Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[martu]

With a little thought I think I get the hilton example and it is a good one. The fact is that for both food and fashion an animal dies at the whim of a human, we do not need to eat meat. The fact that we use the corpse does not make much of a difference, an animal is dead.
So as a meat eater I think her actions are fine as long as the dog doesn't suffer.

 

[Yoink]

You know, if you want something done right, you just have to do it yourself.

Here's a much better parallel to the case of the meat-eater that might give us pause (and force us to think harder about what constitutes a "sufficient" reason for killing an animal).

Let us say that someone is staging a play based on the story of Isaac and Abraham, and at the climactic moment of the play, the stage directions call for the actual killing of a real live lamb. Let us accept that the director makes a convincing pitch to you that he wants to do this not for reasons of cheap sensationalism, but for a serious artistic purpose (you don't have to be persuaded that the artistic purpose is valid, just that it is sincerely meant). Let us further say that the play will run for one year, and that this will mean approx 350 lambs will be slaughtered during the run of the play (at least). Just for argument's sake, let us further stipulate that the lambs will be killed humanely (the actors will receive special training) but that the govt. won't allow the meat to be consumed by humans.

O.K.--here we have a case of animals actually being killed for a reason other than their meat, but which seems similarly compelling to the reasons so far adduced in the thread (gustatory pleasure vs. artistic statement/aesthetic pleasure), but which may, possibly, give some people pause.

Would we approve or disapprove of this theatrical production? If not, what distinguishes it from killing for meat?

Doesn't that seem to do the job a great deal better than the spoiled Heiress story?

 

[Cain]

I think we are all agreed--meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters alike--that killing animals simply because snuffing out a life gives you pleasure is wrong. But there's no parallel between the person who kills a dog because it's death per se "gives them pleasure" and the person who kills a cow because they want to eat its meat.

I think we are all agreed that it's wrong to kill an animal simply for the pleasure of killing an animal. I'm not sure why exactly we all agree. You're discriminating against different kinds of pleasure. What if someone derives greater pleasure from killing an animal than another person does in eating the same animal? What's the moral difference?

To play off the Roberts quote again: "I contend we are both vegetarians — I just believe in fewer acceptable forms of killing that you do. When you understand why you reject most reasons for killing, then you will understand why I reject yours as well."

The reason why I suspect you disagree with killing an animal for pleasure is that it's being killed for a trivial reason. It's not necessary; there's no purpose. Well, the same thing applies to killing an animal for food. There are alternatives.

Back to the Hotel Heiress:

There's no reason for her not to simply add dogs to her collection--it's not as if she can't afford more than one dog--but let's let THAT piece of shoddy hypothesizing slide.

Shoddy, indeed. You don't think it's unwise to have lots of dogs all around? Or the upkeep that goes into them? Maybe I should add that the Hotel Heiress is kind of a whore, on the board of the Valtrex society. What if she has a party? I guess she could muzzle the dogs to keep them from barking. You do accidentally make a good alternative case: Why not leave them around so that if one dog is not up to it, she can bring in a sub -- like twin babies on the set of a sitcom.

I MADE NO CLAIM as to whether [pleasure and sustenance] justified or did not justify the animal's death; I simply pointed out that whereas in the case of the meat eater the cow is killed FOR A REASON (the question of whether or no that reason is SUFFICIENT being as yet undecided), in the hypothetical case of the spoiled Heiress, the dogs are killed FOR NO REASON.

This is just false. She kills them for a reason. We might say that it's not a very good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless.

Why are we to assume that vets are the souls of discretion (especially vets who will make housecalls in the dead of night to whack celebrities' pets!) and yet it takes some kind of vast conspiracy of the loose-lipped for her to give her dog away? Why doesn't she give the dog to one close non-celebrity friend and ask her to give it away pretending that it is her own dog? That seems easier and cheaper than ringing around for Killer Vets ("Vet Vorks"? "Kervorkian Pets"? "007 PetCare"?

