I'm a vegan and I come in peace...

[SextusMaximus]

Because meat is tasty and a good source of protein.

 

[Vivi22]

I don't think that people can logically weigh all the costs and still decide meat eating is worth it. Even from a purely economic standpoint, animal production tends to be far less efficient.

Not true. There may be an argument to be made that the factory farming which exists now is inefficient (and I would almost certainly bet that it is), but there are often times when raising animals is the most efficient use of land for food production.

The province of Quebec in Canada for example has large amounts of land that are basically only suited for raising animals which graze on grass. I wish I could remember the percentages off hand, but if we didn't use that land to raise animals for food, it would go to waste because you simply can't grow crops on it. This is without even getting into places like the Northern Territories where the growing season is so short that if the people up their didn't eat meat they'd be relying on transporting fruit and vegetables thousands of kilometers (which is very expensive, not to even get into the effect that has on greenhouse gases). If it weren't for hunting seals and other animals many people would go hungry up there.

To my knowledge, other areas share similar problems. If I'm not mistaken a lot, if not most or all, of the farmable land in New Zealand isn't suited for raising crops.

My point being, there is a lot of readily usable land in this world that goes to waste if we don't raise animals.

 

[RoBi3.0]

You know who does however? The American Heart Association, they recommend diets low in saturated fats because they lead to increased blood cholesterol. Dietary Cholesterol something also found in red meat also increases blood Cholesterol.

Yep, a group of well respect Professionals vs. guy on internet trying to prove a point. I am honestly torn as to who to believe.

Appeals to authority are a weak argument, but not unexpected from someone who can't be bothered to do their own research and try and actually think for themselves. So called experts can certainly never be wrong about anything anyway right?

Forget the fact that the USDA decided a long time ago to push low fat, high carb diets as a way to encourage good health, despite experts telling the govern McGovern Commission at the time that the jury was still out on fat causing heart disease. Not to mention that the same US government pushing unfounded dietary standards for 40+ years also gives out a large amount of grant money that goes into nutritional research. Grant money that you won't get if your conclusions don't support their standards.

And of course, the American Heart Association is completely objective. It's not like they don't make millions from licensing their heart check mark logo that they license to companies to plaster on their food products. A logo which would be absolutely worthless if they ever did an about face and admitted they got some things wrong.

Yeah your right, The American Heart Assassination exists solely to license their logo and make money from that. There isn't any reason to think an organization setup to keep peoples hearts healthy would actually try to keep peoples hearts healthy.

It was silly of me to think that consuming fat was a contributing factor to making people fat. That was dumb of me. There is absolutely no correlation in the fact that the typical American diet is high in saturated fats and the fact that they are one of the fattest nations in the world with high rates of heart disease. On the other hand the Japanese diet consists of high amounts of vegetables and the meat they most often consume is lean seafood. They have one of the highest live expectancies and a low rate of heart disease, but there is noway to think that has anything to do with what they eat, it must be their love of fighting robots that keep them health.

Their isn't anything that can be learned for tracking the rise in rates of heart disease in relation to the rise in popularity of the American high fat diet. It is just coincidence that they increase in a similar fashion.

The fact that obesity epidemic is a huge problem in America has nothing to do with our nations diet despite obesity rarely being an issue in the past and it has nothing to do with the increased availability of high fat foods.

Where is your research proving that fat has nothing to do with making people fat I would love to see it. I don't expect you to actual have any as you haven't presented anything other then a study you yourself claim was improperly handled.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Does anyone else feel like the original poster, in all of his posts, is talking to us like he is a teacher and we are his students? Sorry dude, but I don't really care what you're saying as how you are saying it makes you come off as a smug bastard.

The guy was trying his hardest to be diplomatic, but at the end of the day, he is here to point out why "what you're doing is wrong". No one likes being told they're wrong, but that isn't an excuse to dismiss what he has to say as smug or superior. Likewise with feminism, even though you'll find unfriendly ones, that doesn't demean the importance of their cause. I've seen far too many "down-to-earth" people brush off "elitists" for promoting things like homosexual rights femenist causes and basic scientific knowledge, to accept such a mentality. As far as the OP is concerned though, I think he was far less condescending or aggressive than he could have been.

