Vegetarianism/confusion

[Jonse]

The thing I never understand with veganism for ethical purposes (disregarding not supporting the meat industry, I can understand that) is why there's any difference between plants and animals. I don't get it, if something can move around and make noise when it's being killed, does that somehow make it more alive? That's like letting some sort of stimuli influence you when logically it isn't any different, similar to those who are against abortion because they see an embryo that has legs and arms, and even though there's no brain activity the imagery persuades them that it's somehow a person.


Well, so long as the method of killing the animal is something like a gunshot to the head, I see no difference between killing an animal and killing a plant. Either way you are removing a living thing from the planet by murdering it, with a few exceptions like fruit. Shouldn't the concern of vegans be more along the lines of seeking regulation that prevents companies from raising/slaughtering animals in unethical ways as opposed to suggesting everyone just stops eating meat altogether? Frankly that's like if I asked you to stop wearing socks or stop using shampoo for the rest of your life.

The difference lies in the method not the organism. Plants (I believe) don't have the ability to feel pain... Based on this assumption and the way they are grown for food, there is no mistreatment or terrible living conditions or suffering. Factory Farm Animals are raised in absolute shit conditions.

Well then vegans should have no problem with pescetarianism, because fish we know as a fact do not feel pain and their living conditions are largely their natural habitat before they are caught by large fishing boats (or in the case of my family, on a small boat in the middle of Scott's Reservoir).

But they don't, apparently not enough enough to silence their figurehead group that wants to throw blood on anyone who eats meat of any kind and make a video of a fish with its mouth opening, saying "not all screams can be heard", equating it to spousal abuse. I have no respect for any vegan that doesn't vocally dissociate themselves from that group.

I do have however, a huge amount of respect for vegetarians who are vegetarians by personal choice, even though I consider it to be unnatural (there's nothing wrong with that though). I respect their decision. I don't respect most vegans because a lot of them end up being as ridiculous as said group, and I rarely meet a self-proclaimed "vegan" that isn't a petaphile.

[Amo Bishop Roden]

Years ago, when I became vegetarian, I had this notion that it was perverted and cruel to take any sentient life when we didn't have to. I had the means to eat without killing, and remain healthy to boot, so why not?

I'm still a vegetarian now, though with a few years experience my views on vegetarianism have changed quite a bit. I do considerably fewer drugs now, so maybe my clear head is thinking a bit more rationally, heh.

So, I'm not against killing animals for food. I'm against the way they are raised, tortured, and eventually slaughtered in captivity. I realize the situation may be different abroad, but american livestock factory farms are absolutely disgusting. Cows and pigs packed like sardines in unsanitary pens; chickens and turkeys too weak to walk kept in complete darkness til the day of their slaughter. All of these animals are bred to a point beyond any evolutional usefulness, and all of them are pumped full of ungodly steroids. These are the realities of keeping up with the demand of the great American Appetite, a nescesary trade to keep the paunchy masses fat, slow, and happy.

If you're going to deny that this is cruel to the animals, you should probably have your head checked; you may have a concussion.

I will not support a system of cruelty. In this case, that means not eating commercial meat. I do not judge anybody who does eat commercial meat. Man is an omnivore, and this may be the only practical way for many people to eat.

That said, if you've shot a deer or a turkey in the wild, or caught a fish on your own, I'll eat it graciously. Man is an animal, and as I've said, he is an omnivore. When we hunt, we take on the role of predator. This is part of the circle of life (you're singing the Lion King song in your head now, aren't you?) and is natural, beautiful, and necessary to sustain life and balance in the environment. To hunt is our nature as an animal, which we arguably are. To farm, imprison, and mistreat is our nature as men.

"...no animal could ever be so cruel as a man, so artfully, so artistically cruel.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky

[WeHadNormality]

I eat vegan. I'm not a preachy dick. Each to their own.

[pianoforte]

I eat vegan. I'm not a preachy dick. Each to their own.