You're reaching here. You don't think it's easier to have a professional outside of her social circle discretely take care of the situation? A problem with celebritydom is that you don't know who your real friends are. A lot of tabloid fodder, as I understand it, is tipped by so-called friends. "Easier and cheaper" are related questions, and for a person with as much disposable income as her's, it IS easier and cheaper to have it put down. If anyone is resorting Rube Goldberg "what if..." scenarios, then it's you.

Let's also recall the central question that emerges from the scenario: Is she doing anything wrong?

I'm sorry--the hypothetical as drawn just doesn't make the dogs' deaths necessary to her ends in the way that the cow's death is necessary to the beef-eater. Instead of adding rube goldberg extra steps to this turkey, why not try to come up with a hypothetical that ACTUALLY poses the problem you want to pose?

Whether you realize it or not, I think this counter-argument of yours implicitly gives away an important concession -- that we must not kill unless it's necessary. Yes, eating an animal typically involves killing it (at least if we want the choicer parts), and it is possible the Hotel Heiress could get rid of dogs in some other way, but you seem to admit there is something wrong with killing an animal -- depriving it of a future. This must then be used as another consideration applied to the "beef-eater." Not only does eating meat involve all that happens on the farm, the transportation, the chances of being improperly stunned -- but assuming that all of that goes to plan, we still deprive of it a future, and than value must be accounted for under idealized killing scenarios (which is precisely what the Hotel Heiress seeks to address).

It is a straw man because it presents us with a case of someone killing animals FOR NO REASON AT ALL when what we are trying to decide is whether the reasons (amongst them pleasure and sustenance) for which meat eaters kill animals ARE SUFFICIENT REASONS.

We can get pleasure and sustenance without killing animals. Those values are not exclusively connected to meat-eating.

martu wrote:

To be honest if she ate the dog I would have some respect for her.

I had thought about including exactly this scenario, and even regretted not having it in. People already eat dogs though.

 

[AWPrime]

Not in and of itself. There is nothing about human flesh that is more dangerous than say cow flesh. You can get diseases like kuru from eating infected human nervous tissue, but you can also get other kinds of encephalopathy from eating infected cows.

Eating from another species is generally better because of the species barrier. With cannibalism one lacks that protection. That is why it is only done if the populations lacks a proper replacement.

On a broader scale, it's not easier in terms of energy efficiency. We convert solar energy to energy in grain, then feed that grain to cows (who use up most of the energy by being living cows), then get our energy from eating the beef.

And what about chickens fed with kitchen scraps?

And I'm not sure what to make of the "natural" argument. It's more natural for me not to eat meat than to eat meat.

Are you an omnivore?

On "easier" - the tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles in the supermarket next to my house. Why should I pick the chicken? For most people in the developed West, eating Vegan is no more arduous (or, only trivially more arduous) than eating meat. Even if it were more difficult, there are doubtless many actions that would make your life easier (pissing against walls, dropping litter, theft are three that come to mind) that you do not engage in because they counteract some of your basic moral principles.

Point one: the content of meat is actually quite diverse so just eating tofu isn't going to cut it.
Point two: your example is severely flawed, as your examples don't make my life any easier.
Point three: the objectivity/usefulness of your argument is kind of lacking if your solution can only be implemented in the developed west.

If you are of the opinion that animals should not be harmed for trivial reasons (for example, you support animal cruelty laws and prohibitions on dog fighting, for example), how can you justify your diet?

Easy, evolution has made us omnivores. Making eating a bit of meat (not too much and not too little) is healthy.

Also do you really think about the true nature of cruelty? It revolves around pain, psychological and physical. Give the animals a good and carefree life, then when its time for one of them, separate that animal and make sure that the end isn't painful or noticed.

 

[WildCat]

Easy, evolution has made us omnivores. Making eating a bit of meat (not too much and not too little) is healthy.

And if we didn't eat meat, we'd still be swinging from the trees. No need for a large brain when you're just following ripe fruit around. But when you don't have size, big teeth, speed, or claws you're going to need a brain to figure out how to kill the beastie for food or avoid becoming food for other beasties.

