How many of you are vegetarians?

[nogodsnomasters85]

Originally Posted by wontshareyou

Okay. I avoided posting in this thread because of the extremely cringe-worthy responses I've seen. You say you don't agree with the whole process but you contribute to it's process. I'd be willing to bet you buying your meat from companies that are associated with slaughterhouses/factory farms that practice these things you claim to "strongly disagree" with.

I also buy my clothes and virtually everything else from companies that do things I strongly disagree with, things much more offensive than killing non-sentient, non-endangered animals; sweatshops and child laborers that are often subjected to sexual abuse, the marriage between Chevron and death squads in Nigeria, etc., etc. I find many of the actions of my own government abhorrent, like rendition, Guantanamo, two illegal wars, supporting the oppression and destruction of the Palestinian people, etc. Theres' no escaping it. This is perhaps the greatest indictment of our system, that it forces us to be complicit, to become "daily agents of injustice." These things , the destruction and oppression of my fellow humans en masse, is far more emotionally potent for me than "Save the Cows."

Originally Posted by wontshareyou

How would you like your animals to be killed? There is NO humane way. There is still unnecessary pain and suffering. Are you really that naive?

Oh I think it could be done fairly painlessly, either with a quick-acting poison, although thats' complicated because it has to be something that wouldn't make it inedible, or a fast shot or blow to the head. However, the problem is there is essentially no movement for improving the conditions of factory farms. You don't care how well the animals are treated, which makes it irrelevant. This is what I mean about people like you switching the premises of you're arguments. Now you're spouting a utilitarian argument about suffering, until someone can produce a more humane alternatuive, then your whole philosophical foundation shifts, it's like a shell game. Again, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't eat meat, whatever's great for you. However, if you're going to start telling other people what to do, you're obligated to produce cogent reasons and not just emotional rhetoric. Whats' really too bad is that this movement relies so heavily on the worst arguments. There is a MUCH more compelling and rational case to be made for vegetarianism from an environmental standpoint.

Originally Posted by wontshareyou

As for "being part of your culture", your location is the United Kingdom. It's not as if you belong to some hunter-gatherer tribe in the middle of Africa. That is a completely piss poor excuse.

That's what defines "civilization." Primative humans had to spend most of our time foraging for food, maintaining a hunter-gatherer existence. Agriculture; the cultivation of plants and livestock, is what makes our society possible. Instead of hunting down and spearing our food, or picking it off trees, we have factory farms and produce markets, and grocery stores.

[CrystalGeezer]

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

I wish I knew what a "mind baby" was.

Incidentally, if you'd pay 12 bucks an hour or more w/ job security, I'm totally there for you.

A mind baby is just me making sense of what others view as mundane actions as signs of God or whatever using a system of logic older than the hills. I have a feeling you wouldn't do it though because it relies on a certain spiritualness that one might precieve as based purley on emotion and your excellent argumentative style sees beyond the emotion of an incident.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

I also buy my clothes and virtually everything else from companies that do things I strongly disagree with, things much more offensive than killing non-sentient, non-endangered animals; sweatshops and child laborers that are often subjected to sexual abuse, the marriage between Chevron and death squads in Nigeria, etc., etc. I find many of the actions of my own government abhorrent, like rendition, Guantanamo, two illegal wars, supporting the oppression and destruction of the Palestinian people, etc. Theres' no escaping it. This is perhaps the greatest indictment of our system, that it forces us to be complicit, to become "daily agents of injustice." These things , the destruction and oppression of my fellow humans en masse, is far more emotionally potent for me than "Save the Cows."



Oh I think it could be done fairly painlessly, either with a quick-acting poison, although thats' complicated because it has to be something that wouldn't make it inedible, or a fast shot or blow to the head. However, the problem is there is essentially no movement for improving the conditions of factory farms. You don't care how well the animals are treated, which makes it irrelevant. This is what I mean about people like you switching the premises of you're arguments. Now you're spouting a utilitarian argument about suffering, until someone can produce a more humane alternatuive, then your whole philosophical foundation shifts, it's like a shell game. Again, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't eat meat, whatever's great for you. However, if you're going to start telling other people what to do, you're obligated to produce cogent reasons and not just emotional rhetoric. Whats' really too bad is that this movement relies so heavily on the worst arguments. There is a MUCH more compelling and rational case to be made for vegetarianism from an environmental standpoint.



