Vegetarian: Arguments For and Against Vegetarianism [Archive]

Wowbagger

26th December 2009, 10:02 PM

For me, it's just a personal food preference.

Most of the health-related reasons to not eat meat turned out to be bunk. (And, this is coming from someone who once tried to make health-related justifications in the past). A well-balanced diet can include some meat, though there are very good alternatives, in this day and age, for those who prefer not to consume such stuff.
(Obviously, there are going to be exceptions with folks who have very specific medical conditions in which eating meat is not a good idea.)

I find it hard to justify vegetarianism on any significant moral grounds, as well. Meat-eating is part of the heritage of human dietary evolution. As it is for much of the animal world, at large. And, killing an animal for food, in order to survive in a realm where one would otherwise perish, is hardly immoral.

I happen to like animals too much, to consciously chew them up and swallow them. But, that's just me. I would not force such an attitude onto anyone else.

lionking

26th December 2009, 10:04 PM

How is eating meat necessarily against health and nutrition?

Roboramma

26th December 2009, 10:07 PM

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
1. Health, nutrition
2. Ethics
3. Self-reliance
4. Environmental protection.
5. Cost. In some places it is cheaper to get your nutritional requirements from a vegetarian diet.

Cases supporting a carnivorous diet:
1. Freedom
2. Taste.
3. Easier to eat a healthy diet.
4. Cost. In some places it is cheaper to get your nutritional requirements from an omnivorous diet.

KingMerv00

26th December 2009, 10:11 PM

How is eating meat necessarily against health and nutrition?

Heart disease I guess. Course that comes from too much meat.

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 10:12 PM

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.

In this forum, I viewed the poll "Are you vegetarian?" and the results indicated that about 11% of the voters on this forum do not consume meat as a part of their diet; but, it is likely that that figure will only rise in the future.

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
1. Health, nutrition
2. Ethics
3. Self-reliance

Cases supporting a carnivorous diet:
1. Freedom

Is it ethical, morally-sound for an individual to eat meat on a regular basis?
Should a person eat meat or not?

That's the carnivorous supporting argument?

How about:

1. Humans are omnivores (our teeth and digestive system are designed to handle a variety of matter - see link 1 for b.s. 101)
2. High in Protein
3. Fat, carbohydrates, cholersterol (in moderation, this is actually what humans need)
3. Health, nutrition, self-reliance (we are friggin' hunters by 'nature' or did the 50,000 prior years not count?)
4. We're not ruminant (a main feature of many large herbivorous animals). Evidence for humans with multiple stomachs, regurgitation (cud chewing), or gastropods, please.

There was a time that I considered vegetarianism but my friends talked me out of it because it limits some required inputs not found in other places. I still love fish (sushi, esp.) above most meats and eat tofu on occasion but don't pass on steak, chicken, pork, eggs either. Balance is it. We are not herbivores. We are not carnivores (even they eat plants once in a while). We are omnivores.

Links:

Bull about humans as pure celestial vegans (http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm)

Another rant about the uselessness of meat (http://www.iamnotobese.com/benefits-of-eating-meat.php)

WikiMeat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat)

lionking

26th December 2009, 10:13 PM

Heart disease I guess. Course that comes from from too much meat.
Yeah, which is why I used the word "necessarily".

The OP is all about a guilt trip, which just doesn't work with most people.

Drudgewire

26th December 2009, 10:17 PM

http://i45.tinypic.com/34fe6xg.jpg

If we give cows the upper hand we're all DOOMED! :eek:

yy2bggggs

26th December 2009, 10:19 PM

Unfortunately, I've met a lot of vegetarians who struggled to think through very basic bits of reasoning. This has made me wonder if it's possible to have dietary deficiencies that make thinking too hard.
This sounds anecdotal, and I'm also wondering if it's prone to selection bias.
My own experience of not eating meat was that I got it horribly wrong. I ended up with B12, Iron, Potassium and Cholesterol deficiencies. I had symptoms like multiple sclerosis.

This was despite having a good set of vegetarian diet guides and cook books.
Might I ask why you were not eating meat, and what your diet consisted of? I'm not familiar with "vegetarian diet guides", but the particular nutrients you mention don't sound like they're too hard to get from a vegetarian diet per se. Were you shooting for a vegan diet?
These days, I just eat a little animal product every day...
By animal product here, do you mean meat?

arthwollipot

26th December 2009, 10:20 PM

Yeah, which is why I used the word "necessarily".

The OP is all about a guilt trip, which just doesn't work with most people.Yes. There are very good reasons for being omnivorous, and vegevangelists conveniently ignore them.

lionking

26th December 2009, 10:22 PM

http://i45.tinypic.com/34fe6xg.jpg

If we give cows the upper hand we're all DOOMED! :eek:
Indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5s5qGg01nE

yy2bggggs

26th December 2009, 10:25 PM

There was a time that I considered vegetarianism but my friends talked me out of it because it limits some required inputs not found in other places.
I'm having problems interpreting the phrase "limits some required inputs not found in other places". For me, it sounds like the qualifiers, when all strung together, don't quite fit.

Can you clarify?

athon

26th December 2009, 10:27 PM

arthwollipot

26th December 2009, 10:29 PM

I'm having problems interpreting the phrase "limits some required inputs not found in other places". For me, it sounds like the qualifiers, when all strung together, don't quite fit.

Can you clarify?Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 10:32 PM

3. Animal fat carries flavour and makes things taste good.

While that can be a bad thing if overdone (esp. in our consumer-based, technological first world economies), it was obviously something that we evolved into. Something that tastes good must be so for an evolutionary reason (good or bad, might I inject).

I don't get the 'guilt trip' aspect associated with eating meat as portrayed by vegetarians. If it were truly 'bad' then all forms of hominids would have evaporated from the evolutionary scene because it was maleficent. And it doesn't help any 'vegan' case that probably half (if not more) of animal life is carnivorous - like it's a sin against nature to be so or something. It almost conjures images of the oh-so stupid 'pristine' garden of Eden before the fall scenario where the lions ate dandelions and the hyenas laughed at cabbage. What?

As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)

arthwollipot

26th December 2009, 10:34 PM

As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)Not quite. In moderation, fat does not make you fat. An excess of fat, more than we can use, does.

As athon said, in our society, we tend to eat too much of it.

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 10:36 PM

Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.

The reason that I was so vague is it depends upon the definition of 'nutrients'. Some people don't include amino acids, fat, and so on as 'nutrients'. Succinctly, it isn't about what is deemed just 'healthy' but what is systemically required. Pregnant women don't eat healthy. And there is a damned good reason - they are perpetuating the construction of a new human being. That requires a fair amount of 'nutrients' - not all vitamin c and ruffage. ;)

yy2bggggs

26th December 2009, 10:36 PM

Meat has some nutrients that you can't get from a vegetarian diet.
Alright... so which nutrients?

ETA: By the way, I'd include amino acids as nutrients. As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems getting amino acids from a balanced vegetarian diet--it shouldn't even be difficult. I could buy an argument that it'd be easier to get nutrients from meat, but, especially how vegetarianism was defined in the OP, I'm going to have to be convinced that there are nutrients you cannot get from meat.

Not only that, I would actually want to be convinced... though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I don't eat much meat, and I want to make sure I know what to look out for.

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 10:39 PM

Not quite. In moderation, fat does not make you fat. An excess of fat, more than we can use, does.

As athon said, in our society, we tend to eat too much of it.

Yes and yes. But there was obviously a reason to eat enough to store it even if it was more appropo to our more distant past. That we eat too much and become obese is a side-effect of more recent societal paradigms.

arthwollipot

26th December 2009, 10:50 PM

Alright... so which nutrients?I was only translating, not making the argument myself :)

I happen to think that it's entirely possible to eat a perfectly healthy vegetarian diet. I know plenty of people who do.

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 11:14 PM

Alright... so which nutrients?

ETA: By the way, I'd include amino acids as nutrients. As far as I know, there shouldn't be any problems getting amino acids from a balanced vegetarian diet--it shouldn't even be difficult. I could buy an argument that it'd be easier to get nutrients from meat, but, especially how vegetarianism was defined in the OP, I'm going to have to be convinced that there are nutrients you cannot get from meat.

Not only that, I would actually want to be convinced... though I'm not a vegetarian myself, I don't eat much meat, and I want to make sure I know what to look out for.

Blindly, I'm going with this one from the wiki (add salt but not as preservative):

Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, are usually lacking several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet carefully to include sources of all the necessary amino acids.

So, it seems there is a convenience factor (not 'freedom' factor) to this. In a perfect world, we would glean all of our energy from our sun through some form of photosynthesis. But that is not how evolution played the cards. In the end, it played like this: some lifeforms get their energy and sustenance from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy. Seems like there is a theme here, eh?

Meat is a high energy, high nutrient energy source to which we are 'partially' adapted. Yes, one can eschew it for purely vegetarian sources. But it is at the cost of requiring a very regimented and calculated diet which includes fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, soy, grains in proper proportions. The cliched phrase "Man cannot live by bread alone" rings in my head. One can do so but at the cost of proper nutrition. And one can even attain proper nutrition with a purely vegetarian diet but at the cost of making it an all-consuming ritual. Why must people deny reality in order to feel good about themselves?

kuroyume0161

26th December 2009, 11:54 PM

Personally I think we eat a little too much meat (especially red meat) in our society. We are certainly omnivorous and evolved to eat meat, but not slabs the size of our hand every evening, especially given our sedentary nature.

On the argument of morality, why do people keep pushing it as if it's an objective, universal concept? Morals are the expectations of our community, and not embedded in the fabric of time and space. If your community kills cows and eats them, they consider it moral. If your own personal tofu-eating community doesn't find it moral, fine. There is no rule that one can point to that says the other must change on moralistic grounds.

Athon

Meat portions are ridiculous in our societies (and I'm from an Italian background where 'mange' is the mantra). I've learned to eat what fits my size and it has kept me 'in bounds' for 45 years. And it is surely a sign of changing society through technology that we have recently started to see a trade-off between previous diets and current activity.

From a 'carnivorous' point of view, killing animals for food doesn't affect me as much. I do hate that our 'domesticated' animals are basically treated with the least amount of care commercially viable for profits. But then we are now a different animal than our predatory counterparts by far. We no longer truly hunt animals for food as our sole survival strategy. We now breed them in captivity. To me, that does raise concerns about animals as food simply being produced, bred to maturity, and then slaughtered with no concern about how this affects 'the future'. Like I said, I dislike it but realize the reason that this situation continues. As Jeff Foxworthy said, there are no 'free range' chickens. Chickens are a completely domesticated bird which has no more wild representatives.

