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]

Quote by: Autolykos 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]

Quote by: Autolykos 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]

Quote by: Passivist 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]

Quote by: 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

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]

Quote by: 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

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.

[Autolykos]

Mr. Vicchio, if you would pay attention, I am not talking about whether such a thing will happen. I am asking whether any vegetarians would be willing to use force to keep everyone else from eating meat. Your post is thus beside the point, but thanks for your effort.

- Rob

[Hmm]

Quote by: 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

If all viable means of obtaining meat are made illegal for this country's citizens, then yes, it is the equivalent of forcing them to adopt a vegetarian diet.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Why worry about what they want to do? The leading, most politically influential animal rights group have this as their key goal, the end of meat eating. Think PETA and other radical groups.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Why worry about what they want to do? The leading, most politically influential animal rights group have this as their key goal, the end of meat eating. Think PETA and other radical groups.

I'm not worried about what they want to do. I simply asked a question for vegetarians in the OP. Is that so hard for you to understand?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Hmm If all viable means of obtaining meat are made illegal for this country's citizens, then yes, it is the equivalent of forcing them to adopt a vegetarian diet.

Thank you. :)

- Rob

[Captain Cardio]

If I was in charge of the country, I would make sure that factory farming became illegal. For me it isn't a matter of whether being a human carnivore is wrong, its whether animals suffer extensively before they reach our plate. I spose there are health concerns to, but if factory farming was outlawed, not as much meat would be produced, so the price would go up, and maybe eating vegetarian would be more economically viable. To me it seems that the way things are with livestock production, we are feeding an unimaginable amount of suffering into the cosmos.

I spose a similar question to vegetarianism as far as human health goes would be, would you ban smoking?

The Meatrix - Factory farming 101

This flash video doesn't even mention the inhumane ways animals are killed.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Captain Cardio If I was in charge of the country, I would make sure that factory farming became illegal. For me it isn't a matter of whether being a human carnivore is wrong, its whether animals suffer extensively before they reach our plate. I spose there are health concerns to, but if factory farming was outlawed, not as much meat would be produced, so the price would go up, and maybe eating vegetarian would be more economically viable. To me it seems that the way things are with livestock production, we are feeding an unimaginable amount of suffering into the cosmos.

I can agree with being concerned about factory farming for human health concerns. The increase in production may be offset by the decline in quality.

Saying that "we are feeding an unimaginable amount of suffering into the cosmos" only makes sense if one supposes that "the cosmos" cares about suffering. I've seen no evidence of that. Instead, I see some people caring about whether animals suffer. Of course, that may not sound quite as convincing as presuming there to be a caring, feeling "cosmos".

On another note, do you consider death to be a form of suffering?

I spose a similar question to vegetarianism as far as human health goes would be, would you ban smoking?

Nope.

The Meatrix - Factory farming 101 This flash video doesn't even mention the inhumane ways animals are killed.

Beside the point, really. The question is whether you would want to force people to give up eating meat -- or want others to do so for you.

- Rob

[Captain Cardio]

Saying that "we are feeding an unimaginable amount of suffering into the cosmos" only makes sense if one supposes that "the cosmos" cares about suffering.

I don't agree with that the idea only makes sense if the cosmos cares. Depends on what your idea of the cosmos is.

I admit that was an abstract statement. What I was getting at, was that there is alot of suffering happening, that while we may not feel it, is still real and happening if you consider every conscious perspective of the universe. By the cosmos, I meant the universe in terms of all sentient beings experiences. That pain exists and there are sentient beings feeling it.

You can't make anybody care, but why wouldn't they? Why do we care about the idea of other humans suffering, and not animals? We feel pain sometimes, and we don't like it. It is negative experience in a fundamental way. We assume that other humans have consciousnesses besides ourselves, and we don't like the idea of them feeling pain, and we can see it on their faces. Why is there a prejudice against animals, that says that their suffering isn't a big concern, because they aren't humans? They still have brains, and demonstrate behaviour synomous with the sensation of pain. It's as if we feel no need to be empathetic to terrible suffering, because its inconvenient

We even have prejudice between animals. If you've ever seen a dog get hit by a car, its not easy to watch, because we have empathy for a dog in great pain. The dog seems to us to have partial humanity to us. Why do we not consider that empathy, when considering other animals such as livestock?

I've seen no evidence of that. Instead, I see some people caring about whether animals suffer. Of course, that may not sound quite as convincing as presuming there to be a caring, feeling "cosmos".

I don't presume there is a caring cosmos either. Different idea for meaning of cosmos, as talked about above.

Beside the point, really. The question is whether you would want to force people to give up eating meat -- or want others to do so for you.

That's fair, I admit that was off-topic. The OP did spark my thoughts on that and I felt a stronger desire to raise awareness of it in my own mind than go along with your thread, my apologies.

If there was no other way to stop animals from suffering to get to our table, sure I would make vegetarianism mandatory.

The reason people might not like that, is that they aren't ok with the idea of change, not that being a carnivore has any actual advantage. You could say taste, but if people gave vegetarianism a chance for awhile, they might get used to it and like it. People are not open enough to that idea, because they don't have a strong enough incentive to go through the hassle of change. Having not eaten meat for years (just me, not proof), I have developed a subconcious reaction for finding the taste and texture of meat disgusting, through no effort of my own.

On another note, do you consider death to be a form of suffering?

No, unless other beings have an emotional attachment (EDIT: or others were dependant on the deceased )to the being that died. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care what happens to animals before they die. We like the idea of our fellow human beings passing away quickly, and not suffering, even though there is no living brain left to remember or relive the pain.

My debatable viewpoint:
If you were ever trying to come up with judgement of whether our world is a good thing, you couldn't go by your perspective alone. Just for me, the way I rate things, is by the notion that if anything is good or bad, it is related directly to what pain or joy it brings. Pain and joy are to me, fundamental good and bad things in the world. If there is more pain in our world than joy, our world is bad.