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

[RoBi3.0]

In short, again, no point being all "houlier-than-thou" over food, there are still more serious problems than whether you eat plants or not. And as a sidenote, if everyone started being vegetarian now? Well, i hope you guys like worldwide famine, because 7 Billion People eating nothing but grown food? Yeah we dont have the space to even make as much food as we'd need.

Thank you for this point, most people seem to forget how little land there is that is available for growing crops when most of it has unsuitable soil, is too rocky, is already in use for various reasons like our living space, protected natural habitats and parks, is desert or tundra, or is being used by animals. The most likely choice to help spread crop land would be to push the animals out seeing as how most other suitable places are protected by the government or used for pointless reasons (looking at racetracks and sports stadiums).
But, maybe in all likelihood we can develop something along the lines of skyscrapers re-purposed to grow indoor crops like greenhouse towers, and even though these would take us less space that widespread growing fields, it would still take several cities worth of greenhouse towers to feed everyone.

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I few points I would like to add the typical industrial raised beef cow is feed corn and grains because those food sources make cows nice and fat and more fat specifically inter-muscular fat makes cow more appealing to eat. Also when cows are feed grass and allowed to openly graze the land needed to support them increases.

Second, there are technical means to improve soil quality it just is not financially prudent to do improve soil quality everywhere, at this point is time.

Last, I agree with you on your point that we do currently over produce food, and that the surplus does not go where it is needed. It is a sad fact of our current society that we have the means to makes sure no one goes hungry. We just have not made it a priority.

I do want to point out that when left to their own traditional devices tribal cultures are more then capable of supporting their own subsistence needs. It is when people from larger scale cultures start trying to "fix" what they see as broken that traditional tribal means of self sufficiency starts to unravel. This is of course a topic to big for this thread though. I just wanted to put my two cents in.

 

[BNguyen]

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I think that's a poor justification for turning against their arguments. Just because someone enjoys it doesn't make it right by any stretch. If you found yourself raised in a society where kicking puppies was common sport and you were disgusted by the practice I'm pretty sure you wouldn't keep quiet about it just because someone says "Whoa there, let's not get in the way of their fun because you have moral issues with it." There's been many waves of moral reform over the past couple hundred years, just because a practice is generally accepted and enjoyed doesn't make it right.

Also let's not make all vegetarians out to be people who want everyone to be like them. Many of them just don't eat meat because the idea of it disturbs them, just like most people would have issue with eating other humans.

EDIT: Also, I do agree that those issues are indeed more pressing matters. But just because there's a greater issue somewhere else doesn't mean all other issues should be ignored

Okay, stop right there. I've had this kind of argument thrown around before and it does not hold water. You're still doing the "we're morally right so you have to follow what we want" stance, and when you start doing that you're just another one of the holier-than-thou elitists. Of course I wouldn't follow such a culture even if I was brought into it and you're suggesting such a practice as being "fun" rather than something people do for sustenance.
And I didn't imply that every vegan/vegetarian is the high-horse type, the more vocal ones are the ones that get on my nerves, namely the ones who try to push politics and force laws on everyone else because of their choice of lifestyle.

I eat meat because I'm hungry, enjoy the taste, and generally can't eat a lot of vegetables because they don't sit well in me. You can enjoy vegetables for the exact same reasons and I won't hold it against you until you start trying to force the greens on me because you think I'm doing something wrong by eating.

 

[BNguyen]

In short, again, no point being all "houlier-than-thou" over food, there are still more serious problems than whether you eat plants or not. And as a sidenote, if everyone started being vegetarian now? Well, i hope you guys like worldwide famine, because 7 Billion People eating nothing but grown food? Yeah we dont have the space to even make as much food as we'd need.

Thank you for this point, most people seem to forget how little land there is that is available for growing crops when most of it has unsuitable soil, is too rocky, is already in use for various reasons like our living space, protected natural habitats and parks, is desert or tundra, or is being used by animals. The most likely choice to help spread crop land would be to push the animals out seeing as how most other suitable places are protected by the government or used for pointless reasons (looking at racetracks and sports stadiums).
But, maybe in all likelihood we can develop something along the lines of skyscrapers re-purposed to grow indoor crops like greenhouse towers, and even though these would take us less space that widespread growing fields, it would still take several cities worth of greenhouse towers to feed everyone.

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I few points I would like to add the typical industrial raised beef cow is feed corn and grains because those food sources make cows nice and fat and more fat specifically inter-muscular fat makes cow more appealing to eat. Also when cows are feed grass and allowed to openly graze the land needed to support them increases.

Second, there are technical means to improve soil quality it just is not financially prudent to do improve soil quality everywhere, at this point is time.

Last, I agree with you on your point that we do currently over produce food, and that the surplus does not go where it is needed. It is a sad fact of our current society that we have the means to makes sure no one goes hungry. We just have not made it a priority.

I do want to point out that when left to their own traditional devices tribal cultures are more then capable of supporting their own subsistence needs. It is when people from larger scale cultures start trying to "fix" what they see as broken that traditional tribal means of self sufficiency starts to unravel. This is of course a topic to big for this thread though. I just wanted to put my two cents in.

Well, thank you for your input and while I would disagree with you on the point that there are plenty of things wrong with the third-world cultures, we do need to take the time to introduce them to modern views and practices. Sometimes, we have to do something before they'll do it themselves like for example, I read an article about places in India where they practice child marriage and treat women and girls like personal property.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I think that's a poor justification for turning against their arguments. Just because someone enjoys it doesn't make it right by any stretch. If you found yourself raised in a society where kicking puppies was common sport and you were disgusted by the practice I'm pretty sure you wouldn't keep quiet about it just because someone says "Whoa there, let's not get in the way of their fun because you have moral issues with it." There's been many waves of moral reform over the past couple hundred years, just because a practice is generally accepted and enjoyed doesn't make it right.

Also let's not make all vegetarians out to be people who want everyone to be like them. Many of them just don't eat meat because the idea of it disturbs them, just like most people would have issue with eating other humans.

