NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me first say that the silliness you are about to experience should in no way be construed as an attack against vegetarians or vegans.

The first question I have pertains to the odd vegetarian products out there that are basically vegetable matter chopped, formed, colored and flavored to resemble meat products. Meatless meatballs( which would be just...balls), vegetarian steak strips, vegetarian turkey, vegetarian pepperoni, vegetarian sausage, etc. My first question is this: Can you do the opposite? Can you chop, form, color and flavor meat to resemble vegetables? Sub question: WOuld you slip your vegan friends some broccomeat on a whim?

Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich? Are bacteria animals?

I approve the term "broccomeat".

*copyrights*

The only time I ever buy the fake meat things is if I'm cooking for my parents and they won't accept the substitution of chicken with chickpeas (for instance).
But I'm doubtful that meat could be made into reasonable veggie-like foods. Even if it could, it would probably cost a lot more.

Bacteria aren't animals, they're bacteria. They belong to a completely different kingdom. Also I don't know if I'd eat vat grown "meat", at least not until it's been around long enough for health effects to be known.

I approve the term "broccomeat".

*copyrights*

I want my royalties!

The only time I ever buy the fake meat things is if I'm cooking for my parents and they won't accept the substitution of chicken with chickpeas (for instance).
But I'm doubtful that meat could be made into reasonable veggie-like foods. Even if it could, it would probably cost a lot more.

Bacteria aren't animals, they're bacteria. They belong to a completely different kingdom. Also I don't know if I'd eat vat grown "meat", at least not until it's been around long enough for health effects to be known.

Does bacteria spoil? :tongue:

I approve the term "broccomeat".

*copyrights*

*your copyright application is being processed and will be complete in ten to twenty years *cough* *

I want my royalties!

*races LG to the copyright office*

Does bacteria spoil? :tongue:

lol it becomes more and more meat like :D

Just out of curiosity, how is it likely that vat-grown meat, where we actually know every molecule put into the big tub of fluid, will be less healthy than the actual meat from things that eat and poop who-knows-what?

I don't know about the whole vegetarian/vegan angle, but I do try to keep track of published developments regarding in vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) production.

A couple of salient articles, if anyone is interested:

Scientists Flesh Out Plans to Grow (and Sell) Test Tube Meat (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/invitro_meat) (contains the admission - "While scientists are struggling to recreate filet mignon, they anticipate less trouble growing hamburger.") :p
Paper Says Edible Meat Can be Grown in a Lab on Industrial Scale (http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1098)

The second article includes a link to a paper detailing the research into the costs involved and concludes that there's no reason that, even at our current level of technology, in vitro meats can't be produced at costs that would favourably compete with more traditional methods.

Just out of curiosity, how is it likely that vat-grown meat, where we actually know every molecule put into the big tub of fluid, will be less healthy than the actual meat from things that eat and poop who-knows-what?

easy, they put in cheaper stuff for the vat grown meat causing it to be less healthy. plus, I'd be worried where (if?) the vat excretes it's wastes.

Coming from a mostly vegetarian family, I can say from experience that the vast majority of meat imitation products (especially meatless balls) are pretty gross. There are a couple decent brands (Morningstar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morningstar_Farms) springs to mind, though I haven't had it in a while), but by and large it's a no-go.

easy, they put in cheaper stuff for the vat grown meat causing it to be less healthy. plus, I'd be worried where (if?) the vat excretes it's wastes.

Less healthy how, precisely? I've heard far too many people call McDonald's stuff cardboard, how much cheaper can it get? Off-brand bacteria?

Less healthy how, precisely? I've heard far too many people call McDonald's stuff cardboard, how much cheaper can it get? Off-brand bacteria?

Lower nutritional value I suppose, maybe less vitamins, carbohydrates in place of actual proteins. I'm not saying that's what will become of it, it seems just as easy, and maybe more likely, that it would be the "healthy meat" or something like that, but I think (without knowing much on the subject really) theres room for making low-grade stuff. I think the unhealthiness of McDonald's is a little overblown, I'm sure they use really fatty ground beef, but that's sort of what you expect. People may think they're getting the same nutrients as normal meat but they aren't.

The other area that could be troublesome, would be if there were infected bacteria "meat", bit if its easy enough to detect, that would probably be a smaller problem than in normal meat, depending on batch size.

Theres also the issue of waste that I brought up briefly before, but any organism is going to have wastes, our body removes them through the circulatory system etc. but if you're just reproducing one type of cell, where does all the waste go? It seems like that is the most realistic health concern, after infection.

Lower nutritional value I suppose, maybe less vitamins, carbohydrates in place of actual proteins. I'm not saying that's what will become of it, it seems just as easy, and maybe more likely, that it would be the "healthy meat" or something like that, but I think (without knowing much on the subject really) theres room for making low-grade stuff. I think the unhealthiness of McDonald's is a little overblown, I'm sure they use really fatty ground beef, but that's sort of what you expect. People may think they're getting the same nutrients as normal meat but they aren't.

The other area that could be troublesome, would be if there were infected bacteria "meat", bit if its easy enough to detect, that would probably be a smaller problem than in normal meat, depending on batch size.

It's literally made from proteins. I'm just saying, if the nutritional value is, well, anything, that goes on the label, doesn't it? I mean, far be it from me to support a government office, but if it's actually being sold to you, then maybe, just maybe, the FDA (or equivalent) has done some leg-work?

Admittedly, this is more pent-up frustration about reactions to GM foods, but still.

Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich? Are bacteria animals?

It is neither cute nor cuddly, therefore it is not worthy of being "protected"; it's just some slimy bacteria that no one but its mother could love. ;) :wink:

I'm not sure bacteria have mothers. Sisters I guess. They usually divide into sister cells, right?

It is neither cute nor cuddly, therefore it is not worthy of being "protected"; it's just some slimy bacteria that no one but its mother could love. ;) :wink:

That's probably why sliced cow tastes so damn good. :)

Let me first say that the silliness you are about to experience should in no way be construed as an attack against vegetarians or vegans.
*lowers kosh*

My first question is this: Can you do the opposite? Can you chop, form, color and flavor meat to resemble vegetables?
Probably, but would you want to eat green meat?

Sub question: WOuld you slip your vegan friends some broccomeat on a whim?
No. Bad clown.

*raises kosh*

Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich?
I wouldn't have any moral qualms about eating vat-grown meat (with the caveat that the process of growing them was ethically/enviromentally sound), but after not eating meat for some time, I don't know if I'd want the taste back.

Are bacteria animals?
No, they're bacteria; whole different biological domain.

Plus, for our purposes, they appear non-sentient.

Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich? Are bacteria animals?

Mmmmnmm...chicken little :)

It can be done LG. Go to China they do that with fish all the time.
And because they use the left over parts of fish its cheaper then the vegetables themselves.

I quite like to force feed vegetarians meat. I've slipped venison, kidney, liver, heart and even lungs into so-called vegetarian foods before because I really have no respect for the wishes of anti-human hypocrites.

I quite like to force feed vegetarians meat. I've slipped venison, kidney, liver, heart and even lungs into so-called vegetarian foods before because I really have no respect for the wishes of anti-human hypocrites.

Now are we talking the self-righteous variety who freak out or those who simply don't like the taste of it (or for dietary reasons can't eat it or something) and prefer something else and otherwise have nothing against meat other than the fact that they don't like the taste? Because the two types are very different.

Now are we talking the self-righteous variety who freak out or those who simply don't like the taste of it (or for dietary reasons can't eat it or something) and prefer something else and otherwise have nothing against meat other than the fact that they don't like the taste? Because the two types are very different.

If they don't like the taste, fair enough. Then I just think they're being silly, and missing out in some really good eating. If they can't for dietary reasons, then that's a solid excuse. If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly. If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.

If they don't like the taste, fair enough. Then I just think they're being silly, and missing out in some really good eating. If they can't for dietary reasons, then that's a solid excuse. If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly. If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.

I just wanted to be clear. We're on the same page then, because while I don't like the taste (just because that's how I am, though bacon is tasty), the latter type do annoy me. After all, vegetation is a life form, and plants do experience pain when their roots are pulled from the ground.

If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly. If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.

Are you drunk or something?

If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly.
Who on Earth believes nonhumans are humans?

If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.
Are you dismissing the claim that nonhumans can experience pain/suffering? Or do you accept that nonhumans can experience pain/suffering, but don't think that's a cause to end practices which cause pain/suffering? Or do you not care how immoral an act is; as long as you obtain pleasure from it, you're happy?



After all, vegetation is a life form, and plants do experience pain when their roots are pulled from the ground.
They do?

How do you describe 'pain' here?

Who on Earth believes nonhumans are humans?

Strawmen.

I quite like to force feed vegetarians meat. I've slipped venison, kidney, liver, heart and even lungs into so-called vegetarian foods before because I really have no respect for the wishes of anti-human hypocrites.
Remind me to start slipping peanuts into the food of people with allergies. Or hell, remind me to slip some human into your food. I'm sure I could rustle some up, there are morgues around. And who knows, maybe you'll like it, there's probably some good eating in there.

Now are we talking the self-righteous variety who freak out or those who simply don't like the taste of it (or for dietary reasons can't eat it or something) and prefer something else and otherwise have nothing against meat other than the fact that they don't like the taste? Because the two types are very different.

