What are you thoughts about Vegetarianism and why do you feel that way?

[michael87cn]

I do feel that we need to be better about the way we farm these animals, but they're just another variation in the food chain to me (and a very tasty one, I might add). Overall, I just can't bring myself to care about if the meat I eat was prodded, crammed in a small living space, and had it's throat slit and was hung to bleed out. It's just an elaborate form of what animals do in their natural habitat anyhow.

So, tell me, what are you thoughts about Vegetarianism and why do you feel that way?

"it's just an elaborate form of what animals do in their natural habitat anyhow"

If, by elaborate, you're describing animals being born bred and killed by machines in factories, with lots of the food going to waste, spoiling or just existing for the sole purpose of greed, I suppose 'elaborate' fits. Also, unless I'm mistaken, not all animals kill each other, in fact... most animals are peaceful and friendly, and only eat grass or seeds. Some do kill, yes, but they don't mutilate or over-kill, they take only what they need.

Do I find eating meat to be wrong? No. I do find it disgusting that animals can be mass produced like some sort of block of wood or some kind of machine like a toaster. There's no need for pain and death on that kind of scale. It's just greed, through and through.

Edit: I wanted to add something that I find interesting; we don't usually eat animals that are predators, like lions or sharks. We eat stuff like chickens and deer. Anyone else find that kind of strange? If you compare it to how we treat people, (we punish the murderers and thieves) but we kill and eat the more innocent animals, when we could be eating the predators first and the 'innocent' animals last. Just some food for thought.

 

[draconiansundae]

I find it fairly ironic that the majority of the posts are condemning vegetarians for being obnoxious and preachy about their opinions regarding their diets, yet they present their own arguments in a similarly abrasive and close-minded manner.

Anyway, I myself am a vegetarian and my reasons are my own, but mostly include the aforementioned environmentalist, anti-corporatist, and to a lesser extent, moralistic viewpoints. Also I happen to just not like the taste and texture of most meat in general. However, my reasons are my own and I don't feel an overwhelming desire to defend them. Moreover, I simply don't feel the need to impose my beliefs on others, because just like my the Jehova's Witnesses come knocking, I simply find preaching to be annoying and have no desire to act that way to others. Thus, many of the sweeping generalizations about "all" vegetarians being moral supremacists has been disproved right here. A good amount of the... "debate" I've seen here (and on many previous threads of this ilk) is rather unsurprisingly close-minded and uncompromising, which is not a good forum for actual understanding. Sure, expressing your own opinion is great, but you don't have to do so in a way that alienates everyone that disagrees with you, however respectfully.

EDIT: This is based on the first 3 pages that I actually read... actually this page isn't so bad!

 

[DirgeNovak]

Vegetarian because you don't like meat or even for health reasons? Not a problem in my book. But vegetarian because of moral reasons is just hypocritical. You think eating meat is immoral, but you drink milk, eat cheese and eggs? You're a fucking hypocrite. Now vegans I can respect, even if I don't get them either, because they're at least consistent.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a horse steak on the stove.

EDIT: This of course doesn't apply to vegetarians who don't preach and/or throw insults at omnivores. Those are alright.

 

[DarthFennec]

schhnneeep

You are factually wrong when you say that animals do not feel like humans do. The pain felt by pigs and cows is biologically exactly the same as the pain you feel. You can't argue that.

Except they aren't self-aware, they aren't sentient ... so it would be pretty much exactly the same thing as saying `this computer program that's designed to say "ouch" when you poke it feels pain'.

Yeah they feel, but they don't feel like we do. They can't understand their feelings. They can only react to them. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[bobmus]

Their choice, but don't impose it on others, ever.
However veganism is a threat to health, and fruitism is just craziness imo

 

[peruvianskys]

Yeah they feel, but they don't feel like we do. They can't understand their feelings. They can only react to them. That's the point I was trying to make.

Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest that pigs and cows aren't self-aware? Because that would be contradicting the majority opinion of neurobiologists who work with animals.

Pigs have higher mental functioning than a newborn baby - is it okay to eat a baby?

