@62: I don't feel offended by your comment since it is pretty clear you haven't read these comments with anything resembling an open mind. I'm sure if this comment thread concerned other groups of people, (gay people for example?) who were mocked/insulted without provocation for living the life they believe in, you wouldn't be so quick to view the defense of said mocked group as more proof that that group deserves it.
Everyone in this thread who thinks that vegans are morons/misguided/losers/pussies/etc. should start bashing Buddhism next, seeing as Buddhists (real ones, at least) are vegetarian at the very least. I doubt that the Buddhist-bashing thread will be as popular. I also find it amusing how much sexism is infused in anti-vegan rhetoric. Men who are vegan can't be real men and women who are vegan probably have no sex drive because they are so frail and unhealthy. Geniuses all up in this thread.
Post #101 is a good example of the childish insults that contribute nothing positive to the world that I was referencing. Any adult who engages in, laughs at, or defends nonsense like that isn't very far off from endorsing the type of shit that leads to persecution of all sorts.
I was a vegetarian for many years... and briefly vegan. For me it was pretty miserable. Developed some serious gluten allergies and intolerance to soy. And FTR I was meticulous about nutrition, to no avail. I started adding small amounts of meat back into my diet and immediately became healthy again. I haven't looked back.
Undoubtedly human beings will eventually be mostly vegetarian. It will become necessary due to the expense and social costs of farming meat.
The issue most meat eaters have is an internalized defensive reaction to being labeled "immoral" for what is culturally accepted practice. It is unfortunate they react so. But the implication is there when one group says "I don't do X, becuase I think it's immoral." When YOU do X, by inference, you could be seen as being called immoral.
Few people will be convinced on the moral arguments against eating meat if it is framed purely in terms of "meat is murder" and the like.
Frankly, that's a rather weak argument outside of ones own personal set of principles.
After all it's very hard to rationalize that a human life is equivalent to an animals (which some PETA people try to do). "Meat is murder" is easily refuted by posing the hypothetical choice between saving a human being or saving an animal; clearly saving a human is the more "moral" choice (though I'm sure some will argue the opposite out foolish pique). It's safe to say that 99% of society values human life above animal life when forced to choose, vegan or meat eater alike. Therefore animals and humans are NOT morally equivalent (yes, I know, humans ARE animals). If it were to become true that humans and animals were given an equal right to life then hitting a squirrel with your car could be a criminal offense. Which of course would be patently absurd. Applying rigorous intellectual honesty it is necessary to admit we value animals and humans on some sort of sliding scale of value. Suddenly the morality of killing animals becomes far less black and white.
Also If "Killing animals is immoral" then participation in a technological society is itself immoral as our civilization murders millions of animals (to extinction, no less) mostly by displacing habitats with our cities, resource extraction, agriculture.
There simply is no way to support a world population of 8 billion people AND support natural habitats. If you live in our technological society you are defacto contributing to killing animals.
And yes. This is every bit of the choice the eating meat is. Billions of people have lived (and are living) outside of technological western consumer based societies for millennium. Anybody could if they so chose. It wouldn't be easy. But it could be done.
So if eating meat for pleasure is wrong it is also as wrong to fly in a plane, own a car, buy an iPod, or innumerable other things that we do for convenience. They just "feel" less direct since starving out an entire species isn't as photogenic as electrocuting one cute calf. One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic and all that.
So, avoiding the shaming language of morality, we are left with a gray area of where we CHOOSE to act more responsibly. Meat eaters: consider what your choices do. What you do has consequences. Understand them. Vegetarians and vegans: be more careful how you throw around labels like moral and immoral.
That is all.
Cruelty arguments against meat eating gain more traction. But. There are ways to humanely raise animals for meat eating. And there are humane ways of killing them. They make meat much more expensive. Which is should be since it has more cost than is reflected in the government subsidized price. That. And the cruelty argument is still largely emotional.
The only plausible rational argument for not eating meat is to reduce negative impact to the planet, and thus reducing the suffering of other HUMANS, in general. And hence why meat eating will eventually and inevitably be only for the wealthiest few since most ecosystems will not support the massive amounts of plant agriculture AND raising livestock. Not without a whole bunch of humans dying off, anyway.
@105, because I don't have the time to rebut all that is wrong with what you said (and because I won't convince you, in any case), I'll just focus on one paragraph:
"After all it's very hard to rationalize that a human life is equivalent to an animals (which some PETA people try to do)."
Whether a human life is equivalent to an animal's life is not the main point. Whether animals have certain rights is the important question, and is the focus of the (aptly named) animal rights movement. In particular, whether animals have the right not to be locked in a cage its entire life, etc. etc. we all know the story.
" "Meat is murder" is easily refuted by posing the hypothetical choice between saving a human being or saving an animal; clearly saving a human is the more "moral" choice (though I'm sure some will argue the opposite out foolish pique)."
The phrase "meat is murder" means that to eat meat is to participate in the slaughter of an animal. Setting up the deserted-island false dichotomy (either the cow is killed or the marooned sailor dies!) is sophomoric. Nothing approaching this scenario actually exists, save for some impoverished community somewhere where it is somehow actually cheaper to raise then slaughter livestock than to grow vegetables. Which is of course fantastical, but if you do have that scenario in mind, please show it to me. And in any case, no omnivore here has qualified his/her statements by saying "Only because it's necessary for population X to survive, I dispute the animal rights argument . . ." Hence we can ignore your false choice, because it doesn't actually happen when you go to the grocery store and has no role in your own diet. (And of course if this is one of those "My doctor says I'll die without a chicken breast once a week", then obviously you should follow your doctor's advice. But does anyone think this happens with nontrivial frequency? So let's not hide behind this, eh?)
