Vegetarianism

[m3talsmith]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dave654,)
I know its not all vegans but why cant the vocal elements live and let live? Is it based on some sort of emotional fanatacism as Imp has suggested?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I think that's exactly what it is; an emotional force or appeal.

BTW, as far as the argument goes about meat being murder, what about pulling a carrot out of the ground where it has been "living", skinning it alive, chopping it up, alive, and then either boiling it or consuming it in your latest salad? I think that argument is moot since everything on earth that grows is "alive", or it wouldn't grow.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gregory,)
I know a few vegetarians, and I assume most of you aren't, but for the few who are...

what is the specific reason for it? I know this isn't really a debate right now, but I suspect it could turn into one!

Funny: http://vbforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1573312<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

If humans are not supposed to eat animals, why are animals made out of meat?

[dotcoma]

hehe...

[Onyx Six]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gregory,)
at my school there is a veggie club called "sea-ark" that had a "demonstration" the other day.

i think personally they were embarrassing themselvesm running around with signs of pigs saying "why eat me?"

This is why: "BECUASE YOU TASTE GOOD AND HAVE OTHERWISE NO PURPOSE TO EXIST!"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>\

Truth to that.

Originally pigs/cow/chickens were wild animals, after around a couple thousand years of herding and slaughter they have no other use in a ecosystem other then to service humans. They would have an impossible time adapting to our world. None of the animals above would really be able to exsist in 21th century world. They are harvested to be slaughtered and they lost all purpose of exsistence for anything but that. Its all about natural selection and survival of the fitest.

[Iscariot]

Simply put, I eat animals because I LOVE the taste of animals. Yum.

[5010]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gregory,)
... what is the specific reason for it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I became a lacto-ovo-veghead over 2 years ago for many reasons: health, economy, non-violence, less gruesome...

Since then...
- Weight management is easier for me
- My allergies were chronic before, now rare
- I feel more energy, less drowsy after lunch
- My blood pressure and cholesterol levels improved
- I feel a noticeable gain in flexibility during yoga
- My food budget is lower
- I'm more creative with meals: more variety, more flavors
- I don't like killing animals and no longer have to rationalize having others do it for me (dairy and unfertilized egg doesn't require killing animals)
- I never thought bugs were appealing as food and don't have to rationalize eating crustaceans, which are a lot like bugs
- I don't have to rationalize eating gelatin which is made from skeletons (gruesome/macabre).

On the negative side:
- Most of the stuff I eat grew in animal poop
- Combines indiscriminately kill more small mammals while harvesting vegetables than slaughterhouses do harvesting meat
- Many restaurants have very limited non-meat options
- People are not respectful, ridicule me pretty often
- Parents offended when I won't eat their meat
- Omnivores love to flaunt their meat at me

[Paavo]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (5010,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Gregory,)
... what is the specific reason for it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I became a lacto-ovo-veghead over 2 years ago for many reasons: health, economy, non-violence, less gruesome...

Since then...
- Weight management is easier for me
- My allergies were chronic before, now rare
- I feel more energy, less drowsy after lunch
- My blood pressure and cholesterol levels improved
- I feel a noticeable gain in flexibility during yoga
- My food budget is lower
- I'm more creative with meals: more variety, more flavors
- I don't like killing animals and no longer have to rationalize having others do it for me (dairy and unfertilized egg doesn't require killing animals)
- I never thought bugs were appealing as food and don't have to rationalize eating crustaceans, which are a lot like bugs
- I don't have to rationalize eating gelatin which is made from skeletons (gruesome/macabre).

On the negative side:
- Most of the stuff I eat grew in animal poop
- Combines indiscriminately kill more small mammals while harvesting vegetables than slaughterhouses do harvesting meat
- Many restaurants have very limited non-meat options
- People are not respectful, ridicule me pretty often
- Parents offended when I won't eat their meat
- Omnivores love to flaunt their meat at me<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Wow, that must be the first rational and honest explanation I've seen on online boards I visit - when talking about vegetarianism.

The only thing that left me scratchin my bald head, was this:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(dairy and unfertilized egg doesn't require killing animals)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Do you choose to buy (if available / existing) dairy products gotten from animals that are kept free? I mean, even if the eggs are unfertilized, the animals they pop out from are still kept in small cages and can't "live a happy life", right? I'm not trying to "find flaws" in your reasonings, I'm just genuinely curious. :confused:

[ferrolad]

I was a vegetarian for 8 years. I had convinced myself that animals didn't deserve to be eaten. I eventually started to ask myself why animals were more important than plants. Was it because we could so easily relate to their pain? Pain or no, the argument usually put forth is that animals simply have a "right" to live. I can make that same argument for anything, including plants, bacteria, and viruses. So while I can't say I'm thrilled with the way animals are treated in the meat industry, that's entirely separate from whether or not we "should" eat meat.