That's what defines "civilization." Primative humans had to spend most of our time foraging for food, maintaining a hunter-gatherer existence. Agriculture; the cultivation of plants and livestock, is what makes our society possible. Instead of hunting down and spearing our food, or picking it off trees, we have factory farms and produce markets, and grocery stores.

And based on the clean logic you use with these premises, I'd say you're worth WAY more than $12 an hour. Good job.

[Anaesthesine]

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

I also buy my clothes and virtually everything else from companies that do things I strongly disagree with, things much more offensive than killing non-sentient, non-endangered animals; sweatshops and child laborers that are often subjected to sexual abuse, the marriage between Chevron and death squads in Nigeria, etc., etc. I find many of the actions of my own government abhorrent, like rendition, Guantanamo, two illegal wars, supporting the oppression and destruction of the Palestinian people, etc. Theres' no escaping it. This is perhaps the greatest indictment of our system, that it forces us to be complicit, to become "daily agents of injustice." These things , the destruction and oppression of my fellow humans en masse, is far more emotionally potent for me than "Save the Cows."

Compassion is not a zero-sum game; it is a continuum.

Yes, every day we are all complicit in crimes against our fellow humans and the environment. No one is pure, and none of us can escape "our system," because our system is the only system. Capitalism, communism, fascism, monarchy, anarchy, nothing will ever change the fact that human civilization rides a tide of exploitation, destruction and death. All we can do now is palliative care for a planet that is nearly exhausted.

As has already been established, there is no compelling argument for eating meat, other than the pleasure factor and certain nutritional benefits that can easily be met by a vegetarian diet and (with a bit more effort) by a vegan one. You are arguing from just as much of an emotional standpoint as many of the vegetarians here, as your statement above suggests.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

Again, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't eat meat, whatever's great for you. However, if you're going to start telling other people what to do, you're obligated to produce cogent reasons and not just emotional rhetoric. Whats' really too bad is that this movement relies so heavily on the worst arguments. There is a MUCH more compelling and rational case to be made for vegetarianism from an environmental standpoint.

This thread is about being a vegetarian; people are sharing their thoughts on the subject. You rail against "emotional rhetoric" in post after post. Yet, when presented with what you admit are compelling environmental and utilitarian arguments against meat production, you agree that vegetarianism is one of many practical ways to combat the evils of large scale factory farming and environmental devastation. Your problem seems to be more with the rhetoric than the action. That's fine, as long as you realize that this is no longer a practical argument, but a rhetorical one.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

That's what defines "civilization." Primative humans had to spend most of our time foraging for food, maintaining a hunter-gatherer existence. Agriculture; the cultivation of plants and livestock, is what makes our society possible. Instead of hunting down and spearing our food, or picking it off trees, we have factory farms and produce markets, and grocery stores.

Civilization is an ever-evolving process. It moves forward for some, at the expense of others. The litany of evils that we subject our fellow humans (and fellow creatures) to every day is beyond the scope of the imagination, and it is ultimately self-defeating. The efforts to right those wrongs, in whatever form they take, represent the best that humans have to offer. We should encourage every action that seeks to move our civilization forward in a more humane, sustainable way.

[bored]

Originally Posted by wontshareyou

As for "being part of your culture", your location is the United Kingdom. It's not as if you belong to some hunter-gatherer tribe in the middle of Africa. That is a completely piss poor excuse.

Eating meat is definitely part of MY culture. My culture breeds cows, feeds them steroids to make them bigger, slaughters them in mass quantities at a slaughterhouse and distributes the meat around the country for consumers like myself to enjoy.

Don't give me these strawman arguments about African tribes.