It doesn't matter what type of vegetarian one is, you do not fuck about with people's food without their consent. If they don't want to eat meat, don't put meat in the dish. In the same way, if they don't want to take cannabis, don't slip pot in the brownies. If they don't want to drink, don't spike their orange juice. Is it really that hard?

Edit: Just to be clear, that's a general rant, not particularly aimed at you, Kryozerkia.

Strawmen.
Indeed...

You'd expect better from a mod:
It is neither cute nor cuddly, therefore it is not worthy of being "protected"

It doesn't matter what type of vegetarian one is, you do not fuck about with people's food without their consent. If they don't want to eat meat, don't put meat in the dish. In the same way, if they don't want to take cannabis, don't slip pot in the brownies. If they don't want to drink, don't spike their orange juice. Is it really that hard?

Edit: Just to be clear, that's a general rant, not particularly aimed at you, Kryozerkia.

Not to mention that some people do have problems digesting meat. I know people who have to take enzyme pills to break down meat and they get sick if they don't take these pills after ingesting meat. So they order a vegetarian dish and don't find out until they're throwing up in the bathroom that they ate meat... awesome.

Indeed...

You'd expect better from a mod:
Actually, I don't expect much in this respect. Some people feel like they can take a shit all over people who do something differently and don't do a damn thing to anyone else over it.

Are you drunk or something?

No, why would I be?

Who on Earth believes nonhumans are humans?


Are you dismissing the claim that nonhumans can experience pain/suffering? Or do you accept that nonhumans can experience pain/suffering, but don't think that's a cause to end practices which cause pain/suffering? Or do you not care how immoral an act is; as long as you obtain pleasure from it, you're happy?


I know animals can feel pain. I just don't think it's important that we minimise it. The animals would not exist if it were not for our desire to eat meat. The pain they suffer doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, because in the end they are simply meat. Death is death, they will expire no matter the method.

You're equating this ideal with immorality. I disagree on this point, naturally, so I am unable to answer your question.

Remind me to start slipping peanuts into the food of people with allergies. Or hell, remind me to slip some human into your food. I'm sure I could rustle some up, there are morgues around. And who knows, maybe you'll like it, there's probably some good eating in there.

You're equating killing someone with eating meat? Seriously? Cannibalism with an omnivorous, natural human diet? Seriously?

If they don't like the taste, fair enough. Then I just think they're being silly, and missing out in some really good eating. If they can't for dietary reasons, then that's a solid excuse. If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly. If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.
Yes, yes, yes. You're so hard and cool, and we all wish we wee half as sexy as you.
Strawmen.
Strawmen are people too!

You're equating killing someone with eating meat?

Some people experience severe digestive issues when they eat meat because they lack the enzymes to digest it. It's like lactose intolerance, but then not everyone with peanut allergies dies from it either, most of them just get sick.

Cannibalism with an omnivorous, natural human diet? Seriously?

That was more a point of putting something *you* wouldn't want in your food into your food without your knowledge i.e. exactly what you're doing to other people. Also, meat is meat.

Yes, yes, yes. You're so hard and cool, and we all wish we wee half as sexy as you.

Strawmen are people too!

I laugh that you believe I say these things to appear "hard and cool". I say them because so few will, and they need to be said.

I know animals can feel pain. I just don't think it's important that we minimise it. The animals would not exist if it were not for our desire to eat meat. The pain they suffer doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, because in the end they are simply meat. Death is death, they will expire no matter the method.

Oh well, all humans die too. In the end we are simply corpses. Death is death, humans will expire whatever the method. Do you contend inflicting pain on humans is morally cool too?


You're equating killing someone with eating meat? Seriously? Cannibalism with an omnivorous, natural human diet? Seriously?

What does it matter? Hey, in the end we're all dead, and I just don't think it's important to minimize suffering.

Let me first say that the silliness you are about to experience should in no way be construed as an attack against vegetarians or vegans.

The first question I have pertains to the odd vegetarian products out there that are basically vegetable matter chopped, formed, colored and flavored to resemble meat products. Meatless meatballs( which would be just...balls), vegetarian steak strips, vegetarian turkey, vegetarian pepperoni, vegetarian sausage, etc. My first question is this: Can you do the opposite? Can you chop, form, color and flavor meat to resemble vegetables? Sub question: WOuld you slip your vegan friends some broccomeat on a whim?

Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich? Are bacteria animals?

Meat tastes better when it looks good i.e. a big chunk of steak.

You were a child that made pictures out of your mash and peas, weren't you? :tongue:

Some people experience severe digestive issues when they eat meat because they lack the enzymes to digest it. It's like lactose intolerance, but then not everyone with peanut allergies dies from it either, most of them just get sick.



That was more a point of putting something *you* wouldn't want in your food into your food without your knowledge i.e. exactly what you're doing to other people.

As I mentioned a few posts above, sincere medical inability to eat meat, or not enjoying the taste, are perfectly valid reasons for not doing so.

For moral reasons though? Another story entirely.

Oh well, all humans die too. In the end we are simply corpses. Death is death, humans will expire whatever the method. Do you contend inflicting pain on humans is morally cool too?



What does it matter? Hey, in the end we're all dead, and I just don't think it's important to minimize suffering.

No. We breed animals solely for consumption. It is their purpose in life and death. They would not exist if we did not desire to eat them. It is their sole purpose to die, and be consumed. This is not the case with humans. Stop equating food with humans, they are not the same thing.

As I mentioned a few posts above, sincere medical inability to eat meat, or not enjoying the taste, are perfectly valid reasons for not doing so.

If you're just slipping organ meat into vegetarian dishes, how do you know they're not going to someone with a medical reason for not eating meat?

For moral reasons though? Another story entirely.

Oh, so Jews should suck it up and eat pork? Hindus should also suck it up? Do religions get special exemptions? Who are you to decide what constitutes a valid reason for refraining from meat consumption? Who died and made you chief of the dietary police?

No. We breed animals solely for consumption. It is their purpose in life and death. They would not exist if we did not desire to eat them. It is their sole purpose to die, and be consumed.

It is not their purpose to suffer unnecessarily.

This is not the case with humans. Stop equating food with humans, they are not the same thing.

In the end, they are exactly the same - dead. As you argued. But you change your tune to suit your lunatic dance.

If you're just slipping organ meat into vegetarian dishes, how do you know they're not going to someone with a medical reason for not eating meat?



Oh, so Jews should suck it up and eat pork? Hindus should also suck it up? Do religions get special exemptions? Who are you to decide what constitutes a valid reason for refraining from meat consumption?

I slip it into the food of friends, who I know have no allergies to meat. I wouldn't do it to strangers for this reason.

Yes. Jews should suck it up and eat pork. Ditto Hindus or anyone else with moral objections to eating meat. Unless, of course, they dislike the taste. In which case they're still idiots for missing out on some nice food.

I slip it into the food of friends, who I know have no allergies to meat. I wouldn't do it to strangers for this reason.

What the fuck kind of "friend" are you? I mean really, with a friend like you, your friends really don't need enemies.

Yes. Jews should suck it up and eat pork. Ditto Hindus or anyone else with moral objections to eating meat. Unless, of course, they dislike the taste. In which case they're still idiots for missing out on some nice food.

Again, who put you in charge of deciding what constitutes a valid reason for dietary decisions?

You thoroughly disgust me.

It is not their purpose to suffer unnecessarily.



In the end, they are exactly the same - dead. As you argued. But you change your tune to suit your lunatic dance.

Humans are not produced solely to be consumed. Seriously, is it that hard to understand? The animals we have produced to eat are literally products. It's stupid to consider them anything other than the meat you see on your plate. What does it matter that it was killed inhumanely? It's still meat.

What the fuck kind of "friend" are you? I mean really, with a friend like you, your friends really don't need enemies.



Why can't you just stop being such a douche and take it as some sort of "more for me" thing instead of being retarded? Also, there's more than enough delicious meat-free food.

I'm a shallow but charming friend that is loved by most I come into contact with. But I admit to being a douche.

I produce humans solely to be converted as slaves in my great empire. We have starships and death stars to build, and it's hard to do that without a good slave labor force. Plus, producing humans is fun when you think about it.

Humans are not produced solely to be consumed. Seriously, is it that hard to understand?

Animals are not produced solely to be tortured and killed. Seriously is that hard to understand?

You argued that in the end, dead is dead, and therefore suffering doesn't matter. This applies to humans too. I'm sorry if your bullshit arguments are leading to bullshit conclusions.

The animals we have produced to eat are literally products. It's stupid to consider them anything other than the meat you see on your plate.

It is stupid to consider a living animal to be meat on a plate, in the same way it's stupid to consider a living human to be a corpse in a coffin.

What does it matter that it was killed inhumanely? It's still meat.

Well shit, let's get our sick fucking jollies then. Rape the animals, I mean, not animals but meat! Rape them! Beat them senselessly and torture them! Why not, the animals purpose is to die, therefore their purpose is to suffer needlessly!

I produce humans solely to be converted as slaves in my great empire. We have starships and death stars to build, and it's hard to do that without a good slave labor force.Plus, producing humans is fun when you think about it.

If they're produced with sub-par intellect and non-sapience, you can even eat the old ones!

I laugh that you believe I say these things to appear "hard and cool". I say them because so few will, and they need to be said.
In my experience, anyone who talks like you screams like a little girl. They play at evil and misquote Nietzsche because they're really not that good at either violence or philosophy.
Admittedly, I can't prove it in your case, but you can't prove the opposite to my satisfaction either.

