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

[BNguyen]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.


Captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
Yes it sure is

 

[Xan Krieger]

Spoiler: I love animals. Especially cats.

I just can't finish a whole one by myself.

What's funny is that I don't love people as a rule, but I'm decidedly not a cannibal.

Loved the joke (and surprisingly nobody else made one).

OT: Put a puppy in a basket hanging over the edge of a cliff and put a human baby in a similar basket next to the one with the puppy. I will save the puppy every single time you run the test. I love animals because as Slipknot put it "People=shit".

I.. I just.. no. I'm going to leave that one.

Just say it. If you can't say it on the forum then message me.

Dude... infanticide is rarely good as a JOKE. I honestly hope you're not being serious. I agree that a good portion of humanity deserves to go die in a hole, but unless the person in question is Jack Thompson, Hitler, or the entirety of the Fox News cast, I wouldn't pick the puppy in that situation. Even if it was cute.

As to this entire topic... guys. We eat these foods because they're necessary to us for SURVIVE and live a HEALTHY life. Yes, I know that there are plenty of ways to lead a vegan diet, and that, if done successfully, it's actually one of the healthiest options you can pick for yourself. However, a lot of people either don't have the time or the resources to go about a healthy vegan diet, especially when meat is so prevalent in our society as a type of food.

Also, quite honestly, I think some of you people are overthinking it. When I eat a chicken leg, I don't think about the poor chicken whose last moments were stuck in a cage, waiting for its death and deep-frying into the product I'm holding now. No, I think of it as food, because THAT'S WHAT IT NOW IS.

It's food, people. You vegans and vegetarians can eat whatever the hell you want, but please don't patronize me about the type of food I'm eating. I'm hungry, and that's both edible and delicious, so it's going in my damn mouth. Get over it.

It wasn't a joke, people have treated me like crap my whole life where as dogs tend to be far nicer so to me one puppy is worth more than a thousand babies.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

]It wasn't a joke, people have treated me like crap my whole life where as dogs tend to be far nicer so to me one puppy is worth more than a thousand babies.

Well then you are a fool.


Have you seen the price a baby fetches these days? Much more than one puppy, I can tell you that much.




Meat is also much more tender.

 

[BNguyen]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

 

[GTwander]

How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.

 

[BNguyen]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen

 

[Chris OBrien]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen[/quote]


How much of the meat served as food in our world resemble the animal it comes from?


[QUOTE=FulfilledDeer][QUOTE=GTwander]How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.[/quote]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."

 

[Chris OBrien]

Woops, double post. Disregard.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."

Yeah, what is that about? I mean, technically I know. Still makes my blood pressure raise when people maintain fish aren't meat.

 

[BNguyen]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen[/quote]


How much of the meat served as food in our world resemble the animal it comes from?


[QUOTE=FulfilledDeer][QUOTE=GTwander]How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.[/quote]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."[/quote]

I'm just going by what you've put on my plate so to speak, and to me, that meat that they are shoveling down looks like poultry and lobster. But from what you've shown, that food doesn't resemble any pokemon, and pokemon are the only animals of that world, I mean, the closest pokemon to resemble that food look like this:
[img src="http://pldh.net/media/pokemon/ken_sugimori/update1/085.png"]
and
[img src="http://www.pokemoncharacters.com/images/pokemon/342crawdaunt.gif"]

and these do not come close to what they're eating, the drumsticks alone would likely be two feet long and the entire table would be needed for a crawdaunt
just based on this information, I still believe that every living thing inside the pokemon world, up until they show it on screen, is vegetarian

 

[Chris OBrien]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."

Yeah, what is that about? I mean, technically I know. Still makes my blood pressure raise when people maintain fish aren't meat.

I'm not sure what it's about, really. The only line I can draw is, as mentioned, to the Catholics. During lent, Catholics are not allowed to eat "meat" on Friday. However, fish is excluded (though I seem to remember some speculation the entire thing was a ploy to save the Italian fishing industry). It seems that this has resulted in some confusion.

However, it takes only a minimal understanding of biology to realize that, regardless of whether common usage includes fish when referring to "meat," they are still animals.

