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

[Ewyx]

"Wooo, I'm vegan, look at me."

Seriously, just drop it, people only care when you preach it, mention it. Don't talk about it, and I guarantee 99.5% percent of the people you meet in your life, really won't give a shit what you eat. Just don't be a dick about it by pointing it out at every single occasion. Yes, even saying "I'm vegan, but I'm not like the other vegans, I'm cool and non-militaristic.", still makes you look like a smug asshole no one wants around.

Just drop it.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I wasn't trying to prove intelligence on the same level as a humans.

They are driven by instinct alone. Everything they do is tied to survival. They're not intelligent creatures capable of thought or any other sort of intelligent thing. The only reason they do things considered "intelligent" is because they're rewarded afterwards with a treat or something similar. Animals will not do something unless it is distinctly tied to survival. Their entire lives are driven by instinct. You will not see an animal create something unless it is directly tied to their survival whereas humans don't just survive but live, create, discover, something which animals are intrinsically incapable of.

Here's an idea. Why don't you explain -clearly- what it is that separates humans from animals (might be tough seeing as we all share the same heritage), supply some proof of that distinction and then extrapolate from that the justification for torturing, killing and eating them when there is absolutely nothing we get from meat (that we need) that can't be gotten just as easily from somewhere else?

I've already explained but you're more set on ignoring my arguments than actually countering them. Your idea that animals are on the same level as humans is laughable at best and at worst it's downright disturbing. You claim that we can "get everything else" without torturing animals but where do you think vegan food comes from? How many animals are killed every year in the process of harvesting a field? You're so set against eating meat and animal "torture" that you're forgetting the very food you eat is the result of the murder of thousands of animals be it directly through the systematic elimination of animals considered "pests" or indirectly through the destruction of their natural habitat. We derive literally thousands of products from animals, some of which are used to save lives and have more than likely saved your life at one point or another.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Hell, the main reason we're the dominant species comes from our consumption of meat, the protein derived from it having served to increase our intelligence enough for us to start using tools more complex than anything the animal kingdom has managed to create.

Your entire post reeks of "superiority". You think of yourself as "better" than other people when the only thing that separates you from meat eaters is that you refuse to acknowledge the harsh reality we live in. We need animals just like they need us. We use them for food, medicine, clothing and so much more whilst keeping their species alive and strong. I find that a fare trade off. You certainly don't because your ignorance is so astounding you've ended up denying reality.

 

[PhantomEcho]

I'd be glad to meet a Vegan who hasn't tried to subtly tell me I'm wrong by using fancy logic and appealing to my 'moral compass', but I'm afraid that I just haven't met one yet. And whenever I do meet a vegetarian, or a vegan, or a pot-smoking hippie with his 'everything for the Earth' mentality (he's a friend of mine, actually), it is always I who must be the bigger man and walk away.

Why?

Because they never seem to accept my answer: "Sorry, I just don't give a damn about lesser species. If it's human and still alive, I'll acknowledge it as being off the menu. Anything else that I feel tastes good is fair game."

And worse still, when I walk away... that means they think they've won. They think that because I am unwilling to argue with them about something into the wee hours of the morning, somehow that means their point has been proven valid.

But this just proves that I have enough sense to realize that you're not having a discussion. We're not having a conversation. You're giving a lecture. And I don't do lectures.

So the answer to the question asked is simple, really:

Your morality is not mine. Your beliefs are not mine. Your feelings are not mine. I encourage you to have them. I support your right to feel them. And time, after time, after time... it is not I, but those who feel they have some kind of Moral High-Ground upon which to stand who speak in harsh words and condescending voices toward -me-.

If you are a vegetarian, or a vegan, or a cannibalistic carnivore... I don't want to know. I don't care. The only exception is the latter, in so much as I want to know if you're going to try to eat me before I'm good and dead of natural causes.

Because I'll happily kill anything/one who tries to eat me first. Just fair warning.

I'm a human being. I accept the power and responsibility that comes with that. I will wear fur, I will wear leather, and I will wear cotton. I will advocate for the RESPONSIBLE harvesting of organic resources, not because I feel it's wrong to put species into extinction but because it means we'll have one less resource available to us. And that's never good.

