Vegetarianism

[inri]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy No, my argument would be that I'm unsure of whether being farmed for meat necessarily causes the animals in question to experience suffering.

..so am I correct then in assuming that to some degree you do care whether or not animals suffer?... I'm rootin for ya!...come on...throw me a bone! :)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: inri ..so am I correct then in assuming that to some degree you do care whether or not animals suffer?... I'm rootin for ya!...come on...throw me a bone! :)

Of course I do, and I suspect the majority of meat eaters feel similarly. I just happen not to be convinced that eating meat necessarily has any bearing on whether animals suffer.

[thrashee]

Quote by: inri This lack of emotional empathy can be found in "criminal psychopaths, rapists, and child molesters.

Now add meat eaters to that list :)

I fluctuate between a vegetarian/vegan, often finding it real difficult to abstain from dairy products. I clearly see the hypocrisy of this as many of the problems inherent in production of animals for their meat also plague the dairy industry.

Then you are, of course, adding yourself to the list of those with low emotional IQs. Or you just lack integrity, as I believe your second part stated.

You act shocked that someone would actually say that an individual devoid of compassion is somehow lacking....I find it hard to believe this would come as surprising information.

Come now, you know exactly why I acted the way I did. The error wasn't in your quite exhaustive explanation for a lack, but rather in the overt way you're linking together two extremes.

Here's the thing: people who are themselves vegetarian or vegan or whatever the chosen cause is, they do it for themselves, not to make the world a better place. You're "supporting" a cause by essentially doing nothing but just enough to placate this sense of cause within yourself.

If the humane treatment of animals is really your goal, then work with the system, not simply against it. Find ways of bettering the industries so that there is less inhumane treatment of animals.

You are doing this, correct?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: inri Yes, you're correct. while these quotes do 'imply' vegetarianism, they do not in fact prove it..I chose to err on the side of proper argument and therefore chose these words. .."Normal food of man is vegetable like anthropoids and apes....." QUOTE Darwin....this suggests far more than a mere predisposition towards an omnivorous diet in my opinion...the key word being 'normal'. I think it's safe to say as evidenced by these quotes that Darwin had far more than a simple 'respect for nature'...he had a reverence for life....animals included...This one in particular "When you slaughter a creature you slaughter a God"....do you really think that someone capable of writing this would be a meat eater?... Your souce "Cloe Diski" is a food critic/writer....not exactly what I'd consider to be the most reliable of sources...no where can I find this information she's stated in any of his biographies or any other similar sourced material.... She does state in her 'article' that during this period of supposed varied animal consumption, he was a student at Cambridge....If so, it's quite possible that he became a vegetarian afterwards, prehaps in later years..in fact one of the sources (a manuscript authored by himself and Wallace states that at the time that this manuscript was authored he was not yet a vegetarian but was moving in that direction as he saw the eithical soundness of it) He certainly wouldn't be the first person to have started out a meat-eater who later evolved into a vegetarian.... The fact remains that he is included in numerous lists of historical vegetarians...and although I do admit I'm having trouble finding an independent reliable source that says he in fact was, I have found such said sources citing his quotes...which in my opinion make his position quite clear, however for the sake of proper argument, I'll certainly delete his name from the list of prominent vegetarians. My point in listing these individuals in the first place was to quell the argument of Kamehemeha when he stated that vegetarianism is so flaky it's not even worthy of intellectual consideration, (or something to that effect)...anyway, like I said for the sake of argument and due to the fact that I cannot find any hard and fast proof of Darwin being a vegetarian, I'll remove him from my list. The rest stand. Henry Ford, H.G. Wells, Mark Twain, Leo tolstoy, Henry David thoreau, Sir Isaac Newton, Martin Luther, Leonardo da vinci, Socrates, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Pythagorus, Plato and Albert Einstein... (just the tip of the iceburg in terms of prominent figures).I believe even without Darwin my point has been made.

