A better protest than going vegetarian

[martin's a madman]

I'm a vegetarian, but not for any moral reasons.
I switched just so I could try living a different way for a while.

I don't have any actual problem with the way meat is handled.

 

[Blue2]

To me being vegetarian is like being in a religion. I don't care what you do, It's your body anyway but if you are making such a big deal about everything (Example: About to bite into a chicken burger and then you tell me how millions of chickens are slaughtered everyday and boohooing like a PETA member) and trying to make me a vegetarian also, That is when I lose my patients (spelling?) and just leave.

as a vegetarian, i agree with this, but both sides are guilty. i have never tried to convert someone or make someone feel bad for eating meat around me, but i think all of my friends, at some time or another, have tried to trick me into eating meat or tried to convince me to go back to eating meat.

basically what im saying is that no matter a persons diet, people are douches

I really can see what you mean, Even I think that's disrespectful but the sad thing that there will always be douches out in the world. I just hope your friends will grow up and realize what they did wrong.

 

[Rawne1980]

The silliest argument I ever got into with a vegetarian was when they said "if all the food in the world ran out, would you eat another person".

When given the choice between starvation or eating another human being then it's quite a high possibility I will be having fried Bob for supper.

Anywhoo

I care very little about what other people eat I just really wish other folk would stop ramming their beliefs, morals and customs down other peoples throats.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

as a vegetarian, i agree with this, but both sides are guilty. i have never tried to convert someone or make someone feel bad for eating meat around me, but i think all of my friends, at some time or another, have tried to trick me into eating meat or tried to convince me to go back to eating meat.

basically what im saying is that no matter a persons diet, people are douches

Oh don't be so sensitive, they're doing it for your own good. Meat is delicious and they just want to share it with you. You can go to meat heaven too, but you have to let Bacon Christ into your heart.

Like, specifically, you have to let him clog up your aorta.

 

[SilentCom]

Yeah... Gotta control the animal population, anyway... And stop eating all the oxygen-making plants, goddammit!

This argument is made of win. I'll have to use this next time I get into an argument with a die-hard vegetarian.

Also, you can argue that animals eat each other so why is it wrong for people to do so as well?

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Yeah... Gotta control the animal population, anyway... And stop eating all the oxygen-making plants, goddammit!

This argument is made of win. I'll have to use this next time I get into an argument with a die-hard vegetarian.

Also, you can argue that animals eat each other so why is it wrong for people to do so as well?

You gotta' kill to live, man.

 

[Amphoteric]

Yeah... Gotta control the animal population, anyway... And stop eating all the oxygen-making plants, goddammit!

This argument is made of win. I'll have to use this next time I get into an argument with a die-hard vegetarian.

Also, you can argue that animals eat each other so why is it wrong for people to do so as well?

If other animals don't eat meat they die out. If humans don't eat meat nothing interesting happens.

Also i'd presume most ethical vegetarians are vegetarians because they don't find the act of killing and eating another animal ethical more than the way the animal was treated.

 

[Enfid]

What turned me vegetarian was the high possibility that animals are kept at bare-minimal conditions to keep the cost low and the quality relatively high. And as several posters have alluded to, how many people actually actively find/buy free-range products anyway, when it's almost twice as expensive?

Yeah... Gotta control the animal population, anyway... And stop eating all the oxygen-making plants, goddammit!

This argument is made of win. I'll have to use this next time I get into an argument with a die-hard vegetarian.

Also, you can argue that animals eat each other so why is it wrong for people to do so as well?

You realize the only reason there are so many animals is because we domesticated them to eat their meat, and we want it cheap, so we breed them more, which leads to more numbers for us to eat, right? Saying "we need to control the population of animals that we tried to breed more for low cost" is a right paradox if I've ever seen one. We're not even talking about raising animals that require more energy and leave more carbon footprints than farming plants (IIRC).

That said, I am in no support for the so called die hard vegetarian that screams murder every time someone takes a bit of hamburger. *sigh* There's an extremist in every idea, isn't there?

 

[Falconsgyre]

I would like to start by saying that I have nothing against vegetarians. I just had a thought and decided to share it. Please don't flame.

I hear all the time that people are vegetarians because they are protesting cruel factory farming and similar practices. To me, it seems like a better protest would be to instead buy meat from sources that don't use such cruel methods, thus supporting reform in the meat industry.

Thoughts?

No. Economically, it won't make a bit of difference. As long as the number of people who eat factory farmed meat does not decrease, the number of animals who are being raised in factory farms will not decrease. If the demand remains the same, the supply won't change at all. The only way to really get rid of factory farming would be to convince a large segment of the population not to buy factory farmed meat. It doesn't matter whether they switch to being vegetarian or being ethical omnivores.

