Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[arildno]

It's fine.

XMLT

Your joke was fine, too..

 

[XMLT]

arildno,

Thanks. I'm a Vietnamese with a very little knowledge of English. So if I make mistake just tell me ok?

XMLT

 

[arildno]

Sure enough; I was not sarcastic, if you thought so..

 

[XMLT]

-arildno
I didn't think that you were sarcastic. I was just saying that since it's true.
Anyway, back to the topic, I voted yes.

XMLT

 

[physicsisphirst]

Your joke was fine, too..

hey i didn't get the joke
everyone else seems to get it
what's the joke?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I began the topic with a stance and stated that I wanted other opinions. I thought that implied that I wasn't completely certain on what I thought. In the quote you mentioned - I had said "in this instance". I wasn't referring to the whole argument but dependent clause contained in that paragraph.

Through society people are linked together and affect one another. The bum does provide hierarchy reinforcement through inaction. However, he still could be contributing negatively to society. In that case, he should be given the opportunity to contribute. If he refuses he should be forced to contribute through any means necessary. If he has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.

Going back to vegetarianism, I am not unsure on my stance, but inclined towards it being an incorrect view. Through the eating of meat and a vegan diet - and the harvesting of animals - jobs are created. Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs. While the requirement for more vegetarian food becomes imminent the requirement for meat is lower. By having two industries going the requirement for material & machinery is higher and more jobs can be created.

Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy. To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw. One that I have, but I don't deny that it seems like a problem. Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources. Variety should bring more pleasure, and the enjoyment of more things to create more variety is more efficient.


Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.

~This way opinion written somewhat formally.

 

[chroot]

If he [the bum] has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.

You're a psychopath. Do you have no respect for life at all?

Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs.

You really can't make these kinds of arguments by assertion anymore. If you can't provide any evidence for this statement, I demand that you retract it. It's stupid anyway -- farmers who raise animals can just as easy farm vegetables on the same land. The same number of mouths need to be fed with same number of calories. Vegetable calories are much cheaper to produce than animal calories. The farmer who switches to raising vegetables because meat is no longer fetching a good price will actually end up making more money. It's plain, simple supply-and-demand economics.

First you assert that vegetarianism reduces the pool of volunteer hours available. Now you assert that vegetarianism removes jobs. What's next? Does vegetarianism cause ugliness? Does vegetarianism make the Sun weaker?

Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy.

What?! Wouldn't it - logically - also be better if people liked to eat rubber and glue and old tires and sheet metal and solid waste? They would have more sources of enjoyment, and that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw.

Since everyone dislikes some kinds of food, I would suggest that it's a genetic variation, not a flaw. Genetic diversity is essential for the survival of a species. I know you're only 16, but have you ever taken a biology class?

Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources.

Oh, now it's a survival issue. It's no longer about killing bums and eating cows for pleasure, now it's about survival? Guess what? If it comes down to eating a hamburger or dying, there are very few vegans who would choose death. To be sure, there are some PETA members who claim they would rather let their children die than kill a cow, but I'd venture that they might change their minds when actually confronted with such a reality.

Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.

I hope that anyone with even a mild respect for life (human or otherwise) would be offended by your statements.

- Warren

 

[siliconhype]

"not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw."

Wow, so, i have a genetic flaw if i think poisoneus mushrooms are really nasty tasting?

You have got it the other way 'round, not liking certain foods is a genetic defense mechanism, since you are most vulnerable when you have put a food in your mouth, your body wants to make sure you don't and it does that by making you have prejudices against certain foods. Of course, this is not the whole story, different cultures like and dislike different foods, therefore this is also something that effects what food you eat, and it has nothing to do with genetics, Jews don't have a gene that makes them not like pig. Another factor that determines what food you like is the training you got from your parents. Children watch and are tought from their parents what to like and what to avoid, and when they grow up, they know that the foods that they have eaten are good and so continue to eat that kind of food as experimentation would pose certain risks to them. Some people, as adults, or in a multicultural society, overcome food taboos, for lack of a better word, and learn to eat a variety of foods; again, this has nothing to do with genetics.

Other comments you made make even less sense. Take the: "eat meat for jobs" campaign you got going there. I can see you being a union advocate for the poultry industry in a few years. ;) Jobs are a retarded reason, illogical and withought an ethical or moral basis - in reality, perhaps not in the ideological world you dwell. Because in reality, Ford replaced people, thus jobs, if that's how you define people, with robots. And that's t just the tip of the, metaphorical, iceberg.

"Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat."

No, logically it's better if you don't like meat. Technology is the only reason we like and are capable to like meat. "Back in the day", we eaither ate the meat raw, or we learned to smoke and salt it to keep bacteria from taking it over. But meat is very dangerous, in fact, your mind has a mechanism that, if you had no social conditioning, would lead you to a vegan type diet. For more information check out "How the mind works" by Steven pinker, that's one choice, which i recomend, since it is written by a scientists who has published a few books before, and follows a long and broad view of the subject.

