Veganism...why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Jammy2003:

I'm sorry but that just doesn't work. Grazing animals are a secondary tier source of food, and by simple biology CAN'T be more efficient than growing crops. What do they eat? Whatever is growing in the field (grass we'll say). The cow can not get more energy from eating the plants than the plants have in the first place. The cow then uses energy before we eat them, and they aren't so much more efficient of stripping the nutrients from the plants that its better to use them as a middle man.

Besides, mass is not the issue, its volume of food per unit area that matters, and the concentrations of the nutrients inside such food.

The only way a field of cows could be more efficient than a field of crops is if you are feeding the cows crops from another field, which then means that they aren't just using up opne field, they are using up multiple ones.

I'm gonna start keeping a folder of articles for this kind of discussion so I can pull out the papers I need. I read it ages ago, yes cow gives more food than wheat because it eats the grass that we dont eat anyway. If you feed it on grains we could eat then yeah sure.

I'll also point out that conservation of energy is a matter of physics and you are correct, it can't get more energy out of the foodstuff than is in the foodstuff in the first place.

Feed the cow the grass not the crops, seems like a solution.

It may also vary by location, in my local area there's not the thing you have in the US where you have thousands of miles for your cows. You have a field.

But whatever. I'm not after an argument.

It has come to my attention that I inadvertently insulted someone because they share a name with this this guy

image

I apologise for that, should have been more clear.

JoJo:

Sadly that's generally because they are, just look at Jessy Fran's post, she calls us meat-eaters "blind" and "ignorant" and implies we lack logical thinking, compassion and love. That sure she's like she think's above us to me.

No, there is a far larger vegan population than you even know, so "generally" most quietly get on with their lives without you even knowing they were there.

One person does not represent the majority. I would think, as a gamer, you wouldn't like to be grouped with screaming 13 year olds on x-box live, even though they are gamers.
Besides, even as a meat-eater myself, who only eats less meat due to enviromental impact, the tone of this thread was enough to piss me off and provoke me with the level of hate and bile being thrown around. And downright ignorance in some cases, yes.

Also, the points raised may imply that as a meat-eater you lack those things, but have you considered that there may be some basis of why she may see you that way? Or that it was even aimed at all meat-eaters and not just the majority who posted before that post?

SkarKrow:

I'm gonna start keeping a folder of articles for this kind of discussion so I can pull out the papers I need. I read it ages ago, yes cow gives more food than wheat because it eats the grass that we dont eat anyway. If you feed it on grains we could eat then yeah sure.

I'll also point out that conservation of energy is a matter of physics and you are correct, it can't get more energy out of the foodstuff than is in the foodstuff in the first place.

Feed the cow the grass not the crops, seems like a solution.

It may also vary by location, in my local area there's not the thing you have in the US where you have thousands of miles for your cows. You have a field.

But whatever. I'm not after an argument.

Ah, its physics and biology, last I remember hearing about it in those terms was highschool biology class.

Yes, but a field growing grass for them to eat could be plowed and used for grain production or other crop could it not?

True, but I'm not talking local area, as small scale production I don't have as much of a problem with. I'm saying the large scale production, where is it endless fields and they have to be fed grain as there isn't enough grass to rotate the cattle around. About 70% of grain production goes to feeding cattle worldwide, so you can't really ignore that can you?

Fair enough, I don't really want to argue, I came to discuss and ended up getting annoyed with some people. I always prefer discussions to arguements.

Edit: Sorry, double checked my figures, its 70-80% in the US, not worldwide, about a third worldwide still though

Clearing the Eye:

Vegan_Doodler:

Clearing the Eye:
This community greatly disappoints me with the general attitude of insulting and mocking others of whom we simply disagree with. The issue isn't even a civil rights matter. If someone was here calling homosexuals idiots or unnatural all hell would break loose. But it's acceptable to condemn and laugh at other groups? I wasn't aware vegans has brutally murdered so many people's mothers.

I seem to remember hearing about this kind of speech once, I think it was called level headed logic, I tip my hat to you sir.

I know why some omnivores attack vegans but it's still rather pathetic; veganism infers they are cruel and in some ways inferior, so they feel the subconscious need to one-up the vegan and assert themselves as correct. This is why the general tone of their messages is conceit--what better way to look better than someone than make your opponent look foolish and silly. It's similar in some ways to how bullies with low self-esteem and a poor sense of self worth attack seemingly weaker peers to appear better.