 

[Scrubiii]

The way I look at it, animals in the wild have a worse life in every way than animals raised on a farm for meat. Right from the moment they are born, they have people looking after them every moment. They get medical attention, all the food they could ever need, warm, safe places to sleep, protection from predators (aside from us).
When I tell people this, they usually say something like "but they still get killed", as if they wouldn't die if they lived in the wild. In reality, they would die much earlier, in much more painful and drawn out circumstances.

 

[the spud]

Well, think about this.

If we weren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Seriously, they are way too tasty to give up.

 

[Vivi22]

It could be argued that people shouldn't try to live where such unhealthy diets would be the only way to go, but I'm not up for doing that .

Just as well, because to be perfectly honest, the claim that diets based around meat are unhealthy is unproven. The better and more comprehensive studies out there point to the opposite being true.

Animal fats are not the enemy of good health. What people really need to be doing is rethinking eating wheat. I'd add sugar as well, but most people already accept that it's bad for you.

 

[DarthFennec]

Yeah they feel, but they don't feel like we do. They can't understand their feelings. They can only react to them. That's the point I was trying to make.

Do you have any scientific evidence to suggest that pigs and cows aren't self-aware? Because that would be contradicting the majority opinion of neurobiologists who work with animals.

Pigs have higher mental functioning than a newborn baby - is it okay to eat a baby?

Sure it is, I eat babies all the time.

I don't think I've ever heard a neurobiologist say that any animal other than humans were self-aware, except maybe dolphins and elephants to some small extent. I don't think I've ever seen an animal engage in any sort of art or philosophy. When I see this, I'll change my mind about it. Until then, I can tell I'm not getting anywhere with this argument.

Alright, let's look at this a different way. No, I would not eat a newborn baby. That's called cannibalism, and it's detrimental to the evolutionary health of the species. In the same way, a dog would not eat another dog, a panther would not eat another panther, a polar bear would not eat another polar bear. As a general rule (which is, yes, broken sometimes), things eat things of other species only. Again, you have to eat something, and it has to have been alive at some point. There are a million reasons why that would include anything but a human. Cats and pigs and penguins and bananas and anything.

I guess the biggest problem I have is, when it gets right down to it, whatever moral ideal I may be breaking by eating animals, you're breaking the same ideal by eating plants. Because in the end, none of it matters, nothing's alive, nothing's conscious or sentient, it's all just chemistry doing its thing and there's nothing else to it. We're all the same, we all eat living things, we all have to destroy other life in order to survive ourselves. I'll eat what I want to eat for my own reasons, you eat what you want to eat for your own reasons, I don't get in your face about `moral issues', and I would appreciate it if you didn't get in mine, alright?

 

[peruvianskys]

I don't think I've ever heard a neurobiologist say that any animal other than humans were self-aware, except maybe dolphins and elephants to some small extent. I don't think I've ever seen an animal engage in any sort of art or philosophy. When I see this, I'll change my mind about it. Until then, I can tell I'm not getting anywhere with this argument.

Animals don't need to develop art and philosophy to have the mental capacity necessary for suffering. Pigs, cows, sheep, goats, and even rats have the neurological functions that lead to pain being felt, just as you do.

Alright, let's look at this a different way. No, I would not eat a newborn baby. That's called cannibalism, and it's detrimental to the evolutionary health of the species. In the same way, a dog would not eat another dog, a panther would not eat another panther, a polar bear would not eat another polar bear. As a general rule (which is, yes, broken sometimes), things eat things of other species only. Again, you have to eat something, and it has to have been alive at some point. There are a million reasons why that would include anything but a human. Cats and pigs and penguins and bananas and anything.

I see no reason why the evolutionary health of our species should be considered more important than preventing the suffering of another species, just like the protection and propagation of our race should not take precedence over the rights of another race. There's no logical or ethical reason to assume that the fate of humans somehow outweighs the fate of the other 99.999% of the Earth unless you subscribe to a frankly primitive tribalism.

