Veganism...why?

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

LittleShe-Bear:

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.

God forbid that my medulla oblongata get agitated at the idea that we should abandon our species nature just because we can. Anger is the common reaction to ideas that are completely foolish and unsustainable.

Let me raise a point. If we had evolved along the feline or canine line instead of the primate line, and thus were full carnivores, would this argument be sound. If a predatory species became sentient, should they grind there teeth until they can consume vegetables because they are overly attached to farm animals they have never even came into contact with. She-bear, you come off as a very educated person which I respect, but veganism is not a sustainable build. As much as you may think that it would be a far better idea for everyone to exclusively eat flora, it's impossible. Meat is a far more efficient way to pass nutrients. It's why carnivores can eat less, and it's why omnivores can live in environments with no flora. Carnivorous tendencies are what gave birth to sentience, because we didn't get to where we are by grouping around each other and waiting predation out. The original problem for humans to solve was how to kill something bigger than us, so we made a something revolutionary. An idea. a plan. The first genuine stroke of inspiration for our species must have been a predatory act. Consider nature. Carnivores brains function at higher levels. Herbivores can survive in areas that have low population. Omnivores are the perfect synthesis.
So why now would we revert to a sub-evolved life-form. We have farms for plants, why not have the same for an animal. The amount of diet replacement our species would need to recoup the losses of meat would be destructive. So much more area would need to be clear cut for crops and that would cause a cataclysmic downward spiral to the point where we would need the nutritional efficiency of meat once again, but because of the needs of herbivorous humans, there would not be enough grain or pastures to provide it. It's sustainable now because vegans are an extreme minority, but veganism on a global scale is not possible without a severe culling of humanity. Our population is simply to big for every one to have a low energy diet.

Abandon4093:
Cooking meat is what made us intelligent.

I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's probably true. I just don't see how that's an argument for continuing now. It's a genetic fallacy to say that good in the past automatically means good in the present, regardless of current context.

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.

There's no saying it will either. Scare-mongering about what might happen if we use synthetic sources without any empirical basis isn't going to convince anyone to abandon vegetarianism or veganism.

The fact is, both diets can be healthy. If someone were to say that veganism is unhealthy, I could list plenty of counter-examples to that. Likewise, if someone were to say that meat were unhealthy, I could provide plenty of counter-examples to that too. The health argument to me, is moot. It can be done healthily. It's the moral aspect of this debate that interests me.

And I do genuinely enjoy a good debate, I think it's good to hear view-points that don't mesh with your own from time to time. That's good for the brain too. :)

spartan231490:

Daystar Clarion:

spartan231490:

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.

Two things wrong here, 1: your getting your definitions from SG-1, seriously?
2: All creatures fear death, thats how they know to get the fuck out of the way when they see a bus heading toward them.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals,

WHY! seriously no one has properly answered this yet.

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.

This part is just depressing, you have no moral obligation to do anything, so phff why the fuck even bother right.
Your health wouldn't be at risk, look, I'm typing and not dieing, vegans can do that now.
I'm pretty sure that death is a little bit more than just "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.

NO I AM NOT LYING, don't look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own, that is called being a dick.
Not that any ones spending habits or moral views for that matter are any concern of yours, but just so you know I hardly spend any money on anything, all second hand, I wan't to save my money my entire life so that when I die it will all go to animal conservation in Africa. I'm not telling you how you should live your life you don't tell me how I should live mine, deal.

Jammy2003:

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.

No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.

LittleShe-Bear:

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. :/

I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about. I could just list the qualities instead, but it's easier to say sentience, as from stargate. I don't believe that farm animals possess all of those qualities, so I don't believe that I have a moral obligation to concern myself with their suffering more than the convenience, health benefits, and price of a non-vegan diet.

Whiskey 041:

God forbid that my medulla oblongata get agitated

You're far more than just the most primitive part of your brain. There's no need for you to get so riled. Honestly, there's no need. That's one of the best things about our evolved brains, we don't have to give in to our baser instincts, we can exercise control over them. So give it a try, yeah?

