vegan tells me I am an addict

[Howard]

All dieticians I spoke too, ok both dieticians I spoke to, underlined the importance of varying proteins in our meals. North Americans, and North Europeans eat way to much meat. For health reasons, more specificaly to upkeep our muscle mass, we need some meat. So yeah, being omnivores do require us to eat some meat to stay healthy, just not in the amount my part of the world is used to.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Howard said:

North Americans, and North Europeans eat way to much meat.

I believe this is linked to some cancers, and other issues. 

 

However, some meats are better for you than others. 

 

One woman I dated used to have a very heavy period. Dangerously heavy.

 

She ate clean, but was recommended certain meats in moderation, to counter the loss of iron due to her menstruation.

 

 

 

 

[Zosia]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Adversely, on the humane slaughter of animals and raising being perfectly moral. It being legal, is simply pointing to that fact.

It being legal doesn't say anything about the morality of that act, it just says that it's legal. And again I'll say that plenty of things could be legal but be immoral, and vice versa.

 

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The simple fact, that humane slaughter, is painless to the animal. Harming the animal, is indicative of inflicting pain onto it.

Why is it that pain is the only thing being taken into consideration here when discussing harm. It should be fairly obvious that taking another's life is a violent, harmful act and the largest amount of harm that can be inflicted onto another. Shooting another in the head is not harmful? Shooting another in the head when it's unnecessary is humane? This is an oxymoron, as humane is inflicting the least amount of harm onto another and showing compassion and benevolence to another. The most compassionate, benevolent, and least harmful option between shooting an animal and not shooting an animal is choosing not to kill them in the first place, that's humane.

 

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This is against the law for a reason, thus your comparison not being relevant to the discussion.

My comparison was in regards to your statement about your perceived right to slaughter animals as you saw fit for reasons of liking the taste of chicken, on the grounds that those animals were your property and you raised them for that purpose. My comparison was to owning and raising animals for cock fighting or dog fighting, and I said assuming I lived somewhere where this was legal to do so (therefor, yes, relevant to the discussion). And I made this comparison to challenge your statement that you had a right to raise and slaughter animals for taste, the point being that it doesn't matter if they're your property or if you raise them for a specific purpose, both reasons of entertainment and taste are frivolous and unjustifiable reasons to inflict unnecessary violence onto them.

 

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I have watched countless animals get slaughtered, and have no issues slaughtering my own animals if I had to. If you've witnessed a humane slaughter, you'll note the instantaneous death of the animal. No pain is felt. Doing this humanely and lawfully, is perfectly fine. One not liking it, doesn't make it any less humane.

Let's take this further then and say that I'm someone who has no issue with inflicting pain and suffering on animals because I believe that it's humane to do so. That sounds pretty outlandish, but lets say that I don't believe that animals can really suffer, or at least not in the way that humans can. Maybe I think that they're not really feeling, they're just a bundle of instincts that aren't really aware of what's happening to them. Their reactions to violence being inflicted onto them is just a reflex. So really, any form of violence inflicted onto them is humane, because they don't suffer. I bet you'd disagree with this, but I could come back and say that one not liking it, doesn't make it any less humane. How would you convince me otherwise?

 

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Torture is the deliberate inflicting of pain. There is no practical grounds to doing so for the production of meat.

I could come back at you and say that your belief that it's immoral to deliberately inflict pain and suffering onto an animal is just your subjective opinion. Someone else could say it's perfectly practical as they believe torturing the animal first makes the meat taste better and makes it more tender. Not legal where you live, but probably legal in some places. So it's really your opinion against theirs.

 

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You're comparing an illegal act, to one that is perfectly lawful, and humane. It wouldn't, nor shouldn't matter whether one is aware of it or not. Doesn't make it any more legal. Its not even humane.

And again, you're getting too hung up on the legality of these actions as a defense. But you're perfectly hitting the point in bold that I was trying to make. I was trying to make a point about the supposed humane-ness of shooting an animal in the head quickly, without pain and suffering, without them knowing what's happened to them, which you claim is humane. My comparison was going to the doctor's and having them do something to me, like molest or abuse me, which would cause me suffering or distress, and then supposing I was under anesthesia and they did the same things to me but I was totally unaware of what was happening to me and therefor didn't suffer. So, you say that this is inhumane what the hypothetical doctor has done to me under anesthesia--great! But why is it inhumane if I experience no suffering and I don't know what's happened to me? You've claimed that being humane is about pain and suffering, and that slaughtering an animal quickly is humane on the grounds that they don't suffer. But here you are saying it doesn't matter whether one is aware of the exploitation or violence being inflicted onto them, it's still not humane (and I agree).

 

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I see it no different as a construction firm, razing an entire forest, and planting a tree for each one that is removed.