To me being vegetarian is like being in a religion. I don't care what you do, It's your body anyway but if you are making such a big deal about everything (Example: About to bite into a chicken burger and then you tell me how millions of chickens are slaughtered everyday and boohooing like a PETA member) and trying to make me a vegetarian also, That is when I lose my patients (spelling?) and just leave.

The most important difference between trying to convert someone to a religion and trying to convert someone to vegetarianism is that someone trying to convert you to a religion would be doing it for your good. Someone trying to convert you to vegetarianism would be doing it for the good of others (namely, animals). Unless they were trying to convert you to vegetarianism because they thought it would be good for your health, but I have literally never heard of anyone doing that. Treat it more like the pro-choice/pro-life arguments. While you might argue that people would be rude for bringing that up, too, it's a substantially different kind of argument than you seem to view vegetarianism as.

Also, you can argue that animals eat each other so why is it wrong for people to do so as well?

What, I shouldn't hold you to a higher moral standard than an animal? You can understand moral arguments. Animals can't.

 

[DrOswald]

I would like to start by saying that I have nothing against vegetarians. I just had a thought and decided to share it. Please don't flame.

I hear all the time that people are vegetarians because they are protesting cruel factory farming and similar practices. To me, it seems like a better protest would be to instead buy meat from sources that don't use such cruel methods, thus supporting reform in the meat industry.

Thoughts?

No. Economically, it won't make a bit of difference. As long as the number of people who eat factory farmed meat does not decrease, the number of animals who are being raised in factory farms will not decrease. If the demand remains the same, the supply won't change at all. The only way to really get rid of factory farming would be to convince a large segment of the population not to buy factory farmed meat. It doesn't matter whether they switch to being vegetarian or being ethical omnivores.

I respectfully disagree.

Lets say that one person decides to protest cruel meat farming practices. For simplicity purposes, lets assume the only two options available are to stop eating meat completely, or to only eat non-cruel meat.

The end result of both decisions will reduce the amount of cruel meat being consumed, but the second option will help fuel the competition of cruel meat industry. This additional business should help these types of company achieve economy of scale, and the additional revenue could be put to use in advertising in order to draw more meat consumers to non-cruel meat.

Basically, non-cruel meat is a substitute good to cruel meat. As non-cruel meat is more often purchased wide spread use it will become cheaper, more widely available, and better advertised. This will shift an amount of demand away from cruel meat towards non-cruel meat.

 

[synobal]

I thought most vegetarians were vegetarian out of a health decision rather than a moral one to do with animal rights. Also I think most people who don't eat meat on moral purposes consider any sort of method of acquiring meat to be cruel.

 

[Falconsgyre]

I respectfully disagree.

Lets say that one person decides to protest cruel meat farming practices. For simplicity purposes, lets assume the only two options available are to stop eating meat completely, or to only eat non-cruel meat.

The end result of both decisions will reduce the amount of cruel meat being consumed, but the second option will help fuel the competition of cruel meat industry. This additional business should help these types of company achieve economy of scale, and the additional revenue could be put to use in advertising in order to draw more meat consumers to non-cruel meat.

Basically, non-cruel meat is a substitute good to cruel meat. As non-cruel meat is more often purchased wide spread use it will become cheaper, more widely available, and better advertised. This will shift an amount of demand away from cruel meat towards non-cruel meat.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

I did not consider economies of scale initially, but on second thought, I don't think it matters. The reason meat raised unethically achieves economy of scale while meat raised ethically does not is precisely because the methods used to achieve economy of scale are what constitute cruelty.

Advertising might increase consumption, but it's not something either of us could prove or disprove. All I can say is that as long as one method of production results in vastly cheaper meat, I doubt any amount of advertising is going to sway the majority of consumers. Demand won't shift measurably because the cost of ethically raised meat is much higher. The only way to shift it would be to get people to recognize that eating meat raised unethically is wrong.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I thought most vegetarians were vegetarian out of a health decision rather than a moral one to do with animal rights. Also I think most people who don't eat meat on moral purposes consider any sort of method of acquiring meat to be cruel.

The also believe that milk is bad because in order for cows to continuously produce milk, we need to constantly impregnate them, and those baby cows are then turned into veal, so supporting the milk industry supports the veal industry. My response? "Cool cause I eat veal to support the veal industry"

We are designed to eat meat as well as eating plants, so why should I stop eating what I am designed to eat? Also If we stop eating meat what happens to cows? Bos primigenius (domestic cows) would become extinct, they have no real way of surviving on their own in nature, and if a farmer can't use them for meat why keep them? Becoming a vegetarian is leading to the extinction of an entire species.....that seems pretty cruel to me.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

I would like to start by saying that I have nothing against vegetarians. I just had a thought and decided to share it. Please don't flame.