In response to your sapient feline argument, I'd say no, they shouldn't grind their teeth and starve themselves. I've said this elsewhere in this forum, if eating meat is strictly necessary for survival, then I wouldn't condemn them for partaking of meat. Survival is even seen as moral imperative sometimes and that's a position I have some sympathy with. I would hope that the sapient felines would treat their food sources as humanely (felinely?) as possible and work towards cruelty-free alternatives.

I won't argue with you on the sustainability issue. I don't have the time to research that properly but for the sake of argument, I'll assume you're right. So I'd say that I'm in favour of continuing research into cloned/artificial meat, which could hopefully turn out to be an efficient, environmentally sound, cruelty-free way of producing meat. In the mean time, I'd also advocate a reduction in how much meat we consume. It's a truism that here in the UK, we were diet-wise healthiest during ration in WWII. We don't need to eat as much meat as we do.

I realise you'll probably come back with an argument along the lines of us being predators, that it's in our nature and that we shouldn't divorce ourselves from our nature. So I'll repeat what I've said else where in this thread: Why? Why should we be natural? Why is it good to be natural? Just because something is natural, that doesn't mean it's right. "Is" does not imply "ought." The "laws" of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Looking at this thread, really make me think one of my old ideas rattling around up there may have merit. I think empathy will be the death of humanity's morality. We rationalize so many things using emotion rather than logic. Look at humanity itself. We have evolved to a point where we are top predator, eliminated many of the diseases that would help cull our population, we provide the handicapped with many things to make there life easier (Even my logic has to meet emotion somewhere. The handicapped should be helped, if any of think otherwise your a sick human being.), and we make murder, which is the natural way of thinning out the weak, illegal (not touching this one either). I don't have any problem with those things, but from a logical point of view, when empathy is removed from the equation, It's suicide. We will grow until we push resources to the limit, and just like nature, no matter how much we tell ourselves we aren't the same as animals, we will collapse. The vaccinations will run out, people will fight and die for resources, the weak will be cast on the wayside. And once again, humanity will accept a predatory instinct to survive. It's inescapable. Humans. Will. Eat. Meat. And when we reach that point, I doubt it will will be the flank of a cow we're eating.

So ya, Veganism=Apocalypse lol jk

It's funny that people use health reasons against veganism, when a vegan eats healthier than an average western person that eats meat. By far.

Seriously. Too much meat hurts your health far more than no meat at all.

Personally, I like some meat, so I am not a vegan. I try to cut down meat, though. Any sane person will. Something can be tasty, that doesn't make it good for you. Tortilla chips may taste nice, but you shouldn't eat them every meal, no?

but from a logical point of view, when empathy is removed from the equation, It's suicide

It's not. We grow for stupid reasons, mainly connected to religions and primite handling of them. There is no need to grow - the population could easily stagnate or decline.

Your argument fails because you do not use the very logic you claim should be used more.

This is funny because one of the biggest worries the western world has is too few children, leading to a population decline.

The entire "population grows out of control" thing isn't actually an issue. If we had worked to improve the situation of the world, world-wide, we'd have lots less people right now, because the better people are off, the less children they get (after an initial bump due to children not dying).

We didn't want to do that. We have no surplus of empathy - we lack empathy, and thus supported vicious dictatorships, ruined prospering nations, and threw an entire continent into turmoil for financial gain for a few.

THAT is why the population is still growing, and THAT is suicide: The lack of empathy.

Empathy is what made humanity prosper. The lack thereof is what will likely cause us to go extinct for good.

spartan231490:

LittleShe-Bear:

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. :/

I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about.

I tend to agree with Bentham; "It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

I find the argument for intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness etc being the important factors very troubling. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it's perfectly acceptable to be cruel to newborns or the severely mentally handicapped. As Bentham points out, an intelligent, adult dog might have more self-awareness than a newborn. So why is the human automatically considered more important than dog? They both have the capacity to feel pain so why not give that capacity to feel pain equal consideration?

