"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[Driekan]

This is one of the more absurd statements I've heard in a long time.

Being willing to harm one of something does not mean an inability to feel empathy for another of a similar thing.

Claiming this is a bit like saying...

- You can't love humans if you've been in a fistfight;
- You can't like cars if you've crashed one;
- You can't love women if you've had arguments with one;

All patently ridiculous statements, not even really worth arguing about.

Now, to answer some of the posts that are going down here... For the sake of argument

You misunderstand me.

B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).

B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.

Then you better start eating some meat, buddy. You know those hundreds of millions of animals currently being raised for meat? If the market for that collapses, something is going to be done about them. Tip: It won't be shipping them to petting zoos.

I believe that everyone should see how farm animals are raised, slaughtered and prepared for consumption. Not to make them vegos, but to make people more aware of what they're putting in their bodies. Let people see what grain and maize does to a cow and the impact it has on the environment compared to a grass fed cow. Let them see what is fed to chickens in battery farms and the conditions they endure. And people should be a horrified as I was when I saw a news article recently about a feed shortage in the US for livestock, so they've started buying things like gummi bears to feed their animals. People are going to be buying and eating unhealthy meat. Do they really think that's a good idea in the worlds fattest country?

Just to point out: Not everyone lives in countries where those practices are common. In fact, most people live in countries where those practices don't exist. I get where you're coming from, but in the big lens' view of the thing, the US cattle industry is really this bizarre anomaly, and nothing else.

This second part is obviously a response to someone who will never get a notification since you didn't quote them properly. I may as well answer this too. I don't eat fish because I consider them to be animals. However, their ability to feel pain compared to birds and mammals is much smaller. Studies would suggest they are not "conscious" in the way birds and mammals are, and are significantly less intelligent. It could be argued that they do not experience fear or distress in any meaningful way since they simply lack the awareness. Behaviour which seems to be a fear response on the surface could well be automated, or simply a nervous response to noxious stimuli. Most vegetarians would argue that there is enough evidence that they feel pain to avoid eating them, and we simply don't fully understand brains and nervous systems which have evolved differently to our own. After all, it was only recently that we were forced to acknowledge that some cephalopods are aware and exhibit intelligence and an ability to learn on par with some mammals. This means that they probably feel distress in a similar way. However, I would argue that being a pescetarian is at least a step in the right direction, even though I don't whole heartedly support it.

Thus if someone genetically engineered some species of livestock animal to be born braindead and unresponsive, would you be cool eating them, then? What I mean is: Is your issue with meat consumption one of moral problem with causing pain or distress to an entity capable of feeling such a thing, or is it merely Phylum-ism? (i.e.: An unwillingness to consume another entity of the same Phylum as you are - as that seems to be the point at which you draw the line).

Just as a side-note, to qualify my statements... I have nothing against vegetarians. You see, I have heard two arguments for not ever eating meat that I found to be a really good:
1. "I honestly don't enjoy it.";
2. "I have never eaten it in my life, and thus lack the intestinal flora to process it without harm";

Most other ones fall flat if you put them through too much logic.

 

[Mr F.]

Well...

Lets look at this from a different perspective.

Ignoring all of the USUAL arguments for vegetarianism (Animals have feelings too! Lets care about the welfare of chickens!), these dumbass intellectual debates that have caused Donkey Sanctuaries within the UK to routinely get more cash than charities which aim to alliviate child porverty and just think about this.

Meat costs a lot to produce. It costs a lot in terms of grain, land, you name it. All over the world people are starving. If we all became vegatarians we would be able to produce far more food for people. End of. It is as simple as that. You can love animals and still eat meat.

But you are either undereducated or careless if you believe you can love people and still eat meat.

Oh, and inbefore "But a Cow can feed X people!". The amount of grain and land it takes to feed that cow up so it can feed X people could feed far more people if it was being used for Grain.

Now, some animals are economical and fair to eat. True. Some pasture land should remain, animals that are reared on grass and weeds are totally A-Okay! But animals that are reared on grain, soy, shit like that, that have been fed up on crops GROWN to feed them, well, that is just wrong. And most animals are in the latter category. Basically, what I am trying to say is if a field is left fallow after a season has changed and has, I dunno, a dairy herd on it, that is a good thing. Cause they eat the grass, fertilize everything and produce milk which humans can consume, preventing the annihilation of all the nutrients within the ground. But other then that, rearing animals to be eaten is unethical.

Not cause the cow has feelings. Who gives a fuck about the cow.

But because it means people die. And people do, quite frankly, matter more.