[Passivist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Originally pigs/cow/chickens were wild animals, after around a couple thousand years of herding and slaughter they have no other use in a ecosystem other then to service humans. They would have an impossible time adapting to our world. None of the animals above would really be able to exsist in 21th century world. They are harvested to be slaughtered and they lost all purpose of exsistence for anything but that. Its all about natural selection and survival of the fitest.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The current diet of the average meat-eating American is unhealthier than non-meat-eating Americans. The latter live longer, in a healthier condition. Guess it really is about "survival of the fittest" after all.

Fact is: you can choose not to kill animals and still survive; there is no need to make them suffer. Sounds simple enough for me.

[5010]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Paavo,)

Do you choose to buy (if available / existing) dairy products gotten from animals that are kept free? I mean, even if the eggs are unfertilized, the animals they pop out from are still kept in small cages and can't "live a happy life", right? I'm not trying to "find flaws" in your reasonings, I'm just genuinely curious. :confused:<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I have no idea what the conditions are of animals kept alive to harvest the eggs or milk that I purchase. I've read that some are treated well and others not. If I had the information available, I would choose products of happy animals over unhappy.If I knew that brand A's bread was from a harvest method that resulted in less mammal deaths than brand B, I would choose brand A.

Also, there are times when there is no non-leather alternative that I know of, so I'll go ahead and get leather. The more I learn about alternatives, the less often I have to do that. Ignorance also means sometimes I'll unwittingly buy a product that contains dead animal bone/tissue/etc in it. When eating at restaurants, I probably get food tainted with meat products from time to time.
The workers don't always understand the difference. Once I asked if they had something without meat at a drive-thru and the answer was "well... we have chicken and turkey..."

So vegetarianism is as much a journey as it is a destination.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: damnrad If humans are not supposed to eat animals, why are animals made out of meat?

What kind of logic is that? Or is it just a humorous jab to sideline the discussion into childishness?

With that logic then a sadist could state, "If humans are not supposed to beat people, then why do they bruise?"

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: m3talsmith BTW, as far as the argument goes about meat being murder, what about pulling a carrot out of the ground where it has been "living", skinning it alive, chopping it up, alive, and then either boiling it or consuming it in your latest salad? I think that argument is moot since everything on earth that grows is "alive", or it wouldn't grow.

Plants do not have a central nervous system and do not process pain as animals do. "Pain" is has a self preserving evolutionary purpose for survival. Locamotive animals experience pain so they can move away from the source which is causing or threatening it, which is usually a precursor to death. Plants cannot move away from it, therefore with that and the fact that they do not have a central nervous system, they do not experience pain.

Even if they did experience some pain (which we are not aware of and which has never been conclusively proven), choosing to be a vegetarian is not about eliminating all suffering and death in the world. It is about choosing to cause the least amount of death through one`s actions (i.e. if one has chosen to be a vegetarian out of moral reasons).

So, let`s say for argument's sake that plants do feel pain (which they do not), it would still be more ethical to choose to kill them than animals for food simply because the net total of killing would be less. Raising animals for slaughter entails that more plants would need to be killed as an additional step in the value added of the creation of the flesh for consumption, whereas if plants were consumed directly by their end users, calories would not be wasted in an intermittant step.

Your argument is moot and rests on no science of plants feeling pain.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: ferrolad I eventually started to ask myself why animals were more important than plants. Was it because we could so easily relate to their pain? Pain or no, the argument usually put forth is that animals simply have a "right" to live.

They do have a right to live. Before that, though, they have a right to live without having unecessary suffering caused to them -- just as surely as we want the right to have unecessary suffering not directed at us.

Suffering is an unpleasant state to be in. Would you want to be in that state? Might does not make right, and simply because we are able to do something to a being does not make it a universal right that is correct in doing. Humans are not captives of their emotions. We can reason ourselves out of our selfish passions or desires. We ourselves do not want to be treated like animals, then why should we act like them?

I can make that same argument for anything, including plants, bacteria, and viruses.

I don`t think you can. If so, then please put it forth. You think those things you listed are analogical to animals, but then you cannot prove that suffering is something those things are capable of.

