’s biosphere into collapse. We simply cannot afford the gluttonous excesses that the combination of animal agriculture and modern technology has enabled. Our survival as a species depends on waking up to animal agriculture’s impact on the future.
Vegan Food and Nutrition
In addition to most people being completely ignorant of the shocking and horrific details of the lives of ‘food’ animals, speciesism, and the environmental disaster created by animal agriculture, most people have no idea what vegans eat or how nutritious and satisfying vegan diets are or can be. Fortunately, there are a lot of great vegan food blogs on the Net these days, and well-planned vegan diets are endorsed by the American Dietetic Association and similar mainstream, science-based organizations. But there is still tremendous untapped opportunity for vegan culinary and nutrition education, including education on deleterious effects of the standard American diet on public health, which is high in damaging animal fats, including cholesterol. Anybody who makes it easier for non-vegans to go vegan is doing effective vegan education in that respect.
Vegan Education and New Welfarists
As I stated in the previous section, new welfarists engage in what they call “two-track activism”, one track being vegan education and the other being welfare reform. So, as a secondary activity to welfare reform advocacy, new welfarists are already engaged in many activities that fall into the above categories. But to the extent that they spend time and money on welfare reform or single-issue campaigns when the opportunity for vegan education in society is so unimaginably vast, they inflict a severe opportunity cost on genuine societal progress. That’s not even to mention the confused and contradictory message they send that I mentioned above, which acts not merely to forgo opportunity, but is counterproductive and regressive.
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
You're in the meateating camp. You can't eat meat and then call yourself a vegan/vegetarian.
Veganism is an odd thing to me. Is the use of anything from an animal forbidden? I am not a vegan or a vegitarian but the thought process of it is very intriguing. A lot of items in this world are manufactured from parts or part of an animal, are you not supposed to use those products?
You can break down a cow to be used in a ton of products most people use everyday. + Show Spoiler +
I know being a vegitarian is more geared towards not eating the meat, but vegans seem to have their different extremes of how far they go.
Were do you draw the line? Here is the animal lovers hierarchy as I see it, mostly involves drawing a line on the capacity for the animal to suffer.
1) Humans (are animals after all) The definition of suffering is based on our own experiences. This generally involved us being aware of the sensation of our own suffering. Then become sympathetic to others suffering when we see outwardly sights of it similar to our own.
2) Apes, dogs, cute animals etc. These are animals that happen to have traits similar to our own. Apes just like like us in a superficial way, act in ways we may perceive to be like our own, domestic dogs evolved some interdependence with us, the list goes on. The sympathy for such animals is based on much the same way be have sympathy for the suffering of humans: apparent similarities to our own suffering.
3) Ugly animals, animals we have little dependence upon or relationship with, animals that do not exhibit much of a similarity to our own suffering. Sympathy for this category is based on our understanding of the similarities this group has to group 2. We respond to puppies on an emotional level, but not so much rat. We admire eagles, but not so much chickens. At the same time, we realize that these 2 animals share many physical and genetic characteristics. It seems irrational to care about one and not the other so we defend both. This grows to include all mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and so forth
4) This level includes bees, insects, bugs, worms, spiders, etc. Major plants such as trees are also defended. All life is sacred and should be preserved as much as possible. Its acceptable to take food from plants, as long it helps them; i.e. eating fruit helps tress reproduce by spreading their seeds. These lifeforms may still exhibit behavior that suggests suffering, such as a beetle squirming, tree excreting sap or other visible responses to their destruction. These may also be defended on the basis that they support the well-being of animals higher up.
5) This is a hypothetical category; no one is a part of it (except maybe organisms that are a part of it!). This would include micro-organisms and minor plants. We classify these things into discrete categories, but evolution is a continuous process and I recognize that there is going to be overlap in these categories.
My main question is how you can, in light of this, separate these categories logically or on anything other than your own personal emotion.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
This is the spark that lights the flame of my righteous fire. It's my birthday today, so instead of politely informing you about how you are wrong on all these points, I'll just let you live in your sad little world were nothing matters and no one does anything. Fair?
Fair enough I forgot to put that it was my opinion, but looking at it from a strictly logical stand point what don't you agree with?
Okay TL birthday over. Thanks korean time.
My post was a little nasty. I don't really mean to be that harsh. It was mean to say that you live in a "sad little world"- but It's how your view points make me feel.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad, or make me feel good, so I'll do what you asked and explain why- logically- your points don't make sense to me.
Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr.
This is untrue, but I understand why you think it. Most vegetarians and vegans live very full and fulfilling lives. The vast majority of us spend very little of our time suffering. Why I think you believe we are martyr's is because a vocal minority of vegans see themselves that way. The complain about few vegan choices at restaurants, they insist their friends and family cook for them at parties and social events, etc. It's my personal belief that I shouldn't inconvenience people at all because of my vegan choice. I don't tell people I am a vegetarian unless it comes up in conversation, or they're wondering why I won't eat a certain food. Some people see vegetarianism as part of the fiber of their being, of who they are- when the introduce themselves they bring it up. I see why these people would make you think that we are all martyrs who seek attention. Again, it's a vocal minority.
It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one.
This is a big one, but a diet low in saturated and trans fats, high in vitamins, minerals and protein is beneficial to almost everyone. Of course you can be an unhealthy vegan... lots of pasta and white bread is vegan... fatty spreads and oils are vegan. Being an unhealthy vegetarian is even easier with your access to butter, creme, and eggs, which open up a whole world of pastry sinfulness. Similarly, you can be an extremely healthy vegan/vegetarian. There are a few big misconceptions about the vegan/vegetarian diet.
1: You can't be healthy!
"The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is 'healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases'."
2: Certain nutrients are only found in meat!
Partly true. B12 vitamins and omega fatty acids are most easily found in meat. There are vegan alternatives, but they are unconventional in the American diet, and therefore seen (unfairly) as an unrealistic dietary alternative by many. For instance, Omega fatty acids are easiest to find in nuts and seeds for a vegan (flax particularly), whilst B12 vitamins are only found in fortified soy products and nutritional yeast. Do you have to go out of the way to get these nutrients? Yes. Is it impossible, or even difficult? No.
3: Vegan food is bland and boring!
Untrue. Like meat based cuisine, vegan and vegetarian food has the potential to be incredibly boring and bland, but skilled chefs and dedicated home cooks can make delicious meals with it.
It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one.
Supply and demand. For every 100 people who stop eating half a cow a year, 50 cows will (eventually) not be manufactured in a year by major factory farms. The correlation might not be immediately evident, but it makes zero financial sense to produce product that there is not a demand for. "But you're only 1 person!". Thats like saying" why vote? You're only one person." A lot of individuals getting together under one philosophy is how change is made. Maybe not quickly, but it's impossible not to.
Thanks for replying in great detail. But I'm going to have to reply in short otherwise I'll get too much of my opinion into the argument. And since I have never been a vegetarian or vegan it will just be too biased.
1. I used a pretty harsh word by saying martyr, but it does sum up what I think vegans/vegetarians go through. Even if it is easy for some people to be a vegetarian/vegan, I think they would have some urge to eat some sort of food that contained meat. Which is why even though it may be very small for some people, I think there is personal suffering for everyone who decides to be a vegan/vegetarian.
2. Sorry for such a short reply to this part. But my point was it is not a benefit to be a vegan/vegetarian. Meaning you would gain something from becoming one. This is just a list of ways to cut down on the disadvantages of becoming one.
3. I think your right on this point and I exaggerated my point. But I think there is more effective ways of cutting down on meat production by reducing how much everyone eats meat rather than a select few stopping completely.
Tree killer, I think thats your hierarchy of animals. Mine goes something like
Humans.
Vertebrates.
Invertebrates.
Why? Because it's our dense nervous system that allows us to feel pain and emotion. This list basically goes in order from how likely an animal is to feel pain end emotion in a similar way to us. Animals without a spinal column or well developed nervous system have a much much lower chance of having the ability to feel pain or emotion. Of course, its very difficult to be 100% sure that any animals experience pain or emotion like we do.
I just love the viewpoint of those that are up in arms about animal brutality who aren't vegetarians. "I got no problem with killing and eating animals, but heaven forbid that they have crappy living conditions, that's just monstrous!" Man is an animal, the only difference between us and the other species is that we're smart enough to farm them and not vice versa.
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
You're in the meateating camp. You can't eat meat and then call yourself a vegan/vegetarian.
damn I feel dirty
How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
On June 03 2011 18:58 BackHo wrote: [ 1. The welfarist camp - those who believe that so long as animals are killed 'humanely' (although what is humane, as we would never kill a human) it is OK.
2. The abolitionist camp - those who believe that the meat industry should be outlawed altogether.
So I have a question...
I usually only eat meat 2-3 times a week and the meat I do it is all locally raised and organic. I hate the way animals are treated through the use of factory food and I'm a firm believer in animal rights and welfare.
so I guess I'm in the welfarist camp? Dos this make me an Ethical Vegan?
You're in the meateating camp. You can't eat meat and then call yourself a vegan/vegetarian.
damn I feel dirty
How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
I love that video. I wish all meat production happened respectfully and locally like this man does.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
You do realise that let's say tommorow the entire world wakes up vegan the first course of action would be to mass murder all cows, chickens, sheeps, pigs and many more animals right?
Or did you think animals like domesticated cows can take care of themselves? You want someone to walk up and down and feed them maybe? Not really sure who would do that because the only reason we feed them at the moment is so they grow and a profit gets made on them.
Excluding wild variants entire breeds of cows would have to be exterminated just because they no longer serve a purpose and keeping them alive for no reason is pointless.
The picture that pops in your head when you think of pigs or cows are animals that can't survive without humans looking after them. The only reason these strange breeds exist is because humans made them through selective breeding.
If people stop eating meat then these animals have pretty much lost their entire purpose. They can't survive without people and people no longer have a reason to take care of them. Slowly eradicating an entire breed of animals doesn't seem much nicer then the horrible treatment they receive in some facilities.
But let's be realistic, how would you take care of this problem? Of all these billions of animals that we don't need but can't survive without humans looking after them. Take into account how there is no profit in them anymore and how you need to drastically expand the ammount of land they require if you want to stop keeping them in mass facilities.
You do realize that let's say tomorrow the entire wold wakes up a cannibal, the first course of action would be the mass murder of all humans, right?
Or do you think your friends and family can take care or themselves? You think someone will walk up and down and feed them? Not really sure who would do that, because the only thing we'll need them for tomorrow is subsentence.
Excluding celebrities, entire groups of blue and white color workers would have to be exterminated, as their original purpose would be trumped by their delicious taste and savory texture.
I'll stop now. I just think it's silly that you try to discredit an entire philosophical movement because you can think of an impossible hypothetical situation that would pose problems for it.
Maybe try taking it up with the guy that started by saying the world would be better if everyone was vegan? I just went off what he said if you have a problem with the premise you need to take that up with the guy that set it in the first place.
Wrong. All you've done is shown your economic ignorance. Livestock animals are only constantly bred on a repeated cycle BECAUSE of Western demand for fast food. If everyone became a vegan say one month from today and no more cows and pigs were artificially inseminated and chickens killed literally weeks after they're born, you'd find that a large percentage of animals on farms would have disappeared due to being slaughtered for food in that month.
Ofcourse, those damn westerners! Always coming up with clever ways of torturing live animals just because they can't help themselves. Ooh wait, meat is an expensive food product so it's logically going to be consumed more by the richest part of the world.
And what are you even talking about? The situation was an all-vegan world so logically no animals would be slaughtered for food. We have to kill them all because they are pointless and nobody is gonna take care of billions of animals and give away millions of acres of land to house them all without any monetary payoff.
If the entire world became vegan in the course of a month this would not change anything. If you let the animal be free then they would continue to breed but they can't find food for themselves and their numbers are too great for them to just graze off the land. We are talking about releasing several billion animals into the wild where they can't survive.
Maybe you want to keep them in big open field farms? That still leaves you with two problems. First up, you would need many more people then the food industry currently has to take care of them all because open field farms are more work intensive. Problem is nobody is gonna work in a non-profit industry for animals, not on the scale that you need. Second problem is that you don't have any money. The animals don't make money and taking care of them will never pay itself off.
You would have to massacre all the animals to a reasonable sustainable level or you would have to create a situation in wich you slowly let them die off wich would still force you sterilize the majority of the animals.
These animals only exist because there is a demand for them. Remove the demand and you remove the need for these animals to exist and with it any motivation for people to take care of them. You don't have enough animal lovers that want to work for free.
What else you want to do? Feed and maintain billions of pointless animals on government funds? Seems rather sick to be paying for animal feed when actuall humans are starving.
I am all for good treatment of animals but you can't pretend like these animals can live on if people don't want to eat them.
On June 03 2011 23:52 haffy wrote: Being a vegetarian or vegan is just being a martyr. It doesn't benefit them in the slightest to become one. It doesn't help animals in the slightest to become one. It's just personal suffering to prove a point. Although I have no idea what that point is.
I'm a vegan. I'm not a martyr, my life is great. I'm not suffering, I eat wholesomely. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, I just don't like meat.
I believe that the world would be better with a vegan human race but i'm not going to try and force my own beliefs. I respect meat eaters alternate views.
Stop this stereotype that all vegans are liberal hardcores who don't eat meat out of elitism/spite and are constantly trying to 'convert' omnivores.
You do realise that let's say tommorow the entire world wakes up vegan the first course of action would be to mass murder all cows, chickens, sheeps, pigs and many more animals right?
Or did you think animals like domesticated cows can take care of themselves? You want someone to walk up and down and feed them maybe? Not really sure who would do that because the only reason we feed them at the moment is so they grow and a profit gets made on them.
Excluding wild variants entire breeds of cows would have to be exterminated just because they no longer serve a purpose and keeping them alive for no reason is pointless.
The picture that pops in your head when you think of pigs or cows are animals that can't survive without humans looking after them. The only reason these strange breeds exist is because humans made them through selective breeding.
If people stop eating meat then these animals have pretty much lost their entire purpose. They can't survive without people and people no longer have a reason to take care of them. Slowly eradicating an entire breed of animals doesn't seem much nicer then the horrible treatment they receive in some facilities.
But let's be realistic, how would you take care of this problem? Of all these billions of animals that we don't need but can't survive without humans looking after them. Take into account how there is no profit in them anymore and how you need to drastically expand the ammount of land they require if you want to stop keeping them in mass facilities.
You do realize that let's say tomorrow the entire wold wakes up a cannibal, the first course of action would be the mass murder of all humans, right?
Or do you think your friends and family can take care or themselves? You think someone will walk up and down and feed them? Not really sure who would do that, because the only thing we'll need them for tomorrow is subsentence.
Excluding celebrities, entire groups of blue and white color workers would have to be exterminated, as their original purpose would be trumped by their delicious taste and savory texture.
I'll stop now. I just think it's silly that you try to discredit an entire philosophical movement because you can think of an impossible hypothetical situation that would pose problems for it.
Maybe try taking it up with the guy that started by saying the world would be better if everyone was vegan? I just went off what he said if you have a problem with the premise you need to take that up with the guy that set it in the first place.
Wrong. All you've done is shown your economic ignorance. Livestock animals are only constantly bred on a repeated cycle BECAUSE of Western demand for fast food. If everyone became a vegan say one month from today and no more cows and pigs were artificially inseminated and chickens killed literally weeks after they're born, you'd find that a large percentage of animals on farms would have disappeared due to being slaughtered for food in that month.
Ofcourse, those damn westerners! Always coming up with clever ways of torturing live animals just because they can't help themselves. Ooh wait, meat is an expensive food product so it's logically going to be consumed more by the richest part of the world.
And what are you even talking about? The situation was an all-vegan world so logically no animals would be slaughtered for food. We have to kill them all because they are pointless and nobody is gonna take care of billions of animals and give away millions of acres of land to house them all without any monetary payoff.
If the entire world became vegan in the course of a month this would not change anything. If you let the animal be free then they would continue to breed but they can't find food for themselves and their numbers are too great for them to just graze off the land. We are talking about releasing several billion animals into the wild where they can't survive.
Maybe you want to keep them in big open field farms? That still leaves you with two problems. First up, you would need many more people then the food industry currently has to take care of them all because open field farms are more work intensive. Problem is nobody is gonna work in a non-profit industry for animals, not on the scale that you need. Second problem is that you don't have any money. The animals don't make money and taking care of them will never pay itself off.
You would have to massacre all the animals to a reasonable sustainable level or you would have to create a situation in wich you slowly let them die off wich would still force you sterilize the majority of the animals.
These animals only exist because there is a demand for them. Remove the demand and you remove the need for these animals to exist and with it any motivation for people to take care of them. You don't have enough animal lovers that want to work for free.
What else you want to do? Feed and maintain billions of pointless animals on government funds? Seems rather sick to be paying for animal feed when actuall humans are starving.
I am all for good treatment of animals but you can't pretend like these animals can live on if people don't want to eat them.
I had never thought about what you're saying here. I'll add that to my list of counter-arguments for my next debate about this with people. I can't think of any good way to do anything about what you're saying.
Again you're blinding yourself to economic reality. The number of animals in the world would be drastically reduced BECAUSE of people becoming vegans. Less demand = less supply being produced. As I said - most livestock animals are artificially bred - they do not naturally breed to such an extent in nature. To take an example, sows are kept continually pregnant throughout their six year life cycle - one pregnancy after another, going from sow crate to farrowing crate to sow crate, over and over until they die. In the wild they would generally only get pregnant once or twice, not dozens of times during their lifetime until they die an early death due to the repeated pregnancies. Likewise with cows. Their natural lifespan is up to 30 years yet they usually die after 10 after being forced to be constantly pregnant through artificial insemination. Think about it logically - if you got a human female to give birth every year with no rest in between, she would eventually die early due to exhaustion as well. And all this just to meet human demand for meat.
On June 04 2011 01:20 Aldehyde wrote: How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
Everyone is entitled to there own opinion, no one is better than anyone else. Eat meat, don't eat meat, don't drink milk... whatever. This thread is basically about a vegan who wants to change peoples views, and it won't work. Just starts arguments, why is this even allowed on this website?
perfectly to the point. but people just love to state their point over and over again in senseless discussions that wont lead anywhere as both their standpoints are valid from their respective positions.
I don't get the point of this thread. Do you want a flame of vegetarians vs non vegetarians?
I liked the old thread were vegans dicussed their stuff. But this is just a clear provocation and if this becomes a flame it will be deserved. Pretty sad...
On June 04 2011 01:20 Aldehyde wrote: How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
They don't show the actual slaughter.
Wrong. They don't show when they pull the trigger, but that is not really what is important right? (save for that it should be quick). but it is the process leading to the killing that uppsets most people, and here they are, in my opinion, very gentle.
On June 04 2011 01:20 Aldehyde wrote: How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
They don't show the actual slaughter.
Were we watching the same video? They brought the cow in, shot it in the head, it fell to the ground. They brought the pig in, put some electric thing behind its ears, it fell dead to the ground.
lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
On June 04 2011 01:20 Aldehyde wrote: How so? You're supporting local businesses and it's organic. You're doing more than most. Don't see why you should have to feel dirty just because you're eating meat.
Here's a video of how a small local slaughterhouse does its work. Nothing like those sensational videos that always come up in these threads. http://vimeo.com/22077752
They don't show the actual slaughter.
So what? We've become so divorced from nature that ludicrous statements like yours actually become an argument.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
And then a man in a suit comes and gives medals to all of you.
I don't have a moral issue with killing and eating animals, where do we go from there? I know you do, that's why I don't even bother convincing you that you should eat meat.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
Killing animals is not murder. Murder is a legal definition. Not all killings of humans are murder which is why we have distinctions such as manslaughter or self-defense killing. Quit sensationalizing your position.
Meat eaters act all pissed off because of the evangelic ways of some vegans.
But you have no fucking idea how hard it is for vegetarians/vegans. We get preached to every fucking day. Yes every fucking day. It's always how we are gay/women/weak/stupid/going to die/too prechy/hitler.
If you are annoyed at the behavoir of vegans who preach their cause, how about you look at yourself for fucks sake. The other side does far more bitching about it and provoke the discussion that leeds to you saying that vegans are too preachy.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
Killing animals is not murder. Murder is a legal definition. Not all killings of humans are murder which is why we have distinctions such as manslaughter or self-defense killing. Quit sensationalizing your position.
Killing something for food is one of the most natural things you can do...
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
This pretty much illustrates my point i guess... A reasonable discussion does not start from the assumption that someone who disagrees is per definition wrong, or immoral, imho. (this does seem to come from both ends of the discussion though)
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder?
Then I think if I follow the presented logic, you don't have rights.
Djzapz said The point that I always bring up though is this one - and I don't know if it applies to anyone who's posted in this thread but here goes. To the vegetarians/vegans who take a position where they claim to have the moral high ground, you should consider that you've merely chosen a battle among many. Most of you, in the west, still work and make an amount of money that could easily be qualified as "ridiculous". Here, we live well above "comfort".
While you get out of your way to only eat veggies despite the acquired functions of your digestive system, kids die in Africa and you don't bother to donate very much. Pollution is rampant - you probably drive, maybe short distances when you're lazy like the rest of us. With the money you used to buy that PS3, you could have done so much more...
I agree - eating meat may not be optimal in that it's a shame that animals die - sometimes in very horrible ways that have shaken me up, although that is not the norm. However, as westerners, we do an incredibly amount of "bad" things, and I don't believe that eating meat is a particularly terrible one. Why choose that battle over poverty and diseases in Africa?
I think that most moral arguments from vegetarians and vegans are very, very weak and that's why you guys need to ***appeal to emotion all the time with sick videos*** and weird premises that don't really work. Note that I have basically appealed to emotion in my post (sort of), and it's because I believe this is all the debate really is - for the most part.
While some of this argues from a hypothetical or emotional standpoint and I normally stick to logic solely to defend what I believe, it completely sounds with my point of view. I wish I had some kind of critisism or improvement to add to what you've said but its a excellent representation of my thoughts as well and not only won't I criticize your viewpoint, I'd say that we share the same outlook.
Again you're blinding yourself to economic reality. The number of animals in the world would be drastically reduced BECAUSE of people becoming vegans. Less demand = less supply being produced. As I said - most livestock animals are artificially bred - they do not naturally breed to such an extent in nature. To take an example, sows are kept continually pregnant throughout their six year life cycle - one pregnancy after another, going from sow crate to farrowing crate to sow crate, over and over until they die. In the wild they would generally only get pregnant once or twice, not dozens of times during their lifetime until they die an early death due to the repeated pregnancies. Likewise with cows. Their natural lifespan is up to 30 years yet they usually die after 10 after being forced to be constantly pregnant through artificial insemination. Think about it logically - if you got a human female to give birth every year with no rest in between, she would eventually die early due to exhaustion as well. And all this just to meet human demand for meat.
The number would probably decrease given how it's never going to be as optimal as artificial insemination but like you said, the female cows die in 10 years under artificual insemination. If they live out in the wild it would take upwards of 30 years before they die of a natural death.
How many years before you can begin to expect some serious declines? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 10 years?
Even if it's 5 years you still have the problem of having to take care of billions of cows. That is just saying cows because you also need to take care of pigs, sheeps etc etc etc.
Finally since this would be accompanied by a pro-animal approach you can't leave them in their industrial facilities. You need an immense ammount of open land just to house all these animals in a nice way.
@zaltz: Could you please stop derailing this thread with your impossible situation that could never happen. It's pointless.
Could you not make false accusations? I am simply discussion a situation brought forth by another. You might dislike it but that would be someone from your side of the argument. Direct all those complaints to that person. You need to learn to keep track of who says what and when in a debate.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
Just quoting this because it is hilarious.
Backho. Your name clearly implies the back of a female who is a hoe. My name has to do with an almighty deity. I am the clear winner of all arguments. Sorry but my words the law.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder?
Oh, I get your logic BackHo...so now when I pull out my fly swatter I'm murdering flies?
How about when I mow my lawn, am I torturing and disfiguring grass?
By providing a home for my cat, and cleaning up the guts of the mice she catches, am I aiding and abetting a murderer?
If you consider killing any animal for food "murder", then your argument is fine. But you have to understand that this is your own definition of the word, and the vast majority of people don't consider it applicable in the circumstance you choose to use it in.
Using the word "murder" with respect to animals is, to me, analogous to using the word "cannibalism" when referring to a human eating pork ribs. It simply doesn't apply or make sense.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder?
Oh, I get your logic BackHo...so now when I pull out my fly swatter I'm murdering flies?
How about when I mow my lawn, am I torturing and disfiguring grass?
By providing a home for my cat, and cleaning up the guts of the mice she catches, am I aiding and abetting a murderer?
yes absolutely lol, cats are major murderers
Using the word "murder" with respect to animals is, to me, analogous to using the word "cannibalism" when referring to a human eating pork ribs. It simply doesn't apply or make sense.
I don't understand your comparison and I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. If you say it's because "murder only applies to humans" well then fine but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is basically "killing another without a justifiable reason". Now obviously a giant philosophical debate could happen over what "justifiable" means, so I hope we can agree that a cat(or anything else) "just wanting to" doesn't make it justifiable.
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
Never had a vegan explain how animal killing is morally wrong whereas plant killing isn't. It isn't purely the capacity for thought or pain that determines if something is alive.
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word.
I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me. It was the only primary definition of the word murder as a noun.
Here's some more. noun /ˈmərdər/ murders, plural
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another - the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer - he was put on trial for attempted murder
A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience - my first job at the steel mill was murder
Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body - that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions
On June 04 2011 02:46 Offhand wrote: Never had a vegan explain how animal killing is morally wrong whereas plant killing isn't. It isn't purely the capacity for thought or pain that determines if something is alive.
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word.
I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me.
Here's some more. noun /ˈmərdər/ murders, plural
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another - the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer - he was put on trial for attempted murder
A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience - my first job at the steel mill was murder
Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body - that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions
I don't think the others apply.
What about
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. "
"to kill brutally"
or if you want to keep using google's dictionary thing:
"Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation"
I am sorry that you let your language be so constricted. Or is it that you care so little about animals that they just don't matter?
On June 04 2011 02:12 Cambium wrote: I don't have a moral issue with killing and eating animals, where do we go from there? I know you do, that's why I don't even bother convincing you that you should eat meat.
This thread is so pointless.
Yep, I'm pretty sure this sums up the whole argument and this thread is, as a result, pointless. Morals aren't absolutes, so why does one side keep trying to convince the other?
i feel the OP lacks the fact that veagans don't use any animal products. this means no honey (insect based, as the OP doesn't acknowledge as being vegan), no marshmallows, and no MILK! These products still allow for the mistreatment of animals and therefore any vegan that eats these products needs to rethink their vegan lifestyle.
now i'm all for helping the planet and humane treatment but I think that meat in the diet is essential for well being. by that i do not mean eat meat with every single meal. but i think 3-5 times a weak minimum you should be eating about 6oz. of either fish or chicken and maybe one serving of red meat as it has every single protein that your body cannot produce on it's own.
props to those people who can eat tofu, brown rice, and vegetables for every meal, but in reality to feed the entire world meat products should be used. it's unfortunate, especially as an american, that so many people take this to the extreme and eat several servings of meat with each meal. of course that could lead to a whole other thread so i'll stop here
You can be heterosexual even though you sleep with men sometimes.
No, you most certainly can not.
Yes you could, at least technically. The definition is to be sexually attracted to the same sex. You could have sex with someone without being attracted to them, theoretically. I can go to a baseball game without liking baseball.
Again you're blinding yourself to economic reality. The number of animals in the world would be drastically reduced BECAUSE of people becoming vegans. Less demand = less supply being produced. As I said - most livestock animals are artificially bred - they do not naturally breed to such an extent in nature. To take an example, sows are kept continually pregnant throughout their six year life cycle - one pregnancy after another, going from sow crate to farrowing crate to sow crate, over and over until they die. In the wild they would generally only get pregnant once or twice, not dozens of times during their lifetime until they die an early death due to the repeated pregnancies. Likewise with cows. Their natural lifespan is up to 30 years yet they usually die after 10 after being forced to be constantly pregnant through artificial insemination. Think about it logically - if you got a human female to give birth every year with no rest in between, she would eventually die early due to exhaustion as well. And all this just to meet human demand for meat.
The number would probably decrease given how it's never going to be as optimal as artificial insemination but like you said, the female cows die in 10 years under artificual insemination. If they live out in the wild it would take upwards of 30 years before they die of a natural death.
How many years before you can begin to expect some serious declines? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 10 years?
Even if it's 5 years you still have the problem of having to take care of billions of cows. That is just saying cows because you also need to take care of pigs, sheeps etc etc etc.
Finally since this would be accompanied by a pro-animal approach you can't leave them in their industrial facilities. You need an immense ammount of open land just to house all these animals in a nice way.
@zaltz: Could you please stop derailing this thread with your impossible situation that could never happen. It's pointless.
Could you not make false accusations? I am simply discussion a situation brought forth by another. You might dislike it but that would be someone from your side of the argument. Direct all those complaints to that person. You need to learn to keep track of who says what and when in a debate.
1) He said he believes that a vegan world would be a better world. YOU are the one who proposed a ridiculous change that could never happen to discredit his idea. People won't stop eating meat in an instant. If you'd like to argue with him, create a hypothethical vegan world without meat farms, thank you very much.
2) I dislike it because it's derailing and has little to do with what he said.
3) He's not someone from my side. I eat meat and I will eat meat. I don't share his believes, I respect them.
4) Read what you're responding to ??? n) Post something relevant.
Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Edit: Obviously, not every vegan assumes the same moral stance as the OP. I understand that and don't mean to generalize.
On June 04 2011 02:56 garlicface wrote: Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
On June 04 2011 02:53 KillerPlague wrote: i feel the OP lacks the fact that veagans don't use any animal products. this means no honey (insect based, as the OP doesn't acknowledge as being vegan), no marshmallows, and no MILK! These products still allow for the mistreatment of animals and therefore any vegan that eats these products needs to rethink their vegan lifestyle.
now i'm all for helping the planet and humane treatment but I think that meat in the diet is essential for well being. by that i do not mean eat meat with every single meal. but i think 3-5 times a weak minimum you should be eating about 6oz. of either fish or chicken and maybe one serving of red meat as it has every single protein that your body cannot produce on it's own.
props to those people who can eat tofu, brown rice, and vegetables for every meal, but in reality to feed the entire world meat products should be used. it's unfortunate, especially as an american, that so many people take this to the extreme and eat several servings of meat with each meal. of course that could lead to a whole other thread so i'll stop here
Well, most vegetables are grown on farms where farmers use pesticides to wipe out huge populations of insects and the fertilizer is from cows who are raised on farms. Also, vegetables require pollination by bees so most farms have a bunch of bee hives in order to keep their plants fertilized. Also rice requires human labor in order to harvest. Aren't these double standards? Not trolling, just trying to understand the logic.
My wife is a vegetarian for health reasons, but I never understood veganism.
Lets say a cat needlessly kills a mouse just for sport and doesn't even eat him/her. What does this prove? I think is pointless to argue about morals of other animals. We're not going to convince them to live more morally, nor does any immorality on their part excuse our own.
Note: I do not call this murder. The cat doesn't have a reasonable choice not to kill for his or her survival. In that sense, I don't think it is comparable.
For the record, while I do believe that humans killing animals needlessly is comparable to murder, but I generally refrain from calling it that. I do not call the humans that do so murders. Murder has cultural connotations and it's a tricky thing to define. I don't look at my friends and family (mostly all non-vegans) as "murderers."
On June 04 2011 02:56 garlicface wrote: Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Why can't he say that or make it sound like that?
It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail.
living in a cage, chewed by lion. animals kill animals. which is good or bad depending on you. an issue i have is people who say its wrong, but don't act. if meat is murder, do something about it. eating vegetables isn't really the strongest response. invest all your money, all your effort, all your resources to free animals from these farms, burn them down, blow them up. you see a hamburger in someones hand, take a baseball bat to their knees.
if meat is murder, and you stand by while it happens. you need some new beliefs
Plants don't want to die just as much as animals. It's easy to see the pain and suffering of animals when they're slaughtered for meat because they have faces, but it's not easy to see the pain and suffering of plants! They can respond to touch and know when parts have been cut off and respond to that in a variety of ways, some of which we don't even understand yet. They scream too, we just can't hear it. Why are you ignoring the rights of plants, the lowest rung of the food chain and what ecosystems and societies are built upon?
In all seriousness, this moral debate is dumb. To even argue about the morality of this is ridiculous when considering ecology and historical evidence. Even today there are people that depend on meat to survive simply because their home environment is unsuitable for agriculture; are you going to tell the Inuit hunter and Mongol herder not to eat meat because some fellow living in America with access to more food than other people can imagine has the luxury of nothing to do but think of a moral issue with it? Come to think of it, we humans and our ancestors have hunted and eaten meat for tens of thousands of years and never had a moral issue with it because it was essential to their survival, and possibly even essential to our presence as a species. It's a truth that when people today argue all the things about meat being unsustainable as well, it's only valid when describing factory farming and other mass production schemers. Meat can be sustainable and in terms of land use efficiency (maximum number of people fed), a diet integrating some meat and dairy is actually superior to a full vegan diet. I have nothing against veganism/vegetarians and I respect the choices of people that are, but I do have a problem with morality being used to argue for it because it's a luxury. It's never said how many of the people arguing for veganism are the ones with access to all the food from industrial agriculture, nor is it even said that vegan diets are in many ways unsuitable for infants and children. It's ridiculous to make a moral argument for or against veganism/vegetarianism period and even more foolish on a social/scientific basis when you don't know all the details and exceptions.
On June 04 2011 02:56 garlicface wrote: Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Why can't he say that or make it sound like that?
It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail.
Maybe he is just interested in saying what he thinks is the truth. As for "most likely failing in convincing...", isn't that the case for any argument he presents?
On June 04 2011 03:00 f ync wrote: On the subject of animal morality:
Lets say a cat needlessly kills a mouse just for sport and doesn't even eat him/her. What does this prove? I think is pointless to argue about morals of other animals. We're not going to convince them to live more morally, nor does any immorality on their part excuse our own.
Note: I do not call this murder. The cat doesn't have a reasonable choice not to kill for his or her survival. In that sense, I don't think it is comparable.
well lets get philosophical for a minute.
1.) how do you know it doesn't 2.) how you do know we do? 3.) what is "reasonable choice" 4.) why would some cats kill an animal like a mouse while other cats do not? how is this different than the differences in humans?
you don't really need to reply if you don't want to. not wanting to would be entirely understandable. but I think it is a good topic for thought.
OP's "answers" to those questions addressed in the OP are trivial at best. One analogy, opinion, and excuse after another to avoid really answering the question.
The best answers are the clear and concise ones; the fact that the OP has to write 5 paragraphs to address a simple questions exposes the OP's attempt to avoid really answering "loaded" albeit striking questions anti-vegan people ask.
It is my opinion that vehement vegans deserve a massive facepalm; their "logic", no, their warped reasoning, are riddled with paradoxes and hypocrisies.
So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
On June 04 2011 03:02 albis wrote: living in a cage, chewed by lion. animals kill animals. which is good or bad depending on you. an issue i have is people who say its wrong, but don't act. if meat is murder, do something about it. eating vegetables isn't really the strongest response. invest all your money, all your effort, all your resources to free animals from these farms, burn them down, blow them up. you see a hamburger in someones hand, take a baseball bat to their knees.
if meat is murder, and you stand by while it happens. you need some new beliefs
I don't agree with this at all. I also don't want to be represented as intolerable of vegans and vegetarians in my earlier posts - sorry if that's how I came off.
Conscious decisions to exclude the purchases of meat and other animal products, by a group of people, does make a difference. Reduced demand.
The most valuable initiative people can make is actually by the current consumers of meat. Buy your meat from reliable, sustainable sources. Pay the extra few dollars if that's what it costs you. We can at least hope to reduce the number of shitty meat factories in America if enough people start and continue to buy "protected" meat.
It's still not something a vegan would agree with, but it's a good compromise to hopefully saving a lot of animals.
+ Should just add that my meat is sourced by sustainable farmers in Canada. The overwhelming number of meat factories, however, are in America.
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word.
I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me.
Here's some more. noun /ˈmərdər/ murders, plural
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another - the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer - he was put on trial for attempted murder
A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience - my first job at the steel mill was murder
Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body - that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions
I don't think the others apply.
What about
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. "
"to kill brutally"
or if you want to keep using google's dictionary thing:
"Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation"
I am sorry that you let your language be so constricted. Or is it that you care so little about animals that they just don't matter?
I haven't said anything in favor of or against veganism or animal welfare. Ad hominems are always welcome though. I only pointed out that the word murder is misleading to use in the context of killing animals for food.
It's misleading because murder is a heinous crime, and this connotation permeates through all definitions of the word. An animal is also not referred to as "someone". I don't particularly like it when people purposely misuse language for self-serving reasons. It's not that I let language be constricted. I let diction be meaningful.
well I'll try to use best words to describe what I think not to be looked like a troll or to offend someone.
Many of my friends are vegetarians, so when we have lunch together in the college's cafeteria. I tend to go with them and it vegetarian foods. At first I was ok but then all the stuff was so "bad" that I can't eat anymore. I mean I always thought that vegan = vegetables and stuff like that. But here there are more than that. That comes across the real vegan. It's like they're trying to be normal like normal food with "steak-alike" (fake steak with vegetables). Well it's not the point of vegerian anymore, it's eating for your "belief" and still yearn for the "taste" of the real food. What's the point of vegan anyways?