Apes and chimps eat meat. They eat a lot of bananas too, but they do eat meat from time to time. They are also cannibals.

[inri]

Quote by: thrashee Now add meat eaters to that list :) Then you are, of course, adding yourself to the list of those with low emotional IQs. Or you just lack integrity, as I believe your second part stated. Come now, you know exactly why I acted the way I did. The error wasn't in your quite exhaustive explanation for a lack, but rather in the overt way you're linking together two extremes. Here's the thing: people who are themselves vegetarian or vegan or whatever the chosen cause is, they do it for themselves, not to make the world a better place. You're "supporting" a cause by essentially doing nothing but just enough to placate this sense of cause within yourself. If the humane treatment of animals is really your goal, then work with the system, not simply against it. Find ways of bettering the industries so that there is less inhumane treatment of animals. You are doing this, correct?

Try actually reading my posts. I made it quite clear thta I don't believe ALL of those who eat meat have a low emotional IQ. I quite specifically said that the low emotional IQ applied to those who do not have empathy or compassion for animals...I was quite careful to qualify this ...it's frustrating debating with people who don't even properly read through posts...quite impossible actually.

Yes, I specifically said I was lacking in the integrity to follow through completely...again...read

I'm absolutely doing as you suggest. I fully support organizations who are more middle of the road in their approach...I don't actually believe it's probable or possible for the whole world to turn vegetarian overnight....It's evident to me that incremental steps are necessary in any change...hence the focus upon humane farming and such.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Electrocuting doesn't sound so horrible, we used to do that to humans. Grinding up pigs alive is unnecessary, though what the hell kind of meat does that make, and unnecessary confinement would generally be considered abuse.

Thank-you for clearing that up. With those statements, it shows you do generally consider factory farms (thats the animal flesh you find in the grocery store) 'abusers', because almost all confine animals in tiny places. Therefore your morality indicates that that treatment is abuse, and you are feeling the animals are being treated like:

"to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way"

With you saying that "unnecessary confinement would generally be considered abuse" you are showing your morality does extend to animals. If it didn't you wouldn't consider what is done to those animals 'abuse'. Abuse is a strong word.

I think I found out what is going on here. You are simply saying "My morality doesn't extend to animals I don't know" simply for agrument sake, because you don't feel that way (which is proven above).

Abuse is all in the eye of the beholder, in other countries being whipped is a perfectly legal and reasonable punishment, here it is abuse.

It can be, but it some cases it can't. If it was always, there would be serious issues.

Sustenance and enjoyment are good enough reasons for most.

Sustenance can be provided in other ways, so can enjoyment. It still does not mean 'they are good reasons'.

Except, as I pointed out before, society universally condemns unnecessary murder

It doesn't matter if most of society condemns it or not. Isn't that an 'ad populum' argument? Just because many people view something wrong or right, doesn't make their views right.

People debate abortion because their moralities differ, some believe that the potential represented in the fetus is enough to make destroying that potential wrong, (whether they want to ban it is another issue) others believe that thw rightness or wrongness is more murky. The general facts are all accepted by both sides, unless a religious issue is brought in.

It is just like here, our moralities differ, yet you can't seem to want to prove your point right. At least both sides in the abortion debate, even with totally different morals, can still debate. Why can't we? What is the difference?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Good to be back, Matt. How does what most Americans do have any bearing on an individual's personal dietary choice? Your argument is against buying meat from supermarkets; not against eating meat altogether.

It is actually. I just have a stronger case against what most Americans eat, and since most here are the average American, I use that argument. I can go against all animal flesh eating, but I choose to focus on what most people here are like. Animal flesh eating in any circumstance causes enviromental damage, ending of an animals life (which may have lived much longer), and most would still cause health problems (not as much though).

Quote by: thrashee Because while you're citing facts and figures, the rest of us are enjoying a juicy, plump steak

Enjoy.

So? Here's an idea, let's start looking at ALL the things that are unneeded in our society, and start stripping them. Your logic is, the industry around an activity causes harm, so the activity is bad. That's faulty logic. Change the industry, not the activity.