EDIT: Also, I do agree that those issues are indeed more pressing matters. But just because there's a greater issue somewhere else doesn't mean all other issues should be ignored

Okay, stop right there. I've had this kind of argument thrown around before and it does not hold water. You're still doing the "we're morally right so you have to follow what we want" stance, and when you start doing that you're just another one of the holier-than-thou elitists. Of course I wouldn't follow such a culture even if I was brought into it and you're suggesting such a practice as being "fun" rather than something people do for sustenance.
And I didn't imply that every vegan/vegetarian is the high-horse type, the more vocal ones are the ones that get on my nerves, namely the ones who try to push politics and force laws on everyone else because of their choice of lifestyle.

I eat meat because I'm hungry, enjoy the taste, and generally can't eat a lot of vegetables because they don't sit well in me. You can enjoy vegetables for the exact same reasons and I won't hold it against you until you start trying to force the greens on me because you think I'm doing something wrong by eating.

Actually, no, I'm not assuming that vegetarians are right (note that I don't say I, I'm not a vegetarian), I'm saying that I dislike this statement:

I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.

I was just trying to bring up an action you would probably find morally repugnant to make a parallel. Just because someone enjoys something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to convince them they're wrong. Be it kicking puppies, eating meat, funding industrial farming... If you think something is wrong, you have every responsibility to speak up about it, that's the only way things will ever change.

EDIT: Eating meat isn't also necessary for sustenance, most people eat it out of preference for the taste. I'm sure puppy kicking would also be a wonderful source of exercise (It's pretty hard to catch them when they run), people need that too.

 

[BNguyen]

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I think that's a poor justification for turning against their arguments. Just because someone enjoys it doesn't make it right by any stretch. If you found yourself raised in a society where kicking puppies was common sport and you were disgusted by the practice I'm pretty sure you wouldn't keep quiet about it just because someone says "Whoa there, let's not get in the way of their fun because you have moral issues with it." There's been many waves of moral reform over the past couple hundred years, just because a practice is generally accepted and enjoyed doesn't make it right.

Also let's not make all vegetarians out to be people who want everyone to be like them. Many of them just don't eat meat because the idea of it disturbs them, just like most people would have issue with eating other humans.

EDIT: Also, I do agree that those issues are indeed more pressing matters. But just because there's a greater issue somewhere else doesn't mean all other issues should be ignored

Okay, stop right there. I've had this kind of argument thrown around before and it does not hold water. You're still doing the "we're morally right so you have to follow what we want" stance, and when you start doing that you're just another one of the holier-than-thou elitists. Of course I wouldn't follow such a culture even if I was brought into it and you're suggesting such a practice as being "fun" rather than something people do for sustenance.
And I didn't imply that every vegan/vegetarian is the high-horse type, the more vocal ones are the ones that get on my nerves, namely the ones who try to push politics and force laws on everyone else because of their choice of lifestyle.

I eat meat because I'm hungry, enjoy the taste, and generally can't eat a lot of vegetables because they don't sit well in me. You can enjoy vegetables for the exact same reasons and I won't hold it against you until you start trying to force the greens on me because you think I'm doing something wrong by eating.

Actually, no, I'm not assuming that vegetarians are right (note that I don't say I, I'm not a vegetarian), I'm saying that I dislike this statement:

I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.

I was just trying to bring up an action you would probably find morally repugnant to make a parallel. Just because someone enjoys something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to convince them they're wrong. Be it kicking puppies, eating meat, funding industrial farming... If you think something is wrong, you have every responsibility to speak up about it, that's the only way things will ever change.

Now here we have a conflict of issues, kicking puppies for fun is not the same as raising animals for food, one is as you implied, something someone would do just for the sheer hell of it while the other is a business that helps feed people and give jobs. They are not the same and it's just about as bad as some people on here have said by calling people who eat meat as the equivalent of being Nazis. Stop comparing the two things as if they are equal, I could just turn this entire conversation around by saying I find it repugnant that you eat solely plants, something that most animals eat and provides us with oxygen. Animals, are something the world could easily do without and still keep turning, now without plants, then there is no more life on this planet. By your argument, people who solely eat plants and suggest that we should only eat plants are pushing global termination on humanity and animals.
See, your argument goes too far just as my example does and it doesn't hold water.
And based on your argument, I have the responsibility to speak out against your trying to tell me what you think is better for me, people like that disgust me and need to shut up and let me decide for myself what is good or bad.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Okay, stop right there. I've had this kind of argument thrown around before and it does not hold water. You're still doing the "we're morally right so you have to follow what we want" stance, and when you start doing that you're just another one of the holier-than-thou elitists. Of course I wouldn't follow such a culture even if I was brought into it and you're suggesting such a practice as being "fun" rather than something people do for sustenance.
And I didn't imply that every vegan/vegetarian is the high-horse type, the more vocal ones are the ones that get on my nerves, namely the ones who try to push politics and force laws on everyone else because of their choice of lifestyle.

I eat meat because I'm hungry, enjoy the taste, and generally can't eat a lot of vegetables because they don't sit well in me. You can enjoy vegetables for the exact same reasons and I won't hold it against you until you start trying to force the greens on me because you think I'm doing something wrong by eating.

Actually, no, I'm not assuming that vegetarians are right (note that I don't say I, I'm not a vegetarian), I'm saying that I dislike this statement:

I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.

I was just trying to bring up an action you would probably find morally repugnant to make a parallel. Just because someone enjoys something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to convince them they're wrong. Be it kicking puppies, eating meat, funding industrial farming... If you think something is wrong, you have every responsibility to speak up about it, that's the only way things will ever change.

Now here we have a conflict of issues, kicking puppies for fun is not the same as raising animals for food, one is as you implied, something someone would do just for the sheer hell of it while the other is a business that helps feed people and give jobs. They are not the same and it's just about as bad as some people on here have said by calling people who eat meat as the equivalent of being Nazis. Stop comparing the two things as if they are equal, I could just turn this entire conversation around by saying I find it repugnant that you eat solely plants, something that most animals eat and provides us with oxygen. Animals, are something the world could easily do without and still keep turning, now without plants, then there is no more life on this planet. By your argument, people who solely eat plants and suggest that we should only eat plants are pushing global termination on humanity and animals.
See, your argument goes too far just as my example does and it doesn't hold water.
And based on your argument, I have the responsibility to speak out against your trying to tell me what you think is better for me, people like that disgust me and need to shut up and let me decide for myself what is good or bad.

