Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You're right about the debate being uninteresting to those who consume flesh.

In all likelihood it is interesting to those who are on the fence about it -- the undecided -- eventhough they do eat flesh. That is how I was before I changed. The question of becoming a vegetarian got into me and then I found looking in on debates like these interesting and informative. They, along with books and articles, pushed me off the fence.

I am sure I won't revisit this thread often, because there are other items of greater interest to me personally (like government tyranny).

No problem. Look forward to you dropping by once in a while.

I agree with you that "tryanny" is important, though. Billions of beings are under the tyranny of the human species. ;-) That is one of the points that those who are for animal liberation consistanty bring forth.

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.

Glad to hear that. You saved many animals during that time. Though it may be unlikely, perhaps you may reconsider in the future.

I am naturally thin. I have gained weight as a vegetarian.

I don't think I was a whole lot healthier.

I most certainly do.

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.

I have no problem with just eating meat. If an animal dies from old age, and it is there, then fine -- eat it. If man can grow meat in trays in future factories, then fine. But, you seem to be putting forth the "natural" argument which I have already shown to be false above.

We are outside the natural system and there is nothing we do in the form of obtaining our meat which is "natural." In addition, when a wolf or bear consumes another animal, or anything for that matter, they give back bio-mass to the Earth. We do not. Our waste goes to be purified and treated. Our bodies are sealed in metal or concrete boxes or turned into ashes. We take and take and try our best to even deny our corpse' nutrients from even the worms.

Your use of "all creatures" has conveniently left us out. Why? Because you, too, know that we are outside the natural system. Besides, "all creatures" may die, and even if we are used in some way, "all creatures" are not subjected in nature to the brutal mechanization we have unaturally hoisted upon them. The "natural argument" for meat consumption by modern man does not fit -- unless one accepts that one`s argument is based on prejudice and not reason. If so, in that case there is no reason, so long as we please our prejudices, why we shouldn`t continue slavery and exploiting the weak for the benefit of the strong -- in which ever form we can remotely justify with our selfishness.

Meat is not undigestible and the flavor is pleasing. I can afford it.

Are you putting forth the logic that just because something is not "X" and that something is also "Y", it is then justified? To make it simpler, you could have just used a "positive" rather than a double negative (e.g. Meat is digestible...). In that case your premise would be: Because something is "X" then it is justified.

Does this sound right from a sweatshop worker?: "Children are exploitable and the profits I earn from their exploitation is pleasing to my bank account." I am not asking you about the individual scenarios. I am asking you about the logic you are using when suffering is the end result.

I choose not to hunt because I don't really like killing and butchering animals,

PH, which is worse, the ruler that orders the wrongful killing of a people, the population that urges him to do so so that they can benefit from it, or the henchmen who carry out the operations? Since you are interested in "tyranny" this should pique some thought from you, I would think -- if the spirit of logic, analogy, and interest in debate is deeply embedded in you. From your high post count, I would guess that it is.

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.

All herbivores, and most animals for that matter, have natural mechanisms to deal with overpopulation. Hunting is not necessary. That however, is another topic which I will get to in a future thread (or perhaps one already specifically exists for that. If so please be kind enough to direct me to it).

If the death is quick and painless and their domestication is benign, I have no problems with farm animals cultivated and harvested for food.

Then why don`t you have a problem with it? Do you think the animals who are raised in todays` farms have lives which are not miserable? Do you think an animal such as a sow or cow dies quickly when the knockers often do not work and then they are poked to bleed out -- a cow or sow taking 2 to 10 mins to bleed out and loose conciousness. Many are not even allowed to blead out before they go on to the de-legging station. Sows are often hoisted into the boiling vats alive. These are all large animals and the companies in efforts to provide the cheapest product possible and to please stock holders run the slaughtering lines at break-neck speeds. Do you think they stop the line because they see a sow going into the vats still alive, or a cow mooing before it gets its legs chainsawed off? No. They do not.

Slaughterhouses have the highest turnover rate of all industries -- close to 100%. Most workers are released convicts or from the immigrant community. Even they can`t bear the horrors they see for much more than one year.

