PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

[Smasherman]

http://maddox.xmission.com/
This website is actually kinda funny. It's the homepage for http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill

Guiltless grill has a point, but it's flimsy. Less fields would need to be harvested to feed people if the meat industry was considerably smaller, resulting in less death. The Least Harm Principle only works if all meat was produced via grazing, which it isn't.

 

[James R]

It is always interesting to watch the tactics and the length meat-eaters go to to try to defend their practices. The thing is: we all believe we are good people. And if you eat meat and you're a good person, it can't be that you're doing something immoral, could it? So meat-eating must be ok. Extend that a little, and you feel justified in saying all vegetarians are crazy people, who ideally should be ostracized from polite society. There's enough material for a psychology thesis in these kinds of attitudes.


Pengwuino:

From your posts, I can only conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. You just want to defend your own lifestyle, and you aren't particularly concerned about getting to the truth or looking at the other point of view. It's your view, so it must be good and right - that's all there is to it.

haha, for 1, give me a reputable source about the "cruelty" animals face.

A brief web search will find you many reputable sources. Pretending animal cruelty doesn't exist is a juvenile response.

Very few people can just drive out after getting their starbucks coffee and pounce on a bear and kill him. Thus, we have to use factory farming.

There are other farming methods. Maybe you should take a minute to find out about them.

Your also switching your argument again. First it was "you can't kill animals period!" and now its "well... its wrong to kill them like a factory!".

The former view is an animal rights view. That is a later step in a moral progression. The first step is to consider animal welfare. If you insist on killing animals, the least you can do is to do so humanely. Factory farming is not humane, as you will see if you look into it at the most superficial level.

And what does eating to survive have to do with morality? We need to live, they are food, 1+1=2.

There are other types of food available. Humans don't NEED to eat meat.

Also, where is your proof that animals are conscious and have any expectations of future life and what proof do you have that plants do not possesses these qualities.

As a meat-eater, I imagine your diet includes BOTH plants and meat. A vegetarian eats only plants. So, even if we assume plants are conscious (which is extremely doubtful), meat eaters are still less moral than vegetarians. They are committing a DOUBLE sin, right?

Humans must eat. If an animal had the chance, it would eat you too.

Cows and sheep don't eat people. (Have you ever been to a farm? I doubt it.)

No squirrels are protesting for better treatement of humans. No group of sharks have ever jailed another shark for eating a human.

Do you think squirrels or sharks have the same moral sense as humans are capable of? Do I have to spell out the implications of that for you?

There are many people here who know exactly what there talking about and "meat is unhealthy for humans" is probably going ot raise a lot of red flags.

There seems to be an increased risk of heart disease, for one thing, from eating meat. There are many reputable sites on the web which will inform you about other health links.

my uncle ... stopped eating meat and now he can barely lift a rifle at roughly 50 years old. He also looks sickly but he doesn't have anything yet.

Sounds like your uncle might need a more healthy diet, which is quite possible without eating meat. Or, he could have other health problems, unrelated to diet. Have you considered that?

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

You'd have to show me that it's universally immoral, and not just a cultural/religious view of morality that prevents me from eating meat.

All you're really saying here is that YOUR moral stance is that there is nothing wrong with eating meat.

As I've presented already, if your major concern is killing of animals, then less animals are killed by eating meat than by maintaining a strictly vegetarian diet for everyone...

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. It sounds like a comfortable rationalisation to me.

Regarding your land usage argument, by the way, did you know that there are, in fact, two sets of crops produced by farming? There are crops produced solely for human consumption. Unused parts of your corn cob, in that case, are simply thrown away, and not consumed by animals, as you claimed. Then, there is another set of crops devoted purely to growing food for animal consumption.

So, in fact, animals effectively use twice the amount of land that food crops do - one lot of land to maintain the animals themselves, and one lot of land to grow their food.

Your assertion that unused human food crops are used to feed animals seems to be wrong, based on what I have been told.

Of course the biggest problem we have, no matter how you slice it, is that there are too many people to have any form of agriculture that does not in some way harm the environment.

