"You can't love animal's if you're not a vegetarian"

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
I already made a point in an earlier post about how we have the means to provide for our population and don't do it, we are essentially allowing the population that can't afford food to starve.
And stupid people will always do stupid things no matter how much you try to educate them over the issues, which is why kids still have sex, do drugs, smoke, and drink, and why we have so many car accidents because people will always take risks with what they got to work with, no matter how much you try, people will always have their brains work around with reverse psychology, the more you tell them not to do it the more inclined they are to do so.
And First World nations may have stable populations - i.e. not exploding, but the fact of the matter is we still have a large and growing percentage of people who can't afford to take care of their families and wind up being homeless.
I think we need to make an effort to have a population that meets the needs of the economy in order to be able to provide for everyone, but as long as we have uneducated and even educated yet stupid people, we will have a hunger crisis that politicians will not deal with for greed.

And the whole part of containing over population to third-world nations is not something that will forever be contained. Populations will continue to expand beyond our means to effectively govern them.
And maybe the people wouldn't rebel if the governments limited food sources... hah! couldn't say that with a straight face. You do understand that it's happened before don't you?
http://www.enotes.com/food-riots-reference/food-riots
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/food-riots-2011
http://www.euronews.com/2011/01/07/algerian-riots-over-food-prices-and-unemployment/

As long as people hoard the food sources, there will always be people who will protest and often turn violent in order to get at that food.

So any of those food riots successfully overthrow any prominent world governments? Seeing how I have to ask that question, I am going to venture a guess that it is a no. I didn't say people wouldn't fight each other over food I am saying that they would not successfully overthrow any world leaders of note. Therefore they would not enact any sweeping changes to the world economic structures. A rather successful means of squashing a military resistance is to cut them off from their food supply. When they are fighting to get food I would have to imagine that cutting off their food supply would be easy. Any reasonable attempt to overthrow world leaders would require a high amount of organization, planning and forethought. In your scenario the vast amount of the world population is not smart enough to not fornicate themselves into extinction. So base on what you have provided in your scenario I don't think that is going to happen.

I was also trying to state that, and I apologize if this was not clear, that the majority of First-world nations would not experience any food shortages as they would be capable of quickly restructuring themselves to meet their own needs. Based on the fact that their population would be substantially smaller that third-world nations, and they would have better access to the financially and technological means to do so. Therefore food shortages would become a problem in third-world countries first.

Unless everyone suddenly develops globalized compassion and starts caring about who is starving half a world away it is not likely that any strife over food supplies in third-world nations will cause any sweeping changes in parts of the world not effected by the problem. In other words it would be essentially contained within third world nations.

 

[BNguyen]

RoBi3.0
The riots may not have had a huge effect but I'm sure the governments at least rethought the treatment of their citizens, after all, leaving things they way they were would not help the situation but prolong it.
And, in this day and age, it isn't likely that a First World nation would ignore poorer regions and not try to help seeing as how these things are constantly brought up in the media. If the governments tried to ignore the plights of these regions along with the people who are vocal enough to protest not doing anything about them would not have the support of the people.
While I do think each nation needs to focus their efforts on their own problems before linking to the global network, it is frankly impossible for them to completely put them off, however, they will still only limit their efforts to minor forms of charity and that which the poorer nations can afford.

 

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
The riots may not have had a huge effect but I'm sure the governments at least rethought the treatment of their citizens, after all, leaving things they way they were would not help the situation but prolong it.
And, in this day and age, it isn't likely that a First World nation would ignore poorer regions and not try to help seeing as how these things are constantly brought up in the media. If the governments tried to ignore the plights of these regions along with the people who are vocal enough to protest not doing anything about them would not have the support of the people.
While I do think each nation needs to focus their efforts on their own problems before linking to the global network, it is frankly impossible for them to completely put them off, however, they will still only limit their efforts to minor forms of charity and that which the poorer nations can afford.