They do?

How do you describe 'pain' here?

Despite lacking any form of sentience, any living organism can feel and experience pain. How a plant experiences pain would no doubt be different than how a sentience being would, but it doesn't change that pain can be felt by living matter.

It doesn't matter what type of vegetarian one is, you do not fuck about with people's food without their consent. If they don't want to eat meat, don't put meat in the dish. In the same way, if they don't want to take cannabis, don't slip pot in the brownies. If they don't want to drink, don't spike their orange juice. Is it really that hard?

Edit: Just to be clear, that's a general rant, not particularly aimed at you, Kryozerkia.

I hadn't actually seen your rant until after the edit, so I must admit, I was a touch lost at first. Having double-read it, I do agree with you, though there are time I have felt that some people do need to have their food messed; not to hurt but to annoy. If it would cause damage then yes, it would not be right, but if it was a harmless joke like slipping a gummy bear into someone's mash potatoes and giggling as they try and figure out why their food tastes strange then yes. Harmless fun. :D

Indeed...

You'd expect better from a mod:


Oh, am I not entitled to express my opinion? You see, if we follow the example set by an organisation like PETA, we see this through their actions. They only protect that which is cute and cuddly. It was meant as a snide comment, with respect against bacteria. Bacteria is useful and necessary to the cycle of life on this planet, but it is neither cute nor cuddly.

If they're produced with sub-par intellect and non-sapience, you can even eat the old ones!

I could insult you so badly right now using this statement as ammunition.

However, I resist. The dark side is strong, but I am stronger.

Animals are not produced solely to be tortured and killed. Seriously is that hard to understand?

You argued that in the end, dead is dead, and therefore suffering doesn't matter. This applies to humans too. I'm sorry if your bullshit arguments are leading to bullshit conclusions.



It is stupid to consider a living animal to be meat on a plate, in the same way it's stupid to consider a living human to be a corpse in a coffin.



Well shit, let's get our sick fucking jollies then. Rape the animals, I mean, not animals but meat! Rape them! Beat them senselessly and torture them! Why not, the animals purpose is to die, therefore their purpose is to suffer needlessly!

I am not arguing that animals are produced to be tortured. I am arguing that "torturing" animals produced for meat is not inherently wrong, because they are still destined for the plate.

Stop equating humans with animals produced for their meat. It's completely irrelevant. Humans are not produced for their meat.

As for your last comments? I don't care what people do, as long as it tastes good.

I could insult you so badly right now using this statement as ammunition.

However, I resist. The dark side is strong, but I am stronger.

It was a joke, of course, but I'd like to see what you'd say.

It was a joke, of course, but I'd like to see what you'd say.

Hmm... I better infer with the mods on this.

I am not arguing that animals are produced to be tortured. I am arguing that "torturing" animals produced for meat is not inherently wrong, because they are still destined for the plate.

Right, right, what a fine distinction. You're not saying their purpose is to be tortured. You're saying their purpose is to die, and that this justifies torture.

Also, I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just that you're not right!

Stop equating humans with animals produced for their meat. It's completely irrelevant.

It's relevant when your own arguments can apply just as easily to humans or animals. So yeah, I'll keep bringing it up as long as you keep standing by those arguments.

Humans are not produced for their meat.

They die. In the end, they're just corpses. Therefore, this justifies causing any amount of human suffering.

According to your statements.

Yours. Not mine.

As for your last comments? I don't care what people do, as long as it tastes good.

You don't care if people rape animals? Oh, what an incredible badass you are! Your stated lack of care makes you like, sociopathic and cool!

Get a grip, grow up, and GTFO.

No, why would I be?


Because it seemed like a plausible reason to post inane and absurd bullshit like that.

Right, right, what a fine distinction. You're not saying their purpose is to be tortured. You're saying their purpose is to die, and that this justifies torture.

Also, I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just that you're not right!



It's relevant when your own arguments can apply just as easily to humans or animals. So yeah, I'll keep bringing it up as long as you keep standing by those arguments.



They die. In the end, they're just corpses. Therefore, this justifies causing any amount of human suffering.

According to your statements.

Yours. Not mine.



You don't care if people rape animals? Oh, what an incredible badass you are! Your stated lack of care makes you like, sociopathic and cool!

Get a grip, grow up, and GTFO.

Disagreeing with me isn't a particularly good excuse for flaming. At least try to keep a cool head while attempting to insult me.

Disagreeing with me isn't a particularly good excuse for flaming. At least try to keep a cool head while attempting to insult me.

I take it by your total lack of any further argument you'd rather concentrate on what you wanted all along - negative attention?

The Mindset, Please stop the flame bait. You are adding nothing to this discussion and seem only to be insulting people and their religious and ethical beliefs.

You are also turning this thread off topic to be all about you.

Back on topic... this depends on the reasons for the person being vegetarian. Some vegans love the taste of animals but are unable to take part in the cruelty. Others are only vegetarian for reasons of health and would not eat anything which is similar to meat.

Even within the narrow animal rights segment of vegetarians there is much disagreement in philosophies which would likewise result in different answers to your question.

It was a joke, of course, but I'd like to see what you'd say.

Sorry, mods tell me it's a bad idea.

It would create an enforcement problem because while the other party is allowing it, it would still be against the rules, thus creating a double standard. Those who have the permission would be allowed around the rules but those who weren't wouldn't. By the same token, we run into the issue of implicit and express consent; one is implied, one is direct. We'd run into a mess there because someone could easily claim that it was written between the lines.

Best not to stir the hornet's nest. The safest way not at all.

Of course, there is nothing saying you can't do such things off offsite. If you have a chat client; what goes on the record there is outside of this jurisdiction. That is, if you so choose so.

Sorry, mods tell me it's a bad idea.

Ah well. Perhaps you could telegram it? I'm genuinely curious.

Ah well. Perhaps you could telegram it? I'm genuinely curious.

I *think* I can do that.

Despite lacking any form of sentience, any living organism can feel and experience pain.
How so? Indeed, how do you know this?

Again, how are you defining pain here?

Oh, am I not entitled to express my opinion?
Of course you are; don't be obtuse.

I'm just surprised someone with your stature would resort to strawmen and hasty generalisations; mischaracterising the relatively broad spectrum of rationale behind vegetarianism, and assuming that all veggies think like the dolts in PETA.

You see, if we follow the example set by an organisation like PETA...
Why on Earth would you do that?

We're not all douchbag Deep Ecologists, y'know...



I know animals can feel pain. I just don't think it's important that we minimise it. The animals would not exist if it were not for our desire to eat meat.
Where do you think cattle, sheep, chickens et al came from? Moral obligations don't go out the window the instant humans start modifying their environment; on the contrary. Many things would not exist if 'we' didn't create them. Again, moral obligations don't dissapear on (for the sake of argument) artificial constructs.

The pain they suffer doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, because in the end they are simply meat. Death is death, they will expire no matter the method.
One could make much the same argument regarding human infants.

Nonhuman animals are far more than "simply meat", and unless your head's back somewhere in the 16th century, you should recognise this. Even if you disagree with vegetarianism, characterising nonhuman animals as 'meat on legs', automata as Descartes would have said, is completely unscientific; plain wrong.

You're equating this ideal with immorality. I disagree on this point, naturally, so I am unable to answer your question.
I don't see how I'm equating anything with immortality. Perhaps you'd enlighten me?

How so? Indeed, how do you know this?

Again, how are you defining pain here?

When a human loses a finger, does it not feel pain? Imagine when you pull a green leaf from a tree; it may not scream or express pain in a tangible way but it is still feeling pain. When its leaves fall to the ground, it's painless much like when we shed skin and hair or cut our nails.

I'm just surprised someone with your stature would resort to strawmen and hasty generalisations; mischaracterising the relatively broad spectrum of rationale behind vegetarianism, and assuming that all veggies think like the dolts in PETA.

You got all that from a snide comment about bacteria?

When a human loses a finger, does it not feel pain? Imagine when you pull a green leaf from a tree; it may not scream or express pain in a tangible way but it is still feeling pain. When its leaves fall to the ground, it's painless much like when we shed skin and hair or cut our nails.
I don't understand your rationale behind this. It would seem that pain must be in some way phenomenological; we feel pain, we experience it -- this is the difference between simply noting that we have an injury and feeling said injury -- and this would seem to preclude plants (and any other organism that lack phenomenologcal capacity) from being able to experience pain (or indeed, experiencing anything).

To clear the matter up, hopefully, I presume you wouldn't say that a loaf of bread is experiencing pain when it is cut? What's different in your eyes between the tree and the bread?

You got all that from a snide comment about bacteria?
That, and subsequent comments.

If you were joking around, then I take back some of my comments, but it certainly looked like you were saying, 'vegetarians only care about the cute and cuddly'.

To clear the matter up, hopefully, I presume you wouldn't say that a loaf of bread is experiencing pain when it is cut? What's different in your eyes between the tree and the bread?

The tree is a living, organic being; the bread while organic and able to rot, is not alive in the same way that a tree is a living being. It may not be sentient, but it possesses the basic qualities of a living being. Bread would not be living. Bread cannot die, therefore it is not living. A tree can die, which makes it a living organism.

