Split Thread Skepticism and Vegetarianism

[Chanakya]

Some modern breeds that are well looked after will produce unfertilised eggs all year round, as many as one every other day, if you didn’t remove them they’d soon be roosting on a mountain of eggs!

Yep, unfertilized eggs are a thing, I know. Agreed, maternal instincts or no maternal instincts, eating those shouldn't raise ethical issues, if they weren't specifically bred and "farmed" for that purpose, but instead were genuine rescues treated well throughout.

Personally, I have no issues with regular eggs either, given how @icerat does it, with rescue chicks raised and treated well all their life long right till the end --- and provided, in this latter case, that the hens do not have maternal instincts for their eggs, and do not "grieve" when we take away those eggs.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The Official Rules for Veganism don't require you to discard belongings acquired prior to going vegan.

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

 

[novaphile]

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

Hence the Simpsons put down\joke: "I'm a Class 5 Vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

 

[Chanakya]

Yes, at least, when I was vegan, I didn't throw previously purchased leather goods away. That idea seemed to be on the slippery slope of "more veganer than thou" route. It also seemed like it would disrespect the animal to throw it away.

Ehh, do your own thing, by all means. I myself use leather. Even despite acknowledging and agreeing with the ethical argument against its use, so far I still do. So it's not like I'm doing the sanctimonious thing of trying to force my ethics down your gullet, I mean I don't force no-leather-use down my own gullet.

But, I mean, to talk of it being disrespectful to the animal, when you throw away a belt or a coat or shoes made from actually the hide taken off that creature --- that's a bit much. That kind of "respect" and "disrespect" seems so ...twisted, that I thought a brief post pointing that out might not be out of place.


eta: Sure, it can be thought of as disrespectful of the craftsman that made that product, if you're so inclined. Or maybe disrespectful of the money that went into buying an expensive leather item, and so disrespectful of the effort gone into earning that money, if you're so inclined, sure. Or even, if you're so inclined to think of it, disrespectful of someone that gifted it to you. I mean, it's not necessary to think that way, it's just a thing: but it makes sense to think that way if you're so inclined. ............But disrespectful of the animal whose hide went into making it, to no longer use that item, to throw it away? That's so ...twisted, that thinking.

(Sorry, no offense! Just ...well, what I said.)

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh, seriously? Well then, in that case, like I spelled out, the argument implied in your initial paragraph, that was addressed to me, was completely wrong. And, coming from you, who are no stranger to either critical thinking in general or to the Nirvana Fallacy in particular, I'm afraid it's actually a joke, even if you hadn't intended it as such.

Completely wrong? How is it possible to avoid all kinds of animal suffering in your existence? You can't be a human without in some way having animals suffer to have put you there. Vegans draw a line - in my experience, it's usually at the "I will not personally cause any animal to suffer" (or "directly") but even they will partake of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, to take just one example, that were tested on animals before being approved for human use. I've known people whose line is "this product was part of an animal once and that revolts me". But those who believe that they can participate in modern society while denying all animal suffering are naïve, in my opinion. Yes, I've known some of those too.

In short, animals are going to continue to suffer regardless of anybody's individual dietary choices. Humans exploit non-human animals in many ways, and always have.

The second paragraph also looks completely utterly wrong, but yeah, I'm not going to go to town analyzing a throwaway comment to someone else.

I was describing my behaviour and the reasoning behind it. How can it be "wrong"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Hence the Simpsons put down\joke: "I'm a Class 5 Vegan, I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

I've heard someone say "I won't eat anything that has shoulders".

 

[theprestige]

Flesh is flesh. Meat is meat. Animals are robots or p-zombies, or what have you. Biomass is biomass. Eat what you want, how you want. Form emotional attachments if you want. Be vegan if it makes you a better person.

 

[Chanakya]

Completely wrong? How is it possible to avoid all kinds of animal suffering in your existence? You can't be a human without in some way having animals suffer to have put you there. Vegans draw a line - in my experience, it's usually at the "I will not personally cause any animal to suffer" (or "directly") but even they will partake of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals, to take just one example, that were tested on animals before being approved for human use. I've known people whose line is "this product was part of an animal once and that revolts me". But those who believe that they can participate in modern society while denying all animal suffering are naïve, in my opinion. Yes, I've known some of those too.