Animals transported for slaughter are often done so over hundreds of miles without water through hot country. Stress coupled with no water is not "benign." In the winter they are often frozen to the metal sides of trucks, and the slaughterhouses use cable cranes and hooks to rip them off. Off to the chute they stun them with voltages that are often high enough to blow their loins.


Now, why do you assume their death is "quick and painless and domestication is benign" in light of that? You premised your statement with "if", so I assume that if it is not, then you are not "ok" with it.

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.

Are you saying only one thing can be focused on at a time? -- That the world's recourses are so few we just can`t afford to spread around compassion to other beings besides "man"? Is that what you are saying? You write those words, but I don`t believe you mean them, because if "human rights" were so important as to to trump all other beings which deserve rights to protect them, then why do you even spend time on the computer posting on things not associated with "human rights"? After all, every little second you have could be put to good use in realizing perfect human rights for everyone.

[PatrickHenry]

In fairness, the debate over confining myself to plant based foods alone is sort of silly. I don't value animals unless they are my friends. If they are killed, I don't cry. Even my pets just get buried so they don't stink if they die in the yard.

Now if you were to argue from the position of destruction of habitat and the impoverishment of the earth, you could get a little more traction. But I enjoy fishing and eating flesh. It is healthy for me, if not for you.

One note songs are sorta dreary. I don't have any real sympathy for your position, but argue away. Maybe you'll convince the other members. If enough of you stop eating hamburgers, they'll be cheaper for me!

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: PatrickHenry If enough of you stop eating hamburgers, they'll be cheaper for me!

Only in the short run. In the long run smaller economy of scales causes prices to rise.


There are 3 "notes" for vegetarianism:

• morals
• health
• environmental

The environment argument is a different "note" I have no problem with opening a thread on that later. In due time.

[StrongHeartsWin]

18 yr-old Austrian, Natascha Kampusch, kidnapped and held hostage for 8 years in a homemade dungeon by her captor, Wolfgang Priklopi, in her first public interview since her escape uses the analogy of the life of a chicken hen to describe her ordeal and suffering. She empathises with the horror of what a hen is subjected to during its confinement -- she practically lived it.

Empathy is the ability to jump out of one`s skin and feel the situation from another`s point of view. Sometimes one can do that without having to live another’s life, but often they can`t until when they are in an animal treated-like situation, they are confronted with the reality of the dispicable conditions.

"I always felt like a poor chicken in a hen house. You saw on TV how small my cell was — it was a place to despair." --Natascha Kampusch

AP Source Article

Battery hens in cramped cages of despair.



-----------------------------------------
Btw, PatrickHenry, you premised your belief on an "if" and I addressed that. You seem to be avoiding the questions that show your "if" to be unsupported.

[PatrickHenry]

Grass-fed beef uses a resource which would be wasted in areas of restricted rainfall. Or buffalo.

I don't favor factory farms, and think that people should consume meat from their own neighborhoods.

[joseph2622]

I am a vegetarian. I chose not to eat red meat because I grew up on a farm and that was literally all I ate, and I mean thats all, breakfast, luch, dinner, even a few midnight bacon strips when i slept walked. and very few vegetables.. As I got older I became sick of it, but i grew healthier than anyone I knew who. I'd never had a cold, flu, or sick. I'm guessing red meat is healthier than most think. but now i can't stand it, I only eat chicken, but i guess that makes sense, im half black...pun intended.. Now a plate full of salad, fruit, noodles, and pussy are part of my diet...

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Grass-fed beef uses a resource which would be wasted in areas of restricted rainfall. Or buffalo.

Why do you think that just because humans do not put them to use these lands are "wasted"? Even arid lands with just grass have their own unique eco-systems. Why should those ecological systems be disrupted for something that is not necessary for our lives?

I don't favor factory farms, and think that people should consume meat from their own neighborhoods.

Factory farms are by far the worse. However, the family farm of yesteryear with cows roaming the fields, chickens pecking, and hogs rooting around in the farmer`s yard are disappearing more and more as corporate farmers with their high lobbying power wrestle more and more benefits from legislatures to favor them. In addition their large economies of scale make it so that the local farmer is having a harder and harder time at competing.