Whiskey 041:
We will grow until we push resources to the limit, and just like nature, no matter how much we tell ourselves we aren't the same as animals, we will collapse. The vaccinations will run out, people will fight and die for resources,

That's an argument against over-population in general, not veganism per se. And yeah, there probably are too many people in the world. No one, especially those of us with an environmental bent would argue against sustainability.

Vegan_Doodler:

spartan231490:

Daystar Clarion:

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.

Two things wrong here, 1: your getting your definitions from SG-1, seriously?
2: All creatures fear death, thats how they know to get the fuck out of the way when they see a bus heading toward them.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals,

WHY! seriously no one has properly answered this yet.

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.

This part is just depressing, you have no moral obligation to do anything, so phff why the fuck even bother right.
Your health wouldn't be at risk, look, I'm typing and not dieing, vegans can do that now.
I'm pretty sure that death is a little bit more than just "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.

NO I AM NOT LYING, don't look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own, that is called being a dick.
Not that any ones spending habits or moral views for that matter are any concern of yours, but just so you know I hardly spend any money on anything, all second hand, I wan't to save my money my entire life so that when I die it will all go to animal conservation in Africa. I'm not telling you how you should live your life you don't tell me how I should live mine, deal.

As I say in this post here, I'm not using that definition just because I feel like it, I am using that definition because it measures the qualities that I care about. Had I known that so many of you would throw a fit about it, I would have just listed those qualities in the beginning, but I was trying to save time. That'll teach me.

spartan231490:

LittleShe-Bear:

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. :/

I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about. I could just list the qualities instead, but it's easier to say sentience, as from stargate. I don't believe that farm animals possess all of those qualities, so I don't believe that I have a moral obligation to concern myself with their suffering more than the convenience, health benefits, and price of a non-vegan diet.

As to your arguments no, all animals do not necessarily fear death, they react to it. That could and probably is just as likely to come from instinct as fear of death. To fear death you need to understand what it means, which means you need to have a concept of the future, something none of my dogs have ever had, and I believe they're a lot smarter than farm animals.

Further, deer and raccoons are higher mammals, and probably smarter than most farm animals, but despite their speed and experience seeing what happens to things that go in the road, they continually get hit by cars, often jumping out into the road just as a vehicle is about to drive through. Doesn't seem so very afraid of death to me.

Why are we superior to animals? You really asked that question. Chicken haven't invented an atomic bomb. Cows haven't developed a written language. Sheep don't have the ability to use tools. Our superiority is obvious, we have crossed oceans, flown through the air, dove to the depths of the sea, even visited the moon. Farm animals haven't even gotten as far as using tools.

I never said my health would fail, I said it would be at risk. Some smokers die of brain cancer or old age, would you claim that smoking isn't unhealthy. Further, it's possible to live for years, decades, even you whole life without consuming vegetables, are you going to claim that's healthy? It is much harder to get the required nutrients as a vegan(as I have made abundantly clear in 2 previous posts), and I for one, do not see maybes and almosts as compelling reasons to count every amino acid, every vitamin, every single omega fatty acid, and every mineral in every single meal, or risk having a deficiency in something truly important, just so a cow doesn't have to be milked. Even more so when putting myself through such hardship and risk will accomplish literally nothing.

And as for "just depressing" are you really trying to convince me to give up tasty and nutritious meat for ethical reasons when I have no moral obligation to do so? Do you even see the horrific contradiction and circular logic involved in that assertion.

Yes, I am a dick, and I'm kinda proud of that, because it means I don't just roll over and assent because you think I should. That said, I'm not "look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own". I am saying that if you really thought your comfort was any less important than that of animal, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect animals, or towards organizations that are trying to develop more humane farming methods. The fact that you don't(which is obvious since you have a computer to type with and internet access to come to this site) is absolute proof that you are not a vegan for moral reasons. I will not attempt to explain why you are a vegan, but don't try to tell me the sky is green without expecting me to point up and say that it isn't.

Further, I am not saying anything about how you should spend your money or live your life, I am pointing out that your actions belay the truth of your words. You are the one arguing on this website with the implicit intention of convincing me to be a vegan.

