Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Vegans

Vegans (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:35 AM
 
Chris,

You're having problems with logic. So what if we're omnivores? It doesn't justify killing and eating animals. I have hands and I can take a knife and stab you to death. Just because evolution gave me hands, doesn't mean I'm justified in murdering you.

We no longer live in a state of nature, so our omnivorous biology means nothing except that we are capable of eating meat. It doesn't follow that we have a right to kill and eat animals.

Philosophy 101. It's basic, dude. I really think you need to read some books on the subject so that you're better informed.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:40 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
So you can't justify meat-eating just because it happens in nature.
Yes you can. Open your mouth. You see those pointy teeth?

BTW: Drop me in the Serengeti and I'm gonna throw rocks at the lion until he leaves the zebra he's just killed. Then I'm gonna have me a barbeque.

You can bring a salad.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
Chris,

You're having problems with logic. So what if we're omnivores? It doesn't justify killing and eating animals. I have hands and I can take a knife and stab you to death. Just because evolution gave me hands, doesn't mean I'm justified in murdering you.

We no longer live in a state of nature, so our omnivorous biology means nothing except that we are capable of eating meat. It doesn't follow that we have a right to kill and eat animals.

Philosophy 101. It's basic, dude. I really think you need to read some books on the subject so that you're better informed.
I'm not having problems with logic, I'm having problems with your logic. How this argument derived from my simple statement about me liking meats and vegetables is beyond me


Chris
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
Chris,

You're having problems with logic. So what if we're omnivores? It doesn't justify killing and eating animals. I have hands and I can take a knife and stab you to death. Just because evolution gave me hands, doesn't mean I'm justified in murdering you.

We no longer live in a state of nature, so our omnivorous biology means nothing except that we are capable of eating meat. It doesn't follow that we have a right to kill and eat animals.

Philosophy 101. It's basic, dude. I really think you need to read some books on the subject so that you're better informed.
As I said at the start of this thread I really hate people saying "save the chickens!" when there's people starving. You're using all kinds of weird arguments to defend your position.

Killing people? Serial killers? WTF?

If you're going to put all living things on the same plane then carrots have feelings to. Don't water them for a week and see how sad they look.

SAVE THE CARROTS!
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:50 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
SAVE THE CARROTS!
i hope someone does.

last time i got home, there were no carrots, and i was hungry.

greedy bastards.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:53 AM
 
Originally posted by kmkkid:
My logic is that Humans are omnivores, we eat meat and vegetables, we evolved to specifically eat them. i.e. our teeth are sharp, and our stomach's are designed to digest both.

So, are you a vegan Spliff?


Chris
What happened to all your live and let live jive? Are trying to prove that vegetarianism is inherently incorrect?

People always say but we evolved in way X but we are still evolving. Ethically I think our species could stand a bit more evolution.

If we as humans were meant to ingest the amounts of meat and animal fats that we do don't you think our other organs i.e. heart and arteries would have developed some sort of way of coping with the fats that cause heart disease, prostate problems as well as other ailments?

Never mind the environmental impact of pig and beef farms. Pig farms are one of the major causes for polluting the ground water.

There are numerous benefits to a vegetarian diet. I for one feel better about myself knowing that I am making a contribution to the environment because of my diet (be it a small one).
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
As I said at the start of this thread I really hate people saying "save the chickens!" when there's people starving.
This has no real connection to whether or not we should eat animals. I assume you mean that we should put the lives of humans above animals (which I may agree with depending on the situation) but you are creating a false dichotomy. Why is it necessary to choose between helping starving people and saving chickens? Does eating chickens HELP the starving people of the world? Surely not.

In fact, a vegetarian diet, as opposed to one high in meat, is much more economical in terms of resources (things like beef take a huge amount of land and feed to produce a relatively small amount of food). So I would say that in some sense being vegetarian helps starving people, at least indirectly.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:59 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
What happened to all your live and let live jive? Are trying to prove that vegetarianism is inherently incorrect?
I didnt say anything like that, are you picking on me?

If you've read all my posts I said that I dont care either way. I'm just trying to get Spliff to realize that the human body was, or has beeen designed to digest both meat and vegetables. I never said killing an animal was right, I just said it's what we do as omnivores. I also never said not eating meat is wrong, whatever floats your boat is fine with me, as long as your not forcing it on anyone.