I would argue the problem most people are having here is they're been told they're wrong simply because they share a different set of beliefs. I dismissed what he had to say as smug or superior because it was smug and superior in my opinion. I'm sorry, but you can't say things like "therefore, whenever we kill an animal for food, we are essentially deciding that our appetite is more important than that creature's life. We are inflicting deadly violence on a defenseless being, simply for our own pleasure." just a few paragraphs after you've claimed you're not going to shove your moral views down our throats. Not to mention the fact he equated eating meat with murdering or raping someone. Quite frankly, I would say he was very condescending and aggressive in his approach.

As for the feminist part, at no point did I say the feminist cause was a bad thing (although I would argue that in more recent times most people who call themselves feminits are really just looking for a fight for the hell of it, but that's a topic for another time). My point was that, because of a few people, the entire feminist movement is largely seem as a joke. Essentially, my point was that, in my opinion, all these outbursts by vegetarians/vegans about how people who eat meat are wrong is actually damaging their cause more than it is helping. I'd be willing to bet a good number of people, upon seeing the title to this thread alone, thought "oh not this thread again...".

 

[AndyFromMonday]

You didn't watch the videos did you?

Every single behaviour is related in some way to survival. Watching the sunset on a hill? More like surveying the area for potential threats. Dancing? More like learned behaviour through the use of treats. You truly are naive and know nothing about a subject you profess to care so deeply about. It's quite sad really.

Of course no one is on exactly the same level as anyone else, inter-species or not. To think that only humans are capable of experiencing emotions or appreciating/creating beauty is far more concerning to the development of our own species.

Nope, sorry, animals do not feel emotion. If you believe that then you're probably to self absorbed to think otherwise. It's usually the case with vegans.

The point is to end UNNECESSARY animal mistreatment. If there isn't a way to get around the killing of insects in the harvesting of crops then we have no choice until we can solve that problem. This thread is about the consumption of animal product, which is unnecissary and is all I have been referring to.

And now you've been cornered and are going for damage control. You're perfectly fine with killing pests for food but not fine with killing other animals for that exact same purpose. You know, both carnivore and vegetarian diets are perfectly sustainable with the use of supplements. Why should we choose one over the other? Oh, right, because it fits with your world view. Your logic is that of a child. It's perfectly fine to kill animals for food as long as you're not killing them for consumption? That makes no sense. Once again, you show your true colours. You don't care about animals, you just use them as a way to propagate your world view. You're perfectly fine with killing animals to sustain your diet but are completely against other people doing the same.

I know, understand and respect the role that meat played in our evolution. It was a time when eating meat was necessary. That time has passed and as I have pointed out, all that comes from meat can be gotten elsewhere.

You know, a lot of the animals considered pests are killed in cruel ways whereas the ones raised for slaughter are usually killed more humanely.

As does yours. The difference is I perceive myself as more educated and ethical than yourself whereas you see yourself as generally superior to all other forms of life.

No. You perceive yourself superior to all humans, I perceive myself superior to all animals. You don't give a shit about animals, you just want to be better than other people. Once again, you've shown what you're all about. You're no more educated than the common college "know it all" and you know it, but you want other people to perceive you differently. That's why you attempt to start discussions about subjects considered edgy, not because you care bout them but because you believe it makes other people look at you with a dignified respect. You truly are a sad person.

Can you really watch this, knowing you support it and call yourself an equal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBbYUdvGWk0

Is that supposed to shock me? Hell, back when I was a kid my grandfather had a farm with a couple of chickens and pigs on it. We killed an animal almost ever month to make food and such and I've seen stuff much worse than the shit in that video. If you think shock videos like that disgust me then you've got to be kidding yourself.

 

[rayen020]

i eat meat. i dunno i just can't do the vegetarians thing. i am a creature of comfort and convience and veggies don't appeal to my comfort and no meat causes convience problems. ALso i don't like onions which seem to be the common meat replacement in veggie stuff.

It's not like i don't care about animals, i support rights and noncruelty and rainforest preservation and and all that good stuff. i just like the taste of meat. if an animal has to die so be it. yeah it's cold and if i had to chase it down and kill it with my bare hands i would but i don't so yeah.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Animal rights are fine until you try and make the animals human like peta(people eating tasty animals) dose.