If someone is professing their beliefs and being a preaching annoyance, yeah, feel free to tell them where to go. But to come into a thread and attack strangers and insult an entire belief unprovoked because you don't like it? Are we that immature and pathetic?

I look down on assholes more than I do someone with a belief I disagree with.

Couldn't agree more, I tent to equate it to being like incredibly religious people (that that I'm having a go at religion), that whole thing thousands of years ago where people would go to another country and see that *gasp* they didn't worship the same god as me, there's a chance that I might be wrong, wait, I'll just destroy them instead, that'll solve everything.

Jammy2003:

SkarKrow:

I'm gonna start keeping a folder of articles for this kind of discussion so I can pull out the papers I need. I read it ages ago, yes cow gives more food than wheat because it eats the grass that we dont eat anyway. If you feed it on grains we could eat then yeah sure.

I'll also point out that conservation of energy is a matter of physics and you are correct, it can't get more energy out of the foodstuff than is in the foodstuff in the first place.

Feed the cow the grass not the crops, seems like a solution.

It may also vary by location, in my local area there's not the thing you have in the US where you have thousands of miles for your cows. You have a field.

But whatever. I'm not after an argument.

Ah, its physics and biology, last I remember hearing about it in those terms was highschool biology class.

Yes, but a field growing grass for them to eat could be plowed and used for grain production or other crop could it not?

True, but I'm not talking local area, as small scale production I don't have as much of a problem with. I'm saying the large scale production, where is it endless fields and they have to be fed grain as there isn't enough grass to rotate the cattle around. About 70% of grain production goes to feeding cattle worldwide, so you can't really ignore that can you?

Fair enough, I don't really want to argue, I came to discuss and ended up getting annoyed with some people. I always prefer discussions to arguements.

I'm fine with discussion but argument drains me. I can say with certainty that I think it's despicable to carve out enormous sections of forest to feed cows for burgers. Thats an appalling waste of space and resources.

Grain shouldn't be wasted on fattening cattle and if your cattle breed needs grain not grass then I'm afraid you need to breed something else. More farmers should use highland cattle; they have a high meat yield and will survive just fine on grass and weeds, whilst being very hardy creatures and also cool looking.

A field of grass could well be used for grain production, but that said I do like meat and it is a delicious and effective way to get protein and necessary fats into your diet. People should probably eat less meat though, alot less.

Moderation is the key.

Jammy2003:

JoJo:

Sadly that's generally because they are, just look at Jessy Fran's post, she calls us meat-eaters "blind" and "ignorant" and implies we lack logical thinking, compassion and love. That sure she's like she think's above us to me.

No, there is a far larger vegan population than you even know, so "generally" most quietly get on with their lives without you even knowing they were there.

One person does not represent the majority. I would think, as a gamer, you wouldn't like to be grouped with screaming 13 year olds on x-box live, even though they are gamers.
Besides, even as a meat-eater myself, who only eats less meat due to enviromental impact, the tone of this thread was enough to piss me off and provoke me with the level of hate and bile being thrown around. And downright ignorance in some cases, yes.

Also, the points raised may imply that as a meat-eater you lack those things, but have you considered that there may be some basis of why she may see you that way? Or that it was even aimed at all meat-eaters and not just the majority who posted before that post?

I certainly have to agree with you. I'm a meat eater and I still feel like I need to post in order to question how some of the other meat eaters in this thread are acting. Especially when I see people posting jokes about how people who eat meat are awesome and vegetarians are wimps in one post and then calling vegans smug in the next.

Oh, and heaven forbid that a vegan dares to get angry about both them and their beliefs being insulted.

EDIT: Oh, and I love the "If we stopped eating modern livestock they would go extinct!" argument. Because it's telling vegans that humans have to maintain a philosophy that the vegans never agreed with in order to prevent the negative consequences that the philosophy created in the first place. Of course if this was a practical discussion then yeah, I can see that the question of what to do with the remaining livestock would be a tricky one; but in a theoretical discussion such as this one it seems very unfair to blame vegans for not sustaining a system that they never liked in the first place.

SkarKrow:

I'm fine with discussion but argument drains me. I can say with certainty that I think it's despicable to carve out enormous sections of forest to feed cows for burgers. Thats an appalling waste of space and resources.

