NationStates Jolt Archive

I've found that most of the vegetarian's I've ever known were terrible hypocrites.
What is your arguent for or against vegetarianism?
No flames please, but if it's necessary, go right on ahead.:(

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead. Is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can cry out in pain?

Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.

I've found that most of the vegetarian's I've ever known were terrible hypocrites.
What is your arguent for or against vegetarianism?
No flames please, but if it's necessary, go right on ahead.:(

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead. Is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can cry out in pain?

Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.

Harvesting kills abounch of critters too, but no one ever cares about the rats.

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead. Is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can cry out in pain?
Plants cannot feel pain, as they have no nervous system.
Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.

So humans should act like animals now?

Plants cannot feel pain, as they have no nervous system.

So as long as we tranqualize the animals before killing them, it's cool.


So humans should act like animals now?

Humans are animals.

I am a vegetarian, mainly because I dislike and mistrust the meat industry. Its animal treatement is evil. I more have a problem with suffering than death. Just remember that when you buy sausages or a burger in a takeaway, it's not like you've killed and prepared the meat yourself. There's a whole lot of other shit that's happened to it.

I have no problem with people who go out and kill their own meat and then eat it. As long as they don't torture the animal or kill off an endangered species.

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead.
Some people actually live by that principle, calling themselves fruitarians.

So as long as we tranqualize the animals before killing them, it's cool.

guess so.


Humans are animals.

ok.

1. Only the PETA idiots are hippocritical.

2. Plants don't feel pain.

3. Most animals only eat other animals because it is the only thing they are evolved for. The omnivores only eat other animals because they do not have the tools and sentience required to be able to only eat plants.

1. Plants don't feel pain.

2. Most animals only eat other animals because it is the only thing they are evolved for. The omnivores only eat other animals because they do not have the tools and sentience required to be able to only eat plants.

1. Neither do many species of animalia, such as crayfish (lobster, shrimp, crawdad). Eggs do not feel pain, milk does not hurt the animal. Some fish may not be able to feel pain. And it's not the plant's pain that matters, it is the ending of a life.

2. Macro-Evolution is just a non-testable theory, and the omnivores to which you refer find meat delicious. Sentience has nothing to do with it.

1. Neither do many species of animalia, such as crayfish (lobster, shrimp, crawdad). Eggs do not feel pain, milk does not hurt the animal. Some fish may not be able to feel pain. And it's not the plant's pain that matters, it is the ending of a life.
Vegetarians consume animal products, just not animals themselves.
Vegans boycott both.

Pain does matter. Suffering is an abomination.

3. Most animals only eat other animals because it is the only thing they are evolved for. The omnivores only eat other animals because they do not have the tools and sentience required to be able to only eat plants.

Maybe herbivores simply haven't evolved the tools to eat animals?

Vegetarians consume animal products, just not animals themselves.
Vegans boycott both.

Pain does matter. Suffering is an abomination.

Thusly, we flood the butchery with choloroform, then kill the animals.

1. Neither do many species of animalia, such as crayfish (lobster, shrimp, crawdad). Eggs do not feel pain, milk does not hurt the animal. Some fish may not be able to feel pain. And it's not the plant's pain that matters, it is the ending of a life.

2. Macro-Evolution is just a non-testable theory, and the omnivores to which you refer find meat delicious. Sentience has nothing to do with it.

1. If they have a nervous system, they will feel pain when you kill them. And no, eggs don't feel pain. But the process by which they are made, along with milk being produced, hurts the animal. Let's also not forget that the animals create the milk to feed their young, and eggs themselves are in fact young. And if we don't kill plants, how do we survive?

2. I find meat delicious. But I don't eat it. Why? Because I have the intelligence, the sentience in order to realize that I don't have to kill other animals to survive. Bears and other omnivores don't. Not to mention they don't have the tools to survive strictly off of plants.

Maybe herbivores simply haven't evolved the tools to eat animals?

Well, until they evolve teeth designed for eating other animals, we won't know. Either way, they won't have the sentience to realize they can survive just off of plants. All they know is meat gives them more energy, and allows them to reproduce more.

Thusly, we flood the butchery with choloroform, then kill the animals.

You're still killing the animals, who, in my eyes, should be allowed to live more than plants.

In other words, if we have to kill animals or plants to survive, I'd rather kill just plants.

Meat is just an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Why use so much energy, land and water fattening animals for humans to consume? you could use significantly less if you grew crops which were fed directly to humans.

1. If they have a nervous system, they will feel pain when you kill them. And no, eggs don't feel pain. But the process by which they are made, along with milk being produced, hurts the animal. Let's also not forget that the animals create the milk to feed their young, and eggs themselves are in fact young. And if we don't kill plants, how do we survive?

The eggs are menstruation, it's not like it wouldn't happen if we didn't take the eggs. Also, unfetilized ones aren't 'young'.

Meat is just an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Why use so much energy, land and water fattening animals for humans to consume? you could use significantly less if you grew crops which were fed directly to humans.

Cuz it's tasty.

Morally, I am beginning to think that I ought to be a vegetarian, but I'm not, and I'm feeling guilty over it.

We have no right to make our fellow creatures suffer unnecessarily - regardless of whether or not they are "persons."

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Maddox says it all.

Morally, I am beginning to think that I ought to be a vegetarian, but I'm not, and I'm feeling guilty over it.

We have no right to make our fellow creatures suffer unnecessarily - regardless of whether or not they are "persons."

Why not?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Maddox says it all.

Troll.

Just because I'm vegetarian doesn't mean I feel morally superior to anyone.

Why not?

Because all unnecessary suffering is wrong. Why should rights be reserved for those who can understand Kant?

When I read about wolves pushed out of their habitats, or tigers nearing extinction, or cows imprisoned and abused in factory farms, I cannot but feel revulsion.

Troll.

Just because I'm vegetarian doesn't mean I feel morally superior to anyone.

Subtext: "Not to imply that I don't feel morally superior, just not because of vegitarianism."

Troll.

Just because I'm vegetarian doesn't mean I feel morally superior to anyone.

I rarely use the forums, as you can see with my post count. But from what I know a "troll" is somebody that has a different view from the accuser.

Also, did you read further into the link? It really makes sense. You shouldn't be driving cars that pollute, wearing leather, etc. I'm sure you use a car for something. I guess that makes you a hypocrite.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Maddox says it all.

Callousness is all the more disgusting when it is expressed in a derisive tone.

2. Plants don't feel pain.

Actually, that's arguable. They certainly respond to damage, in some cases drastically.

Callousness is all the more disgusting when it is expressed in a derisive tone.

Which...Is supposed to have something to do with the article, but I'm not sure what.

I rarely use the forums, as you can see with my post count. But from what I know a "troll" is somebody that has a different view from the accuser.

Also, did you read further into the link? It really makes sense. You shouldn't be driving cars that pollute, wearing leather, etc. I'm sure you use a car for something. I guess that makes you a hypocrite.

I don't wear or have leather. I can't determine what my transportation is, I'm 14.

And he's being a troll by deliberately flame-baiting vegetarians by posting the Maddox link.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Maddox says it all.

Actually, he's wrong. Your poop does stink less when you don't eat meat.

Actually, that's arguable. They certainly respond to damage, in some cases drastically.

They don't have nervous systems. Therefore they CANNOT feel pain.

Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.

How many lion- or wolf-managed factory farms are there?

I just think meat is yucky!

They don't have nervous systems. Therefore they CANNOT feel pain.

Depends on your definition. After all, they're obviously not obvlivious to the world around them. And a stimulus to one part of a plant can affect another...

Cuz it's tasty.
Not a good enough reason to justify all of that waste.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

Maddox says it all.

No he doesn't, he just creates a strawman of all vegetarians that is easy for him to defeat. Example: Me I am a vegetarian, yet have no moral qualm with killing animals, I don't care if cows are butchered with chainsaws....

I don't wear or have leather. I can't determine what my transportation is, I'm 14.

And he's being a troll by deliberately flame-baiting vegetarians by posting the Maddox link.

Way to assume the "he" part. When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me.

And if you are even riding as a passenger in a car, you are supporting that. If you use public transportion, you are supporting that. What I am saying is that all the "vegetarians" better not use any pollution things at all. Good luck traveling long distances.

Way to assume the "he" part. When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me.

And if you are even riding as a passenger in a car, you are supporting that. If you use public transportion, you are supporting that. What I am saying is that all the "vegetarians" better not use any pollution things at all. Good luck traveling long distances.

Way to assume all vegetarians are concerned with the environment.

You are hypocritical in the extreme, complaining about having assumptions made about you while making gross assumptions about vegetarians.

Not a good enough reason to justify all of that waste.

Says you :p

No he doesn't, he just creates a strawman of all vegetarians that is easy for him to defeat. Example: Me I am a vegetarian, yet have no moral qualm with killing animals, I don't care if cows are butchered with chainsaws....

It means that you have to find someone in your life who's a really big pain in everyone's ass every time you want to go out to eat, and then you commit yourself to eating THREE times the amount of meat you'd normally consume to make up for all the meat that your vegetarian buddy isn't eating.

Presumably, if you aren't a pain in the ass about it, it doesn't apply to you.

They don't have nervous systems. Therefore they CANNOT feel pain.

Exactly. Things can react to adverse stimuli without feeling pain.

Meat is just an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Why use so much energy, land and water fattening animals for humans to consume? you could use significantly less if you grew crops which were fed directly to humans.

Pity the food fed to farm animals is grown on land that cannot support crops.

Also, did you read further into the link? It really makes sense. You shouldn't be driving cars that pollute, wearing leather, etc. I'm sure you use a car for something. I guess that makes you a hypocrite.
Maddox's view is stupid. Do you think that Naliitrs goal (whatever that is) would be more effectively served if he ate meat and drove cars, or if he only drove cars?

And if you are even riding as a passenger in a car, you are supporting that. If you use public transportion, you are supporting that. What I am saying is that all the "vegetarians" better not use any pollution things at all. Good luck traveling long distances.

That is assuming alot. Not all vegetarians are envrionmentalists. And most environmentalists seek to reasonably minimize their environemental impacts, not eliminate them entirely.

Way to assume the "he" part. When you assume, you make an ass out of "u" and me.

And if you are even riding as a passenger in a car, you are supporting that. If you use public transportion, you are supporting that. What I am saying is that all the "vegetarians" better not use any pollution things at all. Good luck traveling long distances.

Ugh... See what I mean? Troll.

Also, I don't exactly have any choice. I can't exactly walk to school, I live in the ghetto, and my school is several miles away from my house. I can't use an enviromentally friendly car, as I cannot afford it. I turn off all things in my house that I don't need, pick up trash I see, etc. I do whatever is possible to stop my pollution. Don't say that just because I ride in a car I'm a hippocrit. And really, stop being a god damned troll.

1. If they have a nervous system, they will feel pain when you kill them.
Completely false. Only certain nerves are capable of feeling pain. As an example, the human brain is one of the largest collections of nerves found in nature, yet it is completely incapable of feeling pain. In fact, it might not even be capable of feeling pressure.

There's a whole lot of other shit that's happened to it.

I'm well aware of how the meat I eat is killed. Chickens are decapitated, resulting in instant death. Cows have their throats slit with a knife as sharp as possible, in order to minimize pain. I eat kosher beef. Pigs are vicious bastards that eat people and deserve whatever they get.

Pity the food fed to farm animals is grown on land that cannot support crops.

Really? All that grain and corn is grown on land that can't support crops?

Pigs are vicious bastards that eat people and deserve whatever they get.
Dogs also eat people, given the chance. Would you eat dog?

Really? All that grain and corn is grown on land that can't support crops?

Indeed. 50% of all the grain grown in the US is used to feed livestock. 40% of the entire planets grain harvest goes to livestock.

If all the U.S. grain now fed to livestock were exported and if cattlemen switched to grass-fed production systems, less beef would be available and animal protein in the average American diet would drop from 75 grams to 29 grams per day.

If all the U.S. grain now fed to livestock were exported and if cattlemen switched to grass-fed production systems, less beef would be available and animal protein in the average American diet would drop from 75 grams to 29 grams per day.
I'm not advocating a switch to grass-fed cattle. I am advocating a reduction in the unnecessarily high North American level of meat consumption. People should get more of their protein from plant-based sources and more of their meat from native species such as deer and buffalo, which are better for you anyway.

Also, did you read further into the link? It really makes sense. You shouldn't be driving cars that pollute, wearing leather, etc. I'm sure you use a car for something. I guess that makes you a hypocrite.

Oh get off of your f*ck*ng high horse. All of us are hypocrites. Including you. None of us ever completely measure up to our ideals. Christans, Jews, Muslims, Americans, Europeans, Capitalists, Communists, Hawks, Doves, Republican, Democrat, etc, etc, etc... all come up short. It's called making pragmatic decisions. It's called getting by in the society you happen to live in. It's called compromise. It's called being human. Get over it. :rolleyes:

Personally, I feel empathy for non-meat eaters. They don't know what they're missing.

Personally, I feel empathy for non-meat eaters. They don't know what they're missing. Many of them do, being as they gave up meat to become vegetarians.

I'm not advocating a switch to grass-fed cattle. I am advocating a reduction in the unnecessarily high North American level of meat consumption. People should get more of their protein from plant-based sources and more of their meat from native species such as deer and buffalo, which are better for you anyway.

I didn't think you were. I was just expanding on your point that our livestock aren't' being fed off of "unproductive" land, but rather wasting a lot of our natural resources. My reply wasn't aimed so much for you as it was for the person you were responding to.

Personally, I feel empathy for non-meat eaters. They don't know what they're missing.

I know exactly what I'm not missing. Growing up, one of my parents worked for Oscar Mayer and the other farmed and raised livestock. Meat was a major staple of my diet. Most westerners who are vegetarian used to eat meat and are well aware of what they are not missing anymore.

