Vegetarian: Arguments For and Against Vegetarianism

[beeksc1]

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

Agreed.

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

Reasonable assumption.

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

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

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

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

 

[quadraginta]

Bacon!















Sorry, but it had to be said.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Bacon!Sorry, but it had to be said.

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

 

[Exzyleph]

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

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

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

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

 

[Exzyleph]

Bacon!

Sorry, but it had to be said.

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

 

[six7s]

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

No

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

 

[Furcifer]

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

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

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

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

 

[Exzyleph]

No

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

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

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

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

 

[quadraginta]

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

The OP asked for arguments for and against vegetarianism.

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

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

Vegetarians are welcome to respond with

Textured Vegetable Protein

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

 

[Malerin]

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

 

[paximperium]

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

Nope. I've killed other things.

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised.

No. Money is the significant factor. It is irrelevant if it is done by a corporation, a small family farm or a single person who beats his pig with a stick daily.

Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals?

Thousands of years. Thousands of years of universal famine, malnutrition and famine.

And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid.

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

It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live.

No. It is the laws, society and good old fashion cash that does so. I'm glad the law prevents idiots from having a cow in the backyard and that someone who knows what they are doing can take care of the cow for me.

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

I can. I just don't want to. I'd leave it to the professionals as oppose to the amateurs.

I can teach students at the University level.

I don't believe you at all. You BELIEVE you can. I think you have no idea about your own lack of skills. What are your qualifications in teaching and academics?

I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier.

I don't believe you either. What are your qualifications?

I can grow my own food.

Sure. I believe you. Can you grow ALL your food?

 

[NewtonTrino]

I eat meat because it's tasty.

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

 

[paximperium]

I agree, we live in a co-dependent society; but, to say it is inefficient to raise and/or grow our own food is just a result of both intense indoctrination and classical conditioning.

No. Do you have even a shred of evidence to support this claim at all? Please provide a study to show the viability of backyard farming.

Just because we have to work forty hours a week to live how we want to live does not mean it is inefficient to become self (and communally) reliant. It might be much work to grow fruits, vegetables, and mushrooms; but, when we do not have to work so much outside of the home, it will not seem like so much work.

No. I enjoy my work and have no interest in gardening. In fact the vast majority of people have no interest in doing so.

In the fields I am specialized in.

Really? What are they? What is your training or am I suppose to take your word that you can just magically teach university students just because you say so?

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

As oppose to your claims by fiat?

 

[six7s]

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

Yes

which carries the implications I noted previous,

No

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

No

 

[quadraginta]

I eat meat because it's tasty.
I have no interest in being a farmer even part time.

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

Brevity apparently is an omnivore Godwin.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I would prefer a prime porterhouse to bacon.

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

 

[paximperium]

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

Brevity apparently is an omnivore Godwin.

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

 

[skeptsci]

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

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

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

Cases supporting a carnivorous diet:
1. Freedom

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

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

 

[Exzyleph]

Yes

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

 

[quadraginta]

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

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