Edit: To the "belief" thing with animal cruelty. I do hate that, I must admit. I'm like animal person. I even loved my cat more than my GF (please dont make fun of that). But our world is a cruel world. There are hunting animals who live from eating another kinds that are weaker. We are stronger and we have to eat to live so eating foods like Pork, Rind or Chicken. But I always avoid other foods like bunnies, wild boars, birds or something like that.
If you have any things to discuss to my point. Please be contructive, not like "stfu".
On June 04 2011 02:46 Offhand wrote: Never had a vegan explain how animal killing is morally wrong whereas plant killing isn't. It isn't purely the capacity for thought or pain that determines if something is alive.
Did anyone ever give you a reason as to why it is ok to kill an animal but wrong to kill a human? I mean, did you ever see a plant? Or an animal? Ever considered the difference?
Really, why do all these meat eaters go into vegetarian threads and say stupid things. Makes me ashamed to be a meat eater.
On June 04 2011 02:58 Sated wrote: If everyone in the world was a vegan then animals like cows would no longer be bred at all and, considering how stupid and incapable of defending themselves they are, would probably become extinct. Isn't it better to give them a chance to exist, even if they will end up being slaughtered, than for them not to exist at all?
TL;DR: Vegans want to make cows et. al. extinct and that's just wrong.
The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen?
On June 04 2011 03:04 Ig wrote: Plants don't want to die just as much as animals. It's easy to see the pain and suffering of animals when they're slaughtered for meat because they have faces, but it's not easy to see the pain and suffering of plants! They can respond to touch and know when parts have been cut off and respond to that in a variety of ways, some of which we don't even understand yet. They scream too, we just can't hear it. Why are you ignoring the rights of plants, the lowest rung of the food chain and what ecosystems and societies are built upon?
Maybe you should stop anthropomorphizing plants. Plants aren't animals. They don't have a will or a desire. They can't suffer and they don't feel pain.
Their response to touch isn't anything like that of mammals. They don't have a central nervous system. It's like saying a computer suffers pain because it can respond to touch. It's silly.
And even if you weren't factually wrong, your argument is still a fallacy as it is an issue of less pain. Even if plants felt pain like mammals, from a pain argument it would still be better to eat plants. And one has to eat. Do you really thing vegetarians would starve themselves to death if plants didn't exist?
We meat eaters shouldn't be so insecure and attack their position if we don't even understand their arguments or the fact behind them.
Firstly, im a meat eater. However I do know that keeping pets of any kind, particularly carnivorous ones, are worse for the environment than having a 4x4. Keeping such lumbering great stupid animals as cows and sheep for the sake of their meat is even worse (and im not just talking methane, but food supplements, grass usage and fertilizers etc).
Vegans clearly have the winning argument here, but I would like to see us branch into eating insects (because they are high protein, zero fat (on some), tasty and extremely easy to breed cheaply) as well as vegetables rather than not eating any animals full stop. I just think its bad the way vegans go about it, saying its "murder" etc, because hyperbole loses you respect quicker than anything else. It's pretty much the law of the wild, but no we don't have to eat animals. I just loves me a juicy steak.
On June 04 2011 02:56 garlicface wrote: Was reading the OP until being a vegan was on the same moral high ground as avoiding sexism and racism. Get over yourselves. You can't call it a lifestyle choice and leave it at that?
Respect for sentient beings is fine, but don't make it sound like you are respecting them any more than the people who eat meat.
Why can't he say that or make it sound like that?
It's a holier-than-thou approach, and for the sake of convincing non-believers in their eating choices, it will most likely fail.
Maybe he is just interested in saying what he thinks is the truth. As for "most likely failing in convincing...", isn't that the case for any argument he presents?
From the OP, yes. If you're trying to connect to someone, don't talk down to them. Speak to them on the same level. I find the OP's tone incredibly condescending.
My friend, who is vegetarian, has done a much better job of convincing me to eat more vegetarian. He's level-headed about it, and doesn't distinguish himself as better than non-vegetarians. In my opinion, it's a more effective approach, and it garners more respect from more people.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen?
Presumably, based on this, you believe that it's cruel to let disabled humans live since they're just going to suffer too much compared to a "normal" human.
Well played...
It's cruel to mass produce human with genetic defects. If you think that means to exterminate and murder them (as they are humans) go along. See you in a mental hospital soon as that is where you belong if you really believe the arguments you make.
You are an idiot and you should never presume anything else in your life. Well played, idiot.
On June 04 2011 02:41 Enervate wrote: mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
Did you read my post? You pick the one definition (yes *gasp* there is more than one definition) that I explicitly say is clearly not what is being talked about.
I actually wasn't really replying to you, just addressing the misuse of the word.
I also didn't pick the definition. Google gave it to me.
Here's some more. noun /ˈmərdər/ murders, plural
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another - the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer - he was put on trial for attempted murder
A very difficult or unpleasant task or experience - my first job at the steel mill was murder
Something causing great discomfort to a part of the body - that exercise is murder on the lumbar regions
I don't think the others apply.
What about
"to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. "
"to kill brutally"
or if you want to keep using google's dictionary thing:
"Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation"
I am sorry that you let your language be so constricted. Or is it that you care so little about animals that they just don't matter?
I haven't said anything in favor of or against veganism or animal welfare. Ad hominems are always welcome though. I only pointed out that the word murder is misleading to use in the context of killing animals for food.
you actually didn't say that until now.
It's misleading because murder is a heinous crime, and this connotation permeates through all definitions of the word. An animal is also not referred to as "someone". I don't particularly like it when people purposely misuse language for self-serving reasons. It's not that I let language be constricted. I let diction be meaningful.
I think an animal absolutely is someone. I think it's old-timey, restricted thinking, that leads people to think that only a human is "one". I also think it's old-timey, restricted thinking that leads to all those definitions of murder.
So if you want to argue that by definition "someone" only refers to persons I will have to concede, but I think that the definition is just lagging behind reality.
The ancestor of the domesticated cow is already extinct.
Have you ever seen a milk cow. It's an aberration. Of course they want it to go extinct. It's cruel to want them alive.
Do you think it is wrong to let inbred dogs that suffer from their skull being too small for their brain to go extinct? For dogs that can't breathe without pain to get extinct? Especially as many of these dogs can't reproduce without human help. Is it cruel and wrong? Really silly argument here. Ever saw a factory farm chicken. Didn't you want that chickens were genetically more endowed than such a specimen?
Presumably, based on this, you believe that it's cruel to let disabled humans live since they're just going to suffer too much compared to a "normal" human.
Well played...
It's cruel to mass produce human with genetic defects. If you think that means to exterminate and murder them (as they are humans) go along. See you in a mental hospital soon as that is where you belong if you really believe the arguments you make.
You are an idiot and you should never presume anything else in your life. Well played, idiot.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
On June 04 2011 03:17 garlicface wrote: Relax bro.
u gotta skate
You don't agree?
He argued that domesticated animals need to be reproduced because they race of cows have the right to not go extinct somehow. So we need to keep eating meat and slaughter them. Then when it is explained to him he thinks vegetarians want to kill animals to put them out of their misery for being genetically inferior and asks why they don't want to do the same with humans?
He already understood that the issue is the production of new domesticated animals and that this will stop if everyone stopped eating meat. So how does his argument make any sense?
He is either an idiot or a malicious and insecure argumentative meat eater. I think the first. What is your input?
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
On June 04 2011 03:17 garlicface wrote: Relax bro.
u gotta skate
You don't agree?
He argued that domesticated animals need to be reproduced because they race of cows have the right to not go extinct somehow. So we need to keep eating meat and slaughter them. Then when it is explained to him he thinks vegetarians want to kill animals to put them out of their misery for being genetically inferior and asks why they don't want to do the same with humans?
He already understood that the issue is the production of new domesticated animals and that this will stop if everyone stopped eating meat. So how does his argument make any sense?
He is either an idiot or a malicious and insecure argumentative meat eater. I think the first. What is your input?
My only input is that you don't need to lower yourself to his level for the sake of making your argument. Stay classy. This is TL, baby.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
What about those that do then? Where's the argument? You can say that the majority don't depend on we'll say vertebrates for protein, but >1 billion people depend on fish as a primary protein source. A fairly significant number that doesn't include some indigenous peoples I mentioned earlier. You also still haven't said a thing about how we can only even make this argument because of our access to so many choices through industrial agriculture that we can remove meat from our diet.
PS: You might want to troll somewhere else since the quality of your trolling is about the same as that of unregulated health supplements.
Anyone who's watched a video of what it looks like inside a factory farm has got to admit that the way we treat animals in the food industry is fucking horrible.
I'll admit though that I do eat meat. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Not being forced to see the horrid lives these animals endure just to be slaughtered lets me eat meat. Does that make me a shitty person? Possibly, but goddamn if bulgogi isn't delicious T_T;
The biggest argument for eating plants imo is just the energy transfer. However many people a cow can feed, the amount of food fed to that cow could feed what, 7 or so times that number I think?
I usually only cook a meal involving meat once a week or so. Rest of the time I eat mostly veggies and such.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
What about those that do then? Where's the argument? You can say that the majority don't depend on we'll say vertebrates for protein, but >1 billion people depend on fish as a primary protein source. A fairly significant number that doesn't include some indigenous peoples I mentioned earlier. You also still haven't said a thing about how we can only even make this argument because of our access to so many choices through industrial agriculture that we can remove meat from our diet.
PS: You might want to troll somewhere else since the quality of your trolling is about the same as that of unregulated health supplements.
Well the answer is that for those people, there isn't much an argument. Not until there could be alternate protein sources.
P.S: it's sad that you get so defensive over my comments that you resort to calling it trolling. you must wiiinnn!! you must win the arguments!!!!!
here's a fact for you: I haven't even taken a position in this argument. I don't give a shit if people are vegan or not.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
This is a silly way to approach things. There is no right and there is no wrong. A much better way to phrase your thoughts would be:
"The existence of a God is unlikely but not impossible." and "I will only eat plants because I think eating meat is wrong except when your life depends on it (or whatever other exception you have)."
If you were trapped in a room with a platter of meat and nothing else to eat and had to live for 7 days (you had water but not food), I think most people would eat the meat.
Pros: -You get to spend far more money for the same product (nutrients and vitamins) that meat eaters do, which makes you trendy and hip in the same way that purchasing a Mac does. -If you dislike your friends, you don't have to worry about them ever inviting you out to eat.
Cons: -If your house gets infested by rats or roaches, you've pretty much just got to deal with it and let them have the house. What self-respecting vegan would commit genocide against an entire colony of living creatures? -That awful heart-sinking feeling every time you sneeze and kill hundreds of thousands of micro-organisms.
I would just like to post my rationale for not eating meat because I think it makes a lot of sense.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
On June 04 2011 03:47 Laerties wrote: I would just like to post my rationale for not eating meat because I think it makes a lot of sense.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
What about halal food?
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
If you understand that, why did you say this?
On June 04 2011 03:04 Ig wrote: It's never said how many of the people arguing for veganism are the ones with access to all the food from industrial agriculture, nor is it even said that vegan diets are in many ways unsuitable for infants and children. It's ridiculous to make a moral argument for or against veganism/vegetarianism period and even more foolish on a social/scientific basis when you don't know all the details and exceptions.
I agree with you that moral arguments are irrelevant. But don't you agree that it's healthier to eat a balanced vegetarian meal than it is to eat meat?
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
"I invented a device called Burger On The Go. It allows you to obtain six regular sized hamburgers, or twelve sliders, from a horse without killing the animal. George Foreman is still considering it, Sharper Image is still considering it, SkyMall is still considering it, Hammacher Schlemmer is still considering it. Sears said no."
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
If you knew that an animal had a life of a king, much better than his life in jungle. And died of natural causes, having lived longer than he would in the wild. He died while smiling. Now he's a beef in front of you. Would you be ok with eating it?
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
If you knew that an animal had a life of a king, much better than his life in jungle. And died of natural causes, having lived longer than he would in the wild. He died while smiling. Now he's a beef in front of you. Would you be ok with eating it?
Yea, if the animal just died naturally that is fine. In this case no one is causing something pain for their pleasure, so there is no moral issue with it. I don't see it as a practical solution tho ^.^
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
If you knew that an animal had a life of a king, much better than his life in jungle. And died of natural causes, having lived longer than he would in the wild. He died while smiling. Now he's a beef in front of you. Would you be ok with eating it?
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
What about those that do then? Where's the argument? You can say that the majority don't depend on we'll say vertebrates for protein, but >1 billion people depend on fish as a primary protein source. A fairly significant number that doesn't include some indigenous peoples I mentioned earlier. You also still haven't said a thing about how we can only even make this argument because of our access to so many choices through industrial agriculture that we can remove meat from our diet.
PS: You might want to troll somewhere else since the quality of your trolling is about the same as that of unregulated health supplements.
Well the answer is that for those people, there isn't much an argument. Not until there could be alternate protein sources.
P.S: it's sad that you get so defensive over my comments that you resort to calling it trolling. you must wiiinnn!! you must win the arguments!!!!!
here's a fact for you: I haven't even taken a position in this argument. I don't give a shit if people are vegan or not.
You're mistaken and quite cocky if you think I'm actually being defensive. Perhaps I did take the tone, but I don't see an actual need to...win...over someone like you because it was clear from your first post towards me that you're an asshole with little to no knowledge of the issue who just wants to dick around in the thread. I merely took your statements as an opportunity to present some other points.
I know you haven't taken a position so you can stir things up a little, I'm just feeding you to see how far you go. I called you a troll because you are one, but not a very good one. If you're going to troll, do it well: "take" a stance and proceed from there.
As for me, well I've already stated I don't have issues with either side, only with idiots trying to argue about the morals.
I can't say I want to get involved in this argument because I highly doubt there would be much movement on either side and I don't feel like I'd learn much.
One thing I do want to know, though, is whether vegans foresee a future without "speciesism". Do you think you will eventually wins rights for animals equivalent to humans? Also, if you believe animals to be equal to humans and worthy of the same rights, do you not think almost every human alive and who has ever lived is essentially evil for being a mass murderer?
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
If you knew that an animal had a life of a king, much better than his life in jungle. And died of natural causes, having lived longer than he would in the wild. He died while smiling. Now he's a beef in front of you. Would you be ok with eating it?
Yea, if the animal just died naturally that is fine. In this case no one is causing something pain for their pleasure, so there is no moral issue with it. I don't see it as a practical solution tho ^.^
Don't you think there are practical means of killing animals without pain? Not all slaughterhouses need to be like those in those earthlings videos. What if there is proper regulation and enforcement?
On June 04 2011 04:19 FuzzyJAM wrote: I can't say I want to get involved in this argument because I highly doubt there would be much movement on either side and I don't feel like I'd learn much.
One thing I do want to know, though, is whether vegans foresee a future without "speciesism". Do you think you will eventually wins rights for animals equivalent to humans? Also, if you believe animals to be equal to humans and worthy of the same rights, do you not think almost every human alive and who has ever lived is essentially evil for being a mass murderer?
I don't think any vegans believe animals should have all the same rights as humans(pretty sure cows don't need civil liberties). I think most vegans just believe animals should have the right to fight for their own survival.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
What about those that do then? Where's the argument? You can say that the majority don't depend on we'll say vertebrates for protein, but >1 billion people depend on fish as a primary protein source. A fairly significant number that doesn't include some indigenous peoples I mentioned earlier. You also still haven't said a thing about how we can only even make this argument because of our access to so many choices through industrial agriculture that we can remove meat from our diet.
PS: You might want to troll somewhere else since the quality of your trolling is about the same as that of unregulated health supplements.
Well the answer is that for those people, there isn't much an argument. Not until there could be alternate protein sources.
P.S: it's sad that you get so defensive over my comments that you resort to calling it trolling. you must wiiinnn!! you must win the arguments!!!!!
here's a fact for you: I haven't even taken a position in this argument. I don't give a shit if people are vegan or not.
You're mistaken and quite cocky if you think I'm actually being defensive. Perhaps I did take the tone, but I don't see an actual need to...win...over someone like you because it was clear from your first post towards me that you're an asshole with little to no knowledge of the issue who just wants to dick around in the thread. I merely took your statements as an opportunity to present some other points.
right, im the asshole
I know you haven't taken a position so you can stir things up a little, I'm just feeding you to see how far you go. I called you a troll because you are one, but not a very good one. If you're going to troll, do it well: "take" a stance and proceed from there.
wow, really? how far did i go? how successful were you? and IM THE TROLL?
As for me, well I've already stated I don't have issues with either side, only with idiots trying to argue about the morals.
What forms of "physical and emotion pain" did these animals go through?
I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. I did a quick Wikipedia read but it didn't really say if the process was completely painless. If it is, I would be somewhat conflicted, but probably not eat that form of meat because you are still taking an animals life for pleasure.
On June 04 2011 03:53 Cyba wrote: So basicly you're vegan because you want to feel good about yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
I guess you could say that. It is also that I value morality more than most people I'd say. But like you were saying, It makes me feel proud of myself to do this so......yes.
If you knew that an animal had a life of a king, much better than his life in jungle. And died of natural causes, having lived longer than he would in the wild. He died while smiling. Now he's a beef in front of you. Would you be ok with eating it?
Yea, if the animal just died naturally that is fine. In this case no one is causing something pain for their pleasure, so there is no moral issue with it. I don't see it as a practical solution tho ^.^
Don't you think there are practical means of killing animals without pain? Not all slaughterhouses need to be like those in those earthlings videos. What if there is proper regulation and enforcement?
Again, I think its wrong to take an animals life for the pleasure of eating meat. In the scenario you developed no one took the life from the animal, the animal died naturally so no one was taking an animals life for pleasure.
EDIT: That isn't to say I wouldn't appreciate slaughter houses that killed animals in less painful ways.
See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Yea dude, this is just wrong. Meat production is something like 10x less economical than growing vegetation because of the amount of grains the cows need to eat. A large amount of impoverished people living in india who are hindu and buddhist dont eat meat because of their religion.
On June 03 2011 23:27 Tomkr wrote: For those who point to science as a source of "proof" that meat-eating is good, you should go out and read Michael Pollan's "In Defence of Food", which shows that the science behind what we eat is pseudo-science at best, and industry-backed lies at worst. Another very good read with regards to eating animals is "Eating Animals" by Jonathan Saffran Foer.
In general I feel there is not necessarily a problem with eating meat (even though I do not), there is mainly a problem with the industrial process with its lack of regard for animals, humans, and the environment. Again, the above mentioned two books will give you a good view of this. The way in which humans (at least in the "West") go about producing hamburgers is literally unsustainable.
The question whether eating an animal is morally justified is one that is much harder to answer than the question whether the way we currently eat animals is morally justified.
This, this, and more this.
I'm vegan not because of animal rights issues or compassion or anything like that, but because the industry that fuels our meat consumption is just raping the environment with an FDA-approved baseball bat. It's too much trouble for me to keep track of ways to verify how this cow and that pig were raised, so I cut out animal products altogether and cast my dollar vote against the factory farm system. As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event. Its laughable how many avid meat eaters are unable to stomach the sight of blood. So many individuals are appaled by any incident of animal cruelty they hear about, only to then return to eating their juicy steak.
There is a fundamental disconnect from the meat on our tables and the methods used to put it there. It is this disconnect that has led to the current way in which animals are treated in our society.
Seriously though, there's absolutely nothing backing your arguments besides the word of others. No hard facts, no details, and some cherry-picked examples. You should consider the reason you are able to make this argument in the first place: you're in the lap of luxury (relative to the rest of the world) and don't need to depend on meat for protein, as many actually do.
Actually most of those that depend on meat for protein live "in the lap of luxury".
imjuzzsayin
Seriously? We in the Western world don't "depend" on meat but simply have access to a large amount of it. We have plenty of rice and beans for our protein needs, we just choose to eat meat because lets face it, bacon is delicious.
Well then I guess we need to define "depend".
I'll put it this way: most of the world gets their proteins from plants/nuts/insects rather than from larger organisms.
What about those that do then? Where's the argument? You can say that the majority don't depend on we'll say vertebrates for protein, but >1 billion people depend on fish as a primary protein source. A fairly significant number that doesn't include some indigenous peoples I mentioned earlier. You also still haven't said a thing about how we can only even make this argument because of our access to so many choices through industrial agriculture that we can remove meat from our diet.
PS: You might want to troll somewhere else since the quality of your trolling is about the same as that of unregulated health supplements.
Well the answer is that for those people, there isn't much an argument. Not until there could be alternate protein sources.
P.S: it's sad that you get so defensive over my comments that you resort to calling it trolling. you must wiiinnn!! you must win the arguments!!!!!
here's a fact for you: I haven't even taken a position in this argument. I don't give a shit if people are vegan or not.
You're mistaken and quite cocky if you think I'm actually being defensive. Perhaps I did take the tone, but I don't see an actual need to...win...over someone like you because it was clear from your first post towards me that you're an asshole with little to no knowledge of the issue who just wants to dick around in the thread. I merely took your statements as an opportunity to present some other points.
I know you haven't taken a position so you can stir things up a little, I'm just feeding you to see how far you go. I called you a troll because you are one, but not a very good one. If you're going to troll, do it well: "take" a stance and proceed from there.
wow, really? how far did i go? how successful were you? and IM THE TROLL?
As for me, well I've already stated I don't have issues with either side, only with idiots trying to argue about the morals.
yeah, arguing about morals, what idiots
Why are you being so defensive? Are you mad? I didn't mean to insult you, I only wanted to point out what you were trying to do!
As for the topic itself, one of the things in the sustainability context is the integration of animals back into agroecosystems. This integration promotes vegetarianism or semi-vegetarianism and is ecologically the ideal, though it can support vegans as well.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
It blows my mind how many people realize that if you want to save the lives of animals, of course you try to convince everyone to not eat meat. How stupid would you have to be to not get that?
On June 04 2011 03:47 Laerties wrote: I would just like to post my rationale for not eating meat because I think it makes a lot of sense.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
It blows my mind how many people realize that if you want to save the lives of animals, of course you try to convince everyone to not eat meat. How stupid would you have to be to not get that?
What's with the hostility?
You can't honestly expect people to make an entire lifestyle change - to remove meat from their diets instantly. It's much easier to start with "eat different meats" or "eat less meat".
ok i get it, we will stop everything right now. people will not get their insolin for expample. if sb is ill we will just pray to an imagination and hope that everything will be right. i cauld take more examples but as i understand you:
you dont have any solution and i have so many examples. and ironon, what are you? vegan who eats killed wild animals. great! better get an social care system, a better school system and plz a health care system!
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event. Its laughable how many avid meat eaters are unable to stomach the sight of blood. So many individuals are appaled by any incident of animal cruelty they hear about, only to then return to eating their juicy steak.
There is a fundamental disconnect from the meat on our tables and the methods used to put it there. It is this disconnect that has led to the current way in which animals are treated in our society.
Anyone who enjoys canned sardines like I do already gets the visceral experience of consuming an animal corpse where everything is visible and edible, including skin, bones (soft and chewy!) and internal organs.
I think you overestimate how much the average person actually gives a fuck about animals raised for meat. Even if you showed everyone a video of a slaughterhouse every month for the rest of their lives, the vast majority would still eat meat. Most people really only care about cute animals, like cats and dogs.
On June 04 2011 03:47 Laerties wrote: I would just like to post my rationale for not eating meat because I think it makes a lot of sense.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
It blows my mind how many people realize that if you want to save the lives of animals, of course you try to convince everyone to not eat meat. How stupid would you have to be to not get that?
What's with the hostility?
You can't honestly expect people to make an entire lifestyle change - to remove meat from their diets entirely. It's much easier to start with "eat different meats" or "eat less meat".
Well... If you think about it, most vegetarians/vegans are people who did make "en entire lifestyle change." Maybe making lifestyle changes seems less absurd to people who've actually done them?
On June 04 2011 04:56 tadL wrote: ok i get it, we will stop everything right now. people will not get their insolin for expample. if sb is ill we will just pray to an imagination and hope that everything will be right. i cauld take more examples but as i understand you:
you dont have any solution and i have so many examples. and ironon, what are you? vegan who eats killed wild animals. great! better get an social care system, a better school system and plz a health care system!
... Are you mad at vegans or centrist-social governments?
On June 04 2011 03:47 Laerties wrote: I would just like to post my rationale for not eating meat because I think it makes a lot of sense.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
Interesting movie that touches on livestock psychology and humane livestock facilities. The focus, obviously, is on the person, Temple Grandin.
On June 04 2011 04:54 blackone wrote:
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
It blows my mind how many people realize that if you want to save the lives of animals, of course you try to convince everyone to not eat meat. How stupid would you have to be to not get that?
What's with the hostility?
You can't honestly expect people to make an entire lifestyle change - to remove meat from their diets entirely. It's much easier to start with "eat different meats" or "eat less meat".
Well... If you think about it, most vegetarians/vegans are people who did make "en entire lifestyle change." Maybe making lifestyle changes seems less absurd to people who've actually done them?
*entire lifestyle change - to remove meat from their diets instantly. Going to edit that now.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event. Its laughable how many avid meat eaters are unable to stomach the sight of blood. So many individuals are appaled by any incident of animal cruelty they hear about, only to then return to eating their juicy steak.
There is a fundamental disconnect from the meat on our tables and the methods used to put it there. It is this disconnect that has led to the current way in which animals are treated in our society.
Really liked this post. Very succinct and accurate imo.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event. Its laughable how many avid meat eaters are unable to stomach the sight of blood. So many individuals are appaled by any incident of animal cruelty they hear about, only to then return to eating their juicy steak.
There is a fundamental disconnect from the meat on our tables and the methods used to put it there. It is this disconnect that has led to the current way in which animals are treated in our society.
I agree! One of the biggest reasons I stopped eating meat.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event. Its laughable how many avid meat eaters are unable to stomach the sight of blood. So many individuals are appaled by any incident of animal cruelty they hear about, only to then return to eating their juicy steak.
There is a fundamental disconnect from the meat on our tables and the methods used to put it there. It is this disconnect that has led to the current way in which animals are treated in our society.
Really liked this post. Very succinct and accurate imo.
That could technically be said about most things. Like clothes. How many of you have picked cotton? It is a pain in the ass, and I only picked on plant, not to mention the colouring of it...
I'm gunna repost my rationale for not eating meat to see if anymore people have fault with it, or are just interested in talking about it.
In the society I live in, and most people live in, people eat meat for pleasure. People eat food to survive, but most people eat meat rather than tofu, and other types of veggie proteins because they receive pleasure from the taste of meat. In order to eat that meat, an animal was put through the most intense forms of physical and emotional pain(in the forms of panic, fear etc..). What is essentially going on here is humans inflicting pain upon animals for personal pleasure. I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral. I understand people eating meat if it is necessary for them to survive, because now they are causing pain for their own survival, which in my opinion, is more justifiable. Many people argue that plants suffer too, but again, I eat plants to survive, (its not possible to survive without eating plants). It's also for this reason that I see eating as a duty, a service I perform to keep my body healthy. If anyone sees fault with my thought process please let me know.
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
I'm interested as to why you think morals aren't important. They guide much of our existence. I don't avoid murdering people because I would get caught, I do it because I think it's morally wrong. While its true that some people are unaffected by the concept or morals, do you really think that in a large community a system of moral laws and ethics is unimportant?
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
What? I cant imagine that you are being literal. There are just so many things fundamentally wrong with what you said. The only reason for any form of law, rights, liberties, justice is the human desire to make the distinction between good and bad. Moral standards exist in this world. If morals don't exist, why don't you just go around stabbing people and stealing their things? Its not like anyone would think what you were doing was immoral or wrong. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, bad, unjustifiable to cause pain for personal pleasure, and it is my opinion that this fundamental injustice is significant enough for me to consider when I take action. I just cant understand how you would actually believe anything you just said. -_-.
I feel somewhat left out...I am not really a vegetarian, but I often force myself to go long periods without meat (I keep the fish however) to try other meals. I do this simply to explore other types of meals available since I live in a meat centered culture. Since many people in the world do not have access to meat on a regular basis like the West does, I thought it would be interesting to explore what they often eat on a regular basis. If you want something really really tasty, eat Indian food. Cheap, but good food does not always have to gormet. In fact, spices were so valuable at one point that people killed each other over it. Take advantage of the modern market and buy these items.
I dont get why the reason you kill the cow matters. The cow doesnt care. It doesnt matter if you kill it to survive or to enjoy, it still dies, right? So you arent actually doing the cow a favor, you're doing yourself a favor by thinking that what you're doing is morally correct.
I get why you think it's not correct to cause pain to animals, that's a pretty good reason for being a vegetarian, but i dont get why the reason you're causing pain matters. It seems like you're not actually helping out the animal but instead your conscience?
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
What? I cant imagine that you are being literal. There are just so many things fundamentally wrong with what you said. The only reason for any form of law, rights, liberties, justice is the human desire to make the distinction between good and bad. Moral standards exist in this world. If morals don't exist, why don't you just go around stabbing people and stealing their things? Its not like anyone would think what you were doing was immoral or wrong. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, bad, unjustifiable to cause pain for personal pleasure, and it is my opinion that this fundamental injustice is significant enough for me to consider when I take action. I just cant understand how you would actually believe anything you just said. -_-.
EDIT:+5 for being vegetarian though.
I won't go stabbing people and stealing their things because I understand the logical consequences of doing so would end up causing me more harm then good. Not because I believe there's one un-contestable black or white definition of what's right or wrong.
You're wrong in saying laws exist because of morals. It actually happens the other way around. We create laws because there are economic, political and social interest in having laws. These same interests also spawns people's opinion. Which are what you call "morals". Morals are just a consequence of society's interests. Not a cause. Morals changed through history, as the need for it changes. Each individual has his own opinion of what's moral. There is no universal definition of moral. Morals are an illusion created by humans to feel better about themselves.
On June 04 2011 06:20 Deadlyfish wrote: I dont get why the reason you kill the cow matters. The cow doesnt care. It doesnt matter if you kill it to survive or to enjoy, it still dies, right? So you arent actually doing the cow a favor, you're doing yourself a favor by thinking that what you're doing is morally correct.
I get why you think it's not correct to cause pain to animals, that's a pretty good reason for being a vegetarian, but i dont get why the reason you're causing pain matters. It seems like you're not actually helping out the animal but instead your conscience?
I explained this in my post earlier but i'll try to be more explicit here. If you kill a cow to enjoy its meat, you are causing the cow pain for your own pleasure. If you kill a cow to survive, you are causing the cow pain so that you can continue living. One is much less ethical or moral than the other. Maybe the difference between the two would be clearer if you used a human example considering its much easier to empathize with other people. I think its pretty obvious that killing a person for pleasure is much less ethical than killing a person so that you yourself can survive. So, one is ethical and the other is not which is why the pain aspect matters. Also, when I say pain, I mean more suffering, the taking of life etc...not just the physical definition of pain. Sorry if that was a bit confusing.
I think this subject all comes down to how much you value animals. I don't want animals to be cruelly treated or hurt, but I don't care about them enough to not eat them.
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
What? I cant imagine that you are being literal. There are just so many things fundamentally wrong with what you said. The only reason for any form of law, rights, liberties, justice is the human desire to make the distinction between good and bad. Moral standards exist in this world. If morals don't exist, why don't you just go around stabbing people and stealing their things? Its not like anyone would think what you were doing was immoral or wrong. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, bad, unjustifiable to cause pain for personal pleasure, and it is my opinion that this fundamental injustice is significant enough for me to consider when I take action. I just cant understand how you would actually believe anything you just said. -_-.
EDIT:+5 for being vegetarian though.
I won't go stabbing people and stealing their things because I understand the logical consequences of doing so would end up causing me more harm then good. Not because I believe there's one un-contestable black or white definition of what's right or wrong.
You're wrong in saying laws exist because of morals. It actually happens the other way around. We create laws because there are economic, political and social interest in having laws. These same interests also spawns people's opinion. Which are what you call "morals". Morals are just a consequence of society's interests. Not a consequence. Morals changed through history, as the need for it changes. Each individual has his own opinion of what's moral. There is no universal definition of moral. Morals are an illusion created by humans to feel better about themselves.
on topic: there are good economic, political and social arguments for vegetarianism without appealing to "my morals are better than yours" ^^
Whether or not morals are subjective or objective isn't the same question as whether they exist or not and whether they have value or not. The fact that they are subjective doesn't undermine their value. Many epistemologists would argue that everything is subjective. Because you don't subscribe to a system of morals doesn't mean that the majority of other people don't. I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't suffer from a mental disorder could truly say that they don't have morals- that they won't do things because they believe they are wrong, not just because of a logical weighing or results.
You're right tho that this thread should go back about vegetarianism.
Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
What? I cant imagine that you are being literal. There are just so many things fundamentally wrong with what you said. The only reason for any form of law, rights, liberties, justice is the human desire to make the distinction between good and bad. Moral standards exist in this world. If morals don't exist, why don't you just go around stabbing people and stealing their things? Its not like anyone would think what you were doing was immoral or wrong. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, bad, unjustifiable to cause pain for personal pleasure, and it is my opinion that this fundamental injustice is significant enough for me to consider when I take action. I just cant understand how you would actually believe anything you just said. -_-.
EDIT:+5 for being vegetarian though.
I won't go stabbing people and stealing their things because I understand the logical consequences of doing so would end up causing me more harm then good. Not because I believe there's one un-contestable black or white definition of what's right or wrong.
You're wrong in saying laws exist because of morals. It actually happens the other way around. We create laws because there are economic, political and social interest in having laws. These same interests also spawns people's opinion. Which are what you call "morals". Morals are just a consequence of society's interests. Not a consequence. Morals changed through history, as the need for it changes. Each individual has his own opinion of what's moral. There is no universal definition of moral. Morals are an illusion created by humans to feel better about themselves.
on topic: there are good economic, political and social arguments for vegetarianism without appealing to "my morals are better than yours" ^^
Whether or not morals are subjective or objective isn't the same question as whether they exist or not and whether they have value or not.
Prrrfff... that's semantics. You agree with me, you just don't wanna admit that you do When I say "morals don't exist", I just mean that the idea of uncontestable universal morals everyone always agree with, doesn't exist. If you define the word as something else then it's just a semantic discussion that won't get us anywhere.
On June 04 2011 06:20 Deadlyfish wrote: I dont get why the reason you kill the cow matters. The cow doesnt care. It doesnt matter if you kill it to survive or to enjoy, it still dies, right? So you arent actually doing the cow a favor, you're doing yourself a favor by thinking that what you're doing is morally correct.
I get why you think it's not correct to cause pain to animals, that's a pretty good reason for being a vegetarian, but i dont get why the reason you're causing pain matters. It seems like you're not actually helping out the animal but instead your conscience?
I explained this in my post earlier but i'll try to be more explicit here. If you kill a cow to enjoy its meat, you are causing the cow pain for your own pleasure. If you kill a cow to survive, you are causing the cow pain so that you can continue living. One is much less ethical or moral than the other. Maybe the difference between the two would be clearer if you used a human example considering its much easier to empathize with other people. I think its pretty obvious that killing a person for pleasure is much less ethical than killing a person so that you yourself can survive. So, one is ethical and the other is not which is why the pain aspect matters. Also, when I say pain, I mean more suffering, the taking of life etc...not just the physical definition of pain. Sorry if that was a bit confusing.
Yea i understand, but my point was really that the cow doesnt care, at all. You're only doing it for your own conscience, right?
If I kill 1000 cows, it wouldnt matter if i did it for pleasure or for survival, at least not to the cows. You could say that it was mean and wrong to kill them, and you would have a point. But to suggest that it matters to anyone but yourself why they were killed is silly. That is what i have a problem with. Your reasoning is based on some philosophical moral on what is wrong or right, but it doesnt help the animals at all, which is the whole point in the first place isnt it? If your moral was that "we shouldnt kill animals" then the reason for killing would be irrelevant.
I get both points, i just have trouble understanding if you're being a vegetarian for your own good or for the good of the animal, because when people are just doing it to feel nice about themselves it kinda defeats the whole purpose imo, not that i mind it though.
On June 04 2011 05:45 Laerties wrote: I see anyone causing others pain for personal pleasure as immoral.
Morals don't exist. I'm a vegetarian (at least try to keep my meat in-take to a minimum), but I don't think morality is a strong argument for anything whatsoever. You're basically just saying it's your opinion that you don't want to cause harm for pleasure. But it's clear that many people don't share that opinion. You're not gonna convince many people, nor cause any significant policy change using nothing other than morals to defend your position.
I think there are good reasons to reduce how much meat you eat. Without needing to appeal to morals or subjective semantics.
What? I cant imagine that you are being literal. There are just so many things fundamentally wrong with what you said. The only reason for any form of law, rights, liberties, justice is the human desire to make the distinction between good and bad. Moral standards exist in this world. If morals don't exist, why don't you just go around stabbing people and stealing their things? Its not like anyone would think what you were doing was immoral or wrong. What I am saying is that it is fundamentally wrong, bad, unjustifiable to cause pain for personal pleasure, and it is my opinion that this fundamental injustice is significant enough for me to consider when I take action. I just cant understand how you would actually believe anything you just said. -_-.
EDIT:+5 for being vegetarian though.
I won't go stabbing people and stealing their things because I understand the logical consequences of doing so would end up causing me more harm then good. Not because I believe there's one un-contestable black or white definition of what's right or wrong.
