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

[DirgeNovak]

There's a flaw in your logic: most animals we eat are domesticated farm animals, who could not survive by themselves in the wilderness. They have been domesticated for so long they probably couldn't find food or defend themselves against predators without humans. So if the world turned vegan overnight, as seems to be your wish, those species would become extinct in a few generations.

And besides, plants are living beings too. Who do you think you are, deciding your appetite is more important than their lives? That argument goes both ways, too.

[sup]Also, bacon. Your argument is invalid[/sup]

 

[Byere]

Every living thing is intelligent in some way or another.

There's a distinct difference between an animal and a human. Animals survive, we live.

That may be true, but that still doesn't change my point. While there are varying levels of intelligence, just because we don't understand what each meow or bark means, doesn't mean it's any less intelligent or complex than our languages

 

[sinterklaas]

There's a flaw in your logic: most animals we eat are domesticated farm animals, who could not survive by themselves in the wilderness. They have been domesticated for so long they probably couldn't find food or defend themselves against predators without humans. So if the world turned vegan overnight, as seems to be your wish, those species would become extinct in a few generations.

And besides, plants are living beings too. Who do you think you are, deciding your appetite is more important than their lives? That argument goes both ways, too.

[sup]Also, bacon. Your argument is invalid[/sup]

ARGH!!

I, as a fellow meat eater, urge you to stop posting bullcrap like that. PLANTS DON'T FEEL ANYTHING. PLANTS ARE NOT SENTIENT. Cows going extinct would be good thing overall. Cows and other lifestock only live to provide humans with meat and other things, they are not needed for any ecosystem. The only thing they do is produce enormous amounts of farts.

For the love of god, there are no arguments in favor of eating meat other than 'I like it', so stop pretending and making up bullshit arguments. Just accept you're eating dead animals, like I did, and accept that the only reason they died was to get on your plate. As long as they didn't live a horrible life I couldn't care less.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Hi forum!

UNGODLY SNIP

To sum it up: Just because we *can* eat anything, doesn't necessarily mean that we *should*.

What do you think? I'm very curious to know.

But what if I like to eat antibiotic-steriod-hyped-pseudo-chicken? So what if i want to eat something that will play hell with my future generations? What if i want to create a gene pool of carnivore-saber-toothed-humans that will become the ultimate predators of this planet?

Unnecessary? maybe. Unethical? yes. Badass? Definately!
Its my right, goddammit, to play god with my food and DNA!!
/lolrant

>.>

<.<

...I eat meat because it tastes good, and my ancestors all have eaten meat before me.
I don't see whats wrong with going hunting, taking a buck, and makin some DELICIOUS jerkey.
If someone has a problem with that, they can suck a duck.
I accept vegetarian's lifestyles, and indeed, anyone should be able to eat what they want.

 

[Madshadow]

Hello tiresome subject. Yes i like Meat. No i won´t stop eating it. and i have a thing for Leather jackets and such. One way or another current popular food involves cows, chicken and pigs and all that. Only thing i´m against it is they way we process them and how we take it for grand these days, in the olden days we had to hunt for food learn to track them and such. Now it´s very supply demand and all may or may not be as painless as possible to put to rest.

I Propose a sort of Passport to eat meat. for example this may sound very cruel but look at the big picture how horrifying it may sound. Lets say you´re allowed to eat meat until the age of 16/18(drivers license alcohol the maturing age of allowed to be do stuff).

After that if you're still willing and able to eat meat, you should at least kill and even prepare the animal for eating you only have to do this once ( maybe once in every so many years i don't care) (training theory will be required good for taxes and such so that governments might see the appeal to this as well. )

If you would implement a system like this you may not see a strong decline in people eating meat but you would notice that certain types of people would stop eating meat. Seeing some people wont be able to kill their food apparently this is very confronting.

