Vegetarianism

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lostinlife As for your "I evolved to be an omnivore argument", although we certainly are ABLE to eat animal products, our dental structure is unlike that of most carnivores in that we cannot rip uncooked flesh from bone. Moreover, unlike carnivores, we have a long intestine.

Well, duh. That is because we are omnivores and not carnivores.

Quote by: Lostinlife Then, facts of evolution do not settle matters of morality. One could argue that we have evolved to be a violent species. Does that make violence morally right? We have evolved opposable thumbs, that which make it perfect for closing someone's windpipe and suffocating them; does that mean we SHOULD? Humans have abstained from all sorts of acts and behaviors that used to be called "natural". Do you condone defecating in the street?

So carnivores and omnivores, roughly half of the animal kingdom, are evil because they don't fit into your particular view of morality? What a strange and twisted morality that must be, if it denies who and what we are. Rather holier-than-thou don't you thing?

[Lostinlife]

Mmhm, when was the last time you saw an omnivore in the wild cooking their meat, or one that has a large intestine? You would die if you ate meat constantly in the same manner that ANY nonhuman animal does in the wild. Take note that this is a secondary argument.

So carnivores and omnivores, roughly half of the animal kingdom, are evil because they don't fit into your particular view of morality?

Are you denying who you are by refusing to consume HUMAN meat? Of course not, because you have certain moral preferences, that prevent you from doing certain things, despite how you "evolved". If you are advocating that we should behave like animals do in the wild, I will glady come across as "holier-than-thou".

The key to remember is that UNLIKE US, animals consuming meat in the wild is a NECESSITY, they have no choice: kill or starve. We as human adults also have a much higher capacity for empathy than nonhuman animals, and can decide through moral imperitives not to consume them.

[inri]

Quote by: Diogenes We are animals. Microwave ovens and VCR's don't change that...they just give a false impression of superiority.

Microwaves and VCR's have far less to do with the difference than Empathic ability, reasoning ability and an ability to CHOOSE integral action.

Sell everything that you own and use the money to feed the poor and then come back to me and ask that question. Or, are the limits of your compassion determined first by your own needs?

Most humans, along with possessing 'some' ability for empathic reasoning, possess a strong drive for self preservation. This is the one trait that ALL living beings appear to have in common. It is an uncommon person who has reached the level of empathic/integral development capable of denying his own personal needs 100% in favor of another's.

Limits of compassion are determined by perception of self preservation....almost all of the time. Some evidently 'perceive' that a taste preference for certain foods is necessary for preservation of self.

Is an act of kindness somehow less kind because someone could have gone further in his actions?....I don't think so. Each act stands alone.
Anytime one takes the time to consider the plight and feelings of another,and consequently chooses to take action, a positive deed is being done.

Charity is determined by giving out of your own need not of your excess...it's easy to give and be compassionate when you take care of your own needs first.

Yes, It is 'easier' to give when little sacrifice is required...however, to the selfish man, ANY amount of sacrifice is considered large....Is any amount of charity in this case, however small, to be scoffed at...? Or should we embrace any and all cases of charity and kindess, however small?

Clearly by your response you are saying: Go all the way with your compassionate action, or don't bother at all. That is really sad.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: RickSP Why should I disprove an assertion that you yourself so eloquently disprove yourself?

Explain how I disproved it myself, or then please refrain from posting comments if your not really going to back them up.

I never suggested that ALL vegans are malnourished

Notice I said "if". I was also going off your amino acid comment and your previous skepticism on the healthiness of a vegan diet.

,though unquestionably some are.

Sure, as there is some malnourished individuals in EVERY DIET, as well as OVERCONSUMPTION of certain calories perticularly in diets heavy in animal products. Not everyone is SMART about their diet, and those that consume animal products are no exception.

I could go on with more examples, but by now you should get the idea.

Isolated cases. These people are clearly imcompetent and are the exception, not the rule. I have already provided a RELIABLE source claiming that it is healthy to raise children on vegan diets.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lostinlife Mmhm, when was the last time you saw an omnivore in the wild cooking their meat, or one that has a large intestine? You would die if you ate meat in the same manner that ANY nonhuman animal does in the wild. Take note that this is a secondary argument

Humans have been omnivores for their entire evolutionary history. Do you contest this?

Quote by: Lostinlife Are you dening who you are by refusing to consume HUMAN meat? Of course not, because you have certain moral preferences, that prevent you from doing certain things, despite how you "evolved". If you are advocating that we should behave like animals do in the wild, I will glady come across as "holier-than-thou". The key to remember is that UNLIKE US, animals consuming meat in the wild is a NECESSITY, they have no choice: kill or starve. We as human adults also have much higher capacity for empathy than nonhuman animals, and can decide through moral imperitives not to consume them.