LittleShe-Bear:

Whiskey 041:
We will grow until we push resources to the limit, and just like nature, no matter how much we tell ourselves we aren't the same as animals, we will collapse. The vaccinations will run out, people will fight and die for resources,

That's an argument against over-population in general, not veganism per se. And yeah, there probably are too many people in the world. No one, especially those of us with an environmental bent would argue against sustainability.

Actually, that chart is redacted. It's stupid when I look at it now

Vegans are the only people in existence to be picky, and overly passive, while at the same time eating vegan food shaped like real food, and attacking anyone with a cleaver if they say vegans are stupid.

Truly a confusing sub-species.

CrystalShadow:

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.

Got to say this is probably one of my favourite posts, someone who is using pure logic, and they disagrees with me *squeeeeel* this is going to be fun.

Ok, I do see a logical flaw in your extreme situation, it's that just because it would be nearly impossible to to execute such ideology practically then you abandon it completely, while compromise is the braking of a logical chain drawing your line in the sand isn't always a bad thing, at least you can be near or even just halfway toward the logical ideal rather than saying screw it and abandoning that path all together. Alternatively people could take a que from Rorschach an "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon" and keep striving for the ideal rather than abandoning it, which is what I try to do in life, not always successfully, but still.
A line I think I first heard for a Karate Kid movie was,
"when do I get to smash rocks"
"why do you what to smash rocks? what have they ever done to you?"
from that day I haven't caused intentional damage to any inanimate objects.

Sorry for the windedness at the beginning of the post. It just seems increasingly rare to find logical people on the internet.

spartan231490:

No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.

Well, fair enough, you're free to believe what you want.

But that's not really my lookout from an economic standpoint. Yes, if everyone reduced all at once it would have a dramatic impact, but if its a gradual transition, then the supply reduces to reflect demand. You know what? It probably would be somewhat more expensive. But the reason the farming methods we currently use are used, is because they are the most cost effective, and regardless of how much was sold, or the profit margins, they wouldn't improve in any way.

If everyone started paying double the price for meat, you think the conditions of the industry would improve?

I never said you hadn't researched, I simply said your all or nothing ideas were incorrect, that you seemed to be saying there was no way to be vegan AND healthy. Also, I'm aware what the thread is about, I joined it on page 4 I believe having read everything up to that point. Though I would argue the need to take "half a dozen expensive supplements", I know vegans who get by fine by paying attention to their diet and perhaps taking multivitimins. Not the most bank breaking of investments, and something a fair number of people take anyway, whatever their diet.

If you read my previous posts you'll see I'm not even insisting that we need to go vegan, just to reduce the intake of meat the average person consumes. Because the enviromental impact of farming as it is, is ridiculous. 70-80% of the US grain production goes as feed to animals. That doesn't really sound like efficient farming does it? If you want to see more on the impact of farming in its current state, google searches will also show that:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef

I never said it wouldn't be more effort, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The insistance and apparent belief that we DESERVE an easy and convinient life without effort, is somewhat baffling and more than a little absurd. Of course athletes put more effort in, I never claimed otherwise, I think everyone should put more effort in.

spartan231490:
I am saying that if you really thought your comfort was any less important than that of animal, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect animals, or towards organizations that are trying to develop more humane farming methods. The fact that you don't(which is obvious since you have a computer to type with and internet access to come to this site) is absolute proof that you are not a vegan for moral reasons.

I'm curious, do you believe that anyone with moral beliefs truly hold those beliefs? You can apply this hyperbole to any moral issue:

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than gay rights, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect gays

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than starving children in Africa, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect children in famine areas

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than cancer sufferers, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and research cures for cancer sufferers

You're setting a really high standard here. You don't have to give up everything to prove that you care about something. I mean, seriously, do you support any charities or causes? If you do, I could use this exact argument as absolute proof that you don't actually really care about these things.

spartan231490:

Further, I am not saying anything about how you should spend your money or live your life, I am pointing out that your actions belay the truth of your words. You are the one arguing on this website with the implicit intention of convincing me to be a vegan.