Sigh, didn't I just bring up the fact that I'm not a vegetarian?

And no, I was not comparing them as equal. Note that I didn't say that they were equal. I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed. You can say that they're in different degrees, and I would agree with you on that, but kicking a puppy is not entirely dissimilar from having a pig born and slaughtered in a cage because people prefer to get their protein from meat

EDIT: Sorry, just noticed I didn't address your entire response. You COULD say that, but I hope you realize it's a lot weaker argument. Particularly since I'm pretty sure that I could prove that's almost entirely impossible, as well as not being a direct consequence of eating plants.

 

[BNguyen]

Sigh, didn't I just bring up the fact that I'm not a vegetarian?

And no, I was not comparing them as equal. Note that I didn't say that they were equal. I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed. You can say that they're in different degrees, and I would agree with you on that, but kicking a puppy is not entirely dissimilar from having a pig born and slaughtered in a cage because people prefer to get their protein from meat

I wasn't talking directly about you but rather how your argument worked.
I don't believe you can equate the two. On one hand, the dog is born just to suffer the leather toe of overly aggressive and obviously twisted people. On the other hand, the pig is born in a sheltered (although not always) environment, is given food, water, medicine, and when it comes time, is given a quick and (should be) painless death. These are not equal.
Slaughter implies brutal beating and dismemberment, at least to me, and implies someone getting some kind of fun from killing.

And again, I have to state that you trying to force your views on someone is still wrong. If you feel as though someone can't make a choice without you having to basically pushing them along a path, then you are just as bad as the 'holier-than-thou' people. Based upon this argument, you generally believe that people who eat meat are stupid and wrong for doing so and that you, because of some moral 'understanding' believe it necessary to talk down to people because they do so.
I honestly and truly believe that you and people like you are wrong for thinking that people have to live by what you dictate to be right.


"I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed"

This statement alone can be used in any context and I choose to use it against you. I enjoy speaking my mind on matters, I enjoy making my own decisions, I enjoy being able to eat what I want. What I don't enjoy is people like you taking away my ability to speak my mind, making my decisions for me, and taking food from my plate because you think you're better than me.

I'm choosing to end this conversation because I know we won't meet a common ground and frankly, every time I try to tell you to let me do my own thing without ridiculing me, you'll keep telling me I'm wrong to do so. Just do your own thing and let me do mine.

 

[Chris OBrien]

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I think that's a poor justification for turning against their arguments. Just because someone enjoys it doesn't make it right by any stretch. If you found yourself raised in a society where kicking puppies was common sport and you were disgusted by the practice I'm pretty sure you wouldn't keep quiet about it just because someone says "Whoa there, let's not get in the way of their fun because you have moral issues with it." There's been many waves of moral reform over the past couple hundred years, just because a practice is generally accepted and enjoyed doesn't make it right.

Also let's not make all vegetarians out to be people who want everyone to be like them. Many of them just don't eat meat because the idea of it disturbs them, just like most people would have issue with eating other humans.

EDIT: Also, I do agree that those issues are indeed more pressing matters. But just because there's a greater issue somewhere else doesn't mean all other issues should be ignored

Okay, stop right there. I've had this kind of argument thrown around before and it does not hold water. You're still doing the "we're morally right so you have to follow what we want" stance, and when you start doing that you're just another one of the holier-than-thou elitists. Of course I wouldn't follow such a culture even if I was brought into it and you're suggesting such a practice as being "fun" rather than something people do for sustenance.
And I didn't imply that every vegan/vegetarian is the high-horse type, the more vocal ones are the ones that get on my nerves, namely the ones who try to push politics and force laws on everyone else because of their choice of lifestyle.

I eat meat because I'm hungry, enjoy the taste, and generally can't eat a lot of vegetables because they don't sit well in me. You can enjoy vegetables for the exact same reasons and I won't hold it against you until you start trying to force the greens on me because you think I'm doing something wrong by eating.

Actually, no, I'm not assuming that vegetarians are right (note that I don't say I, I'm not a vegetarian), I'm saying that I dislike this statement:

I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.

I was just trying to bring up an action you would probably find morally repugnant to make a parallel. Just because someone enjoys something, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to convince them they're wrong. Be it kicking puppies, eating meat, funding industrial farming... If you think something is wrong, you have every responsibility to speak up about it, that's the only way things will ever change.

Now here we have a conflict of issues, kicking puppies for fun is not the same as raising animals for food, one is as you implied, something someone would do just for the sheer hell of it while the other is a business that helps feed people and give jobs. They are not the same and it's just about as bad as some people on here have said by calling people who eat meat as the equivalent of being Nazis. Stop comparing the two things as if they are equal, I could just turn this entire conversation around by saying I find it repugnant that you eat solely plants, something that most animals eat and provides us with oxygen. Animals, are something the world could easily do without and still keep turning, now without plants, then there is no more life on this planet. By your argument, people who solely eat plants and suggest that we should only eat plants are pushing global termination on humanity and animals.
See, your argument goes too far just as my example does and it doesn't hold water.
And based on your argument, I have the responsibility to speak out against your trying to tell me what you think is better for me, people like that disgust me and need to shut up and let me decide for myself what is good or bad.

No one would lose jobs. If the industry of growing plants to eat expands, more jobs will be created in that industry, especially if--as many defending your position seem to believe--it would take significantly more effort to feed the world with plants rather than animals. Like nature, the economy abhors a vacuum.

Your retort is based on the assumption that mass-farming animals is absolutely necessary, an idea that vegans and vegetarians reject. The "kicking puppies" analogy is thus functional, because it is within the frame of the vegan and vegetarian point of view.

I'm getting a bit frustrated with the "those aren't the same" response whenever someone uses a metaphor or analogy. Analogies take two unlike things and compare them and thus, one informs the other. He is only pointing out that many of our very deeply held beliefs are socialized. He's not trying to equate eating meat with kicking puppies, he's trying to point out that you are defending the status quo and just because it is and has been accepted, by no means makes it correct.