And to all you veggites/vegans no meat people, for christ sake watch your protein intake levels, you need it since we are omnivores and our bodies rely on it, other than that keep working on the prefect no meat meat that tastes like meat!

 

[Khada]

Every single behaviour is related in some way to survival. Watching the sunset on a hill? More like surveying the area for potential threats. Dancing? More like learned behaviour through the use of treats. You truly are naive and know nothing about a subject you profess to care so deeply about. It's quite sad really.

Staring at one spot on the horizon for 15min is surveying the land? Every dancing/singing animal ever has been trained? Seriously?

Nope, sorry, animals do not feel emotion. If you believe that then you're probably to self absorbed to think otherwise. It's usually the case with vegans.

It's clear that your very set on that perspective so I wont argue about that anymore. Can I simply ask what definitive proof it was that convinced you so thoroughly? If it's that infallible then perhaps it may even convince me.

And now you've been cornered and are going for damage control. You're perfectly fine with killing pests for food but not fine with killing other animals for that exact same purpose. You know, both carnivore and vegetarian diets are perfectly sustainable with the use of supplements. Why should we choose one over the other? Oh, right, because it fits with your world view. Your logic is that of a child. It's perfectly fine to kill animals for food as long as you're not killing them for consumption? That makes no sense. Once again, you show your true colours. You don't care about animals, you just use them as a way to propagate your world view. You're perfectly fine with killing animals to sustain your diet but are completely against other people doing the same.

I'm not perfectly fine with it but unlike most mammals I'm not sure about whether or not all insects can feel pain. It is NOT perfectly fine to kill animals as long as it's for consumption, but I do recognise that there is sometimes no choice. Like it or not I'm going to kill some ants when I walk down the street.

You know, a lot of the animals considered pests are killed in cruel ways whereas the ones raised for slaughter are usually killed more humanely.

I don't recall pests ever being hung up by the legs and having their throats slit or being consciously neutered with scalpel and fist.

No. You perceive yourself superior to all humans, I perceive myself superior to all animals.

No, I consider myself more educated and ethical that many humans. I chose that wording because I know that those same individuals may be superior to me in other ways. Like wise there are plenty of people whom I consider generally superior to myself.

You don't give a shit about animals, you just want to be better than other people. Once again, you've shown what you're all about.

That's a great deal of conjecture based on a great deal of nothing. You must be psychic.

You're no more educated than the common college "know it all" and you know it, but you want other people to perceive you differently. That's why you attempt to start discussions about subjects considered edgy, not because you care bout them but because you believe it makes other people look at you with a dignified respect. You truly are a sad person.

If I'm just trying to be edgy and look dignified then your just trying to be dense and argumentative.

Is that supposed to shock me? Hell, back when I was a kid my grandfather had a farm with a couple of chickens and pigs on it. We killed an animal almost ever month to make food and such and I've seen stuff much worse than the shit in that video. If you think shock videos like that disgust me then you've got to be kidding yourself.

I can't say I'm surprised to hear you bragging about your kill count.

-------

Insanity is described as the act of repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result, so I'm going to stop bashing my head against a wall, expecting it to break.

I'll leave with this final attempt to explain myself:

All living creatures have a right to live and a right to survive. Sometimes survival means violating anothers right to live. This is our unfortunate reality... but to knowingly cause the death of another without need or necessity... is to walk the path of psychopathy.

 

[Flunk]

I have no problem with you being a vegan, but if you want to force your ridiculous beliefs on me then I have a problem. The concept of "animal rights" is a farce perpetrated by wealthy ignorance. I will care about animal rights when every man, woman and child on the planet has plenty of good healthy food to eat, clean water to drink and a roof over their head. Now if that objective means that we have to give up eating meat then I'll consider it but going after "animal rights" in a world where not all even have basic human rights is ridiculous.

 

[Khada]

I have no problem with you being a vegan, but if you want to force your ridiculous beliefs on me then I have a problem. The concept of "animal rights" is a farce perpetrated by wealthy ignorance. I will care about animal rights when every man, woman and child on the planet has plenty of good healthy food to eat, clean water to drink and a roof over their head. Now if that objective means that we have to give up eating meat then I'll consider it but going after "animal rights" in a world where not all even have basic human rights is ridiculous.