Of course, in the end, in this society at least, choosing to be vegetarian is more of a ideological decision than anything else, sometimes it is touted as a health choice, but really, if that was the case, all meat eaters would be dead or really sick by now and we would have learned after the millenia of meat eating that maybe we shouldn't do it. Since we haven't run into any problems, it does, in the end come down to ethical and moral choices, weather for the sake of the environment, the sake of the animal or other reason, which has nothig to do with health or genes - or jobs.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I haven't seen any logical support towards the value of life. If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit. This goes for someone else as well, if someone isn't contributing to society, force them to or get rid of them. The metaphorical state of conscience based on treating others "how you would like to be treated" is illogical when applied to non-contributors. If you strive towards excellence through contribution, there are no reprocussions aside from theoretical fear.

I am familiar with the processes of Biology and why asexual reproduction is flawed. Therefore, I realize the importance of diversity. I was looking at the issue from a different perspective using some of the same logic. The purpose of my posting was to gain further intellectual information on the topic through perspective. Since that is happening, my goal is being achieved.

I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.

 

[chroot]

If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit.

So you see no reason not to declare yourself judge, jury, and executioner of any person on Earth that you deem a "non-contributor" eh? Welcome to the Middle Ages, m'Lord!

I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.

This really has nothing to do with vegetarians, Dooga. This heart of this discussion is your disgusting self-aggrandizement. You feel that you are so far superior to everyone (and everything) else on the planet that you alone are qualified to make a decision as to who lives and who dies.

I fear you're going to have a lonely life ahead of you.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

You haven't interpreted my words correctly. I'm saying that society as a whole should be judge, jury, and executioner, and society should decide who contributes. Perhaps not society, but the intellectuals in society. Regardless, I'm not saying the decisions of the world should be decided by me.

I don't know the why you persist on insulting me. If it's because of frustration you should try and take things in a less serious context. If you simply get pleasure out of insulting me, then I suppose you can continue if you wish.

 

[chroot]

You haven't interpreted my words correctly. I'm saying that society as a whole should be judge, jury, and executioner, and society should decide who contributes. Perhaps not society, but the intellectuals in society. Regardless, I'm not saying the decisions of the world should be decided by me.

What kind of interpretation am I supposed to make of a statement like this:

"If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit."

Please quit while you're ahead. Claiming that "me" meant "society" is not going to make you any more credible. This whole discussion is becoming off-topic anyway, since it's no longer about vegetarianism; it's about Dooga's right to kill anyone he wants.

(I'm not even going to touch the "intellectuals in society" bit with a 10-foot pole.)

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Yes, but I also went on to state that I believe other people should go by that logic as well. In that, I was saying people should not concern themselves with people who don't contribute to "them".

It's unfortanate that you think I believe I can kill anyone whenever I want. Regardless, I'm not trying to win a debate here. The issue of vegetarianism has me puzzled morally and I'm trying to get other perspectives on it. You don't usually get someone's most in-depth logic when you agree with them all the time; therefore, I have been presenting the other side along with my thoughts at the current moment - which have been changing. It's obvious I'm unsure of my stance when you look at the wavering logic I use to support anti-vegetarian claims. Atleast I'm trying to find an answer to the issue unlike many people who don't take the time to contemplate moral issues.

The majority if society can't be trusted to handle moral issues responsibly. A vast amount of them can't accept secularism. Intellectuals aren't flawless, but they are generally more reliable.

 

[XMLT]

I haven't seen any logical support towards the value of life.

Then I can tell you have missed out a lot in your research and even in your life now. Living without acknowledging the value of life? I wonder how you can survive for such a long time in this world (16 years, right?)

XMLT

 

[chroot]

Atleast I'm trying to find an answer to the issue

Here is the answer to the issue, according to me. I can guarantee that I have spent a lot more time thinking about this issue than have you.

(NB I am using vegan and vegetarian interchangeably in this context.)

Vegetarianism and veganism are perfectly acceptable ways to live one's life. Vegans are not malnourished, and they are not missing anything. Some vegans love meat, but choose not to eat it. Some vegans don't like meat at all. There are many reasons to choose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, among them health benefits, environmental preservation, and animal rights. Many vegans are vegan simply because they see no reason to kill an animal if they don't have to. These people contribute to the economy just like anyone else, i.e. the majority of their expenses are not food-related. The vast majority don't care what other people eat; they accept diet as a purely personal choice.

The bottom line is that human beings are the first creatures with both the technology and the sentience to make a conscious decision about their diet. There is no reason why people should not take advantage of this unique situation by eating whatever they wish to eat.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

You are correct on my age. However, what is a life when nothing is done with it? I simply think that if a person sees another person - who doesn't contribute to society or them in any way, directly or indirectly - they have no reason to value that person. Furthermore, if this entity isn't willing to assist them in any way - they have no logical reason not to take advantage of the individual.