We could add in dogs, cats, cows, sheep, pigs, ... which are now so genetically and evolutionarily manipulated by humans that they are no longer very viable without us.

six7s

27th December 2009, 12:20 AM

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
1. Health, nutritionYeah? Really? I call "bollocks" on this... prove me wrong

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
2. EthicsSo what? An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Deal with it

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
3. Self-relianceYeah... right...

On which planet?

popscythe

27th December 2009, 12:22 AM

Is this the beastiality thread again?

yy2bggggs

27th December 2009, 12:54 AM

Blindly, I'm going with this one from the wiki (add salt but not as preservative):

Most meats contain a full complement of the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast, are usually lacking several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet carefully to include sources of all the necessary amino acids.
This seems to have come from the wiki article on meat.

I don't think that's phrased right on the wiki--in fact, I think the way it's phrase, it's flat out wrong. The sentence isn't cited. But at the end of the paragraph there's a citation. If you go to the web site, you'll see this at the top:
With careful planning, a vegetarian diet can provide all the essential vitamins and minerals necessary for a long and healthy life.
...which is where I think the author of that sentence got the phrase. But, later on:
A complete protein has all the amino acids necessary to make up protein. Most individual plant foods are not complete proteins; they only have some of the amino acids. Soy is the only complete vegetable protein.

It was once thought that vegetarians needed to combine plant foods at each meal to ensure they consumed complete proteins. Recent research has found that this is not the case. Consuming various sources of amino acids throughout the day should provide the complete complement of protein.

This seems to align with what I've dug up in research years ago; furthermore, I don't seem to have any issues with protein (measured by blood lipids), and I highly doubt that I get an adequate supply of the essential amino acids I need from the little meat that I eat.
So, it seems there is a convenience factor (not 'freedom' factor) to this.I doubt there's much of a convenience factor for essential amino acids. The same web site cited from the wiki article goes on to make this recommendation:
It is recommended that vegetarians eat legumes and nuts daily, along with wholegrain cereals, to ensure adequate nutrient intakes.
...which doesn't sound all that complicated at all.
In a perfect world, we would glean all of our energy from our sun through some form of photosynthesis. But that is not how evolution played the cards. In the end, it played like this: some lifeforms get their energy and sustenance from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy, some get it from lifeforms that get their energy from lifeforms that get their energy from solar energy. Seems like there is a theme here, eh?Now you seem to be selling meat as a pitch. That's not what I was after. But while we're at it, this characterization is flawed.

We get our energy from macronutrients--carbohydrates, proteins, and fats (alcohols also contribute). But the main concerns, as I understand them, are with micronutrients--things we need to keep in good health.
Meat is a high energy, high nutrient energy source to which we are 'partially' adapted. Yes, one can eschew it for purely vegetarian sources. But it is at the cost of requiring a very regimented and calculated diet which includes fruits, vegetables, beans in proper proportions. The cliched phrase "Man cannot live by bread alone" rings in my head. One can do so but at the cost of proper nutrition. And one can even attain proper nutrition with a purely vegetarian diet but at the cost of making it an all-consuming ritual. Why must people deny reality in order to feel good about themselves?
Well, I'm not a vegetarian myself; in practice, my diet's described by the word pescetarian. But the reason why I do it is for my health!

But don't misread this. I'm not promoting pescetarianism for health reasons. People generally have different health needs. I have particular needs which drive my diet. Nevertheless, I'm the same brand of critter the rest you guys are, so in spite of my particular needs I have the same general ones.

But I also don't want people to be scared off of such diets. My diet works very well, and the alternative would be medications, and it's not the huge burden that you're making it out to be. Recently I've been avoiding the meats for, and you're going to love this reason... variety! (The meats are technically "allowed" by the diet, not required).

Redtail

27th December 2009, 01:12 AM

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/27/129063784292083557.jpg

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 01:50 AM

So what? An argument from popularity is a logical fallacy. Deal with it

How do you arrive at the conclusion that ethical reasons for vegetarianism constitute an "argument from popularity"?

Bikewer

27th December 2009, 06:23 AM

In his book Good To Eat:
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Eat-Riddles-Food-Culture/dp/1577660153/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261923262&sr=8-1
Anthropologist Marvin Harris explores some of this thinking. (In addition to many others)

Harris points out that most societies around the world that live on a vegetarian diet do so out of poverty rather than notions of ethics or nutrition. Given the chance to eat meat, they do.
He quotes Soviet premier Gorbachev as saying "If I could put two kilos of meat on the average Russian table per week, we wouldn't have any unrest..."
A recent NPR report on the rising financial condition of the average Chinese citizen featured interviews with previously dirt-poor farmers who said that previously they could not afford meat at all, but now they can have it weekly or even more often...They consider this a huge improvement.

Meat is a nutritionally-rich and compact food that provides complete proteins and other needed nutrients. Replacing all this with a vegetarian diet can certainly be done, but it requires a large amount of differing plant foods and considerable knowledge and preparation time.
Something only available to wealthy nations with a huge agricultural sector, and those involved enough to do the work.

Factory-scale livestock production causes many problems, both with waste and pollution and also with the consumption of large amounts of plant foods that could be better used... The whole sector could well be improved and done more efficiently.
Still, I don't think the Western world is going to abandon their pork chops and hamburgers any time soon.

PixyMisa

27th December 2009, 06:35 AM

Sheep (to pick one tasty example) are actually less intelligent than most vegetables, and only slightly smarter than gravy. I have few qualms about eating them.

jadey

27th December 2009, 07:06 AM

I don't see how eating meat could be considered immoral/unethical. No animal can survive without killing things. I will admit that over-consuming or wasting animal products could be considered unethical, as could there domestic treatment.

yy2bggggs

27th December 2009, 08:12 AM

No animal can survive without killing things.Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).

Hux

27th December 2009, 08:13 AM

I have a big, hypocritical problem with animals suffering on my behalf.

On the other hand, I would kill for Sweet & Sour Spareribs.

Hux

27th December 2009, 08:15 AM

Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).

Very few animals are dedicated scavengers or dedicated hunters. They are opportunistic for the most part. There is of course Herbivores - unless you stretch the meaning of killing plants.

beeksc1

27th December 2009, 08:23 AM

For me, it's just a personal food preference.
...
I find it hard to justify vegetarianism on any significant moral grounds, as well. Meat eating is part of the heritage of human dietary evolution. As it is for much of the animal world, at large. And, killing an animal for food, in order to survive in a realm where one would otherwise perish, is hardly immoral.

For the most part, I also look at it as a personal food preference. But a person in the Western world usually would eat a chicken or cow, but not eat a cat or a dog.

Where is the fine line?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5s5qGg01nE

Humorous… Cows with Guns satire on YouTube

Personally I think we eat a little too much meat (especially red meat) in our society...
Athon

...
As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)

Evolutionarily speaking, humans have eaten meat because it is a great source of highly concentrated protein (amino acids). In the hunting and gathering days of humanity, sometimes a tribe or group would be unable to eat for a couple of days or even a week; that is, the meat the tribal group ate the preceding week proved very beneficial to their survival.

Another point that you might have been hinting at is that meat can be salted and kept for a latter time; vegetables and fruits are without this capability. Salted meat was used as a stored food.

In industrialized lands, these two lines of reasoning no longer hold the water they once did. We have access to fresh produce everyday.

I happen to think that it's entirely possible to eat a perfectly healthy vegetarian diet. I know plenty of people who do.

Perhaps, one day you will curb your meat consumption; but, if not, it is your choice.

...
Factory-scale livestock production causes many problems, both with waste and pollution and also with the consumption of large amounts of plant foods that could be better used... The whole sector could well be improved and done more efficiently.
Still, I don't think the Western world is going to abandon their pork chops and hamburgers any time soon.

Exactly, the problem of eating meat is how it arrives to your plate.

To any meat-eating individuals, when is the last time you snapped a chicken’s neck or slaughtered a cow? To the people raising their own livestock, killing, preparing, and cooking their meat, it seems there is no ethical and/or philosophical dilemma here.

The problem arises when consumers rely on corporations to raise and kill the animals. The conditions are appalling.

Has anyone viewed the documentary film Food Inc.? I have not; but, I know what it covers. It documents the corporate take-over of the local-owned, family farms.

The problem is not eating the meat; the problem arises with regard to how the meat ends up on a person’s plate.

I encourage people to be self-reliant, raise their own livestock, and use some for food, if they so choose; personally, I would not kill animals I raised myself. But, if you do not raise and kill the meat you eat, think about what kind of industry you are supporting.

We cannot really go totally off-the-grid; yet, there are certain steps we can take to become more self-reliant. Growing your own food is a good start.

Walrus32

27th December 2009, 08:25 AM

Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).

How true. I often scavenge the meat counter at the local supermarket.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 08:30 AM

For the most part, I also look at it as a personal food preference. But a person in the Western world usually would eat a chicken or cow, but not eat a cat or a dog.

Where is the fine line? You answered your own question. It is a preference. In the East, they eat cats and dogs. In some parts of the world, they eat monkeys.

Exactly, the problem of eating meat is how it arrives to your plate.

To any meat-eating individuals, when is the last time you snapped a chicken’s neck or slaughtered a cow? To the people raising their own livestock, killing, preparing, and cooking their meat, it seems there is no ethical and/or philosophical dilemma here. Why not? Is squeamishness the only ethical issue being discussed here?
I'd kill a cow and butcher it without any problem.

The problem arises when consumers rely on corporations to raise and kill the animals. The conditions are appalling. Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion. Having better conditions and killing an animal without suffering what matters. A large family owned battery farm is no more unethical than a corporation.

The problem is not eating the meat; the problem arises with regard to how the meat ends up on a person’s plate.

I encourage people to be self-reliant, raise their own livestock, and use some for food, if they so choose; personally, I would not kill animals I raised myself. But, if you do not raise and kill the meat you eat, think about what kind of industry you are supporting. No. That is nonsense. Personally raising lifestock is inefficient and Appeals to Emotion is not a valid argument.
We cannot really go totally off-the-grid; yet, there are certain steps we can take to become more self-reliant. Growing your own food is a good start.No. It isn't. I'll let the professional farmers and butchers do it more efficiently.

dio

27th December 2009, 09:33 AM

I encourage people to be self-reliant, raise their own livestock[...]