I'm not so sure about that, either. I don't think we're anywhere near the carrying capacity of our planet yet. If we had more efficient farming everywhere, we could easily feed all the human beings on Earth and STILL protect the environment for animals and other life.

 

[James R]

TheStatutoryApe:

I don't like irrational arguements. I'm simply trying to point out the hole in your logic.

You haven't pointed out any logical problems with anything I've said so far.

Pain is a defense mechanism. Plants have defense mechanisms too. So should anything that tries to keep itself from being killed in any fashion be considered immoral to kill? And (as another subject to add) what do you think about insects? Do you have any particular problem with the killing of insects?

The moral line that most people draw is to ask whether a living thing is conscious of its existence, and whether it can and does take steps to protect its own existence. Does a living thing have any expectation that its life will continue? And can it suffer?

This discussion of plant sentience and so on is a common tactic used to try to deflect this kind of conversation onto safer ground - to turn it from a concrete discussion over things which most people have little doubt about, into a philosophical debate which cannot be resolved in any useful way.

Do you have any pets (e.g. cat or dog)? If so, compare.

Do you think your dog (for example) is conscious of its existence?
Would your dog try to avoid being killed, in a conscious way?
Do you think your dog has a reasonable expectation that its life will continue, until it ends naturally?
Can your dog suffer in a similar way that you can suffer?

Now, ask the same questions for a petunia growing in your garden.

See how silly this argument is? The answers are obvious.

It's the natural order of things. As Moonbear has already pointed out we are part of an ecosystem and hold an important place in it. The way that this ecosystem has evolved naturally has made us omnivores. Now tell me why you believe that our position in the ecosystem is to protect these animals from death even though it is the natural order of things that has made us omnivores and has lead us to be what we are today?

You are committing what is called the "naturalistic fallacy" here. That is, you assume that what is natural is morally good.

Humans (most of them, anyway) have a moral sense, which an insect, and even a dog, may not have. We can CHOOSE what we do with the ecosystem, in ways that dogs cannot. And our choices ought to be moral choices.

We take moral stances in many aspects of our lives. So why should our choice of food consumption be any different? Do you really believe there is NO moral issue to be considered in eating an animal? Or is it that you think eating an animal can be justified on moral grounds? If so, how?

Time to face up to your own beliefs, rather than trying to take the discussion off on a tangent.

 

[James R]

Bladibla:

Maybe you should question PETAs OWN moral justification. Unless you can reasonably account for your own moral views, us (me) meat eaters don't need jack justification for our views.

So, you won't be moral until you're convinced that everybody else is moral first?

What an interesting point of view. And so convenient for you.

 

[Moonbear]

All you're really saying here is that YOUR moral stance is that there is nothing wrong with eating meat.

That's my moral stance, yes.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. It sounds like a comfortable rationalisation to me.

Regarding your land usage argument, by the way, did you know that there are, in fact, two sets of crops produced by farming? There are crops produced solely for human consumption. Unused parts of your corn cob, in that case, are simply thrown away, and not consumed by animals, as you claimed. Then, there is another set of crops devoted purely to growing food for animal consumption.

So, in fact, animals effectively use twice the amount of land that food crops do - one lot of land to maintain the animals themselves, and one lot of land to grow their food.

Your assertion that unused human food crops are used to feed animals seems to be wrong, based on what I have been told.

Told by whom? Otherwise, it just sounds like a convenient rationalization to ignore the wild animals that are killed in the process of making your vegetarian diet. Even if it were true, which it isn't, that would suggest EVEN MORE land is wasted by vegetarians since it's the majority of the plant material produced for the human crops that goes to waste. ALL of the crop can be used to feed animals.
Edit: What isn't true is that the waste from human crops aren't used for animals. There are crops planted for non-human animal consumption, as was mentioned earlier in the thread; but they still remain more efficient than growing crops ONLY for human consumption. Take a look here:
http://www.extension.umn.edu/extensionnews/2001/IntensiveCornSoybeanAgriculture.html

2. Environmental factors have become more prominent in recent years when determining the sustainability of crop production systems. In my travels throughout south central and southeastern Minnesota, I've never seen as much erosion as in the last few years. We've had some intense rains, but we've also converted the landscape to a crop production system (corn and soybeans) that is extremely susceptible to soil erosion.