Grain shouldn't be wasted on fattening cattle and if your cattle breed needs grain not grass then I'm afraid you need to breed something else. More farmers should use highland cattle; they have a high meat yield and will survive just fine on grass and weeds, whilst being very hardy creatures and also cool looking.

A field of grass could well be used for grain production, but that said I do like meat and it is a delicious and effective way to get protein and necessary fats into your diet. People should probably eat less meat though, alot less.

Moderation is the key.

Well now we've clarified I don't think there is much to argue about :P

Grain-fed is a ridiculous waste and killing the planet pretty much, but if you have a field and wanna keep a few cattle to pasture? Go right ahead.

Moderation is the key but I think some people forgot there was a lock, so they don't see the need for a key in the first place.

Geo Da Sponge:

I certainly have to agree with you. I'm a meat eater and I still feel like I need to post in order to question how some of the other meat eaters in this thread are acting. Especially when I see people posting jokes about how people who eat meat are awesome and vegetarians are wimps in one post and then calling vegans smug in the next.

Oh, and heaven forbid that a vegan dares to get angry about both them and their beliefs being insulted.

Oh thank god, someone else who gets my point! Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

But seriously, this community is pretty bipolar at times it seems.

Right, I'm doing too much talking in this thread, so I'll shut up and go do some work now instead. Let others have some discussion.

Jammy2003:

Well now we've clarified I don't think there is much to argue about :P

Grain-fed is a ridiculous waste and killing the planet pretty much, but if you have a field and wanna keep a few cattle to pasture? Go right ahead.

Moderation is the key but I think some people forgot there was a lock, so they don't see the need for a key in the first place.

Indeed I think we don't have much to argue about after clarification.

An enormous part of the issue is things like in the US you get enormous portions and huge amounts of waste, as you do in much of the developed world these days. Everybody needs reminding of restraint and how they should care for the planet and themselves.

Jammy2003:
Right, I'm doing too much talking in this thread, so I'll shut up and go do some work now instead. Let others have some discussion.

Well there goes the most level headed person on the thread.
Seriously, just wanted to say been reading you'r posts and wanted to say thanks for being level headed and reasonable, those things appear to be dieing traits these days.

I go put my hat on, and then take it of to you my good sir.

Lionsfan:

Secret world leader (shhh):
Why is veganism a thing?

Because it gives us Telepathic Powers

only in Canadian comics, and he lost to a meat eater :p

OT: i dun get it ether, but then, i like the taste of meat, there for am unwill to surrender the aforementioned steak, or cheese :D cause cheese is awesome.

also, its worth remembering this on simple fact:
eat right, stay fit, DIE ANYWAY

As a grate man once said, there's only one way to find out..FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
image

VS

image

Y'know vegans are really the cruellest to animals. Just imagine it; a sheep in a big factory in pain thatjust wants to die. It thinks its time has come and is relieved but the farmer just says "I'm sorry sheep-y but to many people aren't eatin' none of your products or meat so I guess yous's is just gonna suffer for longer until your little heart just goes and gives out..."

You vegans are sick f*cks...

They want to be vegetarians to the extreme.

peruvianskys:
Like it or not, we have the ability to see what is right and what is wrong and as much as it might suck sometimes, we have the great responsibility of acting on that.

That I don't really see being a good answer, but I guess the question is hard to answer.

"Right and wrong" is subject to change over time.
There used to be nothing wrong with "slavery," as you like equating it.

Whose to say in a hundred years plants won't be considered just as precious?

I've always had a bit of a 'playing life on hard mode' vibe from veganism. Like eating normally isn't difficult enough and you want to deliberately handicap yourself for the extra challenge.

Okay, this thread is a bit heated, but I've heard a lot of interesting opinions. Peeps, stay civil, it's no fun otherwise.

The biggest disconnect between vegans and... uh, the rest of us ("Carnists?" Really?! Did we need an "us and them" category based on dietary habits?) is in trying to apply the morality one usually applies to his fellow homo sapiens to all living beings on the planet (plants excluded because... fuck plants?). This approach inherently demands that they call out normally moral and gentle people as "monsters, murderers, butchers, carnists," or what have you. In essence, vegans want everyone to undergo a paradigm shift.