Unrealistic. You're envisaging some sort of idyllic utopia.
This is not how it works. Not with the current levels of human population.
We became specialized in our own fields (we had to). I get paid for my contribution to whatever service my company is providing, and I pay for whatever services I need. I can't teach my kids university level material. I can't cure diseases. I can't grow/butcher cows. I pay other people to do these for me.

Drudgewire

27th December 2009, 09:45 AM

Exactly, the problem of eating meat is how it arrives to your plate.

To any meat-eating individuals, when is the last time you snapped a chicken’s neck or slaughtered a cow? To the people raising their own livestock, killing, preparing, and cooking their meat, it seems there is no ethical and/or philosophical dilemma here.

Oh goody, the old "you're not getting your hands bloody" mantra. Sorry but to those of us who didn't get too close to the talking Disney characters, this is akin to "you shouldn't have surgery if you aren't willing to cut yourself open."

And yeah, I've spent many a day on my grandfather's farm and hunted everything from duck to deer, so if it's somehow considered hypocritical to not be willing to kill animals in order to eat them you can throw away my paperwork. :cool:

beeksc1

27th December 2009, 09:46 AM

...
Is squeamishness the only ethical issue being discussed here? I'd kill a cow and butcher it without any problem.

Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion. Having better conditions and killing an animal without suffering what matters. A large family owned battery farm is no more unethical than a corporation.

No. That is nonsense. Personally raising livestock is inefficient and Appeals to Emotion is not a valid argument.
No. It isn't. I'll let the professional farmers and butchers do it more efficiently.

Squeamishness is not the ethical decision being discussed here. You said you would kill a cow. Have you ever done this?

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised. Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals? And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid.
It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live.

Unrealistic. You're envisaging some sort of idyllic utopia. This is not how it works. Not with the current levels of human population. We became specialized in our own fields (we had to). I get paid for my contribution to whatever service my company is providing, and I pay for whatever services I need. I can't teach my kids university level material. I can't cure diseases. I can't grow/butcher cows. I pay other people to do these for me.

Wow, you sound so disempowered and weak. You do not have to feel so helpless. Try to let go of your conditioning and empower yourself.

Growing your own food is common sense, not an idealistic view of the world. And you are so wrong about ‘I can’t, I can’t…’; you can, you just have been mislead to believe you cannot.

I can teach students at the University level. I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier. I can grow my own food. And so can you, if you actualize your full potential.

Drudgewire

27th December 2009, 09:53 AM

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised. Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals?

Oh, so corporations AND CITIES are the problem. :rolleyes:

RoboTimbo

27th December 2009, 10:05 AM

Squeamishness is not the ethical decision being discussed here. You said you would kill a cow. Have you ever done this?

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised. Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals? And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid.
It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live.

Wow, you sound so disempowered and weak. You do not have to feel so helpless. Try to let go of your conditioning and empower yourself.

Growing your own food is common sense, not an idealistic view of the world. And you are so wrong about ‘I can’t, I can’t…’; you can, you just have been mislead to believe you cannot.

I can teach students at the University level. I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier. I can grow my own food. And so can you, if you actualize your full potential.

I would prefer paximperium to reduce the fracture in my broken arm than do it myself, regardless of how actualized my full potential is. I can't build a car as easily as I can buy one nor can I make a watch or a laptop. Of course we specialize and depend on others for their specialties. That's the way functional, successful societies have evolved.

Sometimes I do self diagnose and treat when it's something I feel confident in treating, like a headache. I can change the battery in my watch and rotate the tires on my car. I have lived on a farm and butchered animals. For every individual or family to raise their own livestock for personal comsumption is inefficient. Think of the residents of a large apartment complex trying to do that!

So, is your OP about vegetarianism vs. omnivorism or is it about utopian societies?

PixyMisa

27th December 2009, 10:12 AM

Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).
Also many parasites.

dio

27th December 2009, 10:15 AM

I can teach students at the University level.
How many disciplines?

I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier.
I think I'll still pay trained certified professionals for any health issues, thank you.

I can grow my own food.
I have no doubt you can. But you see, for some of us that activity is not really appealing. I'll stick with paying other people to do the dirty/smelly jobs for me.

Red3

27th December 2009, 10:17 AM

Unrealistic. You're envisaging some sort of idyllic utopia.
This is not how it works. Not with the current levels of human population.
We became specialized in our own fields (we had to). I get paid for my contribution to whatever service my company is providing, and I pay for whatever services I need. I can't teach my kids university level material. I can't cure diseases. I can't grow/butcher cows. I pay other people to do these for me.

Exactly. And where's the land to do it? As you said, at the current population rate this is nothing more than idealism. Although, making people grow and breed their own food might solve the population problem, because most would starve to death trying!

I tried vegetarianism for a while and it didn't suit me or seem logical really when I thought about it. The argument shouldn't be no meat vs meat, but too much meat vs some meat. The leguminati (heehee, i just though of that) have hijacked the issue of unbalanced diets and used it for their own ends. Too much meat is the issue, not meat itself. Their is a lot of shoddy/dishonest/downright woo information surrounding vegetarianism & veganism.

beeksc1

27th December 2009, 10:33 AM

Of course we specialize and depend on others for their specialties. That's the way functional, successful societies have evolved.

For every individual or family to raise their own livestock for personal comsumption is inefficient. Think of the residents of a large apartment complex trying to do that!

So, is your OP about vegetarianism vs. omnivorism or is it about utopian societies?

I agree, we live in a co-dependent society; but, to say it is inefficient to raise and/or grow our own food is just a result of both intense indoctrination and classical conditioning. Just because we have to work forty hours a week to live how we want to live does not mean it is inefficient to become self (and communally) reliant. It might be much work to grow fruits, vegetables, and mushrooms; but, when we do not have to work so much outside of the home, it will not seem like so much work.

How many disciplines?

In the fields I am specialized in.

I think I'll still pay trained certified professionals for any health issues, thank you.

Not a bad idea.

I have no doubt you can. But you see, for some of us that activity is not really appealing. I'll stick with paying other people to do the dirty/smelly jobs for me.

Okay. But your perspective just sounds like one of lifelong conditioning.

The argument shouldn't be no meat vs meat, but too much meat vs some meat. The leguminati (heehee, i just though of that) have hijacked the issue of unbalanced diets and used it for their own ends. Too much meat is the issue, not meat itself.

As you might be on to something, can you please explain what you mean by the issue has been hijacked?

Regarding the too much meat and conscious portions of meat, I do not know if that is true; but, it seems reasonable.

Red3

27th December 2009, 10:47 AM

As you might be on to something, can you please explain what you mean by the issue has been hijacked?

Regarding the too much meat and conscious portions of meat, I do not know if that is true; but, it seems reasonable.

I mean by hijacking that some vegetarian groups skew the argument to look like meat itself causes health problems when in actual fact it's people's lack of concern for their own well being that's the problem. People are greedy and the pro animal groups are taking responsibility away from the individual and making a scapegoat out of a product to suit their own personal agenda.

TimCallahan

27th December 2009, 11:08 AM

For about a decade, I was an ovo-lacto-vegetarian. I based my diet on Frances Morre Lappe's Diet For a Small Planet. Eggs, it turns out, have a ratio of the eight essential amino acids most compatible with human chemistry. Dairy products are a close second, followed by various meats. The vegetarianism espoused in Diet For a Small Planet involved balancing grains and legumes, which, when combined in a single meal, give the necessary balance of essential amino acids.

Whie I am no longer an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, i do still rely on a mix of protein sources. For example, I frequently make burritos, using brown rice, refried beans and cheese as the main protien sources. Sometimes I add chicken.

I can't say I see anything wrong with eating an animal that humans have bred, raised, fed and potected. Ethically, I feel farm animals should be well treated and, if butchered, given a quick, painless death. For all sorts of environmental and health concerns, we ought to consider reducing our meat intake.

All that said, I have to point out that, when it comes to smug self-righteousness, snotty vegans are hard to beat. Vegans are complete vegetarians - no dairy of eggs allowed. Of course, many are not snotty. However, those who are tempt me into trying "long pig."

One thing we might want to consider is the posibility that, through genetic engineering, we might eventually be able to grow the equvalent of beef as mirobial colonies in a vat. That would circumvent th ethics problem of killing a sentient animal.

dio

27th December 2009, 11:16 AM

Okay. But your perspective just sounds like one of lifelong conditioning.

Lifelong conditioning to dislike hard physical labor* and excrement smell?

Sounds more like evolutionary conditioning to me.

*- I must confess I have no idea how much physical labor is involved in food production these days. In large farms it must be mainly mechanized. In "self-reliant" operations however it must be considerable.

beeksc1

27th December 2009, 11:32 AM

Lifelong conditioning to dislike hard physical labor* and excrement smell?
Sounds more like evolutionary conditioning to me.

Okay. I will just say thank goodness everyone does not share your perspective.

I mean by hijacking that some vegetarian groups skew the argument to look like meat itself causes health problems when in actual fact it's people's lack of concern for their own well being that's the problem. People are greedy and the pro animal groups are taking responsibility away from the individual and making a scapegoat out of a product to suit their own personal agenda.

Thank you for your constructive input. In most ways, I agree with where you are coming from. I am all for personal responsibility; nonetheless, the effects produced by corporations and their assembly-line production of farm animals is another big problem.

For all sorts of environmental and health concerns, we ought to consider reducing our meat intake.

six7s

27th December 2009, 11:35 AM

How do you arrive at the conclusion that ethical reasons for vegetarianism constitute an "argument from popularity"?By acknowledging that 'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'

Cavemonster

27th December 2009, 11:46 AM

beeksc1,

I live in a city. It is illegal to keep chickens here, but even if it wasn't, space is fairly expensive and hard to come by.

In addition to that, I love the work I do. I like gardening, but I'd rather spend my time building my career. You say that people who grow their own food can then work less, but most jobs don't have that kind of flexibility. The hours you work are the hours you work to keep the job. And you can't suggest that it would be at all easy to shop around for a flexible job doing what you love, not in this market.

We do grow a little of the food we eat, but for most people who have anything invested in the work they do, anything more than a little veggy gardening isn't at all realistic.

Technically, I could do everything from scratch and weave my own clothes, but that would mean displacing all the things I do now that are so important to me. We are lucky to live in a society with that kind of choice, and yes, someone who wants to can very well live to a high degree of self sufficiency, but that's a full-time job and thensome.

beeksc1

27th December 2009, 12:20 PM

beeksc1,
And you can't suggest that it would be at all easy to shop around for a flexible job doing what you love, not in this market.

