Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp So as you have really nothing else to say, you keep repeating yourself and then presume to lecture others on the finer points of debating. Amusing if dull.

RSP, you are the one who keeps avoiding the questions that give your reasoning up for how bankrupt it is. Yes, I do find that quite amusing.

And it does appear that you consider non-vegetarians as having something in common with Nazis. (You have already referred to us a slave traders.) Funny, as Hitler was predominantly a vegetarian (though it is reported that he did eat meat on occassion.)

If he ate meat then he wasn`t a vegetarian, therefore, nothing in common with vegetarians on diet.

Though, to indulge your weak reasoning and to highlight it, Hitler had a nose. You have a nose. I guess you are like Hitler. See? You seem to be tripping over how to use reason in argument/debate.

[ibm]

is this really worth debating? it started out as a poll, now it's become something else.

i think there is a group of people call themselves "fruitarians" as they only eat fruits that have fallen from the plant. since they're fallen, they're considered "dead". since they're "dead", there is no "murder" involved. as such, eating them is totally "moral".

vegetarians, you have ways to go - using those "fruitarians" as your role models. please. you think you only eat vegetables and that's perfectly fine? guess what, that is still murder, since we all know veggies have lives. and you've brutally murdered a tomato when it's still alive and living on its plant. next time you eat a tomato, make sure it's not picked off (but rather, fell off on its own)

[RickSp]

Quote by: ibm is this really worth debating? it started out as a poll, now it's become something else.

Probably not worth debating, I just get amused by the self righteous, self absorbed and pious among us.

[shield772]

I have to say this has been one of the most pointless debates I have seen on volcanvo, I eat meat, my choice, you don't your choice why should I care what you eat and why should you care what I eat.

[Nono]

I'd like to quote that great American writer, environmentalist, and admirable all-round shitdisturber Edward Abbey:

Animal egalitarianism. If all animals are equal, then we humans, obviously, are no better than any other animals. Being no better, we cannot be expected to behave any better. Therefore, it is perfectly logical, as well as natural, that we do as others do—expand to the limits of our range, exterminate competitors, multiply our numbers well beyond the carrying capacity of our territory, submit to mass die-offs periodically, and so on. On the other hand, if we demand of ourselves that we behave rationally, display tolerance and even love for all other forms of life, then it would seem to follow that we are asking of humans a moral sensitivity unknown to lesser—excuse me!—other animals. Having raised the question, I think I see the answer. In demanding that humans behave with justice, tolerance, reason, love toward other forms of life, we are doing no more than demanding that humans be human—that is, be true to the best aspects of human nature. Humans being human, therefore, cannot consider themselves morally superior to, say, bears being bear-like, eagles being eagle-like, etc. No doubt Spinoza had much to say about this.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: ibm is this really worth debating?

To those who care or are interested in the issue it is. If you are not, then why even click on the thread to see what is being written on the topic? Things I see no worth in I do not spend my time on. Why do you?

you think you only eat vegetables and that's perfectly fine? guess what, that is still murder, since we all know veggies have lives. and you've brutally murdered a tomato when it's still alive and living on its plant. next time you eat a tomato, make sure it's not picked off (but rather, fell off on its own)

Plant life and the ability for them to suffer has already been discussed above. I am tempted to indulge you with an answer to it, but then RickSP will cry, "repeating the same note." Though, I may post on it again later in the thread if someone brings it up again -- usually due to not going back and reading the previous pages before posting.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: RickSp I just get amused by the self righteous, self absorbed and pious among us.

I understand how you feel. I get annoyed at those in the status quo who don`t want their position or lifestyle challenged, and then when it is, instead of addressing the questions or reasoning put forht to them, just become indignant in their self-righteousness -- like from what we have seen here with the person remaining in the debate but refusing/unable to answer questions. Indignance is humorous. Those people who display it are just all so flustered.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: shield I have to say this has been one of the most pointless debates I have seen on volcanvo,

Do you keep dropping in to follow it?

I eat meat, my choice, you don't your choice why should I care what you eat and why should you care what I eat.

We shouldn`t care if there is no suffering involved.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: strongheartswin 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.

So it's simply scale of suffering that matters, is it? Mao was a fucker but Pol Pot, well he can't compete so must be much much better, right?

Tell me, do you care about the number of insects that are killed by pesticide? It's a bleedin' massacre every square metre when it comes to li'l beasties. And what about the germs I wash off my hands?? Argh crap, I'm a monster!

[StrongHeartsWin]

Hi G.,

Quote by: G. Adams So it's simply scale of suffering that matters, is it?

I`ve already said that choosing to be a vegetarian on moral reasons does not make one perfect in eliminating all suffering. Vegetarianism is the choice which causes the least suffering without forfeiting one`s life.

