|
On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz 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. 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?
Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl in a small confined space where she is unable to move, and forcing her to have abortions?
|
On September 22 2012 09:10 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:08 farvacola wrote: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  .
So why not fight for the hard working organic and local farmers who make it their life's work to grow quality produce and raise well cared for livestock instead of immediately writing half off their livelihood?
|
On September 22 2012 09:25 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz wrote: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. 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? Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl, and forcing her to have abortions?
No, my point is that vegans are against eating all eggs because some chickens are mistreated. By this logic, no humans should have abortion because some humans are mistreated, enslaved, whatever.
Are all chickens mistreated? No
Are all humans mistreated? No
|
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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.
Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now.
High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
|
On September 22 2012 09:33 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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. Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo.
|
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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.
There are multiple quack theories about this. Deficiencies in Omega 3s and iodine have also been suggested, to the great profit of the supplement industry.
|
On September 22 2012 09:29 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:25 BlueBird. wrote:On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz wrote: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. 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? Okay I just don't understand this comparison at all and sounds like a troll? Are you enslaving this girl, and forcing her to have abortions? No, my point is that vegans are against eating all eggs because some chickens are mistreated. By this logic, no humans should have abortion because some humans are mistreated, enslaved, whatever. Are all chickens mistreated? No Are all humans mistreated? No
What? Humans can't have abortions cause humans are mistreated? I still don't follow this logic/comparison, can you expand?
Some vegans like myself are ok with eating eggs from your's, friend's chicken or your uncle's farm or whatever where you know the conditions.. The problem is, those conditions are really rare. If you happen to have some eggs available, from chickens treated humanely, then by all means eat them, I don't care.
|
On September 22 2012 09:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:33 Dali. wrote:On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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. Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world). The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because it was acceptable/neccesary previously, it remains ethically acceptable now?
|
On September 22 2012 09:51 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:39 Djzapz wrote:On September 22 2012 09:33 Dali. wrote:On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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. Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world). The fact that it was necessary and therefore fine back then says volume about the moral argument imo. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that because it was acceptable/neccesary previously, it remains ethically acceptable now?
Yeah taking a step back that's not too convincing. I shall return with a better angle.
|
On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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.
what is that even supposed to say? I literally don't know what way you're trying to tell me.
I'm pretty sure we're eating way more meat nowadays than people even 200 years ago, not even mentioning 20.000 years ago.
Meat is everywhere nowadays. I'm eating meat pretty much every single day as a basis of my meals.
Besides yes, starvation leads to those things but guess what, 20.000 years ago starvation might have been an issue for a bunch of people no matter if they ate meat or not. The elimination of starvation is a rather new trend if the most recent 20.000 years is the data you're looking into.
|
On September 22 2012 09:33 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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. Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
I'll give you one source, since it's late here in Norway and I have to go to bed so my brain can function tomorrow at the lab, you can find the rest yourself in Nature.com and bioone.org. Have fun.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
|
Haven't read the entire thread, but i read enough pages to make me want to share a couple of things.
I've been vegan going on 6 years now, (hardest part was not in fact giving up cheese, but in finding clothes/shoes cleaning supplies etc. that used no animal products.) and I feel like I've never been healthier. I am supremely active; I bike everywhere, teach yoga and kung fu, and am pretty ripped. Being vegan does not automatically make one healthy, (OREOs are vegan, but I dont eat those either) but it is my belief that optimal health can easily be achieved as long is one is conscious of what they need and eat. To be honest, if i could have any diet and eat exactly how I wanted, I would eat a raw foods diet (also vegan), but that's a discussion for another thread. One of the biggest differences for me health-wise is that I used to get frequent colds, coughs, and runny noses that have completely disappeared. Apparently I am mildly allergic to dairy, so I imagine not everyone would benefit the same way.
I first became vegan for health reasons. My family has a very strong history of both heart disease (dad's side) and cancer (mom's side), and after reading the China Study (contentious subject i know), I decided to try being vegetarian in hopes of beating the odds and not expressing the genes for either of those diseases. My room mate at the time was the one who gave me the book, so we both did it together, and over the course of about 6 months we gradually stopped eating other animal products as well until one day at the grocery store, the only non-vegan item in our cart was a tub of yogurt to make fruit smoothies, and we decided to take it out and be full on vegans.