Good for you. I approve.

Meanwhile, Reddit post that I made yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/Vegetarianism/c ... y_this_is/

[zeitgeist]

Any of you seen the 'newish' Samsara movie? That thing could make anyone a gardening vegan. No spoilers, just take my word for it.

[Jonse]

I eat vegan. I'm not a preachy dick. Each to their own.

Good job. You are the exception to the rule and I respect you for it.

[Syberia]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

[jcnporter]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

Fair point, an example amongst many of the huge damage that modern agriculture does to the environment to produce food both for us and animals, although if we were to give up meat tomorrow, what would fulfill the demand for replacement protein?
Both meat and plant production can damage the environment, conversely both can be produced in an environmentally friendly way that minimises direct and indirect suffering, so I don't see it as one being superior to another. We could stop eating meat, dairy would still be an issue, we could stop eating that as well, the volume of food required for our population would still require land, energy, water and chemicals, probably GM, that would devastate the environment. There are deeper issues to address.
'Natural' has two meanings - it is in our nature to eat meat and we have done throughout our history, however I wholeheartedly agree that modern lifestyles and most of what we call food has little to do with Nature.

[zeitgeist]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

i knew somebody would post the vid link of what i'm talking about. i didn't have the balls.

[FernieCanto]

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

I always get bothered when rational argumentation gets replaced with cheesy emotional manipulation.

And I'm hungry now.

[Syberia]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

Fair point, an example amongst many of the huge damage that modern agriculture does to the environment to produce food both for us and animals, although if we were to give up meat tomorrow, what would fulfill the demand for replacement protein?
Both meat and plant production can damage the environment, conversely both can be produced in an environmentally friendly way that minimises direct and indirect suffering, so I don't see it as one being superior to another. We could stop eating meat, dairy would still be an issue, we could stop eating that as well, the volume of food required for our population would still require land, energy, water and chemicals, probably GM, that would devastate the environment. There are deeper issues to address.
'Natural' has two meanings - it is in our nature to eat meat and we have done throughout our history, however I wholeheartedly agree that modern lifestyles and most of what we call food has little to do with Nature.

Regarding the source of protein, we could easily use the land that we use for growing crops for animals to grow high protein vegetables, like beans, full grain, brown rice, etc., not to mention soy beans. If the land was used to grow vegetables as a food source for us, and not as a food source for the animals that we later eat, there would be better possibilities to use the land more carefully, in other words, to grow more ecological crops. This is really not a question about being able to successfully feed the people of the planet - that we can do today - but it is a question of money, power and politics.

Regarding what is natural or not, do you mean to say that just because we humans have done something throughout our history it consequently justifies itself? One of the most recurring traits of the human species is that we have brutally killed each other throughout history...

What do you mean by saying that it is in our nature to eat meat?

Surely there are many important issues to address, but which ones do you feel strongly about?

[Syberia]

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

I always get bothered when rational argumentation gets replaced with cheesy emotional manipulation.

And I'm hungry now.

Manipulations? So you really think that 50-60 billions of animals that are slaughtered every year have a nice little home with a loving caring family? This is the reality, and I know it's easier to hide from it or make jokes about it. If you would have read my previous posts you might have seen that I have said a lot of rational arguments for not eating meat but I guess you was bizy stuffing yourself with meat.

[A_Northern_Soul]

Brief meander off topic to say it's so good to see threads with intelligent, opinionated debate like this and (*blows trumpet*) the one I started on Scottish independence near the top of the board. Pushing THAT thread down....

As you were....