Oh great. Now you throw cannibalism in the mix. And you wonder why, to those who don't share your warped world view, that you come off sounding holier-than-thou. A bit of perspective might be useful.

No, I do not see anthing thing wrong with being who and what I am, a creature with both canine teeth for ripping flesh and grinding teeth for vegetation. Spare me your twisted morality.

Vegetarianism is ultimately a religion, based on faith and dogma. If you believe the mumbo jumbo, that is fine with me. If you stop for a minute and consider, you might nevertheless understand that all the proselytizing gets very tiresome.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lostinlife Explain how I disproved it myself, or then please refrain from posting comments if your not really gonna back them up.

Very simply, you argue against the view that vegans are holier than thou and yet your argument itself is pompus and holier than thou. You argue against you own case whether you realize it or not.

Quote by: Lostinlife Sure, as there is some malnourished individuals in EVERY DIET, as well overconsumption of certain calories perticularly in diets heavy in animal products. Not everyone is SMART about their diet, and those that consume animal products are no exception. Isolated cases. These people are clearly imcompetent and are the exception, not the rule. I have already provided a RELIABLE source claiming that it is healthy to raise children on vegan diets.

Bullshit. Children have died and come close to dying on vegan diets. That is a fact. And all you offer is this mindless denial. Once again, you argue against your own case.

[Diogenes]

Good grief, Diogenes -- is this really you speaking? Jesus would be so proud of you...

I'll consider that a compliment

Clearly by your response you are saying: Go all the way with your compassionate action, or don't bother at all. That is really sad.

No...as usual inri you see what you want to see...I was clearly making a point that those who sit on their soapboxes and preach are, for the most part, hypocrites...or at the very least very selective...

and there's nothing wrong with being ' selective ' we are all selective...

the problem is that veggies and environmentalists want you to select what they've selected as more important than what you or I consider more selectively important...

which is one reason I find this whole thread absurd and like to occasionally mock it.

It's ridiculous to pass judgment the way you and others do based upon your own criteria of what may be important to you.

You've made a point of saying that those who eat meat must be less compassionate, therefore more inferior, than those who choose not to eat meat...based upon your evaluation of compassion in one area.

So...let me ask you...

there's a guy who eats meat...but he gives to the homeless, plays with his kids at the park, shovels old ladies driveways, volunteers at a food bank, and ran into a burning building to save a cat...
according to your previous posts this person is inferior and suffers a lack of empathy?

Your understanding of compassion and empathy and selection borders on the ludicrous. Now you can have your soapbox back.

[GeminiBrian]

You need to be extremely nutritionally aware to be a successful vegan, which few people are. It's so easy to get the balance wrong.

I told you, Lost, that I had to abandon my youthful efforts to be a vegan because, despite taking it very seriously as a diet - it didn't agree with me at the end of the day. I just didn't feel strong on it.

Personally, much as I admire the ethos behind veganism, I remain unconvinced that it is neccessary to go that far, or even desirable. I have severe misgivings about it being an ideal diet for us omnivores, leading busy lives where it's not always possible to work out the nutritional balance required to sustain energy.

The margin for error is uncomfortably narrow.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: RickSp Humans have been omnivores for their entire evolutionary history. Do you contest this?

Of course, but humans have also killed and enslaved each other throughout their entire evolutionary history. It is irrelevant because appeal to history is a logical fallacy.

Oh great. Now you throw cannibalism in the mix. And you wonder why, to those who don't share your warped world view, that you come off sounding holier-than-thou. A bit of perspective might be useful.

Oh great. The "hurt feelings" cop-out. If you came here to debate then why not attempt a refutation? What is the difference in requiring the death of humans and nonhumans for our consumption?

Vegetarianism is ultimately a religion, based on faith and dogma.

That would be your opinion, and one you have failed to prove. Ironically, from what I have seen thus far, you have given me an appeal to history and an emotional outburst, which indeed sounds attuned to those arguing in favor of dogma.

[Diogenes]

You need to be extremely nutritionally aware to be a successful vegan, which few people are. It's so easy to get the balance wrong.

Which is another point I've made several times...that even if the world went veggie that would not make us any healthier as a whole...eliminating meat entirely is not the problem ...

twinkies, potato chips, ice cream, beer, pop, etc etc etc are far more responsible for unhealthy diets than meat could ever hope to attain...

a healthy diet does not consist of eliminating meat it consists of well-balanced nutrition.