I didn't think you were. I was just expanding on your point that our livestock aren't' being fed off of "unproductive" land, but rather wasting a lot of our natural resources. My reply wasn't aimed so much for you as it was for the person you were responding to. Fair Nuff' I have a tendency to go off half-cocked! :)

Fair Nuff' I have a tendency to go off half-cocked! :)

No problem. That's easy to do in here. And the longer you're here the easier it gets. :p

Personally, I feel empathy for non-meat eaters. They don't know what they're missing.

Having been a meat-eater for 16 years, then a vegetarian for about 18 months, and then a vegan for about 17 years and counting, I am well aware of what I am 'allegedly' missing. Yeah, sure kidney and liver tasted kind of interesting, but there are more important things in life.

Having been a meat-eater for 16 years, then a vegetarian for about 18 months, and then a vegan for about 17 years and counting, I am well aware of what I am 'allegedly' missing. Yeah, sure kidney and liver tasted kind of interesting, but there are more important things in life.
Why did you become a vegan? I could never do it. Milk's too good.

What I am saying is that all the "vegetarians" better not use any pollution things at all. Good luck traveling long distances.
Why? Vegetarianism is simply a diet that doesn't involve meat. No more and no less.

Not all vegetarians use the same justifications.

I'm well aware of how the meat I eat is killed. Chickens are decapitated, resulting in instant death.
Everyone knows that chickens don't die instantly. As I say it's not killing I am against, it's suffering. In the case of chickens that's force feeding and battery farming.

Cows have their throats slit with a knife as sharp as possible, in order to minimize pain.
Skinned alive too. Skinning the cow alive minimises possible bacterial infection.


Pigs are vicious bastards that eat people and deserve whatever they get.
Proof?

Personally, I feel empathy for non-meat eaters. They don't know what they're missing.
I liked the taste of some meats back in the day, but I've never missed meat at all. I feel sympathy for the many who over-consume meat who don't know how great vegetables can be.

Bah. I hate both sides of the debate on this one. If you're a vegitarian and you aren't a bitch about it, going around and protesting and prothletizing on it (or joining shit-headed groups like PETA and the ALF), I have no more problem with you than I do with passive meat-eaters.

If you're an evangelizing arse,who spend their life being obnoxious about your vegitarianism (or, alternatively, if you do the same with meat), I have no use for you, and I'm of the opinion that eating three animals for everyone one you don't eat is fine, since it spites you (not sure how one does the reverse for obnoxious anti-vegitarians).

I'm of the opinion that we should lock all of the obnoxious food-vangelists up in a room with one another and let them kill eachother off. What people eat is their own business, and not any interest group who wants everyone to eat what they do.

What people eat is their own business

Even if it's humans, imprisoned in small stalls in a factory farm, incapable of moving, and then murdered, packaged, and sent to grocery stores nationwide?

Even if it's humans, imprisoned in small stalls in a factory farm, incapable of moving, and then murdered, packaged, and sent to grocery stores nationwide?

Well it isn't, so I'm not concerned.

Don't pull the moral vegitarianism BS on me either, Soheran, I'm not doing the same to you. You have every right to not eat meat, without being harrassed, so return the favor.

Well it isn't, so I'm not concerned.

Don't pull the moral vegitarianism BS on me either, Soheran, I'm not doing the same to you. You have every right to not eat meat, without being harrassed, so return the favor.

You don't get it, do you?

If the animal rights activists are right and animals are morally equivalent to humans, incessant harassment is the least that should be done against the meat industry.

Hell, even if animals aren't morally equivalent to humans, and merely have some moral worth, incessant harassment is perfectly justified against people who are complicit in a massive industry of abuse, imprisonment, and slaughter.

If you wish to argue against the moralistic vegetarians, argue against those notions - don't pretend that you don't understand why they see what you eat as their business.

You don't get it, do you?

If the animal rights activists are right and animals are morally equivalent to humans, incessant harassment is the least that should be done against the meat industry.

Hell, even if animals aren't morally equivalent to humans, and merely have some moral worth, incessant harassment is perfectly justified against people who are complicit in a massive industry of abuse, imprisonment, and slaughter.

If you wish to argue against the moralistic vegetarians, argue against those notions - don't pretend that you don't understand why they see what you eat as their business.

They have no more proof than meat eaters do, so they have no more right to incessantly harrass than do meat eaters.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck about the "moral" argument. It strikes me as being a self important, self serving debate that has less than no utility.

Animals aren't humans, and the reasons that we don't kill people out of hand (IE, sentience) don't apply to them. Certain monkeys, dolphins, and the sort do deserve more protection, but they are rare. Cows, Chickens, and Pigs aren't sentient and aren't worth losing sleep over.

It's a matter of PERSONAL CHOICE. Now I know that for far lefties, that sort of thing is difficult (rather have the government tell everyone what to own, how to look, and what to eat), but we have no evidence showing that animals have the same moral rights as humans and we should let people make their own choices.

I'd also like to point out that "incessant harrassment" is never justified in politics, and that it indicates a childish incapability to engage in a rational, and well reasoned debate.

They have no more proof than meat eaters do, so they have no more right to incessantly harrass than do meat eaters.

Ethics is not a matter of empirical "proof."

Frankly, I don't give a fuck about the "moral" argument. It strikes me as being a self important, self serving debate that has less than no utility.

Do you have the same perspective on the moral argument against genocide?

Animals aren't humans, and the reasons that we don't kill people out of hand (IE, sentience) don't apply to them.

sen‧tient
–adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

Do you mean to imply that animals do not sense things? (Where did humans get it, then?)

Cows, Chickens, and Pigs aren't sentient

Why do you think so? It seems fairly obvious to me that they are; perhaps not quite as a human is, but definitely capable of feeling and responding to pain.

They are not rational - but then, what is the moral relevance of that trait, really?

It's a matter of PERSONAL CHOICE.

Only if you presuppose your view of their rights.

Now I know that for far lefties, that sort of thing is difficult (rather have the government tell everyone what to own, how to look, and what to eat),

Both straw man and ad hominem in one part of one sentence. Impressive. But also indicative of a desire to dodge the point, rather than to seriously engage one's opponent, as an intellectually honest person would.

but we have no evidence showing that animals have the same moral rights as humans

Ethics is not a matter of empirical evidence.

You could claim that the ethical arguments are equally good, but to me it seems that the natural result of such a tie would be to err on the side of safety and avoid even potential mass murder.

I'd also like to point out that "incessant harrassment" is never justified in politics, and that it indicates a childish incapability to engage in a rational, and well reasoned debate.

What would you prefer as a tactic?

Ethics is not a matter of empirical "proof."

:rolleyes: Rationalists... There's no reasoning with them...



Do you have the same perspective on the moral argument against genocide?

I meant on this issue, not on all issue.

Do you mean to imply that animals do not sense things? (Where did humans get it, then?)

Merely a knowledge and understanding of self. We get it because we evolved certain skills (primarily having to do with intelligence and socialization) that were specialized to our niche, and given enough leisure time, we were able to build upon them.

Why do you think so? It seems fairly obvious to me that they are; perhaps not quite as a human is, but definitely capable of feeling and responding to pain.

They are not rational - but then, what is the moral relevance of that trait, really?

They are not self concious as we are. They do not understand their pain, nor does it stay with them in the same way as ours does. The evil is not in pain, but in knowledge of pain.

Both straw man and ad hominem in one part of one sentence. Impressive. But also indicative of a desire to dodge the point, rather than to seriously engage one's opponent, as an intellectually honest person would.

Rather an exclamation of long-suffering frustration with the blindness of the far left when it comes to tolerance, whilst they trumpet it from the rooftops. It is not merely enough to pay lip service to it.

Ethics is not a matter of empirical evidence.

Build all your arguments without empirical evidence and get back to me. I'll just let you know that it doesn't matter because nothing is real.

You could claim that the ethical arguments are equally good, but to me it seems that the natural result of such a tie would be to err on the side of safety and avoid even potential mass murder.

Apply that same arguement to abortion and get back to me.

What would you prefer as a tactic?

Calm, rational self-representation and a use of the political process to attain your goals? Patience and civility? I know those concepts are difficult, but the other option is an anarchic state in which the strongest revolutionary wins.

:rolleyes: Rationalists... There's no reasoning with them...

Okay, go ahead - empirically prove a moral proposition to me.

I meant on this issue, not on all issue.

Clearly. The point is that the double standard indicates hypocritical close-mindedness.

Merely a knowledge and understanding of self. We get it because we evolved certain skills (primarily having to do with intelligence and socialization) that were specialized to our niche, and given enough leisure time, we were able to build upon them.

"Knowledge and understanding of self" seems quite meaningless to me. What are you getting at?

A non-human animal has knowledge of its existence, and not even human animals truly understand it.

They are not self concious as we are. They do not understand their pain,

Do we?

nor does it stay with them in the same way as ours does.

When I accidentally touch a pot full of boiling water, I feel pain, but it doesn't stay long.

Does that mean that the pain, when extended over a long period of time, is not morally relevant?

The evil is not in pain, but in knowledge of pain.

A distinction in words, not in meaning. To feel pain is to know pain.

Rather an exclamation of long-suffering frustration with the blindness of the far left when it comes to tolerance, whilst they trumpet it from the rooftops. It is not merely enough to pay lip service to it.

Tolerance of minority sexualities, immigrants, etc. - good, because making distinctions in treatment between them and others is morally arbitrary and thus illegitimate.

Tolerance of racists, exploiters, and murderers - bad, because their actions harm others.

I don't know why I have to explain this to you; it seems quite obvious to me.

Apply that same arguement to abortion and get back to me.

Only the ethical arguments against abortion tend to be fairly poor. Not at all like the arguments for animal rights.

Calm, rational self-representation and a use of the political process to attain your goals? Patience and civility?

The "political process" doesn't seem to be going anywhere in this respect.

Maybe herbivores simply haven't evolved the tools to eat animals?

Actually, they evolved an evolutionary "niche", so to speak, and found success in a different area than other animals whom ate meat.

I'd expand, but as I'm drunk, I can't see the screen to well, nor can I correlate a complete, and textual, thought.

To Rum, Vodka, and Beer, in reverse order!

Okay, go ahead - empirically prove a moral proposition to me.

Go ahead. Proove anything at all without use of empirical fact.

Clearly. The point is that the double standard indicates hypocritical close-mindedness.

Or merely that genocide and meat eating are seperate things.

"Knowledge and understanding of self" seems quite meaningless to me. What are you getting at?

Life itself is completely valueless. That's a given. There is no value to life whatsoever. Whatever value it has, we attach from our own reasoning. Essentially, the concept that a life is meaningful is the product of knowledge and understanding of the unique nature of the status of life and an understanding that it will not always be. That horror, angst, if you will, and fear of the void is what makes taking a human life cruel. It is not in the actual taking of the life, insomuch as it is in the price we take in reason, and capacity to do good, and in the horror we isnpire in ourselves.

A non-human animal has knowledge of its existence, and not even human animals truly understand it.

I challenge both assertions. It took nearly 50,000 years for humans to come to the conclusion that they did, in fact, exist (and some, to this day, argue that they do not). Animals subsist on the lower philosophical plain, below even Descarte's acknowledgement that "I think, therefore I am," because they do not think so strongly or so specifically. Those are human skills that are part of our evolutionary adaptation of excess brain power.

When I accidentally touch a pot full of boiling water, I feel pain, but it doesn't stay long.

Does that mean that the pain, when extended over a long period of time, is not morally relevant?

Exactly. Pain itself is value negative. It is in harming a sentient being, and mangling the complex psyche that evil occurs.

Tolerance of minority sexualities, immigrants, etc. - good, because making distinctions in treatment between them and others is morally arbitrary and thus illegitimate.

Tolerance of racists, exploiters, and murderers - bad, because their actions harm others.

And what of tolerance of other opinions? You seem to have an absolutist mindset in which you are always right. That is the trait of a child.

I don't know why I have to explain this to you; it seems quite obvious to me.

You just know it dont you. :rolleyes:

Absolutism and rationalism are for children. Subjectivism and Emprical reason are for adults.

Only the ethical arguments against abortion tend to be fairly poor. Not at all like the arguments for animal rights.

In your judgement. They both seem equally silly to me.



The "political process" doesn't seem to be going anywhere in this respect.

Patience is a virture. Patience and dedication are what make the political world go around. Things don't change overnight, and it is to our credit that they do not.

Cooked meat is 100% dead, but my salad is still mostly living cells (up to the putrification rate of plant cells). And eating something while it's still alive is WAAAAY cooler that eating something not alive. :D

And don't flame me, I'm only kidding.

I hadn't planned on getting in on this portion of the debate as I tend to be a "live and let live" vegetarian. It's a good thing too as my boyfriend raises cattle. *lol* However, I do want to comment on this little "gem."

...They do not understand their pain, nor does it stay with them in the same way as ours does. The evil is not in pain, but in knowledge of pain.

Have you ever encounterd a dog, cat, or other animal who has been abused? They are just as traumatized as a child who has been abused. Same behaviours, same reactions to strangers. They clearly understand what pain is, and it clearly has stayed with them through their lives. As much as you might like to believe it, animals aren't robots. While they can't do math or think abstractly, they do feel pain, they do have emotions, they do remember.

I hadn't planned on getting in on this portion of the debate as I tend to be a "live and let live" vegetarian. It's a good thing too as my boyfriend raises cattle. *lol* However, I do want to comment on this little "gem."

To be blunt, I didn't want to get in this debate either. My hand was forced. If you read my fist post it's clear that I would rather live and let live than make a fuss of it.

Have you ever encounterd a dog, cat, or other animal who has been abused? They are just as traumatized as a child who has been abused. Same behaviours, same reactions to strangers. They clearly understand what pain is, and it clearly has stayed with them through their lives. As much as you might like to believe it, animals aren't robots. While they can't do math or think abstractly, they do feel pain, they do have emotions, they do remember.