We must question the sustainability of the corn-soybean rotation from an environmental perspective. This is due to more soil erosion, greater and more "flash flood" runoff water compared to cropping systems containing alfalfa and grass perennials, and more loss of nitrate-nitrogen to ground and surface waters.

3. Ecological factors must be considered when evaluating sustainability. More and diverse plant and wildlife is considered highly favorable in a rural ecosystem and presents an aesthetically pleasing quality, which is gaining value in American society. But the current corn-soybean cropping system provides little opportunity for animal and plant diversity on the landscape.

Transportation of corn and soybeans to New Orleans for overseas shipment is another ecological challenge. The judicial branch recently denied attempts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reconstruct the lock and dam system to better accommodate barge traffic for grain shipment. My guess is that corn and soybean agriculture will not win this ecological debate.

Bold emphasis is mine - those alfalfa and grass perennials are the animal feed (hay) you're worried about. Apparently it's better for the soil than corn and soybeans.

I'm not so sure about that, either. I don't think we're anywhere near the carrying capacity of our planet yet. If we had more efficient farming everywhere, we could easily feed all the human beings on Earth and STILL protect the environment for animals and other life.

As I said before, you really need to look up more information on things like habitat loss and biodiversity loss. More efficient farming means factory farms, if you'd like those. We can also achieve more efficient farming through GM crops, but oddly enough, the same people who argue for vegetarian diets are usually the ones fighting against GM crops.

As I also mentioned already, I also have posted sources in a previous discussion of this issue.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=570340&postcount=42

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

Told by whom?

Told by somebody who knows more about these things than I do.

Even if it were true, which it isn't, that would suggest EVEN MORE land is wasted by vegetarians since it's the majority of the plant material produced for the human crops that goes to waste. ALL of the crop can be used to feed animals.

You have 3 fields. You use 1 to grow food for human consumption, 1 to grow food for your animals, and 1 to house the animals. Compare: You use all three to grow food for human consumption.

Which is more efficient, bearing in mind that 10 tonnes of animal food produces 1 tonne of meat (or something like that)?

As I said before, you really need to look up more information on things like habitat loss and biodiversity loss.

I have quite a good understanding of that already, thanks.

More efficient farming means factory farms, if you'd like those.

Not necessarily. Personally, I believe that animal welfare issues need to be weighed up against purely economic and "efficiency" considerations, obviously. Part of my point here, and PETA's too, is that CURRENT animal farming practices are often cruel and unnecessary. The vegetarian or not argument is a separate issue.

We can also achieve more efficient farming through GM crops, but oddly enough, the same people who argue for vegetarian diets are usually the ones fighting against GM crops.

I'm on the fence regarding GM crops right now, and admit I don't know enough about them to make a judgment either way yet.

As I also mentioned already, I also have posted sources in a previous discussion of this issue.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

 

[hypatia]

My grandparents bought product refuse from Campbels corp{as did many of the neighbor farms} to feed the pigs and chickens.
Plus if we allow the animal pop. to multiply, we would need much more grazing land then there is available.
Everything I eat was once living, including the veggies. I have 20 teeth in my mouth that confirm, I am a meat eater.

 

[Moonbear]

Here's more from the U of Minnesota Extension office:
http://www.extension.umn.edu/extensionnews/2000/TestLivestockManureForNutrients.html

Test livestock manure for nutrients to maximize fertilizer savings

With fertilizer prices on the rise, making the most of the the nutrients in livestock manure can provide a sizable payoff. Testing the manure for nutrient content is a key to maximizing that payoff, says Chuck Schwartau, Goodhue County educator with the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

So, those domestic animals are being used to provide fertilizer for your crops too.