People have the chance to enter society, if they refuse they can either be forced to or be dissolved. There is no reason for people disregard a potential resource - whether it be material or genetic. I appreciate everyone commenting on my logic. Unfortanately, I've only heard repeatedly that I'm wrong. My logic on this issue hasn't been refuted in any rational manner.

EDIT: I appreciate your last post and the manner in which you delivered it Chroot. That was actually the conclusion I was leaning towards. For diversity, both vegetarianism and meat-eating should be accepted. I have to think on it further though. I still haven't achieved an explanation that is satisfying to the point that I can say "Aha... I've got it now".

 

[chroot]

I simply think that if a person sees another person - who doesn't contribute to society or them in any way, directly or indirectly - they have no reason to value that person. Furthermore, if this entity isn't willing to assist them in any way - they have no logical reason not to take advantage of the individual.

The logical refutation is simply that a society based on these values would not be as pleasing to its members as a society based on more tolerant values.

A society based on the principle that one person can kill another for not (directly or indirectly) contributing to his life is one that seems unlikely to foster love, compassion, empathy, friendship, volunteerism, or charity, which most people regard as pleasurable. Since you're all about pleasure, it would seem that you'd want a society to encourage them.

You'd be surprised how good it feels to delay your home-cooked Christmas turkey to spend a few hours delivering $5 toys to poor children. I can guarantee it feels better than shooting bums on the street and harvesting their organs.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What about doing both? Shouldn't something be done to deal with people who leech off the system. Also, contributing to society can be extrapolated to include many things. Almost everyone contributes to society in some way or another. If effort is exerted, it's not difficult to contribute more than you leech.

 

[chroot]

What about doing both? Shouldn't something be done to deal with people who leech off the system.

Yes, perhaps we should have welfare programs, homeless shelters, and food banks to help keep these people alive so that they might later "contribute."

Also, contributing to society can be extrapolated to include many things. Almost everyone contributes to society in some way or another. If effort is exerted, it's not difficult to contribute more than you leech.

That's my point, Dooga. The notion of "contribution" is far too subjective to be the basis of a system to decide the merit of a human life.

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I agree, however, with criminals I think my logic could be applied effectively.

 

[chroot]

Your feelings on capital punishment have nothing to do with vegetarianism.

- Warren

 

[proneax]

Dooga- you're getting nowhere here and you won't no matter how long you argue. There are several things wrong with your argument. First of all it really has nothing to do with vegetarianism/veganism as chroot pointed out. It has to do with animal rights, which as chroot has pointed out to me and others is not always linked with vegetarianism/veganism.

Secondly, you say "If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit".

When you contemplate killing (or 'destroying' - really not the right word here) an animal, you generally need a reason, like "I need food and this animal is something I can eat," or "If I don't kill this bear It will maul me," or "this animal has a terminal, contagious disease that will cause death to other animals/humans." Each of these examples and any others I can think of (except sport hunting) have to do with self preservation. That isn't the same thing as deciding whether something is 'contributing to society'. Notice I only discussed animals. I'm not even going to address the implication that this 'philosophy' could apply to humans.

Not that I've concluded this topic of debate but please start a new thread to discuss this issue, it isnt' related to this topic.

Back to the vegetariansim thing, Choot my point in my last post was that I didn't see the connection between vegetariansim and animal rights, as my perception was that this was a main determination in becoming vegetarian. I see now that this assumption was wrong, and I wasn't trying to 'bash' vegetarianism but what I saw as the justification for it.

Justification is a funny word because you don't need any justification to be vegetarian. However part of the discussion was whether everyone should stop eating meat. That implies that it shouldn't be a personal choice, and in that instance you need justification.

And to whoever picked apart my argument about cats, yes I phrased it incorrectly i should have said 'doesn't necessarily eat it' because yes cats may eat a bird or mouse etc that it kills but often, well-fed domesticated cats kill these things based on instinct not for nutrition.

Anyway, I'm not sure If I grasp the full ideology behind vegetarianism. Obviously if you dont' like the taste of meat, have some kind of allergy, etc then you categorically won't eat meat and could be classified a 'vegetarian'. However, let's say you don't like 'red meat' because you don't like blood or whatever. How does that extend to 'white meat' or seafood?

If you're vegetarian for nutritional reasons no one can critisize you for that. But I don't see how this applies to veganism? Is there some nutritional benefit to not consuming dairy products? (not saying they have to be the ones loaded with fat)

What I find most interesting is this idea of being vegetarian/vegan because we have the technology to do so. Now I'm not trying to attack here, just to understand. I guess what I'm not sure of is, does the fact that we have the technology to avoid eating animals make eating them wrong? We raise an artificailly high number of these animals so when we do consume them its not like we are endangering a species. What about our pets? Do vegetarians also feed their pets a vegetarian diet? We have the technology to do so.

