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

[manic_depressive13]

You misunderstand me.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I didn't misunderstand. In fact, I answered all those questions. As a "militant vego" I will repeat myself for your sake.

A) No, it isn't wrong in every circumstance. There are situations where it is justified, such as when it is necessary for survival. However, I don't believe there is anyone on this website who absolutely must eat meat in order to survive.
B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.
C) Not if there is an alternative, and chances are, whatever you're thinking, there is an alternative.
D) Yeah.

I don't see the massive problem.

 

[peruvianskys]

So, just to clarify, your position is that it's wrong to harm animals when we have any other option, even if doing so means some discomfort/inconvinience to humans?

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I believe that animals, like humans, exist for their own sake and not as tools for the pleasure of other beings. That means I don't think it's okay to kill them, just as I wish that no one kill me.

 

[Starbird]

You misunderstand me.

What I was trying to clarify is whether the more militant vego's in this thread believe that:
A) Eating meat is wrong under any circumstances.
B) It's morally wrong to cause death/harm to animals to spare humans discomfort/inconvinience (in this case eating meat versus less tasty/satisfying vegetable alternatives).
C) It's okay to cause discomfort/harm to animals, but not for the sake of food.
D) Something else.

Because there are massive problems with A-C.

I didn't misunderstand. In fact, I answered all those questions. As a "militant vego" I will repeat myself for your sake.

A) No, it isn't wrong in every circumstance. There are situations where it is justified, such as when it is necessary for survival. However, I don't believe there is anyone on this website who absolutely must eat meat in order to survive.
B) Yes, I think the lives of animals are more important than a mild inconvenience.
C) Not if there is an alternative, and chances are, whatever you're thinking, there is an alternative.
D) Yeah.

I don't see the massive problem.

Do you drive a car? Do you eat artificial foods? How about sugar? Chocolate?

I can find environmentally destructive processes in all of these, probably on average killing far more animals than me enjoying a delicious plate of gyusashi does.

The fact is - while we shouldn't kill animals wantonly or for the pleasure of the kill, and we certainly should take care of endangered species, livestock and similar are a part of modern culture - much like motor vehicles, airplanes, computers, purified water, coffee and chocolate.

Unless you are going to live in a powerless, waterless cave somewhere and live off yams, chances are that you are killing animals directly or indirectly that you could possibly avoid.

And yet you choose not to. Shame on you!

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

Out of interest, do you count insects and fish as animals?

 

[banksy122]

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

Many animals kill and torture other animals for fun, does that mean that those animals are shitty and wrong, just like your opinions on humans that do that?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

While this isn't great logic, the suggestion "You can't love animals if you're not a vegetarian" is actually disproved by me not being a vegetarian and also loving animals. So there's the hamfisted approach.

Really though, I love animals for their feel and look when they're alive, I love them for their taste when they're dead.

 

[pandorum]

Those of us that watch QI will remember that if you do not eat meat you are denying yourself nutrition that increases brain growth and activity if we did not eat meat we would never have evolved to what we are today so every vegetarian and vegan exist because people ate meat. That is a fact look it up.

 

[CarlMin]

Okay, so this can really be narrowed down to a semantical issue.

Does "love animals" include all animals or just a selected number of species? If the answer is all animals: no, you can't claim to love while at the same time kill and eat what you love if you have the choice not to. The very notion is preposterous. I can't claim to love puppies while eating puppies. I can't claim to have love children while eating children. You don't have to think long before realizing that one can't possible claim to have a platonic affection for a living being that you also wouldn't mind chewing and digesting.

But if you by animals mean "dogs, cats and horses" then you can probably say it without being too hypocritical.

Yes, you can love the things you eat, sometimes you can make it a little complicated, for example, one person I knew had cows that he had to have someone else kill because he couldn't. There are plenty of people who raise and love pigs, and then eat ham, some friends I know had cows and chickens that they'd raise and then sell their meat, I can't see why you say that it has to be one or the other.