"It's safe to say that 99% of society values human life above animal life when forced to choose, vegan or meat eater alike."
Again, factory farming is not explained by saying "well, we had to choose between us and the animals, so we're gonna slaughter a zillion animals and build a giant industry that pollutes the shit out of the environment". You are not "forced to choose" between eating a hamburger (in Seattle!) and dying. That's just bullshit.
"Therefore animals and humans are NOT morally equivalent (yes, I know, humans ARE animals)."
This is a fallacious argument. The premise is "99.9% of humans hold this opinion" and the conclusion is "therefore this opinion is correct". If you're really interested in the moral arguments, read a fucking book. There are a zillion good books on the subject.
"If it were to become true that humans and animals were given an equal right to life then hitting a squirrel with your car could be a criminal offense."
No, saying that animals have the right not to suffer its entire life before being killed does not imply that humans and animals have the same "right to life", it means they have the same right not to be treated in a certain fashion. Regarding your novel legislation, replace "hitting a squirrel with your car" with "locking a chicken in a cage, pumping it with shitty medicines, feeding it shit not part of its diet, etc., then killing it". Conclusion sounds a little different, eh? Maybe you're a little more likely to support such a law? Replace "chicken" with "cat" and holy shit it's already illegal to do that to a cat. But wait! Since animals and humans aren't equal, why should cats have the right not to be treated a certain way ?!?!?!
"Which of course would be patently absurd. "
Yes, it would be an absurd conclusion--which is probably why no serious animal rights activist argues that accidentally running over a squirrel should be a crime.
"Applying rigorous intellectual honesty it is necessary to admit we value animals and humans on some sort of sliding scale of value. Suddenly the morality of killing animals becomes far less black and white."
You didn't apply "intellectual honesty", you just set up an absurd false dichotomy between the death of an animal and the death of a human. Show me that situation and we can talk about the decision to be made in that situation: the Donner party choosing between the goat and little Johnny, etc.
"Meat is murder" is a slogan, not the sum total of animal rights philosophy.
@ 106: Actually there are Places all over the world where herding is a far more viable way of food production than Farming. A very small amount of the Planet is actually made up of land that would be possible to farm. Much of the land is Water (fish), Dessert (not much of anything edible) and Mountains (Herd animals). Of what is left there is a great deal of land that doesn't have a ready enough water supply or has soil that is non conductive to farming. However it is very easy to keep animals in a wide variety of environments, humans have a food/dairy animal for almost any environment in the world. I would say that, until recently, being a Vegan (and maybe a vegetarian) and living healthily would not have been possible. Without Modern mass farming and the ability to preserve and transport food great distances vegans probably couldn't get the key nutrients needed to survive.
Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today.
The way that I see it, I am an animal which is obviously an omnivore (despite the fact that the prevalence of cooked meat in human diet killed our ability to eat the stuff raw) as such it is totally natural that I eat meat. However because I am at the top of the food chain and have a surplus of non meat food that I can survive off of it is perfectly reasonable if I choose not to. I actually applaud this decision because it means more meat for me =)
P.S. If you do eat meat avoid commercial meats and know where what you do eat comes from. The Vs have a very good point when they say FF meat will kill you.
@ 106: Actually there are Places all over the world where herding is a far more viable way of food production than Farming. A very small amount of the Planet is actually made up of land that would be possible to farm. Much of the land is Water (fish), Dessert (not much of anything edible) and Mountains (Herd animals). Of what is left there is a great deal of land that doesn't have a ready enough water supply or has soil that is non conductive to farming. However it is very easy to keep animals in a wide variety of environments, humans have a food/dairy animal for almost any environment in the world. I would say that, until recently, being a Vegan (and maybe a vegetarian) and living healthily would not have been possible. Without Modern mass farming and the ability to preserve and transport food great distances vegans probably couldn't get the key nutrients needed to survive.
Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today.
The way that I see it, I am an animal which is obviously an omnivore (despite the fact that the prevalence of cooked meat in human diet killed our ability to eat the stuff raw) as such it is totally natural that I eat meat. However because I am at the top of the food chain and have a surplus of non meat food that I can survive off of it is perfectly reasonable if I choose not to. I actually applaud this decision because it means more meat for me =)
P.S. If you do eat meat avoid commercial meats and know where what you do eat comes from. The Vs have a very good point when they say FF meat will kill you.
The science of nutrition is not well understood. One can eat a diet consisting primarily of fat and alcohol and still, remarkably, lose weight; nevertheless all sorts of incompetent dietitians espouse the belief that almost any amount of fat and alcohol are bad for one's health and build. In addition to this, there are all sorts of food allergies related to the consumption of carbohydrates and fiber; it seems to me that many of the staples of a vegan lifestyle a large minority are not well evolutionarily adjusted to eating.
I have some knowledge of animal biology, and in particular mammalian biology. I have observed that my cats can predicate a diet entirely upon animal tissues and not only subsist, but fully thrive. One will also notice far fewer in the way of dental problems with predatory pets that are fed a raw meat diet. But one will also notice that when a cat makes a kill with the intention of consuming the corpse the cat goes not for the muscle tissue that makes up the majority of cuts we consume from markets today, but rather immediately they go for the variety meats and viscera of the animal--those having the most nutritional and caloric value; muscle proteins, by contrast, take about as much energy to digest as they produce in digestion, and are thus inefficient.
One will also notice, when producing dishes as a cook with various different cuts of meat that those cuts which have a higher content of fat and connective tissue (often the cheaper cuts) taste better. Do not fool yourselves into believing that this is merely coincidence. One is, more or less, tasting the higher nutritional quality of those less-lean cuts.