You're wrong in saying laws exist because of morals. It actually happens the other way around. We create laws because there are economic, political and social interest in having laws. These same interests also spawns people's opinion. Which are what you call "morals". Morals are just a consequence of society's interests. Not a consequence. Morals changed through history, as the need for it changes. Each individual has his own opinion of what's moral. There is no universal definition of moral. Morals are an illusion created by humans to feel better about themselves.
on topic: there are good economic, political and social arguments for vegetarianism without appealing to "my morals are better than yours" ^^
I am convinced that you are a psychopath. You start your post by saying you wouldn't kill someone, not because you think it is wrong, but because you are afraid of the consequences...... Seriously? It is true that laws are used to enforce peoples interests as you said, but most of the time people have interest in acting upon these things called empathy and compassion. When people see something wrong, they use their empathetic ability to recognize the emotions of the other person. They then have this thing called compassion which makes them feel bad that the other person is feeling those emotions. In order for them to feel good they need to correct the situation. This is where morals come in, they are principles used to identify what is wrong and what is right so that people can appropriately reciprocate. The reciprocation is executed in the form of the law which is why I said earlier that laws exist because of morality. So you see sir, morals aren't 'illusions', they are real reflections of human emotions (unless your a psychopath).
EDIT: You mentioned earlier that when you say 'morals don't exist' your actually tying to say that morals are subjective. I don't know why you wouldn't just say morals are subjective but, whatever, its not like it makes your points 10x less clear. Anyway, I agree that morals are subjective to a certain extent but I'm hard pressed to believe you would find someone who says causing pain for personal pleasure is not immoral.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
Laertis. I'm not gonna insist in derailing the thread to talk about morals. I do think saying "morals are subjective" and "morals doesn't exist" have the same practical meaning and the difference is just semantic. If you wanna talk about that, then necro the morals thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=221799
My point to have brought this argument here still is: There are good economic, political and social arguments for vegetarianism without appealing to "my morals are better than yours" or "my opinion is better than yours". Which are horrible arguments for any discussion.
Read the OP and I was all like "cool, someone who put thought into the matter". Then I read the responses "morals are just like your opinion... man" . What a shame. Study some ethical theories out there. What we believe as wrong is not merely our opinion, or our feeling. There are reasons we feel the way we do. There are many factors in common between what most people consider to be ethically immoral. But alas, that's "just like my opinion... man"
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
Lemme first argue with your other post about morals and stuff. It doesn't matter if it's subjective or it doesn't exist. As long as morals aren't universally objective, then your argument doesn't actually convince anyone. If your morals are defined differently than mine (suppose I believe it's perfectly fine to harm animals for fun, and your analogy to humans doesn't apply because humans != animals we eat), then your argument about morals doesn't hold water in my mind.
Now, about the suffering and harming thing. See, the problem here is, you're only saying animals suffer less because you think they can feel emotions better, they can move, they can make sounds, etc. That is, they're closer to you. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, both plants and animals are unable to think or reason. They feel pain the same. We're doing nothing better by killing plants than animals.
Also, just because plants can't express their pain doesn't mean they're not hurting. Apparently, and I think this is really crazy, some scientists have hooked up EEGs to plants to test their reactions to humans hurting other plants. The plants "brain-waves" actually move, meaning not only might plants be able to feel pain, they might be able to feel sympathy. That's higher order emotional creatures you're eating.
I'm happy to not participate in the slaughter of animals, thanks.
I'd eat whatever I had to if it was worth it to continue living, but in this day and age, you can consume less net resources and have a smaller cost per unit of energy gained when you compare a veggie focused diet with a meat focused one.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
On June 04 2011 07:26 VIB wrote: Laertis. I'm not gonna insist in derailing the thread to talk about morals. I do think saying "morals are subjective" and "morals doesn't exist" have the same practical meaning and the difference is just semantic. If you wanna talk about that, then necro the morals thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=221799
My point to have brought this argument here still is: There are good economic, political and social arguments for vegetarianism without appealing to "my morals are better than yours" or "my opinion is better than yours". Which are horrible arguments for any discussion.
*Sigh* I am not saying "my morals are better than yours". That would only be implied if the other person had accepted that eating meat is immoral and they continued to eat meat. Also, talking about morality in a vegan thread is not derailing the thread....we are talking about a reason for being vegan.
Now, 'Morals are subjective' and 'Morals don't exist' do not imply the same thing. In fact, saying morals are subjective implicitly suggests that morals exists so the two statements actually contradict each other. No, they don't have the same practical meaning and one here interpreted them as having the same meaning.
ALSO! I am still genuinely curious...Is the main thing that prevents you from killing people who make you angry or w/e are the consequences...jail etc of killing that person.
am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
Lemme first argue with your other post about morals and stuff. It doesn't matter if it's subjective or it doesn't exist. As long as morals aren't universally objective, then your argument doesn't actually convince anyone. If your morals are defined differently than mine (suppose I believe it's perfectly fine to harm animals for fun, and your analogy to humans doesn't apply because humans != animals we eat), then your argument about morals doesn't hold water in my mind.
Now, about the suffering and harming thing. See, the problem here is, you're only saying animals suffer less because you think they can feel emotions better, they can move, they can make sounds, etc. That is, they're closer to you. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, both plants and animals are unable to think or reason. They feel pain the same. We're doing nothing better by killing plants than animals.
Also, just because plants can't express their pain doesn't mean they're not hurting. Apparently, and I think this is really crazy, some scientists have hooked up EEGs to plants to test their reactions to humans hurting other plants. The plants "brain-waves" actually move, meaning not only might plants be able to feel pain, they might be able to feel sympathy. That's higher order emotional creatures you're eating.
First off, I like a lot of your points. I'll start with the first one.
If you read the top of my post, I was only providing my own personal rationale for not eating meat. So obviously, I am operating under my moral standards so if morals truly are subjective *which I'm a bit conflicted over*, my rationale still holds.
Also, i've had this argument about plants before, which is why I mentioned it in my original post. I would agree that plants are to a certain extent aware of whats going on physically, but they dont incur any emotional damage because they don't have brains to release chemicals that cause emotional reactions. So plants MAYBE feel pain, but I would say that the emotional an psychological damage of having your life threated is to me, even worse than the physical pain of having your throat slit or w/e.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
Veganism is pretty cool. Big health benefits and your house and person don't stink so bad. It inflicts less suffering, but I can understand that that doesn't bother people who aren't exposed to factory farms or slaughter often.
The most important thing in this debate is to be accepting of peoples position and not try to win in some kind of logical argument. That will only make each side dig their heels in more, and become less interested in an open debate, in what can be an interesting conversation if people want to throw in any tidbits about their lifestyles or anecdotes about adapting to a vegan diet, or whatever.
Personally I do raw veganism, great fun, no need to cook anything, easy and cheap. Had a big debate about it in 2.0 lol and its too late to type it again :p
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
+1
I read through the first few pages, to see if anyone attempted to put this thread on the right track. What a waste of time.
This discussion is going to go nowhere..... Unfortunately.....
I'm gunna go ahead and defend my actions here for a sec. I think that arguing about lifestyle can actually be pretty beneficial. Its true that it can get overly heated and personal, and sometimes result in people digging their heels in or w/e but I feel that it is important to understand the reasons for your actions and argument is a good way to do just that.
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
+1
I read through the first few pages, to see if anyone attempted to put this thread on the right track. What a waste of time.
This discussion is going to go nowhere..... Unfortunately.....
+10 I'm a carnivore (or maybe more of an omnivore), and I came into this thread because I love mah veggies too. No recipes = I am quite disappointed. Speaking of that, anybody have a good recipe involving spicy curry? I think this looks delicious...
On June 04 2011 08:01 Laerties wrote: I'm gunna go ahead and defend my actions here for a sec. I think that arguing about lifestyle can actually be pretty beneficial. Its true that it can get overly heated and personal, and sometimes result in people digging their heels in or w/e but I feel that it is important to understand the reasons for your actions and argument is a good way to do just that.
Actually no. All it does is make me NOT want to be a vegan, because some of you guys act like your all high and mighty above everyone else (not talking about you specifically).
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
Lemme first argue with your other post about morals and stuff. It doesn't matter if it's subjective or it doesn't exist. As long as morals aren't universally objective, then your argument doesn't actually convince anyone. If your morals are defined differently than mine (suppose I believe it's perfectly fine to harm animals for fun, and your analogy to humans doesn't apply because humans != animals we eat), then your argument about morals doesn't hold water in my mind.
Now, about the suffering and harming thing. See, the problem here is, you're only saying animals suffer less because you think they can feel emotions better, they can move, they can make sounds, etc. That is, they're closer to you. I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, both plants and animals are unable to think or reason. They feel pain the same. We're doing nothing better by killing plants than animals.
Also, just because plants can't express their pain doesn't mean they're not hurting. Apparently, and I think this is really crazy, some scientists have hooked up EEGs to plants to test their reactions to humans hurting other plants. The plants "brain-waves" actually move, meaning not only might plants be able to feel pain, they might be able to feel sympathy. That's higher order emotional creatures you're eating.
Plants don't feel pain as we know it cause they lack nervous system. And iirc that test was a hoax.
Still though. why should I care more about animals than plants? Now I don't think cannibalism is equal to vegetarianism. I do care about 'moral' treatment of living things, But I remain unconvinced why I need to make a distinction on sentience, what IS sentience anyway? Is sentience granted per individual or is braindead individual still considered with sentient rights because he was born as the right species? Would any vegetarians be opposed to genetically bred braindead cows for slaughter? Is braindead person eligible to be rumpsteak? What if turkeys were further pushed to evolution of retardation? I don't eat sentience doesn't provide answers to these zany scenarios. :p
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
You should refer to the point about using the line of reasoning that says "they don't feel the same way we do," it's not something you should just brush off because it doesn't suit you. You can't say you're not arguing morality when it's clear you are, and it's clear you think yours is superior.
My point on this goes along with that and isn't that you have to eat meat or can't be vegan, my point is that it's a matter of personal choice that should not involve morals because you can't say "I hold all life in the highest regard" (some do) or anything about life at all, and choose to eat some forms over others because of some ambiguous moral issue. It's said very plainly in that article and a fact of life: human beings survive by eating other living things. Would you tell a bear, which in many ways occupies a similar ecological niche to us humans, to not eat salmon or a sick deer it can catch because it can survive off of plant material? This is ecology and our ancestry, we eat meat (and plants), we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat, and it is a luxury of our modern society that we have the time to argue over the ridiculous notion of the morality of eating meat, not an actual moral issue akin to equality. Now how we obtain our meat is another issue and I am most definitely against factory farming and the massive amount of meat that we eat - we can eat meat, just eat less so we don't have a demand for operations such as factory farms.
hotbreakfast put it in a funny way, but he's not wrong. Pretty much the only living things that exist to be eaten are fruits. Maybe you should only eat fruits and tell me how that goes.
On June 04 2011 04:30 Dagobert wrote: See, I don't mind if people don't eat meat, or don't wear leather, but I mind people telling other people not to eat meat or not to wear leather (or in general use non-human animal products), as that usually constitutes being a pretentious prick. I'm all for good treatment of animals, but there are limits to that. Especially when the interest of the animal collides with my interest of eating it.
Then people should kill the animals they wish to eat themselves, or at least be able to witness the event.
Besides the logistic impossibility of your demand, it is also a non-sequitur. Why should they?
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
+1
I read through the first few pages, to see if anyone attempted to put this thread on the right track. What a waste of time.
This discussion is going to go nowhere..... Unfortunately.....
+10 I'm a carnivore (or maybe more of an omnivore), and I came into this thread because I love mah veggies too. No recipes = I am quite disappointed. Speaking of that, anybody have a good recipe involving spicy curry? I think this looks delicious...
One trick for a curry dish is to make sure the rice is perfect. The curry itself can be tailored to your individual taste (it's better to experiment a bit, especially with korma style curries, which are insanely easy to make), but the rice needs to be well done, or else the dish as a whole will suffer.
My favorite way of cooking the rice is to use a bit of oil, and fry up about a quarter of an onion per serving. Once it's browned a bit, add the water (use long grain rice, and a 2 cup water to 1 cup rice ratio) and some raisins (I've found that any of the craisin varieties, especially the pomegranate kind, work excellent), and when it boils, add the rice, lower the heat, and simmer until it's done. If anything, slightly "overcook" the rice, so the rice at the bottom of the pot browns and clumps together.
I've found that the tang from the onions, and the sweetness from the raisins, compliments any spicy curry really, really well.
As for making it really spicy - use habanero or scotch bonnet peppers in your recipe (those are my personal favorites for hot curries, but other insanely hot peppers will do the trick).
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
You should refer to the point about using the line of reasoning that says "they don't feel the same way we do," it's not something you should just brush off because it doesn't suit you. You can't say you're not arguing morality when it's clear you are, and it's clear you think yours is superior.
My point on this goes along with that and isn't that you have to eat meat or can't be vegan, my point is that it's a matter of personal choice that should not involve morals because you can't say "I hold all life in the highest regard" (some do) or anything about life at all, and choose to eat some forms over others because of some ambiguous moral issue. It's said very plainly in that article and a fact of life: human beings survive by eating other living things. Would you tell a bear, which in many ways occupies a similar ecological niche to us humans, to not eat salmon or a sick deer it can catch because it can survive off of plant material? This is ecology and our ancestry, we eat meat (and plants), we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat, and it is a luxury of our modern society that we have the time to argue over the ridiculous notion of the morality of eating meat, not an actual moral issue akin to equality. Now how we obtain our meat is another issue and I am most definitely against factory farming and the massive amount of meat that we eat - we can eat meat, just eat less so we don't have a demand for operations such as factory farms.
hotbreakfast put it in a funny way, but he's not wrong. Pretty much the only living things that exist to be eaten are fruits. Maybe you should only eat fruits and tell me how that goes.
I didnt say I wasn't arguing morality, I am. What your wrong about though is that I think my morality defines me as a superior human being. I care about morals because I believe that they are extremely valuable for individuals and societies, I don't think that I am a superior person . If you want to hear it, I think in many ways I am less valuable than most people.
You say that I shouldn't consider morality when making the personal choice of eating meat or not because I am trying to communicate that "I hold all life in the highest regard" but still eat plants and have weak justification for that. This isn't true however. I don't hold all life in the highest regard. I value my moral assessment of situations, and eating plants is more moral than eating animals. I have tried to explain the reasons for this distinction several times and I will do it again below.
As far as plants go, they literally do not feel pain in the way people define it. They do not have a brain to process any stimulation they can detect and EVEN if they did, they definitely have no ability to emotionally or psychologically respond to a life threatening situation. EVEN if you were to say that plants and animals suffer equally*which is ridiculous*, it takes around 10 human servings of grains to provide 1 portion of meat because of how much grain cows eat so meat eating inarguably incurs more suffering than not eating meat.
You gave a funny example with the bear, and your right, I wouldn't expect a bear to only eat vegetables. ....Bears don't have the ability to interpret right from wrong, they are solely concerned with their survival, the ability to make distinctions between right and wrong is one of the defining characteristics of being human. Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no. I definitely agree that this is a more minor ethical issue than human equality but I don't see that as a reason to not argue or abide by it. Tell me what you think, minus the hateful personal stabs pls?
After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
A lot of the protiens also come from beans like soy and lentils. I would agree that a full vegan diet is a bit unhealthy though. It is much easier to get protien from things like milk and eggs. I am vegetarian and I have no problem getting around 60g of protien a day. I usually have milk with breakfast which sometimes has up to 22g of protien for like 16 oz. I then usually have some kind of veggie burger(28 g protien for 2 patties) with lunch or at least include some kind of beans/eggs(usually around 18-20). By dinner I'm ready to to eat some carbs, like pasta or what not. A serving of pasta actually has around 7g protien. a
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
Vegans/vegetarians simply cut specific foods out of their diet. It's still possible to balance fat intake/carb intake/etc. The primary issue with vegetarian diets is that they lack amino acids that are only found in meat. It's usually compensated by a diet supplement pill of some kind.
Vegetarianism is a passably healthy way to live. The only visible effects are yellowing skin or thinner hair.
I feel like the OP typed up a wall of text that could be summed up as "Animals have the right to not be raised just to be slaughtered and eaten by humans".
I disagree.
Also, my cat and I have an agreement that if we're ever trapped under a building or something with water but without food for a month, whichever one of us doesn't die first gets to eat the other. Not to brag or anything but I'll bet I taste pretty good.
your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
while i understand the op and have reduced the amount of meat i eat in recent years; animals don't care about us and will never care about us, so i don't care about them. aside from that, not eating meat wont stop the next guy from eating the burger i rejected nor will it bring the cow that was killed and processed days ago back to life. voting with your dollar doesn't work because a billion others will willing toss theirs in. hence why video game companies are allowed to nickle and dime you and are getting worse and worse.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
Morality isn't how one ought to act. saying that there exists a way that a person ought to act is stating that morality exists. what you've done is point out that there is no logical reason why an animal suffering should prevent us from eating meat. You've reinforced his belief that morality is real though
On June 04 2011 09:39 Hinanawi wrote: I feel like the OP typed up a wall of text that could be summed up as "Animals have the right to not be raised just to be slaughtered and eaten by humans".
I disagree.
Also, my cat and I have an agreement that if we're ever trapped under a building or something with water but without food for a month, whichever one of us doesn't die first gets to eat the other. Not to brag or anything but I'll bet I taste pretty good.
Agreed.
I have this deal with my cat that if he leaves the birds and snakes and moles he kills on the front porch instead of leaving them laying on the stairs I'll give him catnip and tuna. So far, it isn't working.
My kitty is too spoiled to eat human at this point.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
The argument is not based upon morality being a fundamental part of the universe. I'll just thow the definition of moral from Merriam webster here" a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>" So, morals are fundamental principles used to define right and wrong actions. So while I don't see the moral judgment of a situation as the sole factor, it, along with necessity are the key factors to my decision to not eat meat. So, because I see eating meat as immoral, and for me is unnecessary, I don't believe there is a good reason I should eat meat. I totally agree that morals have been extrapolated by humans to make sense of the world, they are not 'fundimentally flawed' because the world wasn't made by humans though. You wouldn't say that D=r*t is wrong because its a way for humans to make sense of a world that wasn't defined by humans. Your argument would imply that any human interpretation of anything that isnt made by humans is wrong.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
Morality isn't how one ought to act. saying that there exists a way that a person ought to act is stating that morality exists. what you've done is point out that there is no logical reason why an animal suffering should prevent us from eating meat. You've reinforced his belief that morality is real though
No, essence does not imply existence. A four-sided triangle has an essence, but this doesn't mean it exists. Morality has an essence (i.e. how one should act), but its essence doesn't logically imply its existence.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Again with a sensational video... If the product is not tested on animals, how can we know it's safe? Should we test it on humans immediately? Let's try all new medicines on humans first. Better yet, don't try the medicines at all before putting it in use.
And don't say something stupid like "we don't need new products."
On June 04 2011 06:59 Deadlyfish wrote: If I kill 1000 cows, it wouldnt matter if i did it for pleasure or for survival, at least not to the cows. You could say that it was mean and wrong to kill them, and you would have a point. But to suggest that it matters to anyone but yourself why they were killed is silly. That is what i have a problem with. Your reasoning is based on some philosophical moral on what is wrong or right, but it doesnt help the animals at all, which is the whole point in the first place isnt it? If your moral was that "we shouldnt kill animals" then the reason for killing would be irrelevant.
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
On June 04 2011 04:19 FuzzyJAM wrote: One thing I do want to know, though, is whether vegans foresee a future without "speciesism". Do you think you will eventually wins rights for animals equivalent to humans? Also, if you believe animals to be equal to humans and worthy of the same rights, do you not think almost every human alive and who has ever lived is essentially evil for being a mass murderer?
Many of our grandparents were racists and owned slaves. Many of our ancestors were Christians and carried out mass murdering of non-Christians. Doesn't make it right.
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
You can easily find those sorts of recipes on the internet. I personally prefer debating type threads because I have a legal background and am interested in forums simply because of the discussions and arguments that occur.
If somebody created a Christianity thread, I would much rather click on it hoping for an atheist versus Christian debate on the existence of God rather than a whole bunch of Christians talking about what Church they go to and how to read the Bible in order to get a fulfilling 'relationship with God'.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Again with a sensational video... If the product is not tested on animals, how can we know it's safe? Should we test it on humans immediately? Let's try all new medicines on humans first. Better yet, don't try the medicines at all before putting it in use.
And don't say something stupid like "we don't need new products."
It's not 'sensationalist' - it is simply showing the footage of how animal testing is carried out. If we watch a documentary on slavery in history, it's not 'sensationalist'. It's a documentary on how it occurred.
"I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life." -H. Fergie Woods, M.D.
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." - Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
Vegans/vegetarians simply cut specific foods out of their diet. It's still possible to balance fat intake/carb intake/etc. The primary issue with vegetarian diets is that they lack amino acids that are only found in meat. It's usually compensated by a diet supplement pill of some kind.
Vegetarianism is a passably healthy way to live. The only visible effects are yellowing skin or thinner hair.
Those are the effects of an extremely poorly planned vegetarian diet. Visible effects of a well planned diet include a healthy body weight, clear skin and a stable emotional state.
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
I'm linking the videos because they say what I want to say without me having the transcribe them. You seem to think that calling them 'sensational' somehow makes you a valid point, which it does not. If you want to be convinced, then have a think logically and objectively about the following quotes:
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human-like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family. ~Berke Breathed, Bloom County Babylon
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay. ~George Bernard Shaw
One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital. ~Neal Barnard
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
If you knew how meat was made, you'd probably lose your lunch. ~k.d. lang
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
Being a meat eater is really expensive, even if you don't count the cost of chemo. ~Snargleplexon.com
My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral, which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small traveling aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures. ~George Bernard Shaw
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. ~Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930
Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his little animal friends. ~Author Unknown
Fork: An instrument used chiefly for the purpose of putting dead animals into the mouth. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For the most part, we carnivores do not eat other carnivores. We prefer to eat our vegetarian friends. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Nothing spoils lunch any quicker than a rogue meatball rampaging through your spaghetti. ~Jim Davis, "Garfield" (Please note: In its original context, this is NOT about vegetarianism)
Vegetarians taste better. ~Author Unknown
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter." ~Andy Rooney
Do vegetarians eat animal crackers? ~Author Unknown
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat? ~Author Unknown
I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight. ~Rita Rudner
Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classified as cannibals. ~Finley Peter Dunne
Vegetarian: A person who eats only side dishes. ~Gerald Lieberman
In the strict scientific sense we all feed on death - even vegetarians. ~Mr. Spock, Star Trek, "Wolf in the Fold"
The human body has no more need for cows' milk than it does for dogs' milk, horses' milk, or giraffes' milk. ~Michael Klaper
Tongue - a variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of a dead cow. ~Bob Ekstrom
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls. God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that no one ate me. ~Alex Poulos
We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~k.d. lang
Coexistence... what the farmer does with the turkey - until Thanksgiving. ~Mike Connolly
I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician. ~Marty Feldman
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. ~A. Whitney Brown
A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows. ~George Bernard Shaw
A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses. ~George Bernard Shaw
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Author Unknown
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. ~Oscar Wilde
There is no substitute for mother's milk. ~Martin H. Fischer
I've found without question that the best way to lead others to a more plant-based diet is by example - to lead with your fork, not your mouth. ~Bernie Wilke, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless Christmas dinner's dark and blue When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view. ~Shel Silverstein, "Point of View"
All normal people love meat. If I went to a barbeque and there was no meat, I would say, "Yo Goober! Where's the meat?" I'm trying to impress people here, Lisa. You don't win friends with salad. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons, spoken by the character Homer Simpson
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.... ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
I venture to maintain that there are multitudes to whom the necessity of discharging the duties of a butcher would be so inexpressibly painful and revolting, that if they could obtain a flesh diet on no other condition, they would relinquish it forever. ~W.E.H. Lecky
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw
I just could not stand the idea of eating meat - I really do think that it has made me calmer.... People's general awareness is getting much better, even down to buying a pint of milk: the fact that the calves are actually killed so that the milk doesn't go to them but to us cannot really be right, and if you have seen a cow in a state of extreme distress because it cannot understand why its calf isn't by, it can make you think a lot. ~Kate Bush
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy
As soon as I realized that I didn't need meat to survive or to be in good health, I began to see how forlorn it all is. If only we had a different mentality about the drama of the cowboy and the range and all the rest of it. It's a very romantic notion, an entrenched part of American culture, but I've seen, for example, pigs waiting to be slaughtered, and their hysteria and panic was something I shall never forget. ~Cloris Leachman
We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty... is a fundamental sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us - in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? ~Plutarch
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab Notes
Vegetarianism can easily reach religious proportions. Refraining from meat on moral grounds serves to dignify feelings of guilt toward sad-eyed, furry creatures and substitutes righteousness for squeamishness. ~Bill Griffith, Griffith Observatory comic strip, 1977
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A veteran USDA meat inspector from Texas describes what he has seen: "Cattle dragged and choked... knocking 'em four, five, ten times. Every now and then when they're stunned they come back to life, and they're up there agonizing. They're supposed to be re-stunned but sometimes they aren't and they'll go through the skinning process alive. I've worked in four large [slaughterhouses] and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. If people were to see this, they'd probably feel really bad about it. But in a packing house everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything." ~Slaughterhouse 1997
I eat everything that nature voluntarily gives: fruits, vegetables, and the products of plants. But I ask you to spare me what animals are forced to surrender: meat, milk, and cheese. ~Author Unknown (Thanks, Eric)
Think of me tonite For that which you savor Did it give you something real, or could you taste the pain of my death in its flavor? ~Wayne K. Tolson, from "Food Forethought"
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein
I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
On June 04 2011 06:59 Deadlyfish wrote: If I kill 1000 cows, it wouldnt matter if i did it for pleasure or for survival, at least not to the cows. You could say that it was mean and wrong to kill them, and you would have a point. But to suggest that it matters to anyone but yourself why they were killed is silly. That is what i have a problem with. Your reasoning is based on some philosophical moral on what is wrong or right, but it doesnt help the animals at all, which is the whole point in the first place isnt it? If your moral was that "we shouldnt kill animals" then the reason for killing would be irrelevant.
The reason for them being killed isn't irrelevant. It is much more moral to kill something for survival than it is to kill something for pleasure. It is much easier to use a human example since its easier to empathize w/ humans. Consider both situations, killing someone to survive, and killing someone for pleasure. The latter is obviously less moral.Your right in saying that I don't make a huge impact on the living conditions of animals, but if everyone adopted the same philosophy than it would since most people don't need to eat meat to survive. To me, morals are extremely important. They support strong societies, strong communal bonds, have the potential to raise living conditions of people etc...
EDIT: there is just no reason for me to eat meat since I think it is wrong and (for me) unnecessary.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Again with a sensational video... If the product is not tested on animals, how can we know it's safe? Should we test it on humans immediately? Let's try all new medicines on humans first. Better yet, don't try the medicines at all before putting it in use.
And don't say something stupid like "we don't need new products."
It's not 'sensationalist' - it is simply showing the footage of how animal testing is carried out. If we watch a documentary on slavery in history, it's not 'sensationalist'. It's a documentary on how it occurred.
"I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life." -H. Fergie Woods, M.D.
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." - Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
I'm linking the videos because they say what I want to say without me having the transcribe them. You seem to think that calling them 'sensational' somehow makes you a valid point, which it does not. If you want to be convinced, then have a think logically and objectively about the following quotes:
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human-like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family. ~Berke Breathed, Bloom County Babylon
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay. ~George Bernard Shaw
One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital. ~Neal Barnard
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
If you knew how meat was made, you'd probably lose your lunch. ~k.d. lang
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
Being a meat eater is really expensive, even if you don't count the cost of chemo. ~Snargleplexon.com
My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral, which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small traveling aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures. ~George Bernard Shaw
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. ~Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930
Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his little animal friends. ~Author Unknown
Fork: An instrument used chiefly for the purpose of putting dead animals into the mouth. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For the most part, we carnivores do not eat other carnivores. We prefer to eat our vegetarian friends. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Nothing spoils lunch any quicker than a rogue meatball rampaging through your spaghetti. ~Jim Davis, "Garfield" (Please note: In its original context, this is NOT about vegetarianism)
Vegetarians taste better. ~Author Unknown
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter." ~Andy Rooney
Do vegetarians eat animal crackers? ~Author Unknown
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat? ~Author Unknown
I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight. ~Rita Rudner
Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classified as cannibals. ~Finley Peter Dunne
Vegetarian: A person who eats only side dishes. ~Gerald Lieberman
In the strict scientific sense we all feed on death - even vegetarians. ~Mr. Spock, Star Trek, "Wolf in the Fold"
The human body has no more need for cows' milk than it does for dogs' milk, horses' milk, or giraffes' milk. ~Michael Klaper
Tongue - a variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of a dead cow. ~Bob Ekstrom
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls. God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that no one ate me. ~Alex Poulos
We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~k.d. lang
Coexistence... what the farmer does with the turkey - until Thanksgiving. ~Mike Connolly
I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician. ~Marty Feldman
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. ~A. Whitney Brown
A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows. ~George Bernard Shaw
A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses. ~George Bernard Shaw
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Author Unknown
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. ~Oscar Wilde
There is no substitute for mother's milk. ~Martin H. Fischer
I've found without question that the best way to lead others to a more plant-based diet is by example - to lead with your fork, not your mouth. ~Bernie Wilke, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless Christmas dinner's dark and blue When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view. ~Shel Silverstein, "Point of View"
All normal people love meat. If I went to a barbeque and there was no meat, I would say, "Yo Goober! Where's the meat?" I'm trying to impress people here, Lisa. You don't win friends with salad. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons, spoken by the character Homer Simpson
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.... ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
I venture to maintain that there are multitudes to whom the necessity of discharging the duties of a butcher would be so inexpressibly painful and revolting, that if they could obtain a flesh diet on no other condition, they would relinquish it forever. ~W.E.H. Lecky
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw
I just could not stand the idea of eating meat - I really do think that it has made me calmer.... People's general awareness is getting much better, even down to buying a pint of milk: the fact that the calves are actually killed so that the milk doesn't go to them but to us cannot really be right, and if you have seen a cow in a state of extreme distress because it cannot understand why its calf isn't by, it can make you think a lot. ~Kate Bush
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy
As soon as I realized that I didn't need meat to survive or to be in good health, I began to see how forlorn it all is. If only we had a different mentality about the drama of the cowboy and the range and all the rest of it. It's a very romantic notion, an entrenched part of American culture, but I've seen, for example, pigs waiting to be slaughtered, and their hysteria and panic was something I shall never forget. ~Cloris Leachman
We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty... is a fundamental sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us - in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? ~Plutarch
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab Notes
Vegetarianism can easily reach religious proportions. Refraining from meat on moral grounds serves to dignify feelings of guilt toward sad-eyed, furry creatures and substitutes righteousness for squeamishness. ~Bill Griffith, Griffith Observatory comic strip, 1977
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A veteran USDA meat inspector from Texas describes what he has seen: "Cattle dragged and choked... knocking 'em four, five, ten times. Every now and then when they're stunned they come back to life, and they're up there agonizing. They're supposed to be re-stunned but sometimes they aren't and they'll go through the skinning process alive. I've worked in four large [slaughterhouses] and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. If people were to see this, they'd probably feel really bad about it. But in a packing house everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything." ~Slaughterhouse 1997
I eat everything that nature voluntarily gives: fruits, vegetables, and the products of plants. But I ask you to spare me what animals are forced to surrender: meat, milk, and cheese. ~Author Unknown (Thanks, Eric)
Think of me tonite For that which you savor Did it give you something real, or could you taste the pain of my death in its flavor? ~Wayne K. Tolson, from "Food Forethought"
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein
I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
I wish someone you quoted actually knew what they were talking about. There isn't a single person there actually associated with the meat industry. I actually find this to be a common theme. How come the people who actually work with these animals are never the ones to speak out against the "atrocities" we are committing. That is because, when you actually get to know the animals that we have bred to eat, you learn to hate them.
Chickens are some of the most disgusting, horrible, and cruel creatures on the planet. A chicken will gladly trample another chicken to death to get to its food trough. Cows, sheep, lambs, chickens, rabbits, ducks, geese, fish, all are not intelligent enough to be even self aware. Should I care what an animal thinks when it doesn't even know that it exists?
I grew up with animals, both as pets and for food. By the time I was 8 I could kill and eviscerate a chicken blindfolded. I don't by an moral justification for being a vegan because I know these animals. They were created purely to feed us. They wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us selectively breeding them, and they are meat factories. To liken them to humans and to apply human morals to them is insanity.
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
You can easily find those sorts of recipes on the internet. I personally prefer debating type threads because I have a legal background and am interested in forums simply because of the discussions and arguments that occur.
If somebody created a Christianity thread, I would much rather click on it hoping for an atheist versus Christian debate on the existence of God rather than a whole bunch of Christians talking about what Church they go to and how to read the Bible in order to get a fulfilling 'relationship with God'.
So, essentially, this entire thread is just you executing a very high level, sophisticated trolling attempt, for nothing other than your own personal use/amusement?
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
I'm linking the videos because they say what I want to say without me having the transcribe them. You seem to think that calling them 'sensational' somehow makes you a valid point, which it does not. If you want to be convinced, then have a think logically and objectively about the following quotes:
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human-like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family. ~Berke Breathed, Bloom County Babylon
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay. ~George Bernard Shaw
One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital. ~Neal Barnard
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
If you knew how meat was made, you'd probably lose your lunch. ~k.d. lang
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
Being a meat eater is really expensive, even if you don't count the cost of chemo. ~Snargleplexon.com
My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral, which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small traveling aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures. ~George Bernard Shaw
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. ~Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930
Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his little animal friends. ~Author Unknown
Fork: An instrument used chiefly for the purpose of putting dead animals into the mouth. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For the most part, we carnivores do not eat other carnivores. We prefer to eat our vegetarian friends. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Nothing spoils lunch any quicker than a rogue meatball rampaging through your spaghetti. ~Jim Davis, "Garfield" (Please note: In its original context, this is NOT about vegetarianism)
Vegetarians taste better. ~Author Unknown
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter." ~Andy Rooney
Do vegetarians eat animal crackers? ~Author Unknown
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat? ~Author Unknown
I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight. ~Rita Rudner
Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classified as cannibals. ~Finley Peter Dunne
Vegetarian: A person who eats only side dishes. ~Gerald Lieberman
In the strict scientific sense we all feed on death - even vegetarians. ~Mr. Spock, Star Trek, "Wolf in the Fold"
The human body has no more need for cows' milk than it does for dogs' milk, horses' milk, or giraffes' milk. ~Michael Klaper
Tongue - a variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of a dead cow. ~Bob Ekstrom
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls. God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that no one ate me. ~Alex Poulos
We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~k.d. lang
Coexistence... what the farmer does with the turkey - until Thanksgiving. ~Mike Connolly
I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician. ~Marty Feldman
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. ~A. Whitney Brown
A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows. ~George Bernard Shaw
A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses. ~George Bernard Shaw
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Author Unknown
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. ~Oscar Wilde
There is no substitute for mother's milk. ~Martin H. Fischer
I've found without question that the best way to lead others to a more plant-based diet is by example - to lead with your fork, not your mouth. ~Bernie Wilke, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless Christmas dinner's dark and blue When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view. ~Shel Silverstein, "Point of View"
All normal people love meat. If I went to a barbeque and there was no meat, I would say, "Yo Goober! Where's the meat?" I'm trying to impress people here, Lisa. You don't win friends with salad. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons, spoken by the character Homer Simpson
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.... ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
I venture to maintain that there are multitudes to whom the necessity of discharging the duties of a butcher would be so inexpressibly painful and revolting, that if they could obtain a flesh diet on no other condition, they would relinquish it forever. ~W.E.H. Lecky
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw
I just could not stand the idea of eating meat - I really do think that it has made me calmer.... People's general awareness is getting much better, even down to buying a pint of milk: the fact that the calves are actually killed so that the milk doesn't go to them but to us cannot really be right, and if you have seen a cow in a state of extreme distress because it cannot understand why its calf isn't by, it can make you think a lot. ~Kate Bush
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy
As soon as I realized that I didn't need meat to survive or to be in good health, I began to see how forlorn it all is. If only we had a different mentality about the drama of the cowboy and the range and all the rest of it. It's a very romantic notion, an entrenched part of American culture, but I've seen, for example, pigs waiting to be slaughtered, and their hysteria and panic was something I shall never forget. ~Cloris Leachman
We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty... is a fundamental sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us - in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? ~Plutarch
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab Notes
Vegetarianism can easily reach religious proportions. Refraining from meat on moral grounds serves to dignify feelings of guilt toward sad-eyed, furry creatures and substitutes righteousness for squeamishness. ~Bill Griffith, Griffith Observatory comic strip, 1977
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A veteran USDA meat inspector from Texas describes what he has seen: "Cattle dragged and choked... knocking 'em four, five, ten times. Every now and then when they're stunned they come back to life, and they're up there agonizing. They're supposed to be re-stunned but sometimes they aren't and they'll go through the skinning process alive. I've worked in four large [slaughterhouses] and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. If people were to see this, they'd probably feel really bad about it. But in a packing house everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything." ~Slaughterhouse 1997
I eat everything that nature voluntarily gives: fruits, vegetables, and the products of plants. But I ask you to spare me what animals are forced to surrender: meat, milk, and cheese. ~Author Unknown (Thanks, Eric)
Think of me tonite For that which you savor Did it give you something real, or could you taste the pain of my death in its flavor? ~Wayne K. Tolson, from "Food Forethought"
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein
I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
Serious question: where are you pulling all these giant piles of vegan-factiods from?
