Vegetarian/Vegan. Ethics and other discussion.

[the_happy_taco]

as long as the animals are kill humanly and painlessly, im fine, but dont get me wrong, i am against animal crualty

3. We're going to die in the end too. So let me come over to your house, and I'll kill you and your family? Because I mean, you're gonna die anyway. Might as well have some fun.

good luck

[Brocerius]

Aside from all the dubious moral bullshit, surely it would be worth humanity becoming vegitarian for the sake of the environment? At least, only eating the minimal quantities of meat required to have a[n easily sustained] healthy diet?

Also, dogs reared for eating are vegetarian. It requires effort and such. Pigs could eat their way through a chemical factory and still be delicious.

[EdoI]

I don't see why don't we clone thousands of animals and eat them! I remember once cloned pigs that were nothing less healthy than normal pigs!

[capt_weasle]

I don't see why don't we clone thousands of animals and eat them! I remember once cloned pigs that were nothing less healthy than normal pigs!

At the moment I don't believe that cloning is stable or reliable enough to really make any difference in the industry. Although if cloning were to be perfected, it probably wouldn't be a terrible idea.

[the_happy_taco]

i think it brought up moral issues and may have been cancled like stem cells, but i cant remember, all i know is i havent seen much of it

[scythe]

Even incredibly low IQ humans are far, far more intelligent (more importantly, conscious) than any animals outside the great apes and dolphins (both of which I'd argue do deserve special treatment). More importantly, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's natural to make exceptions for the disabled; not so natural to make exceptions for an entire species.

Really? Check your sources. Because you're dead wrong. Even mice have been proven to run mazes and solve problems such as opening lock mechanisms faster than toddlers and the developmentally delayed. And pigs are a lot smarter than mice.

On a second thought, apes which are popularly eaten in Africa, are even smarter than pigs. Gorillas (which are illegally killed for their precious hands used for coffee-table decorations among the rich) have learned sign languages and feel human emotions. But they too are killed, by bush hunters and tribesmen.

Are you reading what you're writing? Toddlers, for obvious reasons, have difficulty running mazes. Their ability to understand such concepts as language, planning ahead, and facial recognition, however, is far above the level of modern supercomputers. Supercomputers, are, of course, similarly adept at responding "No!" to every query. Mice just don't compare. Neither do pigs.

Even a young or incredibly low-IQ human is far, far smarter than any animal outside the great apes and delphinidae. A look at relevant brain structures will explain why.

EDIT: Forgot to congratulate your straw man, nobody said that eating apes was a good idea. Also, gorillas are usually killed in self defense, IIRC.

[the_happy_taco]

cant we live in equality, meat eaters and vegitarians alike

u can kill plants and we can kill animals

it is true that killing animals is inmorally sound, but if it were stopped, then there would be a great possiblity of overperduction and the animals overgrazing and dieing from starvation, we should go back to the tradition of using everything on a animal for a use and not through stuff away after killing it

[乳头的早餐谷物]

it is true that killing animals is inmorally sound, but if it were stopped, then there would be a great possiblity of overperduction and the animals overgrazing and dieing from starvation, we should go back to the tradition of using everything on a animal for a use and not through stuff away after killing it

It's not like we'd keep breeding animals for food if we stopped eating them.

[the_happy_taco]

no if we set them free, they would breed themselfs and like deer do, overpopulate, that why we need limited hunting

[Amadeus]

Dude, do your research. If we stopped eating cows, their population would go down tens of millions. We cut them down to a normal population and let breed. All animals, humans not included, are made to breed so they don't overpopulate. That'd be a major flaw on Nature/God's part to have 400 billion cows walking around Earth in a few hundred years.

[the_happy_taco]

ok yea i guess deers isnt a good analogy, there are a lot of farm animals

but the only problem is that it's kinda hard to stop millions from eating beef and pork and what not

[scythe]

If we decided to stop eating animals, we'd probably kill them all so they wouldn't have any effect on the external environment when they were released.

[Amadeus]

I advocate we direct the conversation to how, hypothetically, we would go vegetarian, since this a debate that no one seems to budge on.

[Atilla]

Dude, do your research. If we stopped eating cows, their population would go down tens of millions. We cut them down to a normal population and let breed. All animals, humans not included, are made to breed so they don't overpopulate. That'd be a major flaw on Nature/God's part to have 400 billion cows walking around Earth in a few hundred years.