Chris
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 03:41 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
If we as humans were meant to ingest the amounts of meat and animal fats that we do don't you think our other organs i.e. heart and arteries would have developed some sort of way of coping with the fats that cause heart disease, prostate problems as well as other ailments?
We aren't technically meant to eat any specific things, humans evolved to eat whatever they could to survive, and evolved to obtain protein and other important things from meat that are harder (but possible) to obtain from a vegetarian diet as well. Thus you can be perfectly healthy with eating a moderate amount of meat and animal fat, and some people have bodies with the ability to eat a ton, without developing such ailments.

Some of the "logical" vegetarian arguments here are a touch unfounded (the rape and murder examples). Most carnivores/omnivores eat OTHER species than themselves because that's the way their brain works. There are exceptions, sure, when an animal threatens another animal of the same species, sometimes the animal may eat the other after killing it (although even this is usually rare). Humans are omnivores, and can survive either a meat or vegetable diet. Meat can be healthy in the right quantities, and makes it easier to add certain elements to your diet than a limited vegetarian diet would.

OK, now to morals... They're subjective, some people could care less, but really where do you draw the line? Vegans are a little too extreme for their own health and the health of others (feeding children and pet DOGS a vegan diet...). You're harvesting plants to eat, you kill them, how is that SO different than harvesting animals and killing them for food? And as was said in the previous locked vegetarianism thread: animals die to bring veggies to the table, too, perhaps more each year than it takes to get ruminants (beef, lamb) to the table. So why are you still morally better? Least-harm seems to come from an all beef and dairy diet, rather than a vegetarian diet.

Animals are going to die, it happens, accept that they die for your food (we accept they die for ours) and move on. Meat-eaters really don't want to hear preaching, it's rather annoying and will not convert us often.

Protest the living conditions of the animals if you must, as some of the factory conditions ARE horrific, but meat-eaters have the choice to buy free-range eggs and meat...so I think that's just as moral a difference as becoming a vegetarian (and you get to still eat meat!).

OK this is too long, mostly a summary of the last thread. Vegetarians, I have nothing against you, just those of you that try to make meat-eaters feel guilty when you yourselves won't take responsibility for the animal deaths on your end.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 03:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
This has no real connection to whether or not we should eat animals. I assume you mean that we should put the lives of humans above animals (which I may agree with depending on the situation) but you are creating a false dichotomy. Why is it necessary to choose between helping starving people and saving chickens? Does eating chickens HELP the starving people of the world? Surely not.
No my point is that militant vegans should direct their energy into something worthwhile, rather than harping on at the omnivores. Trying to stop 150,000 years of evolution by throwing your hand up is futile. If you have a problem with the way animals are treated then try to improve it. Start a farm. Write a book. Whatever.

I just used the starvation angle as a juxtaposition to show how strange it is. Spliff is telling us it's wrong to eat cows. Meanwhile another 2500 children have just died.

It's weird the way we prioritize.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 05:30 AM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
I just used the starvation angle as a juxtaposition to show how strange it is. Spliff is telling us it's wrong to eat cows. Meanwhile another 2500 children have just died.

It's weird the way we prioritize.
Yes, but my point is that you really have no business saying that vegetarians' priorities are messed up. Do you spend all of your waking hours working to help your fellow man? Considering that you have nearly 4000 posts on an internet message board, my guess would be no. I'm not condemning you for that, mind you, I'm just saying that your indignation is misplaced.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 05:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Yes, but my point is that you really have no business saying that vegetarians' priorities are messed up. Do you spend all of your waking hours working to help your fellow man? Considering that you have nearly 4000 posts on an internet message board, my guess would be no. I'm not condemning you for that, mind you, I'm just saying that your indignation is misplaced.
It's not indignation. And I didn't say vegetarian's priorities are messed up. I AGREE WITH THEM!

It's the preaching I don't like.

GET IT?

Please read my posts again. Slowly if need be.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 06:19 AM
 
If you agree with them, what's so annoying about being preached to?
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 06:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
If you agree with them, what's so annoying about being preached to?
AAAAAARGH!!!!!!!!

I'm not playing anymore.

     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 06:46 AM
 
I honestly don't understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to be obtuse.
     