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
I'm linking the videos because they say what I want to say without me having the transcribe them. You seem to think that calling them 'sensational' somehow makes you a valid point, which it does not. If you want to be convinced, then have a think logically and objectively about the following quotes:
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human-like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family. ~Berke Breathed, Bloom County Babylon
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay. ~George Bernard Shaw
One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital. ~Neal Barnard
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
If you knew how meat was made, you'd probably lose your lunch. ~k.d. lang
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
Being a meat eater is really expensive, even if you don't count the cost of chemo. ~Snargleplexon.com
My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral, which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small traveling aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures. ~George Bernard Shaw
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. ~Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930
Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his little animal friends. ~Author Unknown
Fork: An instrument used chiefly for the purpose of putting dead animals into the mouth. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For the most part, we carnivores do not eat other carnivores. We prefer to eat our vegetarian friends. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Nothing spoils lunch any quicker than a rogue meatball rampaging through your spaghetti. ~Jim Davis, "Garfield" (Please note: In its original context, this is NOT about vegetarianism)
Vegetarians taste better. ~Author Unknown
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter." ~Andy Rooney
Do vegetarians eat animal crackers? ~Author Unknown
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat? ~Author Unknown
I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight. ~Rita Rudner
Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classified as cannibals. ~Finley Peter Dunne
Vegetarian: A person who eats only side dishes. ~Gerald Lieberman
In the strict scientific sense we all feed on death - even vegetarians. ~Mr. Spock, Star Trek, "Wolf in the Fold"
The human body has no more need for cows' milk than it does for dogs' milk, horses' milk, or giraffes' milk. ~Michael Klaper
Tongue - a variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of a dead cow. ~Bob Ekstrom
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls. God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that no one ate me. ~Alex Poulos
We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~k.d. lang
Coexistence... what the farmer does with the turkey - until Thanksgiving. ~Mike Connolly
I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician. ~Marty Feldman
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. ~A. Whitney Brown
A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows. ~George Bernard Shaw
A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses. ~George Bernard Shaw
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Author Unknown
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. ~Oscar Wilde
There is no substitute for mother's milk. ~Martin H. Fischer
I've found without question that the best way to lead others to a more plant-based diet is by example - to lead with your fork, not your mouth. ~Bernie Wilke, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless Christmas dinner's dark and blue When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view. ~Shel Silverstein, "Point of View"
All normal people love meat. If I went to a barbeque and there was no meat, I would say, "Yo Goober! Where's the meat?" I'm trying to impress people here, Lisa. You don't win friends with salad. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons, spoken by the character Homer Simpson
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.... ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
I venture to maintain that there are multitudes to whom the necessity of discharging the duties of a butcher would be so inexpressibly painful and revolting, that if they could obtain a flesh diet on no other condition, they would relinquish it forever. ~W.E.H. Lecky
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw
I just could not stand the idea of eating meat - I really do think that it has made me calmer.... People's general awareness is getting much better, even down to buying a pint of milk: the fact that the calves are actually killed so that the milk doesn't go to them but to us cannot really be right, and if you have seen a cow in a state of extreme distress because it cannot understand why its calf isn't by, it can make you think a lot. ~Kate Bush
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy
As soon as I realized that I didn't need meat to survive or to be in good health, I began to see how forlorn it all is. If only we had a different mentality about the drama of the cowboy and the range and all the rest of it. It's a very romantic notion, an entrenched part of American culture, but I've seen, for example, pigs waiting to be slaughtered, and their hysteria and panic was something I shall never forget. ~Cloris Leachman
We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty... is a fundamental sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us - in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? ~Plutarch
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab Notes
Vegetarianism can easily reach religious proportions. Refraining from meat on moral grounds serves to dignify feelings of guilt toward sad-eyed, furry creatures and substitutes righteousness for squeamishness. ~Bill Griffith, Griffith Observatory comic strip, 1977
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A veteran USDA meat inspector from Texas describes what he has seen: "Cattle dragged and choked... knocking 'em four, five, ten times. Every now and then when they're stunned they come back to life, and they're up there agonizing. They're supposed to be re-stunned but sometimes they aren't and they'll go through the skinning process alive. I've worked in four large [slaughterhouses] and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. If people were to see this, they'd probably feel really bad about it. But in a packing house everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything." ~Slaughterhouse 1997
I eat everything that nature voluntarily gives: fruits, vegetables, and the products of plants. But I ask you to spare me what animals are forced to surrender: meat, milk, and cheese. ~Author Unknown (Thanks, Eric)
Think of me tonite For that which you savor Did it give you something real, or could you taste the pain of my death in its flavor? ~Wayne K. Tolson, from "Food Forethought"
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein
I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
I'm going to respond to some of these quotes you linked.
Second quote: a baby drinks milk from its mother, it doesn't have teeth to eat either the apple or the rabbit. I fail to see the point. Even if it does have the teeth for it, I'd think a rabbit is actually quicker, stronger, more agile than the kid. It will get away.
Third quote: I fail to see the point.
Fourth: I have seen a slaughterhouse. I even linked a video to one before, where they did slaughter animals even though you said that they didn't show it. You just didn't look close enough.
Fifth: A sheep is turned back into mud which the acorn can then grow in.
Sixth: So? That farmer was wrong? I fail to see the point, yet again.
Seventh: I've heard that some people eat the eyes. How they do it? I imagine they put it in their mouths and chew.
Eighth: What? Are the animals the ones being killed or is it the human beings from eating the meat? Doesn't matter, I fail to see the point anyway.
Ninth: What's wrong with having a seafood restaurant at Sea World?
Tenth: My pets are my friends. I have two cats. If I had to kill them to survive, I'd do it.
Eleventh: We don't need to eat anything that couldn't run/swim/fly away either. It'd work perfectly fine to only eat those who could.
Twelfth: I know how meat is made. Depending on the meat of course. A cow is killed, stripped of its skin, cut into pieces and voila! We have meat.
Thirteenth: Okay, if you find a cow's life to be worth as much as your own kid's then sure, don't eat meat. Don't expect me to feel the same way, though.
Fourteenth: You're referring to cancer? You get cancer from most everything these days. Besides, here in Sweden, my treatment is free. Also, doesn't matter if it costs much. A ferrari costs a lot as well.
Fifteenth: Cannibalism? Cannibalism is to eat someone of your own species. A cow is not a human being. It cannot be cannibalism.
Sixteenth: If we stop eating chickens or using them for eggs, they will most probably die out anyway. We need the space for our plants that we shall eat instead.
Seventeenth: Okay, cool. You feel better about yourself when being a vegetarian. Good for you. Don't think it will do the same for everyone, though.
Eighteenth: Okay? Coolio. I have other things to worry about.
Nineteenth: I often use the fork to put vegetables in my mouth as well. Perhaps I am alone in this.
Twentieth: We're omnivores, you should look it up. It means that we eat most everything.
Twentyfirst: Okay? So there is some meat or something something in milk? So what?
Twentysecond: Meatballs and spaghetti, that's awesome.
Twentythird: Cool, I should try eating one of you guys sometime, then.
Twentyfourth: ?
Twentyfifth: They eat stuff that tastes like meat but isn't meat so why shouldn't they eat animal crackers?
Can't be bothered replying to more of these stupid quotes. Come up with stuff of your own to say instead of using stuff that others have thought about. They aren't even making sense.
Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
Sorry, i meant animals then ;P. Its late here, ill have to go to bed i guess.
And to clarify, I have no problem with people not being nice to "elitist vegetarians/vegans".
Edit: Oh well, one last thing before i go. I think the best way for both sides of the argument would be if we would be able to create meat (and i really mean create, not grow an animal and kill it. Really grow the meat itself, like how skin is grown for medical purposes. I think i read somewhere that this area of research is progressing a bit at the time.) Eating this kind of meat would at least in my opinion fall within the boundaries of a vegetarian diet. Actually i would like to see some opinions on that issue from other vegetarians/vegans.
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
Sorry, i meant animals then ;P. Its late here, ill have to go to bed i guess.
And to clarify, I have no problem with people not being nice to "elitist vegetarians/vegans".
Edit: Oh well, one last thing before i go. I think the best way for both sides of the argument would be if we would be able to create meat (and i really mean create, not grow an animal and kill it. Really grow the meat itself, like how skin is grown for medical purposes. I think i read somewhere that this area of research is progressing a bit at the time.) Eating this kind of meat would at least in my opinion fall within the boundaries of a vegetarian diet. Actually i would like to see some opinions on that issue from other vegetarians/vegans.
As you say, that kind of thing is being worked on. But then the other problem comes up with the activist groups that say that that kind of stuff is not "natural" (whatever that means) and that because it is not "natural" it is bad.
They protest against new kinds of grain as well, since they're genetically modified. Higher crop yields to feed more people is apparently bad.
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
All you're doing is trying to get us emotional by linking these sensational videos. Do you have anything better to say because these don't convince me of anything other than that some animals (perhaps even many) are being treated badly and something could/should/must be done about that.
It does not, however, convince me to stop eating meat.
I'm linking the videos because they say what I want to say without me having the transcribe them. You seem to think that calling them 'sensational' somehow makes you a valid point, which it does not. If you want to be convinced, then have a think logically and objectively about the following quotes:
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
Dear Lord, I've been asked, nay commanded, to thank Thee for the Christmas turkey before us... a turkey which was no doubt a lively, intelligent bird... a social being... capable of actual affection... nuzzling its young with almost human-like compassion. Anyway, it's dead and we're gonna eat it. Please give our respects to its family. ~Berke Breathed, Bloom County Babylon
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay. ~George Bernard Shaw
One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle. ~Henry David Thoreau
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital. ~Neal Barnard
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
If you knew how meat was made, you'd probably lose your lunch. ~k.d. lang
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
Being a meat eater is really expensive, even if you don't count the cost of chemo. ~Snargleplexon.com
My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. My will contains directions for my funeral, which will be followed not by mourning coaches, but by oxen, sheep, flocks of poultry, and a small traveling aquarium of live fish, all wearing white scarfs in honor of the man who perished rather than eat his fellow creatures. ~George Bernard Shaw
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. ~Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
Vegetarianism is harmless enough though it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness. ~Robert Hutchison, address to the British Medical Association, 1930
Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his little animal friends. ~Author Unknown
Fork: An instrument used chiefly for the purpose of putting dead animals into the mouth. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
For the most part, we carnivores do not eat other carnivores. We prefer to eat our vegetarian friends. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Nothing spoils lunch any quicker than a rogue meatball rampaging through your spaghetti. ~Jim Davis, "Garfield" (Please note: In its original context, this is NOT about vegetarianism)
Vegetarians taste better. ~Author Unknown
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter." ~Andy Rooney
Do vegetarians eat animal crackers? ~Author Unknown
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat? ~Author Unknown
I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight. ~Rita Rudner
Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classified as cannibals. ~Finley Peter Dunne
Vegetarian: A person who eats only side dishes. ~Gerald Lieberman
In the strict scientific sense we all feed on death - even vegetarians. ~Mr. Spock, Star Trek, "Wolf in the Fold"
The human body has no more need for cows' milk than it does for dogs' milk, horses' milk, or giraffes' milk. ~Michael Klaper
Tongue - a variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of a dead cow. ~Bob Ekstrom
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I will not eat anything that walks, runs, skips, hops or crawls. God knows that I've crawled on occasion, and I'm glad that no one ate me. ~Alex Poulos
We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~k.d. lang
Coexistence... what the farmer does with the turkey - until Thanksgiving. ~Mike Connolly
I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician. ~Marty Feldman
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants. ~A. Whitney Brown
A mind of the calibre of mine cannot derive its nutriment from cows. ~George Bernard Shaw
A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses. ~George Bernard Shaw
If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat? ~Author Unknown
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that. ~Oscar Wilde
There is no substitute for mother's milk. ~Martin H. Fischer
I've found without question that the best way to lead others to a more plant-based diet is by example - to lead with your fork, not your mouth. ~Bernie Wilke, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless Christmas dinner's dark and blue When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view. ~Shel Silverstein, "Point of View"
All normal people love meat. If I went to a barbeque and there was no meat, I would say, "Yo Goober! Where's the meat?" I'm trying to impress people here, Lisa. You don't win friends with salad. ~Matt Groening, The Simpsons, spoken by the character Homer Simpson
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.... ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
I venture to maintain that there are multitudes to whom the necessity of discharging the duties of a butcher would be so inexpressibly painful and revolting, that if they could obtain a flesh diet on no other condition, they would relinquish it forever. ~W.E.H. Lecky
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw
I just could not stand the idea of eating meat - I really do think that it has made me calmer.... People's general awareness is getting much better, even down to buying a pint of milk: the fact that the calves are actually killed so that the milk doesn't go to them but to us cannot really be right, and if you have seen a cow in a state of extreme distress because it cannot understand why its calf isn't by, it can make you think a lot. ~Kate Bush
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark
"Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy
As soon as I realized that I didn't need meat to survive or to be in good health, I began to see how forlorn it all is. If only we had a different mentality about the drama of the cowboy and the range and all the rest of it. It's a very romantic notion, an entrenched part of American culture, but I've seen, for example, pigs waiting to be slaughtered, and their hysteria and panic was something I shall never forget. ~Cloris Leachman
We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty... is a fundamental sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us - in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank. ~Rabindranath Tagore
Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? ~Plutarch
It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, Queen Mab Notes
Vegetarianism can easily reach religious proportions. Refraining from meat on moral grounds serves to dignify feelings of guilt toward sad-eyed, furry creatures and substitutes righteousness for squeamishness. ~Bill Griffith, Griffith Observatory comic strip, 1977
To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. ~Mahatma Gandhi
A veteran USDA meat inspector from Texas describes what he has seen: "Cattle dragged and choked... knocking 'em four, five, ten times. Every now and then when they're stunned they come back to life, and they're up there agonizing. They're supposed to be re-stunned but sometimes they aren't and they'll go through the skinning process alive. I've worked in four large [slaughterhouses] and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. If people were to see this, they'd probably feel really bad about it. But in a packing house everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything." ~Slaughterhouse 1997
I eat everything that nature voluntarily gives: fruits, vegetables, and the products of plants. But I ask you to spare me what animals are forced to surrender: meat, milk, and cheese. ~Author Unknown (Thanks, Eric)
Think of me tonite For that which you savor Did it give you something real, or could you taste the pain of my death in its flavor? ~Wayne K. Tolson, from "Food Forethought"
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~Albert Einstein
I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
I wish someone you quoted actually knew what they were talking about. There isn't a single person there actually associated with the meat industry. I actually find this to be a common theme. How come the people who actually work with these animals are never the ones to speak out against the "atrocities" we are committing. That is because, when you actually get to know the animals that we have bred to eat, you learn to hate them.
Chickens are some of the most disgusting, horrible, and cruel creatures on the planet. A chicken will gladly trample another chicken to death to get to its food trough. Cows, sheep, lambs, chickens, rabbits, ducks, geese, fish, all are not intelligent enough to be even self aware. Should I care what an animal thinks when it doesn't even know that it exists?
I grew up with animals, both as pets and for food. By the time I was 8 I could kill and eviscerate a chicken blindfolded. I don't by an moral justification for being a vegan because I know these animals. They were created purely to feed us. They wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us selectively breeding them, and they are meat factories. To liken them to humans and to apply human morals to them is insanity.
You think people who work in the meat industry remain silent about animal cruelty because they hate animals??? Not because they'll be, uh, FIRED?
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
Animals are treated badly because people eat them... It's not like theres no connection between wanting animals to be treated well and asking about/informing/suggeting vegetarianism to other people.
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
Animals are treated badly because people eat them... It's not like theres no connection between wanting animals to be treated well and asking about/informing/suggeting vegetarianism to other people.
That is not true. http://vimeo.com/22077752 Watch that one. Does it look like those animals are being treated badly? Doesn't to me. Why not strive to achieve that instead?
I want people to preach to me about vegetarianism as much as I want them to preach to me about religion. Both are the same, to me, though I can understand vegetarianism a lot more than religion and I don't automatically assume vegetarians are stupid. If they start preaching, though, I take them for pretentious douchebags.
I wouldn't tell you to start eating meat, I expect you to give me the same courtesy.
On June 04 2011 11:17 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Oh how i love the attitude thrown towards vegetarians and vegans in here. Nowhere else nowadays will you find people being more butthurt except for maybe SC2 when a terran player comes along.
Cant be too hard to have some sense of decency when dealing with other persons. Why would you make fun of someone who tries not to harm any living thing?
Plants are living. Why hurt them? It's totally okay to be a vegan/vegetarian. Just don't say I should stop eating meat because some animals in the world are being treated badly. Instead, make it so that those animals are not being treated badly.
Sorry, i meant animals then ;P. Its late here, ill have to go to bed i guess.
And to clarify, I have no problem with people not being nice to "elitist vegetarians/vegans".
Edit: Oh well, one last thing before i go. I think the best way for both sides of the argument would be if we would be able to create meat (and i really mean create, not grow an animal and kill it. Really grow the meat itself, like how skin is grown for medical purposes. I think i read somewhere that this area of research is progressing a bit at the time.) Eating this kind of meat would at least in my opinion fall within the boundaries of a vegetarian diet. Actually i would like to see some opinions on that issue from other vegetarians/vegans.
As you say, that kind of thing is being worked on. But then the other problem comes up with the activist groups that say that that kind of stuff is not "natural" (whatever that means) and that because it is not "natural" it is bad.
They protest against new kinds of grain as well, since they're genetically modified. Higher crop yields to feed more people is apparently bad.
To bad those higher crop yields are not going to feed more people but rather to feed more animals so westerners can continue to increase their meat consumption.
I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
On June 04 2011 01:59 howerpower wrote: lmao wow I thought this thread was going to be about what you guys eat and just discussing meals and I thought that would be really interesting to read and try out some of them, but oh my god is this pathetic. The whole OP reads like some kind of political propaganda flyer.
veganism vs carnivorism is even worse than religion vs atheism.. it just doesn't seem possible to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Well the way I see it is like this - in the religion versus atheism debate, it is clear atheism wins because there is no evidence for God. In the veganism versus meat-eaters thread, veganism is the clear winner because murdering when murdering can be avoided is wrong.
By what definition is it murder to catch and eat a fish? Is a fox killing a rabbit murder?
Oh, I get your logic BackHo...so now when I pull out my fly swatter I'm murdering flies?
How about when I mow my lawn, am I torturing and disfiguring grass?
By providing a home for my cat, and cleaning up the guts of the mice she catches, am I aiding and abetting a murderer?
Using the word "murder" with respect to animals is, to me, analogous to using the word "cannibalism" when referring to a human eating pork ribs. It simply doesn't apply or make sense.
I don't understand your comparison and I don't understand why that doesn't make sense. If you say it's because "murder only applies to humans" well then fine but that's not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is basically "killing another without a justifiable reason". Now obviously a giant philosophical debate could happen over what "justifiable" means, so I hope we can agree that a cat(or anything else) "just wanting to" doesn't make it justifiable.
Well, my comparison is just what you said - that it only applies to humans.
He said, and I paraphrase for clarity: "murder when murder can be avoided is wrong, and therefore veganism automatically wins over meat eaters". He was implying that meat eaters are murderers.
I was hoping to analogize that what meat eaters do isn't actually "murder", because it isn't.
Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote: Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
I fail to see why superiority would affect the morality of eating meat. No one has the right to kill something because they want to and can. People dont have the right to kill you because it would be fun and its easy...... and before you bitch about using a human example... it is only being used to illustrate the situation in a more relatable way, not to "explain why animals and humans are the same. "
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
Do you see the same types of teeth on pure herbivores? And if they do, do they also have canine teeth to accompany them? I can't think of too many species off hand that have both (other than some species of horses). - EDIT - oh, yea, hippos and some other apes as well.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
And the length of a true herbivore's digestive system is far longer than a humans is, relative to the animal. Also, I never said we were fully adapted to eating meat..... Just like we can't go outside and graze on the grass..... We can't really do either extremes.....
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
Do you see the same types of teeth on pure herbivores? And if they do, do they also have canine teeth to accompany them? I can't think of too many species off hand that have both (other than some species of horses).
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
And the length of a true herbivore's digestive system is far longer than a humans is, relative to the animal. Also, I never said we were fully adapted to eating meat..... Just like we can't go outside and graze on the grass..... We can't really do either extremes.....
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?
Most herbivors in fact do possess canines, that is not something reserved to carnivors. You also said the purpose of incisors was not to eat plants.... what? That is exactly what they are used for. No one reading this should believe anything you have to say pertaining to oral anatomy anymore. Carnivors are also unable to move their jaws from side to side like humans and herbivors are able to which helps to chew plants more thoroughly which aids in digestion.
I never claimed humans were not omnivors, as for traits inherent in true carnivors humans possess zero. I can not think of a single trait that is characteristic of every true carnivor that we have. The ones you stated are either completely wrong or irrelevent. Can we just go out and graze? Of course not, but then again other great apes, (which are our closest genetic relatives) can not do that either. Humans are best adapted to eating fruits and vegetables.
Edit: I have better things to do so I will not be able to discuss further. Here is a video that better explains what I was saying. Watch it to the end before making any judgements on it. I found it informative.
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote: Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.
Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote: Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.
Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.
So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
Do you see the same types of teeth on pure herbivores? And if they do, do they also have canine teeth to accompany them? I can't think of too many species off hand that have both (other than some species of horses).
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
And the length of a true herbivore's digestive system is far longer than a humans is, relative to the animal. Also, I never said we were fully adapted to eating meat..... Just like we can't go outside and graze on the grass..... We can't really do either extremes.....
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?
Most herbivors in fact do possess canines, that is not something reserved to carnivors. You also said the purpose of incisors was not to eat plants.... what? That is exactly what they are used for. No one reading this should believe anything you have to say pertaining to oral anatomy anymore. Carnivors are also unable to move their jaws from side to side like humans and herbivors are able to which helps to chew plants more thoroughly which aids in digestion.
I never claimed humans were not omnivors, as for traits inherent in true carnivors humans possess zero. I can not think of a single trait that is characteristic of every true carnivor that we have. The ones you stated are either completely wrong or irrelevent. Can we just go out and graze? Of course not, but then again other great apes, (which are our closest genetic relatives) can not do that either. Humans are best adapted to eating fruits and vegetables.
That's a very bold statement to make. It's also kind of laughable to argue over what we're adapted to when meat has been more readily available and packed quite a punch in terms of nutrition before the advent of agriculture/farming. It doesn't matter what you or another person THINKS we're adapted to, it's what our bodies are capable of adapting to. If meat is readily available, as it has been.... forever, then there was no reason for us to avoid it as our bodies can easily survive off of it because of its nutrient content it provided for us in order to survive.
Humans are not better adapted to eating fruits and veggies over meat nor meat over fruits and veggies. The body is perfectly capable of handling either and trying to argue one over the other is pointless and highly subjective based on factors you want to look at such as health risks, nutrient content, etc.
I can't take vegs seriously because of the bias towards their "research" in terms of other "research". Think about how far humans would have gotten if they ate only agriculture without the information we have now that keeps you from having major nutritional deficiencies because of your choice to be a veg.
On June 03 2011 23:35 SluGGer wrote: If God didn't want us to eat meat then why did he make animals so tasty!?
who's to say that human flesh is not tasty, why must you create these imaginary "moral" barriers to your lifestyle. why do you and those that share your particular idea's not consume dogs, or cats, or even whales, but not think twice about eating a cow. why do these things create such disgust in the average western person? if you're religious then you'd know what you're religion preaches, compassion. if you're not and you're just talking shit(which is the likely case), then why do you bring god into youre poorly thought out argument.
On June 03 2011 21:47 Jombozeus wrote: I don't think its morally wrong to eat meat, and I love my hamburgers. Meat taste good and I don't care for animal rights, but I don't go out of my way to harm animals. If I apply that formula to all your above arguments, my conclusion is the complete opposite in every case.
That's not true though, because by paying the industry to slaughter the animals after having kept them in cages, you are in effectively 'going out of your way' to harm them. Is there any different from killing an animal on the street (what I presume you mean by saying going out of your way to harm one) and killing one in a factory? It's like paying someone to lock up a pet dog in a cage for the duration of its life and then slitting its throat at the end for food.
Edit: For an example of what I mean by keeping a dog in a cage, see the 10:50 mark of this video:
The pigs and chickens that are kept in cages have worse conditions than the dogs above.
But you're paying for vegetables that you KNOW lead to the death of animals, doesn't that make you exactly the same as him?
Honestly, as someone who LOVES meat, I just wish the animal farms were more humane than they are. Killing animals for meat really doesn't bother me, but torturing them, making them live in shitholes, etc. does.
fwiw many zero / super low carbers claim take a similarly indignant stance to vegans about what humans are "naturally" adapted to eating for best health (although obviously arguing opposite points). probably enough to tell you that there's lots of room for subjective interpretation of the evidence, and a lot of terrible research out there that should be disregarded
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
On June 03 2011 23:35 SluGGer wrote: If God didn't want us to eat meat then why did he make animals so tasty!?
who's to say that human flesh is not tasty, why must you create these imaginary "moral" barriers to your lifestyle. why do you and those that share your particular idea's not consume dogs, or cats, or even whales, but not think twice about eating a cow. why do these things create such disgust in the average western person? if you're religious then you'd know what you're religion preaches, compassion. if you're not and you're just talking shit(which is the likely case), then why do you bring god into youre poorly thought out argument.
cause killing other human beings is wrong? society doesn't work with people killing each other for food?
ya some animals aren't consumed for a myriad of reasons -- but i dont think there's anything wrong with consuming i dunno whales (they eat it in japan), or eating cats/dogs (even though i would probably not eat them).
what religion preaches is pretty debatable, that interpretation has certainly changed depending on culture/time period/etc...
On June 03 2011 23:35 RoyalCheese wrote: I don't have problem with eating meat and i eat is myself. But i think its inhuman that animals are being "manufactured" just to be eaten when they are year old. Also, i think people saying that "civilization is build on eating meat" idiots, because even 50-100 or so years ago it was not the case. People ate mostly vegetables and meat was usually eaten on special occasions. But people nowdays don't give a fuck about anything. So meh.
Those animals that are being "manufactured" have undergone so much artificial selection that they can no longer survive on their own. I don't see to many farm animals out in the wild about the only ones that I know of that can live outside a farm are pigs. Also agriculture wasn't even invented until about 10k years ago we have been around for at least 250k possibly 400k. Dogs and Sheep were domesticate before we were even farming. I understand the part about not wanting animals to suffer but you could at least not lie about our evolution. I'm not buying the whole we mainly ate vegetables BS if that was the case then why did we migrate all over the world following herds of animals?
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
I've been doing it wrong all this time.... dear lord
TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Poor animals, it's not their fault they taste so good.
But it's still true. Mm.
The moral argument for veganism can be applied to any meat-eating animal, just because lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) don't have chicken farms doesn't mean it's a different situation. Shit breaks down from there; veganism is just another modern, artificial way to grab moral superiority. Also a good way to boss people around, first with words and (hopefully, to them) eventually with laws and force behind them.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
One guy makes a typo and you jump on it, great.
Whats the difference between herbivore and omnivore teeth? The Canines. I highly doubt he meant to type out incisors.
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to.
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
yep pretty much. and then when you eat other culture's cuisine and you realize that you can't eat anything good because it all has meat in it.
Let me sum up all of the arguments on the "eat meat" side.
Why do we eat meat?
1. Because its fucking delicious. I've had vegan fare, I've eaten vegetarian food, and yeah there's enjoyable things on both menus, but I love the taste of meat and nothing will come close to replacing the living flesh of another animal (until they grow steaks on petri dishes).
2. Because we can. Like it or not, we are the apex predators, the top of the food chain. We have the intellect to domesticate animals and use them for culinary purposes, and I guarantee you, if other animals had the intelligence and the know how, they would too.
And because of those two points, anything a vegan/vegetarian argues to convince us otherwise is null and void. Personally I enjoy large quantities of meat, I'm fit due to 6+ hours of tennis a week, daily jogs and three trips to the gym a week, and I'm generally very, very healthy. My diet is working, and there's no reason for a meat-eater like me to change my diet. Even if you wanted to eat healthier, it doesn't mean that vegetarian/vegan diets are the only way to go.
And before you all start screaming about morals and ethics, I'm an avid hunter. Yes, I go and shoot animals, skin them, gut them, then eat them. I've hunted deer, moose, all sorts of fowl, and I love fishing. I don't waste, and love the thrill of the hunt, as well as the taste of fresh game. I've slaughtered chickens on farms as well, so don't give me the "you don't realize you're killing an animal" bullcrap. I realize the importance of animal life, but I also realize they taste delicious.
tl;dr: This thread is just bad, and you can't convince someone not to eat meat if they enjoy eating meat.
I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
Do you see the same types of teeth on pure herbivores? And if they do, do they also have canine teeth to accompany them? I can't think of too many species off hand that have both (other than some species of horses).
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
And the length of a true herbivore's digestive system is far longer than a humans is, relative to the animal. Also, I never said we were fully adapted to eating meat..... Just like we can't go outside and graze on the grass..... We can't really do either extremes.....
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Where did I claim that we can process huge quantities of meat (or even that it was healthy)?
Most herbivors in fact do possess canines, that is not something reserved to carnivors. You also said the purpose of incisors was not to eat plants.... what? That is exactly what they are used for. No one reading this should believe anything you have to say pertaining to oral anatomy anymore. Carnivors are also unable to move their jaws from side to side like humans and herbivors are able to which helps to chew plants more thoroughly which aids in digestion.
Our incisors and general functioning of our mouth is not completely similar to herbivores..... Herbivore incisors are shaped quite differently than carnivore incisors.
If you'd notice - humans are somewhere between the two. Our incisors are not as prominent nor as effective at "tearing plants" as a herbivore (lol at thinking that's the only thing they can do - our incisors are pretty damn sharp, and our jaw is pretty damn strong), yet our canine teeth are not as effective at "tearing meat" as a canine. Granted, this is an extreme example, however, what you'll notice is a general trend that herbivores and carnivores have very differently shaped and placed incisors, and humans are actually closer to carnivores in this respect.
Herbivores almost always have canines that are flat and/or small. Carnivores have incisors that are almost always large. Omnivores such as raccoons and bears have both, humans are closer to "neither". They're not large, yet they're not small and flat.
Also, our molars are smaller than those of a herbivore, relative to the size of our jaw, and larger than a carnivore's, also relative to the size of our jaw (in most cases). Our mouth exhibits the capability to move sideways, as do herbivores, yet we do not have as much lateral movement as the majority of herbivores, yet it is pretty consistent with some other omnivores, such as bears (also doesn't make much difference when our molars aren't large enough to take advantage of more lateral movement than what we currently have). Our saliva also has enzymes in it that break down starches, fibers, and fats. We have somewhere around 8-10k taste buds in our mouths, whereas herbivores generally have a lot more, and carnivores generally have a lot less. The list goes on. And that's only talking about the mouth of the animal.....
I guess I was wrong in saying "we have incisors". I should have said "we have incisors like we do". Our incisors are quite different than other herbivores. My bad for not being clear enough.
I never claimed humans were not omnivors, as for traits inherent in true carnivors humans possess zero. I can not think of a single trait that is characteristic of every true carnivor that we have. The ones you stated are either completely wrong or irrelevent. Can we just go out and graze? Of course not, but then again other great apes, (which are our closest genetic relatives) can not do that either. Humans are best adapted to eating fruits and vegetables.
Don't forget meats, fish, and shellfish. While our digestive systems may be a few times longer (by a factor of about 2) than a carnivore's would be, it is still a few times shorter than a herbivores would be (also by a factor of about 2)..... Our digestive system is more potent and more capable of dealing with many bacterias that a herbivore wouldn't come across. And if you think we can't stomach raw meat - think again. + Show Spoiler +
That's a delicacy. I know I enjoy it with fresh rye bread on occasion. I also enjoy raw sausage meat (not the type you'll find in a grocery store, home made sausage meat). And there's a lot of other examples of raw meats being eaten. Admittedly, I don't like sashimi or raw fish in general. But people can eat that with no consequences (for the most part).
However, we definitely can't live off of just raw meat. Anyone who thinks they can doesn't realize the harm they are doing to themselves, or if they aren't doing any damage to themselves, then they are a complete freak of nature. While we could (in theory) get all of the required nutrients through ingestion of muscle and organ tissue, as well as bone marrow, our bodies are not good enough at getting rid of cholesterol and large amounts of excess amino acids, among other things like the toxins in an animal's liver, and our bodies are too good at processing fats.
As for a trait that is characteristic of every true carnivore (since the biological ones don't seem to be working for you and some others, or at least not showing a clear non-herbivore state) - I can think of one that is pretty irrefutable - the desire to hunt (psychological, yes, but definitely relevant). Sure, you as an individual may not partake in the activity, however, fishing and hunting is a massive sport/industry worldwide, for that exact reason. Something like 30% of worldwide tourism involves hunting and/or fishing (not sure where exactly I read that, but it was a couple of years ago in one of the fishing magazines I was subscribed to, and I doubt that the statistic would have changed drastically by now).....
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to.
If veganism isn't about the taste of food, then veganism is a self-defeating argument. Food is about the taste of food. It's the most appealing aspect of food. Something that's about food but not about its taste isn't going to garner anything close to a majority following. There are really some very ironic things about vegetarianism and veganism, such as why do vegetarians become vegetarians and then spend half their time trying to mimic the taste of meat using soy. To talk about food but ignore its taste is to ignore why people choose to eat what they eat in the first place. You can't win anyone over with this type of objectivity.
On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
You should refer to the point about using the line of reasoning that says "they don't feel the same way we do," it's not something you should just brush off because it doesn't suit you. You can't say you're not arguing morality when it's clear you are, and it's clear you think yours is superior.
My point on this goes along with that and isn't that you have to eat meat or can't be vegan, my point is that it's a matter of personal choice that should not involve morals because you can't say "I hold all life in the highest regard" (some do) or anything about life at all, and choose to eat some forms over others because of some ambiguous moral issue. It's said very plainly in that article and a fact of life: human beings survive by eating other living things. Would you tell a bear, which in many ways occupies a similar ecological niche to us humans, to not eat salmon or a sick deer it can catch because it can survive off of plant material? This is ecology and our ancestry, we eat meat (and plants), we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat, and it is a luxury of our modern society that we have the time to argue over the ridiculous notion of the morality of eating meat, not an actual moral issue akin to equality. Now how we obtain our meat is another issue and I am most definitely against factory farming and the massive amount of meat that we eat - we can eat meat, just eat less so we don't have a demand for operations such as factory farms.
hotbreakfast put it in a funny way, but he's not wrong. Pretty much the only living things that exist to be eaten are fruits. Maybe you should only eat fruits and tell me how that goes.
I didnt say I wasn't arguing morality, I am. What your wrong about though is that I think my morality defines me as a superior human being. I care about morals because I believe that they are extremely valuable for individuals and societies, I don't think that I am a superior person . If you want to hear it, I think in many ways I am less valuable than most people.
You say that I shouldn't consider morality when making the personal choice of eating meat or not because I am trying to communicate that "I hold all life in the highest regard" but still eat plants and have weak justification for that. This isn't true however. I don't hold all life in the highest regard. I value my moral assessment of situations, and eating plants is more moral than eating animals. I have tried to explain the reasons for this distinction several times and I will do it again below.
As far as plants go, they literally do not feel pain in the way people define it. They do not have a brain to process any stimulation they can detect and EVEN if they did, they definitely have no ability to emotionally or psychologically respond to a life threatening situation. EVEN if you were to say that plants and animals suffer equally*which is ridiculous*, it takes around 10 human servings of grains to provide 1 portion of meat because of how much grain cows eat so meat eating inarguably incurs more suffering than not eating meat.
You gave a funny example with the bear, and your right, I wouldn't expect a bear to only eat vegetables. ....Bears don't have the ability to interpret right from wrong, they are solely concerned with their survival, the ability to make distinctions between right and wrong is one of the defining characteristics of being human. Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no. I definitely agree that this is a more minor ethical issue than human equality but I don't see that as a reason to not argue or abide by it. Tell me what you think, minus the hateful personal stabs pls?
Fool! You've just activated my trap card!
I didn't make any hateful personal stabs, I merely pointed out your agenda and attitude. You also misquoted and misinterpreted several of my statements as well. I'll use science and a little social tidbit against your morality to prove a point, though I will refrain from a debate on morality itself since it's pointless. I'll just say here that when you say "no" to meat playing a role in our evolution, you reveal that you know absolutely nothing besides this petty moral argument against it.
I never said plants feel pain and we all know they don't because they don't have a nervous system, you really should just stop with the "they're not like us" argument before people start using it mo - well shit, the Tea Party has that covered already. The example of using 10 servings of grain for 1 serving of meat is only for grazers (cows), which are only so inefficient when fed grains in factory farms. If you look at some of the original roles animals played in our agroecosystems, it's vastly different from what we have today, but also quite sustainable. To showcase that, pigs originally ate things such as leftovers and "converted" that into manure and meat while today we feed them grains in factory farms while discarding their manure.
It's a shame you never saw my earlier post about integration of animals into agroecosystems though perhaps I'll elaborate more on it now. Integration of animals back into agroecosystems and as small parts of human diets feeds more people (when compared with land used to feed a vegan diet), cycles nutrients better and more closely mimics that process in a natural ecosystem, and creates opportunities with animals such as chickens for biological pest control as well.
As for the bear example, what would you say to an orca then? Would you call it an animal that can't reason and thus can't tell right from wrong? Then again the fact that you say a bear doesn't know right from wrong reveals your train of thought very well: animals are like us when other people want to kill/eat them, which is against my privileged, affluent Western moral compass, but not like us when they use them as examples against me. Meat is historically a part of our diets, our cultures, our evolution, and commonplace on the original Iron Chef series. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having meat in your diet as long as you eat it sparingly or even in moderation with good choices in the kinds of meat you eat (free range, more poultry, sustainable fisheries). However things such as factory farms are quite appalling indeed, I'm as much against them as you are.