Agreed.

We do grow a little of the food we eat, but for most people who have anything invested in the work they do, anything more than a little veggy gardening isn't at all realistic.

Reasonable assumption.

But what kind of society have we gotten ourselves into if we do not have enough time to grow our own food? This is a modern phenomenon.

Technically, I could do everything from scratch and weave my own clothes, but that would mean displacing all the things I do now that are so important to me. We are lucky to live in a society with that kind of choice, and yes, someone who wants to can very well live to a high degree of self sufficiency, but that's a full-time job and thensome.

I guess what it comes down to is whether this endeavor or that one is meaningful or important to a person. My career path is very important to me; yet, I want to know how to grow (at least some of) my food for my family. These two goals coexist with each other.

Hey CaveMonster, thank you for the level-headed approach. I am always searching for commonalities.

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 12:24 PM

Bacon!

Sorry, but it had to be said. :)

commandlinegamer

27th December 2009, 12:42 PM

Bacon!Sorry, but it had to be said. :)

I think the above is the Godwin equivalent for a vegetarian thread.

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 12:43 PM

By acknowledging that 'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'

Well, in this case it is hardly the majority who find ethical issues with meat-eating, and indeed we tend to find that moral reformers are a tiny minority, regardless of the issue and/or the veracity of their case.

But if we grant "'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'", and therefore a logical fallacy, then we have no moral grounds for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, murder, the crimes of religions or of their gods, the holocaust, and SPAM. You're not merely cutting off an argument put forward by vegetarians, you are cutting off all moral discourse.

Which not only seems to me to be counter-productive, but to rest on a crude understanding of ethics. And that is the case even if we reject out of hand any form of objective morality.

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 12:53 PM

Bacon!

Sorry, but it had to be said. :)

I can't post links yet, so may I suggest that you try Googling for the "Pork" music-video at Weebl's Stuff. ;)

six7s

27th December 2009, 01:08 PM

But if we grant "'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'", and therefore a logical fallacy, then we have no moral grounds for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, murder, the crimes of religions or of their gods, the holocaust, and SPAM.

No

I am merely implying that it is a fallacy to base a stance on the grounds of 'group think'

Furcifer

27th December 2009, 01:35 PM

I was a vegetarian, it was good, I learned a lot about proper nutrition and diet because of it.

It wasn't for me. I like a good bacon cheeseburger once and a while too.

I'm not particularly fond of the "Meat is murder" camp, nor am I fond of the "What no meat, no way!" camp.

There's a happy medium where you eat meat and respect a persons choice not to do so. Being preachy either way is just silly.

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 01:44 PM

No

I am merely implying that it is a fallacy to base a stance on the grounds of 'group think'

I'm sure that I just can follow your argument. Firstly, you dismissed "ethics" as a case for vegetarianism on grounds of it being an "argument from popularity", and when pressed for details, you justified this dismissal on grounds that ethics equate with group-think.

As far as I can see, there are two interpretations of your claims. One is that ethics in general is group-think, which carries the implications I noted previous, and a second is that the ethical reasons for vegetarianism constitute group-think, a claim which you for which have provided no evidence. Am I to understand that what you meant fell under the second interpretation?

If that is the case, then what do you base that assertion on? And how do you differentiate between ethical arguments for vegetarianism and other ethical arguments, for instance against the evils I mentioned?

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 01:51 PM

I think the above is the Godwin equivalent for a vegetarian thread.

The OP asked for arguments for and against vegetarianism.

Speaking only for myself, I can think of no more persuasive argument against vegetarianism than the existence of bacon.

There are many subtexts to this statement, and some of them have already been pursued in this thread, but it really is that simple.

Vegetarians are welcome to respond with

Textured Vegetable Protein

but that just doesn't have the same (if you'll excuse the expression) visceral impact.

Malerin

27th December 2009, 01:58 PM

Eat meat (and lots of it). There aren't enough cows in the world.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 02:21 PM

Squeamishness is not the ethical decision being discussed here. You said you would kill a cow. Have you ever done this?
Nope. I've killed other things.

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised. No. Money is the significant factor. It is irrelevant if it is done by a corporation, a small family farm or a single person who beats his pig with a stick daily.

Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals? Thousands of years. Thousands of years of universal famine, malnutrition and famine.

And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid. I'm sorry. Was making a claim by fiat suppose to magic away the fact that all you have is an Appeal to Emotion as the basis for your argument?

It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live. No. It is the laws, society and good old fashion cash that does so. I'm glad the law prevents idiots from having a cow in the backyard and that someone who knows what they are doing can take care of the cow for me.

Growing your own food is common sense, not an idealistic view of the world. And you are so wrong about ‘I can’t, I can’t…’; you can, you just have been mislead to believe you cannot. I can. I just don't want to. I'd leave it to the professionals as oppose to the amateurs.
I can teach students at the University level. I don't believe you at all. You BELIEVE you can. I think you have no idea about your own lack of skills. What are your qualifications in teaching and academics?

I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier. I don't believe you either. What are your qualifications?
I can grow my own food. Sure. I believe you. Can you grow ALL your food?

NewtonTrino

27th December 2009, 02:26 PM

I eat meat because it's tasty.

I have no interest in being a farmer even part time.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 02:26 PM

I agree, we live in a co-dependent society; but, to say it is inefficient to raise and/or grow our own food is just a result of both intense indoctrination and classical conditioning. No. Do you have even a shred of evidence to support this claim at all? Please provide a study to show the viability of backyard farming.
Just because we have to work forty hours a week to live how we want to live does not mean it is inefficient to become self (and communally) reliant. It might be much work to grow fruits, vegetables, and mushrooms; but, when we do not have to work so much outside of the home, it will not seem like so much work. No. I enjoy my work and have no interest in gardening. In fact the vast majority of people have no interest in doing so.

In the fields I am specialized in. Really? What are they? What is your training or am I suppose to take your word that you can just magically teach university students just because you say so?
Okay. But your perspective just sounds like one of lifelong conditioning. As oppose to your claims by fiat?

six7s

27th December 2009, 02:44 PM

As far as I can see, there are two interpretations of your claims. One is that ethics in general is group-think,Yes

which carries the implications I noted previous,No

and a second is that the ethical reasons for vegetarianism constitute group-think, a claim which you for which have provided no evidence. Am I to understand that what you meant fell under the second interpretation?No

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 02:45 PM

I eat meat because it's tasty.

I have no interest in being a farmer even part time.

That's what I said. I just said it in one word.

Brevity apparently is an omnivore Godwin.

NewtonTrino

27th December 2009, 02:48 PM

I would prefer a prime porterhouse to bacon.

Bacon bacon bacon. Hmm. Now I'm hungry.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 02:48 PM

That's what I said. I just said it in one word.

Brevity apparently is an omnivore Godwin.
I have several valid arguments for vegetarianism as opposed to the OP's nonsense.

skeptsci

27th December 2009, 02:58 PM

Vegetarianism is the practice of following a diet based on plant-based foods including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, shellfish, or products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived gelatin and rennet.

In this forum, I viewed the poll "Are you vegetarian?" and the results indicated that about 11% of the voters on this forum do not consume meat as a part of their diet; but, it is likely that that figure will only rise in the future.

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
1. Health, nutrition
2. Ethics
3. Self-reliance

Cases supporting a carnivorous diet:
1. Freedom

Is it ethical, morally-sound for an individual to eat meat on a regular basis?
Should a person eat meat or not?

Your basic assumptions are wrong. Freedom is not the only support for meat eating. It is easy to prove for only few hundred years ago freedom was not accepted as a universal human right and still people ate meat. The main reason for meat eating is natural good nourishment. This is also easy to prove because if you are a strict vegetarian you have to add to your diet very specific elements to support the nutrition value you get from your food otherwise your health condition is going to deteriorate for sure. This is not the case with meat eaters. Moreover, if you want to behave naturally, eat what nature prepared you for eating (in the human species case: omnivore= "eats everything"). This is not a matter of choice but of evolution. A cow doesn't have the choice of eating meat as it does not have the anatomical-biochemical set up for utilizing it. And to relate to item 2 in your first group above, why is hunting birds on a backpacking trip not ethical?
So, why act unnaturally and refrain from eating meat?! – I wonder.

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 03:01 PM

Yes

Why doesn't it carry those implications? Why is it a fallacy to appeal to ethics in the case of vegetarianism, but not with regards to the examples I gave? Or is there some other difference that I have failed to grasp? Please, explain your reasoning.

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 03:03 PM

I have several valid arguments for vegetarianism as opposed to the OP's nonsense.

There are arguments for moderation in a diet including meat which I am in full agreement with, and always have been. Arguments which insist that everyone practice a completely exclusionary diet leave me unimpressed. I'd be very surprised if you have any which I am unfamiliar with.

jadey

27th December 2009, 03:04 PM

Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).

Ooops :o All animals eat other (previously) living things.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 03:09 PM

There are arguments for moderation in a diet including meat which I am in full agreement with, and always have been. Arguments which insist that everyone practice a completely exclusionary diet leave me unimpressed. I'd be very surprised if you have any which I am unfamiliar with.
Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.

yy2bggggs

27th December 2009, 03:13 PM

Ooops :o All animals eat other (previously) living things.
You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)

jadey

27th December 2009, 03:17 PM

You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?

Cavemonster

27th December 2009, 03:20 PM

I think organic, vegetarian, and yes, even Kosher dietary restrictions have one advantage that some people may count as a disadvantage.

They all force you to be more thoughtful about the food you put into your body. Yes, of course we could be more thoguhtful without buying into any system... theoretically. But myself personally, and many people I know, we're busy folks, we're sometimes spacey and find it hard to be 100% intellectually engaged in everything at all times. I'm not a vegetarian now, but when I have been, I ate better then I do now, and actually spent less money. I'm not a localvore, and I don't believe in the hype around organic, but my local, organic farm where I get my CSA has incredibly tasty heirloom veggies, far cheaper and fresher than the grocery store.

Vegetarianism, and a lot of other dogmatic approaches to diet are often a good shortcut to eating better.

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 03:30 PM

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 03:33 PM

Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.

As I said. There is content in what you mention which supports a diet with moderate meat consumption, no convincing arguments that such moderation should be taken to an extreme of total exclusion, and nothing which is not part of the standard repertoire.

Your second paragraph can be summed up easily.

Bacon.

