- 10,270
- 45
Your feelings on capital punishment have nothing to do with vegetarianism.
- Warren
- Warren
Philosophy: Should we eat meat?
- Thread starter physicskid
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Philosophy
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
1,312 replies · 142K views
proneax
- 3
- 0
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.
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
- 233
- 3
proneax,proneax said:
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
Last edited:
proneax
- 3
- 0
"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?
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?
- 10,270
- 45
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.proneax said:
When someone tells you they are veg or vegan, you might even consider asking for such specifics. :)
- Warren
pace
- 240
- 1
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
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
Last edited:
physicsisphirst
- 233
- 3
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):proneax said:
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.
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.proneax said:
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:proneax said:
http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2004-sp-bees.html
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=122
in friendship,
prad
Last edited by a moderator:
lilboy
- 5
- 0
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.
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.
Last edited:
proneax
- 3
- 0
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?
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
- 240
- 1
lilboy said: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
- 44
- 0
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
- 67
- 0
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
- 33
- 0
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
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
- 67
- 0
KingNothing said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eyesaw
- 129
- 0
abitofnothingleft said: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.
Last edited by a moderator:
abitofnothingleft
- 67
- 0
Eyesaw said:
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
- 233
- 3
what an all-round excellent post!abitofnothingleft said:
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
- 129
- 0
abitofnothingleft said: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.
Last edited:
abitofnothingleft
- 67
- 0
Eyesaw said:
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
- 258
- 0
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.
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.
- 10,270
- 45
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
- Warren
Dooga Blackrazor
- 258
- 0
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.
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.
- 10,270
- 45
You have posted the exact same arguments already. They have been shown to be stupid already.
-Warren
-Warren
Dooga Blackrazor
- 258
- 0
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.
- 10,270
- 45
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
- Warren
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,260
- 0
Dooga Blackrazor said:
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
- 98
- 0
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
- 67
- 0
Dooga Blackrazor said:
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
- 52
- 0
Dooga Blackrazor said:
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
- 67
- 0
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