In short, animals are going to continue to suffer regardless of anybody's individual dietary choices. Humans exploit non-human animals in many ways, and always have.

But so what? You started your post to me with an "Except". That indicates you're clearly implying that this somehow detracts from the vegan ethical argument.
...Otherwise, how is it even relevant, to point out that the harm-minimizing-for-ethical-reasons vegan is not eliminating all harm? And that "Except" clearly indicates your implied argument. ...Which argument is the Nirvana Fallacy thing.

I was describing my behaviour and the reasoning behind it. How can it be "wrong"?

That sounded like a joke to me, honestly. I didn't say that as a snide put-down. ...Thing is, if everyone flocked to the vegetarian dishes in the buffet, and as a result the vegetarian food literally ran out, then:

1. Not necessarily, but very probably, the ethical vegan/vegetarian will probably not mind, because that means there's so many others also moving away from exploiting animals.

2. If that makes for a trend, veg dishes running out and meat dishes going uneaten, then the caterers will in future make more of the veg dishes and less of the meat ones.

Which makes that reasoning, in context of a discussion on the ethics of it, kind of jokey.

But, on the other hand, as far as specifically this part of your post, if no argument was implied, then fair: Just your actions; and your thoughts that lead you to, or accompany, those actions: those in themselves are neither right nor wrong, they are what they are, is all.

 

[varwoche]

But so what? You started your post to me with an "Except". That indicates you're clearly implying that this somehow detracts from the vegan ethical argument.
...Otherwise, how is it even relevant, to point out that the harm-minimizing-for-ethical-reasons vegan is not eliminating all harm? And that "Except" clearly indicates your implied argument. ...Which argument is the Nirvana Fallacy thing.

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans. It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ehh, do your own thing, by all means. I myself use leather. Even despite acknowledging and agreeing with the ethical argument against its use, so far I still do. So it's not like I'm doing the sanctimonious thing of trying to force my ethics down your gullet, I mean I don't force no-leather-use down my own gullet.

But, I mean, to talk of it being disrespectful to the animal, when you throw away a belt or a coat or shoes made from actually the hide taken off that creature --- that's a bit much. That kind of "respect" and "disrespect" seems so ...twisted, that I thought a brief post pointing that out might not be out of place.


eta: Sure, it can be thought of as disrespectful of the craftsman that made that product, if you're so inclined. Or maybe disrespectful of the money that went into buying an expensive leather item, and so disrespectful of the effort gone into earning that money, if you're so inclined, sure. Or even, if you're so inclined to think of it, disrespectful of someone that gifted it to you. I mean, it's not necessary to think that way, it's just a thing: but it makes sense to think that way if you're so inclined. ............But disrespectful of the animal whose hide went into making it, to no longer use that item, to throw it away? That's so ...twisted, that thinking.

(Sorry, no offense! Just ...well, what I said.)

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

 

[Chanakya]

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans.

Sure, agreed.

It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

Well, that "except" at the start of his post clearly carried an implicit argument.

Otherwise, standalone, that's true, even if completely obvious.

 

[theprestige]

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

X-shaming must be a power word in your culture.

 

[Chanakya]

Calling someone's vegan belief "twisted" is diet shaming. "No offense but" is bigoted.

Wasn't talking about diet at all. Wasn't even talking about using leather. Was talking about the absurdity of thinking of stopping using leather by discarding the leather products as somehow disrespectful of the animal whose hide was stripped away to make the leather. That's ...absurd, nonsensical, that thinking. It's twisted, in the sense that it seems to treat the act if killing a sentient being and using its hide for our own purposes as somehow ...respectful of that animal? Yep that's twisted. It isn't as if this was an organ donor voluntarily donating their hide for those shoes or that belt.

And how is "no offense implied" bigoted? How is any of this bigoted? I use leather myself. And, regardless of that, why is pointing out the absurdity in your thinking bigoted? That's just a random term you're throwing back at me in lieu of defending your position. I mean, since you aired your thoughts in this discussion forum, then presumably you meant us to discuss it if we had any thoughts on it, surely.

But I did mean it when I'd said no offense was intended. So I won't argue this beyond this post. But just to clarify things again: This isn't about diet, or even about use of leather per se.

 

[Orphia Nay]

X-shaming must be a power word in your culture.

