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

[Kahohess]

there aren't anythings that vegans need from meat. The most commonly lacking parts of a vegan's diet are calcium, vitamin B12, iron and protein, all of which can be easily found in everyday fruits and vegetables.

Yup, spinaches are rich in iron, you just have to eat your own weight to cover your needs...

 

[Hoplon]

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.

First of all, welcome, have a steak!

Generally I think you have the right end of the debate, it is not whether or not we eat meat but if there is any need for us to turn animals in to yet another industrial resource.

In the end a lot of the arguments are semantics, most people eat way to much meat and to meet that demand the process had become industrial. This is no way to treat any animal, especially something we intend to eat. Get rid of that excessive demand and you can stop that but in nations like the UK, where there are no natural predators of large herbivores that would never end them having to be killed.

The best example of this is the deer population.

This would be more like formalised predation than farming, since you would only do it to if the heard numbers exceeded certain limits.

this would invariably happen if vat grown meat became viable for two reasons, clean genetic stock (the cloning process is inherently unstable) and the need to maintain the species since they would be very like deer in the UK or bison in the US.

 

[Hagi]

This about sums my thoughts up:

 

[Memoriae]

I actually have no beef (I'd point it out, but I guess you all saw what I did there) with people from any of the "food groups" (Pun so very much intended), in the same way I have with everything else in life.

As long as you're not preaching to me, it's not causing me havoc in my life, and you're not screaming at my choices, then I really couldn't care what you do. There's a lot to be said about being tolerant in life...

On that note, yes, I eat meat. No, I'm not going to become a vegan, or a vegetarian based on anything you say or show to me.


And for the record, when did I last kill something that I ate?

Last year, what with the UK having laws against guns.

 

[Gigano]

If it has no sapience, then it has no right to life.

If it has no right to life, and it taste good, then it's on the menu.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

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.

We ARE indeed animals.

We have subjective morality.

We have the power to destroy other beings for their flesh.

We dont give two shits about the greater good, our businessmen destroy the economy, our coorperations pollute the Earth, and our citizens have an obscene sense of entitlement, Nobody cares about the greater good. (There's that subjective morality again.)

We eat meat because we can, thats it.

We are Humans, and this world is ours to use as we see fit.

 

[DracoSuave]

I really dont see how the whole "nature" argument works.

Yeah, nature intended us to eat meat, but nature most certainly did not intend for us to get this advanced and start building halls we pack with thousands of animals. Just saying dude.

We are not seperate from nature, Humans are a natural occurance on this planet, so anything we do is natural.

I dont really see how that contributes to the discussion in one way or another.

Elaborate, perhaps? Maybe im just misunderstanding you or missing your point.

He's stating that the phrase "Nature did not intend for us to do X" is inherently fallacious as humans are a part of nature, and thus if humans do something, one cannot logically make the claim that said doing is unnatural.

On top of this, I hesitate to make any claim that nature intends anything. That's anthropomorphizing nature, which is great for poetry, but has no place in a reasonable debate, as nature is an abstract concept, not a physical entity.


On to the discussion at hand:

If the consumption or enacting of a lifestyle, on a world-wide scale, would cause the extinction of species, can it claim a moral ground? If everyone on the earth were to eat pandas, and it were to render pandas extinct, would that be right?

When looking at animal rights, one must beg the question: "If one upholds animal rights, is the survival of a species of animal more important than the survival of an individual member of that species?" If an animal specimen contained a plague guaranteed to wipe out that species from existance, would it not be the humane thing to put that one animal down?

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Well... if everyone stops eating meat, then livestock ceases to be a business. Cows, chickens, all these delicious domesticated species have no purpose. Farmers will not continue to raise them, because they have no reason.

This will lead directly to either a culling of entire species, or the release of species that have evolved to fit their place in the ecosystem of being food animals into the wild that they are not suited to survive.

This will lead directly to the extinction of animal species.

Show me pictures of animals in the slaughterhouses, in the abbatoirs, and I will reply 'And if the vegans take over, those animals will go there... and then we won't be worried about the chickens no more cause there'll be no chickens to worry about.

 

[SirFlamingLoboOfDoom]

I don't like the extinction of species but this vid sums up my thoughts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3c0THQbdDE

 

[Findlebob]

I have a queston for you. How do you intend for us to get protein from a vegan diet?

 

[andeve3]

Last time I checked, animals aren't intelligent. There's no reason why we shouldn't eat them.

You base moral consideration on intelligence? What about severely mentally handicapped humans, do they not deserve moral consideration? Murder is considered morally wrong because it causes physical pain to the victim, and more importantly it is theft of the victims sentience. This is relevant both to humans and other sentient species capable of feeling pain, it is ideal to avoid causing pain whenever possible. Causing vast amounts of suffering, simply because we enjoy the way meat tastes, is not morally justifiable when there are alternative diets available.

 

[Dumbfish1]

I realise it's wrong, but I've come to accept that I'm just a souless, meat eating bastard.

It's actually quite liberating.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

Dear god, a vegan that doesn't have a massive superiority complex. I suppose now pigs will fly and it'll start raining cats and dogs.

I pretty much feel that if you don't want to eat meat, eggs, or dairy, then that's your right.
It doesn't give anyone a reason to act superior to anyone else.

I have a question though, if you're a vegan don't you have to take supplements to stay healthy, i.e. calcium.

 

[Wintermoot]

humans are animal,s just highly evolved.
humans need certain nutrients that are only found in meat.

 

[JochemDude]

I eat anything that doesn't have a viable self-conscious.
Other then that it's just too tasty too go through all the hassle