No, they don't. Animals typically breed as fast they can - there's just a point where they deplete all the natural resources and die off, or where the place is so packed with creatures that they either contract the plague from the squalid conditions, or get eaten because there's no room to run away from predators. This point is higher for humans because we have agriculture and are relatively safe from lions and disease, but there is no fundamental difference between the breeding habits of humans and other animals - animals do not have some magical sense which lets them detect when the harmony of nature would be upset and stop breeding. This is particularly apparent in Australia where introduced species have severely damaged the environment.

[scythe]

As a society? Presumably, we'd start by killing all the herd animals, they're just consuming resources no matter how your slice it. Animal acivists would be temporarily outraged. Then, we'd convert large swaths of corn farmland into various other grains, since corn's popularity is solely because it always produces MAXIMUM CAPACITY. One thing we'd probably start planting a lot of is triticale. Triticale is one of the few plants available (the others are hemp and soy, and soy is allergenic and can cause kidney damage) that functions as a sort of complete protein, which would significantly simplify the process of making sure everyone gets their necessary nutrients (which, while possible with a vegetarian diet, isn't as easy as with a normal diet). Hemp would probably get representation too, if the idiots in Congress would legalize it already. Also, we'd be growing Spirulina, an algae that functions as a source of Vitamin B12 (which does not occur in plants)

After that we'd be trying to produce fatty foods that taste anything like their animal equivalents. Vegan ice cream simply does not compare.

The idea that we would solve the food crisis is a bit silly; it neglects the fact that the crisis exists because ~80% of OECD simply does not give a damn about brown people.

[the_happy_taco]

Atilla - thats what i've been trying to say all this time

scythe33 - if we can get vegies to taste like there meaty counter-parts but keep the nutritional value, ill gladly join, but till then i ain't coming over to the vegie side

[blue_tetris]

If cows were systematically let free by all their owners, they'd probably not survive long. They're nearly a domestic species now. It'd be like putting a box of kittens out into the coyote-filled forest--I'm sure someone might think this form of liberation is "cute", but they don't have to actually watch the kittens being mauled.

Most livestock have acquired domestic needs and are happier because they live domestically. If they were placed into a non-natural habitat (given that their natural habitat is a home or farm), they'd die off pretty quick.

We probably wouldn't have to worry about cattle damaging the environment none.

[Ampersand]

I dunno. I prevent cattle from "harming" the environment by eating the cattle.

Plus, we *are* omnivores. We just are. I enjoy a steak and a salad. I enjoy having a plate full of chicken, and washing it down with some V-8. And I really enjoy my BLTs, and I can't ever fathom not having those options open to me.

[the_happy_taco]

hay its not bad for all cows, kobe cows have a beter life than most ppl do

i want a message everyday and feed beer and the most expensive food lol

[Amadeus]

[quote="Ampersand"]I dunno. I prevent cattle from "harming" the environment by eating the cattle.

Your consumption of cattle only increases demand, which means more cows are bred. The millions of cows alive solely serve our meat demand; without it, demand would plummet and cows would not be bred in such gigantic numbers.

[Ampersand]

I dunno. I prevent cattle from "harming" the environment by eating the cattle.

Your consumption of cattle only increases demand, which means more cows are bred. The millions of cows alive solely serve our meat demand; without it, demand would plummet and cows would not be bred in such gigantic numbers.

Oh, sorry. I'll eat more cows.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yeah, I tend to follow the argument that the best way to get rid of cows is eating them.

[Amadeus]

I dunno. I prevent cattle from "harming" the environment by eating the cattle.

Your consumption of cattle only increases demand, which means more cows are bred. The millions of cows alive solely serve our meat demand; without it, demand would plummet and cows would not be bred in such gigantic numbers.

Oh, sorry. I'll eat more cows.

And then companies will raise more cows to replace the ones you ate. And since you're paying them money, they'll see its profitable to raise cattle, resulting in the continuation of the breeding. Its common logic, really. Its how capitalism/businesses work.

[heatwave]

These quotes were taken from pages 1, 2, 3, and 7.

However, there's some economic deals with this issue, mostly dealing with farmers. Meat farming generates a lot of business, especially in infertile soil. If everyone started eating only vegetables (Or other products), farmers would lose their jobs, or make a tiny profit out of eggs and milk.

