Poll: I love steak...am I a terrible person

[Rowan93]

Obviously you aren't a bad person.

But as a vegetarian, my diet is enviromentally and (arguably) ethically superior to yours.

So screw you guys! *walks away with middle finger held out*

(yeah I'm filling the stereotype of the smug vegetarian...but damn does it feel good!)

Considering how many animals die for the growing of the food for a vegetarian diet, you really don't have a superior leg to stand on.

Whoah whoah whoah.

What animals die becasue of my diet?

If this is true it would be pretty bad for me, but somehow I'm doubting that you are correct.

Lots of small animals die in the process of farming the plants (pests, small mammals that just get crushed by farm machinery, etcetera), but a vegetarian diet still kills less animals, for a bunch of reasons. A vegan diet would be better still.

 

[PrinceFortinbras]

I argue that a beings rights only become equal with that of humans when the being is a person, i.e. rational and self-consious.

So by that logic would it be morally permitted to kill and eat a brain-dead human?

Unfortunately no, it would probably affect grieving relatives.
Although, if the human was entirely connectionless, then yes, it would be morally permissable.
Not that I would do it, I'm no zombie cannibal.

Then the next question would be what it is about rationality and self-consciousness that grants a living thing moral relevance. Why is that a less arbitrary criterion then the ability to suffer? I would say that it is more so. When you are in pain I don't feel bad for you because you are rational or self-conscious, I do it because I know with much certainty that pain hurts you, and that your preference would be to not be in pain. Likewise we know with much certainty that nearly all of the animals humans eat on a daily basis are able to suffer, and that they suffer a lot when they are factory farmed.

 

[willsham45]

Yes, Yes you are a terrible person. Now go cry about it so I can eat your your steak.

The real question is how is the best way to have your steak of which there is only one right answer , Black or bloody as hell.

 

[ArnRand]

Lots of small animals die in the process of farming the plants (pests, small mammals that just get crushed by farm machinery, etcetera), but a vegetarian diet still kills less animals, for a bunch of reasons. A vegan diet would be better still.

There's the insects that are killed because they would otherwise eat the crops, and the animals that are killed when their habitats are destroyed for more room to plant crops.

Well, I don't care about insects (they aren't sentient enough for me.), but I'll take the other points. I don't think killing animals is morally wrong enough to go vegan, though.

I still maintain that a vegetarian diet has less enviromental impact, and that I probably kill less things than you (assuming you eat a reasonable amount of meat, of course)

 

[Arakasi]

I argue that a beings rights only become equal with that of humans when the being is a person, i.e. rational and self-consious.

So by that logic would it be morally permitted to kill and eat a brain-dead human?

Unfortunately no, it would probably affect grieving relatives.
Although, if the human was entirely connectionless, then yes, it would be morally permissable.
Not that I would do it, I'm no zombie cannibal.

Then the next question would be what it is about rationality and self-consciousness that grants a living thing moral relevance. Why is that a less arbitrary criterion then the ability to suffer? I would say that it is more so. When you are in pain I don't feel bad for you because you are rational or self-conscious, I do it because I know with much certainty that pain hurts you, and that your preference would be to not be in pain. Likewise we know with much certainty that nearly all of the animals humans eat on a daily basis are able to suffer, and that they suffer a lot when they are factory farmed.

The way I structure my morality is primarily based on the Golden Rule.
"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
I define 'others' as people.
People are defined as rational and self-consious.

I suppose it depends on your individual morality, but to impose your morality on someone else, as those people who guilt you like to do, is heinous and quite frankly annoying.

 

[The Lunatic]

No. Steak is fucking great.

Have another.

 

[s0p0g]

i wouldn't say that you're a bad person or something... i'm just wondering how you can look in the mirror, knowing what you do - with pleasure, even!

disgusting. really. you urk me.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Steak, Liara. I think about when there's so much steak. I fucking love steak.

"You wanna play nasty?"
'Copy that'
"Whatever generates your mass effect field."

 

[Esotera]

In some places (outback Australia) this is simply untrue.

Given the huge area, which can't grow much other than native trees and grasses, it makes sense to have cattle reared there. The feed they consume leaves us with more net food than trying to make that grain into something humans would want to eat.

Also, eating meat once or twice a week is certainly not enough for most people; especially not on a budget diet, in a country where meat is quite affordable.

Most people in the West eat far more meat than they need to survive, and this can negatively impact their health, especially if it's red meat or a fatty/processed meat like sausages. There are loads of places where it makes more sense to rear livestock, such as moorland in the UK, but farmers also invest a lot of land that could grow crops, and land that does grow crops. If you're producing corn to be consumed by an animal that retains around 10-20% of the energy in the corn, it's terribly inefficient.