I really don't know about that. I don't doubt that a farmer can have a certain affection for an animal, but if that affection isn't strong enough to keep the farmer from killing and eating the animal in question, that affection can hardly be called love.

Let's instead apply our reasoning to another example to see how ridiculous it can get. The love that people have for dogs is not mere affection, it's a good example of platonic love. If you met a person who claims to love dogs, and learn that the person in question has a habit of killing and eating his canine pets, would you take this person seriously?

I wouldn't. I would wonder which strange definition of love this sick man has and then try to find a way to forbid him from owning dogs.

Now dogs is a category of animals that humans really do love in the true definition of the term. Pigs, cows, chickens - these typed of animals are seldom loved and that's why we can treat them like we do. They are not kept as pets or animal companions, they are in the end just property.

I can promise you that if we kept pigs as pets, we would be equally upset with the idea of eating pigs. It' just proves that there is no logics behind the way we feel about eating animals. It's cultural tradition and habit, nothing else.

 

[Lieju]

I can promise you that if we kept pigs as pets, we would be equally upset with the idea of eating pigs. It' just proves that there is no logics behind the way we feel about eating animals. It's cultural tradition and habit, nothing else.

Pigs are kept as pets. Not as commonly as dogs or cats, but they aren't terribly rare or exotic.
Chickens are also commonly kept as pets.

And people who do keep them as pets tend to be more hesitant in eating bacon or chicken.

I'm opposed to cruelty to animals myself. I don't have a problem with killing and eating cows or pigs but I have problems with how they are treated to get that meat.
(Also generally speaking, producing vegetarian diet uses less natural resources)

I don't eat meat, (although there's propably meat-derived ingredients used in the food I eat).
But I have pets (a ferret, snake and arachnids) that eat meat.

I am annoyed at hypocrites, though, that eat meat themselves, and then are horrified at me feeding (dead)mice to my pets.
Or people that are opposed to hunting 'because it's cruel', but have no problem eating cows.
(I have no problem with hunting itself, as long as it's animals that aren't endangered and it's not done in a way that causes unnecessary suffering)

 

[manic_depressive13]

Do you drive a car? Do you eat artificial foods? How about sugar? Chocolate?

I can find environmentally destructive processes in all of these, probably on average killing far more animals than me enjoying a delicious plate of gyusashi does.

The fact is - while we shouldn't kill animals wantonly or for the pleasure of the kill, and we certainly should take care of endangered species, livestock and similar are a part of modern culture - much like motor vehicles, airplanes, computers, purified water, coffee and chocolate.

Unless you are going to live in a powerless, waterless cave somewhere and live off yams, chances are that you are killing animals directly or indirectly that you could possibly avoid.

And yet you choose not to. Shame on you!

Do you drive a car or eat artificial foods, sugar and chocolate? Yes? Then why am I a hypocrite for at least trying to minimise the damage I do? Ending the meat industry (everyone becoming vegetarian) would be a non extreme way of significantly reducing damage to the environment, reducing animal suffering and preventing billions of unnecessary deaths. I acknowledge that my existence alone causes harm to the environment; it would be absurd not to. But I don't see why I should need to live in a fucking cave to validate my viewpoint. Why should I have to, when the majority of people are happy to use fucking idiotic, dishonest arguments to justify their own destructive behaviour.

I don't drive, nor do I eat artificial foods.

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

Out of interest, do you count insects and fish as animals?