 

[Soundwave]

Just as a side-note, to qualify my statements... I have nothing against vegetarians. You see, I have heard two arguments for not ever eating meat that I found to be a really good:
1. "I honestly don't enjoy it.";
2. "I have never eaten it in my life, and thus lack the intestinal flora to process it without harm";

Most other ones fall flat if you put them through too much logic.

I also don't see anything logically unsound with "I don't support the practices of the industry and would not want to profit them."

 

[Driekan]

Just as a side-note, to qualify my statements... I have nothing against vegetarians. You see, I have heard two arguments for not ever eating meat that I found to be a really good:
1. "I honestly don't enjoy it.";
2. "I have never eaten it in my life, and thus lack the intestinal flora to process it without harm";

Most other ones fall flat if you put them through too much logic.

I also don't see anything logically unsound with "I don't support the practices of the industry and would not want to profit them."

Agreed.

However, as pointed out above, that particular meat industry only supplies a tiny, tiny sliver of mankind. If you happen to be part of that sliver, and have no alternative means of procuring meat-based foods... ... Sure, boycott. I'm all for that.

But kindly call yourself a boycotter, not a vegetarian... As you apparently have no inherent problem with meat consumption.

 

[Driekan]

Well...

Lets look at this from a different perspective.

Ignoring all of the USUAL arguments for vegetarianism (Animals have feelings too! Lets care about the welfare of chickens!), these dumbass intellectual debates that have caused Donkey Sanctuaries within the UK to routinely get more cash than charities which aim to alliviate child porverty and just think about this.

Meat costs a lot to produce. It costs a lot in terms of grain, land, you name it. All over the world people are starving. If we all became vegatarians we would be able to produce far more food for people. End of. It is as simple as that. You can love animals and still eat meat.

But you are either undereducated or careless if you believe you can love people and still eat meat.

Oh, and inbefore "But a Cow can feed X people!". The amount of grain and land it takes to feed that cow up so it can feed X people could feed far more people if it was being used for Grain.

Now, some animals are economical and fair to eat. True. Some pasture land should remain, animals that are reared on grass and weeds are totally A-Okay! But animals that are reared on grain, soy, shit like that, that have been fed up on crops GROWN to feed them, well, that is just wrong. And most animals are in the latter category. Basically, what I am trying to say is if a field is left fallow after a season has changed and has, I dunno, a dairy herd on it, that is a good thing. Cause they eat the grass, fertilize everything and produce milk which humans can consume, preventing the annihilation of all the nutrients within the ground. But other then that, rearing animals to be eaten is unethical.

Not cause the cow has feelings. Who gives a fuck about the cow.

But because it means people die. And people do, quite frankly, matter more.

You were quite right until you got to that bit where you say "most animals are int he latter category"(i.e.: most animals live on grains raised in order to feed them).

That is simply not true in 5 of Earth's 7 continents. It can certainly be true, locally, to you... But that is the kind of thing worth making very explicit.

 

[TeletubbiesGolfGun]

Just the other day I leaning on a cow deciding the best way to kill it so I could get at all those juicy steaks waiting inside it.

I mean after all animals are only there for me to eat right?

"get all those juicy steaks waiting inside it"

LOL

didn't realize it was a pinata with candy ready to be beat out of it XD

OT: i love my animals..

and i love a damn good steak...

see no problem here, circle of life and all that.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

From personal experience, vegetarians, vegans and other assorted aryans are the most self-entitled, intolerant, preachy and annoying folks around.

I'm not talking about the Kaurs and Singhs of this world, they're generally a lovely bunch of people. I'm talking about the Smiths and Schmidts that have seen the light and now feel more superiour than some White Pride Scientology mutts.

I love, respect, raise and eat animals. If someone thinks that doesn't all fit together, so be it, but please, Lord, make them pester and pummel someone else, as I'm done trying to ineract with the veggie bunch. They just annoy the pants off me head, Ted.

t'a.

I'm preachy for being a vegan? Did you read your own post?

I could just as easily say meat eaters are the whiniest, most self-entitled people in the universe. They think they're somehow entitled to hold captive, kill and eat sentient animals.

And you're comparing us to Nazis? You know the reason Nazis are seen as evil, right? The whole systematic killing and denying of dignity of those they thought were beneath them rates a bit higher than them thinking they were all super special. I didn't want to bring this up, but if you want to play this game consider that you're treating animals the way the Nazis treated my ancestors.

 

[Soundwave]

But kindly call yourself a boycotter, not a vegetarian... As you apparently have no inherent problem with meat consumption.

Oh, I eat meat all the time. I was just saying I didn't find any flaws with that logic.