 

[Chris OBrien]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen[/quote]


How much of the meat served as food in our world resemble the animal it comes from?


[QUOTE=FulfilledDeer][QUOTE=GTwander]How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.[/quote]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."[/quote]

I'm just going by what you've put on my plate so to speak, and to me, that meat that they are shoveling down looks like poultry and lobster. But from what you've shown, that food doesn't resemble any pokemon, and pokemon are the only animals of that world, I mean, the closest pokemon to resemble that food look like this:
[img src="http://pldh.net/media/pokemon/ken_sugimori/update1/085.png"]
and
[img src="http://www.pokemoncharacters.com/images/pokemon/342crawdaunt.gif"]

and these do not come close to what they're eating, the drumsticks alone would likely be two feet long and the entire table would be needed for a crawdaunt
just based on this information, I still believe that every living thing inside the pokemon world, up until they show it on screen, is vegetarian[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree with you and I didn't post that image. I was just pointing out that just because the meat doesn't look like any discernible pokemon, doesn't mean it isn't.

But just for fun--

The drumsticks are probably from the Pidgey evolutionary family. The lobster could be crab, in which case it's probably from Krabby's family. To me, it looks a bit more like sausage, which could be from any number of pokemon that resemble boars or bovine.

Granted, humans produce food for vegetarians and vegans that are meant to look and taste similar to meat, so it's still reasonable to assume the pokemon universe is vegetarian. Still, members of Team Rocket were shown in the anime to attempt to catch and eat a Far Fetch'd. The issue was never explicitly addressed, but I think canon is that most humans in the Pokemon Universe are practicing omnivores (Ash frequently talks about hamburgers and Misty is seen eating a hot dog at least once).

 

[manic_depressive13]

Okay, firstly I believe that we can, a priori, view humans (and human infants) as self aware (or have the potential for self awareness) and thus assign them certain rights based simply on that fact. I really don't want to go too far into this topic though (since it touches on other very contentious issues).

We don't need 'proof' that humans are self aware, because we know it experientially.

Animals now, experientially to me do not have self awareness. You could make an argument either way, but to say that animals deserve similar rights to humans would require some *very* solid proof that they cross a certain line.

I didn't get offended, but I don't want to go too deeply into "why isn't it okay to kill human infants if it's okay to kill animals?" because it's a massive can of worms.

It is a massive can of worms, but I also think it is very relevant. For example, I don't believe that the potential for self awareness should be relevant, given that upon time of death an infant would not be self aware and thus its suffering not worth consideration. As such, would you be comfortable with a woman aborting her pregnancy at a stage of the infants development when it could be delivered, say at 34 weeks? Here the rights of the mother clash with the rights of the infant, and by the logic of your argument, the mother should have priority over the non-sentient being. Would it be fair to force her to deliver a child that she no longer wants for whatever reason? Surely it would be hypocritical to say a sapient, self aware human has the right to slaughter less intelligent animals, but not to terminate a pregnancy where the child is alive but has less awareness than the average farm animal?

And I didn't say animals should have the same rights as humans. I said I want them to have very basic rights. That is, the right to live and be free from torture. It's not like I am arguing for self determination, animal suffrage or freedom from imprisonment. I don't care if animals are kept in zoos (where they are often unhappy) as long as they have enough room to exercise and aren't physically harmed.

Regarding the 'objective right and wrong' issue...ugh, I really don't want to get into this (since it's going to get long, and go well off topic). But I think, again, that most people will accept that the torture, enslavement and wanton murder of other humans is wrong on an objective (note: by objective in this case I mean certain moral rights conferred by self awareness)level, while not killing animals for meat doesn't involve any such rights.

Asking "why is slavery/infanticide objectively wrong?" is daft to me. Of *course* it's wrong. The arguments against it are well established and the majority of the world accepts it. Again, I really don't want to go into "why is slavery wrong?" here.

No, that's a cop out. It's not objective, and saying "Of course it is!" doesn't make it so. There is no reason not to enslave other people except for our sense of fairness, empathy and reason.

And if nothing is objectively right or wrong, then your point falls into the same trap - if eating meat isn't objectively morally wrong or right, then you really can't tell anyone not to do it .