Will this construction firm ever really be able to replace the deeply complex, unique ecosystem of this forest? What are they irreparably destroying when they raze this forest? How does planting a tree for each removed really make up for what they've destroyed? They look at something as unique and complex as this forest and they see only a resource that's there for them to exploit. Animals are only a resource that exist for humans to exploit endlessly? Animals aren't individual beings with desires, personalities, likes and dislikes, social structures, emotional bonds with others of their kind? A pig is a pig is a pig...right. Just like each tree in that forest is just a tree, and can be replaced endlessly according to that construction firm. Each hamburger, each chicken sandwich, each piece of bacon was an individual that valued its life. Maybe not as complex as human beings are, sure, but they had their own inner experience of the world and a life that mattered to them. They didn't enjoy laying out in the sun? They didn't enjoy playing with other animals? They didn't form bonds with their young? They didn't get a satisfied feeling when filling their hungry stomachs? They wouldn't have enjoyed their existence, had they been given the opportunity to live their lives before they were cut short because some human came along and decided that their taste buds were enough of a justification to take the life of this animal? Each of those animals was a complex and unique being in their own way, and they're not an endlessly replaceable resource that exist solely to be exploited by human beings for our own selfish reasons. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

It being legal doesn't say anything about the morality of that act

Correct. However, the ethical slaughter of an animal (that is allowed and licensed for human consumption) being immoral, does. This in such settings, becomes highly subjective.

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

It should be fairly obvious that taking another's life is a violent

Lethal injection is painless, and the subject will essentially peacefully pass away. Very little violence. A humanely slaughtered animal, is killed in an equally painless manner. There is no intent to harm, to damage or to injure in any way shape or form.

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

or at least not in the way that humans can.

Watch a dog in pain, and that is rapidly debunked.

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

Not legal where you live, but probably legal in some places.

What places?

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

But why is it inhumane if I experience no suffering and I don't know what's happened to me?

Because what the doctor did goes against their practice and the oath of service they have sworn to provide? Child molestation? Is this really a serious conversation?

Slaughter has a set of standards behind it. We are debating on humane slaughter, so this means the standards for the slaughter are highly stringent, and incredibly detailed.

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

each chicken sandwich, each piece of bacon was an individual that valued its life.

That is a unique way to look at things O_o

 

I hope you do appreciate the destructive nature of simply being born in a society at the upper echelon of the capitalist machine.

 

Just owning a cellphone, or high end sneakers, is one perpetuating the act of having , people working in sweat shops for them to be able to buy them, to begin with. Buying leather goods like a wallet at Wal-Mart? Is perpetuating the inhumane work conditions in places like Dhaka, in Bangladesh. Look up how leather is often made there, if you have the stomach for it, then look at the life expectancy of those subjecting themselves to such chemicals with zero protective gear, just so one could buy a wallet for 9, 73$.

 

Own a car, take a bus, ever take a flight, use rubber--heck, one eating chocolate? Nestle (a food giant, which odds are, produce foods we all consume daily) has been proven as to being a company which employs child laborers as some of their sweat shop like farms in Africa.

 

The human race is highly destructive to the planet. There is not a single human that escapes that very web of destruction. One living in a neighborhood, is essentially one living in a patch of developed land, where something had to give, for it to be built. Usually, animals being displaced, to where they are forced to co-exist with humans. Many don't fare too well, if you look at statistics of roadkill animals.

 

I just never understood one party scolding another for destruction, when the destruction is equivalent, based on the other products that they own that force one at the other end of that capitalist stick, to be subject to absurd levels of exploitation, just for one to have affordable goods, but being highly unaware at what cost.

 

Main reason why I live and let live. I'm highly aware of my carbon footprint.

 

[Alaska Native Manitou]

Quote

  Physical culturist Bernarr Macfadden, owner of the old New York Graphic, was a renowned vegetarian.  He wondered why his dog was not one.  So for a week the mutt was offered only carrots & beans to eat.  Then he bit Macfadden.

  An order promptly went out to the Graphic staff to stop publishing pictures of dogs.

--Jim Bishop, King Features.  Reprinted in Reader's Digest (I don't remember how many) years ago.

[MarRister]

I am just curious, if domesticated animals who are typically raised for meat are no longer used for meat, then what happens to them? They will be unlikely to be able to survive to the same extent without the care of humans. I suppose some may fare better than others, but many would not survive. Or if they are allowed to roam free and are successful at that, they may become invasive species harming our local natural ecosystems.

 

I think if some other species was domesticating other animals for a food source, it would be seen as a sort of mutualistic or symbiotic relationship by humans. Since they are providing them with care and protection and they are able to procreate easier since they have adequate food with less effort and are not worried about predators to the same extent as they would be without their care. And the species providing the care and resources obviously benefits by having a readily accessible food source. There is actually a benefit to both sides and they begin to rely on one another. There are fish who farm algae, ants and beetles who domesticate fungus, and ants who herd aphids. They have shaped each others evolution. Clearly though the torture and cruel breeding practices present in modern day agriculture are an extreme that starts to degrade that symbiotic benefit, as it makes it less beneficial for the domesticated animals and also degrades our food quality. This is in the name of profit for the few.

 

Pain and suffering are better avoided of course, but in life they will always be present. I don't think it is immoral to kill and consume meat. Veganism says it is against speciesism, but it is actually all it is about. Just because we don't understand the inner lives of plants because we are quite different doesn't mean that they don't also suffer in some capacity from having their life taken. Just because you can't look into their eyes and see the same pain that would be reflected in yours does not make them less valuable or undeserving of a good life. If speciesism was the actual concern, then all life would be valued equally. The cute and fluffy farm animals would not be seen as being more important than plants or other 'lesser' life forms. This is all still viewing humans at the ultimate life form, since this values the lives of creatures who are more similar to us as inherently more valuable than those that are less similar and harder for us to empathize with. 