The merits of this paradigm shift aren't unfounded, but they're still very shaky. The right to not be murdered, which modern civilization has graciously extended to every human being, is itself an unnatural concept, but very much necessary because humans aren't driven by "natural" desires (i.e. we kill each-other for reasons other than food). We already recognize the capacity of animals to feel pain, and we've implemented laws against animal cruelty (to which I don't think anybody here objects), but the extension of full human rights beyond the species barrier is unfounded on a planet where the very ecosystem is based on murder. I haven't seen a vegan condemn a lion for butchering a gazelle, even if we'd definitely condemn a man for killing and eating another man for survival. And if the gazelle is a creature worthy of human rights, don't you think it minds being killed, even for food? How is the lion defensible on those standards?
The other problem is that there would be no clear line after which we'd have to stop applying those rights; if it's not sapience and self-awareness that determines the right to live, what is? An intelligence exam? A nervous system? Ganglia at least? A metabolism? The ability to move? The entire endeavour is a can of worms.

What is a fair point is that the modern meat industry is based on excess. It's definitely not cruelty-free, it's destructive, polluting and hardly justifiable. A lot of our objections to slaughterhouses come from humanizing the animals, so I wouldn't call them rational objections, but even if we knew for sure that every animal except us is a thoughtless carbon-based automaton, keeping them in those conditions would be a hard sell. Justifying veganism with environmental and societal concerns is okay by me. The moral aspect, however, is a million times more complex than most vegans admit, and it delves deep into the definition of life and sentience, something that no one seems to be eager to get into over a dietary habit.

Lunar Templar:

Lionsfan:

Secret world leader (shhh):
Why is veganism a thing?

Because it gives us Telepathic Powers

only in Canadian comics, and he lost to a meat eater :p

That's only because the Vegan Police stripped him of his powers as punishment for his constant veganity violations ("Chicken isn't vegan?"). ;p

Seneschal:
Okay, this thread is a bit heated, but I've heard a lot of interesting opinions. Peeps, stay civil, it's no fun otherwise.

The biggest disconnect between vegans and... uh, the rest of us ("Carnists?" Really?! Did we need an "us and them" category based on dietary habits?) is in trying to apply the morality one usually applies to his fellow homo sapiens to all living beings on the planet...We already recognize the capacity of animals to feel pain, and we've implemented laws against animal cruelty (to which I don't think anybody here objects), but the extension of full human rights beyond the species barrier is unfounded on a planet where the very ecosystem is based on murder. I haven't seen a vegan condemn a lion for butchering a gazelle, even if we'd definitely condemn a man for killing and eating another man for survival. And if the gazelle is a creature worthy of human rights, don't you think it minds being killed, even for food? How is the lion defensible on those standards?
The other problem is that there would be no clear line after which we'd have to stop applying those rights; if it's not sapience and self-awareness that determines the right to live, what is? An intelligence exam? A nervous system? Ganglia at least? A metabolism? The ability to move? The entire endeavour is a can of worms.

I don't condemn a lion for killing a gazelle because a lion is not a moral agent. A human has the intelligence and the means (social, technological, economic) to transcend nature and act in opposition to it. A lion does not have the means to be moral, they're not capable of it, so you can't blame it for doing what it needs to survive, it's no position to do anything else. Humans (in a modern, well-developed society, that's an important caveat) are. It sucks for the gazelle, it may even suck for the lion when a pack of hyenas comes along and steals its kill but these creatures simply aren't capable of thinking in those terms. They can't afford to do anything except think about their next meal.

I'm knee-deep in animals rights literature and philosophy and I've never encountered anyone who advocates extending full human rights to non-human animals. It would be impractical to give a cat the right to vote and a cat doesn't NEED the right to vote. You can't ensure a dog's right to privacy or family life and a dog doesn't need these rights. The rights that should be extended to animals are the rights which they would be significantly interested in, to not be subjected to unnecessary cruelty, to not be killed and eaten unless another creature's survival absolutely depends on it. There are those who argue that in order for rights to be acquired, the subject needs to understand those rights but I disagree. Babies, young children and severely mentally disabled adults have rights but they don't understand them and they can't reciprocate to the moral agents who conferred them.

I realise it's a thorny philosophical issue to determine what constitutes a person, where the cut-off point for sentience should be, what criteria we should use for determining significant interest but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up because it's too hard. We should strive to answer these questions, if we didn't we'd never have moved on from Descartes, who thought that "an animal screaming in pain is like a chiming clock."