I cannot say for sure exactly how cholesterols are digested, whether they are merely absorbed as is, or whether they must be broken down into something simpler before absorption, but we must understand the essential role that cholesterol plays in human chemistry. In addition to lubricating the blood vessels of the circulatory system, cholesterol forms the foundation for all androgens and estrogens; sexual reproduction (life as we know it) would not be possible without them; thus cholesterol is essential to the production of these primary chemicals. However, if cholesterol can be absorbed directly from food (specifically animal tissues), rather than made in some mechanism by the body, it is essential to eat cholesterol to be a living, breathing, virile or fertile human being.
And now, for a final commentary, I find opposition to industrial animal farming to be abhorrent. There was never widespread access to animal tissues in the periods of civilization leading up to the late modern; you will notice that people very frequently died of a small matter, not being able to absorb healthier nutrients to be derived predominantly from animals. Even today, animal cuts would be, more or less, unattainable to the common man without the advent of industrial farming; this allows them a high state of health. The solution to the environmental concerns--unfortunate pains derived from necessary industrial methods--will not come from a luddism and a rejection of contemporary agricultural methods; billions will die if mankind reverts to a pre-industrial model of agriculture; there is no way the world can sustain such numbers without it. New agricultural technologies--things like new farming methods and genetic modification of animals and crops--will alleviate the environmental concerns of our world. People will simply have to begin learning how to deal with a post-modern and eventually--post-human world. And I do not imply that humans will go extinct, but merely be forced to move forward as they have compelled their food.
Even if such societies exist, America is not one of them! Your argument has devolved from "It's us or the animals, someone's gotta go!" to "I'm at the top of the food chain, and I can eat meat, therefore it must be okay". Neither of which is an argument. And I don't know what past societies where vegans couldn't survive has to do with this, because we don't live there. Of course I'm thankful for modern convenience, no doubt meat eaters are, too. So?
"Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today. "
Here's a cite with a bunch of references on this subject, but I don't expect you to read it or believe them. I'm not being presumptuous, but someone who walks around thinking they must eat meat in order to survive is living a fantasy. You eat meat because it tastes good, and you'd prefer not to worry about the environmental damage or the animals' suffering. Vegans have been making their case for a long time, and your ignorance of this information is voluntary.
People who think vegan diets are unhealthy (or deny that they are absolutely the healthiest diets in terms of avoiding many life-threatening illnesses like cancer, heart disease, etc.) are very similar to those who still go around preaching that marijuana is deadly: Uninformed fools that time will pass by.
Even if it is true that a strictly vegan diet is healthier so what? Why should we avoid recreational eating any more than recreational drugs? Food is not just a necessity it is also a pleasure. Happily we are creatures who must eat so why not enjoy the occasional treat such as ice cream, candy, fried chicken or whatever food allows us a bit of pleasure? It is not so much what vegans eat or refuse to eat that can be annoying. It is that some of them try to take the joy out of eating. They want to make each meal a serious task that involves ritualistic foreboding and guilt rather than a pleasurable event. Almost like how anti sex people want to take that from us too. We are lucky that we have so many food choices that can enhance the wonderful gift that is the ability to eat.
Heather, @115: you are simply talking crazy and just throwing BS out there to demonize vegans. Are you serious right now?
"some of them try to take the joy out of eating. They want to make each meal a serious task that involves ritualistic foreboding and guilt rather than a pleasurable event. "
There's vegan ice cream at SAFEWAY. Candy, etc.. Further, every person who has ever stayed on a diet long enough to notice can confirm that our tastes and preferences change to what our body is presented with.
Accusing people who wish to improve their health of sucking the joy and fun out of YOUR life is a pathetic and sad grasp at straws.
@ 113:Wow we really aren't communicating on the same wave length at all. I understand that Meat is not a necessary part of human diet in modern day america, however what you said in the post I was responding to was that:
"Nothing approaching this scenario actually exists, save for some impoverished community somewhere where it is somehow actually cheaper to raise then slaughter livestock than to grow vegetables. Which is of course fantastical, but if you do have that scenario in mind, please show it to me."
this statement is kinda false. societies where production of meat and dairy products for consumption was actually easier was a very common thing in many regions of the world.
And yes I am saying that it is OK for me to eat meat, the consumption of the flesh of other animals is a natural thing, creatures live and they die and sometimes are hunted and eaten.
Exactly as I said in my original post (well double post actually, sorry) I understand that it is no longer necessary to eat meat for survival in modern society. Doesn't mean that it is wrong to do so but it is totally the choice of the individual weather or not they feel like it.
Also everything that I said about factory farming was totally honest. I guess you think it was sarcasm because you posted a link that pretty much proves what I had just said. Let me rephrase my thoughts on factory farming for you.
I believe that without the industrial farming industry we could not support the number of meat eaters that live in todays society. However because of the high demands of the meat eating population the vast majority of todays meats have become dangerous to consume. Animals that have been pumped full of hormones and toxins, feed a single un-nutritious form of corn and kept in small holding pens are in no way healthy and should not be consumed.
I myself make sure to know where my meat comes from, local range farms that provide me with the healthiest possible meats (when I'm not hunting it myself).
Being Vegan or vegetarian is perfectly fine, I have never said otherwise. So is being a Meat eater.
My post accurately describes the behavior of SOME vegans I have met. I have tried vegan ice cream as well as other vegan products. Some are okay, but as for ice cream I prefer the real thing made from real cream from cows and I have see no compelling reason to stop eating real ice cream. Could I do without it? Without a doubt. Will I. No. I condone milking cows to obtain cream and other dairy products because products like ice cream give us pleasure. No other justification is required. Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is a virtue.