There's a line we all have to draw.

Some of us draw it further up than others. Some of us feel different things are right. Where this all goes wrong is when we start to get to thinking that somehow we need to make others agree with us. If we only have more people who agree with us, that means we're really right! We're righter than you!

This is the wrong attitude. This is the attitude that creates the very derision towards organizations like PETA and otherwise perfectly pleasant folks who happen to be Vegans, Pseudo-Vegans, and Vegetarians. When this attitude ceases to be, we'll start to see things change. But just from reading through this thread alone, I have seen enough to know that such a change in mentality is not likely to happen.

And any reconciliation from us 'meat-eaters' here will be almost as slow-coming.

It's sad. It's sad, because I really wanted to come here and see a rare, civil discussion about why people make the choices they make regarding food. I wanted to read that first post, and find someone who TRULY didn't feel they stood above the rest of us... by stealthily sneaking in a comment about 'imposing violence on harmless so-and-so's.'

But it didn't happen, and I didn't expect it to.


To Cadmium Magenta in particular:


I answered your question anyway, despite the rampant unpleasantness going on throughout this forum thread. I am certain that folks will read my post and immediately take offense to my accusatory tone... but you have to understand that this is not the first time I have had this discussion. Nor is it the first time that this "civil discussion" has come to such an end.

When I say 'you', I must insist that I am not referring specifically to 'you' in my post. Your initial post did not, as you said, make any accusatory or derogatory affront to my sensibilities. You made your case on your moral beliefs, and I can respect that.

In fact, I find that you are probably a very strong-willed and insightful individual. You have a firm grasp of your own feelings and ideals. And this is good. It will serve you well throughout your life, so long as you use this power wisely.

Where you went wrong, here, was in making any mention of morality at all.

There was no way that, given the kinds of people you yourself acknowledge exist within the animal rights and vegetarian/vegan community, this conversation was not going to center around that 'ethical' argument at the center of your beliefs.

And then you joined in.

Both sides, myself included, have built themselves up around defending for/against that ethical center.

Because what it comes down to is "Do we have the right?"

And for folks like me, the answer is "Do we have the capability? Then we have the right."

I don't believe in your uniform morality. So my ethics are different from yours. No amount of conversation is going to convince me of otherwise, and so the best we can hope for is to come to an understanding.

If you are willing to understand that I -don't- hold life as sacred, that my beliefs don't tell me that killing is wrong, only something to never be taken lightly, and that my feelings on the matter are going to differ from yours...

... then you and me, Cadmium... we can have a civil discussion.

But if not, then I accept that this will have to be where the conversation ends.

 

[Itsthefuzz]

I love me some good rib, or steak, or chicken, or crab (oh I love crab) so I'm sorry to say that I respect your choice (though I don't see why you wouldn't want to eat tasty meats) but I will continue to eat animals.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Can't we just say: "Okay, okay, I agree that it IS unethical. Now, can I still eat my bacon in peace?"

 

[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?

 

[The_Deviant]

As for soy, you are of course aware that soy is one of the chief reasons for the Amazon being deforested?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/landmark-amazon-soya-moratoriu/

 

[PhantomEcho]

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.

 

[maninahat]

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.

You probably missed the point he made about humans being capable of choosing not to eat meat, a moral choice which appears to beyond most animals. So no, the OP isn't blaming animals for eating meat (they are apparently not capable of knowing any reason why they shouldn't), but he blames us for continuing to eat meat even when (unlike all animals) we have the luxury of choosing not to. We are, as you say, animals. But unlike other animals, we aren't starving and we can easily remove meat from our diets. In fact, our choice to eat meat is often less efficient than vegetarianism, due to the inevitable costs of feeding and maintaining livestock (you need room for corn or pastures ,just to feed the cows - room which could have just been used for crops, without the cow business).

"It is very, very VERY easy to just eat a slab of meat in front of you, and not care. But Vegetarians actually take the time to consider where that steak came from. The basic idea here is this: The vegetarians intelligence didn't just appear because they don't eat meat, It's from the mindset they possessed which made them realize where that steak came from "

So what you're saying is, vegetarians are smarter because they 'realize' that steak comes from cows? And what, everyone else just thinks that farmer brown and his cows make it in their magical workshop like santa and his fucking elves? Yeah... No, not buying it.