Sure, they have instincts, and the ability to learn, but neither of those indicates either a true knowledge of self or an understanding of what pain means.

Sure, they have instincts, and the ability to learn, but neither of those indicates either a true knowledge of self or an understanding of what pain means.

But if "a true knowledge of self or an understanding of what pain means" is the benchmark of who/what has rights to life, then it must be ok to slaughter mentally incapictated people (either through birth or accident) for food or for spare parts, yes?

it takes 26 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef. From an economical stand point, that is extremely inefficient. Sad part is, US stock piles millions of pounds of grain a year that goes to waste when there are millions who could use it. (Not just in other countries I'm talking about the US itself).

As for me, the only 'meat' I eat is fish and thats because I feel it is the healthiest diet for myself. And no, I am not worried about mercury poisoning.

Go ahead. Proove anything at all without use of empirical fact.

Mathematics is full of examples.

Epistemology aside, ethics are not really matters for "proof" at all.

Or merely that genocide and meat eating are seperate things.

Yes, but why are the differences relevant?

Life itself is completely valueless. That's a given. There is no value to life whatsoever. Whatever value it has, we attach from our own reasoning. Essentially, the concept that a life is meaningful is the product of knowledge and understanding of the unique nature of the status of life and an understanding that it will not always be. That horror, angst, if you will, and fear of the void is what makes taking a human life cruel. It is not in the actual taking of the life, insomuch as it is in the price we take in reason, and capacity to do good, and in the horror we isnpire in ourselves.

No, it is in the harm done to our fellow; the theft of her freedom and happiness.

If you wish to argue that the preference to live of a non-human animal is not the same as that of a human, I'd agree (and so would Peter Singer, incidentally.) This does mean valuing a non-human animal's life less than that of a human, but it does not mean depriving it of value altogether (like, say, tolerating its mass destruction in factory farms.)

I challenge both assertions. It took nearly 50,000 years for humans to come to the conclusion that they did, in fact, exist

What are you talking about? Human beings pretty much always assume that they exist; it is only the philosophers who question.

(and some, to this day, argue that they do not).

A capacity pretty much exclusive to humans.

Animals subsist on the lower philosophical plain, below even Descarte's acknowledgement that "I think, therefore I am," because they do not think so strongly or so specifically.

The questions Descartes asks would not even occur to a non-human animal. Not because they do not know their own existence, but because their intellect is not alienated from it to the point that they can question it.

Exactly. Pain itself is value negative. It is in harming a sentient being, and mangling the complex psyche that evil occurs.

Animals are sentient, and I'm not sure what the moral relevance of a "complex psyche" is.

And what of tolerance of other opinions?

A good thing, but like many good things, harmful when used to excess.

You seem to have an absolutist mindset in which you are always right. That is the trait of a child.

You appear, unsurprisingly, to be clueless of my opinions and their sources. Though you do seem quite fond of ad hominem.

You just know it dont you. :rolleyes:

The moral distinction between, say, being gay and murdering someone?

I don't "just know it," I derive it from a moral perspective based on valuing the dignity and autonomy of others.

Though I did not so much mean that said "moral distinction" was obviously the right distinction, merely that it is quite obvious how most far leftists make decisions concerning tolerance. Indeed, most liberals do it in pretty much the same way.

Absolutism and rationalism are for children.

"Children" like Immanuel Kant (absolutist) and Rene Descartes (rationalist)?

Subjectivism and Emprical reason are for adults.

I happen to be a subjectivist meta-ethically, though not exactly an empiricist; in order to truly know things, we must possess a priori concepts of the understanding to group and make sense of the phenomena we perceive.

None of this, however, is relevant. (Not to mention the fact that, for someone who attacks me for being intolerant of other people's opinions, you seem quite fond of denigrating positions held by plenty of intelligent people throughout history.)

In your judgement. They both seem equally silly to me.

The notion that we should not make arbitrary distinctions based on species seems perfectly reasonable to me, and most arguments against granting animals any significant kind of moral worth are either blatantly arbitrary or amount to contrived, after-the-fact justifications that are essentially arbitrary.

Patience is a virture. Patience and dedication are what make the political world go around. Things don't change overnight, and it is to our credit that they do not.

It seems to me that if the animal rights position is correct, then pretty much any effective means short of mass murder of humans would be justified to accomplish the objective as swiftly as possible.

Mathematics is full of examples.

Epistemology aside, ethics are not really matters for "proof" at all.

They are meaningless without proof.

No, it is in the harm done to our fellow; the theft of her freedom and happiness.

If you wish to argue that the preference to live of a non-human animal is not the same as that of a human, I'd agree (and so would Peter Singer, incidentally.) This does mean valuing a non-human animal's life less than that of a human, but it does not mean depriving it of value altogether (like, say, tolerating its mass destruction in factory farms.)

No, I wish to argue that life itself has no value at all, and that it only our attachment of a value to it that gives it value. I then argue that we must step back and judge by utility what value a life has. Cows have little utility, ourtside of food production, and therefore, their lives have less value than that of a human, who is capable of doing great things.

What are you talking about? Human beings pretty much always assume that they exist; it is only the philosophers who question.

Indeed, but our ability to ask is part of what makes us different from animals. We are able to ask those difficult descisions. Part of our value is our ability to make moral descisions and philosophical descisions. Without such free will, doing good would be impossible.

Animals are sentient, and I'm not sure what the moral relevance of a "complex psyche" is.

The ability to do good is the great seperation. The ability to create is the other. That, which gives us greater ability to do good is what lends credence to our seperation from animals.



A good thing, but like many good things, harmful when used to excess.

Never. Tolerance of other opinions is of paramount importance. If we do not have it, we cannot justify opinions of our own.

You appear, unsurprisingly, to be clueless of my opinions and their sources. Though you do seem quite fond of ad hominem.

Your language betrays you. You make blanket statements and generalizations that indicate that you beleive yourself infalible.


The moral distinction between, say, being gay and murdering someone?

I don't "just know it," I derive it from a moral perspective based on valuing the dignity and autonomy of others.

Though I did not so much mean that said "moral distinction" was obviously the right distinction, merely that it is quite obvious how most far leftists make decisions concerning tolerance. Indeed, most liberals do it in pretty much the same way.

What of the autonomy to hold your own opinion? Should we invalidate that in our quest for autonomy?



"Children" like Immanuel Kant (absolutist) and Rene Descartes (rationalist)?

Indeed. Children. Those who beleive that there is an absolute truth, and that the world may be painted in black and white. Fools, if you prefer.

I happen to be a subjectivist, though not exactly an empiricist; in order to truly know things, we must possess a priori concepts of the understanding to group and make sense of the phenomena we perceive.

I, however, am a subjectivist who beleives that while we take much on faith, we should take on faith only that which we absolutely need to take on faith for our thoughts to be relevant.

The notion that we should not make arbitrary distinctions based on species seems perfectly reasonable to me, and most arguments against granting animals any significant kind of moral worth are either blatantly arbitrary or amount to contrived, after-the-fact justifications that are essentially arbitrary.

I should say the same of moral vegitarianism. It is, essentially, unthinking feeling.

It seems to me that if the animal rights position is correct, then pretty much any effective means short of mass murder of humans would be justified to accomplish the objective as swiftly as possible.

And your true colors show. You would kill men to save animals. Animals are not people too, and to suggest that they are is comedic.

However, your dogma is unlikely to falter, and so I will extract myself to go sleep, and let the conversation die. I should much rather live and let live, than waste my time bickering. You may refuse to eat animals, if you will allow me to. If you will not, then I will prevent your vegitarianism from having meaning, by consuming extra meat. I resent all who would force their morals off on to other people.

They are meaningless without proof.

They cannot be proven - as any genuine subjectivist would acknowledge.

No, I wish to argue that life itself has no value at all, and that it only our attachment of a value to it that gives it value. I then argue that we must step back and judge by utility what value a life has. Cows have little utility, ourtside of food production, and therefore, their lives have less value than that of a human, who is capable of doing great things.

It seems to me that a cow might disagree with your assessment of its utility.

You cannot define value purely in utility, because in order to find value in utility, you must already value that which whatever you find useful is useful for. There is no Utilitarianism without the Principle of Utility.

Indeed, but our ability to ask is part of what makes us different from animals. We are able to ask those difficult descisions. Part of our value is our ability to make moral descisions and philosophical descisions. Without such free will, doing good would be impossible.

Free will does not depend on philosophy; it long preceded it, and there is no reason to suspect that non-human animals don't possess it.

"Ask difficult questions" is irrelevant to moral worth; do you really want to say that someone who can, for instance, read Kant or Hegel and understand them perfectly has more moral worth than one who cannot?

The ability to do good is the great seperation.

What's its moral relevance?

People often assume that the set of moral agents must be identical to the set of beings worthy of moral consideration, but I don't see why that should be the case.

The ability to create is the other. That, which gives us greater ability [i]to do good is what lends credence to our seperation from animals.

So we're capable of moral virtue. Great. Why does it matter? Does it mean that our suffering should be considered more than the suffering of others?

Never. Tolerance of other opinions is of paramount importance. If we do not have it, we cannot justify opinions of our own.

Unless those "opinions" are rationalist or absolutist, apparently.

Your language betrays you. You make blanket statements and generalizations that indicate that you beleive yourself infalible.

Do point them out.

What of the autonomy to hold your own opinion? Should we invalidate that in our quest for autonomy?

No. I have never advocated thought control.

Indeed. Children. Those who beleive that there is an absolute truth, and that the world may be painted in black and white. Fools, if you prefer.

Hah, and you accuse me of close-mindedness.

I, however, am a subjectivist who beleives that while we take much on faith, we should take on faith only that which we absolutely need to take on faith for our thoughts to be relevant.

Taking on faith and accepting as a priori knowledge are two different things.

Indeed, all of empiricism is based on a priori premises; you can hardly find relief there.

And your true colors show. You would kill men to save animals.

There was a crucial "if" in there, you will note.

Animals are not people too, and to suggest that they are is comedic.

No one suggests that non-human animals are people. The question is one of moral consideration.

However, your dogma is unlikely to falter,

Not when awful arguments are presented against it, no.

and so I will extract myself to go sleep, and let the conversation die.

Go ahead.

I should much rather live and let live, than waste my time bickering.

You would not be "bickering" so much if you abstained from attacking your opponent.

You may refuse to eat animals, if you will allow me to. If you will not, then I will prevent your vegitarianism from having meaning, by consuming extra meat. I resent all who would force their morals off on to other people.

I have already explained the fallacy in this position.

I'm a vegetarian primarily for political reasons; I'm sure that someone, by this point, will have pointed out that if we were vegetarian we could definietely feed the 3rd world; 80% of the grain grow every year in the US goes straight to livestock, for example. The Brazilian rainforest is cut down to provide room for vast cattle-grazing enclosures, and so on.

The Brazilian rainforest is cut down to provide room for vast cattle-grazing enclosures, and so on.
It's also cut down to provide massive fields in which to grow soya beans - which vegetarians consume in huge amounts in the form of tofu.

It's also cut down to provide massive fields in which to grow soya beans - which vegetarians consume in huge amounts in the form of tofu.

What a stupid thing to say. It completely overlooks all the facts - such as it takes 5 times as much land to feed a cow than to produce the same amount of protein from cereals, with the commensurate 5 times the fertiliser, water (in fact more as the meat slaughtering and production process use huge amounts), pesticides and transport costs.

Planting Legumes instead of cereals gives you 10 times the protein, and soya 30 times the protein. In the US 157 million tons of cereals, legumes and other vegetable proteins, all suitable for human consumption, is fed to animals to produce only 28 million tons of meat.

What a stupid thing to say. It completely overlooks all the facts - such as it takes 5 times as much land to feed a cow than to produce the same amount of protein from cereals, with the commensurate 5 times the fertiliser, water (in fact more as the meat slaughtering and production process use huge amounts), pesticides and transport costs.

Planting Legumes instead of cereals gives you 10 times the protein, and soya 30 times the protein. In the US 157 million tons of cereals, legumes and other vegetable proteins, all suitable for human consumption, is fed to animals to produce only 28 million tons of meat.
So in effect you're advocating the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, simply because it's more efficient to grow soya on the resulting open land than to use it to pasture animals? And you tell me that what I said was stupid?

the bhagavad gita:

"The Yogi who is established in his Self and who is even minded all the time and at all the places develops the equal vision where by he sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self. He who sees Me everywhere and all Me, I am not lost to him, nor he is lost to Me. Whoever worships Me thus as the Being abiding in all, established in the vision of Oneness, live in Me all the time irrespective of how he behaves and conducts himself. He who in comparison to himself sees all as equal, whether in happiness or in sorrow, that yogi, O Arjuna, should be regarded as supremely perfect in My opinion."

