Vegetarianism

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: SpideySpirit However, the unfortunate reality is that the pricing of the 'cheap' meat does not reflect the true cost of it's far reaching consequences. Premature mortality due to consumption of animal products Environmental damage, the clear cutting of rain forests for grazing pastures Environmental, effluent from 15 billion animals causes pollution & the green house gas 'methane' responsible for global warming Spawning of epidemics: Bird Flu, Mad Cow, SAR...etc Starvation of people in developing country. ......etc.

Oh, I agree that "cheap" meat does not equate to "good idea," but I would argue that the urge to buy cheap meat does not equate to responsibility for how the meat was brought to the consumer.

Quote by: SpideySpirit . Viewed your profile, however you don't mention specifics about your chosen 'cause', would love to know . When deciding what is worthy of my attention I like to way up the benefits of the change I want to see in myself & that of the world.

I personally try to fight for literacy and education; I am against television, and for reading. You won't see me talk about it much on this forum, since I assume the people here can read:) and because very few people would be against education.

I think education, not in terms of public schools and the ability to pass standardized tests, but rather in terms of the process that fosters a deep and abiding curiosity about life and society and the world, and the ability to satisfy that curiosity only to have it spring up again, is key to solving very nearly all of society's problems. I think our political issues in the US are a direct result of our ignorance, and of our apathy; I am not sure whether the ignorance causes the apathy or vice versa, but I hope that eliminating one will reduce the other. And because of the world's situation, I think that getting America's head out of its own rear end is something that affects everyone on the planet -- however, doing this requires the efforts of Americans. So I try to save our planet by teaching my countrymen to read a newspaper, instead of watching FOX.

That's my cause.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Perhaps, but the responsibility for how the butchers kill the meat does not rest solely, or even primarily, on the shoulders of the consumers. Draw out that cause and effect for me. If it follows that people were willing to buy meat when it was offered at a lower price thanks to factory farming, then whose fault was the original impetus to create the factory farming model and price the meat lower in order to attract more customers? Is it capitalism's fault? The government's, for not restricting the means by which the meat was put in the stores? The stockholders, for demanding higher profits and more dividends? Adam Smith (or whoever -- I don't know my historical economists) for creating our free market system in the first place? God, for making animals suffer pain? How far do we go before we say the buck stops here?

We all share responsibility. I believe that the farmer should hold primary responsibility for the treatment of his animals. But, that does not change the fact that a meat eater holds some responsibility for creating a market for meat.

I cannot bring myself to eat veal these days, because the abusive treatment that the baby cows receive is too much for me.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We all share responsibility. I believe that the farmer should hold primary responsibility for the treatment of his animals. But, that does not change the fact that a meat eater holds some responsibility for creating a market for meat. I cannot bring myself to eat veal these days, because the abusive treatment that the baby cows receive is too much for me.

If you get rose veal there isn't a problem, British veal anyway. It's the white veal where they are kept in cramped, dark spaces.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We all share responsibility. I believe that the farmer should hold primary responsibility for the treatment of his animals. But, that does not change the fact that a meat eater holds some responsibility for creating a market for meat. I cannot bring myself to eat veal these days, because the abusive treatment that the baby cows receive is too much for me.

So everything that I pay for, everything that I give money to, I bear equal responsibility for? So not only am I responsible for the pain that an animal suffers, I am also responsible for the methane gas the animal produced that added to global warming, for the pollution from the gasoline powered vehicle that moved the animal from farm to slaughterhouse, for the waste products left behind when the tools built to kill the animal were manufactured, for the strip mining done to get the steel to produce the tools, for the arsenic left behind at the strip mine to get the steel to make the tools that killed the cow, for the hawk that died when it drank from the pool of arsenic that stripped the mine that got the steel that made the tools that killed the cow that Coffee ate; for the rat that lived because it wasn't eaten by the hawk that died from drinking the aresnic that stripped the mine that got the steel that made the tools that killed the cow that Coffee ate.

Which means that I stole the cheese, right?

How far can I carry this? I pay taxes to the US government, so literally everything the government does is my reponsibility, yes? Or if choice is the issue, that I choose to give money to the companies that use factory farming, am I responsible for what that company then does with its money? So do the actions of the workers become my responsibility, as well?

Let me ask you this: I get my money from the US government, being a high school teacher; does that meant he government is responsible because they gave me the money? Or my administrators are responsible for hiring me?

If I were to actively encourage a specific practice, I might share responsibility. As in, if I were given an option between two products, both equally available to me, when I am fully aware of the practices of both companies that produced the two products, and I choose the product of the more "evil" company, then I might share responsibility for what they do. If I use my money as a vote, in other words. But when I am not given alternatives, or when I cannot know how one specific product is made, then I don't believe I can be held responsible for what my money does -- else we are responsible for everything that happens on Earth.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint So everything that I pay for, everything that I give money to, I bear equal responsibility for?