You could say all those things about people who eat only plants, but it would be illogical and based on spite, not facts. The world could not easily do without animals and continue existing as we know it--no more than it could exist without plants. If that were the only reason your argument is flawed, it would be enough to discredit it.

You don't live in a closet. As long as you engage in society, you accept the risk that some people will try to change your behavior. If you do not want anyone to attempt to influence you, it is your right to disengage--turn off the TV, get off the Internet, and hide in your home, alone.

Many of your choices--not all, but many--even those that seem very personal, affect others. Part of the issue for vegans and vegetarians is that it's not just about personal choices. Every dollar you spend on factory farmed meat, is a dollar saying "yes, I support factory farmed meat--please keep producing it." The majority of people do not care what other people do until it starts affecting them and that which they care about.

In other words, vegetarians really don't care what you eat or how it affects your health... until your dietary choices help to perpetuate an industry they find apprehensive and they start having to foot the bill for your health issues. It's not just about telling you what you can and can't do in your own home. It's about trying to show you how the food you eat affects the world.

This isn't the religious right trying to make it illegal for two loving human beings to get married because they are the same sex based on modern interpretations of 2,000 year-old writings. This is a group of activists who are looking at recent, current, relevant data and trying to make sure that words like "traditional," "customary," "familiar," and "convenient," don't carry more weight than "science," "logic," and "facts."

This is not a realm of opinions--it's one of numbers and evidence. That's not to say that you do not still have the right to choose to eat meat anyway. That's not a right that you are in danger of losing. But you should acknowledge facts and hard evidence, or expect to be treated like an unreasonable person.

...the pig is born in a sheltered (although not always) environment, is given food, water, medicine, and when it comes time, is given a quick and (should be) painless death.

Vegans and vegetarians are trying to tell you that this is almost never how it works--not when profit is the only goal.

And again, I have to state that you trying to force your views on someone is still wrong. If you feel as though someone can't make a choice without you having to basically pushing them along a path, then you are just as bad as the 'holier-than-thou' people. Based upon this argument, you generally believe that people who eat meat are stupid and wrong for doing so and that you, because of some moral 'understanding' believe it necessary to talk down to people because they do so.

I honestly and truly believe that you and people like you are wrong for thinking that people have to live by what you dictate to be right.

You do realize the irony of what you're saying, right? You are saying it is wrong for people to "force their beliefs" on others... as you force that belief on others.

Again--this isn't about beliefs anyway. It's about empirical evidence. You can say "no, I don't believe there is a God" and no one can prove you wrong. You can't say "no there isn't any protein in anything but meat" and expect no one to show you evidence to the contrary. That's not forcing beliefs on you, that's showing you facts.

I enjoy speaking my mind on matters, I enjoy making my own decisions, I enjoy being able to eat what I want. What I don't enjoy is people like you taking away my ability to speak my mind, making my decisions for me, and taking food from my plate because you think you're better than me.

I'm choosing to end this conversation because I know we won't meet a common ground and frankly, every time I try to tell you to let me do my own thing without ridiculing me, you'll keep telling me I'm wrong to do so. Just do your own thing and let me do mine.

No one is trying to take away your right to speak your mind. But when you do, they have a right to speak back. And remember, you are on the side of the majority on this issue.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Sigh, didn't I just bring up the fact that I'm not a vegetarian?

And no, I was not comparing them as equal. Note that I didn't say that they were equal. I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed. You can say that they're in different degrees, and I would agree with you on that, but kicking a puppy is not entirely dissimilar from having a pig born and slaughtered in a cage because people prefer to get their protein from meat

I wasn't talking directly about you but rather how your argument worked.
I don't believe you can equate the two. On one hand, the dog is born just to suffer the leather toe of overly aggressive and obviously twisted people. On the other hand, the pig is born in a sheltered (although not always) environment, is given food, water, medicine, and when it comes time, is given a quick and (should be) painless death. These are not equal.
Slaughter implies brutal beating and dismemberment, at least to me, and implies someone getting some kind of fun from killing.

And again, I have to state that you trying to force your views on someone is still wrong. If you feel as though someone can't make a choice without you having to basically pushing them along a path, then you are just as bad as the 'holier-than-thou' people. Based upon this argument, you generally believe that people who eat meat are stupid and wrong for doing so and that you, because of some moral 'understanding' believe it necessary to talk down to people because they do so.
I honestly and truly believe that you and people like you are wrong for thinking that people have to live by what you dictate to be right.


"I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed"

This statement alone can be used in any context and I choose to use it against you. I enjoy speaking my mind on matters, I enjoy making my own decisions, I enjoy being able to eat what I want. What I don't enjoy is people like you taking away my ability to speak my mind, making my decisions for me, and taking food from my plate because you think you're better than me.

I'm choosing to end this conversation because I know we won't meet a common ground and frankly, every time I try to tell you to let me do my own thing without ridiculing me, you'll keep telling me I'm wrong to do so. Just do your own thing and let me do mine.

Fair enough, although I do want to clarify some things that I think you might have gotten the wrong impression from me.

I'm not saying that you should tell people that what they're doing is wrong "just cause" and expect them to change with no good reason. That would be completely ridiculous. I'm saying you should argue for your side, bring attention to the fact that something could be wrong. I would never expect people to live by my beliefs, many of them are probably wrong and most of them will probably change over time.

Believe me, the last thing I want to do is take away people's right to speak their mind, if anything I want people to do more of it.

If I came across as ridiculing you I apologize for that, that wasn't my intention. It would be awfully hypocritical of me to considering that I eat meat.

 

[BNguyen]

Sigh, didn't I just bring up the fact that I'm not a vegetarian?

And no, I was not comparing them as equal. Note that I didn't say that they were equal. I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed. You can say that they're in different degrees, and I would agree with you on that, but kicking a puppy is not entirely dissimilar from having a pig born and slaughtered in a cage because people prefer to get their protein from meat

I wasn't talking directly about you but rather how your argument worked.
I don't believe you can equate the two. On one hand, the dog is born just to suffer the leather toe of overly aggressive and obviously twisted people. On the other hand, the pig is born in a sheltered (although not always) environment, is given food, water, medicine, and when it comes time, is given a quick and (should be) painless death. These are not equal.
Slaughter implies brutal beating and dismemberment, at least to me, and implies someone getting some kind of fun from killing.