..........................

Now having said that....because the hard-core militant veggies say that a veggie life is healthier I'll go heat up some veggie pizza bagels, grab a bag of potato chips, a few Halloween chocolate bars, maybe a loaf of French bread, a few cans of pop, a veggie sub or two, and I'll blame them if my non-meat diet doesn't make me healthy.

[inri]

[QUOTE=DIOGENES



No...as usual inri you see what you want to see...[/QUOTE]



No, believe it or not, I do not at all enjoy seeing lack of compassion in other human beings.

I was clearly making a point that those who sit on their soapboxes and preach are, for the most part, hypocrites...or at the very least very selective...

Being human...having a physical existence upon the plant earth, to some extent entails making an impact upon other living beings. Yes, all humans, by our very nature are selective as to the heirarchy of importance we'll choose to give to various causes. However, those with even a very basic ethical position that says "do the least amount of harm possible" can see the wisdom within the idea that all sentient beings capable of suffering must be afforded certain considerations.

the problem is that veggies and environmentalists want you to select what they've selected as more important than what you or I consider more selectively important...

It's tough to understand how someone can see that it's wrong to cause a human being to suffer unessesarily at their own hands, yet cannot fathom how it is also wrong to cause an animal to do the same, when Both are capable of suffering in a similar way.

It's ridiculous to pass judgment the way you and others do based upon your own criteria of what may be important to you.

It's ridiculous to say that it's wrong to cause a living being to suffer (a human) because you know how awful it feels to do so...yet somehow believe it's okay to cause this similar suffering in a non-human animal, simply because it's of another species, and you have a taste for it's meat. Why is one not okay...yet the other is?

You've made a point of saying that those who eat meat must be less compassionate, therefore more inferior, than those who choose not to eat meat...based upon your evaluation of compassion in one area. So...let me ask you... there's a guy who eats meat...but he gives to the homeless, plays with his kids at the park, shovels old ladies driveways, volunteers at a food bank, and ran into a burning building to save a cat... according to your previous posts this person is inferior and suffers a lack of empathy?

No, you've clearly not read my previous posts....or not understood them. A highly empathic/compassionate, integral person extends his compassion and resultant action ACROSS THE BOARD....To all sentient beings...all beings capable of suffering.

sure, this guy would be more compassionate than most, However, someone who extends his basic philosophy of 'do no harm' to ALL sentient beings, is demonstrating superior ethics.

Catering to and giving charity to one set of sentient beings, while causing suffering to, and killing another, for a mere preference, does not make one an overall kind person.

If I'm kind to my neighbor because he's of my race, yet nasty to all others who are not.....am I, overall, a compassionate person?...NO....I'm cruelly selective in terms of who I choose to give my compassionate consideration to.

If it could be argued successfully that animals do not feel pain...do not suffer...Then and only then can it be argued that somehow their suffering is not significant and that it should not be considered. Callously ignoring the obvious suffering of another lving being in order to entertain a food preference cannot be considered a 'kind' or even morally neutral act.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri It's only subjective "IF" you disagree that causing animal suffering is unkind, and IF you disagree that kindness is valued over cruelty.

Inl lieu of your very own wording; an individual possess different degrees of empathetic ability and also alots it differently. Above you assert you are not one of these "highly evolved" individuals you speak of but yet you are an ethical vegan,as you say. With this empathy being gaged on a case by case basis wouldn't the overall implication within your argument then be subjective? The words "suffering" "unkind/kindness" "cruelty" values deal mainly with ones perception thereof and asserted value then placed. Those too, involving their degrees of interpretaion are subjective as well.

Quote by: inri I can only imagine that at this stage of the game, any remaining lots of such animals would be extremely minimal. A world majority of those who value kindness above all else, (as would be necessary for veganism to be the accepted diet amongst all) would very likely embrace the idea of adopting out these animals for care by interested individuals. Further breeding of these remaining animals would be curtailed while they lived out their remaining life spans.

Sounds noble and kind enough to me. Ultimately though you would be exterminating these entire sub-species of animals. I guess it's all in the timing and method I suppose,huh. I choose to kill some of many, you choose to kill the last of the many. It's about what it thought the answer would be.

Quote by: inri When this world reaches a point where every human has attained the level of development necessary to consider all animals worthy of consideration and protection from uncessary cruelty, It's pretty likely that these deep rooted urges to 'kill' and 'consume flesh' will no longer be part of man's psyche. This is clearly a ways off....although 'some' humans are presently exhibiting these advanced tendencies.