For those who are nuance challenged, there is not a TVP analog which is a satisfactory replacement.

There are TVP efforts to duplicate meat products which in and of themselves are good, even tasty. I use, cook, enjoy, and often recommend some of them. But in the final regard they are not equal replacements.

Show me a TVP aged prime rib roast that I can cook rare, carve, and watch the bloody meat juices drip into the Yorkshire Pudding I've made in the pan around the still cooking roast. Then we'll talk.

Show me a side of TVP bacon I can carve slices from to my own taste in thickness and prepare and serve without anyone being able to tell the difference. Then we'll talk.

I'm going to have to stop. This is making me hungry, and there are leftovers to be dealt with.

six7s

27th December 2009, 03:48 PM

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
2. Ethics

But if we grant "'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'", and therefore a logical fallacy, then we have no moral grounds for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, murder, the crimes of religions or of their gods, the holocaust, and SPAM.

Why is it a fallacy to appeal to ethics in the case of vegetarianism, but not with regards to the examples I gave? Or is there some other difference that I have failed to grasp? Please, explain your reasoning.You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 03:52 PM

I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 03:55 PM

I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.
Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.

tsig

27th December 2009, 04:01 PM

http://i45.tinypic.com/34fe6xg.jpg

If we give cows the upper hand we're all DOOMED! :eek:

Indeed:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns

ETA: I see Lionking did it first :(

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 04:15 PM

You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc

You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.

yy2bggggs

27th December 2009, 04:17 PM

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?
Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.

PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.

paximperium

27th December 2009, 04:23 PM

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing. I don't think killing to eat is wrong.

I think the suffering and causing pain part is wrong. I have no issue with a nice happy cow grazing in the fields and then killing it with no pain. I do have issue with keeping cows cooped up and having them suffer in tight filthy conditions.

But that's the only ethical issue that I even find a bit compelling.

tsig

27th December 2009, 04:23 PM

six7s

27th December 2009, 04:28 PM

You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.Please, re-read the pertinent part of the OP and get back to me if you can devise a way of making it anything other than a logical fallacy

TYIA :)

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 04:30 PM

Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.

Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)

Exzyleph

27th December 2009, 04:45 PM

paximperium

27th December 2009, 04:48 PM

Is there perchance anyone else who can explain to me the nature of six7s' argument? I am lost in his impenetrable reasoning, and unlike the Boy Scouts I have no Spam on me with which to stave away starvation.
I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.

six7s

27th December 2009, 04:49 PM

I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.So 'ethics' (as per the OP) makes sense to you? :confused:

Red3

27th December 2009, 04:50 PM

Thank you for your constructive input. In most ways, I agree with where you are coming from. I am all for personal responsibility; nonetheless, the effects produced by corporations and their assembly-line production of farm animals is another big problem.

I agree. But how would you feed the population of the earth? I myself am skeptical when it comes to the ethical standpoints of the big corps, but their ability to function within dubiously malleable ethical boundaries - in some respects - again comes from the species' apathy and unwillingness to take on the less pleasant jobs society asks of us. If someone's willing to take on the not very pleasant job of mass slaughter, then you have an ethical problem; do you leave them to it or call them for all their mistakes and moral blackspots? And if you do call them, what would be the repurcusions? The issue of whether to eat meat or not goes a lot deeper than health and ethics, it's a choice of survival for most folks. If you ask someone if they would raise, kill, prepare their own meat, the answer would be no; purely for the fact that they don't know how, and that it would risk theirs and their family's lives trying. Most anti meat people will not look at the issue objectively, and will more than likely have some woo belief about death - that seem to conveniently or callously miss the human equation - or some quasi-religious "enlightenment" ********. If you can think of a realistic, workable solution to end huge scale cattle farming and feed the world I'd be all for it (as I think it has environmental, ethical and health issues) but until then, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. We live in a f&*ked up time in the world where we have to settle for less than what's ideal. We can only expect small changes.

If the vegesquad want it their way - us all eating non animal foodstuffs - then they need to think about the question of human survival...A hell of a lot of people would die without meat/dairy, simple as that. The majority of this world have not the time, resources nor the know-how to sustain a healthy vegetarian diet.

Like I said earlier, the more important issue is supplying people with information about healthy diets and looking after themselves. We eat far too much meat & dairy and the rate of disease associated with it proves this. But imo vegetarianism, in this day and age would be a disaster (unless you advocate mass human deaths). Cutting down on consumption instead of creating "converts" is the answer for now.

Edit: The issue of self reliance is ludicrous; vegetarian or no, if I was stuck for food in the wilderness for example, the first thing i would look for is meat.

beeksc1, I noticed your "introduce yourself" post, where you mentioned consciousness studies; I was wondering what that entailed? And what do you think of Dean Radin? (off topic I know).

jadey

27th December 2009, 05:08 PM

Ooops :o All animals eat other (previously) living things.

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?

Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.

So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".

Okay. So would the following response/question be better?

I don't know of any animal that doesn't eat other (previously) living things. Are there some?

PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.

So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer? Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?

arthwollipot

27th December 2009, 05:59 PM

As usual vegetarianism is just another way to say holier-than-thou.It doesn't have to be. But some people seem to want to make it so.

yy2bggggs

27th December 2009, 06:46 PM

So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".
No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.
So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer?
The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.
Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?
Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).

Cimerian

27th December 2009, 06:48 PM

As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone? ;)

Well, the membranes of all your cells (and actually, of all cells we know) are made out of fat, the oily nice one. All structural cell components are mostly fat (lipids), proteins and some carbs (sorry, forgot the ribonucleic acid).

If you actually meant adipose tissue (cell the store cells) it is extremely useful to store energy. Fat has as nearly as twice energy as proteins or carbs, so if you want to store energy, fat is your choice. Of course I am talking about a world where you have to hunt or collect your food from the woods, and famine starvation is the rule.

Adipose tissue also holds our guts in place, and fills spaces in some joints (knee for example), so it is an important structural body component too.

Cold, definitely yes, great heat insulator and babies (and some adults too) have something called brown fat which actually produces heat from the fat.

thesyntaxera

27th December 2009, 08:23 PM

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 08:43 PM

<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed. Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.

I see no reason why the cessation of a practice for a handful of decades would make it that difficult for people to begin again should the need arise.

I think persons who immediately write...

...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

<snip>I think you're making assumptions without evidence.

thesyntaxera

27th December 2009, 09:12 PM

Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed.

Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.

Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.

Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.

I think you're making assumptions without evidence.

That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 09:22 PM

<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

<snip>

Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.

Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.

That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.

Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.

Wait. Shemp posted in this one, didn't he?

thesyntaxera

27th December 2009, 09:31 PM

Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.

Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.

quadraginta

27th December 2009, 09:53 PM

Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.

See? There's where I made my mistake. 'Cause when I quoted you as saying ...

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

... I made the silly mistake of thinking that I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted. Especially that itty bitty "any" part.

Certainly you can understand my confusion.

six7s

27th December 2009, 10:57 PM

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? Yes - although it's typically a weekly or fortnightly activity... and humanely killing poultry is as easy as a very, very easy thing

I actually catch a few fish, too

Fresh is best :)

jadey

28th December 2009, 06:53 AM

No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.

The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.

My position is that eating animals is not immoral/unethical. Therefore, killing them for that purpose is not immoral/unethical.

You question seems to be "assuming that it is immoral, which part is immoral, the killing or the eating (or both)"? Would that be a correct assessment?

Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).

Agreed. Animal behaviour is no justification for human behaviour.

If you look about the animal kingdom, you see that life feeds upon life; both animal and plant. It seems unfair, but it is certainly the way nature works and I am willing to accept that it is natural behaviour in humans. I realize that this is rather weak logic because there are other animal behaviours that I couldn't justify among humans.

If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.

Rasmus

28th December 2009, 07:23 AM

If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.

At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.

Drudgewire

28th December 2009, 07:34 AM

At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.

So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers (http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/barf.gif) I'll feel bad about eating meat.

Symbol

28th December 2009, 08:38 AM

The ethics thing.

There has been some comparison here between the eating habits of animals and humans, and I think that's quite shaky ground to use as a platform to argue for eating meat.

Yes, we are part of the animal kingdom, technically, but there is a reason that your animal neighbours living in the house next door aren't hyena or chicken families. We have a level of consciousness (yes I know, don't go there) and concern with ethics and improvement of human society generally, or our own localised societies, that has seen human society evolve for the better over time.

So ethics aren't absolutely "right or wrong" laws of the universe, but rather ways to be better animals at our current stage of animal development.

A simplistic example: in animal herds, like in some ancient human tribes, the elderly of the species are considered useless to the survival of herd or tribe, and left to die, or certainly not cared for. While in most 21st century societies we venerate the elderly, or at least try to increase their life spans, or keep them comfortable until they die.

So ethically (not absolute "right or wrong" ethics, but "best practice at being a human" ethics) when faced with a choice of "Mom and dad, you're old and useless now, go and live under a bridge, goodbye" or providing healthcare and love and continued respect and confirmation of shared memories, well, we tend to feel, collectively, that it's more ethical to do the latter.

The relevance to the discussion on killing other animals to eat is this: no, it's not technically unethical to eat another previously living animal, and in fact this extends to all living animals, so we can't rationally pronounce "wrong" about kittens casserole, roasted monkey, grilled dog, horse mince or other animals dishes that upset some Western sensibilities.

But at another level of ethics, let's call it being-better-humans-because-we-CAN ethics, that level at which we know not to leave our aging parents out in the snow to die, we have to debate whether it is truly necessary to kill to live, for us, right now, in whatever society we currently live.

I propose that for most of us here it's not necessary for our healthy survival, and any step towards reducing support of killing-for-food industries is a step in a more evolved direction.

Hux

28th December 2009, 08:46 AM

Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous :)

quadraginta

28th December 2009, 09:13 AM

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous :)

It's Monty Python's fault.

Rasmus

28th December 2009, 09:56 AM

So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers (http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/barf.gif) I'll feel bad about eating meat.

Yes, because we all know things are ethical no matter what, as long as they are fun.

Tiktaalik

28th December 2009, 10:21 AM

I eat meat, but after reading book like "The Omnivores Dilemma" I was forced to ask what may be a better question:

Is it ethical to herd animals into unsafe, dirty, unnatural conditions because it makes it easier for us to kill and eat them?

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? What about in a factory setting where you see 2000+ cattle per day getting a metal rod slammed into their skull, and their bodies dressed while the muscles are still twitching? Then there is the bush meat trade, and the tendency for some cultures to eat any kind of animal...like boiled alive kittens who have their skin flayed off while they still draw a breath.