 

The problem isn't eating meat in my mind. The problem is our culture and a total lack of respect. 

[Guest]

I think the true problem is the overconsuption of meat.

 

The biologically engineering animals, so that they can yield more meat. Because in their natural state, its just not enough. All this being done without an ounce of care as to how an animal will react to the added weight. 

 

The insatiable appetite of some countries, where the sheer scale of the demand, forces farmers to at times and in documented fashion, store animals in inhumane fashion, to keep up with it. 

 

A chicken now, is far larger than they used to be generations ago, when considering those used for mass purposes. 

 

Honestly. A cow in the wild would basically be toast. It can't outrun any of its predators, and are white with black spots. So camouflage is out of the question. At least a zebra can run insanely fast. 

 

They are otherwise essentially a sitting meal. 

 

Chicken? 

 

Easy pickings for any predator. Similar reasoning.

 

They are too big to run fast or fly. 

 

Domesticated pigs are more of the same. They are very poorly built animals for survival in the wild. Plus are big, slow and pink. To a wolf, that's a juicy steak just begging to be eaten.

 

Just releasing them into freedom, isn't a solution. That's a major problem. 

 

Cows would still be producing tons of methane gasses. 

 

Its like that co-worker I had that hinted at me being a murderer for consuming bacon.

 

They scolded me, yet had a leather purse, and a nice car with leather seats. 

 

All the while, providing zero solution to the actual issue. Just criticism.

 

Good policy should be based on facts, logic and heavy handed research.

 

Basing it solely on emotion, is poor policy, as is grounded in the instant gratitification, vs long term effects. Unintended consequences, etc.

 

Same logic that would perhaps sway one to free a lion in captivity, because zoo's are cruel.

 

Totally oblivious to the immense danger this could pose, due to a highly carnivorous animal fine tuned for hunting being released into an ecosystem they are not even built for.

[Zosia]

On 12/27/2020 at 5:41 AM, Howard said:

All dieticians I spoke too, ok both dieticians I spoke to, underlined the importance of varying proteins in our meals. North Americans, and North Europeans eat way to much meat. For health reasons, more specificaly to upkeep our muscle mass, we need some meat. So yeah, being omnivores do require us to eat some meat to stay healthy, just not in the amount my part of the world is used to.

No, we as omnivores don't need it and it isn't required to eat meat to stay healthy for the average person.

 

"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity."

 

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. (...) This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. (...) Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals."

 

Also something of interest from the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada quoted above: "Dietetics professionals have a responsibility to support and encourage those who express an interest in consuming a vegetarian diet."

 

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Lethal injection is painless, and the subject will essentially peacefully pass away. Very little violence. A humanely slaughtered animal, is killed in an equally painless manner. There is no intent to harm, to damage or to injure in any way shape or form.

Well, that's a whole other debate and not really suited for this thread. Although, I have seen it proposed that lethal injection (used for the death penalty, for instance), is not as painless, peaceful, nor non-violent as it is purported to be. That's a whole other huge ethical can of worms. And even if we were to compare lethal injection for the death penalty--unless you're talking about euthanizing a pet via injection when it's severely ill or dying already--you're comparing an injection to shooting an animal in the head, slitting its throat, electrocuting them, gassing them, or cutting their head off, which are far more violent ways to kill a being that didn't want to die. To stick with your example of lethal injection, that's like comparing an injection to the electric chair, if we're going to overlook the basic question of should we even be killing criminals in the first place and what gives us the right to decide who lives and dies.

 

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Watch a dog in pain, and that is rapidly debunked.

I know people who honestly believe that dogs don't feel pain and use that same argument that I did to justify them beating or shock collaring their dogs, or pinning their dog down on the ground to cut skin tumors off with a pocket knife without taking them to the vet, or beating their cat with a shovel and burying it alive in the back yard after it got injured in their vehicle as it was snuggling up under the hood in winter (and then later laughing about how it was a "zombie cat" when it clawed its way out of the bag it was buried in and rose alive out of the ground). So, no it isn't an obvious thing like you think it should be for them. And I bet they'd say you're being too emotional and you need to use more logical reasons to convince them not to inflict supposed "pain" on their "property". 

 

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Child molestation? Is this really a serious conversation?

Not once have I mentioned child molestation, so I don't see why you're bringing it up--either you're not understanding or reading what I wrote, or you're deliberately detracting from the point that I was making. I said "molest" in that example about doctors as in "assault/abuse/harass in an aggressive or persistent manner, sometimes sexually" but molest doesn't automatically mean child molestation, and I thought this should be pretty obvious when I gave this hypothetical situation, as I talked about myself and I'm not a child. And this wasn't the only term I used either, I also said "Let's say that I go into the doctor's and the doctor physically harms me or touches me inappropriately or physically intimidates me or molests me or causes me suffering in some capacity when I'm fully awake and conscious--obviously this is wrong." Okay, you don't like the word molest, fine. Pick another. It's irrelevant to the discussion specifically what word is used as long as it makes the point that this hypothetical doctor is causing me some kind of harm, and griping about word choice is a distraction from the discussion at hand.

