''It's frowned upon.''

[ThrobbingEgo]

*snip*

snip

I never said it was right or wrong. I tried to avoid ethical implications, instead saying that they were in fact the same. i don't have the most coherent posts, but the last few lines seemed to sum it up. They were the same problem, just with different ways of saying it. I believed humans to be natural because we are part of nature as a whole. By extension, anything humans do would be natural. It is said we (humans) are "naturally" more destructive, violent, and worse than anything else to walk on earth. But, a lion kills it's prey, slaughtering them without prior warning, destroying the prey's family, only for personnel gain. Is what the lion doing not part of what "comes naturally" to the beast?

This is all irrelevant. We are not lions. For us, eating meat is not necessary. We have no survival claim to keeping millions of animals in captivity, for their entire short lives.

I am not going to argue against more fallacious logic with you today.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I am glad you can play the "I was you" card. I'm sure it serves you well.

Here is a checklist of problems.
1. Isn't a false dilemma. Meat lasts longer in the freezer and has a more economical cost in regards to gas, travel, and time.

2. You have yet to address the problem in your smoking analogy. Shoes and Addiction are apples and oranges.

3. You haven't actually given me a reason to consider the suffering of chicken. Saying circular logic is nice and all but you haven't given me a convincing argument otherwise. If they suffer and I don't have a reason to care, where is your convincing argument to the contrary.

4. Stating I can get fats from another source is cute. It is an empty statement and gives no reason to change. I could shave my entire body and paint it blue but I don't see a reason to do that either. By the way, I believe you would call that metaphor a strawman, still doesn't change the fact that you give no convincing argument.

5. I don't eat meat because hippies wear leather. I eat meat because I choose to and its pros outweigh the cons for me.

6. I have read philosophy and while I find plenty inspiring about it, none of it really convinced me that I needed a dietary change. I found Fast Food Nation interesting and it even did a good job of presenting the human side of the problems inherent in the system.

7. This is why I bring up the suffering ignored. It is a bigger problem and only ignored out of convenience. Just as I find people who read fashion magazines shallow, I find people who want to fight over whether I have chicken instead of a salad at lunch due to suffering equally shallow. You want a fight you think you can win and dig up all sorts of joyous reasons to as long as it doesn't inconvenience you overmuch. How quaint. While I am sure you will be more than happy to put this back on some nagging guilt in the back of my mind, it still remains that you choose a relatively shallow fight in the name of suffering when more animals suffer for your normal conveniences. It is like freaking out over a scabbed knee instead of the jutting bone in somebody's leg.

I am not saying to stop your crusade or pet internet fight or whatever you call it, I am simply saying that perhaps, just perhaps, your moral high ground and command of debate fallacies isn't as profound as you may think. Then again, once you said philosophy classes, I kinda predicted the rest of your post.

 

[Camembert]

There's a lot of work that goes into making the public perception look as rosy as it is. The factory farms have deep pockets and huge political lobbies. I don't know what it's like over there, but there are plenty of commercials on TV on behalf of dairy farmers, skateboarding around like arseholes, showing them on traditional farms, with, like, a single cow each.

That's not a realistic portrayal. Supply would never meet demand that way.

Yes, I was aware it wasn't quite as rosy, but... damn it, I don't want to be a vegan : | I love eggs and yoghurt too much. I have all but given up cheese lately though, which is a big thing for me.

Anyway, I checked a site and it's unpleasant in ways I hadn't even thought of.

It's kind of sad that if you show any evidence of empathy for animals it makes everyone immediately think you must be a raving hippy, eh?

 

[s0denone]

Have you ever tried to do something with good intention, but other people found it to be quite frowned upon or wrong?

Rape.

Hahahahahaha, that is just super fucking wrong, man

OT:
What do you mean by "Frowned upon"? That means it is generally not accepted. No, I don't care what wierd definition you are using, that's what it means. People here are just listing random stuff where people seem ungrateful to- or unwilling to accept- their help. It's not really the same thing.

I've been pissed and then keyed the car of a teacher who made my life hell in high school. That's frowned upon.
I've intentionally thrown up on another guy while drunk.
That's (probably) frowned upon.
I've committed vandalism.
Frowned upon.
I've broken into my former high school while drunk.
Frowned upon.