There isn't any reason to suspect that first world nations would dedicate anymore or at least much more effort into third-world nations as they do right now. I as I said earlier if we cared about the overall well-being of those starving in the third world in the present day. We have the ability to produce the food it would take to feed them. Problem is we only devote a small amount of resource to the problem. Enough to say we are doing something to help, but nowhere near as what is needed to actually fix the problem.

I see the Governments helping much in the same way they do now. Enough to seem like they care but definitely not enough to put themselves in harms way or inconvenience themselves slightly.

This would never happen cause it is to extreme but I think it does a good job illustrating my above point about not wanting to inconvenience themselves. If a politically party or politician ever seriously entertained the idea of pooling all meat industry resources into producing crops to give to starving people in third-world nations. Meaning no meat for us but tons of starving people get to eat. The notion alone would be political suicide for that party or individual. At least it would be in Meat Crazed America. My point is as a whole we want to feel like we are "helping" we just don't want to sacrifice anything terribly meaningful to do so.

 

[BNguyen]

RoBi3.0
Your last point was what I was getting at. We need to fix our system so that maybe we can help people instead of sitting on our hands waiting for something to happen.

My entire scenario ago was meant as a means of figuring out how we could solve such a problem if the need arose for it. It wasn't entirely out of the realm of implausibility but it isn't very likely to happen; even so, we still need to think of solutions even if the problem doesn't come that way we can be ready to solve them.

 

[RoBi3.0]

RoBi3.0
Your last point was what I was getting at. We need to fix our system so that maybe we can help people instead of sitting on our hands waiting for something to happen.

My entire scenario ago was meant as a means of figuring out how we could solve such a problem if the need arose for it. It wasn't entirely out of the realm of implausibility but it isn't very likely to happen; even so, we still need to think of solutions even if the problem doesn't come that way we can be ready to solve them.

Well I can assure you that the solution does not lay within clear cutting rainforests or the mass destruction of ecosystems.

Really it is a extremely complicated problem. There really isn't one fix all solution, and not one that wouldn't require a large restructuring of society. As long as food is being used as a means of collecting wealth and social power there will people that have tons of food and others that starve.

As far as charity to Third-world nations go. I have always felt that it would be more meaningful if we instead of just giving them food helped them develop ways were they can be self sufficient, but that is often hard then just teaching someone how to farm. Like I said it is a very complicated problem.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Chris OBrien...
Now if you can give an answer as to how we would deal with all of the problems I've stated, then we'd be good to go on an all-plant based diet.

I don't know if you misread or just misunderstood what I've written, but I don't know how else to answer you. I given you as clear answers as possible given your posts.

If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. It can't work one way, but not the other--at least not as you've framed it.

The scenario you originally posed is like asking "what if clipping your finger nails caused Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Japan?" Well, it doesn't and can't, so I'd continue clipping my nails and focus on helping to solve the SIDS problem in ways that are realistic and effective.

Regardless, it is not the job of vegans or vegetarians to solve any of these rather unrelated and unrealistic scenarios or argue against any of these illogical, unfounded, and unsupported comments. If by some chance anything you mentioned became actual problems, they would not have anything to do with a plant-based diet. Every single one of those issues is just as likely no matter what diet is dominant, so saying "but what if it was caused by a plant-based diet?" is absurd and every scenario is completely irrelevant to a debate about the merits of plant-based diets versus meat-heavy diets.

I'll stop there because I'm only going to repeat what I've already posted and Loonnyyy and Robi have done a much better job responding to you already. Also you never answered any of my questions. I answered yours--I think it would be fair if you returned the favor.

I love dogs. They eat meat, so do I. Where's the problem in that?

My opinion, word per word.
If anything it is the humans that developed this crazy stuff called intelligence that sends them on a guilt trip about eating other animals.
You do what you gotta do to stay alive.