Mulattabianca
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:11 PM
 
Originally posted by Face Ache:
As I said at the start of this thread I really hate people saying "save the chickens!" when there's people starving. You're using all kinds of weird arguments to defend your position.[/color] [/B]
Chickens eat food. That could have been used to feed the starving people. Eating meat and drinking milk with the excuse that "there are starving Africans out there" is nonsense. US overproduces food, and every lb of meat that a pig or a chicken or a cow produces, 20-50 lb of FOOD - corn, soya etc, are used for feeding the ANIMAL that is killed for having the meat. If that food was sold (or given) cheap for the starving countries there would not be the problem of starving. Or at least not so big.
The fact chickens eat soya or corn that could be used for feeding people is no way doing any good for the starving population. If I don't ever buy any chicken, maybe the chickens are one day produced less.
::1 ::2 ::3 ::
     
Mulattabianca
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by kmkkid:
ALL threads seem to degenerate into flame wars nowadays. And it's always the same people starting the trouble. If you can't figure out who they are then I can't help you.
Not only nowadays. Just see how many regular posters have gone away e.g. in the last year.
::1 ::2 ::3 ::
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Mulattabianca:
Chickens eat food. That could have been used to feed the starving people. Eating meat and drinking milk with the excuse that "there are starving Africans out there" is nonsense. US overproduces food, and every lb of meat that a pig or a chicken or a cow produces, 20-50 lb of FOOD - corn, soya etc, are used for feeding the ANIMAL that is killed for having the meat. If that food was sold (or given) cheap for the starving countries there would not be the problem of starving. Or at least not so big.
The fact chickens eat soya or corn that could be used for feeding people is no way doing any good for the starving population. If I don't ever buy any chicken, maybe the chickens are one day produced less.

There is more than enough food to feed both the chicken and the starving masses of Africa. It is simply a matter of political will.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 01:57 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
What happened to all your live and let live jive? Are trying to prove that vegetarianism is inherently incorrect?
Not at all, only to demonstrate that eating meat is not inherently incorrect.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 02:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
The only reason you can eat animals is because society hasn't yet made it against the law. But if you look around, that's starting to change slowly.
And so here we have it: vegetarians wanting to force their views on others by using law.

An honest question. You have an ethical system which disallows the eating of meat. I have an ethical system which allows the eating of meat. What makes your ethical system any more or less valid than mine? You speak of essentially absolutist ethics in this regard, so whence comes your ethics, and what gives this source the authority to define such ethics?

If, indeed, your beliefs and mine are equally valid, then why should yours be given force of law? If yours are given force of law, then I can no longer practice my beliefs. Conversely, my beliefs do not require that they be given force of law, which leaves you as free to practice yours as I am to practice mine.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 02:49 PM
 
Just a very bizarre..yet true fact concerning Africa and all of the world:

Every person on the face of the earth could live in the state of Texas and the state could produce enough food by itself for everyone.

That is a documented fact.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 03:05 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Just a very bizarre..yet true fact concerning Africa and all of the world:

Every person on the face of the earth could live in the state of Texas and the state could produce enough food by itself for everyone.

That is a documented fact.
...where did you read this?
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 03:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
And so here we have it: vegetarians wanting to force their views on others by using law.

An honest question. You have an ethical system which disallows the eating of meat. I have an ethical system which allows the eating of meat. What makes your ethical system any more or less valid than mine? You speak of essentially absolutist ethics in this regard, so whence comes your ethics, and what gives this source the authority to define such ethics?

If, indeed, your beliefs and mine are equally valid, then why should yours be given force of law? If yours are given force of law, then I can no longer practice my beliefs. Conversely, my beliefs do not require that they be given force of law, which leaves you as free to practice yours as I am to practice mine.
Let me first say that I am not really trying to "force my views on others by using law" and I don't know of any other vegetarians who are.

But for the sake of argument, let's discuss the matter. Until very recently many people in the US had an ethical system that said slavery was perfectly acceptable. Even more recently, people had ethical systems that said blacks should be kept separate from whites in pubic places.

What makes their ethical systems less correct than the prevailing idea that these things are wrong? Society never has been accepting of all ethical systems -- far from it.

No, I am not directly comparing these things to the eating of meat, but the point is that what is socially acceptable changes with the times. Isn't it conceivable that attitudes toward eating meat would change in the future? If not for moral reasons, then because meat is a relatively inefficient way of feeding people.

