Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[Dimitri]

I have encountered this discussion a few times.
My personal vision would be stemming from a more cultural scale.
When it boils down to it, vegeterianism/veganism vs normal (read omnivore) lifestyle is but a choice in our Western culture and therefor none can be considered more "superior" or "better". In other countries living a vegeterian life-style can be a must while in other places only hunting can be the only chance of survival. The human body can handle both extremes for extended periods of time. But up here, it is merely a choice based on morals and guilt.

The reason why I see the choice of being vegeterian is not superior then the choice of living the life of an omnivore (as nature intended it to be and the body has evolved to sustain that life-style ) is about the same as the discussion which is the better one between Coca cola or Pepsi. It depends on personal taste (and in this case a blend of morals and guilt is mixed in). It solely depends on how the world is being perceived and what the final choice will be.

Personally, not a vegeterian or a vegan. Simply omnivore.
Perhaps as a final closing remark towards the quite often posed subject of animal cruelty involved in the meat-industry which certain movements are so happy about as propaganda material: "Would a lion consider all morals and ethics when he is jumping at you before violently ripping your throat so he can eat your dying corpse?". We are no better then animals when it comes down to it, we only have better toys to handle them.

It's a harsh world out there, better get used to it

 

[Dessi]

Belz,

Which is ridiculous. Rights are a human invention designed to fit humans. Rights also come with responsibilities, and animals cannot be held responsible for their actions.

A whole class of humans, including infants, toddlers, young chilren, mentally impaired, very elderly, mentally ill, and others are considered morally equal to fully rational, adult humans. Obviously, we should conclude that moral agency is not a prequisite for moral consideration, and therefore your argument against animal rights is based on a principle that no one accepts in the first place.

If dying itself is harm to animals then this applies to plants as well. Face it, in order to live, something must die. There simply is no way around it, and this is where the vegan theoretical ideology fails in the face of reality.

It sounds to me like you've never spoken to a vegan or actually bothered to ask them how they justify their moral beliefs.

If you were familiar with the AR movement, you'd probably be aware that there's actually a huge overlap between people who support animal rights and people who support euthanasia for terminally ill and terminally vegetative humans. To put it simply, the mainstream animal rights movement is based on a principle that biologically life, in and of itself, does not matter morally; instead, biographical life, that is, having an ability to experience satisfaction and suffering, percieve yourself existing over time, have memories, experience yourself in the first person shape the way we treat human and non-human animals.

I don't know if you've done so consciously or not, but at least be aware that you're refuting a point of view that no vegan even holds in the first place.

Tsukasa Buddha implied that killing animals was wrong. If it's the killing that's wrong, doesn't that apply to the plants that vegans are eating ?

Ask yourself, on what basis is a human being harmed for being killed? I can think of at least half a dozen ways, most importantly that it deprive a person of all experiences, all future happiness, prevents from satisfying any future interests or goals in the most categorical way possible; all of those things depend on a person's continued existence. Let's spell this out in more utilitarian terms:

- Generally, purposefully killing a human, particularly when they've not consented, harms the victim profoundly more than a murderer would suffer for the frustration of being prevented from murdering.
- Generally, a person benefits to a much more profound extent for enjoying the natural duration of their life than a murder benefits from the fleeting satisfaction of murdering.

We have an argument then that not killing humans minimizes harm caused to all interested parties. The same argument logically extends to non-human animals, in that the harm of killing them deprives them of all experiences in the most categorical way possible, and the harm caused is much more profound than the trivial satisfaction people get from enjoying their flavors.

Notice that the argument doesn't extend well to plantlife. They have no mental life, no experiences, no wants, no needs, no desires of any sort. Plants have no obvious morally relevant characteristics to speak of, aside from indirect value from an environmental perspective, they certainly have no morally relevant characteristics that make killing plants morally equivalent to consciously murdering a fully rational human. To date, I've never heard anyone state how killing a plant harms the plant meaningful way (morally speaking, that is). I don't think there's anyone on this forum who would be willing to defend that position either.

So, the reasons to avoid killing humans and animals don't really carry over to plant life, so we have a good reason to reject the argument that "vegans kill plants" as a real criticism whatsoever. In fact, I'd be more quick to criticize Belz for putting words in Buddha's mouth instead of simply asking him to clarify his initial point.

I don't completely buy this argument. There are certain humans that we would say have rights, e.g. infants, the mentally handicapped, etc., but we don't completely hold them responsible for their actions.