If you were joking around, then I take back some of my comments, but it certainly looked like you were saying, 'vegetarians only care about the cute and cuddly'.

It was meant as a joking comment.

The tree is a living, organic being; the bread while organic and able to rot, is not alive in the same way that a tree is a living being. It may not be sentient, but it possesses the basic qualities of a living being. Bread would not be living. Bread cannot die, therefore it is not living. A tree can die, which makes it a living organism.
But it doesn't make it a living, experiencing organism.

And I'd posit that an organism that has no experential capability cannot experience pain; as pain is an experience.

Where would you disagree?

It was meant as a joking comment.
Then I apologise.

I could have sworn that you needed a nervous system to feel. Plants break and are broken, and through genetic processes repair themselves. They grow because it is in them to grow. They live because it is in them to live.

They grow because it is in them to grow. They live because it is in them to live.
You Aristotelian, you.

Alternatively...

You believer in Dharma, you.

You Aristotelian, you.

Alternatively...

You believer in Dharma, you.

I wouldn't categorize myself as a believer in anything, really. Though I did study philosophy at one point, so it's possible I subconsciously retained some of the things that made some sense to me. Mostly it just sounds right.

But it doesn't make it a living, experiencing organism.

And I'd posit that an organism that has no experential capability cannot experience pain; as pain is an experience.

Where would you disagree?

I could have sworn that you needed a nervous system to feel. Plants break and are broken, and through genetic processes repair themselves. They grow because it is in them to grow. They live because it is in them to live.

In the interpretation of pain. How we feel and experience pain as living beings is no benchmark for other living beings. We may need to experience pain a certain way; we feel pain and express it a certain way.

Certainly a plant or tree cannot cry. We may cry.

Humans can break too; emotionally, physically. There are times when our bodies can repair themselves, such as with broken bones. The bones are set and through time repair themselves.

Trees, such as those heavily damaged by the Ice Storm of 98 in eastern Ontario and western Quebec could not repair themselves. Evidence of those broken trees is still seen along the highway, most notably during winter when there is no foliage. Those trees were unable to repair themselves.

In the interpretation of pain. How we feel and experience pain as living beings is no benchmark for other living beings.

But in the English language, that is what we mean when we say pain.


Trees, such as those heavily damaged by the Ice Storm of 98 in eastern Ontario and western Quebec could not repair themselves. Evidence of those broken trees is still seen along the highway, most notably during winter when there is no foliage. Those trees were unable to repair themselves.

They also don't care, because they are trees, they don't have a mind, they are incapable of caring, thus there is no need for sympathy.

In the interpretation of pain. How we feel and experience pain as living beings is no benchmark for other living beings. We may need to experience pain a certain way; we feel pain and express it a certain way.
But we do feel it, we experience it. And I don't see (ha!) how plants experience anything, in the sense that there isn't an experiencing subject. Sure, this argument's limited by the borders of our experience, but without a central nervous system, or an equivolent of it, I fail to see (again, ha!) how plants feel.

If you'd be so kind, why do you believe so strongly they can?

Back to the original point which prompted this epistemilogical debate, I wouldn't say that we only have moral obligations to those beings that can feel, i.e, suffer.



They also don't care, because they are trees, they don't have a mind, they are incapable of caring, thus there is no need for sympathy.
No need. or ability, for empathy perhaps, but I don't think we can disregard damage done to nonsentinet organisms; at least to some extent.

In the interpretation of pain. How we feel and experience pain as living beings is no benchmark for other living beings. We may need to experience pain a certain way; we feel pain and express it a certain way.

Certainly a plant or tree cannot cry. We may cry.

Humans can break too; emotionally, physically. There are times when our bodies can repair themselves, such as with broken bones. The bones are set and through time repair themselves.

Trees, such as those heavily damaged by the Ice Storm of 98 in eastern Ontario and western Quebec could not repair themselves. Evidence of those broken trees is still seen along the highway, most notably during winter when there is no foliage. Those trees were unable to repair themselves.

Well, we are more advanced, by far, than trees. Trees are what happens to a place before it gets animals, and they stick around because the animals can use them. Not in the sense that they will themselves to be useful, but because they are at the point, evolutionarily speaking, where they survive for the sole purpose of survival. A tree may function less efficiently when it is bent low by ice, but it doesn't know that it is functioning poorly, it doesn't care that it is functioning poorly, and it doesn't consider its options. It keeps doing what it was designed to do until it cannot continue.

Also, we still have trees that are bent from that ice storm out here in New Brunswick. keeping our frozen food in a snowbank was pretty priceless.

If plants can feel pain then grass is fucked.

If plants can feel pain then grass is fucked.

What we call a lawnmower, they call the KILLOTINE.

If you'd be so kind, why do you believe so strongly they can?

Everything in nature has a form of defence to protect itself. Why would a tree need to protect itself unless it could feel pain.

(Simple answer for now; heading out for a doctor's appointment).

I wouldn't categorize myself as a believer in anything, really... Mostly it just sounds right.
The idea you put forward, that things have their nature 'in' them, that plants grow because they have the potential for growth, is one put forward by both Aristotle and the Dharmic religions.

A commonality I've always been intrigued with... it doesn't seem out of the question that the ideas of (proto)Hinduism/Buddhism travelled, perhaps with traders, down to Macedonia or Greece.

Anyhoo...



Everything in nature has a form of defence to protect itself. Why would a tree need to protect itself unless it could feel pain.
Because it helps to ensure propogation of the species? The defence develops through natural selection to protect life, not reduce pain.

EDIT: Indeed, pain itself is a defence-mechanism, 'designed' to indicate to an organism that it has been damaged. That's one reason why I don't hold truck with those animal lib activists who wish to end all suffering. It' be terrible if your body didn't indicate that there was a shard of glass in your foot with a big dose of pain.

Though I'll wait for your later, anaesthesia-induced response.

Everything in nature has a form of defence to protect itself. Why would a tree need to protect itself unless it could feel pain.

(Simple answer for now; heading out for a doctor's appointment).

It would protect itself to allow it to continue its genetic imperative.

The idea you put forward, that things have their nature 'in' them, that plants grow because they have the potential for growth, is one put forward by both Aristotle and the Dharmic religions.

A commonality I've always been intrigued with... it doesn't seem out of the question that the ideas of (proto)Hinduism/Buddhism travelled, perhaps with traders, down to Macedonia or Greece.

Well, it does make sense to me. A form of basic life will proliferate because it has the internal mechanisms and genetic "instruction manual" to do just that. The evolution of a nervous system and consciousness seems like a logical problem-solving expansion pack for life forms once they've gotten the hang of the more rudimentary processes. It could be that the whimsical idea of a creature that can decide which tree is easier to climb evolved separately along with the rest of the creature, and that the higher functions of the human brain are indeed an optional trajectory based on frequent pushing of the boundaries of thought.

Somewhere, ages ago, a man lit a fire, and Nature went "uh-oh".

I endorse the idea of Bacon Sprouts.

Development of said product should be in the stimulation omnibus. That's pork-barrel spending I can get behind.

I endorse the idea of Bacon Sprouts.

Development of said product should be in the stimulation omnibus. That's pork-barrel spending I can get behind.

Pork barrels won't work (not structurally strong enough). That, and whatever liquid you'd store in there would get a pork taste/smell to it.



:p

Because it helps to ensure propogation of the species? The defence develops through natural selection to protect life, not reduce pain.

EDIT: Indeed, pain itself is a defence-mechanism, 'designed' to indicate to an organism that it has been damaged. That's one reason why I don't hold truck with those animal lib activists who wish to end all suffering. It' be terrible if your body didn't indicate that there was a shard of glass in your foot with a big dose of pain.

Suffering and pain are just part of life.

But yes, everything does feel pain. How it translates that pain is different. By experiencing it on some level, the species, regardless, is able to evolve. The bark on trees may be one such defence.

Pork barrels won't work (not structurally strong enough).

Possibly. We should fund the development of stronger pork barrels.

That, and whatever liquid you'd store in there would get a pork taste/smell to it.

:p

And this would be a problem, because... :confused:

:p

If they don't like the taste, fair enough. Then I just think they're being silly, and missing out in some really good eating. If they can't for dietary reasons, then that's a solid excuse. If they're refusing to eat meat for self-righteous "animals are people too" rubbish, they're idiots and deserve to be mocked relentlessly. If they object to cruel treatment, or inhumane slaughter of animals, they're idiots too. They're meat. Walking meat. I don't give a shit how it's killed, as long as it's tasty.

What about those that do it for the chicks? Are they idiots who deserve to be mocked?

What if it works and they get a lot of action? Are they still idiots to be mocked?

Possibly. We should fund the development of stronger pork barrels.

And this would be a problem, because... :confused:

:p

Exactly. The pork barrels would be used to store all the excess pork that's waiting to be made into barrels to store excess pork. So it wouldn't matter if it smelt of pork.


But yes, everything does feel pain. How it translates that pain is different. By experiencing it on some level, the species, regardless, is able to evolve. The bark on trees may be one such defence.

Difficult to say what the nature of an experience is for a tree though. It's problematic enough for other human beings!

It's complete guesswork to say they have an analogous "experience" of "pain", and indeed for a tree there is a question of there even being self awareness (which would be needed for an experience of anything)

What about those that do it for the chicks? Are they idiots who deserve to be mocked?

What if it works and they get a lot of action? Are they still idiots to be mocked?