No, he's saying that vegetarians take the time to weigh up the costs of getting that steak; they come to the rational decision that it isn't worth the added cost of producing beef, or the slaughter of the animal that produced it. Most people don't take that time to make such considerations. All vegetarians do (otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen to become one).

You're doing some hardcore strawmanning that's bordering on self-parody, here.

Who exactly am I misrepresenting?

"You raise some valid points here and there, but saying things such as eating meat is inherently wrong (eye of the beholder), that animals do it because they don't comprehend morality (instead of, you know, facing death from malnourishment, not to mention the potential destruction herbivores can cause when left unchecked)"
I did actually say that humans don't have to worry about starvation - unlike animals. Those humans that do have to worry about starvation, they are fine to eat meat in my book as they don't have a choice. As for habitat destruction, yes herbivores can cause damage. Yes, culling animals for that purpose is probably fine if it helps maintain stable populations. That sort of thing can often be left to carnivorous animals, or just a drop in grazing vegetation as a consequence of the destruction.

"that meat is an entirely optional part of our diets (it's been proven countless times that we've evolved to eat and rely upon a variety of foods, and cannot get the nutrition meat provides elsewhere naturally, much as we can't get the nutrition some plant matter provides elsewhere naturally)..."
Has it? From my understanding, vegatarians have not died out from malnutrution. In fact it is generally maintained that vegetarians live longer and healthier. Though meat provides valuable iron and protein, these nutrients can be provided by various vegetarian foods such as nuts, eggs, beans, lentils, dried fruits, cereals, tofu etc.

"...and that vegetarians not only all put cost in mind in their decision to become one, but that it's their sole reasoning is... questionable, at best."
I never said it was their sole reasoning, I said that all vegetarians make that cost/benefits observation. They decide that meat isn't worth the moral or economic hastle. Just like the OP. There aren't a huge number of other reasons for influencing a person into becoming a vegetarian: they might have a rare genetic disorder that makes meat poisonous, or they perhaps dislike the taste of some meats, or they are too poor to afford meat. Those aren't really voluntary vegetarians however, so I didn't think to consider them. I know a guy who didn't eat meat for six years, just for the sake of winning a bet. With these alternatives in mind, I suppose I should concede that the term "all" was too encompassing. I should have said "overwhelming majority".

 

[Khada]

I wasn't trying to prove intelligence on the same level as a humans.

They are driven by instinct alone. Everything they do is tied to survival. They're not intelligent creatures capable of thought or any other sort of intelligent thing. The only reason they do things considered "intelligent" is because they're rewarded afterwards with a treat or something similar. Animals will not do something unless it is distinctly tied to survival. Their entire lives are driven by instinct. You will not see an animal create something unless it is directly tied to their survival whereas humans don't just survive but live, create, discover, something which animals are intrinsically incapable of.

You didn't watch the videos did you? There were at least a few examples of animals doing unusual things that have nothing to do with survival. How does a bird dancing to music or a dog singing to a song relate to survival? How does a dolphin/elephant (that has not been tampered with) examining itself in a mirror relate to survival? How does a chimp/bear climbing to the top of a hill and watching a sunset for 15 minutes relate to survival? (http://www.tparkerchurch.org/sermons/20042005/LN_beauty.pdf)

What of an animals aesthetic abilities, are these somehow driven by survival alone?:

...Experiments such as those of Nadjeta Kohts, the first systematic investigation of animals? aesthetic abilities took place in the 1940s, when the American psychologist Paul Schiller gave paper marked with outlined figures to a chimpanzee named Alpha to test her drawing skills. Alpha tended to draw within the marked lines and would even finish off incomplete patterns, demonstrating ?a tendency to produce a symmetry or balance of masses on the page?

...Researchers like Schiller and Morris found was that apes recognise the limits of the paper area (the ?field?). Morris found that if he drew a shape on one side of a piece of paper, Congo would draw another on the opposite side, suggesting a sense of composition. They show awareness of pre-marked shapes and their own markings have rhythm, symmetry and balance. Their style of marking even changes depending upon the media used. While working, they become increasingly involved and excited, even becoming upset if they aren?t allowed to complete what they are doing. ?Both man and the apes,? Morris concluded in his book The Biology of Art, ?have an inherent need to express themselves aesthetically.?