I see distinguishing myself from others as pointless. without spirituality in the question at all, what's the basis for saying humanity is any better than dust mites? sure we can speak - prarie dogs have vocal language with grammar and tense as well, as do dozens of other species - but when did you last year someone say anything important? there isnt' a human emotion any more powerful than a chemical in the brain. we are animated dust, that's all.

that said, the only object of significance in the world *is* the world. if you are an atheist, the world is your Self. if you are a theist, the world is God. either way, to consciously harm another is to harm either yourself or God. if you don't view eating meat as harming another, then it's not wrong for you. I, however, on the basis explained above, do not see any valid basis for distinguishing my self-worth as being seperate, let alone higher, from that of anything else. that said, I would not kill another being to preserve my own life.

as one will point out, plants are living beings, harvesting with machines harms animals, etc. generally I think these are just pathetic cop-out arguments because people don't appriciate the implicit criticism of their own lifestyles that vegetarianism represents. that's the only reason they're ever brought up, not out of actual concern for plants or the animals harmed during the harvesting process - but they are somewhat valid points. that said, I acknowledge that I am a hypocrit for eating plants that die during the harvesting process, and for all the others harmed by how I get my food - be it from pollution from transportation, waste products from packaging, all the socio-political implications of oil used in plastics and gasoline, and so on. the only people I recognize as being non-hypocrits in this respect are the ignorant (be they vegetarians who simply haven't thought about it, or omnivores who aren't aware they're causing suffering or are under the delusion they are individually more significant than an insect, whatever), and two very small groups within society.

these groups of unimpeachable morality are the Jains, who eat nothing that kills even a plant (they survive on fruit alone), and the Freegans, who survive exclusively on the waste products of others, rather than contributing to the crual/apathetic system that feeds most of us. I am neither, and so you are correct. I am a hypocrit, and I do not act in accordance with the dictates of my ethical system. to be perfectly frank, the fact that others fail to live up to ethical perfection does not excuse apathy, cruelty, and selfishness on the part of others. since you likely started this post entirely to vindicate yourself, grow up.

I might also mention trophic inefficiency. the poor don't eat very well, as the rich are too busy turning the majority of food into cow, pig, and chicken shit, which they then thoughtfully leave for the poor. it's a biological fact that an ecosystem can support far more herbavores than carnivores - the higher up on the food chain one goes the smaller a niche you have. as our world population explodes, it's obvious we will eventually be forced to eliminate any unncessary links in the food chain. human selfishness and apathy has far more to do with poverty and hunger, though. I'd imagine we could feed the world on sirloin steak if we had to, but we'd rather play internet games - so this defense somewhat misses the point.

also, human beings were vegan for the majority of their existance. only very, very recently in our evolutionary history have we become scavengers. it was likely the consumption of carrion that allowed humanity to evolve such large brains. our digestive systems have not evolved accordingly, though - they're still largely geared towards the consumption of plant matter, so it really is healthier to stick to this. I acknowledge, however, that some human beings are still in the process of evolving brains, and as such will continue to eat meat in hope of completing the process.:upyours:

as a disclaimer, I admit I am a hypocrit. If I were serious about compassion and making the world a better place, the last place I would be is on an internet message board. internet debate is masturbation for people whose self image is more caught up in their brain than their genitals.

"why are you vegetarian?"
"because I'm compassionate, you twat!"

So in effect you're advocating the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest, simply because it's more efficient to grow soya on the resulting open land than to use it to pasture animals? And you tell me that what I said was stupid?

Looks like you trumped your previous post.

How about thinking about what I posted before typing? If we weren't feeding 158 million tons to animals to produce 28 million tons of meat, we wouldn't have to cut down the rainforest at all.

Dogs also eat people, given the chance. Would you eat dog?

Well, no one sells it here...

my point would be, what makes animals higher than plants? they both are living. i say eat anything alive. i'd eat veggies if it wasnt illegal, you know to stay on top of the food chain.

I'm a vegetarian primarily for political reasons; I'm sure that someone, by this point, will have pointed out that if we were vegetarian we could definietely feed the 3rd world; 80% of the grain grow every year in the US goes straight to livestock, for example. The Brazilian rainforest is cut down to provide room for vast cattle-grazing enclosures, and so on.

As it stands, we could definitely feed the developing world. It's just that the logistical support required to get bags of grain to every corner of the world would be phenomenonally expensive, and quite often extremely dangerous.

As it stands, we could definitely feed the developing world. It's just that the logistical support required to get bags of grain to every corner of the world would be phenomenonally expensive, and quite often extremely dangerous.

Errr no. Considering the amount of grain and meat we import from countries like Ethiopia (even during the "liveAid" famine), India (where thousands are starving) and other 3rd world countries, and the amount of grain produced in those 3rd world countries just to inefficiently feed their own livestock and livestock for export (like say, Bangladesh), the reality is that we already take the food from the mouths of the hungry at phenomenal expense to feed the overweight West.

I see distinguishing myself from others as pointless. without spirituality in the question at all, what's the basis for saying humanity is any better than dust mites? sure we can speak - prarie dogs have vocal language with grammar and tense as well, as do dozens of other species - but when did you last year someone say anything important? there isnt' a human emotion any more powerful than a chemical in the brain. we are animated dust, that's all.


Yeah, but what we've got the other animals don't is the .44 Magnum revolver.

My argument is that evolution and evolution alone gives us the right to do what we want, and that there is no intrinsic normative system out there, save for the social contract we make with other members of our own society.

Errr no. Considering the amount of grain and meat we import from countries like Ethiopia (even during the "liveAid" famine), India (where thousands are starving) and other 3rd world countries, and the amount of grain produced in those 3rd world countries just to inefficiently feed their own livestock and livestock for export (like say, Bangladesh), the reality is that we already take the food from the mouths of the hungry at phenomenal expense to feed the overweight West.

India, for example, is no small country, It accounts for 1/6 of the world's population, and parts of it are economically booming, while other parts are in the deepest depths of poverty.

India, for example, is no small country, It accounts for 1/6 of the world's population, and parts of it are economically booming, while other parts are in the deepest depths of poverty.

And your point is?

I'm a vegetarian primarily for political reasons; I'm sure that someone, by this point, will have pointed out that if we were vegetarian we could definietely feed the 3rd world; 80% of the grain grow every year in the US goes straight to livestock, for example. The Brazilian rainforest is cut down to provide room for vast cattle-grazing enclosures, and so on.Same here. I went vegan for part practical & part political reasons. These days though, I've been vegan for so long the thought of consuming animals revolts me. I don't know why that is, and I was surprised when I realised. None the less, I think it's disgusting as hell.

I don't bug people about that or their diets, nor do I propagandize or anything else of the sort, and I expect no different from others. And if you feel like bugging me about my irrational disgust of eating carrion, then I'd like to point out most people feel the same way about eating dead humans.

I think it is quite obvious that many plants do not intend themselves to be eaten - they cover themselves with spikes and hard bark. They contain toxins and protect their seeds with rock hard shells.

Arguing it is ok to eat a coconut once it has fallen on the ground is nonsensical as that is a core part of the plants lifecycle, and the nut is quite clearly encased in a rock hard shell to protect it while on the gorund. In no stage of the coconuts lifecycle does it intend to be eaten, and eating the seed only harms the coconut in that it expends energy that is then wasted dispite it's best efforts to prevent the seed being harmed.

Potatos? Does eating a potato help or harm the plant? It obviously harms a living thing.

Lentals - same as eating a chickens eggs af far as the plant is concerned.

Apples? Tomatos? Oranges? Strawberries? Rasberries? - These plants rely on animals eating them as part of their repoductive process - so they are ok to eat - as long as you make sure to shit on soil and not flush the seeds into a sewagw waste plant where they will certinally die.

So, ignoring the fact thousands of animals die due to harvesting processes for vegetarian food, eating plants is still morally a bit iffey unless you stick to certain types of fruit, and make an effort not to abort the seeds contained within.

Do I care? No.
Do I care if animals also do not intend to be eaten? No.
Do I think that as omnivores we should not eat meat? No.
I eat meat. I eat plants. I don't feel guilty about either.
I think it is odd that vegetarians find their version more moral somehow - they still kill living things.


btw - probably been asked - but where do vegans get B12 from?

Vegetarianism doesn't bother me. I really don't give a rat's ass what you eat. Just don't tell me what to eat either.

I do have a question, though:

What is up with vegetarian pseudomeat products?

veggie burgers? No. I'm talking about vegetarian 'cheese'. Vegetarian 'chicken'. Vegetarian pepperoni. Vegetarian sausage. Vegetarian hotdogs. Vegetarian fish sticks.

Then I saw Vegetarian meatballs. Vegetarian. Meat. Balls. I stood looking at them and felt several million of my braincells move on to a better place. Vegetarian meat balls. There's no such thing as vegetarian meat. It was a package of... balls. Mmm... balls. :p

I've found that most of the vegetarian's I've ever known were terrible hypocrites.
What is your arguent for or against vegetarianism?
No flames please, but if it's necessary, go right on ahead.:(

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead. Is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can cry out in pain?

Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.

I'm not a vegetarian myself, but my housemate is. Her reason is simply that it's healthier to avoid meat in your diet.
My boyfriend is vegetarian because he doesn't want to support the way most animals are kept and treated before they are finally killed.
A former housemate of mine was vegetarian, too, but she had moral reasons for it. Her argument was that you shouldn't eat anything you weren't prepared to kill yourself.

Looks like you trumped your previous post.

How about thinking about what I posted before typing? If we weren't feeding 158 million tons to animals to produce 28 million tons of meat, we wouldn't have to cut down the rainforest at all.
How about you read what I posted before typing? I stated a proven fact - that large swathes of rainforest are cut down to provide land on which to grow soya beans - and you tell me that it was a stupid thing to say. I'm not trying to deny (and I never did) that it's more efficient to produce grains etc. than meat - if you find other threads about vegetarianism in this forum you'll see that I've made exactly the same point. You assumed I was saying we should cut down rainforests to grow soya, when if you'd used just a modicum of sense you'd have realised that I wasn't doing anything of the sort.

Vegetarianism doesn't bother me. I really don't give a rat's ass what you eat. Just don't tell me what to eat either.

I do have a question, though:

What is up with vegetarian pseudomeat products?

veggie burgers? No. I'm talking about vegetarian 'cheese'. Vegetarian 'chicken'. Vegetarian pepperoni. Vegetarian sausage. Vegetarian hotdogs. Vegetarian fish sticks.

Then I saw Vegetarian meatballs. Vegetarian. Meat. Balls. I stood looking at them and felt several million of my braincells move on to a better place. Vegetarian meat balls. There's no such thing as vegetaian meat. It was a package of... balls. Mmm... balls. :p
I agree. Pseudomeat products are mostly aimed at people who have just become vegetarian and might be having a hard time actually staying off the meat. Most are foul, but there are some really really good ones.

Vegetarianism doesn't bother me. I really don't give a rat's ass what you eat. Just don't tell me what to eat either.

I do have a question, though:

What is up with vegetarian pseudomeat products?Heh, I've always wondered about that too. Some of it's rather tasty though.

I'm not vegetarian, but I don't eat much or many meats (white meat only). I don't disagree with eating meat, I believe in a natural order and think it's perfectly acceptable for humans to eat animals. What I have a problem with is things like this:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=pilgrims_web&Player=wm&speed=_med

The way we treat animals is despicable and I have made the choice to protest against it and attempt to enact change not by becoming vegetarian but by supporting ethical producers. My husband and I buy locally sourced, free range, organic meat (and eggs).

To me this is a more productive protest as it makes the distinction between those who choose not to eat meat for other reasons from those who simply disagree with the practices of the industry.

I don't agree with telling other people what they should or shouldn't eat, but by persuading others to support ethical meat, by giving your money to ethical producers you undermine the industry, on mass people can persuade unethical suppliers to change their ways if they want your money. By doing so those who love their meat (my hubby loves steak, nice and rare, blue!) still get what they want but it is produced in a way that those of us who do give a damn can be satisfied.

Obviously, those who are vegetarian because they believe it is downright wrong to eat animals are a different kettle of fish! They certainly have the right to not eat meat for that reason.

A message to Soheran and KSP:

Shut up. Both of you.

You're both acting like children. It's ridiculous

KSP, you think you know everything about animal intelligence. You think you know that they can't understand shit. You think they don't have any kind of personality. You think that they really don't have any kind of intelligence what-so-ever. You think they don't have emotions If you look around you, you'll see that's bullshit. They do have emotions, they do have "complex psyches", they are intelligent. Don't presume you know something about another organisms intelligence, especially if you can't understand it's language. Who knows? Maybe cows are having intelligence philosophical discussions in their "moo" talk? We don't know, as we don't understand their language.

Soheran, you need to stop having that "holier-than-thou" routine going on. It completely ruins your debate because, fact is, no one wants to talk to you if you keep acting like you always and completely have the moral high ground. Sure, vegetarianism is nice, but you don't have to act like eating meat is frickin' genocide. Yes, I know how many animals are killed every year to support the meat industry, and yes, I know it's sad, but you don't have to go up to every meat eater and yell at them for eating meat.

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

A dog, no.
A cat, yes. But that's simply because I've got a very close emotional connection to a good few cats.
I have no problems eating (and killing, been there, done that) rabbits, pigs, cows, deer, chicken, pidgeons, boar, ostrich, or any kind of fish (except tuna, that makes me throw up).

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

A dog, no.
A cat, yes. But that's simply because I've got a very close emotional connection to a good few cats.
I have no problems eating (and killing, been there, done that) rabbits, pigs, cows, deer, chicken, pidgeons, boar, ostrich, or any kind of fish (except tuna, that makes me throw up).

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

A dog, no.
A cat, yes. But that's simply because I've got a very close emotional connection to a good few cats.
I have no problems eating (and killing, been there, done that) rabbits, pigs, cows, deer, chicken, pidgeons, boar, ostrich, or any kind of fish (except tuna, that makes me throw up).

Soheran, you need to stop having that "holier-than-thou" routine going on.

"Holier-than-thou"?

I admitted to eating meat earlier in the thread, I'm not really sure I even accept the animal rights arguments completely myself.

What I find annoying is the failure to take the arguments and their implications seriously. If, on serious examination, they fail, that's one thing; dismissing them, as most people are prone to do, for clearly fallacious reasons is another thing entirely.

It completely ruins your debate because, fact is, no one wants to talk to you if you keep acting like you always and completely have the moral high ground.

How have I acted like I "always and completely have the moral high ground"?

I don't (obviously) and I'll admit that in a second. All I have done is point out the logical consequences of the animal rights argument, because concerns about "personal liberty" and "moralistic vegetarians" are really immaterial in that context.