There is quite a list, and I'm not listing the worst stuff here

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Have you ever tried to do something with good intention, but other people found it to be quite frowned upon or wrong?

Rape.

Hahahahahaha, that is just super fucking wrong, man

OT:
What do you mean by "Frowned upon"? That means it is generally not accepted. No, I don't care what wierd definition you are using, that's what it means. People here are just listing random stuff where people seem ungrateful to- or unwilling to accept- their help. It's not really the same thing.

I've been pissed and then keyed the car of a teacher who made my life hell in high school. That's frowned upon.
I've intentionally thrown up on another guy while drunk.
That's (probably) frowned upon.
I've committed vandalism.
Frowned upon.
I've broken into my former high school while drunk.
Frowned upon.

There is quite a list, and I'm not listing the worst stuff here

I think he meant good deeds gone wrong due to reaction to said good deed.

 

[Camembert]

7. This is why I bring up the suffering ignored. It is a bigger problem and only ignored out of convenience. Just as I find people who read fashion magazines shallow, I find people who want to fight over whether I have chicken instead of a salad at lunch due to suffering equally shallow. You want a fight you thin you can win and dig up all sorts of joyous reasons to as long as it doesn't inconvenience you overmuch. How quaint. While I am sure you will be more than happy to put this back on some nagging guilt in the back of my mind, it still remains that you choose a relatively shallow fight in the name of suffering when more animals suffer for your normal conveniences. It is like freaking out over a scabbed knee instead of the jutting bone in somebody's leg.

It confuses me that you think of a vegan diet as 'convenient'.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

7. This is why I bring up the suffering ignored. It is a bigger problem and only ignored out of convenience. Just as I find people who read fashion magazines shallow, I find people who want to fight over whether I have chicken instead of a salad at lunch due to suffering equally shallow. You want a fight you thin you can win and dig up all sorts of joyous reasons to as long as it doesn't inconvenience you overmuch. How quaint. While I am sure you will be more than happy to put this back on some nagging guilt in the back of my mind, it still remains that you choose a relatively shallow fight in the name of suffering when more animals suffer for your normal conveniences. It is like freaking out over a scabbed knee instead of the jutting bone in somebody's leg.

It confuses me that you think of a vegan diet as 'convenient'.

It confuses me that you are confused considering that Throbbing Ego has gone on about easy to replace fats and nonessential meat eating. If meat eating is a convenience, then how is a vegan diet inconvenient. Surely, if meat and the suffering thereof is entirely unnecessary then a vegan should have plenty of options for alternative nutrition and better diet, etc etc.

What exactly is confusing, eh?

 

[Camembert]

It confuses me that you are confused considering that Throbbing Ego has gone on about easy to replace fats and nonessential meat eating. If meat eating is a convenience, then how is a vegan diet inconvenient. Surely, if meat and the suffering thereof is entirely unnecessary then a vegan should have plenty of options for alternative nutrition and better diet, etc etc.

What exactly is confusing, eh?

There's nothing convenient about it. He only says that it's far within the realm of possibility.

Edit: You obviously haven't thought about it much. It means giving up cake; it means giving up yoghurt; it means giving up pizza; it means giving up honey; it means giving up butter; it means giving up anything and everything that contains one of those things that appears in most food dishes - milk, eggs and meat; it means checking the label of everything you eat; and it means a right fucking hassle every time you want to go out to eat.

 

[s0denone]

Hahahahahaha, that is just super fucking wrong, man

OT:
What do you mean by "Frowned upon"? That means it is generally not accepted. No, I don't care what wierd definition you are using, that's what it means. People here are just listing random stuff where people seem ungrateful to- or unwilling to accept- their help. It's not really the same thing.

I've been pissed and then keyed the car of a teacher who made my life hell in high school. That's frowned upon.
I've intentionally thrown up on another guy while drunk.
That's (probably) frowned upon.
I've committed vandalism.
Frowned upon.
I've broken into my former high school while drunk.
Frowned upon.

There is quite a list, and I'm not listing the worst stuff here

I think he meant good deeds gone wrong due to reaction to said good deed.