It is no mere accusation because I know at least one vegan who said it was his mission to make people uncomfortable with dietary choices that don't have his approval. Other vegans are more reasonable and behave themselves when invited to a meal. Just as you have a right to enjoy your vegan food in peace others have the right to consume dairy or meat products without disruption.
First, the argument, "Because population X needs to eat meat to survive, therefore I may also eat meat" isn't valid. You might as well be making the argument, "Because a battered wife needed to shoot her spouse, I may also shoot my spouse". (N.B. I'm not saying that shooting a human being is the same as shooting a non-human animal, only that these arguments are equally invalid.) It's particularly invalid when talking about past populations.
Second, you said "Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today." I didn't read this as sarcasm; I read it as you saying that factory farming is necessary to feed the population, generally. (Which is a plain reading, in my opinion.) The site to which I referred makes many points, among them that it's more environmentally damaging to raise livestock than to grow vegetables and most notably, that we could feed more people by devoting our resources to growing (and shipping) vegetables than by doing the same with livestock. Hence it does make a difference whether people choose to be vegan or to be an omnivore, for the costs of each diet are not equal, environmentally, morally, etc.
(And finally, I find it amusing that you object to the size of factory farm's "holding pens": surely this follows only from the impact the animal's concomitant diseases will have on its eater, and not that such conditions are inherently immoral? If it's the former, then I must have the right to cram a bunch of puppies in a tiny cage and then kill them, no? After all, I won't be selling their meat to some humans who might become unhealthy. And if it's the latter, well, I think you understand what that would imply . . .)
@118
"Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is virtue." lulzzzzz The counterexamples are too numerous.
@118: You supposedly met one vegan who supposedly made it his mission to make people uncomfortable....thanks, that counts as "Tells you about the vegan somewhere who once did something wrong" in my bingo game!!!!
Yess! Now all I need is for you to say something about cavemen and I'll have another bingo in this thread! (center column)
My point is that these defenses are all so entirely predictable that it is humorous. Thanks for acknowledging, at least, that some of us "behave ourselves"
WHAT ABOUT THE BEES???
I can't get any vegans to answer me this question. Commercial produce- including nuts, tree fruits, berries, grains, you name it- is pollinated by CAPTIVE BEES. So if you refuse to eat honey, how can you eat ANYTHING? If you plant your own vegetables, you are still exploiting the labor of local bees (who may or may not be wild- how do you KNOW) by relying on them to pollinate your food. So how can you be truly vegan? It's a total crock.
@121 LOL I do wonder about the cows. Would we shoot them all? (if we did, then why eat them? Shame to let them all rot...) Or who would pay to feed them all until they died, if they had no value as food? They aren't wild, so there's no native habitat we could release them into. They would go extinct. WHY DO YOU HATE THE COWS SO MUCH?
@125 others have covered this on this thread already, but I'll restate it again- I don't get all huffy because you or my wife chooses to not eat meat- you eat what you want. It's when someone tries to argue there is a superior philosophical reason for being vegan, like that jackass philosophy prof in the NYT recently, that I get all worked up. It's bogus. Like when someone tries to argue FOR banning same sex marriage. That just pisses me off. Eat all the seitan you want, I'll have some with you. Just don't claim there is a moral/ethical high ground for vegans.
Grumpypants: in these 127 comments, not one vegan or vegetarian person has thrown superiority of morals or ethics in your face. Your comment is the perfect case study of omnivores feeling judged, not BEING judged because of one's personal choices. Ugh.
Do a control+F of those words and you will find that every time it comes up, it is OMNIVORES who are huffing and puffing about it. Nobody here has claimed "superior philosophical reason" for being vegan. It's all in your f'ing head!
@ 120: first, your point is flawed, my argument that as a natural omnivore it is totally natural for me to eat meat is as valid today as it ever was. This idea that because it is possible to live without meat we shouldn't is a total matter of opinion.
The key term in that quote being "meat eaters" as in people who eat meat. Frankly if we did all go vegan we probably could put enough calories in front of everyone to keep them from starving to death. Yes I did check out your link and it brings up some very good points. However I would also say that the mass round-up farms and the huge amounts of crap corn we produce are probably almost as bad for our bodies and our environment as the Factory Farms that we both despise. In a fight to match crop growth and meat production with human need we have sold our food integrity and health values. All of you who eat organically and live of home grown and local produce are in the same boat as me, we can live like this because everybody else doesn't. If the population of America tried to produce all of its food the way that we eat then there would be almost no way to feed all of our population.
Also while it bothers me that we keep animals in such terrible conditions I also understand that these animals are property. These animals are part of an artificial food chain, they exist because we choose to make them exist. When factory farms close down all of the creatures will die anyway because they have non of the natural facilities to survive in the population levels they have attained. Yes the major part of my argument against pens is that they have bad effects on the animals meat. Seeing as these animals never get exercise and live in there own shit their bodies become overly fatty and take in all kinds of terrible bacteria.
As for the Puppy confinement, there is not point to do that to said animals. If we do not eat dogs why are we confining them to be put to death. If we are in fact going to eat the dogs later then I must insist that my portion be from a free range dog who ate natural meats and lived in sanitary conditions. That being said I personally would never eat dogs, firstly because I like them to much and secondly because they are useful critters for hunting. What other people to with Rover is none of my business.
What's the big deal? The overwhelming majority of vegans aren't trying to force their values on omnivores. The worst I've seen is a couple threads online with one or two self-identified veganarchists giving vegetarians shit for not being just like them. I'm fairly certain there are a hell of a lot more 'God gave us dominion over the animals so we should kill them as inhumanely as possible and eat them' type people than vegan bullies.
