Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

[Trakar]

Well, to be fair, you're arguing against what you think I said rather than what I actually said. I said being a vegetarian makes it difficult to eat fast food, meaning it's hard to find a meatless meal on a fast food menu. My argument was not that meat eaters are more likely to want to eat fast food, just that fast food caters to omnivores (burgers, hot dogs, fried chicken, burritos, etc.). In fact, my next sentence was "I think a good diet is a good diet with or without meat."

So we agree with each other except I recognize that fast food has fewer options for vegetarians.

As for your friend being a vegetarian who eats seafood, well, that's cheating, frankly.

Burger King and Denny's offer veggie burgers.
and in fact there is a growing element of accomodation for various specialty diets among the fast food and quick homestyle food industries, at least along the US west coast.

 

[Meed]

I don't know if my position is rational, but it is pretty consistent. I also have a problem with people who won't eat some animals, but eat others, for any reason besides health or taste reasons.

So you eat humans? I've heard we taste like chicken.

I eat clams, oysters, scallops and mussels, because they do not have a brain and therefore are not capable of suffering (as far as suffering has been understood scientifically). I also recognize that animals such as arthropods and fish seem to have less capacity for suffering than animals such as mammals. Some scientific studies have even supported the argument that fish do not feel pain at all, although I do not consider them convincing enough to be conclusive in that regard. I do not eat fish, but I consider eating shrimp and fish a more ethical choice than eating eggs and dairy.

 

[Meed]

I mentioned Andrew Zimmern before, but I didn't realize how important he was to the discussion until now. Veganism, vegetarianism, and other fruitcake diets are a product of ultra-wealthy Western societies. Where all food is abundant, it is easy to take some silly moral stance against some food over others.

Yes, to the same extent non-cannibalism is a product of the luxury of not being snowbound in the Sierra Nevada.

 

[Meed]

I’ve always thought that many vegetarians only make that choice for the pleasure they get making sure everyone else in the whole fricken town knows what their eating preferences are, and that they have ascended to a higher plane than the rest of us troglodytes. Then again where I live there are a lot of ascended types.

Unlikely. Veg*nism is not very popular. Saying something negative about us is an easy applause line for stand up comedians, for example. And there are a lot of folks like JoeEllis determined to find something wrong with us. We let people know, because it avoids them wasting their time and money on offering us food we don't eat.

Granted, it may be popular within some narrow niches.

 

[Trakar]

So you eat humans? I've heard we taste like chicken...

Actually the most common comparative is pork, "long pig."

 

[TheDaver]

Unlikely. Veg*nism is not very popular. Saying something negative about us is an easy applause line for stand up comedians, for example. And there are a lot of folks like JoeEllis determined to find something wrong with us. We let people know, because it avoids them wasting their time and money on offering us food we don't eat.

Well, there’s that, and there’s the huge overlap between veg*ans and animal rights activist crazies, which I’m sure contributes.

 

[GlennB]

...
Some scientific studies have even supported the argument that fish do not feel pain at all, although I do not consider them convincing enough to be conclusive in that regard.

Well, pain is a very useful tool for land-living critters. Helps us avoid extreme heat, cold, sharp things, chemical irritants, biting thingies. And it allows us to detect and favour any injuries while they (hopefully) heal. Probably other benefits that don't spring to mind.

Fish have little or no use for any of this, and carry around very few nociceptors

 

[Meed]

I don't know much about fish behavior, but my intuition would be that fish do have some use for these things. I'd be interested to learn more.

The noiceptors argument I have heard. Of course very few is not none. That's why I suspect they have less capacity to feel pain, but not necessarily none.

 

[stilicho]

So you eat humans? I've heard we taste like chicken.

I eat clams, oysters, scallops and mussels, because they do not have a brain and therefore are not capable of suffering (as far as suffering has been understood scientifically). I also recognize that animals such as arthropods and fish seem to have less capacity for suffering than animals such as mammals. Some scientific studies have even supported the argument that fish do not feel pain at all, although I do not consider them convincing enough to be conclusive in that regard. I do not eat fish, but I consider eating shrimp and fish a more ethical choice than eating eggs and dairy.

Why not eggs? They don't have developed brains and are incapable of suffering. I doubt a bucket of milk has brains either.

Were your concerns about suffering communicated to your physician?

 

[Meed]

Why not eggs? They don't have developed brains and are incapable of suffering. I doubt a bucket of milk has brains either.

Wanting better treatment for eggs and buckets of milk would be absurd indeed. This site gives a pretty good summary of the ethical problems I see with egg and dairy farming:

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/eggs/
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/dairy/

Were your concerns about suffering communicated to your physician?

No, why would they be?

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho Why not eggs? They don't have developed brains and are incapable of suffering. I doubt a bucket of milk has brains either.