It's not a black or white issue, though. They have _some_ rights and _some_ responsibility. Parents hold infants responsible for some things and not for others, and they do not yet have the right to drive or vote.

Sounds like backtracking to me. Your initial statement said "Rights also come with responsibilities, and animals cannot be held responsible for their actions". Clearly, you believe that infants have a right to life, and that their right to life follows from some responsibility their accountable for. Would you mind explaining on what basis infants have a claim to a right to life, and how this basis does not logically extend to mentally similar non-human animals?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Perhaps as a final closing remark towards the quite often posed subject of animal cruelty involved in the meat-industry which certain movements are so happy about as propaganda material: "Would a lion consider all morals and ethics when he is jumping at you before violently ripping your throat so he can eat your dying corpse?". We are no better then animals when it comes down to it, we only have better toys to handle them.

It's a harsh world out there, better get used to it

I really just think these kinds of arguments are so ridiculous. We shouldn't care about trying to at least raise and kill animals humanely because lions wouldn't do the same to us? That's the yard stick by which you measure your expectation of humanity? Lions? When a new male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs. I certainly hope to obtain a higher level of behavior than lions. But hey, if you think killing your stepkids is a cool way to live, then by all means, tell me how you base your morality by the lion standard.


And actually, a factory farm raised animal is given a far crueler life than the prey of a lion, because lions don't capture their prey, hold it in captivity for years in filthy conditions so small they can't even turn around, overfeed them with crappy food that gives them horrible digestive problems, and inject their prey with hormones. So really, what you're arguing is that we should be far worse than lions in terms of how we treat our food.

And as far as "lions wouldn't give us the same consideration and ensure a humane death!" No, they wouldn't, because they lack the mental capacity to ensure a humane death for its prey, or to even contemplate the morality of such a thing. We have the mental capacity to give our food a good life before we eat it. By your logic, if I see a kitten drowning in a pool and I could easily save it, I shouldn't do so, because the kitten wouldn't save me. Veterinarians should all quit their jobs because there are no animal doctors which treat humans.

We are no better then animals

Actually, if you're talking about our capacity for empathy and our ability to reduce suffering, we absolutely do have the capability to be better than other animals, and many, many people are.

Finally, your argument is made even more nonsensible because we typically do not eat predator animals, we eat herbivore animals which wouldn't rip our throats out if given the opportunity. So the "they'd do it to me!" doesn't work because actually no, no they would not.

 

[Dimitri]

I really just think these kinds of arguments are so ridiculous. We shouldn't care about trying to at least raise and kill animals humanely because lions wouldn't do the same to us? That's the yard stick by which you measure your expectation of humanity? Lions?

I can use other animals if you like, but lions appeal me more because I like felines.
The main point I was trying to get across, and maybe another underlying subject, is that of imposing human morals towards animals. Any animal knows what suffering is, it is something quite inevitable when living on this planet it's something natural.

And actually, a factory farm raised animal is given a far crueler life than the prey of a lion, because lions don't capture their prey, hold it in captivity for years in filthy conditions so small they can't even turn around, overfeed them with crappy food that gives them horrible digestive problems, and inject their prey with hormones.

Ah, I always liked this argument and it is best answered with this simple question I never got a decent answer to.
Does the animal know better?
I know you know since you spoke about it.

And as far as "lions wouldn't give us the same consideration and ensure a humane death!" No, they wouldn't, because they lack the mental capacity to ensure a humane death for its prey, or to even contemplate the morality of such a thing. We have the mental capacity to give our food a good life before we eat it.

I find that even more cruel in a certain way. Hugs and kisses to the bunny I'm going to eat within a minute.. sounds quite like a psychopath doesn't it.
But in all brutal honesty, most people who eat meat do not remotly care where the meat is comming from. Some have trouble seeing an animal being slaughtered and thus prefer to eat meat from companies who ensure that animals were killed in a humane way (which sometimes is quite a lie when seeing certain videos of the vegeterian movement). As long as we don't feel guilty about it in the first place ey.
Let's forget that no matter how it was raised, it will get killed anyway with the same old production methods any butcher uses.

By your logic, if I see a kitten drowning in a pool and I could easily save it, I shouldn't do so, because the kitten wouldn't save me. Veterinarians should all quit their jobs because there are no animal doctors which treat humans.