Also cows are something like the third global cause of methane, so they also contribute to global warming. I believe there's a bit of a push in Australia to get more people to eat kangaroo meat, as they don't have such a gas problem.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[Tsaba]

I still maintain that a vegetarian diet has less enviromental impact, and that I probably kill less things than you (assuming you eat a reasonable amount of meat, of course)

Cows pass methane which is much more harmful than CO2 or says the scientists. You should do your part by eating their food supply while I eat the cows. Eventually... we will win!

OT: Medium Rare to Rare, if it doesn't scream or moo when I stab it then it's not done right.

 

[StBishop]

In some places (outback Australia) this is simply untrue.

Given the huge area, which can't grow much other than native trees and grasses, it makes sense to have cattle reared there. The feed they consume leaves us with more net food than trying to make that grain into something humans would want to eat.

Also, eating meat once or twice a week is certainly not enough for most people; especially not on a budget diet, in a country where meat is quite affordable.

Most people in the West eat far more meat than they need to survive, and this can negatively impact their health, especially if it's red meat or a fatty/processed meat like sausages. There are loads of places where it makes more sense to rear livestock, such as moorland in the UK, but farmers also invest a lot of land that could grow crops, and land that does grow crops. If you're producing corn to be consumed by an animal that retains around 10-20% of the energy in the corn, it's terribly inefficient.

Also cows are something like the third global cause of methane, so they also contribute to global warming. I believe there's a bit of a push in Australia to get more people to eat kangaroo meat, as they don't have such a gas problem.

Eating meat is not the same as eating a sausage. Sausages are shit they're barely meat.

If someone tells me they ate chicken, and they meant "I ate 'chicken' nuggets." I'd call them on it. So it's not pedantism because we're on a forum, it's pedantism because I'm neurotic.

Anyway, eating beef specifically 5 times a week is fine. It's not great, but no one I know eats that much beef. I tend to eat that much, but I particularly like beef, and I can't afford to eat roo, fish, and chicken all the time.
Also, most people eat too much of almost everything in the west. Getting into the nutritional stupidity of Australians (I don't know enough about other countries) is something I'd love to do via a non-text medium, but it's a little bit of a hassle to type it out if I'm only having a discussion.

We feed them chaff though. Corn's not that easy/popular to grow in some parts of Australia if I recall correctly. Chaff is a by-product of making food for humans, we can't eat it, and it is actually better for the animal to eat chaff, grass, and wheat than to feed them purely grain. Grasses are the best, they're just the hardest to organise.

You're right about the roo. It tastes amazing, but it's too gamey for some people and if you cook it too much it is literally impossible to eat. I fucking love roo though, we even get roo mince, it's delicious.

 

[CarlMin]

Would you feel bad for eating an orange?

I mean, it's sorta worse I guess than eating a full grown cow, in that you're literally eating the fetus of an orange tree.

You eat fruit or vegetables, you are eating babies, you sick fuck. Wait, you ENJOY eating babies?!?!?! *Gathers the lynch mob*

It just is what it is. It's how life is designed. You eat, you shit, you die and some are eaten before their time.

nothin you can do about it. And there is no point questioning yourself on it as well.

That's a bit of a nasty simplification, isn't it? It's not like you can compare a an animal to a bloody fruit. Besides, you conveniently overlook the environmental impact of meat production [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production].

Everything has an environmental impact.

Seeing as practically all current life forms that breath in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide are pretty much parasite designed (the only thing they give back is the CO2 for plants to breath in and waste for them to absorb, but things like dogs their waste only does harm), no doubt raising cattle and all that isn't exactly 'good for the environment' but neither is allowing so many human beings to live on the planet at one time, and expect shit to be stable.

It is what it is. And there's no point in bothering to try and change it for a number of reasons.

We're going to fall. And something else will rise in our place. It's just a matter of when and how exactly... Assuming we never make it to another planet before then.

Wait, let me get this straight. We will all inevitably affect this planet negatively and at some point die, so there is no point trying to improve ourselves in anyway, and minimize that negative effect? Well, if everyone shared your attitude, there would never be any social progress in society.

Well it's true that every living thing on this earth has some sort of impact on the environment, it doesn't change the the fact that there are quite a few things we can, and indeed should, do to minimize that impact when it comes to our own, human luxuries.

 

[Callate]

To a degree, your presence on Earth was predicated on your ancestors being omnivorous.

Just don't overdo it.

 

[CrazyDave DC]

Steak, Liara. I think about when there's so much steak. I fucking love steak.

This is definitely the first thing I thought of when I read the OP, ha ha.

 

[Dwarfman]

Yes, because steak is disgusting.

It doesn't even have pasta in it! How the fuck can you expect me to enjoy it?

So if I cooked you a steak with pasta and a nice sauce that complements both you wouldn't have a problem them?

To answer the OP. No. You are not a bad person. The fact that you actually acknowledge the fact that your steak comes from an animal and your thinking about it is in fact an excellent thing. You should always know where your food comes from and respect the fact that an organism whether its fauna or flora has died so you might live.