Sure, vegetarianism is nice, but you don't have to act like eating meat is frickin' genocide.

If we are willing to say that an animal life is equivalent to a human life, then we must acknowledge that the meat industry (not meat eating, the meat industry) amounts, in moral terms, to exactly that.

If the cows really are having philosophical discussions in their moo-talk, then frankly it seems pretty clear to me that killing them is equivalent to killing a human, and should be abhorred equally.

Yes, I know how many animals are killed every year to support the meat industry, and yes, I know it's sad, but you don't have to go up to every meat eater and yell at them for eating meat.

No, and I don't.

If you actually read my first reply to KSP, you'll see the point I was making, and perhaps you will cease these straw men accusations.

I've found that most of the vegetarian's I've ever known were terrible hypocrites.
What is your arguent for or against vegetarianism?
No flames please, but if it's necessary, go right on ahead.:(

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead. Is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can cry out in pain?

Another point: animals eat other animals after killing them, sometimes before they die.
I don't have any "argument against vegitarianism" in general, since I don't have any problem with other people making dietary choices for themselves. I don't really care if somebody else doesn't want to eat meat.

The reasons that I, personally, choose to eat meat are several:

1) I like it. Meat is yummy, and I like to eat yummy food.
2) I accept that, as a human being, I must consume living (or recently-living) material in order to continue my own life.
3) I do not believe that plant life is inherently less valuable than animal life. Therefore, consuming plant material is no "better" than consuming animal material.

Since I have to consume SOMETHING, and since plant-somethings aren't any less valuable or deserving of life than animal-somethings, I conclude that my choice of which something to consume should not be exclusively based on whether the something was an animal or a plant.

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?
Frankly, I think I'd have a considerable amount of trouble killing a cow, a dog, a cat, or anything else more difficult than your standard river fish. Mainly because I have no experience with butchering, and I tend to get squeemish about such things.

Of course, I'm also squeemish about performing surgery on human beings. But that doesn't mean I think that open-heart surgery is morally wrong. I don't use my personal "ick" factor as a moral compass.

In terms of eating various forms of animal, I've tried dog and didn't like it much. I've never tried cat but I'd be willing to. I've eaten bunnies and thought it was disgusting, but I'm told that it was badly prepared so I'd be willing to try it again some time.

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

I don't. But I don't have to eat it. I don't eat lamb either.

I would have no problem with a restaurant that served cat. As long as they call it cat. If I look at the menu and I see, "Moo Goo Cat Pan" or "Poodles W/ Noodles", I will nod, turn the page and order Cashew Chicken. On the other hand, I have a real problem with a restaurant serving me Cashew Cat when I ordered Cashew Chicken. :p

i wouldn't have something against eating meat if the cows or whatsoever had a chance. if you would hound them like in the good old stone age it would be fair. but you just say "haha, your born to get killed and eaten" is disgustig.
(but basicly i'm a vegitarian cause i don't like the taste of meat xD )

I grew up eating meat, was vegetarian for about a year in college, and am back to eating meat again now. When I was a vegetarian, it wasn't for any moral or political reasons, it was because I hadn't eaten meat for a couple weeks (pure chance, I was craving a lot of pasta, salad and fruit at the time) and I lost my appetite for it. When I did try it after that two weeks, it actually made me nauseous, so I just stopped eating it. Plus it's not like the meat at the dining hall was gourmet quality. I started eating meat again for a purely practical reason: I was studying abroad, and my host mother routinely forgot that I don't eat meat. I got tired of reminding her all the time that I couldn't eat the things she was cooking for me, and seeing the resulting disappointed look on her face. So I started eating meat again. These days I don't eat much red meat, again for purely practical reasons. I like really good meat, and can't afford it all the time. Same with fish; I prefer really good, really fresh fish (expensive where I live), and can't afford that all the time either. I consume a fair bit of chicken (probably once a week), very little pork (once every few months), and lots of fruits and veggies.

Well, it's easy to say that it's okay to kill plants but not animals, and reason "I'd die if I didn't!" Except that someone does die. The plant.
Doesn't anyone care about plants?

I'm a meat connoisseur. I have eaten a large variety of meats from around the world, including some illegal meats (such as lion). Preventing me from doing so is simply authorisation for me to eat you. If it were legal, I'd have eaten human flesh by now, provided it was from non-sapient children.

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

Also, a question to vegetarians. Since you have no problems killing, say, a carrot to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say a human to eat it?


Point is, cows are really fucking stupid.

Also, a question to vegetarians. Since you have no problems killing, say, a carrot to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say a human to eat it?


Point is, cows are really fucking stupid.

And tasty. I had vealburgers for dinner. Mmm, you can taste the locked-up-forever-so-muscle-fibre-is-tenderness.

Also, a question to vegetarians. Since you have no problems killing, say, a carrot to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say a human to eat it?


Point is, cows are really fucking stupid.

Actually, I would kill a human and eat it, if given the chance. Problem is, it's a bit illegal.

Well, it's easy to say that it's okay to kill plants but not animals, and reason "I'd die if I didn't!" Except that someone does die. The plant.
Doesn't anyone care about plants?

Beeeeecaaaaauuuuuseeeee plants aren't sentient.

Beeeeecaaaaauuuuuseeeee plants aren't sentient.

Neither are cows.

And, on a further note, I contest that the rules of nature apply within inter-species relationships. There is no innate morality other than survival of the fittest in nature.

1. Neither do many species of animalia, such as crayfish (lobster, shrimp, crawdad). Eggs do not feel pain, milk does not hurt the animal. Some fish may not be able to feel pain. And it's not the plant's pain that matters, it is the ending of a life.



some vegitarians will eat fish. That is your opinion on what matters life/ awareness but vegitarians don't nessicarily agree with that. Also it is fairly easy to become vegitarian and be healthy and well nutritioned it is quite difficult to be a healthy, well-nutritioned fruititarian.

Neither are cows.

Actually, they are.

Dictionary.com says:

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
sen‧tience  /ˈsɛnʃəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-shuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.
Also, sen‧tien‧cy.

sen‧tient  /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-shuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
–noun
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.

Now then. The primary definition of "sentient" or "sentience" is the ability to feel and be concious of the world around you. I'm pretty sure cows feel, say, PAIN, and I'm also pretty sure cows recognize what PAIN means, and that prolonged PAIN usually means DEATH, which even in the small mind of a cow is recognizible.

Actually, they are.

Dictionary.com says:

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
sen‧tience  /ˈsɛnʃəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-shuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
sentient condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.
Also, sen‧tien‧cy.

sen‧tient  /ˈsɛnʃənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sen-shuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
–noun
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.

Now then. The primary definition of "sentient" or "sentience" is the ability to feel and be concious of the world around you. I'm pretty sure cows feel, say, PAIN, and I'm also pretty sure cows recognize what PAIN means, and that prolonged PAIN usually means DEATH, which even in the small mind of a cow is recognizible.

That's such a massive oversimplification of the concept of sentience, that it hurts. Furthermore, by that measure, plants are most definitely sentient.

Because, when faced with adapting conditions, it has been clearly shown that plants can and do adapt. When one oak is attacked by locusts, it releases tannin, and all the surrounding oaks release tannin because of chemical signals transmitted through the air.

I rarely use the forums, as you can see with my post count. But from what I know a "troll" is somebody that has a different view from the accuser.

Also, did you read further into the link? It really makes sense. You shouldn't be driving cars that pollute, wearing leather, etc. I'm sure you use a car for something. I guess that makes you a hypocrite.


Don't use a car but I do ride a bus, which still pollutes, however it is relatively easy this day in age to not eat meat but I need to get to school everyday some people don't have public transport near them and are unable to bike. They have obligations but they go out of their way to fuck up the earth less.

A troll is someone who says something not to contribute but to get people angery.

Furthermore, sentience is defined by self recognition, and not just sensory response. In a human, pain is perceived much as you see it, and prolonged pain is readily associated with death. But, with, say, cows, pain is something to be avoided for pains sake. There is no existential threat posed by pain, other than the evolutionary avoidance response of pain itself.

Furthermore, by that measure, plants are most definitely sentient.

Because, when faced with adapting conditions, it has been clearly shown that plants can and do adapt. When one oak is attacked by locusts, it releases tannin, and all the surrounding oaks release tannin because of chemical signals transmitted through the air.

That's called reflexes and instincts, not sentience.

That's called reflexes and instincts, not sentience.

Which is exactly what cows do.

You're operating under the untested, unproven assumption that cows recognize pain with death, when there is no evidence to support that claim. You're humanizing them in a way that science does not find any evidence to support.

Which is exactly what cows do.

No, cows have something called a brain. Plants don't even have nervous systems. With the brain, cows are able to think, which is the primary essence of sentience.

No, cows have something called a brain. Plants don't even have nervous systems. With the brain, cows are able to think, which is the primary essence of sentience.

Oh, and how do you know that plants don't think? They might have a different form of nervous system from Kingdom Animalia entirely.

Or perhaps, as science suggests, all brains are not created equal, a handful are capable of sentience (Genus homo, perhaps some oceanic mammals and perhaps some great apes). Only upon the absolute highest levels is thought possible, and cows are just simply not capable of thought. There is no evidence that cows are able to think, and that their brains serve the exact same instinctual purpose that a plants response systems do.

Oh, and how do you know that plants don't think? They might have a different form of nervous system from Kingdom Animalia entirely.

Or perhaps, as science suggests, all brains are not created equal, a handful are capable of sentience (Genus homo, perhaps some oceanic mammals and perhaps some great apes). Only upon the absolute highest levels is though possible, and cows are just simply not capable of thought.

So you're saying cows can't think at all?

So you're saying cows can't think at all?

Absolutely.

It's us only on the upper level of sentience. There might be basic sentience in a handful of other carnivorous/omnivorous mammals. No more than a tiny number though, no more than twenty, probably less than five.

I think humans have ego problems when it comes to talking about brains and such.

Absolutely.

So even though they have a brain, which is made for thinking, along with all sensory organs, which require thoughts to process the data collected, and will run when encountering predators or experience pain, and will reproduce, and will communicate with other cows, which most definetly requires thought, and will let out moos of joy, they do not think? And they can do all the things which require thought processes without thinking?

Not a good enough reason to justify all of that waste.
Only if you assume waste is necessarily bad.
A troll is someone who says something not to contribute but to get people angery.
Of course, the intent of the "troll" isn't knowable. I've been accused of being a troll for trying to demonstrate that the positions of others have no basis in reason.

So even though they have a brain, which is made for thinking, along with all sensory organs, which require thoughts to process the data collected, and will run when encountering predators or experience pain, and will reproduce, and will communicate with other cows, which most definetly requires thought, and will let out moos of joy, they do not think? And they can do all the things which require thought processes without thinking?

Absolutely not, none of those things require thought of any sort. There are no sentient cognitive processes involved.

Only if you assume waste is necessarily bad.

Of course, the intent of the "troll" isn't knowable. I've been accused of being a troll for trying to demonstrate that the positions of others have no basis in reason.

So why is wasting things good?

Absolutely not, none of those things require thought of any sort. There are no sentient cognitive processes involved.

So feelings and analyzing smells, sights, sounds, touch... es... and tastes doesn't require thought?

So why is wasting things good?
I didn't say it is. Waste could well be value-neutral.

But until you manage to demonstrate that waste is necessarily bad, you can't point to waste and expect me to care.

So feelings and analyzing smells, sights, sounds, touch... es... and tastes doesn't require thought?
Dealing with pain specifically, your body reacts to pain before your brain even knows it's happening.

So it can't require thought. Your brain isn't even part of the process until after the fact.

So feelings and analyzing smells, sights, sounds, touch... es... and tastes doesn't require thought?

First off, you're attributing feelings to something that conclusively does not have feelings. Furthermore, you're attributing sentience to analysis, which is also not the same thing. Computers can analyze data, but they are most certainly not sentient. My ol' laptop can run some mighty powerful statistical algorithms, and tell me things that it would take me an awful long time to know, but, the computer does not understand what those numbers are. It just runs them through the system according to known formulae.

Dealing with pain specifically, your body reacts to pain before your brain even knows it's happening.

So it can't require thought. Your brain isn't even part of the process until after the fact.

Exactly.

Well, no one sells it here...

Why not kill some yourself?

Only if you assume waste is necessarily bad.


Until proven otherwise, I do.

Pain is the way your body tells you you are doing something not good for it. All animals have to feel pain or else there would be nothing stopping animals from committing suicide, or inducing injury.

Dealing with pain specifically, your body reacts to pain before your brain even knows it's happening.

So it can't require thought. Your brain isn't even part of the process until after the fact.

But does not your brain sustain the fear of the pain? Does not your brain tell you "Pain. Danger. See what cause pain. What cause pain bad? Run."?

I dont mean to seem rude or like im butting in, but you all assume simply because plants cannot communicate that they are in pain that therefor they are not in pain. Its entirely plausible that they feel some sort of pain. If one is a vegatarian because they dont want anything to die or feel pain; then the sad truth is no matter what you do. Something will die so you can live. thats my thoughts anyhow.

A cow cannot ignore it's pain instinct, it's impossible for it to do so, unless in extreme panic. On the other hand, we humans most definitely can. Espescially when we know that no permanent harm will come of the pain. I could chug this cup of steaming hot coffe right now, and though it might hurt, I'll still remain control and keep chugging. A cow CANNOT under any circumstances, undertake such an action.

I dont mean to seem rude or like im butting in, but you all assume simply because plants cannot communicate that they are in pain that therefor they are not in pain. Its entirely plausible that they feel some sort of pain. If one is a vegatarian because they dont want anything to die then the sad truth is no matter what you do then something will die so you can live. thats my thoughts anyhow.

They. Do not. Have. Nerves.