Yup.

Yup.

Would you say that people who go out and make a million dollars and buy a porsche so that they can pick up chicks are idiots too?

What if they're vegetarian because they really don't like the taste of meat at all in any way shape or form? Are they also idiots?

Would you say that people who go out and make a million dollars and buy a porsche so that they can pick up chicks are idiots too?

What if they're vegetarian because they really don't like the taste of meat at all in any way shape or form? Are they also idiots?

Yes.

No. Please read my posts on the previous pages.

The one where you justified animal rape with "as long as it tastes good?"

Yeah. Because it's totally reasonable to consider NOTHING ELSE but "taste" when eating, or you know, molesting animals. Mindset says so, it must be true.

If they manage to grow meat in a Test Tube, would it still offend Vegetarians to eat it? Or Meatetarians(? lol) to eat it instead?

Yes.

No. Please read my posts on the previous pages.

Okay. So anyone who does anything to pick up members of the opposite sex are idiots?

Okay. So those who don't like the taste are 'silly' rather than 'idiots'.

What about those who don't eat it because of icky psychological associations, like they had a mouthful of meat when their uncle stuck his thumb up their bum? Are they idiots?

What about those who don't eat it because of icky psychological associations, like they had a mouthful of meat when their uncle stuck his thumb up their bum? Are they idiots?

I thought youd never tell anyone about that :(

The one where you justified animal rape with "as long as it tastes good?"

Yeah. Because it's totally reasonable to consider NOTHING ELSE but "taste" when eating, or you know, molesting animals. Mindset says so, it must be true.

You're twisting my words. I said that I didn't care if animals were raped. Whatever pleases people. Doesn't please me personally, and I certainly wouldn't eat the meat. However, I really don't give two shits about sub-human animals. None at all. They exist to be exploited.

And yes, I do believe that taste is paramount with food. Nothing else matters.

You're twisting my words. I said that I didn't care if animals were raped. Whatever pleases people. Doesn't please me personally, and I certainly wouldn't eat the meat. However, I really don't give two shits about sub-human animals. None at all. They exist to be exploited.

OH okay, it's not that you don't care, it's that you really don't give two shits.

Forgive me for twisting your words to mean... exactly what you fucking said they do.

And yes, I do believe that taste is paramount with food. Nothing else matters.

Yeah, maybe it's not everyone who disagrees with you who's an "idiot" here.

What about those who do it for environmental reasons? A vegan or vegetarian diet does reduce your ecological footprint! Are they idiots?

You have no logical basis for arguing that animal welfare should precede taste. Food = taste. Nothing else matters. You're arguing from emotion, and yes, that is stupid.

You have no logical basis for arguing that animal welfare should precede taste. Food = taste. Nothing else matters.

You have no logical basis for arguing that "food = taste." It's just your own stupid belief. No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically become true.

You're arguing from emotion, and yes, that is stupid.

Oh okay. I'm stupid, too. Everyone is stupid, unless they agree with you. Cuz you say so.

...


Oh okay. I'm stupid, too. Everyone is stupid, unless they agree with you. Cuz you say so.

Not everyone. He specifically said that people who simply don't like the taste are 'silly', so they're not as stupid as everyone else.

We still don't know about the environmentalists and the psychosomatics, so they might not be stupid either.

I'm laughing at how emotional and angry you are getting over this. It's not even important!

As a vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy and nutritionally sound, one can eat without causing the death of other sentient beings. Causing unnecessary death is (I feel) morally wrong, and thus I argue that eating meat is morally wrong. No need to wonder how humanely the meat was killed or treated - it didn't need to be killed for food, so causing it's death is a moral wrong.

I am not actually a vegetarian, but that's mostly for convenience, as I still live at home. Once I move out, I intend to switch over to it.

Sentience is not important, only sapience.

I'm laughing at how emotional and angry you are getting over this. It's not even important!

Laugh it up. You're wrong - I wasn't "twisting your words." You're wrong - people are not stupid for having an opinion you disagree with. You're wrong - taste is not all there is to food. You're wrong - your position is not a "logical" one.

Keep laughing, mister "I've done the foulest, vilest things and enjoyed them! Look at meeeeee!"

Bahahahaha. Still laughing. You've devolved to petty insults because you simply cannot see past your blind emotionally inhibited viewpoint of reality.

Sentience is not important, only sapience.

Says you. Why? Even if sapience is more important, why is sentience unimportant?

Not everyone. He specifically said that people who simply don't like the taste are 'silly', so they're not as stupid as everyone else.


Well consider me bowled over by his impressive display of logic.

We still don't know about the environmentalists and the psychosomatics, so they might not be stupid either.

I'm sure he'll issue another pronouncement from on high soon enough. Thank goodness we have him to declare who is stupid and who is not. We might not ever know otherwise!

The ability to feel isn't important. The ability to understand that feeling is. Sentience does not imply rights, sapience does. Non-human animals are not sapient.

Bahahahaha. Still laughing. You've devolved to petty insults because you simply cannot see past your blind emotionally inhibited viewpoint of reality.

Do you have anything to say that isn't just trolling bullshit?

Do you have anything to say that isn't just trolling bullshit?

Are you unable to approach reality without a subjective, emotional bias?

The ability to feel isn't important. The ability to understand that feeling is. Sentience does not imply rights, sapience does. Non-human animals are not sapient.

I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about moral obligations. I, as a sapient creature, have an obligation not to cause undue suffering and needless harm/death. The unnecessary killing of sentient creatures for my food quite easily fits into that category.

While I'm not a mod, might I suggest that both of you knock back on the sniping a bit?

Are you unable to approach reality without a subjective, emotional bias?

Emotional bias? This from the guy whose only response to the subject at hand is "laughing" at people. Yeah, real logical there, Mr Spock.

You've conceded the argument. So sorry.

Are you unable to approach reality without solipsist bullshit? I can equally say that there is no reason that I shouldn't be allowed to murder all humans, other than on an ultimately 'subjective, emotional level', such discourse is highly impractical however.

The ability to feel isn't important. The ability to understand that feeling is. Sentience does not imply rights, sapience does. Non-human animals are not sapient.

*feeds the troll*

So, if something is in pain, but does not understand the reason for the pain, then it's ok?

*feeds the troll*

So, if something is in pain, but does not understand the reason for the pain, then it's ok?

Yup.

Detaching myself from this thread now. I've no intention of being banned over a topic as ridiculous as this.

Yup.

Detaching myself from this thread now. I've no intention of being banned over a topic as ridiculous as this.

See, it's quite simple. My brother is an engineer, and he invented a little device in his spare time that incidentally causes pain over a person's whole body when applied in a certain spot.

However, since you don't know how it works, it shouldn't be a problem for us to test it extensively on you, right?

For those keeping score, that's a Reductio ad absurdum argument, not a threat

But yes, everything does feel pain. How it translates that pain is different. By experiencing it on some level, the species, regardless, is able to evolve. The bark on trees may be one such defence.
Again we're back at the question of how you come to know this, but I doubt this is answerable.



However, I really don't give two shits about sub-human animals. None at all. They exist to be exploited.
How so?

As nonhuman animals existed before modern humans, I fail to see how any nonhuman animal's teleology can be reduced to 'being exploited by humans'.

And yes, I do believe that taste is paramount with food. Nothing else matters.
One bowl of Soylent Green, coming up!

You have no logical basis for arguing that animal welfare should precede taste.
Here's just one:


We should attempt to maximise interests.
All animals, human or not, have interests.
Therefore, we should attempt to maximise the interests of all animals, human or not.
Eating meat is not conducive to maximising the interests of nonhuman animals.
Therefore, we should not eat meat.


And that's just a rather easy consequentalist account.

Sentience is not important, only sapience.
Why?

The ability to feel isn't important. The ability to understand that feeling is. Sentience does not imply rights, sapience does.
Why?

Non-human animals are not sapient.
I'd posit that many nonhuman mammals, along with certain birds, quite obviously are able to make judgements involving high degrees of self-awareness.

Detaching myself from this thread now. I've no intention of being banned over a topic as ridiculous as this.
It'd be nice if you'd defend your rather wild statements, rather than just running away from real debate.

See, it's quite simple. My brother is an engineer, and he invented a little device in his spare time that incidentally causes pain over a person's whole body when applied in a certain spot.

However, since you don't know how it works, it shouldn't be a problem for us to test it extensively on you, right?

For those keeping score, that's a Reductio ad absurdum argument, not a threat

As it's been indicated that I've remained largely civil, I'll answer this.

No, you're misunderstanding my meaning of "understanding feeling". I don't mean understanding the technical construction of the sensation. I mean the animal's ability to comprehend the rationalisation behind the sensation. A non-sapient animal does not understand why it feels pain, it just does. A human can understand that this little device is causing pain.

Non-sapient animals do not posess the cognitive ability to understand their sensations beyond instinctive, low-level intelligence - as opposed to humans, who can. This is why I do not consider it morally "wrong" to harm animals destined for the plate. Sure, they can feel pain. Sure, they can react instinctively to it. But they do not understand it, and therefore it's irrelevant when they're going to end up as meat anyway.

We should attempt to maximise interests.
All animals, human or not, have interests.
Therefore, we should attempt to maximise the interests of all animals, human or not.
Eating meat is not conducive to maximising the interests of nonhuman animals.
Therefore, we should not eat meat.