This second part is obviously a response to someone who will never get a notification since you didn't quote them properly. I may as well answer this too. I don't eat fish because I consider them to be animals. However, their ability to feel pain compared to birds and mammals is much smaller. Studies would suggest they are not "conscious" in the way birds and mammals are, and are significantly less intelligent. It could be argued that they do not experience fear or distress in any meaningful way since they simply lack the awareness. Behaviour which seems to be a fear response on the surface could well be automated, or simply a nervous response to noxious stimuli. Most vegetarians would argue that there is enough evidence that they feel pain to avoid eating them, and we simply don't fully understand brains and nervous systems which have evolved differently to our own. After all, it was only recently that we were forced to acknowledge that some cephalopods are aware and exhibit intelligence and an ability to learn on par with some mammals. This means that they probably feel distress in a similar way. However, I would argue that being a pescetarian is at least a step in the right direction, even though I don't whole heartedly support it.

Insects are a different can of worms altogether. There is no evidence that they are remotely conscious, capable of feeling pain or able to experience fear. I personally prefer to just let spiders and roaches outside, but realistically I don't think it's necessary to grant them real consideration. I would be comfortable for people to adopt the practice of eating insects like they have in some parts of Asia.

To conclude, life and consciousness are not things that exist on a binary scale. Some animals are more aware than others. However, instead of drawing the arbitrary line between humans and other animals, I would feel more comfortable drawing the arbitrary line somewhere above insects and perhaps even above fish, if not for the fact that over fishing is a serious environmental issue. My reasoning for this is simply that many animals are capable of suffering to a significant extent, nearly identically to humans, and as such ought to be granted some consideration by us. Slippery slope arguments such as the one you're invoking are disingenuous if not outright stupid, and betray a spectacular lack of understanding of biology, neurology and logic. Please stop it.

 

[Syzygy23]

I'm not a vegetarian and I LOVE animals! Have you ever tasted them? They're delicious!

 

[CarlMin]

I can promise you that if we kept pigs as pets, we would be equally upset with the idea of eating pigs. It' just proves that there is no logics behind the way we feel about eating animals. It's cultural tradition and habit, nothing else.

Pigs are kept as pets. Not as commonly as dogs or cats, but they aren't terribly rare or exotic.
Chickens are also commonly kept as pets.

And people who do keep them as pets tend to be more hesitant in eating bacon or chicken.

I'm opposed to cruelty to animals myself. I don't have a problem with killing and eating cows or pigs but I have problems with how they are treated to get that meat.
(Also generally speaking, producing vegetarian diet uses less natural resources)

I don't eat meat, (although there's propably meat-derived ingredients used in the food I eat).
But I have pets (a ferret, snake and arachnids) that eat meat.

I am annoyed at hypocrites, though, that eat meat themselves, and then are horrified at me feeding (dead)mice to my pets.
Or people that are opposed to hunting 'because it's cruel', but have no problem eating cows.
(I have no problem with hunting itself, as long as it's animals that aren't endangered and it's not done in a way that causes unnecessary suffering)

I'm a meat eater myself, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite. But at least I'm aware of what I'm doing wrong, whereas I see many meat-eaters using pseudo-arguments and poor reasoning to justify their behavior and it annoys me.

I don't believe people have the right to blindly ignore issues they don't feel comfortable discussing. As human beings, we should aspire to more than that. However, the environmental and ethical consequences of meat eating is swept under the rug as people don't want to be reminded of what they would rather forget.

Not only that, they will furiously attack those who would try to remind them about the ethical issues of their life style, not only when it comes to meat eating, but when it comes to all kinds of charity, welfare and environmental issues. It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[CarlMin]

Those of us that watch QI will remember that if you do not eat meat you are denying yourself nutrition that increases brain growth and activity if we did not eat meat we would never have evolved to what we are today so every vegetarian and vegan exist because people ate meat. That is a fact look it up.

Okay, so there are two things wrong with your post

1. It's a theory, not a fact. And the theory concerns how eating more red meat might potentially have affected our brain more than 75,000,000 years ago.

2. No, switching to a vegetarian diet is not going to slowly lower your IQ. So what's the relevance here?

 

[CarlMin]

I'm not a vegetarian and I LOVE animals! Have you ever tasted them? They're delicious!