Thank you, my opinion exactly.
If humans didn't develop intelligence such as we have now, we wouldn't care how many animals we kill as long as our stomachs are full enough to carry us to the next day. Survival is key and if biting into an animal helps me stay alive, I'll most likely do it (excluding the animals I call my pets). Besides, when out in the wild, it is easier to find an animal to hunt that an edible plant.

Your statement is not factual. It is not easier to find, catch, kill, and prepare an animal to eat than it is to find edible plants. Animals run away. Plants don't. Also, you are describing a life or death survival scenario, which is clearly not your day-to-day experience. You go to the store and buy a pre-killed, cleaned, butchered, and packaged animal to take home and cook with gas or electricity and eat. You don't hunt and prepare all your food yourself. That would be a full time job and the opinions of people on the internet about your dietary choices would be the least of your concerns.

I agree with both of you, if humans hadn't developed our current level of intelligence, we probably wouldn't care how many animals were killed for our consumption. However, that is very much the point: We have developed that intelligence. We are capable of empathizing with animals and making a conscious decision to eat them or not.

Finally, you do not need meat. You choose to eat meat because you have been taught to, because you enjoy it, or because it is convenient to. There is no debate to be had. It is an indisputable fact that you do not need food made from animals to survive and thrive.

 

[BNguyen]

Chris OBrien

You know, I've kind of started ignoring you for a while now because you still failed to answer the question at all. I'm giving up this thread because nobody seems to have a good answer for the moral reason of giving up meat, and you sure as hell aren't giving one.
And besides, you tend to ignore the factual details of how much effort you need to grow a garden, it isn't as simple as planting a seed and forgetting about it till it blossoms fruit or a vegetable.


And this:
"If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. "
no, it doesn't, it asks how you would deal with famine if a plant-diet economy and infrastructure was implemented before the fact without causing needless damage to the environment in order to produce more food.


The answer is that both sides have some fault in destroying the environment, animals with land consumption and feed while growing crops releases toxins into water supplies and animal habitats. There is no clear cut way to decrease our effect while providing enough food but the best way to off-shoot the release of toxins into ground water would be to farm fish - they breed rapidly and don't need expensive equipment or huge areas in order to raise them.

And yes, my point is factual - for an average person, you're more likely to find an edible animal than to find a plant that is edible. Most of the plants you'll run into are shrubs, trees, grasses, or flowers - very little of what you'll find in the wild is edible and even if it is, an average person won't be able to tell what parts are good for food and what aren't seeing as how a lot of wild-growing plants both look alike or have to be cooked a certain way before they are edible.

EDIT: Ignore my point on fat from plants, but still, my point being that even if overall a plant-based diet is healthy, not everyone can subsist on a plant diet for the sole reason that they are unable to stomach it, their bodies aren't capable of breaking down plants as easily as they can meat - not always but sometimes - I myself get sick from eating certain vegetables and fruits - I tried eating blueberries before and I puked after swallowing one.
And all plant-based diet is not feasible for every one of us if we cannot eat what's on our plate, and not from a moral standpoint but a physical one.

 

[BNguyen]

For the last time: I'm exiting this thread! Stop replying to my posts!

 

[Chris OBrien]

Chris OBrien

You know, I've kind of started ignoring you for a while now because you still failed to answer the question at all. I'm giving up this thread because nobody seems to have a good answer for the moral reason of giving up meat, and you sure as hell aren't giving one.
And besides, you tend to ignore the factual details of how much effort you need to grow a garden, it isn't as simple as planting a seed and forgetting about it till it blossoms fruit or a vegetable.


And this:
"If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. "
no, it doesn't, it asks how you would deal with famine if a plant-diet economy and infrastructure was implemented before the fact without causing needless damage to the environment in order to produce more food.