Your argument fails at the first hurdle. Why do you assume non-human animals have interests?

We should attempt to maximise human interests. Why do you think non-human animals matter?

No, you're misunderstanding my meaning of "understanding feeling". I don't mean understanding the technical construction of the sensation. I mean the animal's ability to comprehend the rationalisation behind the sensation. A non-sapient animal does not understand why it feels pain, it just does. A human can understand that this little device is causing pain.

A dog can understand the same. If you pick up a newspaper and hit the dog several times, the dog will react when you pick up the newspaper, without even swinging it. Other animals have this basic function as well.

You are not so much higher in this instance. You know that if I started approaching the base of your skull with this little device, it's going to start hurting and you'll either run or try to stop me (fight or flight response, as all animals have).

You do not understand any higher level of the dog - the technology level is just a little higher.

Non-sapient animals do not posess the cognitive ability to understand their sensations beyond instinctive, low-level intelligence - as opposed to humans, who can. This is why I do not consider it morally "wrong" to harm animals destined for the plate. Sure, they can feel pain. Sure, they can react instinctively to it. But they do not understand it, and therefore it's irrelevant when they're going to end up as meat anyway.

I think we're using different definitions of "understand". For reference, I'm using webster's:

2a: the power of comprehending ; especially : the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars b: the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and categories

The dog knows that the newspaper = pain. He understands the general relationship of the newspaper to the sensation of pain.

He has the concept that the newspaper is a punishment - hence why you can train a dog to do certain things. Punishing it when it does something wrong, and rewarding it when it does something right. It understands the concepts behind reward and punishment.

Actually, I can't really be bothered with this. All my arguments thus far have pretty much been made up on the spot with no real thought, as crude rationalisations of a five word sentence: "I don't give a shit".

Actually, I can't really be bothered with this. All my arguments thus far have pretty much been made up on the spot with no real thought, as crude rationalizations of a five word sentence: "I don't give a shit".

That's an accurate summation, I think.

That's an accurate summation, I think.

I don't care if you butcher, torture, hang draw and quarter an animal as long as it tastes good. I really just don't care. My self-indulgence is all that matters to me.

blah blah blah
MODEDIT: Don't feed 'em.

It is neither cute nor cuddly, therefore it is not worthy of being "protected"; it's just some slimy bacteria that no one but its mother could love. ;) :wink:
mmm...if we ever do get test-tube bred meat, will we see PETA becoming PETB - People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria?
tbh, I'd almost expect it. Nothing that lot do surprises me any more.

You posted this at 10.20 in the Moderation forum:

I've now detached myself from the thread, and will no longer post in it.

Yet here you are an hour later saying this:

Actually, I can't really be bothered with this. All my arguments thus far have pretty much been made up on the spot with no real thought, as crude rationalisations of a five word sentence: "I don't give a shit".

Even if they have been made up on the spot, you have at least been arguing, so I won't hammer you for trolling -- unless, that is, you fail to act on your undertaking to leave the thread now.

Huh? In the same thread, Kryozerkia said "I've been following it. It's heated but still relatively civil." This was after I'd posted that, and therefore I assumed that with that blessing I'd continue with the thread.

I am not trolling, and I have not flamed anyone. You're sending very mixed messages.

Your argument fails at the first hurdle. Why do you assume non-human animals have interests?
Because they quite clearly do. Any animal has interests in obtaining food, shelter, etc., along with more complicated interests such as the need to rear young.

This isn't my argument (it's a brief outline of Peter Singer's), but it shows that there are logical, reasoned arguments behind vegetarianism in general, and animal lib in general.

Your attempt to characterise vegetarianism as emotional and illogical is pure tripe.

(Pun intended.)

We should attempt to maximise human interests. Why do you think non-human animals matter?
Broadly, I think that nonhuman animals are morally considerable because they are part of our ecology. Unneeded destruction or waste of parts of our ecology is not conducive to humans; both as individuals, society and the human species in general. Moreover, to cause unwarrented suffering is cruel and invirtuous.

I don't care if you butcher, torture, hang draw and quarter an animal as long as it tastes good. I really just don't care. My self-indulgence is all that matters to me.
And does this hedonism apply to all of your life, or just to your diet?

Kryo said that an hour ago. You said you were leaving. Since then you've been saying nothing but variants on "I don't care". If you don't care, don't post.

(I haven't said you were flaming.)

Kryo said that an hour ago. You said you were leaving. Since then you've been saying nothing but variants on "I don't care". If you don't care, don't post.

(I haven't said you were flaming.)
I'd honestly love to debate with TM, to have her/him answer my questions.

Could we not have that? Genuine debate, if s/he wishes to do so?

Kryo said that an hour ago. You said you were leaving. Since then you've been saying nothing but variants on "I don't care". If you don't care, don't post.

(I haven't said you were flaming.)

I don't care about animals. I care about presenting my views. I said I was leaving as I assumed the thread was becoming too heated, with Kryozerkia's determination that it was still fairly civil, I saw nothing to prevent me from rejoining.

I do not understand your reasoning for preventing me from posting further. Can you elaborate?

EDIT: If I am barred from posting further, for whatever reason, I'm quite happy to discuss it further on MSN or whatever.

Kryo said that an hour ago. You said you were leaving. Since then you've been saying nothing but variants on "I don't care". If you don't care, don't post.

(I haven't said you were flaming.)

That is valid. That was an hour ago. Time lends itself to change.

Okay, I've misunderstood the situation. I took Kryo's ruling as being conditional on your leaving, and intervened because you hadn't. You, however, took it as meaning there was no need to leave. I read your subsequent posts (particularly the one I deleted) as simple provocation, as apparently ZP did too.

If you do have an argument that you care about, put it; but please, expand on "I don't care".

Okay, I've misunderstood the situation. I took Kryo's ruling as being conditional on your leaving, and intervened because you hadn't. You, however, took it as meaning there was no need to leave. I read your subsequent posts (particularly the one I deleted) as simple provocation, as apparently ZP did too.

If you do have an argument that you care about, put it; but please, expand on "I don't care".

Ah, an easy mistake to make. Simple misunderstanding.

By "I don't care" I mean "I don't care about animal welfare", as I don't think it's important. I don't actively encourage unneccessary harm to animals, however, if harm does befall them I really don't think it matters in the end. To me, animals reared for meat are simply meat. I hold no emotional attachment to them, to the point where I simply do not care how they are treated as in the end their ultimate fate is still to be killed and consumed.

I find it very difficult to understand why people associate meat with emotional attachment. They are not pets. I just don't get it.

No, you're misunderstanding my meaning of "understanding feeling". I don't mean understanding the technical construction of the sensation. I mean the animal's ability to comprehend the rationalisation behind the sensation. A non-sapient animal does not understand why it feels pain, it just does. A human can understand that this little device is causing pain.

A dog can understand the same. If you pick up a newspaper and hit the dog several times, the dog will react when you pick up the newspaper, without even swinging it. Other animals have this basic function as well.

You are not so much higher in this instance. You know that if I started approaching the base of your skull with this little device, it's going to start hurting and you'll either run or try to stop me (fight or flight response, as all animals have).

Your understanding level, in this matter, is no higher than the dog's. You experience pain, and you no longer want to experience pain.

Non-sapient animals do not posess the cognitive ability to understand their sensations beyond instinctive, low-level intelligence - as opposed to humans, who can. This is why I do not consider it morally "wrong" to harm animals destined for the plate. Sure, they can feel pain. Sure, they can react instinctively to it. But they do not understand it, and therefore it's irrelevant when they're going to end up as meat anyway.

I think we're using different definitions of "understand". For reference, I'm using webster's:

2a: the power of comprehending ; especially : the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars b: the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and categories

The dog knows that the newspaper = pain. He understands the general relationship of the newspaper to the sensation of pain.

He has the concept that the newspaper is a punishment - hence why you can train a dog to do certain things. Punishing it when it does something wrong, and rewarding it when it does something right. It understands the concepts behind reward and punishment.

Please respond to this post and tell me how your understanding is so much higher.

Please respond to this post and tell me how your understanding is so much higher.

My argument wasn't well thought out, I don't know if I'm able to answer at the moment.

I find it very difficult to understand why people associate meat with emotional attachment. They are not pets. I just don't get it.

Wishing for the animals that will end up on the table to be humanely slaughtered, and raised in a reasonable environment is NOT confusing meat animals with pets, which I take it implies sentimentality.

There is no need for cruelty. No advantage to it - so why add it to the process?

Wishing for the animals that will end up on the table to be humanely slaughtered, and raised in a reasonable environment is NOT confusing meat animals with pets, which I take it implies sentimentality.

There is no need for cruelty. No advantage to it - so why add it to the process?

I'm not saying we should add it to the process. I'm saying that I don't care if it is.

My argument wasn't well thought out, I don't know if I'm able to answer at the moment.

I got a big bottle of vodka and nothing but time. I'll be here waiting.

I'm not saying we should add it to the process. I'm saying that I don't care if it is.

You have no preference either way?

If there are two packs of pre-packaged meat product, one bearing a logo that says something like 'humanely raised and slaughtered' and one that says 'kicked to death' - if every other detail on the packaging and in the packaging seems identical... you'd flip a coin?

You have no preference either way?

If there are two packs of pre-packaged meat product, one bearing a logo that says something like 'humanely raised and slaughtered' and one that says 'kicked to death' - if every other detail on the packaging and in the packaging seems identical... you'd flip a coin?