Oh, and you know in those years when the weather conditions ruin crops intended for human consumption? Guess what they can still be used for? Yep, animal feed.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/extensionnews/2001/CornSoybeansForSilage.html

Corn, soybeans for silage offer late planting option

Corn and soybean producers who haven't been able to get crops planted because of all the rain this spring may want to consider planting for silage. This may be a good option for farmers who can feed or sell the forage, says agronomist Denise McWilliams of the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

For corn, a hybrid selected for normal grain maturity is generally the best choice for silage, green chop or grazing, says McWilliams. Silage hybrids are usually five days later in maturity than hybrids grown for grain. The best time to harvest corn for silage is when the grain is in the late dough stage, McWilliams points out.

Since it doesn't matter as much for animal feed if the crops are grown in suboptimal conditions such that they are stunted or the fruits imperfect, a late crop after the human food crop is harvested can be planted in the same field as the crops for human consumption.

 

[Moonbear]

You have 3 fields. You use 1 to grow food for human consumption, 1 to grow food for your animals, and 1 to house the animals. Compare: You use all three to grow food for human consumption.

Which is more efficient, bearing in mind that 10 tonnes of animal food produces 1 tonne of meat (or something like that)?

The most efficient would be planting two fields with animal feed and using the third for livestock. The reason, as I have presented repeatedly, is that humans only use a small percentage of the plant, and we are more efficient at using the proteins in meat than in vegetables.

And most farms nowadays are specialized. They either grow crops or raise animals. Some raise animals + animal feed, but it's very rare to find people doing all three anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

That's my moral stance, yes.

It probably comes off as arrogant when I say it, but as a biologist, I'd think the similarities/differences between humans and animals would make the issue relatively clear to you (which is why I value your opinion on the matter). My position has always been that there is no fundamental difference between humans and the animal kingdom biologically, thus it should be morally acceptable to do what the animal kingdom does.

Conversely, humans are different because of their intelligence and one manifestation of that is that we have invented/discovered morality. But because of that, human morality applies to humans only.

In short, where we are the same (as animals) we eat other animals. Where we are different, we don't eat each other.

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

I think you're ignoring the ratio of food consumed by humans meant for animal consumption compared to the food consumed by humans directly.

I have been using the figure 10:1, which is only for memory, but I don't think it's an overestimate.

Assume that half of all crops grown for human consumption are wasted because humans don't eat all the parts of the crops animals could eat. Now compare. To produce the same amount of nutrient for the eventual human consumer, the animal must eat 10 times the amount a human would eat directly.

So, if we have 10 fields of food crops to be directly consumed by humans, then 5 of them will be used and 5 wasted (probably an overestimate of waste, but what the hell).

If, on the other hand, we have 10 fields of crops used to support animals, 9 of them will be wasted, effectively, because the humans only get 1/10 of the food the animals eat, in effect.

You say that animals consume all parts of the crop. Even supposing that is true, how much do the animals then emit again as waste (dung etc.)? If the eventual aim is human consumption, then we're still better off planting vegetarian crops.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is always interesting to watch the tactics and the length meat-eaters go to to try to defend their practices. The thing is: we all believe we are good people. And if you eat meat and you're a good person, it can't be that you're doing something immoral, could it? So meat-eating must be ok. Extend that a little, and you feel justified in saying all vegetarians are crazy people, who ideally should be ostracized from polite society. There's enough material for a psychology thesis in these kinds of attitudes.

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

This discussion of plant sentience and so on is a common tactic used to try to deflect this kind of conversation onto safer ground - to turn it from a concrete discussion over things which most people have little doubt about, into a philosophical debate which cannot be resolved in any useful way.

Do you have any pets (e.g. cat or dog)? If so, compare.

Do you think your dog (for example) is conscious of its existence?
Would your dog try to avoid being killed, in a conscious way?
Do you think your dog has a reasonable expectation that its life will continue, until it ends naturally?
Can your dog suffer in a similar way that you can suffer?

Now, ask the same questions for a petunia growing in your garden.