Spliff was not seriously saying that we should campaign that meat eating be made against the law -- that would be obviously futile right now. But who's to say that in one or two hundred years we won't see a societal shift away from eating meat? That's all he was saying, I'm sure.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:09 PM
 
Considering animals are killed in the production of vegan food I don't think vegans can claim ethical or moral superiority. How do you think acres of vegetables and grain are harvested? Do you think they clear out all the mice, bunnies, squirrels, etc. first? Nope, they mow 'em down.

Unless you grow your own food, chances are an animal was killed to feed you. The difference is, omnivores eat some of the animals that were killed.

Eat what you wanna eat - as long as it's not humans, nobody has any right to criticize.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:16 PM
 
Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Just a very bizarre..yet true fact concerning Africa and all of the world:

Every person on the face of the earth could live in the state of Texas and the state could produce enough food by itself for everyone.

That is a documented fact.
You still haven't backed up your first ridiculous post. Put up or shut up.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:22 PM
 
Originally posted by hayesk:
Considering animals are killed in the production of vegan food I don't think vegans can claim ethical or moral superiority. How do you think acres of vegetables and grain are harvested? Do you think they clear out all the mice, bunnies, squirrels, etc. first? Nope, they mow 'em down.

Unless you grow your own food, chances are an animal was killed to feed you. The difference is, omnivores eat some of the animals that were killed.

Eat what you wanna eat - as long as it's not humans, nobody has any right to criticize.
Here we go again with the field mice argument, for some it is choosing the lesser evil and i am sure some of those fuzzy bunnies can run away.

Why can't we eat humans?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:25 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
Here we go again with the field mice argument, for some it is choosing the lesser evil and i am sure some of those fuzzy bunnies can run away.
How is it the lesser evil? Less animals get killed? It is thought that more animals are killed through vegetable harvest than ruminant grazing each year. It wasn't intentional? Then what about unintentionally killing humans? Does the lack of intent make it acceptable?
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:34 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
How is it the lesser evil? Less animals get killed? It is thought that more animals are killed through vegetable harvest than ruminant grazing each year. It wasn't intentional? Then what about unintentionally killing humans? Does the lack of intent make it acceptable?
So are you saying that accidental man slaughter and intentional murder are equivalent?

Are there more animals killed in harvest than killed to supply meat?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
So are you saying that accidental man slaughter and intentional murder are equivalent?

Are there more animals killed in harvest than killed to supply meat?
No, I'm saying killing is still killing, and that most moral vegetarians won't even take responsibility for those deaths. Even if you accidentally hit a man with your car, they're still dead, their family will still grieve and perhaps hate you. Not as terrible as murder, no, but terrible nonetheless. And let's see here, animals killed for their meat are used, animals that are killed during harvest (and during other parts of raising crops) are left to rot. There could be a LOT more animal deaths to bring veggies to your table than cow deaths, so where do you draw the line? (It's predicted perhaps 1 billion or more animals die ea. year to bring veggies to your table, and it's a documented fact that about 48 million ruminants die to bring meat to your table...even if the first prediction is off by 2-5 times, that's still a LOT more than ruminant deaths) So yes, there are more animals killed to supply veggies than ruminant meat. Of course, add all meat into the equation and chickens skyrockets the figure...but then again, you could just eliminate poultry from your diet, now couldn't you?
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 08:37 PM
 
Not this argument again
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 08:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
No, I'm saying killing is still killing, and that most moral vegetarians won't even take responsibility for those deaths.
I never professed to be a moral vegetarian and I understand and accept that rodents will die during harvest but what do you suggest vegetarians/vegans do (especially those that do not preach)? Kill themselves or eat rocks? Maybe some of these "moral" vegans grow their own food and don't kill any animals. I suppose in that case they would not have to take responsibility for any deaths due to harvest

Even if you accidentally hit a man with your car, they're still dead, their family will still grieve and perhaps hate you. Not as terrible as murder, no, but terrible nonetheless.
So by your statement above accidental death is not as terrible as intentional death therefore it is a lesser evil. (the word evil is used in the sense of terribleness)

And let's see here, animals killed for their meat are used, animals that are killed during harvest (and during other parts of raising crops) are left to rot..
I suppose there are no scavengers and bugs and stuff that can benefit from a dead mouse?Circle of life after all. Also we would kill far fewer animals during harvest if we didn't have to produce so much grain to feed all those chickens, pigs and cattle. This approach would reduce death on both fronts. Less cattle to feed= less grain to grow=less harvesting=less animals killed

There could be a LOT more animal deaths to bring veggies to your table than cow deaths, so where do you draw the line?
I draw the line at animals that are born and bred only to be slaughtered and consumed.