On June 04 2011 11:55 ultoma wrote: I have a lot of problems with most of the reasoning done here. Most of the reasoning here likens humans to animals, but this is not a logical position to hold. Humans, are, whether you like the ugly truth or not, superior to animals. We are self-aware, conscious creatures, that have the capacity to draft up rights, that some members of our species are willing to share with other species. Name me another species that has this ability. Name me a species that has the capacity to take members outsides their species as pets. Name me a species that sits down and talks about how we should not be eating other species, despite the fact that we are carnivorous creatures. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof that we are superior. The fact that we have institutions and concepts like'speciesism' is proof that we are superior.
With that in mind, please stop using human examples, analogies, or scenerios to explain why animals and humans are the same.
See, if the argument was to reduce unnecessary harm in the world, I think you'd have some legs to stand on. Reducing unnecessary harm is a much better argument that trying to equate humans to animals in order to justify giving morals to animals.
You see the same argument from both sides, not just the non meat eaters. Meat eaters will claim that we are superior to animals and thus are justified to treat them however we wish. Many also throw examples of how brutal animals are in nature and this somehow justifies immoral treatment by humans. In essence claiming we are superior to animals, yet are justified to treat them brutally because they do it to each other.
So many pro meat eating arguments are incredibly hypocritical of one another. Also, humans are not carnivorous, we exhibit zero traits that are charactaristic of carnivors.
While it is pretty obvious that we're not carnivores, I still call bullshit. We do exhibit several traits (some are very obvious) of carnivores.
For one thing - humans have incisors. Those are teeth that are in our mouth for a reason, and it's not for eating plants. However, note that I am not saying that the only teeth we have in our mouths are for eating meat - we've got teeth for both purposes.
Secondly - our eyes. Typically, herbivores have eyes further apart, and can at least see peripherally behind them, or at least on pretty severe angles, while carnivores have eyes that face directly forwards, giving them better depth perception. Guess which one we fit..... Neither, and both at the same time. We have nearly 180 degrees for peripheral vision, while retaining excellent depth perception because of how our eye sockets are. Kinda like a cross between the two.
Another obvious one is our digestive system. Herbivores typically have very long and large digestive systems to process tough fibers, while carnivores have very short but potent digestive systems to deal with bacteria (I am grossly simplifying it, but hopefully explaining it well enough to get my point across). Humans have a digestive system somewhere between the two. Our digestive system is potent enough to deal with meats (within reason), and still can process all but the toughest fibers.
Notice the pattern yet? Because it extends to a lot of other things.....
Look at many other omnivores out there. You won't necessarily see the exact same features that humans have, but you will notice that there are several distinct features that do not match up with either straight carnivores, or straight herbivores. Guess what - humans are the same. We don't match either fully, although we do lean more towards the herbivore side. However, everything I've ever seen points towards us being omnivores, not herbivores. So, please, stop spreading bullshit like that.
Lol ok, the very purpose of incisors is for the sharp shearing of plants. Almost all herbivores and omnivores have incisors resembling that of humans. The incisors on truely carnivorous animals are very small compared to humans and other herbivors.
The intestines of a carnivor are roughly three times the length of the torso, enabling for the much more efficient digestion of meat. Human intestines however, are seven times the length of our torso which is in accordance with other herbivors. Humans are very bad at digesting meat and animal products. True carnivors will never suffer from heart disease caused by eating to much meat. What do you think is responsible for high colesterol in people? Meat is, we already produce enough colesterol to survive, the addition of colesterol in our diets causes many health problems. If you should reach the age of fifty and beyond, it is not cancer that is most likely to kill you, it is heart disease.
Humans have adapted to be able to handle meat, however, the large amounts that most westerners eat is incredibly harmful to their bodies. Humans may be classified as omnivors, I never denied that. To claim however that we are carnivorous and able to process the huge quantities of meat we currently eat is simply wrong. Stop spreading bullshit? Most of the points you made in your post are ludicrous, take your own advice.
Posts and people like this are why nobody takes these threads seriously and why they often degrade to a shitstorm.
Vegans are like the nutritional version of evangelical, young-earth creationists. Can't reason with them worth a shit.
What? Both posters use unsourced information that makes sense in their context. They are arguing over the same facts. Why is it the vegetarian thats ignoring reason and logic? TBH I don't expect a response.
Hrmmm, might be because one dude claimed that canines were for the "sharp shearing of plants" and the other didn't.
Lol incisors are for eating plants, which is what I said. Terrible.
One guy makes a typo and you jump on it, great.
Whats the difference between herbivore and omnivore teeth? The Canines. I highly doubt he meant to type out incisors.
What are canines for? You tell me.
Morphology of teeth is a poor predictor of diet. The length of the GI tract is a far better predictor. Man has a relatively short GI tract compared to herbivores and a relatively long GI tract compared to pure carnivores. Herbivores need a long GI tract to actually digest the nutrients in plant matter because much of the nutrients in plants are locked away in cellulose. Man cannot digest cellulose at all; we lack the compartments for symbiotic bacteria to reside in. We only superficially digest plant matter. Only the easy components such as accessible proteins, starch and sugar is digested, meaning we would have to eat even more plant calories than a comparably sized herbivore to get our daily intake of nutrients. Without modern processing and concentrating of plant matter, veganism would be impossible. Without a massive transportation network to bring in exogenous plant matter, veganism would be impossible because most locally derived plants will not be nutritionally complete, including vitamins, minerals and amino acids. It's only through importing exotic vegetables, massive processing and concentrating of plant matter is veganism possible. Even then, it's nutritionally incomplete without the addition of omega-3 (unless you routinely eat 20lbs of phytoplankton), B12 through yeast extracts or bacterially derived B12.
All signs point to meat being the predominate nutrient in humans with fruits/vegetables/roots/tubers being supplemental to the meat in times of leanness.
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
These threads are useless and boring in my opinion.
Its like Intel vs AMD or something like that. People have spent their money on something, they have made a decision, so they are gonna stick to their own head. Giving up would mean admitting that you have to change your way of thinking, people dont do that easily. Both sides are just preaching to their own choirs.
The closest thing of something useful coming out of the conversation is "You are right in XXX, BUT..."
Its like Intel vs AMD or something like that. People have spent their money on something, they have made a decision, so they are gonna stick to their own head. Giving up would mean admitting that you have to change your way of thinking, people dont do that easily. Both sides are just preaching to their own choirs.
The point of true believers arguing with true believers is that not everyone is a true believer.
The opponents in a presidential debate aren't trying to change each others' minds, they're trying to convince anyone in the audience who might possibly be convinced by them.
If people just stopped talking or discussing or arguing or whatever you want to call it because "no one ever changes their mind" no one would have a mind to change after a while.
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
This is very true.
We have eyes in front, signaling our need to determine distance in 3-D space. We have a high capacity to learn, predict and change our behavior rapidly, all characteristics of predators but not herbivores. We are very fat-adapted, meaning we can survive long stretches without food and especially without carbohydrates. Our cerebellum is highly developed and intricately linked to our cortex, indicating a high degree of coordination as well as the ability to plan movements. Very few, if any, herbivores have these adaptations. For an herbivore, speed or defense is paramount. The stupidest gazelle in the world will survive it's simply faster than all the other gazelle. Very few dumb predators will survive because it won't be able to catch any prey.
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote: Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.
Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.
So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread.
No, if you re-read my first post you can see that I am asking a question to vegans for them to explain their position on dwelling on the life of a cow when that cow's life represents .00001% of the animals that were killed so that somebody could enjoy a burger. If you don't have an answer for me then you can just ignore my post.
On June 04 2011 14:29 Newbistic wrote: TBH this is a pretty crappy thread compared to the meat one.
If you look at both threads objectively the meat thread has a bunch of amazing pictures of food. This thread is about food, but there's 0 photos of food and a diarrhea of "discussion". Any casual observers looking at the threads will see that meat eaters seem to celebrate the idea of delicious food while vegans are a bunch of prudes who hate the very idea of appealing to one's taste buds.
TL;DR If you really want to convert people why not show that vegan dishes can be just as tasty or even tastier than their meaty counterparts. Unless veganism actually is all about the hatred of food.
Because veganism isn't about the taste of food, but rather the ethics behind where food comes from. If I posted pictures of delicious food people would just argue that veganism is just trying to appeal to meat-eaters when meat dishes are more delicious. You'd think people can think about the topic objectively without having to be advertised to.
If you have a colony of ants outside, do you regularly leave an extra plate of dessert out so they can enjoy a feast? Or do you kill the colony?
How about a colony of termites that wants to move into your attic? Do you give them a warm welcome?
What about that mouse that found its way into your garage and made itself comfortable over the winter? Do you make sure it has access to food and water?
What about when you get a cold or flu? Do you welcome the bacteria/virus with open arms, or do you try to get rid of it ASAP?
What if you ended up contracting a parasite? Would you just let it live inside of you?
They're pests to you, and you get rid of them without a second thought. Right?
So, clearly, you're also a hypocrite for suggesting that it's purely ethics behind your decision. We both feel the same way about 99.99999999% of living creatures. Our only difference is on a few specific creatures. And somehow, your approach is more "ethical"?
Think about it yourself, man..... While I'm not suggesting that factory farming is the way to go (I do support local butcheries whenever I get the chance because they are far more likely to participate in more "ethical" methods of producing and preparing the meat), some of these "ethical" or "moral" based arguments are actually really terrible.
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?
“For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.”
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No.
If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
“This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.”
Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species.
See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument.
If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed.
If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
“Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.”
Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not.
Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?
How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid.
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right.
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
someone answer this pls
1. Yes, humans evolved as omnivores.
2. It's a possibility, since some cultures may not have had access to meat and were predominantly farming based societies (Iriquois tribes of Native Americans etc.), however this would be the fault of circumstances, not choice.
3. You are absolutely right, modern luxuries for developed nations is what gives us the opportunity to feel bad about an animal. If you're a starving tribesman in Africa and you wander upon a wounded gazelle, you're gonna eat the shit out of it. Because we're fat and rich, we have the choice to be snobbish and discriminate on what we eat.
4. Humans definitely are NOT naturally vegetarian.
5. Yep.
I'm no vegetarian, but I hope I answered your questions :D
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
1. Humans are omnivores and have been for at least 2 million years
2. There isn't a single recorded instance of a hunter-gatherer society subsisting solely on plant matter. Zero. Every HG society seems to derive between 40-75% of their total calories from animal matter.
3. Vegeterianism is only possible in today's society because of the concentration of calories, importation of plant matter to shore up nutritional deficiencies, massive genetic intervention in plants to increase caloric density, and massive processing to make plant matter digestable. If one was to subsist on only locally acquired plant matter, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to meet all the nutritional needs in this manner. Likewise, if one were to eat the ancestral version of plants, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to meet caloric needs in this manner.
4. There is not a single recorded instance of a vegetarian society in human history.
On June 04 2011 14:57 MrProb wrote: I have a question and my english is bad so.. sry about that
1.Human are omnivores since they were born thousands or millions of years ago right?
2.Do you Vegan ppl think, there were any vegan back in the day(like wayyyyyy, way back when we were wearing animal skin) ?
3.If the answer for no.2 question was "No", does that mean human started being Vegetarian since humanity started "getting educated and feeling good/bad for the animal"?
4.If the answer for no.3 question was "Yes", then, does that mean human are not Vegetarian naturally ?
5.Arent human eatting meat just a "cycle of life" like in the jungle?
someone answer this pls
1. Yes, humans evolved as omnivores.
2. It's a possibility, since some cultures may not have had access to meat and were predominantly farming based societies (Iriquois tribes of Native Americans etc.), however this would be the fault of circumstances, not choice.
3. You are absolutely right, modern luxuries for developed nations is what gives us the opportunity to feel bad about an animal. If you're a starving tribesman in Africa and you wander upon a wounded gazelle, you're gonna eat the shit out of it. Because we're fat and rich, we have the choice to be snobbish and discriminate on what we eat.
4. Humans definitely are NOT naturally vegetarian.
5. Yep.
I'm no vegetarian, but I hope I answered your questions :D
lol im glad you understand my english and thanks for the answer.It might or might not be all correct but its one of the opinion out there xD
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?
“For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.”
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No.
If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
“This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.”
Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species.
See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument.
If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed.
If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
“Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.”
Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not.
Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?
How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid.
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
Well, I don't think you should've structured the opening of your post this way (seems kinda condescending) I agree mostly on the conclusion.
Like I said earlier in this thread, the vegan argument is a moral one, thus it just depends on how much you care about animals. I don't care that much about them, but I don't want them hurt/killed for entertainment purposes or unnecessarily. But to feed people? Go for it.
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right.
He is right in theory, wrong in explanation. It's late. Read these articles and learn something new.
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?
“For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.”
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No.
If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
“This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.”
Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species.
See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument.
If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed.
If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
“Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.”
Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not.
Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?
How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid.
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
Well, I don't think you should've structured the opening of your post this way (seems kinda condescending) I agree mostly on the conclusion.
Like I said earlier in this thread, the vegan argument is a moral one, thus it just depends on how much you care about animals. I don't care that much about them, but I don't want them hurt/killed for entertainment purposes or unnecessarily. But to feed people? Go for it.
Well I needed a structured format in which to debunk each of the OP's points, thought this was the easiest way :D
Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no.
Actually, yes. The human brain requires a massive amount of quickly generated energy from food (the brain uses up about 25% of our daily calorie intake or so, doing maths and beating up protosses and stuff) that we simply could not get from eating plants alone. We needed meat too.
You've confused me so much. First of all, the brain needing a lot of energy doesn't imply that eating meat made humans evolve large brains, that just doesn't make sense. Also, a "massive amount of quickly generated energy" doesn't come from meat. Meat is valued primarily for its large quantities of protein, proteins help build tissue. Carbohydrates which primarily come from plant based products, are what the body uses to quickly turn into energy. So......thats just not right.
No, you are incorrect. Building a big brain requires lots of easily accessible protein and fats. The brain is 50% fat by weight. Universally, herbivores have tiny brains for their body size while carnivores have massive brains for their body size. Secondly, the body can produce all the carbohydrate it needs through fat adaptation in tissues that can metabolize both fats and carbohydrates and through generation of glucose though gluconeogenesis, in which protein or fat backbones are converted into glucose.
Carbohydrates are not a required macronutrient. You can function better in some aspects with carbohydrate intake, but you can live your entire life without consuming carbohydrates.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
One thing about human is they only care what they can see.You're feeling bad to see animal being killed to feed ppl but how about insects or some other small lives that is being killed to grow vegetables, do they count as lives? or are they too small to count as living creatures or too small to have any feelings.
On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote: -snip /Thread
Ok. Dude. That is not going to end this thread.
What you've done is a lot like showing up to a gunfight with a shiny desert eagle. Your argument looks badass. Unfortunately, the other side is sitting 1km away with an R700..... If you try this one, you're going to be left a bloody mess.....
It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer.
If you're going to attack that point, you need to do it other ways. Either prove how useless morals are in realistic terms (I mentioned it near the top of the page, since there's only a few cases where a vegan and a carnivore will actually have a variation in their views of what animals are okay to kill, whereas they share similar views in the vast majority of cases), or you need to somehow show that morals are either subjective/objective and therefore cannot be compared properly, or you need to show that morals have no place in this argument (which I see you are going for, but it is not very convincing, even when I'm on your side of the fence). If you can think of another way of doing it, by all means, go for it. But know that you will never hold any moral high ground over vegans in any argument, without getting ripped to shreds.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
One thing about human is they only care what they can see.You're feeling bad to see animal being killed to feed ppl but how about insects or some other small lives that is being killed to grow vegetables, do they count as lives? or are they too small to count as living creatures or too small to have any feelings.
Your totally right. I'm only human and I'm going to respond more dramatically to what I can relate to. I would definitely prefer to kill an ant or a snail than a cow. I can only base my interpretations off of what I can observe and the more sophisticated the animal the more pain I observe. It is definitely MORE wrong IMO to kill a cow than an ant for pleasure but I still see killing anything for pleasure as inherently wrong, some are just wrong-er to kill.
On June 04 2011 15:22 RoseTempest wrote: -snip /Thread
Ok. Dude. That is not going to end this thread.
What you've done is a lot like showing up to a gunfight with a shiny desert eagle. Your argument looks badass. Unfortunately, the other side is sitting 1km away with an R700..... If you try this one, you're going to be left a bloody mess.....
It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer.
If you're going to attack that point, you need to do it other ways. Either prove how useless morals are in realistic terms (I mentioned it near the top of the page, since there's only a few cases where a vegan and a carnivore will actually have a variation in their views of what animals are okay to kill, whereas they share similar views in the vast majority of cases), or you need to somehow show that morals are either subjective/objective and therefore cannot be compared properly, or you need to show that morals have no place in this argument (which I see you are going for, but it is not very convincing, even when I'm on your side of the fence). If you can think of another way of doing it, by all means, go for it. But know that you will never hold any moral high ground over vegans in any argument, without getting ripped to shreds.
EDITed for clarity.
The analogies in this thread are terrible
I'm not arguing for a moral high ground, I'm arguing for the fact that morals in question here are subjective, fluid and have an enormous range* and have no place in discussion or debate.
And since OP based ALL of his arguments on his own brand of morality, his arguments, and in extension, this thread is moot.
*There's no widely accepted, generalized view, there's a broad spectrum of beliefs.
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
You're right, but quite a few proponents of veganism/vegetarianism in this thread have been quite condescending, smug and "persuasive". I'm guessing thats where he's coming from. Don't take it personally ;D
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
On June 04 2011 12:05 BlackJack wrote: Vegetarians and vegans will kill millions of animals directly and indirectly during their lifetime. Each cow gives several hundred pounds of meet. If you have an occasional steak or burger you will only be responsible for the death of a few cows over the course of your lifetime. Do vegans really think it is so morally superior to be responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 animals instead of 1,000,001 animals?
Vegetarians and vegans probably do contribute inadvertently to the death of animals. I don't think the ratio of animals that are inadvertently killed over a lifetime to animals killed for meat during a lifetime is 1,000,000 to 1. I know you were exaggerating, but still, animals killed for meat over a lifetime is definitely going to be higher than animals inadvertently killed, and to me, and probably the others on here, that is worth the sacrifice. You guys should also consider that, for me personally, I just feel bad or wrong emotionally when I am eating an animal, so the natural thing to do is just not eat them. If you don't know your killing an animal its much harder to feel bad about it.
Yeah, I was exaggerating, but I was also talking about all animals, including insects. But yeah, even some non-insect animals die to produce vegetables.
So the only thing you're saying is "You're not perfect!"? Very nice contribution to the thread.
Would you only hand farm without using chemicals or machines to reduce the deaths of snakes, birds, squirrels, field mice, wildlife, etc?
The point here is that to reduce animal suffering you would probably have to go to extreme measures that most people wouldn't do or care to do, even if they refrain from eating meat.
I don't find eating meat, building cities, cutting down forests, and using chemicals\machines among a million other things that improve human well being at the expense of other animals as necessarily bad. There would have to be a technical discussion about the impacts on other animals and alternatives. It isn't outright wrong (to live better at the loss of other species).
On June 04 2011 16:08 Laerties wrote:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
You didn't HAVE to cut down that forest to build a home that resulted in the local deer dying off; you could have lived in a cave. You killed them for pleasure.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.
A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.
It's quite easy to see how, if morals do apply to the situation, the vegan view is "superior" to any non vegan view. Less animals suffer.
No, more animals suffer as a result of agriculture for food. And if we stopped eating meat we'd need to grow larger numbers of high-quality plant foods than we do now, which would require more fertilizer and water and pesticides which would cause even more animals to suffer.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
The issue isn't morality or your rationale, the issue is you using morality and your rationale alone as an argument when ecology and evolution are pretty much completely against you.
None of the moral issues I have with eating meat were invalidated by any ecological or evolutionary information posted. If you really believe this, pls post the info or quote the previous post or w/e.
Humans evolved bigger brains after eating meat, canine teeth, high fat diet, millions of years of omnivorous existence blah blah blah
It's been said before, not exactly relevant to the issue at hand, but I can see where he's coming from
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
Moral consistency - meateaters are willing to kill all animals equally to improve their situation whereas vegans are only willing to kill those they deem as pests (spiders, ants, the likes). Thus being a meateater is morally superior as it stays true to the demand of universalism which is the aim of morals.
Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions,
tbh I'm pretty sure the tens or hundreds of millions who didn't starve in India and Pakistan and China (once Deng finally beat the idiot Maoists) over the last forty years outweigh "questionable ethics" by Monsanto or whoever the corporate bogeyman of the industry may be.
The Green Revolution isn't connected to vegans, it's the best thing we've done for ourselves as a species since the original invention of farming probably.
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
Easy, I'm keeping myself alive by eating meat in diet that through including meat is more balanced and healthy for myself. The only animal raised for food in an even possibly objectionable way is chickens, but then I think of all the poor voles and mice more or less vaporized by tractors and combines and all kinds of animals killed by pesticides and fertilizers directly or through runoff and I just don't care.
There are only two mainstream moral systems: Idealism and Utilitarianism. Well to be honest, those are the only two schools with a universalist approach that aren't hogwash. There are a few relativistic moral systems out there but you can simply justify anything with them, making them irrelevant as a guide. Why? Depending on what flavor you prefer, the act of raping a young girl is either immoral, moral or amoral, all with a justification of the same value.
Idealism being founded by Kant argues, among other things, that no rational being ought be used as a means to an end and that one should act in a way that the principle of ones acts may be natural law.
I don't think I have to define "rational being" here but it basically excludes non self-aware animals. The "acts can be natural law" principle or the categorical imperative means, that if I steal, I can want that everyone else also steals. Applied to animals that would be "I treat animals poorly, therefore I can want that everyone treats animals poorly" or "I eat meat therefore I can want that everyone eats meat" It's only in the second part where we run into a problem: If everyone ate meat, we would have too much methane produced. That can be rectified by saying "I eat only non-methane producing meat".
Second school: Utilitarianism. Most vegans or vegetarians must follow this school. Utilitarianism searches to maximize "pleasure" and avoid "suffering" as Bentham and Mill put it. More recently Peter Singer argued for vegetarianism with preference utilitarianism. Meaning, we ought to maximize whatever is preferred. Animals simply prefer not to be killed.
For his argument Singer assumes one thing though: an "aware" animal can suffer. Aware here is basically just more interactive with the environment than a plant and less so than a self-aware being. Question is, can you really suffer without being self-aware? Imagine yourself without an I. Can you suffer? What is pain if there is nobody to experience it?
Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions,
tbh I'm pretty sure the tens or hundreds of millions who didn't starve in India and Pakistan and China (once Deng finally beat the idiot Maoists) over the last forty years outweigh "questionable ethics" by Monsanto or whoever the corporate bogeyman of the industry may be.
The Green Revolution isn't connected to vegans, it's the best thing we've done for ourselves as a species since the original invention of farming probably.
Indeed, but some aspects of it should be changed or at the very least done more responsibly, notably pesticides, herbicides and the issues of over-fertilizing and runoff associated with all three.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.
A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right?
On June 04 2011 16:19 Brotkrumen wrote: There are only two mainstream moral systems: Idealism and Utilitarianism. Well to be honest, those are the only two schools with a universalist approach that aren't hogwash. There are a few relativistic moral systems out there but you can simply justify anything with them, making them irrelevant as a guide.
No. Nihilism is the only one that makes logical sense ^^
An Utilitarian is just a nihilist who didn't conclude the next logical step, yet
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.
A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right?
It wouldn't invalidate their rationales per say, but it would make them useless as each "reason", each "point" would be true only to the person making the point, thus making it useless for a debate. I'll always see my point as right, and you'll always see your point as right.
I'm not sure I'm reading your post as you intended when you wrote it but it's getting late and I work in 6 hours.
TBH, it was a pleasure discussing this with you, completely uncharacteristic from the ignorant shitstorm you normally find in these threads
I bid ye good evening and may we continue this at a later date :D
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do with necessity which was what you were discussing before.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
True, but it's still not viable to argue morals, just because the other person may be adamant in their morals as well. Think of it this way, one person thinks abortions are morally wrong for whatever reasons, and is adamant in their moral views, the other person thinks abortions are morally right for their own views. Now you put the two in an argument about the morality of abortions, and what's gonna happen? Nothing.
"It is my opinion.."
"To me, it is...."
See where I'm going at?
The basis for discussion and debate lies on fact and reason. Concrete, universal facts. Not morals.
I respect your ideas of morality on animal killing etc. and I imagine you respect mine on using animals as a food source, thus you can see it's impossible to argue on such grounds.
I think the natural thing to do from there would be to simplify the argument to a debate between what is moral etc, I'm not guaranteeing there will be a solution there, but the only reason those two people are disagreeing is because of a different definition of morality. Why wouldn't they just state their reasons, observe each others logic, all the stuff people do in debates?
Also, if you try and convert the example to meat eating vs vegan it wouldn't really work because I can't see a meat eater trying to take a moral high ground lol, that is I can't imagine a moral basis for eating meat (maybe there is one tho).
But once again, we might disagree on what is and isn't moral, thus grinding the debate to a halt. My preferred course of action would be to look at ecological, nutritional, health and possibly environmental issues presented by both and look at which one makes more sense.
A few moral high grounds off the top of my head would be the 3rd world nation, lack of choice argument. A tribesman hunts to feed his family because that is all he can do in the arid country that he lives in. Is it morally wrong for him to feed his family?
I still dont see how a disagreement of moral distinction between two people would invalidate their respective rationals for not eating meat or eating meat. They might not be able to come to a conclusion on which one is 'correct' but they just as many tools to argue each of their points as you would for arguing the ecological, nutritional environmental etc effects of meat eating vs non meat eating. It would definitely be possible to find both people who could agree and people who couldn't over all of these reasons to eat/not eat meat. right?
It wouldn't invalidate their rationales per say, but it would make them useless as each "reason", each "point" would be true only to the person making the point, thus making it useless for a debate. I'll always see my point as right, and you'll always see your point as right.
I'm not sure I'm reading your post as you intended when you wrote it but it's getting late and I work in 6 hours.
TBH, it was a pleasure discussing this with you, completely uncharacteristic from the ignorant shitstorm you normally find in these threads
I bid ye good evening and may we continue this at a later date :D
I enjoyed debating with you as well good sir. Maybe again soon? We will see.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Ah, lovely. You are against animal testing. Let me list a couple (sorry, definitely not an exhaustive list!) of things that you are not allowed to use then, by your own standards:
- virtually any medicine, to test for possible side effects and LD (lethal dose), chemicals are tested on rats, usually - honorable mention #1: vaccines - honorable mention #2: insulin (because now, diabetes will fuck you up in no time at all) - transplants
Good luck surviving.
The only way to get a basic understanding of how substances work is by looking at how they affect an organism. The closer to humans, the more likely it is that we get comparable results.
Eating meat in the volumes we do is morally not a beautifull thing. However, this corresponds to a lot of things we do that are morally unpretty; for example we like our tv's, shoes, shirts etc cheap and get them manufactured in 3rd world countries. It's not that there is no way for us to afford stuff where people or animal weren't abused to make it, it's just that when we get our stuff cheap we can get more stuff, and stuff we like.
I've asked myself why I don't buy biological meat (I don't buy biological vegetables etc because I couldnt give a toss about the wellbeing of the vegetable as long as it tastes good, and I havent seen any conclusive test in favor of biological vegetables, and quite a few with opposite results), since I do think it would be morally preferable if the animals didnt suffer. I can afford biological meat (which is about 3 times the price of non-biological meat), it would simply mean having to cut back on other things I like. Turns out, I don't care that much apparantly. I like the taste of meat too much (and dislike the taste of replacements, altho I guess Quorn (or however you spell it) is decent) and like my living rythm too much to buy biological meat and as such alleviate the suffering of those animals.
It sounds really harsh, but then again, I prefer going to the pub on a saturdaynight to spend ~~30+bucks as opposed to giving that to starving children in Africa. I like to get a new T-shirt instead of donating that money to the latest fund for a disaster. Now I could say that that was because I'm not sure the money would be spent well or come to the right people or whatever, but that would just be a lie. Apparantly I don't care that much for people and animals I cant see. I can live with that.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before.
10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste.
Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian.
I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
On June 04 2011 16:55 Promises wrote: Eating meat in the volumes we do is morally not a beautifull thing. However, this corresponds to a lot of things we do that are morally unpretty; for example we like our tv's, shoes, shirts etc cheap and get them manufactured in 3rd world countries. It's not that there is no way for us to afford stuff where people or animal weren't abused to make it, it's just that when we get our stuff cheap we can get more stuff, and stuff we like.
I've asked myself why I don't buy biological meat (I don't buy biological vegetables etc because I couldnt give a toss about the wellbeing of the vegetable as long as it tastes good, and I havent seen any conclusive test in favor of biological vegetables, and quite a few with opposite results), since I do think it would be morally preferable if the animals didnt suffer. I can afford biological meat (which is about 3 times the price of non-biological meat), it would simply mean having to cut back on other things I like. Turns out, I don't care that much apparantly. I like the taste of meat too much (and dislike the taste of replacements, altho I guess Quorn (or however you spell it) is decent) and like my living rythm too much to buy biological meat and as such alleviate the suffering of those animals.
It sounds really harsh, but then again, I prefer going to the pub on a saturdaynight to spend ~~30+bucks as opposed to giving that to starving children in Africa. I like to get a new T-shirt instead of donating that money to the latest fund for a disaster. Now I could say that that was because I'm not sure the money would be spent well or come to the right people or whatever, but that would just be a lie. Apparantly I don't care that much for people and animals I cant see. I can live with that.
I've asked myself this questions about organic meat as well.. The first point is that cheap supermarket meat is filled with water. You should compare the price based on the amount of meat that is actually left after cooking ;-) My second point is more personal, but i'm enjoying meat a lot more, now that i eat less meat of higher quality.
Feed grain takes much less resources to grow than grain suitable for human consumption, so talking about how much agriculture it takes to support industrial meat production is misleading. It would take possibly less land but more resources to grow grain to replace meat in the world's diet.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Death is not ultimate pain, and cattle are not killed in a way that causes emotional stress. I find it hard to believe it would be stressful or painful to be instantly killed without knowing it was coming.
And of course a human's life is more valuable than a cow's. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Human life is the most sacrosanct thing we know to exist.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before.
10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste.
Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian.
I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Ill say it again, and again and again. "You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?" The distinction between what makes it moral or not is the purpose it is being killed for. If its being killed for pleasure than I see it as immoral, if it is being killed for survival than that is justifiable to me. THIS is why I keep saying you don't understand my rationale. This is the central distinction I keep making. You wouldn't say "Where is your moral rationale now?" if you understood what I was saying. You clearly haven't up to this point.
"10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste." This is such a minor issue. I'm sure the statistic for any kind of meat is similar to 10:1. This is such a non-issue that it seems like your only arguing with it because your just running out of points to make.
Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings. Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point.
You ARE all over the place, first you say that my moral argument is flawed, then you say that there are moral repercussions to adopting vegetarian diets, then you try and make the point that vegetarians are harming local farmers, you then try and connect it to the green movement which isn't even related.... So yes you are all over the place. I've been arguing about these things because I feel that I gain some insight when I do but your ideas are just becoming weaker and weaker to the point that some of them just dont make sense and that I am just not benefitting at all from reading them so sorry if I just ignore your next post.
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
So if you're starving and offered a steak, you won't eat it? I'll also present:
Siiigggh, you clearly dont understand my argument. It is wrong, because people are eating meat for pleasure. If you are eating meat out of necessity(starving) it is much more justifiable IMO, yes I would eat the steak if I was starving. Interesting article about the efficiency of meat eating, I don't think I made points about land efficiency though. I made points about economical efficiency.
I understand your argument perfectly, but as we've been saying, the whole rationale is only possible in the industrialized world, which has oh boy, moral issues with how it's supported by exploitation of the rest of the world. You also failed to mention how industrial agriculture is one of the things that enable you to have a diet to go along with this rationale, bringing in other issues of morality with small farmers being bought or squeezed out, subsidies to large agricultural corporations that have questionable ethics, and a whole slew of other things. Not saying the green revolution wasn't originally started with good intentions, but if you're saying I don't understand your argument, I'm going to say you don't even understand the whole picture behind your argument.
Greater land use efficiency can more or less translate to greater economic efficiency with best management practices. Pasture is also more or less free to use.
Jesus, you are all over the place. My rationale is not based on the industrialized world. Millions of people living in impoverished rural settings in india live on vegetarian diets because of their religion. There is nothing inherently immoral about being vegetarian/vegan. Industrial agriculture is what enables millions of people to eat as well. This point is completely invalid considering that a serving of meat requires an input of at least 10 servings of grains, so if anything vegetarian diets would require less industrialization of agriculture. And you didn't understand my argument, all the points you made do not have anything to do about necessity which was what you discussing before.
10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste.
Your specific rationale is indeed based on the fact that you live in the industrialized world, religion is a different matter as it's a belief system separate from personal rationale, which is what you're presenting, though I won't say there's anything wrong with using either as a basis for strictly personal choice. Industrial agriculture includes factory farming of animals, which happens to be the whole issue concerning the lack of sustainability of eating meat along with the general over-consumption relative to our physical needs for protein/calories. The only rationale against eating meat is a personal one when you don't need it to fulfill your protein requirements, which is a luxury (excluding those who don't eat meat based on religion). On another note, India is not a predominately vegetarian country because not all Hindu sects require followers to be vegetarian.
I find it strange that you still insist I don't understand your argument when I've made it clear that I do. I know your point is that we don't need to eat them because we have enough fruits, grains, and vegetables (thank California for that). You for some reason though don't seem to understand mine: My point is that when compared against the hard facts and research in agroecology, the choices based on your rationale lose out. I'm not all over the place, you're just not following since you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over again - morality. Don't say I don't have morals either because I do, I've just accepted that things die so I can live, but there are ways to improve the lives of animals we eat while reducing our ecological footprint.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Ill say it again, and again and again. "You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?" The distinction between what makes it moral or not is the purpose it is being killed for. If its being killed for pleasure than I see it as immoral, if it is being killed for survival than that is justifiable to me. THIS is why I keep saying you don't understand my rationale. This is the central distinction I keep making. You wouldn't say "Where is your moral rationale now?" if you understood what I was saying. You clearly haven't up to this point.
"10:1 servings for red meat. Get it right already, this misinformation is shameful and in bad taste." This is such a minor issue. I'm sure the statistic for any kind of meat is similar to 10:1. This is such a non-issue that it seems like your only arguing with it because your just running out of points to make.
Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings. Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point.
You ARE all over the place, first you say that my moral argument is flawed, then you say that there are moral repercussions to adopting vegetarian diets, then you try and make the point that vegetarians are harming local farmers, you then try and connect it to the green movement which isn't even related.... So yes you are all over the place. I've been arguing about these things because I feel that I gain some insight when I do but your ideas are just becoming weaker and weaker to the point that some of them just dont make sense and that I am just not benefitting at all from reading them so sorry if I just ignore your next post.
I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live. To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source. Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America? You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty. I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
You can say I'm all over the place all you want, I've just been covering several bases while you've been on your moral high horse this whole time. I mean hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it. Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
If you would ignore this post, it just shows that you're down to your last straws since you have nothing to bring up against scientific and social facts besides regurgitating sheltered morality and saying "I'm all over the place" because I went past the issue itself to provide more information, expose your follies, and the foolishness of this discussion. In no particular order, I mentioned: greater land use and associated economic efficiency from integrating small amounts of meat and dairy in diets, how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it, so do yourself a favor and stop it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Stay fixated on that one stroke in the painting, it suits your mindset well.
Every time I have seen a Vegan person, they look skinny, unhealthy and pale white. The human body is designed to eat meat. Being a vegan is not a healthy way to live at all.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Ah, lovely. You are against animal testing. Let me list a couple (sorry, definitely not an exhaustive list!) of things that you are not allowed to use then, by your own standards:
- virtually any medicine, to test for possible side effects and LD (lethal dose), chemicals are tested on rats, usually - honorable mention #1: vaccines - honorable mention #2: insulin (because now, diabetes will fuck you up in no time at all) - transplants
Good luck surviving.
The only way to get a basic understanding of how substances work is by looking at how they affect an organism. The closer to humans, the more likely it is that we get comparable results.
You obviously didn't read the OP, as what you have written was already addressed.
Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?
“For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others.”
Terrible analogy that has nothing to do with the argument, a severely retarded human, is still, by all intents and purposes a human. There’s no way you can retard a human into cattle, thus the point is invalid. I can give rights to a rock if I wanted to, there’s no reason to arbitrarily give rights to things that don’t deserve rights. Enable laws, lobby for changes in legislation, sure. Rights? No.
If you are in favor of abolishing the use of animals as human resources, don’t you care more about animals than you do about those humans with illnesses who might possibly be cured through animal research?
“This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from that which asks whether those who advocated the abolition of human slavery cared less about the well-being of southerners who faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished than they did about the slaves.”
Once again, logically unsound. You’re making the assumption, once again, that humans, this time slaves, are the same as animals. Of course we can’t argue against you if you consider a lab rat or dog to be the equivalent to a human being.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
I’ve never heard of meat-eating being argued as “traditional”, but yes, it is natural. We were meant to live on a varied diet, which includes meat. You don’t need to morally justify everything just because you can. Once again, you can’t apply morals to anything you want. “Morally” speaking, the domestication and consumption of cattle and chickens worldwide has actually greatly benefited cattle and chickens. Their survival as a species is now guaranteed because they have desirable traits that we enjoy. Forget the morality of killing an animal, think of the morality of ensuring the survival of a species.