No. You share responsibility, not equal responsibility.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We all share responsibility. I believe that the farmer should hold primary responsibility for the treatment of his animals. But, that does not change the fact that a meat eater holds some responsibility for creating a market for meat.

This brings me back to my previous point. Yes, we are, in a way, responsible for keeping the market going, but those animals wouldn't have lives if the markets weren't there to produce those animals if NOBODY ate meat. So, there are pros and cons for keeping a market like this going. Wouldn't you rather live your life, even if it were to be killed instead of not living at all?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Captain Chaos No. You share responsibility, not equal responsibility.

But I do share some responsibility. Which means that, morally, I should be required to change my ways in order to change the ways of others; it is my responsibility. Correct?

How far does this go? Is there a point at which I am no longer responsible? Or a point at which my responsibility does not require action? If so, what is that point?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But I do share some responsibility. Which means that, morally, I should be required to change my ways in order to change the ways of others; it is my responsibility. Correct?

We are talking about eating meat here. If you do not feel that eating meat is immoral, then that bit of reasoning would not apply.

Can you think of a situation where it would apply?

How far does this go? Is there a point at which I am no longer responsible? Or a point at which my responsibility does not require action? If so, what is that point?

I am not sure it goes any further at all. Can you think of a concrete example we could mull over? Eating meat is clearly not such an example, because you and I are both meat eaters. We bear some responsibility for the raising and slaughter of animals - but we accept that responsibility.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: kubedawg This brings me back to my previous point. Yes, we are, in a way, responsible for keeping the market going, but those animals wouldn't have lives if the markets weren't there to produce those animals if NOBODY ate meat. So, there are pros and cons for keeping a market like this going. Wouldn't you rather live your life, even if it were to be killed instead of not living at all?

Yes, as long as it was not a life of torture.

And even then, I am not sure we can fairly ask that question, because animals do not think like humans. Most farm animals run on instinct, and as long as they are not mistreated, appear quite content.

[Latisha1903]

I'm working my way to becoming a vegetarian because I want to be more healthy. After reading reports over animal cloning and fast market production it makes me want to be a vegetarian even quicker. Right now I'm just limiting my intake on meats, and what kinds I choose to eat.

[kubedawg]

I've checked many web sites to find out the potential benefits from eating a vegetarian diet, and even adding milk/vitamins to the equation does not match up to a well balanced diet including meats. Moderation is the key for a healthy diet. And excersize of course.

[carlessbiker]

Try this one:

GoVeg.com // Health Issues

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Captain Chaos And even then, I am not sure we can fairly ask that question, because animals do not think like humans. Most farm animals run on instinct, and as long as they are not mistreated, appear quite content.

Also, we all could look on the flip side of "responsibility" and I could equally say I'm paying my money to buy food, to go torwards the costs it takes to improve the way these companies produce their meat, therefore, less suffering, better company.

And if someone says I am not paying for those things, that it's the company's responsibility, same goes for money that'd be advocating the suffering of these animals.

[carlessbiker]

Humanity - the ultimate illusion of grandeur. We are Gods chosen species and all others are designed to serve us.

Suffering or not, murder is murder.

Chickens lay eggs to reproduce and have families, not feed us at breakfast.
Cows use milk to feed their young, not some other species.
Animals just like to run and play, not living their life in high density feed lots.

For you theists, killing (Gods) creatures is just un(God)ly.

As humans, we have the ability to be kind, rather than be cruel!

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We are talking about eating meat here. If you do not feel that eating meat is immoral, then that bit of reasoning would not apply. Can you think of a situation where it would apply?

I don't think it applies at all; I was under the impression that you did.
If you think the practices of the company that provides your meat are immoral, does that mean you bear responsibility for that immorality because you buy their product? I would say no, because your influence was not the impetus that led to their practices, and the elimination of your influence would not change their practices. You could argue that one person could become part of a movement, and make a difference that way, but then you run into the issue I was speaking to before, about each of us having to choose our own battles; the fact that I could help to eliminate factory farming does not mean that I am morally obligated to do so. My eating meat does not make me responsible for the inception and spread of factory farming.

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am not sure it goes any further at all. Can you think of a concrete example we could mull over? Eating meat is clearly not such an example, because you and I are both meat eaters. We bear some responsibility for the raising and slaughter of animals - but we accept that responsibility.

I disagree that we bear responsibility for the raising and slaughter of animals, simply because we give money to the companies that do it. My business was not the motivation for their implementation of factory farming; the loss of my business would not change their practices. If I didn't cause it, and I can't change it by changing my relevant behavior, how am I responsible for it?