I wasn't using it like that. "Bigoted" is though.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Wasn't talking about diet at all. Wasn't even talking about using leather. Was talking about the absurdity of thinking of stopping using leather by discarding the leather products as somehow disrespectful of the animal whose hide was stripped away to make the leather. That's ...absurd, nonsensical, that thinking. It's twisted, in the sense that it seems to treat the act if killing a sentient being and using its hide for our own purposes as somehow ...respectful of that animal? Yep that's twisted. It isn't as if this was an organ donor voluntarily donating their hide for those shoes or that belt.

And how is "no offense implied" bigoted? How is any of this bigoted? I use leather myself. And, regardless of that, why is pointing out the absurdity in your thinking bigoted? That's just a random term you're throwing back at me in lieu of defending your position. I mean, since you aired your thoughts in this discussion forum, then presumably you meant us to discuss it if we had any thoughts on it, surely.

But I did mean it when I'd said no offense was intended. So I won't argue this beyond this post. But just to clarify things again: This isn't about diet, or even about use of leather per se.

It's not my position. It was my position. I am still sensitive about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Clearly. It's also painfully obvious that not all harm to animals can be eliminated by vegans. It's an observation that adds precisely nothing.

Sure, agreed.

Accepted. It was an observation that didn't need to be made.

There are many valid reasons to be a vegetarian or a vegan. Whatever someone's reason is is not anyone else's business.

 

[Darat]

Yep, unfertilized eggs are a thing, I know. Agreed, maternal instincts or no maternal instincts, eating those shouldn't raise ethical issues, if they weren't specifically bred and "farmed" for that purpose, but instead were genuine rescues treated well throughout.

Personally, I have no issues with regular eggs either, given how @icerat does it, with rescue chicks raised and treated well all their life long right till the end --- and provided, in this latter case, that the hens do not have maternal instincts for their eggs, and do not "grieve" when we take away those eggs.

Surely the only solution to your concerns regarding removing eggs from rescue chickens causing emotional distress (if it does) is to kill the rescue chickens rather than inflicting continuing emotional distress for the rest of their lives?

 

[Chanakya]

Surely the only solution to your concerns regarding removing eggs from rescue chickens causing emotional distress (if it does) is to kill the rescue chickens rather than inflicting continuing emotional distress for the rest of their lives?

Haha, no! The simplest solution to my concern would be to continue doing what I already do, which is refrain from eating eggs (as well as meat, et cetera).

Okay, where I was coming from is, I'm aware of, on one hand, those unfertilized eggs things, and on the other of free range hens that are used for both eggs and to eat them. In as much as they involve specifically breeding the hens, they don't gel with what I personally think is ethical eating --- or, to put it less grandly, I couldn't stomach eating those, the way I'm wired at this point in time. ...But then, here comes @icerat, talking about something that, while in retrospect is obvious enough, but it had never occurred to me. Like rescue puppies and kittens, he adopts rescue chickens, rescue hens. And how completely cool is that. And he also eats their eggs, ...and then I go thinking, hey, I could very well eat eggs on those terms, eggs that are a great protein source, and eggs that I love eating anyway regardless of their nutrition value. Except I wouldn't raise them myself, but buy them if available, happily paying a premium for them, hell I wouldn't mind paying four or five times the price of regular eggs if I get them on those terms. ...But then, as I go celebrating this in my mind, comes the thought, what about the maternal instinct thing, does it apply for eggs?

So yeah, if it turns out hens do feel maternal about eggs (as I'm sure they do about their actual hatched chicks), or if we're not sure about it, then the easiest "solution" is to simply go on not eating eggs, which is what I do in any case.

Not a big deal. This is just as applies to me, to what I personally am comfortable doing, and is emphatically not meant as judgment on what anyone else is doing or not doing.

 

[ahhell]

Haha, seriously? I mean, I've heard that joke, sure, but how you relate this makes it seem like it actually happened. If that's actually the case, then that's hilarious! And good to know, that such a thing is actually possible.

Heard it straight from my sisters, she could have embellished an urban rumor I suppose.

 

[Chanakya]

Heard it straight from my sisters, she could have embellished an urban rumor I suppose.

Right, as people pointed out in the thread, that's a thing, and other similarly weird effects as well.