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

[Jodah]

I live on a cattle farm, wear a leather coat, hunt, fish, and eat meat as often as possible. I also put animal abuse crimes just below rape, murder, and pedophilia.

Also keep in mind most farms aren't the giant "slaughter fields of death and carnage" that seem to be portrayed in the media. Our cattle are all fat, happy, and treated better than many humans.

 

[SkullKing84]

I eat what i can afford, taste good, and wont poison me. So when human burger is on the menu, I'll be getting it with fries and a shake.

 

[Tsaba]

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.

I can get the iron, zinc, protein, vitamins A, B and D, and selenium. I'd have to eat more veggies to get all of that that I can get in less meat, so by eating "smarter" I'm eating more.

Being omnivores we get the benefit of both sides of the world. So, if I want to eat green beans I can eat green beans, and if I want to eat fish I can eat fish.

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.

Let me ask you this, is a plant not alive? Does it not grow and produce offspring? Do you not eat the "flesh" of this defenseless creature's life?

So let me just say what you said with a twist on it:
Therefore, whenever we kill a plant 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.



http://www.iloveindia.com/nutrition/recipes/non-veg-dishes/goodness-of-meat.html
http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101119/3971/3-benefits-of-eating-meat.htm

 

[Cadmium Magenta]

While we technically could do without [meat], it is an excellent source of nutrition. It can be much more difficult to get the same nutrient value in veggie form.

While it's true that meat packs quite a wallop in terms of essential nutrients, it also contains many unhealthy elements, mainly fats that clog up arteries and can lead to heart disease. Some nutritionists claim that the endemic levels of degenerative diseases like osteoporosis, diabetes and heart disease are due to excessive intake of animal fats through meat and dairy. It's the reason why President Clinton recently went vegan. In fact, all of these diseases are almost exclusive to wealthy Western countries, where people can afford to eat meat and dairy on a daily basis. They're all but unheard of in less well-off regions.

Now, of course this will mainly be a problem for you if you eat excessive amounts of meat and dairy, as in every day, or even several servings a day. That is quite definitely not good for you.

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.[/quote]

Ok, lets look at cows. How many wild cows were you expecting to find alive if you don't use them for milk or meat? The answer will be pretty much zero. These animals only exist for food.

Actually, cows are only that way because we made them that way. Cows are descendent from the wild aurochs, which our ancestors domesticated and gradually stripped of most of their defensive capabilities. My theory is that if it somehow where to happen that we released all cows back into the wild, most of them would probably quickly perish, but a select few would survive and eventually re-evolve to match their feral ancestors.

 

[Cadmium Magenta]

Also keep in mind most farms aren't the giant "slaughter fields of death and carnage" that seem to be portrayed in the media. Our cattle are all fat, happy, and treated better than many humans.

Unfortunately, your farm isn't representative of modern animal agriculture. I'm honestly delighted to hear you're treating your animals well, but there are countless so-called factory farms across the UK and Europe, where living beings are treated like inanimate objects. In the US, as much as 99% of meat is factory farmed. I would love for people like you to take up the fight and campaign for an end to industrial agriculture and a return to traditional forms of animal husbandry (perhaps you already are!)

Let me ask you this, is a plant not alive? Does it not grow and produce offspring? Do you not eat the "flesh" of this defenseless creature's life?

Yes, plants definitely are alive and have even been shown to be capable of expressing pain and affection. I think plants should be treated with respect. First of all though, while we don't need meat to survive, we do need plants. Concepts of a pure meat diet like the Atkins diet or mystical "Eskimo" diet have been commonly rejected by nutritionists, as there are some essential vitamins only found in plants. Second, when it comes to fruit, we aren't really eating the plant itself but its seed, which is actually something the plant needs us to do... the idea being that we excrete the seeds elsewhere and thus create new plants, which of course we're kind of bailing out of, but don't tell the plant that. Third, when we're eating whole plants, like cabbages and carrots, well... I suppose in that case I am guilty of only empathising with what I can recognise as familiar. When I cut open a carrot, I don't see it exhibit any signs of protest or pain, I don't see organs, muscle and blood, all I see is more carrot.

 

[isometry]

I don't have much concern for animal rights, and I hate PETA. I do think that everyone who is concerned about animal rights should be a vegan, otherwise they are hopelessly inconsistent.

Even though I don't mind using animals for food and products, it would still be better if we didn't have to. So I think we should use technology to create alternatives, artificial textiles, and artificial (test-tube) meat.

The reason I hate PETA is because all they do is lecture people with regressive emotional rhetoric. They should do something progressive instead, like developing new technological replacements for animal products. Preaching moral values is just not acceptable; he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. PETA people aren't logical, they are emotional, and emotional arguments should have no place in politics.

Anyway, I see myself as sharing the goal of reducing human use of animals to zero, and I see that as something we can accomplish in the next century. The difference is that I want to achieve that in a progressive way, by replacing the use of animals with test-tube tissue, artificial materials, robots (for service animals), etc. I even believe artificial robotic pets will replace the current cats and dogs (I know, the average emotional animal person thinks that could never happen, but when these ultra-perfect robotic animals are developed their irrational emotional cues will make them behave as I am predicting here), and this will be viewed as much more humane than the current system.

 

[OManoghue]

We *can* eat meat, we have the freedom to choose what we eat, and we will do what we damn well please in the privacy of our own God damned homes.

Animals do not think like us, act like us, communicate like us or care like us. Therefore, they do not deserve the same rights as us. A bear is also omnivorous, as are chimps and other great apes, but they all eat meat as well.

We choose what we eat, stay the fuck out of people private lives. You are no different that any other bleeding heart who projects human emotion on simple creatures.

Watch this video for more on this. Be warned admins, vegans and anyone else. This video is extremely vulgar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOLtyBy9KHM&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Proverbial Jon]

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.

I am a vegetarian myself and I am curious as to why you feel being a Vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian. I'm not trying to start a vegan vs veggie argument, just curious.

OT: I work by this simple tennet:

Q: Am I willing to physically kill the animal I am about to eat?
A: No

Then why should I expect someone else to do it? Why should that make me feel any better about the loss of a life?

I am not against people people eating meat, only the meat industry itself. I think the way meat is prepared and the treatment of the animal before slaughter is appalling. No one appreciates where meat comes from and an animal's life is counted as nothing.

But too many people I talk to about this could not bring themselves to actually kill the animal themselves and yet will happily munch on a burger from McDonalds. Sounds like double standards to me. You go out there shoot it, skin it, eat it and THEN tell me you are fine with eating animals. If so, fair play to you, I respect that. If not... well then shame on you.

 

[Blobpie]

But meat tastes soooooo goood, it's my second favorite food group! (After dairy and before grains)

 

[Rainforce]

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

what.
oh god, there are still people like you around... DX
yeah, humans as a whole are pretty ignorant when it comes to evaluating other animals.

Also just because I can hunt and eat other species, doesn't mean I don't respect them.
We deem ourselves intelligent because we have a pretty complex language, while other species have not, and can therefore pass on our experiences in more detail, which SHOULD, in theory, make us more intelligent. But at the same time, we also pass on our mistakes, ignorance and stupidity, so we are more AND less at the same time than other animals.
All in all, animals in general actually behave more reasonable than humans, and are way less fucked up in their thinking.
At least in my experience.

 

[SushiJaguar]

I'm probably playing with seriously sick fires here, but can I just put something forward, Cadmium?

They're going to be killed, eviscerated, sectioned and eaten. Why should it matter that they are kept in any state besides one that doesn't compromise the quality/safety of the end product?

EDIT: The "animals behave more reasonably" argument is the most stupid out of all I could pick on this Earth. They really, really don't. Reason does not come into it beyond "I'm hungry, there's a gazelle."

 

[royohz]

EDIT: This post was unintentional.

 

[Leviathan_]

Animals get killed and I eat them.

I like meat and that's all that matters to me.

 

[Beliyal]

Humans were vegetarian in majority throughout history

Another bogus claim. Humans were hunter/gatherers. In fact, the concept of farming is only ~10-20 thousand years old. Sure we ate berries and such for hundred thousand years, but we also ate rabbits, deer, mammoths, etc. Cavemen did not eat wheat or corn or such in big amounts.

I study archaeology and I am very well aware about hunters-gatherers. And yes, cavemen didn't really have a choice. I was comparing our civilization with other cultures that had, more or less, the same choice. The Ice Age was a period where it was physically impossible to grow crops. However, since Neolithic, people in general turned more to vegetarian diet. An average person from all great civilizations was mostly 'vegetarian' (they ate meat of course, but not as much as we do now and not as frequently; maybe I should have worded it like that in the first place). Growing plants was cheap so the food was cheap; meat was not readily available to everyone at any given time, and when it was, most couldn't afford it. Besides that, for example, Roman soldiers and gladiators had special diets [http://www.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html] that consisted of little to no meat. This mostly 'vegetarian' diet with a lot of carbohydrates was beneficial because it gave those soldiers and gladiators enough of good fat that made wounds bleed less.

Even if we talk only about hunters-gatherers, my point still stands; it takes an enormous amount of time, resources and men to go hunting and to succeed. When something was caught, it was kept for days (as long as possible), which means they overall ate less meat per meal/day. Animal that was hunted the most was deer (and it still didn't mean one was caught each day and then everyone feasted on it). Later it became somewhat easier to hunt, but as soon as the Neolithic revolution reached most areas, crops and plants in general became much more effective (although, also a very dangerous way of living because in the beginning of agriculture, people weren't so skilled in keeping the small amount of crops alive for long). Also, prior to domestication, people gathered wild plants in general, not just berries. Wheat was a wild grass before we learned about a certain mutation in it that enabled its domestication and controlled growing. They did eat meat, but nowhere near the amounts we eat now. That's what I was trying to say. Industrialization skewed our perception and we believe that meat is available at all times, everywhere, whenever you want and it takes nothing to get it. Today, yes. Before, not so much.

I've already said this before, but here it is again; I'm completely fine with killing animals for food as long as it's not deliberately and unnecessary cruel. I'm also completely fine with people eating meat and I don't think people should be violently (or otherwise) forced to stop eating it. However, I do think that some people need to think about bringing some variation to their meals, instead of stubbornly avoiding everything that doesn't have a stake in it.

 

[KingGolem]

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

You're right in that we have no express need to eat meat: we can get all of our essential proteins from rice and beans, as a matter of fact. You're also right in that killing an animal for meat is judging that our appetites are more important than the lives of animals. The difference between me and you is that you see a problem where I see a virtue.

The animals can't very well stop us from eating them, and they're delicious, so that's all the reason I need to "deprive an entire species of their liberty." I'm not concerned with the wellbeing of others, be they human beings, other animals, or whatever else. My only concern is their potential use to me, and if that utility should disenfranchise them, then my only other concern is their capacity for retribution or other potential consequences. I feel that this is the only logical position to take.

Animals are useful and they can't resist us, so we use them.

 

[Switchblade 327]

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.

Yeah, well, there's a difference between smearing red dye #4 on a pig's snout and eating a cow's meat for sustenance, if you can believe that.

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.

I don't think that there's any conceivable way to do that, but you're welcome to give it a shot.

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.

But, the aspect that you seemed to ignore is that, conversely, there is also no biological need to eat plants. We just sometimes want to get high and accidentally eat mushrooms that aren't hallucinogenic. I kid. Or do I?!

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.

I don't think you understand how ethics works. You also have to remember that not many animals have what we deem a conscious. Animals can't examine their own existence the way human beings can. Abstract thought it lost on them.

Besides, not eating the animals will only serve to make sure that they died in vain.

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.

Moral relativism is a thing. We don't normally kill each other because it's merely a detrimental effect on our own existence; that is, it only serves to make our continued success as a species less likely. However, killing other animals and eating them provides nutrients and materials for building, keeping ourselves warm, making tools, etc. Besides, we evolved this way. We possess complex, abstract thought and problem solving, and we've used it to our advantage despite being the most unlikely creatures to have survived on Earth for as long as we have (around 250,000 years, give or take... At least as we know the human race today, anyway), and I think that if we want to destroy entire species, awesome! What, is God gonna get pissed off and suddenly start existing so that he can punish us? Yeah, sure.

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*.

But isn't it more in the spirit of humanity to do something not because we must or should, but just because we can?

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

I think that, despite not trying to come off as high and mighty,your misunderstanding of morality and the reasoning behind your decision tends to give off that aura, regardless.

 

[Switchblade 327]

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.

Yeah, well, there's a difference between smearing red dye #4 on a pig's snout and eating a cow's meat for sustenance, if you can believe that.

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.

I don't think that there's any conceivable way to do that, but you're welcome to give it a shot.

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.

But, the aspect that you seemed to ignore is that, conversely, there is also no biological need to eat plants. We just sometimes want to get high and accidentally eat mushrooms that aren't hallucinogenic. I kid. Or do I?!

Either way, mushrooms are fungi and therefore irrelevant.

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.

I don't think you understand how ethics works. You also have to remember that not many animals have what we deem a conscious. Animals can't examine their own existence the way human beings can. Abstract thought it lost on them.

Besides, not eating the animals will only serve to make sure that they died in vain.

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.

Moral relativism is a thing. We don't normally kill each other because it's merely a detrimental effect on our own existence; that is, it only serves to make our continued success as a species less likely. However, killing other animals and eating them provides nutrients and materials for building, keeping ourselves warm, making tools, etc. Besides, we evolved this way. We possess complex, abstract thought and problem solving, and we've used it to our advantage despite being the most unlikely creatures to have survived on Earth for as long as we have (around 250,000 years, give or take... At least as we know the human race today, anyway), and I think that if we want to destroy entire species, awesome! What, is God gonna get pissed off and suddenly start existing so that he can punish us? Yeah, sure.

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*.

But isn't it more in the spirit of humanity to do something not because we must or should, but just because we can?

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

I think that, despite not trying to come off as high and mighty,your misunderstanding of morality and the reasoning behind your decision tends to give off that aura, regardless.

 

[Leviathan_]

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

what.
oh god, there are still people like you around... DX
yeah, humans as a whole are pretty ignorant when it comes to evaluating other animals.

Also just because I can hunt and eat other species, doesn't mean I don't respect them.
We deem ourselves intelligent because we have a pretty complex language, while other species have not, and can therefore pass on our experiences in more detail, which SHOULD, in theory, make us more intelligent. But at the same time, we also pass on our mistakes, ignorance and stupidity, so we are more AND less at the same time than other animals.
All in all, animals in general actually behave more reasonable than humans, and are way less fucked up in their thinking.
At least in my experience.

Great, another humanity hater.

Animals cannot reason at all. They have no real language, no culture, no emotions like love or hate, no intellectual capacity, etc. which makes them inferior to humans. This is apparent through the fact that humans are the dominating species on this planet (Although it has to be said that there are more chickens on this planet than humans, funny huh?). The most dangerous predator to roam this chunk of rock and the only species who improves itself over time, without help of evolution.

Animals are ALWAYS true neutral alignment-wise. Humans differ from individual to individual.

Is Humanity evil? No, you can't say they are. Because the actions of a few members of a certain species does not reflect on the species as a whole. There are plenty of wonderful people out there in the world achieving good things that no animal ever could.

 

[Cadmium Magenta]

I am a vegetarian myself and I am curious as to why you feel being a Vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian. I'm not trying to start a vegan vs veggie argument, just curious.

I think your ethics are very sound!

I was vegetarian for four years before I decided to progressively switch my diet to 100% plant-based and forego all other animal products as well. Essentially, there are many other ways in which we subject animals to tremendous cruelty without killing them. The dairy industry is one example. Like humans, cows only give milk when they're pregnant, so we artificially inseminate them, take their calves away after birth and artificially inseminate them again, until their udders are swollen, infected and dried up. Even with organic dairy cows that are treated humanely, I don't think it's right for us to steal their mother's milk. That milk is meant for their calves and not for us. I don't think there is any other species on the planet that drinks another species' mother's milk, and it's not even particularly healthy for us. Even though the dairy industry will have us believe that we need milk for strong bones, research has linked milk with the very disease it's supposed to prevent, osteoporosis. In regions of the world where dairy isn't widely consumed (Asia), occurrences of osteoporosis are much lower.

For all other animal products, again, we are taking things from animals we don't need. We don't need leather and contrary to the widely held belief, leather is not always a by-product of the meat industry. There are cows exclusively slaughtered for their hides. We don't need dairy, we don't need honey, there is actually nothing of all the things we forcefully take from animals that we'd need for our survival, or even for a comfortable life. There are viable cruelty-free alternatives for all of these products (except honey... okay, I admit... giving up honey is hard).

 

[Averant]

I agree that we are also animals, that passage in my original post was poorly phrased. What I was getting at is that there are some unique traits that set us apart from almost all other animals, and that is our capacity for complex reasoning and self-reflection. While I don't think this makes us superior (in fact, our intellect has led us to some pretty unintelligent things, like invent the nuclear bomb or design an economic system that is now melting down in our hands), our level of intelligence is the kind of great power that comes with great responsibility.

Morality is one way in which we have taken up that responsibility. I must say, I'm quite baffled by a lot of people here who openly denounce morality as naive, idealistic, scientifically baseless or even useless. Without morality, there would be no society. Society began when two cavemen met and suddenly realised that perhaps they shouldn't clobber each other over the head and explore ways of working together. Every law, every social norm, every collective achievement is based on a set of morals that governs how we treat one another. Without morality, we'd live in an anarchic wasteland and spend our days fighting for our lives... in fact, much like animals do in the wilderness.

Also, while I agree that moral nitty-gritty varies across cultures, families and individuals, basic morals are not subjective, but quite universal. As I wrote in my earlier post, there is no culture that allows arbitrary violence. We always demand a moral justification for violence: We send the criminal to prison to protect society. We shoot the gunman because he was taking aim at an innocent civilian. We wage war because someone, somewhere thinks this is a good idea that in the end will relieve more suffering that it creates. We also think it's just and moral to kill animals for food.

It's those last two examples that I think merit discussion.

And thanks!

No. No, goddamnit, stop that. You're putting morality on a higher pedestal than intelligence is. Get one thing straight. We are moral because we are intelligent, we are not intelligent because we are moral. Morals are not universal. You're citing the end result of intelligence and giving morality the credit. I'm sorry, but that's really not something I can stand.

Morality has its place, but it's not everything. Common sense, common INSTINCT, not morality, dictates that if we as a species must work together to survive. Animals are not moral, they are instinctual, yet they work together to survive every damn day.

We wage war because someone, somewhere thinks this is a good idea that in the end will relieve more suffering that it creates.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain ignorant. How many wars have been waged over self interest and progression of one's own culture at the cost of other cultures? Think of the English eradicating Native Americans. Think of WWII on the german's side. Think of the bleeding dictatorships in the middle easts. Those people had themselves in mind, not anyone else.

I'll say this, morals and intelligence DO work hand in hand in many instances. But intelligence is of higher inherent importance than morality.