 

[tangoprime]

I would respond to this in the same way my mother responded whenever me or my siblings asked why she loved one of us more.

"I love all of you in different ways. I love dogs because they are loyal and and faithful, I love kittens because they are cute and clever, and I love chickens because they are finger-lickin' good."

Pretty much. I'm all about nature, I love nature, and in nature, a lot of friggin' animals get eaten all the time. I love my dogs, my dogs love to eat beef. I also love to eat beef. That is all.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

Philosophical leader of animal welfare -- works in slaughterhouses.

 

[manic_depressive13]

What I'm trying to say is that it's all connected. Industry, agriculture etc. Gradual reductions in some things, improvement in others are absolutely fine. But to jump on people for not radically altering their lives to, again, suit one persons opinion of where that line between 'okay to eat' and 'not okay to eat'? Not really.

You say things like "these things don't actually work unless everyone accepts responsibility for their actions" but then "I would happily do more if others would do more with me, but it's pretty fucking absurd to expect me do go live in a cave while you yourself are scoffing bacon".
This to me represents exactly what is wrong with taking a stand like yours. Basically "I'm doing what is right. If you aren't doing exactly as much as me, in the same way as me, you are wrong. I'm perfectly entitled to expect everyone else to conform to my world view - but to expect *me* to do more is crazy".

To me, this is far more 'intellectually dishonest' than anything I've read so far.

Firstly, not eating meat isn't "radically life altering". Secondly, you are the one being dishonest. I am saying that I don't think people should slaughter animals. I am demonstrating my comitment to this ideal by not eating meat. I am suggesting that other people also adopt the practice I have adopted. You are saying "NO, I will not adopt your practice! In fact, until you go live in a cave to prove your resolve, I'm not acknowledging anything you say!" If YOU lived in a fucking cave, that would be a valid request. But you don't. I however don't eat meat. I'm not asking you to do anything that I am not willing to do. So yes, expecting me to abondon civilisation when you refuse to do so much as compromise is crazy. You are being dishonest and juvenile.

I consider myself to be, by and large, a decent human being. I take care of my family, I respect my friends. I don't litter. I recycle. I was a member of a volunteer organization that helped people after the 2011 Earthquake. However, I take pleasure in a good steak, some delicious yakitori or tonkotsu ramen and I think that I should be allowed to do so guilt free.

You know...there are a lot of *people* in the world who are in a crappy situation. Heck, a good chunk of the African continent is still starving. How about we fix all the problems for humans *first*. Then, when we have our awesome utopian society, we start making things better for the animals?

Why can't we focus on both issues at once?

The line between human and animal is definitely not arbitrary. We are human. Animals are animals. We are self aware. I haven't ever seen proof that an animal has attained this.

There is proof, you are just ignoring it. The line between human and animal is arbitrary. Science has given us a pretty good idea of how conscious many animals really are. A farmyard animal has intelligence and awareness equivalent to that of a 3 year old child. Would I be justified in killing a child? What about a mentally handicapped individual whose brain is incapable of maturing? Hell, most people disagree with the idea of terminating a foetus in the third trimester, yet they are certainly not self aware.

 

[manic_depressive13]

You misunderstand me.

B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).

B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.

Then you better start eating some meat, buddy. You know those hundreds of millions of animals currently being raised for meat? If the market for that collapses, something is going to be done about them. Tip: It won't be shipping them to petting zoos.

Yeah, instead of just slaughtering the last lot of animals and putting an end to the suffering this industry causes, let's perpetuate the industry that causes the suffering of animals even longer. Such powerful fucking logic you have there. Fuck my life.

"You don't want millions of animals to die? You'd better start eating meat then, because obviously trillions of animals dying is preferable to millions".

Just what. How do you people unashamedly spout such nonsense?

Thus if someone genetically engineered some species of livestock animal to be born braindead and unresponsive, would you be cool eating them, then? What I mean is: Is your issue with meat consumption one of moral problem with causing pain or distress to an entity capable of feeling such a thing, or is it merely Phylum-ism? (i.e.: An unwillingness to consume another entity of the same Phylum as you are - as that seems to be the point at which you draw the line).

Just as a side-note, to qualify my statements... I have nothing against vegetarians. You see, I have heard two arguments for not ever eating meat that I found to be a really good:
1. "I honestly don't enjoy it.";
2. "I have never eaten it in my life, and thus lack the intestinal flora to process it without harm";

Most other ones fall flat if you put them through too much logic.

Too much logic? Yeah, because you're so great at logic.

