Question for Vegetarians

[Autolykos]

I've read that a vegetarian diet can provide the same nutritional value as an omnivorous diet. Also, I've seen it claimed that a vegetarian diet provides various health benefits over a diet that includes meat (here defined as any animal flesh). Vegetarians point to these things when promoting their diet.

My question to vegetarians is this: Is trying to persuade people enough for you, or are you willing to use the power of the government to force people to become vegetarians? Why or why not?

- Rob

[Hmm]

My question to vegetarians is this: Is trying to persuade people enough for you,

Yes, persuasion is enough for me.

or are you willing to use the power of the government to force people to become vegetarians? Why or why not?

No, that is just absurd. Why should I be able to force you to choose a different diet and lifestyle?

[Autolykos]

Thanks for your reply, Hmm.

I'm glad you aren't willing to force anyone else to adopt a certain diet. However, let me ask you the following question:

If the government, in the spirit of "protecting animals" (for example), decides to ban animal husbandry, would that be equivalent to forcing its citizens to become vegetarians?

- Rob

[Hmm]

If the government, in the spirit of "protecting animals" (for example), decides to ban animal husbandry, would that be equivalent to forcing its citizens to become vegetarians?

- Rob

What do you mean by "equivalent?" Equivalent in what way(s)?

[Autolykos]

I mean in the terms of following proposition:

Government banning of animal husbandry implies forcing its citizens to become vegetarians (since they would not be allowed to engage in, or benefit from, animal husbandry).

- Rob

[Passivist]

My question to vegetarians is this: Is trying to persuade people enough for you, or are you willing to use the power of the government to force people to become vegetarians? Why or why not?

I wonder whether the banning of murder would be expressed as "forced" also. The only reason why the prohibition of killing people is not seen as coercion, is because it is a (more) commonly held view.

But, to answer the question: I think persuasion will have to do the trick, until a sufficient number of people agree to define slaughter as murder.

[Autolykos]

I wonder whether the banning murder would be expressed as "forced" also. The only reason why the prohibition of killing people is not seen as coercion, is because it is a (more) commonly held view.

I would argue that anything the government does implicitly involves force, but that's just me. That includes banning murder.

But, to answer the question: I think persuasion will have to do the trick, until a sufficient number of people agree to define slaughter as murder.

What number is a sufficient number, in your opinion?

And do you think that might makes right?

- Rob

[Hmm]

I mean in the terms of following proposition:

Government banning of animal husbandry implies forcing its citizens to become vegetarians (since they would not be allowed to engage in, or benefit from, animal husbandry).

- Rob

No, they are not equivalents, but they are very similar. If the government decided to ban animal husbandry, then people would no longer be able to obtain meat from raising and slaughtering animals. However, if this were to happen, some would still insist on getting meat from other sources, such as hunting.

But then again, for those people who do not live in a rural area where they would be able to hunt, they would, in reality, have no practical way at accessing meat.

So, in some ways, yes, banning animal husbandry is the equivalent of forcing vegetarianism upon people. But in other instances, it is not.

A very good question, though I think that there are too many variables to consider.

[Autolykos]

Ah, good point. I forgot about hunting.

Okay, instead of saying the government banned animal husbandry, let's say it banned animal slaughter. This includes both animal husbandry (where the animal is raised for its meat, implying slaughter) and hunting.

- Rob

[Hmm]

Ah, good point. I forgot about hunting.

Okay, instead of saying the government banned animal husbandry, let's say it banned animal slaughter. This includes both animal husbandry (where the animal is raised for its meat, implying slaughter) and hunting.

- Rob

Does this country allow meat to be imported from other countries where animal slaughter is legal?

I know I'm nitpicking...

[Autolykos]

No problem. I thought of that already, to be honest.

Yes, if the government wishes to be consistent, it will not allow its citizens to import meat from other countries.

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Auto, it'll never happen. Most people realize that animals are a source of many beneficial items to man, food, commerce and what not. You'll never see enough people turn from these benefits to make meat go away.

Just not, gonna happen.