This argument has been tried many times. If you want to discuss all the harmful things, make a thread about it. This is about animal flesh eating, not about other harmful things. Just because many other things are harmful does not mean animal flesh production isn't as harmful.

Change the industry? Do you know what laughable talk you are throwing out of your mouth? If you change the industry so it reduces abuse, and enviromental damage, your next steak will be $50. The price of animal flesh is already going way up, and doing that would further the condition. That's actually fine by me, because if meat is very expensive, very few people will purchase it.

Just a tip, don't try to say 'change the industry' in this debate, since you would truly not want that if you realized the problems for you in the future. Unless you're rich of course.

Then I hope you are a vegan, and I hope you grow all your own vegetables and fruit at home. You never go to Walmart either, right? You make your own clothes? You commute to work, or even better, telecommute? You never purchase new music, and the internet connection you're using right now is powered by gerbils and a wheel--who, of course, are given 15 minute breaks every 4 hours with a half hour for lunch

Another funny comeback. This one has been tried and tried again. A wrong doesn't make a right We aren't talking about what other things people may do, we are talking about eating animal flesh. You are going way off topic with your rant, and if you would like to continue it make a new thread titled "Music harms the earth! Gerbils abused by internet!". Lets see how far you go with that.

I don't support this kind of treatment either, and I didn't claim it doesn't exist. That's why I referenced the organic industry.

Why did you reference the organic industry?

Oh, B.S.--you don't charge animals with abuse because they're animals, not because they lack a choice. Animals kill needlessly, by the way. Is that cruel and abusive?

Nope, because they don't have the capacity to reason their actions. If you suddenly think they do, then you are putting them on the same levels as humans. I thought that was the biggest divider between humans and the rest of the animals-we can reason and they can't.

We humans can change our ways and reason things out. They can't, therefore they are not guilty. That's why people don't put dog or cats on trial

No, I don't want links. Wanna know why? Let me put it this way: if we humans simply tried to live the longest by doing every single thing as healthily as we could, you know what we'd have? Very long, and very boring, lives.

Thats what I thought, you don't want links because you know they would prove that animal flesh is harmful to us.

What again did you prove wrong here?

Hmm...let me think...that eating flesh causes un-needed enviromental damage, cruelty, health problems, and people who consume animal flesh are less civilized. I could list more...

[inri]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Of course I do, and I suspect the majority of meat eaters feel similarly. I just happen not to be convinced that eating meat necessarily has any bearing on whether animals suffer.

...I kind of suspected you weren't as callous as you might have led me to believe..(lol)...there you just bought yourself a free pass out of the category of those with emotionally low IQ!..This is I can somewhat understand...it's those who say they could care less about the pain or suffering of an animal that leave me perplexed.

[Matt]

Quote by: Deadeye Apes and chimps eat meat. They eat a lot of bananas too, but they do eat meat from time to time. They are also cannibals.

Gorillas eat meat?

Mountain Gorilla facts

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt It is actually. I just have a stronger case against what most Americans eat, and since most here are the average American, I use that argument. I can go against all animal flesh eating, but I choose to focus on what most people here are like.

Then it's not an argument for vegetarianism and has no place in this thread.

Quote by: Matt Animal flesh eating in any circumstance causes enviromental damage,

Is there any proof of that? What environmental damage would be caused by me keeping a few chickens in my yard?

Quote by: Matt ending of an animals life (which may have lived much longer),

Why is that a reason not to eat meat?

Quote by: Matt and most would still cause health problems (not as much though).

Not all meat will necessarily cause health problems, so again your argument is for altering the way in which we eat or obtain meat; not for vegetarianism.

In addition to that, lots of things are harmful to our health. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea to indulge in it. Life exists to be enjoyed; not prolonged at all cost.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Matt Gorillas eat meat? Mountain Gorilla facts

I'm positive that Chimps eat meat and I think that Gorilla's do to, but come to think of it I'm not sure. You'll have to ask Jane Goodall.....wait, she's chimp chick isn't she.

