Vegetarian: Arguments For and Against Vegetarianism

[jadey]

Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).

Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.

 

[paximperium]

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.

Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.

You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)

 

[jadey]

You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?

 

[Cavemonster]

I think organic, vegetarian, and yes, even Kosher dietary restrictions have one advantage that some people may count as a disadvantage.

They all force you to be more thoughtful about the food you put into your body. Yes, of course we could be more thoguhtful without buying into any system... theoretically. But myself personally, and many people I know, we're busy folks, we're sometimes spacey and find it hard to be 100% intellectually engaged in everything at all times. I'm not a vegetarian now, but when I have been, I ate better then I do now, and actually spent less money. I'm not a localvore, and I don't believe in the hype around organic, but my local, organic farm where I get my CSA has incredibly tasty heirloom veggies, far cheaper and fresher than the grocery store.

Vegetarianism, and a lot of other dogmatic approaches to diet are often a good shortcut to eating better.

 

[Exzyleph]

Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

But it also appears that optimal land-use is not purely vegetarian, but also includes meat-production in order to take advantage of lower-quality farmlands: sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

 

[quadraginta]

Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.

As I said. There is content in what you mention which supports a diet with moderate meat consumption, no convincing arguments that such moderation should be taken to an extreme of total exclusion, and nothing which is not part of the standard repertoire.

Your second paragraph can be summed up easily.

Bacon.

For those who are nuance challenged, there is not a TVP analog which is a satisfactory replacement.

There are TVP efforts to duplicate meat products which in and of themselves are good, even tasty. I use, cook, enjoy, and often recommend some of them. But in the final regard they are not equal replacements.

Show me a TVP aged prime rib roast that I can cook rare, carve, and watch the bloody meat juices drip into the Yorkshire Pudding I've made in the pan around the still cooking roast. Then we'll talk.

Show me a side of TVP bacon I can carve slices from to my own taste in thickness and prepare and serve without anyone being able to tell the difference. Then we'll talk.

I'm going to have to stop. This is making me hungry, and there are leftovers to be dealt with.

 

[six7s]

Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
2. Ethics

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.

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.

You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc

 

[quadraginta]

I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.

 

[paximperium]

I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.

Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/34fe6xg.jpg[/qimg]


If we give cows the upper hand we're all DOOMED!

Indeed:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns

ETA: I see Lionking did it first

 

[Exzyleph]

You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc

You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?

Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.

PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.

 

[paximperium]

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

I don't think killing to eat is wrong.

I think the suffering and causing pain part is wrong. I have no issue with a nice happy cow grazing in the fields and then killing it with no pain. I do have issue with keeping cows cooped up and having them suffer in tight filthy conditions.

But that's the only ethical issue that I even find a bit compelling.

 

[tsig]

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

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. Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals? And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid.
It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live.



Wow, you sound so disempowered and weak. You do not have to feel so helpless. Try to let go of your conditioning and empower yourself.

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 teach students at the University level. I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier. I can grow my own food. And so can you, if you actualize your full potential.

As usual vegetarianism is just another way to say holier-than-thou.

 

[six7s]

You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.

Please, re-read the pertinent part of the OP and get back to me if you can devise a way of making it anything other than a logical fallacy

TYIA

 

[quadraginta]

Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.

Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)

 

[Exzyleph]

Is there perchance anyone else who can explain to me the nature of six7s' argument? I am lost in his impenetrable reasoning, and unlike the Boy Scouts I have no Spam on me with which to stave away starvation.

 

[paximperium]

Is there perchance anyone else who can explain to me the nature of six7s' argument? I am lost in his impenetrable reasoning, and unlike the Boy Scouts I have no Spam on me with which to stave away starvation.

I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.

 

[six7s]

I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.

So 'ethics' (as per the OP) makes sense to you?