|
Cows milk and chickens eggs... I would rather make the argument that you simply look at the food chain, and eat that which does not eat anything else. Because about 90% of any toxins and pesticides and what not are transferred to the consumer, while counting all the plants your cow (that made your milk) ate, only about 10% of the typical nutrients are transferred to you. So you end up with a lot more toxins than if you just ate plants to begin with; you get "100%" toxins and "100%" nutrients; which favours eating plants.
However, arguing that it's not "natural" to eat the eggs of another species, or not natural to drink the milk of another species, is completely bogus. Plants are a different species from you as well. You still eat them and all their seeds ("eggs"), DNA and what not. Coconut milk anyone? It was all intended for the plants to "procreate" (don't know the proper plant term); NOT for humans to consume (by the same logic applied in the OP).
It's perfectly common to drink the milk of another animal. People have done so for ages. The problems we face are caused by mass production which requires pesticides and chemicals for everything, such as shape, taste, colour, conservation ... you name it. Many of these you can avoid by staying away from typical processed foods. Some you can only stay away from if you eat organic foods, and some you may not have a decent shot at staying away from at all.
Then you must take your own body into account. Some people will swear to "veganism", while others will swear off carbs, simply because their body feels better, digestive system works better, and it is right for them.
You may wonder how previous generations made do without allergy meds and without diabetes shots, etc etc. And a big part of the answer is that these diseases did not really exist. Maybe cause those who had these symptoms quickly died, I suppose, but it's a growing trend. We eat alot of chemicals and poisons that we shouldn't. And as a result we get new ailments that we need to combat -- and for many the conclusion is simply to stay away from as much of it as possible; because in the end you'll feel a lot better being healthy than having an ailment that you need to live with and take pills for. Diabetes being an obvious "example" to explain what it is I'm trying to say, although it would not really apply to the point I'm making, as diabetes is rather linked to other health issues (although simply being fat isn't the only way to contract diabetes, as we all know).
|
On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about.
I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse.
If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
|
On September 22 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about. I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse. If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect.
Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.)
But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history.
Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great.
|
On September 22 2012 06:35 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about. I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse. If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it. But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect. Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.) But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history. Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great.
It is only "right" if you believe you are responsible for the choices of other people.
I think this is a silly approach. To do right but only if it isn't inconvenientis not much of a moral code to live by.
|
On September 22 2012 06:46 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 06:35 Cutlery wrote:On September 22 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about. I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse. If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it. But with fair trade coffee you can justify to yourself that you made at least one thing right? It still has merit, even if no one can prove (or claim) it's perfect. Not all things are as simple as we think, though. Driving recycled waste miles and miles can for instance create much more CO_2 than simply dumping it and making new. Might be more wasteful in other ways, but if carbon is your big thing, don't recycle. (Not that this is completely true for all logistical purposes; some are bound to live closer to stations where waste is being recycled.) But maybe you'll save more forest, or make it so we have trees for another 33 odd days, before it's all gone anyway. I don't know. This is our "nature". This is how we sustain (or try to sustain) our huge numbers. It is in all aspects of our lives. Food, its packaging, its transportation, its preparation (cooking, heating). Everything takes a toll on our planet (and human lives). But she's built to handle quite a bit. However, we're testing her limits ever more. This is unprecedented within our known history. Things will likely change ever more, ever faster. Much of it we won't like, but maybe we'll get lucky and things'll work out great. It is only "right" if you believe you are responsible for the choices of other people. I think this is a silly approach. To do right but only if it isn't inconvenientis not much of a moral code to live by.
no, I agree. Not buying meat cause it might be an abused animal isn't more "pure" than buying meat off an animal that was treated right. However, you are free to choose as you like, and everybody has their own moral code (or "lack there of" as some would call it). I agree with that other guy's criticism, but inherently you simply do not know anything other than "this coffee is fair trade" and "this coffee is not". Which do you go for? Some wouldn't care because they simply don't. Some wouldn't care cause they know people get abused anywhere and for whatever reason, and some would "care" and buy the fair trade, because, hopefully, it is creating decent jobs with decent livelihoods, at least within a small community, somewhere.
|
On September 22 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about. I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse. If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it.
This is exactly why the concept of responsible consumerism is flawed and why people who self identify this way are disgustingly smug. Their choices, while still evil, are less evil than YOURS. (According to this line of reasoning.)
|
On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point.
lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh?
In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'.
Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't.
Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'.
As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant.
|
On September 22 2012 07:04 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 04:03 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:55 r.Evo wrote:On September 22 2012 02:48 U_G_L_Y wrote:
One cannot believe that killing animals is wrong unless one believes that wrestling an antelope from the jaws of a cheetah is equivalent to preventing a murder.
I believe that we should end the cruel ways animals are treated, however I do not believe that I am accountable for their actions. In the same way that I am not responsible for Chinese currency manipulation because my shoes were made in China, meat eaters are not responsible for animal abuse. Abusers are.