And again, I have to state that you trying to force your views on someone is still wrong. If you feel as though someone can't make a choice without you having to basically pushing them along a path, then you are just as bad as the 'holier-than-thou' people. Based upon this argument, you generally believe that people who eat meat are stupid and wrong for doing so and that you, because of some moral 'understanding' believe it necessary to talk down to people because they do so.
I honestly and truly believe that you and people like you are wrong for thinking that people have to live by what you dictate to be right.


"I was just saying that if you're in a situation where you honestly believe that someone is in the wrong you don't keep quiet about it just because it is being enjoyed"

This statement alone can be used in any context and I choose to use it against you. I enjoy speaking my mind on matters, I enjoy making my own decisions, I enjoy being able to eat what I want. What I don't enjoy is people like you taking away my ability to speak my mind, making my decisions for me, and taking food from my plate because you think you're better than me.

I'm choosing to end this conversation because I know we won't meet a common ground and frankly, every time I try to tell you to let me do my own thing without ridiculing me, you'll keep telling me I'm wrong to do so. Just do your own thing and let me do mine.

Fair enough, although I do want to clarify some things that I think you might have gotten the wrong impression from me.

I'm not saying that you should tell people that what they're doing is wrong "just cause" and expect them to change with no good reason. That would be completely ridiculous. I'm saying you should argue for your side, bring attention to the fact that something could be wrong. I would never expect people to live by my beliefs, many of them are probably wrong and most of them will probably change over time.

Believe me, the last thing I want to do is take away people's right to speak their mind, if anything I want people to do more of it.

If I came across as ridiculing you I apologize for that, that wasn't my intention. It would be awfully hypocritical of me to considering that I eat meat.

Thank you, I can leave this debate at that

 

[BNguyen]

Chris O'Brien, my only belief in this matter is that people can and should make their own decisions and be able to live their lives. What I'm trying to force is that people like you do not take that away from others, there is no irony in preserving freedoms by telling people they can't limit freedoms.
And as for this issue, it has always been about opinions, and never about numbers, the title was "You can't love animals if you're not a vegetarian". It has been about morals and opinions right from the start. And my opinion is that I enjoy eating meat for a variety of reasons the same way you enjoy plants for similar reasons.
You may oppose the meat industry. I oppose unnecessary cruelty to animals - not every ranch/farm/ meat processing plant is cruel.

Raising a herd of animals is not as damaging to the environment as raising a crop.
At least animals are kept (if free range) mostly natural with supplements added to ensure healthy growth while growing crops means adding pesticides/fungicides/ and plenty of other poisonous chemicals into the environment.

I don't care about the numbers of how much protein is found in X over Y, taste and being able to eat X or Y is what is important. If I can't eat plants for some reason, then you have no right to take away my eating meat.

And this:
"Vegans and vegetarians are trying to tell you that this is almost never how it works--not when profit is the only goal."
You do realize that not everyone who works in the meat industry are heartless bastards don't you?

 

[RoBi3.0]

In short, again, no point being all "houlier-than-thou" over food, there are still more serious problems than whether you eat plants or not. And as a sidenote, if everyone started being vegetarian now? Well, i hope you guys like worldwide famine, because 7 Billion People eating nothing but grown food? Yeah we dont have the space to even make as much food as we'd need.

Thank you for this point, most people seem to forget how little land there is that is available for growing crops when most of it has unsuitable soil, is too rocky, is already in use for various reasons like our living space, protected natural habitats and parks, is desert or tundra, or is being used by animals. The most likely choice to help spread crop land would be to push the animals out seeing as how most other suitable places are protected by the government or used for pointless reasons (looking at racetracks and sports stadiums).
But, maybe in all likelihood we can develop something along the lines of skyscrapers re-purposed to grow indoor crops like greenhouse towers, and even though these would take us less space that widespread growing fields, it would still take several cities worth of greenhouse towers to feed everyone.

I am not sure about this, because I only saw it in a mention earlier in the thread, but wouldn't it take a larger amount of crops to actually feed the animals from birth to slaughtering age than the animal would actually be worth as food? Let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you generally can't get more out of most organisms than you put in to keep them alive.

Well, that may be true, but it all depends on what they're being fed, a lot of the livestock around my area is fed with grass. A lot of crops require good soil and a lot of areas lack adequate soil to raise crops whereas grass grows almost everywhere. It we could convert the tough soil into something usable then maybe we could switch over but even then, I'm not going to be the one to tell people who enjoy eating meat that they can't because somebody says they find it morally wrong.
And another point, we do overproduce food on both the plant and meat side but even then, most countries are not willing to send excess supplies to regions that lack the means to produce sufficient amounts of food to feed their citizens - mostly in poor areas across Africa that are still tribal or are under the rule of warlords. Is it because the countries wouldn't get money from donating food? Or is it because once we let go of it it goes right into the hands of the powerful or wealthy?
Frankly, we need to solve problems like this before we go around deciding what's morally right to eat; heck a lot of people in the US can't even get sufficient amounts of food for lack of funds.

I few points I would like to add the typical industrial raised beef cow is feed corn and grains because those food sources make cows nice and fat and more fat specifically inter-muscular fat makes cow more appealing to eat. Also when cows are feed grass and allowed to openly graze the land needed to support them increases.

Second, there are technical means to improve soil quality it just is not financially prudent to do improve soil quality everywhere, at this point is time.

Last, I agree with you on your point that we do currently over produce food, and that the surplus does not go where it is needed. It is a sad fact of our current society that we have the means to makes sure no one goes hungry. We just have not made it a priority.

I do want to point out that when left to their own traditional devices tribal cultures are more then capable of supporting their own subsistence needs. It is when people from larger scale cultures start trying to "fix" what they see as broken that traditional tribal means of self sufficiency starts to unravel. This is of course a topic to big for this thread though. I just wanted to put my two cents in.