 

[zooloo]

As a vegan I don't eat honey because I find it unpalatable.

 

[Yoink]

Shoddy, indeed. You don't think it's unwise to have lots of dogs all around? Or the upkeep that goes into them?

Wow--even Rube Goldberg would think that this was getting too complicated. So the "Hotel Heiress" is worried about how much it costs to feed her dogs. Seriously?

Look, I'm not saying it might not be possible to eventually write a novel-length collection weird circumstances into the example as given that would make it eventually work (she can't trust any of her friends not the squeal, she happens to live in a town where the vets have a reputation for never talking to the press unless you ask them to give a dog to the pound rather than put it down etc. etc. etc.). I'm simply saying that the hypothetical statement AS WRITTEN doesn't give us any reason for her to have the dogs killed and that the road you're going down makes the hypothetical so A) complex and B) silly that it serves no purpose.

Maybe I should add that the Hotel Heiress is kind of a whore, on the board of the Valtrex society. What if she has a party? I guess she could muzzle the dogs to keep them from barking.

Dude. Seriously? I mean...seriously?

I'm reasonably confident that the "Hotel Heiress" can say "You! Minion! Take these dogs to the East Wing (yes, you may use the helicopter) and let me never see them again!)." But, you know, if you want to keep adding lipstick to this pig (to turn a phrase) I guess you can some how find a way to explain why your "Hotel Heiress" lives in a studio apartment.

You do accidentally make a good alternative case: Why not leave them around so that if one dog is not up to it, she can bring in a sub -- like twin babies on the set of a sitcom.

Well, actually that wouldn't work according to the original scenario (am I the only one here who actually read the damn thing?). The dogs--for one reason or another--do not suit her needs. The only thing the scenario left out was why killing them was her only solution.

This is just false. She kills them for a reason. We might say that it's not a very good reason, but it's a reason nonetheless.

Er, you're forgetting that I was talking about the scenario AS WRITTEN. Various people have made up some ad hoc reasons for her to kill them (like your one about the very discrete vets who will only be discreet if you get them to put your vet down but won't take it to the pound, for example; that's a pretty unlikely reason in the real-world, but a reason in its own hypothetical world) but A) those ad hoc reasons are either stupid (see above) or not parallel to the meat-eater's reasons and B) I'm talking about the scenario AS WRITTEN!!!

In that scenario, SHE HAS NO REASON TO KILL THE DOGS. She has a reason to want to buy a new dog, but no reason is given for why she should want to kill off the old dogs. None. Nada. Zip. If one of you would actually bother to go and read the flipping thing, maybe we could drop this stupid line of argument.

You're reaching here. You don't think it's easier to have a professional outside of her social circle discretely take care of the situation? A problem with celebritydom is that you don't know who your real friends are. A lot of tabloid fodder, as I understand it, is tipped by so-called friends. "Easier and cheaper" are related questions, and for a person with as much disposable income as her's, it IS easier and cheaper to have it put down. If anyone is resorting Rube Goldberg "what if..." scenarios, then it's you.

Ah yes I'm making Rube Goldberg scenarios because I'm...sticking to the original scenario.

I do like your claim that for a rich person it is cheaper to spend nothing (the cost of asking a friend to take a dog to the pound) than it is to spend something (the cost of getting a vet to put the dog down). That's a mathematically interesting principle. If I could only find a rich person who could be persuaded of that: "look, dude, you're so rich that if you give me 1% of your assets that's actually LESS MONEY than if you give me nothing!"

Of course, that's no funnier than the idea that because your friends "might" betray you it stands to reason that a completely unknown vet must be less likely to betray you.

And, of course, all of this is implicit in the original hypothetical scenario and is in no way an absurd Rube Goldbergish excrescence upon it. Not at ALL!

Let's also recall the central question that emerges from the scenario: Is she doing anything wrong?