I guess the biggest problem I have is, when it gets right down to it, whatever moral ideal I may be breaking by eating animals, you're breaking the same ideal by eating plants. Because in the end, none of it matters, nothing's alive, nothing's conscious or sentient, it's all just chemistry doing its thing and there's nothing else to it. We're all the same, we all eat living things, we all have to destroy other life in order to survive ourselves. I'll eat what I want to eat for my own reasons, you eat what you want to eat for your own reasons, I don't get in your face about `moral issues', and I would appreciate it if you didn't get in mine, alright?

This argument is so disingenuous. Obviously, or at least hopefully, you make moral distinctions that prevent you from raping or murdering or whatever for pleasure; the appeal to nihilism and moral emptiness only works if you demonstrate that you live by that philosophy in your daily life and I'm very doubtful that you do. I'm sure you want to reduce suffering, as most human beings do, and I doubt that you can honestly suggest to me that the consumption of meat has nothing to do with causing another animal to suffer. So if you want to be some kind of heartless evil person and rape and murder and disregard the health and safety of other living things, then there are way bigger problems than your consumption of meat; but if you're a decent person who wants to lessen the suffering in the world, as most people are, then you don't really have a reasonable excuse to continue doing something that causes so much of it.

Nothing bad is going to happen to you if you consume meat. God won't cut you down or anything. I'm just saying that the moral philosophy that almost every human being holds prohibits the consumption of meat if you explore it diligently enough.

 

[Averant]

MY thoughts? Vegitarianism is silly.

Why? One word.

Bacon.

 

[Andothul]

Vegans and vegetarians are a lifestyle/dieting choice
which is all fine and good in our advanced society today
but in the wild or a less civilized world it would not work.

It's pretty easy to be one when you can have other people plant, pick, and produce food for you
but try being a vegetarian when you have to fend for yourself.

 

[DarthFennec]

Animals don't need to develop art and philosophy to have the mental capacity necessary for suffering. Pigs, cows, sheep, goats, and even rats have the neurological functions that lead to pain being felt, just as you do.

As I said, quite a bit of a difference between self-awareness and the ability to feel pain. Just because the neurological signal is being sent and it causes a pre-programmed evolutionary reaction doesn't mean there's any sort of perception or consciousness that recognizes it, it's just like a computer that's programmed to respond when you type `poke'. But at this point we're just talking semantics, and before you yell at me more, yes I am against the suffering of animals. As I also said before, I would like my animals to suffer as little as possible before I eat them.

I see no reason why the evolutionary health of our species should be considered more important than preventing the suffering of another species, just like the protection and propagation of our race should not take precedence over the rights of another race. There's no logical or ethical reason to assume that the fate of humans somehow outweighs the fate of the other 99.999% of the Earth unless you subscribe to a frankly primitive tribalism.

Um ... because we need to, you know, eat food. Otherwise we die. I think our lives are more important than some cows being slightly uncomfortable. I'm not saying humans are somehow more important than other species. I'm saying that the evolutionary health of any species comes first on that species' list of priorities. In evolution, the first priority is the survival of your own species. This priority helps your species and others evolve and become better suited to the surroundings. That's how natural selection works. Those are the rules that we and all other life on this planet follow. I'm not saying anything about how things `should' be, I'm just explaining why I wouldn't eat a baby. Cannibalism is bad for the species, so evolution has created in me a drive to not eat humans. That's all I mean.

This argument is so disingenuous. Obviously, or at least hopefully, you make moral distinctions that prevent you from raping or murdering or whatever for pleasure; the appeal to nihilism and moral emptiness only works if you demonstrate that you live by that philosophy in your daily life and I'm very doubtful that you do. I'm sure you want to reduce suffering, as most human beings do, and I doubt that you can honestly suggest to me that the consumption of meat has nothing to do with causing another animal to suffer. So if you want to be some kind of heartless evil person and rape and murder and disregard the health and safety of other living things, then there are way bigger problems than your consumption of meat; but if you're a decent person who wants to lessen the suffering in the world, as most people are, then you don't really have a reasonable excuse to continue doing something that causes so much of it.

