Page all of 5 12345>
Topic Options
#26594 - 07/01/09 06:57 PM Vegetarian, The Moral Argument.
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I thought I would attempt to cover this topic as I recently had a debate on this that ended unexpectantly. I had to concede.

The debate on vegetarianism is always one of those arguments where people will spout a lot of nonsense. There will be silly claims like "I can taste the fear in the meat" which makes no sense whatsoever and from the other camp "agricultural machines kill more rodents harvesting a field of wheat than animals killed for meat", as though a smaller quantity of death makes it better somehow.

Now, before we go too far. I'm not a vegetarian and have no intention of becoming one. I may agree that it's the moral high ground but, basically, I like bacon and nothings going to stop me eating it. I consider the enjoyment of certain foods worth taking the more immoral stance in this argument.

Now, one of the strongest arguments for vegetarianism would be, without too much examination, that they live a "death free" life. Which is a fantastic idea. My claim would be that this is simply false and a true sign of ignorance. If you're killing a plant to survive, you're still taking life, just because it doesn't scream when you pluck it doesn't mean you're not killing it. That said, I suppose the lack of pain felt would be a sketchy bonus on this side, but we're assuming the plant cannot sense pain. We know of no way so far for them to feel pain, but a housefly can't feel emotions as it lacks the brainpower required, but if you swat towards it it'll take evasive manoeuvres and speed up to avoid you, that certainly seems like fear to me.

It was at this point the vegetarian suggested something to me that I couldn't counter. "What if you only eat cuttings, fruit and leaves (some are edible). The plant will survive and you can live an entirely healthy life eating fruit, beans, nuts and parts from certain flowering plants without having to kill anything." I see no flaws in this argument.

If you consider it morally wrong to take any form of life, you must agree that the suggestion put forward by my opponent in this case is the morally superior point. Now, I have a personal justification for not following that path, simply that it would be too much hassle and I really like bacon, but this is certainly doesn't excuse the moral issue.

So my point is this. Clearly people are prepared to forgo morals if following their morals are too much effort for them. After all, I certainly consider the taking of life to be immoral unless it is necessary to my survival or the survival of someone else (ie. someone is trying to kill me or a loved one of mine, and I must kill them in self defence). So, at what point are someone morals no longer of consequence. At what point are people prepared to go against the morals, and what moral points to you know you regularly go against simply because it would be too much trouble for you to be the "better person".

Put simply, how much do your morals cost, and does anyone honestly believe they have any specific morals that are so strong, that they wouldn't break under any circumstances? If so, what are these morals and what makes them so immutable? I can't think of a single thing I wouldn't do personally, if I was in a situation where I must. I can think of many things I would only do if my life was immediately in danger such as murder, but nothing that I can honestly say I would never do.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26598 - 07/01/09 09:14 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: TornadoCreator]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
 Quote:
Put simply, how much do your morals cost, and does anyone honestly believe they have any specific morals that are so strong, that they wouldn't break under any circumstances? If so, what are these morals and what makes them so immutable?


That's the thing of it, TC. One can be firm as a rock in their convictions, as long as they're never tested. As you said in your post, "I can think of many things I would only do if my life was immediately in danger such as murder, but nothing that I can honestly say I would never do."

We'll never fully realize that part of ourselves until we come to that point. Anything else is just empty posturing. Someone who's against the death penalty might end up getting a loved one murdered. Suddenly, the death penalty sounds like a great idea, fitting punishment for the convict sitting across the bench, smiling away with no remorse. Or, a woman says she'll never have an abortion. Lo and behold, she is raped by a black meth head in a back alley. Oh, the shame of having to bear and raise the child of such a fiend! To the women's health center we go, tra la la la.

I think the biggest tests of will and moral fortitude have to be war and survival. How would that vegan feel after a week of only being able to find a handful of green bananas? That is, of course, providing that the person is wandering around the tropics, where such fruits are readily available. Otherwise, either stealing or *gasp* having to harvest tubers in order to eat.

I eat meat. I enjoy the hell out of it. But I've never had to kill an animal. Would I be have the guts to kill and dress a deer or other prey that I've felled? If there were other foods available, I could say, nah, I'll eat corn and potatoes today. But if there were no alternatives? I guess I'd have to come to terms with myself in a hurry. I don't want my corpse to be found in a ditch, my eyes long since plucked out by crows.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26599 - 07/01/09 09:37 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: TornadoCreator]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Vegetarian a moral standpoint? I find that laughable. To me there is nothing immoral about eating meat. Therefore I would never refer to a vegetarian as someone who is "taking the moral high ground". I don't see how anyone could argue either as moral or immoral. Even if you were to do so you would only be able to speak for yourself. Trying to hold me to your moral compass will only bring laughter and contempt.

It is a very simple concept people, it is called the food chain. More often than not we are on the top of it. There are times when we are not at the top. Like when swimming in the ocean, on safari or camping. A shark, lion, or bear wouldn't think twice about eating you if it were hungry enough and the opportunity presented itself.

If people want to be vegetarian, fine, go for it, no skin of balls. What I can't stand are the people who try and shove their vegetarianism and "moral superiority" down my throat. The vegans are the worst. Especially the militant vegans who scoff at you for eating a burger while they stand there in their leather boots on top of their mountain of hypocrisy.

It is one thing to be appalled by the conditions of slaughter houses and the treatment of the animals therein, but it is quite another to expect everyone to feel the same way.

Meat tastes good. As long as it continues to taste good, I will continue to eat it.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26605 - 07/01/09 10:07 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
My point wasn't that vegetarianism is a moral high ground, just that if you agree that taking life is immoral, which most people will, the diet that the vegetarian I spoke to follows would be a moral high ground as it doesn't kill any living thing at all.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26608 - 07/01/09 10:51 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
To the first argument, I just wanted to point out that we dont know if plants feel pain, but we do know animals do and therefore we can blame eating plants on ignorance.

I dont like vegans, I respect their goal which I believe is the next stage of human evolution, but I think its too early and most of them are retarded and dont know how to spread the ideal.

Im going through final stages of being a vegetarian and that is past eating red meat and chicken and so eating small amounts of fish and seafood (not sharks or whale though) and think they eating meat is altogether not only morally wrong (to me) but environmentally and economically impractical. Not to mention its complete unnecessary.

And whilst I agree we are part of the food chain, it seems now we are doing much harm to the world from our greed of meat. My father is strongly supports eating meat but he also says we eat too much, more than is necessary. I think the whole thing is unnecessary and for humans to evolve further we must stop causing unnecessary pain to animals and break out of this 'food chain'.

And not to mention the amount of animal sadists that torture animals in the meat industry. I think no amount of pleasure can equate for that suffering. Yes we encourage 'humane' killing but in reality alot of animals are simply tortured to death.

Now my arguments may be flawed, you might not agree with them, my wording my be off, but please argue my ideas and what im trying to say before we start dissecting things and insulting each other.

Top
#26611 - 07/01/09 10:53 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Oh and about life, id say an animal is more innocent than a human and I would sooner slaughter a person and eat them than an animal,
Animals fueled by pure instinct and have no desire to cause suffering or what-not on someone else, nor are they judgemental.
I dont hold 'life' to be this highest thing where we dont kill anything but I dont agree with killing innocent beings. Humans are inherently not innocent

Top
#26615 - 07/01/09 11:13 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Please explain your solutions to the problem of overcrowding by these very animals that we eat. If we stop eating cows, chickens, pigs, deer, bear, etc, then they will continue to populate. They will have to live somewhere. As we encroach on the forests, the wild animals(deer, bear) that we would normally hunt and thus control the population, will have to go somewhere. That usually means your back yard. Your trash bin. They will have to cross our highways. Usually done in darkness, when we can't see them very well while hurtling down the highway. What you will see is more incidents of cars smashing into these large animals and not only tearing up the car but killing the animal. With these little rollerskates that we call cars today, that more than likely will result in the driver or passengers being seriously injured or killed. Have you ever seen the outcome of a Ford Festiva vs a cow? Wouldn't be nice to find your small child snatched out of your back yard by a bear? Or yourself face to face with a pissed off 8 point buck? It happens. Hunting is a necessary fact of life to help control these populations. Especially the deer population.

Back to the domestic animals. What do you propose we do with them? Will each family be required to house a cow, a chicken, and or a pig? We have to do something with them. They aren't going to just assimilate into the wild.

Lastly, you do realize that these very animals, that it is "morally" wrong to kill and eat, will be competing for your newfound food source. They don't eat meat. They eat green leafy vegetables, corn, seeds, nuts, etc. And they eat a lot of it. Suddenly, your food source has a whole shitload of new competitors that require a whole lot more than a human. By trying to take the "moral" high ground, you will in effect be hastening the depletion of your food source, and as a side effect, raising the prices of your food source. Supply and demand.

The only way they will take my slice of bacon from me is if they can dodge 8 bullets and a sharp meat cleaver.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#26616 - 07/01/09 11:36 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: fakepropht]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
And who keeps the human population in check? Unfortunately with our desire to prevent wars our population will be growing unchecked.
Im sure the animals survived quite well before we started eating them due to the food chain if you forgot. The food chain where the meat eaters would eat the other animals. We arent needed to keep populations in check because they check themselves. Humans are not needed nor desired to be in the natural system because we slaughter too much, take too much, and destroy the very thing we profess to be protecting ie the ecosystem as your pointing out.