How about this: I'm a high school teacher. Let's imagine that one of my students develops a crush on me, because she likes older men with green eyes. Am I the cause of that crush? Do I bear responsibility for it? I could, theoretically, prevent this from happening by quitting my job -- but is that my responsibility? If I didn't cause the crush, and I can't take it away (because I can't change my age or my eye color) wihtout taking extraordinary steps like quitting my job -- analogous to joining PETA and becoming an activist against factory farming -- do I need to do something about it, simply because it is linked to me?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: carlessbiker Humanity - the ultimate illusion of grandeur. We are Gods chosen species and all others are designed to serve us. Suffering or not, murder is murder. Chickens lay eggs to reproduce and have families, not feed us at breakfast. Cows use milk to feed their young, not some other species. Animals just like to run and play, not living their life in high density feed lots. For you theists, killing (Gods) creatures is just un(God)ly. As humans, we have the ability to be kind, rather than be cruel!

"Murder" is the killing of a human being, not of an animal; I understand what you're trying to say, but trying to use the simple denotation of a word in order to prevent spin requires that you use the correct word. "Slaughter" would work. And humans have opposable thumbs in order to pick nits off of each other and climb trees. It seems contradictory to me to argue against one appeal to a higher power, and then appeal to nature as the higher power to argue for your side.

Of all the suffering in the world, I am less concerned with the suffering of chickens. I would not create it myself, nor would I try to increase the suffering of chickens, but if there suffering I can end, I will end the suffering of humans first. Does that make me cruel, or kind? It seems to me it makes me cruel to chickens and kind to humans, and I'm happy with that.

[Captain Chaos]

CoffeeSaint...

Production adapts to meet demand.

If you buy one chicken per week, then somewhere up the line an additional chicken per week will be produced and slaughtered (averaged out over many consumers). If you did not buy that chicken per week, then on average on less chicken per week would be killed.

Everyone involved, from the farmer, to the distributor, to the supermarket, to the consumer is part of this process.

Saying that a person bears responsibility is a matter of perspective, not of fact. Perhaps it would be better to say that consumers are part of the causative process that leads to the deaths of animals?

[carlessbiker]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint "Murder" is the killing of a human being, not of an animal; .....It seems contradictory to me to argue against one appeal to a higher power, and then appeal to nature as the higher power to argue for your side.

Murder is a point of view. Murder is not the act of killing, but a principle of ending a life against a social set of norms and values.

Killing a murderer in a state sponsored facility is not murder, it's the death penalty. The act that the murderer committed was murder. My point is that "Murder" is a point of view, I consider killing animals murder, you consider it an act that feeds you.

You're second point is well taken. I'm not an accomplished written debater so my point can get lost. I was attempting to reference those who state that (God) allows the murder of animals.

[namguy69]

I was a vegetarian for seven years, ran 6.5 miles everyday including holidays...was never so tired, came down with every virus except the AIDS! No more for me, I eat everything.
namguy69

[brien]

Quote by: carlessbiker Murder is a point of view. Murder is not the act of killing, but a principle of ending a life against a social set of norms and values. Killing a murderer in a state sponsored facility is not murder, it's the death penalty. The act that the murderer committed was murder. My point is that "Murder" is a point of view, I consider killing animals murder, you consider it an act that feeds you. You're second point is well taken. I'm not an accomplished written debater so my point can get lost. I was attempting to reference those who state that (God) allows the murder of animals.

Murder is a point of view. Murder is not the act of killing, but a principle of ending a life against a social set of norms and

I think you are in the "right church" here but in the "wrong pew", as they say sometimes.

Murder is a word. It is defined by a social law. The act is the killing of a human being against his/her will to live which violates the law. A life extinguished by another human being against the social laws that bind a society together is labled as to the degree of the murder. Ist degree, second degree, manslaugther, etc. This isn't point of view, it is law. I can't go into a court of law and use as an excuse from being prosecuted for the murder of a fellow human being by raising the defense that it isn't my point of view so I am not guilty. This is preposterous.

Since the social laws that bind our society do not apply to the killing of animals for food, it isn't murder. We do have anti cruelty laws against killing animals other than human beings and they are governed by intent, same as the laws that govern human beings with regard to killing other human beings. For example, if one runs over a dog with their automobile while driving drunk, that driver isn't prosecuted for manslaughter, or negligent homicide, because there are no laws that I know of that make it so.

To argue that killing a cow for the beef is murder is not supported by the social laws that define murder and therefore is not valid either. You could perhaps make a cogent argument that one could "murder" the dog by shooting it in the head because it was a nuisance, but your argument would have to rely upon the social laws enacted to govern animal cruelty. Otherwise, there is no crime. And since the murder of a human being is a crime in society, society has to be able to prosecute the accused under a social law, otherwise there is no murder, only a killing.

So there is a difference between killing and murder, as you point out, but it has nothing to do with point of view(pov), and everything to do with the social laws that bind society together. Therefore, it is absurd to call killing a cow, or any other animal for food, murder.