I've already explained but you're more set on ignoring my arguments than actually countering them.

Given your apparent unwillingness to watch the videos I linked or attempt to explain the animal behavior in them that was clearly not related to survival, we are at least on even footing here.

Your idea that animals are on the same level as humans is laughable at best and at worst it's downright disturbing.

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.

You claim that we can "get everything else" without torturing animals but where do you think vegan food comes from? How many animals are killed every year in the process of harvesting a field? You're so set against eating meat and animal "torture" that you're forgetting the very food you eat is the result of the murder of thousands of animals be it directly through the systematic elimination of animals considered "pests" or indirectly through the destruction of their natural habitat. We derive literally thousands of products from animals, some of which are used to save lives and have more than likely saved your life at one point or another.

Surely it goes without saying that we too -like the animals- must survive. The point here is not to give up ALL mistreatment of the animals and die in the process. 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.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Hell, the main reason we're the dominant species comes from our consumption of meat, the protein derived from it having served to increase our intelligence enough for us to start using tools more complex than anything the animal kingdom has managed to create.

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.

Your entire post reeks of "superiority". You think of yourself as "better" than other people when the only thing that separates you from meat eaters is that you refuse to acknowledge the harsh reality we live in. We need animals just like they need us. We use them for food, medicine, clothing and so much more whilst keeping their species alive and strong. I find that a fare trade off. You certainly don't because your ignorance is so astounding you've ended up denying reality.

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.

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

 

[maninahat]

"It is very, very VERY easy to just eat a slab of meat in front of you, and not care. But Vegetarians actually take the time to consider where that steak came from. The basic idea here is this: The vegetarians intelligence didn't just appear because they don't eat meat, It's from the mindset they possessed which made them realize where that steak came from "

So what you're saying is, vegetarians are smarter because they 'realize' that steak comes from cows? And what, everyone else just thinks that farmer brown and his cows make it in their magical workshop like santa and his fucking elves? Yeah... No, not buying it.

No, he's saying that vegetarians take the time to weigh up the costs of getting that steak; they come to the rational decision that it isn't worth the added cost of producing beef, or the slaughter of the animal that produced it. Most people don't take that time to make such considerations. All vegetarians do (otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen to become one).

It's pretty ignorant to think that people who disagree with you must not have weighed the costs, given it thought, and come to their own rational decision. People like you are why vegans sometimes get a bad name.

You don't want to eat meat, don't. But don't go insulting those of us who do.

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. From a climate and environmental perspective, the demand for meat is having huge repurcussions. From an animal welfare perspective, billions of animals are being bred just to die in conditions so ugly, most people don't have the stomach to watch it happen. These are all factors everyone should consider, and though some may have made a decision to keep eating meat in spite of taking the time to examine those factors, I think I am right in saying they are not making the rational decision. I don't say that to insult meat eater's capacity for logic, I just think it is a hard truth that most meat eaters are unlikely to consider, because they haven't considered the whole deal.

 

[newdarkcloud]

Personally, I eat meat because to me it tastes good and I like it.

I don't have any excuses about it being "natural" or not. I don't care what the animals went through to give me meat. None of that actually matters to me. You'll find that this is true for most people.

Now, I am against animals suffering needlessly. You don't need animals to make leather or fur coats anymore, so that shouldn't really be an issue. I'm not completely against animal testing. Products do sometimes need to be tested. However, there are many times where substitutes would be more appropriate.

As for meat, it is one of many finite food sources. We need that resource to feed people. (Honestly, there aren't enough crops to feed the whole world population, unless you're willing to eat grass.) In time, we might not need to kill animals for meat since they are trying to go synthetic. Until then, we need meat to avoid starvation on a broader scale.