I agree to an extent that, yes, they wouldnt adapt very well, but then we still feed them now anyways with the food we grow, in not feeding them now we have more feed that we grow for now ourselves.
You make a good argument but its still easily thrown back because there are still solutions to those problems.

Top
#26617 - 07/01/09 11:42 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
eating meat is altogether not only morally wrong (to me) but environmentally and economically impractical. Not to mention its complete unnecessary.


Care to prove that? I am of course speaking of your contention that eating meat is "environmentally and economically impractical. Not to mention its complete unnecessary."

 Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
I think the whole thing is unnecessary and for humans to evolve further we must stop causing unnecessary pain to animals and break out of this 'food chain'.


That is completely impossible. Just because people no longer eat meat doesn't mean they are somehow removed from the food chain. If anything you are easier prey for the other carnivores out there because you lack the strength to defend yourself due to malnutrition.


 Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
And not to mention the amount of animal sadists that torture animals in the meat industry. I think no amount of pleasure can equate for that suffering. Yes we encourage 'humane' killing but in reality alot of animals are simply tortured to death.


I agree that it is wrong to torture animals in that respect. However, there will always be sadists out there torturing and killing animals. At least the majority of the animals killed are used for purposes other than sadistic pleasure. No amount of vegetarianism will ever stop the world from accumulating assholes who like to torture animals just for fun.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26620 - 07/01/09 11:54 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Environmentally impractical because of firstly gases produced by livestock (we encourage its breeding) and land usage economically.
There are various different source of the things gained in meat and moreso now with new food such as tofu (may not be to your liking) or other vegetables, and eggs too. So its not necessary for health reasons.
And dont bother saying its easier to get from meat because if we were all vegetarian we wouldve made new ways of getting nutrients from all sorts of foods in a more efficient manner.

There are no other carnivores that would attempt to eat us and besides we can kill in self defence anyway.

Also meat industry provides a nice little cover up for sadist activities. Do you think the companies give a shit what happens to the animals? I doubt it, as long as they dont lose money they are happy, and so the sadists can torture the animals. Who would become worker in those places anyway if one reason may well be CoS they are sadistic. Im not saying they all are but its one most obvious possibility. The meat eating also enhances the impression of animals as inferior and therefore free pickings to do what we want with including torturing

Top
#26621 - 07/02/09 12:05 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Sorry. They'll have to take my burger from my cold, dead hand.

Wait... can't be doing a on liner here...

Thank you Charlton Heston.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#26629 - 07/02/09 01:10 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
I like how you compeltely dodged the questions posed to you by fakepropht...

Moving onward. The gases? If we don't control the population i.e. kill the animals their numbers will increase uncontrolled and create even more of the gas you speak of. Not a really sound argument.

I assume you are speaking of methane gas. I have an idea of the problems caused by methane, but I wonder if you do. Can you elaborate why the gases are a problem, or are you just repeating an argument you heard from someone else?

Tofu is alright, if flavored properly, but I will not give up meat for it. Don't hold your breath for everyone else to either. I can argue that it is not neccessary to process the soy beans into tofu when we can just get the same protiens and nutrients from animals.

And yes there are still carnivores that would like to eat us. As fakepropht pointed out the animal populations would increase and eventually be competing for the same food resources as the rest of us.

To tack onto that scenario, if we stopped killing animals for food we would also have to stop killing all the animals (because it is morally wrong, right). This includes other animals not normally killed for food, like wolves, cougars, bears etc. Those will definitely try and eat you, and as I already said, wouldn't think twice about it. Not to mention that in extreme cases people have been none to eat each other to avoid starvation, as well as for fun and in some places it is the norm.

Yes there are probably instances where companies cover up animal torture etc. in order to protect their bottom line. There are also instances where companies cover up the mistreatment of people in order to protect their bottom line. I am not saying that any of this is "right", but it is a fact of life. People will do what they have to do to protect their livelihood.

Again none of that changes the fact that the animals are ultimately killed to serve a purpose. It is not as if they are tortured then thrown away, people eat them. People eating animals is also a fact of life.

I think the most obvious reason one might work in a slaughterhouse is not because they are sadistic, but because it is a job. My mom worked in a chicken slaughterhouse. She did not get a job there because she was a sadist, rather it was literally the only place around she could get a job. Most of the people in that area worked in that slaughterhouse.

In a sense animals are inferior to us. Animals haven't built vehicles capable of landing on the moon. Animals don't write poetry or produce other great works of art. A monkey, or ape, that has been trained to finger paint doesn't count so don't even try to go there.

Don't mistake that to mean that I think it is ok to torture animals. Which is what this thread seems to have turned into. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the pro's and con's of eating meat, not debating animal torture.

All that said I still maintain PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26641 - 07/02/09 04:12 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3114
Vegetarianism, the moral argument.
Many vegans say they only eat vegetables so animals aren't killed. I can't say it's a non-valid moral, but it's one who is at war with natural instincts.
Normally I don't care what someone is eating, but only eating vegetables isn't THAT healthy and the risk of having illnesses related to protein and vitamins deficiencies is quite raised.
Humans are omnivores, our dental structure, intestines and metabolism proof so. Only focusing on 1 aspect of our "diet" isn't healthy. Maybe it is good for several days or a week or 2, but not an entire life.

There must be variation in what humans eat. Flesh contains proteins WHICH CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN MEAT and are very important to keep the body functioning at maximum level. Not having enough of these means the person getting complications and start getting "sick" (bit exaggerated but still..).
Also, most vegetarians don't seem to know that becoming one (or being one..whatever) is joined by knowing what to eat on quite a high level. Most simply focus on the vitamins and 8 necessary proteins for intake to remain "healthy". Well fuck it, it's not sufficient. The body also needs certain minerals only found sufficiently in meat and or animal products (Fe, Mg,..).
Of Course one can buy supplements in the next apothecary, but that's a money waster and the doses vary within the pills. To the ignorant vegetarian who thinks taking enough of them certain diseases will follow by an overdose of vitamins (yes, to blow away the curtain about vitamins being healthy all the time.. they can be serious fuck-ups).

To conclude: someone being a vegan is fine by me, although I don't like the argument some have to make their decision valid.
Even so, there are more arguments against vegetarianism then arguments for it. And the best part is, those against make the most sense.. But that's just own opinion.


To AL:
Ever heard about natural balances? If a population get's too big a mass-extinction will follow to achieve order again in which every individual of the population will have enough supplies to survive..
Helping animals from extinction? I guess you feel bad what happened to the mammoths, dinosaurs and other prehistoric beings.
Humans are just fulfilling their role here on earth, what's the deal an animal specie vanishing of the earth? What kind of "mind-blowing purpose" did it have to us? The only thing I can come up with is the specie being placed in a zoo for us to stare at...

 Quote:
There are no other carnivores that would attempt to eat us and besides we can kill in self defence anyway.

Jump in a shark-infested ocean, go camp in Africa between the lions and other carnivores and if you survive that come tell me there aren't animals who would attempt to eat us. Hungry remains hungry for animals and they aren't picky about eating a human or another animal if they had to choice.


Edited by Dimitri (07/02/09 04:22 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#26649 - 07/02/09 07:07 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Dimitri]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Just one point: So because we dont eat meat we are now immediatly prey for other animals. Well just stupid. As I recall if a lion came at me I dont think eating a cow will save me which Is the belief you all seem to support.


Also we dont need to keep populations in check ourselves. I thought there was a food chain you mentioned where some other animal will eat the lower one. If we arent eating other animals something else will replace our position obviously. The idea of over population is garbage. There are other predators to keep the whole system in check. As we all know humans do more harm to animal populations than good anyways as we are killing off important animal groups to the ecosystem (eg sharks and whales) and then other groups maybe not so important.

And then on the point of superiority. So because we build roads, have what we call intelligence, conquer the world in our eyes and so we are superior. Well I dont think ive seen an animal suffering from moral dilemma. Or going out of its way to cause suffering on a another being. My father often says that 'nothing changes just the décor' and really its the same for us. We live, we do pointless things and die then nothing we do makes any difference to us. Animals do exactly the same. So theres no point saying we are superior because in the end we do exactly the same just with more detail as a side effect of our intelligence.


I think really humanity is just too lazy to stop eating meat. We cause suffering and death to animals soley because we like to eat them which seems a pretty poor excuse. Murder is considered bad, but then when we eat the victim its seen as terrible, disgusting and what-not. Why is this so? just another contradiction in this argument of whether eating meat is bad. Eating animals is fine but eating humans rather than wasting their corpses is bad.

I have gone in a complete circle and made a bunch of arguments that can easily be used against me but I cant be bothered thinking about arguments at the moment so Ill just leave all that crap I probably typed for everyone else to bitch at each other because thats all alot of you tend to do.
Thanks for the argument though, I must say you all provide more intelligent and occasionally unintelligent conversation than most I talk with.

Top
#26653 - 07/02/09 07:51 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
 Quote:
Environmentally impractical because of firstly gases produced by livestock (we encourage its breeding) and land usage economically.