The answer is that both sides have some fault in destroying the environment, animals with land consumption and feed while growing crops releases toxins into water supplies and animal habitats. There is no clear cut way to decrease our effect while providing enough food but the best way to off-shoot the release of toxins into ground water would be to farm fish - they breed rapidly and don't need expensive equipment or huge areas in order to raise them.

And yes, my point is factual - for an average person, you're more likely to find an edible animal than to find a plant that is edible. Most of the plants you'll run into are shrubs, trees, grasses, or flowers - very little of what you'll find in the wild is edible and even if it is, an average person won't be able to tell what parts are good for food and what aren't seeing as how a lot of wild-growing plants both look alike or have to be cooked a certain way before they are edible.

EDIT: Ignore my point on fat from plants, but still, my point being that even if overall a plant-based diet is healthy, not everyone can subsist on a plant diet for the sole reason that they are unable to stomach it, their bodies aren't capable of breaking down plants as easily as they can meat - not always but sometimes - I myself get sick from eating certain vegetables and fruits - I tried eating blueberries before and I puked after swallowing one.
And all plant-based diet is not feasible for every one of us if we cannot eat what's on our plate, and not from a moral standpoint but a physical one.

Oh well that explains it, then. I have chosen my words carefully and written very specifically, but you're ignoring me.

You never asked directly for a moral reason to give up meat, you presented a topic/scenario that seemed entirely irrelevant. The moral reason to not eat meat: Animals are sentient, they have the ability to suffer, and it is unnecessary. Humans have the ability to recognize all of these facts and make decisions based on them. Therefore, they should not be eaten--or at the very least not mass-farmed.

I am not ignoring how difficult it is to grow plants. You are ignoring that farm animals are fed with plants that are difficult to grow. Instead of feeding one population with plants (humans), you are arguing that it is preferable to feed multiple populations with plants (animals and humans) and that doing so is somehow more efficient. Every single problem you pose in regard to growing plants to eat is and would be a problem either way, because animals must be fed with plants of some kind.

Your scenario, again, is irrelevant to the debate. The answers I would give you have nothing to do with diet. The answers I would give you are the ones I gave you--find ways to grow food without using additional land, cap human population growth, research/develop/fund extra-terrestrial colonization projects. All three of these are at least as realistic as your scenario.

Fish farming is just as damaging to water environments as animal farming is to land environments. And fish still need to be fed, like all animals. Many fish farms currently feed their fish corn...

Humans will always affect the environment. The goal is not to have no effect at all. That is impossible. The goal is to be as responsible as possible and not perpetuate damaging practices just because they are common or convenient. I am arguing that farming plants does significantly less damage to the environment.

Your point about the accessibility of animals in the wild is not factual. An edible animal may be easier for an uneducated human to spot, but if this person is so "average" that they can't find any edible plants, then they probably do not know how to properly hunt, kill, skin, clean, prepare, and cook said animal. If edible plants were so rare in the wild, where do you think all the plants human beings farm to eat came from? Again, plants are much easier to gather and eat than hunting and killing animals. You don't even need to cook them. Eating meat raw isn't nearly as safe.

To your edit: You may not "stomach" blue berries well, but that is one single fruit. There are far more available, edible plants than there are animals in the world. The amount of human beings that are entirely, physically incapable of eating an all-plant diet is incredibly low if it exists at all. I am assuming that you don't eat a diet exclusively of meat, so you must be able to consume plants.

Fat from plants? You mean the fat that human beings need? Unsaturated fats? The fats that come without any cholesterol, whatsoever?

I am not even arguing that every human being should adopt an entirely plant-based diet, I'm arguing that humans should eat significantly less meat--as in a portion the size of a deck of cards 2-3 times per week at the most.

Sorry you're leaving the thread. Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer your questions. You still haven't answered any of mine.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Chris OBrien

You know, I've kind of started ignoring you for a while now because you still failed to answer the question at all. I'm giving up this thread because nobody seems to have a good answer for the moral reason of giving up meat, and you sure as hell aren't giving one.
And besides, you tend to ignore the factual details of how much effort you need to grow a garden, it isn't as simple as planting a seed and forgetting about it till it blossoms fruit or a vegetable.