 

[PhantomEcho]

"It is very, very VERY easy to just eat a slab of meat in front of you, and not care. But Vegetarians actually take the time to consider where that steak came from. The basic idea here is this: The vegetarians intelligence didn't just appear because they don't eat meat, It's from the mindset they possessed which made them realize where that steak came from "

So what you're saying is, vegetarians are smarter because they 'realize' that steak comes from cows? And what, everyone else just thinks that farmer brown and his cows make it in their magical workshop like santa and his fucking elves? Yeah... No, not buying it.

No, he's saying that vegetarians take the time to weigh up the costs of getting that steak; they come to the rational decision that it isn't worth the added cost of producing beef, or the slaughter of the animal that produced it. Most people don't take that time to make such considerations. All vegetarians do (otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen to become one).

It's pretty ignorant to think that people who disagree with you must not have weighed the costs, given it thought, and come to their own rational decision. People like you are why vegans sometimes get a bad name.

You don't want to eat meat, don't. But don't go insulting those of us who do.

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. From a climate and environmental perspective, the demand for meat is having huge repurcussions. From an animal welfare perspective, billions of animals are being bred just to die in conditions so ugly, most people don't have the stomach to watch it happen. These are all factors everyone should consider, and though some may have made a decision to keep eating meat in spite of taking the time to examine those factors, I think I am right in saying they are not making the rational decision. I don't say that to insult meat eater's capacity for logic, I just think it is a hard truth that most meat eaters are unlikely to consider, because they haven't considered the whole deal.

I for one am in disagreement.

I have seen the devastation of human farming. As in plants. As in massive tracts of fertile plains, where once nature existed, plowed away to make room for plants and livestock. I have seen the destruction caused by our very presence on this planet... and meat or vegetable have very -little- to do with it.

You can appeal to my sense of decency. I believe it is quite cruel to raise an animal in a cage so small it can never walk all its life, just to hack off it's head and eat it. But you want me to believe that plowing away massive tracts of land for the purposes of farming is somehow the more ecologically responsible path?

Farming and Wood-cutting are two of the most destructive practices on the face of the planet. We do both regularly.

If you want to suggest anything, it has to be a message of moderation in all things. Eat what you want, but don't gorge. Farm enough to feed your family, but don't plunder the nature of the land for all it is worth.

We can all exist, eat plants, eat meat, and be efficient. We can choose to do things for the sake of them being what we feel are right, and be content.

But please, do not misrepresent the facts. In order to accommodate a vegetarian/vegan society... we would have to wipe out massive tracts of land for the purpose of growing sufficient amounts of food.

It's not plausible to suggest. It's just not. But it is reasonable to suggest that we end the era of the 'industrial farms' and their cruel production of meats (and their wasteful production methods for vegetables too) in favor of something less... torturous in nature.

 

[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.

I seriously feel sorry for vegans/vegetarians because they are getting represented by some horrible people. Why can't we just learn to live in peace? Hell, wasn't that the entire point of the Simpsons episode where Lisa becomes a vegetarian? That we should accept each other's beliefs instead of trying to force our own onto other people. Do you really believe people who eat meat haven't, at some point or another, considered where it came from?

Vegans/Vegetarians are heading down the same path as feminists, where no one takes them seriously anymore because they are been represented by some really bad people. Do you really want people to hate anyone who is a vegan/vegetarian just because you felt you had to flaunt the fact you felt superior to those who eat meat? Trust me, it has already started to happen. I can assure you most people here, when they see a thread about vegetarianism/veganism, will groan and go "oh not this thread again". Is that what you want?

I'm going to say it right now, if you choose to define yourself by what you eat and don't eat, you are a pretty horrible person in my opinion.

Also, I don't know if anyone has posted this yet:

 

[maninahat]

"It is very, very VERY easy to just eat a slab of meat in front of you, and not care. But Vegetarians actually take the time to consider where that steak came from. The basic idea here is this: The vegetarians intelligence didn't just appear because they don't eat meat, It's from the mindset they possessed which made them realize where that steak came from "

So what you're saying is, vegetarians are smarter because they 'realize' that steak comes from cows? And what, everyone else just thinks that farmer brown and his cows make it in their magical workshop like santa and his fucking elves? Yeah... No, not buying it.

No, he's saying that vegetarians take the time to weigh up the costs of getting that steak; they come to the rational decision that it isn't worth the added cost of producing beef, or the slaughter of the animal that produced it. Most people don't take that time to make such considerations. All vegetarians do (otherwise, they wouldn't have chosen to become one).