If health were the only motivating factor behind my decision, I do not know if i would still be vegan, because i also believe that optimal health may be achieved with a diet that includes animal products. The main 2 reasons for my continued veganism are sustainability and the evolution of consciousness.
If everyone on the planet ate like americans do, the world could likely only support a population of around 6 billion ( we are already over 7 billion) while if everyone ate a plant based diet, over 14 billion people could live sustainably. If you take issue from my numbers, (I'm sure someone will =P) my main point is that a vegan diet uses vastly less resources than one which uses animal products; water being chief among those resources. If I could get all my energy requirements from sunbathing like a plant does and stop eating all together except occasionally for pleasure, I would do so.
The planet is evolving, and we are evolving along with it. If we as a species continue to condone the unethical treatment and torture of animals, how big of a step is it to condone such treatment of people? I know many people will say there's a huge difference, but I would imagine that anyone who has ever had a pet would agree that animals have at least some rudimentary form of feelings and emotions. Until mankind stops acting like a predator towards animals and resources, I do not think we can stop being predatory to our fellow human beings. We must instead evolve our collective consciousness to the point where the thought of *not* helping out a person in need or being kind for no reason is shocking instead of the current paradigm where such acts are seen as somewhat rare and extraordinary. This different way of thinking might be achieved without the whole world being vegan, however I think it would take much much longer. Perhaps too long.
|
Another question for the Vegans here, are you also opposed to testing on animals?
|
On September 22 2012 09:33 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:22 Neneu wrote:
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. Lol source? I can easily get all my neccesary proteins from non-meat products. Milk + whey protein.... Just because meat was neccesary for protein in pre-agricultural history doesn't make a convincing argument for its neccesity now. High protein sources (meat, animal product or otherwise) are found walking distance of most people (in the Western world).
What's 90%+ of whey made of... oh it isn't vegan.
Don't get me wrong, there is vegan whey, but generally it isn't.
Also, creatine (which is found in red meat) has been scientifically proven to increase brain power. (Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/ )
Also define necessary protein. I take in between 1200 and 1500 calories of protein a day. Without meat that'd get boring pretty fast, and that's still counting cottage cheese. Completely vegan would make it excessively hard.
|
On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz 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. 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?
I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together.
I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced.
I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced.
Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain.
A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against.
Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness.
Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
I suppose my current stance on being vegan is similar to my stance on religion. I feel that it is an indicator that this person spends some time thinking about a very important issue that is important to me as well, but I don't necessarily agree that holding perfectly to their specific protocols are inherent in holding the same values.
|
On September 22 2012 10:10 Lucy1nTheSky wrote:The planet is evolving, and we are evolving along with it. If we as a species continue to condone the unethical treatment and torture of animals, how big of a step is it to condone such treatment of people? I know many people will say there's a huge difference, but I would imagine that anyone who has ever had a pet would agree that animals have at least some rudimentary form of feelings and emotions. Until mankind stops acting like a predator towards animals and resources, I do not think we can stop being predatory to our fellow human beings. We must instead evolve our collective consciousness to the point where the thought of *not* helping out a person in need or being kind for no reason is shocking instead of the current paradigm where such acts are seen as somewhat rare and extraordinary. This different way of thinking might be achieved without the whole world being vegan, however I think it would take much much longer. Perhaps too long.