See how silly this argument is? The answers are obvious.

I've not argued plant sentience at all. My argument also is not a philisophical one, it is scientific and logical. Plants have evolved natural defense mechanisms to preserve themselves and so have more complex lifeforms. The more complex the lifeform the more complex the defense machanisms. Pain, "consciousness", and the like are just more tools for survival which have evolved. The only difference is familairity. Animals are more similar to people who fall into the "fallacy" of believing that there is something inherantly more "special" about an animal than a plant due to familiarity.
Your argument on the other hand is not as logical and obvious as you think. The crux seems to be "consciousness", morality, and sufferage. These subjects are the ones that are largely philosophical and highly debatable.
Surely you can agree that morality is a subjective and debatable point. The others you may not agree with me on. I think we can agree to place sufferage and consciousness together for the sake of argument yes? Now about "consciousness". I have a friend who is a grad student at UCI in the Cognitive Science department. We argue the existence of consciousness all the time. Oddly enough I'm generally the one arguing for it. At any rate, considering what I have gleened from my friend, our discussions, and what I have read personally on the subject it's safe to say that those who study "consciousness" themselves still debate furiously on it's nature and even it's existence. Those who take "consciousness" for granted without question would be on par with those who simply assume that eating meat is ok without questioning it.
As a side note, my friend who is skeptical of the existence of "consciousness" is also a vegetarian. He though will simply say he is one because he is one and would probably argue your moral authority right along side me.

You are committing what is called the "naturalistic fallacy" here. That is, you assume that what is natural is morally good.

Nope, not at all. I do not generally consider "moral goodness". Like I said morality is subjective and debatable. I hold the same standard for the concepts of good and bad or right and wrong. I prefer to lean on logical analysis. I assume that what is natural is only logical, evolution has been working for millions of years on this and I have only been pondering these things for a couple of decades. Ofcourse this doesn't mean I will cease questioning it.

Humans (most of them, anyway) have a moral sense, which an insect, and even a dog, may not have. We can CHOOSE what we do with the ecosystem, in ways that dogs cannot. And our choices ought to be moral choices.

We take moral stances in many aspects of our lives. So why should our choice of food consumption be any different? Do you really believe there is NO moral issue to be considered in eating an animal? Or is it that you think eating an animal can be justified on moral grounds? If so, how?

Time to face up to your own beliefs, rather than trying to take the discussion off on a tangent.

I think I have pretty much covered the rest of this. I do not justify anything on moral grounds, only logical grounds.
Time for you I believe to quit believing that what you say is only obvious and logical and let me in on the workings of these ideas I think. So far you have only kept this turned on me and asked me questions. It's your turn to participate in looking at and analysing your beliefs.

 

[hypatia]

dung is not waste, its 100% reuseable.

 

[russ_watters]

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

Time for you I believe to quit believing that what you say is only obvious and logical and let me in on the workings of these ideas I think. So far you have only kept this turned on me and asked me questions. It's your turn to participate in looking at and analysing your beliefs.

Though I'm a meat eater and a leather car seat fan, I recently argued the opposite side of this issue against my boss because of just such an attitude. IMO, its more common on the veggie side, but my it can just as easily come down to self evident beliefs on the meat-eating side: itself evident to my boss that animals have no soul(or, if you prefer, consciousness), therefore they are just food. The argument was short though, for the reason you point out: if that's all that an argument is based on, there really isn't anything to debate. And I refuse to do all the work in a debate: both sides need to substantiate their positions.

So to bring this back to the OP: cult? - I don't know about that, but I get the impression that the radical animal rights activists do believe these things with religous fervor. What that means for your request specifically: you may be wasting your time asking for an actual reasoned argument (though it never hurts to ask, of course). There is a decent chance no such argument exists.

We had an enormous thread about the morality of eating meat and though it died due mostly to hostility, it went round and round in circles because a high fraction of the argument (on both sides, but more the animal rights side, imo) was just assertions of supposedly self-evident beliefs.