We were talking about platonic love, not the materialistic love one might have for food.

Just thought I'd point that since the only possible explanation behind your point is that you honestly don't know the difference between the two, and there is no way you would repeat a joke that has already been posted like five times in this thread.

 

[Starbird]

Do you drive a car? Do you eat artificial foods? How about sugar? Chocolate?

I can find environmentally destructive processes in all of these, probably on average killing far more animals than me enjoying a delicious plate of gyusashi does.

The fact is - while we shouldn't kill animals wantonly or for the pleasure of the kill, and we certainly should take care of endangered species, livestock and similar are a part of modern culture - much like motor vehicles, airplanes, computers, purified water, coffee and chocolate.

Unless you are going to live in a powerless, waterless cave somewhere and live off yams, chances are that you are killing animals directly or indirectly that you could possibly avoid.

And yet you choose not to. Shame on you!

Do you drive a car or eat artificial foods, sugar and chocolate? Yes? Then why am I a hypocrite for at least trying to minimise the damage I do? Ending the meat industry (everyone becoming vegetarian) would be a non extreme way of significantly reducing damage to the environment, reducing animal suffering and preventing billions of unnecessary deaths. I acknowledge that my existence alone causes harm to the environment; it would be absurd not to. But I don't see why I should need to live in a fucking cave to validate my viewpoint. Why should I have to, when the majority of people are happy to use fucking idiotic, dishonest arguments to justify their own destructive behaviour.

I don't drive, nor do I eat artificial foods.

My view is that killing something unless it is absolutely necessary is shitty and wrong, and that it is probably better to die than kill anyway.

Out of interest, do you count insects and fish as animals?

This second part is obviously a response to someone who will never get a notification since you didn't quote them properly. I may as well answer this too. I don't eat fish because I consider them to be animals. However, their ability to feel pain compared to birds and mammals is much smaller. Studies would suggest they are not "conscious" in the way birds and mammals are, and are significantly less intelligent. It could be argued that they do not experience fear or distress in any meaningful way since they simply lack the awareness. Behaviour which seems to be a fear response on the surface could well be automated, or simply a nervous response to noxious stimuli. Most vegetarians would argue that there is enough evidence that they feel pain to avoid eating them, and we simply don't fully understand brains and nervous systems which have evolved differently to our own. After all, it was only recently that we were forced to acknowledge that some cephalopods are aware and exhibit intelligence and an ability to learn on par with some mammals. This means that they probably feel distress in a similar way. However, I would argue that being a pescetarian is at least a step in the right direction, even though I don't whole heartedly support it.

Insects are a different can of worms altogether. There is no evidence that they are remotely conscious, capable of feeling pain or able to experience fear. I personally prefer to just let spiders and roaches outside, but realistically I don't think it's necessary to grant them real consideration. I would be comfortable for people to adopt the practice of eating insects like they have in some parts of Asia.

To conclude, life and consciousness are not things that exist on a binary scale. Some animals are more aware than others. However, instead of drawing the arbitrary line between humans and other animals, I would feel more comfortable drawing the arbitrary line somewhere above insects and perhaps even above fish, if not for the fact that over fishing is a serious environmental issue. My reasoning for this is simply that many animals are capable of suffering to a significant extent, nearly identically to humans, and as such ought to be granted some consideration by us. Slippery slope arguments such as the one you're invoking are disingenuous if not outright stupid, and betray a spectacular lack of understanding of biology, neurology and logic. Please stop it.

Thank you for pointing out that my argument is something of a strawman (moreso than a slippery slope). But so is yours (with a fair bit of ad hominum, which isn't needed - let's stick to the discussion, shall we?).

The fact is - by being as prevalent and multiplying as fast as we are as a species, humankind is going to slowly but surely kill off animals. Whether is be for food, for areas to grow food, for housing, for power: we leave a massive footprint on the world that we can't easily reduce without changing the way we act as a species.