 

 

 

I have more to say about this topic and I will come back to other points raised, but it's becoming increasing frustrating that the things that I'm saying are being twisted into comparisons I haven't made or positions that I don't hold.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

I know people who honestly believe that dogs don't feel pain

I know people who honestly think drinking bleach, cures covid-19. What's your point? 

 

Only thing this proves, is that some people shouldn't raise dogs, or run a white house. 

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

child molestation

Any molestation would be horrific.

 

There aren't levels to this, or charts in severity one can pick from. You can't just walk it off, if you're 45 or over.

 

A licensed doctor molesting a patient, is wrong and not only this--even courts agree with this, as is illegal.

 

Eating meat, is not.

 

Not socially, not medically (look up food nutrition charts under protein), not legally. 

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

who express an interest in consuming a vegetarian diet

Meaning, they have a right to doing so, as well as a right to choose meat.

 

Nothing wrong with vegetables, grain and fruit. There is nothing wrong with a moderate addition of meat to a diet, either. 

 

There are clean and healthy meats, just like there are meats that should be eaten as little as possible, or even avoided. 

 

And that is under a Paleo or Mediterranean diet, which is about as clean as they get. 

 

When one feels this strongly about a subject, this to me should mean they have solutions. 

 

I am curious as to what solutions you would bring to the meat eating problem.

 

Tesla Motors saw gas powered cars were a global emissions problem. Solution? Cleaner electric cars. 

 

China is a leading polluter, globally. Solution? A plan of action to dramatically reduce its need for coal to power its country. Essentially cleaning the air of some of the most smog choked cities. Have become a global leader in electric vehicle production, and renewable energies, with heavy handed investments into these industries.

 

Fix the range issue on vehicles, and bring the cost of such technologies down, along with incentives for making the switch, and people will follow. 

 

There aren't any mass produced replacements for all meats that are good enough to fool anyone, let alone more affordable than the alternative.

 

Make meat illegal? What happens to the excess animals? 

 

Also, what would the basis for this be? 

 

I see moral arguments, but as mentioned--these are highly subjective.

[Zosia]

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Because what the doctor did goes against their practice and the oath of service they have sworn to provide?

No, it's because that doctor has no right to exploit, use, or harm my body against my will for their own personal gain or pleasure, even if I'm unconscious under anesthesia and am unaware of what's happening to me. Not because "oh, I swore an oath that I wouldn't do this, so because I went back on my word, its wrong." Let's say then I wasn't at the doctor's, it was some other situation like with a partner and they did something to me with or without my knowledge, do they get a free pass because they never swore an oath that they wouldn't do this to me? "It's alright honey, I never said nor swore nor promised you that I wouldn't do this to you." That's preposterous.

 

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Slaughter has a set of standards behind it. We are debating on humane slaughter, so this means the standards for the slaughter are highly stringent, and incredibly detailed.

Let's stick with your example of lethal injection then, that also has a set of stringent standards behind it (if what you were speaking of was about criminals and not euthanasia of pets when you spoke of lethal injections). And yet somehow, no matter how many incredibly detailed, strict steps there are up to the point of killing someone, no matter how many protocols, no matter how many rules, there are still serious ethical issues with the act of killing someone on death row. If I was someone set to be killed, would it matter all that much to me if my executioners took me out back and shot me in the head, or strapped me down to a bed and gave me a lethal injection according to strict protocol? "Oh man, I'm super grateful to you guys that you have all these steps to make sure that my death is carried out in this specific manner, I really feel humanely treated as my life is being taken away from me against my will." Yeah, sure, maybe I'd be more comfortable, but there's still the glaring question of do they really have the right to do this to me in the first place.

 

18 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That is a unique way to look at things O_o

What do you find so preposterous about the idea of farmed animals being individual beings with desires, personalities, likes and dislikes, social structures, emotional bonds with others of their kind, etc? I guess to the average person, a hamburger is just a hamburger, a sandwich is just a sandwich, a piece of bacon is just bacon. There's no animal behind it, or if they think about it, it's a vague impersonal creature that lived and died somewhere else beyond that person's sight. A pig is a pig is a pig, and one pig is just like any other pig, so what does it really matter if we treat them like an endlessly replaceable resource that exists for us to exploit for our own personal gain and pleasure? People seem to have no issue with seeing their pets as feeling individuals that are unique with their own personalities who value their lives and wish to preserve their existence. Why is it such a stretch to assume farmed animals feel the same? Yes, that hamburger was once a complex and unique individual in their own way at one point in time, albeit perhaps not as complex as humans are, but does it really matter? They had their own inner experience of the world and a life that mattered to them personally, as I've stated before.

 

19 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The human race is highly destructive to the planet. There is not a single human that escapes that very web of destruction. (...)

 

I just never understood one party scolding another for destruction, when the destruction is equivalent, based on the other products that they own that force one at the other end of that capitalist stick, to be subject to absurd levels of exploitation, just for one to have affordable goods, but being highly unaware at what cost.

 

Main reason why I live and let live. I'm highly aware of my carbon footprint.