Wanting better treatment for eggs and buckets of milk would be absurd indeed. This site gives a pretty good summary of the ethical problems I see with egg and dairy farming:

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/...yfarming/eggs/
[URL="http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/...farming/dairy/"]http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/...farming/dairy/[/URL]

Ethical is a fancy way of saying religious. In other words, it's not a prohibition based in a legal, scientific, or critical context, rather a personal choice gussied up with an uncertainly grounded moral imperative.

I don't operate a motor vehicle, cornsail, and I consider it a personal choice. I do own a firearm, and I consider that a personal choice too. But I wouldn't try to extend that to others because of something I found on the internet. I don't think I have to justify it and you shouldn't feel the need to couch your personal decisions that way either.

If you don't like eating eggs or drinking milk then that's plausible and defensible on its own.

Originally Posted by stilicho Were your concerns about suffering communicated to your physician?

No, why would they be?

Because your physician has medical opinions grounded in science. It may be that you are suffering from a medical condition. I don't know and you don't either until you consult an expert about your possible malady.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Well, pain is a very useful tool for land-living critters. Helps us avoid extreme heat, cold, sharp things, chemical irritants, biting thingies.

Fish have little or no use for any of this...

It sounds as though you haven't spent much time in the ocean....

 

[Meed]

Ethical is a fancy way of saying religious. In other words, it's not a prohibition based in a legal, scientific, or critical context, rather a personal choice gussied up with an uncertainly grounded moral imperative.

Ethical does not mean religious. Most non-religious people have a sense of morality and make personal choices for moral reasons. Anyone who does not is a sociopath. If someone is not a sociopath, but chooses not to use the words ethical or moral for some reason then I'm not interested in having that conversation. I say ethical reasons to distinguish them from reasons of health or taste.

I don't operate a motor vehicle, cornsail, and I consider it a personal choice. I do own a firearm, and I consider that a personal choice too. But I wouldn't try to extend that to others because of something I found on the internet.

Since I haven't done this either, I don't see the relevance in bringing it up.

I don't think I have to justify it and you shouldn't feel the need to couch your personal decisions that way either.

If you don't like eating eggs or drinking milk then that's plausible and defensible on its own.

You asked:

"Why not eggs? They don't have developed brains and are incapable of suffering. I doubt a bucket of milk has brains either."

I answered.

Were your concerns about suffering communicated to your physician?

No, why would they be?

Because your physician has medical opinions grounded in science. It may be that you are suffering from a medical condition. I don't know and you don't either until you consult an expert about your possible malady.

If you think concern about suffering is a medical disorder then you are a sociopath. If you meant something else then your response doesn't address the question in any way.

 

[bokonon]

Wanting better treatment for eggs and buckets of milk would be absurd indeed. This site gives a pretty good summary of the ethical problems I see with egg and dairy farming:

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/eggs/
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/dairy/

When I first saw that you believed that eggs and dairy were less ethical than shrimp, I wondered if honey would be included for similar reasons. I guess probably not.

I'm not a vegetarian myself, much less a vegan, but I think your stance is admirable. We recently (within the past couple of years) voted in California to require more humane treatment of chickens. If animals weren't so boxed and abused, but treated more like the image of Old McDonald's farm, would it be likely that you might add eggs and dairy to your diet? Or, even if the overall industry was appalling, but you knew a farmer personally who treated his animals well, would you buy eggs and diary from him (or her)?

BTW, I would eat human if it was available and safe. I wouldn't want to see humans raised and butchered for meat, but if a young healthy couple dies in a car crash I'm of the "Stranger in a Strange Land" mindset -- not a problem, ethically.

 

[Mister Earl]

Kind of on, kind of off topic: One interesting way to handle the obesity problem: Somehow get the Japanese "Bento box" style of consumption into the mainstream. I've added a little weight since leaving the military, and I've been looking for a handy source for these kinds of meals. Maybe I'll come up with an americanized version that has about the same caloric intake.

 

[Meed]

When I first saw that you believed that eggs and dairy were less ethical than shrimp, I wondered if honey would be included for similar reasons. I guess probably not.

I'm not a vegetarian myself, much less a vegan, but I think your stance is admirable. We recently (within the past couple of years) voted in California to require more humane treatment of chickens. If animals weren't so boxed and abused, but treated more like the image of Old McDonald's farm, would it be likely that you might add eggs and dairy to your diet? Or, even if the overall industry was appalling, but you knew a farmer personally who treated his animals well, would you buy eggs and diary from him (or her)?

Thanks. Yes, if the animals were treated well I'd be likely to eat eggs and dairy. Maybe meat as well. Some veg*ns are completely opposed to killing animals and/or using them in other ways as a matter of principle, I'm just not one of them.

BTW, I would eat human if it was available and safe. I wouldn't want to see humans raised and butchered for meat, but if a young healthy couple dies in a car crash I'm of the "Stranger in a Strange Land" mindset -- not a problem, ethically.

I'm with you there.