(It's predicted perhaps 1 billion or more animals die ea. year to bring veggies to your table, and it's a documented fact that about 48 million ruminants die to bring meat to your table...even if the first prediction is off by 2-5 times, that's still a LOT more than ruminant deaths)
from here .
Commercial cattle slaughter during 2002 totaled 35.7 million head
Commercial calf slaughter totaled 1.05 million head
Commercial hog slaughter totaled 100.3 million head
Commercial sheep and lamb slaughter, totaled 3.29 million head

from another source it says 10 billion animals are slaughtered per year in the US (not including any aquatic animals) 8.9 billion are broiler chickens that still leaves over a billion for the rest.
hogs : 97,962,000
cattle: 35,370,000
sheep and lambs: 3,222,000
calves: 1,007,000
plus 42,000 horses for human consumption



So yes, there are more animals killed to supply veggies than ruminant meat.
Incorrect see above.


Of course, add all meat into the equation and chickens skyrockets the figure...but then again, you could just eliminate poultry from your diet, now couldn't you?
Is a chicken a lesser animal than a field mouse so it shouldn't be added to the total? The fact is more animals are slaughtered than killed during harvest. This fact cannot be argued,

Like I said I never professed to to a moral vegetarian I am a vegetarian for many reasons. I am not preaching moral superiority here I am just refuting the statements you have made. I am very concerned about the environment and being a vegetarian is one way (of many) that I can personally reduce my impact on this planet.
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 09:12 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
Let me first say that I am not really trying to "force my views on others by using law" and I don't know of any other vegetarians who are.

But for the sake of argument, let's discuss the matter. Until very recently many people in the US had an ethical system that said slavery was perfectly acceptable. Even more recently, people had ethical systems that said blacks should be kept separate from whites in pubic places.

Spliff was not seriously saying that we should campaign that meat eating be made against the law -- that would be obviously futile right now. But who's to say that in one or two hundred years we won't see a societal shift away from eating meat? That's all he was saying, I'm sure.
Icruise,

Thanks, that's exactly what I was saying.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 09:26 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
I never professed to be a moral vegetarian and I understand and accept that rodents will die during harvest but what do you suggest vegetarians/vegans do (especially those that do not preach)? Kill themselves or eat rocks?
Nobody has a problem with vegans who do not preach to others. For those that do, it is suggested they get off their high horse and accept that their actions kill many animals too. My post is more directed at those people than you.

I draw the line at animals that are born and bred only to be slaughtered and consumed.
If it wasn't for omnivores, those animals would never been born at all - is it necessarily a bad thing we are the reason for them living?

Regardless, numbers don't matter - either animals get killed for us or they don't - killing 100 people is bad - is killing 102 people morally worse? You'd still be a killer. The fact that mice have a chance to run away is BS. Mice tend to prefer not dying, so they would run away if they could, but they can't.

The only way someone can claim moral superiority over another is if they grow their own food - otherwise they're just blowing smoke.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 09:47 PM
 
Originally posted by hayesk:


If it wasn't for omnivores, those animals would never been born at all
I don't actually understand what you are trying to say here perhaps you could clarify? Did mankind invent the cow and

... is it necessarily a bad thing we are the reason for them living?
I assume you mean that we breed them for the purpose of killing them, for me personally, yes this is a bad thing. I do not agree with it.


Regardless, numbers don't matter
I brought up the numbers because someone else claimed more where killed during a harvest which was incorrect

...either animals get killed for us or they don't - killing 100 people is bad - is killing 102 people morally worse? You'd still be a killer.
Reread my post I believe intentional killing is worse than accidental killing. Should somebody who is charged with involuntary manslaughter be put on death row with a murderer? You don't see a difference? Intentionally killing 100 people is just as bad as intentionally killing 102 people. Accidentally killing 100 people isn't as bad as intentionally killing 100 people. Once again this is how I feel, your feelings may differ.


The fact that mice have a chance to run away is BS.
I disagree at least they have a chance I would think the cow at the rendering plant would love the same opportunity (if the cow had the ability to think in such a manner).