Less meat in your diet is definitely a good idea, healthwise, but as for an ethical argument, I have heard none that do not involve drawing arbitrary lines through grey areas. Moralist vegitarians are worse than religionists because they don't (usually) even claim divine mandate as justification for moral inconsistency. If you buy meat from someone who is abusing animals, you're supporting animal abuse and are responsible for it. That part about capitalism really isn't rocket science. You are correct but not every steak comes from an abused cow. Nor is there any way for a consumer to tell which steak involved abuse and which steak hasn't. But consumers do pay government officials to monitor and prevent such abuses. So consumers can enjoy steak with clean hands. Yup, I didn't even try to make it look like it would. If you doublecheck the last page, the people who wanted to make it look that way came from the religious meat side. =P From how I understand things the people trying to argue that either there is no such correlation or that, even if there is one, it doesn't matter in the "grand scheme of things" if one consumer changes what he consumes or not aren't the consumers who care whether or not something is "clean". Those are also the same people who don't care if their clothes are made by children while at the same time trying to shift any responsibility as far away from them as possible. Sorry, but I'm disgusted by people who refuse to take any kind of responsibilty for their actions which is probably what most of this is about. I think we need to be a bit careful here though. Yes, buying meat can support animal abusers but we only have so much power as individual consumers. If I buy a carrot do I also support animal abuse? Suppose the farmer abuses cattle AND grows carrots. My purchase of carrots then supports his overall farming enterprise which involves animal abuse. If you buy a cup of coffee, even fair trade coffee, you do not know if a human was abused in creating it. This is exactly why the concept of responsible consumerism is flawed and why people who self identify this way are disgustingly smug. Their choices, while still evil, are less evil than YOURS. (According to this line of reasoning.)
I try not to buy accidental vegan products made by companies that abuse animals as well. For instance, as a vegetarian, I did not eat at Chipotle despite it having a yummy veggie option because they abuse animals.
You can have responsible consumerism..
Also buying their veggie products, makes their demand for veggie products go higher. If everyone quit eating meat, the factories abusing animals would have no choice but to stop, beacause it wouldn't be profitable they would have to switch to the carrots.
|
On September 22 2012 07:17 Hanakurena wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2012 05:45 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 05:35 Deleuze wrote:On September 22 2012 05:10 Antyee wrote:On September 22 2012 05:00 tomatriedes wrote:On September 22 2012 04:46 Antyee wrote:Disclaimer:If you are a die-hard vegan, please, don't read this, it might offend you. + Show Spoiler +
This ethical reason is a bit off imo.
Plants are also quite brutally abused.
For example:
The most foolproof and quite broadly used method to force a cherry tree to stop growing and grow fruit instead is to cut the majority of the tree's roots or simply chop in a few inches into its trunk.
Sunflower fields are burnt to ashes after harvest.
It just seems odd to me that so many people are complaining about how animals, who are living only because they are bred to be food, are held; while plants are suffering more. And noone cares, that's perfectly fine.
while plants are suffering more Do have some sort scientific evidence that plants have more well-developed sensitivity to pain/suffering than animals or are you just trolling? Personally I don't object to eating meat if the animal is raised in fairly natural conditions but some factory farming places are pretty awful. That's what really puts me off (although these days I eat meat because it's easier to just go with the flow). If the simple fact that they use all of their resources to try and save themselves from dying by the only way they can (more cherries mean more trees) isn't enough proof that they sense pain, I don't know how I could convince you. Sure, running away and crying is more spectacular, but both require a lot of effort. Probably this is why trees used in agriculture live way less than the ones in the forests or even in one's garden. Many plants make themselves even more enticing to be eaten as a major part of their reproductive cycle. Can you explain why cheerys are so sweet and tasty, just for the hell of it or because they have evolved fruit as a means of scattering their seeds? 1. Animals eat the cherries. 2. Poop them out further away so the seeds don't have to compete with each other and the original tree. 3. ??? 4. Profit. I'm not entirely sure if this was a legit question and you should read your biology books again, or you were trying to be witty and completely missed the point. lol English must not be your first language for sure. Haha. He gives an example, you respond by giving the exact same example. Huh? In the mean time, read up the word 'suffering'. Anyway, the whole line of arguing you guys are going down is pointless anyway. The 'suffering' is plants is a pretty clear 'issue'; it isn't. Best argument in defense for eating meat is 'It tastes great'. As for milk, it evolved to be an ideal food for mammal infants and the nutritional value and hormones it contains are fine-tuned for that exact purpose by evolution. This means there is a trade-off for drinking it as an adult. You aren't growing like an infant.
lol you must be severely mentally handicapped for sure. Haha. He writes unrelated stuff, I respond with asking if he is dumb or misunderstanding something (which he is, as it turned out). Huh?