In a lot of Asian countries they eat things that most people in the western world would consider disgusting. My friend just got back in from China, Taiwan, Malaysia, et cetera and while he was there he ate rabbits heads and fish guts and all kinds of things that are part of the Asian culture and he also does not live in a hunter-gatherer tribe.

We have slaughterhouses because our ancient ancestors ate meat. They liked it so much that when they were able to commercialise it people wanted more than they did before. People eat meat. They always will. Anyone who wishes to not participate should in fact avoid meat and dairy and anything else they feel they are disinclined to eat.

There really are no arguments that anyone can make to get me to stop eating animals.

[nogodsnomasters85]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Compassion is not a zero-sum game; it is a continuum.

Ehh... It depends. I feel much more compassion for human beings (Just as a number of animal rights extremists believe the opposite.) Don't get me wrong, when I watched that "Meet Your Meat" video I was not thrilled. It does not bring me pleasure, I find it unsettling. Although, the distress comes just as much from the gory aspect as the suffering. I would experience physical discomfort at watching a heart transplant even though I know it's an act of mercy and a triumph for humanity, ...Just a very gross and messy one.
However, the logical part of my brain clicks on shortly after the emotional part and says "Hold on a second.."

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Yes, every day we are all complicit in crimes against our fellow humans and the environment. No one is pure, and none of us can escape "our system," because our system is the only system. Capitalism, communism, fascism, monarchy, anarchy, nothing will ever change the fact that human civilization rides a tide of exploitation, destruction and death. All we can do now is palliative care for a planet that is nearly exhausted.

Well, to be completely fair. We're not the only ones. There are incalculable examples of organisms exhausting their ecosystems; if a river gets backed up, or if there is a drought, or a river gets dammed up, predator is not there for some reason, animals in nature will often quite readily eat and breed until they exhaust the supply and wipe themselves out. The only reason is that in nature there are usually so many species interacting together that there is a leveling effect that prevents this from happening more often. The difference is nothing preys on us and we are able to provide our own food and shelter and so forth so we are able to grow and thrive, albeit at the expense of the rest of the food chain. Curse of success in many ways.
However, would we wish this were not so? I think it's a search for balance. There are also a number of solutions, I think the most exciting are in emergent technologies. Also, through education, and development. Statistically many of the most educated, advanced countries have declining, or slightly positive birth rates. For all the religious fanatics and abstinence-only education the US birth rate isn't that high. The real booms tend to be in the areas of the worst poverty, providing more incentive to improve conditions in the developing world.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

As has already been established, there is no compelling argument for eating meat, other than the pleasure factor and certain nutritional benefits that can easily be met by a vegetarian diet and (with a bit more effort) by a vegan one.

I'd argue about the definition of "easily" and "a bit", but I actually agree more than you might think. A mixed diet really is MUCH easier to get by on. Of course part of this is omnipresence, and the lack of alternatives, at least in the US. Part of my reluctance is the fact that I have been raised on meat and dairy and most of my favorite foods include these.
However, the argument for NOT eating meat isn't as compelling as it's made out to be. As I said, the so-called "moral" argument rests on a number of serious fallacies and dubious assertions. When I take in the legitimate argument, the environmental argument, that’s trickier. As much as I don't like to invoke it, I'd point to what Munchy introduced; that in terms of the climate, individual actions are really of little utility; but I don't totally embrace that obviously because I do other things for the environment. Systemic change, obviously, is the big issue when it comes to the environment, but I've gotta say I struggle a bit with that one.
It's too bad that this movement chooses the worst arguments first, although I think it's clear why. While logically flawed, emotional rhetoric and gory pictures are good tools to wind people up. I guess I'm just an anomaly because I'm really analytical.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

You are arguing from just as much of an emotional standpoint as many of the vegetarians here, as your statement above suggests.

There’s a difference, though. There is nothing debatable about the wholesale destruction of human life and oppression I rail against. It's unnatural in terms of evolved behaviors, it's illogical, it's against social compacts, in short, it's just plain wrong. I don't have to analyze why ethnic cleansing or mass murder is wrong. You can essentially prove it, ethically, logically, there’s really no real room for debate. The moral obligation vis-à-vis non sentient life is a lot less concrete. So, I'd say my position on say Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster, or the war in Iraq, or the oppression of the Tibetan people is almost as much logical as it is emotional.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

This thread is about being a vegetarian; people are sharing their thoughts on the subject. You rail against "emotional rhetoric" in post after post. Yet, when presented with what you admit are compelling environmental and utilitarian arguments against meat production, you agree that vegetarianism is one of many practical ways to combat the evils of large scale factory farming and environmental devastation. Your problem seems to be more with the rhetoric than the action. That's fine, as long as you realize that this is no longer a practical argument, but a rhetorical one.

Right. My objection is not so much with the conclusion, but the faulty reasoning being presented to reach said conclusion. I would say I’d be willing to change my position on a number of issues if provided with evidence and sufficiently compelling arguments. No, I have nothing against adults who want to be vegan/vegetarian. (With the small exception of pregnant women.) In fact it's probably a good thing. What I object to is being subjected to bullshit and nonsense.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Civilization is an ever-evolving process. It moves forward for some, at the expense of others. The litany of evils that we subject our fellow humans (and fellow creatures) to every day is beyond the scope of the imagination, and it is ultimately self-defeating. The efforts to right those wrongs, in whatever form they take, represent the best that humans have to offer. We should encourage every action that seeks to move our civilization forward in a more humane, sustainable way.

Again, with the exception of the previously stated points of contention, I’m pretty much on the same page.

[Anaesthesine]

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

Ehh... It depends. I feel much more compassion for human beings (Just as a number of animal rights extremists believe the opposite.) Don't get me wrong, when I watched that "Meet Your Meat" video I was not thrilled. It does not bring me pleasure, I find it unsettling. Although, the distress comes just as much from the gory aspect as the suffering. I would experience physical discomfort at watching a heart transplant even though I know it's an act of mercy and a triumph for humanity, ...Just a very gross and messy one.
However, the logical part of my brain clicks on shortly after the emotional part and says "Hold on a second.."

That's interesting - your emotional reaction to the gore of a life-saving surgical procedure is roughly equivalent to your reaction to the gore of an abattoir, until the logic kicks in.

I've never been able to abide the suffering of animals, not for one minute, but I am endlessly fascinated with the (sometimes very gory) miracles of science and medicine. My differing reactions to these stimuli are instantaneous.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

Well, to be completely fair. We're not the only ones. There are incalculable examples of organisms exhausting their ecosystems; if a river gets backed up, or if there is a drought, or a river gets dammed up, predator is not there for some reason, animals in nature will often quite readily eat and breed until they exhaust the supply and wipe themselves out. The only reason is that in nature there are usually so many species interacting together that there is a leveling effect that prevents this from happening more often. The difference is nothing preys on us and we are able to provide our own food and shelter and so forth so we are able to grow and thrive, albeit at the expense of the rest of the food chain. Curse of success in many ways.
However, would we wish this were not so? I think it's a search for balance. There are also a number of solutions, I think the most exciting are in emergent technologies. Also, through education, and development. Statistically many of the most educated, advanced countries have declining, or slightly positive birth rates. For all the religious fanatics and abstinence-only education the US birth rate isn't that high. The real booms tend to be in the areas of the worst poverty, providing more incentive to improve conditions in the developing world.

I think you're helping me make my point. We are on a collision course with our population and our unsustainable lifestyles. We are not alone in this, but we are alone in the choices we make, to self-destruct or find a way out. What we are discussing here is one of many ways out, and one that you happen to agree with is a perfectly reasonable choice.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

I'd argue about the definition of "easily" and "a bit", but I actually agree more than you might think. A mixed diet really is MUCH easier to get by on. Of course part of this is omnipresence, and the lack of alternatives, at least in the US. Part of my reluctance is the fact that I have been raised on meat and dairy and most of my favorite foods include these.

Of course, a mixed diet is easier than a vegetarian one, but vegetarianism isn't rocket science. Basically, it's a common-sense diet that I never really had to struggle with. I didn't read any books, or have a guru, or take a class. I just ate a common-sense diet with plenty of legumes, green vegetables, grains and plant proteins.

What is difficult is eating out, especially in areas where there is no large population of like-minded folks. When planning your own diet, it's pretty easy to cook vegetarian. It's the social aspects that can be a pain in the a**.

As for vegan, yes, it is much harder going.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

However, the argument for NOT eating meat isn't as compelling as it's made out to be. As I said, the so-called "moral" argument rests on a number of serious fallacies and dubious assertions. When I take in the legitimate argument, the environmental argument, that’s trickier. As much as I don't like to invoke it, I'd point to what Munchy introduced; that in terms of the climate, individual actions are really of little utility; but I don't totally embrace that obviously because I do other things for the environment. Systemic change, obviously, is the big issue when it comes to the environment, but I've gotta say I struggle a bit with that one.
It's too bad that this movement chooses the worst arguments first, although I think it's clear why. While logically flawed, emotional rhetoric and gory pictures are good tools to wind people up. I guess I'm just an anomaly because I'm really analytical.

The arguments FOR eating meat are not compelling, either. To me, the argument for NOT eating meat is far more compelling. Just because you fail to find certain arguments persuasive does not mean that they are not persuasive. It means they are not persuasive TO YOU.

There is a difference between being analytical, dispassionate and rational. One of my personal heroes (and someone you are familiar with), the wonderfully sensible Jeremy Bentham saw the utility in ending slavery, promoting women's rights, decriminalizing homosexuality and the promotion of animal rights. These are ideas that are hundreds of years old, and perfectly consistent with a strict utilitarian, rational world view.

There are plenty of persuasive, utilitarian arguments to be made against all of the above ideas, and we are very, very lucky that history has favored the progressive view of things.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

There’s a difference, though. There is nothing debatable about the wholesale destruction of human life and oppression I rail against. It's unnatural in terms of evolved behaviors, it's illogical, it's against social compacts, in short, it's just plain wrong. I don't have to analyze why ethnic cleansing or mass murder is wrong. You can essentially prove it, ethically, logically, there’s really no real room for debate. The moral obligation vis-à-vis non sentient life is a lot less concrete. So, I'd say my position on say Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster, or the war in Iraq, or the oppression of the Tibetan people is almost as much logical as it is emotional.

I agree, there is no room for debate. A non-emotional response to any of these situations is pathological.

I would not be so quick to class other animals as non-sentient. I know this argument is just going to go nowhere fast, but science (yes, science) tells us that we may only just be learning about the sentience of animals.

Originally Posted by nogodsnomasters85

Right. My objection is not so much with the conclusion, but the faulty reasoning being presented to reach said conclusion. I would say I’d be willing to change my position on a number of issues if provided with evidence and sufficiently compelling arguments. No, I have nothing against adults who want to be vegan/vegetarian. (With the small exception of pregnant women.) In fact it's probably a good thing. What I object to is being subjected to bullshit and nonsense.

So, there you have it. Ultimately, you agree with vegetarianism as a dietary/lifestyle choice. You agree that it is a good thing, and that it is a rational response to our pressing environmental problems.

What so irritates you is the overtly emotional arguments made against eating meat.

Fascinating.

[nogodsnomasters85]

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

That's interesting - your emotional reaction to the gore of a life-saving surgical procedure is roughly equivalent to your reaction to the gore of an abattoir, until the logic kicks in.

While I like horror movies I've just always been sensitive to that sort of thing. I'm getting better with it, though. I worked in a butcher shop and I had to handle cow hearts. That was pretty nasty.
It's not that the suffering of the animal doesn't affect me, but as I've been saying, that is an emotional response, not necessarily a logical one. I hate analogies like these, but if you'll forgive me, say perhaps you were in a life or death situation and you had to choose between saving the person you love most, a spouse or a child or whatever, or Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, or somebody who had a cure for AIDS or cancer. It's pretty obvious what the logical choice is, and I'm not even sure I would pass that test. I'm just saying under certain stimuli, emotion can lead us to do illogical things that nontheless feel very right.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I've never been able to abide the suffering of animals, not for one minute, but I am endlessly fascinated with the (sometimes very gory) miracles of science and medicine. My differing reactions to these stimuli are instantaneous.

I think it's very positive and good, but also very gross.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I think you're helping me make my point. We are on a collision course with our population and our unsustainable lifestyles. We are not alone in this, but we are alone in the choices we make, to self-destruct or find a way out. What we are discussing here is one of many ways out, and one that you happen to agree with is a perfectly reasonable choice.

No argument.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Of course, a mixed diet is easier than a vegetarian one, but vegetarianism isn't rocket science. Basically, it's a common-sense diet that I never really had to struggle with. I didn't read any books, or have a guru, or take a class. I just ate a common-sense diet with plenty of legumes, green vegetables, grains and plant proteins.

If I was going to give it another try I still think I'd consult a dietician.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

What is difficult is eating out, especially in areas where there is no large population of like-minded folks. When planning your own diet, it's pretty easy to cook vegetarian. It's the social aspects that can be a pain in the a**.

I can imagine that's very difficult, yes. I don't know many resturants that have actual vegetarian entrees.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

As for vegan, yes, it is much harder going.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

The arguments FOR eating meat are not compelling, either. To me, the argument for NOT eating meat is far more compelling.

I'll admit, there does seem to be a stronger argument for vegetarianism, although I don't think it's as strong as a lot of people think.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

Just because you fail to find certain arguments persuasive does not mean that they are not persuasive. It means they are not persuasive TO YOU.

Well, I think PETA (Which I loathe.) and other groups use gory images is for emotional potency. For people who are primarily emotional as opposed to primarily logical I would imagine that works.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

There is a difference between being analytical, dispassionate and rational. One of my personal heroes (and someone you are familiar with), the wonderfully sensible Jeremy Bentham saw the utility in ending slavery, promoting women's rights, decriminalizing homosexuality and the promotion of animal rights. These are ideas that are hundreds of years old, and perfectly consistent with a strict utilitarian, rational world view.

I agree with nine tenths of that.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

There are plenty of persuasive, utilitarian arguments to be made against all of the above ideas, and we are very, very lucky that history has favored the progressive view of things.

Ok..

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I agree, there is no room for debate. A non-emotional response to any of these situations is pathological.

Yeah, but my point is these actions are condemnable even from a detatched, logical perspective. They are most certainly wrong. When it comes to animal life I don't see the same clarity.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

I would not be so quick to class other animals as non-sentient. I know this argument is just going to go nowhere fast, but science (yes, science) tells us that we may only just be learning about the sentience of animals.

Partly it depends how you want to use the word. I just meant something like "incapable of higher thought or reasoning." LIke I said, many creatures can see the stars, but only humans can comprehend them and reach for them.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

So, there you have it. Ultimately, you agree with vegetarianism as a dietary/lifestyle choice. You agree that it is a good thing, and that it is a rational response to our pressing environmental problems.

Ultimately, systemic change is going to be the game changer. However I do support individuals taking productive action to reduce pollution.

Originally Posted by Anaesthesine

What so irritates you is the overtly emotional arguments made against eating meat.
Fascinating.

I just have no patience for bullshit. Yeah, I agree with a number of the conclusions, but the process they use to get there is crap.

[AmeliaScoptophilia]

Personally, on my end, I do care about human rights/the war (mainly the civilians in the war), so I definitely don't think it has to be one or the other. Or that vegans should be getting guilt-tripped about the war and other subjects. Nor do I think bringing up enviornmental footprints is worthwhile for any argument because 80% of vegetarians/vegans are that way because of ethics...not enviornmental issues. Not saying I wouldn't love to drive a hybrid if I came across any form of money. However, that being said, I do care about animal rights/veganism more, because to me, personally, I just enjoy animals more than humans, so they're higher on my priority list. But I definitely wouldn't say I boast being "more empathetic" and forget about any other inhumane acts being brought out.


And to Theo...if you go to a Vietnamese restaurant...you will see coagulated blood on the menu.