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

I think persons who immediately write...

...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

You could argue that free range is more in line with nature and thus more acceptable(thats usually what I do), but in most cases free range means a shed with access to the outdoors that isn't always available depending on the needs of the animal farmer.

Yes, life feeds on life. So does that make all of our farming practices hunky dory because there is no easy or super rational/ethical explanation as to why we shouldn't be eating meat?

This is the crux of it for me.

Does our desire to eat things that taste good overwhelm the ethics of factory farming?

I am not a vegetarian. I occasionally eat chicken and fish, and even more occasionally turkey. I have not eaten beef, pork or lamb in more than 25 years. This was originally because of digestive problems, but the more I consider, given that 60 - 90% (depending on species) of American meat comes from factory farms where animals live in deplorable conditions for short and tortured lived, the less able I am to reconcile my desire for a chicken sandwich with what I have been taught, and accept, about living things.

If I was regularly able to get meat from a family farm where I could see that the animals lived reasonable-quality lives until slaughter, and where I could be assured that slaughter methods were as humane as possible, I would have no qualms about eating some meat. but I can't, even though I live in a rural ranching area.

As has been noted above, we're omnivores. That means we're quite capable of surviving on vegetable matter, not that we have to eat meat.

Add to this the production and pollution issues, and I'm grading closer and closer to complete vegetarianism, if not veganism.

Ambrosia

28th December 2009, 11:17 AM

If I was regularly able to get meat from a family farm where I could see that the animals lived reasonable-quality lives until slaughter, and where I could be assured that slaughter methods were as humane as possible, I would have no qualms about eating some meat. but I can't.

Oh yes you can. You just havent tried hard enough. (hint: mail order)

I'm grading closer and closer to complete vegetarianism, if not veganism.

That's a little like cutting your nose off to spite your face. (choosing complete veganism)

It's a lot harder to eat a balanced diet when you cut out any source of animal protein whatsoever, although it is certainly possible to eat a completely vegan/vegetarian diet without health issues, and if you prefer that, then fine, but you are missing out on a huge variety of food based on eggs and dairy produce and its trivially easy to find Eggs/Dairy in any supermarket that are well farmed. (generally they are the most expensive ones) I do find it odd that some vegetarians wont eat gelatine, (its made out of boiled up hooves and tendons!) but will wear leather, seeing as no animal is ever killed for gelatine, it's a by-product.

I do take issue with intensive farming techniques, there is no good reason to treat animals like dirt, ever. It's pretty straightforward though these days with the amount of information available to source well farmed food if you live in a 1st world country.

To go veggy or to eat meat is just a personal preferance, you pays yer monies you takes yer choice.

Oh and to the the emotion appealers, yes I have killed a cow, if it came down to me needing to survive, I'd kill and eat you, or I'd put up a dam good fight while you tried to kill and eat me.

Drudgewire

28th December 2009, 11:36 AM

Yes, because we all know things are ethical no matter what, as long as they are fun.

Just as we all know any lifestyle choice one personally disagrees with is inherently immoral.

Tiktaalik

28th December 2009, 12:23 PM

Oh yes you can. You just havent tried hard enough. (hint: mail order)

That's a little like cutting your nose off to spite your face. (choosing complete veganism)

It's a lot harder to eat a balanced diet when you cut out any source of animal protein whatsoever, although it is certainly possible to eat a completely vegan/vegetarian diet without health issues, and if you prefer that, then fine, but you are missing out on a huge variety of food based on eggs and dairy produce and its trivially easy to find Eggs/Dairy in any supermarket that are well farmed. (generally they are the most expensive ones) I do find it odd that some vegetarians wont eat gelatine, (its made out of boiled up hooves and tendons!) but will wear leather, seeing as no animal is ever killed for gelatine, it's a by-product.

I do take issue with intensive farming techniques, there is no good reason to treat animals like dirt, ever. It's pretty straightforward though these days with the amount of information available to source well farmed food if you live in a 1st world country.

To go veggy or to eat meat is just a personal preferance, you pays yer monies you takes yer choice.

Oh and to the the emotion appealers, yes I have killed a cow, if it came down to me needing to survive, I'd kill and eat you, or I'd put up a dam good fight while you tried to kill and eat me.

Not to get off topic, but I do not get reliable mail service, and mail ordering doesn't allow me to see the farm & process anyway. I do admit I'm not interested in going to that trouble & expense just so I can eat meat that I'm not overly interested in eating anyway. It's not hard to eat a balanced diet without meat, and it's not "trivially easy" to get organic dairy, at least not here. As I mentioned, I live in a rural area where I have limited access to shopping of any kind without a drive of several hours.

The point(s) being made here is that it's not just a personal preference; the action of choosing to eat factory-farmed meat has impacts on the rest of the planet, including, if you don't care about the animals themselves, human beings. These impacts come in the form of concentrated pollution sources.

ejk

28th December 2009, 12:38 PM

This is the crux of it for me.

Does our desire to eat things that taste good overwhelm the ethics of factory farming?

Me too.

I am not convinced that arguments about how humans are evolved to be omnivores fully address the ethical issues raised by dietary choices in modern industrialized societies. I have therefore, based on my personal ethical choices and values, chosen to minimize my consumption of animal products that have been produced with unnecessary and sometimes horrific suffering of the animals. Others may make different choices, but if your entire answer to the question is that meat is tasty and we evolved to eat it, I do not think you have seriously engaged with the ethical issues.

yy2bggggs

28th December 2009, 12:56 PM

My position is that eating animals is not immoral/unethical. Therefore, killing them for that purpose is not immoral/unethical.
I don't think that implication works. You can't go from "eating animals is not immoral" to "killing animals in order to eat them is not immoral".

Consider this. My position is that earning money is not immoral/unethical. Therefore, killing people for that purpose is not immoral/unethical. I know that sounds like an exaggeration, but the basic principle is there... if doing X isn't immoral/unethical, it doesn't follow that doing Y for reasons of X isn't immoral/unethical.
You question seems to be "assuming that it is immoral, which part is immoral, the killing or the eating (or both)"? Would that be a correct assessment?
No. First off, I haven't asked a question. Second, I'm not even offering a position. The only thing I'm doing is pointing out logical errors that I believe you're making, or that you could potentially be making.
If you look about the animal kingdom, you see that life feeds upon life; both animal and plant.Correct.
It seems unfair, but it is certainly the way nature works and I am willing to accept that it is natural behaviour in humans.Sure.
I realize that this is rather weak logic because there are other animal behaviours that I couldn't justify among humans.
Well, it's weak logic because the fact that it's natural, even for humans, doesn't in itself imply anything about whether it's ethical/immoral. It's natural for humans to worry about what is moral and immoral as well--in fact, the framework under which morality is defined is a human framework. And it's also natural for us to want to strive towards morality. We can't possibly do anything that is unnatural.
If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.
Others have addressed this point.

Drudgewire

28th December 2009, 01:04 PM

Others may make different choices, but if your entire answer to the question is that meat is tasty and we evolved to eat it, I do not think you have seriously engaged with the ethical issues.

Or we have engaged, pondered, weighed the ethical issues to hell and back and somehow arrived at a different outcome than you did because none of us are actually the universal arbitor of morality.

But that would be silly. :rolleyes:

Exzyleph

28th December 2009, 01:12 PM

Oh yes you can. You just havent tried hard enough. (hint: mail order)

That option is not available everywhere, nor affordable by everyone, and surely some people will object that it is inefficient in terms of energy expenditure to transport meat in this manner. Then it's probably easier to just avoid meat, as Tiktaalik notes. Surely vegetarians are allowed to be lazy. ;)

Rasmus

28th December 2009, 01:20 PM

Just as we all know any lifestyle choice one personally disagrees with is inherently immoral.

I never said eating meat was immoral, I only said at which point one would be required to stop if it was.

I am always surprised at how utterly irrational these discussions turn out. "It's tasty" or "we evolved that way" is no more reason to eat meat than "it feels good" or "monkeys do it, too" is a justification for rape.

It is entirely possible to live as a vegetarian; and it would be entirely possible to change our source of meat away from mammals to other animals - like insects, e.g. if it should be immoral to kill vertebrate.

The question is simply if we need a reason to eat met - I don't think we have one.

GlennB

28th December 2009, 01:24 PM

.... and it's not "trivially easy" to get organic dairy, at least not here. As I mentioned, I live in a rural area where I have limited access to shopping of any kind without a drive of several hours.

Why not keep chickens for eggs, and maybe a goat for milk? Then you can be sure of the provenance of those products.

Ambrosia

28th December 2009, 01:41 PM

Not to get off topic, but I do not get reliable mail service, and mail ordering doesn't allow me to see the farm & process anyway.

You could find potentially good farms and then take a trip to view them before getting a courier service to deliver their produce to you. You could keep your own animals and be dam sure of the quality of farming involved.

"I can't get that stuff here" is not the same as "I can't justify the expense and effort to get that here" :)

On the subject of synonyms "Organic" does not mean "well farmed" either [/nitpick]

It's not hard to eat a balanced diet without meat, No its not, I'm just saying that its orders of magnitude harder to eat a balanced diet if you choose complete veganism over a vegetarian diet that includes eggs/dairy.

the action of choosing to eat factory-farmed meat has impacts on the rest of the planet, including, if you don't care about the animals themselves, human beings. These impacts come in the form of concentrated pollution sources.

That hangs on how you define "factory farming"

Its entirely possible to raise animals using methods that compared to say 100 years ago are intensive, but dont cause the animals pain or suffering and allow them to exhibit natural behaviour. Farm animals are bred for the farm. Provided they are well cared for, and humanely slaughtered, I have no problem eating them.

I take issue with intensive industrialised farming practices, like raising chickens in dark barns where they dont have enough space to stretch their wings for example.

It is really personal choice though whether you choose to eat meat, or not.

Pollution is an issue whether you are growing potatoes or raising cattle.

I draw my line under badly treated animals, if you choose to draw your line elsewhere then thats your choice.

icerat

28th December 2009, 01:51 PM

My gf is a vegetarian and I'm a mostly vegetarian. I've spent much of the last decade studying and educating in nutrition and I've come to the conclusion that an optimal human diet has a small amount of meat in it. How much varies depending on individual metabolism, but it's basically very difficult for most people to get optimal nutrition from plant sources alone - possible, but very difficult. DHA (a form of omega-3) is in particular in short supply, but others (including myself!) may struggle with various b-vitamins, amino acids, and minerals like iron.