The only answer to this is that it has to do with animal rights, and in my last post I pointed out i saw not validity i this argument. So to address this further, I guess what I'm thinking is, we have the technological ability to stop world hunger, to stop homelessness. These two things are not yet conceived to be economical, which is why they haven't happened. So if we use technology to better the world only when its economical, does that mean people are vegetarians because its economical? I know that's a big stretch but I hope you see where I'm going with it and maybe someone can help me understand this.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Anyway, I'm not sure If I grasp the full ideology behind vegetarianism.

proneax,

there are 3 main rationales to vegetarianism:

health
environmental
ethical

(vegans btw are vegetarians who avoid animal products such as leather, silk, wool, fur etc)

all three apply to meat as well as to dairy, eggs, seafood etc.

for example,

dairy contributes to various ailments such as osteoporosis and arthritis;
the cows make a mess and drink a lot of water;
their quality of life as a milk machine is horrendous and their male offspring are crated alive for the veal industry.

if you want to know more, you can start with this link (where the issues are presented very concisely):

http://towardsfreedom.com/veggiechess/goVeg.html

and explore some of the websites suggested towards the bottom of the page.

there really is a lot of information about this topic of vegetarian ideology, but animal rights, though it supports vegetarianism for obvious reasons, is a much larger and different issue.

in friendship,
prad

 

[proneax]

"A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk)."

very interesting. I always thought that vegetarians didn't eat meat while vegans didn't eat meat and dairy products. But what I get out of this is a vegetarian doesn't eat any FOOD product created by/from animals while a vegan doesn't use/eat ANY product created by/from animals.

That puts a very animal rights spin on it, but it could just be the site it comes from? I find the honey thing interesting. I guess I don't know a lot about it but are bees harmed in any way when their honey is harvested? Or is that not even the point?

 

[chroot]

"A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk)."

The terms are and always have been a little ambiguous. Generally, people who eat no animal products at all are vegetarians. People who eat no meat, but do eat animal products like eggs and milk are called "lacto-ovo vegetarians." People who use no animal products at all are called vegans. Another class of people who eat no meat or animals products, yet wear leather or silk, has no distinct name.

When someone tells you they are veg or vegan, you might even consider asking for such specifics. :)

- Warren

 

[pace]

Vegetarian
A Vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, poultry or fish/seafood

A Lacto-Ovo vegetarian
A Lacto-Ovo vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume eggs (ovo) and dairy (lacto) products. (Wikipedia:The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean "ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as the term for stricter practice.)


Ovo Vegetarian
An Ovo Vegetarian is a person who does not eat dairy products, meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume eggs (ovo).

Lacto Vegetarian
A Lacto Vegetarian is a person who does not eat eggs, meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume dairy (lacto) products.

Vegan
A Vegan is a person who does not eat meat, poultry, fish/seafood, eggs, or dairy products of any kind. (Wikipedia: Today, strict vegetarians are commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather, honey), not just food.)

Wikipedia, Country definitions:

In the United States, vegetarianism is usually synonymous with ovo-lacto vegetarianism. However, vegetarians are sometimes wrongly assumed to be Pesco/Pollo vegetarians who will tolerate some meat. It is also possible to order a vegetarian meal and be served meat.
In the UK, due to its sizeable Hindu minority, vegetarianism often refers to the Hindu practice described further below. Conveniently, there is fairly consistent food labelling in place, where all groceries that don't contain any meat or meat products would be labelled as "Suitable for vegetarians" (except where it's obvious; e.g. apples would not be labelled this way). Cheese is labelled as well, making it possible to distinguish between cheese that was made without using animal rennet and such that was made with the animal product.
In Ireland, the same food labelling is also in place.
In Germany, the confusion of vegetarianism with Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism is also common. There is no food labelling in place, and buying only vegetarian foods can involve having to read the fine printed ingredients list ("Zutaten") on many food products.

More Info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

 

[physicsisphirst]

very interesting. I always thought that vegetarians didn't eat meat while vegans didn't eat meat and dairy products

as others have said above vegetarian is generally synonymous with lacto-ovo vegetarianism mainly because most vegetarians are lacto-ovo. as a result, vegan is often relegated to the dietary description (even in dictionaries). there is a bit of interesting history behind this that i posted in another thread (but i don't remember where):

an examination of the historical roots of the word vegan will show that there is much more than diet involved since its inception in 1944 by Donald Watson in england. i have posted the relevant information below from the article by Joanne Stepaniak.


http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm
Being Vegan

To understand what it means to be vegan, it is vital to reflect on the historical roots and origin of the word. Many people think of the term vegan and its associated lifestyle as something new, faddish, insurgent or radical. In many ways, just the opposite is true. The word vegan was coined in England by Donald Watson in 1944. He, along with several other members of the Vegetarian Society in Leicester, England, wanted to form an alliance of nondairy vegetarians as a subgroup of the Society. When their proposal was rejected, they ventured to start their own organization. They prospected what to call themselves, and, after evaluating a range of ingenious possibilities, agreed that "vegan" (decisively pronounced VEE-gn, with a long "e" and hard "g" ) was best. It was derived from the word "vegetarian" by taking the first three letters (veg) and the last two letters (an) because, as Donald Watson explained, "veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its logical conclusion."