While I can accept your reasoning here, it still does not make sense at all. People, topic-starter included, shouldn't use words or phrases that they do not know what mean. "Frowned upon" is not something *one* person decides, as I am very sure you know - it's something that goes against the general perception of what is- and is not acceptable behaviour.

"Have you every done something in good faith, only to find that people turn out mad/ungrateful because it doesn't float their particular boat" would be a more proper wording in the topic, methinks.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

I see cows, sheep, chickens and pigs in fields everyday as i go to and from school and a friends house. Explain. Please, i see them in very large fields and i do not understand why they are there. Keeping them there for no reason would be EVEN more expensive than keeping them there honestly.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

... Sorry for the double post but I am finding our vegan/meat debate to be a tad rude and offputting to the actual topic of the thread. If you want to continue this, make a thread and send me a message to join the fight there. I apologize to the OP for my part in continuing this tangent as I was actually enjoying the shared suffering of my fellows in their punished good deeds. Only reason I haven't given statement of my own misfortune is because I completely lack a proper recollection of a similar event though I know I have to had at least one relevant experience.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

1. Isn't a false dilemma. Meat lasts longer in the freezer and has a more economical cost in regards to gas, travel, and time.

Including the cost of raising and feeding said animals? How much gas, travel, and time does that all cost? What's the shelf life of meat compared to dried beans and grains? And you don't have any vegetables? Well, I'm concerned for your family's survival.

2. You have yet to address the problem in your smoking analogy. Shoes and Addiction are apples and oranges.

Not my example. But lets assume that Bill (or whatever his name was) chose to smoke and wasn't addicted. Doesn't change the validity of his arguments, or the actual dangers of smoking.

3. You haven't actually given me a reason to consider the suffering of chicken. Saying circular logic is nice and all but you haven't given me a convincing argument otherwise. If they suffer and I don't have a reason to care, where is your convincing argument to the contrary.

I didn't seek out to give you a reason to care. You just said you didn't, and you've yet to provide an explanation as to why. I'm not sure why you want to play the "burden of proof" card.

4. Stating I can get fats from another source is cute. It is an empty statement and gives no reason to change. I could shave my entire body and paint it blue but I don't see a reason to do that either. By the way, I believe you would call that metaphor a strawman, still doesn't change the fact that you give no convincing argument.

How is it an empty statement? You can get the fats you need from other sources. Avocados, for example, are high in monounsaturated fat and contain all the essential amino acids. So you can get all the fats that you believe you'd need for your brain. Even though I'm pretty sure nutrition doesn't work in the "more is better" way that you seem to think it does. So long as you're within the healthy range, your body should either expel the excess nutrients or store them as fat.

5. I don't eat meat because hippies wear leather. I eat meat because I choose to and its pros outweigh the cons.

What pros? Which pros outweigh the cost of animal suffering?

6. I have read philosophy and while I find plenty inspiring about, none of it really convinced me that I needed a dietary change. I found Fast Food Nation interesting and it even did a good job of presenting the human side of the problems inherent in the system.

Did you read Animal Liberation.

7. This is why I bring up the suffering ignored. It is a bigger problem and only ignored out of convenience. Just as I find people who read fashion magazines shallow, I find people who want to fight over whether I have chicken instead of a salad at lunch due to suffering equally shallow. You want a fight you thin you can win and dig up all sorts of joyous reasons to as long as it doesn't inconvenience you overmuch. How quaint. While I am sure you will be more than happy to put this back on some nagging guilt in the back of my mind, it still remains that you choose a relatively shallow fight in the name of suffering when more animals suffer for your normal conveniences. It is like freaking out over a scabbed knee instead of the jutting bone in somebody's leg.

Quaint? Dude, what are you even saying? "There are so many problems in the world, why are you fixing any?"

I am not saying to stop your crusade or pet internet fight or whatever you call it, I am simply saying that perhaps, just perhaps, your moral high ground and command of debate fallacies isn't as profound as you may think. Then again, once you said philosophy classes, I kinda predicted the rest of your post.

Are you capable of anything but fallacies, empty rhetoric, and personal attacks? I really hope you reread your posts, and realize how silly you sound. I'm not trying to "convert" you to anything. I'm mostly just pissed at your bad logic.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

that's[/i] what it means. People here are just listing random stuff where people seem ungrateful to- or unwilling to accept- their help. It's not really the same thing.