I practice empathy. This means that, if I have something in common with something else, I treat it the way I would want to be treated in that respect. Yes, animals do feel pain in the same way I do. So I am against the suffering of animals. As I've stated previously, I would very much enjoy it if the animals I eat experienced as little pain as possible during their lives. I would very much enjoy it if people didn't attack their pets. I would very much enjoy it if people didn't shoot things for sport. But that doesn't have anything to do with my eating pork.

I think I've finally figured out where our difference of perspective lies. You seem to be under the impression that my eating of animals directly contributes to their suffering when it actually doesn't. The animal is already dead when I eat it, it can't feel a thing. Yes, it does suffer some before it gets killed and chopped up, but that's not due to the fact that it's going to be used for food, it's due to the fact that people are morons and poke them with pitchforks and shit. Which, as I said, is a behavior I would rather minimize. The argument I was making was that animals aren't sentient. They have no lives to get back to, no friends or family to love, no hobbies to attend to, no questions to answer, the way they think about the world is completely different than the way we do. In that respect, they're so much more like plants: nothing more than machines, created through the evolutionary process to react to situations in such a way as to keep their species' going. And I can't empathize with that, so I have no problems with treating them how I want in that respect. You don't either. You eat plants, which act in the same exact way. You probably aren't against people owning pets, which, if you disagree with what I've said, basically means that you're for slavery. Owning a pet is using animals for entertainment purposes, regardless of what they `want'. It's no different from raising an animal to be food. Their fates are sealed, and they can't do anything about it. And that's okay, because they aren't self-aware. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. But by now I'm just repeating myself, I've already said all this in my first post ...

 

[Ham_authority95]

So, tell me, what are you thoughts about Vegetarianism and why do you feel that way?

EDIT: Thanks to all of you who posted! It was wonderful to hear all of your opinions and get your incite. I'll be posting more topics in the off-topic section as well as others, but you can continue to respond to this one if you'd like. Many thanks to all of you awesome Escapists!

I'm too much of a "I'll eat anything" foodie hedonist to give up meat, but I generally get vegetarianism on everything but the animal rights business.

In reality, you don't get much bang for your buck when your purchase meat(in most places, anyway), plus it's bad for the environment because cows give off so much gas.

I get vegetarianism for practical purposes, but I would probably only practice it if I had to.

 

[manic_depressive13]

And to all the brainiacs saying that there are animal casualties in crop harvesting: You do realise that male chickens are thrown into a rotary blade after they are born because they don't lay eggs or grow to full size quickly enough (that is, within two months) in order to be slaughtered. So spare me your nonsensical "the animals killed in vegetable farming are sucked into a harvester and aren't even used for anything" argument. Compare that to approximately 50% of chickens ever hatched. (Clue: we breed a fuckload of chickens)

Ah, but we are not the ones trying to claim our way of life is 'death free' and demand others 'think of the animals.' To highlight the number of unseen deaths in vegetarian diets was just to show how hollow the mentality of a 'death free' diet really is. This doesn't even touch on the death of plants, because they seem to consider plants not alive when they make this argument.

One can not really make the counter-counter-argument of: Oh well, your diet kills many creatures needlessly as well so we the numbers in our diet can be discarded completely.

It fails the logic test. Which, when you look at it... is my only gripe with vegetarians. So many of the people, the ones who ram it down our throats at that, use arguments that do not stand up to logical debate. If you try and point out how flawed their arguments are they take it as a personal attack and will respond in not-so-pleasant ways. It isn't just Vegetarians whom have this problem though, it seems any group that identifies themselves in some way will take it as a personal attack if you don't immediately agree with this identification.

Perhaps they are giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are intentionally trolling, rather than accepting that you actually believe the nonsense you are spouting? No one thinks it is possible to have a death-free diet. The idea here is to minimise the amount of death. But you're right, since vegetable harvesting kills so many animals, stop eating vegetables and stick to just eating meat. That way you can die quicker. Or are you trying to guilt me for eating vegetables while you eat both meat and vegetables? Because I don't think you're really thinking this through.