First off, you're attributing feelings to something that conclusively does not have feelings. Furthermore, you're attributing sentience to analysis, which is also not the same thing. Computers can analyze data, but they are most certainly not sentient. My ol' laptop can run some mighty powerful statistical algorithms, and tell me things that it would take me an awful long time to know, but, the computer does not understand what those numbers are. It just runs them through the system according to known formulae.

Oh what the fuck. Now your saying animals don't have feelings? This is beginning to become bullshit...

Just because it doesnt have nervs doesnt mean they dont feel pain. They may have another way of feeling and sensing things.

But does not your brain sustain the fear of the pain? Does not your brain tell you "Pain. Danger. See what cause pain. What cause pain bad? Run."?

In situations of expected pain, a human can undergo such a cognitive process, but, say, you were to accidentally touch your hand to a hot burner on a stove. Your hand would respond before the information could be sent to your brain, processed and sent back.

A cow cannot ignore it's pain instinct, it's impossible for it to do so, unless in extreme panic. On the other hand, we humans most definitely can. Espescially when we know that no permanent harm will come of the pain. I could chug this cup of steaming hot coffe right now, and though it might hurt, I'll still remain control and keep chugging. A cow CANNOT under any circumstances, undertake such an action.

Yeah, but that's you controlling the pain producer. What if someone, say, took a brand to your ass? Would you be able to control it, especially if it came out of no where?

Oh what the fuck. Now your saying animals don't have feelings? This is beginning top become bullshit...

They don't. Feelings are cognitive functions. Animals do not experience cognitive functions.

Psychology is pretty damn certain on this issue. You're rejecting it out of hand because it does not fit with your normative beliefs, just like Bush and Iraq.

Just because it doesnt have nervs doesnt mean they dont feel pain. They may have another way of feeling and sensing things.

Scientists have researched it. Plants. Cannot. Feel. Pain. Nerves are the only way known to humans to feel pain, and brains are the only way known to humans to process pain.

I didn't say it is. Waste could well be value-neutral.

But until you manage to demonstrate that waste is necessarily bad, you can't point to waste and expect me to care.

Increases pollution-> contributes to global warming-> causes hurricanes in New Orleans. or instead of hurricanes causes west Nile carrying mosquitos to wander further north and infect people. or any other problems associated with pollution like asthma or anything you like.

Until proven otherwise, I do.
But why?

The rational default position is to have no opinion. Then, you form an opinion once presented with sufficient evidence.

As such, it's those of you who hold an opinion on the matter who carry the burden of proof. Until you demonstrate that waste is bad, I'll continue to sit here happily uncertain abut the whole thing.

But does not your brain sustain the fear of the pain? Does not your brain tell you "Pain. Danger. See what cause pain. What cause pain bad? Run."?

Yeah, Like when two kids see who can hold the lit end of a cigarette longer.

Yeah, but that's you controlling the pain producer. What if someone, say, took a brand to your ass? Would you be able to control it, especially if it came out of no where?

As I said, the pain would be a non-cognitive function, and you would respond before your brain could cognitively process said pain. Only ex post facto would you be able to cognitively process the pain.

They don't. Feelings are cognitive functions. Animals do not experience cognitive functions.

This is god damned bullshit... If that's true then how can they feel fear and run when they experience pain? If that's true then why do they scream when a rancher brands them? If that's true then why do they try to run when a rancher is trying to catch them? If that's true then why do they run when a predator is chasing them? If that's true then how are mothers attached to their young, and vica-versa? If that's true then why do they scream when a predator is near to inform other cows of the predator? Bullshit man... Bullshit.

Increases pollution-> contributes to global warming-> causes hurricanes in New Orleans. or instead of hurricanes causes west Nile carrying mosquitos to wander further north and infect people. or any other problems associated with pollution like asthma or anything you like.
Not all waste causes pollution. That alone is sufficient to break your line of reasoning.

Pollution and global warming are unrelated (GHG are not pollutants). That alone breaks you line of reasoning.

New Orleans was a really dumb place to live given the hurricane threat. Thus the threat of its destruction is not dissuasive.

West Nile is less dangerous than Influenza, and thus not dissuasive.

Care to try again?

Yeah, Like when two kids see who can hold the lit end of a cigarette longer.

As I said, that's controlling the pain, knowing that you can stop it. That's different than someone grabbing you and putting a hot brand on your ass. You know you can't stop it. You don't know how much pain will be induced. There's a difference.

This is god damned bullshit... If that's true then how can they feel fear and run when they experience pain? If that's true then why do they scream when a rancher brands them? If that's true then why do they try to run when a rancher is trying to catch them? If that's true then why do they run when a predator is chasing them? If that's true then how are mothers attached to their young, and vica-versa? If that's true then why do they scream when a predator is near to inform other cows of the predator? Bullshit man... Bullshit.

Instinct. Non-cognitive processes. Classical conditioning.

They avoid pain for pains sake, they do not experience the existential threat that you and I would experience if we were being chased by a predator.

A cow cannot ignore it's pain instinct, it's impossible for it to do so, unless in extreme panic. On the other hand, we humans most definitely can. Espescially when we know that no permanent harm will come of the pain. I could chug this cup of steaming hot coffe right now, and though it might hurt, I'll still remain control and keep chugging. A cow CANNOT under any circumstances, undertake such an action.

So a cow does process pain, just in a different way than we do. We can handle pain because we are smart enough to know that no perminent damage will be done. A cow isn't as smart and so all pain is life-death for all she knows, thus she reacts accordingly.

Not all waste causes pollution. That alone is sufficient to break your line of reasoning.

Pollution and global warming are unrelated (GHG are not pollutants). That alone breaks you line of reasoning.

New Orleans was a really dumb place to live given the hurricane threat. Thus the threat of its destruction is not dissuasive.

West Nile is less dangerous than Influenza, and thus not dissuasive.

Care to try again?

I don't need to. Animal Farming causes more pollution than vegtable farming. that is the waste we are talking about. And you didn't consider asthma. :P

Instinct. Non-cognitive processes. Classical conditioning.

They avoid pain for pains sake, they do not experience the existential threat that you and I would experience if we were being chased by a predator.

And is not instinct thought? And what about their idle communication with other cows? Surely they don't moo just for moo's sake. And what about alerting other cows when predators were near? And mother-child bonds? None of those are instincts. And why do they run when a rancher is chasing them if pain isn't immediatly upon them?

So a cow does process pain, just in a different way than we do. We can handle pain because we are smart enough to know that no perminent damage will be done. A cow isn't as smart and so all pain is life-death for all she knows, thus she reacts accordingly.

We process pain in the same way, but a cow does not experience the fear of an existential threat to it's own existence. Pain evolved because non-sentient creatures did not experience such a threat, they needed to avoid danger.

I hate to reference sci-fi, but the concept of the Gom Jabbar in Dune is closely linked with my argument.

But why?

The rational default position is to have no opinion. Then, you form an opinion once presented with sufficient evidence.

As such, it's those of you who hold an opinion on the matter who carry the burden of proof. Until you demonstrate that waste is bad, I'll continue to sit here happily uncertain abut the whole thing.

It's a presumption, not an absolute rule.

In particular, in relation to the three categories I discussed (land, energy and water) they are all limited resources. They should be used as efficiently as possible in order to produce the maximum benefit. When they are used inefficiently (as in the fattening of animals to produce food) the overall benefit is less than it could be.

And is not instinct thought? And what about their idle communication with other cows? Surely they don't moo just for moo's sake. And what about alerting other cows when predators were near? And mother-child bonds? None of those are instincts. And why do they run when a rancher is chasing them if pain isn't immediatly upon them?

Classical (Pavlovian) conditioning.

Instinct.

Have you ever worked with cows? I have, and I've never had cows run from me. Sometimes I have had to physically attempt to shove them to get out of my way.

We process pain in the same way, but a cow does not experience the fear of an existential threat to it's own existence. Pain evolved because non-sentient creatures did not experience such a threat, they needed to avoid danger.

I hate to reference sci-fi, but the concept of the Gom Jabbar in Dune is closely linked with my argument.

But if you cut a cow with a knife the cow feels just as much pain as a human would. The only difference is the cow doesn't know why it feels this way.

But if you cut a cow with a knife the cow feels just as much pain as a human would. The only difference is the cow doesn't know why it feels this way.

It would have no conception of the pain, and, there's a pretty solid chance the 'amount' of pain would be different, because the nervous systems are distributed differently.

Which is why I naturally support humane treatment of cows, such as with the ones I worked with. But I find the cow sentience argument more than slightly comical, and contradictory to what science tells us.

Pollution and global warming are unrelated (GHG are not pollutants). That alone breaks you line of reasoning.


Pollutants are substances which indirectly or directly harm humans or the environment. Therefore, all greenhouse gases can be considered pollutants.

It would have no conception of the pain, and, there's a pretty solid chance the 'amount' of pain would be different, because the nervous systems are distributed differently.

What do you mean by concept of pain?

What should we do with beef cows? they dont produce enough milk to be economicly sustanible, and if we let them free, they would probtly be slaughterd do to the fact they are not built to live in the wild.

Should we sentance them to death for no value, or sentance them to death for a value. They die no matter what

What do you mean by concept of pain?

The existential concept of pain. That the cause of pain is a threat to ourselves, to our being. As opposed to just being pain, the sensation.

The existential concept of pain. That the cause of pain is a threat to ourselves, to our being. As opposed to just being pain, the sensation.

OK I can agree with that. They don't know what it is, but it hurts!

OK I can agree with that. They don't know what it is, but it hurts!

Pretty much.

What should we do with beef cows? they dont produce enough milk to be economicly sustanible, and if we let them free, they would probtly be slaughterd do to the fact they are not built to live in the wild.

Should we sentance them to death for no value, or sentance them to death for a value. They die no matter what

We, er, stop breeding them? This generaton dies for "no value" (poor them, I'm sure for most their eventual purpose really helps set their minds at rest), next generation doesn't exist.

It would have no conception of the pain, and, there's a pretty solid chance the 'amount' of pain would be different, because the nervous systems are distributed differently.

Yeah, but it could be more, could be less, still likely to be a LOT, considering that the basic idea of pain is to let an animal know if it's being damaged and how much.

And I don't see why you're putting so much emphasis on the conception of pain. We know cows feel pain, we know they have emotions, we know these emotions serve exactly the same functions for them as ours do for us, and therefore by default we should treat theirs the same as we do ours. Why is conception- surely just a more intricate framework for us to take the input of our senses and give the output of emotions, or the input of our emotions and the output of our reactions- important when the initial input (pain) and the final outputs (fear and, presumably, attempts to escape) are the same?

but how should we just let them die, and letting them live on the farm is not an option, It would be put them out to the wild and they get slaughterd by predators.

I see us as no better or worse then animals, since...this may blow some peoples minds out in the world... we...are... heres the kicker... ANIMALS...
*GASP*
(lady in back pass's out)
we just be animals who are scared of being neked.bwahaha
so lets all kiss and eat pork chops (something I actually dont like the taste of at all)
:fluffle:

Without bothering to read all the posts (as they're almost certain to be the same or very similiar to the posts in other vegetarian-related threads on here), I'm gonna stick me 2cents in:

I'm vegan. I don't eat animals or animal products, because of the cruelty involved even in so-called "free range" products and so-called "freedom food" products (the latter being the RSPCA's thing - you ever tried calling the RSPCA about an animal in distress? they don't give a toss about animals).

Of course, it is possible that plants feel pain. But in order to survive, I HAVE to eat SOMETHING - but if I don't have to eat animal products to live healthily (as, despite what the media suggests, many vegans do - it's only a small minority that starve from just eating leaves and stuff), then there's no point in doing so - what's the point of indirectly taking part in, or indirectly contributing to, suffering or/and death, if I don't have to?

But don't take that as me telling you what to do. You wanna eat meat, it's your choice. BUT (and I think this needs to be said), whilst there are some vegetarians and vegans who try to pressure others into joining their diet, it's not like we don't get the same kinda sh*t from meat-eaters - if I had a quid for every time a meat eater said something like "I love a nice big juicy steak" (in a completely irrelevant manner just to try to upset me) straight after I've mentioned my diet (eg. cus someone's asked me about it) or something equally stupid, I'd have a lovely bit of extra cash.

Not a good enough reason to justify all of that waste.


but if several billion people think so...

but if several billion people think so...

Then it must be OK? Popularity does not make a practice sound.

In any event, most people don't eat nearly as much meat as North Americans.

Without reading the entirity of this thread, I'll give my opinion.

I'm a chef at a rather high-end restaurant, and it bothers me to no end when a server brings me an off-the-menu order from a vegitarian, or vegan when we go to more effort than other restaurants to have appropriate choices already ON the menu. Alergy, and food intolerances are one thing, but these two dining styles are ones of pure choice. And to inflict those choices on an already balls-to-the-wall busy kitchen when there are already menu items that can accomodate your style is not only rude, but also awfully self-centered IMO

I'm a chef at a rather high-end restaurant, and it bothers me to no end when a server brings me an off-the-menu order from a vegitarian, or vegan when we go to more effort than other restaurants to have appropriate choices already ON the menu. Alergy, and food intolerances are one thing, but these two dining styles are ones of pure choice. And to inflict those choices on an already balls-to-the-wall busy kitchen when there are already menu items that can accomodate your style is not only rude, but also awfully self-centered IMO

I guess the customer isn't always right? :)

Its the vegans job to find a place that sell food they like, If i had a resterant and they asked for something to be made vegan or vegitarian, I would, but charge them a 10 fold increase in price just to make more money. If they dont like it, they eat somewhere else and save my time for customers who want the food I serve

and Ive worked at retail before, the customer 90% of the time is a moron who dosnt know their ass form the on button they cant find

I guess the customer isn't always right? :)

In a word? No :)

Like I said, we make an effort to have menu items that can accomodate vegitarian and vegan dining. If a person has an alergy or intolerance to certain ingredients I can work with that too. But a restaurant like mine is not a food emporium. We don't hide ingredients in the back just waiting for off-the-menu orders.