I hear all the time that people are vegetarians because they are protesting cruel factory farming and similar practices. To me, it seems like a better protest would be to instead buy meat from sources that don't use such cruel methods, thus supporting reform in the meat industry.

Thoughts?

While I somewhat agree with this in theory, this is by far a new concept, and it has some problems. For one, companies have noted the desire for this and introduced their own "Organic" and "Grain fed" meat products to green wash the market. Meat that is legitimately not made in a cruel assembly line is both expensive and hard to come by. While it may be a possibility in New York City or LA, you just can't find it in a suburban Texas supermarket, not to mention you can't eat meat from restaurants. That's why it's easier for me to just cut meat from the diet instead of work my ass off to find certifiably "socially conscious" meat.

It's worth noting that many vegetarians argue that there's really no un-cruel way to raise an animal for meat. Even if they live on a happy magical farm, you still have to cut their head off at some point. Personally, I'm on the edge about this line of thinking. I think the difference between eating meat now and eating meat 1,000 years ago is that not only is meat is cruelly manufactured, but that our agricultural and culinary technology has evolved to where it's not necessary to kill animals to get the nutrition we need.

 

[DrOswald]

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

I did not consider economies of scale initially, but on second thought, I don't think it matters. The reason meat raised unethically achieves economy of scale while meat raised ethically does not is precisely because the methods used to achieve economy of scale are what constitute cruelty.

This is not exactly true. The term economies of scale (sorry I typed it wrong before) refers to the net effect of a whole slew of factors that change the average production cost per unit as the firm expands. These can include worker specialization, large scale trade agreements, managerial benefits, technological benefits, and marketing benefits. While factory farming and similar practices are one way to achieve economies of scale, it is pretty much certain that economies of scale could be achieved using humane methods only. I admit that these methods will almost certainly be less financially efficient than factory farming, but it could partially close the gap.

Advertising might increase consumption, but it's not something either of us could prove or disprove. All I can say is that as long as one method of production results in vastly cheaper meat, I doubt any amount of advertising is going to sway the majority of consumers. Demand won't shift measurably because the cost of ethically raised meat is much higher. The only way to shift it would be to get people to recognize that eating meat raised unethically is wrong.

What if the company were to advertise specifically to appeal to the morality of the issue? This type of advertising is often used and has been proven effective.

 

[DrOswald]

While I somewhat agree with this in theory, this is by far a new concept, and it has some problems. For one, companies have noted the desire for this and introduced their own "Organic" and "Grain fed" meat products to green wash the market. Meat that is legitimately not made in a cruel assembly line is both expensive and hard to come by. While it may be a possibility in New York City or LA, you just can't find it in a suburban Texas supermarket, not to mention you can't eat meat from restaurants. That's why it's easier for me to just cut meat from the diet instead of work my ass off to find certifiably "socially conscious" meat.

It's worth noting that many vegetarians argue that there's really no un-cruel way to raise an animal for meat. Even if they live on a happy magical farm, you still have to cut their head off at some point. Personally, I'm on the edge about this line of thinking. I think the difference between eating meat now and eating meat 1,000 years ago is that not only is meat is cruelly manufactured, but that our agricultural and culinary technology has evolved to where it's not necessary to kill animals to get the nutrition we need.

Good points. I agree that in many cases it might not be possible or practical to obtain ethical meat, and in that case you are pretty much stuck going all in or nothing.

You also make good points about if meat is moral at all, but I don't feel like trying to argue either side of that point. Maybe others will care to talk about it.

 

[Findlebob]

I'm a vegetarian, well not entirely as I eat fish. Also cows, cows sheep and pigs as they live near water. In fact the only thing I won't eat are vegetables, they have no eyes or legs so they can't see you coming or run away so their totally defenceless and just sit there, at least animals have a chance.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I'm a vegetarian, well not entirely as I eat fish. Also cows, cows sheep and pigs as they live near water. In fact the only thing I won't eat are vegetables, they have no eyes or legs so they can't see you coming or run away so their totally defenceless and just sit there, at least animals have a chance.

You, are my hero. That was awesome!

 

[piratejames]

I'm a vegetarian... Not for any moral reason. I just seriously dislike the taste of the meats I have tried. I mean, I don't usually identify myself as a vegetarian though. Who knows, I might start liking it again. I don't agree with extremism on either side of the meat eater/vegetarian arguments; people are free to eat what they want, they shouldn't have to argue why.