See what I did there? Morality can be argued whichever way you want because morality is FLUID. It changes, and people have different ideals of morality, thus you can’t just slap “it’s immoral” on things and expect it to float as an argument.
If we become vegetarians, animals will inevitably be harmed when we plant vegetables, and what is the difference between raising and killing animals for food and unintentionally killing them as part of a plant-based agriculture?
Not an argument for either side. Livestock cost much more land than farming (in general), meat-eaters that argue this are misinformed.
If animals have rights, doesn’t that mean we have to intervene to stop animals from killing other animals, or that we must otherwise act affirmatively to prevent harm from coming to animals from any source?
“Similarly, the basic right of animals not to be treated as things means that we cannot treat animals as our resources.”
Was I asleep when someone a Universal Declaration of animal rights, or are you just making things up now? Once again, you cannot place humans and animals in the same categories. Just because humans have rights, doesn’t mean that the same rights are instantly applicable to animals. Humans also have the right to dignity and equality, do these apply to animals too? Of course not.
Of course the amount of animal suffering incidental to our use of animals is horrendous, and we should not be using animals for “frivolous” purposes, such as entertainment, but how can you expect people to give up eating meat?
How has eating meat “clouded the minds” of Darwin and Bentham? They still did their work, thought their brilliant thoughts, and contributed greatly to mankind. There’s nothing proving that meat makes you stupid.
CONCLUSION
Every argument you make is based on “morality” and that eating/killing animals is “morally wrong”. Lets take into effect the basis of morality. Evolution.
Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behavior such as inbreeding.
One can argue that most, if not all morals exist because of the evolutionary benefits to our race, be it the abolition of slavery and equality (more varied genepool/interbreeding), to basic human rights (ensure survival of species). However, the lynchpin is that THERE IS NO MORAL CODE ON THE KILLING OF ANIMALS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. And until there is a universally acknowledged moral code for animals established by a majority, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it’s impossible to argue morals in a vegan debate, because, once and for all, morals are different for different people. Just because you think it’s morally inexcusable to kill an animal, doesn’t mean that I do, neither of us are wrong, we just need to find grounds for debate that don’t include morals/ethics.
/Thread
Ahahahaa. I'm gonna start reading this now, I just think it's cute that you think you've solved a debate thats been going on for pretty much a hundred years :3
You obviously didn't read the OP, as what you have written was already addressed.
You obviously didn't read the OP, as the section containing his "addressing" of animal testing was one of the most offensively repugnant parts of it. Comparable to worrying about slaveowners more than slaves? Totally despicable.
The issue is not whom we care about or value most; the question is whether it is morally justifiable to treat sentient beings
It's not about caring or value, it's about... caring or value! What are morals again? Value judgments about things people care about? Hmm...
I'm kind of flabbergasted that the OP got away with so many bad arguments.
Since you didn't put up a counter argument that runs against my point that vegetarian diets require less agricultural industrialization I assume your conceding that point.
You never made a point, you made a totally unsupported assertion.
To properly make your point you'd need to know:
1. Tons of feed grain used to feed food animals; 2. How much higher-quality grain would be needed to replace meat; 3. How many resources it would require to grow that grain.
Then you can say it would require less industrialized agriculture. Common sense says it would require more.
Now to what my rationale is based on. Nothing in my rationale is dependent upon living in an industrialized world. The points still hold true in many different settings. I made the comparison to india because many vegetarians there aren't part of the industrialized world. It is also not a luxury to get daily doses of protein without eating meat. Gandhi wrote an entire book on how to maintain a healthy vegetarian diet in impoverished settings
All those stupid Indians still suffering from poverty-induced malnutrition, why aren't they smart enough to read Gandhi?????????? Right???
All those people who starved to death in the millenia before industrialized farming, vegan or not, they just simply didn't understand how to live as good as you and Gandhi.
How does it feel knowing you're better than 99.9% of all the humans who ever lived? It must be really, really awesome.
On June 04 2011 19:13 Ig wrote: I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live.
This isn't the part you haven't understood. Its the difference between killing meat for survival and enjoyment, you keep saying my point is invalid because I would eat meat to survive and I keep re-explaining what I mean.
To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source
Wrong. Animals consume around 5 times more protein than they produce. People in rural settings who eat meat for protein would presumably have access to milk and eggs as well, so any protein needs would just as easily be satisfied with that. 16 oz milk = 18-24g of protien 1 egg= 7g protein usually. I don't know why poor people only would be able to find meat and not other animal products but whatever.
Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America?
Probably many more times since your wrong. Vegetarian diets don't depend on privileged life styles. People with access to meat generally has access to other animal products.
You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made.
I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
Same thing as above
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
Sooooo nearly all meat comes from factory farming... It wouldn't make sense to focus on free range farming since it accounts for so little of meat eaten. 10:1, 5:1 hell, 2:1, the point that meat production is less efficient still holds, thats why its a minor issue, because there can be so much variance and the point is still true.
hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it.
No you see its actually because he had interesting and good points. Yours are just wrong.
Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
I'm refusing to open my mind to bad arguments. You keep asserting that morality is not a viable basis for not eating meat but none of your evidence implies this. Maybe you should find some that does.
I mentioned: greater land use and associated economic efficiency from integrating small amounts of meat and dairy in diets,
It isn't more economic. The article was saying it has slightly greater land efficiency.
how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it,
All these points don't invalidate the validity of morality to my rationale. They just take stabs at the potentially negative aspects of the lifestyle which no one is denying. Nothing you have said actually attempts to invalidate morality as a valid point to base diet off of. If that is what you have a problem with, address that. This is why your argument is bad, you assert 1 thing but provide evidence for another, its non sensical.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made.
People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind."
I'm impressed with the amount of effort you put into this post and im sorry to ruin your /thread. I still believe it is morally wrong to kill animals under the common scenario. I'm not sure evolution is a basis of morality. It may explain its genesis or inception, but I think most people would say the basis for morality is the desire and ability to determine right from wrong, good from bad etc.. Also, there doesn't need to be an established moral code for someone to interpret something as immoral. It is my opinion that it is wrong to cause pain in order to gain pleasure. To me, it is irrelevant, or at least less relevant, what type of species is receiving the pain. Also, it is viable to argue morals in a vegan debate IMO if people are providing personal rationals for their habits, because even if morality is subjective, their interpretation will hold true for them.
Selfishness is not living the way you wish to live, selfishness is conforming others to live as you wish them to live. You have admitted its merely your opinion that eating/killing animals is morally wrong. To attempt to conform others to not kill animals just because you disagree with it is a selfish attitude. Live however you want, but people also have the freedom of choice and control of their attitudes. When you control someone's attitude you are putting them in an uncreative state in which they cannot grow spiritually. Coming in here and trying to force people to change their attitudes in alignment with yours is immoral. Education is the development of the mental faculties to attain something you want without violating the rights of others. Its not merely working towards something you want and attempting to force others to agree with your opinions.
Dude, I've only been defending my own rationale for 6 pages of this thread.... On the top of page 10 I posted my rationale to get other peoples opinions and debate that with them....go read my posts. I never said that anyone else should change what they do for reasons x y and z.
You're right, but quite a few proponents of veganism/vegetarianism in this thread have been quite condescending, smug and "persuasive". I'm guessing thats where he's coming from. Don't take it personally ;D
Quite frankly the other side is guilty of that, too. Some people are just like that, whether they're vegan or w/e.
All those stupid Indians still suffering from poverty-induced malnutrition, why aren't they smart enough to read Gandhi?????????? Right???
All those people who starved to death in the millenia before industrialized farming, vegan or not, they just simply didn't understand how to live as good as you and Gandhi.
How does it feel knowing you're better than 99.9% of all the humans who ever lived? It must be really, really awesome.
If you don't have enough food to survive, than you don't have enough food to survive, I'm not saying otherwise. ASSUMING you have the means to survive there are ways to make your diet more nutritious and none of it involves meat, thats what is in his book, not a way to survive off sunlight and air. I don't think or claim to be better than anyone for the way I am living. I am just defending my reasons for not eating meat because I value them. Thanks for being a dick.
You never made a point, you made a totally unsupported assertion.
If you read my post before you would have seen that I did in fact make the point. It is almost common knowledge that cows consume more food than they produce. Just do a google search. If there were less cows for meat the existing grain would be able to feed more people, requiring less industrialization. If you dont wana search here is a link.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made.
People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind."
Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say.
On June 04 2011 17:42 DeepElemBlues wrote: Feed grain takes much less resources to grow than grain suitable for human consumption, so talking about how much agriculture it takes to support industrial meat production is misleading. It would take possibly less land but more resources to grow grain to replace meat in the world's diet.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Death is not ultimate pain, and cattle are not killed in a way that causes emotional stress. I find it hard to believe it would be stressful or painful to be instantly killed without knowing it was coming.
And of course a human's life is more valuable than a cow's. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Human life is the most sacrosanct thing we know to exist.
Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't.
According to the UN almost 40% of humanities grain harvest goes to feed animals. If that feed would instead be used to relieve world hunger, it is estimated that everyone on earth could be living off of 4000+ calories a day.
On one acre of land 30,000 pounds of carrots can be grown, or 40,000 pounds of potatoes. Conversly, one acre of land can only supply 250 pounds of meat. Every humanitarian agency uses vegetarian products because they can feed over 40 times the number of people than if they used meat with the same amount of resourses.
World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition.
On June 04 2011 17:42 DeepElemBlues wrote: Feed grain takes much less resources to grow than grain suitable for human consumption, so talking about how much agriculture it takes to support industrial meat production is misleading. It would take possibly less land but more resources to grow grain to replace meat in the world's diet.
Anyways, the fact that you would take the steak shows that you value your existence above that of the cow that steak was cut from. You would cause another animal the ultimate pain and emotional distress in order to save yourself. Where is your moral rationale now?
Death is not ultimate pain, and cattle are not killed in a way that causes emotional stress. I find it hard to believe it would be stressful or painful to be instantly killed without knowing it was coming.
And of course a human's life is more valuable than a cow's. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Human life is the most sacrosanct thing we know to exist.
Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't.
According to the UN almost 40% of humanities grain harvest goes to feed animals. If that feed would instead be used to relieve world hunger, it is estimated that everyone on earth could be living off of 4000+ calories a day.
On one acre of land 30,000 pounds of carrots can be grown, or 40,000 pounds of potatoes. Conversly, one acre of land can only supply 250 pounds of meat. Every humanitarian agency uses vegetarian products because they can feed over 40 times the number of people than if they used meat with the same amount of resourses.
World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition.
World hunger wouldn't exist if we could actually get food to where it needs to go and if we could prevent disastrous bad weather from ruining crop harvests. Grains and such are shipped worldwide because they are a LOT more stable and able to be transported. Does that make them superior? No.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the world has enough food to feed every person to a good level of satisfaction; however, that food is not able to be distributed because of the long distances between who can provide and who needs and the high costs involved in such transportation.
On June 05 2011 02:02 Aurocaido wrote: Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition.
I totally agree. Just outta curiosity, are you a vegan/vegetarian? If so, what kind?
On June 05 2011 02:08 stevarius wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the world has enough food to feed every person to a good level of satisfaction; however, that food is not able to be distributed because of the long distances between who can provide and who needs and the high costs involved in such transportation.
I think part of what also contributes to hunger is how much extra grain the U.S has. Like, if they have a lot ofextra grain they can flood cheap grains to everyone, but if there were bad harvests than most of it might need to be used for products + meats etc
On June 05 2011 02:12 0mar wrote: World hunger is a logistics problem, not a production problem.
Meat is incredibly expensive, grain and other staples are not. When over 40% of the worlds grain harvest goes to feed animals that will be consumed in the West, it leaves little to feed the hundreds of millions suffering from starvation. The worlds poor are unable to afford high meat prices. And yes, just because the meat industry is heavily subsidised in the West does not mean it is that cheap in other parts of the world.
Meat is a first world luxury, many of the worlds poor are simply unable to afford meat and animal products. And when natural or man made disasters occur, they have no where to turn. There is a book "On poverty and famine" that examines this. In times of famine the supply of food in a region remains reletively unchanged. What changed is the ability of the people to access the food. The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford. World hunger is both a production and logistics problem.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the world has enough food to feed every person to a good level of satisfaction; however, that food is not able to be distributed because of the long distances between who can provide and who needs and the high costs involved in such transportation.
I think part of what also contributes to hunger is how much extra grain the U.S has. Like, if they have a lot ofextra grain they can flood cheap grains to everyone, but if there were bad harvests than most of it might need to be used for products + meats etc
I am not a vegetarian or a vegan. I just make sure I know the source of any meat I do end up eating. I don't eat much meat but when I do I know where it came from and what exactly went into its production.
I have no problem with people who choose not to eat meat. However, as a scientist, I strongly believe that animals are required for biomedical research. The industry of drug development would not exist if in vivo studies are eliminated.
For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided.
That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market.
Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals.
On June 05 2011 02:38 ryc wrote: I have no problem with people who choose not to eat meat. However, as a scientist, I strongly believe that animals are required for biomedical research. The industry of drug development would not exist if in vivo studies are eliminated.
For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided.
That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market.
Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals.
I'd agree with this assuming there is a decent standard of treatment.
On June 05 2011 02:38 ryc wrote: I have no problem with people who choose not to eat meat. However, as a scientist, I strongly believe that animals are required for biomedical research. The industry of drug development would not exist if in vivo studies are eliminated.
For example, a chemist improves on an existing drug so that the side effects are less harmful to humans. However, simply manipulating the compound on the molecular level can lead to consequences once applied to humans. If the said drug was applied to an animal model prior to human use, then many disasters can be avoided.
That being said, you must realize that there is a large and lengthy process to perform testing on animals. Not only is there an ethics board that must approve the concentration dose and compound identity, etc, but there are also plenty of "phases" that the drug must complete before going onto the market.
Scientists realize the importance of animals, and acknowledge their sacrifice in bettering humanity. But the general public must accept that animal testing is a vital part of research but trust that we have a high moral code for the treatment of experimental animals.
Ok fair enough. However, what is your opinion for non life saving products like cosmetics?
Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say.
Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side does when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand. You contradicted yourself.
Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't.
Ummm, no, it doesn't.
Grain grown for animals = harder to chew and digest for humans, less nutrients, etc. Takes less fertilizer and pesticides to produce.
Grain grown for humans = easier to chew and digest, higher in nutrients. Takes more fertilizer and pesticides to produce.
It does not make sense that higher quality products would cost the same to make as lower quality ones, if that was the case Wal-Mart would be selling their $30 shoes for $150.
World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition.
No you can't get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet, that's total nonsense. That's why vegan diets have to be supplemented either with vitamins or you have to go out of your way to get more expensive vegan food with the extra nutrients added in.
Of course it's a less efficient transfer of energy when you're putting 87 gasoline in your car it's less efficient than 93 that's why it's cheaper.
Stop growing feed grain and start growing more people grain, see how much it costs.
The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford.
Nonsense. The "overproduction" of meat in industrialized countries has nothing to do with malnutrition in developing countries. The world already produces more than enough vegetable food to comfortably feed all humans, the problem is corrupt governments, backward class systems, and lack of law and order in those societies. If it was possible to send enough food aid and have it work, we would. However, the experience of Africa has shown that you can ship as much food as you want to a starving country, it won't change a thing if the people in charge of that country don't care about feeding the people.
Where do you come up with this stuff? It's just a huge bunch of nearly ridiculous assertions.
On June 05 2011 02:12 0mar wrote: World hunger is a logistics problem, not a production problem.
Meat is incredibly expensive, grain and other staples are not. When over 40% of the worlds grain harvest goes to feed animals that will be consumed in the West, it leaves little to feed the hundreds of millions suffering from starvation. The worlds poor are unable to afford high meat prices. And yes, just because the meat industry is heavily subsidised in the West does not mean it is that cheap in other parts of the world.
Meat is a first world luxury, many of the worlds poor are simply unable to afford meat and animal products. And when natural or man made disasters occur, they have no where to turn. There is a book "On poverty and famine" that examines this. In times of famine the supply of food in a region remains reletively unchanged. What changed is the ability of the people to access the food. The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford. World hunger is both a production and logistics problem.
Poverty is the problem not lack of food or food prices.
There is not a single person that works against famine that would say that lack of food has anything to with famine it only things like poverty or "not being allowed" that stops people from eating.
Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say.
Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand, if you don't, go back and read the specific quotes from you and lg and then you should get it.
Growing grain takes the same amount of resources wether its grown for human or animal consumption. Does not make sense that it doesn't.
Ummm, no, it doesn't.
Grain grown for animals = harder to chew and digest for humans, less nutrients, etc. Takes less fertilizer and pesticides to produce.
Grain grown for humans = easier to chew and digest, higher in nutrients. Takes more fertilizer and pesticides to produce.
It does not make sense that higher quality products would cost the same to make as lower quality ones, if that was the case Wal-Mart would be selling their $30 shoes for $150 dollars.
You don't know anything about agriculture obviously.
World hunger would not exist if we simply ate more of the crops that we grow instead of using them to feed animals, which is a much less efficient transfer of energy. You can easily recieve all the nutrients you need from a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Everyone saying you can't do not know what they are talking about. Any poorly planned diet, meat or vegan, will be lacking in nutrition.
No you can't get all the nutrients you need from a vegan diet, that's total nonsense. That's why vegan diets have to be supplemented either with vitamins or you have to go out of your way to get more expensive vegan food with the extra nutrients added in.
Of course it's a less efficient transfer of energy when you're putting 87 gasoline in your car it's less efficient than 93 that's why it's cheaper.
Stop growing feed grain and start growing more people grain, see how much it costs.
The overproduction of meat has caused a scarcity of basic staples that the worlds poor can actually afford.
Nonsense. The "overproduction" of meat in industrialized countries has nothing to do with malnutrition in developing countries. The West already produces more than enough vegetable food to comfortably feed the world, the problem is corrupt governments, backward class systems, and lack of law and order in those societies. If it was possible to send enough food aid and have it work, we would. However, the experience of Africa has shown that you can ship as much food as you want to a starving country, it won't change a thing if the people in charge of that country don't care about feeding the people.
Where do you come up with this stuff? It's just a huge bunch of nearly ridiculous assertions.
I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan, crops regardless of how easy it is to chew (What?) went to feed lots to sustain animals. I garrantee I know far more about agriculture than you do. Many people would argue that crops grown with no pesticide and low levels of fertilizers are actually better quality and will pay more money for them. Organic ring a bell?
A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The energy transfer I was refering to is the second law of thermodynamics. Energy is lost when it changes states. So by energy going from crops to animals to people that is three steps rather than two for vegans and vegetarians. The energy efficiency from plants is ten times better than meat when it reaches people, meaning that you can feed many more people on far less land. Your gas example was stupid and completely missed the point sorry.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
Please be more clear, I just don't understand what your trying to say.
Uh, no. You use incredibly bad arguments and then claim the other side does when you're exposed. What I wrote was very easy to understand. You contradicted yourself.
You are trying to tell me that THIS "People starving because there isn't enough plant food does not mean that people can starve because there isn't enough plant food. This is pretty representative of the "good" arguments you "let" into your "mind." " is easy to understand? I'm sorry but again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please rephrase this sentence....it makes no sense.
On June 05 2011 03:22 Greatness wrote: 100 years ago, American's ate 1-2 pounds of meat a year.
Today, American's eat 5-10pounds of meat a week.
We just need to give it time, to let these less developed countries become more industrialized, because it will also happen to them.
Wait you think this is a good thing? I'm not sure if your numbers are right, but its a fact that America's meat consumption has skyrocketed over the last century. You think this is inevitable, not some sort of problem?
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist. You are not supposed to go for easy answers.
It's like saying the lack of condoms, prostitution and knowledge are the reason AIDS is spreading in Africa.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
It isn't a direct conversion. Animals are often fed food of such quality it is usually unfit for human consumption and graze on land that isn't fit for agriculture (rocky, etc).
Edit: added "often" since I am sure you could convert a lot of it to crops
Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally. So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
It isn't a direct conversion. Animals are often fed food of such quality it is usually unfit for human consumption and graze on land that isn't fit for agriculture (rocky, etc).
Edit: added "often" since I am sure you could convert a lot of it to crops
Many are yes. However, especially in the United States, animals are being fed more good quality grain in order to make them grow faster and larger. Even here in Canada, feed lots feed their animals with good quality grain and oats from farms.
On June 05 2011 03:41 GeorgeyBeats wrote: Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally. So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
Yeah. The same will probably be true of large cats and a ton of other stuff.
I am no expert, but the "wild" doesn't really exist. I've seen projections for African cats that don't have them living anywhere but in captivity within a couple decades. No idea how accurate they are.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
On June 05 2011 03:41 GeorgeyBeats wrote: Just a thought, many animals that are kept for meat have no place in modern day ecology and would be unable to survive naturally. So not eating meat would lead to extinction of species?
Probably not extinction, and vegetarian diets would still require ppl to breed animals. It would definitely lower the populations significantly.I don't see that as necessarily bad though.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
Discussing moral values is a phylosophical thing to me and thus basicly without end in the end and it comes down to personal opinnion and the truth cant realy be argued christian and muslim religion have a huge influence in the western societies on what people see as morally justified the whole idea of a moral (good and bad) existing is typical for western and muslim religion but everyone is free to choose there own opinnion in this and there is realy no way to say wich one is better then the other
For humans it is definatly natural to eat meat, as far as i know if it wasnt for the availability of fast energy due to animal protine our brain would not have been able to devellop to its current seize but maybe someone with more knowledge about biology can tell more about that
Where do you draw the line on who can have rights? Do insects have rights?
I draw the line at sentience because, as I have argued, sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community. Are insects sentient? Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure?
It is hard to say,i feel bad to draw the line and make my moral aply to the animal world Everyones opinnion is equally valid basicly and then only thing that remains is the "right" of the strongest (wich is more a reality then a given right lol) also feel bad trying to convince other people that my moral is "right" somehow For me if i would have to, i would draw the line at self-consciousness but this is personal As far as i know not 1 animal species is realy self conscious and thus i would not grant one single animal the same fundamental rights as humans Personally i am not found of eating meat and i absolutely recent some elements of the bio industry Also i could never do pain to an animal and doubt would even be able to kill one if i had to to survive Still i dont find it right to force other humans into the same direction Seeing human history and biologic evolution (well the little that i know about it at least) i find it hard to find anny moral isues with eating meat
A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up.
This is entirely false. You cannot get all your nutrients from plants alone. This is a fact. The only way vegans get all their nutritional requirements is through the importation of exotic foods (exotic being anything not local), through the concentration of plant matter and through massive processing of plant matter. For example, without the addition of yeast extract, which is more animal than plant by the way since yeast is a fungus and fungus are far closer to animals phylogenetically than plants are, vegans would be unable to get B12 vitamins at all. It's close to impossible to get the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from a vegan diet. You have to resort to harvesting algae and processing them massively to concentrate the omega-3s into a sizable portion. And no, the conversion of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA, the dominant omega 3 in plants) is not sufficient to meet most people's needs for long-chain omega 3 fatty acids. The conversion rate varies between 0.15% to 5% in most people.
On the other hand, you can subsist entirely on a meat diet and receive all the nutrients you need. You would need to eat organs, bones and bone marrow as well, but you would receive all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients needed for normal, healthy human development.
Finally, in the history of mankind, there's never been a vegan or even vegetarian society. The supposed health detriments of meat eating and animal production consumption is based on faulty science and willful blindness. It has far more to do with politics and agendas than any actual science. The rise of obesity, diabetes and many other diseases of civilization is far better correlated with the ingestion of refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils than animal products.
A properly planned vegan diet is more than able to supply the nutrients and minerals your body needs. You go to any city and you will find 4, 5 6, 7 vitamine stores. Are there that many vegans? No. Those vitamines are for meat eaters who are unable to to balance their diets because they listen to idiots like you spreading missinformation about how beneficial meat is. Americans consume more milk than anywhere else in the world, so why are there no less than three calcium supplements on the market, and the U.S. still has the one of the highest rates of osteoperosis? Something doesn't add up.
This is entirely false. You cannot get all your nutrients from plants alone. This is a fact. The only way vegans get all their nutritional requirements is through the importation of exotic foods (exotic being anything not local), through the concentration of plant matter and through massive processing of plant matter. For example, without the addition of yeast extract, which is more animal than plant by the way since yeast is a fungus and fungus are far closer to animals phylogenetically than plants are, vegans would be unable to get B12 vitamins at all. It's close to impossible to get the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids from a vegan diet. You have to resort to harvesting algae and processing them massively to concentrate the omega-3s into a sizable portion. And no, the conversion of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA, the dominant omega 3 in plants) is not sufficient to meet most people's needs for long-chain omega 3 fatty acids. The conversion rate varies between 0.15% to 5% in most people.
On the other hand, you can subsist entirely on a meat diet and receive all the nutrients you need. You would need to eat organs, bones and bone marrow as well, but you would receive all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients needed for normal, healthy human development.
Finally, in the history of mankind, there's never been a vegan or even vegetarian society. The supposed health detriments of meat eating and animal production consumption is based on faulty science and willful blindness. It has far more to do with politics and agendas than any actual science. The rise of obesity, diabetes and many other diseases of civilization is far better correlated with the ingestion of refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils than animal products.
Ok getting tired of arguing the same points. There is a massive amount of research out there that supports a vegan/vegetarian diet and denounces overconsumption of meat. Have fun eating pure meat, you will not likely live past 45. Here are some books on the subject of veganism, vegetarianism, and animal rights.
Dominion by Matthew Scully Food for the Gods by Rynn Berry Famous Vegetarians & Their Favorite Recipes by Rynn Berry Animal Models in Light of Evolution by Drs. Ray Greek & Niall Shanks FAQs About the Use of Animals in Science by Drs. Ray Greek & Niall Shanks The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams Diet For a New America by John Robbins The Food Revolution by John Robbins Mad Cowboy by Howard Lyman The Vegetarian Way by Virginia and Mark Messina Eternal Treblinka by Charles Patterson Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? by Dr. Steve Best Animal Equality by Joan Dunayer Speciesism by Joan Dunayer Eat Right, Live Longer by Dr. Neal Barnard Breaking the Food Seduction by Dr. Neal Barnard The McDougall Program: Twelve Days to Dynamic Health by Dr. John McDougall McDougall Program for Women by Dr. John McDougall McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss by Dr. John McDougall The Perfect Formula Diet by Janice Stanger, Ph.D. (Read an excerpt) Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin Skinny Bitch Bun in the Oven by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin Pregnancy, Children and the Vegan Diet by Michael Klaper, M.D. Raising Vegan Children in a Non-Vegan World: A Complete Guide for Parents by Erin Pavlina Vegan in 30 Days by Sarah Taylor Don't Drink Your Milk by Dr. Frank Oski The Conscious Cook by Tal Ronnen The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook by Jo Stepaniak Becoming Vegan by Brenda Davis, R.D
For vitamine B12 Destroyed by heat – alfalfa sprouts, barley, beans, cereals (fortified), chlorella, dulse, garlic, grains (all), grapes (concord), kelp, Living Harvest Hemp Milk, mustard greens, nori, nuts, Odwalla B Monster smoothie, plums, prunes, Red Star Nutritional Yeast, rice milk (fortified), sauerkraut (unpasteurized), seeds (all), soy, spirulina, sprouts (all), wheatgerm and wheatgrass. Vitamin B12 is a bacterium that is produced in the soil, and we only need three micrograms per day. Some animals have trace amounts of B12 in their flesh because they eat dirt from the ground. Eating meat for trace amounts of B12—a secondary source that comes with cholesterol, saturated fat and animal protein—is inefficient and deadly. Furthermore, B12 is destroyed by excessive amounts of heat, which explains why 99 percent of all people with B12 deficiencies are meat-eaters. www.naturalnews.com/029531_vitamin_B12_vegan.html
On June 04 2011 19:13 Ig wrote: I have understood your point and have stated numerous times that your ability to even make such a point and I assume live by it is because of where you live.
This isn't the part you haven't understood. Its the difference between killing meat for survival and enjoyment, you keep saying my point is invalid because I would eat meat to survive and I keep re-explaining what I mean.
To deny the fact that your rationale is only possible because you have access to the fruits of industrial agriculture is an outright lie. Basically, if you live outside of an industrialized nation, unless you're Buddhist (some can eat fish and iirc other meats occasionally) or part of a Hindu sect that doesn't allow you to eat meat or another religion that bars it, you probably depend on meat as a primary protein source
Wrong. Animals consume around 5 times more protein than they produce. People in rural settings who eat meat for protein would presumably have access to milk and eggs as well, so any protein needs would just as easily be satisfied with that. 16 oz milk = 18-24g of protien 1 egg= 7g protein usually. I don't know why poor people only would be able to find meat and not other animal products but whatever.
Your rationale is very clearly based on your relatively privileged life, how many times do I have to state that before you'll finally admit that there's truth in these words because you live in America?
Probably many more times since your wrong. Vegetarian diets don't depend on privileged life styles. People with access to meat generally has access to other animal products.
You also bring up an example of Gandhi's book but fail to state that the inability to grow enough staple food crops to consume or sell due to environmental conditions is a major cause of poverty.
Umm, I 'failed to state' this because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I didn't need you to tell me people are starving because there isn't enough food. and it doesnt contrast any of the points I made.
I'll put it this way, there are two main reasons why people in Africa starve: the inability to create demand and have food shipped over and buy it, and the inability to grow their own food due to lack of suitable seed or environmental degradation. You can't just go say something like "just eat some quinoa!" to everyone either - oh hey, it's shipped thousands of miles from South American while people in Bolivia starve (Bolivia is a major producer of quinoa)! Looks like quinoa is off the menu now.
10:1 is indeed an issue as you're using the worst statistic among those on grain used to produce meat to better prove your point as well as assuming it is "close" to the other examples when it actually isn't, there's a reason people tell you to eat less meat (if you do) and when you do to eat free range poultry. Again you've also ignored the fact that this statistic is based around factory farming. Will you deny the facts or just call it a minor issue again so you can continue misinforming people?
Sooooo nearly all meat comes from factory farming... It wouldn't make sense to focus on free range farming since it accounts for so little of meat eaten. 10:1, 5:1 hell, 2:1, the point that meat production is less efficient still holds, thats why its a minor issue, because there can be so much variance and the point is still true.
hell, I didn't see you adamantly opposing RoseTempest when he said that the moral argument has no place but that's probably because he was willing to descend to your level to discuss morality, and even after he pointed out how stupid it was you...kept doing it.
No you see its actually because he had interesting and good points. Yours are just wrong.
Besides, the only insight you would gain by arguing something like this is insight into how foolish it is to base anything on morality when it comes to food, though it seems you're refusing to open your mind to the bigger picture.
I'm refusing to open my mind to bad arguments. You keep asserting that morality is not a viable basis for not eating meat but none of your evidence implies this. Maybe you should find some that does.
how vegan diets are unsuitable for infants and children, the history of human consumption of meat including our evolution, integration of animals into agroecosystems for greater sustainability, and how factory farms are the real unsustainable side of eating meat, not eating meat itself. I'm only "all over the place" to those that choose not to follow. Keep in mind again that I have nothing against individuals choosing to be vegan or vegetarian or to eat a ton of meat (though I frown upon the latter), only the use of morality as an argument for it,
All these points don't invalidate the validity of morality to my rationale. They just take stabs at the potentially negative aspects of the lifestyle which no one is denying. Nothing you have said actually attempts to invalidate morality as a valid point to base diet off of. If that is what you have a problem with, address that. This is why your argument is bad, you assert 1 thing but provide evidence for another, its non sensical.
I'll just start by saying you really like to turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't support your morality, your whole response is built upon ignorance.
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.
On June 05 2011 03:55 Rassy wrote: Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?
Discussing moral values is a phylosophical thing to me and thus basicly without end in the end and it comes down to personal opinnion and the truth cant realy be argued christian and muslim religion have a huge influence in the western societies on what people see as morally justified the whole idea of a moral (good and bad) existing is typical for western and muslim religion but everyone is free to choose there own opinnion in this and there is realy no way to say wich one is better then the other
For humans it is definatly natural to eat meat, as far as i know if it wasnt for the availability of fast energy due to animal protine our brain would not have been able to devellop to its current seize but maybe someone with more knowledge about biology can tell more about that
Where do you draw the line on who can have rights? Do insects have rights?
I draw the line at sentience because, as I have argued, sentient beings have interests and the possession of interests is the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the moral community. Are insects sentient? Are they conscious beings with minds that experience pain and pleasure?
It is hard to say,i feel bad to draw the line and make my moral aply to the animal world Everyones opinnion is equally valid basicly and then only thing that remains is the "right" of the strongest (wich is more a reality then a given right lol) also feel bad trying to convince other people that my moral is "right" somehow For me if i would have to, i would draw the line at self-consciousness but this is personal As far as i know not 1 animal species is realy self conscious and thus i would not grant one single animal the same fundamental rights as humans Personally i am not found of eating meat and i absolutely recent some elements of the bio industry Also i could never do pain to an animal and doubt would even be able to kill one if i had to to survive Still i dont find it right to force other humans into the same direction Seeing human history and biologic evolution (well the little that i know about it at least) i find it hard to find anny moral isues with eating meat
I pretty much agree with everything you said. Everyone should determine for themselves what they see as right and wrong and live according to their own principles rather than the principles of others. I do just wana comment on your first sentence though.
"Isn’t human use of animals a “tradition,” or “natural,” and therefore morally justified?"
Just because something is traditional or natural doesn't make it morally justified. Slavery is pretty traditional and came about naturally thousands of years ago....I cant say that slavery is morally justified though. I just dont see why natural or traditional would also imply morally justified. Sometimes they coincide and sometimes they dont.
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.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
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.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people... Meat consumption tends to rise with household wealth, and a third of the world's grain is used to fatten animals."
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
While the poverty part was up to date (ish) the hunger part was not.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people... Meat consumption tends to rise with household wealth, and a third of the world's grain is used to fatten animals."
Indeed, we don't have any issues with producing enough food, it's the fact that the people that go hungry are poor and can't create a demand for food to be shipped over, and due to environmental conditions are unable to grow enough for themselves as well.
Here in America it's disgusting how we're pushing to open European markets to our corn instead of giving surplus to those starving as food and seed. But hey, that's capitalism and business!
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
Edit: Flooding poor nations with cheap surpluses has traditionally tended to have negative consequences. While providing cheap food for a short time, it also in cases such as Haiti destroys the local agricultural establishment making the people dependant on the heavily subsidized imported food. Food aid needs to go to those who actually need it so it does not undermine local food self sufficiency.
Yes poor nations are often plagued by corrupt governments and a lack of a social justice community. However, that does not change the fact that food imported from elsewhere is more expensive because of the scarcity created by the overproduction of meat in the West. Change takes time, people will starve in six days. To say you will recieve no food until you magically remedy your political system is a product of a fundamental disconnect from the human condition.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
No it does not, meat is inefficient, but there is enough food to feed everybody with grain with a lot extra on our currently used land. We have a lot of arable land that is not put to use and a lot is poorly used.
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That again is an issue with distribution, not production. These are people who couldn't even afford cheap grain sold in/by the US. It's the beauty of capitalism, it helps those who have feel better about it and ensures those who have not will continue to lose.
On another note, did you know farmers are paid not to use land because of price issues in industrialized nations? Distribution and the market again!
No it's the opposite, the problem is that people don't get access to food not that food does not exist.
"Even as world food production grows, hunger is on the rise in many poor countries, according to the Global Crop Prospects and Food Situation report for November, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (..). Hunger, in most cases, is caused by lack of money rather than a shortage of food production, according to the World Food Programme (WFP)."
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unevenly spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate or eating meat.
Again, according to the UN as crop harvests are increasing, more and more of it is going to feed animals to supply westerners with their meat fix. You can feed ten times the people on a section of land if you grow plants rather than produce meat.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up. The issue is distribution and the need for improvement of ecological systems in these locales so the people can feed themselves. Of course weapons and corporate concessions are way more important than saving lives though so that's not really happening.
I get most of my information from my university textbooks.
Baylis, John., Smith, Steve., and Patricia Owens. "The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations." Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Chapter 27 deals with Poverty, development, and hunger. Discusses in greater detail everything I have been saying.
It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote: Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote: Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
On June 05 2011 05:06 Eppa! wrote: [quote] It's using 15 year old "read more"( the oldest one was around 40 years old) and even the book says "the unorthodox school" states that the biggest problem is food security.
Being high school student; damn that was hard to find on the internet.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
Most of the sources it uses are quite recent, from the year 2000+. It also went through an extensive peer review process by the Oxford University Press, one of the most prestigious in the world.
A quote; "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that there is enough grain alone to provide everyone in the world with 3.600 calories a day (i.e. 1,200 more than the UN's recommended minimum daily intake), yet there are still over 800 million hungry people."
The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number? Just like with your arm analogy, if you don't stop the bleeding before you have a chance to reattach it you will bleed to death anyway.
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote: I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
On June 05 2011 05:36 Eppa! wrote: [quote] The quote neither confirms nor denies anything. You are saying that it is because of lack of efficiency in production, i am saying it lies in distribution.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number?
...
Personal attacks, don't do them. Obviously it is a process not an action.
Anyway this is way of topic, overconsumption of meat, fish, and single types of grain are all bad for the environment and us human beings.
Never met a Vegan Vegetarians are cool Omnivores are cool Carnivores are a joke.