It's your choice to save the kitten if you would feel better after it. I know I will if I'm not risking my life.
Besides, humans are animals...the veterinarians can keep their jobs.

 

[elipse]

I have had an odd, restricted diet comprable to vegetarianism (I usually tell people I'm a vegetarian, as it is easier for them to grasp and not everyone wants a 10 minute discussion of what I will and won't eat and why), for 17 years.

I have never once tried to get anyone else to eat as I do. Also, I relax my rules when out at a restaurant, because the aversion to being a pain in the butt is greater than the aversions that result in some of my harder-to-follow rules.

I have not encountered any other vegetarians, in my travels, who try to get others to eat as they do. I have had discussions with vegetarians/vegans about our diet choices, putting forth arguments for various restrictions, but never in a way that assigns the moral high ground to any choice, at least not since I've been an adult. (I think there was one girl in college who thought she was better than I was because she was vegan.)

However, I'm constantly putting up with "ick" faces and comments when I tell people I'm a vegetarian, and I live in California. I can't imagine how much crap people who don't live here (where you can get veggie options EVERYWHERE) have to put up with.

What I'm saying is that I think most people who talk about "preachy" vegetarians are projecting. Seriously, when was the last time a vegetarian preached at you? PETA doesn't count.

 

[elipse]

I can use other animals if you like, but lions appeal me more because I like felines.
The main point I was trying to get across, and maybe another underlying subject, is that of imposing human morals towards animals. Any animal knows what suffering is, it is something quite inevitable when living on this planet it's something natural.


Ah, I always liked this argument and it is best answered with this simple question I never got a decent answer to.
Does the animal know better?
I know you know since you spoke about it.

Um, I don't think people who restrict their diet when it comes to animals are trying to eliminate suffering. That would be impossible. They are trying to MINIMIZE it.

And yeah, an animal knows if it's uncomfortable with an upset tummy. The question "does it know better" seems irrelevant, assuming that by "better" you mean "has had first hand knowledge of other life experiences and is capable of making an informed decision about which is preferable."

Does a dog who has been locked in a dark shed and starved since the day it was born know "better"? Does that make it okay? Does knowing or not knowing "better" have ANY relevance to the question of whether it's okay?


I have a counter question: Can the animal suffer? If so, then we should minimize that suffering, whether or not the animal knows "better".

I agree with Temple Grandin on this. I think humans have a moral responsibility to treat the animals we use for food, companionship, entertainment, etc. in a humane manner.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Ah, I always liked this argument and it is best answered with this simple question I never got a decent answer to.
Does the animal know better?
I know you know since you spoke about it.

I have heard this type of argument before, but I just don't understand people who honestly seem to believe that if an animal has never experienced anything other than suffering, it is simply okay with that suffering because it "doesn't know any better." Being "used" to something doesn't make you magically impervious to pain. My foster sister was abused horrifically by her mother. She was used to it and didn't know anything else. That doesn't mean being thrown down a flight of stairs or being made to sleep outside in the dead of a New England winter didn't cause her to feel physical pain.

Have you ever worked at an animal shelter which rehabilitates animals which have been abused their entire lives since birth? I have. They are typically poor, pathetic creatures, cowering, perpetually terrified. They'll often wet themselves, starve themselves, mutilate themselves, do all sorts of things which result from trauma that you just don't see in a dog or a horse or a rabbit that has not been abused.

Also, animals exhibit behaviors when they are extremely stressed - due to pain, fear, etc. Companies which have humanitarian standards and contract multiple farms out to supply their animals will have representatives whose job it is to go to all the farms to look for these behavioral signs of stress because it indicates the animals are being mistreated. If these animals magically became impervious to pain and discomfort, as you suggest, they would not show any signs of stress. They would just act normally.

is that of imposing human morals towards animals.

Why shouldn't we do this? We're humans. We are the ones performing the action against the animals, so why on earth wouldn't we use human standards for our human actions? Animals have the ability to suffer. We have the ability to reduce that suffering. I can't see any reason why we shouldn't do so. Once we decide to take control of a life, even if it is only to ultimately kill it, I think we bear some responsibility towards it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

However, I'm constantly putting up with "ick" faces and comments when I tell people I'm a vegetarian, and I live in California. I can't imagine how much crap people who don't live here (where you can get veggie options EVERYWHERE) have to put up with.

I'll tell you when I get back from visiting Texas next month.