And this:
"If, as you insist, you have created a scenario that skirts the issue meat-production altogether, then it must disregard plant-based diets as well. "
no, it doesn't, it asks how you would deal with famine if a plant-diet economy and infrastructure was implemented before the fact without causing needless damage to the environment in order to produce more food.


The answer is that both sides have some fault in destroying the environment, animals with land consumption and feed while growing crops releases toxins into water supplies and animal habitats. There is no clear cut way to decrease our effect while providing enough food but the best way to off-shoot the release of toxins into ground water would be to farm fish - they breed rapidly and don't need expensive equipment or huge areas in order to raise them.

And yes, my point is factual - for an average person, you're more likely to find an edible animal than to find a plant that is edible. Most of the plants you'll run into are shrubs, trees, grasses, or flowers - very little of what you'll find in the wild is edible and even if it is, an average person won't be able to tell what parts are good for food and what aren't seeing as how a lot of wild-growing plants both look alike or have to be cooked a certain way before they are edible.

EDIT: Ignore my point on fat from plants, but still, my point being that even if overall a plant-based diet is healthy, not everyone can subsist on a plant diet for the sole reason that they are unable to stomach it, their bodies aren't capable of breaking down plants as easily as they can meat - not always but sometimes - I myself get sick from eating certain vegetables and fruits - I tried eating blueberries before and I puked after swallowing one.
And all plant-based diet is not feasible for every one of us if we cannot eat what's on our plate, and not from a moral standpoint but a physical one.

Here is the thing about morality. This goes for everyone in this thread not just you. I can't tell you what your morality in and you can't tell me what mine is. Morality is an individually constructed concept based on what the individual finds to be important. So if you are dead set on eating meat it is not likely that you will ever find a moral reason against to be reasonable. That is just fine. I eat meat because the way I go about doing it is consistent with my morals. If anyone want to ask how that is possible I will explain, but to each their own as far as I am concerned.

I haven't argued morality in this thread because it is pointless. People spreading misinformation and distorting facts , and presenting illogical reasoning, however is a bother to me. This thread has been ripe with such things coming for both side of the moral argument. I will continue to point them out because I think people should understand what they are saying.

Furthermore, it is true that the average person would have an issue finding edible plants to eat if they were in a situation were in became necessary. This is not because it is actually hard to find edible plants, but because those skills are no longer important to our society thanks to supermarkets. Did you know that dandelion greens are edible? You know that weed that grows in everyone's front yard the green part of it is edible. It is way easier to get those then hunt a deer. You seem to pride yourself as being smarter then the average person may I suggest perhaps educating yourself about this so that you are not as dumb on this issue as the average person.

The fact that you hate blueberries shouldn't be an indication that some peoples bodies are incompatible with the consumption of plant food. Discounting people with underlying health conditions, people will experience discomfort when eating plant foods especial when switching from an average American diet to a vegetarian diet or even one that simply contains more vegetation. This is normal. The digestive system just like your arms and legs is made up of muscles; a life of eating overly refined food and and processed foods leads to a digestive system that operates sub-optimally. Switching to a diet of less refined food and more vegetables is like asking a fat guy to run a mile; it ain't going to be pretty at first. If you keep making the fat guy run he will get better at it until it is no longer a problem. This is true for you digestive system as well.

 

[BNguyen]

To Chris OBrien - I never ignored that it was hard to raise animals, I just never expressly stated anything about it - I pertained to the fact that not everyone can consume plants as easily as you think they can. My blueberries example was just one of many plants I can't consume because my body rejects them. It's not a matter of hate, its a matter of anatomy and physiology. If I can't consume something, then that has to remain out of my diet, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
I never said it was preferable either way, growing crops may have less of an impact but there are still problems WITH BOTH SIDES. And by the way, you don't need to raise fish in a lake or natural body of water in order to farm them, a tank works just as well and I've actually tended to one for some time, and it takes significantly less food to feed them than a herd of animals.