And no, plants can't be compared to animals. Anyone who thinks that is a valid argument is beyond retarded. We know that animals suffer and feel pain in a very similar, if not identical manner, to humans. Birds and mammals definitely do. Vertabrates, including fish, probably do, although possibly to a slightly lesser extent. They are physiologically similar enough for us to conclude that it is extremely likely that they can feel pain. Some invertebrates, such as octopi, probably do. Moving on to crustaceans; we can't be certain. Some behaviour suggests that they may feel pain, although others argue this is merely a reflexive reaction to noxious stimuli. We just don't know. Looking at things like oysters, I couldn't give less of a crap if you ate them. They lack a brain and central nervous system. They're literally just lumps of fleshy crap. Taste like it too. Naturally, it follows that it's absurd to propose plants feel pain. They just don't have nociceptors or brains.

So perhaps if you stopped quoting your boyfriend and learnt to think for yourself, you'd be able to recognise the absurdly large holes in your argument which make them barely worthy of a serious response.

-snip-

Huh? Sorry, I couldn't see that through the haze of my moral superiority.

 

[Excelcior]

You know what annoys me? The vegetarians I know (of the "eating animals is immoral!"-variety) all live in the city and have never been to a farm or seen a cow in their entire life. They just gobble down whatever nonsense those damn animal rights terrorists feed them like cattle... Wait, that could explain their misplaced compassion for 'em.

First of all, let's say we all magically stopped eating meat. What would we do with all cattle, pigs, chickens and others? Let them free? They'd all starve because they wouldn't know how to look for food. Keep them around and feed them, but stop actively breeding them? Fine by me, but you're paying for it.

There's one thing I find slightly immoral though: Dead animals being ground into food for other animals. Sure, it would provide said animal with the exact nutritional elements they'd need, but it's downright cannibalism. Hell, I'd find it more moral to let pigs eat stuck up hypocrites than their own.

Also, are you familiar with the brainy capacities of various animals? Here, let me tell you: You know what cows 'think' when their barn is on fire? "Blimey, it's getting hot in here. That's mildly inconvenient." And you know what chickens think when their outside their barn and it catches fire? "Oh cock and balls, fire! Quick everybody, let's run to the safest place in the world: The barn!" Not particularly the brightest. "Don't look down on animals! Animals are people too!" No they ain't. Most farmland animals are more than meaty cabbages with legs. I'm against animal cruelty, but treating them as one would treat himself is clownshoes.

You know what I hate most about vegetarian food though? Imitated meat. So you don't want have any animal suffering on your conscience, but you couldn't live without the taste of it? Pathetic. If you want to be a vegetarian, don't half-ass it. Eat your beans the way they look normally.

Really, if anyone ever came advocating vegetarianism at my door, I'd beat them to the end of the street with a blue steak. The far end of the street. If eating meat makes me a horrible person, I'll enjoy every minute of it. Now where did I leave my CD with the sound of a thousand voices screaming in unison?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

-snip-

Huh? Sorry, I couldn't see that through the haze of my moral superiority.

Thats ok, ill say it again for clarity:

What do you think of test tube or cloned meat? IE the perfect beef cattle is let loose to roam a field, and a few of its cells are gathered every so often to clone meat that is grown in an agar vat on a frame to form a perfect steak, the steak is stimulated with gentle electrical charges to build density and as such there is no difference from a regular steak. The cow is NEVER slaughtered, when it gets to old to donate healthy cells another cow can be bred or bought in, a few cows can be kept to keep diversity but NOTHING like the numbers we have now, and none of them have to be slaughtered.

Also whats your view of scavenging? If a cow dies of a heart attack can i eat it? Its a stupid question i know but seriously no vegetarian has bothered to answer this when i ask it. What if it dies of natural causes? Like a middle aged cow so the meat is good just fell down and died, and then the farmer quickly gathers the corpse and prepares it, would you see that as morally wrong to eat it?

Also how do you feel about PETA?