Regarding Dan's original post, it is perfectly reasonable to make sex and relationship decisions based on the life-style choices of prospective partners. Like hell am I fucking any sense into people who's value are diametrically opposed to mine.
@127, I'm vegetarian and I'm better than you. The two aren't connected actually. I'm just better, intrinsically. (/narcissism)
when most people find out that you are vegetarian they are forced to confront a huge blind spot they have been living in that enables them to ignore the extreme moral and aesthetic ugliness of their lifestyle. They know damn good and well that what they are doing is wrong on so many levels but change is hard to imagine and harder to do and the pressure from family and the rest of society to conform is overwhelming. So often the first reaction is to attack the messenger, usually a vegan who has to out himself at a restaurant or ask what's in some food served at a party. Instead of a live and let live attitude one often encounters all manor of bullying and thinly disguised hostility and absurd arguments about killing insects.
Notice how often Peta is vilified, usually nobody points out that there is an entire diverse industry dedicated to slander and mis information about Peta, the ASPCA, and any kind of advocacy on behalf of animals, paid for by special interests who's profits depend on cruelty.
If you feel uncomfortable reading this then it's unlikely you have continued reading this far. It's not the vegetarian that is the source of your pain, but the conflict in your own mind when you are confronted with the truth for a fleeting moment before you can divorce your thoughts from the reality of your wickedness.
PETA advocate women posing naked, and shackled in tacky and degrading pornesque photos to convert audiences, so of course they're going to advocate that Vegans fuck lots of Carnivores, especially Women Vegans fucking male carnivores. That's what their 'outreach' is all about, feeding the market for women's bodies.
@ 133: you see that is exactly the kind of thing that Omnivores hate.
We are omnivores it is natural that we eat meat. Meat eating in and of itself does not directly harm other human beings or the human population as a whole and as such any moral grounds against it is personal belief, like homophobia or honesty (except in the cases where murder or social damages are involved).
Also PETA needs no help making itself look stupid.
@133: "when most people find out that you are vegetarian they are forced to confront a huge blind spot they have been living in that enables them to ignore the extreme moral and aesthetic ugliness of their lifestyle."
Can you explain this immorality please?
(I don't care about the aesthetics of any particularly lifestyle.)
I completely fail to understand why killing another animal for food is "extreme moral ugliness."
Should we begin preventing other non-human animals from murdering other animals for food? Or does your morality rule only apply to humans for some reason?
Auntie Jim - very well said, indeed! What I am finding out in my old age is that these knuckleheads just don't give a damn! You can educate until the cows come home (unless, of course, the cows are part of factory farming and cruelly raised, tortured, and slaughtered before they get home). The general population just does not care about animals. I have been so bewildered by the chasm between the meat eater and the non-meat eater. Why do these carnivores not wake up to reality? Probably because they don't want to. They are self-centered, love the taste of bloody meat, and think they need the evasive "protein," protein which we get in everything we eat without meat! I asked a wise East Indian vegan one time how to respond to this inane, stupid question. He wisely said, "I simply ask them--where does a cow get its protein?" Sadly, I realize that if they don't get this, there is probably no hope for conversion. What all-knowing scientist/doctor ever said in the first place that protein is so friggin' important? With a vegetarian/vegan diet there are even more delectable choices to put on my plate. The repercussions from a meat-based diet will occur, as I'm sure you know, in the form of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and other horrible diseases. So much for that. Tough luck.
>Implying that humans are not animals.
Everyone in this thread who thinks that vegans are morons/misguided/losers/pussies/etc. should start bashing Buddhism next, seeing as Buddhists (real ones, at least) are vegetarian at the very least. I doubt that the Buddhist-bashing thread will be as popular. I also find it amusing how much sexism is infused in anti-vegan rhetoric. Men who are vegan can't be real men and women who are vegan probably have no sex drive because they are so frail and unhealthy. Geniuses all up in this thread.
Post #101 is a good example of the childish insults that contribute nothing positive to the world that I was referencing. Any adult who engages in, laughs at, or defends nonsense like that isn't very far off from endorsing the type of shit that leads to persecution of all sorts.
Undoubtedly human beings will eventually be mostly vegetarian. It will become necessary due to the expense and social costs of farming meat.
The issue most meat eaters have is an internalized defensive reaction to being labeled "immoral" for what is culturally accepted practice. It is unfortunate they react so. But the implication is there when one group says "I don't do X, becuase I think it's immoral." When YOU do X, by inference, you could be seen as being called immoral.
Few people will be convinced on the moral arguments against eating meat if it is framed purely in terms of "meat is murder" and the like.
Frankly, that's a rather weak argument outside of ones own personal set of principles.
After all it's very hard to rationalize that a human life is equivalent to an animals (which some PETA people try to do). "Meat is murder" is easily refuted by posing the hypothetical choice between saving a human being or saving an animal; clearly saving a human is the more "moral" choice (though I'm sure some will argue the opposite out foolish pique). It's safe to say that 99% of society values human life above animal life when forced to choose, vegan or meat eater alike. Therefore animals and humans are NOT morally equivalent (yes, I know, humans ARE animals). If it were to become true that humans and animals were given an equal right to life then hitting a squirrel with your car could be a criminal offense. Which of course would be patently absurd. Applying rigorous intellectual honesty it is necessary to admit we value animals and humans on some sort of sliding scale of value. Suddenly the morality of killing animals becomes far less black and white.
Also If "Killing animals is immoral" then participation in a technological society is itself immoral as our civilization murders millions of animals (to extinction, no less) mostly by displacing habitats with our cities, resource extraction, agriculture.