What I'm saying is that I think most people who talk about "preachy" vegetarians are projecting. Seriously, when was the last time a vegetarian preached at you? PETA doesn't count.

"Preachy vegetarian" equals saying "I'm a vegetarian". You're guilty by association rather than your actual behaviour.

 

[elipse]

I find that even more cruel in a certain way. Hugs and kisses to the bunny I'm going to eat within a minute.. sounds quite like a psychopath doesn't it.

How? How is that more cruel? It's cruel when a psychopath does it to a human because the human KNOWS about the duplicity. It's also cruel because of intent--the psychopath gets off on the hugs and kisses. I ask again, how in any conceivable way is it more cruel to ensure that an animal lives well before dying?

For the love of christ, have you ever had to put a pet down? You hug them and give them kisses and THEN YOU KILL THEM. Are we all psychopaths? Should we instead torture our terminally ill pets so they'll be glad to go? Man, your lack of critical thinking in this statement makes me craaaazy.

But in all brutal honesty, most people who eat meat do not remotly care where the meat is comming from. Some have trouble seeing an animal being slaughtered and thus prefer to eat meat from companies who ensure that animals were killed in a humane way (which sometimes is quite a lie when seeing certain videos of the vegeterian movement).

True. There are those who don't care, and those who care but don't do enough research, and those who don't want to do the research so eat vegetarian instead, and those who do the research and eat humanely raised meat, and those who do the research who still choose to eat vegetarian instead.

So what's your point?

As long as we don't feel guilty about it in the first place ey.

Well, yes. That's why I don't harp people about their choices. I think about mine and act accordingly, so that my eating choices aren't in conflict with my ethical standards too much. Others may not think about their choices, which I think is a terrible way to live, but it's not my business. Others still might think about their choices and come to different arrangements that satisfy them. That's cool with me. Not my body, not my ethics, not my choice, not my business.

Let's forget that no matter how it was raised, it will get killed anyway with the same old production methods any butcher uses.

Well, not all killing is equal. Ritual slaughter for religious purposes is the least humane by a long shot. But if your point is that the animal dies either way, well, yes, that's true. Terminally ill people and terminally ill pets are also going to die either way, but we don't stop caring about their quality of life because of it.

It's your choice to save the kitten if you would feel better after it. I know I will if I'm not risking my life.

Why bother? The kitten is going to die at some point in the next 20 years, after all. Why try to minimize its suffering now?

 

[elipse]

I'll tell you when I get back from visiting Texas next month.



"Preachy vegetarian" equals saying "I'm a vegetarian". You're guilty by association rather than your actual behaviour.

Ah, that's it! Dang, if only I'd known.

Hey, if I tell them the 10 minute, complicated, nuanced version, does that make me more or less preachy? I'm giving them more information, but I'm not actually using the word "vegetarian", so I might actually come out ahead.

 

[Dimitri]

Um, I don't think people who restrict their diet when it comes to animals are trying to eliminate suffering. That would be impossible. They are trying to MINIMIZE it.

So then, if the suffering has been minimized, does it even matter when I'm hungry and want a piece of meat? They are killed after all.

Does a dog who has been locked in a dark shed and starved since the day it was born know "better"? Does that make it okay? Does knowing or not knowing "better" have ANY relevance to the question of whether it's okay?

I'm not saying it is good or bad, I am simply hinting to the fact of imposing human morals on animals in a quite twisted way. As if it is implied we humans are more superior.
I never spoke of being it good or bad btw.

I agree with Temple Grandin on this. I think humans have a moral responsibility to treat the animals we use for food, companionship, entertainment, etc. in a humane manner.

Wait, are you honestly stating that while we must reduce the suffering of animals in the food industry but also should have the moral responsibility to use them for our entertainment? And I thought that the use for wild animals was forbidden in the circus..
Not to speak about the laws and conditions we impose on these animals so they can live with us in our homes. I sometimes pity trained dogs for having to listen to the wims of their "masters". As if they are four-legged furry slaves... and I know if I exchange the word "dog" with "human" in certain conversations at forums about dogs..some will get quite angry and call me a sociopath.

I have heard this type of argument before, but I just don't understand people who honestly seem to believe that if an animal has never experienced anything other than suffering, it is simply okay with that suffering because it "doesn't know any better.

