Veganism...why?

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
LittleShe-Bear said:
spartan231490 said:
A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern.
1. Palate =/= morality. Humans might taste like particularly sweet pork but that doesn't justify cannibalism. You need more justification than, "it's tasty."

2. I think complex animals like sheep, cows, pigs and chickens are sentient. Sentience just means the ability to have subjective experiences like pain, fear, happiness, excitement, pleasure etc. I think you might be conflating sentience with more complex levels of consciousness like intentionality or self-awareness? If a being is capable of feeling pain then I'd hope that abysmal treatment of it should be of concern.
1: It's plenty reason enough. animals are not human, treating them as such is ludicrous. They are tasty, and further it is far far far more difficult, if not impossible, to get all the nutrients you need as a vegan, particularly without supplementation. That means that I am going to need one extremely compelling reason to become one, I need no such reason to continue.

2: I will quote my above post: "That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so." The possibility that farm animals might have some limited form of sentience is not even close to a good enough reason.
 

LittleShe-Bear

New member
Mar 23, 2011
22
0
0
spartan231490 said:
That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently.
Uhm, a quick google search would also show that science fiction shows use sentience in a far looser way than philosophers do. I really don't think it's a good idea to rely on fictional tv shows for philosophical or scientific definitions. :/
 

Jammy2003

New member
Feb 28, 2011
93
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.
The fact it's up for debate doesn't then bother you? How would you then feel if tomorrow, a cow learned to talk our language, and said that for years they have communicated between themselves and see us as vile beings? (Ridiculous arguement, but not more so than the one of "Yeah, but if we all went vegan, what would be do with all the animals?") Having interacted with animals and seen some of the presented results, I'd say its just a matter of time before we find that "shockingly" animals are more intellegent than most people seem to give them credit for.

If meat eating was lowered at least, it wouldn't cost more, and there is no need to put your health at risk, so that only leaves simple convinience as your defence in that arguement. "It's difficult to make learn about other food and then make meals from them". It's not actually that hard to get protein from other sources, we are just indoctrinated into this attitude of NEEDING meat to be healthy. There are pro-athletes and body builders who are vegan and live just as long, if not longer than meat eaters, so it's not impossible with just a little effort.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Jammy2003 said:
CrystalShadow said:
Mmm. The plant issue is a tricky one. Because it betrays the fact that vegans essentially seem to be anthropocentric.

Who says a plant doesn't feel pain? On what grounds can this be asserted other than an inference based on biology and the nature of how human beings feel pain.

To be honest, can you even say breaking a rock into pieces to build a house doesn't hurt the rock?

Pretty much everything we eat was raised for that sole purpose.

Animals just happen to be cuter, and easier to understand because we are animals ourselves.

That doesn't mean plants, (or indeed inanimate objects) don't suffer as a result of what we do to them. Merely that if they do, we are less capable of recognising the suffering.

Still... I thought this through myself and came to the conclusion that being vegetarian or vegan for those reasons was problematic, and, honestly, a little egocentric.

I don't like causing suffering, but the fact remains that me being alive comes at the expense of other living and non-living things. There's no way around this, and presuming the suffering of animals is more important than that of anything else doesn't make sense to me.
That's not to say nothing can be done at all, just that I think vegetarianism doesn't really solve much in that regard.
Oh come now, with that logic there is no point in doing anything at all. That's a ridiculous extrapolation and can be done in reverse, to suggest that if living causes suffering then why be compassionate to anything? Why have a dog, cat or family? Why not eat them?
Of course it's extreme. But following things through to their logical conclusion is almost inevitably absurd.

That's one of the problems with logic.

The reverse case that you are pointing out is just as true, but does not negate the point.

Either way, what you choose to show compassion for, and what you don't is pretty arbitrary.

I mean, why is it OK to cause obvious harm to one thing, but not another?
Who decided that?

Well, as it happens, when you look at it, there may be a few exceptions here and there, but at the end of the day it seems to come down to compassion being proportional to how similar something is to you personally.

I can't argue with the feelings behind that, but it hardly seems a particularly fair way to judge what gets to live and what gets to die.
 

LittleShe-Bear

New member
Mar 23, 2011
22
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Cooking meat is what made us intelligent.
I'm not disagreeing with that, I think it's probably true. I just don't see how that's an argument for continuing now. It's a genetic fallacy to say that good in the past automatically means good in the present, regardless of current context.