I'm actually sick of all this morality crap. We are animals. Sentience does not necessitate that we devoid ourselves from the natural order. We are a superior species BECAUSE we feed on both Flora and Fauna, that wecan thrive under any circumstance. Not because we decided to sympathize with lesser species. I've raised angus cattle all my life, and we give them top of the line vaccinations, excellent quality food, large pastures and and protection from predators. In return, we cull the weakest from the herd, and feed ourselves. The species get's stronger, we profit, they profit. It's a closed food chain. They are probably healthier than you vegans.

Whiskey 041:
I'm actually sick of all this morality crap.

Then why take part in a discussion of a moral issue?

We are animals.

Agreed.

We are a superior species BECAUSE we feed on both Flora and Fauna, that wecan thrive under any circumstance. Not because we decided to sympathize with lesser species.

Are you saying we wouldn't have evolved to the point we have if we hadn't eaten meat in the past? That may well be true but something being necessary in the past is not an argument to continue it in the present, if it's no longer necessary. You can't build a house without scaffolding but that doesn't mean you have to leave the scaffolding up after the house is complete. If we can get the nutrients we used to in meat from other sources, why not do that? If showing compassion to weaker species does us no harm in this day and age, why not do it? Just because it might have harmed us in the past, that doesn't mean we can't do it now.

They are probably healthier than you vegans.

Was the snide tone at the end there really necessary? It wasn't quite an ad hominem but it was damn close.

Vegan_Doodler:

spartan231490:

Vegan_Doodler:

Please enlighten me, why would it?

Cows and chickens are only alive because we help them stay that way. They don't have the defenses or drive to survive the wilderness. Sheep are in a similar boat. They have some drive, but they feed mostly on grasses, meaning there is a very limited region in which they could survive, and they're slow and relatively small, leaving them vulnerable to predators. Even coyotes can take sheep, and that's while they're being protected by the farmers.

Virtually all domesticated animals lack what it takes to survive in the wild anymore, we've made sure of that. Without the farmers who raise them, they would die, and that's assuming the farmers let them go wild, instead of just slaughtering them for convenience, or selling them to anyone who would buy(glue factories, research institutes).

Abandon4093:
Never said anything about being a righteous saviour, you just wanted to know why they'd die if we stopped needing them. I told you.

Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.

You're right, it's not a good reason to keep doing it. A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern. However, it is a good reason not to stop, since cessation of farming activities would lead to the wholesale extinction of half a dozen species or more.

I'm all for coming up with more humane ways to farm, but being a vegan will not accomplish that, if anything it will hinder it because it with less money available in the business less profitable methods of conducting it are more likely to fail.

spartan231490:

Vegan_Doodler:

spartan231490:

Cows and chickens are only alive because we help them stay that way. They don't have the defenses or drive to survive the wilderness. Sheep are in a similar boat. They have some drive, but they feed mostly on grasses, meaning there is a very limited region in which they could survive, and they're slow and relatively small, leaving them vulnerable to predators. Even coyotes can take sheep, and that's while they're being protected by the farmers.

Virtually all domesticated animals lack what it takes to survive in the wild anymore, we've made sure of that. Without the farmers who raise them, they would die, and that's assuming the farmers let them go wild, instead of just slaughtering them for convenience, or selling them to anyone who would buy(glue factories, research institutes).

Abandon4093:
Never said anything about being a righteous saviour, you just wanted to know why they'd die if we stopped needing them. I told you.

Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.

You're right, it's not a good reason to keep doing it. A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern. However, it is a good reason not to stop, since cessation of farming activities would lead to the wholesale extinction of half a dozen species or more.

I'm all for coming up with more humane ways to farm, but being a vegan will not accomplish that, if anything it will hinder it because it with less money available in the business less profitable methods of conducting it are more likely to fail.

Except animals are sentient.

Sapience is what separates humans from animals.

A sentient creature can still feel pain and emotions. Those emotions may not be as advanced as our own, but you're still a dick if you torture an animal.

I don't think we should stop eating meat, but I also believe in animal welfare, and that any animals under our care should be kept healthy and happy until the day they die.

Whether they're a dog, cat, cow or pig.

Just because we eat meat, doesn't mean we need to cause unnecessary suffering.

spartan231490:
A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern.

1. Palate =/= morality. Humans might taste like particularly sweet pork but that doesn't justify cannibalism. You need more justification than, "it's tasty."

