Veganism...why?

[Vegan_Doodler]

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]

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.

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

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'm curious, do you believe that anyone with moral beliefs truly hold those beliefs? You can apply this hyperbole to any moral issue:

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than gay rights, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect gays

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than starving children in Africa, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect children in famine areas

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than cancer sufferers, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and research cures for cancer sufferers

You're setting a really high standard here. You don't have to give up everything to prove that you care about something. I mean, seriously, do you support any charities or causes? If you do, I could use this exact argument as absolute proof that you don't actually really care about these things.

 

[Jammy2003]

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.

Also, just to jump on this right here, I believe the forum OP was asking for people to explain why they were vegan. Everyone else joined with the implicit intention of belittling the beliefs of others, and convincing everyone that being vegan is stupid.
Who came here to make people vegan?

 

[spartan231490]

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?

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

The question is not: can they suffer? it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering. You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products? Hell, everyone on this site has hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of luxury material possessions that do nothing but give them entertainment and comfort while people live without even shelter, food, and clean water, yet you have the audacity to claim it is wrong for me to eat meat, and to argue that I shouldn't stop eating meat without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy
Every one of us is selfish, at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.
I quit.

Oh I give up. I don't know why I post on these threads, I get nothing but about 3 days worth of the same argument that I've already argued against from 50 different people.

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

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.

Also, just to jump on this right here, I believe the forum OP was asking for people to explain why they were vegan. Everyone else joined with the implicit intention of belittling the beliefs of others, and convincing everyone that being vegan is stupid.
Who came here to make people vegan?

Quite. I posted to explain my reasons for being vegan to the OP. Those reasons were challenged. I responded. That, and I enjoy a good debate. I've got no intention or expectation of making anyone vegan.

 

[spartan231490]

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'm curious, do you believe that anyone with moral beliefs truly hold those beliefs? You can apply this hyperbole to any moral issue:

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than gay rights, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect gays

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than starving children in Africa, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and protect children in famine areas

if you really thought your comfort was any less important than cancer sufferers, you would have sold all your gaming supplies, which exist solely for your comfort, in order to donate to organizations that assist and research cures for cancer sufferers

You're setting a really high standard here. You don't have to give up everything to prove that you care about something. I mean, seriously, do you support any charities or causes? If you do, I could use this exact argument as absolute proof that you don't actually really care about these things.

It's not hyperbole, and it's not a high standard, it's the truth. by not donating at least what it costs for you to have truly luxury items, you are saying that your entertainment, not even you comfort, is more important than every cause out there. And no, I don't support any charities. I do believe in a few causes, but I freely admit that I don't care enough to give up the luxuries of my life. I freely admit that I am selfish. But that doesn't mean that I don't care, nor does it mean that you don't care, but it does mean that you don't care enough to be casting stones at anyone who doesn't care. Notice, I put my opinion on an opinion thread, and then answered people who started arguments/debates with me. I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I have no problem with you being a vegan, but don't try to tell me I'm morally corrupt for eating meat cuz you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Jammy2003]

The insistance and apparent belief that we DESERVE an easy and convinient life without effort, is somewhat baffling and more than a little absurd.

Darwinism 101

Excuse me? Care to explain what you even mean by that?
Survival of the fittest means we shoudl have a happy, carefree and easy life?
That doesn't even make sense

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

But why is intelligence a more important factor than the capacity to feel pain? My compassion for someone is not limited by my estimate of their intelligence. [/Star Trek]

it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering.

So why should we care about anything that doesn't affect us directly? Are you arguing for moral nihilism?

You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products?

No, I won't jump down your throat for owing an X-box. I won't jump down your throat for not donating to charities that help starving people (that's your choice). We're merely pointing out that you may be responsible for directly contributing to an arguably unethical industry.

without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy

You don't find the arguments compelling. I do. That's not hypocrisy, that's disagreement.

at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.

Are you suggesting that we're not capable of thought? You're the only one in this thread capable of self-reflection? Okay, then.