Well, thank you for your input and while I would disagree with you on the point that there are plenty of things wrong with the third-world cultures, we do need to take the time to introduce them to modern views and practices. Sometimes, we have to do something before they'll do it themselves like for example, I read an article about places in India where they practice child marriage and treat women and girls like personal property.

I guess you could argue that child marriage and treating women like property are things that you should "fix" and it would be hard to disagree. My main point was in regard subsistence patterns. For example the Massia of Sub-Saharan African at first glance look like the a living is very poor conditions they are in fact doing just fine. They have stubbornly fought off the surrounding Commercial scale cultures in favor of their own. Even though authorities in the area at one point trying to get them to grow commercial crops and stop obsessing about their cows.

Furthermore (child marriage and treating women like property aside) I would caution against snap judgements to fix practices of tribal cultures that seem offish or barbaric to your culture, because while a tribal culture operates on a smaller scale then a modern cultures they are no less intricate "Fixing" one thing may cause a butterfly effect that drastically change things for the worst. Especially if you have not taken the time to study how the change could impact the culture.

This isn't an Anthropology thread so I suppose I will pipe down now.

 

[John the Gamer]

snip

Please, just stop with this argument. I see it far to often, and it is just absurd. If you can't tell the difference between a thinking, conscious creature and a plant, I don't really know what to say

Oh, I can tell the difference, it's just the idea of 'killing certain living beings for food is OK, but the ones who can look me in the eye are off-limits' doesn't go well with me. How do we know plants don't feel or think? There might come a day when we find out they can. And then what?

There are plants who respond to touch, doesn't that mean they feel? Sure it might not be emotions or sentience, but where do you draw the line?

I mean, I'm still going to enjoy my salad after I'm done butchering this lettuce, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm eating a dead being for the sake of my own survival.

 

[A-D.]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of over uses of fields. I am also familiar with the concepts of crop rotation and fertilizer. In South eastern Ohio where I lived for several years a common crop rotation would be to grow corn for a year the grow soy beans for a year or two. This coupled with fertilizer makes it so you are capable of growing a crop every year. This is just one example. Furthermore your argument would have more weight if we where raising livestock in the desert but we are not. We are raising livestock on land that could be used for crops. Nor are we rotating crops through land used to raise Livestock, meaning crops are not grow for x year then cattle raised on the same land for x years. Land dedicated to industrial scale meat production is dedicated and used solely for industrial scale meat production. We are also feeding cows [and other livestock] crops grown on land that could be used to make people food. I am also aware of the fact that the U.S. pays farmers to not grow certain crops in order to stabilize related economic markets. Therefor our maximum production out put is greater then what we actually produce.

Also you go on a rant about GMOs but fail to provided a point for the rant. So I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that information.

I am not saying that a global switch would be easy nor am I suggesting that it would not present any major problems. Nor do I think it should happen. I like to eat meat and don't want to stop. As you said people should be able to choose.I was simply disagreeing with you insinuation that it was impossible, and that the consumption of meat was preventing famine.

I never said it was impossible, i pointed out that it was unlikely, or at least that it cant be done without serious problems and if we simply went with the thought of "Oh, it will work out" we will probably screw it up and the result of that wouldnt be pretty.

But yes you do see the Point i was making, without crop and field rotation, the soil would be made unusable after a while, im not a expert there, so im not sure how fast that happens or how slow, i do know that it would happen eventually however. And the problem is that as i said if 7 Billion people wanted a vegetarian diet, we dont have enough fields to allow for crop or field rotation, all fields we currently have would be "producing" all year round as it were, hence we'd need more farmland to allow for the rotation again and that again would lead to other problems probably.

And yes i ignored the point about how Animals use fields because that doesnt matter whether we use it for crops or animals at this point, as even if the initial yield of food would be higher it wouldnt prevent the underlying problem. Also where would you put all the animals? In fact how would Cows, pigs and the like survive if they werent..well being eaten by us? We probably wouldnt really care about them if it wasnt for that we can eat them and that they taste good.

The problem I'm having with what you are saying is, since this thread became active again after almost a year without posts, no one has behaved the way you describe. As far as this conversation goes, you're writing preemptively.

I have never said no one anywhere should ever eat any meat and the entire world should switch to an all plant diet.

I wrote earlier:

As I have written over and over, I agree that an ideal diet for omnivores includes a small amount of meat. Vegan and Vegetarians would rather not take part in an industry and culture they are deeply opposed to--instead supplementing and finding other sources of protein rather than contribute to the mass factory farming of livestock.

As for you remarks about Vegans and Vegetarians being like religious fanatics... I disagree:

You have to keep in mind, vegans and vegetarians would probably not be the religious people in that comparison. They may appear to have a similar fervor at times, but they share more in common with the smaller, less socially accepted, group--the atheists or agnostics. And if you engage in a conversation with them, they will almost undoubtedly try to talk you over to their side--but more likely with facts and logic than a holy book and statements about faith.

Oh, so this was a Necro-thread? I hadnt even noticed, and im being honest there, i didnt. I blame the Necroposter for all Problems then! Okay kidding, i didnt realize it but the point stands whether this was a year ago or a day ago doesnt matter, it is fact that some people HAVE used the same logical reasoning that i would ascribe to fanatics, religious or not. Im not saying Vegetarians or Vegans are all crazy folks or the like, but some of the Comments portray a similar logic that..well the crazies use. The Idea that..their belief in eating just plants is somehow morally superior, which is if i may use that example kind of alike to feeling morally superior and talking down to people just because you believe in god and the other guy doesnt, or believes in a different god.

Im not trying to put them on the same level, but the arguements as they were chosen seem to go by that train of thought. Which is why i pointed out repeatedly that you arent any better for eating plants, just as someone who eats meat isnt any better.