So while I can't say I'm thrilled with the way animals are treated in the meat industry, that's entirely separate from whether or not we "should" eat meat.

It is not a seperate issue. Does this logic sound right to you?:

I can`t say I am thrilled with the way Jeffry Dalmer treated his victims in his apartment, but that`s entirely seperate from whether or not he "should" have eaten them.

To me it doesn`t. Analogies are used to cut across arguments to insure that the logic/reason being used is correct. Logic and reason cannot be prejudicial.

In fact, the question of "vegetarianism" is a three part question whose parts are all connected.

The question concerning "vegetarianism for moral reasons" does not rest simply on "should we eat meat," it rests on "Is the consumption of flesh necessary when it entails suffering and deprives an animal of its life when in this modern society flesh is no longer necessary to live a healthy lifestyle?"

[RickSp]

I am a vegetarian once removed. I only eat vegetarians - cows, chickens, and so on.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp I am a vegetarian once removed. I only eat vegetarians - cows, chickens, and so on.

Are you posting to discuss/debate the issue, or just to be snide?

[RickSp]

Quote by: strongheartswin Are you posting to discuss/debate the issue, or just to be snide?

LOL. I was born with canine teeth for ripping flesh and molars for grinding vegetables and grains. Like many other large mammals, humans are omnivores. We need a mix of nutrients which are most easily met through eating both meats and vegetables.

If you want to pretend that you are a cow that is up to you. I find no compelling nutritional nor moral argument for vegetarianism. Is a wolf immoral when it eats only meat? Is a sheep enlighted for eating grains? We act according to our nature. There is nothing wrong with that. Trying to be what we are not seems silly to me.

You say "if we ...do not want to be treated like animals, then why should we act like them?" Then what are we, if not animals? And what is wrong with being what we are? I apply my morality to dealings with my fellow humans. I am opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals which does not mean that I am opposed to eating animals for food. I am also wearing leather shoes and a leather belt and I see no moral wrong in doing so.

So again, if you only want to eat veggies, that is your choice. Don't expect me to be impressed by your enlightenment or sense of higher moral virtue.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. I was born with canine teeth for ripping flesh

Oh, you mean those little nubs we humans have? That does deserve a LOL. Gorillas have canines, too.

You also were born with a long intestinal tract which all herbivores are born with. You also are not able to process your own vitamin C which carnivores WITH CANINES can all do.

Like many other large mammals, humans are omnivores.

Unlike all other large mammals, modern humans are able to choose what they subsist on.

We need a mix of nutrients which are most easily met through eating both meats and vegetables.

We most definetly need a mix of nutrients, minerals, and vitamins. That is a given, like most mammals -- and we can achieve that in this modern world without much difficulty. To spend an extra five minutes at the supermarket when first becoming a vegetarian, until you get it down in choosing your foods, is a small price to pay for unselfish people when it is the difference between the economic demand that pulls animals through the miserable disassembly line -- often still concious due to inexperienced workers or malfunctioning knockers, etc...

If you want to pretend that you are a cow that is up to you.

No pretending. Btw, why the oblique insults?

I find no compelling nutritional nor moral argument for vegetarianism. Is a wolf immoral when it eats only meat? Is a sheep enlighted for eating grains?

Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has? Don`t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt, and you can read the original piece with over a hundred references from researchers, scientists, professors, and other experts from well respected orgs and publications like the USDA, American Cancer Society, AMA, etc...

[COLOR="Blue"]Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. ...

The United States Dietary Guidelines (23) state, "Vegetarian diets can be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and meet Recommended Dietary Allowances for nutrients."[/COLOR]

Source link: HERE.

We act according to our nature. There is nothing wrong with that. Trying to be what we are not seems silly to me.

Human nature in its natural form is pretty scary. That is why we have laws to protect us from the anarchy that if it were left unrestrained would surely develope. Even as canibalism is still alive in some corners of the world, anthropologists will tell you it was more widespread in the past. So, if we seem to have naturally consumed our fellow man, then why should we not continue doing so? After all, according to your reason we shouldn`t try to repress our "nature."

You say "if we ...do not want to be treated like animals, then why should we act like them?" Then what are we, if not animals? And what is wrong with being what we are?