So, what are you arguing here? There's so much suffering and injustice in the world that it doesn't really matter what one tries to do, it's basically pointless? Or more, "because you're not perfect and you can't totally remove yourself from this harmful system, I had better not hear you criticize harmful actions that I'm engaged in."--because if that's the case, then I had better never hear anything again about climate change, the environment going to pot, sweatshops, any social injustices or inequalities, so on and so forth. That would be a ridiculous request on my part and one that wouldn't hold up if the subject of our discussion was any other situation. If instead someone was trying to tell me about ways to reduce my negative affect on the environment and I turned around and said something about how their use of modern technology also causes harm and therefor they shouldn't criticize me for the harm I cause, and we should all just live and let live, that wouldn't hold water. Live and let live is a catchy phrase, but it also sounds like another catchy phrase, turning a blind eye. And shirking personal responsibility. Yes, great, we should be concerned about all these other destructive acts you've mentioned, and even further, we should do our best to reduce the harm we cause, and be aware of the fact that it'll never really be enough. But, because it's such an impossible task, that shouldn't be taken to mean that we don't need to try at all.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Zosia said:

No, it's because that doctor has no right to exploit, use, or harm my body against my will

Correct. Its the law.

 

45 minutes ago, Zosia said:

There's no animal behind

There clearly is meat behind it, and this is identified clearly before you buy it. 

 

45 minutes ago, Zosia said:

turning a blind eye

How meat is prepared is rather well known.

[Zosia]

14 hours ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

I am just curious, if domesticated animals who are typically raised for meat are no longer used for meat, then what happens to them? They will be unlikely to be able to survive to the same extent without the care of humans. I suppose some may fare better than others, but many would not survive. Or if they are allowed to roam free and are successful at that, they may become invasive species harming our local natural ecosystems.

They stop being bred into existence for human consumption. Nobody is suggesting we set free all the billions of animals that are being farmed now.

 

15 hours ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

I think if some other species was domesticating other animals for a food source, it would be seen as a sort of mutualistic or symbiotic relationship by humans.

You would have no issue if this was done to you? There are entire movies made based on the premise that an alien civilization comes down and harvests humans as food. You'd feel like you were in a happy, symbiotic relationship if some more advanced being decided to control every aspect of your life up until the point at which your life was taken from you, just because they wanted to?

 

15 hours ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

Veganism says it is against speciesism, but it is actually all it is about. Just because we don't understand the inner lives of plants because we are quite different doesn't mean that they don't also suffer in some capacity from having their life taken. Just because you can't look into their eyes and see the same pain that would be reflected in yours does not make them less valuable or undeserving of a good life. If speciesism was the actual concern, then all life would be valued equally. The cute and fluffy farm animals would not be seen as being more important than plants or other 'lesser' life forms. This is all still viewing humans at the ultimate life form, since this values the lives of creatures who are more similar to us as inherently more valuable than those that are less similar and harder for us to empathize with. 

Not necessarily, I'd say veganism is more so concerned with sentience. But if you want to make the "plants feel pain" argument, fine, are you saying that this justifies slaughtering animals on the grounds that everything suffers so what does it matter what we choose to eat? If we want to assume that plants feel pain and are sentient in the way that animals are, that doesn't negate our responsibility to minimize our harm to them and to refrain from exploiting them as far as we are able to. You seem to agree with this? So, if we're assuming for the sake of an argument that plants are sentient and feel pain like animals, how many pounds of feed does it take to make a pound of beef, for instance? Should it not follow that if we're feeding way more plants to animals than we get back in meat; and how we're using way more land to grow animal feed and to graze cattle than we would be using if we were just eating plants themselves and not animal products; and how disastrous upon the planet and the environment animal agriculture is and the kind of affect it has on other beings living on this earth; would it still not be logical to say that we should still reduce or eliminate our consumption of meat and other animal products, on the basis that it causes the least amount of harm to other sentient beings?

 

And as a side note, yes I suppose that many people use the term speciesism to describe what you've written here, where it's viewed that animals for instance should be considered of equal value to say, humans. And in not viewing them as absolutely equal in value, that's called speciesism. And someone could say the same of all life forms I suppose, whatever that would be called. Someone of this opinion might ask what objective standard is there in the universe that says that the value of one type of living being is higher or more important than another? That's a good question to raise. Although conversely, there's another camp of vegans who don't define speciesism in this way (and I'm mentioning all this stuff about speciesism to point out that not all vegans think the same, and that "Veganism says X..." isn't really accurate). The second group would define speciesism more along the lines of "my interests as a human being, no matter how frivolous or unnecessary, always override even the most basic interests of animals, for example their interest in preserving their own life and avoiding harm, solely because I'm human and they're an animal; they're not a part of my group so therefor their interests don't matter or can be brushed aside if I see fit/if it benefits me or my species in some way" or something to that extent.

 

16 hours ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

The problem is our culture and a total lack of respect. 