There simply is no way to support a world population of 8 billion people AND support natural habitats. If you live in our technological society you are defacto contributing to killing animals.
And yes. This is every bit of the choice the eating meat is. Billions of people have lived (and are living) outside of technological western consumer based societies for millennium. Anybody could if they so chose. It wouldn't be easy. But it could be done.
So if eating meat for pleasure is wrong it is also as wrong to fly in a plane, own a car, buy an iPod, or innumerable other things that we do for convenience. They just "feel" less direct since starving out an entire species isn't as photogenic as electrocuting one cute calf. One death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic and all that.
So, avoiding the shaming language of morality, we are left with a gray area of where we CHOOSE to act more responsibly. Meat eaters: consider what your choices do. What you do has consequences. Understand them. Vegetarians and vegans: be more careful how you throw around labels like moral and immoral.
That is all.
Cruelty arguments against meat eating gain more traction. But. There are ways to humanely raise animals for meat eating. And there are humane ways of killing them. They make meat much more expensive. Which is should be since it has more cost than is reflected in the government subsidized price. That. And the cruelty argument is still largely emotional.
The only plausible rational argument for not eating meat is to reduce negative impact to the planet, and thus reducing the suffering of other HUMANS, in general. And hence why meat eating will eventually and inevitably be only for the wealthiest few since most ecosystems will not support the massive amounts of plant agriculture AND raising livestock. Not without a whole bunch of humans dying off, anyway.
"After all it's very hard to rationalize that a human life is equivalent to an animals (which some PETA people try to do)."
Whether a human life is equivalent to an animal's life is not the main point. Whether animals have certain rights is the important question, and is the focus of the (aptly named) animal rights movement. In particular, whether animals have the right not to be locked in a cage its entire life, etc. etc. we all know the story.
" "Meat is murder" is easily refuted by posing the hypothetical choice between saving a human being or saving an animal; clearly saving a human is the more "moral" choice (though I'm sure some will argue the opposite out foolish pique)."
The phrase "meat is murder" means that to eat meat is to participate in the slaughter of an animal. Setting up the deserted-island false dichotomy (either the cow is killed or the marooned sailor dies!) is sophomoric. Nothing approaching this scenario actually exists, save for some impoverished community somewhere where it is somehow actually cheaper to raise then slaughter livestock than to grow vegetables. Which is of course fantastical, but if you do have that scenario in mind, please show it to me. And in any case, no omnivore here has qualified his/her statements by saying "Only because it's necessary for population X to survive, I dispute the animal rights argument . . ." Hence we can ignore your false choice, because it doesn't actually happen when you go to the grocery store and has no role in your own diet. (And of course if this is one of those "My doctor says I'll die without a chicken breast once a week", then obviously you should follow your doctor's advice. But does anyone think this happens with nontrivial frequency? So let's not hide behind this, eh?)
"It's safe to say that 99% of society values human life above animal life when forced to choose, vegan or meat eater alike."
Again, factory farming is not explained by saying "well, we had to choose between us and the animals, so we're gonna slaughter a zillion animals and build a giant industry that pollutes the shit out of the environment". You are not "forced to choose" between eating a hamburger (in Seattle!) and dying. That's just bullshit.
"Therefore animals and humans are NOT morally equivalent (yes, I know, humans ARE animals)."
This is a fallacious argument. The premise is "99.9% of humans hold this opinion" and the conclusion is "therefore this opinion is correct". If you're really interested in the moral arguments, read a fucking book. There are a zillion good books on the subject.
"If it were to become true that humans and animals were given an equal right to life then hitting a squirrel with your car could be a criminal offense."
No, saying that animals have the right not to suffer its entire life before being killed does not imply that humans and animals have the same "right to life", it means they have the same right not to be treated in a certain fashion. Regarding your novel legislation, replace "hitting a squirrel with your car" with "locking a chicken in a cage, pumping it with shitty medicines, feeding it shit not part of its diet, etc., then killing it". Conclusion sounds a little different, eh? Maybe you're a little more likely to support such a law? Replace "chicken" with "cat" and holy shit it's already illegal to do that to a cat. But wait! Since animals and humans aren't equal, why should cats have the right not to be treated a certain way ?!?!?!
"Which of course would be patently absurd. "
Yes, it would be an absurd conclusion--which is probably why no serious animal rights activist argues that accidentally running over a squirrel should be a crime.
"Applying rigorous intellectual honesty it is necessary to admit we value animals and humans on some sort of sliding scale of value. Suddenly the morality of killing animals becomes far less black and white."
You didn't apply "intellectual honesty", you just set up an absurd false dichotomy between the death of an animal and the death of a human. Show me that situation and we can talk about the decision to be made in that situation: the Donner party choosing between the goat and little Johnny, etc.
"Meat is murder" is a slogan, not the sum total of animal rights philosophy.
Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today.
The way that I see it, I am an animal which is obviously an omnivore (despite the fact that the prevalence of cooked meat in human diet killed our ability to eat the stuff raw) as such it is totally natural that I eat meat. However because I am at the top of the food chain and have a surplus of non meat food that I can survive off of it is perfectly reasonable if I choose not to. I actually applaud this decision because it means more meat for me =)
P.S. If you do eat meat avoid commercial meats and know where what you do eat comes from. The Vs have a very good point when they say FF meat will kill you.
Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today.
The way that I see it, I am an animal which is obviously an omnivore (despite the fact that the prevalence of cooked meat in human diet killed our ability to eat the stuff raw) as such it is totally natural that I eat meat. However because I am at the top of the food chain and have a surplus of non meat food that I can survive off of it is perfectly reasonable if I choose not to. I actually applaud this decision because it means more meat for me =)
P.S. If you do eat meat avoid commercial meats and know where what you do eat comes from. The Vs have a very good point when they say FF meat will kill you.
