Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

No pretending. Btw, why the oblique insults?

Why the obvious lack of any sense of humor?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 respect for all life more than your narrowly defined respect for it.

An interesting if somewhat unfocused rant.

Ricksp, do you know what a debate is? This site even explains that heated discussion is due to the controversial aspects of the issues. I, too, could label all your personal views and how you put them forth as a rant. Address the issues and let the onlookers decide whose points on the issues are better. Usually those who focus on the mechanics are bankrupt in how to respond to points. Focus, please.

Your religious regard for other species while showing contempt for your own is strange.

Passionate and dedicated -- yes. I am not religious in the least. Perhaps you were just using "religious regard" to mean "zeal." But, where have I shown "contempt" for humans?

We are reasoning animals, yet I see nothing particularly rational in your argument.

Yes, we are -- and I am not worried about you. Like I said, you are just a sounding board. I am more concerned with the onlookers. The trend towards "vegetarianism", however, is on the rise. Sure, it is a slow trend. But it is one whose numbers are steadily increasing. We are under no illusion that this world will be vegetarian within a short time. Slavery itself took 1000s of years to be seen as moraly repugnant and finally rejected. Why should we expect that flesh consumption would be much sooner (though with the spread of information technology, in all likelyhood it will be faster)? In the end, though, you will be standingg on the side of history that has been consigned to the wastebin <snicker snicker>

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." --Albert Einstein

I am guessing his thought on the issue will be proven right -- like so many of his insights. Btw, what have you had insight into that has been a monumental revelation to mankind? Anything comparable to his?

I clearly do not consider eating animals for food to constitute unnecessary cruelty.

The action of eating them does not! If an animal died from old age and someone ate it, there is no cruelty in that. A person that lives in the arctic circle needing to consume something -- anything at all -- just to survive is not cruel in taking the life of an animal that has lead a free life as part of the ecosystem. A sow in a factory farm however is a different story. So is a cow having its legs chainsawed off alive because the knocker machine didn`t have enough voltage is a different story. A chicken being crammed into a battery hen cage with only the size of an A4 sheet of paper to live out its entire life whilee other hens canibolize it is a different story. That is the reality of the cruelty which many animals face -- of which in the U.S. 80% of meat supplied is from factory farms and that number is growing.

As I asked before, is a wolf cruel in eating other animals?

No. A wolf is captive to its natural passions. The distinguishing difference between humans and the animal world is that we can make moral decisions, control our urges, and have the ability to extend compassion through reason.

Is a cow morally superior to the wolf?

Not at all. A cow, too, is captive to its nature.

Why shouldn't omnivores be omnivores?

It is quite fine for a bear to be an omnivore. It eats within the ecological structures of its ecosystem. It does not pervert an animals life by frustrating its natural urges for years from birth to death. It lives within its natural constructs. Humans have stepped outside the natural constructs that were meant to control us, so what is "natural" no longer constrains us. We do the opposite to animals as for example of what a bear does when it obtains its meat.

Superimposing a wholly artificial ethical structure over the natural order makes no particular sense.

Haven`t you noticed? We have stepped outside the "natural order"?

LOL. Were you not so humourless and pompously pious you might have a clue why flesh eaters leave the debate. It is boring.

No need to flame, Ricksp. Ad hominem arguments are the worse of all and just a sign of frustration. Just address the isssues, please. If you are done with addressing the issues, just end the post.

Your self righteousness adds nothing to the discussion...

When you believe you are right, you do have to speak as if you believe so. I am sure your phrasology above has been thrown at anti-abolitionists when they spoke "self-righteously" against slavery. Your attitude is the expected one from those who are receiving some pleasure or benefit from the status quo. Your "rant" above (since you like mechanics) has been played out above by many in the past who felt threatened that their life-style was being challenged.

Your suggestion that this sort of bloviation will drive up the cost of meat, however, is actually quite funny.

lol. Ricksp, it is not just me who has stated it. The meat industry and other animal exploiters have also voiced their concern for this. It really is just simple economics. Haven`t you ever taken a unversity course in economics?

Your view is fundamentally religious, based of emotional rather than rational considerations.

lol. You seem to be repetitious here, Ricksp. If you are so against repetition, then I would sugest don`t be a hypocrite. But to indulge your penchant for repetition, I am not "religious" at all. Soon I will enter the religion forums and you can see for yourself.

My arguments are quite rational. You on the other hand are trying to add masera to man to make him look like some "natural" animal here living in harmony with the ecosystem so his meat eating habits are just fine. Like I said, we are outside of natures eco-system and do not contribute to it as we were meant to. There is nothing wrong with bringing emotions into a debate when suffering is a large part of the issue. Abolitionists were quite emotional in their arguments and reasoning as to why slavery should be ended.

If you won't eat meat, fine by me, but you will make very [few] converts to your position by boring people to death.

I am not concerned with primariliy entertaining people. I am sure there are many visitors to this site like myself who can whatch a serious debate without having to be made to laugh and who come to catch some serious points on issues. If you have a low attention span because I am not appeasing your standards in humor, then don`t read my posts. There are many topics here to entertain you, and if that fails, there is always the cartoon network.

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."

[StrongHeartsWin]

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]

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.