Meat is part of a healthy human diet. We could change that with pills, but there's no saying that this change won't have long-term side effects. Maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but gradually over time.
There's no saying it will either. Scare-mongering about what might happen if we use synthetic sources without any empirical basis isn't going to convince anyone to abandon vegetarianism or veganism.

The fact is, both diets can be healthy. If someone were to say that veganism is unhealthy, I could list plenty of counter-examples to that. Likewise, if someone were to say that meat were unhealthy, I could provide plenty of counter-examples to that too. The health argument to me, is moot. It can be done healthily. It's the moral aspect of this debate that interests me.

And I do genuinely enjoy a good debate, I think it's good to hear view-points that don't mesh with your own from time to time. That's good for the brain too. :)
 

Vegan_Doodler

New member
May 29, 2011
201
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
spartan231490 said:
Vegan_Doodler said:
spartan231490 said:
Vegan_Doodler said:
spartan231490 said:
Why? Because people are illogical. It doesn't make any sense, and if you follow veganism to it's logical conclusion, it doesn't result in peace and happiness for all of the little animals, but extinction.
Please enlighten me, why would it?
Cows and chickens are only alive because we help them stay that way. They don't have the defenses or drive to survive the wilderness. Sheep are in a similar boat. They have some drive, but they feed mostly on grasses, meaning there is a very limited region in which they could survive, and they're slow and relatively small, leaving them vulnerable to predators. Even coyotes can take sheep, and that's while they're being protected by the farmers.

Virtually all domesticated animals lack what it takes to survive in the wild anymore, we've made sure of that. Without the farmers who raise them, they would die, and that's assuming the farmers let them go wild, instead of just slaughtering them for convenience, or selling them to anyone who would buy(glue factories, research institutes).
Abandon4093 said:
Never said anything about being a righteous saviour, you just wanted to know why they'd die if we stopped needing them. I told you.
Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.
You're right, it's not a good reason to keep doing it. A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern. However, it is a good reason not to stop, since cessation of farming activities would lead to the wholesale extinction of half a dozen species or more.

I'm all for coming up with more humane ways to farm, but being a vegan will not accomplish that, if anything it will hinder it because it with less money available in the business less profitable methods of conducting it are more likely to fail.
Except animals are sentient.

Sapience is what separates humans from animals.

A sentient creature can still feel pain and emotions. Those emotions may not be as advanced as our own, but you're still a dick if you torture an animal.

I don't think we should stop eating meat, but I also believe in animal welfare, and that any animals under our care should be kept healthy and happy until the day they die.

Whether they're a dog, cat, cow or pig.

Just because we eat meat, doesn't mean we need to cause unnecessary suffering.
Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.
Two things wrong here, 1: your getting your definitions from SG-1, seriously?
2: All creatures fear death, thats how they know to get the fuck out of the way when they see a bus heading toward them.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals,
WHY! seriously no one has properly answered this yet.

and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.
This part is just depressing, you have no moral obligation to do anything, so phff why the fuck even bother right.
Your health wouldn't be at risk, look, I'm typing and not dieing, vegans can do that now.
I'm pretty sure that death is a little bit more than just "discomfort".

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.
NO I AM NOT LYING, don't look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own, that is called being a dick.
Not that any ones spending habits or moral views for that matter are any concern of yours, but just so you know I hardly spend any money on anything, all second hand, I wan't to save my money my entire life so that when I die it will all go to animal conservation in Africa. I'm not telling you how you should live your life you don't tell me how I should live mine, deal.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Jammy2003 said:
spartan231490 said:
Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals, and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.
The fact it's up for debate doesn't then bother you? How would you then feel if tomorrow, a cow learned to talk our language, and said that for years they have communicated between themselves and see us as vile beings? (Ridiculous arguement, but not more so than the one of "Yeah, but if we all went vegan, what would be do with all the animals?") Having interacted with animals and seen some of the presented results, I'd say its just a matter of time before we find that "shockingly" animals are more intellegent than most people seem to give them credit for.

If meat eating was lowered at least, it wouldn't cost more, and there is no need to put your health at risk, so that only leaves simple convinience as your defence in that arguement. "It's difficult to make learn about other food and then make meals from them". It's not actually that hard to get protein from other sources, we are just indoctrinated into this attitude of NEEDING meat to be healthy. There are pro-athletes and body builders who are vegan and live just as long, if not longer than meat eaters, so it's not impossible with just a little effort.
No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
LittleShe-Bear said:
spartan231490 said:
That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently.
Uhm, a quick google search would also show that science fiction shows use sentience in a far looser way than philosophers do. I really don't think it's a good idea to rely on fictional tv shows for philosophical or scientific definitions. :/
I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about. I could just list the qualities instead, but it's easier to say sentience, as from stargate. I don't believe that farm animals possess all of those qualities, so I don't believe that I have a moral obligation to concern myself with their suffering more than the convenience, health benefits, and price of a non-vegan diet.
 