Gosh, do tell? The problem is that the question doesn't help us think about whether someone who kills for meat is doing anything wrong. Most meat eaters would probably say it's not a good idea to kill for no reason at all. They would also say that eating the animal is a sufficient reason for killing it. The hypothetical "Heiress" scenario doesn't, then, pose any challenge to the meat-eater's ethical position.

Whether you realize it or not, I think this counter-argument of yours implicitly gives away an important concession -- that we must not kill unless it's necessary.

Actually, no--my argument MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE ETHICAL VALUE OF KILLING ANIMALS. It points out that the situation in the hypothetical scenario is not parallel with the situation of the meat eater. Sheesh!

I have offered no judgment as to whether it is ethically wrong for her to kill the animals in her situation. All I have said is that it is wasteful, because the animals could give pleasure to others. So I have not conceded anything about whether or not the animal's life is an intrinsic good. Jeez, people, try to actually read the words that are written down here.

Yes, eating an animal typically involves killing it (at least if we want the choicer parts), and it is possible the Hotel Heiress could get rid of dogs in some other way,

Well, bravo. You finally got the point.

but you seem to admit there is something wrong with killing an animal -- depriving it of a future.

Oops, no--you lost it again. (See above for why I have made no such concession.)

This must then be used as another consideration applied to the "beef-eater." Not only does eating meat involve all that happens on the farm, the transportation, the chances of being improperly stunned -- but assuming that all of that goes to plan, we still deprive of it a future, and than value must be accounted for under idealized killing scenarios (which is precisely what the Hotel Heiress seeks to address).

That death involves depriving an animal of a future is pretty obvious with or without the Hotel Heiress example. I don't see how her hypothetical scenario helps us think about that issue in any way.

We can get pleasure and sustenance without killing animals. Those values are not exclusively connected to meat-eating.

Well duh. But we can't get the pleasure of eating meat without killing animals. Whether or not that is a sufficient reason for killing them is the question at hand. Our attitude towards someone killing dogs for NO REASON AT ALL does not help us think about that question.

 

[Cain]

I am perfectly willing to accept your example above. It has certain implications you may have failed to consider, such as what constitutes "serious artistic purpose," or why-oh-why the government is allowed to dictate that we cannot eat it, but that's fine. I'll also defend it against objections from Boink's loud complaints: "IT'S NOT NECESSARY. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PRETEND-KILLING ANIMALS IN MOVIES, WHERE YOU GET TO SEE IT HAPPEN CLOSE-UP, YET YOU WANT TO DO THIS FROM THE STAGE. BESIDES, WHY PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM EATING IT? YOU'RE DENYING THEM PLEASURE AND SUSTENANCE!!"

Your latest reply below sometimes verges on tantrum.

I'm simply saying that the hypothetical statement AS WRITTEN doesn't give us any reason for her to have the dogs killed and that the road you're going down makes the hypothetical so A) complex and B) silly that it serves no purpose.

Again, I think your so-called objections have introduced needless complexity because they're not very well thought through. It just takes me a little bit more time to explain why they are not well-thought out. As for "serving no purpose," that is, um, sort of the point.

Dude. Seriously? I mean...seriously?

I'm reasonably confident that the "Hotel Heiress" can say "You! Minion! Take these dogs to the East Wing (yes, you may use the helicopter) and let me never see them again!)." But, you know, if you want to keep adding lipstick to this pig (to turn a phrase) I guess you can some how find a way to explain why your "Hotel Heiress" lives in a studio apartment.

Perhaps I know a little bit too much about celebrities, Paris Hilton in particular, but not all of them live in sprawling estates. I'm not sure if she still does, but at one time she lived with her sister in some beach house. I remember seeing a picture of it, probably on television.

Well, actually that wouldn't work according to the original scenario (am I the only one here who actually read the damn thing?). The dogs--for one reason or another--do not suit her needs. The only thing the scenario left out was why killing them was her only solution.