In a word? No :)

Like I said, we make an effort to have menu items that can accomodate vegitarian and vegan dining. If a person has an alergy or intolerance to certain ingredients I can work with that too. But a restaurant like mine is not a food emporium. We don't hide ingredients in the back just waiting for off-the-menu orders.

Do you get many off-menu orders from non-vegetarians? Do most vegetarians order on or off menu?

That's such a massive oversimplification of the concept of sentience, that it hurts. Furthermore, by that measure, plants are most definitely sentient.

Because, when faced with adapting conditions, it has been clearly shown that plants can and do adapt. When one oak is attacked by locusts, it releases tannin, and all the surrounding oaks release tannin because of chemical signals transmitted through the air.

A computer adapts, but it does not sense, nor is it sentient. Same with plants. Sentience requires a mind and a nervous system.

Do you get many off-menu orders from non-vegetarians? Do most vegetarians order on or off menu?

Actually nearly all off-menu orders come from vegans (despite having vegan dishes in ever menu catagory), or obnoxious rich people. I'm at a loss to understand this coralation, but there it is.

First off, you're attributing feelings to something that conclusively does not have feelings.

How on earth can you prove that something conclusively does not have feelings?

I am in full support of over charging massivly for off the menu orders or saying flatly, We dont serve. haha

Yay vegetables! (http://personal.ecu.edu/wuenschk/rabbit-eat.gif)

Pretty much.

Then cows are both sentient and have feelings.

No one is claiming that they are psychologically equivalent to humans in every respect.

Actually nearly all off-menu orders come from vegans (despite having vegan dishes in ever menu catagory), or obnoxious rich people. I'm at a loss to understand this coralation, but there it is.

Strange. Maybe a large proportion of rich people and vegans are also picky eaters?

I want to eat the rabit :p
its looks so cuddly and tasty

I want to eat the rabit :p
its looks so cuddly and tasty

NO! Hands off the bun-bun! :eek:

Then cows are both sentient and have feelings.

No one is claiming that they are psychologically equivalent to humans in every respect.


Look, you vegenutters are getting totally caught up in this argument while using the wrong freaking word. Cows are sentient. Most animals are. Cows are not sapient. They can't exercise judgement.

However, I'm of the opinion that this is a load of shit anyway, and we should eat things considered tasty regardless of how much intelligence they have.

LETS EAT HUMANS
nummy nummy

Look, you vegenutters are getting totally caught up in this argument while using the wrong freaking word. Cows are sentient. Most animals are. Cows are not sapient. They can't exercise judgement.

I do know the distinction between the words. What I question is the moral relevance of that distinction.

However, I'm of the opinion that this is a load of shit anyway, and we should eat things considered tasty regardless of how much intelligence they have.

So you'd have no problems with a meat industry that imprisoned and slaughtered humans?

The two things I find hypocritical about most every vegetarian I've met are:

1) Lots of field animals are killed when plants are harvested, yet those deaths are acceptable. You're either against the killing of all animals, or animal death is all right with you.

2) The vegetarians I know own shoes, belts or other things made of leather. Last I checked, leather is made of dead animals.

1) Lots of field animals are killed when plants are harvested, yet those deaths are acceptable. You're either against the killing of all animals, or animal death is all right with you.

True, but assuming that those deaths are a necessary by-product of growing food, then it would be impossible to eat and not kill animals. Therefore their goal might be to minimize the number of animals that are killed in order to feed them, and not to eliminate it entirely, which would be impossible. This also assumes that their main concern is the killing of animals, and not the treatment of animals or about land and water use or any of the other many concerns that might lead someone to become a vegetarian.

True, but assuming that those deaths are a necessary by-product of growing food, then it would be impossible to eat and not kill animals. Therefore their goal might be to minimize the number of animals that are killed in order to feed them, and not to eliminate it entirely, which would be impossible. This also assumes that their main concern is the killing of animals, and not the treatment of animals or about land and water use or any of the other many concerns that might lead someone to become a vegetarian.

If those deaths are a neccessary by-product of growing plants, then killing animals is a neccessary by-product of getting me a steak.

So you'd have no problems with a meat industry that imprisoned and slaughtered humans?

No.

If those deaths are a neccessary by-product of growing plants, then killing animals is a neccessary by-product of getting me a steak.

But getting the steak is not itself necessary, but just desirable from your standpoint. The point is that producing food without killing animals is in all likelihood impossible. But some people feel that killing animals is undesirable or just plain wrong, so they seek to minimize the number of animals killed in order to feed them. that is not hypocritical ... it is just plain realistic.

that steak kills 1 animal, the field kills say 10 rats and such animals
Steak seems like less animals die, it just died so you may eat it, the field animals died so they could become multch

that steak kills 1 animal, the field kills say 10 rats and such animals
Steak seems like less animals die, it just died so you may eat it, the field animals died so they could become multch

Except that in order to feed the cow to make the steak, they need to cultivate up to 10 times as much land as if the human just consumed plants. So not only does the cow die, but the "pest" species killed to protect the crops die too ... several times over. So far more animals are killed to make the steak.

so you consider insects or soemthing also count into it, they are killed thousends of times in fields that make your tofu as well

I used to be one for a year. Then I stopped caring about the animals:D

so you consider insects or soemthing also count into it, they are killed thousends of times in fields that make your tofu as well
See the post above yours. Far more fields need to be cultivated to feed cattle than need to be cultivated to feed humans. So far more insects would die to raise a cow than to raise a field of tofu.

Personally, I don't even object to killing animals. I just disagree that because people who do object are trying to minimize animal deaths rather than eliminate them completely (which is impossible), that makes them hypocrites.

True, but assuming that those deaths are a necessary by-product of growing food, then it would be impossible to eat and not kill animals.

Yes, but that isn't actually true. If the cultivation of your food was non-industrial then there would be far greater opportunity to avoid the deaths of field animals [by being torn to shreds in machinery as opposed to dying instantly from captive-bolt gun shots, if we're talking suffering] since you wouldn't be using heavy machinery to harvest or tend to those crops.

A vegan who wanted to follow through on their own beliefs to the point they could lecture others should grow their own food. Most choose not to because this is inconveniant. In other words, by buying industrially cultivated foods harvested by heavy machinery, they are saying they don't mind animals being painfully killed by farm equipment because it would be inconveniant to them to do anything about it. It tend to irritate people if vegans then get on their high horse about animal suffering, since they're not doing everything they can to minimise it purely because it would require them to take steps that would disrupt their lifestyle. Much like it would tend to irritate a car-user if a smoker who didn't drive was lecturing them on pollution.

Actually, I would kill a human and eat it, if given the chance. Problem is, it's a bit illegal.

Then you have no goddamn moral high ground if the only thing preventing you from killing people is the law.

Taking into account that I don't really care and that I'm a senseless goofball who comes here merely to entertain myself and others, I want to theorize a bit:

Suppose a vegetarian diet became the standard. Obviously, we have far less need for cows, pigs, chickens etc. For the most part, they only exist in zoos.

However, Our need for protein hasn't diminished. we must get our protein from legumes for the most part. Farting becomes an olympic event. :) However, due to the fact that we have far less livestock, we have far less natural fertilizer to prepare our fields with. This leads us to depends far more on chemical fertilizers. Lots and lots of chemical fertilizers. Also, in order to enhance the useable life of our fields we establish crop rotations. A field might grow soybeans one year, alfalfa the next, tobacco the third and left alone the fourth.

Nevertheless, without the generous supply of poop lifestock used to provide, we seem to run into a number of interesting problems when it comes to growing food. A severe oil shortage causes a devastating price hike in chemical fertilizers. Short-sighted farmers don't rotate their crops properly to take advantage of a price boom in soy beans. An overabundance of chemical fertlizers in our water supplies and in every food we place on our table causes some interesting new medical conditions and diseases.

This is just speculation, of course. But I suspect this would become a sad, sad world without all the poop. *nod*

Plus, everyone gets cancer and dies. Stupid fermented soy being a possible carcinogen.

2. Macro-Evolution is just a non-testable theory

You made a little typo there. You were trying to write 'rock-solid testable scientific theory with some of the strongest experimental proof in all science.'

It's an easy mistake to make.

You made a little typo there. You were trying to write 'rock-solid testable scientific theory with some of the strongest experimental proof in all science.'

It's an easy mistake to make.

Uh... yeah. I know I have.

<_<

>_>

:D

Also, a question to meat-eaters. Since you have no problems killing, say, a cow to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say, a cat or a dog to eat it?

If I was hungry and there was no other food about then I would not have a problem. But it's generally not a good idea to eat carniverous animals mamels as they tend to have parasites that are quite harmful to humans. I'm not sure about birds, but fish are far enough removed that their parasites dont affect us too much.

This is why Pork is frowned upon by a lot of religions, as waaaay back befrore people knew a lot about germs pork was a pretty hazardos meat to eat unless it was really well cooked. People ate p[ork, they got sick - this found its way into social customs and then into religion.

If you cook dog or cat well there should not be a problem, but why take the risk. Also - carniverous meat does not taste that great.

As I suspected: nobody can solve the Poop Conundrum!

Uh... pretty sure that a meat diet leads to more harvesting than a vegetarian diet.

As I suspected: nobody can solve the Poop Conundrum!
Clearly we must start storing poop now, in preparation.

and Ive worked at retail before, the customer 90% of the time is a moron who dosnt know their ass form the on button they cant find


Classic. Just classic. :)

Meat is just an incredibly inefficient way to produce food. Why use so much energy, land and water fattening animals for humans to consume? you could use significantly less if you grew crops which were fed directly to humans.

Vegetables don't taste as good as meat. It may be inefficient, but it's tasty so I'll continue to eat it.

If I was hungry and there was no other food about then I would not have a problem. But it's generally not a good idea to eat carniverous animals mamels as they tend to have parasites that are quite harmful to humans. I'm not sure about birds, but fish are far enough removed that their parasites dont affect us too much.

This is why Pork is frowned upon by a lot of religions, as waaaay back befrore people knew a lot about germs pork was a pretty hazardos meat to eat unless it was really well cooked. People ate p[ork, they got sick - this found its way into social customs and then into religion.

If you cook dog or cat well there should not be a problem, but why take the risk. Also - carniverous meat does not taste that great.

Yes, well, on the pork front, what you say is certainly true until the last years of the 20th century. Pigs were fed garbage, mostly, so their flesh would need thorough cooking. Nowadays, though, with the animals raised on farms and fed probably better than some people, one doesn't need to incinerate pork any longer.

Vegetables don't taste as good as meat. It may be inefficient, but it's tasty so I'll continue to eat it.

Meat is more effecient to digest and to acquire energy. While cows have to eat 10 times their mass in food to get the meat, you have to eat ten times the mass in grain to get the energy that is in the meat. And for some people, it is physically impossible for them to consume enough grain to get the energy they need to live.

Meat is more effecient to digest and to acquire energy. While cows have to eat 10 times their mass in food to get the meat, you have to eat ten times the mass in grain to get the energy that is in the meat. And for some people, it is physically impossible for them to consume enough grain to get the energy they need to live.

Well, yes. But DCD is of course absolutely correct: taste trumps all in this argument. Meat is simply tastier.

Yes, well, on the pork front, what you say is certainly true until the last years of the 20th century. Pigs were fed garbage, mostly, so their flesh would need thorough cooking. Nowadays, though, with the animals raised on farms and fed probably better than some people, one doesn't need to incinerate pork any longer.

The bonus is that pigs get better nutrition in factory farms than cows. Why? Because if a cow dies, its energy is wasted. If a pig dies, the rest of the pigs will devour it, thus making sure at least some of the energy that was used on the dead pig is not wasted.

Well, yes. But DCD is of course absolutely correct: taste trumps all in this argument. Meat is simply tastier.

To forestall any future incarcerations, I'd like to point out that people do not taste good. Studies have shown that human flesh is an acquired taste.

Yes, but that isn't actually true. If the cultivation of your food was non-industrial then there would be far greater opportunity to avoid the deaths of field animals [by being torn to shreds in machinery as opposed to dying instantly from captive-bolt gun shots, if we're talking suffering] since you wouldn't be using heavy machinery to harvest or tend to those crops.

I always figured getting ripped to shreds would happen pretty quickly...

I always figured getting ripped to shreds would happen pretty quickly...

It happens quickly. It just also happens to be amazingly painful. Same goes for flaying someone alive. Death occurs nearly instantly, but the pain before death is immense.

To forestall any future incarcerations, I'd like to point out that people do not taste good. Studies have shown that human flesh is an acquired taste.

Doesn't matter. Just say hypothetically, if they did, would it be right to keep people from birth in unpleasant conditions, then kill and eat them?

Doesn't matter. Just say hypothetically, if they did, would it be right to keep people from birth in unpleasant conditions, then kill and eat them?

No. Because people are sapient. Cows and chickens are not sapient.

And way to not pay attention to what I was quoting. What you said came out of the blue.

And way to not read the thread. It's come up dozens of times, and each time it has been torn to shreds, because it's a fucking stupid argument.

I don't need to. Animal Farming causes more pollution than vegtable farming. that is the waste we are talking about.
And if that mattered to me, that might be compelling.
It's a presumption, not an absolute rule.

In particular, in relation to the three categories I discussed (land, energy and water) they are all limited resources. They should be used as efficiently as possible in order to produce the maximum benefit. When they are used inefficiently (as in the fattening of animals to produce food) the overall benefit is less than it could be.
Finite != scarce.
Pollutants are substances which indirectly or directly harm humans or the environment. Therefore, all greenhouse gases can be considered pollutants.
Indirectly? You've just classified nearly every substance in the universe as a pollutant.

