Vegetarian?

[Peverel]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

The bad farmer vs. big business argument is simply getting in the way of my original argument - that we shouldn't be carnivores at all.

Just a point of order (I refuse to pick sides in this debate) :

We are not carnivores we are omnivores

Sorry I should qualify the we - we as in the "human race" as a species rather than individuals who chose an alternative diet

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by Laz116

It's an interesting albeit rather radical point of view. Where do you set your limit. Is it okay for us to kill animals which are a nuisance? Is it okay to bash insects? Is it ok to kill rats so they don't "flood" our sewer systems?

Why do you think it is radical?

No, I don't think it is ever okay to kill an animal, unless for humane reasons (if it is in incurable pain, etc.).

Who decides if it is a nuisance? Why should an animal suffer because a human considers it a nuisance?

I don't kill any bugs/insects except for mosquitos in my home. Outside, I leave them alone. Inside, all bugs are welcome... Okay, not welcome, but I do either let them be (moths, and the like), or catch them and put them outside (spiders, wasps, bees and the like). Any "bug stuff" I use is strictly non-kill. It's the deterrant type, not the "kill them all" type.

I think if we leave animals alone (let nature take it's course), they will take care of their own population control, as they have done for thousands of years. Our encorachment on their land has created the problems like "flooding" the sewer systems. As such, we should responsibly take on their relocation. There is also great strides being gained in an area that can use a drug in the rat's food that renders them sterile.

I know that's radical and probably not a popular opinion, but it's mine.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

I don't kill any bugs/insects except for mosquitos in my home.

So you agree it is not black and white. There is a dividing line, and for you it is mosquitoes in your home.

Others draw the line elsewhere. Just a personal matter of where you draw the line.

[frabjous]

Vegetarian for 16 years now. Ethical and environmental reasons mainly but health is a minor consideration too. I know better than to get sucked into an ethical debate about it on the internet, however.

My extended family own a sausage company, so I'm the black sheep. I have to say, however, I like MorningStar Farms' stuff better anyway.

[RWood]

Bacon rules!

So does Smithfield ham. (Salt cured ham from pigs raised on peanuts. A very dry ham that will +20 your blood pressure in just one sandwich.)

[ReD]

I’ve been vegetarian for as long as I can remember, due to religious reasons on my parents’ part and by my own choice once I grew older. I don’t eat any animal products other than dairy which I try to avoid if possible but having a sweet tooth makes it really difficult! (Mmmm, ice cream...)

Actually, just the other day I had a bit of a traumatising experience at lunch. I’d ordered a spinach and artichoke quesadilla and had a couple of bites of it when I thought, hmm, something seems a bit off, I don’t remember there being tofu in here before. (Mind you, I was also a bit distracted by my 3-year old cousin whom I was baby-sitting.) So, I took a peek and realised that it wasn’t tofu but chicken! Okay, so I know that it probably doesn’t sound like a big deal to a lot of you out there but for someone who has never voluntarily eaten any meat in her life, this was absolutely horrifying. I just felt like throwing up, I felt so guilty and even a little teary. The wait staff were very apologetic and wanted to make up for their mistake but I couldn’t fathom the notion of eating anything at that moment. I don’t think I’ll ever become a carnivore, the guilt would tear me apart!

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Laz116

Sorry but I'm not. Yes meat is more concentrated kcal-wise but that doesn't really mean anything in itself.

Yes you are: (in condensed form), I said meat has a higher calorific value, The link you sent agreed, you said my satement was wrong. Because (Granted) meat uses a lot of grain to create that higher calorific value does not negate the fact.

Originally Posted by Laz116

So what. We are also designed to reproduce. Some live a happier life not reproducing.

Agreed, but this is a choice not a reason. The stement was made 'There is no reason to not be vegetarian' (or similar), I gave a reason - we are eveolved omnivores. Because people choose to not go with that does not negate the reason.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But doesn't this logic 'justify' all sorts of morally reprehensible behaviour?

Depends on where you ground your morality, people who award animals a status similar to people, would see it a reprehensible behaviour ( e.g you wouldn't do it to another person, so why to animals?), people who see animals as animals and 'lower down' than people would not - therefore the endless debate on this particular topic.

Originally Posted by Laz116

It's an interesting albeit rather radical point of view. Where do you set your limit. Is it okay for us to kill animals which are a nuisance? Is it okay to bash insects? Is it ok to kill rats so they don't "flood" our sewer systems?

Yes,Yes,Yes - because we are higher in the chain than them. Why not - because they are/were alive? - so are/were vegetables.

Originally Posted by Laz116

Yes meat is more concentrated kcal-wise but that doesn't really mean anything in itself.

Agreed - since I have recently learned that it takes a lot of grain and water to create the meat in the first place.

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

Nor do I understand what would posess someone to eat something that had parents, internal organs, instincts and feelings. Why not dogs and cats? Babies and small children?

That fact that it had a face, parents, organs etc. Does not stop it from being food in my eyes. Cats - don't like, it's a bit too stringy, never tried dog (but there are a few place that eat both regularly), Babies have very little meat on them (it's all fat for protection), and it's illegal, and it's cannibalism. The fact that here (in the UK) it is illegal to eat horse (like they do in France) seems to be just a waste of a lot of good meat to me.

Originally Posted by Laz116

And where do you see condemnation of people who eat meat?
It's usually the other way around, you know.