 

[RoBi3.0]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of over uses of fields. I am also familiar with the concepts of crop rotation and fertilizer. In South eastern Ohio where I lived for several years a common crop rotation would be to grow corn for a year the grow soy beans for a year or two. This coupled with fertilizer makes it so you are capable of growing a crop every year. This is just one example. Furthermore your argument would have more weight if we where raising livestock in the desert but we are not. We are raising livestock on land that could be used for crops. Nor are we rotating crops through land used to raise Livestock, meaning crops are not grow for x year then cattle raised on the same land for x years. Land dedicated to industrial scale meat production is dedicated and used solely for industrial scale meat production. We are also feeding cows [and other livestock] crops grown on land that could be used to make people food. I am also aware of the fact that the U.S. pays farmers to not grow certain crops in order to stabilize related economic markets. Therefor our maximum production out put is greater then what we actually produce.

Also you go on a rant about GMOs but fail to provided a point for the rant. So I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that information.

I am not saying that a global switch would be easy nor am I suggesting that it would not present any major problems. Nor do I think it should happen. I like to eat meat and don't want to stop. As you said people should be able to choose.I was simply disagreeing with you insinuation that it was impossible, and that the consumption of meat was preventing famine.

I never said it was impossible, i pointed out that it was unlikely, or at least that it cant be done without serious problems and if we simply went with the thought of "Oh, it will work out" we will probably screw it up and the result of that wouldnt be pretty.

But yes you do see the Point i was making, without crop and field rotation, the soil would be made unusable after a while, im not a expert there, so im not sure how fast that happens or how slow, i do know that it would happen eventually however. And the problem is that as i said if 7 Billion people wanted a vegetarian diet, we dont have enough fields to allow for crop or field rotation, all fields we currently have would be "producing" all year round as it were, hence we'd need more farmland to allow for the rotation again and that again would lead to other problems probably.

And yes i ignored the point about how Animals use fields because that doesnt matter whether we use it for crops or animals at this point, as even if the initial yield of food would be higher it wouldnt prevent the underlying problem. Also where would you put all the animals? In fact how would Cows, pigs and the like survive if they werent..well being eaten by us? We probably wouldnt really care about them if it wasnt for that we can eat them and that they taste good.

Yes, I saw your point and told you that you were flat out wrong. Crop rotation and fertilizer prolong the life of a field indefinitely. It is very clear that you are not a expert. You do realize if a field were to actually become "used up" to the point that you could never ever ever grow anything on it there would be a hell of a lot a barren waste land in the United Stated due to our commercial scale farming operations. Humans have been using some forms of agriculture for the last 3,000 years that is a lot of time to you know use up a lot of land some land. seriously drive through the country during late summer what you will find is a epic amount of farm land being used to grow food. What you wont find is barren waste lands.


Frankly your limited land hypothesis spells doom for humans regardless of the size of our population because eventually all the land would be over planted and therefor be unable to grow anything are again, meaning the plants you grow for food to feed us and our livestock would cease to exist and we would all starve.

Thanks for proving you are not an expert.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

snip

Please, just stop with this argument. I see it far to often, and it is just absurd. If you can't tell the difference between a thinking, conscious creature and a plant, I don't really know what to say

Oh, I can tell the difference, it's just the idea of 'killing certain living beings for food is OK, but the ones who can look me in the eye are off-limits' doesn't go well with me. How do we know plants don't feel or think? There might come a day when we find out they can. And then what?

There are plants who respond to touch, doesn't that mean they feel? Sure it might not be emotions or sentience, but where do you draw the line?

I mean, I'm still going to enjoy my salad after I'm done butchering this lettuce, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm eating a dead being for the sake of my own survival.

Brains. That's a pretty good gauge of what is thinking. Responding to touch is different from thinking. Bacteria responds to it's environment, but the responses are completely reflexive and chemical. It's never being about "living beings" a term that people give way too much significance.

 

[Chris OBrien]

snip

Please, just stop with this argument. I see it far to often, and it is just absurd. If you can't tell the difference between a thinking, conscious creature and a plant, I don't really know what to say

Oh, I can tell the difference, it's just the idea of 'killing certain living beings for food is OK, but the ones who can look me in the eye are off-limits' doesn't go well with me. How do we know plants don't feel or think? There might come a day when we find out they can. And then what?

There are plants who respond to touch, doesn't that mean they feel? Sure it might not be emotions or sentience, but where do you draw the line?

I mean, I'm still going to enjoy my salad after I'm done butchering this lettuce, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm eating a dead being for the sake of my own survival.

Brains. That's a pretty good gauge of what is thinking. Responding to touch is different from thinking. Bacteria responds to it's environment, but the responses are completely reflexive and chemical. It's never being about "living beings" a term that people give way too much significance.

Brains, or at the very least, a central nervous system.

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?

He had it, the word that is really important to vegans and vegetarians is sentience. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience)That is where you draw the line. Does it have the ability to suffer?

It goes without saying that there are many things we do not know, but all you can do is behave based on available data. The available data of basic biology reveals that plants cannot think and feel and cannot suffer. They are alive, but not sentient. Animals, on the other hand, are sentient.

 

[Chris OBrien]

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of over uses of fields. I am also familiar with the concepts of crop rotation and fertilizer. In South eastern Ohio where I lived for several years a common crop rotation would be to grow corn for a year the grow soy beans for a year or two. This coupled with fertilizer makes it so you are capable of growing a crop every year. This is just one example. Furthermore your argument would have more weight if we where raising livestock in the desert but we are not. We are raising livestock on land that could be used for crops. Nor are we rotating crops through land used to raise Livestock, meaning crops are not grow for x year then cattle raised on the same land for x years. Land dedicated to industrial scale meat production is dedicated and used solely for industrial scale meat production. We are also feeding cows [and other livestock] crops grown on land that could be used to make people food. I am also aware of the fact that the U.S. pays farmers to not grow certain crops in order to stabilize related economic markets. Therefor our maximum production out put is greater then what we actually produce.

Also you go on a rant about GMOs but fail to provided a point for the rant. So I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that information.

I am not saying that a global switch would be easy nor am I suggesting that it would not present any major problems. Nor do I think it should happen. I like to eat meat and don't want to stop. As you said people should be able to choose.I was simply disagreeing with you insinuation that it was impossible, and that the consumption of meat was preventing famine.

I never said it was impossible, i pointed out that it was unlikely, or at least that it cant be done without serious problems and if we simply went with the thought of "Oh, it will work out" we will probably screw it up and the result of that wouldnt be pretty.