That is right, we are animals! Our distinguishing trait however is that we have developed a sense of morals, empathy, and a modern society that makes it permissable that we need not cause misery to other animals. The "what is natural" argument is moot. It sure isn`t natural for us to do many things, but we do them anyway. What is "possible" is what guides humans as we seek to better our lives and societies. Walking home and having to take a crap, I don`t reason, "well, it was natural for my ancestors to crap in the great wide open, so I am going to let one go here on my neighbor`s lawn." No. I would reason it is possible for me to make it another 20 yards to my house and the bathroom -- in essence thwarting my natural urge to relieve myself just anywhere I wish for my own pleasure. You are resting your argument on selfishness based on natural whims.

I apply my morality to dealings with my fellow humans.

And why should just humans be the sole target of moral considerations?

I am opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals which does not mean that I am opposed to eating animals for food.

Why should you be opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals if there are no moral considerations to be given to them? I have no moral considerations to a stone or tin can, therefore I don`t see it cruel if a child walks down a street kicking one or the other. If it were a kitten though, I would be morally opposed to a child doing that? Explain to us how "unecessary cruelty" is divorced from "moral considerations".

I am also wearing leather shoes and a leather belt and I see no moral wrong in doing so.

At one time I didn`t either. Over time people move on the spectrum of their beliefs. I was once where you are now. I changed.

So again, if you only want to eat veggies, that is your choice. Don't expect me to be impressed by your enlightenment or sense of higher moral virtue.

I will, and I don`t expect you to change overnight or in the course of this discussion. In fact, you are just a sounding board for those who are undecided and looking in on the debate. The undecided are my target, surely not you. But, I do hope you continue being a sounding board. In debate, though, I, too, am a sounding board for your point of view. I care about moving the audience.

Most vegetarians who choose this diet for moral reasons engage in debate to move those on the spectrum, because we know that as the trend grows stronger, our choices and power will increase and cause your meat at restaurants and supermarkets to become more expensive (i.e. through more security for processing plants and farms, less demand, smaller economies of scale). Flesh eaters on the other hand consistantly leave the debate little by little over time. I would be surprised if you stay in this debate long with me.

[PatrickHenry]

You're right about the debate being uninteresting to those who consume flesh. I am sure I won't revisit this thread often, because there are other items of greater interest to me personally (like government tyranny).

I was a vegetarian in my early twenties for about three years. That was thirty years ago, but I lost weight down to a very thin, for me, 160 lbs. I don't think I was a whole lot healthier. I don't have any objection to killing animals for food. All creatures die and their bodies are used for food by the other life forms of this planet. Meat is not undigestible and the flavor is pleasing. I can afford it. I choose not to hunt because I don't really like killing and butchering animals, but if certain herbivore species are not culled, their populations grow out of control, due to the reduction of predators by the encroachment of humanity.

If the death is quick and painless and their domestication is benign, I have no problems with farm animals cultivated and harvested for food. Those who choose vegetarianism have my respect as individuals, but the philosophy of "animal rights" is a bit ridiculous in a world where "human rights" is still being challenged.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strongheartswin Oh, you mean those little nubs we humans have? That does deserve a LOL. Gorillas have canines, too. You also were born with a long intestinal tract which all herbivores are born with. You also are not able to process your own vitamin C which carnivores WITH CANINES can all do.

Which I guess is why we are not strictly carnivores any more than we need to be strictly vegetarian.

Quote by: strongheartswin We most definetly need a mix of nutrients, minerals, and vitamins. That is a given, like most mammals -- and we can achieve that in this modern world without much difficulty. To spend an extra five minutes at the supermarket when first becoming a vegetarian, until you get it down in choosing your foods, is a small price to pay for unselfish people when it is the difference between the economic demand that pulls animals through the miserable disassembly line -- often still concious due to inexperienced workers or malfunctioning knockers, etc...

Yes, as you may have inferred by reading my post, but I have zero desire to eat a vegetarain diet and I do not share your anquish regarding the death of cows, lambs, chickens or fish.

Quote by: strongheartswin No pretending. Btw, why the oblique insults?

Why the obvious lack of any sense of humor?

Quote by: strongheartswin Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has? Don`t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt, and you can read the original piece with over a hundred references from researchers, scientists, professors, and other experts from well respected orgs and publications like the USDA, American Cancer Society, AMA, etc...

Yes and why should as I care? Again, I have no interest in a strictly vegetarian diet.

Quote by: strongheartswin Human nature in its natural form is pretty scary. That is why we have laws to protect us from the anarchy that if it were left unrestrained would surely develope. Even as canibalism is still alive in some corners of the world, anthropologists will tell you it was more widespread in the past. So, if we seem to have naturally consumed our fellow man, then why should we not continue doing so? After all, according to your reason we shouldn`t try to repress our "nature."