It stengthens my position. Meat is extremely inefficient and its production is on the rise as nations begin to develop. Meaning less food for the worlds poor, which is why even though grain production is increasing the number of hungry people has remained reletively unchanged.
Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number?
...
Personal attacks, don't do them.
Lol a little over sensitive aren't you? That was not meant as a personal attack, get over it.
Edit: So we do nothing as the process of development takes place? Or what were you getting at?
On June 05 2011 05:43 Ig wrote: [quote] Actually it doesn't. Accounting for grains going to animals, we still have enough food to feed everyone. Your position is centered around the inefficiency of grain fed meat production in factory farms, which is a tenuous one at best on the issue of whether or not to eat meat itself.
We still have enough yes, however, with so much grain going to feed animals it then means that there is less grain for the worlds poor. Since there is less that means the price will be higher than it would be without so much meat production. Food prices are at all time highs and this is going to have disastrous consiquences for the worlds poor.
That is a real issue that wealth is unequally spread, poverty, not that food prices fluctuate.
The price of basic staples is increasing because of scarcity. More of the grain is being used to feed animals which inflates the price for the worlds poor and starving people.
That assumes they could even afford it before, it may sound blunt but the 800 million starving were starving before prices went up.
This is the kind of rationale I love. They couldn't afford it before so who gives a shit, nothing can be done, lets just keep doing what we have always done.
Edit: Distribution is in fact on of the issues I don't deny that, however, less reliance on meat by the West would make distribution to the worlds poor a much easier issue to tackle.
If you lose your right arm we can either: Put a bandaid which fixes nothing or have you do a 60 hour surgery to reattach it.
Removing poverty and having food security is the only way to remove hunger and malnutrition in the world. Fluctuation in grain prices do not have a large effect on poverty or hunger. Anyone that has a steady income can provide for their family.
So how many people get to starve to death while we wait for these states to develop? What is an acceptable number?
...
Personal attacks, don't do them.
Lol a little over sensitive aren't you? That was not meant as a personal attack, get over it.
Edit: So we do nothing as the process of development takes place? Or what were you getting at?
It was a stupid statement, get over it.
You reduce poverty gradually, there are plenty of way to do it. Banning meat will not do nearly as much as for example subsidizing Afrikan and LA non cash crops and stabilizing income.
On June 05 2011 06:05 ryanAnger wrote: Banning the meat industry would be fucking retarded. Humans eat meat because we are the top of the food chain, and as such, it is our inherent right. We eat meat because we can, and we like it. I honestly don't care about the conditions in which pigs are raised, because they are raised so we can eat them. Their only "purpose" in life, from birth, is to die, and be fed to us. They fulfill that purpose just fine.
Making the industry more humane wouldn't really be feasible either, because that would mean inefficiency, and inefficiency means less product, which also means a shortage (albeit small) of available food for the human population. It might just be my survival of the fittest instincts kicking in here, but I feel like the well-being of myself, and the human population is far more important than some animals raised for the sole purpose of being food.
The issue isn't eating meat, it's that we're eating too much, far more than our needs for protein would require. A more humane and sustainable industry is possible if you don't have a large portion of meat for every meal, which you really don't need. This has never been an issue of survival of the fittest and I don't see how you can call it such, so don't kid yourself. Hell, from a biological perspective, the animals we eat are actually the fittest because they suit our needs and as a result have spread across the world in massive numbers.
I agree with u, sounds reasonable . Most of my diet consist on cornflakes, gotto have my bowl, got to have my cereal(see what I did there?) its mostly because of laziness since i dont have to cook anything, so Ive drifted into veganism in a lesser degree Ive always felt there was something wrong with the mantra of superiority in man, not if its true or not, but because of the motivation behind saying it(usually uttered in a drunken state followed up with bragging about penissize/benchpressing/selfawsomeness etc) . A cat is like a supervampire that can see in the dark and actually find mice and rats, creatures that might as well be stuff of farietales as far as im concerned since ive never seen any(dont go out much). And a dog is a way more noble creature then I, who cant get off my lazy ass, highest achivement is struggeling in gold on the ladder, while a dog would often die for it owner, save babies in a fire and stuff.
But I feel that our own fear of dying might cloud our judgement on the matter. If u take away the horrifying moment of getting torn and ripped apart screaming, clawing the dirt desperatly with ur remaining pinky for a escape, with your lower body severed losing your ladder points... If u take away that part, aint giving your body to a animal a good thing? I would do anything to escape a horrible death, but If im gonna die anyway, and there wouldnt be any pain, what better way to be of use after ur dead by giving ur flesh to an animal? I guess my point is, I dont have a huge problem that animals sole reason for dying is us, but I dont like the idea of them living for us. The line between human and animal is kind of blurry in my mind through the years, probably because of extensive use of lsd :p
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote: I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
Mentioning PETA in my post makes me idiot? You obviously didn't read my post since i was critical of PETA in the first place. In vitro meat can already be made so you obviously know nothing about the subject and your status as a logical authority is now void. Problem with in vitro meat is how to produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable and even bigger problem is getting the texture right (the cells have to be exercised). Cultured meat in processed for (sausage, hamburger etc) is potentially not that far off though and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it becoming a reality in the coming decade
I would put the commercial viability of artificial meats as a suitable substitute for currently existing meats would be more akin to two decades out. There is more to meat than texture and providing protein. Any good cook would tell you that flavor is a big part of it... and getting meat to perfectly simulate the activities of other meats in the varied processes involved with food preparation will likely take a while. As an alternative source for protein, sure, I can see that coming in the next decade... but as a substitute for beef that can work for either my steak or my hot dog, I don't see that coming around for at least 15 years... and as much as I would love it, I seriously doubt they'll ever find the secret of what makes bacon so damned good.
But yeah, personally, I think of PETA as batshit crazy and no one will ever make me feel any guilt for eating a cow.
I have a challenge for you vegetarians. Just for the sake of your cause, I will donate my body to your vegetarian ways for 1 week. You must construct a balanced diet of ~2800 calories that conforms to your vegetarian ways, but it must have a protein count of 110-120 grams and also fulfills the fat and carb macronutrient requirements required for someone who is lifting heavy.
I'll eat your way for one week if you're willing to put in the minimal effort to tell me how. Also, I'm eating prime rib right now.
On June 05 2011 10:00 stevarius wrote: I have a challenge for you vegetarians. Just for the sake of your cause, I will donate my body to your vegetarian ways for 1 week. You must construct a balanced diet of ~2800 calories that conforms to your vegetarian ways, but it must have a protein count of 110-120 grams and also fulfills the fat and carb macronutrient requirements required for someone who is lifting heavy.
I'll eat your way for one week if you're willing to put in the minimal effort to tell me how. Also, I'm eating prime right now.
Risking your life for the greater good, I see. Godspeed.
On June 05 2011 06:32 SplashBrannigan wrote: I think all these threads and the morons who post in them prove that people will not stop eating meat. If you really want to reduce animal suffering i suggest you dump all your extra money to non-profits that are funding or researching in vitro meat (labmeat, artificial meat, cultured meat, whatever you wanna call it). I'm surprised labmeat hasn't been mentioned in this thread after so many posts (at least i didn't find any with quick search) since in my opinion that is the only solution and it comes with added benefits compared to traditional meat (no need to pump hormones, amount of fat etc can be controlled, in the end cheaper)
Peta is going to right direction by announcing the 1 million labmeat challenge (X price style reward) instead of doing idiotic and expensive commercials appealing to emotions. New harvest is also a good charity funding university based research if you are looking for one
The first post seems to have some kind of FAQ section so i suggest the original poster adds this link to it as well: AR FAQ which i think answers most common questions and objections people make
I realized you were an idiot when I glanced through and saw PETA.
Labmeat is an interesting but touchy subject and not even close to being a reality yet. You might as well say wait until we get Star Trek replicators.
Mentioning PETA in my post makes me idiot? You obviously didn't read my post since i was critical of PETA in the first place. In vitro meat can already be made so you obviously know nothing about the subject and your status as a logical authority is now void. Problem with in vitro meat is how to produce it in large enough quantities for it to be commercially viable and even bigger problem is getting the texture right (the cells have to be exercised). Cultured meat in processed for (sausage, hamburger etc) is potentially not that far off though and I wouldn't be surprised if we see it becoming a reality in the coming decade
Yes, mentioning PETA makes you an idiot because even if you were critical, you said they were going in the right direction after. PETA also doesn't exactly have a good track record and has some hilariously dumb programs (sea kittens). I know it can be made, it's not terribly difficult to "make" small quantities of edible flesh. You on the other hand clearly haven't thought of the infrastructure and needs of such a system and are merely posing the possibility. You've even mentioned yourself that there are issues with it and didn't even mention any of the ethical issues with it. It's a long ways off because it's a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist except in our imaginations (in b4 south park).
People haven't mentioned lab meat because if you haven't noticed, nobody is posing "futuristic" solutions to again, a problem that doesn't actually exist in an effort to call everyone else a moron.
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*.
On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote: the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants
Rofl. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't actually believe that plants suffer, but some people like to make ridiculous statements like that. just making the point that even if they did it would still be worse to eat meat. usually when u get into an argument about whether or not plants suffer no one can end up proving anything and it all just turns into a shitstorm (kinda like this thread), so its easier to just make the point that its irrelevant.
On June 05 2011 11:44 Laerties wrote: the suffering that went into that meat is like 11x more than eating plants
Rofl. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I don't actually believe that plants suffer, but some people like to make ridiculous statements like that. just making the point that even if they did it would still be worse to eat meat.
I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
On June 05 2011 12:00 RoseTempest wrote: I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
W.B. + agree but the meat producers wouldnt be in charge of the grain i think. Wouldn't it be the farmers? If the meat producers already have demand met than maybe shipping it is a good option for them, but they definitely arent obligated to.(how long can u store grain? anyone know?)
whether or not you decide to eat meat is strictly a diet choice. any meaning you tie to this choice is completely subjective. who ever pointed to hitlers diet as a way to devalue vegetarianism? why is it even relevant to choosing your own diet? the argument about slavery and animal testing, completely bogus. we do testing on animals because it saves lives, not because we get more cotton that way. two completely different means to different ends. horrible analogy. you keep using these words. rights, moral, human, animal, like they have these special meanings that need to be respected or something. we get it. you think its wrong to eat meat. and thats your choice. but your choice is your opinion; which is entirely subjective and based on what you think. not on any sort of higher law that governs humanity.
i'm not saying what you think is right or wrong but it's completely contrary to how the world actually works. and in fact is a rather slight moral conflict to get up in arms about. people kill each other every day because of whos god is better. for fucks sake at least we eat the animals we slaughter. the amount of senseless violence that goes on trumps whether or not a few chickens lose their heads.
i'm aware that a carnivorous diet may not be the best diet, and that on the contrary, most of the stuff they put in meat is particularly bad for you. but thats not to say grazing on greens is the best either. these are two extremes and hyperboles used by either side.
like you said, meat has been in the diets of humans since before we were well, humans (you can thank your ancestors for ingesting all that protein because its what made our brains so developed). whether or not we NEED to keep eating meat is up for debate. but dont expect the world to change the way it works because you understand that animals have feelings.
On June 05 2011 12:00 RoseTempest wrote: I'm back, I see discussions haven't progressed any further.
For those who argue that if we somehow stop farming animals and send all the grain to Africa. It's just not happening, like someone in the thread mentioned, it's not that we don't produce enough for people to eat, or we don't have enough land to farm for people-food, it's a logistical issue.
Sure we have millions of tonnes of grain that could feed the impoverished. But are private ranchers and farmers going to sell it to the impoverished for a tiny charge (take into account massive costs of shipping etc.) or make far more money raising livestock. Think about the people making a living off farming and ranching and think about the capitalist model.
Nothing's going to happen because "it would seem nice". Things happen because of profit, welcome to the real world.
tl;dr -> shipping cattle feed to impoverished nations is an impossible pipe dream
W.B. + agree but the meat producers wouldnt be in charge of the grain i think. Wouldn't it be the farmers? If the meat producers already have demand met than maybe shipping it is a good option for them, but they definitely arent obligated to.(how long can u store grain? anyone know?)
Thanks.
Thing is, even the price that ranchers are paying for grain is far higher than what developing nations would pay. It's also far costlier to ship grain long distances. And eventually, since there always will be demand for meat, ranchers will be willing to pay more and more in order to feed their herds, thus going into a price war with a developing nation (one that the nation definitely cannot afford). Besides the logistical nightmare the only thing that would happen is a spike in grain and meat prices, causing possibly more issues at home. It will deter some meat-eating, but then again, the people who can afford steaks, can still afford steaks (these are the over-indulgers) and the people who can barely afford food, now can't afford food.
A possibility, however, is somehow regulating the amount of ranching land/grain usage in developing nations and giving subsidies to grain farmers to counteract the less profits they're receiving from not selling to ranchers. This eliminates the massive issue of transportation and some of the logistical issues, but opens a whole new can of worms (international relations, national sovereignty etc).
Edit: soft grains store for around 6-9 years, however i believe around half of that time is "edible" and the other 3-4 years is just possibility of germination.
On June 05 2011 08:38 Conrose wrote: I would put the commercial viability of artificial meats as a suitable substitute for currently existing meats would be more akin to two decades out. There is more to meat than texture and providing protein. Any good cook would tell you that flavor is a big part of it... and getting meat to perfectly simulate the activities of other meats in the varied processes involved with food preparation will likely take a while. As an alternative source for protein, sure, I can see that coming in the next decade... but as a substitute for beef that can work for either my steak or my hot dog, I don't see that coming around for at least 15 years... and as much as I would love it, I seriously doubt they'll ever find the secret of what makes bacon so damned good.
I read somewhere that human and pig taste alike. Eating something that is so genetically similar probably has something to do with why it taste so good because your digestive system can more easily break it down.
The idea that westerners eating meat is causing a food shortage in Africa is about the most retarded thing I've read this entire thread. There are two important assumptions being made here:
1. That we are currently operating at maximum food production potential, and that if there wasn't more money to be made making more food, more food wouldn't be able to be made.
2. That if westerners used up less of our own food resources that our food producers would keep on producing at the old level anyway for no monetary reason, and send it to Africa.
Africa's inability to feed itself is absolutely unrelated to meat eating. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe ring a bell? Incompetent governments and lack of infrastructure is to blame for food shortage, not meat. Africa could easily become a net exporter of food with better infrastructure.
It's like saying that kids in the first world should stop playing with their PS3s because poor kids in third-world countries can't afford them. What, is Sony going to just keep making PS3s and give them to kids in third-world countries if we don't buy them, then? No, they're going to stop fucking making them. Same with food.
I don't think it's a good enough reason to be a vegan/vegetarian just because you think that animals have the right to live. However, although I'm not a vegetarian, I do not buy meat very often because of the horrible conditions that the animals suffer through. While I am not against killing animals for food, I think that animals should be treated like animals and not a fucking product to sell in supermarkets. Most chickens do not even ever see the light of day before they are slaughtered to be eaten
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.
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 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 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.
"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.
"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 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.
"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.
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 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.
"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.
"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 16:41 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 16:41 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 16:41 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.
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.
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. The thing is, 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 simply see it as me acting on my emotions, which is pretty much everyones reason for doing most things.
Brb murdering kittens to make you cry. Jk I could never do such a thing, they're too adorable.
You can just say you don't like the taste of death because you had too much of it from BP while spending time around the Gulf. There are ways besides ethics to justify not eating meat, you could do it as a protest against all the costs of factory farming and you'd probably lose your taste for meat (and possibly your ability to process it until your system readjusts to it) in the process, this would probably be real easy for you, or you could just simply be a vegetarian for the health benefits that come along with greater sustainability since a lot of meat and fish products are either unhealthy or unsustainable. You shouldn't feel guilty about eating some meat, only if you eat a shit-ton of it because it really is unhealthy, unsustainable, and probably would make you feel sick to eat that way. Human existence and nature itself is built upon something dying so something else can live, our situation just enables you to freely "choose" what will die and feed you today. I'll disagree on emotions for most things though, I'd say it's 50/50 depending on the day.
However, concerning bacon, there is no substitute. Soy dogs are actually alright though because well, hotdogs...
However, concerning bacon, there is no substitute. Soy dogs are actually alright though because well, hotdogs...
dude boca burgers are fucking delicious as well.
I have never actually had one, though if you like those a vegan guy I know says these black bean burgers things are really good and maybe better. I don't remember the brand and I'm not sure about availability but Whole Foods (shunnnnn) might have it, or something like 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.
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 their particular farm, efficiency is a serious issue. The farmer needs to be efficient, like any business does. Other than that, I don't think so.
Professor Huemer starts out his paper on the topic noting that political disagreement (and moral and religious disagreement) is very widespread, strong, and persistent. That is, any randomly-chosen two people are likely to disagree about many issues; they are likely to be very confident that they are right; and long discussions or rational argument is unlikely to bring them to agreement.
Why don’t we have such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements in subjects like mathematics or science? While there are disagreements in these other subjects, the frequency, intensity of conviction, and tenacity do not compare to politics, morality, and religion. After this brief introduction, Professor Huemer considers four theories of why there is so much strong and persistent disagreement in politics, and concludes that while there are several reasons for it, the most important factor is “rational irrationality” where “rationality” in the first term is referring to instrumental rationality (i.e. the “means-ends” or purely self-interested kind of rationality that economists refer to) and “rationality” in the second term is referring to epistemic rationality (i.e. the disinterested kind of rationality that seeks only truth, regardless of the implications of the truth).
The economic theory of rational ignorance holds that people often rationally choose to remain ignorant of a topic because the perceived utility value of the knowledge is low or even negative. For an example of where perceived utility value is low, consider what you will gain from going through the time and trouble of knowing the specific voting records of all the politicians who represent you. You won't gain much. The fact is that the next politician elected will be the person who the other tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in your district voted for.
For an example where the perceived utility value is negative, consider what you will gain from knowing exactly what happened to the chickens who laid the eggs you purchased or were slaughtered for lunch today. If you have a conscience, it will likely ruin the meal for you, and may affect the way you see your eating habits in general. In the instrumental, purely self-interested sense of the word “rational”, it is irrational to want to know what happened to the sentient beings who were tortured and slaughtered for your next meal.
This explains why vegans, when we start to gently introduce the plight of ‘food’ animals to non-vegans, so often get a response along the lines of “Stop, I don’t want to know”. It’s not that we’re about to bore our non-vegan associate with the voting records of a dozen politicians (a perceived low utility value), it’s that the non-vegan is insisting on maintaining (instrumental, self-interested) rational ignorance in the face of highly disturbing information that bears heavily on certain decisions we make about three times a day (perceived negative utility value).
Similarly, the economic theory of rational irrationality holds that it is often rational, in a purely self-interested, economic sense, to adopt epistemically irrational beliefs because the cost of epistemically rational beliefs exceeds the benefits of adopting them. So if I accept epistemically irrational beliefs against animal rights – for example, that sentient nonhumans don’t feel pain or that their pain doesn’t matter as much as human pain “because they’re not human” or that we’ll be overrun by billions of cows, pigs, and chickens if we stop slaughtering them – I bear none of the cost of accepting such absurd beliefs.
Rational irrationality makes two assumptions: 1) that individuals have, as Huemer puts it “...non-epistemic belief preferences (otherwise known as ‘biases’). That is, there are certain things people want to believe, for reasons independent of the truth of those propositions or how well they are supported by the evidence.”; and 2) that individuals exercise some control over their beliefs. Quoting Huemer again, “Given the first assumption, there is a “cost” to thinking rationally—namely, that one may not get to believe the things one wants to believe. Given the second assumption (and given that individuals are usually instrumentally rational), most people will accept this cost only if they receive greater benefits from thinking rationally.” Since individuals don’t perceive any personal benefit from being epistemically rational about animal rights and veganism, we can predict that they will often choose to be epistemically irrational about animal rights and veganism. (Huemer draws this conclusion regarding only political issues generally.)
Huemer points out that some people will highly value epistemic rationality itself, and therefore will be epistemically rational about political issues (and in our case here, animal rights and veganism). But there’s no reason to think everyone (or even most people) will have this value preference.
Due in large part to persistent marketing by the food industry, the confused message of new welfarists, and the anti-animal rights countermovement, most people falsely perceive veganism as ‘difficult’ at best, and at worst, hold a caricature of veganism as a diet consisting of ‘rabbit food’ (with mental images of barely surviving on things like iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and carrots). Regardless of how delightful vegan food really is, and how much vegan junk food there is, and how many substitutes there are these days for our formerly favorite animal products, it is ultimately the perception of ‘difficulty’ that represents a ‘cost’ of going vegan. Of course, the greater the perception of ‘difficulty’ is; the greater is the perceived ‘cost’. And the greater the perceived ‘cost’ is; the greater is the likelihood of rational ignorance and rational irrationality.
Most people want to go along with the beliefs of people who they like and associate with on a regular basis. Although veganism is becoming increasingly more common and widely accepted in most social groups, many people are afraid of the social consequences of becoming a vegan. They may fear being challenged or even ridiculed about their decision. They may fear awkward social situations or the loss of friends. These fears of social consequences (regardless of whether they are justified or not) can be powerful motivations for rational ignorance and rational irrationality regarding veganism and animal rights.
People generally want to adopt beliefs that support the self-image they want to maintain and project. If animal rights and veganism doesn’t fit the preconceived self-image for whatever reason, then rational ignorance and rational irrationality about animal rights and veganism are likely to occur.
People usually prefer to hold beliefs that fit well with their other beliefs. Someone who believes X as an evaluative proposition will likely be biased in favor of descriptive propositions or other evaluative propositions that support X. This tendency to prefer coherence can be either epistemically rational (unbiased) or irrational (biased). For example, one will prefer an epistemically rational (unbiased) coherence when one is genuinely and disinterestedly seeking epistemically sound beliefs. Contrarily, one will often prefer an epistemically irrational (biased) coherence when one is seeking ways of ‘justifying’ a self-serving belief by adopting erroneous premises that fit a self-serving (but epistemically false) conclusion.
Coherence bias is, by far, the most interesting bias in the case of animal rights and veganism and deserves its own essay. Why? Because arguably, the most wildly incoherent set of beliefs in our society is most people’s beliefs regarding sentient nonhuman beings. Further, people go to great lengths in rational ignorance and rational irrationality to cover up this incoherence born of bias.
Consider that so many of us love and coddle the family dog, or even a stranger’s dog (familiarity with the dog generally doesn’t matter) and then stick a fork in the equally sentient tortured chicken or drink the milk of the raped and slaughtered cow, who lost her calf to the veal industry. This is a classic example of an incoherence of evaluative beliefs that is wildly irrational epistemically. How do we cope with this epistemic incoherence that we’d normally scoff at? We cope with it via rational ignorance (“Stop, I don’t want to know what happens to the (‘food’) animals”) and rational irrationality (“They’re bred for food.” “What would happen to the millions of cows if we didn’t milk and slaughter them?” [and dozens of other epistemically irrational objections]).
If we attribute slightly more weight to pieces of evidence supporting our preferred beliefs and slightly less weight to pieces of evidence against our preferred beliefs, the cumulative effect of these small biases in weighting evidence can be substantial.
One might think a high degree of intelligence or education would protect a person from holding on to false beliefs, but this is not necessarily the case. As Huemer points out, the highly intelligent or highly educated person often uses her or his intelligence or education as tools to find more support for non-epistemically preferred beliefs. Where a less intelligent or educated person might give up and admit error, the highly intelligent or educated person has more drive and resources to prop up false beliefs.
The relationship of intelligence and bias to finding out the truth of a matter are as follows: 1) high intelligence and low bias yield the best prospects at obtaining truth; 2) low intelligence and low bias yield good prospects at obtaining truth; 3) low intelligence and high bias yield poor prospects at obtaining truth; and 4) high intelligence and high bias yield the worst prospects at obtaining truth.
Like many problems and diseases, the first step to overcoming them is to recognize or admit that the problem exists, both in us and in others. Once we diagnose the problem, we can look for likely causes. We can ask ourselves what ulterior motives we have, or someone else has, for believing a certain claim. We can explore the beliefs underlying preferred beliefs to see what instrumental (self-interested) and epistemic (disinterested) reasons we have for believing what we believe.
Are there any biases from self-interest? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism and animal rights because of preconceptions of what it might be like for us to be vegan? Do we believe something to reaffirm our desired self-image or to fit in with a social group? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism because of a lack of self-esteem or fear of rejection? What do we really have to fear personally or socially – anything? Do we believe underlying claims because they are true or because they cohere well with other claims we want to believe? For example, do we accept irrational beliefs about nonhuman beings and their interests in not being exploited, tortured, and killed because they cohere well with our continued consumption of them and their reproductive products?
We can also make an effort to develop good thinking habits. We should hear or carefully consider both sides of an argument before accepting either side. We should become familiar with informal logic and common fallacies. When we feel inclined to assert a claim, we can ask what epistemic reasons we have for believing it, and also why we might want to believe the claim (independent of its truth). We should develop a higher degree of skepticism toward the beliefs that we suspect have ulterior motives, regardless of whether those ulterior motives are our own or someone else’s. Our first assumption, especially if there is an ulterior motive, such as profit or any conflict of interest, should be that the information provided to us is false, misleading, or incomplete, until we’ve subjected it to further scrutiny and verification. Such skepticism should not be merely applied to positive assertions, i.e. “X is true”, but also to negative assertions, i.e. “X is false” (in other words, proper skepticism is not just about avoiding erroneous acceptance, but equally about avoiding erroneous rejection).
Most of all, we should eliminate our ignorance about animal agriculture and be epistemically rational about it. We should face the facts with courage. Animal agriculture, regardless of what label it is marketed under (e.g. "free-range" or "humane certified"), is a deplorable business and we should know what we’re contributing to. Upon obtaining the facts about animal agriculture, we should beware of epistemically irrational attempts to ‘justify’ our participation in it. We should examine the issue impartially, with a particular effort to recognize our underlying motivations, if any, for accepting or rejecting certain descriptive or evaluative claims.
In writing this essay, I have relied heavily on Professor Huemer’s paper since it effectively applies rational ignorance and rational irrationality, as well as many of their causes, to political disagreements in general; disagreement in animal rights and veganism being subsets of general moral and political disagreement. That said, I have also substantially ignored, diverged from, and added to sections of Huemer’s paper, so this essay should not at all be taken as representative of Huemer’s paper, and if one is interested in his paper, I encourage reading it.
Professor Huemer starts out his paper on the topic noting that political disagreement (and moral and religious disagreement) is very widespread, strong, and persistent. That is, any randomly-chosen two people are likely to disagree about many issues; they are likely to be very confident that they are right; and long discussions or rational argument is unlikely to bring them to agreement.
Why don’t we have such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements in subjects like mathematics or science? While there are disagreements in these other subjects, the frequency, intensity of conviction, and tenacity do not compare to politics, morality, and religion. After this brief introduction, Professor Huemer considers four theories of why there is so much strong and persistent disagreement in politics, and concludes that while there are several reasons for it, the most important factor is “rational irrationality” where “rationality” in the first term is referring to instrumental rationality (i.e. the “means-ends” or purely self-interested kind of rationality that economists refer to) and “rationality” in the second term is referring to epistemic rationality (i.e. the disinterested kind of rationality that seeks only truth, regardless of the implications of the truth).
The economic theory of rational ignorance holds that people often rationally choose to remain ignorant of a topic because the perceived utility value of the knowledge is low or even negative. For an example of where perceived utility value is low, consider what you will gain from going through the time and trouble of knowing the specific voting records of all the politicians who represent you. You won't gain much. The fact is that the next politician elected will be the person who the other tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in your district voted for.
For an example where the perceived utility value is negative, consider what you will gain from knowing exactly what happened to the chickens who laid the eggs you purchased or were slaughtered for lunch today. If you have a conscience, it will likely ruin the meal for you, and may affect the way you see your eating habits in general. In the instrumental, purely self-interested sense of the word “rational”, it is irrational to want to know what happened to the sentient beings who were tortured and slaughtered for your next meal.
This explains why vegans, when we start to gently introduce the plight of ‘food’ animals to non-vegans, so often get a response along the lines of “Stop, I don’t want to know”. It’s not that we’re about to bore our non-vegan associate with the voting records of a dozen politicians (a perceived low utility value), it’s that the non-vegan is insisting on maintaining (instrumental, self-interested) rational ignorance in the face of highly disturbing information that bears heavily on certain decisions we make about three times a day (perceived negative utility value).
Similarly, the economic theory of rational irrationality holds that it is often rational, in a purely self-interested, economic sense, to adopt epistemically irrational beliefs because the cost of epistemically rational beliefs exceeds the benefits of adopting them. So if I accept epistemically irrational beliefs against animal rights – for example, that sentient nonhumans don’t feel pain or that their pain doesn’t matter as much as human pain “because they’re not human” or that we’ll be overrun by billions of cows, pigs, and chickens if we stop slaughtering them – I bear none of the cost of accepting such absurd beliefs.
Rational irrationality makes two assumptions: 1) that individuals have, as Huemer puts it “...non-epistemic belief preferences (otherwise known as ‘biases’). That is, there are certain things people want to believe, for reasons independent of the truth of those propositions or how well they are supported by the evidence.”; and 2) that individuals exercise some control over their beliefs. Quoting Huemer again, “Given the first assumption, there is a “cost” to thinking rationally—namely, that one may not get to believe the things one wants to believe. Given the second assumption (and given that individuals are usually instrumentally rational), most people will accept this cost only if they receive greater benefits from thinking rationally.” Since individuals don’t perceive any personal benefit from being epistemically rational about animal rights and veganism, we can predict that they will often choose to be epistemically irrational about animal rights and veganism. (Huemer draws this conclusion regarding only political issues generally.)
Huemer points out that some people will highly value epistemic rationality itself, and therefore will be epistemically rational about political issues (and in our case here, animal rights and veganism). But there’s no reason to think everyone (or even most people) will have this value preference.
Due in large part to persistent marketing by the food industry, the confused message of new welfarists, and the anti-animal rights countermovement, most people falsely perceive veganism as ‘difficult’ at best, and at worst, hold a caricature of veganism as a diet consisting of ‘rabbit food’ (with mental images of barely surviving on things like iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and carrots). Regardless of how delightful vegan food really is, and how much vegan junk food there is, and how many substitutes there are these days for our formerly favorite animal products, it is ultimately the perception of ‘difficulty’ that represents a ‘cost’ of going vegan. Of course, the greater the perception of ‘difficulty’ is; the greater is the perceived ‘cost’. And the greater the perceived ‘cost’ is; the greater is the likelihood of rational ignorance and rational irrationality.
Most people want to go along with the beliefs of people who they like and associate with on a regular basis. Although veganism is becoming increasingly more common and widely accepted in most social groups, many people are afraid of the social consequences of becoming a vegan. They may fear being challenged or even ridiculed about their decision. They may fear awkward social situations or the loss of friends. These fears of social consequences (regardless of whether they are justified or not) can be powerful motivations for rational ignorance and rational irrationality regarding veganism and animal rights.
People generally want to adopt beliefs that support the self-image they want to maintain and project. If animal rights and veganism doesn’t fit the preconceived self-image for whatever reason, then rational ignorance and rational irrationality about animal rights and veganism are likely to occur.
People usually prefer to hold beliefs that fit well with their other beliefs. Someone who believes X as an evaluative proposition will likely be biased in favor of descriptive propositions or other evaluative propositions that support X. This tendency to prefer coherence can be either epistemically rational (unbiased) or irrational (biased). For example, one will prefer an epistemically rational (unbiased) coherence when one is genuinely and disinterestedly seeking epistemically sound beliefs. Contrarily, one will often prefer an epistemically irrational (biased) coherence when one is seeking ways of ‘justifying’ a self-serving belief by adopting erroneous premises that fit a self-serving (but epistemically false) conclusion.
Coherence bias is, by far, the most interesting bias in the case of animal rights and veganism and deserves its own essay. Why? Because arguably, the most wildly incoherent set of beliefs in our society is most people’s beliefs regarding sentient nonhuman beings. Further, people go to great lengths in rational ignorance and rational irrationality to cover up this incoherence born of bias.
Consider that so many of us love and coddle the family dog, or even a stranger’s dog (familiarity with the dog generally doesn’t matter) and then stick a fork in the equally sentient tortured chicken or drink the milk of the raped and slaughtered cow, who lost her calf to the veal industry. This is a classic example of an incoherence of evaluative beliefs that is wildly irrational epistemically. How do we cope with this epistemic incoherence that we’d normally scoff at? We cope with it via rational ignorance (“Stop, I don’t want to know what happens to the (‘food’) animals”) and rational irrationality (“They’re bred for food.” “What would happen to the millions of cows if we didn’t milk and slaughter them?” [and dozens of other epistemically irrational objections]).
If we attribute slightly more weight to pieces of evidence supporting our preferred beliefs and slightly less weight to pieces of evidence against our preferred beliefs, the cumulative effect of these small biases in weighting evidence can be substantial.
One might think a high degree of intelligence or education would protect a person from holding on to false beliefs, but this is not necessarily the case. As Huemer points out, the highly intelligent or highly educated person often uses her or his intelligence or education as tools to find more support for non-epistemically preferred beliefs. Where a less intelligent or educated person might give up and admit error, the highly intelligent or educated person has more drive and resources to prop up false beliefs.
The relationship of intelligence and bias to finding out the truth of a matter are as follows: 1) high intelligence and low bias yield the best prospects at obtaining truth; 2) low intelligence and low bias yield good prospects at obtaining truth; 3) low intelligence and high bias yield poor prospects at obtaining truth; and 4) high intelligence and high bias yield the worst prospects at obtaining truth.
Like many problems and diseases, the first step to overcoming them is to recognize or admit that the problem exists, both in us and in others. Once we diagnose the problem, we can look for likely causes. We can ask ourselves what ulterior motives we have, or someone else has, for believing a certain claim. We can explore the beliefs underlying preferred beliefs to see what instrumental (self-interested) and epistemic (disinterested) reasons we have for believing what we believe.
Are there any biases from self-interest? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism and animal rights because of preconceptions of what it might be like for us to be vegan? Do we believe something to reaffirm our desired self-image or to fit in with a social group? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism because of a lack of self-esteem or fear of rejection? What do we really have to fear personally or socially – anything? Do we believe underlying claims because they are true or because they cohere well with other claims we want to believe? For example, do we accept irrational beliefs about nonhuman beings and their interests in not being exploited, tortured, and killed because they cohere well with our continued consumption of them and their reproductive products?
We can also make an effort to develop good thinking habits. We should hear or carefully consider both sides of an argument before accepting either side. We should become familiar with informal logic and common fallacies. When we feel inclined to assert a claim, we can ask what epistemic reasons we have for believing it, and also why we might want to believe the claim (independent of its truth). We should develop a higher degree of skepticism toward the beliefs that we suspect have ulterior motives, regardless of whether those ulterior motives are our own or someone else’s. Our first assumption, especially if there is an ulterior motive, such as profit or any conflict of interest, should be that the information provided to us is false, misleading, or incomplete, until we’ve subjected it to further scrutiny and verification. Such skepticism should not be merely applied to positive assertions, i.e. “X is true”, but also to negative assertions, i.e. “X is false” (in other words, proper skepticism is not just about avoiding erroneous acceptance, but equally about avoiding erroneous rejection).
Most of all, we should eliminate our ignorance about animal agriculture and be epistemically rational about it. We should face the facts with courage. Animal agriculture, regardless of what label it is marketed under (e.g. "free-range" or "humane certified"), is a deplorable business and we should know what we’re contributing to. Upon obtaining the facts about animal agriculture, we should beware of epistemically irrational attempts to ‘justify’ our participation in it. We should examine the issue impartially, with a particular effort to recognize our underlying motivations, if any, for accepting or rejecting certain descriptive or evaluative claims.
In writing this essay, I have relied heavily on Professor Huemer’s paper since it effectively applies rational ignorance and rational irrationality, as well as many of their causes, to political disagreements in general; disagreement in animal rights and veganism being subsets of general moral and political disagreement. That said, I have also substantially ignored, diverged from, and added to sections of Huemer’s paper, so this essay should not at all be taken as representative of Huemer’s paper, and if one is interested in his paper, I encourage reading it.
You realize this applies to both pro and anti vegans right? And all the logical fallacies generally tend to be more applicable to the vegans?
Professor Huemer starts out his paper on the topic noting that political disagreement (and moral and religious disagreement) is very widespread, strong, and persistent. That is, any randomly-chosen two people are likely to disagree about many issues; they are likely to be very confident that they are right; and long discussions or rational argument is unlikely to bring them to agreement.
Why don’t we have such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements in subjects like mathematics or science? While there are disagreements in these other subjects, the frequency, intensity of conviction, and tenacity do not compare to politics, morality, and religion. After this brief introduction, Professor Huemer considers four theories of why there is so much strong and persistent disagreement in politics, and concludes that while there are several reasons for it, the most important factor is “rational irrationality” where “rationality” in the first term is referring to instrumental rationality (i.e. the “means-ends” or purely self-interested kind of rationality that economists refer to) and “rationality” in the second term is referring to epistemic rationality (i.e. the disinterested kind of rationality that seeks only truth, regardless of the implications of the truth).
The economic theory of rational ignorance holds that people often rationally choose to remain ignorant of a topic because the perceived utility value of the knowledge is low or even negative. For an example of where perceived utility value is low, consider what you will gain from going through the time and trouble of knowing the specific voting records of all the politicians who represent you. You won't gain much. The fact is that the next politician elected will be the person who the other tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in your district voted for.