Yes this probably would sound very unethical, or maybe how animals are being processed in the slaughter house sounds a whole lot less friendly now. First of all most people don't work there so you don't know whats going on there. I don't even know what's going on in there and honestly i don't need to know ( Okay i have some idea and there is probably some-one perhaps even vegan who tries to force my perspective in a new better way which is the vegan way ( probably not the better way but hey it's a way) And will explain the horrible stuff that's going on in there. and i don't care but i do care that people take a stuff like this for granted.

All though my idea probably sounds very provocative, it's wwould work really well and perhaps in the long run really really well.

Now I'm gonna enjoy Chicken.

 

[maninahat]

I don't think that people can logically weigh all the costs and still decide meat eating is worth it. Even from a purely economic standpoint, animal production tends to be far less efficient.

Not true. There may be an argument to be made that the factory farming which exists now is inefficient (and I would almost certainly bet that it is), but there are often times when raising animals is the most efficient use of land for food production.

The province of Quebec in Canada for example has large amounts of land that are basically only suited for raising animals which graze on grass. I wish I could remember the percentages off hand, but if we didn't use that land to raise animals for food, it would go to waste because you simply can't grow crops on it. This is without even getting into places like the Northern Territories where the growing season is so short that if the people up their didn't eat meat they'd be relying on transporting fruit and vegetables thousands of kilometers (which is very expensive, not to even get into the effect that has on greenhouse gases). If it weren't for hunting seals and other animals many people would go hungry up there.

To my knowledge, other areas share similar problems. If I'm not mistaken a lot, if not most or all, of the farmable land in New Zealand isn't suited for raising crops.

My point being, there is a lot of readily usable land in this world that goes to waste if we don't raise animals.

Good point. What you're saying makes sense and I don't have a smart answer to counter that.

 

[maninahat]

Does anyone else feel like the original poster, in all of his posts, is talking to us like he is a teacher and we are his students? Sorry dude, but I don't really care what you're saying as how you are saying it makes you come off as a smug bastard.

The guy was trying his hardest to be diplomatic, but at the end of the day, he is here to point out why "what you're doing is wrong". No one likes being told they're wrong, but that isn't an excuse to dismiss what he has to say as smug or superior. Likewise with feminism, even though you'll find unfriendly ones, that doesn't demean the importance of their cause. I've seen far too many "down-to-earth" people brush off "elitists" for promoting things like homosexual rights femenist causes and basic scientific knowledge, to accept such a mentality. As far as the OP is concerned though, I think he was far less condescending or aggressive than he could have been.

I would argue the problem most people are having here is they're been told they're wrong simply because they share a different set of beliefs. I dismissed what he had to say as smug or superior because it was smug and superior in my opinion. I'm sorry, but you can't say things like "therefore, whenever we kill an animal for food, we are essentially deciding that our appetite is more important than that creature's life. We are inflicting deadly violence on a defenseless being, simply for our own pleasure." just a few paragraphs after you've claimed you're not going to shove your moral views down our throats. Not to mention the fact he equated eating meat with murdering or raping someone. Quite frankly, I would say he was very condescending and aggressive in his approach.

But what he is saying is totally correct, isn't it? To eat meat, you have to take an animal's life. That isn't just a simple case of him pushing a moral view onto you, the guy is stating fact. If you choose to eat meat this evening, instead of veg, then you are implicitly stating that the life of that animal means so little to you, it was not enough to make you reconsider.

Thus, he is also making an emotional appeal. You won't buy it, because you don't regard the killing livestock in the same light as killing or raping a person (not that he actually made that comparison in the OP). Fine, but how would you feel if someone killed a beloved pet? You might not sympathise with a chicken living hundreds of miles away, but we tend to attach a value to the life of the animals close to us. Why is it fine to be protective of those animals, but not others?

"As for the feminist part, at no point did I say the feminist cause was a bad thing (although I would argue that in more recent times most people who call themselves feminits are really just looking for a fight for the hell of it, but that's a topic for another time). My point was that, because of a few people, the entire feminist movement is largely seem as a joke. Essentially, my point was that, in my opinion, all these outbursts by vegetarians/vegans about how people who eat meat are wrong is actually damaging their cause more than it is helping. I'd be willing to bet a good number of people, upon seeing the title to this thread alone, thought "oh not this thread again..."."