Here I try to bend over backwards to at least try to accommodate your objections and this is what I get. I was thinking the fat dog could have been given time to lose weight, or the nervous dog time to overcome its fear of people.

Er, you're forgetting that I was talking about the scenario AS WRITTEN. Various people have made up some ad hoc reasons for her to kill them (like your one about the very discrete vets who will only be discreet if you get them to put your vet down but won't take it to the pound, for example;

Actually, as I said, I had that reason in mind the whole time.

that's a pretty unlikely reason in the real-world, but a reason in its own hypothetical world) but A) those ad hoc reasons are either stupid (see above) or not parallel to the meat-eater's reasons and B) I'm talking about the scenario AS WRITTEN!!!

Yes, B was a valid concern, which is the reason for my clarifying post in this thread. The first part of A has already been addressed, we'll get to the second part below.

I do like your claim that for a rich person it is cheaper to spend nothing (the cost of asking a friend to take a dog to the pound) than it is to spend something (the cost of getting a vet to put the dog down). That's a mathematically interesting principle. If I could only find a rich person who could be persuaded of that: "look, dude, you're so rich that if you give me 1% of your assets that's actually LESS MONEY than if you give me nothing!"

I think I was listening to the animal rights discussion segment on Philosophy Talk awhile ago, and a vet called in saying he was tired of ordinary, non-celebrities wanting to pay 30 dollars to put their cat down because it clawed up furniture. You're making such a ridiculous argument: do you honestly think it would be less of a burden to feed, house, and keep the animal under wraps in the "east wing" than to have it put down?

Of course, that's no funnier than the idea that because your friends "might" betray you it stands to reason that a completely unknown vet must be less likely to betray you.

I'm not sure who said the vet is "completely unknown" or why you insist on this weak comparison. You should stick to something more compelling, such as having it anonymously dropped off at animal shelter. At a friend's place there would just be continuous opportunities to blow the lid. You have more chance encounters, people who are more likely to gossip (versus some middle-aged vet). Just get it over and done with.

OK, enough playing around, let's get to the crux of the matter:

Actually, no--my argument MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE ETHICAL VALUE OF KILLING ANIMALS. It points out that the situation in the hypothetical scenario is not parallel with the situation of the meat eater. Sheesh!

No, in order for your objection to be valid, it must be registering some significant difference. A person could claim the two scenarios are completely different because in one case we're talking about dogs and in another we're talking about cows. But that's an insignificant difference. A person could claim cows are raised in a completely different environment than dogs, but that's also insignificant.

If your objection is to have any meaning than there must be some reason why killing the dog is undesirable. If that's an insignificant value, then why are you twisting yourself into knots over it? If off-loading the animal on friends, or onto public care facilities, or keeping it in the east wing is morally indistinguishable from killing it, then who cares if she kills it? Just get to the punch, as martu does. Is she doing anything wrong?

I have offered no judgment as to whether it is ethically wrong for her to kill the animals in her situation. All I have said is that it is wasteful, because the animals could give pleasure to others.

I do not recall you putting it in those terms, but I am pleased to see these sentences following one another. It's difficult for you to say you have not offered judgment when you're introducing these other values, waste and pleasure to others.

In his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer has a consider an abortion scenario. A woman has been planning a trip overseas to the Himalayas for nearly a year. The plan is to leave in six months, but she unexpectedly gets pregnant. She has always wanted children, but this one will interfere with her impending adventures. She figures that since the window for having children is more open, she can have an abortion now, go on a fantastic trip, and then start breeding. The idea here is that it's OK to kill for a trivial reason. I don't see anything wrong with this case because the embryo is replaceable and is not yet a morally significant being. Your objection above is misplaced because there's already an oversupply of animals in need of homes. It only works if you attach some value to the dog itself, which belies this insistence of yours:

So I have not conceded anything about whether or not the animal's life is an intrinsic good. Jeez, people, try to actually read the words that are written down here.

Well, not explicitly.