2. I think complex animals like sheep, cows, pigs and chickens are sentient. Sentience just means the ability to have subjective experiences like pain, fear, happiness, excitement, pleasure etc. I think you might be conflating sentience with more complex levels of consciousness like intentionality or self-awareness? If a being is capable of feeling pain then I'd hope that abysmal treatment of it should be of concern.

LittleShe-Bear:

Whiskey 041:
I'm actually sick of all this morality crap.

Then why take part in a discussion of a moral issue?

We are animals.

Agreed.

We are a superior species BECAUSE we feed on both Flora and Fauna, that wecan thrive under any circumstance. Not because we decided to sympathize with lesser species.

Are you saying we wouldn't have evolved to the point we have if we hadn't eaten meat in the past? That may well be true but something being necessary in the past is not an argument to continue it in the present, if it's no longer necessary. You can't build a house without scaffolding but that doesn't mean you have to leave the scaffolding up after the house is complete. If we can get the nutrients we used to in meat from other sources, why not do that? If showing compassion to weaker species does us no harm in this day and age, why not do it? Just because it might have harmed us in the past, that doesn't mean we can't do it now.

They are probably healthier than you vegans.

Was the snide tone at the end there really necessary? It wasn't quite an ad hominem but it was damn close.

You want the honest reason I could give a damn about veganism and animal rights? It's because I love meat. It tastes good, It fills you up, it give me protein, and It make me feel damn good to get into that coral with my dog and herd cattle. Maybe I'm not as evolved as the master vegan race, but when I ask myself what I am, a predator or prey, my answer will be and always will be:

I'm the fucking predator, and I like it that way.

Vegan here.

I just disagree with the way animals are harvested in such a way. That, and most animal products are REALLY gross.

It's really not that bad being vegan because there are so many good fruits and vegetables. If there's one downside, it's that it's difficult to find good vegan food to make quickly.

Whiskey 041:

You want the honest reason I could give a damn about veganism and animal rights? It's because I love meat. It tastes good, It fills you up, it give me protein, and It make me feel damn good to get into that coral with my dog and herd cattle. Maybe I'm not as evolved as the master vegan race, but when I ask myself what I am, a predator or prey, my answer will be and always will be:

I'm the fucking predator, and I like it that way.

You're also the guy who feels the need to lose his temper, insult and swear at people during perfectly civil discussions. Go you, Mr. Predator.

Daystar Clarion:

spartan231490:

Vegan_Doodler:

Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.

You're right, it's not a good reason to keep doing it. A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern. However, it is a good reason not to stop, since cessation of farming activities would lead to the wholesale extinction of half a dozen species or more.

I'm all for coming up with more humane ways to farm, but being a vegan will not accomplish that, if anything it will hinder it because it with less money available in the business less profitable methods of conducting it are more likely to fail.

Except animals are sentient.

Sapience is what separates humans from animals.

A sentient creature can still feel pain and emotions. Those emotions may not be as advanced as our own, but you're still a dick if you torture an animal.

I don't think we should stop eating meat, but I also believe in animal welfare, and that any animals under our care should be kept healthy and happy until the day they die.

Whether they're a dog, cat, cow or pig.

Just because we eat meat, doesn't mean we need to cause unnecessary suffering.

Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.

Whiskey 041:

You want the honest reason I could give a damn about veganism and animal rights? It's because I love meat. It tastes good, It fills you up, it give me protein, and It make me feel damn good to get into that coral with my dog and herd cattle. Maybe I'm not as evolved as the master vegan race, but when I ask myself what I am, a predator or prey, my answer will be and always will be:

I'm the fucking predator, and I like it that way.

Dude, why so hostile? Do you feel threatened by the existence of vegans? There's absolutely no need to be throwing insults and bad language around.

LittleShe-Bear:

spartan231490:
A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern.

1. Palate =/= morality. Humans might taste like particularly sweet pork but that doesn't justify cannibalism. You need more justification than, "it's tasty."

2. I think complex animals like sheep, cows, pigs and chickens are sentient. Sentience just means the ability to have subjective experiences like pain, fear, happiness, excitement, pleasure etc. I think you might be conflating sentience with more complex levels of consciousness like intentionality or self-awareness? If a being is capable of feeling pain then I'd hope that abysmal treatment of it should be of concern.

1: It's plenty reason enough. animals are not human, treating them as such is ludicrous. They are tasty, and further it is far far far more difficult, if not impossible, to get all the nutrients you need as a vegan, particularly without supplementation. That means that I am going to need one extremely compelling reason to become one, I need no such reason to continue.