Yes, we covered that part already. You did not answer my question however. In what mannor would you suppliment mans hunting influance on population levels in the wild?

Quote by: inri My position includes a statement of fact: Ethical vegans are morally superior to those who are not...IF...one holds values that say kindness is more desireble than cruelty...and if one believes that purposefully inflicting suffering upon another sentient being is a cruel act.

But as I already said I'm not really arguing this subjective observation of yours. In fact, I think it applies well, as a moral concept. The one thing you have said, that you seem to apply wholely is that killing another entient being is wrong. That statement came about when were were talking about the sentience levels of plants vs. animals.

Quote by: inri How can I state that everybody SHOULD become a vegan when I don't actually believe that all humans currently possess the mental/emotional development necessary for the mind set necessary?

Aside from your fact,as you dub it, stated above; another fact you have injected into this little squabble is that killing sentient beings is wrong despite facts or reasons. I will ask you again; How can this factual requirement you provide be fulfilled, if even hypothetically, if everybody were not vegans?

Quote by: inri My argument really is more simple...once again: Those who extend their empathy/compassion and integral action to encompass all sentient beings are of a higher moral/mental/emotional development than those who do not. The above statement is a fact IF kindness is valued over cruelty and IF it's accepted that animals are capable of suffering in a similar manner to humans. Clearly, if you do not agree with the above 'If's" you will not agree with my position.

Ok, but your argument has and does contain a key point you repeatingly stick with. Regardless of whatever consideration or empathy thats given to the animals plight in order to make their existence as naturaly enjoyable as possible and their death as swift and painless as it could be you still assert that despite the removal of the pain and suffering aspect its wrong to kill. I removed your subjective empathy from the equation,hypothetically, and yet then you gave another reason as to why the use of commodity animals should stop. That remaing point is what I'm zeroing in on.

Quote by: inri I was alluding to the fact that many humans do not feel the necessity to eat meat. You seem believe that underneath the surface, ALL humans have these animalistic urges you speak of. Fact is, many humans have absolutely no urge to kill....no urge to consume animal flesh...and there are even those who do, yet overcome them due to advanced empathy and integrity.

I brought up supporting evidence in that of the clashing of men and beast. Anyway, I believe the majority of humans have this rooted urge to enjoy meat, yes. To whatever degree this urge manifests itself depends on several factors, I would imagine. To contrast what your saying there are people who prefer meat and carbs and turn their nose up at the notion of greens and veggies.

Quote by: inri You do not consider killing a sentient being with a will to live to be at all cruel? do you believe it to be an act of 'kindness'?

Everything that lives is designed to survive and prosper. How do I view the killing of another sentient thing? I would say that I view the overall circumstances to the scenario. I view the acts describbed in this thread as acts of fulfillment of purpose.

Following the tone of your argument advocating 'no cruelty' the reprimanding of any sort of any sentient being should be abhorred and discontinued. Do you see how differently 'cruel actions' can be construed?

Quote by: inri I'm not saying everybodyd has the compulsive urge to rape...but 'some' do...You're not saying ALL humans have a compulsive urge to kill animals and eat their flesh, are you?

I'm saying the majority do possess this compulsive urge to consume meat in that the majority of the world population indulges in the eating of meat, if however seldom or to small degrees in may exist, in some cases.

Quote by: inri Sure, when we compare levels of cruelty, our own personal values will come into play...and most of us will likely agree that certain cruelties trump others. However, for those who believe in a philosophy of 'do the least amount of harm possible' in all scenarios, ANY amount of suffering/abuse is problematic and must be considered.

Then you should address my question above regarding punishment, as any punishment constitutes suffering to varying degrees.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Rick You argue against you own case whether you realize it or not.

The only way I could see the "hoiler-than-thou" criticism holding weight in a criticism of someone’s attitude is when the difference in another’s behavior that they are disapproving of is trivial or insignificant when compared to their own behavior, and the moral judgment and disapproving attitude of that trivial difference in behavior is clearly an overreaction.

Explain how the slaughter of billions of nonhumans a year, and the destruction of our environment and health by SAD can be labeled as trivial or insignificant.

Bullshit. Children have died and come close to dying on vegan diets. That is a fact. And all you offer is this mindless denial..

And child obesity is rapidly rising in most countries, what is your point? I offer that there exists millions of vegans that are indeed healthy, and a source from a major dietician association. You may refuse to look into it, but please refrain from confusing others.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: GeminiBrian You need to be extremely nutritionally aware to be a successful vegan, which few people are.

This is an exaggeration. EVERYONE must be nutritionally aware if their wish is to have a balanced diet. I would of thought this to be obvious.

The only reason this outlook of veganism is promient is beacause of the endless propaganda of the animal enterprises making vegans out to be anemic, grey-faced, and literally starving individuals.

We must not forget how dominating animal products are in our society, but this does not mean that it is difficult to live on a vegan diet, and healthfully so if you choose. I have never maintained that you become invariably healthy when on a vegan diet, and of course this is the same for any other sort of diet as well.

The only thing I have EVER maintained is that if you care about the interests of animals, then you have a MORAL obligation to abstain from animal products, the health and environmental benefits being mere bonuses.

(cont.)

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: GeminiBrain I told you, Lost, that I had to abandon my youthful efforts to be a vegan because, despite taking it very seriously as a diet - it didn't agree with me at the end of the day. I just didn't feel strong on it.

I contest that you weren't even nutritionally aware to a moderate exstent and/or did not have the willpower to continue the diet, which is completely understandalbe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Simple searches of information show us all that is required for a vegan diet and just how easy it really is, you of course may have to make a LITTLE more effort than finding healthy omnivorous diets, but once you get past the myths, you'll find what your looking for.

Personally, much as I admire the ethos behind veganism, I remain unconvinced that it is neccessary to go that far, or even desirable..

If we respect the interests of animals, then it is COMPLETELY nessacery to go that "far". If you wish to be healthy then you must do research (as with any other diet).

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister Inl lieu of your very own wording; an individual possess different degrees of empathetic ability and also alots it differently. Above you assert you are not one of these "highly evolved" individuals you speak of but yet you are an ethical vegan,as you say. With this empathy being gaged on a case by case basis wouldn't the overall implication within your argument then be subjective? The words "suffering" "unkind/kindness" "cruelty" values deal mainly with ones perception thereof and asserted value then placed. Those too, involving their degrees of interpretaion are subjective as well.

Empathic ability and integrity occur in a heirarchy. Those who are capable of extending compassionate action towards ALL sentient beings, under ALL circumstances through putting selfish preferences on hold to a higher degree than most, are mentally/emotionally/ethically, superior.

We can debate whether or not animals are capable of suffering in a meaningful enough way to consider them...but I think that would be going backwards. I get the sense that you agree that animals can and do actually suffer...?

Once certain criteria is agreed upon, such as; animals suffer much like humans, animals possess a will to live, intentionally causing another sentient being to suffer for a cause that's anything less than self preservation is an unkind act.....certain agreements really cannot be denied.

Sounds noble and kind enough to me. Ultimately though you would be exterminating these entire sub-species of animals. I guess it's all in the timing and method I suppose,huh. I choose to kill some of many, you choose to kill the last of the many. It's about what it thought the answer would be.

..choosing to exterminate a sub-species by refusing to actively breed them? Preventing births is not the equivalent of killing...if that were the case, many of us who use birth control would be very guilty indeed.

If it was decided that continuation of the species was desireable for ethical reasons or other, this would not be difficult to enact.

Yes, we covered that part already. You did not answer my question however. In what mannor would you suppliment mans hunting influance on population levels in the wild?

Once again...."IF" we actually reached this level of human development, surely the great minds of prominent cultures will reach new levels of ingenuity in their efforts to act in accordance with their superior levels of empathy and integrity and these issues will be addressed with the greatest amounts of compassion possible.

Those who possess superior ethics will likely not allow obstacles to daunt their efforts or turn them away from the direction their conscience is pointing them in. I'm sure those who began having ethical problems with slavery, many years ago, did not immediately have a clear path in mind regarding all the logistics necessary for the slave's emancipation.

"Do the least amount of harm possible" is a foundation for following the highest path under even difficult circumstances.

But as I already said I'm not really arguing this subjective observation of yours. In fact, I think it applies well, as a moral concept. The one thing you have said, that you seem to apply wholely is that killing another entient being is wrong. That statement came about when were were talking about the sentience levels of plants vs. animals.

taking the life of a being that has a will to live is not a kind act...if you disagree, can you explain how it is 'kind'?..or even morally neutral?

Aside from your fact,as you dub it, stated above; another fact you have injected into this little squabble is that killing sentient beings is wrong despite facts or reasons. I will ask you again; How can this factual requirement you provide be fulfilled, if even hypothetically, if everybody were not vegans

I'll make this easier and outright agree...Yes, in my perfect vision of the world, all of us humans would aspire to and eventually reach a lvel of compassionate integrity where we'd truly live out the ideal of 'do unto others as you'd have done unto you"...and we'd include animals under this code. However, I'm also a realist, and completely understand the fact that this cannot and will not happen overnight. Sure it would be great....but it just aint gonna happen. I can live with ever upward evolving levels of human compassion coupled with more stringent and emcompassing laws to protect the unfortunate animals who supply food for many, while we slowly move closer to this ideal.

I also understand, that those who either do not posses the levels of empathic ability and/or integrity necessary to reach this understanding are not going come to it any easier by being harassed and badgered into it through guilt tripping. Gentle education is imo the best means possible of convincing those whose empathic abilities are in the vicinity of being activated into integral action.

A qualifier exists here..."wrong" IF it is not done for reasons of self protection or self preservation. Certain cases exist, where self defence is necessary. It's difficult to fault someone when they kill out of self preservation.

Ok, but your argument has and does contain a key point you repeatingly stick with. Regardless of whatever consideration or empathy thats given to the animals plight in order to make their existence as naturaly enjoyable as possible and their death as swift and painless as it could be you still assert that despite the removal of the pain and suffering aspect its wrong to kill. I removed your subjective empathy from the equation,hypothetically, and yet then you gave another reason as to why the use of commodity animals should stop. That remaing point is what I'm zeroing in on.

If given the choice between an animal afforded consideration for it's freedom from suffering and concessions made for it's enjoyment of life prior to death or not, clearly, I agree, ALL considerations given are valid in terms of kind action. Some simply choose to extend their kindnesses further than others, and include the taking of life under the heading of 'unkind' acts.

Everything that lives is designed to survive and prosper. How do I view the killing of another sentient thing? I would say that I view the overall circumstances to the scenario. I view the acts describbed in this thread as acts of fulfillment of purpose.

But is taking an animals life for food preference a 'necessary' act in your opinion...?

Following the tone of your argument advocating 'no cruelty' the reprimanding of any sort of any sentient being should be abhorred and discontinued. Do you see how differently 'cruel actions' can be construed?

'Least amount of harm possible while preserving self interest' more accurately defines my stance...and Yes, the term 'preserving self interest' is the one most of us are quibbling about.

I'm saying the majority do possess this compulsive urge to consume meat in that the majority of the world population indulges in the eating of meat, if however seldom or to small degrees in may exist, in some cases.

I'm not sure that it's a 'compulsive urge' in most....in some for sure..but in my experience, most of those around me who insist upon eating meat do so for what appears to be a mere preference.

Then you should address my question above regarding punishment, as any punishment constitutes suffering to varying degrees.

Again..."Do the least amount of harm possible, and be honest about the 'least' and 'possible' part.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Lostinlife My aren't you cheery! I wouldn't of posted it if I didn't believe every word that was written. .

Look at the avatar. Do I strike anyone as the 'fuzzy/huggie' type?

I fail to remember all the key talking points of the orginal post you made in the other thread before it was cast into the abyss so if you could pull up some bullet points I would appreciate it.

About the methane bit though,I do remember that point. Methane as a component of our atmosphere comes from many,many sources. The article proporting that the meat industry produces over half the related green-house emissions was largely mis-leading in its outward appearence as I veiwed it. The three variables that wrere utilized in the aforementioned fifty some odd percent were methane and carbon dioxide emissions, the using of the land to raise the cattle vs. the same land being able to used for vegetation that constitute the worlds "lung". I seem to have forgotten the last variable used so I will adress the ones I brought up now.

Amounts of methane do indeed come from cattle and sheep but this gas also is expelled by volcanos and decomposing vegetation in a marshy swamp or swamp like ecology. It is also expelled by landfills. As far as I have an understanding of the largest contributer the methan explusion would be the sea/ocean beds of the world and as everybody knows the world is covered by a 75% of water surface. We cannot stop or even slow down these sources of methane and we have not yet devised a way to extract methane from the atmosphere or at least not as far as I know. Factualy speaking; if the entire populations of commodity cattle/sheep were to disappear, which doesnt even account for 5% of the totall methane contribution, we would still have the advancing problem of rising levels of methan in the atmosphere.

Methaphorically(sorry had to do that) speaking; it would be a Band-Aid on a gangrenous wound after cleaing away some of the rot.

The emissions of carbon dioxide are also attributed to many,many other sources as well. Animals,of all walks, contribute. People contribute to carbon dioxide with not only their breathing but also by their burning of any fossil fuel. Decompossing plant material also gives off carbon dioxide. So I guess you better eat those carrot tops too, to help out in this area.