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, followed shortly thereafter by the creation of a manifesto describing their unified mission and perspective. Although the group advocated a totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals' milk, butter and cheese, they also encouraged the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal commodities, including clothing, shoes and other apparel. In addition, the group acknowledged that the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society and emancipate both humans and animals.

That puts a very animal rights spin on it, but it could just be the site it comes from?

vegans tend to be concerned about the mistreatment and exploitation of animals for various reasons. it doesn't necessarily mean that they are animal rights advocates. it doesn't work the other way either - some AR activists aren't even vegetarian. for instance, we had a meat-eating tennant many years ago who used to rescue animals from laboratories. there exist quite a variety and rationale.

I find the honey thing interesting. I guess I don't know a lot about it but are bees harmed in any way when their honey is harvested? Or is that not even the point?

it is and it isn't. the strict AR argument runs along the lines that the bees make the honey for their offspring and therefore humans should not harvest it. a more animal welfarish argument will cite the danger to the bees themselves as a result of commercial harvesting. here are a couple of articles to that effect:

http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2004-sp-bees.html
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=122

in friendship,
prad

 

[lilboy]

Experts like to complicate matters...

Gee... isn't this getting a little too complicated?

Seen animals struggle before getting their throat cut?
And the butchers see them struggle.
Where's the empathy? We're desensitized.

Shameless creatures we are.

And what's worse, we can actually eat and laugh together although
we're feeding on other animals. As though nothing is wrong.

For god's sake, those are (cooked and decorated) corpses lying on our dining table!

Humans. Despicable.

Maybe I should stop eating meat.


Edit : Oh hi people. This is my first post. And I'm new here.

 

[proneax]

wow thanks for all the info guys. Good stuff. Its great to have a better understanding of all this.

I think when you're concerned about the expoitation and mistreatment of animals and are actively doing something as a result, you're an advocate of animal rights, yet not in the way many people perceive it eg. saving animals from laboratories.

I think my analysis of all this is being vegan/vegetarian for 'animal rights' reasons is certainly acceptable and in a way admirable, yet I don't think there is anything wrong with not being vegan/vegetarian.

lilboy do I detect some sarcasm?

 

[pace]

Gee... isn't this getting a little too complicated?

Edit : Oh hi people. This is my first post. And I'm new here.

Welcome! :wave:

I agree with you that it should be told about in as precice manner as possible.
But the fact is that language is a.. floating thing, it's definitions change, and dialects constantly arises. So some clearing up can be in order sometimes I think.

 

[Leaping antalope]

Well, if everyone stops eating meat, then it will not only disrupt the food chain, but also disrupte the entire ecological system on Earth. Also, The number of animals will increase, and the number of plants will decrease, the consequese is that there will be more carbon dioxide (from animals) and less oxygen (from the plants' photosyntesis process). Just think about what the world would be like if all of us stop eating meat.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

i, myself, do not eat meat, but i am not opposed to other people eating meat. i think its disgusting what idustries do to the meat they sell. its horrible what they do before and after the animal is dead and before it is sold. the torture and conditions those poor animals have to go through, how they're violated, everything about how they "live" and what they go through is simply disgusting. i don't understand how people can just sit there and not question what happens to their food. what made me become a vegetarian was when i saw a documentary video done my PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). i saw it and was instantly disgusted by it. i hated that i supported such actions and decided to not only investigate further into the matter but also, i became part of PETA. I don't yell at people for eating meat, but i, myself, will not support the barbaic, inhumane and cruel actions of those "farmers"

 

[siliconhype]

Energy extraction?

Hello,

I would like to ask question about the effects of eating vegetables vs eating meat in the production of energy.

Sometimes, when i eat carbohidrate food, pasta, veggies etc, i feel tired, and want to take a nap. But susually after i eat a protein rich food, i don't feel any difference, except not hungry anymore. So, i had this theory that the animals eating the veggies have done the majority of metabolism work for us, therefore by consuming meat, we can release energy by using less energy, and when we eat veggies we need to use up more energy and time to release the energy that we need. Am i just hallucinating? (happens ;) )

- V

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I think vegetarianism as a form of protest has a great heart and goal in mind but is a horrible attempt at making progress. It's not the facts like "the animals are being so mistreated" that really relate, so much, its more the issue of "how much does this accomplish?"