Mice tend to prefer not dying, so they would run away if they could, but they can't.
So you talk to mice and known that they cannot run away?

The only way someone can claim moral superiority over another is if they grow their own food - otherwise they're just blowing smoke.
I don't think I have said anything in this thread that equals blowing smoke. I haven't talked down my nose to anyone so this last comment of your has no bearing on the conversation I am having.
     
talisker
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 10:11 PM
 
No argument with anyone who wants to be vegetarian, vegan or whatever - perfectly acceptable behaviour. I remember seeing a TV program several years ago now which had an interesting theory on why the number of vegetarians has increased. It was simply due to the increasing anthropomorphism (excellent word) of animals in our minds, through the huge number of books, cartoons, films, etc we are exposed to from a very early age that feature animals behaving like "little people", resulting in a greater reluctance to eat them. This is quite different to the traditional view of animals, but the assumption that it is a more humane or compassionate view isn't necessarily correct, as it fails to recognise the fundamental differences between species.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 10:31 PM
 
Originally posted by talisker:
This is quite different to the traditional view of animals, but the assumption that it is a more humane or compassionate view isn't necessarily correct, as it fails to recognise the fundamental differences between species.
What differences would those be?
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 10:44 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:

So you talk to mice and known that they cannot run away?

...

I don't think I have said anything in this thread that equals blowing smoke. I haven't talked down my nose to anyone so this last comment of your has no bearing on the conversation I am having.
I guess our dispute is does ploughing a field filled with mice, bunnies, and other little animals constitute intentional killing.

I believe it does as measures are not taken to clear the field beforehand. You say they "have a chance" to run away. I disagree. Animals tend to run away from danger if they can. The fact that millions of these animals are mowed down suggests the machines are too fast for them. Unless you believe these animals are committing suicide, they can't run away any more than a cow up for slaughter can.

Fields are ploughed by those that know full well animals will be killed in the process. It is irrelevant that the purpose of ploughing is not to kill them, but to harvest the vegetation. It is still knowingly killing them.

That's why none of us have a right to claim moral superiority based on our food choice - unless you grow your own food and take care not to kill any animal in the process.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:11 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
I brought up the numbers because someone else claimed more where killed during a harvest which was incorrect
I said ruminants, which includes beef and lamb, NOT chickens. So I'm not really incorrect.

Originally posted by shmerek:
Reread my post I believe intentional killing is worse than accidental killing.
And reread my post that more animals are perhaps accidentally killed during harvest than those that are grazing animals, by perhaps a lot. So if you stick to a beef and lamb diet, you're connected to much less animal harm than if you eat veggies. The number that adds to the animals are the chickens, and one can just not eat poultry.

And still, you say the accidental animal deaths aren't so bad, but people know they happen each year. If human workers had to die just because they got in the way of t-shirt production, would you wear those t-shirts because they weren't intentionally killing those humans? Really, what measures are taken to minimize animal deaths?

Originally posted by shmerek:
Should somebody who is charged with involuntary manslaughter be put on death row with a murderer? You don't see a difference? Intentionally killing 100 people is just as bad as intentionally killing 102 people. Accidentally killing 100 people isn't as bad as intentionally killing 100 people. Once again this is how I feel, your feelings may differ.
How about intentionally killing 40 and accidentally killing 1000?

Originally posted by shmerek:
I disagree at least they have a chance I would think the cow at the rendering plant would love the same opportunity (if the cow had the ability to think in such a manner).
So you talk to mice and known that they cannot run away?
Of course some animals probably escape, but many probably do not. Harvests tear up their homes, regardless. Pesticides poison them. And after harvest, the environment changes and they are more visible to predators, thus causing a shift down in the number of prey. The predators kill more prey than usual, who are in an open field and cannot hide under the crops anymore...then when the number of prey out there decreases, the predators can't feed themselves as easily and they die, too. Harvest-time changes the environment that animals inhabit.

Originally posted by shmerek:
I don't think I have said anything in this thread that equals blowing smoke. I haven't talked down my nose to anyone so this last comment of your has no bearing on the conversation I am having.
And I don't think you are.
( Last edited by Stradlater; Aug 12, 2003 at 11:19 PM. )
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:17 PM
 
Originally posted by hayesk:
That's why none of us have a right to claim moral superiority based on our food choice - unless you grow your own food and take care not to kill any animal in the process.
I have always said that no one is completely blameless -- we all must harm other beings by existing, whether it be bacteria or insects or animals. But I don't understand why you can't admit that there is a difference between the systematic breeding and slaughter of animals only for food, and the accidental killing of animals in agriculture.