Hey, I'm going to post some info below that you might find interesting (because you mentioned the lack of food for many humans etc etc.) Believe it or not I trimmed the list down >.>

The Hunger Argument

Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million

Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million

Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80

Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95

Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90

How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds

Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000

Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250

Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56

Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible beef: 16


The Natural Resources Argument

User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production

Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25

Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000

Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33

Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2


The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000

Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker


The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner)

Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian

 

[Khada]

It's clear that your very set on that perspective so I wont argue about that anymore. Can I simply ask what definitive proof it was that convinced you so thoroughly? If it's that infallible then perhaps it may even convince me.

Wow, you actually felt the need to ask that. I guess it's true, vegans truly are unable to comprehend even the simplest of explanations. Maybe you're just ignoring them in a feeble attempt at trying to pass off your argument as something worth of discussing.

In other words, nothing.

 

[backinthepresentfuture]

blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne. all i have to say.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

In other words, nothing.

In other words, you're incapable of comprehending even the simplest of arguments. Your entire view on the world is flawed and it's astounding how you're actually attempting to defend it. In this entire discussion, if I can even call it that, you've managed to reinforce countless stereotypes associated with veganism. Don't get me wrong though, what you did was a good thing. At least now people can see you for the hypocrisy ridden child you truly are.

 

[Cadmium Magenta]

Hm...

Now that we have collected a wealth of arguments, ideas and sentiments, I see a smallest common denominator emerging:

Obviously few people agree that killing animals for food is in itself morally problematic. Although I feel strongly about my belief that this practice represents needless violence, I accept that the majority does not view it as needless.

However, something that even the most passionate meat-eaters here seem to agree on is that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary cruelty. Many contributors have affirmed that they strive to consume meat conscientiously and prefer to buy from local, small-scale, free range farms, where they feel confident that animals are treated humanely.

In other words, there is a prevailing feeling that there's something wrong with the way in which modern industrial agriculture subjects billions of animals to an entire life, albeit a short one, of close confinement in filthy, crowded, wholly unnatural conditions. Factory farms are enormous, conveyor-belt meat factories that, in the words of Jonathan Safran Foer, treat living animals like dead ones.

Factory farms are also the number one source of meat in the Western world.

Seeing as there seems to be a rough moral consensus that treating animals like inaninmate objects is not acceptable, it would follow then that perhaps concerned meat-eaters, vegetarians, vegans and animal rights activists need not fight ideological battles all the time, but could unite behind a common cause: Abolish the current regime of factory farming and return to a kinder and more sustainable form of traditional animal husbandry.

The practical implications of this would be to boycott meat from factory farms, to avoid meat sold in supermarkets and fast-food chains, and to only buy meat from our local butcher, provided they are happy to reveal to us the conditions on the farms from which they source their meat.

Do you think this is something everyone could get behind?

If I believed that such a boycott would work, I for one would most certainly seek an end to what are entirely deplorable conditions within the westernized 'Industrial Farm'. As a resident of Wisconsin, I have seen a great many 'traditional' farms, and while I am certain we could further disagree on things such as pesticides and the like... I do believe that your suggestion most certainly would bring the various members of this discussion closer to common ground.

Alas, my experiences have shown that no matter how much common ground you get... there is quite frequently some catalyzing event which causes the process to fall apart. Be it apathy, an unwillingness to compromise, or the inevitable failings of the modern boycott.

It would be nice to see, though. I'll give you that.

The effectiveness of boycotts depends solely on numbers. If only one out of ten meat-eaters abstained from factory-farmed products, the industry would already feel a hefty loss in revenue. In a bid to win their former customers back, they will introduce some minor improvements to animal welfare. If the customers continue to stay away, they will concede more and more improvements, until the entire factory farm regime ceases to be economically viable.

Public concern about animal welfare has led to the UK currently debating the introduction of a bill that would make CCTV mandatory in all slaughterhouses, in order to prevent abuse. Also, in the US, a recent investigation by an animal rights group into an industrial egg farm caused public outrage and led McDonald's to drop that particular supplier and pay more attention to animal welfare standards.

Of course, all this is solely because the meat industry is extremely anxious about people boycotting their products and seeks to reassure their customers' conscience.