It's pretty ignorant to think that people who disagree with you must not have weighed the costs, given it thought, and come to their own rational decision. People like you are why vegans sometimes get a bad name.

You don't want to eat meat, don't. But don't go insulting those of us who do.

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. From a climate and environmental perspective, the demand for meat is having huge repurcussions. From an animal welfare perspective, billions of animals are being bred just to die in conditions so ugly, most people don't have the stomach to watch it happen. These are all factors everyone should consider, and though some may have made a decision to keep eating meat in spite of taking the time to examine those factors, I think I am right in saying they are not making the rational decision. I don't say that to insult meat eater's capacity for logic, I just think it is a hard truth that most meat eaters are unlikely to consider, because they haven't considered the whole deal.

I for one am in disagreement.

I have seen the devastation of human farming. As in plants. As in massive tracts of fertile plains, where once nature existed, plowed away to make room for plants and livestock. I have seen the destruction caused by our very presence on this planet... and meat or vegetable have very -little- to do with it.

You can appeal to my sense of decency. I believe it is quite cruel to raise an animal in a cage so small it can never walk all its life, just to hack off it's head and eat it. But you want me to believe that plowing away massive tracts of land for the purposes of farming is somehow the more ecologically responsible path?

Farming and Wood-cutting are two of the most destructive practices on the face of the planet. We do both regularly.

If you want to suggest anything, it has to be a message of moderation in all things. Eat what you want, but don't gorge. Farm enough to feed your family, but don't plunder the nature of the land for all it is worth.

We can all exist, eat plants, eat meat, and be efficient. We can choose to do things for the sake of them being what we feel are right, and be content.

But please, do not misrepresent the facts. In order to accommodate a vegetarian/vegan society... we would have to wipe out massive tracts of land for the purpose of growing sufficient amounts of food.

It's not plausible to suggest. It's just not. But it is reasonable to suggest that we end the era of the 'industrial farms' and their cruel production of meats (and their wasteful production methods for vegetables too) in favor of something less... torturous in nature.

Yes, I admit that arable farmlands, with their fertilizers and pesticides and land grabbing, do have a severe (often devestating) impact on the environment. But it still has sufficiently less of an impact than animal farming, and so it is therefore, more ideal.

The problem is that farm animals need feeding, which means having massive corn or pasture fields devoted to the task; fields which could just have been used for crops for human consumption. Because a lot of that corn ends up as waste product (cow shit), far more biomatter is lost in the rearing process than if that same biomass was directed straight on to humans.

Arable farm land is also somewhat more sustainable in general, whereas pasture has a tendency to continually expand. Due to cheap and inefficient farming techniques in south America, there is a lack of field rotation. Instead, farmers just cut down another section of Amazonian rainforest, a process that has resulted in far more deforestation than the lumber industry (which is far better at sustainable logging). A lot of that could be solved by simply implementing better field rotation systems, but the initiative to do so is lacking. Animal rotation means that you are only using a third or so of your land at any given time, limiting the size of herds. What with the massive demand for meat, farmers feel it is in their interest to just fill the fields to over capacity, and expand them where necessary. Crop rotation, on the other hand, tends to be easier.

Arable farming is only a slightly better solution. There are other solutions as well. Currently, we produce enough to provide first world supplies to 20 billion people. Starvation and demand is still high though, because much of that produce rots, or cannot be transported easily to third world nations, or is eaten by pests and virmin, or cannot be afforded by the poorest in the world. Solving all those problems would help in a big way too. The ultimate solution to feeding the world is to vastly reduce the human population. Doing so reduces demand in all areas, and puts less strain on the planet - but no one is willing to accept such a responsibility (save, perhaps, the Chinese).

 

[PhantomEcho]

-snipped due to length, not quality-

First off, if you have any verifiable studies and information, sources which can back up said information, and that standard assortment of data... I would love to read more about this position and where it comes from.

Secondly, and more directly back to the point, I can't argue with you on the major concept of your rebuttal. The truth of the matter is that these animals have to eat. They've got to. There's no ways around that. However, and your argument doesn't seem to address this point, without the slaughtering of these animals for meat... they continue eating for a VASTLY longer amount of time.