But yes you do see the Point i was making, without crop and field rotation, the soil would be made unusable after a while, im not a expert there, so im not sure how fast that happens or how slow, i do know that it would happen eventually however. And the problem is that as i said if 7 Billion people wanted a vegetarian diet, we dont have enough fields to allow for crop or field rotation, all fields we currently have would be "producing" all year round as it were, hence we'd need more farmland to allow for the rotation again and that again would lead to other problems probably.

And yes i ignored the point about how Animals use fields because that doesnt matter whether we use it for crops or animals at this point, as even if the initial yield of food would be higher it wouldnt prevent the underlying problem. Also where would you put all the animals? In fact how would Cows, pigs and the like survive if they werent..well being eaten by us? We probably wouldnt really care about them if it wasnt for that we can eat them and that they taste good.

The problem I'm having with what you are saying is, since this thread became active again after almost a year without posts, no one has behaved the way you describe. As far as this conversation goes, you're writing preemptively.

I have never said no one anywhere should ever eat any meat and the entire world should switch to an all plant diet.

I wrote earlier:

As I have written over and over, I agree that an ideal diet for omnivores includes a small amount of meat. Vegan and Vegetarians would rather not take part in an industry and culture they are deeply opposed to--instead supplementing and finding other sources of protein rather than contribute to the mass factory farming of livestock.

As for you remarks about Vegans and Vegetarians being like religious fanatics... I disagree:

You have to keep in mind, vegans and vegetarians would probably not be the religious people in that comparison. They may appear to have a similar fervor at times, but they share more in common with the smaller, less socially accepted, group--the atheists or agnostics. And if you engage in a conversation with them, they will almost undoubtedly try to talk you over to their side--but more likely with facts and logic than a holy book and statements about faith.

Oh, so this was a Necro-thread? I hadnt even noticed, and im being honest there, i didnt. I blame the Necroposter for all Problems then! Okay kidding, i didnt realize it but the point stands whether this was a year ago or a day ago doesnt matter, it is fact that some people HAVE used the same logical reasoning that i would ascribe to fanatics, religious or not. Im not saying Vegetarians or Vegans are all crazy folks or the like, but some of the Comments portray a similar logic that..well the crazies use. The Idea that..their belief in eating just plants is somehow morally superior, which is if i may use that example kind of alike to feeling morally superior and talking down to people just because you believe in god and the other guy doesnt, or believes in a different god.

Im not trying to put them on the same level, but the arguements as they were chosen seem to go by that train of thought. Which is why i pointed out repeatedly that you arent any better for eating plants, just as someone who eats meat isnt any better.

I have a couple questions for you then, because unless you frame your value system for me, your comments make you seem like a moral relativist.

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?

See, to vegans and vegetarians who care about the treatment of animals, their diet is morally superior. However, the difference you seem to be ignoring is that their sense of moral superiority is based on verifiable evidence regarding the meat farming industry and the treatment of animals as well as the health benefits of a diet that minimizes meat consumption, not on interpretations and opinions about thousands of years old texts that are regarded as holy books. They've been edified, not indoctrinated. Shouldn't it be every individual's goal to be as morally advanced as possible? If not, then why not?

I'm not arguing that makes it right to treat anyone poorly or talk down to others, I'm arguing that all things are not equal. If some behaviors are morally superior to others, then all behaviors can be assigned greater or lesser value. (Note: "behaviors," not "people.")

To your above comments about farmed animals--we care about plenty of animals that are not grown for food. The goal is not merely the continued survival of any given species, it's the ethical treatment of all animals. You don't "put all the animals" anywhere. You stop breeding as many. You ween yourself as a society slowly off of meat.

Almost all farmed animals are domesticated at this point and that is our fault. They likely can't be reintroduced into the wild, but that does not provide any justification for continuing the gross exploitation and mistreatment of said animals for food.

 

[BNguyen]

Chris OBrien

So where would you morally stand if we did switch over to an all plant diet, and over time, the human population expanded to require say four or five times as much land to produce food as we use now and due to this, we needed to destroy animal reserve land and forests in order to get the amount of land necessary in order to feed everyone? Would you still support a plant based diet if in order to fulfill it it destroyed animal habitats and caused numerous species to go extinct?
And for this example, I'm not talking about eating animals, I'm asking how you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?

 

[Chris OBrien]

Chris OBrien

So where would you morally stand if we did switch over to an all plant diet, and over time, the human population expanded to require say four or five times as much land to produce food as we use now and due to this, we needed to destroy animal reserve land and forests in order to get the amount of land necessary in order to feed everyone? Would you still support a plant based diet if in order to fulfill it it destroyed animal habitats and caused numerous species to go extinct?
And for this example, I'm not talking about eating animals, I'm asking how you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?

You are talking about an over-population problem, not a diet problem. In your example, one (diet) does not follow the other (an over-populated planet). I and others have pointed out multiple times that it would require less farm land to grow enough plants to feed the people of the planet. In the given scenario, producing meat for human consumption would not solve the problem because you would then need to feed the increased animal population as well as the growing human population.

So, the only humane solutions to your scenario are to cap human population growth or colonize other planets with abundant natural resources. In that case, vegans and vegetarians would still support plant based diets as well as responsible human breeding, increased government funding to aero-space sciences, and the development of vertical farms (artificial land to grow crops--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming).

All you've done is show that it requires an impossible scenario--or at least one in which the diet supported is rendered irrelevant by the very fact that the given problem would be an issue either way--to convince someone who supports plant based diets to consider saying, "well, no in that case, I'd have to rethink what I support." Perhaps the best evidence I can give you that your scenario is unrealistic is India--it has the largest population of any country in the world, yet consumes very little meat. The same was true of China, another huge population, until relatively recently when meat became more common.

Ignoring your scenario and addressing the fundamental question that you've posed--"How [would] you would fix the problem if your life style was the cause of the problem?" I think that is obvious because it's exactly what vegans and vegetarians have already done. Again, most vegans and vegetarians have adopted their diets. They've identified a problem that their behavior helped perpetuate and they've altered their behavior accordingly.