So instead, you would have land used for livestock, converted into veggie farms? Do you have any idea how large farms would have to be, to supply billions of vegans with food? Quadruple the size they are now, at least. Nice try on the "land usage" argument.

Some info on methane:

Methane is the most reduced form of carbon in the air. It is also the simplest and most abundant hydrocarbon and organic gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas that absorbs thermal-IR radiation 25 times more efficiently, molecule for molecule, than does CO2...Methane slightly enhances ozone formation in photochemical smog, but because the incremental ozone produced from methane is small in comparison with ozone produced from other hydrocarbons, methane is a relatively unimportant component of photochemical smog. In the stratosphere, methane has little effect on the ozone layer, but its chemical decomposition provides one of the few sources of stratospheric water vapor.

Methane is produced in anaerobic environments, where methanogeic bacteria consume organic material and excrete methane. Ripe anaerobic environments include rice paddies, landfills, wetlands and the digestive tracts of cattle, sheep and termites. Methane is also produced in the ground from the decomposition of fossilized carbon. The resulting natural gas, which contains more than 90% methane, often leaks to the air or is harnessed and used for energy. Methane is also produced from bio-mass burning, fossil-fuel combustion, and atmospheric chemical reactions.


Taken from "Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science and Regulation" by Mark Z. Jacobson.

What you have here is a study that finds methane to be beneficial, in its natural amounts. The facts and figures skewed by organizations like PETA serve only to further their own ends. That all methane is BAD and it's all caused by RAISING LIVESTOCK.

If you would rather see veggie farms covering the planet, think about the biomass that will have to be burned, a methane-producing action, and you'll find that it will either be even with the amount produced in raising livestock, or even surpass it. One trade-off for another.

Sounds like a sound argument to me. Not.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26654 - 07/02/09 08:27 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
I didnt read through the scienctific rabble but I assume you have a good piece of info there, but also remember there will most likely be some other scientist which will have some other theory that methane is bad.

I think the land usage we have now could be used instead for vegetation rather than animal fields. I dont see why that wouldnt work.

I just want to put this out there too, if we are supposed to eat meat like other animals then why do we cook it, and why is it we cannot digest raw meat at the same efficiency as most other animals and not get ill?

Top
#26655 - 07/02/09 08:49 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
What I posted was no theory, it was proof, evidence. Fact, if you will.

Even if we farmed 90% of our crops hydroponically, the larger stuff like corn and wheat would still have to be planted onto large acreages of farm land. Quite a lot of slaughterhouses only take up a small portion of land. The animals are kept in small stalls, not roaming across a prairie.

Humans are perfectly capable of digesting raw foods, providing they are fresh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_animal_food_diets

Jesus man, do some fucking research. It took me all of 30 seconds to find some pertinent information about a raw meat diet.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26658 - 07/02/09 09:13 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Fine you want be rude and technical, then another study shows that our stomach acids are 10 times weaker than that of a lion and I am very sure if you try eating raw chicken you get ill. I shall look that up now anyway.

Also, put another thing out there, early man managed to live quite well eating only fruits and nuts etc, so why cant we do so now. Seems they didnt need meat to get all their nutrients and we are more or less the same species just evolved.

Top
#26661 - 07/02/09 09:57 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Excuse me, sir, but your seeming inability to look up the facts for yourself, are considered more "rude" than my pointing these facts out to you. Technical? I'd rather get down to the nitty gritty of the how and why, instead of basing my beliefs and lifestyle on factual misconceptions and sweeping generalizations.

No where in the article link I provided did it mention eating chicken or other poultry raw. "Grass-fed" = bovines and other animals with hooves.

Again, your arguments, such as they are, display more PETA-type "evidence" of the diet of early man, which are easily contradicted by archeological findings:

"We have direct evidence that early hominids did leave stone cuts on a variety of animals," Mr. Bunn said. But while this indicated meat eating was important, he said that the team advocated a "balanced view," stating that the evidence did not suggest meat was used to the exclusion of plants. "There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that early hominids, with half our brains, could successfully hunt and kill large animals," he said.

Taken from an article by Robert Reinhold, in full here

More articles concerning the paleolithic and vegetarian diet:
http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html
http://www.nutritionreporter.com/stone_age_diet.html
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26662 - 07/02/09 10:29 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Early man survived because he moved past eating only plants. It was the advancements made in food gathering, the main one being hunting, that helped him survive - History 101: Ancient Civilization

At one point in time humans were able to eat raw meats. I believe that is what the appendix was for. Man has since evolved from the need to eat raw meat because we know how to cook it.

You arguments just get worse and you continue to dodge questions. Quit while you are only 500 miles behind.

Nem: Nice job with the methane synopsis. Too bad you had to be the one to post it. I guess you pretty much proved my theory that AL here was just regurgitating info he had picked up from someone else and had no real understanding about for himself.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26664 - 07/02/09 10:59 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Atralux Lucis
Oh and about life, id say an animal is more innocent than a human and I would sooner slaughter a person and eat them than an animal,
Animals fueled by pure instinct and have no desire to cause suffering or what-not on someone else, nor are they judgemental.
I dont hold 'life' to be this highest thing where we dont kill anything but I dont agree with killing innocent beings. Humans are inherently not innocent


Now, before I read on, (So I've yet to read any responses to Atralux from any one else), I just wanted to mention that although I can see your reasoning eating human flesh is REALLY foolish. Human flesh, particularly muscle tissue contains a specific prion protein which causes the brain disorder prions disease. It is not curable currently and is a form of severe dementia, however it's incubation time is often as long as 7-10 years. Eating human flesh therefore, it really very stupid. Once you'd likely be OK but regularly you'll probably get prions disease.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#26670 - 07/02/09 01:20 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3114
 Quote:
Just one point: So because we dont eat meat we are now immediatly prey for other animals. Well just stupid. As I recall if a lion came at me I dont think eating a cow will save me which Is the belief you all seem to support.

Read a bit closer, it counts for ALL humans..
Prey remains prey, the lion doesn't think of "hey that's the top predator in earth's history, I'm not going to kill it".. It only sees "food" and goes for the kill.

 Quote:
Also we dont need to keep populations in check ourselves. I thought there was a food chain you mentioned where some other animal will eat the lower one. If we arent eating other animals something else will replace our position obviously. The idea of over population is garbage. There are other predators to keep the whole system in check. As we all know humans do more harm to animal populations than good anyways as we are killing off important animal groups to the ecosystem (eg sharks and whales) and then other groups maybe not so important.

Every specie is unimportant. Natural thinking implies not giving a fuck if the specie vanishes as long as there are other sources to eat. And still you dodged the question: give me an important animal on earth which can't be replaced by others...

 Quote:

And then on the point of superiority. So because we build roads, have what we call intelligence, conquer the world in our eyes and so we are superior. Well I dont think ive seen an animal suffering from moral dilemma.

Moral dillema.. superiority.. You should get things straight..
It's not because there is such a thing as moral dilemma (which actually came to life by certain nutjobs who said we should feel guilty about natural feelings) that we aren't superior.

 Quote:

I think really humanity is just too lazy to stop eating meat. We cause suffering and death to animals soley because we like to eat them which seems a pretty poor excuse. Murder is considered bad, but then when we eat the victim its seen as terrible, disgusting and what-not. Why is this so? just another contradiction in this argument of whether eating meat is bad. Eating animals is fine but eating humans rather than wasting their corpses is bad.

Eating humans if different from eating animals. In what way? If an animal eats someone of his "family" chances are great you'll get strange diseases. (Little help needed, know dutch names but not the English ones..).
As others said, learn to think for a change and don't act like a parrot. You are talking to an academic here, the general "intelligent looking bullshit" for the average man in the street doesn't work with me...



Edited by Dimitri (07/02/09 01:22 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#26685 - 07/02/09 05:26 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Dimitri]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
I know many vegetarians. I have trouble taking them seriously. I regard the practice as contemptuous. It reminds me of certain other practices that involve fooling oneself and looking down one's nose at others, such as having "faith" in some collective imaginary friend (not mentioning any names, God).

Everything dies. Pain is good. The human animal evolved to flourish on as-big-and-juicy-as-possible flame-grilled steaks or dried strips of jerky freshly cut and lovingly prepared from any cow, horse, bison, spider, kangaroo, frog, fish, elephant, lizard, whale, sheep, dog, deer, goat, lion, bird, bear, leopard, human, snake, or grub that happens to be lying around not protecting its own arse. Deal with it already!
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#26694 - 07/02/09 09:04 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: god.over.djinn]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
I wont bother with our point at the moment (i dont think we shall agree) but I'll put something else out there (that doesnt require any actual evidence in it)

We would agree with eating meat as a natural part of the food chain. Now I find, just in my opinion, that the fashion in which we eat it to be unnatural. I dont have a philosophical issue with people that go out or have or would go out and kill an animal for food (i dont agree though) I do have a very big problem with people that profess love of animals, or simply wouldnt go out and slaughter an animal for food. Its a big contradiction. They wouldnt go and kill an animal therefore its unnatural that they would eat it.

Im just asking opinions on what people think about people that eat meat for convenience because its killed for them when they personally would not kill an animal. Its not an issue of how we get it but more of the actual nature that a person would kill for the food given the chance.

