BNguyen said:
The Almighty Aardvark said:
BNguyen said:
The Almighty Aardvark said:
BNguyen said:
The Almighty Aardvark said:
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.
BNguyen said:
...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.