LittleShe-Bear

New member
Mar 23, 2011
22
0
0
Whiskey 041 said:
God forbid that my medulla oblongata get agitated
You're far more than just the most primitive part of your brain. There's no need for you to get so riled. Honestly, there's no need. That's one of the best things about our evolved brains, we don't have to give in to our baser instincts, we can exercise control over them. So give it a try, yeah?

In response to your sapient feline argument, I'd say no, they shouldn't grind their teeth and starve themselves. I've said this elsewhere in this forum, if eating meat is strictly necessary for survival, then I wouldn't condemn them for partaking of meat. Survival is even seen as moral imperative sometimes and that's a position I have some sympathy with. I would hope that the sapient felines would treat their food sources as humanely (felinely?) as possible and work towards cruelty-free alternatives.

I won't argue with you on the sustainability issue. I don't have the time to research that properly but for the sake of argument, I'll assume you're right. So I'd say that I'm in favour of continuing research into cloned/artificial meat, which could hopefully turn out to be an efficient, environmentally sound, cruelty-free way of producing meat. In the mean time, I'd also advocate a reduction in how much meat we consume. It's a truism that here in the UK, we were diet-wise healthiest during ration in WWII. We don't need to eat as much meat as we do.

I realise you'll probably come back with an argument along the lines of us being predators, that it's in our nature and that we shouldn't divorce ourselves from our nature. So I'll repeat what I've said else where in this thread: Why? Why should we be natural? Why is it good to be natural? Just because something is natural, that doesn't mean it's right. "Is" does not imply "ought." The "laws" of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive.
 

zefiris

New member
Dec 3, 2011
224
0
0
It's funny that people use health reasons against veganism, when a vegan eats healthier than an average western person that eats meat. By far.

Seriously. Too much meat hurts your health far more than no meat at all.


Personally, I like some meat, so I am not a vegan. I try to cut down meat, though. Any sane person will. Something can be tasty, that doesn't make it good for you. Tortilla chips may taste nice, but you shouldn't eat them every meal, no?

but from a logical point of view, when empathy is removed from the equation, It's suicide
It's not. We grow for stupid reasons, mainly connected to religions and primite handling of them. There is no need to grow - the population could easily stagnate or decline.

Your argument fails because you do not use the very logic you claim should be used more.

This is funny because one of the biggest worries the western world has is too few children, leading to a population decline.

The entire "population grows out of control" thing isn't actually an issue. If we had worked to improve the situation of the world, world-wide, we'd have lots less people right now, because the better people are off, the less children they get (after an initial bump due to children not dying).

We didn't want to do that. We have no surplus of empathy - we lack empathy, and thus supported vicious dictatorships, ruined prospering nations, and threw an entire continent into turmoil for financial gain for a few.

THAT is why the population is still growing, and THAT is suicide: The lack of empathy.


Empathy is what made humanity prosper. The lack thereof is what will likely cause us to go extinct for good.
 

LittleShe-Bear

New member
Mar 23, 2011
22
0
0
spartan231490 said:
LittleShe-Bear said:
spartan231490 said:
That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently.
Uhm, a quick google search would also show that science fiction shows use sentience in a far looser way than philosophers do. I really don't think it's a good idea to rely on fictional tv shows for philosophical or scientific definitions. :/
I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about.
I tend to agree with Bentham; "It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

I find the argument for intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness etc being the important factors very troubling. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it's perfectly acceptable to be cruel to newborns or the severely mentally handicapped. As Bentham points out, an intelligent, adult dog might have more self-awareness than a newborn. So why is the human automatically considered more important than dog? They both have the capacity to feel pain so why not give that capacity to feel pain equal consideration?
 