Should we minimize our impact? Fine. Lets use the green lightbulbs. Let's ensure that slaughterhouses are as cruelty free as possible. Heck, I could even get behind far more restrictive laws on environmental spoiling and pollution. But when it comes to doing what humankind has done naturally for thousands of years? Hell no.

So - you don't drive. Are you saying that we are evil for driving? Do you want us all to end all global travel? How about electricity? Whether you go Nuclear or whatever, you muck with the environment.

You want to close the meat industry. Well, I originally come from an African country that relies massively on cattle farming. You would save a lot of cows...and harm a whole lot of already pretty poor people. Would you be okay with that?

I'm not saying anyone is a hypocrite for what they *do*. If you want to go green, not drive, not eat meat etc. then fine. Good for you - if you want to make that sort of sacrifice.

But vilifying people who don't agree with you about where that arbitrary line between 'conscious' and merely 'alive'? Comparing them to rapists or child molesters as some posters in this thread have done? Now there I can't agree with you. Especially when you admit that you yourself could do more.

http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm. Give this a read. Puts it much better than I can.

PS: How do you quote a block of text and leave someone's ID intact?

 

[RustlessPotato]

As a vegetarian, I feel qualified to give you this advice:
Punch the person who said it in the mouth so it will shut them up. Then tell them to stop giving all the other vegos a bad name.

A few points to consider:
-Children dont need meat in their diet to grow up healthy.
-IMO, if it was a moral choice, choosing to be a vego means you have to live with that choice. You follow through with it. Even to your detriment if that's the course it takes.
-Pushing your vego beliefs on people is just like pushing a religious belief on someone. It's wrong and should be sorted out with my advice above.
-If, as a vego, you look down on others for eating meat, then you have missed the point of PERSONAL CHOICE.
-Being a vego is not healthy for everyone.
-You can eat animals and still love them.

I believe that everyone should see how farm animals are raised, slaughtered and prepared for consumption. Not to make them vegos, but to make people more aware of what they're putting in their bodies. Let people see what grain and maize does to a cow and the impact it has on the environment compared to a grass fed cow. Let them see what is fed to chickens in battery farms and the conditions they endure. And people should be a horrified as I was when I saw a news article recently about a feed shortage in the US for livestock, so they've started buying things like gummi bears to feed their animals. People are going to be buying and eating unhealthy meat. Do they really think that's a good idea in the worlds fattest country?

I'm not a vegetarian, but I also don't support the meat industry as it is now. I always buy my meat from places I know the animals have been treated well. I agree that people should first consider how the animals were raised before eating them. Not to guilt-trip them into being something they don't want to be (I'm not saying you were, let me be clear on that), but so that they are at least more conscious about the industry. If enough people change their meat-buying habits, maybe it'll force the industry to change.

O.T As a rule, I think that when people make a absolute binary claim, they are usually wrong.

 

[Zealous]

The argument is inherently flawed. Not all vegetarians have given up meat because they believe in extensive animal rights. Some have changed their diet for health reasons. So right there, we can say that not all vegetarians support extensive animals rights.

On top of that, just because you eat some animals doesn't mean that you can't have some kind of deep emotional connection with another animal. So, yeah. The statement, while to the point and eye catching (just look at the conversations it's spawned) is false.

 

[pandorum]

I'm not a vegetarian and I LOVE animals! Have you ever tasted them? They're delicious!

We were talking about platonic love, not the materialistic love one might have for food.

Just thought I'd point that since the only possible explanation behind your point is that you honestly don't know the difference between the two, and there is no way you would repeat a joke that has already been posted like five times in this thread.

Those of us that watch QI will remember that if you do not eat meat you are denying yourself nutrition that increases brain growth and activity if we did not eat meat we would never have evolved to what we are today so every vegetarian and vegan exist because people ate meat. That is a fact look it up.