For an example where the perceived utility value is negative, consider what you will gain from knowing exactly what happened to the chickens who laid the eggs you purchased or were slaughtered for lunch today. If you have a conscience, it will likely ruin the meal for you, and may affect the way you see your eating habits in general. In the instrumental, purely self-interested sense of the word “rational”, it is irrational to want to know what happened to the sentient beings who were tortured and slaughtered for your next meal.
This explains why vegans, when we start to gently introduce the plight of ‘food’ animals to non-vegans, so often get a response along the lines of “Stop, I don’t want to know”. It’s not that we’re about to bore our non-vegan associate with the voting records of a dozen politicians (a perceived low utility value), it’s that the non-vegan is insisting on maintaining (instrumental, self-interested) rational ignorance in the face of highly disturbing information that bears heavily on certain decisions we make about three times a day (perceived negative utility value).
Similarly, the economic theory of rational irrationality holds that it is often rational, in a purely self-interested, economic sense, to adopt epistemically irrational beliefs because the cost of epistemically rational beliefs exceeds the benefits of adopting them. So if I accept epistemically irrational beliefs against animal rights – for example, that sentient nonhumans don’t feel pain or that their pain doesn’t matter as much as human pain “because they’re not human” or that we’ll be overrun by billions of cows, pigs, and chickens if we stop slaughtering them – I bear none of the cost of accepting such absurd beliefs.
Rational irrationality makes two assumptions: 1) that individuals have, as Huemer puts it “...non-epistemic belief preferences (otherwise known as ‘biases’). That is, there are certain things people want to believe, for reasons independent of the truth of those propositions or how well they are supported by the evidence.”; and 2) that individuals exercise some control over their beliefs. Quoting Huemer again, “Given the first assumption, there is a “cost” to thinking rationally—namely, that one may not get to believe the things one wants to believe. Given the second assumption (and given that individuals are usually instrumentally rational), most people will accept this cost only if they receive greater benefits from thinking rationally.” Since individuals don’t perceive any personal benefit from being epistemically rational about animal rights and veganism, we can predict that they will often choose to be epistemically irrational about animal rights and veganism. (Huemer draws this conclusion regarding only political issues generally.)
Huemer points out that some people will highly value epistemic rationality itself, and therefore will be epistemically rational about political issues (and in our case here, animal rights and veganism). But there’s no reason to think everyone (or even most people) will have this value preference.
Due in large part to persistent marketing by the food industry, the confused message of new welfarists, and the anti-animal rights countermovement, most people falsely perceive veganism as ‘difficult’ at best, and at worst, hold a caricature of veganism as a diet consisting of ‘rabbit food’ (with mental images of barely surviving on things like iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and carrots). Regardless of how delightful vegan food really is, and how much vegan junk food there is, and how many substitutes there are these days for our formerly favorite animal products, it is ultimately the perception of ‘difficulty’ that represents a ‘cost’ of going vegan. Of course, the greater the perception of ‘difficulty’ is; the greater is the perceived ‘cost’. And the greater the perceived ‘cost’ is; the greater is the likelihood of rational ignorance and rational irrationality.
Most people want to go along with the beliefs of people who they like and associate with on a regular basis. Although veganism is becoming increasingly more common and widely accepted in most social groups, many people are afraid of the social consequences of becoming a vegan. They may fear being challenged or even ridiculed about their decision. They may fear awkward social situations or the loss of friends. These fears of social consequences (regardless of whether they are justified or not) can be powerful motivations for rational ignorance and rational irrationality regarding veganism and animal rights.
People generally want to adopt beliefs that support the self-image they want to maintain and project. If animal rights and veganism doesn’t fit the preconceived self-image for whatever reason, then rational ignorance and rational irrationality about animal rights and veganism are likely to occur.
People usually prefer to hold beliefs that fit well with their other beliefs. Someone who believes X as an evaluative proposition will likely be biased in favor of descriptive propositions or other evaluative propositions that support X. This tendency to prefer coherence can be either epistemically rational (unbiased) or irrational (biased). For example, one will prefer an epistemically rational (unbiased) coherence when one is genuinely and disinterestedly seeking epistemically sound beliefs. Contrarily, one will often prefer an epistemically irrational (biased) coherence when one is seeking ways of ‘justifying’ a self-serving belief by adopting erroneous premises that fit a self-serving (but epistemically false) conclusion.
Coherence bias is, by far, the most interesting bias in the case of animal rights and veganism and deserves its own essay. Why? Because arguably, the most wildly incoherent set of beliefs in our society is most people’s beliefs regarding sentient nonhuman beings. Further, people go to great lengths in rational ignorance and rational irrationality to cover up this incoherence born of bias.
Consider that so many of us love and coddle the family dog, or even a stranger’s dog (familiarity with the dog generally doesn’t matter) and then stick a fork in the equally sentient tortured chicken or drink the milk of the raped and slaughtered cow, who lost her calf to the veal industry. This is a classic example of an incoherence of evaluative beliefs that is wildly irrational epistemically. How do we cope with this epistemic incoherence that we’d normally scoff at? We cope with it via rational ignorance (“Stop, I don’t want to know what happens to the (‘food’) animals”) and rational irrationality (“They’re bred for food.” “What would happen to the millions of cows if we didn’t milk and slaughter them?” [and dozens of other epistemically irrational objections]).
If we attribute slightly more weight to pieces of evidence supporting our preferred beliefs and slightly less weight to pieces of evidence against our preferred beliefs, the cumulative effect of these small biases in weighting evidence can be substantial.
One might think a high degree of intelligence or education would protect a person from holding on to false beliefs, but this is not necessarily the case. As Huemer points out, the highly intelligent or highly educated person often uses her or his intelligence or education as tools to find more support for non-epistemically preferred beliefs. Where a less intelligent or educated person might give up and admit error, the highly intelligent or educated person has more drive and resources to prop up false beliefs.
The relationship of intelligence and bias to finding out the truth of a matter are as follows: 1) high intelligence and low bias yield the best prospects at obtaining truth; 2) low intelligence and low bias yield good prospects at obtaining truth; 3) low intelligence and high bias yield poor prospects at obtaining truth; and 4) high intelligence and high bias yield the worst prospects at obtaining truth.
Like many problems and diseases, the first step to overcoming them is to recognize or admit that the problem exists, both in us and in others. Once we diagnose the problem, we can look for likely causes. We can ask ourselves what ulterior motives we have, or someone else has, for believing a certain claim. We can explore the beliefs underlying preferred beliefs to see what instrumental (self-interested) and epistemic (disinterested) reasons we have for believing what we believe.
Are there any biases from self-interest? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism and animal rights because of preconceptions of what it might be like for us to be vegan? Do we believe something to reaffirm our desired self-image or to fit in with a social group? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism because of a lack of self-esteem or fear of rejection? What do we really have to fear personally or socially – anything? Do we believe underlying claims because they are true or because they cohere well with other claims we want to believe? For example, do we accept irrational beliefs about nonhuman beings and their interests in not being exploited, tortured, and killed because they cohere well with our continued consumption of them and their reproductive products?
We can also make an effort to develop good thinking habits. We should hear or carefully consider both sides of an argument before accepting either side. We should become familiar with informal logic and common fallacies. When we feel inclined to assert a claim, we can ask what epistemic reasons we have for believing it, and also why we might want to believe the claim (independent of its truth). We should develop a higher degree of skepticism toward the beliefs that we suspect have ulterior motives, regardless of whether those ulterior motives are our own or someone else’s. Our first assumption, especially if there is an ulterior motive, such as profit or any conflict of interest, should be that the information provided to us is false, misleading, or incomplete, until we’ve subjected it to further scrutiny and verification. Such skepticism should not be merely applied to positive assertions, i.e. “X is true”, but also to negative assertions, i.e. “X is false” (in other words, proper skepticism is not just about avoiding erroneous acceptance, but equally about avoiding erroneous rejection).
Most of all, we should eliminate our ignorance about animal agriculture and be epistemically rational about it. We should face the facts with courage. Animal agriculture, regardless of what label it is marketed under (e.g. "free-range" or "humane certified"), is a deplorable business and we should know what we’re contributing to. Upon obtaining the facts about animal agriculture, we should beware of epistemically irrational attempts to ‘justify’ our participation in it. We should examine the issue impartially, with a particular effort to recognize our underlying motivations, if any, for accepting or rejecting certain descriptive or evaluative claims.
In writing this essay, I have relied heavily on Professor Huemer’s paper since it effectively applies rational ignorance and rational irrationality, as well as many of their causes, to political disagreements in general; disagreement in animal rights and veganism being subsets of general moral and political disagreement. That said, I have also substantially ignored, diverged from, and added to sections of Huemer’s paper, so this essay should not at all be taken as representative of Huemer’s paper, and if one is interested in his paper, I encourage reading it.
You realize this applies to both pro and anti vegans right? And all the logical fallacies generally tend to be more applicable to the vegans?
I realise it applies to both pro and anti vegans, however your second sentence simply shows you are no different from the essay writer who is biased towards veganism in that you are biased towards meat-eating.
Edit: What I mean is, the essay writer is saying these logical fallacies are more applicable to meat-eaters, whereas you're saying these logical fallacies are more applicable to vegans. The whole purpose of the paper though was to challenge people to then therefore critique their own positions, so what you're meant to get out of it is to start arguing in favour of veganism in this thread, for example, just as a test, to see if you still hold the same views at the end. What a vegan ought to do is likewise think about things from a meat-eater's perspective. This doesn't mean either party needs to change the way they practice their diets, but merely to challenge themselves to think critically about the other side's position and effectively put them in the other person's shoes. By simply saying: "Well, it's clear my side wins the argument and the other side is completely biased," you're effectively ignoring the entire proposition of Professor Huemer's thesis (which although was aimed at politics, is equally applicable to all sorts of debates, whether politics, religion, etc).
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. The thing is, 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 simply see it as me acting on my emotions, which is pretty much everyones reason for doing most things.
Brb murdering kittens to make you cry. Jk I could never do such a thing, they're too adorable.
You can just say you don't like the taste of death because you had too much of it from BP while spending time around the Gulf. There are ways besides ethics to justify not eating meat, you could do it as a protest against all the costs of factory farming and you'd probably lose your taste for meat (and possibly your ability to process it until your system readjusts to it) in the process, this would probably be real easy for you, or you could just simply be a vegetarian for the health benefits that come along with greater sustainability since a lot of meat and fish products are either unhealthy or unsustainable. You shouldn't feel guilty about eating some meat, only if you eat a shit-ton of it because it really is unhealthy, unsustainable, and probably would make you feel sick to eat that way. Human existence and nature itself is built upon something dying so something else can live, our situation just enables you to freely "choose" what will die and feed you today. I'll disagree on emotions for most things though, I'd say it's 50/50 depending on the day.
However, concerning bacon, there is no substitute. Soy dogs are actually alright though because well, hotdogs...
I must say that I dont really understand how you can maintain that morality/ethics is not a valid argument conserning vegetarianism? I might have misunderstood you browsing through 20ish pages in notime (4am here aswell and english is not my 1st language so I apologize for any misunderstandings).
I do certinly realize that my moral standpoint as a westener (swedish) is not applicable to the entire world but my reason for being a vegetarian is quite simple. I think it is wrong to take a life when having the option to not to. An option I myself have (obviously). There are certinly other arguments to bring to this discussion but to me in my situation they are quite unimportant. I couldnt take a life, I find the prospect appauling and equally appauling to have someone else do it for me for the sake of my protein intake.
Had I then not had the choice, something most people in this world sadly do not, my moral view on things ofc do not translate. I also realize that morality is something subjective by definition and therefore cannot be used in any sort of discussion(atleast cannot lead to an objective conclusion) but it is still a valid reason for being a vegetarian or vegan.
gah, had alot more to say but cant remember atm..... to tired.. need baco....... ehrm... soy
Professor Huemer starts out his paper on the topic noting that political disagreement (and moral and religious disagreement) is very widespread, strong, and persistent. That is, any randomly-chosen two people are likely to disagree about many issues; they are likely to be very confident that they are right; and long discussions or rational argument is unlikely to bring them to agreement.
Why don’t we have such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements in subjects like mathematics or science? While there are disagreements in these other subjects, the frequency, intensity of conviction, and tenacity do not compare to politics, morality, and religion. After this brief introduction, Professor Huemer considers four theories of why there is so much strong and persistent disagreement in politics, and concludes that while there are several reasons for it, the most important factor is “rational irrationality” where “rationality” in the first term is referring to instrumental rationality (i.e. the “means-ends” or purely self-interested kind of rationality that economists refer to) and “rationality” in the second term is referring to epistemic rationality (i.e. the disinterested kind of rationality that seeks only truth, regardless of the implications of the truth).
The economic theory of rational ignorance holds that people often rationally choose to remain ignorant of a topic because the perceived utility value of the knowledge is low or even negative. For an example of where perceived utility value is low, consider what you will gain from going through the time and trouble of knowing the specific voting records of all the politicians who represent you. You won't gain much. The fact is that the next politician elected will be the person who the other tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in your district voted for.
For an example where the perceived utility value is negative, consider what you will gain from knowing exactly what happened to the chickens who laid the eggs you purchased or were slaughtered for lunch today. If you have a conscience, it will likely ruin the meal for you, and may affect the way you see your eating habits in general. In the instrumental, purely self-interested sense of the word “rational”, it is irrational to want to know what happened to the sentient beings who were tortured and slaughtered for your next meal.
This explains why vegans, when we start to gently introduce the plight of ‘food’ animals to non-vegans, so often get a response along the lines of “Stop, I don’t want to know”. It’s not that we’re about to bore our non-vegan associate with the voting records of a dozen politicians (a perceived low utility value), it’s that the non-vegan is insisting on maintaining (instrumental, self-interested) rational ignorance in the face of highly disturbing information that bears heavily on certain decisions we make about three times a day (perceived negative utility value).
Similarly, the economic theory of rational irrationality holds that it is often rational, in a purely self-interested, economic sense, to adopt epistemically irrational beliefs because the cost of epistemically rational beliefs exceeds the benefits of adopting them. So if I accept epistemically irrational beliefs against animal rights – for example, that sentient nonhumans don’t feel pain or that their pain doesn’t matter as much as human pain “because they’re not human” or that we’ll be overrun by billions of cows, pigs, and chickens if we stop slaughtering them – I bear none of the cost of accepting such absurd beliefs.
Rational irrationality makes two assumptions: 1) that individuals have, as Huemer puts it “...non-epistemic belief preferences (otherwise known as ‘biases’). That is, there are certain things people want to believe, for reasons independent of the truth of those propositions or how well they are supported by the evidence.”; and 2) that individuals exercise some control over their beliefs. Quoting Huemer again, “Given the first assumption, there is a “cost” to thinking rationally—namely, that one may not get to believe the things one wants to believe. Given the second assumption (and given that individuals are usually instrumentally rational), most people will accept this cost only if they receive greater benefits from thinking rationally.” Since individuals don’t perceive any personal benefit from being epistemically rational about animal rights and veganism, we can predict that they will often choose to be epistemically irrational about animal rights and veganism. (Huemer draws this conclusion regarding only political issues generally.)
Huemer points out that some people will highly value epistemic rationality itself, and therefore will be epistemically rational about political issues (and in our case here, animal rights and veganism). But there’s no reason to think everyone (or even most people) will have this value preference.
Due in large part to persistent marketing by the food industry, the confused message of new welfarists, and the anti-animal rights countermovement, most people falsely perceive veganism as ‘difficult’ at best, and at worst, hold a caricature of veganism as a diet consisting of ‘rabbit food’ (with mental images of barely surviving on things like iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and carrots). Regardless of how delightful vegan food really is, and how much vegan junk food there is, and how many substitutes there are these days for our formerly favorite animal products, it is ultimately the perception of ‘difficulty’ that represents a ‘cost’ of going vegan. Of course, the greater the perception of ‘difficulty’ is; the greater is the perceived ‘cost’. And the greater the perceived ‘cost’ is; the greater is the likelihood of rational ignorance and rational irrationality.
Most people want to go along with the beliefs of people who they like and associate with on a regular basis. Although veganism is becoming increasingly more common and widely accepted in most social groups, many people are afraid of the social consequences of becoming a vegan. They may fear being challenged or even ridiculed about their decision. They may fear awkward social situations or the loss of friends. These fears of social consequences (regardless of whether they are justified or not) can be powerful motivations for rational ignorance and rational irrationality regarding veganism and animal rights.
People generally want to adopt beliefs that support the self-image they want to maintain and project. If animal rights and veganism doesn’t fit the preconceived self-image for whatever reason, then rational ignorance and rational irrationality about animal rights and veganism are likely to occur.
People usually prefer to hold beliefs that fit well with their other beliefs. Someone who believes X as an evaluative proposition will likely be biased in favor of descriptive propositions or other evaluative propositions that support X. This tendency to prefer coherence can be either epistemically rational (unbiased) or irrational (biased). For example, one will prefer an epistemically rational (unbiased) coherence when one is genuinely and disinterestedly seeking epistemically sound beliefs. Contrarily, one will often prefer an epistemically irrational (biased) coherence when one is seeking ways of ‘justifying’ a self-serving belief by adopting erroneous premises that fit a self-serving (but epistemically false) conclusion.
Coherence bias is, by far, the most interesting bias in the case of animal rights and veganism and deserves its own essay. Why? Because arguably, the most wildly incoherent set of beliefs in our society is most people’s beliefs regarding sentient nonhuman beings. Further, people go to great lengths in rational ignorance and rational irrationality to cover up this incoherence born of bias.
Consider that so many of us love and coddle the family dog, or even a stranger’s dog (familiarity with the dog generally doesn’t matter) and then stick a fork in the equally sentient tortured chicken or drink the milk of the raped and slaughtered cow, who lost her calf to the veal industry. This is a classic example of an incoherence of evaluative beliefs that is wildly irrational epistemically. How do we cope with this epistemic incoherence that we’d normally scoff at? We cope with it via rational ignorance (“Stop, I don’t want to know what happens to the (‘food’) animals”) and rational irrationality (“They’re bred for food.” “What would happen to the millions of cows if we didn’t milk and slaughter them?” [and dozens of other epistemically irrational objections]).
If we attribute slightly more weight to pieces of evidence supporting our preferred beliefs and slightly less weight to pieces of evidence against our preferred beliefs, the cumulative effect of these small biases in weighting evidence can be substantial.
One might think a high degree of intelligence or education would protect a person from holding on to false beliefs, but this is not necessarily the case. As Huemer points out, the highly intelligent or highly educated person often uses her or his intelligence or education as tools to find more support for non-epistemically preferred beliefs. Where a less intelligent or educated person might give up and admit error, the highly intelligent or educated person has more drive and resources to prop up false beliefs.
The relationship of intelligence and bias to finding out the truth of a matter are as follows: 1) high intelligence and low bias yield the best prospects at obtaining truth; 2) low intelligence and low bias yield good prospects at obtaining truth; 3) low intelligence and high bias yield poor prospects at obtaining truth; and 4) high intelligence and high bias yield the worst prospects at obtaining truth.
Like many problems and diseases, the first step to overcoming them is to recognize or admit that the problem exists, both in us and in others. Once we diagnose the problem, we can look for likely causes. We can ask ourselves what ulterior motives we have, or someone else has, for believing a certain claim. We can explore the beliefs underlying preferred beliefs to see what instrumental (self-interested) and epistemic (disinterested) reasons we have for believing what we believe.
Are there any biases from self-interest? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism and animal rights because of preconceptions of what it might be like for us to be vegan? Do we believe something to reaffirm our desired self-image or to fit in with a social group? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism because of a lack of self-esteem or fear of rejection? What do we really have to fear personally or socially – anything? Do we believe underlying claims because they are true or because they cohere well with other claims we want to believe? For example, do we accept irrational beliefs about nonhuman beings and their interests in not being exploited, tortured, and killed because they cohere well with our continued consumption of them and their reproductive products?
We can also make an effort to develop good thinking habits. We should hear or carefully consider both sides of an argument before accepting either side. We should become familiar with informal logic and common fallacies. When we feel inclined to assert a claim, we can ask what epistemic reasons we have for believing it, and also why we might want to believe the claim (independent of its truth). We should develop a higher degree of skepticism toward the beliefs that we suspect have ulterior motives, regardless of whether those ulterior motives are our own or someone else’s. Our first assumption, especially if there is an ulterior motive, such as profit or any conflict of interest, should be that the information provided to us is false, misleading, or incomplete, until we’ve subjected it to further scrutiny and verification. Such skepticism should not be merely applied to positive assertions, i.e. “X is true”, but also to negative assertions, i.e. “X is false” (in other words, proper skepticism is not just about avoiding erroneous acceptance, but equally about avoiding erroneous rejection).
Most of all, we should eliminate our ignorance about animal agriculture and be epistemically rational about it. We should face the facts with courage. Animal agriculture, regardless of what label it is marketed under (e.g. "free-range" or "humane certified"), is a deplorable business and we should know what we’re contributing to. Upon obtaining the facts about animal agriculture, we should beware of epistemically irrational attempts to ‘justify’ our participation in it. We should examine the issue impartially, with a particular effort to recognize our underlying motivations, if any, for accepting or rejecting certain descriptive or evaluative claims.
In writing this essay, I have relied heavily on Professor Huemer’s paper since it effectively applies rational ignorance and rational irrationality, as well as many of their causes, to political disagreements in general; disagreement in animal rights and veganism being subsets of general moral and political disagreement. That said, I have also substantially ignored, diverged from, and added to sections of Huemer’s paper, so this essay should not at all be taken as representative of Huemer’s paper, and if one is interested in his paper, I encourage reading it.
You realize this applies to both pro and anti vegans right? And all the logical fallacies generally tend to be more applicable to the vegans?
I realise it applies to both pro and anti vegans, however your second sentence simply shows you are no different from the essay writer who is biased towards veganism in that you are biased towards meat-eating.
... Someone arguing for a position is "biased" towards that position?
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. The thing is, 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 simply see it as me acting on my emotions, which is pretty much everyones reason for doing most things.
Brb murdering kittens to make you cry. Jk I could never do such a thing, they're too adorable.
You can just say you don't like the taste of death because you had too much of it from BP while spending time around the Gulf. There are ways besides ethics to justify not eating meat, you could do it as a protest against all the costs of factory farming and you'd probably lose your taste for meat (and possibly your ability to process it until your system readjusts to it) in the process, this would probably be real easy for you, or you could just simply be a vegetarian for the health benefits that come along with greater sustainability since a lot of meat and fish products are either unhealthy or unsustainable. You shouldn't feel guilty about eating some meat, only if you eat a shit-ton of it because it really is unhealthy, unsustainable, and probably would make you feel sick to eat that way. Human existence and nature itself is built upon something dying so something else can live, our situation just enables you to freely "choose" what will die and feed you today. I'll disagree on emotions for most things though, I'd say it's 50/50 depending on the day.
However, concerning bacon, there is no substitute. Soy dogs are actually alright though because well, hotdogs...
I must say that I dont really understand how you can maintain that morality/ethics is not a valid argument conserning vegetarianism? I might have misunderstood you browsing through 20ish pages in notime (4am here aswell and english is not my 1st language so I apologize for any misunderstandings).
I do certinly realize that my moral standpoint as a westener (swedish) is not applicable to the entire world but my reason for being a vegetarian is quite simple. I think it is wrong to take a life when having the option to not to. An option I myself have (obviously). There are certinly other arguments to bring to this discussion but to me in my situation they are quite unimportant. I couldnt take a life, I find the prospect appauling and equally appauling to have someone else do it for me for the sake of my protein intake.
Had I then not had the choice, something most people in this world sadly do not, my moral view on things ofc do not translate. I also realize that morality is something subjective by definition and therefore cannot be used in any sort of discussion(atleast cannot lead to an objective conclusion) but it is still a valid reason for being a vegetarian or vegan.
gah, had alot more to say but cant remember atm..... to tired.. need baco....... ehrm... soy
You pretty much said it yourself, you don't want to take a life and you don't have to, which is perfectly fine really. The issue is that morality is based on viewpoints, and those differ from person to person. However facts such as the costs of factory farming, health issues from excessive fat intake, and the superior land use efficiency and ability to feed people of a semi-vegetarian diet over a vegan one do not differ from person to person. As another point of this, many 'primitive" societies have semi-vegetarian diets for a reason - they're the easiest and most efficient, there's no real denying that. Morality is also a really shitty argument against cultural perceptions as well.
Professor Huemer starts out his paper on the topic noting that political disagreement (and moral and religious disagreement) is very widespread, strong, and persistent. That is, any randomly-chosen two people are likely to disagree about many issues; they are likely to be very confident that they are right; and long discussions or rational argument is unlikely to bring them to agreement.
Why don’t we have such widespread, strong, and persistent disagreements in subjects like mathematics or science? While there are disagreements in these other subjects, the frequency, intensity of conviction, and tenacity do not compare to politics, morality, and religion. After this brief introduction, Professor Huemer considers four theories of why there is so much strong and persistent disagreement in politics, and concludes that while there are several reasons for it, the most important factor is “rational irrationality” where “rationality” in the first term is referring to instrumental rationality (i.e. the “means-ends” or purely self-interested kind of rationality that economists refer to) and “rationality” in the second term is referring to epistemic rationality (i.e. the disinterested kind of rationality that seeks only truth, regardless of the implications of the truth).
The economic theory of rational ignorance holds that people often rationally choose to remain ignorant of a topic because the perceived utility value of the knowledge is low or even negative. For an example of where perceived utility value is low, consider what you will gain from going through the time and trouble of knowing the specific voting records of all the politicians who represent you. You won't gain much. The fact is that the next politician elected will be the person who the other tens or hundreds of thousands of voters in your district voted for.
For an example where the perceived utility value is negative, consider what you will gain from knowing exactly what happened to the chickens who laid the eggs you purchased or were slaughtered for lunch today. If you have a conscience, it will likely ruin the meal for you, and may affect the way you see your eating habits in general. In the instrumental, purely self-interested sense of the word “rational”, it is irrational to want to know what happened to the sentient beings who were tortured and slaughtered for your next meal.
This explains why vegans, when we start to gently introduce the plight of ‘food’ animals to non-vegans, so often get a response along the lines of “Stop, I don’t want to know”. It’s not that we’re about to bore our non-vegan associate with the voting records of a dozen politicians (a perceived low utility value), it’s that the non-vegan is insisting on maintaining (instrumental, self-interested) rational ignorance in the face of highly disturbing information that bears heavily on certain decisions we make about three times a day (perceived negative utility value).
Similarly, the economic theory of rational irrationality holds that it is often rational, in a purely self-interested, economic sense, to adopt epistemically irrational beliefs because the cost of epistemically rational beliefs exceeds the benefits of adopting them. So if I accept epistemically irrational beliefs against animal rights – for example, that sentient nonhumans don’t feel pain or that their pain doesn’t matter as much as human pain “because they’re not human” or that we’ll be overrun by billions of cows, pigs, and chickens if we stop slaughtering them – I bear none of the cost of accepting such absurd beliefs.
Rational irrationality makes two assumptions: 1) that individuals have, as Huemer puts it “...non-epistemic belief preferences (otherwise known as ‘biases’). That is, there are certain things people want to believe, for reasons independent of the truth of those propositions or how well they are supported by the evidence.”; and 2) that individuals exercise some control over their beliefs. Quoting Huemer again, “Given the first assumption, there is a “cost” to thinking rationally—namely, that one may not get to believe the things one wants to believe. Given the second assumption (and given that individuals are usually instrumentally rational), most people will accept this cost only if they receive greater benefits from thinking rationally.” Since individuals don’t perceive any personal benefit from being epistemically rational about animal rights and veganism, we can predict that they will often choose to be epistemically irrational about animal rights and veganism. (Huemer draws this conclusion regarding only political issues generally.)
Huemer points out that some people will highly value epistemic rationality itself, and therefore will be epistemically rational about political issues (and in our case here, animal rights and veganism). But there’s no reason to think everyone (or even most people) will have this value preference.
Due in large part to persistent marketing by the food industry, the confused message of new welfarists, and the anti-animal rights countermovement, most people falsely perceive veganism as ‘difficult’ at best, and at worst, hold a caricature of veganism as a diet consisting of ‘rabbit food’ (with mental images of barely surviving on things like iceberg lettuce, cucumbers, and carrots). Regardless of how delightful vegan food really is, and how much vegan junk food there is, and how many substitutes there are these days for our formerly favorite animal products, it is ultimately the perception of ‘difficulty’ that represents a ‘cost’ of going vegan. Of course, the greater the perception of ‘difficulty’ is; the greater is the perceived ‘cost’. And the greater the perceived ‘cost’ is; the greater is the likelihood of rational ignorance and rational irrationality.
Most people want to go along with the beliefs of people who they like and associate with on a regular basis. Although veganism is becoming increasingly more common and widely accepted in most social groups, many people are afraid of the social consequences of becoming a vegan. They may fear being challenged or even ridiculed about their decision. They may fear awkward social situations or the loss of friends. These fears of social consequences (regardless of whether they are justified or not) can be powerful motivations for rational ignorance and rational irrationality regarding veganism and animal rights.
People generally want to adopt beliefs that support the self-image they want to maintain and project. If animal rights and veganism doesn’t fit the preconceived self-image for whatever reason, then rational ignorance and rational irrationality about animal rights and veganism are likely to occur.
People usually prefer to hold beliefs that fit well with their other beliefs. Someone who believes X as an evaluative proposition will likely be biased in favor of descriptive propositions or other evaluative propositions that support X. This tendency to prefer coherence can be either epistemically rational (unbiased) or irrational (biased). For example, one will prefer an epistemically rational (unbiased) coherence when one is genuinely and disinterestedly seeking epistemically sound beliefs. Contrarily, one will often prefer an epistemically irrational (biased) coherence when one is seeking ways of ‘justifying’ a self-serving belief by adopting erroneous premises that fit a self-serving (but epistemically false) conclusion.
Coherence bias is, by far, the most interesting bias in the case of animal rights and veganism and deserves its own essay. Why? Because arguably, the most wildly incoherent set of beliefs in our society is most people’s beliefs regarding sentient nonhuman beings. Further, people go to great lengths in rational ignorance and rational irrationality to cover up this incoherence born of bias.
Consider that so many of us love and coddle the family dog, or even a stranger’s dog (familiarity with the dog generally doesn’t matter) and then stick a fork in the equally sentient tortured chicken or drink the milk of the raped and slaughtered cow, who lost her calf to the veal industry. This is a classic example of an incoherence of evaluative beliefs that is wildly irrational epistemically. How do we cope with this epistemic incoherence that we’d normally scoff at? We cope with it via rational ignorance (“Stop, I don’t want to know what happens to the (‘food’) animals”) and rational irrationality (“They’re bred for food.” “What would happen to the millions of cows if we didn’t milk and slaughter them?” [and dozens of other epistemically irrational objections]).
If we attribute slightly more weight to pieces of evidence supporting our preferred beliefs and slightly less weight to pieces of evidence against our preferred beliefs, the cumulative effect of these small biases in weighting evidence can be substantial.
One might think a high degree of intelligence or education would protect a person from holding on to false beliefs, but this is not necessarily the case. As Huemer points out, the highly intelligent or highly educated person often uses her or his intelligence or education as tools to find more support for non-epistemically preferred beliefs. Where a less intelligent or educated person might give up and admit error, the highly intelligent or educated person has more drive and resources to prop up false beliefs.
The relationship of intelligence and bias to finding out the truth of a matter are as follows: 1) high intelligence and low bias yield the best prospects at obtaining truth; 2) low intelligence and low bias yield good prospects at obtaining truth; 3) low intelligence and high bias yield poor prospects at obtaining truth; and 4) high intelligence and high bias yield the worst prospects at obtaining truth.
Like many problems and diseases, the first step to overcoming them is to recognize or admit that the problem exists, both in us and in others. Once we diagnose the problem, we can look for likely causes. We can ask ourselves what ulterior motives we have, or someone else has, for believing a certain claim. We can explore the beliefs underlying preferred beliefs to see what instrumental (self-interested) and epistemic (disinterested) reasons we have for believing what we believe.
Are there any biases from self-interest? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism and animal rights because of preconceptions of what it might be like for us to be vegan? Do we believe something to reaffirm our desired self-image or to fit in with a social group? For example, do we refuse to think rationally about veganism because of a lack of self-esteem or fear of rejection? What do we really have to fear personally or socially – anything? Do we believe underlying claims because they are true or because they cohere well with other claims we want to believe? For example, do we accept irrational beliefs about nonhuman beings and their interests in not being exploited, tortured, and killed because they cohere well with our continued consumption of them and their reproductive products?
We can also make an effort to develop good thinking habits. We should hear or carefully consider both sides of an argument before accepting either side. We should become familiar with informal logic and common fallacies. When we feel inclined to assert a claim, we can ask what epistemic reasons we have for believing it, and also why we might want to believe the claim (independent of its truth). We should develop a higher degree of skepticism toward the beliefs that we suspect have ulterior motives, regardless of whether those ulterior motives are our own or someone else’s. Our first assumption, especially if there is an ulterior motive, such as profit or any conflict of interest, should be that the information provided to us is false, misleading, or incomplete, until we’ve subjected it to further scrutiny and verification. Such skepticism should not be merely applied to positive assertions, i.e. “X is true”, but also to negative assertions, i.e. “X is false” (in other words, proper skepticism is not just about avoiding erroneous acceptance, but equally about avoiding erroneous rejection).
Most of all, we should eliminate our ignorance about animal agriculture and be epistemically rational about it. We should face the facts with courage. Animal agriculture, regardless of what label it is marketed under (e.g. "free-range" or "humane certified"), is a deplorable business and we should know what we’re contributing to. Upon obtaining the facts about animal agriculture, we should beware of epistemically irrational attempts to ‘justify’ our participation in it. We should examine the issue impartially, with a particular effort to recognize our underlying motivations, if any, for accepting or rejecting certain descriptive or evaluative claims.
In writing this essay, I have relied heavily on Professor Huemer’s paper since it effectively applies rational ignorance and rational irrationality, as well as many of their causes, to political disagreements in general; disagreement in animal rights and veganism being subsets of general moral and political disagreement. That said, I have also substantially ignored, diverged from, and added to sections of Huemer’s paper, so this essay should not at all be taken as representative of Huemer’s paper, and if one is interested in his paper, I encourage reading it.
You realize this applies to both pro and anti vegans right? And all the logical fallacies generally tend to be more applicable to the vegans?
I realise it applies to both pro and anti vegans, however your second sentence simply shows you are no different from the essay writer who is biased towards veganism in that you are biased towards meat-eating.
Edit: What I mean is, the essay writer is saying these logical fallacies are more applicable to meat-eaters, whereas you're saying these logical fallacies are more applicable to vegans. The whole purpose of the paper though was to challenge people to then therefore critique their own positions, so what you're meant to get out of it is to start arguing in favour of veganism in this thread, for example, just as a test, to see if you still hold the same views at the end. What a vegan ought to do is likewise think about things from a meat-eater's perspective. This doesn't mean either party needs to change the way they practice their diets, but merely to challenge themselves to think critically about the other side's position and effectively put them in the other person's shoes. By simply saying: "Well, it's clear my side wins the argument and the other side is completely biased," you're effectively ignoring the entire proposition of Professor Huemer's thesis (which although was aimed at politics, is equally applicable to all sorts of debates, whether politics, religion, etc).
All you're saying is "each side should think about things from the others' perspective." That doesn't actually resolve anything.
(this isn't a macro ala 4chan so i guess it's ok?)
Just respect the opinions of others, would you rather be Captain America or Deadpool?
Well Cap America is gay and Deadpool seems to enjoy himself!
Im a bit torn in these kinds of discussions. On one hand i can understand why some people become vegans or vegetarians. On the other hand, mankind would have never survived the stone age if we did not eat meat = it is not "natural" although people back then surely had to survive without meat every now and then by eating fruit,nuts and berries.
My father is a grass fed, organic, hormone-free, free-range (quarter section) bison rancher (if you live in edmonton and you want some send me a pm and i'll give u info). Life does not get better for an animal than this. Even slaughter is much less painful than being eaten alive. I don't see much to complain about eating such animals. Many vegetarians would still refuse, but on what grounds I do not know.
My POV is simply that we have inherited (biologically) an ethically neutral predisposition for meat. It is no crime to be what we are. Now some might say that, with our newly discovered higher consciousness and capabilities, it is our duty to transcend our primal state. And I would agree, but I don't think this means becoming a vegetarian. On the contrary, this relies on finding balance with our world, granting our animals the same freedoms they have in nature, but still taking from them when we need. If we can substitute vegetables for meat, why not? And if we cannot, then oh well. It is simply a matter of necessity.
One day, I hope to grow a steak like I grow a plant. Technology will liberate us, eventually. For now, I hope that vegetarians (and meat-eaters alike) will be patient with the transgressions of our base instincts, and focus on improving animal care.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/lBJrw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UjDEg.png)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PXvBwb8MhCk/S93BoTxCLiI/AAAAAAAAAGM/HA6hfo8_xlY/s1600/zeratul.jpg)
. ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UIXOn06Pz70/ScrDHvALwRI/AAAAAAAAGgI/mSAxEksRcv0/s800/Cauliflower+and+Chickpea+Curry+500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/648415029_2fd5861f60.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://chestofbooks.com/animals/cats/Guide/images/Skull-of-the-Cat.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://chestofbooks.com/animals/horses/Horse/images/The-incisor-teeth-of-an-eight-year-old-horse.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.ybig.ie/forum/uploads/20110413_114954_steak_tartare.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mmajunkie.com/dyn/images/fighters/mac-danzig-3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://chzheroes.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tumblr_lkkp5wdvfs1qafazn)