I think shmerek has done a good job of proving that the numbers are not comparable (or at least suggesting it, since there aren't hard numbers about the number of animals killed in agriculture). But even if they were, I agree that accidental deaths are not the same as the intentional breeding and slaughter of animals only for food.

When it comes right down to it, my problem is with the tremendous lack of respect I see for the animals that we eat. I realize that death is a part of nature, and if we humans were living in tribes and using spears to hunt, I might not object to eating meat (I probably wouldn't do it myself, but at least I could see that it fits into the grand scheme of things). Hell, things weren't that bad all the way up until the Industrial Revolution. But there is nothing natural about the way we treat animals in America (and elsewhere).
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
I have always said that no one is completely blameless -- we all must harm other beings by existing, whether it be bacteria or insects or animals. But I don't understand why you can't admit that there is a difference between the systematic breeding and slaughter of animals only for food, and the accidental killing of animals in agriculture.
And the systematic breeding and slaughter of plants? Sure, plants aren't animals...but animals aren't quite human... How do you know what a plant experiences during harvest?

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think shmerek has done a good job of proving that the numbers are not comparable (or at least suggesting it, since there aren't hard numbers about the number of animals killed in agriculture). But even if they were, I agree that accidental deaths are not the same as the intentional breeding and slaughter of animals only for food.
Again: I said ruminants, which didn't include chickens. And remember, no precautions are taken to minimize the accidental deaths.

Originally posted by Icruise:
When it comes right down to it, my problem is with the tremendous lack of respect I see for the animals that we eat. I realize that death is a part of nature, and if we humans were living in tribes and using spears to hunt, I might not object to eating meat (I probably wouldn't do it myself, but at least I could see that it fits into the grand scheme of things). Hell, things weren't that bad all the way up until the Industrial Revolution. But there is nothing natural about the way we treat animals in America (and elsewhere).
Too general. I agree that some of the living conditions are horrible, but you can be free-range eggs and meat in which the animals live fairly content lives (rather than factory-produced meat), so why not purchase that kind of meat, instead?
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:27 PM
 
If you want to talk about total animals killed by harvesting why must we limit the discussion to beef? Even without chickens the number of pigs puts it over the top. A fair comparison would include everything. You don't think animals can hear when big machines are coming their way? Some may stay put others might go in the opposite direction. Hunters is the past used noise to flush animals out of the under brush I think farm equipment might cause the same affect.

Perhaps you could provide me with some links to how many animals are killed during harvest. What types of machines and which vegetables cause the most damage? If we want to restrict diets the types of vegetables/grains we eat would have a direct correlation to the number of animals killed by farm equipment otherwise it is just generalized statements about harvesting without any real statistical basis Without said statistics saying a beef lamb diet causes less death than a vegetarian diet is not valid.
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:35 PM
 
Does anyone have any legitimate studies showing how many animals are accidentally killed as a result of farming techniques?

Let's see some numbers backed up with references from scientific journals.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:36 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
If you want to talk about total animals killed by harvesting why must we limit the discussion to beef? Even without chickens the number of pigs puts it over the top. A fair comparison would include everything.
No, if it's about 1 billion animal deaths during harvest each year, it's still about 1/10 of that for all animals minus chickens. A fair comparison? It's fair if you just say that to be morally better you won't eat chicken.
Originally posted by shmerek:
You don't think animals can hear when big machines are coming their way? Some may stay put others might go in the opposite direction. Hunters is the past used noise to flush animals out of the under brush I think farm equipment might cause the same affect.

Perhaps you could provide me with some links to how many animals are killed during harvest. What types of machines and which vegetables cause the most damage? If we want to restrict diets the types of vegetables/grains we eat would have a direct correlation to the number of animals killed by farm equipment otherwise it is just generalized statements about harvesting without any real statistical basis and without said statistics saying a beef lamb diet vs vegetarian diet in terms of death is not valid.
There could be no exact figure or statistic on these animal deaths, but the predictions from the number of animals before and after the harvest of some wheat and soy bean fields predicts that if the same numbers extended to all harvested land in the US, that it would top 1 billion. For the sources, check the other vegetarian thread that got locked a week or two ago. And yes, maybe this number is way off, doesn't change the fact that there ARE deaths. And why is a beef-lamb diet vs a vegetarian diet in terms of death not valid?
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:40 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
Does anyone have any legitimate studies showing how many animals are accidentally killed as a result of farming techniques?

