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

[peruvianskys]

And let's see you cite the information that the 'vast majority' of agriculturalists and biologists claim there is no moral justification for it. Ignoring the fact that whether there is or is not a moral justification for it isn't even in the domain of their field because I'm curious enough to see if you even have a shred of evidence for your claim to ignore that fact that it is being used as an appeal to authority.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf

"According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain."

"In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1."

The leader of the Centre for Global Food Issues as well as the last three heads of the USDA have recommended vegetarian diets as an important step towards a sustainable future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

Also the fucking UN.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to facts that are so obvious that figures in authority can't deny them. And as my field is economics, I can certainly tell you that the economic impact of meat trading is universally considered negative by neo-classicalists and Keynesians and all that alike.

Care to refute the evidence, or are you just going to make ad hominem attacks?

EDIT: Also I resent the implication that an expert in the field doesn't have the right to make a judgment on the moral value of an action. Biologists who understand how pigs or cows operate on a physiological level are absolutely the most qualified to tell you whether or not killing them and eating their dead bodies is a moral action (and people such as Peter Singer, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, T. Colin Campbell, and a shit ton of others, have made that judgement rightfully so, all of whom I might add do so with essentially no criticism from others in their fields). Sure, ethical philosophers and PETA idiots can spout all they want, but in the end, who is more qualified to say whether or not it's reasonable to kill and eat animals than one whose entire life is devoted to the study of those animals or the effects of those actions on the body?

 

[PhantomEcho]

And let's see you cite the information that the 'vast majority' of agriculturalists and biologists claim there is no moral justification for it. Ignoring the fact that whether there is or is not a moral justification for it isn't even in the domain of their field because I'm curious enough to see if you even have a shred of evidence for your claim to ignore that fact that it is being used as an appeal to authority.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf

"According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain."

"In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1."

The leader of the Centre for Global Food Issues as well as the last three heads of the USDA have recommended vegetarian diets as an important step towards a sustainable future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

Also the fucking UN.

It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to facts that are so obvious that figures in authority can't deny them. And as my field is economics, I can certainly tell you that the economic impact of meat trading is universally considered negative by neo-classicalists and Keynesians and all that alike.

Care to refute the evidence, or are you just going to make ad hominem attacks?

EDIT: Also I resent the implication that an expert in the field doesn't have the right to make a judgment on the moral value of an action. Biologists who understand how pigs or cows operate on a physiological level are absolutely the most qualified to tell you whether or not killing them and eating their dead bodies is a moral action (and people such as Peter Singer, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, T. Colin Campbell, and a shit ton of others, have made that judgement rightfully so, all of whom I might add do so with essentially no criticism from others in their fields). Sure, ethical philosophers and PETA idiots can spout all they want, but in the end, who is more qualified to say whether or not it's reasonable to kill and eat animals than one whose entire life is devoted to the study of those animals or the effects of those actions on the body?

Here's a curious response to those bits of evidence: "Who would stand to profit the most from such a change?"

And another important question: Where do they think these crops are going to come from?


At least here in the States, Farmers are a dying breed. The model has shifted away from subsistence farming to full blown industrialization of the entire process. Family farms certainly aren't likely to make a comeback. But one can hardly argue against the very truthful nature of much of what the report states. It is true that, with our present levels of meat consumption, we're wasting massive amounts of crops, water, etc...

... but there's another problem that frequently gets overlooked: FARMING is devastating to the environment as well! Even if we cut out pesticides and fertilizers, which would significantly reduce the yield of our crops, the level of damage that the mass farming necessary to feed a nation solely off of said crops would do alone is staggering. And then, as has been said time and time again, there's the issue of there simply not being ENOUGH farmland to actually grow the crops necessary to feed a nation our size.

So what you really have, here, is an equally environmentally disastrous policy which would stand to make both the USDA and any agriculturally dependent UN member state considerably wealthy. After all, who would we depend on to supply us with all those tasty vegetables?

Why, the USDA... who is responsible for making sure all those fruits and vegetables are safe for human consumption!

Oh, and the countries overseas who get to provide us with massive amounts of imported food (probably while their own people starve) in order to make up for the massive shortfalls in our own harvest.

I've taken enough agribusiness classes to understand the tenuous balance between food crops and feed crops, between farmland and environmental protection.

And I'm going to point something very important out. Something that you won't hear a lot of businessmen like me tell you:

It doesn't matter WHAT we eat. None of it is going to be sustainable.

The problem isn't WHAT we're eating. It's how many mouths we have to feed. There is NO sustainable agricultural model extant which can account for the current global population and projected future growth.


So enjoy eating whatever you've got while you can.

If you're lucky and you still have a high horse to ride, you might even be able to eat it.

Otherwise it's going to be Soylent Green for you.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

How do I feel? The same way I do about a lot of other things: It's none of my business unless you want to make it so.