I obviously have a far greater regard and respect for our species and our "nature" than you do.

Quote by: strongheartswin That is right, we are animals! Our distinguishing trait however is that we have developed a sense of morals, empathy, and a modern society that makes it permissable that we need not cause misery to other animals. The "what is natural" argument is moot. It sure isn`t natural for us to do many things, but we do them anyway. What is "possible" is what guides humans as we seek to better our lives and societies. Walking home and having to take a crap, I don`t reason, "well, it was natural for my ancestors to crap in the great wide open, so I am going to let one go here on my neighbor`s lawn." No. I would reason it is possible for me to make it another 20 yards to my house and the bathroom -- in essence thwarting my natural urge to relieve myself just anywhere I wish for my own pleasure. You are resting your argument on selfishness based on natural whims.

An interesting if somewhat unfocused rant. Your religious regard for other species while showing contempt for your own is strange. We are reasoning animals, yet I see nothing particularly rational in your argument.

Quote by: strongheartswin Why should you be opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals if there are no moral considerations to be given to them? I have no moral considerations to a stone or tin can, therefore I don`t see it cruel if a child walks down a street kicking one or the other. If it were a kitten though, I would be morally opposed to a child doing that? Explain to us how "unecessary cruelty" is divorced from "moral considerations".

I clearly do not consider eating animals for food to constitute unnecessary cruelty. As I asked before, is a wolf cruel in eating other animals? Is a cow morally superior to the wolf? Why shouldn't omnivores be omnivores? Superimposing a wholly artificial ethical structure over the natural order makes no particular sense.

Quote by: strongheartswin I will, and I don`t expect you to change overnight or in the course of this discussion. In fact, you are just a sounding board for those who are undecided and looking in on the debate. The undecided are my target, surely not you. But, I do hope you continue being a sounding board. In debate, though, I, too, am a sounding board for your point of view. I care about moving the audience. Most vegetarians who choose this diet for moral reasons engage in debate to move those on the spectrum, because we know that as the trend grows stronger, our choices and power will increase and cause your meat at restaurants and supermarkets to become more expensive (i.e. through more security for processing plants and farms, less demand, smaller economies of scale). Flesh eaters on the other hand consistantly leave the debate little by little over time. I would be surprised if you stay in this debate long with me.

LOL. Were you not so humourless and pompously pious you might have a clue why flesh eaters leave the debate. It is boring. Your self righteousness adds nothing to the discussion and your repetiton of the same points gets tedious quickly. Your suggestion that this sort of bloviation will drive up the cost of meat, however, is actually quite funny.

Your view is fundamentally religious, based of emotional rather than rational considerations. If you won't eat meat, fine by me, but you will make very converts to your position by boring people to death.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Ricksp Which I guess is why we are not strictly carnivores any more than we need to be strictly vegetarian.

Who said anything about "need"? Haven`t you understood that "vegetarianism" is a "choice"?

but I have zero desire to eat a vegetarain diet and I do not share your anquish regarding the death of cows, lambs, chickens or fish.

Yes, I know. The majority of mankind has always been reluctant to expand their circle of compassion. It takes time. In the future, though, flesheaters will in all probability be looked upon as slave traders of the past are now.

Why the obvious lack of any sense of humor?

Humor is fine, however, I would not call a flesh eater a Jeffry Dalmer, or animalize a human by calling a black person a gorilla, therefore, I would expect a person I am debating with to not animalize me or the argument in a mocking manner. It is of note that most societies when persecuting the minority often dehumanize them by referring to them as animals. Nazis called the Jews swine, dogs, and caucasions have referred to asians as monkeys, to name just a couple examples.

I find no compelling nutritional nor moral argument for vegetarianism.

Quote by: strongheartswin
Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has?

Yes and why should as I care? Again, I have no interest in a strictly vegetarian diet.

You were the one who said you had found no "compelling nutritional" argument for vegetarianism. The position paper clearly outlines the "compelling benefits" of a vegetarian diet. You are free to ignore it -- but it stands and the benefits are clearly outlined.

I obviously have a far greater regard and respect for our species and our "nature" than you do.

"Obviously"? Well, if you declare it so, perhaps we all know it to be true, huh? <snicker snicker>

Our species' nature is rather scary. Haven`t you paid attention to your history classes and the news? Though, to extend compassion to animals is in no way diminishes respect for universal life.

"To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being,"

-- Mahatma Ghandi

Are you regarded in higher esteem than Ghandi? Somehow, I view his respe