After taking into consideration taste and cost? Yes, no preference.

If the packaging read "crushed to death" and sujectively I thought that made the meat taste better, I'd buy that package.

I find it very difficult to understand why people associate meat with emotional attachment. They are not pets. I just don't get it.
spoken as someone who has obviously never lived on or near a farm.
A farmer can have emotional attachment, indeed even care, for their livestock despite the fact that one day they will kill them for their meat.
Indeed, the best farmers are these ones.



Okay, I've misunderstood the situation. I took Kryo's ruling as being conditional on your leaving, and intervened because you hadn't. You, however, took it as meaning there was no need to leave. I read your subsequent posts (particularly the one I deleted) as simple provocation, as apparently ZP did too.
ummm...I did?
I mean, yeah that's it! I did.

MODEDIT: Hush! Just shove this in yer gob -- I mean, just eat up this nice lollipop.

After taking into consideration taste and cost? Yes, no preference.


Is this based on the belief that meat animals are somehow 'less' than other animals (based on your wording earlier, vis-a-vis 'pets'). Or are you okay with pain being inflicted on all levels of the animal kingdom? (Up to and including humans? Some other arbitrary level?)

Is this based on the belief that meat animals are somehow 'less' than other animals (based on your wording earlier, vis-a-vis 'pets'). Or are you okay with pain being inflicted on all levels of the animal kingdom? (Up to and including humans? Some other arbitrary level?)

Meat animals are meat, to me. I don't care about sticking a fork in a steak, why should I care about sticking a fork in a cow (or it being kicked to death)? This doesn't extend to other animals that are not raised for meat purposes.

Meat animals are meat, to me. I don't care about sticking a fork in a steak, why should I care about sticking a fork in a cow (or it being kicked to death)? This doesn't extend to other animals that are not raised for meat purposes.

That sounds like a rationalisation.

If you wouldn't stick a fork in kitten, why stick a fork in a calf?

(Yes, I am well aware of the food double-standard).

I can understand the maybe not wanting a cow for a pet, avoiding emotional attachment, etc - but it sounds like you're rationalising away the capacity for meat-animals to feel pain, so you don't have to think about it.

I can understand the maybe not wanting a cow for a pet, avoiding emotional attachment, etc - but it sounds like you're rationalizing away the capacity for meat-animals to feel pain, so you don't have to think about it.

^^This. You've put blinders on and are covering your ears and going "La La La La" so as not to be informed of pain.


Grave, you *gotta* change that avatar. I had a nightmare about it a couple nights ago.

That sounds like a rationalisation.

If you wouldn't stick a fork in kitten, why stick a fork in a calf?

(Yes, I am well aware of the food double-standard).

I can understand the maybe not wanting a cow for a pet, avoiding emotional attachment, etc - but it sounds like you're rationalising away the capacity for meat-animals to feel pain, so you don't have to think about it.

Urgh. I wouldn't stick a fork in a kitten because it's not raised for meat.

It has nothing to do with emotional attachment. I know meat-animals feel pain, I just don't care that they do. It doesn't matter!

EDIT: I'm having real difficulty conveying my ambivilance to meat-animal suffering via text. I feel no empathy towards animals, pets or otherwise. I feel very little empathy for humans, either, but that empathy is somewhat replaced with respect for intelligence. As animals do not have human intelligence, they mean very, very little to me. Pets can be enjoyed for their company. Meat animals for their meat. I wouldn't accept harming a pet as it'd interupt that company. I don't care about harming meat animals as they're, in the end, a steak on my plate. Nothing more.

Grave, you *gotta* change that avatar. I had a nightmare about it a couple nights ago.

Really? I had a dream about the avatar, too - but it was more of a benevolent 'watching over' thing, for me... :D

Well, maybe I'll see if I can find another one I like.

Urgh. I wouldn't stick a fork in a kitten because it's not raised for meat.


So - you wouldn't stick a fork in a cow that was a pet... and you WOULD stick a fork in a cat, if someone raised it for the table?

What about a cow 'in the wild'?


It has nothing to do with emotional attachment. I know meat-animals feel pain, I just don't care that they do. It doesn't matter!

This seems like deliberate obfuscation - WHY don't you 'care'? What's the difference in raising it for the table that trivialises it in a way that you don't apply evenly.

Would you eat humans, if someone 'raised them for meat'?

Well, maybe I'll see if I can find another one I like.

Yeah, my avatar is creepy enough. :p

So - you wouldn't stick a fork in a cow that was a pet... and you WOULD stick a fork in a cat, if someone raised it for the table?

What about a cow 'in the wild'?



This seems like deliberate obfuscation - WHY don't you 'care'? What's the difference in raising it for the table that trivialises it in a way that you don't apply evenly.

Would you eat humans, if someone 'raised them for meat'?

See my edit above, hopefully it clarifies my position regarding pets, meat-animals and humans.

Yeah, my avatar is creepy enough. :p
Your avatar creeps me out more than Grave's does, actually.

Your avatar creeps me out more than Grave's does, actually.

But at least he's smiling, grave's is all moody. :D

I'm having real difficulty conveying my ambivilance to meat-animal suffering via text. I feel no empathy towards animals, pets or otherwise. I feel very little empathy for humans, either, but that empathy is somewhat replaced with respect for intelligence. As animals do not have human intelligence, they mean very, very little to me.
Would you say that this ambivolance carries accross to humans with little intelligence - very young children, the mentally disabled, the senile?

Would you say that this ambivolance carries accross to humans with little intelligence - children, the mentally disabled, the senile?

Yes (but that's another topic entirely).

Yes.
So do you see yourself as having no moral obligations to those groups listed above?

(but that's another topic entirely)
I'd beg to differ.

So do you see yourself as having no moral obligations to those groups listed above?


I'd beg to differ.

I don't see myself as having moral obligations at all.

Urgh. I wouldn't stick a fork in a kitten because it's not raised for meat.

It has nothing to do with emotional attachment. I know meat-animals feel pain, I just don't care that they do. It doesn't matter!

EDIT: I'm having real difficulty conveying my ambivilance to meat-animal suffering via text. I feel no empathy towards animals, pets or otherwise. I feel very little empathy for humans, either, but that empathy is somewhat replaced with respect for intelligence. As animals do not have human intelligence, they mean very, very little to me. Pets can be enjoyed for their company. Meat animals for their meat. I wouldn't accept harming a pet as it'd interupt that company. I don't care about harming meat animals as they're, in the end, a steak on my plate. Nothing more.

So - it's based on the assumption that animals aren't 'intelligent'?

And - there's a qualifier there - why is there 'little' empathy for humans... and none for other animals?

But at least he's smiling, grave's is all moody. :D

Your avatar invokes the "OMG, Burn it with FIRE!" response in me, but that's just me. Grave's is more of a "It's looking at me... it's looking at me... PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!!""

I don't see myself as having moral obligations at all.
Oh, OK.

A bit of an amoralist, perhaps?

Anyhoo, it's past my bedtime and, unless Salmond has enstated a new timeline between the Burgh and the Weege, it's past yours too.

I shall return...

But at least he's smiling, grave's is all moody. :D
You call that a smile? It looks more like he's in excruciating pain. Like he's having his intestines torn out.

Actually, you know what it reminds me a little of is that episode of the animated Batman cartoon where the Joker goes on a rampage with his laughing gas, and they find the victims with those awful rictus smiles. I can't find any images on Google, unfortunately, but hopefully someone will know what I'm talking about.

So - it's based on the assumption that animals aren't 'intelligent'?

And - there's a qualifier there - why is there 'little' empathy for humans... and none for other animals?

They may be intelligent, but they're not intelligent in the same way humans are. I respect some humans, which substitutes for empathy. I don't actually empathise with humans either, but I can appreciate their company like I appreciate the company of pets.

Oh, OK.

A bit of an amoralist, perhaps?

Anyhoo, it's past my bedtime and, unless Salmond has enstated a new timeline between the Burgh and the Weege, it's past yours too.

I shall return...

Not sure where I'd self-identify on a philosophical slide-rule, I'm not a philosopher. Judging from a brief scan of the Amoralism article on the wiki, it seems to be a fairly accurate description.

EDIT: Actually, it's a perfect description. And considering it directly links to APD, it's pretty relevant.

I'm running on Glasgow time, as that where I'm originally from. But yeah, time for bed.

Your avatar invokes the "OMG, Burn it with FIRE!" response in me, but that's just me.

Why would you want to harm old Bob! He's a friendly fella.

In all seriousness, the pic is from some comic about an internet troll, that's the face he pulls when he's successfully trolling someone.

In all seriousness, the pic is from some comic about an internet troll, that's the face he pulls when he's successfully trolling someone.
That does make sense, but I like my hypothesis about intestines better.

After all, vegetation is a life form, and plants do experience pain when their roots are pulled from the ground.

And this is why I am a carnivore.

As a vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy and nutritionally sound, one can eat without causing the death of other sentient beings. Causing unnecessary death is (I feel) morally wrong, and thus I argue that eating meat is morally wrong. No need to wonder how humanely the meat was killed or treated - it didn't need to be killed for food, so causing it's death is a moral wrong.

I am not actually a vegetarian, but that's mostly for convenience, as I still live at home. Once I move out, I intend to switch over to it.