Okay, so there are two things wrong with your post

1. It's a theory, not a fact. And the theory concerns how eating more red meat might potentially have affected our brain more than 75,000,000 years ago.

2. No, switching to a vegetarian diet is not going to slowly lower your IQ. So what's the relevance here?

I am not saying it lowers your IQ What I am saying is that eating meat for all these years as a species has allowed us to evolve into what we are today. Allowing us to think like this, what I am getting at is Veggies and Vegans should remember where they came from and not ***** and complain, accept there past and be happy for it. Without us evolving they could not choose their way of life just because we do not do it does not mean they have to push there views.

 

[Latinidiot]

Cute, but very wrong. It's just a stupid idea. Next.

 

[Smolderin]

That is not true! I love animals like pigs, cows, and chickens....when their on my plate.

That said, it's a bullcrap analysis. I got 4 dogs and 3 cats and I love all of em. I would never wish any harm upon them and I certainly wouldn't eat them.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The fact is - by being as prevalent and multiplying as fast as we are as a species, humankind is going to slowly but surely kill off animals. Whether is be for food, for areas to grow food, for housing, for power: we leave a massive footprint on the world that we can't easily reduce without changing the way we act as a species.

Should we minimize our impact? Fine. Lets use the green lightbulbs. Let's ensure that slaughterhouses are as cruelty free as possible. Heck, I could even get behind far more restrictive laws on environmental spoiling and pollution. But when it comes to doing what humankind has done naturally for thousands of years? Hell no.

We haven't been farming animals on a mass scale for thousands of years, and if we had, why does that mean we can't change it now? I'll ignore the word "naturally". Appeals to nature are stupid.

So - you don't drive. Are you saying that we are evil for driving? Do you want us all to end all global travel? How about electricity? Whether you go Nuclear or whatever, you muck with the environment.

I told you I didn't drive because you asked me. I never said anyone was evil. I don't use such meaningless terms. Fossil fuels are an issue which need to be addressed as well, but we are discussing factory farming right now.

You want to close the meat industry. Well, I originally come from an African country that relies massively on cattle farming. You would save a lot of cows...and harm a whole lot of already pretty poor people. Would you be okay with that?

Hence the addendum "unless it's necessary for survival". But yes, both animal slaughter and capitalism are shit. I would quite like to get rid of both of those things.

I'm not saying anyone is a hypocrite for what they *do*. If you want to go green, not drive, not eat meat etc. then fine. Good for you - if you want to make that sort of sacrifice.

If you want to be an upstanding citizen, respect your fellow human beings and generally not be a fucking asshole, then fine. Good for you- if you want to make that kind of sacrifice. Just don't expect me to extend the same courtesy to you.

You see, these things don't actually work unless everyone accepts responsibility for their actions. What you're saying here is "Carry on trying to reduce suffering, just don't get upset with me when I wantonly shit all over your efforts". I'm sorry but I can't fulfil such a demand.

But vilifying people who don't agree with you about where that arbitrary line between 'conscious' and merely 'alive'? Comparing them to rapists or child molesters as some posters in this thread have done? Now there I can't agree with you. Especially when you admit that you yourself could do more.

And I would happily do more if others would do more with me, but it's pretty fucking absurd to expect me do go live in a cave while you yourself are scoffing bacon. I never compared anyone to a child rapist, and I sincerely doubt anyone else here has. I must say though, I find it amusing that people who eat meat cry about the fact they were offended by that one vegetarian they encountered once while, as a vegetarian myself, I can't order a fucking sandwich without people interrogating me about why I feel the need to be a vegetarian and scoffing at me for being so sensitive.

The line between "human" and "animal" is even more arbitrary than the line between "conscious" and "alive". So forgive me, but I have no respect for someone who shows blatant disregard for suffering and tries to rationalise their behaviour with intellectually dishonest arguments.

http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm. Give this a read. Puts it much better than I can.

Your link is showing a 404 error.