Also, just to jump on this right here, I believe the forum OP was asking for people to explain why they were vegan. Everyone else joined with the implicit intention of belittling the beliefs of others, and convincing everyone that being vegan is stupid.
Who came here to make people vegan?

The insistance and apparent belief that we DESERVE an easy and convinient life without effort, is somewhat baffling and more than a little absurd.

Darwinism 101

LittleShe-Bear:

spartan231490:

LittleShe-Bear:

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. :/

I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about.

I tend to agree with Bentham; "It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

I find the argument for intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness etc being the important factors very troubling. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it's perfectly acceptable to be cruel to newborns or the severely mentally handicapped. As Bentham points out, an intelligent, adult dog might have more self-awareness than a newborn. So why is the human automatically considered more important than dog? They both have the capacity to feel pain so why not give that capacity to feel pain equal consideration?

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

The question is not: can they suffer? it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering. You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products? Hell, everyone on this site has hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of luxury material possessions that do nothing but give them entertainment and comfort while people live without even shelter, food, and clean water, yet you have the audacity to claim it is wrong for me to eat meat, and to argue that I shouldn't stop eating meat without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy
Every one of us is selfish, at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.
I quit.

Oh I give up. I don't know why I post on these threads, I get nothing but about 3 days worth of the same argument that I've already argued against from 50 different people.

Jammy2003:

spartan231490:

Further, I am not saying anything about how you should spend your money or live your life, I am pointing out that your actions belay the truth of your words. You are the one arguing on this website with the implicit intention of convincing me to be a vegan.

Also, just to jump on this right here, I believe the forum OP was asking for people to explain why they were vegan. Everyone else joined with the implicit intention of belittling the beliefs of others, and convincing everyone that being vegan is stupid.
Who came here to make people vegan?

Quite. I posted to explain my reasons for being vegan to the OP. Those reasons were challenged. I responded. That, and I enjoy a good debate. I've got no intention or expectation of making anyone vegan.

LittleShe-Bear:

spartan231490:
I am saying that if you really thought your comfort was any less important than that of animal, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect animals, or towards organizations that are trying to develop more humane farming methods. The fact that you don't(which is obvious since you have a computer to type with and internet access to come to this site) is absolute proof that you are not a vegan for moral reasons.

I'm curious, do you believe that anyone with moral beliefs truly hold those beliefs? You can apply this hyperbole to any moral issue:

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than gay rights, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect gays

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than starving children in Africa, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect children in famine areas

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than cancer sufferers, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and research cures for cancer sufferers

You're setting a really high standard here. You don't have to give up everything to prove that you care about something. I mean, seriously, do you support any charities or causes? If you do, I could use this exact argument as absolute proof that you don't actually really care about these things.

It's not hyperbole, and it's not a high standard, it's the truth. by not donating at least what it costs for you to have truly luxury items, you are saying that your entertainment, not even you comfort, is more important than every cause out there. And no, I don't support any charities. I do believe in a few causes, but I freely admit that I don't care enough to give up the luxuries of my life. I freely admit that I am selfish. But that doesn't mean that I don't care, nor does it mean that you don't care, but it does mean that you don't care enough to be casting stones at anyone who doesn't care. Notice, I put my opinion on an opinion thread, and then answered people who started arguments/debates with me. I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I have no problem with you being a vegan, but don't try to tell me I'm morally corrupt for eating meat cuz you don't have a leg to stand on.

Whiskey 041:

The insistance and apparent belief that we DESERVE an easy and convinient life without effort, is somewhat baffling and more than a little absurd.

Darwinism 101

Excuse me? Care to explain what you even mean by that?
Survival of the fittest means we shoudl have a happy, carefree and easy life?
That doesn't even make sense

spartan231490:

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

But why is intelligence a more important factor than the capacity to feel pain? My compassion for someone is not limited by my estimate of their intelligence. [/Star Trek]

it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering.