LittleShe-Bear

New member
Mar 23, 2011
22
0
0
Whiskey 041 said:
We will grow until we push resources to the limit, and just like nature, no matter how much we tell ourselves we aren't the same as animals, we will collapse. The vaccinations will run out, people will fight and die for resources,
That's an argument against over-population in general, not veganism per se. And yeah, there probably are too many people in the world. No one, especially those of us with an environmental bent would argue against sustainability.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Vegan_Doodler said:
spartan231490 said:
Daystar Clarion said:
spartan231490 said:
Vegan_Doodler said:
spartan231490 said:
Vegan_Doodler said:
spartan231490 said:
Why? Because people are illogical. It doesn't make any sense, and if you follow veganism to it's logical conclusion, it doesn't result in peace and happiness for all of the little animals, but extinction.
Please enlighten me, why would it?
Cows and chickens are only alive because we help them stay that way. They don't have the defenses or drive to survive the wilderness. Sheep are in a similar boat. They have some drive, but they feed mostly on grasses, meaning there is a very limited region in which they could survive, and they're slow and relatively small, leaving them vulnerable to predators. Even coyotes can take sheep, and that's while they're being protected by the farmers.

Virtually all domesticated animals lack what it takes to survive in the wild anymore, we've made sure of that. Without the farmers who raise them, they would die, and that's assuming the farmers let them go wild, instead of just slaughtering them for convenience, or selling them to anyone who would buy(glue factories, research institutes).
Abandon4093 said:
Never said anything about being a righteous saviour, you just wanted to know why they'd die if we stopped needing them. I told you.
Ok the righteous think was out of order, apologies, and I already knew what the responce would be because its the same every time, 'if we didn't do time they would die' but like I said it is still fucked up and not a good reason to continue doing it.
You're right, it's not a good reason to keep doing it. A good reason to keep doing it is because meat and milk is tasty and animals lack sentience, so therefore they're abysmal treatment is not of great concern. However, it is a good reason not to stop, since cessation of farming activities would lead to the wholesale extinction of half a dozen species or more.

I'm all for coming up with more humane ways to farm, but being a vegan will not accomplish that, if anything it will hinder it because it with less money available in the business less profitable methods of conducting it are more likely to fail.
Except animals are sentient.

Sapience is what separates humans from animals.

A sentient creature can still feel pain and emotions. Those emotions may not be as advanced as our own, but you're still a dick if you torture an animal.

I don't think we should stop eating meat, but I also believe in animal welfare, and that any animals under our care should be kept healthy and happy until the day they die.

Whether they're a dog, cat, cow or pig.

Just because we eat meat, doesn't mean we need to cause unnecessary suffering.
Did you not even read my post? I said I was all for finding more humane methods of farming.

That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently. I just don't feel that animals fall into that category, and I'm far from alone in the matter. A quick google search will show that any conclusion about animal sentience is hotly contested.
Two things wrong here, 1: your getting your definitions from SG-1, seriously?
2: All creatures fear death, thats how they know to get the fuck out of the way when they see a bus heading toward them.

The fact is, sentient or not, we are superior to animals,
WHY! seriously no one has properly answered this yet.

and I have no moral obligation to treat them as my equal. I would not wish for an animal to be put through unnecessary suffering, but I do not value their comfort so much that I will spend extra money, let alone put my health at risk, or force myself to second guess every meal to make sure it's not only vegan but that it also provides enough protein and minerals to replace the nutritional benefits of meat, just to save them from discomfort.
This part is just depressing, you have no moral obligation to do anything, so phff why the fuck even bother right.
Your health wouldn't be at risk, look, I'm typing and not dieing, vegans can do that now.
I'm pretty sure that death is a little bit more than just "discomfort".

Further, anyone who says they do is lying, because if they did, they would sell their gaming supplies to donate to the SPCA or to save the tigers, or to prevent deforestation, or even going out into the wilderness to provide food and shelter to wild animals during harsh winters. Life is cruel and painful, I will not make mine more so just to make an animal's less so.
NO I AM NOT LYING, don't look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own, that is called being a dick.
Not that any ones spending habits or moral views for that matter are any concern of yours, but just so you know I hardly spend any money on anything, all second hand, I wan't to save my money my entire life so that when I die it will all go to animal conservation in Africa. I'm not telling you how you should live your life you don't tell me how I should live mine, deal.
As I say in this post here, I'm not using that definition just because I feel like it, I am using that definition because it measures the qualities that I care about. Had I known that so many of you would throw a fit about it, I would have just listed those qualities in the beginning, but I was trying to save time. That'll teach me.
spartan231490 said:
LittleShe-Bear said:
spartan231490 said:
That aside, there are many definitions of sentience, I personally follow the definition put forth in Stargate SG-1. A creature that is sentient is self-aware, fears their own death, is conscious, and can think independently.
Uhm, a quick google search would also show that science fiction shows use sentience in a far looser way than philosophers do. I really don't think it's a good idea to rely on fictional tv shows for philosophical or scientific definitions. :/
I did a quick google search, but I don't care if a philosopher calls something sentient. I care about the qualities something possesses. I use that definition of sentience because those are the qualities that I care about. I could just list the qualities instead, but it's easier to say sentience, as from stargate. I don't believe that farm animals possess all of those qualities, so I don't believe that I have a moral obligation to concern myself with their suffering more than the convenience, health benefits, and price of a non-vegan diet.
As to your arguments no, all animals do not necessarily fear death, they react to it. That could and probably is just as likely to come from instinct as fear of death. To fear death you need to understand what it means, which means you need to have a concept of the future, something none of my dogs have ever had, and I believe they're a lot smarter than farm animals.