They therefore also continue producing gasses, and fumes, and consuming resources, and requiring land... and costing the government money to house... in the event that meat should ever cease to be a primary part of our diet.

That is to say, these animals would still be alive. They would still shit. They would still breed, albeit less prolifically thanks to a lack of our assistance, and they would continue to represent a net loss for the argument against meat.

The only solution? Either we slaughter them, leave them to starve, or prevent them from breeding. Otherwise, there are going to be bands of wild cows, pigs, and chickens rampaging throughout the rural areas of the nation.

In the end, we can't expect that peoples who value freedom are ever going to accept this idea that the only way to survive is to stop procreating. Everything we're taught about ourselves says that our most powerful instinct is to survive and propagate the species. Even if this isn't entirely true, we've internalized it as a people.

China's views are seen almost universally as being draconian examples of just how bad things can get.

Still, we're nowhere near in a position like China. With some careful planning, and a bit government/social prodding, it is entirely feasible to suggest that folks be urged to move back towards more natural farming methods.

Of course, in that regard the Native Americans had some pretty good ideas regarding farming, food, and land ownership too.

It's a shame we crushed so much of that sentiment out of them, over the years. We could use some sensibility like that right about now.

 

[Nexus4]

We are animals, damn good ones too to conquer a planet as the ultimate apex predator!!

 

[maninahat]

-snipped due to length, not quality-

First off, if you have any verifiable studies and information, sources which can back up said information, and that standard assortment of data... I would love to read more about this position and where it comes from.

Well here is an all encompassing UN report on the issue [http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf] (beware, it is a pretty hefty pdf file). Assuming you don't want to read all 112 pages in its entirety (I certainly don't) this Guardian article summarises it. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet] If you can't be bothered to read that, the long story short is that meat demand will eventually become unsustainable, the act of meat farming places more demand on resources (70% of all crops are produced for the purpose of feeding livestock) and produces more waste/pollution than any other act on the planet, and that the resource demands and effects of crop production are far less.

"Secondly, and more directly back to the point, I can't argue with you on the major concept of your rebuttal. The truth of the matter is that these animals have to eat. They've got to. There's no ways around that. However, and your argument doesn't seem to address this point, without the slaughtering of these animals for meat... they continue eating for a VASTLY longer amount of time...They therefore also continue producing gasses, and fumes, and consuming resources, and requiring land... and costing the government money to house... in the event that meat should ever cease to be a primary part of our diet."
I have no idea as to the practical application of phasing meat out of diets. I suppose that the most effective way to avoid millions of "unemployed" cows and pigs is to gradually reduce the demand for meat over a period of years (instead of overnight), thus allowing farmers to adjust the amount of new livestock they rear in accordance with demand.

"In the end, we can't expect that peoples who value freedom are ever going to accept this idea that the only way to survive is to stop procreating. Everything we're taught about ourselves says that our most powerful instinct is to survive and propagate the species. Even if this isn't entirely true, we've internalized it as a people."
That is true, and that is a lot of what it is all about. Meat eating is, itself, a product of instinct and biology. Despite outgrowing the need for so much meat in our diets, we still find it delicious, and as it was historically a luxury, we have grown accustomed to getting hold of meat whenever we can. In a broader sense, our instincts influence everything. No one is enthusiastic about giving up on child birth, even if it can be plainly seen as the most sensible thing to do.

"Of course, in that regard the Native Americans had some pretty good ideas regarding farming, food, and land ownership too...It's a shame we crushed so much of that sentiment out of them, over the years. We could use some sensibility like that right about now."
The native's greatest achievement was to live in equilibrium with their surroundings. But if we all lived as Indians, we would never have got into a position where we have advanced medicine, or houses, or transport or technology. There are costs associated with trying to live in natural harmony as well.

 

[maninahat]

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.

 

[The Funslinger]

I feel like I should quote Terry Pratchett:

Just by looking at it Ardrothy it was packed edge to edge with prime lean pork, with none of those spacious areas of good fresh air under the lid that represented his own profit margin. It was the kind of pie piglets hope to be when they grow up.