So why should we care about anything that doesn't affect us directly? Are you arguing for moral nihilism?

You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products?

No, I won't jump down your throat for owing an X-box. I won't jump down your throat for not donating to charities that help starving people (that's your choice). We're merely pointing out that you may be responsible for directly contributing to an arguably unethical industry.

without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy

You don't find the arguments compelling. I do. That's not hypocrisy, that's disagreement.

at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.

Are you suggesting that we're not capable of thought? You're the only one in this thread capable of self-reflection? Okay, then.

LittleShe-Bear:

spartan231490:

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

But why is intelligence a more important factor than the capacity to feel pain? My compassion for someone is not limited by my estimate of their intelligence. [/Star Trek]

it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering.

So why should we care about anything that doesn't affect us directly? Are you arguing for moral nihilism?

You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products?

No, I won't jump down your throat for owing an X-box. I won't jump down your throat for not donating to charities that help starving people (that's your choice). We're merely pointing out that you may be responsible for directly contributing to an arguably unethical industry.

without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy

You don't find the arguments compelling. I do. That's not hypocrisy, that's disagreement.

at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.

Are you suggesting that we're not capable of thought? You're the only one in this thread capable of self-reflection? Okay, then.

Well, I think that's enough being intentionally and blatantly misquoted and misinterpreted for one day. Congratulations, I will no longer dispute your rectitude today.

I find saying that you have to live as an ascetic in order to prove that you care about a cause is just a tad hyperbolic. Just a tad. And it's an argument against every single belief system out there. You're not just arguing against vegans here. You can make a difference without giving up everything. You can make a difference without making yourself miserable.

spartan231490:
Notice, I put my opinion on an opinion thread, and then answered people who started arguments/debates with me. I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I have no problem with you being a vegan, but don't try to tell me I'm morally corrupt for eating meat cuz you don't have a leg to stand on.

I did exactly what you did. I posted my opinion and I've had people accuse me and those like me of being snooty, superior, foolish and all manner of insults. I didn't rise to any one of them, nor sink to that level. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. We're having a debate. Debating is not the same as attacking someone's beliefs, you are perfectly entitled to believe what you do and say it, I'm perfectly entitled to believe what I do and say it. I never called you morally corrupt, notice how I worded my post above. "Potentially," "arguably." I'm not saying I'm 100% right beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm fallible.

Chill.

Right. I know that the thread has moved on from what I said but I just wanted to apologise for getting angry before, it's just that this is one of the few topics that really gets to me. I do not apologise for what I said as it was a badly worded, rash version of what I would have argued anyway but I'm annoyed at myself for coming across so aggressively.

If this topic is still raging tomorrow I may join in in a far calmer manner.
In any case, if anyone is interested in watching an independent film that deals with the animal industries I'd really suggest watching Earthings. It's not by PETA or any of those organisations as far as I know. If this link doesn't work you can also find the entire film on Youtube.
http://www.earthlings.com/

As to your arguments no, all animals do not necessarily fear death, they react to it. That could and probably is just as likely to come from instinct as fear of death. To fear death you need to understand what it means, which means you need to have a concept of the future, something none of my dogs have ever had, and I believe they're a lot smarter than farm animals.

Your dogs know that if they don't eat they will die, that sounds like a concept of the future.

Further, deer and raccoons are higher mammals, and probably smarter than most farm animals, but despite their speed and experience seeing what happens to things that go in the road, they continually get hit by cars, often jumping out into the road just as a vehicle is about to drive through. Doesn't seem so very afraid of death to me.

Humans still get hit by cars, they mustn't have a concept of death then.

Why are we superior to animals? You really asked that question. Chicken haven't invented an atomic bomb. Cows haven't developed a written language. Sheep don't have the ability to use tools. Our superiority is obvious, we have crossed oceans, flown through the air, dove to the depths of the sea, even visited the moon. Farm animals haven't even gotten as far as using tools.