2: I will quote my above post: "That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so." The possibility that farm animals might have some limited form of sentience is not even close to a good enough reason.

LittleShe-Bear:

Whiskey 041:
We are a superior species BECAUSE we feed on both Flora and Fauna, that wecan thrive under any circumstance. Not because we decided to sympathize with lesser species.

Are you saying we wouldn't have evolved to the point we have if we hadn't eaten meat in the past? That may well be true but something being necessary in the past is not an argument to continue it in the present, if it's no longer necessary. You can't build a house without scaffolding but that doesn't mean you have to leave the scaffolding up after the house is complete. If we can get the nutrients we used to in meat from other sources, why not do that? If showing compassion to weaker species does us no harm in this day and age, why not do it? Just because it might have harmed us in the past, that doesn't mean we can't do it now.

That is actually the case. Cooked meat to be precise.

Cooking foods, especially meats reduces the amount of time and energy expenditure required to digest them. This means you can have a smaller gut which then frees up tons of energy to be used elsewhere... ie the brain.

Cooking meat is what made us intelligent.

As to why not change now? Sure you can find supplements and substitutes to meat. But things such as oily fish or white meats are absolutely fantastic sources of fatty acids, oils, protein and iron.

Meat is part of a healthy human diet. We could change that with pills, but there's no saying that this change won't have long-term side effects. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but gradually over time.

spartan231490:

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently.

Uhm, a quick google search would also show that science fiction shows use sentience in a far looser way than philosophers do. I really don't think it's a good idea to rely on fictional tv shows for philosophical or scientific definitions. :/

spartan231490:

Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.

The fact it's up for debate doesn't then bother you? How would you then feel if tomorrow, a cow learned to talk our language, and said that for years they have communicated between themselves and see us as vile beings? (Ridiculous arguement, but not more so than the one of "Yeah, but if we all went vegan, what would be do with all the animals?") Having interacted with animals and seen some of the presented results, I'd say its just a matter of time before we find that "shockingly" animals are more intellegent than most people seem to give them credit for.

If meat eating was lowered at least, it wouldn't cost more, and there is no need to put your health at risk, so that only leaves simple convinience as your defence in that arguement. "It's difficult to make learn about other food and then make meals from them". It's not actually that hard to get protein from other sources, we are just indoctrinated into this attitude of NEEDING meat to be healthy. There are pro-athletes and body builders who are vegan and live just as long, if not longer than meat eaters, so it's not impossible with just a little effort.

Jammy2003:

CrystalShadow:

Mmm. The plant issue is a tricky one. Because it betrays the fact that vegans essentially seem to be anthropocentric.

Who says a plant doesn't feel pain? On what grounds can this be asserted other than an inference based on biology and the nature of how human beings feel pain.

To be honest, can you even say breaking a rock into pieces to build a house doesn't hurt the rock?

Pretty much everything we eat was raised for that sole purpose.

Animals just happen to be cuter, and easier to understand because we are animals ourselves.

That doesn't mean plants, (or indeed inanimate objects) don't suffer as a result of what we do to them. Merely that if they do, we are less capable of recognising the suffering.

Still... I thought this through myself and came to the conclusion that being vegetarian or vegan for those reasons was problematic, and, honestly, a little egocentric.

I don't like causing suffering, but the fact remains that me being alive comes at the expense of other living and non-living things. There's no way around this, and presuming the suffering of animals is more important than that of anything else doesn't make sense to me.
That's not to say nothing can be done at all, just that I think vegetarianism doesn't really solve much in that regard.

Oh come now, with that logic there is no point in doing anything at all. That's a ridiculous extrapolation and can be done in reverse, to suggest that if living causes suffering then why be compassionate to anything? Why have a dog, cat or family? Why not eat them?

Of course it's extreme. But following things through to their logical conclusion is almost inevitably absurd.

That's one of the problems with logic.

The reverse case that you are pointing out is just as true, but does not negate the point.

Either way, what you choose to show compassion for, and what you don't is pretty arbitrary.

I mean, why is it OK to cause obvious harm to one thing, but not another?
Who decided that?

Well, as it happens, when you look at it, there may be a few exceptions here and there, but at the end of the day it seems to come down to compassion being proportional to how similar something is to you personally.

I can't argue with the feelings behind that, but it hardly seems a particularly fair way to judge what gets to live and what gets to die.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked