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

[andeve3]

It is disheartening to see so many posters think the appeal to nature argument is at all valid. We do not base our understanding of what is moral on what other animals do, or what our instincts incline us to do. Appealing to nature to argue in favor OR in opposition of meat-eating is fallacious, for the same reason as appealing to nature to oppose or favor homosexuality is fallacious.

I am certain you have heard the claim "homosexuality is unnatural and thus immoral!". Not only is this not true (homosexuality occurs in around 1700 species if i recall correctly), it is completely irrelevant to the moral value of homosexuality. Same sex relationships harm none, and are source of happiness for those involved, THAT is why it is a good thing, not because it occurs in nature.

If humans were herbivores this would not make meat eating wrong, just like humans being omnivores does not justify causing pain just to bring us pleasure. The only circumstance where killing for food is justified is when alternative sources of food are insufficient or not available.

I would be interested to know if anyone reading this is incapable of living off a vegetarian diet. I would also like to show my appreciation for those posters who simply express apathy at the suffering of animals, i used to not give a shit about it myself, so i can sympathize.

 

[Daveman]

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.

One of the strongest arguments I've always felt for being a vegan is the environmental benefits. It takes phenomenal resources to nurture animals and one of the most popular ones is also one of the most difficult to maintain, cattle. Not only does it require an extremely large amount of land, fueling much of the deforestation of the rainforest, but also they produce a phenomenal amount of greenhouse gas.

On the other hand, from your argument, I don't think it's fair to call the summation of the rearing and full life of the animal "inflicting deadly violence" on it. When you consider that everything is provided for that animal, it has a relatively long life free from threat and in the end dies a relatively painless death I'd say it is in a favourable position to a lot of humans. Of course this gets sort of turned on it's head depending on the conditions that animal lives in which varies massively.

I think the real argument as to whether it is ethical or not should be at what point we determine something has consciousness or perhaps not even that but extend that to also a distinguishing personality. I mean what are, for example, the ethical ramifications of eating an ant? I honestly couldn't say, it's definitely alive and aware of it's surroundings but then I don't even know if they experience pain.

tbh I would gladly become a vegetarian the day vegetarian bacon actually tastes convincing.

Never a vegan though, eggs are one thing scientists will never be able to simulate with different types of fungus or whatever. That's another thing I don't get, why you wouldn't eat eggs. I mean assuming the conditions for living are alright, tbh I had some chickens once and their eggs are the best I've ever tasted and they lived awesomely. So would that make you think it was acceptable to eat the egg?

 

[Ickorus]

Farming destroys the natural habitats of thousands of different species, if we all went vegan we'd need a LOT more farmland and we'd probably send those thousands of different species to extinction.

Hahaha, you think the meat we eat doesn't require farmland to live on? It's extremely inefficient to farm for meat, as the animals waste a lot of energy and nutrients simply by living. Imagine cutting out all that farm land and converting it for human consumption. Talk about a space saver.

Farmland for livestock does cause damage, yes, but that farmland stays in a much more natural state than, for example, a wheat field and therefore more animals can survive in that farmland.

Take into account that wheat fields get tilled on a very regular basis which kills many small creatures like rabbits and rodents where livestock fields don't and the numbers increase yet more.

 

[Rottweiler]

To be clear about my own feelings: I personally do not care, nor do I judge, anyone based on their dietary preferences. I know or have known Vegans, vegetarians, several people who ate only rice and fish, and many people who bury entire pigs for Luaus about once every two months.

I *do* very much care when someone chooses and dietary practice and then decides to feel morally superior to others for doing so. And I absolutely despise when people use utterly non-provable 'scientific' terms to prop up what is essentially a lifestyle choice with high-sounding 'ethical' reasoning.


"You need food to survive. That is true. However, we are choosing some of the most inefficient means to feed available. Just saying that we need food to survive implies anything that can be used as food, including other humans. So there must be a line, as you very well say. My argument is not that people that say that they do natural things have weak ethics. I'm only saying that it's a bad argument and a bad excuse coming from people that have self-contradictory ethical frameworks."

It's only 'most inefficient' if you approach it with the certainty that it shouldn't happen at all- which seems to be your basis. Certainly the entire planet is obsessed with lowest-cost production methods, and I absolutely stand against the ridiculous practices of many meat-packing companies. I have nothing but contempt for companies which are destroying the environment for centuries for ten years of profits.

However, you seem to be arguing from the wrong standpoint. I don't agree with your use of the term 'ethics' because it is not applicable because it's from *your* personal choice, not a scientific truth. *You* choose to believe a certain thing- that's not a basis to tell me how *I* should believe.


"I agree, we are using many tools that are not "natural" for us to use"

What scientific basis do you have for even saying this? There is a very simple definition here, and let me be clear:

NATURAL IS ANYTHING WE ARE PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY CAPABLE OF ACCOMPLISHING.

Period.

We use tools because we have the NATURAL CAPABILITY to perform the mental functions to do so.

I absolutely want you to tell me what definition of 'natural' you ascribe to that anything you seem to disagree with is 'unnatural' and what you feel *your* ethics makes 'natural'.


" but perhaps our ability to come up with them to suit our needs is natural."

That is simple common sense. It's to me inarguable. I really despise how 'natural' gets narrower and narrower whenever someone uses it to defend their personal, unscientific moral views.

" That is intelligent. Using so many resources that could be used to make food for more people, making so much meat of so poor quality with so many people thinking that they're Gaia's hunters when they're munching on a burger of unknown origin is, pardon me, not intelligent. And it's not moral either."

Sloppy? Yes. Wasteful, certainly. One could even argue lacking in sense.

Moral? To You. Your morals aren't everyone's and linking poor quality control with your own moral view doesn't pan out to me.


"If you can't see the moral problems,"

Because the so-called 'moral problems' are based on *your personal beliefs* which many don't agree with. 'Not seeing' implies you are correct and we just 'don't see it', when the actual truth is 'we don't agree with you, so you aren't necessarily as correct as you think'.

" just think about your reaction when I tell you I might have a dog burger or a cat casserole. We have become deeply speciesist."

"Oh, you follow a culture which sees cats and dogs as food sources." That's my reaction. I thought about it and somehow I'm less judgmental about the matter than you are.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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

Well that's relative. By that logic you'd be just as edible to me as they would be to you. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way ; ).

Except it's not. Animals are not as intelligent as humans. In fact, they operate entirely on instinct.

 

[S_SienZ]

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.

1st off, there is a biological need to eat meat, at least until a certain age anyway. Humans need amino acids from protein, and certain primary amino acids can only be obtained in meat. (Not sure if it's in cultured meat though.)

Secondly, certain animals are commercially bred to be killed and eaten.

As for liberty, humans (in most modern civilizations) have liberty as a result of the relationship between the citizen and the state. Liberty isn't something humans had upon existence, it's man-made. No such thing for animals. Survival of the fittest.

Lastly, my personal reasons. I'm a glutton. I love food and the different tastes of meat, how they vary from animal to animal in terms of fat content, how chewy they are etc. As long as they're not going extinct, they're fine to eat in my book.

 

[Ampersand]

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

Well that's relative. By that logic you'd be just as edible to me as they would be to you. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way ; ).

Except it's not. Animals are not as intelligent as humans. In fact, they operate entirely on instinct.

Thanks for illustrating my point twice in one sentence. I still won't eat you though, cause i'm nice like that ; ).

 

[masticina]

Mmm political stuff, I say it is your choice in the end what you do with the information given to you. I self like meat and fish and have enough predatory influences to definitely keep eating meat.

I do like good meat though, not the chicken that has been bred in 30 days and then put through the slaughter. No I do agree that chickens that have been given a more old fashioned way of living do taste better.

It is a shame biological meat is about 5x as expensive though. So I do buy the slightly better meat! The Biological is just to darn expensive it is cheaper for me to have my own chickens!

Fish, well mmm I don't eat allot of it due to the others around here are not fish fans. A shame really fish can be delicious!

Not to mention veganism goes a bit to far for me. Some of the best clothing is made of Animal Skin! Or Whool.. the no milk stuff seriously!

No, Veganism isn't for me neither is vegatarianism. Animals are just to Yummy!

Oh should I mention I have had rats as pet, they are omnivores to. They actually REQUIRE animal protein in their food. It is the reason why rat food is not equal to rabbit or guinea pig food.. oh no they get turkey protein. And they love to eat boiled eggs. Remember they are small animals so don't need allot!

They are also some of the smartest small pets one can say that hunting for protein, meat! Does requires some brain power some ability to predict and plan out. The meat they eat aids them in getting that brain power.

I once saw on television one of those shows about human evolution. And it is very probable that in the time that we all we're all ape like there we're more. And we seem to have come from meat eaters and there we're ape types that didn't eat meat but pure veggies.

It was our ability to eat meat that when things changed and less veggies we're around.. it was the omnivore that would go places the herbivore couldn't. Even now many big apes that primarily eat veggies will hunt meat!

Being an omnivore is not easy. Your body isn't build to deal with all its food! If we eat brown bread much of it goes out 24 hour later.. we only can handle a little of what is in the bread. Yet if we have to we can go by other means.

I am not saying omnivores are better.. I am saying that it is how we ended up. It is how we ended up being on top so to say. Just like rats are the top of the small critters food chain..not to mention like rats we do have one thing going for us. We can adjust! Yeah I am kinda crazy about rats but you now they are so like us.

 

[Khada]

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

You might wish to discuss the matter with a mammalogist or ethologist before you declare your opinion as the definitive answer.

Even without a scientists opinion, you really mean to say that an animals suffering only matters once its IQ reaches a certain level? Not that it can feel pain, love, fear, anger and so on? Not that like humans, it -in some cases- births, raises and cares for it's young?

I hope your very young and have a long time to work on your cognitive aptitude.

Shame.

 

[Khada]

Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tvmm0-NSzE

:3

 

[andeve3]

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.

What moral consideration? Morality is a concept based on society. What's considered moral and amoral is what the majority considers evil and good. Morality isn't an objective concept. We don't need to justify anything "morally" because morality does not apply to animals.

You want to give rights to animals? Fine, but what do you do when they breach those rights?

If what you mean to say is that morality is determined by society, then i agree. Our perception of what is ethical changes significantly over time, and there is no absolute moral code. I did not state anything to the contrary, this is a straw man.

You make the claim that animals do not deserve moral consideration, without really explaining how you arrived at that conclusion. Your original post suggests that you determine who deserves moral consideration based on intelligence, could you explain this further and give your thoughts on the points i made?

I did not even mention animal rights (could be an interesting discussion though), this is another straw man. I do not think you are consciously trying to straw man me, i am just pointing that out. Don't waste your time attacking points i am not making, i wont waste mine by responding.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

snip

You actually think animals experience emotion the same way we do? That's cute.

 

[Anihil8]

While Humans can eat both meat and vegetables, our bodies actually have a harder time digesting plant matter than meat. Substances like fibre and cellulose, which are only really found in vegetables, are indigestable by the human gut, while the fat and protein that makes up a steak or burger are easily broken down. I'm pretty sure that no one here has ever met a fat vegan who didn't used to eat lots of meat.

And on the subject of humans being intelligent, we actually started developing cerebrally (is that a real word?) when we learnt how to cook meat.

 

[Batou667]

I'm not convinced that a meat-free diet is any more natural than an omnivorous one, especially as most vegans seem to have to eat "meat substitutes" and take a lot of dietary supplements.

Meat is delicious and nutritious. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals all over the world hunt prey to eat, why should we humans believe we're too good to embrace our basic animalistic need to consume meat?

I'm all in favour of ethical and sustainable meat and fish, but when push comes to shove, then yes, I will happily put my own appetite before an animal's life, and I think that's perfectly natural.

 

[Ampersand]

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'm only a lowly vegetarian but I almost totally agree with you.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Hi forum!

Hi, I'm glad you're being friendly about this, but I'm curious myself, do you live in some kind of urban area? I only ask because animal rights tend to mean a little less than human rights when you live in the countryside with the people who's livelihoods depend on the meat, eggs an milk trade.

I'm not accusing you of not giving a shit about humans, I'm just curious to see if there's a correlation between people who are not exposed to the meat, egg and milk trades first-hand and people who are.

Anyway, I live in the British countryside, I've worked for four years in a slaughterhouse and I've taken the lives of more livestock than I can count. Do I feel bad about it? Well, not really, you see if things were to go the way some vegans (not you, hopefully) would want them to go then all those domesticated animals we're currently breeding for consumption are going to breed exponentially, and since we can't eat them that means we're only left with the option of culling them in large numbers.

Not to mention the fact that culling such a large quantity of livestock will result in the requirement of having them disposed of in a manner that will not cause disease and pose a health risk to anyone in the area. This will mean we will have to burn the corpses, which can have an effect on the environment as burning large amounts of any organic matter releases large amounts of CO[sub]2[/sub] and debris.

It might not be much of a problem in the U.S. where space is more plentiful, but I live on a relatively small island nation and we cannot afford for something like that to happen.

Also, the farmers here are having a hard enough time, what with the importation of various cheaper products from abroad by most larger companies and the complete banning of the meat, egg and milk trades would most likely do sizable economic damage.

Also, being realistic here, the meat, milk and egg trade will always be around and even if it were somehow eradicated completely without fault we will end up with people carrying on the trade illegally. Lacking the sufficient tools to slaughter the animal humanely people will resort to more archaic means. I've seen people in Italy kill pigs with sledgehammers and cows hung by winches until dead from either exhaustion or suffocation.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm simply asking you to see my side of things. Like I said, I've worked first-hand with the meat trade and the way the livestock were slaughtered was he most humane method we can enforce by law here. It might seem brutal to some, maybe even barbaric, but it is actually the most sophisticated method we currently have at the moment until science can come up with a more elegant solution.

Needless to say, as I have outlined above, the alternatives are, in my opinion, a lot worse.

 

[shadowmagus]

I like to eat meat.

Simple.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I doubt it would ever be feasible for the entire human population to turn vegan or vegetarian.

For the simple fact that meat tastes so good.

Seriosuly, the tastiest things I have ever eaten have all contained meat. Some people might be willing to give it up, but I'm sure as hell not.

That's not to say I'm a meat fiend or anything, I just enjoy eating that which is tasty.

Once, I ate a 1KG bag of pistachio nuts in one sitting.

It was awesome, imagine a scene in a film where the camera pans across the room of an overdosed drug addict. Now replace the drug parafernalia with pistachio shells and that's pretty much how that day ended.

 

[Serperoth]

As long as you're not a crazy vegan fanatic, you're cool with me.
I like bacon, pigs aren't endangered, they are not tortured, I'm good. Same with cows, chicken, etc.

I have no problem with people who don't eat meat, or don't smoke, or don't drink. I have people who tell me not to do stuff I enjoy.