What about those of us that can't eat fruits and vegetables because of medical concerns. :p

Urgh. I wouldn't stick a fork in a kitten because it's not raised for meat.
Quite obviously you've never been to China then.

Ah, an easy mistake to make. Simple misunderstanding.

By "I don't care" I mean "I don't care about animal welfare", as I don't think it's important. I don't actively encourage unneccessary harm to animals, however, if harm does befall them I really don't think it matters in the end. To me, animals reared for meat are simply meat. I hold no emotional attachment to them, to the point where I simply do not care how they are treated as in the end their ultimate fate is still to be killed and consumed.

I find it very difficult to understand why people associate meat with emotional attachment. They are not pets. I just don't get it.

Have you ever been through an abbatoir? Actually seen how they are killed? I'm no vegetarian as I don't like vegetables, but wherever possible I try to buy meat that is treated humanely, since I don't see why it matters whether they understand the reason behind their pain.

Your dog or cat is an animal. If I starve, stone, choke and otherwise mistreat it, by your own admission, you shouldn't care. In Korea and other countries, after all, dogs are just food.

Quite obviously you've never been to China then.

well when in Rome.

Have you ever been through an abbatoir? Actually seen how they are killed? I'm no vegetarian as I don't like vegetables, but wherever possible I try to buy meat that is treated humanely, since I don't see why it matters whether they understand the reason behind their pain.

Your dog or cat is an animal. If I starve, stone, choke and otherwise mistreat it, by your own admission, you shouldn't care. In Korea and other countries, after all, dogs are just food.

Yes, I've been to an abbatoir. I also once worked as a butcher's assistant. I know how animals are killed. Yup, those dogs are raised for meat. They're not pets. They don't matter.

Yes, I've been to an abbatoir. I also once worked as a butcher's assistant. I know how animals are killed. Yup, those dogs are raised for meat. They're not pets. They don't matter.

You're not going to answer my questions, are you?

You're not going to answer my questions, are you?

What questions?

What questions?

Please read my posts on the previous pages.

What questions?

I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer to mine. My bottle of vodka is still here, too.

Okay. So anyone who does anything to pick up members of the opposite sex are idiots?

Okay. So those who don't like the taste are 'silly' rather than 'idiots'.

What about those who don't eat it because of icky psychological associations, like they had a mouthful of meat when their uncle stuck his thumb up their bum? Are they idiots?

Not necessarily. It depends on what they do. You're building a strawman.

Those who don't like the taste of meat are severely limiting their palate, and yes, are being silly.

Those with negative psychological associations with meat clearly have a problem that should be overcome.

What about those who do it for environmental reasons? A vegan or vegetarian diet does reduce your ecological footprint! Are they idiots?

No, although I personally don't care about the environment. What exactly are you trying to prove here?

Not necessarily. It depends on what they do.

So, it's not the motivation behind an act that makes people idiots, but the act itself?

You're building a strawman.

People toss this word around too much. Show me how I'm 'building a strawman'.

Those who don't like the taste of meat are severely limiting their palate, and yes, are being silly.

Yes. You said that.

Those with negative psychological associations with meat clearly have a problem that should be overcome.

But are they idiots who should be mocked?

No, although I personally don't care about the environment.

So, people who want to protect the environment out of some moral reason aren't idiots, but those who want to protect animals out of some moral reason are idiots?

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

I'm just asking some questions. You seem to have an interesting way of organising people's intellectual capacities by how they relate to meat. This is just so patently bizarre that I thought it would be fun to find out more.

Those who don't like the taste of meat are severely limiting their palate, and yes, are being silly.
As a seperate issue to the merits of vegetarianism, how can someone be silly for simply not liking a taste or a texture?

It would seem we have little control over what tastes we like and dislike; how can we call a palate 'silly'?

As a seperate issue to the merits of vegetarianism, how can someone be silly for simply not liking a taste or a texture?

It would seem we have little control over what tastes we like and dislike; how can we call a palate 'silly'?

Exactly. Also those men that don't fuck little boys are severely limiting their sexual experiance, are these men also being silly I wonder?

As a vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy and nutritionally sound, one can eat without causing the death of other sentient beings.

Damn near impossible actually, depending on your definition of sentience. The primary form of modern farming technique (combine harvesters) results in a lot of death among field animals in the fields. You might not be eating it, but your diet killed it anyway.

Ok, what about home grown, hand picked crops you might say. Maybe. If you got rid of all the pests humanely and let them starve instead. Oops, that's dependent on them dying too.

The whole "vegetarianism won't hurt/kill anything" schtick is a tired cliche that people like to trumpet because they're either incapable, ignorant or unwilling to consider the larger picture.

Life, all of it, is dependent on death. There is simply no other way.

The whole "vegetarianism won't hurt/kill anything" schtick is a tired cliche that people like to trumpet because they're either incapable, ignorant or unwilling to consider the larger picture.

Life, all of it, is dependent on death. There is simply no other way.

It's arguably the lesser of two evils, though. Yes, horticulture may kill pests and such, but so does animal farming; the former, however, results in less death, I guess.

As far as The Mindset's silly posts; he's entitled to his absurd opinions. What I find curious, though, is that he admits to forcing those he disagrees with to commit acts they find reprehensible. I disagree with Christianity, I neither burn churches down myself or attempt to trick adherents into doing so. And, has been said, fucking with another's food is just unacceptable, it's one of those offenses that legitimately start violent fights and for good reason. By his reasoning, it would be completely acceptable to piss in someone's beer because, lol, I disagree that drinking urine is disgusting and gross and their belief that it is so is silly (just to clarify, I'm just pressing a point; I do not, in fact, think peeing in beer is anything but absolutely disgusting:p).

Damn near impossible actually, depending on your definition of sentience. The primary form of modern farming technique (combine harvesters) results in a lot of death among field animals in the fields. You might not be eating it, but your diet killed it anyway.

Ok, what about home grown, hand picked crops you might say. Maybe. If you got rid of all the pests humanely and let them starve instead. Oops, that's dependent on them dying too.

The whole "vegetarianism won't hurt/kill anything" schtick is a tired cliche that people like to trumpet because they're either incapable, ignorant or unwilling to consider the larger picture.

Life, all of it, is dependent on death. There is simply no other way.

Yes, you have me there. Shall we say "minimising the death of other sentient beings" then, which is true. Or "without deliberately killing sentient beings for food". They're definitely on different levels.

It's arguably the lesser of two evils, though. Yes, horticulture may kill pests and such, but so does animal farming; the former, however, results in less death, I guess.

Maybe, maybe not. There are far more pests than there are livestock after all.

Yes, you have me there. Shall we say "minimising the death of other sentient beings" then, which is true. Or "without deliberately killing sentient beings for food". They're definitely on different levels.

The former, not so much. Especially when you consider the number of pests that can inhabit 100 square meters of crop that would be killed against livestock supportable in the same 100 square meters. The latter, again, depends on where you draw the line of sentience.

The latter, again, depends on where you draw the line of sentience.
Quite.

Moreover, the rationale behind vegetarianism doesn't soley consist of 'stop any harm/death of (sentient) animals'.

Quite.

Moreover, the rationale behind vegetarianism doesn't soley consist of 'stop any harm/death of (sentient) animals'.

Lot of rationales get used for vegetarianism. Some are reasonable, some are just retarded.

Lot of rationales get used for vegetarianism. Some are reasonable, some are just retarded.

<WARNING! COMMON SENSE DETECTED!>

I'm sorry sir. I'll have to ask the moderators to delete your account here.

*edit* back to being serious, I'll note that I am acquainted with a number of Seventh-day Adventists, most of whom prefer a vegetarian diet. They seem to believe that while God permitted the consumption of animal flesh, the diet of fruits and vegetables is what God originally intended, and that a balanced vegetarian diet is superior to an omnivorous diet. I have no problem with viewpoints like that, whether religious or philosophical. Others who say, "It has fur! Don't eat it! It's equal in value to human life!!!" in an emotional hysteria are crazy and deserve mockery.

I like meat. Beef, chicken, turkey, fish, and mutton. I don't care so much for most pork products, but I like bacon a lot. Someone once said that "Bacon is meat candy" and I can't disagree.

I'm sorry, I only just skimmed this thread. But did a perfectly good, vegan-spam thread turn into a debate about vegetarianism? I'd read more carefully, except I'm afraid it'll just be time spent having my fears confirmed. . .

The first question I have pertains to the odd vegetarian products out there that are basically vegetable matter chopped, formed, colored and flavored to resemble meat products. Meatless meatballs( which would be just...balls), vegetarian steak strips, vegetarian turkey, vegetarian pepperoni, vegetarian sausage, etc. My first question is this: Can you do the opposite? Can you chop, form, color and flavor meat to resemble vegetables? Sub question: WOuld you slip your vegan friends some broccomeat on a whim?

I find that meat-looking veggie thingies utterly stupid. I want to know what I'm eating!
No, I wouldn't give broccomeat to a vegan friend of mine... if I had any vegan friend.


Second question involves vat-grown meat. Apparently using various bacteria and plant-based proteins it is now possible to form meat in a test tube. Sounds yummy. But would vegans eat a germ sandwich? Are bacteria animals?
Actually the reports on vat-grown meat is that it tastes quite horrible, so I read in the media.
Anyway, bacteria aren't animals, but with vegans you cannot never tell.