 

[Moonbear]

So, if we have 10 fields of food crops to be directly consumed by humans, then 5 of them will be used and 5 wasted (probably an overestimate of waste, but what the hell).

The problem here is that I think you're severely underestimating the wastage if those crops are used solely for human consumption. How much of a corn plant, by weight, is edible for human consumption? And what percentage of that is protein for that person to eat? When all we're eating are the seeds of the plant (true for soybeans as well), I don't think it's an unreasonable estimate that more than 90% of the plant is NOT edible for humans, but IS edible for ruminants. That doesn't account for how much of that edible portion is digestible for us and converted to protein. Also, that ratio of amount of food a cow needs to eat to produce meat doesn't take into account that the cow's waste (manure) is used to fertilize crops, thus is a manner of recycling. We very poorly digest plants, even the edible parts. You also need to take into account what is meant by "used for human consumption." For example, the majority of soybean crops are not used for soy milk or tofu, but for soybean oils; the dry protein portion then gets used for animal feed (it has other uses too, but that's not what it's generally used for). The farmer may not be growing the crop for animal feed, but the by-product of the soybean oil processing plant gets used for that anyway.

I'm not saying we should switch to an all-meat diet, that would be just as irresponsible as suggesting we switch to an all vegetarian diet, and doesn't make good nutritional sense. But, supplementing our diet with meat makes sense. If we can take all the inedible parts of our crops and feed them to food animals, then we are maximizing the efficiency of that crop. And when you grow crops that are feed crops on soil that is not sufficiently fertile for growing crops for human food, you maximize the efficiency of your land in general.

We also can't pretend we're not part of the ecosystem ourselves. As hypatia pointed out, I have pointy teeth in my mouth that tell me I'm supposed to eat meat (actually, two of my incisors are pointy too...I'm apparently slightly more carnivorous than most ). Oddly enough, I had to have 4 of those broad, flat teeth that are used for grinding vegetables removed because apparently they didn't want to grow in any useful direction, and last time I checked, the human appendix was considered a vestigial organ (it's similar to the very well-developed cecum in non-ruminant herbivores that helps them digest all that plant fiber). It seems we're not very well adapted to be herbivores.

 

[loseyourname]

You have 3 fields. You use 1 to grow food for human consumption, 1 to grow food for your animals, and 1 to house the animals. Compare: You use all three to grow food for human consumption.

You're forgetting one other thing: the fields used to house the animals and the fields used to grow grain for the animals are not always suitable for growing human crops. Not all land is equal. For instance, where I live it is extremely hilly and fairly rocky, although we do get a lot of rain and the climate is moderate. There is a lot of agriculture, but the hillsides are really only good for two things: cattle pastures and growing grapes for wine production. The land used for cattle pastures offer little to no ecosystem destruction because the plants that the cattle graze on are largely naturally occurring grasses that require no tilling or soil treatment. Two things to consider are these: 1) The rockier land, especially the land on hillsides, could not be used for human crops. That throws the argument that the land would be better used that way right out the window. 2) The richer land in the valleys that can be used for human crops would still require a lot of tilling and soil treatment, as well as the introduction of non-native plant species that would result in a great deal of ecosystem destruction.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Though I'm a meat eater and a leather car seat fan, I recently argued the opposite side of this issue against my boss because of just such an attitude. IMO, its more common on the veggie side, but my it can just as easily come down to self evident beliefs on the meat-eating side: itself evident to my boss that animals have no soul(or, if you prefer, consciousness), therefore they are just food. The argument was short though, for the reason you point out: if that's all that an argument is based on, there really isn't anything to debate. And I refuse to do all the work in a debate: both sides need to substantiate their positions.

I don't necessarily expect this to go anywhere but if it did it would be nice. I think I have just been in a very argumentative mood lately.

On the subject of PETA, which I have ignored (sorry...). I've heard bad things and I have heard good things. I'm sure there are plenty of good things to be done in regards to animal rights, even if I don't think it is wrong to eat them. The bad articles I have read have been obviously biased, so it's hard to tell what all exactly is true, and they themselves are obviously not going to come forth with the evidence that they have been assisting eco-terrorists.