You'll have to ask a gorilla I guess. But stand way back when you do. They throw stuff, and what they throw is not "stuff" either.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Citing one animal in a group doesn't exactly create a great argument against his point, which is that apes and chimps do eat meat, at least some of them.

I think I found out what is going on here. You are simply saying "My morality doesn't extend to animals I don't know" simply for agrument sake, because you don't feel that way (which is proven above).

Not true, causing pain unnecessarily is part of my morality, not eating them is not. Plus, I wouldn't go proving things about people's inner workings, they often don't follow logic.

It can be, but it some cases it can't. If it was always, there would be serious issues.

There aren't serious issues?

Sustenance can be provided in other ways, so can enjoyment. It still does not mean 'they are good reasons'.

What constitutes a good reason is also usually subjective.

It doesn't matter if most of society condemns it or not. Isn't that an 'ad populum' argument? Just because many people view something wrong or right, doesn't make their views right.

Not when it comes to popular morality, given tat society generally defines what is acceptable among individuals. Wrong or right is subjective, so ad populum is as close to an indication as you're going to get.

It is just like here, our moralities differ, yet you can't seem to want to prove your point right. At least both sides in the abortion debate, even with totally different morals, can still debate. Why can't we? What is the difference?

Because no point is "right" in terms of an objective statement (the sky is blue). Your morality differs from my morality. Now, you could certainly prove the points "meat consumption often leads to animal's pain" or "meat eating is bad for the environment" but neither of those equates to "meat eating is wrong". Have you seen abortion debates? they rarely get much more deep than our debate "killing babies is bad" vs. "get your laws out of women's wombs."

[thrashee]

Quote by: Matt This argument has been tried many times. If you want to discuss all the harmful things, make a thread about it. This is about animal flesh eating, not about other harmful things. Just because many other things are harmful does not mean animal flesh production isn't as harmful.

Fair enough.

Change the industry? Do you know what laughable talk you are throwing out of your mouth? If you change the industry so it reduces abuse, and enviromental damage, your next steak will be $50. The price of animal flesh is already going way up, and doing that would further the condition. That's actually fine by me, because if meat is very expensive, very few people will purchase it.

I see. So actually making any sort of change is "laughable" to you. In other words, what you're really interested in here is......

Just a tip, don't try to say 'change the industry' in this debate, since you would truly not want that if you realized the problems for you in the future. Unless you're rich of course.

I think your reaction to changing the industry speaks much more loudly for your own true thoughts on this topic than on the conjecture of what mine are.

Another funny comeback. This one has been tried and tried again. A wrong doesn't make a right We aren't talking about what other things people may do, we are talking about eating animal flesh.

Ok. So eating meat is bad for the environment, just like 80% of everything else in our modern world. Check.

Why did you reference the organic industry?

Are you honestly asking me this? I assumed you knew all about the "animal flesh production" industry....apparently not. You're protesting something for which you're not even aware of what positive changes have been made.

Nope, because they don't have the capacity to reason their actions. If you suddenly think they do, then you are putting them on the same levels as humans.

This one is golden. You mean, kind of like how we put them on the same level as humans when we discuss how cruel we are for eating them? How we obviously can't empathize or feel compassion because we choose to eat meat?

We humans can change our ways and reason things out. They can't, therefore they are not guilty. That's why people don't put dog or cats on trial

You're absolutely right--we put them to sleep, instead.

Thats what I thought, you don't want links because you know they would prove that animal flesh is harmful to us.

No, I'll repeat myself: I don't want links because frankly I don't care. I don't want to live to be 104 living off broccoli and sprouts. I'd rather live enjoying the meat and losing the odd number of years because of it. If all you do is worry about your health, you sacrifice your life in the process. On the weekends I also enjoy casual sex, fine cigars, and a hearty stout ale (wait, is alcohol good or bad for you this week according to scientific studies?).

and people who consume animal flesh are less civilized. I could list more...