Just as I mentioned towards the other person, I didn't mention if it was good or bad. If the animal doesn't know better it will adapt to its surroundings and try to make the best out of it as far as it can. I find it disturbing some are imposing human traits to animals and are talking about "humane treatment" while on the other hand on other animal-related issues tread them as slaves or below man. The perfect example being the quote wherein animals are used as our entertainment.

 

[elipse]

So then, if the suffering has been minimized, does it even matter when I'm hungry and want a piece of meat? They are killed after all.

not sure of your point. If you've raised an animal for food, you should minimize its suffering during its lifetime and while it is being slaughtered. That is my position.

I'm not saying it is good or bad, I am simply hinting to the fact of imposing human morals on animals in a quite twisted way. As if it is implied we humans are more superior.
I never spoke of being it good or bad btw.

Wait, you seriously can't tell me if locking an animal in a dark shed and starving it is good or bad?

Wait, are you honestly stating that while we must reduce the suffering of animals in the food industry but also should have the moral responsibility to use them for our entertainment? And I thought that the use for wild animals was forbidden in the circus..

We don't have a moral responsibility to use animals for our entertainment. Where did you get that from? IF we use animals for our entertainment, THEN we need to minimize their suffering. That is my position. And wild animals are used in circuses all the time. It's not something I agree with, but since it happens, then the minimizing of suffering rule applies.

Not to speak about the laws and conditions we impose on these animals so they can live with us in our homes. I sometimes pity trained dogs for having to listen to the wims of their "masters". As if they are four-legged furry slaves... and I know if I exchange the word "dog" with "human" in certain conversations at forums about dogs..some will get quite angry and call me a sociopath.

I don't know where this came from, and I don't think it's relevant to my point, but if I'm wrong, please let me know.

Just as I mentioned towards the other person, I didn't mention if it was good or bad. If the animal doesn't know better it will adapt to its surroundings and try to make the best out of it as far as it can. I find it disturbing some are imposing human traits to animals and are talking about "humane treatment" while on the other hand on other animal-related issues tread them as slaves or below man. The perfect example being the quote wherein animals are used as our entertainment.

...I have no idea where you're coming from. You're against the idea of teaching your dog to sit, but think it's fine not to care about the quality of life of a dairy cow? I don't get it.

 

[Dimitri]

How? How is that more cruel? It's cruel when a psychopath does it to a human because the human KNOWS about the duplicity. It's also cruel because of intent--the psychopath gets off on the hugs and kisses. I ask again, how in any conceivable way is it more cruel to ensure that an animal lives well before dying?

I also loved my bunny rabbit and liked to hug and kiss it before it ended up in the oven. But It was raised to end up in it anyway. Am I cruel? Not according to your reasoning.

For the love of christ, have you ever had to put a pet down? You hug them and give them kisses and THEN YOU KILL THEM.

More then once I had to put 1 down. After a while you get used to it and simply kill it in one swift move. Sometimes it is better to do it fast without all the emotions around it.

Are we all psychopaths? Should we instead torture our terminally ill pets so they'll be glad to go? Man, your lack of critical thinking in this statement makes me craaaazy.

I'm actually using your own reasoning against you. That, and this quote is an assumption you made.

Well, not all killing is equal. Ritual slaughter for religious purposes is the least humane by a long shot.

You are talking about the conditions it is being killed. I'm talking about the techniques.

Terminally ill people and terminally ill pets are also going to die either way, but we don't stop caring about their quality of life because of it.

From what I observe in daily life that "caring about their quality of life" is most of the time dependend on social status and being closely related. Outsiders tend to not care about it (unless being forced by imposed feelings of guilt by social pressure).

 

[mumblethrax]

More then once I had to put 1 down. After a while you get used to it and simply kill it in one swift move. Sometimes it is better to do it fast without all the emotions around it.

Wait. What? Did you karate chop your cat to death?

 

[MatildaGage]

Why are (some) vegetarians always trying to convert meat eaters? I've never in my life heard a meat eater try to convert a vegetarian. It's sort of like a religion, I guess.

I'm a vegetarian who has never preached to a single person, yet I am subject to regular evangelizing from meat eaters. I never even bring up the subject--the meat eaters do, then they go on and on about how stupid vegetarianism is and how I should change.