 

[Skyhunter]

If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

Why can we not do both?

Since heast disease is caused by eating animals, perhaps if we stopped eating them we would not only be healthier, there would be no need to mass produce them for food.

The benefits of eliminating heart disease, on the cost of health care alone would be temendous.

Think before you eat!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Moonbear, the killing of cows isn't required for the recycling process you're mentioning. If, in fact, using cows does benefit the growing of crops, it would be better to keep them alive, correct? After all, it would allow us to easier provide more manure to grow the crops. However, if cows do not benefit the growing of crops, we don't need them. If you want to eat the meat after the cow dies on its own terms, I don't see why not. The problem is with killing something. In fact, while I wouldn't do it myself, if people wanted to eat humans after they have already died, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although I would probably find it digusting.

Your argument doesn't really advocate the eating of meat; in my opinion, it just supports the captivity of cows for human benefit. I drink milk and eat eggs so I have no problem with that. Also, I believe some statistics claim that a widespread vegetarian diet would stop world hunger.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why can we not do both?

Since heast disease is caused by eating animals, perhaps if we stopped eating them we would not only be healthier, there would be no need to mass produce them for food.

The benefits of eliminating heart disease, on the cost of health care alone would be temendous.

Think before you eat!

That last line right there is really your best point. I don't believe eating meat causes health problems. I believe a bad diet causes health problems. Statistics will say meat eaters have more health problems than vegetarians but is that really because of the fact that they eat meat? Do you think it could be because your average omnivore pays little attention to his/her dietary intake while your average vegetarian is much more mindful of such things?

Also, I believe some statistics claim that a widespread vegetarian diet would stop world hunger.

I don't really see how that works out logically. Do you have any sources?

 

[Jelfish]

This thread could go on forever and the arguments are completely irrelevant.

Apologies to the original topic of PETA, let's consider the argument for vegetarianism versus a meat-eating/omnivorous diet. If the argument is about morality, than without a doubt, the vegetarians win. Why is this? It is because vegetarians base their ideas on moral absolutes and omnivores base their ideas on moral relativism. Not convinced that plants are fundamentally different from animals? Fine - consider fruitarians - people who only eat fruit, which plants intentionally produce for the sake of consumption by animals. Face it - omnivores are grasping for straws when it comes to this argument. It is morally relative to say that the killing of your pet is more immoral than a cow, just because you haven't grown attached to it. It's a living being either way. Is it the natural order of things to eat meat - maybe. But that doesn't make it 'moral.' And the arguments about environmental sustainablility based on farming and such is just changing the subject, because a vegetarian doesn't necessarily require his/her food from a commercial farm. It's an attempt to punch holes into a moral absolutist's argument instead of justifying his/her own relativistic argument.

That said, I am not a vegetarian. I tried it for about 6 months, mostly for health benefits, and came to the conclusion that being a college student, I don't have the ability to get a proper healthful and complete vegetarian diet.

What really irks me is that only one person (juvenal, I believe) has actually given the true moral standpoint for omnivores, specifically people who live in urban/suburban locations that buy their pre-packaged meat from grocery stores - and that's purposeful moral-negligence. That's right - as much as I realize that the cow I just ate a few hours ago was a living being that I would never be able to kill with my bare hands, I just don't care. I didn't even think about it. And I'm willing to bet that most people who eat meat feel the same way. I don't know anyone who, before eating meat, convinces themselves that what they are doing is moral. The great thing about amorality is that it is in itself a moral absolute. Maybe someday when I'm capable, I'll switch back to vegetarianism, but for now, I can proudly say that I am eating meat and don't need to convince myself that I'm not a hypocrite. You should try it - it feels great.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the argument is about morality, than without a doubt, the vegetarians win. Why is this? It is because vegetarians base their ideas on moral absolutes and omnivores base their ideas on moral relativism.