I eat meat. I don't eat seafood (But that's based on taste, not objections to the seafood industry)

 

[peruvianskys]

Here's a curious response to those bits of evidence: "Who would stand to profit the most from such a change?"

And another important question: Where do they think these crops are going to come from?

The crops don't have to come from anywhere; they're already here. America produces enough annually in grain and vegetable crops to feed the American population directly. We just don't have enough to feed cows and then eat those cows because the energy input/output ratio is just so bad. The use of our agricultural products to feed animals that are then slaughtered is the use of a middleman that absolutely destroys the efficiency of our agricultural system. With over 70% of our gross production of grains going towards feeding animals, which have on average a 5:1 energy ratio, we are effectively throwing out over 80% of our annual crops. It's like taking water, heating it up, and then getting your drinking water from what condenses on a cup across the room as it turns to steam; it's not that you don't have enough water, it's that you have an absurdly roundabout and inefficient way of getting the nutrients produced into your body. If we took a fifty year plan towards lowering the population of farm animals towards their natural levels and using the full size of our agricultural production, we could easily, easily, easily reduce hunger across America and across the world. As long as we continue to take a hundred pounds of wheat and 200 gallons of water to make one pound of beef, there's going to be hunger. Simple as that.

You're right that overpopulation is a bigger issue, for sure. This population could subsist on happy thoughts and we would still be unsustainable. But vegetarianism is a step in the right direction.

 

[Dark marauder]

Im a vegetarian and ive been since birth thats how I was raised I just dont have a reason to eat meat and I dont have a problem with others eating meat what I find annoying is when people ask why im a vegetarian like im some sort of inferior idiotic creature from the pits of hell or judge me for it I mean so what I dont eat what you eat big deal

 

[James Crook]

We're top of the food chain, and some people want to be fucking herbivores?
Anyways, if they don't want to eat meat, then fine, they may. But they have to keep in mind they are completely unable to avoid consumption of animal-based products, such as eggs, butter, grease, or anything else.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

oh stop being such a attention seeking "pity me i hate myself" type asshole. the stuff you have said has made your opinion null.
OT yea, i don't mind, but as long as its not forced into my face i don't care either way.

You're right, my life could be worse. I could be unable to find they "shift" key on my keyboard.

So in the end a whole plate that could have sustained a starving child in Africa for a week went into the bin untouched and uneaten, just because madame superior felt above eating a bit of minced meat.

You didn't have a fridge?

Anyway, I think she dealt with it quite well. If someone suggested I just eat it anyway I would probably punch them in the face.

Colour me confused and befuddled, especially about the shift key bit...on a serious note, why did you post your original post, knowing that you would get flamed for it?

 

[FamoFunk]

If I was to do it, I'd go the whole hog and be a Vegan. I'm more against the way we milk Cows then killing Animals for meat.

And I'm only against the poor quality caged Chickens and stuff, I do believe all Animals should be free-range and organic before killed, and I do help by only buying Free-ranged/organic Meat, eggs, milk etc.

 

[Matthew Dunn]

Oh look this thread again e-e

Well i am also a meat nommer but im careful about where the meat comes from and will not eat anything that is halal because of the way its slaughted (I mean no offence by this but i disagree with it)
I.E (wiki) Ḏabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَ&#1577 is the prescribed method of slaughtering all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of using a well sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, wind pipe and jugular veins but leaves the spinal cord intact.[2] The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the Qiblah. In addition to the direction, permitted animal should be slaughtered in the name of Allah (the Lord) and the person who is slaughtering should be a Muslim and he/she should be in a good mental condition and faith.

I thought cutting the throat was illegal... but they get away with it ----> watch out for this sign حلال

Halal (when done properly) isn't barbaric, it's the way people have slaughtered cattle for thousands of years (minus the religious rituals). If it's done by someone who knows what he's doing, the animal dies very quickly and hardly suffers. Why is hanging live, awake chickens by their feet and shocking them to death better?

Oh, and ever heard about Shechita? It's basically the jewish version of halal, so you can't really pin this one on the muslims.

The electrocution method instantly kills off the brain so that the animal feels no pain when the throat is cut
Plus you have now given me another version of meat to avoid

 

[HK_01]

I think that it's sort of admirable, but I wouldn't want to do it myself. I like meat way too much for that.

I really don't understand the people who are actively hostile towards vegetarians. It's their own choice and it shouldn't bother you one bit.

 

[Bernzz]

I am a vegetarian. I could argue how eating meat is unsustainable, drastically detrimental to the environment and causes health problems due to the western world's tendency for over-consumption. I could also refute every single argument you have about whatever necessity or justification you feel you have for eating meat. But and the end of the day I don't give a fuck about my health or the environment or even morality. I just know that I feel sick when I see animals suffering or being killed when I know it isn't necessary. Also at the end of the day, most arguments in favour of eating meat are "I like the taste and I don't give a fuck about anything else." That's perfectly valid. I'll still hate you for it, and probably wouldn't even call an ambulance for you when you have a cholesterol induced heart attack, or choke on your steak. Just saiyan.