If there is only a steady increase of vegetarianism/veganism, the market for meat/dairy will steadily decrease as well. At the same time, with less demand for meat/dairy, the demand for veggie products will increase, giving said out-of-work farmers a job. (too idealistic?)

@Vegetarians who keep dogs or cats: Do you buy pet food which contains meat? Because that's, y'know, slightly hypocritical. Why is it okay to breed flesh-eating beasts for your enjoyment, but not to eat flesh for enjoyment? Isn't owning a dog you don't need just meat consumption by proxy?

My cat is vegan. She is 5 years old, and healthy as ever.

It's a part of life.

Does that mean it's ok?

No comment on the slaughtering issue.

u_u

I'd like to see all my tasty meat produced in as humane a manner as possible

So long as an animal is killed, it can't be defined as humane.

inflicting the minimum of pain : humane methods of killing

I resent the fact that you can describe a method of killing as "humane."

...because the animals probably do feel it...

probably? Are you serious? Go kick a dog. Let me know how it reacts.

A reason that supports eating meat is that it is the largest source of protein outside of acquiring it artificially. ...omitting such an important aspect of nutrition is, to me, ill-advised.

Why does everyone think that meat is the only way to get protein? I've been a Vegan for almost 17 years now (my whole life) and I've never taken a protein supplement. I am not omitting protein from my diet, nor am I going out of my way to eat (vegan) foods rich in protein. All I've done for the past 17 years is eat food that doesn't contain meat or dairy. It's as simple as that.

If you make the arguent that animals have feelings and are living things, so are plants.

Ugh. I hate hearing this argument. Just because plants are alive does not mean they have feelings. (I can say that with a lot more authority than you when you say that animals don't have feelings)
In my opinion, the main point of vegetarianism/veganism is to reduce suffering as much as possible. If plants do suffer when I harvest them from my garden, at least there's a whole lot less suffering going on, compared with eating a hamburger. Look at it this way, (assuming-for the moment-that plants do have feelings) when you eat meat, not only are you causing the suffering of not only the cow (singular) that went into your burger, but also the loads of grass the cow ate. Theoretically, much more suffering, no?

It's a bit silly that people would go without protein

*facepalm*

Our teeth are flat and more suited for eating vegetables and not meat

Humans are omnivores, technically, yes, but we're far closer to the herbivore side of omnivorism than the carnivore side.

Mhmm.

I don't understand the whole "It would be better if you hunted for meat, rather than slaughtered animals" argument. How is it more ethical to kill something slowly, frequently by inflicting several non-fatal wounds, than to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible?

I do not, in any way, support hunting, but think of it this way, just for the sake of the argument. If the only way for humans to acquire meat was by hunting, (via gun or otherwise) the percentage of meat in people's diets would plummet. Why? At this point, it would be a heckuva lot easier to just eat Vegan.

If we never existed, cattle and other livestock would be "slaughtered" by the mammals a step down from us.

I meant [eating meat is] natural.

So, since other mammals eat meat, it must be natural for humans to eat meat? Why then must we go about the most unnatural methods of eating meat? Why do we have to cook meat, while carnivores rip their meat right off the steaming carcass? Eating raw meat must be the natural thing to do, but we have to cook our meat before consuming it.

Meat is not needed anymore, we're better than that. Once science catches up and certain baren climates can be tamed to produce vegetation or similar solutions, the last excuse will be lost.

I'm impressed with your standpoint. are you a vegetarian/vegan/bretharian?

Just because you can find a label that describes two things does not make them equal.
$10 and $20 are both measured in US Dollars, but they are clearly not equal.

wut
No. That isn't a correct comparison. You're saying that:

Code: Select all

human = animal
and
cow = animal
but
human ≠ cow

...right?

And you're justifying it by saying that:

Code: Select all

$10 = dollars
and
$20 = dollars
but
$10 ≠ $20

Am I getting that right? That doesn't make any sense. $10 and $20 are quantitative, human and cow, are not. The only legitimate comparison you can make would be a variant of this:

Code: Select all

man = human
and
woman = human
however,
man ≠ woman

and surely, you don't believe that, do you? Oh, both of your "disproving" arguments involve quantitative data. Therefore:

Code: Select all

= moot

incluye, you can't be serious. It's a well-known fact that the majorital contribution of methane (a gas which traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide) to our atmosphere, comes from cow excretions (among other livestock). So, in a sense, every cow you eat saves the atmosphere from being subjected to methane.