I've been pissed and then keyed the car of a teacher who made my life hell in high school. That's frowned upon.
I've intentionally thrown up on another guy while drunk.
That's (probably) frowned upon.
I've committed vandalism.
Frowned upon.
I've broken into my former high school while drunk.
Frowned upon.

There is quite a list, and I'm not listing the worst stuff here

I think he meant good deeds gone wrong due to reaction to said good deed.

While I can accept your reasoning here, it still does not make sense at all. People, topic-starter included, shouldn't use words or phrases that they do not know what mean. "Frowned upon" is not something *one* person decides, as I am very sure you know - it's something that goes against the general perception of what is- and is not acceptable behaviour.

"Have you every done something in good faith, only to find that people turn out mad/ungrateful because it doesn't float their particular boat" would be a more proper wording in the topic, methinks.

I concur but I am afraid it is irrelevant due to the nature of the thread itself. Perhaps the OP can be convinced of a more appropriate title.

 

[s0denone]

While I can accept your reasoning here, it still does not make sense at all. People, topic-starter included, shouldn't use words or phrases that they do not know what mean. "Frowned upon" is not something *one* person decides, as I am very sure you know - it's something that goes against the general perception of what is- and is not acceptable behaviour.

"Have you every done something in good faith, only to find that people turn out mad/ungrateful because it doesn't float their particular boat" would be a more proper wording in the topic, methinks.

I concur but I am afraid it is irrelevant due to the nature of the thread itself. Perhaps the OP can be convinced of a more appropriate title.

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is no fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a deeply religious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

I see cows, sheep, chickens and pigs in fields everyday as i go to and from school and a friends house. Explain. Please, i see them in very large fields and i do not understand why they are there. Keeping them there for no reason would be EVEN more expensive than keeping them there honestly.

First, I was talking about chickens. Second, free-range for cows and the like only requires that they have access to grass, not the size of the field they live on.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products are loosely defined as coming from animals who ate grass and lived on a range. No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range." "Free-range" and "free-roaming" facilities are rarely inspected or verified to be in compliance with these two criteria. The USDA relies "upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims."(9)

Even when "free-range" cows, sheep, and pigs are allowed to live outdoors, they are still subjected to excruciating mutilations without painkiller or analgesic, such as castration, branding, dehorning, tail-docking, and tooth-grinding. Once they are fattened to market weight, they are trucked to slaughterhouses. They are denied food, water, and adequate protection from extreme temperatures once in the vehicles, and many die during the trip. These cows, sheep, and pigs are still slaughtered in the same violent ways as factory-farmed animals: They are pushed through narrow chutes, hung upside down on conveyor belts, and have their throats slit; some are dismembered while still fully conscious.

So, yeah, you would see them. That doesn't mean the cows you see outdoors do not suffer and are not confined to a relatively small field.

 

[Camembert]

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is not fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a serious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

Or... the reason he is failing is that his logic isn't sound - or at least certainly less sound than that of the person with whom he is debating...? Seriously. Try reading before you allow your own prejudice to decide for you.

Edit: Or, since the other chap has buggered off, perhaps you could continue where he left off and point out all the flaws in the vegan's argument.

 

[mokes310]

...I was out with my band-mates and we threw a piece of rubbish into someone else's bin. The owner of the house came outside and nagged our ear off about doing so, Better than littering I said...

I did that once too and the homeowner threatened to call the police if I didn't remove it and throw it in another bin. I couldn't believe that someone could be so posessive?

 

[Camembert]

...I was out with my band-mates and we threw a piece of rubbish into someone else's bin. The owner of the house came outside and nagged our ear off about doing so, Better than littering I said...

I did that once too and the homeowner threatened to call the police if I didn't remove it and throw it in another bin. I couldn't believe that someone could be so posessive?

People like that are just sad. I got a massive bollocking from a woman once for sitting on her front wall. She was saying, 'I didn't work my whole life just so I could buy that wall for you to sit on!'

: |

Come to think of it though, I guess it could be classed as trespassing. Still, I hope I don't ever end up becoming the sort of person who gets annoyed by things like that.

 

[s0denone]

Agreed - I wouldn't be very concerned though, as it is you and your good friend ThrobbingEgo who've derailed the thread, and not me ;--)

There is not fighting a vegan - if they set their sights on you, you might as well fold and nod. You cannot argue the validity of religion with a serious Christian, just like you cannot argue diet with vegans. It just doesn't work.

Or... the reason he is failing is that his logic isn't sound - or at least certainly less sound than that of the person with whom he is debating...? Seriously. Try reading before you allow your own prejudice to decide for you.

Edit: Or, since the other chap has buggered off, perhaps you could continue where he left off and point out all the flaws in the vegan's argument.

My point isn't, contrary to your assumption, that one is stupid and the other is right... It is simply that the argument is futile. Will the vegan start eating meat because of it? Will the meat-eater stop eating meat because of it?
No and no.

I am a meat-eater myself, and I find myself agreeing with DeathWyrmNexus rather than ThrobbingEgo.

The only problem here is that ThrobbingEgo has made it his business whether or not me(or DeathWyrmNexus, or anyone) eats meat.

Do you see now, or did you prejudice against meat-eaters blind you from my writing?

I am not here to argue with a vegan - there is no point, as previously pointed out. There is no middleground, there is no agreeing. I can understand why some people would be very concerned about the wellbeing of animals, and such work actively against it by not aiding the industry... But I'm just not one of those people.

My favourite meal consists of a big, fat, bloody, rare steak. Nothing you, or anyone, says, is going to change that.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

A vegan doesnt eat eggs milk or anything that ever came from an animal. I have a vegan friend but i honestly cant see why you cant just be free range instead. That way not only do uo not fund the unethical battery farming but you get to eat the food AND fund the ethical treatment of animals. I like to think i make more of an impact.

"Free-range" is little more than a marketing term. They give the chickens a few more square feet in their wire cages, maybe put the cages over a dirt floor, and leave a unaccessible window open. It'd be prohibitively expensive for your supermarket to stock meaningfully "free-range" products, what with all the land, tracking, and care requirements.

Google search.
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22free-range%22+myth

I see cows, sheep, chickens and pigs in fields everyday as i go to and from school and a friends house. Explain. Please, i see them in very large fields and i do not understand why they are there. Keeping them there for no reason would be EVEN more expensive than keeping them there honestly.

First, I was talking about chickens. Second, free-range for cows and the like only requires that they have access to grass, not the size of the field they live on.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "free-range" beef, pork, and other non-poultry products are loosely defined as coming from animals who ate grass and lived on a range. No other criteria-such as the size of the range or the amount of space given to each animal-are required before beef, lamb, and pork can be called "free-range." "Free-range" and "free-roaming" facilities are rarely inspected or verified to be in compliance with these two criteria. The USDA relies "upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims."(9)

Even when "free-range" cows, sheep, and pigs are allowed to live outdoors, they are still subjected to excruciating mutilations without painkiller or analgesic, such as castration, branding, dehorning, tail-docking, and tooth-grinding. Once they are fattened to market weight, they are trucked to slaughterhouses. They are denied food, water, and adequate protection from extreme temperatures once in the vehicles, and many die during the trip. These cows, sheep, and pigs are still slaughtered in the same violent ways as factory-farmed animals: They are pushed through narrow chutes, hung upside down on conveyor belts, and have their throats slit; some are dismembered while still fully conscious.

So, yeah, you would see them. That doesn't mean the cows you see outdoors do not suffer and are not confined to a relatively small field.

Firstly this is the UK, i think we have higher standards of free range than you for some reason. The fields are very large and ironically enouhg the cows stick to one corner. I SEE these fields. I SEE these chickens on the grass in a large area of land scratching away looking natural. Honestly if your asking me not to believe my eyes your going to need a lot of evidence.

From my understanding of the human methods employed in europe the animal is stunned and then killed while unconcious. Then these things happen. One thing bugs me (ive seen the ohio videos) is what they do with the male chicks in humane farming. What CAN they do. They have these extra animals and honestly no way of feeding them or enough room to house them. you cannot put chickens into room that does not exist to keep them humanely. I really dont know if there is a way... GM the chickens to produce mostly female offspring and then cut the breeding rate dramatically?