For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Humans are quite obviously the top of the 'chain' when it comes to planet earth...by that I mean, we have basic control over the populations of all other animals...we are the king animals of the earth. Why not let us be the top of the food chain, too? I'm sure animals don't like being killing...buut, animals are killed no matter what.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.

first i'd like to start off by saying that i am a vegetarian. i don't eat meat, fish or any kind of animal. i'd also like to mention that I'm one of the healthiest people i know. many of my friends get sick more often then i do, they seem to be more suceptable (sp?) to colds, viruses, etc then i am and when comparing some of the physical strengths between myself and some of the people at my school with equal body weight, i am more physically fit. being vegetarian doesn't really alter your health if you are responsible enough to take care of yourself and take the supplements that you are not getting. i jog every second night, i box and kickbox and I'm on my school's girl's hockey team. I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and I've never been held back because of it.

second, how can you say that vegetarians are iggnorant of what they are taking? people who eat meat have no clue what "their" meat goes through before it reaches them. the poor animals are tortured, pumped full of proteins and food, calves(baby cows) are pulled away from their mothers at birth. they are stuck in cages just big enough for them to stand up. they cannot turn around or move in these cages and they are pumped full of protiens, steroids, etc. they are pumped so full of food that their legs cannot support them any long until they collapse. and even then the "farmers" don't kill them. they wait, keeping them in those disgusting fecie-infested cages until they're big enough to make a good amount of product off of...all that for damn slab of veal. so don't tell me vegs are iggnorant when it comes to taking care of theirselves. take a look around and tell me that isn't barbaric. I am not even going to get into what they do to chickens, ducks, etc. because it is not really my place to teach you until you are ready or want to learn about it.

third, some vegs don't go around protesting it because they are not trying to make a statement. they are merely just trying to attain self satisfaction that they will not participate in supporting such disgusting barbaric rituals. there are place where they can go to protest against it and if you haven't noticed, veganism and vegetarianism has become increasingly popular. yes, meatlovers still outnumber vegs but we are making movements.

the article below states that 1 out of every 4 college students asks for vegan meals

http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20041019005105&newsLang=en

the article below states that to gov. Schwarzenegger rejects foie gras

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/30/BILLS.TMP

so there are statements and movements being made in order to stop animal cruelty when it comes to killing them for food.

if anyone else is interested in learning about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) , you can use the site below to reach them. this website is graphic so please, if your stomach becomes easily queezy, don't watch the movies.

http://www.peta.org/

i would also like to mention that this is not a hostile attack on you KingNothing. but it is really just me stating my opinion. please, everyone, do not take personal offence to anything said here. its just here to educate.

 

[Eyesaw]

first i'd like to start off by saying that i am a vegetarian. i don't eat meat, fish or any kind of animal. i'd also like to mention that I'm one of the healthiest people i know. many of my friends get sick more often then i do, they seem to be more suceptable (sp?) to colds, viruses, etc then i am and when comparing some of the physical strengths between myself and some of the people at my school with equal body weight, i am more physically fit. being vegetarian doesn't really alter your health if you are responsible enough to take care of yourself and take the supplements that you are not getting. i jog every second night, i box and kickbox and I'm on my school's girl's hockey team. I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and I've never been held back because of it.

second, how can you say that vegetarians are iggnorant of what they are taking? people who eat meat have no clue what "their" meat goes through before it reaches them. the poor animals are tortured, pumped full of proteins and food, calves(baby cows) are pulled away from their mothers at birth. they are stuck in cages just big enough for them to stand up. they cannot turn around or move in these cages and they are pumped full of protiens, steroids, etc. they are pumped so full of food that their legs cannot support them any long until they collapse. and even then the "farmers" don't kill them. they wait, keeping them in those disgusting fecie-infested cages until they're big enough to make a good amount of product off of...all that for damn slab of veal. so don't tell me vegs are iggnorant when it comes to taking care of theirselves. take a look around and tell me that isn't barbaric. I am not even going to get into what they do to chickens, ducks, etc. because it is not really my place to teach you until you are ready or want to learn about it.

third, some vegs don't go around protesting it because they are not trying to make a statement. they are merely just trying to attain self satisfaction that they will not participate in supporting such disgusting barbaric rituals. there are place where they can go to protest against it and if you haven't noticed, veganism and vegetarianism has become increasingly popular. yes, meatlovers still outnumber vegs but we are making movements.

the article below states that 1 out of every 4 college students asks for vegan meals

http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20041019005105&newsLang=en

the article below states that to gov. Schwarzenegger rejects foie gras

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/30/BILLS.TMP

so there are statements and movements being made in order to stop animal cruelty when it comes to killing them for food.

if anyone else is interested in learning about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) , you can use the site below to reach them. this website is graphic so please, if your stomach becomes easily queezy, don't watch the movies.

http://www.peta.org/

i would also like to mention that this is not a hostile attack on you KingNothing. but it is really just me stating my opinion. please, everyone, do not take personal offence to anything said here. its just here to educate.