 

[spartan231490]

No, it is not equally acceptable to be cruel to newborns because they will become fully intelligent, self-aware, and conscious beings. A horse will not. As for the severely mentally handicapped, that is an anomaly, the lack of intelligence in a horse/dog is the normal, not only the normal but as good as it gets.

But why is intelligence a more important factor than the capacity to feel pain? My compassion for someone is not limited by my estimate of their intelligence. [/Star Trek]

it is: should we care. What does it matter if they can suffer? Life is full of pain and suffering.

So why should we care about anything that doesn't affect us directly? Are you arguing for moral nihilism?

You don't jump down my throat for having an xbox instead of donating the $200 I paid for it feed the children, and those are starving people, but I can't consume animal products because the animals suffered in the production of those products?

No, I won't jump down your throat for owing an X-box. I won't jump down your throat for not donating to charities that help starving people (that's your choice). We're merely pointing out that you may be responsible for directly contributing to an arguably unethical industry.

without a compelling reason. What hypocrisy

You don't find the arguments compelling. I do. That's not hypocrisy, that's disagreement.

at least I am aware of my flaws and I have spent time considering them.

Are you suggesting that we're not capable of thought? You're the only one in this thread capable of self-reflection? Okay, then.

Well, I think that's enough being intentionally and blatantly misquoted and misinterpreted for one day. Congratulations, I will no longer dispute your rectitude today.

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

I find saying that you have to live as an ascetic in order to prove that you care about a cause is just a tad hyperbolic. Just a tad. And it's an argument against every single belief system out there. You're not just arguing against vegans here. You can make a difference without giving up everything. You can make a difference without making yourself miserable.

Notice, I put my opinion on an opinion thread, and then answered people who started arguments/debates with me. I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I have no problem with you being a vegan, but don't try to tell me I'm morally corrupt for eating meat cuz you don't have a leg to stand on.

I did exactly what you did. I posted my opinion and I've had people accuse me and those like me of being snooty, superior, foolish and all manner of insults. I didn't rise to any one of them, nor sink to that level. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. We're having a debate. Debating is not the same as attacking someone's beliefs, you are perfectly entitled to believe what you do and say it, I'm perfectly entitled to believe what I do and say it. I never called you morally corrupt, notice how I worded my post above. "Potentially," "arguably." I'm not saying I'm 100% right beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm fallible.

Chill.

 

[Jessy_Fran]

Right. I know that the thread has moved on from what I said but I just wanted to apologise for getting angry before, it's just that this is one of the few topics that really gets to me. I do not apologise for what I said as it was a badly worded, rash version of what I would have argued anyway but I'm annoyed at myself for coming across so aggressively.

If this topic is still raging tomorrow I may join in in a far calmer manner.
In any case, if anyone is interested in watching an independent film that deals with the animal industries I'd really suggest watching Earthings. It's not by PETA or any of those organisations as far as I know. If this link doesn't work you can also find the entire film on Youtube.
http://www.earthlings.com/

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

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.

Your dogs know that if they don't eat they will die, that sounds like a concept of the future.

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.

Humans still get hit by cars, they mustn't have a concept of death then.

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.

Considering your later points I feel completely justified in this language,
what the fuck have you done?
Einstein made the atomic bomb,
Shakespeare did wonders with the written word,
Michelangelo was a master crafts man,
Columbus crossed ocions,
The Right brothers conquered the air,
Nile Armstrong visited the moon,
So what marvel of human endevor do we credit you with?
Something people really need to stop doing is taking credit for other peoples endevors in order to detract form the truth that the majority of humans are docile creatures.

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.

So many things accomplish nothing, but we do them anyway because in the end that is all there is.

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.

Read what I wrote properly, I used the word depressing to describe my own reaction to your statement, I then went on to explain that you have no moral obligation to do anything so 'logicically' why do anything? a question/flaw in your reasoning you have avoided.

...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.