Frankly I believe I've been talking to myself about this because you seem to skim over the little details and only focus on the first sentence of the paragraph and then make assumptions to fill in the blanks in your head.

The only moral reason I have against eating meat is how the animal lived and died.
If its open range, fed well, and given a quick painless death, then I'll eat it.
If it was beaten prior to its death, then yeah, I'd have a problem.

If you want me to answer your questions, fine.

"What do you value? If someone made what they thought were personal choices that negatively affected the world and it conflicted with your value system, would you not feel morally superior? Would you not try to inform said person of the effects of their behaviors and try to better the world by bettering them?"

This is all subjective as in one cannot be better than the other until it threatens the life or liberty of one or the other. One can feel morally superior to the other and vice versa, our ability to think and reason gives us the ability to form morals.
For example, if I saw someone committing murder, I'd have them arrested and find out why they did it. Their answer could be for any number of reasons but for this argument, let's say he was being a mercy killer for persons suffering from painful illnesses and/or assisting suicides. Now am I morally superior for stopping someone who is helping others with their decisions, maybe.
My value system tells me the human lives are precious but also that everyone has the right to choose how to live their lives. Only when their choices prohibit my own or even cause me harm do I have a problem with that.
As for you, I have a problem with you telling me what to do. I can agree with you on a level that less meat can be good and that animals should be treated better if they are going to be farmed, but I still feel that I can make the decision of what I want to eat for myself. Human life is short and you should use it doing what you want to do, if you went around trying to effect other people's lives, then you can't really call it your life but theirs'.

"Shouldn't it be every individual's goal to be as morally advanced as possible? If not, then why not?"

Seeing as how everyone has different morals and only the most shared morals are indoctrinated into society, this is also subjective and hard to answer. You change society by changing its morals or norms, but when you try to force change in the manner you see fit, you become no better than a tyrant even if you mean well. When you try to force change onto people you will obviously receive lash back from it. If you want people to change, you need to present your arguments in clear and understanding ways - people can present counterarguments but you should not immediately dismiss them because they disagree with you for any reason. When you act like a level headed adult, people will be more inclined to speak in like manner, the more you give, the more they'll return.
Besides, with what I've seen in terms of morals, I feel the need to keep my voice out of it because frankly, I believe in the preservance of human life while across the board so many people are willing to do away with it.

And this one may not have been directed towards me but
"Does it actively struggle against its environment to survive? If you put something it considers food in front of it, will it eat the food? Does it reproduce in a way similar to human beings, at least on a basic level?"

Some plants release toxins in the air to direct defense against itself - think The Happening but not quite as outlandish. Point two, over time, the plant food will be absorbed and broken down by the plant, so yes, it will eat what we put in front of it, if plants didn't, then there'd be no point of using fertilizer. Plants may not have peni or vaginas but they do have the plant equivalents of them, pollen being sperm for one thing and that pollen has to fertilize the plant in order to produce seeds or spores, so yes, a plant does have some similarities in terms of reproducing.

There, I've answered your questions to the best of my ability (at the moment) and frankly, I'd like to drop this discussion because obviously we have different views and standings on this issue and our arguing isn't going to do a thing to change it. Can we act like reasonable adults and drop this?

 

[TKretts3]

I do love animals, and for a reason. I love them because they taste good. That is, animals like cows, chickens, pigs, et cetera. I love pet animals (Cats, dogs, hamsters, et cetera) because they're warm, cuddly, and fun. Just because we don't love animals for the same reasons, and in the same way, as some radical eco-terrorist group doesn't mean that we don't love them at all. There are various ways to earn people's love.

 

[Argtee]

That's why I eat them.

I just love them soooo much.