Less civilized? Where did that come from? If you mean less pretentious, (puts on Niles Crane voice), then sir, I agree with you.

[thrashee]

Quote by: inri Try actually reading my posts. I made it quite clear thta I don't believe ALL of those who eat meat have a low emotional IQ. I quite specifically said that the low emotional IQ applied to those who do not have empathy or compassion for animals...I was quite careful to qualify this ...it's frustrating debating with people who don't even properly read through posts...quite impossible actually.

This lack of emotional empathy can be found in "criminal psychopaths, rapists, and child molesters. A critical component of empathy is the ability to understand and communicate "as if" from the other's point of view, taking the other's perspective. While those who lack compassion for animals may not be so far down on the spectrum that this lack of compasion extends to their interactions with humans, it is nevertheless a lack.

Yes, you qualified it, alright. But you and I both know the slippery slope connotations you're inferring here, qualifications or not.

Yes, I specifically said I was lacking in the integrity to follow through completely...again...read

Um. I did read. That's why I made the point to begin with. You know, the same point to which you just agreed above.

I'm absolutely doing as you suggest. I fully support organizations who are more middle of the road in their approach.

Very good. Now....how are you supporting them?

[Matt]

Quote by: Deadeye I'm positive that Chimps eat meat and I think that Gorilla's do to, but come to think of it I'm not sure. You'll have to ask Jane Goodall.....wait, she's chimp chick isn't she. You'll have to ask a gorilla I guess. But stand way back when you do. They throw stuff, and what they throw is not "stuff" either.

Did you even look at the link I gave that said they are vegetarians? I guess not...

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Citing one animal in a group doesn't exactly create a great argument against his point, which is that apes and chimps do eat meat, at least some of them.

No, it still does. Aren't gorillas the largest member of the ape family? Yet they are vegetarians. I was just showing that his point that all apes and chimps are omnivours is faulty. Isn't that what we are supposed to do on debate forums, counter one another? Or have I come to the wrong forum?

Not true, causing pain unnecessarily is part of my morality, not eating them is not. Plus, I wouldn't go proving things about people's inner workings, they often don't follow logic.

Yes, but even if they are eaten they are still being caused unnecessary pain which is part of your morality. Just because you eat them doesn't mean what they go through is necessary. I can show you the definition of these words if you would like.

Therefore, you cause that kind of pain by eating a steak at the Keg or hunting squirrels. So, you are going against your morality. And it shows you do have morality for any animals who are being kill 'unnecessarily', and any animals which are killed for human consumption are unnecessarilly killed for you and any other people on this forum. I'm sure people here aren't desperate for food if they own a computer

There aren't serious issues?

Fine, more serious issues.

What constitutes a good reason is also usually subjective.

Yep, unless a person has valid facts to support its a good reason. So you say those are good reasons, but thats your subjective view and you don't have any great facts behind it. I guess the same could be said towards me.

Not when it comes to popular morality, given tat society generally defines what is acceptable among individuals. Wrong or right is subjective, so ad populum is as close to an indication as you're going to get.

And again I say, it is foolish to believe, even if most of society agrees, that they are right. I can show you what an 'ad populum' means if you wish.

Because no point is "right" in terms of an objective statement (the sky is blue). Your morality differs from my morality. Now, you could certainly prove the points "meat consumption often leads to animal's pain" or "meat eating is bad for the environment" but neither of those equates to "meat eating is wrong". Have you seen abortion debates? they rarely get much more deep than our debate "killing babies is bad" vs. "get your laws out of women's wombs."

I disagree, I've seen quite a few go deep. The fact is, we can only clearly debate if you ignore your 'morality' (I'm no mind reader, but I really think the morality you say you have is not true, as I have shown above). You believe that unnecessary pain is bad, so therefore you are going against your own morals to enjoy the taste. Makes alot of sense to me... By even considering animals can be 'abused', your morality does include animal suffering.

Quote by: thrashee I see. So actually making any sort of change is "laughable" to you. In other words, what you're really interested in here is...... I think your reaction to changing the industry speaks much more loudly for your own true thoughts on this topic than on the conjecture of what mine are.

Umm...ok. But how does all that above even counter what I said? The fact is you, unless you are rich, would really not want the animal flesh industry to change. You are proposing something that sounds good but if you thought of the problems it would cause to you, you would re-think it most likely.

Ok. So eating meat is bad for the environment, just like 80% of everything else in our modern world. Check.

Glad you got that. Eating meat is un-needed in the modern world, so it should be thrown out. It would help the enviroment and land in great amounts. The problems cattle have caused to our earth are so extensive. And, actually, it is not just with the other 80% (where did you get those numbers?), it is at the top of the 80% percent:

"A 2006 United Nations report summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry by calling it "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.""

Are you honestly asking me this? I assumed you knew all about the "animal flesh production" industry....apparently not. You're protesting something for which you're not even aware of what positive changes have been made.

Are you referring the the organic animal flesh industry?

This one is golden. You mean, kind of like how we put them on the same level as humans when we discuss how cruel we are for eating them? How we obviously can't empathize or feel compassion because we choose to eat meat?

Only golden in your mind...

Nope, I have never put them on the same level as humans. If I did I would say people across the world should be vegetarians and people shouldn't kill animals if they need to. Did I say that? No. I'm not putting animals on the same level, that is just an utterly wrong assumption on your part. I just want animals to be treated nicely, that does not indicate I want them on the same level.

Please address the point which was given.

You're absolutely right--we put them to sleep, instead.

Yep. When people were less educated in this area (and some people still seem to be...) they would put bugs on trial for crimes. It shows you how much knowledge we have gained. We can reason, they cannot. Therefore they should not be harmed for killing something needlessly, since they can't change. We can. Simple. And they shouldn't be kept under bad conditions either, since they can feel and think.

No, I'll repeat myself: I don't want links because frankly I don't care. I don't want to live to be 104 living off broccoli and sprouts. I'd rather live enjoying the meat and losing the odd number of years because of it. If all you do is worry about your health, you sacrifice your life in the process. On the weekends I also enjoy casual sex, fine cigars, and a hearty stout ale (wait, is alcohol good or bad for you this week according to scientific studies?).

That's your choice. All I did was prove eating meat isn't healthy (some people claim it is, remember how meat was once considered needed in a diet?).

Less civilized? Where did that come from? If you mean less pretentious, (puts on Niles Crane voice), then sir, I agree with you.

The dictionaries' meaning of civilized include 'humane', and eating meat is not humane in almost all cases, therefore people who eat meat are less humane.

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." ~Thomas A. Edison

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Then it's not an argument for vegetarianism and has no place in this thread.

How isn't it a debate about vegetarianism?

Is there any proof of that? What environmental damage would be caused by me keeping a few chickens in my yard?

These may be small reason, but the chickens by scratching the earth would cause damage to the greenery (or if you built a pen the earth below would still have to go) and small amounts of methane would be produced. I agree, those are pretty small petty arguments I just preposed, but my statement can still stand with them.

"A 2006 United Nations report summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry by calling it "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.""

Why is that a reason not to eat meat?

Because it is causing an animal's life to end needlessly in most cases (if it is done in developed countries that is, just to be clear).

Not all meat will necessarily cause health problems, so again your argument is for altering the way in which we eat or obtain meat; not for vegetarianism.

Red meats raise the chance of getting heart disease or cancer (I can provide links), chickens are injected with hormones (and it is obviously evident too many hormones can throw our bodies out of whack), and most fish contain harmful metals. Sure, not every specimen will have those qualities, but a grand amount do (since aren't most animals that people eat in the developed world factory farmed?). So yes, not all meat does, but a majority of it.

[inri]

Quote by: thrashee