These absolutes don't exist though unless you believe in some supreme being or cosmic order which has decreed these are absolute. In that case we would simply have to agree to disagree. If you do not believe in a supreme being then your absolutes become arbitrary and there for relative since they have no absolute measure on which they are based. Ofcourse this discussion would take a whole thread in itself.

Not convinced that plants are fundamentally different from animals? Fine - consider fruitarians - people who only eat fruit, which plants intentionally produce for the sake of consumption by animals.

While I agree that fruitarians and other sorts of vegan diets do take into account the plants welfare this last bit of your statement which I have bolded is wrong. Fruits are a part of the animals reproduction process, they are not "meant" to be eaten. Even just assigning the attribute of intent to the plants you begin to make a plant on par with an animal. You are perhaps partially right though in that evolutionarily speaking a plant with fruit that is apealing to an animal may "utilize" the vehicle of these animals in their reproductive process. There is no intent there though, again unless you believe in a supreme creator of something or the sort.

It is your opinion that the vegetarians win.

 

[Pengwuino]

How is vegetarianism anymore moral then eating meat? There is no moral statement that says you can't eat meat. People are simply making it up. I could just as well say that shampooing your hair is immoral and have the exact same moral structure as vegetarians. If there is any way that you can use a moral argument that has a basis in reality and nature that ISNT made up, you may have a point. I could use the exact same argument in an uninitiated environment against eating vegetables and it is the exact same. There are many health problems associated with eating nothing but vegetables such as various bone disorders.

 

[Jelfish]

The reason I state a moral absolute is not because I believe in a supreme being - it is because there are people in this argument believe that animal cruelty is wrong but that eating meat is somehow justifiable despite that. It is that 'gray area' that I define as the moral relative. It is an established moral standpoint from this thread that I am arguing from, not one established by religion. Like I said later in my post, my realization that eating meat goes against this (my) moral standpoint and yet knowingly going against it by not creating gray areas in my moral standpoint but by acknowledging the fact that I am being negligent alleviates the need for justification.

 

[Pengwuino]

wait wait... so just because you go against your blelieves, that means you don't have to justify your beliefs? I am confused... i think i misread you...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is no conflict unless you believe it is cruel to kill an animal for food.

 

[Jelfish]

Fruits are a part of the animals reproduction process, they are not "meant" to be eaten. Even just assigning the attribute of intent to the plants you begin to make a plant on par with an animal. You are perhaps partially right though in that evolutionarily speaking a plant with fruit that is apealing to an animal may "utilize" the vehicle of these animals in their reproductive process. There is no intent there though, again unless you believe in a supreme creator of something or the sort.

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

It is your opinion that the vegetarians win.

I would think that any statement like that to which you are responding would be implied as opinion on my part, but if you feel that my statement was too strong as to convey a stubborn arrogance, then I apologize. I feel strongly about my stance because I've been in several discussions of this sort and always come to the same conclusion based on people's arguments.

 

[Jelfish]

wait wait... so just because you go against your blelieves, that means you don't have to justify your beliefs? I am confused... i think i misread you...

If you want to know my personal belief - it is that I don't think it is moral for me to eat meat unless I am willing to kill it myself. I personally don't think I could kill a cow/pig/chicken if given the option (perhaps because of respect for the animal or maybe dislike of blood and guts) , so I consider it immoral to eat it knowing that such a process had to have occured. Now, realizing this, there is a complete desensitization when buying meat from a grocery store because you don't really get to see all the blood and gore of the actual animal being killed and cut up. Yet, I can take that package of meat and cook it and not feel any remorse even though I know that it came from the animal. I place the blame completely on my own negligence. It's like knowing that lying is wrong and yet doing it anyway. It's not honorable at all, but it's the truth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

I apreciate your willingness to concede an error in your wording, thank you.
Now, this particular matter of the fruit. Do humans, when they eat these fruit, spread about the seeds? In a number of cases we do not. Though you could say that they spread about some of the seeds when humans farm and plant more and that not all of these seeds need to be planted. You could make the same argument for eggs could you not?