Further, deer and raccoons are higher mammals, and probably smarter than most farm animals, but despite their speed and experience seeing what happens to things that go in the road, they continually get hit by cars, often jumping out into the road just as a vehicle is about to drive through. Doesn't seem so very afraid of death to me.

Why are we superior to animals? You really asked that question. Chicken haven't invented an atomic bomb. Cows haven't developed a written language. Sheep don't have the ability to use tools. Our superiority is obvious, we have crossed oceans, flown through the air, dove to the depths of the sea, even visited the moon. Farm animals haven't even gotten as far as using tools.

I never said my health would fail, I said it would be at risk. Some smokers die of brain cancer or old age, would you claim that smoking isn't unhealthy. Further, it's possible to live for years, decades, even you whole life without consuming vegetables, are you going to claim that's healthy? It is much harder to get the required nutrients as a vegan(as I have made abundantly clear in 2 previous posts), and I for one, do not see maybes and almosts as compelling reasons to count every amino acid, every vitamin, every single omega fatty acid, and every mineral in every single meal, or risk having a deficiency in something truly important, just so a cow doesn't have to be milked. Even more so when putting myself through such hardship and risk will accomplish literally nothing.

And as for "just depressing" are you really trying to convince me to give up tasty and nutritious meat for ethical reasons when I have no moral obligation to do so? Do you even see the horrific contradiction and circular logic involved in that assertion.

Yes, I am a dick, and I'm kinda proud of that, because it means I don't just roll over and assent because you think I should. That said, I'm not "look down, belittle, or trivialise anyone else's believe just because it differers from your own". I am saying that if you really thought your comfort was any less important than that of animal, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect animals, or towards organizations that are trying to develop more humane farming methods. The fact that you don't(which is obvious since you have a computer to type with and internet access to come to this site) is absolute proof that you are not a vegan for moral reasons. I will not attempt to explain why you are a vegan, but don't try to tell me the sky is green without expecting me to point up and say that it isn't.

Further, I am not saying anything about how you should spend your money or live your life, I am pointing out that your actions belay the truth of your words. You are the one arguing on this website with the implicit intention of convincing me to be a vegan.
 

Robert Ewing

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,977
0
0
Vegans are the only people in existence to be picky, and overly passive, while at the same time eating vegan food shaped like real food, and attacking anyone with a cleaver if they say vegans are stupid.

Truly a confusing sub-species.
 

Vegan_Doodler

New member
May 29, 2011
201
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Jammy2003 said:
CrystalShadow said:
Mmm. The plant issue is a tricky one. Because it betrays the fact that vegans essentially seem to be anthropocentric.

Who says a plant doesn't feel pain? On what grounds can this be asserted other than an inference based on biology and the nature of how human beings feel pain.

To be honest, can you even say breaking a rock into pieces to build a house doesn't hurt the rock?

Pretty much everything we eat was raised for that sole purpose.

Animals just happen to be cuter, and easier to understand because we are animals ourselves.

That doesn't mean plants, (or indeed inanimate objects) don't suffer as a result of what we do to them. Merely that if they do, we are less capable of recognising the suffering.

Still... I thought this through myself and came to the conclusion that being vegetarian or vegan for those reasons was problematic, and, honestly, a little egocentric.

I don't like causing suffering, but the fact remains that me being alive comes at the expense of other living and non-living things. There's no way around this, and presuming the suffering of animals is more important than that of anything else doesn't make sense to me.
That's not to say nothing can be done at all, just that I think vegetarianism doesn't really solve much in that regard.
Oh come now, with that logic there is no point in doing anything at all. That's a ridiculous extrapolation and can be done in reverse, to suggest that if living causes suffering then why be compassionate to anything? Why have a dog, cat or family? Why not eat them?
Of course it's extreme. But following things through to their logical conclusion is almost inevitably absurd.