The problem, nutritionally, with modern meat eating diets is people eat way way too much of it. This has a dual effect - (a) they get too much saturated fat and too much of some animal proteins which have been linked to cancer (eg casein) (b) they eat fewer fruit and vegetables, missing out on all the necessary nutrients you'll find there.

As someone already pointed out, people with some kind of restricted diet tend, virtually by definition, to be more careful about what they eat and it's this aspect that can tend to lead to healthier diets rather than the restrictions per se.

Other considerations are ethical and environmental, which have been well discussed. I for one cannot abide by some of the habits of factory farming. They're not only cruel to the animals, they're also damaging to the nutritional quality for those that consume them. Of course the latter can (and does) apply to fruit & vegetables as well! When I do eat meat I try to purchase humanely farmed and killed meat and I encourage the meat eaters here to do the same. Ethical considerations aside you'll find it's usually healthier and tastier too! And since it's more expensive you might cut down on your overall consumption and eat more of fruit & veg as well :)

On a related note, the research into the lives and "awareness" of plants is getting pretty intriguing too. I recently read The Past Matters to Plants (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091222105439.htm) on ScienceDaily and it's fascinating how "intelligent" much plant behaviour appears to be. Personally I think it speaks more to how much of our behaviour may be "instinct" than it does to plant awareness, but it certainly adds some weight to the "tomatoes have a right to life too!" anti-vegetarian arguments.

Red3

28th December 2009, 01:53 PM

You could find potentially good farms and then take a trip to view them before getting a courier service to deliver their produce to you. You could keep your own animals and be dam sure of the quality of farming involved.

Who's got the time or know how or funds for those in reality?

ejk

28th December 2009, 02:17 PM

Or we have engaged, pondered, weighed the ethical issues to hell and back and somehow arrived at a different outcome than you did because none of us are actually the universal arbitor of morality.

But that would be silly. :rolleyes:

I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort. Nor do I mean to imply that people haven't weighed these issues. You may have thought it through and come to a different conclusion than I have; indeed, I expressly acknowledged that.

But some of the discussion in this thread has been very flippant and dismissive, as if there are no deeper issues to weigh. All I'm saying is that the line of reasoning expressed in some posts here does not sufficiently address all the relevant issues.

yy2bggggs

28th December 2009, 02:25 PM

It is entirely possible to live as a vegetarian; and it would be entirely possible to change our source of meat away from mammals to other animals - like insects, e.g. if it should be immoral to kill vertebrate.

The question is simply if we need a reason to eat met - I don't think we have one.
Uhm... no. I don't buy that argument. This is essentially ignoring the costs. Somewhere along the lines both burden and sustainability comes into play.

I agree that "it tastes good" isn't an argument for the morality. "We evolved that way" isn't either, but it's a legitimate factor, and should be weighed in.

AkuManiMani

28th December 2009, 02:49 PM

Is it ethical, morally-sound for an individual to eat meat on a regular basis?
Should a person eat meat or not?

All the animals I've eaten were dead long before I got to them. It's better their nutrients went toward keeping me alive than leaving them to rot.

armageddonman

28th December 2009, 02:57 PM

Why is it that all discussion about vegetarism contain ad-hominems ("snotty vegetarians") or ridicule ("won't someone think of the tomatoes")?

How come, so many meat eaters are always so defensive/agressive when trying to justify their meat-eating habits?

I would prefer if people just aknowledged that this is what they are used to, don't want to consider being wrong and that they don't care about (most) non-human animals.

quadraginta

28th December 2009, 03:09 PM

novaphile

28th December 2009, 05:56 PM

Animal behaviour is no justification for human behaviour.

Jadey,

I may be reading something into your statement here that you're not saying, but I can't see any valid reason for seeing humans as something different to any other kind of animal.

Sure, we have intelligence, but so do lots of other animals.

We build structures, but so do lots of other animals.

We cooperate, but so do lots of other animals.

etc.

Do you have a particular reason for seeing humans as something other than a class of animal?

TimCallahan

28th December 2009, 07:28 PM

I've got an idea: The only meat we should eat is the flesh of snotty vegans!

Furcifer

28th December 2009, 07:58 PM

My gf is a vegetarian and I'm a mostly vegetarian.

What a coincidence. ;)

@ambrosia- I see you corrected yourself and pointed out a vegan diet is much harder to balance than a vegetarian diet. I noted several other posts that kinda made the suggestion that a vegetarian diet is harder to balance than one with meat. I'd just like to point out that in my personal experience a vegetarian diet was much easier to balance. I'd say my weight was much more steady, as were my energy levels.

yy2bggggs

28th December 2009, 08:52 PM

Jadey,

I may be reading something into your statement here that you're not saying,
I agree. You may be reading something into Jadey's statement.

Ambrosia

28th December 2009, 10:04 PM

@ambrosia- I see you corrected yourself and pointed out a vegan diet is much harder to balance than a vegetarian diet. I noted several other posts that kinda made the suggestion that a vegetarian diet is harder to balance than one with meat. I'd just like to point out that in my personal experience a vegetarian diet was much easier to balance. I'd say my weight was much more steady, as were my energy levels.

More clarified than corrected but...

I find it interesting that you found a diet with less options in it easier to live with than one with more options. Then you switched back. Did you find that after reverting back to eating meat it was still easy to balance your diet, or did it get harder again?

Rasmus

29th December 2009, 06:04 AM

Uhm... no. I don't buy that argument. This is essentially ignoring the costs. Somewhere along the lines both burden and sustainability comes into play.

What are the costs of keeping rape illegal? Or murder? Do we really care?

I agree that "it tastes good" isn't an argument for the morality. "We evolved that way" isn't either, but it's a legitimate factor, and should be weighed in.

Rape may feel good. How strongly should that be weighted in?

quadraginta

29th December 2009, 07:12 AM

What are the costs of keeping rape illegal? Or murder? Do we really care?

Rape may feel good. How strongly should that be weighted in?

If you are equating the ethics of including meat in a diet with rape and murder, and you don't understand why people have trouble engaging in rational conversation on the subject with you, then there is really no hope of communication.

Fanaticism cannot be reasoned with. This is the sort of extremism that gives sane vegetarians a bad name.

yy2bggggs

29th December 2009, 07:29 AM

What are the costs of keeping rape illegal? Or murder? Do we really care?Why are you posting on the internet? There are starving kids in Africa. For that matter, why is your feeble old neighbor crocheting? There are starving kids in Africa. Shouldn't the both of you be spending all of your spare time trying to feed the starving kids in Africa?
Rape may feel good. How strongly should that be weighted in?
Non-sequitur and straw man. That rape might feel good has nothing to do with burden or sustainability.

What you said in post #128 is that since it's possible, for example, it's possible for you to do more to help starving kids in Africa, then you need to find a specific reason to eat meat in order to do so. So what is your specific reason not to spend all of your spare time trying to feed the starving kids in Africa? And is there a limit to how much you should expend of yourself to rectify the situation? If not, does that mean there's no limit as to how much you should expect of your old lady neighbor for her to rectify the situation?

ETA:

My point is that at some point burden and sustainability come into play, and it's not sufficient to establish merely that it's possible. You seem to have latched onto the fact that I was disagreeing with your argument, and as a result imagined that I was claiming that rape's feeling good was a factor, rather than address the particular point I was disagreeing with.

Drudgewire

29th December 2009, 07:33 AM

Rape may feel good. How strongly should that be weighted in?

Dunno. How much better does raping a cow make it taste? :D

JimBenArm

29th December 2009, 07:43 AM

Drudgewire

29th December 2009, 07:58 AM

Great. Another thread on this. Good thing we haven't beat this subject to death.

I'll save everyone time here. All meat-eaters are unthinking brutes who don't care about animals or their welfare. All vegetarians/vegans are tree-hugging simpletons who care more about animals and their welfare than fellow humans.

That should pretty much cover it.

But we all agree jayhawks are a useless burden on the ecosystem and should be wiped out post haste. :p

quadraginta

29th December 2009, 07:59 AM

Great. Another thread on this. Good thing we haven't beat this subject to death.

I'll save everyone time here. All meat-eaters are unthinking brutes who don't care about animals or their welfare. All vegetarians/vegans are tree-hugging simpletons who care more about animals and their welfare than fellow humans.

That should pretty much cover it.

Our kitties shared Holiday turkey with me. Mrs. qg, who's vegetarian, didn't. The vicious predators cute little kittehs didn't care anything about the spinach casserole we made especially for her.

How's that for conflicted?

JimBenArm

29th December 2009, 08:01 AM

But we all agree jayhawks are a useless burden on the ecosystem and should be wiped out post haste. :p
Since I'm on the Missouri side of the border, I agree with this!

Drudgewire

29th December 2009, 08:03 AM

Since I'm on the Missouri side of the border, I agree with this!

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

quadraginta

29th December 2009, 08:21 AM

Since I'm on the Missouri side of the border, I agree with this!

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

I'm guessing this means you weren't talking about the band.

Drudgewire

29th December 2009, 08:22 AM

I'm guessing this means you weren't talking about the band.

I didn't even know there was a band until I wiki'd to make sure Jayhawk was one word. :o

JimBenArm

29th December 2009, 08:27 AM

I'm guessing this means you weren't talking about the band.
Kansas University, whose mascot is the Jayhawk. Comes from the term used in the Missouri/Kansas border war for Kansas Free-Staters.

Being in Kansas City, I'm close to Kansas University, Kansas State University (the Wildcats) and Missouri University (the Tigers), all of whom play in the Big Twelve conference. Big rivalry between the three of them. However, since I didn't go to any of them, I can pick and choose who I support and harrass at will. Today, as it happens, is KU's turn.

quadraginta

29th December 2009, 08:30 AM

I know. I'm teasing. :blush:

ETA: I claim to root for Duke, Carolina, or NC State, depending on which will irritate whoever I'm with the most.

Tiktaalik

29th December 2009, 10:26 AM

Our kitties shared Holiday turkey with me. Mrs. qg, who's vegetarian, didn't. The vicious predators cute little kittehs didn't care anything about the spinach casserole we made especially for her.

How's that for conflicted?

Actually, that brings up another point. If one decides to go veg, what does one feed one's cats? I understand they're obligate meat-eaters. Where does the pet food industry fall in all this?