It is not feasable that everyone in large population centers get their meat from local farmers. Up to 80% of animals for consumption are factory farmed and that is increasing. Don`t you think it is naive to think people can get their meat in that fashion -- if just about economically impossible.

Besides, are you aware of slaughterhouses in peoples' neighborhood? I am not even aware of farms in my neighborhood. I live in the city like most people in western nations do.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: joseph I am a vegetarian.... I only eat chicken, but i guess that makes sense, im half black...pun intended.. Now a plate full of salad, fruit, noodles, and pussy are part of my diet...

LOL!

Joseph, is a chicken a vegetable? I`ve never seen one sprout from the ground. If not, then how can you possibly be a vegetarian?

Though, you could still nibble on the last meat you mentioned and consider yourself one. ;-)

Welcome to the discussion.

[joseph2622]

well, i may not be totally vegetarian, but most who are consider red meat is what they don't eat. featherd creatures are execptable for me.

Though, you could still nibble on the last meat you mentioned and consider yourself one. ;-)

Huh, i guess im less a vegy-man than i thought, i should reconsider my ways. From now on, Only pink meat

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: joseph well, i may not be totally vegetarian, but most who are consider red meat is what they don't eat.

I wouldn`t agree that "most" vegetarians consider eating only poultry still makes them a "vegetarian."

featherd creatures are execptable for me.

Well, at least you have thought on the issue and made some life changes on those thoughts and because of your upbringing. I can respect that.

Huh, i guess im less a vegy-man than i thought, i should reconsider my ways. From now on, Only pink meat

LOL! Yes, a new meat category that we should all embrace for morning time, noon time, or night time nibbling. Also, calorie free!


Show compassion.
Switch to the new meat.
Bushmeat!
The ladies will love you for it.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: strongheartswin Besides, are you aware of slaughterhouses in peoples' neighborhood? I am not even aware of farms in my neighborhood. I live in the city like most people in western nations do.

Andrade Slaughterhouse
20° 3'44.69"N
155°29'31.19"W

I guess you have to eat vegetables if you don't have a place to get local meat!

Actually since people are a plague on the planet, you should probably just eat some datura. :eek:

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Andrade Slaughterhouse 20° 3'44.69"N 155°29'31.19"W

Like I said, few, if any slaughterhouses are in the main population centers of western nations making it most peoples' neighborhoods.

I may consider Honolulu a major population center (not really), but is Andrade in the middle of Honolulu?

Actually since people are a plague on the planet, you should probably just eat some datura. :eek:

No datura for me, thank you. I get all the green I need and the human plague are really only those people who can`t eat low on the food chain -- they`re the ones damaging the environment.

But, perhaps you, as a flesh eater, may be lacking in your plant based foods. By all means have some.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: 5010 - Combines indiscriminately kill more small mammals while harvesting vegetables than slaughterhouses do harvesting meat

This is not the whole picture. One has to factor in the animals that were killed in the combines that were used to harvest the grain to feed the animals. With that added in, because it takes more acreage to grow meat for people than the acreage needed to feed people directly from crops, the net total means far more are killed in the combines aiding to producing meat than they are in the combines producing end use plant food for people.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: dave654 I just want to know why the crusade to get people to stop eating meat? 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?

Fair enough question.

Those who are vegetarian for health or environmental reasons are probably not the ones who promote it so vocaly. Those who do so our of moral reasons are the ones who most often do promote it or accept debates on it or begins the discussions on it.

Emotions are definitely a part of the moral reasons for people promoting it. "Fanaticism"? Well, one person's view of fanaticism is another persons view of fighting for what they believe in. Are abolitionists of 200 years ago considered fanatics? I guess they were by the people they pestered about the issue of slavery. Slavery is morally wrong and there is not a thing wrong with emotions injected into issues where suffering is involved. Some people are moved by emotions in arguments, some are not. It depends on each person. To be rather robotic or Spock-like about issues involving suffering would put an image of Nazis in my head as they march Jews into the gas chambers even as a woman or child may be pleading for their life.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strongheartswin You still haven`t explained: How moral considerations can be divorced from unecessary cruelty. and Why should just humans be the sole target of moral considerations? What do you base that on? and 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."