On pleasure and sustenance you wrote:

Well duh. But we can't get the pleasure of eating meat without killing animals. Whether or not that is a sufficient reason for killing them is the question at hand. Our attitude towards someone killing dogs for NO REASON AT ALL does not help us think about that question.

You just eliminated the "sustenance" non-reason for me, so let's never speak of it again. I think you severely misunderstand the purpose of my example.

Anyway, the rest of your post is rather repetitive, though I do see you completely ignored the beginning of mine -- where I followed up on your reply to another poster. I asked what's wrong with killing an animal for fun? You had alluded to some consensus we are supposed to have between meat-eaters and non-meat eaters.

The point of my original thread is that many meat-eaters are all too happy to legislate for others over what constitutes valid and invalid killing.

 

[Cain]

I also would not mind the example of Cruella de Vil, from Wikipedia:

Cruella de Vil is a fictional character and the primary villain in Dodie Smith's 1956 novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians, Disney's 1961 animated film adaptation One Hundred and One Dalmatians, and Disney's live-action film adaptations 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians. In all her incarnations, Cruella kidnaps dalmatian puppies for their fur. In the live-action version of 101 Dalmatians, it is revealed that the reason Cruella chooses to skin puppies is that when shorthair dogs grow older their fur becomes very coarse, which doesn't sell as well in the fur fashion industry as the fine, soft fur of puppies. She also always has the left half of her hair white and the right half black.

For our example we can have her kill adult Dalmations rather than puppies, and she can do so without inflicting pain.

 

[GreNME]

Oh, sure. Of course this is an argument of degrees. It's obvious that we're disagreeing about whether killing an animal is harmful and whether eating it is necessary.

This is why I'm still responding to you, by the way: you're being civil and fairly reasonable (to a certain point).

It's soluble, though, if you can make a justifying case for where you draw your lines (and why you see the same act as harmful and unnecessary in nearly all other circumstances other than food). Here's my case: killing is trivially definable as harm. Meat eating is unnecessary because I can achieve the same level of nutrition from plant-based sources.

Now, I know you disagree. But why? In what way is meat eating necessary for those for whom plant based diets are available? And in what sense is killing an animal not harmful, especially given that you would say it was in situations divorced from food production?

It's those two simple points - why you make the designations of degree on these two criteria - that I had been asking you to clarify in the other thread, really.

And I have. You simply find it unacceptable. However, it works for me just as yours works for you. I can reconcile the two, you can't. Would you instead prefer to go through a list of situations where I nay disagree with the choosing to eat meat? There is a line I draw with it-- hence my desire to see changes in the meat producing industry-- but that line is quite obviously in a different place than yours.

ETA: On degree, I've been open that my definitions of necessity (though not of harm) vary quite dramatically from some other (often metaphysically-inclined) vegans, particularly on the issue of animal testing and on pest control. But I can justify these within a coherent moral framework. Would that you would do the same.

This is that certain point I mention earlier in the post. You make some pretty bold statements that are based solely on the requirement to define and work from the degrees in your own perspective. I've asked you repeatedly to not do that. If you want to really understand the perspective you're asking about, then starting from your own as a reference point-- which assumes failure to understand from the get-go-- then you're going to continue to reach the same roadblock. If you want me to tell you that, yes, my reasoning does not fit into your moral framework, then fine: it doesn't fit into your moral framework. I'm cool with that, because A) I'm not you and B) my reasoning has to work for me. You've already said that you can accept that those other names I mention can be considered moral because they work within their own framework, even if you may disagree, so why can't you conceive of the same on this matter?

 

[applecorped]

Morality used to be a friend of mine
Morality used to be a friend of mine
Maybe why? is the question thats on you mind
But morality used to be a friend of mine
Morality used to be a friend of mine.
Morality used to be a friend of mine
Please don't ask me cause I don't know why,
But morality used to be a friend of mine.