Mao was a fucker but Pol Pot, well he can't compete so must be much much better, right?

I`d hate to be under the regime of either. But, if I had to choose, I would make my decision on which one I think I would have the better chance at avoiding suffering. I think most would.

Tell me, do you care about the number of insects that are killed by pesticide? It's a bleedin' massacre every square metre when it comes to li'l beasties.

Since livestock require more crops to feed them than what is required to feed people, there are larger numbers of insects killed in the fields used to produce meat for people than those used to produce crops for people. Again, the vegetarian choice results in the least number of kills compard

And what about the germs I wash off my hands?? Argh crap, I'm a monster!

Naah. You`re not a monster. Don`t be so hard on yourself. Have more self-esteem.

Society has to stay clean or disease would become rampant and that would mean forfeiting our lives. Vegetarianism isn`t about forfeiting our lives. It is about choosing to cause the least suffering when a viable alternative choice in diet exists.

Gee, I hate repeating myself, too -- but apparantly people are not reading recent posts or are just having a hard time with reading comprehension.

[ibm]

"strongheartswin", if looks like you truly feel strongly about the issue. i just want to know one thing, though - can you honestly tell me you've never had, since you chose to become a vegetarian, a cheesecake or anything in kind? i'm asking this because i know quite a few vegetarians who have had stuff like a veggie pizza/burger with cheese.

me personally don't have a problem with vegetarians in generally. if you just don't like meats and simply prefer veggies that is. but don't try to preach morality or anything close to it on this. it's a load of crap. THAT, is what i meant by not worth debating.

may your heart be stronger or stronger - by your eating veggies (and only veggies).

[ibm]

p.s. - one more thing to consider. have y'all ever worn a leather jacket? do you wear leather shoes and use a leather belt on your pants on a daily basis?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Hi ibm,

Quote by: ibm "strongheartswin", if looks like you truly feel strongly about the issue. i just want to know one thing, though - can you honestly tell me you've never had, since you chose to become a vegetarian, a cheesecake or anything in kind? i'm asking this because i know quite a few vegetarians who have had stuff like a veggie pizza/burger with cheese.

I have had no meat products since I have become a vegetarian. I am not a vegan but do not debate the fact that veganism is even the more moral choice of the two. It is. However, I am more and more cutting out dairy products and probably soon will go vegan.

me personally don't have a problem with vegetarians in generally. if you just don't like meats and simply prefer veggies that is. but don't try to preach morality or anything close to it on this. it's a load of crap. THAT, is what i meant by not worth debating.

Well, we will agree to disagree on this point, ibm. I will continue offering it up for debate and in this thread put forth the moral/ethical reasons for it. If you wish to not debate it because you view it as a "load of crap" then why don`t you please graciously stay out of the thread to let others who do see it worth debating to do so, rather than just declaring it a "load of crap" because you feel so -- or just have a desire to derail the discussion or shut it down. Why should judging a topic for debate "a load of crap" be made by you?

What if everyone went around to all the threads and whichever ones they didn`t like or feel worth debating interjected, "debating this topic is a load of crap"? First of all, it isn`t very civil. 2nd of all, it is contrary to the spirit of what a forum whose purpose is to promote debate on controversial issues is. And finally, it would cause the threads to be sloppy, disjointed, and not smooth to follow -- for simply debating the worth of something for debate is in itself pulling the thread off topic.

If you would like to debate the value of declaring topics, or the topics themseloves, "not worth debating", then why not start a seperate thread on that so that the issues in the threads can stay focused and on topic? That would mean you could just start a thread called, "Vegetarianism on moral grounds: Worth debating?" There. I did some work for you. Why don`t you take it and run with it. I may visit the thread and tell you why it is worth debating. Waiting for your OP on it.

...may your heart be stronger or stronger - by your eating veggies (and only veggies).

Thanks. And you, too. Your heart and the animals that aren`t killed for your alternate choice will thank you for it. <smile>

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: ibm p.s. - one more thing to consider. have y'all ever worn a leather jacket? do you wear leather shoes and use a leather belt on your pants on a daily basis?

Before I woke up and considered the moral and ethical issues of it I did. After that and becoming a vegetarian -- "no, I do not." Faux leather products are easy to purchase.

[leftcider]

Quote by: strongheartswin Hi ibm, I have had no meat products since I have become a vegetarian. I am not a vegan but do not debate the fact that veganism is even the more moral choice of the two. It is. However, I am more and more cutting out dairy products and probably soon will go vegan.

Ok, if you aren't vegan, but you consider it to be the more moral of two choices... why haven't you done it? And, can you fault others for having the same motivation as you have for not "doing that right thing"?