Again, for whatever positive value the erasing of commodity, grazing animals would provide to curb these numbers would only be negated over time and would provide no real solution to the problem as it presents itself.

The world has undergone massive enviornmental changes whithout our intervention even being a factor. Do you think it will stop because we now inhabit it?

On the land use bit. What I took from the quick read I did on that posted article was that the land used to raise cattle could better be utilized to grow greenery that would aid in the conversion of carbon dioxide and subsequently the production of oxygen.

Interestingly, well over half the worlds oxygen is not produced on Gaia's lands but in the oceans. I'm not advocating deforestation by any means but if one wished to covet and protect THE largest source of oxygen the emphasis should be on marine conservation and not the reclamation of lands used to raise cattle. Cattle which provide the most abundant and cheap fertilizer to grow vegetation with. I can think of many, far more wasteful uses of land,in this regard, than that of herding.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Empathic ability and integrity occur in a heirarchy. Those who are capable of extending compassionate action towards ALL sentient beings, under ALL circumstances through putting selfish preferences on hold to a higher degree than most, are mentally/emotionally/ethically, superior. We can debate whether or not animals are capable of suffering in a meaningful enough way to consider them...but I think that would be going backwards. I get the sense that you agree that animals can and do actually suffer...? Once certain criteria is agreed upon, such as; animals suffer much like humans, animals possess a will to live, intentionally causing another sentient being to suffer for a cause that's anything less than self preservation is an unkind act.....certain agreements really cannot be denied.

I can agree that animals, as living things,can feel pain and suffer from the perception of impending pain/suffering if a sufficient knowledge base is present. I never denied that,actually.Comparatively to ourselves though I think there are numerous considerations to take into account. You essentialy, in a nutshell, summed up my point."Empathic ability and integrity occur in a heirarchy"......exactly so. It is the individual that determines the values within this heirarchy. Agreeing,loosely, on descriptive terms that can vary in value is one thing. The exact value and implication of, is another.

I agree animals can suffer. I agree that torturing animals for the sheer enjoyment of watching another living thing display pain is wrong. I agree that actions devoid of ANY consideration for the animals sense of pain is wrong. Especially when this pain can be accounted for and avoided.

None of those these items of agreeance dispute the fact that you and I take different considerations into affect and therein lay subjection as a quality. I would see a very fast acting thirty ton hydraulic pressure plate press used to litteraly crush a cows head instantly as probably the most humane way to stop the animals nervous system from registering pain and the brain from percieving it being pending. Whereas you may see that as gross or barbaric and cruel.

Quote by: inri If it was decided that continuation of the species was desireable for ethical reasons or other, this would not be difficult to enact.

If it were considered undesireable though, plainly speaking, you would be inhibiting procreation thus allowing the dying off of these sub-species. An easy enough situation to moraly rectify.Though that was not your original answer.

Quote by: inri Once again...."IF" we actually reached this level of human development, surely the great minds of prominent cultures will reach new levels of ingenuity in their efforts to act in accordance with their superior levels of empathy and integrity and these issues will be addressed with the greatest amounts of compassion possible. Those who possess superior ethics will likely not allow obstacles to daunt their efforts or turn them away from the direction their conscience is pointing them in. I'm sure those who began having ethical problems with slavery, many years ago, did not immediately have a clear path in mind regarding all the logistics necessary for the slave's emancipation. "Do the least amount of harm possible" is a foundation for following the highest path under even difficult circumstances.

That was a very eloquent and poignant reply to a question.....that you still didn't asnwer. The premis is simple. How would you propose to make up for the effects man has on curbing population levels that this action has as secondary affect the curtailing the prevalence of detrimental clashes between man and animal?

Quote by: inri taking the life of a being that has a will to live is not a kind act...if you disagree, can you explain how it is 'kind'?..or even morally neutral?

A wounded raccoon on the side of the road that appears that it's not going to die anytime soon but is obviously in agonising pain and well beyond the aid of a vet. I would view killing that animal as being a kind thing to do. But now here is where you compare Ricky the Raccoon to Betsy the Cow in the pasture and how they werent related. Then here is where I say you didnt ask for a correlated example but that Betsy, at least, was bred for that purpose of food. That she was given a sheltered life in keeping her from predators and keeping her fed and healthy and allowing her the greatest odds of successful procreation that mans technology could offer. These considerations are well above and beyond that of what her odds in living out in the wild would have offered her. Now she dies in order to help feed man who in return will offer her offspring the same considerations.

