| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
On May 29 2009 07:29 seppolevne wrote: But if no one drove on highways then we wouldn't need them! Then we could give the land back to the animals! We could, but then I'd argue that our use for highways is greater than an animals use for a patch of concrete. | ||
|
uNcontroLable
United States1180 Posts
| ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On May 29 2009 07:19 VioLat0R wrote: I have been vegan long enough to know better than to read through discussions like this. I just read the first and last pages...  Anyway, I really like what you said here. That's my exact position on vegetarianism, I don't believe it has anything to do with being morally correct, or that it makes me better than someone else. It all comes to down to where we draw the line. Most people here won't eat dog/cat meat. There are cultures where that is pretty common. It doesn't make anyone any better than them. I just draw the line somewhere else. I'm glad we agree. I do in fact respect vegetarians and vegans and I come from India, where a LOT of people are vegetarian and the whole "ahimsa" (do no harm) principle is a basis for a lot of philosophy over there. On May 29 2009 07:21 Diomedes wrote: It doesn't matter if you mistreat the animals personally or not. I'd even argue that generally they are never mistreated by a human, just by the system as a whole. You are responsible for your own actions. Appy the golden rule. Of course you are responsible. How can you even act surprised at this. I don't drive highways and yes I do take responsible for my own actions. I don't break the golden rule by building a house, which I never did btw. Dear lord, there are so many systems in which you take part I don't believe you for a second when you say you take responsibility for your own actions. Whether transportation, or housing, or consumer products, all of it is produced at a COST to other creatures (including in many cases other humans). Do you know how many creatures are killed or driven out of their homes by the systems you take part in? Of course you are responsible. How can you even act surprised at this? Its really hard to have a discussion with you when you are so firmly convinced about how you take responsibility for your actions, apply the Golden Rule, etc. and the rest of us don't. You really need to face the fact that you're not that different from the rest of us just because you choose not to eat meat. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
| ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
You don't understand the golden rule. The golden rule explains why I am allowed to cause suffering while at the same time I can claim it is moral to try to reduce it to the minimum. I am 'allowed' to kill animals and destroy their homes. You don't seem to understand that. It's a perfectly moral thing to do under some circumstances. Wasn't it your argument that the only other solution is suicide? Then how do you solve this problem? Also, me taking part in certain systems isn't the same as me being responsible for them. You are really puzzling to me. You first give me the solution, then the problem and then keep hammering down that there isn't a solution to the problem. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 29 2009 08:13 benjammin wrote: also, why does anyone have to be completely consistent in their views across all aspects of their lives? if they don't want to kill animals but they kill termites, who cares? that line of argument is just impossibly dense It's called principles.../shrug. | ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
Seriously if the slaughterhouses took their time to give the animals painkillers and better places to live and more humane killing methods, the price of meat would suddenly go up really high. Then everyone would buy less meat, prompting the slaughterhouses to go back to their old methods in order to survive. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On May 29 2009 07:42 da_head wrote: eh, video didn't effect me. i will continue happily eating meat. until all humans in the world live in a decent home, and have enough food/water to sustain themselves, i don't give a shit about pigs, cows, and chickens. i personally think people who do, are morons. I second this. | ||
|
SoulMarine
United States586 Posts
Odd isnt it. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly. From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life. I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet. edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote: The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit. From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly. From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life. I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet. edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I don't think any vegetarians actually argue from the suffering viewpoint, because then they'd have to accept that meat eating is moral and acceptable if the animal is killed without suffering (which really isn't that hard to do, just sedate it painlessly beforehand). I think the main veggie argument is that animals, as living, sensory beings deserve certain respect and killing them violates that. That and the ecological arguments. The other arguments are contradictory because they run into problems with humans eating plants which also happen to be alive. | ||
|
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
On May 29 2009 08:35 ShaperofDreams wrote: The simple fact is that I eat meat products because I like them. If you want to be a vegetarian go ahead but saying a person is morally bound is bullshit. From the ecological "better for the earth" view that's like saying cars should be banned and everyone should use mass transport because is is more efficient and ecologically friendly. From the moral "animals shouldn't suffer" viewpoint I say sorry but tough shit. It isn't as if other humans don't suffer for our benefit and i prefer myself than animals in terms of quality of life. I am not saying I eat a cow a day and I am minimizing my meat consumption (for health reasons, I think Americans/Canadians eat way too much meat). It's unhealthy to only eat vegetables, only a small amount of meat is required for the "perfect" diet. edit** I guess this sums up to SUSHI FTW!! I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" | ||
Empyrean
17028 Posts
On May 29 2009 09:06 VegeTerran wrote: I'll quote wikipedia for you: "Vegetarianism is considered a healthy, viable diet. The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases.[11][12][38] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[39]" While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
On May 29 2009 09:09 Empyrean wrote: While this may be true, eating a truly vegetarian diet that provides all of the essential nutrients, etc., needed for healthy survival is out of the economic means for many people around the world. A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles + Show Spoiler + 1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations. 2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people. 3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases 4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security. 5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations 6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations 7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity 8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend 9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet. | ||
|
Empyrean
17028 Posts