Plants are alive too don't forget. And the processing of the plants sold in markets also subject them to "unnatural" growth- one might call that torture
as well. Until the day we can manufacture all the organic molecules our body needs without killing any life form, I say we eat without guilt- plants or animals. If it was immoral for us to eat plants or animals, we would have only ourselves to eat.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

Plants are alive too don't forget. And the processing of the plants sold in markets also subject them to "unnatural" growth- one might call that torture
as well. Until the day we can manufacture all the organic molecules our body needs without killing any life form, I say we eat without guilt- plants or animals. If it was immoral for us to eat plants or animals, we would have only ourselves to eat.

yes but there is no proof that us creating plants is torture. we have physical evidence that what we do to an animal is seriously harming and inhumane. and if you can do something about it then why not try? right? :shy: there's only so much we can do and if you can help stop the torture of something or someone innocent why not?

 

[physicsisphirst]

i'd also like to mention that I'm one of the healthiest people i know ... I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and I've never been held back because of it.

what an all-round excellent post!

a lot of people are still under the weird impression that vegetarians are skinny weaklings. here is a list of more famous veg people that might cause some reconsideration:

Hank Aaron (home run champion in major league baseball)
Andreas Cahling (body builder)
Chris Campbell (1980 world champion wrestler)
Sally Eastall (Marathon runner - UK No 2)
Sally Hibberd (British Women's Mountain Bike Champion)
Billie Jean King (tennis champion)
Martina Navratilova (tennis champion)
Silken Laumann (Olympic rower)
Killer Kowalski (wrestler)
Jack LaLanne (Fitness guru)
Donnie LaLonde (Former Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.)
Katherine Monbiot (world champion arm wrestler and nutritionist)
Edwin Moses (longtime world hurdling champion)
Carl Lewis (world record for 100m)
Bill Pearl (Bodybuilder, Mr America)
Anthony Peeler (NBA Grizzlies basketball player)
Jacques Vaughn (All American point guard, #1-ranked Univ of KS Jayhawks)
John Salley (only 4x NBA champ in history)

in friendship,
prad

 

[Eyesaw]

yes but there is no proof that us creating plants is torture. we have physical evidence that what we do to an animal is seriously harming and inhumane. and if you can do something about it then why not try? right? :shy: there's only so much we can do and if you can help stop the torture of something or someone innocent why not?

I think you are right about the torture- plants don't have a nervous system so they can't feel pain , which is required for torture. We should only breed for eating animals that will eat humans given the opportunity. We have to eat some kind of meat though else we would evolve into a cow.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I think you are right about the torture- plants don't have a nervous system so they can't feel pain , which is required for torture. We should only breed for eating animals that will eat humans given the opportunity. We have to eat some kind of meat though else we would evolve into a cow.

yes...but the whole point that we (or at least i) became veg's is because farmers carry out those tortures on the animals. if they didnt torture them to make them "better" then it wouldn't be as bad. i mean, if we didnt pump them full of steroids and proteins, and we treated them with some respect and gratitude, then killing them wouldn't be as disgusting as it is. they are providing you with life, energy, etc. should people not treat those providers with a little more respect and thanks? but instead we stick them in cages etc and treat them as if they cannot feel.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Last time I posted it was in a haphazard fashion. I hope to do a better job of expressing myself this time. I'd like to get opinions from both sides on this issue, as I already have.

My main question is: Animals don't really contribute much to human society. If untrue, statements/facts would be appreciated. Why should we let them live when we can benefit from their destruction?

Isn't the pleasure given to society, the pleasure from eating meat, isn't it greater than whatever small contributions animals make by living their everyday lives?

If animals do less for us alive, why shouldn't we kill them. I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain. Sympathy is an illogical application when applied to something that doesn't affect human society, is it not? Yes we could be on the other side of the coin, but we aren't. Should I not eat meat because I wouldn't want some alien race to torture me. That choice would be entirely based on theoretical fear. Is that acceptable?

I do intend to be disrespectful, if I have been, my apologies.

 

[chroot]

For Christ's sake Dooga, do I really need to rip you to shreds again? This is virtually the exact same crap you posted last time. Get a clue, man!

- Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I'm not trying to win a debate here. I want to make decisions on various issues that I'm contemplating. I stated above that I am going to try and approach this discussion in a more organized fashion, and I plan to do that.

I respect your help in assisting me last time, but by the obvious illogical train of thought I followed, I wasn't thinking clearly. I'm not trying to attack vegetarianism right now, I've changed my mind on that for the moment; however, I am concerned that I may be incorrect in my stance on eating meat.

I enjoy discussions, and perhaps someone else can provide another perspective to challenge my thoughts. More things go on in my mind than I post, many things affect one another. Just because all the logic used in the thread supports an argument doesn't mean other contradicting evidence doesn't exist, evidence in my mind, I have to have resolved.