It is not absolute prove, I've drawn my own line in the sand, this is where I stand morally. I'm not vegan for comfort, I do it because if I want to eat meat I'll go out and kill the thing myself, I won't sit around with ideas of superiority while having meat brought to me like an entitled person.

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.

No I'm not, I don't push my morality on any one, I honestly don't care what anyone's morality is, I don't care if your vegan, carnivore, or if you filter feed through the gad dame air. Believe it or not I have no 'intention' of telling any one how to live, you are not so important that I have made it my mission to 'convince' you.

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".

Your proud of being a dick, really? In every post I've seen on this matter you have looked down on, belittled, and trivialised peoples believes, until you realise just how fucked up that is you'r opinion has no value.

 

[Necron_warrior]

The real problem with these opposing viewpoints is morality. If we remove that from the equation it could solve quite a lot of the fuss going on.
Just think about it, everyone eating any food because they want to. Or the kind of foods being grown for the best yield or most nutrition least effort/cost.
It would be glorious.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Right. I know that the thread has moved on from what I said but I just wanted to apologise for getting angry before, it's just that this is one of the few topics that really gets to me. I do not apologise for what I said as it was a badly worded, rash version of what I would have argued anyway but I'm annoyed at myself for coming across so aggressively.

If this topic is still raging tomorrow I may join in in a far calmer manner.
In any case, if anyone is interested in watching an independent film that deals with the animal industries I'd really suggest watching Earthings. It's not by PETA or any of those organisations as far as I know. If this link doesn't work you can also find the entire film on Youtube.
http://www.earthlings.com/

It takes guts to admit when you've made an error in judgment.

I don't agree with your standpoint, but I respect you for appreciating that you may have made a mistake.

Honestly, the topic always brings out the worst in me too, I just can't imagine a world without meat, and I think trying to, would cause more harm than good. Still, I said some pretty ignorant things, so I apologise too.

The best we can do is share our ideas without throwing around insults.

Keep it classy

 

[LittleShe-Bear]

The difference is potential. A normal Infant has infinitely more potential then a Dog.

For this argument to work, it rests on the premise that the potential for intelligence/self-awareness/consciousness/and so on is the important factor and that's not an assumption I agree with. Bentham's argument is against the assumption that it is the most important factor. Why is it considered more important than the capacity to feel pain? What's the reasoning here? I can't see any reason why more intelligence has to equal more importance. Example; imagine the most gifted, brilliant person in the world. They're a brilliant scientist, a gifted musician, an accomplished artist and darn sexy to boot. They're all-round amazing. It turns out they need a heart transplant and by some quirk of Thought Experiment, you are the only suitable match. Since intelligence is the most important determining factor for welfare, you should be required to sacrifice yourself for this person. Would you be cool with that?

I can see a reply along the lines of the sanctity of human life argument; this scenario deals with two humans whereas the other deals with humans an animals. But if intelligence is the dividing line, the deciding factor, why should it only serve to divide humans and animals? It could logically divide humans from other humans too...which leads to all sorts of icky conclusions.

 

[SD-Fiend]

I'm fine with veganism myself. I've even met friendly (former) veagans. It's just that the vocal majority (the LOUD portion not the big portion) are like the girl in this video:

Spoiler

The holier than thou attitude she has makes me feel quite mad just watching the video.
The comments don't help much either

 

[Saladfork]

My view on such things used to be a little difficult to describe, but has been quite well sumed up by Mordin in Mass Effect 2.

"No testing on (or in this case, eating) species capable of calculus."

 

[Tanis]

PETA...uck...just...uck.

Youtube 'Penn & Teller: Bullshit' + 'PETA'
It's all true, those PETA-tards are just...uck.

OT:
They're a bunch of damn HIPPIES..that's why.

 

[Dangit2019]

Why is veganism a thing?

Because it gives us Telepathic Powers

So....Watch your tone buddy

CRAP. I was rushing to the bottom to post that and you beat me to it.