On May 29 2009 09:15 VegeTerran wrote: A vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat diet both in terms of the damage on the enviroment and efficiency of water and land resources. Western goverments subsidize meat production which makes cheaper than it should. The majority of the worlds popuplation already live on a vegeterian diet. From http://globalhunger.net/statement-of-principles + Show Spoiler + 1. Hunger is a global emergency. The problems of hunger and malnutrition will be solved by more efficient and equitable use of existing world food resources and by increased international support for the selfdetermined efforts of low-income food-deficit nations to redevelop sustainable agricultural operations. Neither of these aims will be met by the expansion of foreign-owned industrial animal agriculture operations into low-income food-deficit nations. 2. Actions taken to address hunger must be cost-effective so that they will feed the greatest number of people possible. Because industrial animal agriculture operations entail higher usage of land, plant, water and fuel resources per calorie or unit of protein than the cultivation of plant crops for human consumption, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen rather than lessen the problems of hunger and malnutrition in those nations. In contrast, sustainable cultivation of plants for human consumption offers a cost-effective method of producing healthy food for hungry people. 3. Foods produced as a result of hunger relief efforts must be safe, healthy, and consistent with traditional diets. Hunger relief plans which elevate consumption of animal-based foods are culturally inappropriate and likely to increase the incidence of diseases which are known to be related to high levels of consumption of animal-based foods. Low-income nations would be left to bear the health care costs and lowered levels of productivity associated with these diseases 4. Pollution and depletion of natural resources also threaten human survival. The impending global water crisis is a particularly emergent problem. Demands upon and pollution of already depleted water resources by new industrial animal agriculture operations would worsen this growing worldwide crisis. Land degradation and desertification associated with intensive grazing would worsen the impact of cycles of drought and flooding, further threatening global water security. 5. Poverty eradication must be pursued in the context of self-determination. External corporate control of industrial animal agriculture operations in low-income food-deficit nations would lead to profit extraction from impoverished nations as well as diminished self-determination within the agricultural sectors of those nations 6. A reasonable measure of self-sufficiency is required for food security. Industrial animal agriculture operations are highly dependent on capital and technology. They require large amounts of bought-in feed inputs, energy, and water. Therefore, the expansion of such operations in low-income food-deficit nations would worsen, rather than lessen, food insecurity in those nations 7. The aim of agriculture is to feed people. Low-income nations must not be pressured to convert their agricultural sectors into profit-generating components of foreign-owned corporations or to place the demands of international markets above the needs of their own citizens. Conversion of agricultural resources now devoted to food for local and regional consumption into resources devoted to the production of commodities for foreign markets would increase vulnerability to market shocks and, hence, increase food insecurity 8. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations must act in the interests of low-income food-deficit nations and must also recognize the shared interest of the citizens of the world in the preservation of the environment. The FAO must not cede to the interests of private corporations by promoting practices which would ultimately further impoverish low-income food-deficit nations and further despoil the environment upon which we all depend 9. The Global Hunger Alliance calls upon FAO, food policy makers, and non-governmental organizations to rise above national interests and profit motives in order to implement genuine solutions that will feed the world while preserving the planet. Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. | ||
|
airen
Sweden82 Posts
On May 29 2009 08:39 cz wrote: I think the main veggie argument is that animals, as living, sensory beings deserve certain respect and killing them violates that. That and the ecological arguments. The other arguments are contradictory because they run into problems with humans eating plants which also happen to be alive. I'd gladly minimize the amount of suffering that I infect on the world around me, animals and plants included. But first and foremost I must priorize my own life. Thus, in order to survive, I must eat either plants or animals or both. And thus no matter what I create "suffering". But the key point to understand here is the difference between creating any amount suffering, and minimizing the amount of suffering. If I wouldn't allow myself to create any amount of suffering what so ever, indeed, I would be doomed. But if focus on minimizing the suffering, then I can shift my food intake towards more vegetables, cause with every piece of meat I eat, much much more plants would need to be consumed then if I ate those plants directly myself. I'm a "soft" vegetarian. I'm OK with vegans but I fear that they scare people off too much. My personal experience has also been that vegans, more frequently then vegetarians, drop their diet completely and go back to the general meat-diet. I wish people weren't so extreme about the entire thing and tried to be more open and experimenting about it :/. | ||
|
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
On May 29 2009 09:21 Empyrean wrote: Oh yes, that is true. I'm very guilty of looking at things from an Ameri-centric point of view, I suppose... But the way things are, unless there's massive change with our food industry (and I doubt the meat industry will allow it...they'll probably lobby forever), for most less-well off Americans, there's no way they can sustain themselves on a purely vegetarian diet due to the prohibitive cost. You're right though, that a vegetarian diet costs less energy to grow than an omnivorous diet (energy loss to higher trophic levels needed to raise meat). I just don't see anything changing in the near future. Well the Vegetarian movement in western countries is stronger than ever and it's growing, sure we're also eating more meat than ever in the west. But more and more people are opening their eyes every day. Sure the meat industry won't disappear overnight. But if the world doesn't go under(enviromental disaster, nuclear war etc), i think in the future (50-100 years) almost everyone may well be vegetarian. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On May 29 2009 08:13 benjammin wrote: also, why does anyone have to be completely consistent in their views across all aspects of their lives? if they don't want to kill animals but they kill termites, who cares? that line of argument is just impossibly dense So if I don't want to be an asshole to other humans but I want to eat meat, who cares? The whole point is that minimizing the suffering of creatures, especially non-human creatures, is not the only principle in life. Everyone violates the principle "do no harm" for convenience's sake and for the sake of living a free and fulfilling life. We all make compromises because other things are valuable too. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
BSL 21
Sziky vs eOnzErG
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
OSC
BSL 21
Cross vs Dewalt
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