Defensive Omnivore Bingo
I have some knowledge of animal biology, and in particular mammalian biology. I have observed that my cats can predicate a diet entirely upon animal tissues and not only subsist, but fully thrive. One will also notice far fewer in the way of dental problems with predatory pets that are fed a raw meat diet. But one will also notice that when a cat makes a kill with the intention of consuming the corpse the cat goes not for the muscle tissue that makes up the majority of cuts we consume from markets today, but rather immediately they go for the variety meats and viscera of the animal--those having the most nutritional and caloric value; muscle proteins, by contrast, take about as much energy to digest as they produce in digestion, and are thus inefficient.
One will also notice, when producing dishes as a cook with various different cuts of meat that those cuts which have a higher content of fat and connective tissue (often the cheaper cuts) taste better. Do not fool yourselves into believing that this is merely coincidence. One is, more or less, tasting the higher nutritional quality of those less-lean cuts.
I cannot say for sure exactly how cholesterols are digested, whether they are merely absorbed as is, or whether they must be broken down into something simpler before absorption, but we must understand the essential role that cholesterol plays in human chemistry. In addition to lubricating the blood vessels of the circulatory system, cholesterol forms the foundation for all androgens and estrogens; sexual reproduction (life as we know it) would not be possible without them; thus cholesterol is essential to the production of these primary chemicals. However, if cholesterol can be absorbed directly from food (specifically animal tissues), rather than made in some mechanism by the body, it is essential to eat cholesterol to be a living, breathing, virile or fertile human being.
And now, for a final commentary, I find opposition to industrial animal farming to be abhorrent. There was never widespread access to animal tissues in the periods of civilization leading up to the late modern; you will notice that people very frequently died of a small matter, not being able to absorb healthier nutrients to be derived predominantly from animals. Even today, animal cuts would be, more or less, unattainable to the common man without the advent of industrial farming; this allows them a high state of health. The solution to the environmental concerns--unfortunate pains derived from necessary industrial methods--will not come from a luddism and a rejection of contemporary agricultural methods; billions will die if mankind reverts to a pre-industrial model of agriculture; there is no way the world can sustain such numbers without it. New agricultural technologies--things like new farming methods and genetic modification of animals and crops--will alleviate the environmental concerns of our world. People will simply have to begin learning how to deal with a post-modern and eventually--post-human world. And I do not imply that humans will go extinct, but merely be forced to move forward as they have compelled their food.
Even if such societies exist, America is not one of them! Your argument has devolved from "It's us or the animals, someone's gotta go!" to "I'm at the top of the food chain, and I can eat meat, therefore it must be okay". Neither of which is an argument. And I don't know what past societies where vegans couldn't survive has to do with this, because we don't live there. Of course I'm thankful for modern convenience, no doubt meat eaters are, too. So?
"Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today. "
Here's a cite with a bunch of references on this subject, but I don't expect you to read it or believe them. I'm not being presumptuous, but someone who walks around thinking they must eat meat in order to survive is living a fantasy. You eat meat because it tastes good, and you'd prefer not to worry about the environmental damage or the animals' suffering. Vegans have been making their case for a long time, and your ignorance of this information is voluntary.
"some of them try to take the joy out of eating. They want to make each meal a serious task that involves ritualistic foreboding and guilt rather than a pleasurable event. "
There's vegan ice cream at SAFEWAY. Candy, etc.. Further, every person who has ever stayed on a diet long enough to notice can confirm that our tastes and preferences change to what our body is presented with.
Accusing people who wish to improve their health of sucking the joy and fun out of YOUR life is a pathetic and sad grasp at straws.
@ 113:Wow we really aren't communicating on the same wave length at all. I understand that Meat is not a necessary part of human diet in modern day america, however what you said in the post I was responding to was that:
"Nothing approaching this scenario actually exists, save for some impoverished community somewhere where it is somehow actually cheaper to raise then slaughter livestock than to grow vegetables. Which is of course fantastical, but if you do have that scenario in mind, please show it to me."
this statement is kinda false. societies where production of meat and dairy products for consumption was actually easier was a very common thing in many regions of the world.
And yes I am saying that it is OK for me to eat meat, the consumption of the flesh of other animals is a natural thing, creatures live and they die and sometimes are hunted and eaten.
Exactly as I said in my original post (well double post actually, sorry) I understand that it is no longer necessary to eat meat for survival in modern society. Doesn't mean that it is wrong to do so but it is totally the choice of the individual weather or not they feel like it.
Also everything that I said about factory farming was totally honest. I guess you think it was sarcasm because you posted a link that pretty much proves what I had just said. Let me rephrase my thoughts on factory farming for you.
I believe that without the industrial farming industry we could not support the number of meat eaters that live in todays society. However because of the high demands of the meat eating population the vast majority of todays meats have become dangerous to consume. Animals that have been pumped full of hormones and toxins, feed a single un-nutritious form of corn and kept in small holding pens are in no way healthy and should not be consumed.
I myself make sure to know where my meat comes from, local range farms that provide me with the healthiest possible meats (when I'm not hunting it myself).
Being Vegan or vegetarian is perfectly fine, I have never said otherwise. So is being a Meat eater.
It is no mere accusation because I know at least one vegan who said it was his mission to make people uncomfortable with dietary choices that don't have his approval. Other vegans are more reasonable and behave themselves when invited to a meal. Just as you have a right to enjoy your vegan food in peace others have the right to consume dairy or meat products without disruption.