Drudgewire

29th December 2009, 10:57 AM

Actually, that brings up another point. If one decides to go veg, what does one feed one's cats? I understand they're obligate meat-eaters. Where does the pet food industry fall in all this?

There are vegan cat foods (http://www.vegancats.com/), but at least the vegan I dated decided she'd rather not extend her lifestyle choice to her cat... although it was only after discovering her cat wouldn't touch that crap with the dog's tongue. :p

Rasmus

29th December 2009, 03:12 PM

If you are equating the ethics of including meat in a diet with rape and murder,

I am not.

and you don't understand why people have trouble engaging in rational conversation on the subject with you, then there is really no hope of communication.

Fanaticism cannot be reasoned with. This is the sort of extremism that gives sane vegetarians a bad name.

I am not a vegetarian.

Rasmus

29th December 2009, 03:20 PM

What you said in post #128 is that since it's possible, for example, it's possible for you to do more to help starving kids in Africa, then you need to find a specific reason to eat meat in order to do so. So what is your specific reason not to spend all of your spare time trying to feed the starving kids in Africa?

I am not a terribly ethical person?

ETA:

My point is that at some point burden and sustainability come into play, and it's not sufficient to establish merely that it's possible. You seem to have latched onto the fact that I was disagreeing with your argument, and as a result imagined that I was claiming that rape's feeling good was a factor, rather than address the particular point I was disagreeing with.

That I can agree with, even though to a much lesser degree than you seem to be suggesting. I am much less of a good person than I could and quite possibly should be.

And I do think that for most people it would easily be possible to change to a vegetarian diet. Imagine you'd develop a deadly allergy against meat tomorrow - I am certain you would find it quite possible to adjust. I see that most people - me included - don't want to adjust. but that alone really isn't a factor when deciding what is ethical.

Symbol

29th December 2009, 03:28 PM

Great. Another thread on this. Good thing we haven't beat this subject to death.

Everything has been discussed before. Except maybe today's news. Oh wait, even that was discussed earlier today.

Tell you what, at my next dinner party I will demand nobody discuss anything that has ever been discussed before.

quadraginta

29th December 2009, 04:09 PM

If you are equating the ethics of including meat in a diet with rape and murder,

I am not.

If you are not then you are certainly giving that appearance. If you are doing it intentionally you are being disingenuous. If you are not then you need to work on your presentation, because it is creating an impression which you did not intend, and distracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

My statement remains true. That is the sort of rhetoric which gives rational vegetarians a bad name. Whether you believe it, said it without believing it, or said it without meaning it is utterly irrelevant.

and you don't understand why people have trouble engaging in rational conversation on the subject with you, then there is really no hope of communication.

Fanaticism cannot be reasoned with. This is the sort of extremism that gives sane vegetarians a bad name.

I am not a vegetarian.

That's very nice to know. Thank you for sharing. I'm not certain why you volunteered that information. Nothing in my post made the assertion that you are.

yy2bggggs

29th December 2009, 04:23 PM

I am not a terribly ethical person?
And neither is your feeble old neighbor?
That I can agree with, even though to a much lesser degree than you seem to be suggesting.I'm not suggesting any degree. I'm suggesting that they are a factor.I am much less of a good person than I could and quite possibly should be.So is anyone who is wasting time actually being happy rather than devoting their lives to right all wrongs in the universe? And again by "anyone", I don't mean you, or me, but your feeble old neighbor. Kick reciprocity up another notch.
And I do think that for most people it would easily be possible to change to a vegetarian diet.Okay, then this is what you should argue. In such a case, you're actually considering the cost and deeming it mild. But you also need to establish sustainability. Merely going with "it's possible" doesn't cut it.
Imagine you'd develop a deadly allergy against meat tomorrow - I am certain you would find it quite possible to adjust.
This is dancing on the edge of being an ad hominem logical fallacy. But as it turns out, I'm a terrible example anyway. For me, even describing such a scenario as possible to adjust is going too far. It would actually be quite easy for me to give up meat tomorrow--even trivial. At worst it would be a minor inconvenience. But the fact that this would be easy for me isn't relevant. I'm a particular person, with specific dietary needs, and I have the means to make this happen.

Keep in mind I'm a pescetarian, and I don't eat a large amount of fish.
I see that most people - me included - don't want to adjust. but that alone really isn't a factor when deciding what is ethical.
Perhaps, but again, this has nothing to do with whether or not burden and sustainability should be a factor.

Dogdoctor

29th December 2009, 05:14 PM

Some thoughts on vegetarianism. There is no vegetarian source of vitamin B12 as far as I know. Perhaps some vegetarians get some from eating bugs in their vegetables. Or their diets have to be fortified with chemically created B12 or animal source B12. Some rely on milk or eggs which require keeping chickens and cattle which can also be eaten for meat.

Concering vegetarian cat food it may exist but that doesn't mean it's good for cats.

Ambrosia

29th December 2009, 05:42 PM

B12 is grown via bacteria rather than created chemically IIRC. We are now at a stage where we could technically never eat animals if we chose to but would that be good for the animals?

There are all kinds of domesticated farm animals that would not even exist were we not to farm them for milk, wool, meat etc Is it better for an animal to not even exist, or to live a shortish life and end up slaughtered for our use?

Better to have lived and lost, than never to have lived at all.

What if we decide that rearing sheep for wool is OK, what do we do with sheep that die, throw them away and waste a resource?

yy2bggggs

29th December 2009, 05:50 PM

Some thoughts on vegetarianism. There is no vegetarian source of vitamin B12 as far as I know.
...
Some rely on milk or eggs which require keeping chickens and cattle
Uhm... isn't this a contradiction? Perhaps you mean vegan sources of B12, not vegetarian sources. I can understand being loose with language, but the OP clearly defined vegetarianism.
which can also be eaten for meat.
Sure. But I'm not sure why that's relevant in itself.

Dogdoctor

29th December 2009, 05:53 PM

Uhm... isn't this a contradiction? Perhaps you mean vegan sources of B12, not vegetarian sources. I can understand being loose with language, but the OP clearly defined vegetarianism.

Sure. But I'm not sure why that's relevant in itself.

There is no useful plant sources of B12 (or bacterial or fungal)

six7s

29th December 2009, 08:26 PM

What if we decide that rearing sheep for wool is OK, what do we do with sheep that die, throw them away and waste a resource?You mean other than using the by-products for felt/carpet/rugs, glues/adhesives, fertilizers, explosives, solvents, oils, lanolin, lubricants, soap, floor wax, gelatin, horn/bone buttons/handles, bone china, collagen, dog food (as meat and biscuits), leather (and tallow for tanning), violin and tennis racquet strings, etc?

:confused:

arthwollipot

29th December 2009, 10:56 PM

And anyway, who'd want to eat a sheep that died of old age?

Just like beef and dairy cattle, we've bred sheep for wool and sheep for meat.

Ambrosia

30th December 2009, 05:27 AM

There is no useful plant sources of B12 (or bacterial or fungal)

outside of a laboratory the root source of B12 is bacterial.

You mean other than using the by-products for felt/carpet/rugs, glues/adhesives, fertilizers, explosives, solvents, oils, lanolin, lubricants, soap, floor wax, gelatin, horn/bone buttons/handles, bone china, collagen, dog food (as meat and biscuits), leather (and tallow for tanning), violin and tennis racquet strings, etc?

:confused:

Most of the uses in your list have been replaced with synthetic alternatives for economic reasons. Though the only item in your list that uses the actual meat, is animal food. Why would it be OK for animals to eat animals, but not humans to eat animals in this scenario? :)

And anyway, who'd want to eat a sheep that died of old age?

ME!

mmmmmmmm tasty sheep. Provided the animal does not contain some disease that could be potentially harmful of course.

Older aged meat is full of flavour and there are many ways of cooking it slowly that get rid of the bad points (toughness) and accentuate the good points (flavour) You wouldn't want to eat the rack having roasted it rare, it'd be like chewing leather, but you might want a nice warm bowl of Irish stew or some Bath Chaps.

Much of the peasant food like Irish stew, or pretty much all of French cuisine is based upon using just about every part of every useable animal in your cooking pot, animals farmed for some other purpose that died of "old age" were not excluded from that.

Exzyleph

30th December 2009, 07:02 AM

There is no useful plant sources of B12 (or bacterial or fungal)

The actual source of B12 is bacteria and no animal can itself produce the vitamin, except by symbiosis with such bacteria. As it turns out, the industrial production of B12 is carried out through fermentation of such bacteria, which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate source of such vitamins for vegetarians and vegans.

Exzyleph

30th December 2009, 07:06 AM

If you are equating the ethics of including meat in a diet with rape and murder, and you don't understand why people have trouble engaging in rational conversation on the subject with you, then there is really no hope of communication.

Even if the examples were inflammatory, it seems to me that the question is legitimate. If it is a valid ethical principle to weigh in the pleasures derived from an act, as well as the cost of prohibiting that act, in one case, then surely it must also be valid to consider the same in other cases. Otherwise it just looks like an ad hoc justification that has no general validity.

But if you take a step back, then this is simply a utilitarian cost/benefit calculation, where it is perfectly reasonable to weigh in all benefits and negative consequences of an act, as well as of prohibiting that act. And that is the case both with regards to meat eating, as well as the examples Rasmus gave.

Aitch

3rd January 2010, 06:36 AM

On the subject of feeding pets a vegetarian diet...

There's just been a woman on Gardeners' Question Time*, asking whether she could feed her Venus Flytrap a vegetarian diet. Apparently, you can**.

* Radio 4 UK panel programme. About gardening. Obviously.
** Obligatory silly answer given: "Yes, if you can find a vegetarian small enough".

TimCallahan

3rd January 2010, 09:27 AM

Exzyleph

3rd January 2010, 11:00 AM

I'm curious. If, using genetic engineering, we could grow a non-sentient life form, say a colonial protozoan, in vats that would produce what is essentially beef, would either vegans or ovo-lacto-vegetarians eat it?

I would think that the answer is "it depends". There are a lot of different reasons as to why people are vegetarians, and so the answer will vary from person to person. For people who are vegetarians for ethical reasons, and who draw the line at sentience when determining which organisms demand ethical consideration, then what you propose would probably be acceptable.

But I cannot say if such a product would be acceptable to people who simply dislike meat, or for those who based their diets on health concerns, or who base their diet on ecological concerns, or who based their diet on religious concerns, etc.

Furthermore, in my experience quite a number of vegetarians are opposed to genetic engineering and other things considered "unnatural", so your hypothetical product may be rejected on those grounds also.