I'll ask the same question that I asked about humane slaughter to someone else, in regards to how humane slaughter is an oxymoron, as humane is inflicting the least amount of harm onto another and showing compassion and benevolence to another. The most humane, compassionate, benevolent and least harmful option between shooting an animal in the head when it's not necessary and not shooting them, is choosing not to kill them in the first place. If respect as you mention is showing due regard to the feelings, wishes and rights of another, if it's being considerate, thoughtful, attentive and civil to another, is it truly showing respect to an animal if we disregard their feelings and wishes about preserving their life? Is it being considerate and thoughtful to slaughter them for reasons of taste, for instance? Is it civil and decent to engage in this violent act when it's not necessary (obviously not talking about instances where it is necessary)? Is it really possible to respectfully slaughter an animal under these conditions? If I broke into someone's house and stole something priceless and invaluable to them, something that I didn't need myself but wanted, is that respect? I think that there are situations where it is possible to kill an animal with deep respect, don't get me wrong. And I also think there are instances where it's possible to kill an animal humanely as possible, like when putting an old, dying and beloved pet to sleep. But, for cheeseburgers, no I don't think that's showing much respect (or humanity for that matter).

[Alaska Native Manitou]

For Native People meat is a human rights issue.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/8750/Native-American-Rights-Hunting-Fishing-Rights.html

[Howard]

19 hours ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

The problem isn't eating meat in my mind. The problem is our culture and a total lack of respect. 

I wholeheartedly agree. Parts of the world consuming way too much meat makes it impractical to have proprer respect for animals used to feed us. If there was a general reduction of meat reduction, I think it would be possible to raise animals much more appropriately.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Zosia said:

humane is inflicting the least amount of harm

Of suffering, when talking humane slaughter. You're obviously killing the animal. The point then, would be doing so in a painless and manner where the animal is insensible to unreasonable levels of distress in leading up to or during their slaughter.

 

One feeling this is not humane, is a manner of opinion and not fact, when carried out humanely.

 

3 hours ago, Zosia said:

If I broke into someone's house and stole something priceless and invaluable to them, something that I didn't need myself but wanted, is that respect?

No. That's theft.

 

Demonizing meat eating, isn't bringing forth a solution to the problem. Especially so, since the meat itself isn't the issue.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Howard said:

I think it would be possible to raise animals much more appropriately.

Correct. As things are right now, they are highly inefficient. The demand is too high, and for animals too big that are burdening systems too small to handle them. This is a highly profitable industry, so some are guilty of cutting corners, to maximize returns.

 

Cut that out from the industry, and things return to efficient.

[MarRister]

33 minutes ago, Zosia said:

They stop being bred into existence for human consumption. Nobody is suggesting we set free all the billions of animals that are being farmed now.

No, it would obviously be a more gradual process if it ever did happen. But what I am saying is that for thousands of years we have domesticated these animals. Cattle have lived along side us for over 10,000 years. They have evolved to rely on us. You can say this was without their consent or whatever, but that hardly matters because as of right now they are domesticated and rely on us currently. If we stop breeding them for human consumption does that mean we would forcibly prevent them from breeding altogether? Is that moral? Because if left up to their own devices of course they would breed on their own. But then is that moral? Then we just have more helpless animals who will not be looked after in the ways they need and will be subject to extreme predation or starvation or weather they cannot survive. Is that not inflicting suffering and pain? Would we still breed them for non-human consumption like to feed our cute pet cats and dogs? If they are not benefiting people to have around then it is no longer is a benefit for us to take care of them, so who would be paying to take care of them? It is really more moral to actively lead a species who we have bred to rely upon us to extinction because we have now decided it is no longer moral to keep them around? 

 

Maybe I just don't understand the sunshine and rainbows version of what happens to these animals over the timeline of all humans switching to a plant based diet. 

 

1 hour ago, Zosia said:

You would have no issue if this was done to you? There are entire movies made based on the premise that an alien civilization comes down and harvests humans as food. You'd feel like you were in a happy, symbiotic relationship if some more advanced being decided to control every aspect of your life up until the point at which your life was taken from you, just because they wanted to?

Symbiotic relationships are not about happiness, they are about survival. Something just taking without offering a benefit is parasitic or predation, which is also a common life strategy in the natural world, but one that is understandably fought against by those being used as prey or a host. But if there was some reason that humans needed to rely on these aliens for our survival or even that they just greatly increased our chances of survival, then it isn't much of a choice at that point. It would happen naturally over time regardless of what we want. Also I find it interesting that you have compared humans with a more 'advanced' life form. 

 

2 hours ago, Zosia said:

Not necessarily, I'd say veganism is more so concerned with sentience. But if you want to make the "plants feel pain" argument, fine, are you saying that this justifies slaughtering animals on the grounds that everything suffers so what does it matter what we choose to eat? If we want to assume that plants feel pain and are sentient in the way that animals are, that doesn't negate our responsibility to minimize our harm to them and to refrain from exploiting them as far as we are able to. You seem to agree with this? So, if we're assuming for the sake of an argument that plants are sentient and feel pain like animals, how many pounds of feed does it take to make a pound of beef, for instance? Should it not follow that if we're feeding way more plants to animals than we get back in meat; and how we're using way more land to grow animal feed and to graze cattle than we would be using if we were just eating plants themselves and not animal products; and how disastrous upon the planet and the environment animal agriculture is and the kind of affect it has on other beings living on this earth; would it still not be logical to say that we should still reduce or eliminate our consumption of meat and other animal products, on the basis that it causes the least amount of harm to other sentient beings?

Sentience is another one of those human constructs that I feel was built just to give us a sense of superiority, because we are more sentient therefore it must be better and of more value in the world. Our basis of sentience is entirely constructed from our own experience of it. We like to think that things without a central nervous system like our own cannot be sentient, but what if we just don't understand the structures of other life forms that give them a similar ability, just one we cannot see. Current research on plant intelligence is quite fascinating actually.

 

I don't think we ever will or ever can truly understand what other life forms experience the world as, but as life they all have value. If it is our responsibility to reduce harm then I don't really understand where one could possibly stop on this mission. We could potentially control other animals to not kill other animals, but negating the suffering for one means inflicting suffering on the other. Crop agriculture is also incredibly harmful to all sorts of creatures. I could argue monocrops are cruel or pesticides or fertilizers or literally anything we do. Everything we do has consequences and life will never be without pain and suffering. Even if we all stopped eating animals, it might serve to make us feel better about ourselves, but there is still just as much suffering in the world because there is just as much life. We cannot control for everything and everything we do will cause suffering. For something to live something else has to die. Constantly. Whether it is direct or indirect. I will likely suffer in my own life and death and be eaten after I die like anything in this world and regardless if it is death from complications of old age or getting hit by a truck or being mauled by a bear the suffering will still exist. It would be swell if it was not so painful and my suffering was limited, but life is not fair, some things will always suffer more than others. The respect I was talking about was a respect for suffering, for life, for death, for the cyclical nature of everything, for the give and the take, for the interconnectedness of everything. When we insulate ourselves from this nature of life it becomes easier to disregard it or not understand it's place in the world. 

 

My perspective on how I see myself fitting into this world and life as a whole is just different from yours. However, I do believe that our lack of respect has lead to our over consumption of just about everything (at least in 1st world countries), not only meat. The problem is taking more than we actually need and not honouring where that is coming from and considering its impact. Again, to me meat is not the problem. I would rather see more of a push to creating locally sustainable economies whether that includes meat or not. 

[Zosia]

52 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

No. That's theft.

@Perspektiv, you get so very close to understanding an important concept and then you snap back onto the track of your original thought pattern, not just with this specific point but with several others I've mentioned, and you probably don't see this yourself. It's a bit disappointing that you almost seem to get it, and then you don't. I could debate around and around in circles with you for days or weeks on end on this subject, I could go back through this whole conversation and pull up quotes from you and I and hash it out again and again to try and get you to see the things that you're almost getting, but I don't have the energy nor is it solely my responsibility to get people to understand something like this, and a lot of the responsibility falls upon the individual and not me. Additionally, going back through every example and every argument and trying to explain things to you over and over again isn't going to do much beyond making you feel like I'm rubbing your nose in it, that I'm backing you into a corner, or that I'm nailing you to a wall. And I'm not sure that I'm going to get you any closer to understanding these things that you're so close to understanding before you snap back to a different defense. It shouldn't be this difficult nor this controversial, but I guess I'm butting heads with a practice that has existed since forever, and what do I really expect when something like this has been a part of human history for so long. It should be common sense that inflicting unnecessary violence onto others, or exploiting others for personal gain, is wrong--but I guess common sense isn't that common. And how do I get people to see violence as violence, exploitation as exploitation, when they're invested in not seeing it as such.

 

24 minutes ago, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

The problem is taking more than we actually need

I've discussed with you very little, and I'm not going to get into further lengthy discussions in this thread with you or others unless something is glaringly off, as I have very little energy to go around in circles countering arguments that have been made about a million times before, and that have been much better answered by other people elsewhere. But, this one comment of yours is also very close to understanding the point being made. I just wanted to point that out, that like @Perspektiv, you seem to almost get it, at least with this one quote. Need is an important word to dwell on; do I need this, is it necessary to do this, do I need to participate in this? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Zosia said:

or exploiting others for personal gain, is wrong

That's capitalism, in a nutshell.

 

Exploitation can be done humanely.

 

Fair trade coffee is still exploitation. You're still being undercut by large corporations lining their pockets.

 

However, it being wrong is highly subjective. 

 

Just like having a safe work environment and fair wages in Dhaka, at a manufacturing plant. This is still exploitation. 

 

The alternative in such an environment, is dire for many. The streets, an even worse job, or crime.

 

Where we disagree, is the notion that humane slaughter equates to the cold blooded murder of humans. It does not.

 

To sexual assault. It does not.

 

That it is impossible to humanely slaughter for consumption. 

 

That it is impossible to humanely own animals and raise them for that purpose.

 

Facts point to otherwise. 

[Pandark]

On 12/28/2020 at 9:27 PM, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

The problem is taking more than we actually need and not honouring where that is coming from and considering its impact.

Taking only what is needed would mean living a life of sobriety. This is not for everyone. Besides, how would one define need? Some may not even consider life itself as a need, others may consider a life without room to do what is unnecessary not worth living. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sentiment. Perhaps a closer look at the hedonistic philosophy would benefit both parties in a debate such as this.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 12:30 PM, Zosia said:

No, we as omnivores don't need it and it isn't required to eat meat to stay healthy for the average person.