Quite frequently, they look down their noses at me from their high pedastal or morality and exclaim 'How can you do such a thing?' or 'Are you aware you are eating the rotting carcass of an animal' trying to make me feel like a low life barbarian. My answers are usualy 'Because it's tasty' and 'Yes'. However, the reverse is also true meat eaters says things like 'Because they are made of meat' and 'I just don't get vergetarians' (both of these from me in this post), so here I am guilty as charged, but I don't try to take any moral high standing with my statements - it's just because I simply don't comprehend the mindset.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Depends on where you ground your morality, people who award animals a status similar to people, would see it a reprehensible behaviour ( e.g you wouldn't do it to another person, so why to animals?), people who see animals as animals and 'lower down' than people would not - therefore the endless debate on this particular topic.

So how would you argue against somebody who used that logic to justify human slavery for example?

If they ground their morality in a sincere belief in the higher value of their particular group - are they then justified in treating any other group as 'lesser'?

It seems to me that means any supremacist viewpoint would become acceptable.
But, before that happens, I think the onus should be on those claiming superiority to justify that belief - if they cannot then that belief becomes irrelevant imho.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So how would you argue against somebody who used that logic to justify human slavery for example?

Don't treat people like animals.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If they ground their morality in a sincere belief in the higher value of their particular group - are they then justified in treating any other group as 'lesser'?

From their point of view - yes.
But you are talking about what most people would class as an extreme view in morality, whereas classing animals as animals, is not so extreme. IMO.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It seems to me that means any supremacist viewpoint would become acceptable.

Yes, supremacist viewpoints can become acceptable as long as the surrounding populace agreed with the morality, or were not strong enough as a group to oppose the moral justification (Hitler for example).

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think the onus should be on those claiming superiority to justify that belief - if they cannot then that belief becomes irrelevant imho.

Agreed to a certain point, stopping Hitler was a good thing, but starting a war over peoples viewpoint to eat meat or not, would be wrong.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

those claiming superiority

Q: Are you claiming superiority over those who eat meat due to your implied moral high ground?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Q: Are you claiming superiority over those who eat meat due to your implied moral high ground?

I would say it is a superior morality - but it doesn't make those espousing it superior (I don't eat meat, but I'm not claiming superiority over a lion - I'm saying I'm no better or worse than a lion, or any other creature.)

To me, compassion is a significant component of morality - most vegetarians I know were brought up to be omnivores. They became 'ethical' vegetarians when they questioned the assumptions underlying omnivorism, and decided vegetarianism was a superior morality because, in large part, it is more compassionate.

So, imho, the debate should be about whether the belief that 'vegetarianism is a superior morality' can be justified - nothing to do with the superiority of one set of people or another. To that end, I'd cite greater compassion as a compelling justification to prefer vegetarianism on moral grounds.

(All imho of course).

[HarryT]

But why, Sparrow, is killing animals any more "morally acceptable" than killing vegetables? If you take the stance that killing living creatures is morally unacceptable, a carrot is just as "alive" as a cow.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But why, Sparrow, is killing animals any more "morally acceptable" than killing vegetables? If you take the stance that killing living creatures is morally unacceptable, a carrot is just as "alive" as a cow.

That's a reasonable question.
One approach is to point out that meat is just vegetable matter once removed - so there is a lot of plant killing in a steak.
Eating the plants, rather than the meat, reduces the overall amount of killing.

But, that's not my position - it's suffering I object to rather than killing. If you could end a life, with absolutely no stress or pain to the victim (or anyone/anything else), then I'm not sure I would have much of an objection to that. .

Also, I don't think plants have a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering, as I don't see any evolutionary advantage in them aquiring it and am not aware of any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately though, to live is to cause suffering (albeit unintentional) - the philosopher Peter Singer suggested a taxonomy of suffering that positions creatures on a scale (based on the sophistication of their nervous systems) that would be a guide in minimising suffering. But, I agree, it is a tricky problem.

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

That's a reasonable question.
One approach is to point out that meat is just vegetable matter once removed - so there is a lot of plant killing in a steak.
Eating the plants, rather than the meat, reduces the overall amount of killing.

But, that's not my position - it's suffering I object to rather than killing. If you could end a life, with absolutely no stress or pain to the victim (or anyone/anything else), then I'm not sure I would have much of an objection to that. .
Also, I don't think plants have a nervous system capable of experiencing suffering, as I don't see any evolutionary advantage in them aquiring it and am not aware of any evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately though, to live is to cause suffering (albeit unintentional) - the philosopher Peter Singer suggested a taxonomy of suffering that positions creatures on a scale (based on the sophistication of their nervous systems) that would be a guide in minimising suffering. But, I agree, it is a tricky problem.

Sparrow, I was totally in agreement with you until you made the above statment (bolding is mine).

I am against the outright killing. What gives me the right to say "Hmm, a chicken would be good to eat, I think I'll go kill it."? It doesn't matter to me whether it suffers or not. Because I am a superior being to the chicken, it is my responsibility to protect its right to live. I don't think it gives me the right to decide how and when anyone else should die (whether it is a chicken, a deer, or a human). That is up to nature. All life is valuable to me.

As have been all of my posts, this, too is just my opinion.

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But why, Sparrow, is killing animals any more "morally acceptable" than killing vegetables? If you take the stance that killing living creatures is morally unacceptable, a carrot is just as "alive" as a cow.

Though plants grow, they do not have a conscious or the ability to reason or feel pain, so in my mind they are not considered "alive."

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

I don't kill any bugs/insects except for mosquitos in my home.

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

I don't think it gives me the right to decide how and when anyone else should die (whether it is a chicken, a deer, or a human). That is up to nature. All life is valuable to me.

Given the second quote, I'm curious - why do you kill mosquitos?