Top
#26721 - 07/03/09 01:33 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Convenience and a lack of resources and knowledge. I grew up in Northern Idaho, where the deer are nothing more than overgrown rodents. We used to open our kitchen window during deer hunting season and stick our rifle out and shoot one. Perfectly legal and acceptable.

The problem lies in the ubanization of America. I realize you are in Australia, things might be different there. It would be impracticle for me to obtain a license, spend hours in a forest hunting, drag my kill home, and dress it out. Not to mention, I have no where to dress it out. My yard is about 3 blades of grass and I have no garage.

Too many people have grown up in the cities and suburbs where hunting isn't an option. So they wouldn't even know where to begin. Should they even attempt it, they wouldn't have a clue how to dress the animal properly. Hunting, killing, and butchering an animal has been removed from our culture. It's far easier, and in some cases cheaper, to just go to the store and pick up a pound or two of meat.

I love animals. I have had cats as companions since I was in diapers. My mom has fostered and cared for wild and domestic animals. I asked everyone in my family that they donote to the ASPCA instead of sending a gift to me for Christmas. That does not mean we aren't capable of killing and eating a deer, bear, grouse, chicken or any other animal you care to mention.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#26722 - 07/03/09 01:37 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Most people would kill and animal if the option was to do that or starve. Some people enjoy hunting as well, and like to stock their freezers with freshly killed deer meat.

Nem already went over the aspects of how we eat and digest food, etc. She did a really good job, better at explaining it than I could. Maybe you should reread her words.

I love animals, but I love to eat them too.
I have 4 cats, if shit goes to hell, I have a tasty receipe for cat somewhere in my apartment.

I personally don't care what people eat. You can be a meat eater or vegetarian. I do care when its thrown in my face, and people try to use guilt on me about it. On that note, if you have friends who do that to you, get new friends.

Eating meat is a personal choice, and I like mine bar-b-qued.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#26726 - 07/03/09 02:27 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Morgan]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Thanks fakeprophet, that was rather insightful, and I hadnt thought that way.

I personally just cant understand the liking and then the eating of animals. Its like me saying I like people and I also like eating them (but we went through that briefly) and then that wouldnt be accepteable to people.

Im all pooped out for this discussion now, I think we have collectively overkilled it. Thanks to everyone for giving me new ideas of the other sides of the argument.

Top
#26791 - 07/04/09 11:09 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Atralux Lucis]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I have started and deleted a bunch of points opinions and comments to this thread. I spoke to Atralux Lucis in chat so.

So I'm just going to say.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

When I was younger, we raised sheep and then killed and ate them on our farm. I've killed a kangaroo with a rock because it was strangling my pet dog.

Alot of really good points made by the meat eaters side, not too many on any other to me. Guess that meat really does help the brain function. Especially when you are a child and growing.

The ones with the best moral argument food wise is the Freegans.

But who wants to dig through bins everyday to eat? I'd rather earn my way of life and eat meat.

We're not all the same, what works for me won't for you. Who cares what you eat?

The environment issues are now taught heavily in Australian Public school system. Recycle, re-use and regurgitate.

Boy that's a bit disjointed but this whole thread has been to me to an extent and one that I've had the argument about before....

TC, I agree with Nems original answer about not knowing what you would do in situations until you get there.

Maybe everything we do in life is driven by two things. Pleasure and pain. Then you die.

ZephyrGirl
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#27636 - 07/28/09 04:49 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
Jesse Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/22/09
Posts: 9
Good God, vegetarians are annoying but there is nothing more annoying than a vegan. Trust me, one lives upstairs from me and thinks just because she waltzes into a new apartment she thinks she can change everyone's life style. My dad told her off BIG when she complained about him cooking meat outside on the grill, and damn skippy he should all day any day.

This concept of vegetarian/veganism makes some of the most self-rightous snooty and arrogant people ever. All because they stopped eating meat they want the biggest God damn cookie in the world. It's a life style only another veg-tard could put up with.

I strictly stand by the "Do what thou wilt" part of Satanism, and by the power invested in me as my own God I'm going to enjoy meat as I please. So I raise my middle finger firmly high and a nice FUCK YOU to anyone who thinks they can tell me otherwise.

There's my rant \:\)


Edited by Jesse (07/28/09 04:50 PM)

Top
#27777 - 08/01/09 07:15 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Jesse]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
I'm a vegetarian and I want to explain myself. I chose not to eat meat for three reasons

-self preservation, rather, preservation of my descendants. I feel that animal farming is wasteful. It's more efficient to eat what cows eat, rather than eat cows. One person, especially an American, doing away with meat for a lifetime makes a difference.

-I got tired of meat. My father cooked meat by boiling it gray with no seasoning, and served it for every meal. Now I indulge in fine cookery. My vegetarian dishes are infinitely more flavourful than my dad's meaty ones.

-I like animals. They're better than a lot of people.

I take animal life on a case-by-case basis. I don't eat animals, but I do animal research. I will eat meat if it's an inconvenience not to. Traveling in rural France is difficult as a vegetarian. Most of the times I've eaten meat recently have been when someone I wanted to impress would have thought less of me for refusing their offered meal. So there are a lot of exceptions to my vegetarianism, but they are very rare. I find that it's these few exceptions, these trickier scenarios that people argue about in real life and get needlessly hung up about.

I never tell anyone else what to eat. And I take offense at people telling me that I need to eat meat. Some people automatically assume that I'm judging them based on their eating habits, that I think they shouldn't eat meat. They say stuff like "what, you think you're better than me? You think you can tell me what to do?". That annoys me. Sometimes it annoys me enough that I'll play the part to get those people to fuck off.

Top
#27921 - 08/04/09 10:23 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
An explanation of the finer points of the food chain, for those of you too lazy to research how these things work and instead want to keep stabbing away at it until someone explains it to you:

Say that all dogs are feral and eat cats and rabbits. If we take cats out of the foodchain by domesticating them, then dogs will have only rabbits to eat. Briefly, the rabbit population will dwindle but the resulting death of more dogs by starvation will eventually even things out, with both populations ending relatively smaller than they started when the dogs had more than one option.

Now, say that a few million years go by and we decide we are not going to keep cats anymore, but will reintroduce them to the foodchain by "freeing" them. Now during this few million years, we have also gone from covering about ten percent of the planet to spanning about 80 percent of it, so there's not nearly as much room as there was before. Now, this was inconsequential when we had a small feral dog population because the numbers were manageable. BUT now that we have re-introduced a natural prey-animal for the dogs, they will have a population explosion and like was said before, they will begin to show up on human territory. This will happen for two reasons: one, because they will have no where else to go and two: because cats will still be roaming around in human areas even though they have been emancipated from our lives. The dogs - having never been tamed in the first place - will breed massive numbers very fast and then we will have to worry about controlling THEIR population because in this scenario in which there are only three animals, the dogs are prey to no one and so have no other way to be controlled in their own numbers.

The same would hold true if we released all of our domesticated food animals back into the wild (not to mention the fact that they would be so prone to disease because we have spent a billion years protecting them from same). As Fake pointed out, animals that are already at the top of the food chain right now, such as bears, would explode in population because there would be such a flood of available food for them. Even when the populations stabalized again, we would still be left with an unmanageable number of top-predators.

For those of you who want to talk about what is and is not natural, killing is totally natural and second only to fucking. Animals kill eachother; we are animals. Therefore, it is just as natural for us to kill (other) animals as it is for us to fuck.

Would I hunt, kill, dress it out and cook it up? In a New York minute, my friend. I would rather have a juicy, dripping tasty bit of flesh in my mouth than a wild pear or a fuckin' potato any day of the week.

Now, I admit that I do have a problem with the wholesale farming and slaughtering of animals simply because I disagree with many of the methods and details that are involved in doing so, BUT when you have seven billion humans sharing a small bit of soil, you need to think of ways to accommodate the more densely populated areas. A person living on the 12th floor of a New York high rise will probably not be able to accomodate meat foods of their own to raise and slaughter.

As far as my own array of personal morals goes (and this was actually the original point of the thread, NOT how wrong it may or may not be to eat meat), I believe many things to be morally reprehensible, but that does not mean I will hesistate to go against myself if I believe it to be the best solution to whatever the problem may be.

Meat is tasty and morals are flexible. The End.

Top
#27927 - 08/05/09 06:36 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: coelentrate

- I feel that animal farming is wasteful. It's more efficient to eat what cows eat, rather than eat cows.


You want to eat grass??

Seriously, I've heard this argument bandied about. Has anyone ever actually substantiated it, or is it kind of like the proof that jumbo jets can't fly?

Meat is a very efficient source of food for humans. How much meat can you get off a cow? I can only guess, but it must be of the order of magnitude of 100kg, if you aren't being wasteful. Now, you can get a lot bang for your buck if you eat a kilo of meat a day.

In other words, a properly preserved cow can feasibly feed a human for quite some time.

How much ground would you need to farm to feed yourself fruit & vegetables for the same length of time, and how does the size of this plot of land compare to the amount of land the cow needs?

Even assuming there is any merit soever to the argument, is it really better to have sickly and unhappy humans who subsist on the bare minimum ground possible - or bright and vibrant humans who content themselves with the so-called inefficiencies of being predators?

G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#27931 - 08/05/09 08:24 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: god.over.djinn]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
dear GOD,

Note that I was careful to say "I feel that animal farming is wasteful".

However, the hard evidence to me is obvious. We use food as react-able carbon. Most of the react-able carbon going into a cows mouth becomes cow pies and urea in the field, and CO2 and methane in the air. And I remember that it took a lot more than 10kg of food to gain 10kg of weight when I was growing. I think food prices reflect this. It cost less for me to buy 1 kg of corn or soy, what cows eat, than 1kg of cow.

To answer your other questions, my wife and I get about 90% of our vegetables (considerably more veg than most people eat since we use it as a main dish) on two 15x15 meter plots of land we tend ourselves. A quick google search told me that one cow needs 5 acres of grass.

I am not sick, unhappy, or subsisting on the bare minimum. I have no nutritional deficiencies. I'm built like a rugby player. I'm a competitive martial artist.

Top
#27940 - 08/05/09 05:21 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you


Diets high in soy contribute to all kinds of cancer. Plus, soy is super high in estrogen.

So enjoy your man-tits, until they rot off from breast cancer.


Edited by ceruleansteel (08/05/09 05:23 PM)

Top
#27954 - 08/05/09 08:34 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: ceruleansteel]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
Loc: New York
Diets too high in anything will pretty much cause some kind of problem.

It's all about balance. A little of this, and a little of that. If you are a healthy adult to begin with, chances are you will be fine, if you keep your intake low, and balanced.

Disclaimer: In this case, I don't practice what I preach. I go on eating binges, and eat all sorts of things that might be bad for me. But I only do it on occasion.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#27982 - 08/06/09 11:38 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: ceruleansteel]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel


Diets high in soy contribute to all kinds of cancer. Plus, soy is super high in estrogen.

So enjoy your man-tits, until they rot off from breast cancer.


I don't have a diet high in soy. I don't eat a lot of tofu or boca burgers. I cook my own dishes that never called for meat in the first place: like spaghetti marinara. Most meat eaters consume more phyto-estrogen than I do.

This digs into the meat of the reason why I bothered to respond in the first place. Most people have very dumb, emotional misconceptions about what a vegetarian is.

Top
#28006 - 08/06/09 05:40 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Truthfully, I need about page properly respond to this thread. However, my time is short and I do want to chime in before this thread becomes 6 pages of unreadable nonsense.

To wit....

There is an annoying trend in Satanism where White Light Secular Humanists with Wiccan sensibilities masquerade as Satanist.

Far too many actually fear their own self-deification. Man is rapidly developing powers that were once considered god like. We are learning to create and shape life. We currently have a capacity to destroy on a biblical scale. And we are working hard at unraveling and understanding the very fabric of the universe.

In the words of Arthur C. Clarke "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

From the Satanic perspective, there can be no moral argument against eating meat. Wielding the power of life and death is what gods do.

Everyone a shining star....
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#28035 - 08/07/09 03:54 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Fist]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
But I don't have a moral argument against eating meat. It can make sense to be meatless outside of moral reasons. That's my whole point.
Top
#28056 - 08/07/09 07:51 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Quote:
It can make sense to be meatless outside of moral reasons.


Hi Coelentrate,

The only non-moral argument you've given for not eating meat was your second reason (one out of three):

 Quote:
My father cooked meat by boiling it gray with no seasoning, and served it for every meal.


The other reasons were moral reasons.

Basically, pursuing vegetarianism for the reasons you've given is kind of like saying that you don't have sex because you think the planet is already overpopulated, and besides your father always treated women badly so now you also find it hard to deal with women, plus you do respect women and you think it would be sexist to have sex with them.

Don't let me stop you from doing whatever you feel like, but if you are trying to present an argument about why vegetarianism can be viable even without resorting to moralisms, I think you still have a little way to go.


G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#28061 - 08/07/09 09:46 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: god.over.djinn]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
From the health perspective, I have personally never know a healthy/sane vegan. The term 'vegetarian' seems to mean whatever the person wants it to mean. The term is thrown around to boost one's own ego as to suggest holier than thou.

You could live your whole life and never eat red meat. The only thing you would miss is some delicious fire grilled flavor. But to deprive your body of fish and eggs is starve your brain of important nutrients.

Man is an omnivore. We evolved eating a wide variety of foods and this has been our survival strategy for thousands of years. Our gut has much more in common with notorious omnivores like pigs.

From a satanic perspective, the Satanist should be concerned gastronomy - enjoying good food. And quite a lot of good food is actually good for you. As for everything else - all thing in moderation, including moderation it's self.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#30591 - 10/18/09 01:36 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
Phenex Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/13/09
Posts: 11
I, personally, am a vegetarian because I believe that the harsh treatment practiced in slaughter houses is ridiculous, and I do not wish to have any part in it. Perhaps if the techiques of slaughter and the standards at which the animals are raised were of better quality, I would be more willing to consume meat every now and then. However, as it is, the majority of slaughter houses are run by pathetic morals.

In much of the United States, for example, there is no limit for the amount of livestock raised in one area. It's however many you can handle. I believe that if you want to make more money, you should do the proper work involved--this does not include shoving as many cows as you can onto one patch of land and keeping them alive at the bare minimum.

As for chickens, they are kept so tightly packed that they are no longer able to move, forcing their muscles to degrade. This is just cruel. The arrogance that must be obtained in order to do something like this is a level that I, personally, hope never to reach. If one is going to take a life for the sake of their own, it should be done fairly and respectfully. After all, their energy is being taken away and given to another; Is this not a sacrifice which should be respected?

Now, I am not the type of vegetarian to shove my ideals down another's throat. I believe that everyone has to right to decide their way of living for themselve's. However, the consumption of meat produced by slaughter-houses only seems arrogant and lazy to me. Hunting, I am able to endorse, as long as it is done fairly. (The use of a bow and arrow seems much more honorable to me all together, as it is not using another's work to form a machine to take the life of an animal who was simply not born with the same benefits.)
_________________________
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." -Einstein

Top
#30597 - 10/18/09 10:53 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Phenex]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
I can understand your moral objections to eating meat that's been raised in the type of conditions you've described. However some searching on Google would have yielded a list of farmers who raise their livestock in a more natural manner, who slaughter them humanely, and sell directly to the public.

There is an organization called AWA, which stands for "Animal Welfare Approved", and lists farmers who abide by its standards. If it was possible to buy directly from these farmers, would you still be a vegetarian?

http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#30600 - 10/18/09 12:57 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
Phenex Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/13/09
Posts: 11
The AWA seems like a wonderful organization. I wish all slaughter houses treated the animals more humanely, though I realize that the laziness and arrogance of society can seldom be undone.

As for if I would still be vegetarian or not, I believe that I most likely would. Since becoming a vegetarian, I have become more aware of the health benefits that come with it. However, if the majority of meat was sold directly from those farmers, I would not have the same disgust towards the consumption of meat, and would no longer be "against" it.
_________________________
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." -Einstein

Top
#30603 - 10/18/09 06:26 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Phenex]
Miss May Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/27/09
Posts: 66
Loc: sebastopol, CA
I don't share the opinion that killing animals for their meat is immoral. In fact, I think hunting an animal yourself for your own sustenance is perfectly natural. I have and would kill an animal for food. I don't feel bad about that. It doesn't mean that i don't respect and love animals. Animals would do the same thing if they were in my position.

I personally feel that there are people who have become removed from their instincts in such a way that they don't even view their meat as an animal anymore. Those who pay for meat and eat it only because it's what their used to, not for any reason in particular, who never give it a second thought and could care less about how it got there.

However, in todays society there are enough alternatives for those who who don't agree with the mass slaughtering that goes on to choose not to support it. There are free range options where the animals are not abused before their death, but raised healthfully.

There are more things to take into consideration before becoming a vegan or vegetarian though. Everyone's body has different needs. For example, blood type O needs animal protein to stay healthy. In contrast, those with blood type A do not tolerate a high level of animal proteins and a vegetarian diet will benefit them.

Top
#30608 - 10/19/09 01:21 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Miss May]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I am a meat eater and I've been with a vegetarian for several years. While I don't share the same viewpoint I respect her decision and I can't say there's no validity to it.

Vegetarianism isn't really a singular viewpoint that you can put all together and argue against. Like any group of a decent idea there are people who understand and take part in the belief and others that merely exploit it to feel superior to others.

I think that sane decent vegetarians get a lot of undeserved shit on behalf of the idiots that bring it's name down. Not unlike many shallow kids I've known that think they understand Satanism.

As I see it unless a vegetarian is telling you that you're wrong for eating meat(which they quite often don't, people often just assume they will and take a preemptive strike) then there's no reason for a conflict, it's a personal choice that is not interfering with yours at all.

Some people just don't want to eat animals. There's no reason to have a problem with that. Some idiots dress up as cows and picket in the McDonalds parking lot. Those people are just shallow idiots.

Top
#30617 - 10/19/09 07:42 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Phenex]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
In your first post, you stated that the reason you're a vegetarian was because of how livestock are treated on commercial farms. When I provided information leading to farmers to treat animals in a humane manner, you backpedal and state that you'd still be a vegetarian anyway.

So, what's the real reason you're a vegetarian? If it's because you don't like the idea of animals being killed, I can accept that, but just be up front about it. No need to beat around the bush. Most of us are animal lovers on here and could sympathize. However, most of us could also sympathize with a juicy 10oz. filet mignon wrapped in bacon and topped with Bearnaise sauce too ;\)

I have yet to meet a vegetarian or vegan that is healthy and vital. Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of them out there, ones who've been to a dietitian and mapped out what their nutritional requirements are (Christian Bale is a vegetarian, at least that's what he says). But all the ones I've met have been semi-sickly individuals who have weakened immune systems from not eating properly. Everyone needs some animal protein, and I'm not sure how far eggs would go as a substitute for a juicy steak or grilled and seasoned filet of salmon once or twice a week. The vegans are the worst: Nothing from an animal whatsoever, not eggs, milk, cheese, etc. Those people look godawful.

Miss May, that's an interesting bit of information you provided, concerning the proper diet for your blood type. I'm reading up on it now. That might explain why I always feel deprived when I try to go vegetarian (it has happened on occasion!).

Eating Right For Your Blood Type
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#30634 - 10/19/09 02:41 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Phenex Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/13/09
Posts: 11
I suppose my reasons would be both the cruel treatment and the health benefits that I, myself, have recieved. I am rather torn in the killing of animals at all, but it is also a system that has been a part of society since the dawn of time, and, in the case of deer, prevents overpopulation and starvation. I started out as a vegetarian because of the treatment of the animals. I was overweight, but in the first week I lost about ten pounds and felt much more clear of mind. Perhaps this was because I did not have the slaughter on my conscience, but there are also many great minds who would agree with this, such as Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton--both of which were vegetarian.
_________________________
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." -Einstein

Top
#30696 - 10/23/09 04:29 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Nemesis]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Fuck that. Everything on that list of no-nos was something that I love.

I eat loads of meat, loads of seasonings and spices, and a few vegetables (usually any color but white or yellow). I add to the mix a juice of some sort every morning (orange, apple, cranberry, or V8). I don't eat "box meals" or TV dinners or canned meals, I cook from scratch. I love pasta, but I only eat it a couple of times per month. I don't drink bourbon any more (read: right now) so I have no caffiene in my life at all. I love fresh garlic and add it to everything I can.

I don't buy into the so-called health benefits of eating a certain way. I have a nice, juicy steak about two or three times a week and I eat bacon and eggs like a maniac. My cholesterol is perfect, I never get sick, and I can go from zero to sixty in the time it takes my two feet to hit the floor each morning, even on just a couple of hours of sleep. This annoys my Darling Man to no end.

Let 'em have their rabbit food. That's just more tasty murder for me.

Top
#30697 - 10/23/09 04:56 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: ceruleansteel]
godam666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/15/09
Posts: 23
Loc: indiana
why is it that people come up with a way to be different. Then they try and make as many people as they can like them by attempting to make them feel bad for doing something they like to do. My question is how much better would the world be if we all instead of trying to make everyone like this, or that and just be our self's and just that. Who says because we are different we cannot get along and live in the same world. I like being different I don't know about you.
_________________________
I am God

Top
#30703 - 10/23/09 09:25 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: godam666]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: godam666
why is it that people come up with a way to be different. Then they try and make as many people as they can like them by attempting to make them feel bad for doing something they like to do.


The simple answer is that many people need to feel that unless they convince someone -- ANYONE -- of the value of a system or and idea that has somehow captured their imagination, it's a failed exercise. You can see this in MOST religious movements through their constant proselytization and in the "new and improved" rehashes of products, movies, music and other consumables. YOU TOO must enjoy this, or something is wrong with YOU.

It's been going on since Og found out that he could convince Bog to cook his meat.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31763 - 11/16/09 06:34 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: TV is God]
Babylonian Dream Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/07/09
Posts: 43
Loc: Upstate New York
Don't like the way animals are treated? Either deal with it, protest, or find a way to outcompete them posting a "we treat animals ethically" banner and hope it boosts the sail of your product. Not enough people are willing to go along for the vegetarian idea to spread.

As for the not wanting to take a life or wanting a life to be taken, I agree, I don't like the idea of killing anything for food either, but it's a "necessary evil" so to speak. And if you didn't want to kill anything, or let anything be killed for you to eat, then you'd starve.

If we limit what we kill to plants, one may ask another moral arguement, is it better to take one life or another?

I personally am going to eat both. I just can't go without my bacon and eggs for breakfast alongside toast and other good stuff.

There are other reasons people are vegetarian as well I am sure. I don't have a problem with what other people choose to or not to eat, it leaves more meat for me so what do I care?

I think that it's immoral to take a life, but it is even more so immoral to me to not fulfill your life's purpose (to eat, mate and survive). That being said, it cancels out any moral obligation not to kill the plant or animal. It boils down to whether or not you see it as moral or immoral to kill an animal, or what is more important to you, survival or the moral of "do not kill".
_________________________
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" Sagan

Top
#31768 - 11/16/09 02:08 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Babylonian Dream]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2515
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
There are two issues here: (1) What should you eat for maximum health, strength, & life? (2) Is it unjustifiably cruel to kill animals, even if it is to eat them?

Concerning the former, spend $10 on this DVD. While you're at it, pick up a copy of this book. Just go ahead and do it; you can argue with [or thank] me later.

Concerning the latter, I am generally opposed to hurting any living being which isn't hurting/trying to hurt me. One either considers "life" as something metaphysical/sublime/sacred or one doesn't. If so, then it is just as blasphemous to kill a cow or a pig as to kill another [unthreatening] human being. Go here, scroll down to

030701 A Vision of Hell: The Unspeakable Torment of Other Species, Part 1
- and -
030708 A Vision of Hell: The Unspeakable Torment of Other Species, Part 2
and download/play.

If not, then theoretically you should be as much in favor of Soylent Green as a Big Mac.

It is perhaps worth noting that we are being eaten by animals not just when we die (maggots, et al.) but while we're alive (fleas, mosquitoes, ticks, lice ... The next time you visit your dentist, ask him to take a scrape from the inside of your mouth and show it to you under the microscope; you'll see more Lovecraftian monsters living contentedly in/on you than you ever wanted to know about). Quoth archy the cockroach in Don Marquis' archy and mehitabel:

"insects have
their own point
of view about
civilization a man
thinks he amounts
to a great deal
but to a
flea or a
mosquito a
human being is
merely something
good to eat"
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#31769 - 11/16/09 02:25 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am not against eating meat. I do it most days in fact. I do not like how man produces their food though. I guess I would prefer the idyllic way of people having their own animals and kill them etc instead of having these industries that are just producing for profit and dont care about the animals lives (sorry I dont mean to turn this into another debate on capitalism ;\) ). However I do buy the products I have to admit.

Im not sure of the right word but I only buy fresh food. I never buy these "already made, microwave 3 minutes" and almost never buy fast food.

Since I started actually cooking my food myself I have not only slimmed down (not that I was big to begin with though) but I also feel better and it is indeed cheaper to do it this way. Although it does require some more time for cooking.

Top
#31770 - 11/16/09 02:36 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Babylonian Dream]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
There's a big difference between life and conscious life. When a vegetarian says "taking a life" you're meant to assume they mean "taking a conscious life."

And it's a bit silly to argue it's a denial of self fulfillment. If someone is pressured to be a vegetarian by the people around them then that would be a denial of self fulfillment but I would guess that's a very rare thing to happen. Some people are bothered by the idea of eating the flesh of animals and the torturous process of getting them that flesh. It is their self fulfillment to stop eating animals.

Babylonian Dream, you speak of vegetarianism as if it's a movement that's trying to convert people and take down the meat industry. There is a movement of vegetarians that will tell you you're wrong for eating meat, this is not the whole of vegetarians.

Vegetarianism itself is nothing but a preference of diet. It is not living against meat, it is living without meat. The word vegetarian does not mean you're a militant anti-meat-industry idiots that's trying to tell people they're wrong for eating meat. It baffles me why people think that these people are accurate representatives of vegetarians.

I'm all for kicking dirt on these self-righteous shallow anti-meat hypocrites. I'm all for bringing down any rabble rousing idiotic group of the like but understand that the dietary choice of vegetarianism and the idiocy are not fused at the hip.
I would guess there's probably more vegetarians eating what they want and minding their own business than marching naked in peta protests.

If you saw a militant satanist movement that was dressing up as devils and protesting in church parking lots you'd want nothing to do with them. However this would be what's on the news and what people see. Everyone would assume that being a satanist is hand in hand with the social masturbaters. You see what I'm getting at?

Top
#31775 - 11/16/09 04:00 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
It's convenient, it feels good and it beats the alternative. In short, because I want to.


And that right there is really the end-all of it. You can't apply morality to Vegetarian Vs. Omnivore Vs. Carnivore. Ok, you can, but you just look silly doing it. If you want to apply your own "morality" when deciding what you should eat - fine - but you can't exactly expect to hold others to that same line of thinking.

I mean, why even care what other people eat? How much does it hurt you when I eat a burger? I'll tell you how much; about as much as it hurts me when you eat tofurkey.

Fuck the pigs, chickens, cows, fish and all the other tasty creatures out there. They taste good, I want to eat them, so I do. The End.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#31776 - 11/16/09 04:05 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes of my life reading through this thread...oh well.

So...for starters, I apparently don't eat right for my blood type. At all. In any way shape or form. How is an Irish type A suppose to survive, anyway? No beef,potatoes, cabbage, beer, or liquor? There's something wrong with that list...

Second...the argument that the industrial complex of slaughterhouses, etc...even saying they're not doing it for a profit, being able to evolve beyond being hunter-gatherers is what enables us to have the civilization that we do. If you argue that specilization of jobs is a bad thing, than you're not just attacking capitalism, you're attacking any type of civilization. The number of people that would have to be hunter/gatherers (even ancient farming is just another food industry) to sustain the population would be horrific, not to mention the fact that hunting/gathering wouldn't be sufficient to feed everyone. If you're thinking "Good! Humanity is overpopulated, anyway!" then just think that before our near extinction, we're going to take all the cute fluffy bunnies with us.

If you're fine with farming for food, but not growing livestock for food, it seems a bit of a double standard to me.

Also...humans are animals. Yes, we're different from every other animal in some key aspects, but animals we are. Why, then, is it bad to eat other animals? If you're coming from the moral aspect of not killing animals because it's taking a life...than are lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) responsible for murder? Are they immoral? There's a lot more that could be said on that subject, but I doubt anyone's interested in it anyway, and it is about time to cook dinner...

If you argue that we're higher than animals, than why is it wrong to take an animals life? We're higher than them, their lives don't matter much compared to our whims.

I've known a few veggies/vegans. Only one was really healthy (except that he was a bit chubby, but that was likely from the beer diet, not the veggie diet), and he did pay a lot of attention to his diet, and what he needed. He also wasn't a self-righteous ass, and went out with us omnivores to eat quite a bit. He would sit and stare at us eating our meat filled dishes while he ate his veggie dish, and aside from fun arguments (usually initiated by someone else asking him why he was vegan), he didn't talk about it.

Some friends and I did go with him once to this vegan Chinese place in NYC, and I have to admit: prepared right, vegan food can be quite tasty. I wouldn't go vegan, because I like steak way too much, but there are some exceptionally exquisite vegan dishes to be had.

(Now, of course, I have that Tool song stuck in my head...life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life...)
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31777 - 11/16/09 04:18 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: CJB]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I don't think I've tried anything vegan but you'd be surprised how good a lot of vegetarian food is. People tend not to give a food a chance because it's labeled vegetarian (I am personally guilty of not giving anything with the word "diet" a chance) but there are some really excellent vegetarian dishes out there. I went to a restaurant that served a black bean burger filled with peppers and I'd have to say it's one of the best burgers I've ever had.

Not to say there isn't a lot of badly flavored lumps of soy meant to look like meat. The boca meatless burgers and breakfast sausages are surprisingly good. I have several non-vegetarian friends that buy the boca chicken nuggets because they prefer them to the real thing.

As a side note never ask a vegetarian "Would you eat it if there was a gun to your head?". You know the answer is yes and they're all really really sick of everyone they meet asking them.


Edited by TV is God (11/16/09 04:24 PM)

Top
#31781 - 11/16/09 04:54 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: TV is God]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
Wow. This topic has seen allot of decent chat, but hey I’m going to jumping and have my say regardless.

I am an omnivore. I eat what I want to, and do so guilt free. I enjoy a nice steak and I’m also partial to spinach linguini.

I agree that it’s a valid point to contemplate the suffering of animals and question my right as person to deprive it of life rather than eat a carrot, something that would sustain me equally well. But I don’t let that ruin my steak.

I agree that there is an environmental sustainability issue when it comes to meats production. But I don’t let it hinder the enjoyment of my steak.

I agree that in the long run my diet of rare red meat may lead to a situation in which I clasp at my flabby chest with my sweaty sausage link hands and lament all those pretty women I never convinced to show me their breasts. But I don’t, EVER, let that shit on my steak.

Seeing a pattern here? (Other than my borderline infatuation with stake). While I acknowledge that there are those who are against meat, and I respect their right to be so, I don’t for one second consider myself in the wrong.

It’s up to YOU. If you want it, eat it. If not then don’t, but no person has the right to dictate that I shouldn’t.

Oh, and just to throw a complete spanner in the works, has anyone thought of the fourth option? (The first, second and third being Carnivore, Herbivore and Omnivore respectively).

Meat that was never born?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4148164.stm

I like the term “Synthasore”.


Edited by Room 101 (11/16/09 04:57 PM)
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#31782 - 11/16/09 05:10 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Room 101]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I am a meat eater but if the synthasore option was cheap and easily available I would go for it. Not as a strict rule but when given the option I'd go for it.
And really if the technology is perfected it could (if they wanted to) be sold for next to nothing and make the giant factory farms obsolete. But I really doubt the fickle public will accept something like this as a major part of the food market, at least not in America anyway.

Top
#31784 - 11/16/09 06:09 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: TV is God]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
I wouldn’t have a problem eating meat that had been grown instead of conceived, as long as it had been tested as safe. I think it’s the solution to a great many problems regarding so the so called “morality of meat” issue.

Whether or not the “fickle” public embrace’s or even condones this method of food production is yet to be seen. The article is from 2005, and this was the last time I heard about it. But that aside it’s an interesting subject, more than as a solution, but in the problems it in its own right is likely to generate.

I suppose the deviant little boy in me can’t wait to poke fun at the dilemma vegetarians might one day be faced with. “Guilt free meat” will not only be ecological sound in that it does not require vast tracts of rainforest to be bull dozed in order to feed, it will also have never been truly “alive” (although that is also a matter of debate) and as such no animal will ever be harmed in its production.

Alas, there will still be those that feel this is still a form of animal manipulation suited for human interests, and worst still, there will be the “this is unnatural” squad. No doubt backed by some bible toting "Human Investor” that sees it as Gods will that nature should not be bastardised with science in this manner. The very same man no doubt taking his high blood pressure medication and enjoying a Rieces pieces (both of which now contain GM crop constituent components) moments after talking to room full of semi comatose “well doers”.

Only time will tell.
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#31785 - 11/16/09 06:33 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Room 101]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Just to jump in on this with a brief point--

After giving some consideration to the arguments everyone's made thus far, I've come to the conclusion that the only reason that the concept of "morality" is applied to eating meat, is that we tend to project our own humanity onto damn near EVERYTHING nowadays. Plants feel and like music. Your cat has an asshole personality and pisses on your couch out of revenge for being left alone. That little calf looks soooo adorable nuzzling his mum!!!

I think that would explain why the militant Vegans act the way they do, because they're projecting the "Awwww!" factor onto their food. I think that's also why PETA is so insane, they humanize animals to the point where some are actually APOLOGISTS for their own race.

The only thing I'm apologizing for is this post I've made. I took a Lorcet earlier after coming back from the hospital, so I'm hoping I've been able to convey my opinion in a coherent manner.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#31796 - 11/16/09 11:34 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Room 101]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
So this is something I've wondered for a while...not entirely on subject, but still rather pertinent to it, I think. What exactly is the definition of natural? And by extension: unnatural?

You could use "natural" in a mother nature way of thought. You can use it in the sense of contrasting it to "artificial," which is basically a way of saying "anything natural is something that humanity has not touched." Both of those say that mankind is somehow divorced from nature. But why would anything touched by humans be unnatural? Because it's...built? Would a beaver dam then be unnatural? Or is it because we build on what we learned from the past...standing on the shoulders of past thinkers, so to say (which would be opposed to animals' instincts).

Assuming that humans are in fact governed by the laws of nature (which I think would be a good assumption) ...than can anything a human does be considered unnatural?

What is the difference between a person taking cows out of their natural environment, domesticating it, and slaughtering its offspring; and a person cloning a cow or making a roll of meat?

If you say that unnatural is anything going against a vague notion of mother nature as it would be without humans around, than all three of those are unnatural. The only way to be "natural" in that matter would be to run around naked trying to catch wild animals with our hands (...actually, in this case, being a vegetarian might make a lot of sense. Wild strawberries don't fight back.) However, not using our mind as our means of survival through the use of technology would be unnatural for humans, as that is our method of survival, gained through millenia of "natural" evolution.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31802 - 11/17/09 04:01 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: CJB]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
From an objective point of view, nothing is unnatural. Everything, inanimate objects included, manipulates its environment to some extent. The human will is a natural, evolved trait. The products of human will are things made of natural materials. The natural materials were combined in ways that exploit the principles of chemistry and physics, which predate humanity. There's no such thing as the unnatural, only the unfamiliar. It's the unfamiliarity that's scaring the shit out of people.

From a subjective point of view... I had something great to say here, but I'll be damned if I can remember what it was! I'll post it if it comes back to me.

Top
#31808 - 11/17/09 06:34 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
I whole heartedly agree the both of the comments above, especially coelentrate’s as I know his expertise lye in the area of Biology.

The fact of the matter is that at some point this might very well be a reality, and the issues discussed here may well be up for public debate.

Coelentrate I wait with baited breath for the thought that was lost, its always interesting to hear from those whose profession lye in the area of discussion.
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#31817 - 11/17/09 10:21 AM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: coelentrate
There's no such thing as the unnatural...


Except for things that, you know, don't occur in nature. Plastics, automobiles, enriched uranium, Boca Burgers. Just a few examples of things that, by definition, are unnatural.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#31819 - 11/17/09 12:12 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6

Except for things that, you know, don't occur in nature. Plastics, automobiles, enriched uranium, Boca Burgers. Just a few examples of things that, by definition, are unnatural.


I agree with you on principle here, that these things would be considered unnatural, but what about them makes them unnatural? If you just have to point at something and vaguley say "See that? It's unnatural!" than that leaves a lot up to...well, whim, as to what the definition is. Plastic is made out of oil, which is a natural substance. Automobiles are made out of metal...well, mostly. Sometimes. The composition is beside the point...the point is that everything a car is made from is something taken from nature and refined by humans.

EVERYTHING in your list of unnatural stuff is made from things from nature (which stands to reason, since anything tangible is made from stuff from nature). There is nothing in the definition of Boca burgers that say their creation runs contrary to the laws of how the universe works.

If a car is unnatural, so is a bike. If a bike is unnatural, so are running shoes. If shoes are unnatural, so are clothes.

If soy "meat" is unnatural, what makes it that way? Certainly not the ingredients. The process then? What about the process is unnatural?

If you define unnatural as anything made by humans, than you're implying we're not natural.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31823 - 11/17/09 01:29 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Just a few examples of things that, by definition, are unnatural.


Just based on the evidence, spelled out more plainly by CJ, my opinion is that the word "unnatural" is a product of a more ignorant time and is ready to die.

Top
#31826 - 11/17/09 02:09 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: coelentrate]
Sonsosatan Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Pacific Northwest
Indeed: "unnatural" should be replaced by "reproducibility".

If independently we all arrive at the same conclusion about something using the same set of data and test procedures then something can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere, anytime so long as all things are equal.

Isn't nature like that?
_________________________
"The death of fear is in doing what you fear to do."

Top
#31828 - 11/17/09 02:50 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Sonsosatan]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: Sonsosatan
Indeed: "unnatural" should be replaced by "reproducibility".

If independently we all arrive at the same conclusion about something using the same set of data and test procedures then something can be reproduced by anyone, anywhere, anytime so long as all things are equal.

Isn't nature like that?


Not always. One word: Platypus.

People tend to see vegetarianism vs omnivorism as an either/or, go/no go proposition, like it's some binary computation or a highway with fixed exit points. The truth of the matter is that like most things in life, it's all part of a human spectrum that allows for infinite variation. There are extreme vegetarians and there are extreme carnivores and a whole lot of space inbetween for variations on a theme.

We wouldn't get all bent out of shape if a person in a room of 100 said, "All I wear is black," while on the other side of the room, someone else said, "All I wear is white." Between the two, there would be 98 others who've found that while all black or all white just isn't for them, there are many options from which they can draw, and they can still choose one or another extreme for a time if they wish. Humans have the ability and the need to color their existence with nuances that separate them from each other. While they might appreciate the binary efficiency of a computerized model of life, they can't really embrace it in the reality of flesh and blood.

Absolutes demand exception.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31829 - 11/17/09 03:09 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Jake999]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
There are no absoultes? Wait...dammit.

I don't mind someone saying "All I eat are nuts and berries," much the same as I don't mind someone "I wear all black." If it were some stranger, I really wouldn't even mind (aside from being a bit creeped out) if he came up to me on the street and said so.

However, to follow your analogy...what if there is someone that says "All I wear is black, because wearing white is MURDER and RAPING THE ENVIRONMENT!" That's just downright insulting. "I don't wear white because it makes me look fat" or "I don't wear white because I don't like the way it looks on me" are both perfectly fine and rational explanations. But, because I on occasion wear white, my answer to the first person would be either scornful insult back or an argument to the contrary of their position (depending on what I thought of the person, aside from their odd beliefs).

The same is true for those vegetarians that don't eat meat because they think it's murder. Even if they say something like..."Well, it's my own personal belief that eating meat is murder, but I can respect your decision to eat meat" still means they consider someone who eats meat up there with a serial killer. I find it rather insulting that someone believes that I'm a murderer. Again, if I don't give a shit about him or her otherwise, than I'll just tell them to fuck themselves and continue on. If I actually do give enough of a fuck about the person, then I would argue with them.

More often then not, the other person's position goes from "it's murder" to "I just don't like having the death of animals on my conscience," which is completely fine by me, because I am quite capable of holding an animal's death on my conscience (and stomach!).
Anybody that seriously felt different than that, I couldn't accept them as a friend or anything like that, because of their position that I'm a murderer.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31831 - 11/17/09 03:28 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: CJB]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3114
Vegeterianism mostly consists out of moral arguments, and as far as I know are moral arguments unbiased. This means that vegeterianism can only be 'good' or 'bad' (lack of wording) in the eye of the beholder.

If vegeterians consider only eating plants 'better for the envirronement and global life' let them believe it. Same goes for the pure carnivorists. The bitching about the pro and con's is a serious time-waster since it all boils down on the vision of the person on life, and opinion.
If a vegeterian believes killing animals is the same as murdering humans, let them have it.

If they start preaching in your face because you are wearing an animalskin, or are eating a good piece of meat: use that one advice Lavey once wrote about warning and smashing the other one's face.

Vegeterian lifestyle is as healthy as a carnivorian one. Both need a certain compensation from vitamines, minerals and proteins which can only be found in the opposite lifestyle.
Is it unhealthy to live one of these two?
Plain answer is yes if you aren't informed very well. Humans are omnivores, we need both plants and meat in order to have a healthy good-working body. We can ofcourse survive or even maintain our good health even if we choose to be vegeterian or carnivorian, as long as the person is aware of it's choice and the possible complications which might occur when choosing one or another.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#31832 - 11/17/09 03:32 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: CJB]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Care to guess how many people think that I'm a murderer because I was in Vietnam? I can live with people thinking I'm a murderer because I eat a burger.

You can't control what people think. The inside of someone's head is a veritable minefield of nuances and subtleties that to you and I might seem picayune and mundane, but in their cloistered little world become horrendous bugaboos that they just can't grasp, even if one tries to give them wisdom through logic. "More things on heaven and earth..."

All we can ultimately do is realize that there ARE some men who are islands and sail past. They don't impact our lives much, if at all, unless we choose to let them.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31833 - 11/17/09 04:09 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: Dimitri]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Vegeterianism mostly consists out of moral arguments, and as far as I know are moral arguments unbiased. This means that vegeterianism can only be 'good' or 'bad' (lack of wording) in the eye of the beholder.


I think you've more or less hit this one on the head, Dimitri. Jake999's shirt analogy is also very apt in connection with this...ethical choices, from an amoralist framework, don't really differ in content from aesthetic preferences (unless this wasn't where you were going, Jake, in which case please correct me).

There's no reason to waste time pondering whether those vegetarians are on to something or not...they can't do much more than "Boo!" or "Hurrah!" meat, and we can't do much more than issue emotional dis/approval for one or the other.

Top
#31863 - 11/17/09 09:28 PM Re: Vegetarian, The Moral Argument. [Re: CJB]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: CJB
I agree with you on principle here, that these things would be considered unnatural, but what about them makes them unnatural?


Unnatural means NOT OCCURRING IN NATURE. Not a terribly difficult concept to grasp...at least that is what one would think.

 Originally Posted By: CJB
Plastic is made out of oil, which is a natural substance. Automobiles are made out of metal...well, mostly. Sometimes.


Have you ever found a piece of plastic that just came into being from oil on its own without human intervention? Have you ever heard of car that was not built by people?

 Originally Posted By: CJB
The composition is beside the point...the point is that everything a car is made from is something taken from nature and refined by humans.


No. The point is anything that doesn't occur in nature, on its own, is unnatural.

 Originally Posted By: CJB
EVERYTHING in your list of unnatural stuff is made from things from nature (which stands to reason, since anything tangible is made from stuff from nature).


See above.

 Originally Posted By: CJB
There is nothing in the definition of Boca burgers that say their creation runs contrary to the laws of how the universe works.


Right, but I never said "their creation runs contrary to the laws of how the universe works". Yet the fact still remains that they have to be created. They are made from natural ingredients but you will never find a Boca patty growing on a soybean plant. Unless scientists come up with a way to alter soy bean plants. Even then it would still be unnatural because it took human intervention to create.

 Originally Posted By: CJB
If a car is unnatural, so is a bike. If a bike is unnatural, so are running shoes. If shoes are unnatural, so are clothes.

If soy "meat" is unnatural, what makes it that way? Certainly not the ingredients. The process then? What about the process is unnatural?


Again, see above.

 Originally Posted By: CJB
If you define unnatural as anything made by humans, than you're implying we're not natural.


No, that is not what I am implying at all. I don't even see how you could make such an irrational leap in conclusion. I think I know what you are getting her so let me clear it up for you. Yes, humans give birth to other humans; essentially humans make other humans. Here is the catch though: child birth occurs in nature.

This thread is off track though so if you would like to continue you can make a new thread. If you do please just try to avoid the slippery slopes. ;\)
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
Page all of 5 12345>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.084 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 87 queries. Zlib compression disabled.