I guess that makes a world of difference between us then, eh? 'cos I'd still call an ambulance for someone if they were having a heart attack or choking on food, even if they were a douchebag vegetarian who can't let people have their own preferences without judging them for it needlessly.

OT: My base argument is: I like the goddamn taste. Other reasons are, I don't think it's wrong to eat meat, because if it was wrong, we wouldn't be built to eat it anyway. But we're omnivores. We have the capability to, it's not wrong to eat it.

However, I'd like to have all animals used for the meat industry to be killed as quickly and as painlessly as possible. It makes me feel sick to hear about animals being abused before being killed for their meat, or to see footage of it.

TL;DR: The unnecessary abuse of animals (redundant, I know, all animal abuse is unnecessary in the extreme) is wrong. Eating meat isn't. All in my opinion, o'course.

 

[Robot-Jesus]

it produces tender meat.

 

[poleboy]

The electrocution method instantly kills off the brain so that the animal feels no pain when the throat is cut
Plus you have now given me another version of meat to avoid

The point is, any animal will suffer when you slaughter it. Did I mention the chickens are awake until they get shocked? There are a lot of misconceptions about halal, mostly because people are distrustful of anything that's related to islam. It's really not as bad as you make it sound. It's just the old-fashioned way of slaughtering cattle, before electricity (plus a prayer or two, which doesn't make much difference either way for the animal).

 

[OneCatch]

Am veggie; not quite sure whether I am because of moral reasons, sustainability reasons, childhood indoctrination or because I don't like the look of meat

I think that if human population growth continues we're all going to have to eat less meat or possibly none, because it requires intensive land use, but I feel much the same way about oil and natural gas (and anything else that's not completely sustainable).

It doesn't bother me that other people eat meat, I'm not judgemental about it, but I'm admit I'm not fond of fox hunting or battery farms!

Somewhat oddly, I'd have no more objection to eating a dog than a pig if it came down to it. Guess I'm not one of those people that are affected by 'cuteness of animal' rating

 

[OneCatch]

Anyway, why the hell shouldn't I sit on my high horse. I can because I haven't fucking eaten it yet.

I must admit that that is a fantastic line, even if I don't agree with the rest of your posts!

 

[Darth_pipsqueak]

It all boils down to this, in the end.

People who don't eat meat: Fine, whatever.
People who try to lecture me about how my lifestyle is wrong and how eating meat is murder, and how i could just as easily kill a cow, right now, and eat it, and how i'm a gun-toting maniac who shoots animals for fun, and how i'm insecure and have to kill living creatures to make myself feel better: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-







But seriously, how many vegetarians do that anyway?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

And in turn, I could go into an argument about how all of your evidence is based upon biased research and widely debunked fallacy. I could also point out that there is no viable way to support a species our size by living purely on vegetation due to the massive requirements of space and the huge cost of transportation from what would become inconceivably distant farms, but in the end, what the hell do I care whether you're a vegetarian or not? I know plenty of vegans who I'm perfectly alright with. The kinds who don't give a damn about what I eat or think, and don't sit up on their moral high horse looking down on everyone who disagrees with them. Because hey, it doesn't take eating vegetables to make you a dick, right?

People are perfectly good at being assholes without help.

And that's really all this conversation will ever amount to. You'll have the intolerant vegans/vegetarians... the intolerant most everyone else... and the comfortable middle that thinks that both sides of this obviously loaded argument are set up to make asses of themselves.

Best to just not ask the question.

You could do that, but you would be wrong.

Anyway, why the hell shouldn't I sit on my high horse. I can because I haven't fucking eaten it yet. Your friends might be happy in the knowledge that, despite them demonstrating it's perfectly possible to live without meat, you insist on killing things just because you want to. But I'm not okay with that. So if pointing out that someone is a dick for killing things makes me a dick, then I guess I'm a dick, but so is that person who I initially called out who isn't you because that would get me mod wrath.

I think you need to sit down take a deep breath and have a nice pork sandwich with steak bread and smeared with the horse's blood on which you currently sit.

 

[Yoshisummons]

It's one step from being suicidal. If someone makes the logic leap that animals are people, and it's inherently bad to eat people. Then, aren't plants living creatures as well? So why not prevent the harm of those things. Wait, you say only animals can also be people because it's more obvious, because you seen those cute kittens?

At the end of the day, by living on this planet you are limiting the biomass from being plants, bears, rats, bacteria, to turning that biomass into you, a human being. Is that bad? Depends on your values, and what you deem to have value.

I eat meat.
This is a terrible terrible argument.

You can't equate plants to "living" in the same sense as animals.

The "Hur Hur stop killing the plants" joke isn't funny. Please stop, you're worse than preachy vegans.

Really? What's different? Elaborate on what is the precise difference between plants an animals, and why one of the two has the right to live and the other doesn't. Where is this line and where are we drawing it.