If you wish to speak further on the issue I'd appreciate it, but if you don't want to, I feel there is no reason for me to be insulted.

 

[chroot]

You have posted the exact same arguments already. They have been shown to be stupid already.

-Warren

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

It's also been proven that I'm fairly stubborn and like to overanalyze things. You don't have to view my posts, and I have to resolute to take insults and move futher on with my thoughts. Your insults are a waste of both your time and mine.

 

[chroot]

No, your repetitive posts are waste of time, Dooga -- and I have every right to make that determination. Feel free to read over my (and others') responses to your thoughts on the preceding pages. There is no reason for you to repeat the same questions, almost verbatim. Do I need to delete them?

- Warren

 

[Les Sleeth]

It's also been proven that I'm fairly stubborn and like to overanalyze things. You don't have to view my posts, and I have to resolute to take insults and move futher on with my thoughts. Your insults are a waste of both your time and mine.

It seems you are trying to make decisions based on 1) logic alone, and 2) deciding what is good and bad based on how it affects you.

I believe part of what you haven't, and cannot, understand using logic alone is the practicality of compassion and empathy. If you advocate and adopt a principle of "if it doesn't hurt me, why should I care," then that is a principle which can hold true for all of us. Think about it, the more you profess that others' suffering don't matter because it isn't hurting you, the more you've given us permission to torture you. Afterall, it doesn't hurt me to make you suffer. That actually is the attitude of sociopaths like Richard Lacey who if he got you under his control, would bind you up, torture you, rape you, kill you, and then bury you in his basement. And why not? He had great fun and didn't feel a thing when he cut off your genitals.

If you put yourself in the place of someone or creature who suffers, and try to feel (not analyze) what they feel, you can tell what feels okay and what doesn't. For example, you don't say so explicitly, but it does seem that insults bother you. There is a clue in that, the fact that if something makes you "feel" badly, you don't care for it. In this world you can further good feeling or you can make it worse. And guess what, when you contribute to good feeling, you feel better too! So I say there is practical value and personal gain in practicing compassion and empathy.

 

[theriddler876]

I think it's a moral issue, and it depends on what peoples morals are. now take religion, if stripped of all theology it's basically a moral and ethical guide, so it would depends on what your religion's moral code (if you have one) and your interpretation of that moral code

 

[abitofnothingleft]

main question is: Animals don't really contribute much to human society. If untrue, statements/facts would be appreciated. Why should we let them live when we can benefit from their destruction?

Isn't the pleasure given to society, the pleasure from eating meat, isn't it greater than whatever small contributions animals make by living their everyday lives?

If animals do less for us alive, why shouldn't we kill them. I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain. Sympathy is an illogical application when applied to something that doesn't affect human society, is it not? Yes we could be on the other side of the coin, but we aren't. Should I not eat meat because I wouldn't want some alien race to torture me. That choice would be entirely based on theoretical fear. Is that acceptable?

I do intend to be disrespectful, if I have been, my apologies.

no offence, well you can take offence if you want but, overall i found that post to be rather pompous and arrogant. animals don't do much for society? yea okay...and what exactly do humans do for the earth? compare that! humans do more destruction to the Earth then animals do to human society. so because the animal kingdom doesn't do anything to benefit you then its a plausable excuse to torture and kill them? and you find pleasure out of eating a dead animal? i find your logic to be very self-praising. you think we're "all that" with retrospect to the world? let me tell you if those animals weren't there we wouldn't even be here, when considering evolution and darwins theory. just because you don't experience the same pain that animals experience doesn't mean you can't have a little sympathy for them. or is that too hard for us "almighty" humans? and since you seem to need evidence to prove that they benefit us let's take a domestic example first...dogs...they allow sight for blind people and happiness to many of those who are unable to provide so for themselves. sheep give wool. cows give fertilizer. birds keep the insect population leveled out. all that and they also provide a diversity of species among the earth. what if one day we take such advantage of our power that the species that are of use to you die off? that's another of the problems of the world today. people are too greedy. they think that since they have an advantage over someone or something they need to do what they can to get ahead. they can't just stay neutral (but that's a different argument altogether)

again, i didnt mean to offend you in calling your post pompous and arrogant, but that is what i thought. and just like you, I am giving my opinion.

 

[Mazuz]

I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain.

Actually I don't think you do realize that they experience pain, anything outside yourself doesn't appear to have any real meaning to you. Can your argument not extend to say that anyone or anything other than yourself does not affect you because you don't experience it? Unfortunately, I'm not sure society would miss you.. we mine as well torture you on the way out since that only hurts you and is meaningless to the rest of us, including to the concept of society. Only joking.

Also, the arguments made for or against the eating of meat have nothing to do with whether we should rid the planet of animals or not.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

no you're right it doesnt. but dooga here is explaining how much power we have and how we don't need animals for anything but food but if we keep up with that attitude you never know where it'll take you