Quote by: inri A qualifier exists here..."wrong" IF it is not done for reasons of self protection or self preservation. Certain cases exist, where self defence is necessary. It's difficult to fault someone when they kill out of self preservation.

The killing of a cow for meat serves to help me sustain myself through nourishment. I'm still preserving myself it's just that my options are a little more broad than yours, moraly.

Quote by: inri If given the choice between an animal afforded consideration for it's freedom from suffering and concessions made for it's enjoyment of life prior to death or not, clearly, I agree, ALL considerations given are valid in terms of kind action. Some simply choose to extend their kindnesses further than others, and include the taking of life under the heading of 'unkind' acts.

Right. Killing sentient beings is wrong so we should all be vegans.

Quote by: inri But is taking an animals life for food preference a 'necessary' act in your opinion...?

In order to fufill a deeply rooted reflexive urge for meat? What's the other options? Besides overriding this urge?

Quote by: inri I'm not sure that it's a 'compulsive urge' in most....in some for sure..but in my experience, most of those around me who insist upon eating meat do so for what appears to be a mere preference.

Have you asked them if they have ever obstained from eating meat for long periods of time?

Quote by: inri Again..."Do the least amount of harm possible, and be honest about the 'least' and 'possible' part.

.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Lostinlife I contest that you weren't even nutritionally aware to a moderate exstent and/or did not have the willpower to continue the diet, which is completely understandalbe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That may be true to a large extent - I was a penniless student at the time, and just finding enough to eat was sometimes a problem anyway.

I'd gone passionately vegetarian as soon as I left home aged 18, but unlike you, I was brought up on a meat-heavy diet, and the transition had its problems. The trouble is, once your palate has been accustomed to the strong flavours of a meat diet, it takes a long time to appreciate the more subtle flavours of good veggie food.

I coped with this by eating far too many eggs, and cheese, especially, but my intolerance to pulses made it that much harder... Being a migraine sufferer all my life, I have to avoid certain beans with the utmost vigilance, and just an ounce of the worst sort can send me to bed in agony for two days. I just had to give in after a fairly lengthy trial.

Simple searches of information show us all that is required for a vegan diet and just how easy it really is, you of course may have to make a LITTLE more effort than finding healthy omnivorous diets, but once you get past the myths, you'll find what your looking for.

True: I don't dispute your findings - all I meant to say is that the vegan diet is so restrictive that you need the utmost dedication to go with it. I'm just glad you are finding it so easy.

If we respect the interests of animals, then it is COMPLETELY nessacery to go that "far". If you wish to be healthy then you must do research (as with any other diet).

In an ideal world, maybe... however, don't be too harsh on those of us who have to compromise to various degrees - I, for instance, would not thrive on a vegan diet for the reasons I explained.

My Grandfather was a farmer, and my granny used to make lovely cheese: I often used to watch the whole process, from the cows being (hand) milked to the final product. Despite being a more-than-usually sensitive child, very aware of animals and their treatment - I honestly don't recollect being distressed by anything I used to see around the farm - with the notable exception of seeing chickens being killed, and especially the killing of a pig. That was horrendous.

I realise that modern farming methods are a world away from a small, idyllic farm - but providing every guideline is followed re the welfare of hens and dairy animals - my conscience is appeased - with all the usual reservations. Needless to say - I wouldn't go anywhere near anything reared using intensive methods, but it is so easy these days to source one's food - free-range eggs in particular. Hens allowed to peck and feed and roost in the open have never struck me as being unduly unhappy - so I mentally thank them for their lovely eggs, and eat them (the eggs, that is!) with pleasure.

So how wrong am I?

[RickSp]

You amuse me, Lost. You just don't get it, do you?

I am responding here to your post about "vegangelicals" and the charges that vegans are holier than thou.

Given that your argument boils down to a simple "I am moral, and you are not," I can think of no possible way for you to come across as anything other than "holier-than-thou." You argue that you are holy and I, because I dare to eat the food that nature intended I eat, am a cruel and savage barbarian. Can you figure out why any argument this arrogant might not be convincing?

More than that, you do your argument great damage by blithely dismissing the well documented deaths of children fed vegan diets. You appear to have greater concerns for the well being of farm animals than of the children of your own species. And spare me the sweeping generalities. I offered specifics which you ignore.

Quote by: Lostinlife The only thing I have EVER maintained is that if you care about the interests of animals, then you have a MORAL obligation to abstain from animal products, the health and environmental benefits being mere bonuses.

Your religious fervor is obvious. Why should I care one wit about your holier than thou claims about morality when you show more empathy for other species than for human beings?