Jokes aside:
At least, please, read the actual comments before you start flaming and acting like a douche.
It just makes you seem unbelievably immature.
|
Everyone should eat what their body tells them to. I need to eat meat, it makes me feel good. I do wish the food industry would treat animals a little bit better, though. And processed anything is worthless shit.
That being said, I suspect being hardcore vegan is extremely unhealthy in the long run, except if your entire lineage dates back to some herbivore monkeys or something  the human orhanizm just wasn't built that way we are omnivores like bears roar.
|
On September 22 2012 05:12 sCCrooked wrote:
See, the problem is in the tone. Vegetarians and Vegans always have this "air" about them that just stinks of snobbiness (at least most if not all the ones I know do) when they're talking about their dietary habits. I'll counter your anecdotal evidence with mine. I know several people that don't eat meat and like my meat eating friends none of them randomly talk about what they eat with people they don't know. Meat eaters on the other hand often want to argue about it if they find out, my work partner doesn't eat meat and we always eat with each other so I'm pretty used to peoples reactions even though I'm a meat eater myself.
Perhaps being extremely opiniated about it more common with younger/new vegetarians but I don't remember it as very a common topic when I was younger either personally.
|
This thread has turned into quite the ridiculous tangent shitstorm (22 and up)... If you want to argue the humane practice of killing animals you should also argue the humane treatment of people and if your argument is that we should stop eating meat, then you best stop wearing clothing or buying technology.
Point is we need to raise awareness, bad shit happens and it slowly curves but we can't make illogically rash claims either. The world is progressively getting more liberal, things are slowly changing compared to 30 years ago but we can't all drop money on expensive meats at a butcher, and the industrialization of the meat industry thus far can't adequately solve the treatment of animals either so we're stuck between not eating meat unless it costs you an arm and a leg or eating meat that benefits off industrailizing which generally has inhumane practice.
I think what I'm trying to say is stop throwing around insults like you're all right, calm yourselves down and relax... Obviously we can't treat animals anyway we want, or ethically we shouldn't but feeding people is more important than animal rights and I apologize if you believe animals > humans but it is of my opinion you're frankly wrong. So right now, let's move the right way but not give up meat.
Hope that was clear ^^ in the CS lounge at my university, it's loud.
EDIT: Also opinions like "snobby vegans" or "snobby meat eaters" should all be taken out of the equation, it's rather ridiculous we're even saying things like that since it is a personal opinion and is subjective. People will be nice, mean, neutral about different things so it is no surprise this will be just like that.
|
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
|
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
I believe that is apple and oranges. Unless they are not eating meat because of ethical reasons that is. If they just eat vegan food because they enjoy it, the stance on abortion has nothing to do with it.
If they do it because of ethical practice, I suppose so.
|
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? Ignoring the strawman nature of it, thats an interesting question.
I'm "pro choice" and I can't think of any reasons why it's better to drink alcohol or eat meat than not to, but I both eat meat and drink alcohol. And I could probably come up with hundreds of similar examples.
Does that mean that I'm a hypocrite?
|
On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)?
I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs.
No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated.
So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
|
On September 22 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs. No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated. So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
So delicious eggs from my aunt's organic farm, where the chickens live in livestock paradise, are fine, right?
|
On September 22 2012 09:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs. No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated. So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all. So delicious eggs from my aunt's organic farm, where the chickens live in livestock paradise, are fine, right?
If the conditions are livestock heaven then that's great!
There are just so few of those livestock heavens, and the conditions that companies have to meet to write "free range" on their egg cartons in supermarkets aren't very good  .
|
I'm suprised no one has brought up the shrinking of the brain (more than muscle loss can be made accountable for) during the last 20.000 years. Guess who's diet was changed during those years.
It was the high amount of proteins from meat which made us able to develop the strong brain we have today. You can find examples of how too low intake of proteins (which is normal at extreme starvation) when kids are growing up, gives a statisticly lower IQ because of an underdeveloped brain.
It's the same reason ravens have to get more meat into their diet in order to get smarter in the future than what they are today.
I am aware that you can eat a few vegetables high on protein, but they are still a bit far away from the efficacy of meat.
|
On September 22 2012 09:06 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 08:30 kmillz wrote:
Is it hypocritical to be a pro-choice vegan?
Example:
Vegans do not eat eggs (unborn chickens) but have no problem with destroying a fetus (unborn human)
Also, should vegans stop using ANYTHING that came from mistreatment of other fellow humans (Nike shoes, anything from chinese sweat shops, everything that came from slavery, etc...)? I am pro-choice and don't eat eggs. No because I am not against the eating of eggs because it's a fetus. I am against the eating of eggs because of the way the chickens laying them are treated. So I don't see how that is hypocritical at all.
It was meant to be half joke half serious, but if you are against eating them because of the way the chickens laying them are treated, would it be wrong to destroy a human fetus of a girl who was mistreated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