I think most people agree that animals deserve at least a minimum of moral consideration (no "unnecessary pain"), but for most it doesn't extend far beyond that. I think a more realistic goal if you want to promote animal welfare is to promote more humane/sustainable/healthy practices within the industry, rather than trying to get people to abstain all together.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: leftcider Ok, if you aren't vegan, but you consider it to be the more moral of two choices... why haven't you done it?

It took me about 6 weeks to become a vegetarian. I was worried I`d backslide if I just did it all at once, so gradually I cut out meat -- first beef, then pork, chicken, then fish. That proved a successful strategy for me, therefore I am also decreasing my dairy products little by little so that once I go vegan, I won`t give it up because of some habitual craving.

And, can you fault others for having the same motivation as you have for not "doing that right thing"?

I don`t expect anyone to just make a sudden decision and then change in a heartbeat. Can you show me where I have said that? I am not parsing out fault to anyone for moving at their own speed in doing the more ethical thing. Denying that vegetarianism is more moral than consuming flesh, is however, wrong. That is the reason for the debate.

I think most people agree that animals deserve at least a minimum of moral consideration (no "unnecessary pain"), but for most it doesn't extend far beyond that.

Well, how do you define "unnecessary"? If they are experiencing "unecessary" pain then why would you continue eating flesh? Factory farms, store owners, and even consumers could argue that whatever suffering they are experiencing is necessary to keep the meat per gram at whichever cheap price it is at the moment so that as many people as possible could afford it. In fact, people could argue that more pain is necessary for them if we can bring the prices down even more by forcing them into less space for movement -- and therefore more people could be fed with cheaper prices.

Some will say that slaughter lines sped up could bring prices down even more,even though it would mean more animals being still concious past the knocker stage. But why should that matter if prices drop because of it and more people benefit from their increased pain?

So, what is "unecessary" pain?

I think a more realistic goal if you want to promote animal welfare is to promote more humane/sustainable/healthy practices within the industry, rather than trying to get people to abstain all together.

Vegetarianism on moral and ethical grounds is not about "animal welfare" -- it is premised on Animal Rights.

[leftcider]

Quote by: strongheartswin Well, how do you define "unnecessary"? If they are experiencing "unecessary" pain then why would you continue eating flesh? Factory farms, store owners, and even consumers could argue that whatever suffering they are experiencing is necessary to keep the meat per gram at whichever cheap price it is at the moment so that as many people as possible could afford it. In fact, people could argue that more pain is necessary for them if we can bring the prices down even more by forcing them into less space for movement -- and therefore more people could be fed with cheaper prices. Some will say that slaughter lines sped up could bring prices down even more,even though it would mean more animals being still concious past the knocker stage. But why should that matter if prices drop because of it and more people benefit from their increased pain? So, what is "unecessary" pain?

I'm not arguing what is and isn't unnecessary pain, merely saying that while most people don't want bad conditions for animals, their concern doesn't go much farther than that. If you want to improve standards of living for animals, that should be a fact that you deal with.

Quote by: strongheartswin Vegetarianism on moral and ethical grounds is not about "animal welfare" -- it is premised on Animal Rights.

You care about animal welfare if you care about animal rights. If people are going to continue to raise animals for meat, don't you want the animals that are used to be treated better?

If no one was eating meat, most of these livestock animals wouldn't even exist.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: leftcider I'm not arguing what is and isn't unnecessary pain, merely saying that while most people don't want bad conditions for animals, their concern doesn't go much farther than that.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you that most people have the same thought on the issue.

I think most people do have this foggy concept of "unecessary pain" in their minds and believe that the animals are not experiencing that -- that therefore allows them to eat their meals without feeling they are part of the problem inflicting "unecessary pain." However, the reality of the situation is that farmed animals suffer greatly -- so much so that if I were to make a thread with post after post of pics with animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses that the moderators would surely not allow it. ON THE OTHERHAND, if there were a thread dedicated to sights of amusment parks around the world with pics after pics of people having wonderful times, such a thread would in all probability be allowed. Why? Because, witnessing suffering is bothersome. If the whole concept of animals experiencing of "unecessary pain" were not true and the factory farms and slaughterhouses were not bad, or did not pull at our insides, then why would not such a thread be welcomed? Obviously a picture tells a thousand words and a thousand pics on the topic would be a strong downer.

So, if one is going to bring up this concept of "unecessary pain" in a discussion, believing that animals are not experiencing it, then that party has the responsibility to let those interested in the debate know what "unecessary pain" amounts to.

If you want to improve standards of living for animals, that should be a fact that you deal with.