How much intelligence and skill does it take to hunt a leaf?

Vegetarian is an old [insert culture/nationality] word for "bad hunter".

Omnivores are made to eat both animals and plants. Excluding either from an omnivore's diet is poor nutrition.

Yes, but that isn't actually true. If the cultivation of your food was non-industrial then there would be far greater opportunity to avoid the deaths of field animals [by being torn to shreds in machinery as opposed to dying instantly from captive-bolt gun shots, if we're talking suffering] since you wouldn't be using heavy machinery to harvest or tend to those crops.

A vegan who wanted to follow through on their own beliefs to the point they could lecture others should grow their own food. Most choose not to because this is inconveniant. In other words, by buying industrially cultivated foods harvested by heavy machinery, they are saying they don't mind animals being painfully killed by farm equipment because it would be inconveniant to them to do anything about it. It tend to irritate people if vegans then get on their high horse about animal suffering, since they're not doing everything they can to minimise it purely because it would require them to take steps that would disrupt their lifestyle. Much like it would tend to irritate a car-user if a smoker who didn't drive was lecturing them on pollution.


I agree with most of what you are saying, although I would point out that homegrown vegetables are pretty much impracticable if you don't own your own home or happen to live near a community garden. I've tried balcony gardening in an apartment before, with very limited success.

Also, home gardening would merely reduce the deaths further without eliminating them. Most home gardeners still use pesticides.

You've just classified nearly every substance in the universe as a pollutant.

You have a better definition? Other definitions I found include "to make unfit or harmful for living things". The definition still fits.

Not to mention that some GHG's are pollutants in the sense of polluting the air as well as causing global warming.

The point is your statement was incorrect.

It's also cut down to provide massive fields in which to grow soya beans - which vegetarians consume in huge amounts in the form of tofu.
I do not eat soya because it is evil. Well, I mean it contains harmful substances and estrogen. :eek:

Don't pull the moral vegitarianism BS on me either, Soheran, I'm not doing the same to you. You have every right to not eat meat, without being harrassed, so return the favor.
If you thought a practice was murder wouldn't you try to wipe it out?

What is up with vegetarian pseudomeat products?

veggie burgers? No. I'm talking about vegetarian 'cheese'.
I agree that imitation meat is pathetic. The world of real vegetarian food has such variety that there is no need to resort to that soyashit.

BTW, all cheese is vegetarian cheese. There seem to be a lot of people who think that all vegetarians are vegans.


3) I do not believe that plant life is inherently less valuable than animal life. Therefore, consuming plant material is no "better" than consuming animal material.
Be that as it may, doesn't the meat industry disgust you?

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=pilgrims_web&Player=wm&speed=_med

Mainly because I have no experience with butchering, and I tend to get squeemish about such things.

Of course, I'm also squeemish about performing surgery on human beings. But that doesn't mean I think that open-heart surgery is morally wrong. I don't use my personal "ick" factor as a moral compass.

Outsourcing your dirty work is cowardly. See video above.

Also, a question to vegetarians. Since you have no problems killing, say, a carrot to eat it, why do you have problems killing, say a human to eat it?
Again, meat is an inefficient and environmentally harmful industry.

And, on a further note, I contest that the rules of nature apply within inter-species relationships. There is no innate morality other than survival of the fittest in nature.
Most humans don't live in nature. There's a meat industry. I don't find people killing their own meat particularly repugnant, but the industry is.

some vegitarians will eat fish.
Then they're not vegetarians, they're pescotarians.

What should we do with beef cows? they dont produce enough milk to be economicly sustanible, and if we let them free, they would probtly be slaughterd do to the fact they are not built to live in the wild.

Should we sentance them to death for no value, or sentance them to death for a value. They die no matter what
Such cows do not deserve to live and should be shot quickly.

The two things I find hypocritical about most every vegetarian I've met are:

1) Lots of field animals are killed when plants are harvested, yet those deaths are acceptable. You're either against the killing of all animals, or animal death is all right with you.

And how should vegetarians avoid this? By not eating vegetables, perhaps? :rolleyes:

that steak kills 1 animal, the field kills say 10 rats and such animals
Steak seems like less animals die, it just died so you may eat it, the field animals died so they could become multch
Very few people subsist entirely on meat... and live long. People eat both meat and vegetables so the mice will die no matter what.

Also remember that crops had to be harvested to feed the animals.

machinery[/i] as opposed to dying instantly from captive-bolt gun shots

Are you under the delusion that cows and pigs are shot to become meat? I wish they were.

Well, yes. But DCD is of course absolutely correct: taste trumps all in this argument. Meat is simply tastier.
You say it as if it's a fact. I don't think meat tastes that great. It tastes good, but it's not the greatest IMO.

How much intelligence and skill does it take to hunt a leaf?

Vegetarian is an old [insert culture/nationality] word for "bad hunter".
It doesn't matter now that hunting is rarely done because we have industry to serve our food needs.

Omnivores are made to eat both animals and plants. Excluding either from an omnivore's diet is poor nutrition.
The millions of healthy vegetarians would contest that. Until the 20th century in America especially people didn't eat that much meat for practical reasons. People eat too much meat nowadays.

BTW, all cheese is vegetarian cheese.
No it isn't. Some cheese (much of it, actually) is made with rennet, which is the lining of a cow stomach.

Vegetarians cannot eat all cheese.

No it isn't. Some cheese (much of it, actually) is made with rennet, which is the lining of a cow stomach.

Vegetarians cannot eat all cheese.
A lot of cheese previously made with rennet of animal origin is now made with synthesised rennet. Certainly none of the Appelation Controlee, though.

And how should vegetarians avoid this? By not eating vegetables, perhaps? :rolleyes:

By fucking growing their own, like I do.

By fucking growing their own, like I do.

Can you grow enough food to subsist on? Isn't that really inconvenient?

Can you grow enough food to subsist on? Isn't that really inconvenient?

Yes, and yes. And there's the convienence thing. The prediction made several pages back has come true.

First of all I think that moderation is the important factor. People eat way too much meat these days. Some people even eat meat at every meal. They rarely if ever consider what it took for that meal to arrive on their plate.

While humans are indeed omnivores they are simply not evolved to cope with such enormous intakes of meat. The current levels of consumption are just obscene. That being said they are however used to having some form of meat intake in their diet. Meat is actually quite an efficient form of food production at small scales. It’s the scale of production that causes a lot of the problems that people have with the industry. If people ate less the scale of production wouldn’t have to be so vast.

I must add at this point that I find vegetarianism to be as odd a choice as people’s rampant consumption of meat. Like I said.. moderation tends to be a pretty safe course.

There are many reasons that people are vegetarian .. many of them I completely sympathise with. I find if its done because of a personal discomfort, then fine, personal choice.. good stuff. Its like most things in life, its when it becomes preachy it becomes a problem.

I grew up in a household that produced almost all its food in the backyard. Meat included. We lived in the city with a backyard only marginally larger than average. We ate seasonal vegetables and bred chickens, ducks, rabbits and the occasional sheep. So small scale production in the city is most certainly viable.. though its not a small undertaking and many people might be uncomfortable with what it requires you to do.

I found that growing up I had far more negative comments about the way we lived from meat eaters than we did from vegetarians. People would be… ew.. how can you eat your own pets… that’s gross. You guys are freaks… etc etc. They would come around to our place, eat a chicken dinner, comment on how delicious it was then go ballistic when they see a headless chicken hanging up in the garage to drain the blood. Its that kind of hypocritical attitude that I really dislike. So hypocritical attitudes are certainly not exclusive to vegetarians.

snip

Well put. I share your peeve about omnivores who can't stand the sight of dead animals.

Also, home gardening would merely reduce the deaths further without eliminating them. Most home gardeners still use pesticides.

Well, if your stated goal is to reduce deaths as much as is possible, that's what you should do.

Are you under the delusion that cows and pigs are shot to become meat? I wish they were.

IIRC, one of the devices used to kill animals in the meat industry is a captive bolt gun. This is essentially a hardened metal rod about the size of a railroad spike that is fixed inside a shroud that stops it being driven forward after it has fully extended, having been propelled by a blank pistol cartridge.

Upon firing, it either penetrates the brain and kills the animal instantly [penetrating type] or in some versions has a flat head which renders the animal instantly [and perminantly] unconscious through massive concussion.

Well, if your stated goal is to reduce deaths as much as is possible, that's what you should do.

Agreed. As long as gardening for themselves is a reasonably available option for that person (i.e. excluding the cases I mentioned), then they should do it in order to be doing everything they reasonably can to reduce animal deaths.

Well, if your stated goal is to reduce deaths as much as is possible, that's what you should do.


Aren't there a whole lot more insects in a garden then there are cows in a steak?

Aren't there a whole lot more insects in a garden then there are cows in a steak?

Well, since you have to feed the cow on stuff from the garden anyway, it comes to the same with an extra dead animal on top. The meat-eater just doesn't pretend this extra dead animal for some reason matters vastly more than any of the others just because they then go on to eat it.

I've found that most of the vegetarian's I've ever known were terrible hypocrites.Because they say people shouldn't eat meat, but they do? No, wait... because they say people should eat meat, but they don't?

How are they hypocrites again?

Way I figure, if it's wrong to eat animals, then it is wrong to eat any living organism until after it is dead.Well, that's just stupid, and the worst kind of slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope ultimately comes down to a refusal to draw distinctions. But surely you're willing to draw some distinctions, which is the best proof that you can't really buy this slippery slope bullshit.

For instance, probably you believe that while it is acceptable to eat animals, it is not acceptable to eat humans. But, to adopt your phrasing, is it acceptable to only defend organisms that can protest verbally?

Sure, that's a reasonable distinction. Vegetarians may happen to disagree: they draw the line at creatures for which it is reasonable to believe (based on available scientific evidence) that they feel pain.

As long as one can make a meaningful distinction between creatures that (probably) feel pain and creatures that (probably) do not, your slippery slope fails.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, most vegetarians do not rest their case strictly on an ethical claim that consuming animals is wrong on principle. Rather, they generally base their lifestyle on a complex range of factors stemming from health concerns, economic analysis, and a criticism of modern industrial meat production.

As long as one can make a meaningful distinction between creatures that (probably) feel pain and creatures that (probably) do not, your slippery slope fails.

The problem is this includes a hasty generalisation: to the effect that if an animal feels pain, it must process that feeling in the precise same conscious manner a human does. Pain is a signal that the organism is being damaged: trees have such responses, but tree-pain is obviously very different to the pain reflex of any animal, which in turn can be markedly different from the pain reflex of another animal.

One can't make a meaningful distinction between creatures that can and can't feel pain because we don't know what that feeling actually is for any creature but ourselves. Do you know if a spider with two missing legs is in pain as a human would be, or if it just has two lights on in it's head saying 'these are gone now, avoid whatever that was?' If not, do you know this would be different for a mouse, badger, squirrel or a cow?

If not, do you know this would be different for a mouse, badger, squirrel or a cow?

Or a human, other than yourself alone?

I'm not a vegetarian, but to each his own.

Or a human, other than yourself alone?

I have direct observational evidence of a human's method of feeling pain from my own experiences of it, and can reasonably assume that others feel it in the same fashion by observing that they react to it the same way I do.

I have no such experience of being a cow, and it isn't a valid line of argument to claim that just because the purpose of the reflex is the same, the way the reflex is handled must also be the same. You can stop a car by applying the brakes or crashing it into a wall, but what happens to the car in the process isn't the same despite that intent [stop the car / advise organism of damage] and outcome [car is stopped / organism is advised of damage] are functionally identical.

I used to be a vegetarian because I really like birds and didn't feel right not eating chicken but still eating beef. Then I started getting harped on by people that made fun of my bird-likeyness (that's a copyrighted word, by the way) but thought mammals were oh-so-cute. So then I started eating cows.

Then I started working at a restaraunt and saw how much chicken we throw out in a day. I started eating it again both to minimize waste and to better get in touch with my spirit animal. This would be hypocritical if I'd told people not to eat meat, but I acknowledged the moral subjectivity of it (and all morals) and thought it best to do what I thought was right for myself.

And one day, I'll do it for others, too. Morals may be subjective, but there is moral authority: the authority of those willing to enforce their morals! It all works out.

I have direct observational evidence of a human's method of feeling pain from my own experiences of it, and can reasonably assume that others feel it in the same fashion by observing that they react to it the same way I do.

I have no such experience of being a cow, and it isn't a valid line of argument to claim that just because the purpose of the reflex is the same, the way the reflex is handled must also be the same. You can stop a car by applying the brakes or crashing it into a wall, but what happens to the car in the process isn't the same despite that intent [stop the car / advise organism of damage] and outcome [car is stopped / organism is advised of damage] are functionally identical.

Well, to be fair, you are a mammal. You and a cow share a similar circulatory system, similar skeletal system (though not similarly shaped), respiratory system, and other biological factors. It may be a safe assumption that you and a cow share a nervous system, as well, and that it experiences pain in a similar way.

I have direct observational evidence of a human's method of feeling pain from my own experiences of it, and can reasonably assume that others feel it in the same fashion by observing that they react to it the same way I do.

And you can't assume the same thing of an animal that reacts in a similar manner?

It seems to me that you are still drawing an arbitrary line at wherever homo sapiens ends - I respond in a certain way when I feel pain, so a human that responds in that way is probably feeling pain, but a non-human mammal that responds in that way is not?

Why not just narrow it down to your family members? Being a member of your family, you know how members of your family respond to pain, but you can't be sure if others outside of your family feel pain in the same way. So why bother caring about their suffering?

I have no such experience of being a cow,

Nor do you have experience being anyone but yourself.

and it isn't a valid line of argument to claim that just because the purpose of the reflex is the same, the way the reflex is handled must also be the same.

No, it isn't. Of course, I don't think anyone has claimed that, so I question the relevance.