You can't be serious. We are over-breeding them, creating a huge population that could NEVER be sustained without human aid. If we all just got up and left earth, massive die-outs would occur.

I drive a car, watch TV, consume brand-name goods, and eat meat. None of it is necessary for my survival, but that's no reason that any of those things should be abolished.

Each item listed threatens the well-being of our planet, therefore, threatens you.

Yeah, I tend to follow the argument that the best way to get rid of cows is eating them.

You're being sarcastic. Please tell me you are. Surely you realize that the farmer's response to people eating their cows is to make more cows? If you stop eating them, there's no longer any profit for the farmer, and they go out of business.

Krush and Geti, (atob?) more power to you.
Hooray for my longest post ever!

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Just because you can find a label that describes two things does not make them equal.
$10 and $20 are both measured in US Dollars, but they are clearly not equal.

wut
No. That isn't a correct comparison. You're saying that:

Code: Select all

human = animal
and
cow = animal
but
human ≠ cow

...right?

And you're justifying it by saying that:

Code: Select all

$10 = dollars
and
$20 = dollars
but
$10 ≠ $20

Am I getting that right? That doesn't make any sense. $10 and $20 are quantitative, human and cow, are not. The only legitimate comparison you can make would be a variant of this:

Code: Select all

man = human
and
woman = human
however,
man ≠ woman

and surely, you don't believe that, do you? Oh, both of your "disproving" arguments involve quantitative data. Therefore:

Code: Select all

= moot

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwat?
I don't quite know where to begin...

Just because you can find a label that describes two things does not make them equal.
$10 and $20 are both measured in US Dollars, but they are clearly not equal.

wut
No. That isn't a correct comparison. You're saying that:

Code: Select all

human = animal
and
cow = animal
but
human ≠ cow

...right?

The argument of whoever the hell I was quoting was that all animals are the same because they are all animals. The logic was "a human is an animal, and a cow is an animal; the two are both animals and therefore have the same value." My response was an attempt to show that taking two items to be compared and stripping them of all information besides a single label was ludicrous. The parallel I gave was taking two items I intended to compare (a $10 bill and a $20 bill), stripping those ideas of all information except for the fact that they're both money, and misleadingly reducing the question to, "which is better: money or money."
I also highly object to the expressions "human = animal" and "cow = animal", because a thing does not necessarily reduce to its type. The things on either side of the equalities are not the same, nor are they even the same kind of thing. They're not comparable. Those are useless statements, like "4 = meters"; they couldn't possibly be equal because they're not even the same kind of thing.

And you're justifying it by saying that:

Code: Select all

$10 = dollars
and
$20 = dollars
but
$10 ≠ $20

Am I getting that right?

Provided that you do away with your ridiculous use of equalities and replace them with something like the phrase "is measured in," then yeah, that was basically the parallel I was using in a reducto ad absurdum.

That doesn't make any sense. $10 and $20 are quantitative, human and cow, are not. The only legitimate comparison you can make would be a variant of this:

Code: Select all

man = human
and
woman = human
however,
man ≠ woman

and surely, you don't believe that, do you? Oh, both of your "disproving" arguments involve quantitative data. Therefore:

Code: Select all

= moot

I don't know what confuses me more here, the fact that you disagree with something easily demonstrable or your declaration that there is no information about humans and cows that is at all relevant in a comparison between them other than the fact that they are both animals.

I'll go with the latter first.
Determining that $10 is the same as $20 simply from the fact that they are both measured in dollars is to ignore other qualities of the items being compared, such as the number of dollars there actually are. Similarly, determining that cows are worth the same as humans simply from the fact that they are both kinds of animals is to ignore other qualities of the items being compared, and therefore a totally inaccurate comparison.

But the only thing I even needed to say was that you have seriously just suggested to me, "you don't seriously believe that there is a difference between men and women, do you?" Your post started off a total trainwreck and only burst into flames from there:

[You're trying to prove that a cow is not identical to a human, right?
You try to justify it by saying that $10 is not the same as $20, which is clearly wrong.
It has to be wrong, because that same logic would lead to a ridiculous notion like men not being the same as women, and don't tell me you believe that! Ha!]

You managed to fail to get a single thing right. I'm only suspicious now that you're actually a cleverly disguised troll.