Why do you merely repeat what you have said before? If it wasn't convinving the first time, it will be less so the second and third. I answered your questions, to the extent that they deserved an answer, already. A short summary:

I do not find anything immoral with eating other species of animals for food. I do not consider this to be "unnecessary cruelty." Your assertions that we have stepped "outside of the natural order" may represent your religious views but have no basis is reality. Your obvious contempt for human nature is not a view I share.

Your comments about cannibalism, crapping in public, equating non-vegetarians to slave traders and attempting to equate a kidnapped girl to a caged chicken are not worthy of comment or response.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gregory 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!"

Why must something have a purpose to exist. Many great philosphers have asked "why are we here," and the answer has never been conclusively agreed upon.

If you have no definite predetermined purpose for existence, then would that make any reason someone to exploit you justified -- to give purpose to them for themselves?

Of course not.

[RickSp]

Quote by: strongheartswin "Fanaticism"? Well, one person's view of fanaticism is another persons view of fighting for what they believe in. Are abolitionists of 200 years ago considered fanatics? I guess they were by the people they pestered about the issue of slavery. Slavery is morally wrong and there is not a thing wrong with emotions injected into issues where suffering is involved. Some people are moved by emotions in arguments, some are not. It depends on each person. To be rather robotic or Spock-like about issues involving suffering would put an image of Nazis in my head as they march Jews into the gas chambers even as a woman or child may be pleading for their life. (Emphasis added)

Ring the bell! We have an invocation of Godwin's Law.

After equating non-vegetarians with slave traders in a previous threat, I knew that comparisons to Nazis had to be waiting in the wings. And images of gas chambers thrown in for good measure. Hoo-hoo. Take that you filthy fried chicken eaters! You steak assassins! You odious omnivores!

Amusing, at the very least.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp Why do you merely repeat what you have said before?

Errrrr, because you keep avoiding them.

If it wasn't convinving the first time, it will be less so the second and third.

Then get with it and answer them the first time they come around.

I answered your questions, to the extent that they deserved an answer, already.

No, you haven`t. You can`t answer them because your reasoning comes out to be prejudicial.

I do not find anything immoral with eating other species of animals for food. I do not consider this to be "unnecessary cruelty."

You were the one who said you only gave moral considerations to humans. Then you stated:

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

Now, why care about unnecessary cruelty if there are no moral considerations with regards to animals? I want to know RIGHT NOW! Or, are you still unable to explain it, or just avoiding it? Which is it?

Your assertions that we have stepped "outside of the natural order" may represent your religious views but have no basis is reality. Your obvious contempt for human nature is not a view I share.

Haven`t you seen that I already stated I hold no religious views? And where have I shown "contempt" for human nature. Modifying one`s "nature" does not mean contempt for it. Could you explain to us why making a choice equals "contempt"?

The point of debate is to address the issues brought up. You are displaying an inability to do so.

Your comments about cannibalism, crapping in public, equating non-vegetarians to slave traders and attempting to equate a kidnapped girl to a caged chicken are not worthy of comment or response.

Well, I can understand not addressing them when the analogies tie you up. It is convenient. The girl herself analagized herself. Anthropoligists will tell you about cannibolism being more widespread in our far past. I don`t think I "equated" non-vegetarians" to slave-traders. I used them as an "analogy." Analogies are not "equating" techniques. They serve to outline the reason. All of which you continuously avoid rolling your sleeves up to get into the debate.

Convenience is easy. Btw, if you are refusing to debate, then why keep visiting the thread?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp Ring the bell! We have an invocation of Godwin's Law. After equating non-vegetarians with slave traders in a previous threat, I knew that comparisons to Nazis had to be waiting in the wings

LOL! Oh yes. Good 'ol Godwin's Law. Sorry for you that it is a ridiculous law and it does nothing to diminish analogies with people who treat others like disposable garbage. We could easily use Pol Pot and his killing machine, Idi Amin, and some others. No reason to soft pedal it though. The Nazi's are available and used by all as the measuring stick of cruelty. Though, I do see how those who revel in the exploitation of suffering would prefer that they are not analogized to them.