Considering your later points I feel completely justified in this language,
what the fuck have you done?
Einstein made the atomic bomb,
Shakespeare did wonders with the written word,
Michelangelo was a master crafts man,
Columbus crossed ocions,
The Right brothers conquered the air,
Nile Armstrong visited the moon,
So what marvel of human endevor do we credit you with?
Something people really need to stop doing is taking credit for other peoples endevors in order to detract form the truth that the majority of humans are docile creatures.

I never said my health would fail, I said it would be at risk. Some smokers die of brain cancer or old age, would you claim that smoking isn't unhealthy. Further, it's possible to live for years, decades, even you whole life without consuming vegetables, are you going to claim that's healthy? It is much harder to get the required nutrients as a vegan(as I have made abundantly clear in 2 previous posts), and I for one, do not see maybes and almosts as compelling reasons to count every amino acid, every vitamin, every single omega fatty acid, and every mineral in every single meal, or risk having a deficiency in something truly important, just so a cow doesn't have to be milked. Even more so when putting myself through such hardship and risk will accomplish literally nothing.

So many things accomplish nothing, but we do them anyway because in the end that is all there is.

And as for "just depressing" are you really trying to convince me to give up tasty and nutritious meat for ethical reasons when I have no moral obligation to do so? Do you even see the horrific contradiction and circular logic involved in that assertion.

Read what I wrote properly, I used the word depressing to describe my own reaction to your statement, I then went on to explain that you have no moral obligation to do anything so 'logicically' why do anything? a question/flaw in your reasoning you have avoided.

...I am saying that if you really thought your comfort was any less important than that of animal, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect animals, or towards organizations that are trying to develop more humane farming methods. The fact that you don't(which is obvious since you have a computer to type with and internet access to come to this site) is absolute proof that you are not a vegan for moral reasons. I will not attempt to explain why you are a vegan, but don't try to tell me the sky is green without expecting me to point up and say that it isn't.

It is not absolute prove, I've drawn my own line in the sand, this is where I stand morally. I'm not vegan for comfort, I do it because if I want to eat meat I'll go out and kill the thing myself, I won't sit around with ideas of superiority while having meat brought to me like an entitled person.

Further, I am not saying anything about how you should spend your money or live your life, I am pointing out that your actions belay the truth of your words. You are the one arguing on this website with the implicit intention of convincing me to be a vegan.

No I'm not, I don't push my morality on any one, I honestly don't care what anyone's morality is, I don't care if your vegan, carnivore, or if you filter feed through the gad dame air. Believe it or not I have no 'intention' of telling any one how to live, you are not so important that I have made it my mission to 'convince' you.

Yes, I am a dick, and I'm kinda proud of that, because it means I don't just roll over and assent because you think I should. That said, I'm not "look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own".

Your proud of being a dick, really? In every post I've seen on this matter you have looked down on, belittled, and trivialised peoples believes, until you realise just how fucked up that is you'r opinion has no value.

LittleShe-Bear:

spartan231490:

LittleShe-Bear:

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. :/

I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about.

I tend to agree with Bentham; "It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

I find the argument for intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness etc being the important factors very troubling. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it's perfectly acceptable to be cruel to newborns or the severely mentally handicapped. As Bentham points out, an intelligent, adult dog might have more self-awareness than a newborn. So why is the human automatically considered more important than dog? They both have the capacity to feel pain so why not give that capacity to feel pain equal consideration?

The difference is potential. A normal Infant has infinitely more potential then a Dog.

Just for the record. I see no reason beyond empathy and attachment to keep severly mentally handicapped people around either. From a logical stand point the contribute nothing to society, they just use up resources, so if it weren't for empathy, I'd be all for getting rid of the ones that can do nothing but drool aswell.

But I tend to look at that kind of issue from 2 different Mindsets. I know that I'm right about the whole "keeping severly mentally handicapped people around doesn't make any sense", I'm indecisive from a Moral Standpoint, I'm not sure if keeping them alive is cruel or not.