The industry can only abuse animals for as long as we pay them to do it. If all meat-eaters bought only organic, free range, locally farmed meat, we would very rapidly see a development back to traditional means of agriculture. This would not only be hugely beneficial to the animals themselves, but also to many farmers who struggle to maintain their livelihoods due to the competition from factory farms. It would also be much more ecologically sustainable.

 

[Cadmium Magenta]

The problem becomes the economy. Given the average food shopper on a budget, they'd rather choose the factory farm-raised $3.99/lb beef over the organic, free-range $5.99/lb beef.

Generally, ethical high grounds are for people who can afford the climb, and the steep rent at the top. Thus, change is exceedingly difficult, no matter how vocal the minority is..

Not saying it's not worth it in the long run, but still..

That's true. Switching from factory-farmed to organic meat will of course have an impact on the wallet and therefore for most people it wouldn't be affordable to eat meat every day. But eating meat every day is not healthy anyway. If one wants to enjoy the full nutritional benefits of meat (protein, vitamins, iron) without suffering the detrimental effects (obesity, clogged arteries, high blood pressure), a couple of meatless days a week would be the way to go.

This way, everybody could afford organic meat, which I'm told not only tastes a lot better, but is also healthier, less destructive on the environment and involves much less cruelty to animals.

 

[n03s]

The word "Meat-eaters" sounds really STUPID and doesnt help your arguement Cadmium Magenta...

You think people in poor countries/continents can be selective like you about their diet..?
Its not like we solved humanity's big problems so now we can start solving what you conceive as animal abuse/cruelty.
Also like others pointed out, plants are living too.. Is it cool to eat those poor little buggers?

Dont get me wrong, I hate animal abuse and cruelty, but I cant stand vegans and their level of hypocrisy.

 

[Cavouku]

Beggie-heads, vegans? Lemme strike you a deal. I promise to try and promote well-treated meat - animals that have been treated with some decency in their life, and executed in a respectable, relatively painless manner - if you guys shut up and keep doing whatever it is you're doing.

I see no quandaries with the eating of meat itself, but I totally understand disliking the treatment farm animals receive, there's a line. But I say that if the life and death of an animal is either A) a rather pleasant, peaceful experience with the most painless end providable, or B) for strict survival reasons. If I am stuck in the forest, and it's been a day or so since my last big meal, that dear over there, or that bear, or that frickin' squirrel, yeah, they're going to have to make a sacrifice for me.

Thing is, if I worked on a farm, and it was time to kill the chicken, and I had known this chicken for a long time, I'd be very reluctant to kill it. If it was totally my choice, I'd probably put it off for a few days. But if it was also the only source of meat I was provided, the chicken would soon be dead, and I'd do it again. I'd do it with the utmost efficiency, for minimum pain, but it would be done.

Copacetic?

 

[Derlwyn]

That's true, but we are not animals.

yes we are. we are animals, we are just the most advanced species of animals on the planet.

and on the topic of killing animals, if thats the case, of being omnivores, then why don´t animals like small cats live strictly off of catnip? do you think im going to punish my cat if he comes home with a mouse in his mouth.

it´s survival of the fittest. if the animal kingdom can´t keep up with us, they will have to evolve and adapt. do you think lions would start feeling bad for us if they hunted us and ate us? No.

Animals eat other animals, and thats exactly what we are. there´s no reason we should respect and not eat animals that would do the exact same to us given the chance.

I find it hard to rationalize this point of view.

When arguing the superiority of our advancement and our unchallenged status at the top of the animal kingdom, is it not contradictory to suggest then that we should simply rely on our baser animal nature? If our advancement is what separates us, should we then not utilize those advancements? While animals are intelligent, they are largely governed by instinct rather than reason. Really, one cannot state our superiority, then treat us as equals in the animal kingdom.

We can survive on a non-meat diet just fine, it is just simpler and less expensive to choose meat. I wouldn't say that it is morally wrong to eat meat though. For me, it comes down to impact on environment. It is far less resource intensive for me to eat the chicken that is raised free-range on a farm close to my home than it is to eat the hot-house style tomatoes that need to be trucked in from California.

Strict vegan is not wrong, but neither is being an omnivore. I believe that we should consider the environmental impact of our food choices, rather than simply whether it has a face or not.