there is such a huge leap between "hurting an animal that was raised for the sole purpose of food" and "hurting other people" that quite honestly im depressed you actually brought it up
quite honestly im having a headache jsut trying to figure this one out
only a small percentage of people actualy handle the slaughter and handling of the meat, the vast majority of people dont even think at all about what there eating used to be alive there completely disconnected from it and dont think about it
its not that they like hurting the animal, that makes no sense, they have completely detached themselves from the food being a living being
so unless your trying to say that 100% of criminals work in slaughterhouses its simply a hollow argument thats just coming from vegans "holier than thou" attitude its like the people who go to war over whos god is better
|
On September 22 2012 11:59 StayPhrosty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 09:23 kmillz wrote: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. 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? I just spent some time considering this and I agree, it is an interesting moral question. I personally eat meat, though i oppose the industrial farm industry and I am attempting to buy my meat from better sources. I am also pro choice, and i suppose here is where it all comes together. I don't support the raising of chickens in terrible conditions just so more eggs can be produced. I wouldn't support the raising of girls in terrible conditions just so more babies could be produced. Of course my second argument is exaggerated and hypothetical, but when I think about it, I believe a person as a right to decide if they have the ability to raise a child properly. The fetus is aborted without causing it pain, just as an egg is eaten without causing a baby chick pain. A more hardcore vegan, I assume, would be against the production of ethically raised chickens simply for human consumption because they would rather let chickens live free in the wild while they as humans can survive without raising them just to kill them. That being said, from reading this thread it seems that while this is a stance held by some, it is not a point of concern for many vegans. Simply an understanding of the industry and a lifestyle choice that moves towards ethically treated animals seems to be a position that is respected by both sides of the veg/meat debate. It is simply ignorance and apathy to our choices that is being fought against. Just to elaborate a little on my pro choice position, I would say that central to the debate would be the idea of what is life and when does it begin. Personally I do not think that I am killing babies every time I spend a night at home rather than trying to get laid, just as I do not think that I am killing babies every time I use a condom, and thus it follows that I do not think that I am killing babies any time I would support my partner having an abortion. A living human being has not, in my opinion, been harmed by these actions. As well, when I eat a carrot I have not caused it any pain, and when I eat an ethically raised/killed chicken, I have not caused it any pain. I also value stopping pain more than I value causing happiness. Okay, wow, I just sat for what feels like forever contemplating quite a bit of deep stuff, but here goes. I have come to the conclusion that I value ultimate happiness forever to be the ultimate goal. I believe that love is an important way to bring happiness and I define love as the expansion of the self to include the other. Because of this, I feel that empathy is an extension of love, and that empathy is an important thing to feel for all things. If I were all powerful and could make every object around me conscious and aware and alive and full of emotion, I would. I would also make each of those objects as happy as as such a thing can extend. If I were an all powerful being I would extend happiness infinitely throughout the universe. It does sound a little pretentious and philosophical, but it is the basis for how I want to live my life here and now as well as that hypothetical situation. You see, I would eventually like to not have for any animal to die, just as I would like for no human to ever die. Currently, though, I have knowledge of how certain animals are raised properly in my area, but I do not have knowledge of the damage done during the creation of other alternatives. Because of this, I am currently reducing but still eating some amounts of meats etc. It is my goal, though, to do as much as I can to help the human race advance as a species, because I see that as the most efficient path towards universal happiness. I only value my own species higher than the rest because it currently can affect more positive change than anything else I have encountered. I find that while it is necessary to be able to focus on a task in order to excel at that task, it is equally important to divide one's time so they also may include in their lives many forms of openness and expansion of their awareness. It is in this way that one may find harmony and joy. In short, though it may not be possible for all people everywhere to fully understand the impact of their actions, it is vitally important for every person to pursue the betterment of their knowledge and the efficiency of their actions. In the modern world there is no excuse for being content with remaining ignorant. Just the same, it should be painfully obvious that promoting arguments only creates intolerance, not understanding. Because of this, people sit and do nothing and in doing so they squander the opportunity to spread vital understanding amongst their peers.
You make some interesting points, like I said it was kind of a joke (in the sense that comparing eating eggs to aborting fetuses is kind of ridiculous), but I do think it has somewhat of an interesting merit. Incidentally I am pro-life and a meat-eater because I value all human life, but not animal life. Animals eat other animals, but Vegan's don't try to convince them to stop eating meat. You aren't going to convince an animal that they should eat vegetables just as you aren't going to convince most humans they should stop eating meat, so why bother?
|
Being vegan just makes you better than most people.
|
SolonTLGHere is my ethical argument: Eating animals is speciesist. I reject speciesim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesismIndeed what animals society deems acceptable to eat proves the point. Why do some cultures eat dogs and some not? Because some cultures have elevated dogs to companion animal status above other animals. In contrast, farmed animals have been placed at the bottom and slaughtered for food. For the record, I am also again all forms of animal testing. Speciesism acts in the same way as sexism, racism, or an other -ism. It is enforeced by dominate culture and often operates without explicit thought or knowledge. I reject all forms of discrimation, including that against other species. This is why I am vegan.