I don't see why you would breed braindead animals when we are already capable of producing in vitro meat (albeit not on an industrial scale). But no, I have no qualms with eating flesh. I have issues with causing pain and distress, and cutting a sentient creature's life short for no valid reason.

 

[Jedisolo75]

Of course I love animals, they're delicious!

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I'm preachy for being a vegan? Did you read your own post?

I could just as easily say meat eaters are the whiniest, most self-entitled people in the universe. They think they're somehow entitled to hold captive, kill and eat sentient animals.

And you're comparing us to Nazis? You know the reason Nazis are seen as evil, right? The whole systematic killing and denying of dignity of those they thought were beneath them rates a bit higher than them thinking they were all super special. I didn't want to bring this up, but if you want to play this game consider that you're treating animals the way the Nazis treated my ancestors.

Dear Ego, Throbbing (Esq.)

What? How... who are you, exactly? OK, let's kvetch in unison, then.

I haven't even read any of your posts until you decided to respond to mine, accusing me of calling you, say, annoying, by... being annoying, upset and on the verge of making this personal? Way to prove my point, thanks for that.

Now, what I said is the truth I've come to accept by experiencing life and trying my best to make sense of it. An average 90% of vegetarians are tough love. Life is... more complicated and less fun around them. And, even when they're not horse-loving girls in their early teens, they got most of the facts that really matter backwards.

Your retort is hardly based on fact, I take it. It never is with them vegetable heads.

What is it with you people? Where does all the rage and hatred come from? Why do you reject your own culture, your own food, your own country? It sure as hell is too much work to allow anyone to call you lazy, I'll gladly give you that.

See, I don't mind you eating veggies, staying in shape and living a tip-top life, but why do I have to know about that, and why do I have to be involved in it? That movement of yours is peeing on the rug that made your tribe so great and special. I prefer bowel movement to your movement, yes. I am well guilty of that. Live with it. I don't try to make you abandon your ways, why do you feel entitled to consider yourself to be better than us omnivores and meat lovers? Why? Because your movement is part of that other movement, the bigger picture involving lots of wordy words like, say, 'transformation'?

Don't get me started on the Nazis, as that's a different thread and really makes my most savoury juices and words flow freely.

As to the ancestry bit: My grandfather survived concentration camp by drinking wee and eating rats, snails, worms and mud. He shouldn't have done that, none of those were kosher! Well, I preferred him to survive and procreate instead of dying like everyone else around him.

I don't think my grandfather would have liked your grandfather much, even though they might just as well have been the Jewiest Jews around at some point in their lives. Shalom!

Oh, I just mistook you for a vegetarian. I apologize for that. Everything I wrote still applies, with the only difference being that vegans are usually even more annoying and way more hostile than your average vegetarian (Sikhs excluded for obvious reasons).

Feel free to present your case and make me reconsider. It's rare, but it can happen. We can coexist. Like cats and dogs.

 

[Driekan]

Yeah, instead of just slaughtering the last lot of animals and putting an end to the suffering this industry causes, let's perpetuate the industry that causes the suffering of animals even longer. Such powerful fucking logic you have there. Fuck my life.

"You don't want millions of animals to die? You'd better start eating meat then, because obviously trillions of animals dying is preferable to millions".

Just what. How do you people unashamedly spout such nonsense?

I was mostly pointing out the fact that most people have a fairly rosy view of the issue, and don't consider that the domesticated species will all be extinct if such a thing were to happen. Of course, I do assume some individuals would live on in zoos or such, but that is a whole other branch of interspecies relations to discuss.

By and large, being a vegetarian does no one any harm. Hoping (And actually acting towards) that everyone becomes one, though, is acting towards the extinguishing of those species. If that is fine by you, great. However, it is worth bearing in mind.

As for the number's game... There is the matter of temporization - that is, the fact that such deaths will occur over a long span of time, instead of all at once. If your only concern is the total amount of Death (i.e.: The state when a formerly living entity ceases to be alive) that happens on Earth over an arbitrarily long period of time, the best possible thing for you to hope for is a nuclear holocaust. Or the extinguishing of the sun. Or anything else with a potential to sterilize all or most of the Earth.

To paraphrase:

"You don't want billions to die? So you better get those nukes flying, because obviously quadrillions dying is preferable to billions"

See? Makes no sense. What matters is not the amount of Death, it's the amount of Life.

Too much logic? Yeah, because you're so great at logic.

Unqualified personal attack? But already?

I don't see why you would breed braindead animals when we are already capable of producing in vitro meat (albeit not on an industrial scale). But no, I have no qualms with eating flesh. I have issues with causing pain and distress, and cutting a sentient creature's life short for no valid reason.