Unfortunately, it is very hard to articulate to someone how they are wrong without making them feel condescended to. It is also hard to listen to someone who tells you you're wrong, without feeling condescended to. I don't think the OP was an "ouburst". He merely raised a few philosophical questions to illustrate why he became a vegan; questions which he feels non-vegetarians should ask themselves. If you think it is fine to eat meat, you can answer those questions confidently, without feeling threatened or insulted.

 

[Khada]

In other words, nothing.

/ignorance filtered

Bahaha, at least through all of this... I get to see your ass get suspended.

 

[gphjr14]

snip

Well that's a relief since the cows I eat don't feel pain. The bullet put between their eyes makes sure of that.

 

[Macgyvercas]

snip

Well that's a relief since the cows I eat don't feel pain. The bullet put between their eyes makes sure of that.

Okay, I admit, I lol'd at that.

I like beef. And meat in general. The best kind of meat, though, is the kind I kill myself. That's right...Deer season is coming up!

 

[TyrantGanado]

I won't jump into any ongoing mini-debates here but I'll just share my stance.

I'm perfectly willing to exert my position at the top of the food chain in order to get me some steak. If that makes me an amoral individual then I can accept that. Everyone should have the right to choose for themselves what they put into their bodies without anyone else getting on their case. This applies to people who deride vegans, too, seriously, just leave them to it.

 

[Ledan]

Hi forum!

After watching MovieBob's recent Big Picture episode on the PeTA/Super Mario controversy, I'm curious about people's stance on animal rights here. What I found curious is that Bob asserted he supports animal rights, in that he abstains from products like fur and boycotts companies that test on animals. On the other hand though, eating animals does not seem to be problematic for him.

Just to be clear, I'm vegan myself and a very strong believer in animal rights, but I'm not a fan of PeTA and I absolutely agree with Bob's disapproval of their hysterical and sensationalist publicity work. Also, while I feel that being vegan is the most ethical way of living with animals, I do not view myself as being better than meat-eaters, nor do I think that eating meat makes you a bad person. Please don't see my opinion as an affront to your lifestyle and worldview. I don't mean to be hostile. My goal is to make people question some things we have been taught about the animals we eat, without shoving my own morality down their throats.

So let me just very briefly outline why I chose to become vegan:

Human beings are omnivores, which means that we can eat almost anything. There are many divergent nutritional studies and opinions out there, but the gist seems to be that we can get by equally well on meat- or plant-based diets or any combination thereof, as long as we spend some time thinking about what nutrients we need and where to get them.

This means that there is no biological need for us to eat meat. We simply feel like eating it.

Therefore, whenever we kill an animal for food, we are essentially deciding that our appetite is more important than that creature's life. We are inflicting deadly violence on a defenseless being, simply for our own pleasure. Personally, I don't think that's ethical behavior.

Now, many people say that nature isn't ethical, that animals brutally kill and eat other animals all the time. That's true, but we are not animals. We are not lions or sharks. Lions or sharks cannot choose *not* to eat meat because they are natural carnivores and couldn't survive on a herbivorous diet. Humans, on the other hand, can. We are moral beings and as a result of our morality, we place innumerable restrictions on ourselves for the greater good: We prohibit or disapprove of theft, murder, rape, deception, defamation etc.

So why do we think it's okay to deprive an entire species of their liberty and kill them for their flesh?

To sum it up: Just because we *can* eat anything, doesn't necessarily mean that we *should*.

What do you think? I'm very curious to know.

I wrote an extended essay on this, so I have a clear personal answer. Basically, animals are not moral agents, and when it comes to Rights (philosophically) you have to be a moral agent to be able to have them. This is because with any right comes responsibilities. Right to education means to have to pay taxes, right to safety means that you are not allowed to hurt others and that you have a moral duty to help others who are in danger. Etc.