No it doesn't. Just because nothing is objective doesn't mean we can't and don't impress our subjective values onto others. Society could not function otherwise. I am imploring that we apply our sense of fairness, empathy and reason which makes it "obvious" that it's wrong to enslave humans for personal gain in order to realise how "obvious" it is that causing animals to suffer and then be slaughtered is also despicable in its own right. This DOES NOT mean that eating meat and slavery are equivalent. This is merely to illustrate that emotional, subjective justifications are used to argue against slavery. Just because they aren't OBJECTIVE doesn't make them WRONG.

This is why I considered your post inflammatory (note: not offensive, just using an example that is meant to be more emotional than rational). Comparing the 'objective right and wrong' of slavery and torture to the 'objective right and wrong' of killing animals for meat to me seems absurd.

It's not absurd. It's how logic works.

Finally - what I mean by 'coercive' is that far too many militant holders of any viewpoint will rely on guilt, emotion, shame and very subjective reasoning to try to force others to share their beliefs. PETA's red paint antics, gross out slaughterhouse documentaries and the like.

I don't like PETA but confrontational ads aren't the issue I have with them. If people want to support an industry, why shouldn't they be made to acknowledge the suffering they cause?

 

[BNguyen]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen[/quote]


How much of the meat served as food in our world resemble the animal it comes from?


[QUOTE=FulfilledDeer][QUOTE=GTwander]How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.[/quote]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."[/quote]

I'm just going by what you've put on my plate so to speak, and to me, that meat that they are shoveling down looks like poultry and lobster. But from what you've shown, that food doesn't resemble any pokemon, and pokemon are the only animals of that world, I mean, the closest pokemon to resemble that food look like this:
[img src="http://pldh.net/media/pokemon/ken_sugimori/update1/085.png"]
and
[img src="http://www.pokemoncharacters.com/images/pokemon/342crawdaunt.gif"]

and these do not come close to what they're eating, the drumsticks alone would likely be two feet long and the entire table would be needed for a crawdaunt
just based on this information, I still believe that every living thing inside the pokemon world, up until they show it on screen, is vegetarian[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree with you and I didn't post that image. I was just pointing out that just because the meat doesn't look like any discernible pokemon, doesn't mean it isn't.

But just for fun--

The drumsticks are probably from the Pidgey evolutionary family. The lobster could be crab, in which case it's probably from Krabby's family. To me, it looks a bit more like sausage, which could be from any number of pokemon that resemble boars or bovine.

Granted, humans produce food for vegetarians and vegans that are meant to look and taste similar to meat, so it's still reasonable to assume the pokemon universe is vegetarian. Still, members of Team Rocket were shown in the anime to attempt to catch and eat a Far Fetch'd. The issue was never explicitly addressed, but I think canon is that most humans in the Pokemon Universe are practicing omnivores (Ash frequently talks about hamburgers and Misty is seen eating a hot dog at least once).[/quote]

"The lobster could be crab" I just had to laugh at this
there's a big difference between the two and surely if it did come from Krabby's then it would either be a mutation or a krabby with a birth defect because true crabs do not have extended thoraxes

Captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
Quit reading my mind, I know that already

 

[FulfilledDeer]

This was only a short while ago but I got to thinking about the pokemon world and how everything there is vegetarian or eats rocks, there's not one animal that eats meat even though clearly they are carnivorous in design. And in my head I wondered if every pokemon and human was vegetarian then wouldn't there not be enough food for everything and there'd be overpopulation in both humans and pokemon if there's no predators to keep the populations in check? Heck, the pokemon only fight once they have trainers. This must be the kind of world vegetarians and vegans want, but I just can't see a biologically designed organism as achieving our level of society and intelligence in such a world, we probably wouldn't even evolve past the plankton level.

Actually, you're wrong on several counts.

According to the Pokedex in the Anime, Farfetch'd are rare, because they were over-hunted due to being so delicious, especially when cooked with the leek they hold. Characters in the Anime also fantasize about Magikarp Sashimi. They're shown eating various meats, though no origin for them is given.