So that pretty much settles the argument. Unless you are very old, chances are good that within your lifetime, you'll be a meat-eater. Assuming the "Moral Vegetarian" fad doesn't die off, of course, but it is unlikely that it will completely.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

Philosophical leader of animal welfare -- works in slaughterhouses.

Thanks for that dangerously short contribution.

Temple Grandin is a very, very special person. Just thinking about her makes me feel very humble, very stupid and very weak.

Temple Grandin deserves respect from anyone, no matter what they decide to eat, or how much they decide to hate their fellow man. She's an awesome human being, and just about the only autist I've ever learned about that has a title and makes life of both people and animals better, against all odds.

http://communityfarmalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/101310_TempleGrandin_t_w600_h1200.jpg

 

[Smolderin]

I don't see why you would breed braindead animals when we are already capable of producing in vitro meat (albeit not on an industrial scale). But no, I have no qualms with eating flesh. I have issues with causing pain and distress, and cutting a sentient creature's life short for no valid reason.

That meat you are talking about...it tastes horrible!

the brain dead animals meat would probobly taste horrible as well, due to the fact a lot of the taste comes from their intake as well as consistancy coming from movment

OT: I love animals plenty, even as I eat them.

I know right? Vitro is disgusting. I had a friend recently who is a vegetarian who tried to make me try that crap, insisting it tasted like the real thing. I smacked him upside the head when I took a bite out of it. It is all about the taste my friends, nothing compares to a home cooked Thanksgiving Turkey and a medium rare steak Sirloin.

People say were omnivores, well eating greens is all fine and good, but I personally prefer the sweet, sweet taste of meat. If your vegetarian or a vegan, fine...that's cool, I respect your life choice, though please don't go out of your way and try and ruin it for the majority. I agree something needs to be done to stop the suffering of animals on there way to the butcher, however I am more along the lines of following the thought process of possible quicker, and more painless deaths, rather than just abolishing the industry altogether.

(Then again, if that happened I would have an excuse to go hunting. I had always wanted to go hunting as long as I would eat my kill, unfortunately due to the area that I live in I don't have that opportunity.)

 

[Rasor]

After reading this I realised I could never love my cat while I love steak.
So I fried his fluffy ass up!

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Okay, so this thread has attracted some rather caustic vegetarian voices, and some rather dismissive omnivorous ones - everyone feeling a little holier-than-thou. I suppose I side with the omnivores, but for a different reason than simple personal preference (though I do see that as a perfectly valid position), and I'm curious to hear what the more high-handed of the vegetarian/vegan community think of my reasoning. Given that all the vegetarians I regularly interact with are either accepting of alternate life choices, or cannot reasonably construct an argument beyond "I was freaked out by an abbattoir" (another perfectly valid position), I'd like to hear a counter-argument from someone kinda rabid who can articulate their objection. In short, come at me, bro...

Essentially, I contend that the best thing that ever happened to the species we eat was being favoured for eating. Evolutionarily speaking, it is every species' goal to best adapt to their environment in order to reproduce their DNA in their progeny, and in a closed biosphere this tends towards a zero-sum game, where species looking to reproduce MUST wind up competing with some species and living symbiotically with others. That's the whole ballgame. The emergence of a highly intelligent species such as mankind, able to reshape the playing field around it, is both a threat and an opportunity for all other species that mankind interacts with.

Being simultaneously tasty and tameable has guaranteed the survival of farmable types of food animals. Chickens, pigs, sheep, cows, goats and the like will go wherever mankind does - they have already spread across habitats and continents, and will come along with us when we eventually breach the biosphere bubble and move into space. By hitching their carriage to our train, so to speak, they have guaranteed their own ubiquity for as long as mankind continues to exist and want to consume them. It is by no means the most extraordinary trick evolution has pulled, and we see similar success for species that have adapted into companion roles for mankind, such as cats, dogs, horses and many more - they've got the "tameable", but not the "tasty". And as with any evolutionary struggle for survival of the fittest, some species had the misfortune of being tasty but not farmable - see whales, or sea turtles, or really anything that has been hunted to endangerment/extinction. I would usually oppose the mainstream consumption of these animals by anyone inhabiting a modern society, because doing so would eliminate their species altogether, but it seems to me that by this point stopping eating farm animals would place all these species' survival at risk as they have been domesticated beyond the ability to compete, and have been spread far beyond their natural environs. Continuing to eat them seems the only logical choice, if you REALLY care about these species' survival.


TL;DR - I eat meat because I have evolved to do so, and I eat the animals I eat because they have evolved to be eaten by me. That's the soundbite version.