I say that animals are not moral agents because they cant fufill any duties that they must burden with any rights we give them. If a dog can't stop itself from eating a rabbit, and the rabbit cant stop itself from eating the farmers lettuce, then neither of them can have rights.

It isn't unethical to eat animals, but it can go against your personal morals. Although I dont think that there is anything wrong with eating animals, i do think needless death and pain are immoral.

 

[Ursus Buckler]

If you love animals so much why do you insist on eating their food...

 

[gphjr14]

Okay, I admit, I lol'd at that.

I like beef. And meat in general. The best kind of meat, though, is the kind I kill myself. That's right...Deer season is coming up!

Yeah my cousin snagged him a good size buck I plan on getting some of the meat from him, probably go out next season. It's good to thin the herd sometimes.

 

[Comando96]

I'm a supporter of humanely farmed animals.

No factory Hens but Chickens allowed to roam free and have a good lot in life. Then we kill them and eat them.

Now there is a benefit of this. Many many more chickens are allowed to have life than otherwise would exist, which is similar excuse for game reserves where you can hunt animals in Africa, but up until they are shot, they get a good lot in life. With Human expansion in Africa this is really the only way to keep some animals alive and in the wild as opposed to extinct in the wild.

Not ideal but as good as they're gonna get. Same with Chickens. So long as they've lived a good life before they're in my oven I'm completely fine with that. They also get a better death in most cases as in the wild they would be hunted down and bleed to death while another animal is still removing their organs. Now, simple electric shock to the head, or bolt to the head, life over... not ideal... better than being eaten alive.

I can make that distinction, however a lot around the world and even in my country (UK) can't and often mass produced battery chickens where 2 can feed a family and they're only £1.50 (for both, in Morison's when they're 10 mins before closing there is a crowd waiting for them to be discounted to 75 p each).

Science says that eating animals is bad for efficiency as we'd get more energy if we just ate what the animals ate. But... for some odd reason profit is to be made by letting people starve and let others eat in luxury...

meh fuck it. My dads best friend just told me how to do financial currency trading in 3 hours and I made him 80% of the days pip's investment which was about £140 profit for a few hours work so I'll likely drop college and become an evil banker >.>

 

[maninahat]

Hi forum!

After watching MovieBob's recent Big Picture episode on the PeTA/Super Mario controversy, I'm curious about people's stance on animal rights here. What I found curious is that Bob asserted he supports animal rights, in that he abstains from products like fur and boycotts companies that test on animals. On the other hand though, eating animals does not seem to be problematic for him.

Do YOU find it problematic to be transported in an car? Heat your home with gas or oil, or use electricity from gas/oil, or wear clothes made from the petrochemical industry? Like Nylon or polyester?

Because all those come from Crude oil which is mainly dead sea creatures, NOT PLANKTON, they particularly have to be animal residue with a significant proportion from shellfish as a source of calcium carbonite. Even if there was just a trace, aren't you benefiting from the death of animals?

If they use oil, then yes they are benefiting from dead animals. But breeding billions of chickens for the slaughter is hardly the same to use the decomposed fossil remains of ancient creatures. Whether or not vegetarians use crude oil, it makes no difference to prehistoric crustaceons and dinosaurs that provide the oil.

Vegans who object to milk and egg just seem like city slickers who have never worked a day in their life on somewhere like a farm. Yeah, there are some crazy farmers who illogically abuse their animals, and they suffer for that...I can respect someone not wanting to have an animal killed for them but ALL COWS DO is make milk... for you... happily all year round. Same with chickens. There is no cruelty argument, it is pure arbitrary which I would tolerate except for the burden it puts on others! Ghandi himself drank milk!

Vegans see dairy produce as an exploitation of animals. You don't have to kill an animal to exploit it. I doubt battery hens are delighted to sit in cramped cages, have their beaks removed (to prevent cannibalism) and hand over their unfertilised eggs for the rest of their days. As for cows - perhaps they would prefer their milk to be used for raising bullocks. We have cross bred cows to the point that if they don't get milked, their udders burst from over production. Neither of these animals should be expected to be delighted at such prospects. Humans shouldn't either.