Let's see some numbers backed up with references from scientific journals.
Fine, I looked up the links...two examples:
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

Like I've said, there is no hard data, but there are somewhat-educated predictions.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
And the systematic breeding and slaughter of plants? Sure, plants aren't animals...but animals aren't quite human... How do you know what a plant experiences during harvest?
I have already addressed this issue earlier in the thread.

And I've already done a fairly thorough job of debunking the theory offered in those web pages in the earlier thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=169855

I think we're just going over the same issues again.
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:44 PM
 
I found one rebuttal to Davis' hypothesis:

"Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davisís omnivorous proposal"
(submission to the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, January 2003)

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

Have a look at the footnote at the end of the article:

"It is important to note that Davisís proposal is radically unsupportive of the status quo in animal agriculture. In effect, his proposal calls for the complete abolition of intensive confinement and an end to poultry and pork production."
( Last edited by Spliff; Aug 12, 2003 at 11:54 PM. )
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
Fine, I looked up the links...two examples:
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

Like I've said, there is no hard data, but there are somewhat-educated predictions.
There is a flaw in the logic or your argument, does your beef lamb diet not include any grains or vegetables? If you you can just tack on a whole bunch of harvest slaughter to your diet as well as well as all the slaughter from the harvesting of the grains that are used to feed the beef that you eat. That is a stink load of animals that are killed just to feed the beef that you eat. triple whammy!

You can also add the destruction of habitant (like in south america) that is used for cattle the thing there is whole species are being wiped out you somebody BIg Mac.
( Last edited by shmerek; Aug 12, 2003 at 11:54 PM. )
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2003, 11:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliff:
I found one rebuttal to Davis' hypothesis:

"Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davisís omnivorous proposal"

(submission to the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, January 2003)

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm
Interesting article, but they admit that Davis's math might not be completely incorrect and shift it from harm from deaths towards harm from living conditions, "treatment of animals up until their deaths". So this makes an argument for buying free-range meat and eggs and milk rather than factory-made products just as much as an argument for vegetarianism. And please, it's impossible to weigh the different amount of harm given to free-range animals and free animals. The problem I have with "moral" vegetarians is that they have an "I'm better than you" complex most of the time...I'm trying to explain that neither of us are angels, and that neither of us are necessarily better than the other.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 12:01 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
There is a flaw in the logic or your argument, does your beef lamb diet not include any grains or vegetables? If you you can just tack on a whole bunch of harvest slaughter to your diet as well as well as all the slaughter from the harvesting of the grains that are used to feed the beef that you eat. That is a stink load of animals that are killed just to feed the beef that you eat. triple whammy!
No flaw. I have no moral problems with eating meat (like you do), and I'll eat grain as well. But if you want to minimize the deaths, you can take grain out of the equation. As for what the animals eat, free-range cattle can eat grass.

Originally posted by shmerek:
You can also add the destruction of habitant (like in south america) that is used for cattle the thing there is whole species are being wiped out you somebody BIg Mac.
I had trouble trying to figure out what you were saying here Destruction of habitat for grazing animals? What about the yearly destruction of homes and change in environment at harvest time?
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2003, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Stradlater:
I have no moral qualms and will eat beef, lamb and grain, but if you want to minimize the deaths, you can take grain out of the equation. As for what the animals eat, free-range cattle can eat grass.

I had trouble trying to figure out what you were saying here Destruction of habitat for grazing animals? What about the yearly destruction of homes and change in environment at harvest time?
Vast areas in the amazon have been clear cut for lumber as well as to make room for cattle. I am talking about killing animals off forever field mice are in no danger of extinction.

Spliff's link is a good one. It does show some flaws in the harvesting argument.

If you do eat grains then the blood of these doomed mice is on your hands as well . You said it could be cut out to minimize death but is it?

The "moral" vegetarian could get you with this one.
veggie "I eat grains therefore I am responsible for the death of 1 billion animals"
meatie " I eat meat and grain therefore I am responsible for the death of 1 billion animals + 48 million"
Which is more damaging?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,