In-game Pokedex entries for several of bird Pokemon mention hunting for prey, including Bug Pokemon. The Fire Red Pokedex entry for Pidgeotto specifically mentions them eating Exeggcute. The Pokedex entry for Taillow specifically mention them eating Wurmple. In-game lore in Diamond and Pearl mention people eating Pokemon in the past, and say to release the bones down a river so the Pokemon can be reborn.

yeah, it may be true in the dialogue, but tell me, have you actually seen any character or pokemon actually eat meat? They may fantasize about it but I've only ever seen then have stew, minus meat, bread, and fruit, and heck, the pokemon most likely to be used for food is kept in the safari zone as an endangered species even when they clearly outnumber most other species. The pokemon themselves, at least in the anime, only appear to eat what looks like dog food, the junk food trainers carry, or fruit, and in rare cases maybe minerals. So far, I've yet to see an actual piece of meat in the mouths of humans or pokemon.

Then you should look at this:

[/quote]

but does any of what they're eating resemble a pokemon? practically the only animals they have in that world are pokemon, I haven't seen an actual chicken or lobster before. and if they don't have animals like we do, then that can't be meat, or at the very least, what they are eating is composed of pokemon not yet seen[/quote]


How much of the meat served as food in our world resemble the animal it comes from?


[QUOTE=FulfilledDeer][QUOTE=GTwander]How come nobody has really brought up that one fallacy that fish/seafood is ok because they don't have faces, beg for their lives or scream?

I seen a lot of shallow reasons as to why one death is worth more than another.[/QUOTE]

Wait, are you trying to point out vegetarians that think fish/seafood is okay are inconsistent? Because, yes, they are. But I'm not sure if vegetarianism proper encapsulates that idea.[/quote]

A person who eats fish or seafood is not a vegetarian. If that is the only meat/animal product they eat, they are pescatarians. The only reason there has ever been any confusion on the matter is because many people (usually Catholics) have been told that "fish isn't meat."

Calling a pescatarian a vegetarian is no more accurate than calling an average meat-eating human a "carnivore."[/quote]

I'm just going by what you've put on my plate so to speak, and to me, that meat that they are shoveling down looks like poultry and lobster. But from what you've shown, that food doesn't resemble any pokemon, and pokemon are the only animals of that world, I mean, the closest pokemon to resemble that food look like this:
[img src="http://pldh.net/media/pokemon/ken_sugimori/update1/085.png"]
and
[img src="http://www.pokemoncharacters.com/images/pokemon/342crawdaunt.gif"]

and these do not come close to what they're eating, the drumsticks alone would likely be two feet long and the entire table would be needed for a crawdaunt
just based on this information, I still believe that every living thing inside the pokemon world, up until they show it on screen, is vegetarian[/quote]

I don't necessarily disagree with you and I didn't post that image. I was just pointing out that just because the meat doesn't look like any discernible pokemon, doesn't mean it isn't.

But just for fun--

The drumsticks are probably from the Pidgey evolutionary family. The lobster could be crab, in which case it's probably from Krabby's family. To me, it looks a bit more like sausage, which could be from any number of pokemon that resemble boars or bovine.

Granted, humans produce food for vegetarians and vegans that are meant to look and taste similar to meat, so it's still reasonable to assume the pokemon universe is vegetarian. Still, members of Team Rocket were shown in the anime to attempt to catch and eat a Far Fetch'd. The issue was never explicitly addressed, but I think canon is that most humans in the Pokemon Universe are practicing omnivores (Ash frequently talks about hamburgers and Misty is seen eating a hot dog at least once).[/quote]

"The lobster could be crab" I just had to laugh at this
there's a big difference between the two and surely if it did come from Krabby's then it would either be a mutation or a krabby with a birth defect because true crabs do not have extended thoraxes

Captcha: "It's Super Delicious"
Quit reading my mind, I know that already[/quote]


Okay everyone, can we just post the gene sequencing to see how closely related these could be? Maybe we're looking at a publishable novel mutation in Krabby phenotype. If so, we have the three lead authors right here.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The whole argument is just plain silly. Even cannibals have families.