 

[Treblaine]

Hi forum!

After watching MovieBob's recent Big Picture episode on the PeTA/Super Mario controversy, I'm curious about people's stance on animal rights here. What I found curious is that Bob asserted he supports animal rights, in that he abstains from products like fur and boycotts companies that test on animals. On the other hand though, eating animals does not seem to be problematic for him.

Do YOU find it problematic to be transported in an car? Heat your home with gas or oil, or use electricity from gas/oil, or wear clothes made from the petrochemical industry? Like Nylon or polyester?

Because all those come from Crude oil which is mainly dead sea creatures, NOT PLANKTON, they particularly have to be animal residue with a significant proportion from shellfish as a source of calcium carbonite. Even if there was just a trace, aren't you benefiting from the death of animals?

If they use oil, then yes they are benefiting from dead animals. But breeding billions of chickens for the slaughter is hardly the same to use the decomposed fossil remains of ancient creatures. Whether or not vegetarians use crude oil, it makes no difference to prehistoric crustaceons and dinosaurs that provide the oil.

Vegans who object to milk and egg just seem like city slickers who have never worked a day in their life on somewhere like a farm. Yeah, there are some crazy farmers who illogically abuse their animals, and they suffer for that...I can respect someone not wanting to have an animal killed for them but ALL COWS DO is make milk... for you... happily all year round. Same with chickens. There is no cruelty argument, it is pure arbitrary which I would tolerate except for the burden it puts on others! Ghandi himself drank milk!

Vegans see dairy produce as an exploitation of animals. You don't have to kill an animal to exploit it. I doubt battery hens are delighted to sit in cramped cages, have their beaks removed (to prevent cannibalism) and hand over their unfertilised eggs for the rest of their days. As for cows - perhaps they would prefer their milk to be used for raising bullocks. We have cross bred cows to the point that if they don't get milked, their udders burst from over production. Neither of these animals should be expected to be delighted at such prospects. Humans shouldn't either.

Here is the thing, VEGANS are extremist, they think only in absolutes. They refuse to consume or use any animal products and their continued use of petrochemical industry is wilful ignorance for convenience. They won't eat a cow that died of natural causes - a death that could not be avoided - yet they depend on the death of millions of animals to drive around and manufacture the fertilisers for Soya and wear textiles made from something other than cotton.

Chickens I looked after weren't exploited, I went out in rain and cold at the crack of dawn let them out and put them away at night to keep them safe, clean, well fed. I didn't force them to lay eggs, they just did. And I pampered them to keep them happy and comfortable to reliably get larger and frankly tastier eggs.

What, do these chickens need emancipation? You cannot use the same language as "exploitation" that is used by abolitionists against slavery. These chickens are not going to go to University given the opportunity, you "liberate" them an within 24 hours they will be a fox's dinner!

It is EASY to find eggs laid by Free-range chickens. Nothing is tainted, no ethical link between free-range and battery chickens which of course separate themselves hugely.

So if you are going to call MY JOB a cruel and exploitative one then you can say such LIES to my face! Not hiding behind the unaccountable anonymity of the internet!

"Neither of these animals should be expected to be delighted at such prospects."

Why? We feed them, shelter them, protect them and care for them, they are pampered their entire lives given everything they could ever want and have adapted to this role as much as we have adapted them. It is a symbiotic relationship. No exploitation. There is plenty of milk to go around to the bullocks while veal production is NOT a necessary by product of milking thanks to modern technology, I'll nip that right in the bud.

So if a vegan guest is hungry in my house I'll make them pancakes and if they refuse such delicious treats on ethical grounds I'll ask them to explain how MY JOB is immoral or unethical! Because I've yet to meet a vegan who has actually reared animals. I have met many vegetarians - extremely moral and conscientious people - who raise animals for milk and eggs, these are people who literally wouldn't hurt a fly.

I'd love to give every vegan a chicken as a pet, and when it lays an inert egg... what the fuck would they do? Throw it away? Because they'd be undeniably a hypocrite.