I used to be friends with morality
She used to be a pal real close to me
But she tried to hide from me what was in store
Tried to house me but a house has doors
I was insane and the picture was crazy
So the relevance here seems to be a bit hazy
But I tried to explain this in the simplest terms
But she let the cross burn and it was my turn to say,

Morality used to be a friend of mine
Morality used to be a friend of mine
Maybe why? is the question thats on you mind
But morality used to be a friend of mine
Morality used to be a friend of mine.
Morality used to be a friend of mine
Please don't ask me cause I don't know why,
But morality used to be a friend of mine.

(based on Reality used to be a friend of mine by P.M. Dawn)

 

[negativ]

Nutrition derived from ideology.

Certainly not woo by any means.

Like when my vegan acquaintance decided she needed to inflict her fetish on her cat. It lived a year or so afterward.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And if we didn't eat meat, we'd still be swinging from the trees. No need for a large brain when you're just following ripe fruit around. But when you don't have size, big teeth, speed, or claws you're going to need a brain to figure out how to kill the beastie for food or avoid becoming food for other beasties.

What? Are you saying people who don't eat meat are somehow brain impaired as a result?

Or are you saying that eating meat may have been necessary at some time in the past for our ancestors?

If the former, I assure you, while I've just started to learn rock climbing, I don't swing around from the trees. I also test at way above average intelligence.

If the latter, what bearing does it have on people of today? If you go back far enough, our ancestors needed to live their lives entirely in the water, but that doesn't mean anything to us today.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nutrition derived from ideology.

Nope. I get my nutrition entirely from the food I eat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Eating from another species is generally better because of the species barrier. With cannibalism one lacks that protection. That is why it is only done if the populations lacks a proper replacement.

I've never heard that. You got anything to support it? I doubt very much that cannibalism is in itself more dangerous (to the eater) than eating other meat--or at least not significantly so. (Like the difference in risk between eating your steak rare and eating it medium.)

And what about chickens fed with kitchen scraps?

What about them? How many chickens eaten by humans are raised that way compared to those that are grain-fed in the factory farms? Do you think it's possible to supply the demand for meat by chickens fed kitchen scraps and cows grazed on the land and do away with factory farms and feedlots?

I'd say it might be possible if people ate meat on rare occasions. So, the energy efficiency considerations (converting grain to meat) stand.

Are you an omnivore?

I don't eat meat. Since you ask this in the context of your "natural" argument, maybe you mean, "Did God or Mother Nature intend me to be an omnivore?" My answer is, I don't believe in the supernatural. If you're asking whether my ancestors were omnivores, my answer is that their dietary choices are irrelevant to me.

Point one: the content of meat is actually quite diverse so just eating tofu isn't going to cut it.

Eating any one food is a bad idea. Nothing will "cut it" if you only eat one thing. I eat a variety of foods, but no meat. I'm quite healthy, thank you.

Easy, evolution has made us omnivores. Making eating a bit of meat (not too much and not too little) is healthy.

Evolution has no intention whatsoever. I don't base my vegetarian decision on health considerations, but I'll bet you anything the average vegetarian has a healthier diet than the average meat eater.

Give the animals a good and carefree life, then when its time for one of them, separate that animal and make sure that the end isn't painful or noticed.

If that were the way all meat was provided, I actually might reconsider my choice to be a vegetarian. (Probably not, though. My decision isn't really based on the cruelty and suffering issue as much as it is on the killing itself--however humanely it might be handles.) I don't think it is, and I also don't think it's possible to supply the demand with methods like that.

Go visit a factory farm or a feed lot. Tell me if these animals have a good life.

 

[WildCat]

What? Are you saying people who don't eat meat are somehow brain impaired as a result?

Or are you saying that eating meat may have been necessary at some time in the past for our ancestors?

If the former, I assure you, while I've just started to learn rock climbing, I don't swing around from the trees. I also test at way above average intelligence.

If the latter, what bearing does it have on people of today? If you go back far enough, our ancestors needed to live their lives entirely in the water, but that doesn't mean anything to us today.

I'm just saying that eating meat had a big impact on our evolution into what we are.