This is actually an irrational reason to be vegan. Since you brought up philosophy, I will go into this more philosophically.
I will define irrational behaviour as follows: A person is being irrational when that person acts in a way that is not consistent with his views or goals. So if a person wants to get to place A as fast as possible, it would be irrational for this person to knowingly take a detour since taking a detour means he will not get to place A the fastest way possible.
From the wikipedia link you have provided I will take only the following quote:
Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership.
You reject this notion. I wonder if you fully comprehend the consequenses of your rejection and if you would still reject it if you did. Because rejecting this notion can mean the following:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
You seem to endorse this and see it as a reason to become vegan. But it can also mean the following.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
Since we will not provide any special consideration to individuals based on their species it thus means that under our current laws we should start arresting predators everywhere in the world. Ofcourse assuming we would not change our lawsystem to accomodate to this new situation.
I wonder if you endorse this? In itself however, it is not irrational to accept this consequence of rejecting speciesism. Infact it would be irrational if you did not accept this consequense because you would be inconsistent with your views.
But it doesn't end here because not only do you reject speciesism but you also embrace veganism. Because you found it sufficient to provide wikipedia as a source before I will use the wikipedia definition of veganism, it is as follows:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals.
Thus this means you will not eat an animal, or anything associated with these animals such as eggs or milk, and I know this is only about diet, but the second part about commodity status also means no leather etc.
This means the following:
1. If a person is a vegan, that person cannot drink cow milk.
But you are not just a vegan, you are a vegan who rejects speciesism. This means that if you cannot drink cow milk because its an animal product, you cannot drink human milk because its an animal product. And as a rejector of speciesism you cannot give special consideration to an individual just for being of a different species. Thus the rejecting of speciesism and the acceptance of veganism means you will have to yield that babies can drink from their mother's breast.
Again, this is not an irrational thought, but it is something I'm not sure you would be willing to accept.
So how is it irrational in general, well it is in the following sense, that when you accept veganism and reject speciesism you are basically eliminating the possibility to eat anything, and this is irrational unless you also have a deathwish.
I shall elaborate:
1. If it is bad for a human to kill another human it is bad for a human to kill a non-human being.
2. If it is bad for a human to kill another human being, it is bad for a non-human being to kill a non-human being, or a human being for that matter. It is simply bad for anything living to kill anything else that lives.
3. In order to kill something the only requirement is that it lives.
4. Plants live.
5. For us to eat something it is required that we kill it before we eat it, or it will die while we eat/digest it. Not only that, humans and living beings in general can only feed ourselves with something that is or has been alive. (A rock is not dead, it is not alive either, its simply non-animated, that might actually not be the right term, but I'm not a native english speaker so forgive me that)
This means that you cannot eat plants because it involves killing the plant. You cannot kill the plant because killing humans is bad, and since you reject speciesism, you cannot kill plants. I know plants aren't sentient (however this is mainly if not entirely due to the fact that we have defined sentient being in such a way to exclude plants) but this shouldn't matter because in your own words you reject all forms of discrimination, and to say that you can kill a plant because it is not sentient is to discriminate against the non-sentient beings.
Ofcourse a smart vegan will object that one could still eat the fruits of plants, because eating the fruits of plants does not involve killing the plant. A nitwit would ofcourse note that, if coupled to a rejection of speciesism, this would really resemble using plants as a commodity. And since a vegan rejects this for animals, it should also reject it for plants. But one could also say that drinking the milk of an animal does not kill an animal, neither does eating eggs. So as a vegan, rejecting speciesism would mean that either one could not eat or that some notions of veganism have to be rejected. Thus it is irrational to be both a veganist and to reject speciesism at the same time unless one has a deathwish.
|
#wallsoftext #firstworldproblems #wtf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