That's one of the problems with logic.

The reverse case that you are pointing out is just as true, but does not negate the point.

Either way, what you choose to show compassion for, and what you don't is pretty arbitrary.

I mean, why is it OK to cause obvious harm to one thing, but not another?
Who decided that?

Well, as it happens, when you look at it, there may be a few exceptions here and there, but at the end of the day it seems to come down to compassion being proportional to how similar something is to you personally.

I can't argue with the feelings behind that, but it hardly seems a particularly fair way to judge what gets to live and what gets to die.
Got to say this is probably one of my favourite posts, someone who is using pure logic, and they disagrees with me *squeeeeel* this is going to be fun.

Ok, I do see a logical flaw in your extreme situation, it's that just because it would be nearly impossible to to execute such ideology practically then you abandon it completely, while compromise is the braking of a logical chain drawing your line in the sand isn't always a bad thing, at least you can be near or even just halfway toward the logical ideal rather than saying screw it and abandoning that path all together. Alternatively people could take a que from Rorschach an "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon" and keep striving for the ideal rather than abandoning it, which is what I try to do in life, not always successfully, but still.
A line I think I first heard for a Karate Kid movie was,
"when do I get to smash rocks"
"why do you what to smash rocks? what have they ever done to you?"
from that day I haven't caused intentional damage to any inanimate objects.

Sorry for the windedness at the beginning of the post. It just seems increasingly rare to find logical people on the internet.
 

Jammy2003

New member
Feb 28, 2011
93
0
0
spartan231490 said:
No, not at all. I've grown up around animals all my life, they are not our equals.
If cows learned how to speak English tomorrow, I would firmly believe I was in the matrix, because that's the only logical explanation.

And yes, if meat eating was reduced, it would increase price. It's called supply, and demand. Econ 101 material right there. Further, I wasn't talking about price, I was talking about profit, and fewer sales means less revenue, means less profit. That's why price increases when demand goes down, they need to make up for that lost profit, and it doesn't account for all of the lost profit, making alternate(more humane) farming methods, which are inherently less profitable, even less appealing to farmers.

And yes, not eating meat, and particularly being a vegan(what this thread is about), does put your health at risk. yes it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, but it requires you to take much more care with your diet, and to take supplements. There is no vegan way to get essential omega 3 oils, for example, and its also much harder to get several amino acids(again, harder, not impossible).

It's not about protein, it's about the right protein to give you the right balance of amino acids. Meat is the only source which contains all 8 essential amino acids. Also, there are many things in fat, also hard to get without meat, that are good for you, like essential oils which you can't naturally get from vegan sources.

Yeah, professional athletes clearly don't put much effort into their diet, and they don't take any supplements. /Sarcasm

Why don't you try to do some research before you call me out on not doing so. You can start here, but google will provide much more info. http://nourishedkitchen.com/10-reasons-red-meat/

I was a bit overboard when I said it was impossible, but it is impossible to eat healthy as a vegan without carefully considering every single meal and taking half a dozen expensive supplements.
Well, fair enough, you're free to believe what you want.

But that's not really my lookout from an economic standpoint. Yes, if everyone reduced all at once it would have a dramatic impact, but if its a gradual transition, then the supply reduces to reflect demand. You know what? It probably would be somewhat more expensive. But the reason the farming methods we currently use are used, is because they are the most cost effective, and regardless of how much was sold, or the profit margins, they wouldn't improve in any way.

If everyone started paying double the price for meat, you think the conditions of the industry would improve?

I never said you hadn't researched, I simply said your all or nothing ideas were incorrect, that you seemed to be saying there was no way to be vegan AND healthy. Also, I'm aware what the thread is about, I joined it on page 4 I believe having read everything up to that point. Though I would argue the need to take "half a dozen expensive supplements", I know vegans who get by fine by paying attention to their diet and perhaps taking multivitimins. Not the most bank breaking of investments, and something a fair number of people take anyway, whatever their diet.

If you read my previous posts you'll see I'm not even insisting that we need to go vegan, just to reduce the intake of meat the average person consumes. Because the enviromental impact of farming as it is, is ridiculous. 70-80% of the US grain production goes as feed to animals. That doesn't really sound like efficient farming does it? If you want to see more on the impact of farming in its current state, google searches will also show that:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef

I never said it wouldn't be more effort, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The insistance and apparent belief that we DESERVE an easy and convinient life without effort, is somewhat baffling and more than a little absurd. Of course athletes put more effort in, I never claimed otherwise, I think everyone should put more effort in.