 

[AWPrime]

I've never heard that. You got anything to support it? I doubt very much that cannibalism is in itself more dangerous (to the eater) than eating other meat--or at least not significantly so. (Like the difference in risk between eating your steak rare and eating it medium.)

You do know that most diseases are species specific?

What about them? How many chickens eaten by humans are raised that way compared to those that are grain-fed in the factory farms? Do you think it's possible to supply the demand for meat by chickens fed kitchen scraps and cows grazed on the land and do away with factory farms and feedlots?
I'd say it might be possible if people ate meat on rare occasions. So, the energy efficiency considerations (converting grain to meat) stand.

In most of human history animals were only fed with food that wasn't fit for human consumption and in many parts of the world this is still the norm. Citing an exception as the norm doesn't make any argument against meat eating.

I don't eat meat. Since you ask this in the context of your "natural" argument, maybe you mean, "Did God or Mother Nature intend me to be an omnivore?" My answer is, I don't believe in the supernatural. If you're asking whether my ancestors were omnivores, my answer is that their dietary choices are irrelevant to me.

Guess what you are an omnivore, your body wants some meat. Even if your mind can't bring yourself to eat meat.

Eating any one food is a bad idea. Nothing will "cut it" if you only eat one thing. I eat a variety of foods, but no meat. I'm quite healthy, thank you.
Evolution has no intention whatsoever. I don't base my vegetarian decision on health considerations, but I'll bet you anything the average vegetarian has a healthier diet than the average meat eater.

If you mean with meat eater the daily multi-pound flesh eater, then you might be right. However as a vegetarian you would need to take far more attention to what you are eating to make sure you get what you need. A meat eater that eats the proper amount and variation of meat is likely to be healthier.

If that were the way all meat was provided, I actually might reconsider my choice to be a vegetarian. (Probably not, though. My decision isn't really based on the cruelty and suffering issue as much as it is on the killing itself--however humanely it might be handles.)

Well that is odd. Dying is a fact of life but how that life was lived is what truly matters.

I don't think it is, and I also don't think it's possible to supply the demand with methods like that.
Go visit a factory farm or a feed lot. Tell me if these animals have a good life.

There use to be a demand for shrimp that was boiled alive, now that's illegal. It was found to be too cruel.
The current demand is excessive, for many people are eating too much meat. The blame for that can be pointed at the bizarre methods that make meat so cheap. Its a self reinforcing circle, that can only be broken by law and culture. Meat eating itself will never go away, however animals don't have to be treated cruelly to provide meat. Also stress free animals provide tastier meat.

 

[applecorped]

Also stress free animals provide tastier meat.

Have there been tests to determine this or is this personal observation?

 

[Drudgewire]

Have there been tests to determine this or is this personal observation?

It's the one concession I made while dating a hippie, strictly as a pacification move.

Now, unless regular chicken breasts are on sale I always buy free-range. I can't imagine I'd convince myself it tastes better because quite honestly I didn't want it to.

But it does.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

I think we are all agreed that it's wrong to kill an animal simply for the pleasure of killing an animal. I'm not sure why exactly we all agree. You're discriminating against different kinds of pleasure. What if someone derives greater pleasure from killing an animal than another person does in eating the same animal? What's the moral difference?

To play off the Roberts quote again: "I contend we are both vegetarians — I just believe in fewer acceptable forms of killing that you do. When you understand why you reject most reasons for killing, then you will understand why I reject yours as well."

The reason why I suspect you disagree with killing an animal for pleasure is that it's being killed for a trivial reason. It's not necessary; there's no purpose. Well, the same thing applies to killing an animal for food. There are alternatives.

Please excuse the snipping - done because this is the one point I wished to address.

There are alternatives THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. Not to me.

That you do not think animals should be killed for food is a religious stance, and as such is not really going to go anywhere as an argument. You believe it because you believe it and your attempts to rationalize it are about as valid as any religious advocates arguments.

Good luck with your beliefs, you and the fundies should get together sometime.