 

[Starbird]

It is a massive can of worms, but I also think it is very relevant. For example, I don't believe that the potential for self awareness should be relevant, given that upon time of death an infant would not be self aware and thus its suffering not worth consideration. As such, would you be comfortable with a woman aborting her pregnancy at a stage of the infants development when it could be delivered, say at 34 weeks? Here the rights of the mother clash with the rights of the infant, and by the logic of your argument, the mother should have priority over the non-sentient being. Would it be fair to force her to deliver a child that she no longer wants for whatever reason? Surely it would be hypocritical to say a sapient, self aware human has the right to slaughter less intelligent animals, but not to terminate a pregnancy where the child is alive but has less awareness than the average farm animal?

I knew exactly where the infant thing was going to, which is why I'm not going to start going into this. It is somewhat relevant to the issue, but is going to send this thread off the rails . Abortion is very unique since it involves the rights of the mother, the rights of the infant and (well it should) the rights of the father...but again, let's not go there.

Basically, I'll say that because the baby is human it inherits certain rights from other humans. Exactly what these rights are is arguable and again, not going there - but it does have certain rights.

And I didn't say animals should have the same rights as humans. I said I want them to have very basic rights. That is, the right to live and be free from torture. It's not like I am arguing for self determination, animal suffrage or freedom from imprisonment. I don't care if animals are kept in zoos (where they are often unhappy) as long as they have enough room to exercise and aren't physically harmed.

On the other hand, animals have no inherent rights. They *can* have rights that we assign to them, but these are often proxy rights as pets or preservation rights to prevent extinction of species. As individuals, I don't believe that animals have rights and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

- Some kid tortures a cat and uploads it to youtube? Punish him. Not because of any rights the cat has, but because what he is doing is wanton cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

- A company causes hundreds of cows to suffer to make a better, cheaper steak? I'm not 100% comfortable with the idea, but I don't think it rises to the level of 'wrong'.

But don't you see. By saying "it's okay to imprison animals in a zoo but not okay to physically harm them" is drawing a line based on very subjective thinking - which makes it a personal belief and not something you should really be pushing on others.

No, that's a cop out. It's not objective, and saying "Of course it is!" doesn't make it so. There is no reason not to enslave other people except for our sense of fairness, empathy and reason.

Which we have because they are a member of our species, meaning that we experientially know that they are capable of a similar quality of happiness, sadness, pain and introspection as us.

No it doesn't. Just because nothing is objective doesn't mean we can't and don't impress our subjective values onto others. Society could not function otherwise. I am imploring that we apply our sense of fairness, empathy and reason which makes it "obvious" that it's wrong to enslave humans for personal gain in order to realise how "obvious" it is that causing animals to suffer and then be slaughtered is also despicable in its own right. This DOES NOT mean that eating meat and slavery are equivalent. This is merely to illustrate that emotional, subjective justifications are used to argue against slavery. Just because they aren't OBJECTIVE doesn't make them WRONG.

I think this is where we differ fundamentally. I believe in certain a priori rights and wrongs. You seem to think that everything is subjective.

So, let's bring it down to that for a second. A subjective value is, when you distill it, basically a belief. What makes you so sure that your beliefs are more valid than anyone else's?

To me, when you start talking about certain 'Rights' possessed by some individual or group, you are immediately talking about objective moral truths (by objective I mean 'derived from something other than emotional reasoning'), based on experiential and logical argument. Animals having a sufficient quality of self awareness to warrant *any* general rights would need to be proven scientifically before I'd even consider it.

I don't like PETA but confrontational ads aren't the issue I have with them. If people want to support an industry, why shouldn't they be made to acknowledge the suffering they cause.

Because most people aren't causing it consciously or even really intentionally. There is no mens rae or even any sort of negligence in play. We are simply living for the way we have lived for many, many years.

Almost every human on this planet living the 'modern life' directly or indirectly contributes to the suffering of animals. Should we do it less? Sure, where they can, and where it doesn't cause a significant change in the reasonable enjoyment of their lives.
But chucking red paint on some girl because she is wearing a fake fur jacket or picketing a supermarket because they are offering cheap meat for barbeques over the weekend is daft.