[jcnporter]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

Fair point, an example amongst many of the huge damage that modern agriculture does to the environment to produce food both for us and animals, although if we were to give up meat tomorrow, what would fulfill the demand for replacement protein?
Both meat and plant production can damage the environment, conversely both can be produced in an environmentally friendly way that minimises direct and indirect suffering, so I don't see it as one being superior to another. We could stop eating meat, dairy would still be an issue, we could stop eating that as well, the volume of food required for our population would still require land, energy, water and chemicals, probably GM, that would devastate the environment. There are deeper issues to address.
'Natural' has two meanings - it is in our nature to eat meat and we have done throughout our history, however I wholeheartedly agree that modern lifestyles and most of what we call food has little to do with Nature.

Regarding the source of protein, we could easily use the land that we use for growing crops for animals to grow high protein vegetables, like beans, full grain, brown rice, etc., not to mention soy beans. If the land was used to grow vegetables as a food source for us, and not as a food source for the animals that we later eat, there would be better possibilities to use the land more carefully, in other words, to grow more ecological crops. This is really not a question about being able to successfully feed the people of the planet - that we can do today - but it is a question of money, power and politics.

Regarding what is natural or not, do you mean to say that just because we humans have done something throughout our history it consequently justifies itself? One of the most recurring traits of the human species is that we have brutally killed each other throughout history...

What do you mean by saying that it is in our nature to eat meat?

Surely there are many important issues to address, but which ones do you feel strongly about?

Absolutely, it's a question of money, power and politics, which is why I see eating meat or not as a side issue - we can be carnivores and damage our planet, or we can be vegetarians and damage our planet - debatably to a lesser extent, but at the same time we still have a industrial society, an economy that requires constant expansion and sociopaths in charge.

[FernieCanto]

Manipulations? So you really think that 50-60 billions of animals that are slaughtered every year have a nice little home with a loving caring family? This is the reality, and I know it's easier to hide from it or make jokes about it. If you would have read my previous posts you might have seen that I have said a lot of rational arguments for not eating meat but I guess you was bizy stuffing yourself with meat.

That's what happens when you get overly passionate: you start making assumptions about people, trying to discredit them with meaningless and snide remarks. But I'm not discrediting your rational arguments. I just despised that cheesy and manipulative video, and I'm sorry to see it in this thread.

[Syberia]

Yeah, always hard to know what's natural or not, and really what does the word mean, it's hard to define. I still think that empathy is something great that we humans have developed and something that I think we should build our society upon.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "offering them the protection"? Can you explain that?

I don't think we have developed empathy, as I understand it is hard-wired into us. It is also observed in other animals. However so is eating other animals. Morally it's not a one-sided issue. Vast swathes of rainforest are cleared to grow soya beans, for example. The destruction may be more indirect, but it is there.

Than you might want to consider that most of the soybeans grown in the world are used for feeding animals. In the U.S. 95% of all soybeans goes to animals. This takes obviously way, way more land and water than if we would used the land to grow vegetables.
One of the biggest pruducers of vegetarian/vegan products, Alpro garantees that non of their soy is grown where rainforests have been devastated. They also garanties a non tolorance for GMO soy and lot of thier pruducts are organic.
I think you should always ask where your food comes from and always choose organic and fair traded products either you eat meat or not.

Reding through the post on this thread I feel that a lot of people keep talking about how natural it is to eat meat. There is simply not much in our life that is "natural" any more and as I asked before what does the word mean? Can someone explain that to me?

Just a reminder of how it has to be if we want to continue to eat as much meat as we do today: http://vimeo.com/57126054

Fair point, an example amongst many of the huge damage that modern agriculture does to the environment to produce food both for us and animals, although if we were to give up meat tomorrow, what would fulfill the demand for replacement protein?
Both meat and plant production can damage the environment, conversely both can be produced in an environmentally friendly way that minimises direct and indirect suffering, so I don't see it as one being superior to another. We could stop eating meat, dairy would still be an issue, we could stop eating that as well, the volume of food required for our population would still require land, energy, water and chemicals, probably GM, that would devastate the environment. There are deeper issues to address.
'Natural' has two meanings - it is in our nature to eat meat and we have done throughout our history, however I wholeheartedly agree that modern lifestyles and most of what we call food has little to do with Nature.

Regarding the source of protein, we could easily use the land that we use for growing crops for animals to grow high protein vegetables, like beans, full grain, brown rice, etc., not to mention soy beans. If the land was used to grow vegetables as a food source for us, and not as a food source for the animals that we later eat, there would be better possibilities to use the land more carefully, in other words, to grow more ecological crops. This is really not a question about being able to successfully feed the people of the planet - that we can do today - but it is a question of money, power and politics.

Regarding what is natural or not, do you mean to say that just because we humans have done something throughout our history it consequently justifies itself? One of the most recurring traits of the human species is that we have brutally killed each other throughout history...

What do you mean by saying that it is in our nature to eat meat?

Surely there are many important issues to address, but which ones do you feel strongly about?

Absolutely, it's a question of money, power and politics, which is why I see eating meat or not as a side issue - we can be carnivores and damage our planet, or we can be vegetarians and damage our planet - debatably to a lesser extent, but at the same time we still have a industrial society, an economy that requires constant expansion and sociopaths in charge.

I agree with you but at the same time eating vegetarian/vegan would save a lot of animals a lot of suffering, and that's the part I really care deeply about- minimaze the suffering for the innocent, either they are humans or animals.

[Syberia]

Manipulations? So you really think that 50-60 billions of animals that are slaughtered every year have a nice little home with a loving caring family? This is the reality, and I know it's easier to hide from it or make jokes about it. If you would have read my previous posts you might have seen that I have said a lot of rational arguments for not eating meat but I guess you was bizy stuffing yourself with meat.

That's what happens when you get overly passionate: you start making assumptions about people, trying to discredit them with meaningless and snide remarks. But I'm not discrediting your rational arguments. I just despised that cheesy and manipulative video, and I'm sorry to see it in this thread.

Yes I'm very passionate about the subject but the reason I got angry was your comment "And now I'm hungry" that I took as a way to provoke (if not than I'm sorry my mistake). I don't see animals suffering as less upsetting than human suffering so to me leaving a comment like that after watching a clip where hundreds of animals are slaughtered I feel is equally disturbing as if someone would have seen a clip with a girl getting raped and say the comment "And now I'm horny". I understand if it's not the same for most people but for me the comment was very upsetting and therefor the snide remarks, I was simply angry. As said before I just can't stand seeing innocent get tormented, hold in captivity and killed and I that's why I don't understand why people are so offended by seeing how their food are made if no one has the same problem as I have?

[fujee]

I am now a vegetarian!

[Syberia]

I am now a vegetarian!

\o/

[naicob]

I eat meat, but something about it often seems unappealing. Sometimes I suddenly become aware that I'm eating meat and feel disgusted by the texture of it in my mouth and the thought that there was life sustaining blood in it in the very recent past. At other times the thought that I am a part of nature and simply doing a natural thing by eating meat disgusts me even more because it makes me question why in the hell nature is the way it is, and if there is anything inherently good about it when everything in it seems so destructive. Suffering is such an integral part of existence, and so much more powerful than simple joy-- compare the experience of the animal eating to the animal being eaten alive.

Giving in to nature might be natural, but it is also natural for us to go against it. We can empathize with suffering, other animals might not be as capable. Plants don't have a brain that allows them to feel pain the way we do, it's hard to empathize with a plant, and it's unknown if they register pain somehow or if they're even aware. To eat a plant is a lesser of two evils at worst, or a non argument at best if comparing to the plight of an animal which functions in much the same way as we do.

If it can be agreed upon that we are much more capable than our instincts (with empathy being a good indicator), then we are certainly capable of going without meat so long as empathy and ability win over 'nature'. Isn't that what separates us from the rest of the animals?

I am also a bit confused as to why many vegetarians eat fish-- there is something inherently dismissive about it. The science of whether or not fish feel pain is murky at best, but is also beside the point.