Certain in-laws of mine deliberately put meat in every single dish they serve on holidays to try to "force" me into eating meat. Xmas I spent hours and hours at their house and I got hungry, but they put meat in everything and got their usual haughty smirk about it while serving me a cold piece of bread and telling me there was a jar of nuts on the counter. (They had made separate dishes for people who don't like garlic, cinnamon, etc. but intentionally did not make anything w/o meat or even save a portion aside prior to adding the meat, b/c they "don't agree" with my choice not to eat meat.)

Other times they make a huge farking deal about it and try to shame me into it. A few times they've put meat in things and went out of their way to tell me there was no meat in it--lying just to trick me into it. (So do restaurants!)

If that's not militant evangelism I don't know what is. I wish everyone would get over it, and mind their own business instead of what's on my plate. It's really rude to comment on other people's meals, let alone engage in the foolishness I mentioned above.

 

[Dimitri]

not sure of your point. If you've raised an animal for food, you should minimize its suffering during its lifetime and while it is being slaughtered. That is my position.

My point would be if it eventually matters if it suffered or not. It's going to die anyway.

Wait, you seriously can't tell me if locking an animal in a dark shed and starving it is good or bad?

That's not what I said, read closer.

We don't have a moral responsibility to use animals for our entertainment. Where did you get that from? IF we use animals for our entertainment, THEN we need to minimize their suffering.

Get your act straight, right from your mouth:

I think humans have a moral responsibility to treat the animals we use for food, companionship, entertainment, etc. in a humane manner.

Using animals for entertainmant does not imply suffering but can be seen as a sort of legalized abuse... just switch "animal" for "human".

I have no idea where you're coming from. You're against the idea of teaching your dog to sit, but think it's fine not to care about the quality of life of a dairy cow? I don't get it.

Simply pointing at the obvious fact that while some want animals to be treated in a humane way when it comes to food have actually pets which aren't really treated in the same humane way. The commanding nature towards your dog and the training it has to endure to have it behaving in the ways you want it to behave are almost the same as the cattle being handled. Only difference would be that you are providing the food and shelter.. and that you don't kill it in humane ways but use it as entertainment/protection what other things you want it to do.

 

[Morrigan]

Ask Rolfe.

How would you like to be kept pregnant for much of your life and have all your babies taken away (and either killed if male or put into the same slavery you find yourself subject to if female)?

Now -that- is anthropomorphy....

My point would be if it eventually matters if it suffered or not. It's going to die anyway.

That's an absurd argument. If you're putting down a pet, you will try to minimize its suffering, you won't just shrug and say "oh well it'll die anyway".

The conditions that many dairy cows and egg laying chickens live in is just as horrific and cruel as the worst factory farms use for meat animals. This is why I buy my dairy and eggs from local farms who I have researched and know the conditions the animals are raised in. However, I do eat out at restaurants where I have no idea the conditions of the eggs and dairy. I make a point of patroning restaurants which advertise humanely raised dairy cows and egg chickens, but I do eat at places which do not, and I do feel bad about that.

I know quite a few people who were formerly vegetarian or vegan, but now are not because they have access to humanely raised meat/dairy/eggs, whereas in past years it was much harder to obtain those items. But they will only eat humanely raised animal products. [...]

Thanks for explaining. I guess that makes sense.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That wasn't a very thoughtful thing to say. If dying itself is harm to animals then this applies to plants as well. Face it, in order to live, something must die. There simply is no way around it, and this is where the vegan theoretical ideology fails in the face of reality.

I don't think the first part follows, but I do dislike harming or killing plants. But some things are necessary.

As for the rest, I think it is a non-sequitor. Yes, we have to harvest to survive, but that doesn't mean there is no moral distinction between eating an apple and going Jeffrey Dahmer.

Back to the OP, I found the article's "better argument" about coercion to be too vague. Why don't pets count? The author chose to say that shelter pets were allowable, but don't we restrict them and give them non-consensual medical treatments?

 

[Furcifer]

I have never once tried to get anyone else to eat as I do.

I think that would be "following by example" and not preaching.

I think typically "preaching" is about why people shouldn't eat meat ie; shouldn't do what they do.

Vegetarians are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Meat eaters, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the vegetarian reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.

It's probably a good example of positive vs. negative reinforcement at work.

 

[citizenzen]

It's the inherent negativity in the vegetarian reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.

Oh my. Paint with an overly broad brush much?

But your post does beg the question: do you think this inherent negativity is genetic or cultural?

Considering your negativity, one might suspect that you're a closet tofu eater.