First, the argument, "Because population X needs to eat meat to survive, therefore I may also eat meat" isn't valid. You might as well be making the argument, "Because a battered wife needed to shoot her spouse, I may also shoot my spouse". (N.B. I'm not saying that shooting a human being is the same as shooting a non-human animal, only that these arguments are equally invalid.) It's particularly invalid when talking about past populations.
Second, you said "Not that we could support the earth current population of meat eaters without the factory farms that produce the dangerous red meats of today." I didn't read this as sarcasm; I read it as you saying that factory farming is necessary to feed the population, generally. (Which is a plain reading, in my opinion.) The site to which I referred makes many points, among them that it's more environmentally damaging to raise livestock than to grow vegetables and most notably, that we could feed more people by devoting our resources to growing (and shipping) vegetables than by doing the same with livestock. Hence it does make a difference whether people choose to be vegan or to be an omnivore, for the costs of each diet are not equal, environmentally, morally, etc.
(And finally, I find it amusing that you object to the size of factory farm's "holding pens": surely this follows only from the impact the animal's concomitant diseases will have on its eater, and not that such conditions are inherently immoral? If it's the former, then I must have the right to cram a bunch of puppies in a tiny cage and then kill them, no? After all, I won't be selling their meat to some humans who might become unhealthy. And if it's the latter, well, I think you understand what that would imply . . .)
@118
"Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is virtue." lulzzzzz The counterexamples are too numerous.
Yess! Now all I need is for you to say something about cavemen and I'll have another bingo in this thread! (center column)
bingo chart
My point is that these defenses are all so entirely predictable that it is humorous. Thanks for acknowledging, at least, that some of us "behave ourselves"
I can't get any vegans to answer me this question. Commercial produce- including nuts, tree fruits, berries, grains, you name it- is pollinated by CAPTIVE BEES. So if you refuse to eat honey, how can you eat ANYTHING? If you plant your own vegetables, you are still exploiting the labor of local bees (who may or may not be wild- how do you KNOW) by relying on them to pollinate your food. So how can you be truly vegan? It's a total crock.
Being vegan means being a person who does everything they can to purposefully minimize the use or consumption of animal products.
It's not an all or nothing proposition, you know. It's not like, GOTCHA!! BEES! Everything you do is negated! HAHAHAH.
But anyway, I think you gave me "Points out that some object you own contains some infinitesimal amount of animal product" on my bingo chart!
Do a control+F of those words and you will find that every time it comes up, it is OMNIVORES who are huffing and puffing about it. Nobody here has claimed "superior philosophical reason" for being vegan. It's all in your f'ing head!
The key term in that quote being "meat eaters" as in people who eat meat. Frankly if we did all go vegan we probably could put enough calories in front of everyone to keep them from starving to death. Yes I did check out your link and it brings up some very good points. However I would also say that the mass round-up farms and the huge amounts of crap corn we produce are probably almost as bad for our bodies and our environment as the Factory Farms that we both despise. In a fight to match crop growth and meat production with human need we have sold our food integrity and health values. All of you who eat organically and live of home grown and local produce are in the same boat as me, we can live like this because everybody else doesn't. If the population of America tried to produce all of its food the way that we eat then there would be almost no way to feed all of our population.
Also while it bothers me that we keep animals in such terrible conditions I also understand that these animals are property. These animals are part of an artificial food chain, they exist because we choose to make them exist. When factory farms close down all of the creatures will die anyway because they have non of the natural facilities to survive in the population levels they have attained. Yes the major part of my argument against pens is that they have bad effects on the animals meat. Seeing as these animals never get exercise and live in there own shit their bodies become overly fatty and take in all kinds of terrible bacteria.
As for the Puppy confinement, there is not point to do that to said animals. If we do not eat dogs why are we confining them to be put to death. If we are in fact going to eat the dogs later then I must insist that my portion be from a free range dog who ate natural meats and lived in sanitary conditions. That being said I personally would never eat dogs, firstly because I like them to much and secondly because they are useful critters for hunting. What other people to with Rover is none of my business.
Regarding Dan's original post, it is perfectly reasonable to make sex and relationship decisions based on the life-style choices of prospective partners. Like hell am I fucking any sense into people who's value are diametrically opposed to mine.
@127, I'm vegetarian and I'm better than you. The two aren't connected actually. I'm just better, intrinsically. (/narcissism)
Why do people get so upset over what other people eat? If I don't want to eat factory-farmed food products, that's my business.
Notice how often Peta is vilified, usually nobody points out that there is an entire diverse industry dedicated to slander and mis information about Peta, the ASPCA, and any kind of advocacy on behalf of animals, paid for by special interests who's profits depend on cruelty.
If you feel uncomfortable reading this then it's unlikely you have continued reading this far. It's not the vegetarian that is the source of your pain, but the conflict in your own mind when you are confronted with the truth for a fleeting moment before you can divorce your thoughts from the reality of your wickedness.
I imagine it's similar to the sort of self-confrontation that a homophobic parent undergoes when she finds out her child is queer.
PETA are cockheads.
We are omnivores it is natural that we eat meat. Meat eating in and of itself does not directly harm other human beings or the human population as a whole and as such any moral grounds against it is personal belief, like homophobia or honesty (except in the cases where murder or social damages are involved).
Also PETA needs no help making itself look stupid.
Can you explain this immorality please?
(I don't care about the aesthetics of any particularly lifestyle.)
I completely fail to understand why killing another animal for food is "extreme moral ugliness."
Should we begin preventing other non-human animals from murdering other animals for food? Or does your morality rule only apply to humans for some reason?