Controversial, but I agree. One may argue that we humans have evolved to consume animals and be right. We have the ability to do so, which helps us survive in the absence of plant sources. That does not mean we need both when plants are available. Looking at monkeys, humans and our common ancestors, it is evident that our common ancestor had the potential to evolve into omnivorous or herbivorous species. The capacity to take all essential nutrients from plant materials was already present in our common ancestor. Even the often debated vitamin B12 does not require consumption of animals. It is made by our own gut bacteria, at a point where re-uptake is unfortunately impossible. This is one of the reasons monkeys are sometimes seen eating their own feces. It is not something most civilized humans would do, but it illustrates how well adapted our related species are to a plant based diet.

[Guest]

I am all about animal rights, in that I am against cruelty to them. 

 

I think groups like PETA, shot themselves in the foot with their sensationalist messages, often at the expense of facts and an objective perspective. 

 

Trying to label people as bigots, murderers or racists because of disagreement, is a horrible sales pitch.

 

Their message was to scold people for killing animals, or associating this with cold blooded murder (which thus justified to them the carrying out of assault onto someone for wearing a fur coat), yet their practices behind closed doors were just as heinous (worse even, due to what they stood for).

 

Unfortunately as a result, a sensationalist message risks having one be dismissed regardless of how strong a point one makes.

 

This ultimately did Trump in, along with his performance, which went against the message.

 

I see it like Trump ridiculing mask wearing. Mockingly accusing Biden of wearing the biggest one ever, then at any point trying to convince the same people that their death tolls would slow, of they wore them.

 

Meat is perfectly healthy. Overconsumption of it is not.

 

Destroying ecosystems, is not sustainable. 

 

Reducing consumption, removes strain on already overburdened systems.

 

Eliminating meats however, is not the answer. 

 

Anyone calling me stupid or blind for eating them would have to give me more tangible of an argument than "being brainwashed".

 

My fiancee owned a farm. She could slaughter a pig, cow, fish and prepare the meats on her own. It was instant love as a result.

 

She loved all her animals, and was humane to them from start to finish. 

 

Meat isn't the issue. One must question how it is prepared and pressure must be applied to ensure all meats or Meat products are created ethically. 

 

IE that Yves St Laurent purse, lined with rabbit fur, where such rabits get limbs broken while awaiting slaughter, is something that deserves a voice.

 

Ethical slaughter?

 

That's the bottom of the barrel of animal issues.

[MarRister]

2 hours ago, Pandark said:

Taking only what is needed would mean living a life of sobriety. This is not for everyone. Besides, how would one define need?

True, that probably wasn't the best word I could have used. I certainly don't lead this life and doubt I ever will. I more so meant we take vastly more than we need, we could be living just as fulfilling lives without a lot of that. And we also waste a lot of things in this taking as well. I don't need my phone, I want it and it is important for a lot of things in this modern life, but maybe I don't need to throw it out after 2 years even if it is working fine but I can get a brand new phone. Part of this though comes from our consumerist culture and that companies use planned obsolescence as a way to make more money. Or things like fast fashion which ends up being incredibly harmful to our planet. We also waste a ton of good food. But it is a tricky issue because the less we buy, the less companies make and the less people they need working. We need a system overhaul and new way of thinking.

[Pandark]

On 12/30/2020 at 12:49 PM, Merry Marsa Mistletoe said:

We need a system overhaul and new way of thinking.

On many of your points I agree, though a system overhaul I'm not too enthusiastic about. My fear is this would in practice mean more power to the authorities. It is a problem of all times, but today even more so. Any "public" problem solved by government seems to mean 51% of the people happy, 49% angry. I believe sustainable progress comes from a cultural shift. People on all levels (consumers/farmers/influencers) are free to take part and there is less resistance to normalization. A new way of thinking, yes. Fortunately this is already a natural process. People now think much differently from even a decade or two ago. All we have to do is keep sharing good ideas and pointing out weaknesses, because as the topic title beautifully illustrates, veganism's worst enemies are vegans.

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 1/1/2019 at 10:02 PM, Jusey1 said:

(Though, I am also a raptor from a frozen moon, so it is in our frozen blood to hunt and enjoy meat).

Are you otherkin?

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:33 PM, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

That's a MAGA vegan? I didn't know those existed. 

 

But no, I don't think you're 'evil' for not having the infrastructure in place to eat plant based. 

I think you should take steps to head in that direction, though. 

[Alaska Native Manitou]

Great, another white person telling my people how we should live.  Not that I expect anything good from an anthropologist.  https://www.allencheng.com/the-mismeasure-of-man-book-summary-stephen-jay-gould/

[Karst]

On 12/28/2020 at 3:54 PM, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

For Native People meat is a human rights issue.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/8750/Native-American-Rights-Hunting-Fishing-Rights.html

It's not just an Indigenous issue. There are also a significant number of poor, rural white people in the US who hunt deer, turkeys, etc. to feed their families. 

Hunting can be done sustainably, and it's also a viable way to cull the population of certain destructive, invasive species, like feral hogs.  As long as people stick to reasonable limits and don't go after endangered species, it doesn't harm the ecosystem. 

[Howard]

@Zosia Your sources on human diets seem incomplete. For expample, they don't mention the diet of the control group. If the control group is your average american eating meat 2-3 times a day and junk food a couple times a week, finding a diet that would be more beneficial is very easy.