Anyway, about the animals. The thing is, it doesn't really matter if I COULD choose otherwise, although I'll state right off the bat that I'm not entirely sure veganism would be financially sustainable for me, the thing is, I don't want to choose otherwise. I like eating meat. It's good for me. Do I have to? No. But I don't have to do alot of the things I do, all I really have to do is eat breath and go to the bathroom, that should make my life generally sustainable. But I wouldn't be happy with that and I wager you wouldn't be happy with that either. It is very much about comfort. I'm in the position in which I can choose to go the comfort route, so are you. I don't care about the animals enough to sacrifice my comfort. That's selfish, but being selfish is my privilige for being on top of the food chain and also having to worry about shit. Now, I don't see any reason to cause a animal pointless suffering, that's just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

That is basically my explanation. I eat animals becaue I don't care enough about their well-being to sacrifice my own comfort. I eat them because I can and because them tasting good easily outweighs whatever negative connotations eating has for me. No argument you can give could possibly sway me. It's ok that you have your morals, I respect that, they aren't for me though because I'm too self-important to adopt such morals for myself.

The real problem with these opposing viewpoints is morality. If we remove that from the equation it could solve quite a lot of the fuss going on.
Just think about it, everyone eating any food because they want to. Or the kind of foods being grown for the best yield or most nutrition least effort/cost.
It would be glorious.

Jessy_Fran:
Right. I know that the thread has moved on from what I said but I just wanted to apologise for getting angry before, it's just that this is one of the few topics that really gets to me. I do not apologise for what I said as it was a badly worded, rash version of what I would have argued anyway but I'm annoyed at myself for coming across so aggressively.

If this topic is still raging tomorrow I may join in in a far calmer manner.
In any case, if anyone is interested in watching an independent film that deals with the animal industries I'd really suggest watching Earthings. It's not by PETA or any of those organisations as far as I know. If this link doesn't work you can also find the entire film on Youtube.
http://www.earthlings.com/

It takes guts to admit when you've made an error in judgment.

I don't agree with your standpoint, but I respect you for appreciating that you may have made a mistake.

Honestly, the topic always brings out the worst in me too, I just can't imagine a world without meat, and I think trying to, would cause more harm than good. Still, I said some pretty ignorant things, so I apologise too.

The best we can do is share our ideas without throwing around insults.

Keep it classy :D

Jiggy:
The difference is potential. A normal Infant has infinitely more potential then a Dog.

For this argument to work, it rests on the premise that the potential for intelligence/self-awareness/consciousness/and so on is the important factor and that's not an assumption I agree with. Bentham's argument is against the assumption that it is the most important factor. Why is it considered more important than the capacity to feel pain? What's the reasoning here? I can't see any reason why more intelligence has to equal more importance. Example; imagine the most gifted, brilliant person in the world. They're a brilliant scientist, a gifted musician, an accomplished artist and darn sexy to boot. They're all-round amazing. It turns out they need a heart transplant and by some quirk of Thought Experiment, you are the only suitable match. Since intelligence is the most important determining factor for welfare, you should be required to sacrifice yourself for this person. Would you be cool with that?

I can see a reply along the lines of the sanctity of human life argument; this scenario deals with two humans whereas the other deals with humans an animals. But if intelligence is the dividing line, the deciding factor, why should it only serve to divide humans and animals? It could logically divide humans from other humans too...which leads to all sorts of icky conclusions.

I'm fine with veganism myself. I've even met friendly (former) veagans. It's just that the vocal majority (the LOUD portion not the big portion) are like the girl in this video:


The holier than thou attitude she has makes me feel quite mad just watching the video.
The comments don't help much either

My view on such things used to be a little difficult to describe, but has been quite well sumed up by Mordin in Mass Effect 2.

"No testing on (or in this case, eating) species capable of calculus."

PETA...uck...just...uck.

Youtube 'Penn & Teller: Bullshit' + 'PETA'
It's all true, those PETA-tards are just...uck.

OT:
They're a bunch of damn HIPPIES..that's why.

Lionsfan:

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

Because it gives us Telepathic Powers

image

image

So....Watch your tone buddy

CRAP. I was rushing to the bottom to post that and you beat me to it.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked