Vegetarianism.

[mythicaljake]

If you were a Martian visiting the planet Earth, you could easily be forgiven for believing that vegetarians were a bloodthirsty, militant sect, positively armed to the teeth and prepared to make war against the helpless and peaceful denizens of civilisation. Judging purely by what the other ninety four percent of the population has to say about us that is.

I've never considered myself a "militant" veggie, in fact, I've always found the term somewhat mystifying, never having encountered one. Most of the vegetarians I know are reluctant to speak about their dietary choice, unless talking to another veggie, or pressed into conversation about it by an omnivore.

Sorry folks, but this has been building for some time. It's strange, but vegetarianism has been the only thing I have ever experienced any form of prejudice over, yet I've never tried to "convert" a non-vegetarian, and tend always to shy away from debate on the subject. Despite the fact that I would eat most omnivores alive in such a debate, and despite the fact that virtually every omnivore I have ever known has at least once tried to convince me of the merits of their diet, and furnished me with unrequested justifications for their murder of other species.

I get treated like a nuisance and a chore at meals and trips out, have been verbally abused by staff at restaurants, and am expected to endure any number of jokes at my expense with good humour. If any vegetarian should dare to answer back to the standard barrage of bigotry, they are instantly labelled a wild militant proselytising veggie.

I need to get this off my chest, so here it comes. My normally unspoken response to the stupidest things I hear said about my diet.

Every omnivore will talk about these people as though they cannot even get out the door without having to fight one off. Odd, since we don't even constitute a tenth of the population in most western nations. They will roll their eyes and tut about how much they loathe them.

Here is some news for you: There. Is. No. Such. Thing. The so-called extremist veggies, are usually just people you have cornered at a meal table. Every time my diet has been discovered by an omnivore, I have been expected to defend it, as though the very fact of my existence is a challenge. Every such discussion will mean having to endure the standard of effluent mush from self-appointed diet and ethics experts explaining their half-baked theories of why my diet is wrong. Most people that get pigeonholed as militant veggies are simply people that are sick of this shit. We just want to eat our meals, so please don't take offence when you decide to pounce on us, and we reply in a manner that is less than obsequious.

What annoys me most, is that the smug critics of "militant veggies" are usually equally militant about their own moral qualms, it's just that they aren't forced to defend them every lunchtime.

So someone is a tad sensitive about having to defend their ethical stance against murder every meal time? Well gee-fucking-willikers! What a surprise.

Humans Are Designed to Eat Meat...
Don't you love it when people use superstitious anthropocentric teleological brain-farts in place of logical discourse? Right. Humans are not designed to do anything, you fucking imbecile. Keep your absurd religious beliefs to yourself, and then maybe I'll keep my diet to myself. Humans evolved, from monkeys. Early human diets probably got their protein from small insects, not great lumps of cow flesh. Yes, human evolutionary history certainly includes the eating of meat, it also includes rape, living in trees and throwing shit at one another. This does not present us with a teleological imperative to eat meat, it is not a justification, it is simply a fact about the past. Trace our ancestry back far enough and you'll find fish, should modern humans breathe underwater? The only "fact" about our diet in this regard is that we require protein and certain vitamins, all of which are attainable through a vegetarian diet without supplements. Meat is one way of getting those things, but it is not the only way.

You're as bad as us! Cos you kill plants and plants might be able to feel pain!!!
This argument does genuinely does make me reconsider my stance on vegetarianism. Because I think "anyone stupid enough to try and field that as a rational argument, clearly needs to be removed from the human gene-pool for our good and theirs". I appreciate that you were probably never told this in primary school... Plants do not have brains. They do not experience life the same way that we do. Yes, there may well be some plant equivalent to displeasure, but to claim that their experience is analogous to ours, or even comprehensible to us, requires a special degree of mental ineptitude. Oh yes, you can point out that I don't know what it is like to be a plant, and they might well feel pain and unhappiness at being eaten, but this argument could quite easily be applied to anything. It has the same degree of intellectual substance as claiming that eating shrimp may well upset Jehova. Yes, Plants may well feel pain, and the invisible pink unicorn may well punish us for eating corn flakes. The simple fact is, we cannot possibly know, so as a statement it is entirely without meaning or content. However, we do know what physical pain is like, we do know what fear of death is like, we can clearly see that animals experience physical and emotional distress just like ours when confronted with pain and death. We also know that an omnivorous diet is not a nutritional necessity, but simply a meaningless lifestyle choice.

Well you aren't saving any animal lives by not eating meat...
This statement is based on an extremely shaky ethical assumption. The point isn't that we are saving all the cows, the point is that we aren't killing them. If a woman is going to be raped anyway, would you join in?

Vegetarianism is a luxury, what if you were starving to death and had nothing but a cow/sheep/duck/kitten/etc?
If there was a famine, and people were starving to death, why the fuck would they waste the bulk of their edible resources raising an animal, that will provide them with barely a quarter of the same amount of food in return? The idea that hard times would force people to adopt meat-eating diets is patently absurd. Why don't you take a trip to the third world, and ask them how many times a week they have steak? And if for some reason I were forced to kill an animal to survive, well what of it? It's a completely different ethical situation to our current one. We don't have to kill animals to survive. We have a choice. And one of those choices leaves you less prone to cancer, is better for the enviroment, less expensive, causes less heart disease...

But we stun the animals, so they feel no pain...
And I drugged your sister with Rohypnol, so she won't even remember...

But it isn't wrong to kill weaker beings for food...
Good, I'll eat you.

But...but... but
Shut up already. I'm done (exhales). So next time you're at a meal, and about to abuse the veggie with the usual line-up of flaccid inanities, please, just think back over this, see if it has already been covered. You might just spare yourself an encounter with a militant veggie.
Our diet is better than yours, morally, ecologically, medically and economically. But if you don't bother us, we might just keep it to ourselves.

[fli]

Being vegetarian should be like being gay in the military...
don't ask, don't tell...

Meh--

[Baalphegor]

So basically you're saying that you're morally superior to us omnivores because you don't kill animals for food? What's so morally despicable about eating meat?

You're missing a whole spectre of culinary experiences!
Meat.... mmm.....

[Earfetish]

I agree.

I always like to say, the best thing about humanity is our humanity. We might have evolved in a meat-eating environment but nowadays we have the ability not to, and we also have humanity, so we shouldn't.

Also, factory farming. Whenever I get into a debate about it I'm always like 'why is factory farming alright just so you can have a nice meal'.

[Baalphegor]

At 12/6/08 05:47 AM, Earfetish wrote: I agree.

I always like to say, the best thing about humanity is our humanity. We might have evolved in a meat-eating environment but nowadays we have the ability not to, and we also have humanity, so we shouldn't.

Also, factory farming. Whenever I get into a debate about it I'm always like 'why is factory farming alright just so you can have a nice meal'.

Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian. I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat. Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

[Cornbucket]

I don't bother people about their diets, but the idea that

At 12/6/08 05:28 AM, mythicaljake wrote: Our diet is better than yours, morally, ecologically, medically and economically.

is ridiculous. Your diet isn't superior in any of those aspects just because you choose not to eat meat. If you're even going to be douche-y enough to claim moral superiority then why aren't you a full-fledged vegan then? If you have even a patch of leather or scrap of an animal-derived product in your home then you can't claim shit for morality's sake. Ecologically/medically/economically is equally as debatable.

If you were leveling your criticism at the gluttonous, or people whose diet consists primarily of junk food, then I might be apt to agree with you... but omnivores are a diverse crowd with diverse tastes, certainly more diverse than that of vegetarians. Criticizing them as a whole is stupid of you, even if it is just some reactionary rant over the bullshit you catch at the dinnertable.

[mythicaljake]

At 12/6/08 05:54 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian.

But, that was half the reason why i became vegetarian in the first place - I viciously support animal rights, but became aware that still maintaining an omnivorous diet was making me a hypocrite.

I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat.

We are all animals in the wider sense, and eating meat because we see other animals as inferior to us - to me at least - seems barbaric. No matter how good the animal's life is, the major aspect still remains: They are still killed for our benefit. We have evolved into a diplomatic race that is capable of reason, we may as well exploit that advantage.

Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

I still don't eat fish for the very same reason I don't eat other meats. Hunting is also just as bad as killing an animal in any other way. If anything, it's more cruel because it's taking an unsuspecting animal out of it's natural habitat for our benefit.

[mythicaljake]

At 12/6/08 06:09 AM, Cornbucket wrote: If you're even going to be douche-y enough to claim moral superiority then why aren't you a full-fledged vegan then? If you have even a patch of leather or scrap of an animal-derived product in your home then you can't claim shit for morality's sake.

You can obtain animal products such as wool, eggs and milk without physically harming the animal. Leather is a different case because it involves killing the animal to use it's skin, and i don't wear any form of leather/sheepskin/whatever.

[Baalphegor]

At 12/6/08 06:09 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

At 12/6/08 05:54 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian.

But, that was half the reason why i became vegetarian in the first place - I viciously support animal rights, but became aware that still maintaining an omnivorous diet was making me a hypocrite.

I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat.

We are all animals in the wider sense, and eating meat because we see other animals as inferior to us - to me at least - seems barbaric. No matter how good the animal's life is, the major aspect still remains: They are still killed for our benefit. We have evolved into a diplomatic race that is capable of reason, we may as well exploit that advantage.

Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

I still don't eat fish for the very same reason I don't eat other meats. Hunting is also just as bad as killing an animal in any other way. If anything, it's more cruel because it's taking an unsuspecting animal out of it's natural habitat for our benefit.

We are still a part of nature. We take our resources out of nature. We depend on nature, the great biological clockwork running life on this planet in order to survive. Yet, we do not stand outside the ecosystem and siphon of it without it adapting to us.

Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult.

You cling to an utopian fantasy where humanity is an enlightened being that benevolently lords over the rest of nature from our pedestal of logic and reason, but reality is much more grimy than you want it to be. We are still animals, we're just smarter than the rest.

[Cornbucket]

At 12/6/08 06:22 AM, mythicaljake wrote: You can obtain animal products such as wool, eggs and milk without physically harming the animal.

You're ignoring the fact that it still involves taking them out of their natural habitats/lifestyles in order to facilitate collection of said products. What, you have no moral outrage over keeping chickens in coops and cows in barns with vacuum suction devices attached to their udders? So shearing the wool off a sheep doesn't disturb how it naturally lives its life?

How far do you try to travel down the moral highroad? Do you stop at "physical harm" in its most final and obvious sense? What about beasts of labor? Is it immoral to ride horses and camels for transportation, to use donkeys and oxen to pull carts, to use dogs on the police force or to pull sleds in the arctic, so on and so forth? I assume you're against animal testing too. As in, it's morally wrong to test out medicines and drugs on mice, instead they should all be tested out on human subjects first. Right? RIGHT?

[Sajberhippien]

I've been called a militant veggie. I don't get the militant part really, since I'm a pacifist that would never use violence, even in defense of myself (unsure about defense of my loved ones though).

But I get into discussion with meat-eaters, yes. However, I don't usually initiate the discussion. The most common reason is this:
I order something vegetarian in a restaurant or cook something vegetarian when I've got guests.
Guest: So you don't eat meat?
I: Nope.
Guest: Not even fish or seafood?
I: Nope.
Guest: Why?
I: Explains my stances on why meat-eating is disgusting, stupid, and unethical.

At 12/6/08 06:45 AM, Baalphegor wrote: We are still a part of nature. We take our resources out of nature. We depend on nature, the great biological clockwork running life on this planet in order to survive. Yet, we do not stand outside the ecosystem and siphon of it without it adapting to us.

Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

What are you trying to say with this?

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult.

So you mean it's okay to rape, torture and steal then? Or what are you implying? We have the mental and physical option NOT TO rape and torture, and it is seen as morally superior not to inflict unnecessary pain. Rapers and murderers are seen as morally inferior or possibly mentally ill. Are you with me so far?
Guess what: People for animal rights claim that animals too can feel pain. And I presume I don't even need to provide sources for that statement, since it's so blatantly obvious.
Many vegetarians think that inflicting pain is morally bad independent on who or what is recieving the pain, and so they don't eat meat.

Oh, and to the OP: You forgot another common yet completely retarded argument.
That "if we don't eat cows, they're gonna die anyway or they'll breed and overpopulate the world".
And that may be the most retarded argument of all. Guess what, meat-eaters? Cows are BRED to get eaten. If we don't eat them, sure they will still die, but there won't be as many more of them.

[mythicaljake]

At 12/6/08 06:48 AM, Cornbucket wrote: You're ignoring the fact that it still involves taking them out of their natural habitats/lifestyles in order to facilitate collection of said products. What, you have no moral outrage over keeping chickens in coops and cows in barns with vacuum suction devices attached to their udders? So shearing the wool off a sheep doesn't disturb how it naturally lives its life?

How far do you try to travel down the moral highroad? Do you stop at "physical harm" in its most final and obvious sense? What about beasts of labor? Is it immoral to ride horses and camels for transportation, to use donkeys and oxen to pull carts, to use dogs on the police force or to pull sleds in the arctic, so on and so forth?

It entirely depends on how well the animal is treated, I'm strongly against the idea of battery farms and cows having their udders attached to vaccums, but I also make an attempt to buy organic and free-ranged animal products whenever possible. So, Cows and Sheep are allowed to roam freely in fields and cows are milked by hand rather than with machinery. You have to remember about 300 years ago people were still consuming eggs and milk, but didn't have the same machinery we had - they still survived. Likewise, most horses/camels that are used for riding are well treated, so are sniffer dogs and so on. Baalphegor mentioned before that Nature has adapted to our existence which is a fair point, as long as we use the animals in a way that still means they have a happy life and are not mistreated, I don't see any problem.

I assume you're against animal testing too. As in, it's morally wrong to test out medicines and drugs on mice, instead they should all be tested out on human subjects first. Right? RIGHT?

That is different, animal test subjects are heavily mistreated, and often abused by the scientists for the sake of abusing them. There are alternatives to testing on any living species altogether that have proven successful, such as testing on Human Tissue Cultures or computer models.

[Sajberhippien]

EDIT: "Rapers" should be "Rapists". Sorry for bad language, isn't my main language and I'm quite tired.

[mythicaljake]

At 12/6/08 06:45 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

Fair point, although I've already covered most of this argument in a previous post - Nature has adapted to us, but that doesn't mean we have to abuse it and needlessly harm and kill animals. If a cow has become accustomed to being used for human benefit, that means it'd still have a happy life being used for human benefit, but killing it for food when we could very easily get nutrients in meat from other vegetables is needless and cruel - a bad way to end its otherwise peaceful life.

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult

Does that mean that all the things you have listed are right and justified? Most (if not all) people who maim, burn, destroy, torture and rape have something wrong with them, and most wars are fought out of a bout of self-defence, such as World War II. Of course not all wars are like that, the Iraq War and Vietnam being prime examples. But those wars are started by the leaders who cannot see that what they're doing is immoral, and they always see war as a first-resort (which it shouldn't be)

[poxpower]

At 12/6/08 05:28 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

unrequested justifications for their murder of other species.

Guess how many animals were "murdered" to make way for the fields where they grow YOUR food.
Just the fact that you'd use "murder" is an indication that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Heck your profile says you're 16. No wonder people don't take you seriously, there's a 99% chance that you just started doing this and are pissing everyone off around you because they all know you're just in a "phase".

So someone is a tad sensitive about having to defend their ethical stance against murder every meal time?

Do you eat eggs? If so, then you're a murderer. If not then you HAVE to be against abortion. You stupid moral quest has more dead ends than a windows labyrinth screen saver. I'd take you on any second of any day if you're not too much of a pussy to defend it.

Also I find it pretty sad that you think people are mean to YOU when you complain and ask questions about the food you get served. I'm sure your parents love to have to think about your stupid ass every time they make dinner, because you think you're morally superior.
Well I'll do your family a favor and slap you upside the head with my sense palms.

Humans are not designed to do anything, you fucking imbecile.

Only their digestive system. And what about sharks? They're not designed to eat meat, are they? You're going to feed them soy beans? Face it: animals will always die. Always. And so will every last person on earth. You're not saving any animals, all the ones that we eat are born solely for us to eat. Without us, they would have never been born.

The point isn't that we are saving all the cows, the point is that we aren't killing them.

The simple fact of you being alive has killed animals. Driving kills animals, housing destroys habitats, generating hydroelectricity and factories pollute the water..
You're as dirty as every else you flamboyant hypocrite. Every bit of food that you eat is one bit of food an animal won't. In a system with limited resources, you will ALWAYS consume the portion that could have been someone or something else's.

You will NEVER win this moral battle, NEVER. Being a vegetarian is just self-gratification from people who believe they are morally superior to others. You're not, you're a sad bastard who most likely will suffer from malnutrition at one point in his life.

Have fun.

If there was a famine, and people were starving to death, why the fuck would they waste the bulk of their edible resources raising an animal,

It's called hunting and YES, many people have no choice but to resort to fishing and hunting to live. Go preach to them, see what they think.

Shut up already. I'm done (exhales).

Wow it sure is easy to fight straw men arguments! Now try the real thing on for size.

Do you eat eggs?
Milk?
Cheese?
Spider?
Mollusks?
Bugs?
Animal carcasses?

I'd be VERY curious to know why you wouldn't eat an animal that just died in front of you. If a lion killed a cow, would you eat it? If a cow broke it's neck stumbling down a cliff, what then? You're going to leave it to the maggots and the vultures? What if a lion attacks YOU? You're not gonna kill him, you wuss? What if you kill it? You're not going to eat him? Why the fuck not?

A vegetarian is just another word for someone who doesn't understand how nature or civilization works.

Animals are stupid. They're worthless creatures barely capable of sentience. The stupider they are, the less wrong it is to eat them. There's a sliding scale from ape all the way down to cabbage and you're a damn fool if you think you have the moral authority to place an accurate divide on when something should be eaten because it's life is worth it and when something shouldn't.

You're not cool, get over yourself.

[JackTipper]

At 12/6/08 05:28 AM, mythicaljake wrote: Humans Are Designed to Eat Meat...
Don't you love it when people use superstitious anthropocentric teleological brain-farts in place of logical discourse? Right. Humans are not designed to do anything, you fucking imbecile. Keep your absurd religious beliefs to yourself, and then maybe I'll keep my diet to myself. Humans evolved, from monkeys. Early human diets probably got their protein from small insects, not great lumps of cow flesh. Yes, human evolutionary history certainly includes the eating of meat, it also includes rape, living in trees and throwing shit at one another. This does not present us with a teleological imperative to eat meat, it is not a justification, it is simply a fact about the past. Trace our ancestry back far enough and you'll find fish, should modern humans breathe underwater? The only "fact" about our diet in this regard is that we require protein and certain vitamins, all of which are attainable through a vegetarian diet without supplements. Meat is one way of getting those things, but it is not the only way.

Um, what? I'm kinda of confused on what you're ranting about but let me try and sort some of this rant out. People are designed to consume meats. Our metabolism has the capability to break down various meats without adverse effects on health. Red meat can harm us due to the myoglobin if it isn't cleaned thoroughly along with some fish cause of the mercury in the water.

Health wise in my experience there are slightly different health benefits from being a vegetarian and an omnivore. I was a vegetarian for about a year and three months with occasional two to three months of going back to eating grains and such (aka humoring myself by switching diets). The vegetarian approach is great and something people will notice at first is a boost of energy and clarity when you switch to that type of lifestyle. Thing is though unless you know which foods to eat for different proteins you'll end up looking pale and feeling mal nourished. There is way too much fiber in vegetarian diets and what this can mean is the protein and vitamins (supplements as well) you would have absorbed ends up being flushed out with the the bulk of fiber. Vegetarian diets can be successful but you need to know how to consume high fiber meals separate from the protein based meals.

Omnivores in my opinion just need to get more grains and greens in their diet to notice a great impact. Vegetarians are sometimes more health conscious than omnivores but it doesn't mean they're healthier. Fish alone is the phenomenal for you and if you're veggie simply cause of animal cruelty this meat shouldn't be looked over unless living life free and being netted and clubbed one day is too much for you. The convenience of a wide array of proteins is what makes this in my opinion the best diet. The body can absorb many different proteins and wonderful fats without jumping through hoops to get them into your system.

Sadly in the end with GMOs and meat being bathed in bacteria eating viruses If you're truly concerned about health you will quickly learn your options for a healthier dinner plate are drawing narrow on both sides of the spectrum. If you care about animals and don't wanna eat meat thats fine just don't end up consuming GMO soy and other Monsanto friendly crops to fill up your diet. Nowadays if you can find something that is truly healthy for you take it. If you feel bad about animals image what your life is going to feel like consuming all the garbage thats out there?

[Baalphegor]

At 12/6/08 07:40 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

At 12/6/08 06:45 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

Fair point, although I've already covered most of this argument in a previous post - Nature has adapted to us, but that doesn't mean we have to abuse it and needlessly harm and kill animals. If a cow has become accustomed to being used for human benefit, that means it'd still have a happy life being used for human benefit, but killing it for food when we could very easily get nutrients in meat from other vegetables is needless and cruel - a bad way to end its otherwise peaceful life.

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult

Does that mean that all the things you have listed are right and justified? Most (if not all) people who maim, burn, destroy, torture and rape have something wrong with them, and most wars are fought out of a bout of self-defence, such as World War II. Of course not all wars are like that, the Iraq War and Vietnam being prime examples. But those wars are started by the leaders who cannot see that what they're doing is immoral, and they always see war as a first-resort (which it shouldn't be)

I'm not saying that these things are good, I'm saying that they are within the Nature of Man, which encompasses all that is good and bad in humans, something which you, me, nor the entire world population can do anything about. These are things we have been doing to eachother since we started gathering in tribes and it doesn't seem that we're likely to stop anytime soon. Being human does have its bright sides compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, but we're not as diplomatic and reasonable as you think that we are. And no war is fought as self defense... the attacked faction is fighting in self defense, the aggressor is not, and both are human.

What I was trying to say, you're going to have a hard time convincing humanity in putting such value in animal life when we've proven over and over again that humanity as a whole doesn't even put such value in other humans. And we're talking basic feelings here, like hate, anger and jealousy, not laws and politics.

[mythicaljake]

At 12/6/08 07:45 AM, poxpower wrote: Guess how many animals were "murdered" to make way for the fields where they grow YOUR food.
Just the fact that you'd use "murder" is an indication that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

Most farms are grown alongside maintaining animal farms as well, I don't know where you got the idea that animals are killed to grow farms but it is absurd.

Heck your profile says you're 16. No wonder people don't take you seriously, there's a 99% chance that you just started doing this and are pissing everyone off around you because they all know you're just in a "phase".

That is another ridiculous claim on your part. Yes, I'm 16 and my beliefs are still developing but i am still capable of seeing immorality in something... It is not comparable to one of these Bob-Geldof-Says-Its-Right situations where it's fashionable to donate money to a charity that keeps half its profits just because a celebrity who never donates a penny says so. What you are suggesting is that because I am 16, i am not allowed any political beliefs.

Do you eat eggs? If so, then you're a murderer.

Please read ALL of the thread instead of just the original post - this argument has already been answered to.

If not then you HAVE to be against abortion.

A foetus, until born, is not a sentient being and is a part of the mother. Therefore, the mother has the right to do whatever she wants with it. Having an abortion would be no more unusual from having a Kidney removed. Where do you draw the line on how human something is before it is born? Because of this, do you abstain from masturbation because with every orgasm you are killing thousands of sperm cells that could be potential people? But avast. Abortion is completely irrelevant to this argument.

You stupid moral quest has more dead ends than a windows labyrinth screen saver.

Nice similie, douchebag.

Also I find it pretty sad that you think people are mean to YOU when you complain and ask questions about the food you get served. I'm sure your parents love to have to think about your stupid ass every time they make dinner, because you think you're morally superior.

I put focus on when i said i don't like debating on the subject. This has been one of the only times I've ever stated my stance on eating meat, I have posted this because frankly I'm sick of everybody regarding me as a nuisance because i'm vegetarian and thinking I'm militant on the subject. If both vegetarians and omnivores are guilty of the same crime, then it would be omnivores who struck first. And also, eating at home is not a problem because my mum and brother are also vegetarians, and then my other brother and stepdad are omnivores so two meals are always made each dinner.

Only their digestive system. And what about sharks? They're not designed to eat meat, are they? You're going to feed them soy beans?

You can hardly compare sharks to the human race; they are a wild animal and don't exactly have the intelligence to stop and think "Wait, eating meat is wrong! From now on, I shall only eat seaweed."

Face it: animals will always die. Always. And so will every last person on earth.

Of course animals and people will always die, I don't understand what you're getting at - That's what natural causes are for, and the human race have absolutely no control over that. What we do have control over is needlessly killing animals when we could very easily obtain the nutrients in meat from other vegetables and plants.

You're not saving any animals, all the ones that we eat are born solely for us to eat. Without us, they would have never been born.

No. Animals such as cows started off living in the wild, like any other animal. However, they have now adapted to being used by the human race - but that doesn't mean they have to have a painful and abusive life. Eggs, milk and wool can be obtained without harming the animal, and they can still have a happy life without being abused.

The simple fact of you being alive has killed animals. Driving kills animals...

Is that exactly through the fault of the driver? Driving kills animals because pheasants and cats (or any other animal that this applies to) jump out in front of the road at the last minute. Unless there's something seriously wrong with the driver, the common instinct is to break or swerve in order to avoid killing the animal in question. And even then, when I'm old enough to drive I don't intend to buy a car, mostly because I can very easily get to places I want using nothing but my legs and public transport. People are far too dependant on cars.

You're as dirty as every else you flamboyant hypocrite.

There was absolutely no point in that, it makes you come across as petty.

Every bit of food that you eat is one bit of food an animal won't. In a system with limited resources, you will ALWAYS consume the portion that could have been someone or something else's.

What is your point? How is this morally unacceptable? You could say exactly the same thing about the human race - am I starving everybody else around me by eating something?

You will NEVER win this moral battle, NEVER. Being a vegetarian is just self-gratification from people who believe they are morally superior to others. You're not, you're a sad bastard who most likely will suffer from malnutrition at one point in his life.

That is a heavily closed-minded and petty response. As I've already mentioned a human being can survive on vegetables alone without supplements and still be wonderfully healthy and get all the nutrients they need. Meat isn't necessary in a human diet, but the nutrients that come from it are - and they can be very easily obtained from other vegetables and to a lesser extent fruit.

It's called hunting and YES, many people have no choice but to resort to fishing and hunting to live. Go preach to them, see what they think.

Hunting and fishing are normally more cruel than killing animals in captivity, which is why I oppose it WHEN THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE. If there's a famine and there's no other option other than to hunt, then by all means! You don't exactly have any other choice.

Do you eat eggs?

Eggs can be obtained without harming the animal.

Milk?

Look above.

Cheese?

Look above.

Spider?

No.

Mollusks?

No.

Bugs?

No.

Animal carcasses?

No.

If a cow broke it's neck stumbling down a cliff, what then?

There's witnessing an animal die throw no fault of your own, then there's taking satisfaction in the cow dying.

What if a lion attacks YOU? You're not gonna kill him, you wuss?
I'd like to see you (or anyone else for that matter) tackle a lion with their bare hands. Even then that is a matter of self-defense, and therefore irrelevant.

What if you kill it? You're not going to eat him? Why the fuck not?

I've already pointed this out. Even if I do manage to kill a full-grown lion, there's killing it through self-defence and then there's taking enjoyment in it's death. Obviously there's the satisfaction that you're not going to get eaten, but then in turn eating the lion yourself shows you're just as barbaric as the animal.

A vegetarian is just another word for someone who doesn't understand how nature or civilization works.

You are an odorous liar who makes ridiculous claims.

Animals are stupid. They're worthless creatures barely capable of sentience. The stupider they are, the less wrong it is to eat them.

So would that make it right to eat the retarded, or to eat a child? No matter how stupid something/one is, it's still worthy of a painless life.

There's a sliding scale from ape all the way down to cabbage

Plants do not have brains, and cannot feel pain and distress in the same way a living thing can. You are ridiculous to compare an ape to a cabbage.

You're not cool, get over yourself.

I never said I was, I am merely voicing my beliefs. Is that such a henious crime?

[Sajberhippien]

For the note, when I'm discussing vegetarianism now I'm arguing from the ethics of killing and eating animals itself, I'm not talking about vegetarianism out of environmental or healthrelated reasons, neither am I talking about religiously motivated vegetarianism.

At 12/6/08 07:45 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/6/08 05:28 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

unrequested justifications for their murder of other species.

Guess how many animals were "murdered" to make way for the fields where they grow YOUR food.

The key word here is "unnecessary". Humans need to eat something, and vegetarian food generally requires FAR less resources than meat.
I agree that using the word "murder" is retarded though. Killing is more adequate.

Do you eat eggs? If so, then you're a murderer. If not then you HAVE to be against abortion. You stupid moral quest has more dead ends than a windows labyrinth screen saver.

Whait, what? Being against killing born beings for the joy of it isn't the same as being against killing a fetus to avoid suffering.

Humans are not designed to do anything, you fucking imbecile.

Only their digestive system.

And our arms are designed partly to kill each other for sex or food. Does that mean it's a good, or even neutral thing to do?

Without us, they would have never been born.

Excactly. And an animal that has never existed doesn't suffer. But if you use the argument "everyone will die anyways", I guess you support legalizing murder too? I mean, we're all gonna die anyway, so it doesn't matter how, right?

You're as dirty as every else you flamboyant hypocrite. Every bit of food that you eat is one bit of food an animal won't.

Yeah, because no matter how much you try to minimize the amount of suffering you inflict, you're as bad as Charles Manson.
You're quite nihilistic, aren't you?

You will NEVER win this moral battle, NEVER. Being a vegetarian is just self-gratification from people who believe they are morally superior to others. You're not, you're a sad bastard

Unless your point is that there is no such thing as moral and immoral actions, I don't get how you can state such a thing.
Is it immoral to inflict pain on humans?

who most likely will suffer from malnutrition at one point in his life.

Source me ONE study that shows vegetarians more frequently suffer malnutrition than omnivores.

Wow it sure is easy to fight straw men arguments! Now try the real thing on for size.

Those "straw men" are actually very common arguments from meat-eaters who doesn't have a clue.

Do you eat eggs?
Milk?
Cheese?
Spider?
Mollusks?
Bugs?
Animal carcasses?

Neither milk nor eggs require the animal to suffer. A common ingredient in cheese (although not all cheese has it) is rennet, which is produced in an animals stomach. To get it, you basically have to choices: Kill the animal, or force it to vomit with an empty stomach. Both are painful to the animal, so at least I don't eat cheese (unless it specifically states that there is no rennet in it). Spiders, mollusks, and other animals that are not chordate haven't been shown to have intelligence in the same way that chordates has (which is basically just a different amount of intelligence, though our brains work much in the same way), and I therefore have no problems eating those when it comes to animal rights. However, I still prefer not to eat them since it's unnecessary, there's no benefit to it and I don't think I would like it. Animal carcasses, well I don't know. Quite undecided on what I would do in that situation, but it isn't a common situation and I wouldn't have any moral problems with it.

I'd be VERY curious to know why you wouldn't eat an animal that just died in front of you. If a lion killed a cow, would you eat it?

That is a whole different story, since the lion didn't kill it so you could eat it.

If a cow broke it's neck stumbling down a cliff, what then? You're going to leave it to the maggots and the vultures?
That's also a whole different matter.

What if a lion attacks YOU? You're not gonna kill him, you wuss?
That argument is kind of the same as justifying murder saying self-defense isn't immoral.

A vegetarian is just another word for someone who doesn't understand how nature or civilization works.

In what way? You could argue that vegetarians have a slightly different view on moral issues, saying that it isn't more okay to kill animals than to torture them. However, a basic theme in civilization is going AGAINST what is natural in favor of what inflicts the least suffering. For example, laws against assault, murder, and rape are all an important part of civilization - despite these things being common and normal in the natural world.

The stupider they are, the less wrong it is to eat them.

I think I actually agree with you here.

There's a sliding scale from ape all the way down to cabbage

It's not really a perfect slide though, it's quite jumpy. It's easy to see that an orangutan is more intelligent than a fish - however the difference between the two are far less than between a fish and any animal that isn't a chordate. For example, vertebrates generally show an ability to LEARN, as individuals, while non-chordate's don't. Flee circuses are impossible, because a flee lacks the ability to learn. A fish can, however. That is the main difference for me.

and you're a damn fool if you think you have the moral authority to place an accurate divide on when something should be eaten because it's life is worth it and when something shouldn't.

Again: Are you arguing for a legalization of murder and cannibalism?

You're not cool, get over yourself.

I think he's quite cool. Apart from a few basic mistakes (saying that poor people don't eat meat, refering to it as "murder") he made good arguments and didn't resort to ad hominems like you did.

[mythicaljake]

(saying that poor people don't eat meat, refering to it as "murder")

Fair enough, I can admit that "murder" was too strong a word. After all murder should be specifically used for a person killing another person out of cold blood. But then i was fairly pissed off at the time of posting, so it more came from my moral outrage.

[Conspiracy3]

If no one ate meat what would we do with all of the cows on the ranches? Most likely they would be released into the wild. Cows have been selectively bred for thousands of years by humans to ensure the greatest profit of the ranchers. This breading has also damaged their ability to survive in the wild. They would most likely die off very quickly.

I am a vegetarian, but it has nothing to do with the usual reasons of people wanting to be nice to animals. I could care less about animals. I am a vegetarian because farming plants is a more efficient use of land and leads to less deforestation. Plants also remove greenhouse gasses from the air while animals contribute to it.

[Cornbucket]

At 12/6/08 07:15 AM, mythicaljake wrote: as long as we use the animals in a way that still means they have a happy life and are not mistreated, I don't see any problem.

Here, you're assuming we have (or CAN have) a proper understanding about what truly makes an animal happy. Elsewhere you said it's ridiculous to even try thinking of plants in the same manner. But just because a plant doesn't have a face doesn't mean we're unable to tell when it is thriving or when it is sick. We can spot disease and illness in plants just the same as we can with animals. You make the argument from ignorance that pain and pleasure do not exist in the plant world, or if it does we have no way to understand it. So maybe a plant doesn't sense pain in the same way we do. SO WHAT? Doesn't ALL LIFE put forth its best effort to survive? You take your own feelings that pain and death are bad things, and you apply that to lesser animals but not to plant life. But doesn't a flower bend to face the sun? Don't trees grow over and around obstructions in order to obtain light? We can see their volition to live right there. So how is killing a turkey to feed a family morally any worse than chopping down a tree to keep a family warm? Both turkey and tree do everything they can to survive, and in both instances we take their lives away so that we may extend our own.

You think your choice is based on a respect for life, but I suspect it's based more on your disdain for seeing (or imagining) things expressing their pain. You're unable to imagine in what ways a plant might hurt by being cut, so it's really just your lack of imagination that allows you to eat plants without feeling moral compunction over it. If cabbage screamed, you'd be fucked.

That is different, animal test subjects are heavily mistreated, and often abused by the scientists for the sake of abusing them.

Where in the world do you get that from? "Abused by the scientists for the sake of abusing them?" How do you claim to know this and from what basis can you say it happens 'often'?

Anyway, if you're a vegetarian because you prefer the food or it makes you feel more healthy and vitalized, then great. Keep it up. On the other hand, if you're a vegetarian because you think it's wrong to eat meat or that you're doing the world a favor in some small way by avoiding it, then you're an idiot.

[Conspiracy3]

Also I haven't heard of any omnivore being as prejudiced against vegetarians as you say they are. Most of the omnivores I know don't really care what you eat.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/6/08 05:54 AM, Baalphegor wrote:

At 12/6/08 05:47 AM, Earfetish wrote: I agree.

I always like to say, the best thing about humanity is our humanity. We might have evolved in a meat-eating environment but nowadays we have the ability not to, and we also have humanity, so we shouldn't.

Also, factory farming. Whenever I get into a debate about it I'm always like 'why is factory farming alright just so you can have a nice meal'.

Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian. I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat. Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

I support factory farming. It is a much more efficient use of land which means less deforestation. On many factory farms they also use the methane released by the decomposition of cow shit to power generators. Instead of the methane being released into the atmosphere it is being used as a renewable energy source.

[Conspiracy3]

At 12/6/08 06:48 AM, Cornbucket wrote:

At 12/6/08 06:22 AM, mythicaljake wrote: You can obtain animal products such as wool, eggs and milk without physically harming the animal.

You're ignoring the fact that it still involves taking them out of their natural habitats/lifestyles in order to facilitate collection of said products. What, you have no moral outrage over keeping chickens in coops and cows in barns with vacuum suction devices attached to their udders? So shearing the wool off a sheep doesn't disturb how it naturally lives its life?

Cows, pigs, goats, sheep, and many other animals have been controlled by humans for thousands of years. The barn is their natural habitat now. The fact that they lived somewhere else 15,000 years ago is irrelevant.

[Cornbucket]

Also with all the talk about humans having high intelligence and being above animals and whatnot, morality, ethics, whatever, here's some food for thought:

It isn't so much what we use to fuel our bodies with, it's what we DO with our bodies that counts. What we eat becomes a part of us. No cow or chicken can ever achieve what a man could achieve, however, when we consume a cow or chicken its lifeforce is transferred and becomes a part of our own. So, what BETTER way to honor an animal than to elevate it to the status of man? If a chicken gives you the energy to do great things, then that chicken has accomplished MORE in its death than it ever could have accomplished living a normal chicken life. The animals you consume become unwitting accomplices to everything you do... so as long as you're doing something worthwhile with that energy there's no reason to feel guilty or ashamed about what lower being gave its life in order for you to live yours.

[Baalphegor]

Humans are per definition omnivores, all-eaters. There are several reasons to why someone chooses to be a vegetarian or vegan. A friend of mine is a vegetarian simply because he doesn't like the taste of meat, and I understand that. But when the reason becomes ideological, I feel my curiosity getting rused.

Just reread the thread and noticed.... you've just listed why you dislike the arguments against vegetarians, but I didn't notice any explanation to WHY you are a vegetarian. So, instead that I try to pry out your stance on vegetarianism, meat-eating and veganism by asking tons of questions and putting together the puzzle, why don't you explain your stance on it? Any previous experience with cruelty to animals? Do you own a pet? I see that you have vegetarians in the family, have they convinced you? Weightloss diet? Ever been to a farm? etc etc

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/6/08 09:30 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

(saying that poor people don't eat meat, refering to it as "murder")

Fair enough, I can admit that "murder" was too strong a word. After all murder should be specifically used for a person killing another person out of cold blood. But then i was fairly pissed off at the time of posting, so it more came from my moral outrage.

Well, apart from that I agree with you then! [y]

The "meat is murder" argument pisses me as a vegetarian off, since it's the same appeal to emotion as the "abortion is murder"-argument, which I hate.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/6/08 09:42 AM, Cornbucket wrote: You take your own feelings that pain and death are bad things, and you apply that to lesser animals but not to plant life.

Unless you are against murder of retards, you do basically the same.

[Cornbucket]

At 12/6/08 09:58 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/6/08 09:42 AM, Cornbucket wrote: You take your own feelings that pain and death are bad things, and you apply that to lesser animals but not to plant life.

Unless you are against murder of retards, you do basically the same.

The assumption you're making here is that I consider pain and death to be bad things.

You know what they say about people who make assumptions, right?