If this were a thread on "animal welfare for a flesh eating world," then I would do so. But, this is a thread on "vegetarianism" and in it I am putting forth the moral reasons for choosing it. You aren`t saying I have to play all positions of the field at the same time, are you? The animal welfare/rights/liberation movement is quite varied. At times they work together and at times they do so seperately. Some large animal orgs attack both issues of welfare and rights -- admitting that in the short run welfare are their main targets but keeping an eye and active on their long term goal of winning rights for animals. Large orgs have the ability to sign staff to different aspects of the struggle. Individuals within large orgs can choose which of the various aspects they want to lend their energy to. I at times tend to both when time permits. Here in this thread and perhaps on this forum, I will usually choose to focus on rights and liberation. But, if someone were to ask me a pragmatic question such as this:

Seeing that liberation for chickens will not occur within this century, would you lend your time to getting signatures, tabling, and lobbying others to force industry to make more living space for their chickens?

My answer: Of course, I would. However, even after doing those things I would still not give up on acting for animal liberation in its end form.

But you see, that is a different thread from this so I am trying to stay on topic of "vegetarianism out of moral considerations. Fair enough?

You care about animal welfare if you care about animal rights. If people are going to continue to raise animals for meat, don't you want the animals that are used to be treated better?

Yes. Just addressed this above.

If no one was eating meat, most of these livestock animals wouldn't even exist.

There is no suffering in non-existance. Beings do not care about their species when they are being submitted to pain and suffering. They want the pain and suffering to end, and if they can locate themselves away from the source of pain they will do so. Even humans will often opt for death if it means and end to chronic suffering. The billions of years that past before you were born, did you notice your non-existance?

Animal Rights, the other side of the coin of animal welfare, is not focused on welfare. Were abolitionists lobbying governments to give slaves 6 feet of chains instead of 3 feet? Sure abolitionists cared about how slaves were treated, but when they worked for fundamental rights they had to put on different hats that did not negotiate for less suffering, but for an end to direct exploitation through denying freedom.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: strongheartswin Hi G., I`ve already said that choosing to be a vegetarian on moral reasons does not make one perfect in eliminating all suffering. Vegetarianism is the choice which causes the least suffering without forfeiting one`s life. I`d hate to be under the regime of either. But, if I had to choose, I would make my decision on which one I think I would have the better chance at avoiding suffering. I think most would. Since livestock require more crops to feed them than what is required to feed people, there are larger numbers of insects killed in the fields used to produce meat for people than those used to produce crops for people. Again, the vegetarian choice results in the least number of kills compard Naah. You`re not a monster. Don`t be so hard on yourself. Have more self-esteem. Society has to stay clean or disease would become rampant and that would mean forfeiting our lives. Vegetarianism isn`t about forfeiting our lives. It is about choosing to cause the least suffering when a viable alternative choice in diet exists. Gee, I hate repeating myself, too -- but apparantly people are not reading recent posts or are just having a hard time with reading comprehension.

So vegetarianism is not any more or less moral, just a matter of scale? Tell me, when we have to turn most of the worlds land over the agrarian production, what will happen to cattle? Cows, sheep, goats, chickens, pigs - any animal that's current existence is largely now based upon human rearing? They would be put on the endangered species list, if not the list of extinct creatures. Being omnivores means we have to ensure a species survival, or else we lose a food source. Being vegetarian means that plant production will take precedence. The industrialised means of production also means that we will also wind up desertifying a great deal of land, making it unusable. This doesn't happen with pastoral farming, pastoral farming typically enriches the soil.

You would pick one over the other to live under? I would fight to the death to overturn which ever I happened to be under, because they are immoral and oppressive, irrespective of scale. If something is quite so certainly wrong, as you argue animal suffering is, you should oppose it at all turns, not just pick the lesser evil.

Ahh, but vegetarianism is an unhealthy choice. I'll try and find the link to the study where they put a group of omni's and veggies on the same body building regime, the result being the omni's fat % went down and muscle went up, while the veggies gained little muscle and actually put on a little fat. And for anecdotal evidence, my Aussie aunt went vegetarian as she follows buddhism, but her health went rapidly downhill. Her vegetarian diet could not provide her with sufficient nutrients, and she became sick. Returning to her omni diet brought her back to fitness. And considering the inevitably high grain content in a veggie diet, I can't imagine the huge stress that would be put on your pancreas.

Moreover, it was the shift from vegetarian diet to omni diet that gave ostrolapithicus (sp?)the protien content to become a superior ape, to set itself on the evolutionary path to homo sapien. I can't see how something that is not only natural but was crucial to our development can be immoral.

[leftcider]

Quote by: GG Allin I'll try and find the link to the study where they put a group of omni's and veggies on the same body building regime, the result being the omni's fat % went down and muscle went up, while the veggies gained little muscle and actually put on a little fat.

I'll believe you on your aunt, but please do try to find teh link to teh study, I've never heard of anything like that.